the effects of job control perceptions and supervisor performance attributions on subordinate
Post on 11-Sep-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE EFFECTS OF JOB CONTROL PERCEPTIONS AND SUPERVISOR PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTIONS ON SUBORDINATE REACTIONS TO PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
Robyn J. Grove B. Business (Human Resource Management)
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business in the School of Management
Queensland University of Technology
ABSTRACT
Keywords
subjective control; perceptual congruence; attributions; reactions to performance
evaluation
In the present study, nursing and allied health employee’s perceptions of job
control and the relationship to performance evaluation were explored.
Supervisor perceptions of their subordinate’s level of job control was assessed
with subordinate perceptions of job control, to determine the effects of perceptual
congruence on reactions to performance evaluation. In addition, supervisor
attributions to subordinate performance was assessed to test the relationship
with subordinate responses to performance evaluation. One hundred and forty-
four participants including forty-five matched supervisor-subordinate pairs in a
large Queensland health care organisation were surveyed. The measures
included perceptions of job control, supervisor attributions to subordinate
performance and the effects of subordinate reactions to performance evaluation.
The results indicated that there were no differences in the perceptions the
supervisor held of their employee’s job control and the perceptions the
subordinate held in relation to their own levels of job control. In addition, it was
found that job control significantly contributed to positive reactions to
performance evaluation and when there was a close match between supervisor
and subordinate perceptions of level of control, there was a resulting positive
reaction to performance evaluation. Furthermore, supervisor internal attributions
to subordinate performance predicted positive reactions to performance
evaluation, when the employee was evaluated as having performed successfully.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………. 1 1.2 Control………………………………………………………………….. 6 1.3. Performance Evaluation……………………………………………… 8 1.4 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance…………. 9 1.5 Research Issue………………………………………………………... 11 1.6 Thesis Outline…………………………………………………………. 12
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW………………………………..... 14 2.2 Control…………………………………………………………………... 14
2.2.1 Control Defined…………………………………………………… 14 2.2.2 Distinction Between Objective and Subjective Control……….... 17 2.2.3 Perceptual Congruence………………………………………….… 19
2.3 Performance Evaluation……………………………………………… 19 2.3.1 Reactions to Performance Evaluation……………………….…… 20
2.4 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance…………. 21 2.5 Summary…………………………………………………………….….. 22 2.6 SUBJECTIVE CONTROL…………………………………………….. 24
2.6.1 Focus of the Study…………………………………………………. 25 2.6.2 A Dynamic Model of Personal Control………………......………. 25 2.6.3 Personal Control and Reactions……………………...…. ……… 28 2.6.4 Perceived Control and Reactions………………………………… 30 2.6.5 Personal Control and Electronic Performance Monitoring…….. 34 2.6.6 Personal Control over Outcomes…………………………..…….. 35 2.6.7 Job Control………………………………………………….………. 38
2.6.7.1 Timing Control……………………………………………….. 39 2.6.7.2 Method Control………………………………………………. 40 2.6.7.3 Importance of Timing and Method Control………………... 40
2.6.8 Worker Control and Attachment to the Firm…………………..… 41 2.6.9 Primary and Secondary Control………………………………….. 43 2.6.10 Job Autonomy………………………………………………………. 45 2.6.11 Empowerment………………………………………………………. 46
2.6.11.1 Psychological Empowerment………………………………. 47 2.6.11.2 Outcomes of Empowerment………………………………... 48 2.6.11.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Empowerment……….50
2.6.12 Perceptual Control Congruence …………………………..……. 52 2.6.13 Sense of Control…………………………………………………… 58 2.6.14 Choice………………………………………………………………. 60 2.6.15 Negative Reactions to Increases in Perceived Control………… 65
2.7 SUMMARY OF SUBJECTIVE CONTROL…………………….......... 67
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS contd
2.8 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION…………………………………...… 71
2.8.1 Differences between Developmental and Administrative Uses.. 74 2.8.2 Proponents of Performance Evaluation………………………….. 75 2.8.3 Opponents of Performance Evaluation……………………...…… 75
2.9 REACTIONS TO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION………………… 79 2.9.1 Satisfaction with Performance Evaluation……………………….. 80 2.9.2 Utility of Performance Evaluation……………………………..….. 83
2.10 ATTRIBUTIONS………………………………………………………... 89
2.10.1 Theoretical Background………………………………………….... 91 2.10.2 Models of Attribution……………………………………………….. 91 2.10.3 Dimensions of Attributions………………………………………… 95 2.10.4 Work Locus of Control…………………………………………….. 97 2.10.5 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance………….. 98 2.10.6 Subordinate Reactions to Supervisor Attributions…….……….100
2.11 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….106
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 111 3.2 Pre-test Study………………………………………………………….. 111 3.3 Sampling Strategy…………………………………………………….. 112 3.4 Sample…………………………………………………………………... 113 3.5 Testing Instruments………………………………………………….. 114
3.5.1 Factors common to both instruments…………………………….. 115 3.5.1.1 Work Locus of Control…………………………………………. 115 3.5.1.2 Demographic Data……………………………………………... 116
3.5.2 Subordinate Instrument……………………………………………. 116 3.5.2.1 Assessment of Perceptions of Control………………………. 116 3.5.2.2 Reactions to Performance Evaluation……………………….. 117
3.5.3 Supervisor Instrument……………………………………………… 118 3.5.3.1 Assessment of Subordinate Control Levels………………….118 3.5.3.2 Assessment of Subordinate’s Performance………………… 118 3.5.3.3 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance……… 119
3.6 Data Collection Method………………………………………………. 119 3.7 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………. 120
CHAPTER FOUR – RESULTS
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 121 4.2 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………. 122
4.2.1 Intercorrelations between variables…………………………….... 123 4.2.2 Factor analyses…………………………………………………..… 124
4.3 Results of Hypothesis Testing…………………………….………... 127 4.3.1 Hypothesis One…………………………………………….………. 127 4.3.2 Hypothesis Two…………………………………………….………. 128 4.3.3 Hypothesis Three……………………………………………….... 129 4.3.4 Hypothesis Four…………………………………………………… 130
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS contd
CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….……. 132 5.2 Hypotheses and Related Findings…………………………………. 132
5.2.1 Hypothesis One…………………………………………………….. 132 5.2.2 Hypothesis Two……………………………………………………. 138 5.2.3 Hypothesis Three…………………………………………………... 143 5.2.4 Hypothesis Four……………………………………………………. 145
5.3 Implications for Theory…………………………………………........ 152 5.4 Directions for Future Research…………………………………….. 157 5.5 Implications for Practice……………………………………………...160 5.6 Limitations……………………………………………………………....164 5.7 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………... 166
APPENDIX 1…………………………………………………………………….. 170 APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………………... 171 APPENDIX 3…………………………………………………………………….. 176 REFERENCE LIST……………………………………………………………… 181
IV
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Conceptual framework…….……………………………. 11 Figure 2.1 Components of control and their relationship
to outcomes (Parkes, 1989)…………………………… 18 Figure 2.2 A dynamic model of personal control in
Organizations (Greenberger and Strasser, 1986)……………………. 27
Figure 2.3 A General model of personality and personal control in organizations (Bell and Staw,1993) ..………………..……………….. 36
Figure 2.4 Antecedents and Outcomes of Worker Empowerment (Koberg, 1999)……………................ 49
Figure 2.5 Individualized Leadership (Yammarino and Dubinsky, 2002)………..……….… 53
Figure 2.6 A model of choice (Williams, 1998)………………….. 64 Figure 2.7 A System-Focused Model of Work
Performance (Waldman, 1994)…………………….… 77 Figure 2.8 Attributional data for leader attributions
concerning member behaviour (Kelley, 1973)………………………………………….. 92
Figure 2.9 Basic Attribution Model
(Green and Mitchell, 1979 …………………………… 95 Figure 2.10 Hypothesis Four - A Model of the Effects of
Supervisor Attributions on Subordinate Reactions to Performance Evaluation………………. 105
Figure 2.11 Conceptual framework…………………………………. 109 Figure 5.1 Conceptual Framework…......………………………… 167
V
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Employee Autonomy (Percentage of Employees
by Form of Control ) (Harley, 1999)…………………. 56 Table 2.2 Uses of Performance Appraisal
(Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaws,1999)……………… 73 Table 2.3 Classification Scheme for the Perceived
Determinants of Achievement Behaviour (Weiner et al, 1972)……..…………….…………….... 93
Table 3.1 Frequency Table by Job Title…………………… …... 113 Table 3.2 Frequency Table by Employment Status and Education Levels………………………………………. 114 Table 4.1 Means, standard deviation and Cronbach alpha
coefficients………………………………………….….. 122 Table 4.2 Intercorrelations……………………………………….. 123 Table 4.3 Factor loadings for Attribution Items………………… 124 Table 4.4 Factor loadings for Work Locus of Control………..... 125 Table 4.5 Factor loadings for Reactions to Performance
Evaluation………………………………………………. 126 Table 4.6 Mean perceptions of control…………………………... 128
VI
DECLARATION
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made. Signed: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________
VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Getting to this stage is an exciting achievement. However, I have not arrived at this point without the assistance of a number of people, who along the way have either supported me psychologically or have provided me with a wonderful learning experience. Firstly, to my husband Brad, who endured, by default the perils of University life. I am sure he won’t miss vacuuming around the journal articles spread over the study floor. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Dr Lisa Bradley for her support, feedback and questioning of my work, particularly towards the end of this incredible journey. It has been a huge learning experience. A big thank you to Dr Stephen Cox, for his brilliant and logical mind with statistics. Stephen’s patience and time and effort was appreciated more than he will know and has inspired me to be less afraid of statistics! To Dr Leisa Sargent, who for a short time was my associate supervisor. Leisa’s input, support and inspiration was appreciated. Thanks also to Dr Kerry Unsworth, who took on a support role when my supervisor was overseas. I would also like to acknowledge two people who work behind the scenes. Catrina Waterson and Kylie George were of great support to me in a number of ways. They will know what I mean and I would like to thank them both sincerely for their support. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the organisation for allowing me to conduct my research, although obtaining ethical clearance can be perilous at times. Importantly, I would like to thank the employees of the organisation who completed the survey. For the nursing and allied health staff - taking time out from extremely busy jobs to ‘complete paperwork’, when government funding ensures staff are cut to the bone, was a big ask. So thank you, your support and effort was greatly appreciated.
VIII
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the current
study. Firstly a rationale for the study will be provided. This will be
followed by a brief description of the research issues and finally an
outline of the structure of this dissertation.
The three major objectives of human resource management are to
attract potentially qualified job applicants, retain desirable employees
and motivate employees (Kramar, McGraw and Schuler, 1997). The
aim being to influence the financial bottom line, through improved
productivity, improved quality of work life and legal compliance. One
way of achieving this is by providing employees with a level of control
over their job performance. This is said to foster feelings of well-
being and enhance performance (Sargent and Terry, 1998) and
provide employees with job satisfaction, motivation and involvement
in the workplace (Parker, 1993).
Research in organisational behaviour literature has emphasised the
importance of providing control to employees in an organisational
context. Providing control is becoming increasingly important as
organisations continue to transform themselves in competitive
environments in which ‘faster, leaner, better service, more efficient
and ultimately more profitable, and empowered and pro-active
workforce are thought to be essential’ (Corsun and Enz, 1999: 205).
To assist in meeting organisational goals, organisations may wish to
implement human resource (HR) programs, such as performance
evaluations, training and development. If this is the case, then it is
important to consider how these initiatives will impact on employees,
such as the degree to which the individual has input or influence in
_______________________________________________________ 1
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
areas that directly or indirectly affect their task domain (Ashforth and
Saks, 2000).
A basic question must first be answered: what underlying factors,
both internal to employees and within their work environment tend to
facilitate or impede their work actions toward their goals, as
impediments to work performance may hinder organisational goals.
To answer this question, it is firstly and generally up to the supervisor
to assess any impediments to their employees’ achievements.
Removing impediments is generally done by employing objective
empowering practices grounded in the organisation and the tasks
and duties of a job role. This in turn is said to have the potential to
influence subjective control (Skinner, 1996). The difference between
objective and subjective control being that objective control is the
management practices addressing what an organisation should do,
while subjective control is the individuals’ interpretations or
perceptions of reality of the objective organisational controls (Ganster
and Fusilier, 1989; Skinner, 1996). It is perceptions about control
over work related outcomes that have many researchers convinced
that subjective control is a more powerful predictor of functioning
than actual control (Averill, 1973; Burger, 1989; Parker, 1993). Thus,
the importance of providing control to employees in an organisational
context has been increasingly recognised as a topic of major
importance, particularly in relation to work and outcomes.
Importantly, if employees perceive they do not have sufficient or full
control in their job, and the organisation undertakes initiatives
assuming they do have control, there is the potential for employees
to react negatively to these initiatives. One particular organisational
initiative that bears closer examination is that of the performance
evaluation. Performance evaluation has been chosen for the present
study, as it is frequently performed in organisations. It is also among
the most important human resource functions in organisations, as it
represents critical decisions integral to a variety of other human
_______________________________________________________ 2
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
resource actions and outcomes (Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998).
Because of the critical decisions and outcomes that underlie the
performance evaluation, it seems important that subordinates would
want to be evaluated on aspects of their job within their control. As
Fedor and Rowland (1989) point out, subordinate control over
performance was a key area of conflict between supervisors and
subordinates in performance evaluation processes. So it seems
logical to consider control and performance evaluation together to
assess the effects of control perceptions on subordinate reactions to
performance evaluation. Two particular aspects of performance
evaluation were considered important, that of satisfaction with
performance evaluation and utility of performance evaluation. These
two constructs have been widely and frequently assessed in the
research with subordinate positive reactions shown to determine the
ultimate success and effectiveness of the process and the system
(Cawley et al, 1998)
As will be demonstrated in Chapter Two, there is considerable
literature in relation to subordinate perceptions of control and the
reactions that result from various levels of control. In fact, the term
control has appeared across a wide variety of applications, which
had led to an equally wide variety of conceptualisations and
operationalisations. Therefore, it is important to highlight the
approach being taken for the present study. The first point is to
highlight that this study relates to control in a work environment.
Secondly, there appears to be three approaches to control in the
work environment (Parkes, 1993). One approach is that control is
considered an objective characteristic of the work situation while
another approach is that control is considered as a subjective
evaluation reflecting an individual’s judgement about the extent to
which their work situation is amenable to control. Finally the third
approach to control is the belief by an individual about the extent to
which important outcomes are controllable and the behavioural and
affective responses that may result from the second type of control
_______________________________________________________ 3
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
(Parkes, 1993). The difference between objective and subjective
control is detailed further shortly. For the present study it is the
second and third approaches that will be assessed, as many
published studies adopt this subjective interpretation, emphasising
self-reports of control rather than objective work characteristics
(Greenberger and Strasser, 1986; Parker, 1993; Spector, 1986).
As noted in the previous paragraph, control has been conceptualised
and operationalised in a variety of ways. Therefore, it is also
important to note that in relation to the concept of subjective control,
the literature appears to use three terms; personal control, perceived
control and subjective control. When examining the definitions and
conceptualisations of these terms it is clear they refer to the same
concept. Therefore, the literature for each of personal control,
perceived control and subjective control will be reviewed. What is
important for this thesis though is the individual’s perceptions and
beliefs about their control.
While collecting self-reports from subordinates will assess their
perceptions of control, there is much less research that evaluates the
supervisors’ perceptions of the subordinate’s level of control. This is
surprising, as it is the supervisor who generally evaluates their
subordinate’s performance, so it would seem important that the
supervisor is aware of the aspects of the employee’s job that they are
evaluating. In the employment relationship, supervisors and
subordinates must interact to achieve organisational outcomes;
therefore it would seem important to understand the differences
between the two perceptions, as some types of differences can have
a negative effect on job-related outcomes (DelVecchio, 1996).
While reactions to performance evaluation are considered important,
a second, related dimension on which employees have the potential
to react to performance evaluation is the attributions supervisors
make in relation to subordinate performance (Levy, Cawley and Foti,
_______________________________________________________ 4
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
1998). Attribution theory as proposed by Weiner et al (1972)
suggests leaders attribute employee performance to four basic
causes - ability, effort, luck and task difficulty. These four basic
causes of performance can be categorised as either internal (ability
and effort) or external (luck and task difficulty). These four main
elements are used to explain and predict outcomes of achievement-
related tasks. If employee performance is to be differently rewarded
or punished depending upon a supervisor’s belief about the cause of
that performance (Ashkanasy, 1989; Green and Mitchell, 1979) it
should be important that there be agreement between supervisor and
subordinate about all aspects of the subordinate’s job performance
being evaluated.
This research project aims to take a comprehensive approach to the
assessment of the perceptions, beliefs and attributes of various
levels of nursing staff and allied health-care staff in a large
Queensland health care organisation. The study has been designed
to collect appropriate survey data to determine the extent to which
demographic, personal, work and organisational factors interact and
respectively contribute to variables in the present study. These
variables are: (i) subordinate perceptions of their own levels of job
control, (ii) supervisor perceptions of their employees’ levels of job
control (iii) subordinate reactions to performance evaluation
(satisfaction and utility) and (iv) supervisor attributions to subordinate
performance.
A brief overview of Control research, specific to the present study will
firstly be discussed. This will be followed by a brief overview of the
Performance Evaluation research, particularly in relation to reactions
to performance evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility. Finally,
this will be followed by a brief discussion on Attribution research as it
relates to the current study and is followed by the presentation of the
conceptual framework.
_______________________________________________________ 5
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
1.2 Control
A number of studies have highlighted the importance of individuals’
desire for personal control (Bazerman, 1982; Ganster and Fusilier,
1989; Greenberger and Strasser, 1986; Spector, 1986). Particularly
in recent years, the concept of control has been increasingly
recognised as a topic of major importance in the context of research
into work conditions and the impact on well-being and satisfaction
(Parkes, 1989). It is also important to note that there is no single
view of control common to all researchers. Rather, interpretation of
the control construct depends on the particular conceptual and
methodological focus of the study concerned, which has previously
been highlighted.
1.2.1 Two Broad Approaches to Control
In general it is possible to identify two broad approaches to defining
personal control in the work environment: (1) control as an objective
characteristic of the work situation, reflecting the extent to which the
design of work tasks and the work environment more generally allow
opportunities for control; (2) control as a subjective evaluation
reflecting an individual’s beliefs about the extent to which his or her
work situation is amenable to control and the extent to which
outcomes are controllable (Parker, 1993; Skinner, 1996). Some
authors have argued that an individual’s subjective perception of the
extent to which he or she can control events in the environment plays
a more important role in influencing responses than the objective
reality of the situation (Averill, 1973; Menon, 2001; Spreitzer, Kizilos
and Nason, 1997). It is also suggested that subjective control is a
more powerful predictor of functioning than objective control (Burger,
1989) and control is unlikely to have an effect unless it is perceived
(Parker, 1993). It is therefore subjective control that will form the
basis of this current study, as research has more directly associated
it with important personal and work outcomes.
_______________________________________________________ 6
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
Previous research on personal and work outcomes, as it relates to
control indicates that employees who perceive comparatively high
levels of control at work exhibit positive outcomes such as improved
performance and job satisfaction (Bazerman, 1982; Daniels & Guppy
1994; Greenberger et al, 1989; Spector, 1986). In addition, these
and other earlier studies indicate that certain consequences, both
positive and negative, can result from both appropriate and
inappropriate levels of personal control. These have included
withdrawal (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978); decreases in
performance (Bazerman, 1982), improved performance, less role
ambiguity and conflict (Spector, 1986) participation in decision
making (Erez, Earley & Hulin, 1985) and feedback seeking behaviour
(Ashford & Cummings 1983). However, few studies have attempted
to highlight the differences between employee job control perceptions
and the perceptions the supervisor may hold of their employee’s level
of job control. Supervisors are held accountable for outcomes and
results of their unit or department. However, the supervisor must, by
necessity, allocate a level of control to their employee to achieve
these outcomes and results; since it is unlikely they can observe or
supervise their employee every minute of the working day. As a
result, it is possible that confusion may occur and the perceptions the
subordinate has of their levels of control will differ from that of their
supervisor (DelVecchio, 1996).
While the control literature says that generally employees will react
positively when they perceive appropriate levels of control in
performing their job, the performance evaluation literature indicates
that generally employees are desirous of having their performance
assessed on criteria that are relevant and within their control
(Pettijohn et al, 2001). If this occurs, it is argued that employees will
be expected to react more positively to performance evaluation. It is
therefore proposed to bring together the two variables of control and
performance evaluation in order to assess the relationship between
_______________________________________________________ 7
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
these two variables. The performance evaluation literature will now
be overviewed in the context of the present study.
1.3 Performance Evaluation
In many organisations performance evaluation is an important
component of the HR function, particularly as managers and
organisations look to increase productivity from their human
resources, to meet business unit and organisational goals. The
purposes vary, and include arriving at decisions that are
developmental (provide specific job feedback, assistance,
counselling to improve future job performance) and administrative
(determining salary increases, promotions, terminations) (Cawley et
al, 1998; Dorfman, Stephan & Loveland, 1986). Thus it would seem
important and logical that an employee is desirous of being evaluated
on criteria that is appropriate and within their control (Pettijohn et al,
2001). It could be argued that if an employee is evaluated on criteria
that are relevant to their job, including aspects that are within their
control, they could be expected to be more satisfied with their
performance evaluation, than if evaluated on aspects that were not
under their control. This outcome should also be positively linked to
subsequent satisfaction facets such as job satisfaction and
motivation.
Evaluating employees on relevant job criteria sounds reasonable and
logical. However, Robinson and Fink (1996) say there are a number
of flaws in the evaluation process. These flaws can include improper
evaluations, rater errors, flaws in the actual instrument, appraisal
criteria that are not tied to actual performance and goal conflict.
These are just some examples of structural problems that can alter
the effectiveness of a performance appraisal. This is why a number
of authors (Deming, 1986; Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Waldman 1994)
argue for consideration of the variations in regard to work
performance. They say that factors that are unique to the individual
_______________________________________________________ 8
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
worker and those that relate to the system in which the individual
worker operates should both be considered in the performance
evaluation context. They suggest that raters possess a belief and a
bottom-line policy that ends up assigning responsibility to the
performer. This then brings into question the capability and
willingness of raters to distinguish between person and system
sources of work performance and what percentage should be
attributed to system and person. In this context, performance should
be viewed as consisting of both person and system influences – the
variation attributable to the system should not be ignored.
Deming (1986) also argued (a) supervisors believe that subordinate
performance is produced almost exclusively by characteristics of
subordinates while subordinates believe that much of their
performance was produced by system-level factors and (b) that
raters may not take into proper consideration the system factors that
can have a significant deleterious effect on performance. If
performance of a business unit and organisation goals are important,
then a vital part of meeting those goals is for the manager or
supervisor to make the system work. To do this the employee should
be assisted/encouraged to perform to an appropriate standard and
be given appropriate control to perform those tasks. Therefore,
supervisors need to be very sure that the decisions they make in
relation to their employees’ performance are appropriate in the
context of the level of control provided to the employee.
1.4. Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance
An employee’s immediate supervisor most often administers their
employee’s performance evaluation (Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaw,
1999). Therefore, if employee performance is to be differently
rewarded or punished depending upon a supervisor’s belief about the
cause of that performance, it should be important that there be
_______________________________________________________ 9
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
agreement between supervisor and employee about aspects of the
job (Ashkanasy, 1989; Green and Mitchell, 1979).
One potential influence on subordinate reactions to performance
evaluation is the attributions the supervisor makes about their
employee’s performance. Weiner et al (1972) suggest that
performance is most often attributed to four causes: effort and ability
(internal or dispositional causes) and luck and task difficulty (external
or situational causes). However, the literature suggests that, more
often than not, supervisors attribute causes of performance to the
individual (internal), rather than taking into account all factors that
may impact on performance, such as those that facilitate and inhibit
conditions not under the control of the individual (external) (Blakely,
1993). The literature also shows that the person undertaking the
evaluation (generally the supervisor or manager) tends to be
relatively insensitive to these external constraints, difficulties and
structural or system problems (Fedor and Rowland, 1989).
In summary, the purpose of this study is to bring together, subjective
control, performance evaluation and attributions, in relation to both
the subordinate and supervisor. Although many studies have
examined these constructs individually, limited research has
considered all of them. In addition, prior research from the
organisation’s perspective has generally neglected to examine how
organisational representatives (e.g. supervisors and managers)
perceive their employees’ level of control. This appears to be an
important omission, since research in other areas suggest that how
organisations approach the employment relationship is likely to
impact employee’s job attitudes and work behaviours (Tsui et al,
1997).
_______________________________________________________ 10
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
1.5 Research Issue
Unfortunately, a clear theoretical framework does not currently exist
to show the connections between subjective control, supervisor
attributions and reactions to performance evaluation. It is therefore
the aim of the present study to propose a framework to enable the
investigation of these variables and to analyse how control,
attributions and performance evaluation are related and to provide a
foundation for the proposed model shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework H2
__
Subordinate Perceptions of their level of job control
H1 H3
H4
Supervisor Perceptions of their subordinate’s level of job control
Supervisor attributions to subordinate performance
Reactions to
Performance
Evaluation
(satisfaction
and utility)
Supervisor evaluation of subordinate performance
_____________________________________________________ 11
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
1.6 Thesis Outline
The following section outlines the structure of the report in the
present study.
Chapter One – Introduction
The first chapter aims at providing an orientation to the structure and
content of this study including the research issue and other
background information.
Chapter Two – Literature Review
Chapter Two provides a comprehensive review of the literature in the
key areas of subjective control, performance evaluation and
attributions, to establish a theoretical foundation on which the study
is based. The first section focuses on control and identifies the main
focus of the present study, namely subjective control. Following this,
the performance appraisal/evaluation literature is examined.
Specifically, reactions to performance evaluation in relation to
satisfaction and utility are examined. Finally, supervisor attributions
to subordinate performance are examined. For the purpose of this
study the terms performance appraisal and performance evaluation
may be used interchangeably as they are so defined in the relevant
literature. In addition the terms employee and subordinate will also
be used interchangeably where appropriate.
Chapter Three – Methodology
The design and measurement issues and methods of data collection
as they relate to the study are discussed. A systematic sampling
strategy was adopted with data collected via mailed surveys.
Participants were from a large health care organisation in
Queensland, Australia.
_______________________________________________________ 12
Chapter One : Introduction ____________________________________________________________
Chapter Four – Results
The Results chapter is concerned with the presentation of the data
collected from the research and examines the findings as they relate
to employee perceptions of job control, supervisor perceptions of
their employee’s levels of job control, the supervisor attributions to
subordinate performance and the relationship to performance
evaluation. To achieve this SPSS was used to analyse the data.
Chapter Five – Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of the present study based on the
four hypotheses. Implications for theory, directions for future,
implications for practice, and associated limitations been highlighted
in drawing conclusions.
_______________________________________________________ 13
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction and Overview
This thesis draws together three previously disparate bodies of
literature. The first body of literature relates to control, specifically
subjective control and how individuals react to control. Secondly,
the literature relevant to performance evaluation is considered,
specifically how individuals react in relation to the utility and
satisfaction of performance evaluation. Finally, supervisor
attributions to employee performance will be considered as a means
to further understand how employees may react to performance
evaluation. In providing a framework for the review of these bodies
of literature, it is appropriate to initially provide general overviews of
these concepts before proceeding with more in-depth reviews. This
section is concluded with the presentation of the hypotheses.
2.2 Control 2.2.1 Control Defined
There is clear evidence of the importance of individual’s desires for
control (Rothbaum, Weisz and Snyder, 1982; Greenberger and
Strasser, 1986) and a variety of definitions highlight the reasons for
the importance of control. Additionally, the term control has been
widely used by organisational researchers and is reflected in many
studies (Averill, 1973; Bazerman, 1982; Burger, 1989; Greenberg,
1975; Greenberger and Strasser, 1986; Wall, Jackson and
Mullarkey, 1995; Skinner, 1996). However, even though the desire
for control appears to be important for individuals, control theorists
caution that it is the individual perceptions that determine the extent,
as well as the effects of control (Langer, 1975; Lefcourt, 1973). So,
____________________________________________________________ 14
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ for the purpose of the present study a variety of definitions will now
be highlighted which reflect the perceptual aspects of control.
Greenberger and Strasser (1986: 165) defined control as ‘an
individual’s beliefs, at a given point in time, in his or her ability to
effect a change in a desired direction, on the environment’. While
Ganster and Fusilier (1989: 3) suggested that subjective control is
‘the ability and belief of an individual to exert some influence over
one’s environment so that the environment becomes more rewarding
or less threatening’. In the work environment, Bell and Staw (1993:
240) defined control as ‘individuals’ proactive regulation of their work
lives’ while McGilton and Pringle (1999: 252) suggest perceived
control as ‘the subjectively assessed discretion to make judgements
in the…. organisational domain and act on them’.
As noted in Chapter One, control has been defined and
operationlised in a variety of ways. In relation to the concept of
subjective control, the literature appears to use three terms; personal
control, perceived control, and subjective control. When examining
the definitions and conceptualisations of these terms, it is clear that
they refer to the same concept. The literature for each of these will
be reviewed, however, it is important to remember they are each
referring to what this thesis will label subjective control. It is the
individual’s perceptions of their control that is important for this
thesis.
Control appears to be important for a number of reasons. Firstly, in
the experimental and social psychological literature, Skinner (1996)
says control is important to psychological functioning, while Ganster
and Fusilier (1989) say that theorists have posited that people have
a basic need to achieve mastery over their environment and that
control represents a basic human motivation. This is due to the fact
that ‘there is much evidence that points to the general attractiveness
____________________________________________________________ 15
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ of situations that are thought to be controllable’ (Ganster and
Fusilier, 1989:242).
Secondly, the concept of control has long been a key variable in
understanding organisational behaviour. In the workplace,
understanding how people’s jobs affect their attitudes, well-being
and behaviour is important for both social and theoretical reasons
(Jackson et al, 1993). A central premise of job control perspectives
is that having discretion over the parameters of work enables one to
adapt those parameters to one’s needs and creates a sense of
responsibility and ownership.
Jimmieson and Terry describe aspects of control in a work setting in
the following terms:
control is typically made available by providing employees with a range of different control options, including choice of work tasks, methods of work, work pacing, work scheduling, control over resources and control over the physical environment
(Jimmieson and Terry, 1998: 344)
The importance of affording control is that it allows individuals an
opportunity to develop senses of freedom or discretion (Yoon, Han
and Seo, 1996) and ‘facilitates psychological involvement in the work
and satisfaction with the workplace’ (Ashforth and Saks, 2000: 312).
The extent to which an individual believes they can directly affect the
environment has considerable impact on how they react to it.
Providing control to employees in an organisational context has
been increasingly recognised as a topic of major importance,
particularly in relation to work and outcomes.
Staw (1986) suggests that several mini-theories or sub-areas of
control have developed, all with their own traditions of measurement
and hypothesis testing. One of the most important of these sub-
streams of research is considered to be that of subjectively
____________________________________________________________ 16
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ perceived control, which forms part of the present study. Skinner
suggests there are distinctions in the types of control, specifically:
the most fundamental distinction in the literature on control is
between actual or the objective control conditions present in the
context and the person, and subjectively perceived control, or an
individual’s beliefs about how much control is available.
(Skinner, 1996: 551)
Skinner goes further to say that perceived control is assumed to
reflect psychological feelings of influence that include and may go
beyond objective control. Thus, after considering briefly some of the
distinctions between objective and subjective aspects of control, the
literature relating to subjective control will be considered.
2.2.2 Distinction Between Objective and Subjective Control
Objective control has been variously described as that which is
present in the context (Skinner, 1996); externally assessed (Smith et
al, 1997); and reflects the extent to which design of work tasks and
the work environment more generally dictate work, such as
participation in decision making and the opportunity to influence
other people in the work environment (Parkes, 1989). In some
organisations, objective control provides hierarchical rule-bound
structures (Laschinger and Havens, 1996).
In contrast, subjective control is that which is individually perceived
or experienced (Smith et al, 1997: 226); ‘workers’ perceptions about
control over work related outcomes’ (Parker, 1993: 950) and ‘a belief
that one has at one’s disposal a response that can influence the
aversiveness of an event’ (Wallston, Wallston and Dobbins, 1987:
5). Subjective and objective control are conceptualised by Parkes
____________________________________________________________ 17
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ (1989) in Figure 2.1 and parts of the model relevant to present study
have been highlighted. Figure 2.1 –Components of control and their relationship to outcomes
Individual differences in control beliefs
Perceived control
Affective and behavioural outcomes
Objective work conditions which
constrain or enhance control
Source: Adapted from Parkes (1989: 24)
The distinction between objective and subjective control appears
critical to the argument that an individual’s perceived control
influences their behaviour and emotion, independent of the actual or
objective control conditions that may have contributed to those
perceptions (Skinner, 1996). This is due to general agreement by
researchers that ‘the effects of objectively losing or gaining control
will only have psychological significance if the person recognises the
gain or loss’ (Langer, 1979: 306) and is unlikely that control can
have an effect unless it is perceived’ (Parker, 1993: 950). In fact,
many theorists are convinced that subjective control is a more
powerful predictor of functioning than actual control (Averill, 1973:
Burger, 1989). Research also suggests that subjective control is
more directly associated with important personal outcomes (Ganster
____________________________________________________________ 18
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ and Fusilier, 1989). Thus, in the present study the focus will be on
subjective control.
2.2.3 Perceptual Congruence
There is considerable literature on an individual’s perceptions of
control. However, there is much less evaluation in the research of
the employer’s perception of their employee’s level of control.
DelVecchio (1996) says there is considerable importance and value
placed on control by both dyad members, therefore, these
perceptual differences should be investigated as there is the
potential to affect job-related outcomes. Managers have long
grappled with the appropriate level of control to allocate their
employees. Since it is unlikely that a manager or supervisor can
directly observe their employee every minute of the working day, the
supervisor must allocate a degree of autonomy and independence to
their employee. At the same time the manager is held accountable
for outcomes and results of their unit or department. In this effort to
allocate control, it is very possible that confusion may occur and the
perceptions that the supervisor has of their subordinates’ control and
the perception the subordinate has of their level of control will differ.
It is therefore argued that the perceptions of both the supervisor and
the subordinate are relevant, and both these perceptions will be
considered in the present study, to allow an examination of where
these perceptual differences may lie.
2.3 Performance Evaluation The difficulties of supervisors observing subordinate performance is
not only linked to the allocation of control, but also to assessing
performance levels. Performance evaluation deals with such issues
as measuring work accuracy, goal setting procedures and feedback
____________________________________________________________ 19
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ mechanisms, as a means to determine administrative (e.g. pay and
benefits) and/or developmental outcomes. Given the importance of
the benefits that may accrue to individuals, it could generally be
expected that employees might prefer to be evaluated on criteria
which they can control or influence, which in turn will positively affect
their future success (Pettijohn et al, 2001). These successes (or
failures) would generally be reflected in the performance evaluation
process. The success of the performance evaluation may therefore
depend on how employees react to this important organisational
initiative.
2.3.1 Reactions to Performance Evaluation
It would seem important and logical that employees have a desire to
be evaluated on job criteria that is accurate and relates to aspects of
their job within their control. For example, Boswell and Boudreau
(2000) highlight that accurate performance evaluations can be an
important predictor of employee attitudes toward their supervisor, the
job and the performance evaluation process. They go further to
suggest that if the evaluation is not perceived as accurate, this may
in turn impact on the process attaining its full usefulness in the
organisation and even contributing negatively to individual behaviour
and organisational performance. Pettijohn et al (2001) supports this
and suggests that unknown, vague or inappropriate criteria may
lower motivation, thus leading to negative reactions to performance
evaluation.
Therefore, it could be argued that if an employee is evaluated on
criteria that are relevant to their job, including aspects that are within
their control, they will react positively to the performance evaluation.
The reactions of subordinates regarding their performance
evaluation can be an important determinant of the ultimate success
and effectiveness of the appraisal process and ‘can affect variables
____________________________________________________________ 20
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ such as productivity, motivation and organisational commitment’
(Cawley et al, 1998: 616). Positive reactions can also be positively
linked to subsequent satisfaction facets such as job satisfaction and
motivation. Therefore, in the present study reactions to performance
evaluation was considered important, particularly in terms of
measuring the satisfaction and utility of the performance evaluation.
While there are a variety of factors that do impact on reactions to
performance evaluation, the focus of the present study will be to
consider subjective control and the relationship to performance
evaluation reactions - satisfaction and utility.
2.4 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance
Evaluating performance and providing feedback to subordinates is
seen as an essential managerial activity (Dugan, 1989). How a
leader responds to good and poor subordinate performance is based
on the leader’s causal attributions to that performance (Knowlton
and Mitchell, 1980). According to Maher (in Martinko, 1995)
supervisor attributions to subordinate performance are critical
because they influence supervisor behaviour toward the
subordinate. Attribution theory appears to play an important role in
understanding individual behaviours. This is especially true in
research dealing with the performance appraisal process (Fedor and
Rowland, 1989). Therefore, if employee performance is to be
differently rewarded or punished depending upon a supervisor’s
belief about the cause of that performance (Ashkanasy, 1989; Green
and Mitchell, 1979) it should be important that there be agreement
between supervisor and employee about how the job is to be
performed.
____________________________________________________________ 21
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ Two major theoretical contributions in the area of causal attributions
suggest that performance is most often attributed to person, entity or
context (Kelley, 1973) or effort and ability (internal or dispositional
causes) and luck and task difficulty (external or situational causes)
(Weiner et al, 1972). Once the leader forms an attribution for
member performance, it is argued that the ‘attribution influences
both the leader’s expectations for future performance and his or her
behaviour toward the member’ (Martinko and Gardner, 1987: 236).
The attribution literature also suggests that, more often than not,
supervisors attribute causes of performance to the individual
(internal) rather than taking into account all factors that may impact
on performance. The factors being those that facilitate and inhibit
conditions not under the control of the individual (Blakely, 1993).
The attribution for success or failure not only influences supervisor
expectations of subordinate performance but also affective
reactions.
As previously mentioned supervisor attributions to subordinate
performance are critical because they influence supervisor
behaviour toward the subordinate. Thus it seems reasonable to
believe that these attributions will also have the potential to affect
how subordinates respond to the performance evaluation in the face
of these attributions. The particular reaction of interest in the
present study is the subordinate reaction to performance evaluation.
Due to the limited research in this area, the current study attempts to
extend this work by focusing on the subordinate reactions to
performance evaluation as a function of supervisor attributions to
subordinate performance.
2.5 Summary
In summary, the purpose of this study is to bring together three
concepts, subjective control, performance evaluation and
____________________________________________________________ 22
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ attributions, in relation to both subordinates and supervisors.
Although many studies have examined these concepts individually,
previous research has not considered all of them in this manner. In
addition, prior research from an organisational perspective has
generally neglected to examine how organisational representatives
(e.g. supervisors and managers) perceive their employee’s level of
control. This appears to be an important omission, since research in
other areas suggest that how organisations approach the
employment relationship is likely to impact employee’s job attitudes
and work behaviours alike (Tsui et al, 1997). The issues addressed
in the present study concern the relationship between subjective
control perceptions relating to timing and method control levels
assessed from the subordinate’s viewpoint. In addition, subjective
control perceptions relating to subordinate timing and method control
levels will be assessed from the supervisor’s viewpoint as well as the
attributions the supervisor makes in relation to subordinate
performance. These issues will be examined for any effects they
may have on subordinate reactions to performance evaluation for
both satisfaction and utility. The literature on subjective control,
performance evaluation and attributions will now be extensively
reviewed.
____________________________________________________________ 23
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 2.6 SUBJECTIVE CONTROL The extent that individuals or employees believe they can directly
impact on their work may have a large effect on how they react to
their work processes and the work environment generally. This
belief or perception arises for a number of reasons, most importantly
the belief that control will be associated with positive outcomes
(Rodin, Rennert and Solomon, 1980). However, given the general
consistency of findings in the control literature, Skinner (1996)
highlights the heterogeneity among the definitions researchers have
used to describe subjective control. Therefore a goal of this
literature review is to bring together terms and definitions under the
construct of subjective control, as a means of understanding the
literature that relates to the present study. In doing so, reference
will be made, where appropriate, to models and definitions that may
assist in further highlighting subjective control.
Subjective control is a psychological construct reflecting an
individual’s beliefs, at a given point in time, in his or her ability to
effect a change in a desired direction on the environment (Ganster
and Fusilier, 1989). Achieving meaningful control has been found to
be related to a variety of positive outcomes, including motivation,
self-esteem, personal adjustment (Skinner, 1996), psychological
involvement in the work and satisfaction with the workplace
(Ashforth and Saks, 2000). In addition, higher beliefs about the
degree of control are said to lead to employees who will be more
committed to decisions and be more satisfied and motivated in jobs
that give them control (Ganster and Fusilier, 1989). In contrast, jobs
that impose greater limit about the beliefs of control are associated
with less favourable responses such as turnover, absenteeism and
job dissatisfaction (Parkes, 1989). However, what appears
important is that control is meaningful to the person experiencing it
and that control ‘consists of an active belief that one has a choice
____________________________________________________________ 24
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ among responses that are differentially effective in bringing about an
outcome’ (Ganster and Fusilier, 1989: 237).
2.6.1 Focus of Study
Therefore, the focus of the present study is to consider the concepts
within the subjective control area including the research that has
resulted in the assessment of individual’ reactions to the different
kinds of subjective control. Skinner (1996) highlights the importance
of empirically determining individual reactions to the different kinds
of control and whether these reactions have adaptive or maladaptive
consequences. Therefore, a goal of the present study is to
empirically determine if perceptions of timing and method control
have consequences for reactions to performance evaluation. In
addition, while the majority of the work on subjective control appears
to show the positive reactions that result when control is perceived
as optimal or increases, there are also a few exceptions. Therefore
in this section, the research relating to subjective control will be
discussed as well as the negative reactions to increases in control
which will also be considered at the end of the control section.
2.6.2 A Dynamic Model of Personal Control
Throughout the work and non-work aspects of our lives, we
encounter events that present us with varying levels of personal
control. According to Greenberger and Strasser (1986:164) ‘there is
clear evidence of the importance of individuals’ desire for personal
control ..….. for an individual’s well-being’. They go further to say
that a number of researchers have found that decreases in personal
control can result in a variety of negative consequences for both
individuals and organisations. They cite examples from earlier work,
such as an increased tendency to withdraw (Abramson et al, 1978);
decrements in performance (Glass and Singer, 1972);
____________________________________________________________ 25
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ organisationally induced learned helplessness (Martinko and
Gardner, 1982) and lack of innovation (Kanter, 1983).
Developing a model of personal control, Greenberger and Strasser
(1986) argue that personal control is a psychological construct.
They say that this psychological construct: reflects an individual’s beliefs, at a given point in time, in his or her ability to effect a change, in a desired direction, on the environment……and differs from the term ‘control’ in the management literature as personal control is a cognitive construct and may be subjective, potentially nonveridical and influenced by the attitudes and behaviours of others. (Greenberger and Strasser, 1986: 165)
They proposed a compensatory model of personal control (refer to
Figure 2.2) along two principle dimensions – the congruence
between the amount of control possessed and the amount of control
desired. In considering the control ratio, they argue that as the gap
between the amount of control possessed and the amount of control
desired closes, employees will be more satisfied with their level of
personal control and will be less motivated to seek more control. In
contrast, if there is an imbalance between control possessed and
control desired, the likelihood of the level of satisfaction individuals
have with their personal control levels will decrease and individuals
will move towards the reaction stage of the model.
Parts of the model relevant to the present study have been
highlighted. That is, personal control perceptions and the reactions
individuals may have to their perceived levels of control.
____________________________________________________________ 26
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________
CCDP B
Model Exit
S I
t
s
f
t
i
c
m
t
s
d
_
Figure 2.2 A dynamic model of personal control in organisations
ontrol Ratio: ontrol esired/Control ossessed
alanced Imbalanced Ratio Ratio
Cognitive Reappraisal and Learning
Homeostasis Or Learned Helplessness
Direct Reaction (Source Specific Response) +Cognitive Responses +Behavioural Responses Indirect Reaction (Source Non-specific response) +Cognitive Responses +Behavioural Responses
ource: Adapted from Greenberger and Strasser (1986: 168).
n contrast and occurring less frequently, individuals may perceive
hemselves as having too much control. An example being, that
ome employees say that they want little responsibility, so they can
orget about work when they go home. If the employee perceives
hey have too much control, they would move to a state of
mbalance, being the difference between their desired personal
ontrol and their perceived personal control. Individuals would then
ove to readjust the perceptions of control possessed and, as with
oo little control possessed, the individual will enter the reaction
tage of the model. Reactions to increases in control are further
iscussed in Section 2.6.15.
___________________________________________________________ 27
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 2.6.3. Personal Control and Reactions
When individuals enter the reaction stage, the view is that there is
dissatisfaction with the perceived levels of personal control, because
either higher or lower levels of control are desired. Greenberger and
Strasser (1986: 172) say that employees may ‘react directly by
confronting the source of the problem’ or move to indirect strategies
if direct strategies are not successful. Indirect strategies include
sabotage and increases in turnover and absenteeism, as control
seekers frequently perceive themselves as unable to control
outcomes directly. Reactions to control levels are also important in
the present study, particularly in relation to performance evaluation.
For example, if employees engage in direct or indirect actions as a
result of control imbalances, these actions may prevent performance
evaluation attaining full utility. This then may contribute negatively to
individual behaviour and organisational performance. Reactions to
performance evaluation will be discussed in more detail in Section
2.9.
The Greenberger and Strasser model is important for a number of
reasons. Employees possess a desire or need for control and as a
result will engage in activities and react in a variety of ways to
enhance their perceptions of that control. This may be functional or
dysfunctional to both the employee and the organisation.
Functional examples include increases in performance and
increases in feedback seeking behaviour (Ashford and Cummings,
1983). In contrast other reactions may be dysfunctional and may
lead to absenteeism, turnover and sabotage. Therefore,
Greenberger and Strasser (1986) highlight the importance of
organisations using appropriate interventions such as realistic job
previews (Wanous, 1989) and removing obstacles which can impede
or reduce these control perceptions. These interventions should be
undertaken to assist in improving these perceptions, which may in
____________________________________________________________ 28
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ turn provide positive benefits to the individual and the organisation in
achieving goals.
In seeking to extend research on personal control perceptions,
Greenberger et al (1989) assessed the relationship between
personal control and effects on job satisfaction and performance. In
seeking to define personal control they argue that personal control is
not only about an individual’s beliefs about their ability to effect a
change on the environment, as suggested by Greenberger and
Strasser (1986), it is also a subjective perception and ‘its perceived
presence may be a function of objective reality…’ (Greenberger et
al,1989: 31). In furthering the theoretical development of personal
control they say that personal control perceptions change on an
ongoing basis. This is consistent with findings by Staw (1986)
concerning the stability of dispositions over time. Therefore,
Greenberger et al (1989) argue that personal control differs from
locus of control. Locus of control is considered to be a relatively
stable propensity (Rotter, 1966) to locate causality for outcomes
either in oneself or in the external environment. In contrast, personal
control ‘has the potential for changing as the individual is exposed to
new environments and across situations‘ (Greenberger et al, 1989:
32).
In assessing the impact of personal control on performance and job
satisfaction, Greenberger et al (1989) undertook two studies, and
distributed questionnaires to 392 nursing service employees at a
large tertiary care hospital and 400 clerical staff at an insurance
company in the United States of America. They assessed
perceptions of control and hypothesised that because of the positive
consequences associated with control, a high perception of control
should lead to job satisfaction and higher performance. The two
samples differ in terms of respondents’ training, education and
____________________________________________________________ 29
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ professional profile. However there were also some similarities in the
two samples in terms of age and gender.
From the data, they found that personal control continues to play an
important role in organisational behaviours. The study supported
their hypotheses that employees will desire more control than they
possess. Additionally, the greater the amount of control possessed
the higher the performance and the greater the job satisfaction.
Notably, the results were consistent when locus of control was
removed statistically, indicating that personal control and locus of
control are two quite different constructs. The results were
consistent across the two different samples of nursing staff and
clerical staff (Greenberger et al, 1989). Because there was support
across the two different samples confidence (external validity) in the
results was increased. However, because of the correlational nature
of the study, the results should be viewed with caution, as laboratory
and controlled field experiments may provide more conclusive
causal assessment (Greenberger et al, 1989). Importantly though,
the study highlighted the importance of these perceptions of control
in allowing organisations to help satisfy the individual needs of their
employees, which may in turn have positive effects on the individual
and the organisation.
2.6.4 Perceived Control and Reactions
According to Evans and Fischer (1992: 1169) ’the traditional
approach to perceived control assumes that subjective perceptions
of control are a response to relatively objective features of the
environment’. They go further to say that changes in the objective
features of a job are thought to lead to changes in the subjective
experience of control. The assumption being that changes will only
be effective if they increase the subjective perceptions of control.
The importance of control lies in the individual’s beliefs about how
____________________________________________________________ 30
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ much control is available to them (Skinner, 1996). Perceived control
in a work environment refers to the extent to which employees feel
that they have control over their work and relationship with
supervisors (Keller and Dansereau, 1995). According to Honneger
and Applebaum (1998: 429) for employees to feel they have control
‘they must perceive that their work environment is liberating rather
than constraining and outcomes are affected by their decisions’.
They go further to say that employees who perceive they have some
degree of control, are more likely to become involved and
empowered in the work environment.
One aspect of being involved and feeling in control in the workplace
means desiring control over decision-making. In assessing
perceived control in the workplace, Parker (1993: 949) says ‘the
outcomes all indicate that the level of worker control over decision-
making affects employee reactions, from well-being to job
satisfaction’. As a result, Parker extended the work in this area and
investigated employees’ perceived control over decision-making and
whether certain levels of perceived control would contribute to
certain reactions. This study can also be conceptualised as agent-
ends relations (Skinner, 1996). That is the extent to which an
individual can produce desired outcomes and prevent undesired
ones. When individuals believe they can do this, they are said to
have perceived control.
Believing that one has that control, regardless of whether that control
is exercised, can be psychologically beneficial and essential to well-
being. However, unless the worker perceives they have that
control, it is unlikely to have an effect on the worker’ (Parker, 1993:
950). Parker assessed these perceptions in a nursing sample
consisting of 209 female registered nurses from the acute care
sector of a large university hospital. They were asked among other
things, about their perceptions of control over decision-making and
____________________________________________________________ 31
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ willingness to react to the organisation when faced with injustice.
The proposition being that nurses who have high levels of perceived
control over decision-making would be more likely to challenge those
in authority when confronted with injustice, and will therefore attempt
to improve the situation. In contrast, those in low perceived control
situations over decision-making will most likely decide to leave the
organisation, provided that option was available to them.
The findings indicate that employees who believed that their work
environment afforded them a high level of control (and who are
confident about their skills) reported that they would attempt to ‘fix’
things in their organisations when injustice occurred. Additionally,
those individuals who perceived they were not afforded a high level
of control reported they would leave their jobs rather than try to fix an
unjust situation. This is consistent with previous research (Bell and
Staw, 1993; Greenberger, 1986) that a variety of reactions are
expected to occur, depending on the perceived level of control. That
is, the employee will take either direct action or indirect action
(Greenberger, 1986) and will feel they have succeeded or failed (Bell
and Staw, 1993) in their attempts to improve their levels of control.
Control is an important issue in nursing for a number of reasons.
Firstly, Parker (1993) argues that while nursing staff have high levels
of responsibility, the perceptions of control do not always equate to
that responsibility, due to the sometimes limited authority accorded
them. This is also consistent with previous research on subjective
control, that unless control is perceived to exist and is meaningful to
the individual, it is unlikely to be beneficial and may lead to
dissatisfaction and other negative reactions (Ganster and Fusiler,
1989; Skinner, 1996). These negative reactions then have the
potential to lead to dissatisfaction in a variety of work related areas.
Secondly, nursing is one of a small number of professions that
allows freedom to move anywhere in the globe. This has been
____________________________________________________________ 32
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ compounded by the ‘in-demand’ nature of the work, due to the
world-wide shortage of nursing staff. Nursing staff must therefore be
provided with an environment in which they are afforded a suitable
level of control. Thus, it is important for organisations and
researchers to examine the role of perceived control among
professions where severe shortages may exist, as a means to
creating and/or improving factors in the workplace to attract and
retain these staff.
Parker (1993) highlights that a limitation of her study was the self-
report nature from one group of individuals. Data-source biases
remain a challenging problem when examining the effects of
workers’ perceived control and that ideally multiple perspectives
should be assessed. Hence, the present study sought to alleviate
common method variance by requesting self-reports from two
distinct groups – the employee and the supervisor.
An earlier meta-analysis by Spector (1986) also considered
perceived control and the relationship to employee outcomes, such
as performance, turnover, job satisfaction and others. In the meta-
analysis of 88 studies, the findings indicate that high levels of
perceived control was associated with, high levels of job satisfaction,
commitment, involvement, performance and motivation with fewer
intentions of quitting. This says Spector (1986:1,006) is ‘an
important aspect of job design approaches as it demonstrates that if
attempts at job design improvements are to be successful, enhanced
employee’s feelings of personal control must be the result’. The
results of this meta-analysis do suggest that perceived control is an
important variable in organisational life and that employees who
perceive comparatively high levels of control at work generally react
more positively within and to the work environment.
____________________________________________________________ 33
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 2.6.5 Personal Control and Electronic Performance Monitoring
Whilst many organisations implement organisational initiatives which
will benefit employees, one particular initiative that as caused some
attention, particularly in the United States, is the deployment of
electronic performance monitoring (EPM) devices. EPM is said to
assist supervisors in observing and recording employee
performance and varies to the degree of the observation and
recording (Stanton and Barnes-Farrell, 1996). Just as Greenberger
and Strasser (1986) confirmed links between personal control, job
performance and satisfaction, Stanton and Barnes-Farrell(1996)
sought to assess any links between personal control over EPM and
the resultant consequences.
In a laboratory study and using the Greenberger and Strasser (1986)
control scales, 108 participants were asked to complete tasks via a
computer. Participants were randomly assigned to the following
conditions – no lockout (they could not prevent monitoring); partial
lockout (participants had control of when the monitoring started) and
full lockout (full control granted to prevent monitoring by the
supervisor and at the participant’s discretion). In addition,
participants were assigned to a secrecy factor – monitoring revealed
(the computer system informed participants exactly when
supervisors were observing their performance) and monitoring
secret (the participants had no knowledge of exactly when they were
being monitored).
Findings indicated that participants felt most personal control in the
full-lockout and monitoring secret conditions and least in control in
the no-lockout, monitoring revealed condition. Higher feelings of
personal control positively related to higher satisfaction.
Interestingly, findings showed some unexpected results as
participants with no control over monitoring appeared more satisfied
____________________________________________________________ 34
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ with the tasks. Further exploration of this revealed that participants
reported tedium with the tasks, which may have affected the
satisfaction ratings. In addition, participants in the no-lockout
condition performed worse, with participants in the full-lockout
condition performing the best (Stanton and Barnes-Farrell, 1996).
The results of this study support the notion that characteristics of the
job and work environment can affect worker’s feelings of personal
control and have potential consequences for the individual and the
organisation, in this case performance and satisfaction. For this
laboratory study, it seems that the implementation of any
organisational initiative that should be carefully considered,
particularly in the deployment of technology that monitors employee
work.
2.7.4 Personal Control over Outcomes
In proposing a model of personal control in organisations, Bell and
Staw (1993) attempted to balance the situational perspective ‘so
dominant in the current literature with a fresh perspective that
emphasises people as the shapers of their own organisational fates’.
They suggested that personal control is the mechanism by which
individual differences get expressed in organisational and career
settings. By personal control they refer to ‘individuals’ proactive
regulation of their work lives’ (Bell and Staw, 1993: 240). This is
similar to work by Greenberger and Strasser (1986: 165) who
describe personal control as ‘an individuals’ beliefs, at a given point
in time, in his or her ability to affect a change, in a desired direction’.
Bell and Staw proposed a general model of personality and personal
control in organisations, with parts of the model relevant to current
study set out in Figure 2.3. They suggest that personal control is a
primary mechanism by which individual dispositions come to be
expressed in organisational settings. They identified three types of
personal control - control over outcomes; control over behaviour;
____________________________________________________________ 35
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ and the ability to predict outcomes and behaviour, with resultant
outcomes being either successful or failure.
Figure 2.3 A general model of personality and personal control in organisations.
Success
Failure
Personal control Control over outcomes Control over behavior Prediction of behavior and outcomes
Source: Adapted from Bell and Staw (1993: 2
Control over outcomes was defined as ‘co
outcomes, which is considered the most d
(Bell and Staw, 1993: 242). This includes
influence matters like pay, promotion and
outcomes is not possible, individuals wou
- control over behaviours defined as’ cont
inputs to the production process’ (Bell an
Examples include work methods, pace (w
of the present study), amount of effort an
behaviours may often serve to satisfy des
The third control concept proposed, abilit
behaviours, is the one utilised if the first t
is, ‘being able to predict outcomes and ha
and punishments connected to the role’ (
may enable the individual to have some s
_____________________________________36
Individual Outcomes Perceptions of self efficacy Information exchange Satisfaction with careerOrganisational rewards
(pay, career mobility and attainment)
Withdrawal from the
organisation Withdrawal from the
career
41)
ntrol over distribution of
esirable form of control’
, for example, the ability to
benefits. If control over
ld move to the second level
rol over work behaviours or
d Staw, 1993: 243).
hich is similar to the focus
d dress. These types of
ires for self-determination.
y to predict outcomes and
wo are not possible. That
ving knowledge of rewards
Bell and Staw, 1993: 243)
ense of control. If real
_______________________
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ outcome control is not possible, and if the work is structured in a
manner that leaves little room for people to exert control over their
behaviour (which is similar to the rigid structures imposed by
objective control), the individual may gain a sense of efficacy by
learning to predict their behaviour and outcomes. By reducing
ambiguity and by clarifying the reinforcement contingencies in their
environments, people may gain some sense of control.
Bell and Staw (1993) suggest that being able to predict one’s
environment is vital throughout one’s career. It is not only necessary
for a sense of personal efficacy but it may also increase people’s
future chances of upgrading their form of personal control to either
behavioural or outcome control. For example, people who are in
highly structured jobs may, through their knowledge of the job, be
able to suggest more efficient or effective ways of performing their
tasks. If these suggestions are approved, the individual will have
successfully upgraded the form of control from predictive to
behavioural control. The individual may then be able to lobby
successfully for greater pay or benefits, thereby moving from
behavioural control to control over outcomes.
If however, the individual finds they cannot exert any of the three
levels of control the model indicates two possible outcomes may
occur. Those two outcomes may be firstly, withdrawal from the
organisation or secondly, the individual may enter a state of learned
helplessness. This is similar to the secondary control proposed by
Rothbaum, et al (1982) who proposed that control was a two-
process construct. That is, if individuals are unsuccessful in
achieving a desired level of control (primary) they will move to the
second level (secondary control) and at this level, if individuals are
still not satisfied with their desired level of control negative reactions,
such as withdrawal and passivity may be the result.
____________________________________________________________ 37
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ In summary Bell and Staw (1989) posit that control over work
behaviours and inputs should result in positive reactions. In
contrast, should the three levels of control not be achieved then the
results of control will be much less positive, with the potential for a
negative impact on both the individual and the organisation.
2.6.7 Job Control
Defining and controlling one’s job is, in part, about job content and
job design. According to Wall et al (1990) the effect of job content
on employee reactions has long been of interest to psychologists,
researchers and practitioners alike. The main area of interest has
been the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976)
which served to describe jobs in terms of five core job dimensions,
namely, skill variety, task identify, task significance, autonomy and
feedback from the job itself. Not contained in the job characteristics
framework were a number of factors identified by Wall et al (1990)
that most frequently appeared in employees’ accounts of jobs and
their reactions to them. These were timing control, method control,
monitoring demand, problem-solving demand and production
responsibility. In the present study, perceptions of both timing
control and method control are also assessed.
Whilst the five job properties originally proposed by Wall et al (1990),
were significant to advanced manufacturing technology (AMT)
Jackson et al (1993) later argued that the constructs were also of
much more general relevance, as a means to focus on job holders’
perceptions of these dimensions. They argued that ‘the effects
would be expected to depend on people being conscious of them’,
and thus determinants of employees’ reactions to them (Jackson et
al, 1993: 754) and were therefore not solely related to one particular
industry. As a result, Wall et al (1990) and later Jackson et al (1993)
and Wall, Jackson and Mullarkey (1995) further refined the
____________________________________________________________ 38
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ measures to better understand job holders’ perspectives of the
variables. Wall et al (1990: 203-204) also state that ‘control is a job
characteristic of known relevance to both psychological well-being
and job performance’.
Timing and method control were two sub-scales that were used in
the present study to measure perceptions of control and were
previously developed by Wall et al (1990). The three other
subscales - monitoring demand, problem-solving demand and
production responsibility were not included in the present study, as
the scales related more closely to production tasks rather than the
nursing/care tasks. In addition the three sub-scales not used
related to demand, which is not the focus of the present study. Wall
et al (1995) argue the five scales are distinct from one another and
can be used separately or together. Therefore, timing and method
control will now be discussed.
2.6.7.1 Timing control
Timing control refers to the individual’s opportunity to determine the
timing of his or her work behaviour (Wall et al, 1990). Timing control
has been shown to have positive effects on job satisfaction in
research on repetition and machine-pacing (Hurrell, 1981). The
issues facing manufacturing organisations is how best to exploit
recent developments in computer-based production technology,
particularly as there now seems to be a requirement of substantial
human support for these organisations to operate effectively.
However, it is also argued in the present study, that timing control is
important not only to AMT but to a variety of jobs, such as
nursing/health care. In nursing/allied health aspects relating to
control, such as pace of work, scheduling of breaks and timing of
particular types of care seem to be particularly pertinent (McGilton
and Pringle, 1999). Thus, the present study sought to extend this
____________________________________________________________ 39
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ concept of timing control to non-AMT settings, and assess
perceptions of timing control in nursing and health-care related jobs.
2.6.7.2 Method Control
A second important aspect of control, method control, refers to
individual choice in how to complete given tasks and is similar to
‘work method autonomy’ as proposed by Breaugh and Becker
(1987). Again, some forms of AMT necessarily constrain method
control while other forms allow the opportunity to modify programs at
the machine face (Wall et al, 1990). Once again, method control is
seen as an important aspect of many jobs, not just AMT. As will be
demonstrated, providing choice to individuals in how to complete
given tasks, similar to task autonomy, can result in important
outcomes. In a nursing environment, beliefs about levels of method
control have been shown to impact on job satisfaction and have
been consistently identified with dissatisfaction with working
conditions and turnover (Laschinger and Havens, 1996). Therefore,
method control will be applied to nursing/related jobs in order to
assess the wider implications for these jobs.
2.6.7.3 Importance of Timing and Method Control
Both timing and method control are considered central to individual
job design theory in relation to how AMT jobs and other non-AMT
jobs effect employees’ reactions to levels of perception of control in
performing their job (Wall et al, 1995). Thus, understanding how
people’s jobs affect their attitudes, well-being and behaviour at work
is important for both social and theoretical reasons (Jackson et al,
1993). In addition, much of the literature on control has identified the
importance of employees needing to be aware of their perceptions
and the effect of job properties on psychological and behavioural
outcomes. This is due to general agreement by researchers that the
____________________________________________________________ 40
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ effects of objectively losing or gaining control will only have
psychological significance if the person recognises the gain or loss
(Langer, 1979) and ‘it is unlikely that control can have an effect
unless it is perceived’ (Parker, 1993: 950).
In assessing perceptions of control, Wall et al (1995) assembled
data from 1,691 manufacturing employees, over a four-year period,
from British manufacturing companies. Occupations were wide and
varied, and were classified as direct jobs (those engaged in primary
production such as assembly) and indirect jobs (maintenance,
clerical work and supervision). Employees engaged in indirect jobs
were expected to have more timing and method control than those
whose work was tied to machinery, since the latter would be
required to respond to the requirements of the technology. Across a
number of studies (Wall et al, 1993; Wall et, 1995) the findings were
as predicted when a comparison was made between direct and
indirect jobs. Respondents’ self-reports on the indirect jobs revealed
higher perceptions of timing and method control than on the direct
jobs.
The studies were undertaken using self-report scales and doing so
carries problems associated with attributional process and common
method variance. Therefore, the present study sought to overcome
this and extended the measurement to include ratings from the job
holders’ supervisors in a non-AMT environment, namely health care,
as a means to extend research in the area of perceptions of control.
2.6.8 Worker Control and Attachment to the Firm
Another important issue that is now considered a strategic HR issue
for many organisations is that of the retention of employees. The
success of organisations in maintaining a worker’s interest in
continuing to work for the organisation has fairly recently been
____________________________________________________________ 41
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ argued as a means of providing sustained competitive advantage for
organisations. That is, ‘creating, developing and maintaining an
appropriately skilled workforce that meet the criteria of value, rarity,
imperfect imitability and non-substitutability’ (Boxall, 1996: 65). This
makes the point that resources are not simply account assets but
‘anything that has an enabling capacity’ (Hunt, 1995: 322).
A study by Halaby and Weakliem (1989) focused on retention
issues. That is, a workers’ continuing interest in staying with a firm
based on the experience of discretion over their job activities. They
defined interest in staying with a firm as, attachment to the firm. This
is in part similar to a study by Parker (1993), who assessed among
other things, perceptions of control and intention to quit.
Importantly, control is seen as providing individuals with important
feelings or beliefs, which they are willing to act upon.
Halaby and Weakliem (1989) posed two opposing points of view,
firstly that control strengthens attachment and secondly, that control
weakens attachment. Their arguments for these two theories was
that in the first proposition, increasing control provides significance
to the worker, which carries over into the employment relationship,
resulting in higher attachment. In contrast, the second proposition
argues for a negative effect of control on attachment. The argument
being that ‘autonomous workers enjoy higher market value than
other workers and hence have more opportunities for alternative
employment’ (Halaby and Weakliem, 1989).
The findings provide some interesting results. Firstly, the data was
from the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey (QES) in the United
States, with 1,515 workers surveyed self-reporting in relation to
attachment (….how likely are you to make a genuine effort to find a
new job…) and control (6 items measured control and were based
on aspects of discretion and methods in performing the job). The
____________________________________________________________ 42
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ study found that workers who perceived higher control in their jobs
were more likely to assign intrinsic significance to the work itself,
which in turn leads to higher attachment to the firm. Importantly,
worker control was positively associated with optimistic estimates of
the likelihood of eliciting an offer from another employer. Therefore,
organisations may be well advised to consider not only the intrinsic
value placed on control by the worker, but also the rewards and
privileges available to the worker as a means of improving retention
rates.
2.6.9 Primary and Secondary Control
An earlier study on control undertaken by Rothbaum et al (1982)
proposed that control is a two-process construct (rather than one-
process construct) and that a variety of reactions will occur
depending on the level of control perceived by the individual. In the
first step of the process, individuals will attempt to change the world
to fit their needs in order to gain or regain some sort of control.
However, should this not be successful, the individual will move to
the next step in the process and as a result may react negatively to
their perceptions of control (Rothbaum et al, 1982). The authors
expressed this two-process construct as primary and secondary
control. These differences are further discussed below.
Primary control refers to the first attempts by an individual to change
things to produce some satisfying successes or in some cases to
avoid some disappointing failure. This can be compared to
Greenberger and Strasser (1986) who suggest that individuals will
firstly react to control imbalances by directly confronting the source
of the problem. Primary control also highlights the self as the most
powerful agent in attempting to makes changes in the environment.
In contrast, secondary control is most likely to occur only after
attempts at primary control have failed. Again, this can be compared
____________________________________________________________ 43
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ to Greenberger and Strasser (1986) who say that individuals will
attempt direct means to regain control. If this does not occur,
individuals will resort to indirect means, which may be dysfunctional
to the individual and the organisation. Similarly, Bell and Staw
(1993) operationalise control as a three-step process, whereby
individuals will attempt to regulate an event, which if successful will
result in positive reactions. If the regulation is unsuccessful, there is
the possibility of failure and negative reactions.
The difference between primary and secondary control is that they
capture differences in the temporal sequence of the two types of
control. That is, individuals will attempt secondary control only after
attempts at primary control have failed. If attempts at secondary
control fail, the consequences can be such reactions as passivity,
withdrawal and submissiveness.
Reactions of individuals to control levels are important for both
individual and organisational success and perceptions of
inappropriate levels of control may in the long term impede individual
and organisational goal attainment. Rothbaum et al (1982) have
thus proposed that there are two different types of perceived control
and when primary control is perceived as unattainable, individuals
do not necessarily abandon all efforts at control, but move to
secondary control and use attributions to interpret the environment in
order to accept and sustain the perception of control. Thus, it seems
that the perception of control is important to individuals and if this is
the case, it would seem logical to assume that allowing employees
the opportunity to structure, define and control their jobs is important
to the achievement of positive outcomes in the work environment.
____________________________________________________________ 44
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 2.6.10 Job Autonomy
Several reviews of the literature on the control construct in the
workplace have linked job autonomy with perceived control (Ganster
and Fusiler, 1989: Wallston et al, 1987). However, Evans and
Fischer (1992) suggest there has been some ambiguity and
contention in how researchers have approached the linkage
between perceptions of control and autonomy, based in part on the
approaches taken. For example, Yoon et al (1996) argue there is a
conceptual difference between perceived control and autonomy.
They say autonomy is real control grounded in organisational
structures or jobs, while perceived control is subjective control. In
contrast others treat perceptions of control as a substitute for
autonomy (Langer, 1983; Parker and Price, 1994; Skinner, 1996;
Spector, 1986). Given the ambiguity in the literature, it would be
remiss not to consider perceptions or psychological aspects of job
autonomy in the present literature review. Therefore, where
autonomy is referred to in the context of subjective control, this
literature will now be considered.
According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), job design is based on
three key job characteristics: task meaningfulness (a combination of
task significance, task identity, and skill variety), job autonomy and
task feedback. Job autonomy is defined as the amount of freedom a
worker has to schedule their work and to determine the procedures
to be used in carrying it out. However, this model measures
objective aspects of jobs, whereas measuring the psychological
beliefs and reactions to aspects of a job or the work environment is
somewhat different (Kraimer, Seibert and Liden, 1999). Job
autonomy appears important to control since it relates to an
individual’s capacity to change aspects of the organisational
environment, which have been shown to be related to a variety of
____________________________________________________________ 45
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ outcomes. (See for example, Bell and Staw, 1993); Greenberger et
al, 1989); Rothbaum et al, 1982); Yoon et al,1996).
In assessing the ambiguity between job autonomy and perceived
control, Evans and Fischer (1992) sampled two different types of
employers and employees. In the first sample, 228 private sector
employees from a medium size computer firm located in western
Canada were surveyed. In the second sample 361 teachers from a
public school in a western Canadian city were surveyed. In the first
sample respondents were predominately married males with at least
a university degree, aged between 20 and 39 years of age. In the
second sample, respondents tended to be female, married with at
least an undergraduate university degree, predominately aged
between 30 and 55 years of age. The findings from the study
indicate that, among other things, measures of separate job
autonomy and perceptions of control at work were related. It was
also found that they were most strongly related to job satisfaction in
both samples. In addition, perceptions of job autonomy were also
positively related to individuals feeling committed to the organisation
and negatively related to depressed mood and anxiety on the job.
This result was consistent across the two different samples. Feeling
committed to the organisation is similar to the Halaby and Weakliem
(1989) study which found that personal control was significantly
related to attachment to the firm.
2.6.11 Empowerment
Empowerment is a term that emerged due to increased competition
and dynamic environments, driven by advanced technologies that
have seen a bigger push to fully utilise human resources in
organisations. As a result organisations are requiring workers who
are able to act the right way, without instructions and who feel
inspired to share their best ideas with their employers’ (Tichy and
____________________________________________________________ 46
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ Ram, 1995: 69) means letting go of some supervisory control and
‘granting work-related decision-making authority to employees as a
means of enhancing performance’ (Menon, 2001). Adding weight to
the argument on empowerment, Spreitzer, Kizilos and Nason (1997)
suggest that empowerment has resulted from theories of
participative management and employee involvement in which
managers share decision-making power with employees to enhance
performance and work satisfaction. In this context, empowerment is
considered to mean a set of managerial techniques (Conger and
Kanungo, 1989) and reflecting the previously discussed objective
control. The objective aspects of empowerment are also classified
by Menon (2001) as the structural approach to empowerment,
relating to hierarchical authority, control of resources and the
granting of power and decision-making authority. However, whilst
there has been much written in relation to empowerment, Hales and
Kildas (1998: 89) say that empowerment is a concept ‘fraught with
evasions, ambiguities and disagreements over what the concept
means’.
2.6.11.1 Psychological Empowerment
While Menon (2001) identified the structural approach as one stream
of empowerment, another stream, pioneered by Conger and
Kanungo (1988) conceptualised empowerment as psychological
enabling. Others propose aligning empowerment with psychological
states and is a more recent conceptualisation of empowerment, This
term has been used interchangeably with the term perceived control
(Corsun and Enz, 1999; Menon, 2001; Parker and Price, 1994).
When viewed as a psychological construct, empowerment
comprises individual cognitions and perceptions that constitute
feelings of behavioural and psychological investment in work
(Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Koberg et al, 1999). Determinants of
psychological empowerment include such variables as job design,
____________________________________________________________ 47
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ work unit climate and reward system (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
Similar to perceived control (which can temporally vary),
psychological empowerment can also be experienced at different
levels of feeling and at different times. In addition, empowerment
has been used to describe both the individually perceived aspect of
the concept, which is the focus of the present study, and implies the
freedom and the ability to make decisions and commitments
(Forrester, 2000) as well as the organisational aspect of control (as
previously defined as objective control).
Therefore, because of these ambiguities, it is appropriate to give
attention to the aspects of the empowerment literature as a
psychological state and the outcomes that may result. This concept
of empowerment suggests individuals will feel psychologically
enabled when they perceive they have influence, control or choice
regarding their own behaviour (Corsun and Enz, 1999). This
concept also focuses on the individual experience of empowerment
(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) and is also important for the present
study, which assesses an individual’s experiences of control in
relation to their job.
2.6.11.2. Outcomes of Empowerment
Similar to the debates about the merits of perceived control, there
appears to be much debate about the merits of empowerment on
both the individual and at the organisational level. A variety of
research suggests that psychological empowerment can enhance
the value of work for individuals, increase job satisfaction and
contribute to work productivity and success (Koberg, 1999; Spector,
1986; Spreitzer et al, 1997). Empowerment has also been linked to
choice, influence, competence and meaningfulness (Thomas and
Velthouse, 1990). One model, proposed by Koberg et al (1999)
demonstrates the effects of empowerment perceptions on work
____________________________________________________________ 48
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ outcomes for individuals and organisations (refer to Figure 2.4
below). Parts of the model relevant to the present study are
highlighted.
Figure 2.4. Antecedents and Outcomes of Worker Empowerment
Source: Koberg et al (1999: 74)
The above model can also be compared to the control models
previously identified (Greenberger and Strasser, 1986; Bell and
Staw, 1993), where individuals will attempt to make meaning of their
control levels. This will then impact on how they react personally
and how this may also impact on an organisation. Nevertheless,
throughout the history of management, concepts are always open to
re-evaluation and challenge, and some of these debates are
highlighted below in terms of advantages and disadvantages of
empowerment.
____________________________________________________________ 49
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 2.6.11.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Empowerment
There are many who extol the virtues of empowerment as a
response to the changing nature of competition and work, by
improving productivity and morale (Brown, 1992; Coleman, 1996).
Because employees have to decide and act in real time, it is
becoming increasingly necessary to empower the person at the point
of contact with the customer or supplier (Coleman, 1996). This
means removing obstacles to good performance, as employees will
feel valued and respected for what they do (Coleman, 1996).
In contrast, there are others who suggest there are problems in
attempting to provide more control to employees. Collins (1996)
argues that empowerment can be disempowering. This notion was
based on the experiences of the 1980’s when managers sought to
increase their own interest in participative schemes but at the same
time downgraded the type of worker input allowed. Rothstein
(1995) suggests empowerment is unworkable if employees do not
have the authority to make things happen; ‘doomed to failure unless
staff have greater access to resources and have more discretionary
choice in the way they do their work’ (Foster-Fishman in Honold,
1997) and ‘a process to increase employee power to produce the
results management wants’ (Forrester, 2000:74).
In investigating self-reports of factors relating to nursing staff
empowerment and perceived control, Honegger and Appelbaum
(1998) studied registered nurse and nursing assistants at a hospital
in Canada, specialising in rehabilitation of adults. Thirty-one (31)
questionnaires were returned for a response rate of just over 72%.
They found that professional nursing staff perceived a moderate
level of job empowerment but were less empowered than they would
like to be. Nursing staff indicated their desire to be empowered,
although the relationship between desire to be empowered and
____________________________________________________________ 50
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ empowerment was not found to be significant. The main reasons
for wanting to be empowered were the opportunity to have input into
decisions, an increase in learning and an increase in job satisfaction.
The study also found that the respondents perceived a moderate
level of control in their work environment. The two dimensions for
which the ratings were the lowest were the areas of self-
determination and impact. Self-determination being the degree of
choice and autonomy as well as participation in decision-making and
the amount of influence employees had over their work situation.
Impact measured the perceptions of the level of impact the individual
had on their department, which provided a reasonable assessment
of staff’s desire to be empowered.
Honneger and Appelbaum (1998) suggest a number of ways to
increase perceived control or empowerment. These include
reducing the number of policies and procedures that may impact on
choice and flexibility and reduce perceptions of control; reviewing
managerial styles that send a message of high control; use of non-
monetary rewards that allow choice, and reviewing current job
design that send messages of limited control to employees. They
argue this should lead to a more positive work environment,
increased commitment and job satisfaction. This is similar to
Williams (1998) who proposed a model of choice in an attempt to
explain and predict employee reactions depending on the amount
and type of choice-relevant information available to employees.
Choice is defined as ‘when an individual believes they can select
from among meaningful options that are relatively similar in terms of
attractiveness and uncertainty’ (Williams, 1998: 469). As a result of
this choice, it is suggested that choice influences intrinsic motivation
and results in important behavioural and psychological outcomes.
Choice is further discussed in Section 2.6.14.
____________________________________________________________ 51
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ Whilst the Honneger and Appelbaum (1998) study offers more
recent insight into control and empowerment, there is a
methodological limitation to the study that should be highlighted.
The sample size was very small - 31 registered nurses and
registered nursing assistants. While Sekaran (2000:296) says that
sample sizes ‘larger than 30…’ are appropriate for most research,
there may be difficulties in generalising the findings to the population
with confidence or precision.
2.6.12 Perceptual Control Congruence
Previous research has identified that individuals (generally the
employee or subordinate) perceive a gap between the control they
possess and the control they desire (Greenberger et al, 1986:
Honneger and Applebaum, 1998; Yoon et al, 1996). However, the
question then arises about who can assist in closing the gap to
improve these perceptions of control or empowerment. This,
according to Evans et al (2002) should be reflected in an
organisation’s actors, for example a supervisor and a subordinate.
Assessing the gap in perceptions between supervisor and
subordinate is important in the present study, as the employment
relationship consists of both employee and employer and leaders
generally expect employees to make a performance contribution to
the work group or unit. Parker and Price (1994) therefore argue for
a two-way process, saying that until the early 1990’s the perceived
control literature has been concerned primarily with the effects of
perceived control on the perceiver.
In work organisations, the key partners involved in exchange
relationships are superiors and subordinates. It is generally
expected that in these types of relationships, superiors makes
investments in the employee and receive returns from the
subordinate (Yammarino and Dansereau, 2002). These returns are
____________________________________________________________ 52
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ said to be accomplished by a supervisor providing attention, support
and assurances to the subordinate. These principles have been
drawn into the model of individualised leadership in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5. Individualized Leadership
Source: Yammarino and Dansereau (2002: 91)
In the above model it is suggested by Yammarino and Dansereau,
(2002) that supervisors and subordinates interact and over time
reciprocal interdependence will increase and supervisors’ and
subordinates’ perceptions become related. This occurs because
subordinates provide satisfying performance to a superior because
they perceive that superiors have provided them with support in a
variety of ways. This is a similar concept to the one proposed in the
present study. That is, assessing any relationship between both
supervisor perceptions of employee job control and subordinate
perceptions of job control. While not specifically highlighted in the
model, the authors suggest that a number of outcomes or
consequences may occur as a result of this cycle. Firstly, they
____________________________________________________________ 53
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ suggest that differences or variations between supervisors and
subordinates may occur, which would create an imbalance. If this is
the case, the imbalance would rarely continue for a length of time as
one party would eventually terminate the relationship. Secondly,
they suggest that providing support may prove positive and may
result in such outcomes as reduced turnover and absenteeism and
higher morale (Yammarino and Dansereau, 2002: 94-95)
Organisational contexts are changing rapidly today with the shift to
more flexible and flatter organisations and shifting sources of power
and influence (Elangovan and Xie, 2000; Evans et al, 2002). This
shift can also be seen in the nature of tasks and resources and the
manner in which supervisors allocate control or empower their
employees. As highlighted by a number of studies, it is dyadic
theory that involves empowerment and is based on both the
supervisor and subordinate contributing something the other desires,
as they are the key partners involved in exchange relationships of
investments and returns (Balser and Stern, 1999; Yammarino and
Dansereau, 2002). However, as previously mentioned, while there
has been research reflecting subordinate empowerment/control, or
the effects on the perceiver, there is much less research dealing with
both subordinate perceptions of control together with how
supervisors perceive their subordinates’ levels of control.
One such study sought to do this. Messmer (1990) conducted
research to determine the extent to which the concept of
empowerment is actually being practised within American business.
A study of 200 managers of the Fortune 1000 companies were
surveyed to ‘see if they believed they were giving employees more
authority to make decisions and take action than they were five
years ago’. At the same time research was conducted with
employees to ask ‘if they believed management was giving them
more authority to make decisions and take action then they did five
____________________________________________________________ 54
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ years ago’ (Messmer, 1990: 25). It seems perceptions of employee
empowerment held by managers and the perceptions as viewed by
employees was a little different. Results revealed that 88% of
managers believed they were giving employees more authority to
make decision and take action than they were five years ago.
In contrast, only 64% of employees believed they were being given
more authority to make decisions than previously. This indicates a
considerable gap between how the supervisor perceives their
subordinate’s levels of empowerment compared to how the
subordinate views their levels of empowerment. Messmer (1990)
says that one of the reasons for the contribution to the gap in
perceptions is that managers may truly believe that they are giving
their staff more authority, when in fact they are not altering their own
behaviour to deliver on the promise. Therefore, it seems important
to close the gap to ensure staff have clear guidelines on how to
perform their job.
Whilst there are many proponents of empowerment, whether
widespread transformations were taking place was a concept
explored by Harley (1999). He assessed the validity of the concept
that ‘new forms of work organisation are overturning traditional
managerial structures and returning control to employees’ (Harley,
1999: 41). Data from the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial
Relations Survey (AWIRS) was used to construct quantitative
indicators of empowering forms of work organisation, hierarchy and
employee autonomy. The aim being to define the extent of
empowerment which employees have over their own work and over
management of their workplaces. Harley (1999: 43) says that
empowerment is the ‘delegation of responsibility ….. to employees
…. perpetuated through TQM, teams or autonomous work groups’.
This can be seen as an alternative of hierarchical organisational
____________________________________________________________ 55
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ structures, where employees can enjoy increased control over their
work activities.
A large variety of occupations from the AWIRS study were assessed
based on self-reports. Occupations included managers,
professionals, para-professionals, clerks, tradespeople, sales, plant
and machine and labourers The findings indicated that while
empowering practices were present in Australian workplaces, there
did not appear to be transformations taking place. In addition,
approximately 60% of employees reported little or no control over
decision-making and workplace management. The other prominent
result indicated low levels of control in relation to type of work and
start and finish times, while pace of work and how work was done
(similar to method control) reported high levels of control (Harley,
1999). These results are further detailed in Table 2.1.
Source: Harley (1999: 50)
In summary, Harley (1999) says there appears little support for the
‘empowerment thesis’ and that the results do not lead to the
perception of enhanced autonomy on the part of workers. In
addition, the results show that there is a steady decrease in reported
____________________________________________________________ 56
Table 2.1. Employee Autonomy (Percentage of Employees by Form of Control)
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ level of autonomy as one moves from manager and administrator
down the scale to labourer and related worker, indicating that
hierarchy is a key determinant of autonomy (Harley, 1999). A
provisional explanation for these results is that the failure of
empowerment to enhance employee autonomy can be found in the
fact that organisation power resides primarily in organisational
structures. In addition, Harley (1999) was highly critical of forms of
empowerment, joining others (Rothstein, 1997; Forrester, 2000) in
arguing the case for a ‘fad’ that has been embraced uncritically and
is more rhetoric than reality. In assessing ‘who is really in control – the seller or the seller’s
manager’ Delvecchio (1996: 71) revealed there are differences in the
perceptions the manager holds of their employees level of control
compared to that of the employee. Delvecchio (1996) assessed 155
matched responses of salespersons perceptions of control over
sales-call related tasks compared to their sales manager.
Delvecchio (1990) hypothesised that the salesperson would have
higher perceptions of control over sales related activities, than the
manager believed they had. The argument is based on the
contention that the salesperson is required to be creative,
autonomous and independent, since the manager cannot observe
every sales call of the salesperson. Thus it was more likely the
salesperson will perceive they have more control over sales related
activities. In addition, Delvecchio (1990) suggests it is important to
understand differences in perceptions, as some types of
disagreement over control may have a negative effect on job-related
outcomes. This is also important in the present study as it is
expected that perceptions of control will bear some relationship to
the effect they have on one important HR function, that of
performance evaluation. Therefore, it is believed that identifying
where these differences lie may assist the organisation in improving
HR practices and procedures.
____________________________________________________________ 57
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ Delvecchio (1990) found that salesperson-manager perceptions did
differ, supporting their hypothesis that salespeople perceived their
level of control over sales-call and sales-related activities to be
significantly higher than those of their manager. In addition, high
positive differences, that is, the salesperson’s perceptions of control
were higher than those of their supervisor, resulted in higher
satisfaction with the job and the company, than those salespeople
exhibiting negative differences. In summary, this study shows that
salespeople believe they have more control than their mangers
would believe they have, in relation to their selling activities and as a
result, salespeople will exhibit certain positive reactions to their job
and their company.
Whilst this study provides some recent research into
supervisor/subordinate perceptions of control, and is a useful
starting point, the sample was restricted to firms engaged in
manufacturing and therefore, may not be generalisable to field
salespeople in other industries. Importantly, as with the present
study, it appears important to understand that subordinate reactions
may be affected by certain imbalances between supervisor and
subordinate, thus the present study sought to extend the research in
this area and to a different industry setting, that of health care.
2.6.13 Sense of Control
In further considering subjective control, Yoon et al (1996)
investigated various mechanisms that may enhance or decrease
subjective control at the workplace. They argue that sense of
control is subjectively perceived and refers to ‘employees’ internal
assessments or perceptions of objectively established discretion in
their jobs’ and ‘the perceived degree of discretion or freedom in
carrying out work activities (Yoon et al, 1996: 686). This is similar to
the model proposed by Parkes (1989), who distinguished between
____________________________________________________________ 58
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ objective and subjective control, and proposed that subjective
control is individual perceptions of objective control. Yoon et al
(1996) also say that sense of control depends on the occupants of
the job or position. The reason being that two employees who are
doing the same job may perceive varying degrees of sense of
control, depending on their personal reactions to the discretional
opportunities built into their job.
Data was collected from a broad range of occupational groups from
three university hospitals in Korea. Participants consisted of 1,822
physicians, nurses, administrative, technical and manual worker.
Findings indicate that when employees believed they had support
from their supervisor, co-workers and from the organisation
generally, employees exhibited a high sense of control. In addition
support was found for their prediction that employees who perceive
greater promotion opportunity demonstrated greater sense of control
than their counterparts. In contrast, the routine nature of work and
job opportunity was found to negatively impact on sense of control.
That is, when employees perceived their work as routine and they
believed they had limited job opportunities (both external and
internal), this perception limits their choice process and decreases
their sense of control.
The above research again highlights the importance that subjective
control plays in the organisational domain and suggests the positive
aspects of objective control have lead to sense of control in
employees. While not directly measuring results of high (or low)
levels of sense of control, it appears that certain organisational
initiatives, such as career paths and support from supervisors and
co-workers provides this sense of control. Therefore, it seems
logical to assume (based on previous research) that positive
reactions will result when there are high levels of control and
____________________________________________________________ 59
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ conversely, negative reactions may result when individuals perceive
a lowered sense of control.
2.6.14 Choice
Perceived control is also said to encompass choice. However, once
again, there is some confusion and ambiguity in the literature.
Choice is defined as ‘when an individual selects from among
meaningful options that are relatively similar in terms of
attractiveness and uncertainty’ (Williams, 1998: 469) and ‘the
perception that one’s choices determine outcomes’ (Veitch and
Gifford, 1996:). Williams (1998) argued that choice and perceptions
of control are theoretically similar but conceptually distinct from each
other.
They go further to say that individuals experience choice when they
view themselves as agents who select from options as a means to
determine the best outcome. This can also be compared to Skinner
(1996) who calls this agent-ends. That is the extent to which an
individual can produce desired outcomes and prevent undesired
ones. Choice process theory suggests that objective aspects of
work and how employees involve themselves in work, shapes
perceptions or sense of control. According to Lawler (1992) this
active involvement generates sense of control beyond the objectively
established set of choices. Choice has been found to result in
important individual and organisational outcomes (Tafarodi, Smith
and Milne, 1999) and increased task performance (Williams and
Luthans, 1992). Providing choices shapes personal control to the
individual and personal control is considered necessary to well-being
(Averill, 1973: Burger, 1989). However, as a result of the
ambiguities surrounding choice, this concept will also be considered
where it is discussed in the literature in the context of being a
subjective state.
____________________________________________________________ 60
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ In an experimental study, Veitch and Gifford (1996) considered the
availability of choices in certain conditions and the reactions that
may result in relation to mood and performance. Subjects were 180
undergraduates from a medium sized Canadian university, who were
given control over pre-set lighting configurations. It was
hypothesised that providing control to individuals over preference of
lighting at a workstation, would result in certain positive outcomes.
In this experiment, the expected outcomes were improved mood and
performance.
They found that giving individuals availability of choice lead subjects
to report more perceived control over the lighting in the workstation.
However, contrary to expectations, subjects given choice performed
more poorly and more slowly on the creativity task, in comparison to
the subjects who were not given a choice in lighting preferences. In
addition, there was no improvement in either mood or task
performance from the choice group, indicating that perceived control
does not always affect outcomes positively. Veitch and Gifford
(1996) go further to suggest that circumstances under which control
does not lead to desirable outcomes are chiefly those in which the
subject fears that a poor choice could lead to failure or
embarrassment. In this particular experiment no feedback was
given to subjects about whether the correct choice had been made
about the lighting. The suggestion is that the poor performance was
due to a heightened fear of poor self-presentation, which may have
produced the performance decrements. Therefore, from an
organisational perspective it may, in some instances be costly to
support choices in the work environment, particularly those that
might lead to productivity losses.
There were some methodological limitations of this particular study.
Firstly, the experimental nature of the study means the setting and
sample were not representative of present-day offices, which may
____________________________________________________________ 61
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ limit generalisability to organisational settings. Secondly, a true no-
control condition could not be achieved as participants could end
their participation at any time, thus having some degree of control.
Therefore, one purpose of the present study was to test perceptions
of control in a field setting.
In an earlier study, Burger (1987) conducted two experiments to
examine the influence of self-presentation concerns on the choice-
performance effect. The experiments were carried out on 55 male
and female undergraduate psychology students. In the experiments,
half the participants were led to believe their performance would be
evaluated by others and were given choice of materials for the task.
The choice group was able to select one out of five responses. The
other half were told their performance would not be known by others
and were not given a choice of responses. The task was a memory
test. It was predicted, from the self-presentation position, that the
performance of participants in the first group (choice and
performance evaluation) should be higher than in the no-choice; no
performance evaluation feedback.
The findings from these two experiments provided information for
future research about the effects generated from changes in an
individual’s perceptions of control on particular variables. Burger
(1987) suggests that individuals, when perceiving choice will be in
positions of increased control and will experience an increase in their
feelings of personal responsibility for the outcomes of a situation. As
a result the individual will experience an increase in their concern for
public evaluation, increased motivation on the test and an improved
performance. Projecting these findings to the work environment, it
would seem that providing choices to employees in relation to their
jobs is an important part of the employment relationship that has
effects for the future performance of the employee. The potential for
any degree of control to personalise a task suggests that choice
____________________________________________________________ 62
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ among options may provide self-determination within the constraints
of a compulsory task. This may then enhance motivation and
improve performance (Veitch and Gifford, 1999). Thus, the present
study sought to identify the perceptions of control provided to
employees in their jobs, particularly in relation to method and timing
control and how this may effect an important organisational initiative,
that of performance evaluation.
Williams (1998) also proposed a model of choice in an attempt to
explain and predict employee reactions depending on the amount
and type of choice-relevant information available to employees. As
a result of this choice, it is suggested that choice influences intrinsic
motivation and results in important behavioural and psychological
outcomes. Parts of the model relevant to the current study are
presented in Figure 2.6. In addition, the suggestion that choice
results in important psychological outcomes is analogous to earlier
studies. For example, research has shown that generally, when
choice occurs, motivation is generally enhanced and subjects get
more involved, work harder and enjoy tasks more (Rotter, 1979) and
has a positive effect on performance outcomes (Monty and
Perlmuter, 1987).
____________________________________________________________ 63
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ Figure 2.6. A model of choice
Choice-Relevant Information Type of choice (activity vs. outcome Feedback (positive vs. negative) Consequences (pleasant vs. aversive) Situational constraints (norms, policies, etc.)
Intrinsic
So
W
to
th
an
(W
th
wh
ne
Th
ge
th
m
in
__
Choice Meaningfulness(+)
Motivation
urce: Adapted from Williams (1998: 473)
illiams demonstrated how providing choice in the
employees in an organisation, or allowing worker
ey perform their jobs, can increase or enhance fe
d can improve task performance and overall task
illiams, 1998). In general, the pattern of these fin
at the perception of control or choice results in po
ereas the perception of lack of choices or lack or
gative reactions.
ere is a large amount of research and theory indi
nerally the more control individuals have, the mo
eir reactions and outcomes. The literature highlig
any different changes that occur as a result of the
dividual has about their level of control. As sugge
____________________________________________64
Behavioral Outcomes Task performance
Psychological Outcomes Well-being Attitudes
benefits provided
s to choose how
elings of choice
satisfaction
dings suggest
sitive reactions,
control results in
cating that
re positive will be
hts that there are
perception an
sted from the
______________
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ literature reviewed here, many of these changes are preferred and
lead to positive reactions. However, there are also exceptions in the
research. These exceptions provide evidence that increases in
perceived control will not always result in positive affect and that
‘individuals will willingly relinquish control or respond in a negative
manner to the perception that their personal control has increased’
(Burger, 1989: 246). It is interesting to note, from the results of
Burger’s (1989) literature review, that much of the work in this area
is experimental and not recent (last ten years). However, the issue
of providing too much control is probably just as important to the
individual and the organisation in terms of outcomes, as providing
appropriate levels of control. Therefore, this aspect of control has
been included in this Literature Review and will now be discussed.
2.6.15 Negative Reactions to Increases in Control
As with previous research in the control area, Burger (1989)
highlights the different ways in which control has been
operationalised by researchers. In addition, consistent with previous
research (Parker and Price, 1994; Skinner, 1996), it is not necessary
that the person actually have control over the relevant events but
rather than he or she perceive this control, as it is the perceived level
of control that appears to have determined the response (Burger,
1989).
In a review of the literature that identified conditions under which
increases in perceived control result in a tendency to relinquish
control, Burger (1989) identified three characteristics that are said to
result in negative affect. Firstly, personal control will be seen as less
desirable when it leads to an uncomfortable level of concern for self-
presentation, secondly, when it decreases the likelihood that the
person will be able to achieve desired outcomes, and thirdly, when it
leads to an individual being able to predict a negative event or
____________________________________________________________ 65
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ situation. This is particularly relevant when trying to understand the
effects of perceptions of control. For example, Burger (1989) says a
person who believes they have a high degree of control over an
event may become overly concerned about the possibility of social
disapproval following a poor outcome, particularly if the price for
failure is significant. Therefore, in certain situations an individual
may opt to relinquish control (unless there are strong advantages to
the contrary), experience negative affect and not perform as well on
the tasks over which they have control.
The above suggestion can also be compared to a part of
Greenberger and Strasser’s (1986) model. They proposed that
should individuals perceive a higher level of control than what they
desire, they would move into a state of imbalance. Individuals will
then appraise the situation and then enter the reaction stage of the
model. Just as individuals who require more control will attempt
direct or indirect action to achieve their desired outcomes, so those
that require less control will move from direct action to indirect
action, in order to achieve their desired outcomes. If the individuals’
actions are unsuccessful, reactions will be dysfunctional in the long
run, and may impede individual and organisational goal attainment.
Being given the opportunity to have control does not mean that the
desired outcome will be forthcoming, as relinquishment of control
may occur if the individual believes that there is a higher likelihood of
a negative outcome rather than a positive outcome (Burger, 1989).
Similarly, Burger, Brown and Allen (1983) gave subjects a choice of
three tasks to work on, and consistent with Veitch and Gifford (1996)
but contrary to expectations, in each of the three experiments
subjects given the choice of tasks, scored lower on measures of self-
esteem and higher on measure of anxiety and hostility than did
subjects given no choice of tasks. These findings indicate that
____________________________________________________________ 66
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ opportunities to increase control will not always result in positive
affect.
Taken together the findings indicated that people do not always
prefer increases in control when certain conditions are present. As a
result negative reactions may be the consequence. Whilst these
findings have potential, there are some major limitations to the
studies. Firstly, the studies were experimental situations.
Therefore, these results should be viewed with some caution,
particularly in generalising to the field. In addition, all participants
were able to end their participation at any time without penalty,
therefore making it impossible to achieve a true no-control condition.
Hence, the added value of the present study, to assess perceptions
of control in a field setting, as a means of identifying those features
of timing and method control that are significant to an individual.
2.7 SUMMARY OF SUBJECTIVE CONTROL
The research on control reviewed here shows a growing body of
research that has demonstrated that employees’ perception of
control over their jobs plays a significant role in various
organisational areas. This research indicates a variety of positive
reactions employees may exhibit when provided with an appropriate
level of control. Additionally there is research of the negative
outcomes and reactions that may result if the appropriate levels of
control desired are not achieved. Whilst providing an appropriate
level of control or increasing that control to individuals is seen as
having the potential to provide positive reactions in the workplace, a
number of authors argue that an increase in perceptions of control
can also be detrimental in certain circumstances. As a result,
individuals may not always prefer increases in control (e.g. when
there is concern for self-presentation) and this may result in negative
outcomes, such as a decrease in performance (Burger 1989).
____________________________________________________________ 67
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________
Individuals will attempt to gain an appropriate level of control and
should this not be possible the results will be negative outcomes for
the individual and potentially the organisation (Rothbaum et al,
1982). Perceived control is also important for job design as a means
to understand how people’s jobs affect their attitudes (Jackson et al,
1993), how providing choice can result in positive psychological and
organisational outcomes (Yoon et al, 1996) or fears of poor choice
could lead to failure (Veitch and Gifford, 1996). In addition,
perceptions of both autonomy and empowerment were considered to
provide certain positive outcomes for the worker (Koberg et al, 1999;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
While much of this research has focused on self-reports by
employees, self-reports do pose problems, such as common method
variance. Thus, Podsakoff and Organ (1986) recommended a
number of remedies to overcome this, including obtaining the
independent and criterion variables from different sources.
Surprisingly, there is limited research that assesses perceptions of
control from the employee and the supervisor. This is supported by
Parker and Price (1994) who suggest that the control literature has
been concerned primarily with the effects of perceived control on the
perceiver, particularly in relation to the relationships among workers’
perceived control, well-being, job satisfaction and performance. In
contrast, there is a paucity of research that examines the
perceptions of subordinates’ control together with the perceptions
the supervisor has of their subordinates’ control. In the workplace,
supervisors and subordinates must interact during the course of the
employment relationship as there is a continual effort to balance the
allocation of control. Thus, it is very possible that confusion may
occur and the perceptions that the manager has of their
subordinates’ control and the perception the subordinate has of their
own level of control may be different. These perceptual differences
____________________________________________________________ 68
Chapter Two : Literature Review ______________________________________________________ should be investigated, given the importance and value placed on
control by both dyad members, as these differences have the
potential to effect job-related outcomes (Delvecchio,1996). As
previously mentioned, research on supervisor/subordinate
perceptions of control indicates differences in terms of who
perceives the higher levels of control. That is, the literature is
conflicting in terms of where these differences lie - this remains an
aspect of the present study. Because of the conflicting results in
terms of who perceives higher levels of control – the employee or
the supervisor, the present study sought to alleviate common
method variance and extend the research on dyads, by requesting
self-reports from two distinct groups – the employee on their levels
of job control perceptions and the supervisor on their perceptions of
their employee’s job control levels.
Therefore, the present study also expects to find differences and the
first hypothesis posed is :
Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between supervisor perceptions of subordinate levels of job control and subordinate perceptions of their own level of job control.
____________________________________________________________ 69
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Subjective control as defined in the previous section appears
important to individuals in the employment relationship. The
importance lies in the consequences or outcomes they have for the
individual. The most effective way of enhancing or influencing
subjective control appears to be through work processes and job
design. It also seems logical to argue that if the outcomes are
important for individuals they will have the potential to impact on the
organisation regardless of whether the reactions by individuals are
positive or negative. Therefore, organisations should seek to design
jobs that provide appropriate levels of control, which in turn will result
in positive outcomes for the individual and the organisation.
One outcome that is particularly important to researchers and
organisations is the relationship of control to performance. For
example, Bazerman (1982) found that performance was higher when
the amount of control possessed was congruent with the individual’s
ability. Stanton and Barnes-Farrell (1996) found links between
personal control and high job performance and satisfaction, while
Greenberger et al (1989) found that the greater the amount of control
possessed by individuals, the higher the performance. Therefore, it
is seems that individuals who perceive high control over job-related
tasks, will generally perform better than those who do not perceive
high levels of control.
If employees perform well, their performance success is generally
reflected in the performance evaluation. If employees are told they
have performed successfully, much research indicates that they will
react more positively when they receive high evaluations than when
they receive low evaluations of their performance (Bannister, 1986;
Dobbins, Cardy and Platz-Vieno 1990; Dipboye and dePontbriand,
1981). These reactions may be directed toward the rater, the
performance evaluation process or the organisation and these
reactions can be an important determinant of the ultimate success
_____________________________________________________________
70
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ and effectiveness of the whole evaluation process (Cawley et al,
1998).
While a considerable amount of research has focused on reactions to
performance evaluation and control and performance, limited
research has attempted to investigate perceptions of control and
subordinate reactions to performance evaluation. Therefore, the
current study sought to consider one particular organisational
initiative that appears to be linked to control, namely performance
evaluation. Consideration of the performance evaluation literature
will now be undertaken in order to synthesise Hypothesis Two, which
is detailed at the end of the Performance Evaluation Section.
2.8 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In this Section, an overview of performance evaluation and its uses
will be highlighted. The two main uses – developmental and
administrative (Fisher et al, 1999) will be compared and contrasted.
There is a variety of literature dealing with the proponents and critics
of performance evaluation, therefore some of these issues will be
discussed. This will be followed by the main focus of this section,
namely reactions to performance evaluation. The term performance
evaluation and performance appraisal will be used interchangeably,
where it has been so defined in the literature.
As previously mentioned, perceiving one has control in performing
one’s job will generally result in a variety of positive outcomes, such
as increased performance, job satisfaction and motivation.
Supervisors rest some level of control with their employees, as they
cannot directly observe every task of their employees every minute of
the day. According to Balser and Stern (1999: 1,035) ‘because
organisational control systems evaluate supervisors on how well their
employees perform, performance issues are paramount to supervisor
_____________________________________________________________
71
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ success’. A basic obligation of employees is adequate performance.
Therefore, it would appear logical that job behaviours be assessed
as accurately as possible in organisational settings, as the rating of
performance provided to the employee can play a large role in how
the employee reacts, not only to the performance evaluation, but to
the supervisor and the organisation.
How well an employee fulfils the obligation of adequate performance
depends on the degree to which the supervisor (partially representing
the organisation) and the employee agree on what defines
satisfactory performance (Balser and Stern, 1999). This includes
aspects of the job within the control of the employee. This is an
important element of performance evaluation as Levy (1993)
suggests that what is fed back in the performance evaluation may
play a large role in how employees react to performance evaluation.
For example, performance evaluation is an important predictor of
employee attitudes toward their supervisor, the job and the process
(Jordon and Nasis in Boswell and Boudreau, 2000). Thus, it is
important to consider the performance evaluation literature and
specifically reactions to performance evaluation, in the present study.
Researchers and practitioners alike believe the performance
appraisal process commonly serves a number of purposes as
identified in Table 2.2.
_____________________________________________________________
72
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Table 2.2 Uses of Performance Appraisal Purpose Specific Uses Developmental Identification of individual training needs Performance Feedback Determining transfers and job assignments Identification of individual strengths and developmental needs Administrative Salary Promotion Retention or termination Recognition of individual performance Identification of poor performers Organisational Human resource planning Determining organisational training needs Evaluation of organisational goal achievement Information for goal identification Evaluation of human resources systems Reinforcement of organisational development needs Documentation Criteria for validation research Documentation of human resource decisions Helping to meet legal requirements Source : Adapted from Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. and Williams, R.E. in Fisher, Schoenfeldt and Shaw (1999), Human Resource Management, 4th ed, p.498. First, performance appraisals serve developmental purposes to the
extent that employees are provided with specific job feedback,
assistance and counselling to improve future job performance.
(Dorfman et al, 1986). Second, performance appraisals serve
administrative purposes to the extent that they provide a basis for
determining salary increases, promotions, terminations, and other
administrative decisions. Of necessity this requires supervisors to
evaluate performance and to play a judgemental role in the appraisal
process. This purpose is considered more prevalent and follows the
command-and-control model of authority (Daley, 1993). The last two
purposes in the above table indicate that performance evaluation
may be used to contribute to organisational well-being and for
documentation in a number of areas and for a number of reasons,
such as grievances and disciplinary actions (Fisher et al, 1999).
_____________________________________________________________
73
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Therefore, there are a number of ways that performance evaluation
can be used; however, as the success of the organisation depends
on the performance of its human recourses, it is important that the
purpose benefits employees and the organisation. As previously
highlighted, the two main purposes of performance evaluation are
development and administrative (Fisher et al, 1999) and the
differences between these will now be discussed.
2.8.1 Differences between Developmental and Administrative Uses
In considering developmental and/or administrative aspects of
performance evaluation, there has been mixed results from the
research. For example, previous research has found that the
evaluative or administrative component of performance appraisal is
an important aspect of the appraisal process. This can be a positive
factor, particularly if it strengthens appraisal-reward contingencies
(Fisher et al, 1999). In contrast, a number of earlier studies have
found that using performance evaluation as an administrative tool
can be of a negative nature (e.g. Meyer, Kay and French, 1965) as
there may be perceptions by employees of being criticised, which
may in turn foster defensiveness and negative psychological
responses (Boswell and Boudreau, 2000).
Conversely, use of performance evaluation as a development tool is
more likely to be viewed positively because of its futuristic and helpful
focus (Milkovich and Boudreau, 1997). In considering the
developmental aspects of performance evaluation, Prince and
Lawler (1986) found that the constructs ‘work planning and goal
setting’ and ‘discuss performance attributes’ exerted a positive
influence on employee’s satisfaction with, and perceived utility of, the
performance appraisal. The debate continues as to whether or not
the administrative and developmental functions of performance
evaluation should be separated to minimise the conflict between the
_____________________________________________________________
74
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ helping and judgemental roles of the supervisor and while it is
important for job related outcomes, this debate is beyond the scope
of the present study. However, it is important to note the differences
as this can impact on employee perceptions of the performance
evaluation.
2.8.2 Proponents of Performance Evaluation
There are a variety of benefits of performance evaluation that are
highlighted in the research. These can include increases in effort,
motivation, performance and satisfaction and decreases in role
ambiguity (Brown and Peterson, 1993; Longenecker and Fink, 1999).
Performance evaluation may also facilitate other human resource
management functions. For example, it can provide information
regarding the effectiveness of the firm’s selection and placement
programs and may help identify and evaluate needs in the area of
human resource training and development (Dubinsky, Skinner and
Whittler, 1989). The purpose of performance evaluation aims then
to satisfy numerous organisational and employee objectives, which
not only identifies and provides information but leads to
improvements for both employee and the organisation.
2.8.3 Opponents of Performance Evaluation
In contrast, there are also dissenters, and for some, appraisal
systems remain controversial, ‘with a few scholars believing they do
more harm than good’ (Fisher et al, 1999: 494). For example,
Boswell and Boudreau (2000) say that as long ago as 1957 Douglas
McGregor (creator of the famous concepts of theory X and theory Y)
expressed his uneasiness with the use of appraisal systems,
suggesting that it should be handled with the utmost skill and
delicacy in order to maintain integrity.
_____________________________________________________________
75
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Perhaps the most vocal critic of appraisals was the ‘guru’ of Total
Quality Management, W. Edwards Deming. Deming (1986) built a
case that the central problem of management is an incorrect
understanding of variation in performance phenomena, including the
work performance of employees. He proposed that the vast majority
of variance is due to common causes which are system-based.
Furthermore, managers are responsible for correcting system-based
causes of performance. Thus, Deming and TQM proponents have
criticised performance appraisals that are based on the assumption
that the employee is mainly in control of his or her performance
(Deming, 1986; Scholtes, 1987). It has been suggested by these
critics that appraisal does harm because it leads to the erroneous
perception that variations in performance are attributed entirely to the
individual employee. It was argued that this is in contrast to the real
situation that such variation was caused by the systems created and
controlled by managers. Deming (1986) also argued (a) supervisors
believe that subordinate performance is produced almost exclusively
by characteristics of subordinates while subordinates believe that
much of their performance was produced by system-level factors and
(b) that raters may not take into proper consideration the system
factors that can have a significant deleterious effect on performance.
Research by Carson, Cardy and Dobbins (1991) further examined
Deming’s research, assessing the extent to which managers believe
that subordinates’ performance was produced by person or system
factors. Subjects were undergraduate and MBA students from a
large south-eastern US university, who completed questionnaires
during class. Two studies were undertaken consisting of 59
participants in study one and 20 participants in study two. The
findings indicated that supervisors did believe that individuals were a
major influence on job performance and held the individual totally
accountable for their performance, even though personal
characteristics and system constraints were factored into the study.
_____________________________________________________________
76
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ This study in part supports Deming’s view that during the
performance evaluation, there may be overemphasis on person
factors when there may be system factors accounting for a variation
in performance.
Waldman (1994) also argued for consideration of system factors in
relation to performance, particularly to focus on the interplay of
person and systems factors. He argued that person/system linkages
are essential in attempting to determine employee work performance,
which is shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Adapted from a System-Focused Model of Work Performance
Work Performance
Sou
___
Person Factors (knowledge, skills abilities
and motivation)
Senha
rce: Waldman (1994: 518)
________________________
Hierarchical Level and
Autonomy
ystem Factors (person ncers, system constraints
and demands
__________________________________
77
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ System factors (e.g. machinery, data, training, supervision,
equipment) in this model are seen as influencing aspects of the
individual’s ability and motivation and interact with the person in
terms of person/system fit in the determination of performance. A
part of system factors includes person enhancers which are
proposed by Waldman (1994: 519) as ‘involving aspects of HR
systems, leadership processes and job design that may develop and
motivate individuals’. In addition, potential boundary conditions,
such as hierarchical or management level are portrayed as
moderating relationships between person factors and work
performance and between system constraints and demands and
work performance. Person enhancers and boundary conditions may
also be viewed as objective aspects of control, provided by an
organisation, some of which may impede increased perceptions of
control. Ultimately, Waldman argues that there should be increasing
importance placed on person factors at higher management levels in
order for jobs to be designed in such a way as to enable individuals
to demonstrate their own efforts and initiatives, as opposed to being
subjected to the constraints or demands imposed by the system.
This model and other similar research is considered important in the
current study as it has implications for performance evaluation.
Waldman and others propose that it is important to take into account
both person and system factors when modelling determinants of
work performance, as individuals do not always have 100% control
over their work performance. Many researchers argue that
determination of work performance must, among other things,
facilitate capturing the true picture of job performance, facilitate fair
evaluation of performance, and take into account situational
constraints that may affect raters’ ability to observe performance and
rate accurately (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Cardy, Dobbins and
Carson, 1995; Hedge and Teachout, 2000; Peters and O’Connor,
1980).
_____________________________________________________________
78
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ As previous research has indicated, managers tended to believe that
performance variance was due to person factors, while subordinates
tended to believe that performance variance was due to system
factors not within their control (Cardy et al, 1995). Such fundamental
differences may prompt rater/ratee conflict and subsequent reactions
to performance evaluation. Thus it is important to assess whether
these differences will lead employees to react negatively (or
positively) to the performance evaluation process, as Hedge and
Teachout (2000) say that how employees react may place a ceiling
on the possible effectiveness of the system. These reactions will
now be discussed.
2.9 Reactions to Performance Evaluation
According to Hedge and Teachout (2000) the value of an appraisal
system has traditionally been judged according to reliability and
validity indexes. This focus has diverted researchers’ attention away
from what they term ‘reaction’ criteria. Thus, while a number of areas
of performance evaluation have been researched (e.g. ratings and
quantitative criteria) less attention has focused on qualitative criteria
such as subordinates’ reactions to appraisals and the factors
contributing to these reactions. Highlighting the importance of
employee reactions, Cawley et al (1998) states that ‘it seems
reasonable to expect that subordinates’ reactions to appraisal
systems would have just as much impact on the success and
effectiveness of an appraisal system as the more technical aspects
of the system’. Similarly, Dickinson (1992) reviewed the literature on
attitudes about performance appraisal and suggested that if negative
attitudes about appraisal prevail among organisation members,
performance appraisal will be unacceptable to many members.
Employee reactions to performance evaluation are seen as important
determinants of the success and effectiveness of a performance
_____________________________________________________________
79
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ appraisal system (Cawley et al, 1998). Research continues to focus
on such aspects as satisfaction with the process/ the interview, utility
of the process/interview, fairness, and motivation to improve
performance after the interview and feedback given and procedural
fairness (Greller, 1978; Ilgen et al, 1979; Korsaard and Roberson,
1995; Wexley and Klimoski, 1984). Two of these, satisfaction with
the process and utility of the process, will be considered in the
current study. These are important as both satisfaction with
performance evaluation and perceived utility of the performance
evaluation are seen to result in a variety of outcomes for the
individual and the organisation (Cawley et al, 1998).
2.9.1. Satisfaction with Performance Evaluation
Research has continued to focus on reactions to performance
evaluation, including the characteristics that elicit or at least
contribute to positive employee reactions. For example, Korsgaard &
Roberson (1995) conducted a study of 168 management-level
employees of a US national-wide retail organisation. They found
support for satisfaction with the appraisal review, when employees
had the opportunity to voice their opinions. They also say that ‘voice’
is represented on two dimensions. Instrumental voice refers to the
perceptions the employees has in relation to the managers’ influence
over the appraisal discussion. Non-instrumental voice represents the
employee’s opportunity to control aspects of the appraisal discussion
and an indirect way to control or ensure a fair decision. Non-
instrumental voice may also be considered similar to one of the three
levels of control proposed by Bell and Staw (1993), namely
behavioural control. That is individuals attempt control over their own
work behaviours such as decisions about actual work methods, pace
and amount of effort, in an attempt to affect people’s perceptions of
outcomes. Therefore, as a result of behaviours exhibited by the
individual there may be, through for example, the performance
_____________________________________________________________
80
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ evaluation, the opportunity to control outcomes such as pay,
promotion or benefits.
Ratee satisfaction with an appraisal system should also be directly
related to the amount of relevant feedback provided by the system.
Several studies have indicated that ratees are more satisfied with
appraisal systems that provide substantial feedback about job
performance than with appraisal systems that provide little feedback
(Dobbins et al, 1990; Greller and Parsons, 1992). Satisfaction with
performance evaluation appears to be an extensively investigated
subject and continues to be so. Bradley and Ashkanasy (2001)
undertook to investigate supervisor and subordinate perceptions of
their experiences of performance evaluation in a variety of Australian
organisations. Twenty subordinates and ten supervisors were
interviewed in a qualitative study. From this study it appears that,
among other things, most supervisors were moderately satisfied with
the performance appraisal interview while most of the subordinates
rated their satisfaction with the performance appraisal from ‘quite
satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ Bradley and Ashkanasy (2001: 94).
Findings in relation to satisfaction have been mixed in this area
though. For example, Williams and Levy (2000) proposed that there
would be differences between supervisors and non-supervisory
employees in relation to satisfaction with performance evaluation,
suggesting that supervisors will report higher levels of satisfaction.
This argument is based on the belief that supervisors have more
exposure to the process and to training and thus have more
information from which to asses the system. They surveyed 128
employees from three Midwestern US banking institutions.
Participants consisted of 34 supervisors and 94 non-supervisory
employees. They found that supervisors reported significantly higher
levels of satisfaction than did non-supervisory employees. According
to Williams and Levy (2000) this was due to supervisors reporting
_____________________________________________________________
81
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ higher levels of knowledge about the appraisal process than do those
in non-supervisory positions. They argue that as a result of their
position in the organisation, non-supervisory employees may receive
less information, have less exposure to and may be less likely to fully
understand the implications of the process. This then suggests that
organisations can improve non-supervisory reactions to performance
evaluation by improving the levels of knowledge they have about the
system.
Glendinning (2002) gathered data, using a questionnaire, from 64 HR
professionals in supervisory positions, in a diverse range of
industries. The objective of the study was to ascertain opinion about
performance evaluation including, information on satisfaction with
performance evaluation. Supervisor perceptions of performance
evaluation varied from 11% who were very satisfied with their
performance evaluation program, 76% said they were moderate to
moderately high in satisfaction and 8% said they very unsatisfied
with performance evaluation. Participants were also asked to
quantify their employees’ satisfaction with the performance
evaluation system with 12% claiming employees were very satisfied,
6% of the supervisors saying their employees were very unsatisfied
and 42% believed employees were moderately satisfied with the
performance evaluation system (Glendinning, 2002).
Performance evaluation was also perceived to offer a number of
benefits, including improved employee work (79%); identified
employees with potential for advancement (94%); improved the
quality of supervision (70%) and achieved business objectives (78%).
In contrast, 71% of respondents said they had observed rater biases,
while 49% were not including milestones to gauge employee goal
attainment and 39% said that the system had hindered legal
proceedings. This research again highlights the mixed reactions to
performance evaluation. However, Glendinning (2002) suggests that
_____________________________________________________________
82
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ there are still benefits to be had from well-constructed and properly
used performance programs, as there can be detrimental effects to
an organisation and employees, if a system is not implemented and
conducted correctly.
Importantly, Dipboye & de Pontbriand (1981) argued that employees
are more positive in their opinions of appraisals and appraisal
systems to the extent that they perceive the factors on which they are
evaluated to be relevant to their jobs. A research and development
organisation was surveyed about employee reactions to performance
appraisal with 629 questionnaires returned. Employees were
positive about performance appraisal when they had an opportunity
to state their own side, were evaluated on aspects that were job
relevant and had the opportunity to discuss objectives and plans.
Similarly, Bobko & Colella (1994), in their literature review of
employee reactions to performance standards, drew the conclusion
that performance standards that are clear, descriptive and specific
and consequently allow for feedback along performance dimensions,
should produce more desirable responses from employees.
2.9.2 Utility of Performance Evaluation
A second reaction that has been extensively researched in the
appraisal literature is the perceived utility of performance appraisal
(Cawley et al, 1998; Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981; Greller, 1978,
Nathan, Mohrman and Milliman, 1991). The extent to which
employees perceive a performance evaluation system as being
useful is important for a number of reasons, including a general
motivation to change behaviour and to support the usefulness and
validity of the information.
Greller (1978), for example, assessed perceived utility of
performance evaluation. Questionnaires were distributed to
_____________________________________________________________
83
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ employees in a large bank in the US, with 287 usable responses
returned. Items included, ‘the appraisal helped me learn how I can
do my job better’ , ‘I learned a lot from the appraisal’, ‘the appraisal
helped me understand my mistakes’, and ‘I have a clearer idea of
what the boss expects from me because of the appraisal’. The
findings suggest that mutual goal setting between supervisor and
subordinate and participation were related to subordinate perceptions
of the utility of the performance evaluation. Greller (1978) suggests
future ways of improving utility is to ‘provide high participation in the
interview, for both participants in the interview process to mutually
goal-set, for the supervisor to create a sense of acceptance and
convey a sense of caring and consideration in the process’.
In a later study, Dobbins, Platz and Houston (1993) assessed 165
bank tellers’ reactions to performance appraisal on eight different
measures, one of which was the perceived utility of evaluations.
Four questions were used to tap utility, and are the same items used
in the present study. Findings indicate that employees who had high
trust in the system perceived their evaluations as more useful and
intended to improve job performance as a result of feedback given.
This is consistent with the model presented by Ilgen et al (1979)
which suggest that employees who have high trust in the appraisal
system are more willing to use feedback to improve performance. In
contrast, employees who have low trust in the system may question
the accuracy of appraisals and thus may not alter their behaviour
based upon the feedback (Dobbins et al, 1993). If trust is important
in affecting employee reactions to performance evaluation, it may
therefore be appropriate for researchers and practitioners to identify
factors that result in high levels of trust in the appraisal system.
Other suggestions include providing high procedural justice and
fairness (Greenberg, 1986; Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995);
accurate feedback to employees (Dobbins et al, 1993) and improving
_____________________________________________________________
84
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ performance rating discrepancy between supervisor and subordinate
(Levy et al, 1998).
A more recent study by Bradley and Ashkanasy (2001) assessed not
only perceptions of satisfaction with performance appraisal, which
has already been discussed, but also perceptions of the usefulness
of performance appraisal interview. The results of the study showed
that a large majority of subordinates said they did not find the
performance appraisal interview process particularly useful, while a
small number indicated they thought the process was useful in terms
of having a positive effect on their work behaviour. The results of this
study indicate that performance appraisal may have limited
usefulness for the particular organisations studied. The reasons
being that it may be in this particular study the formal review may not
add anything to employee outcomes, and that a different type of
review or feedback could be considered.
The relative perceived appropriateness of the evaluation criteria is
also considered an important aspect of the performance evaluation
as it may elicit strong reactions. For example, a study by Pettijohn et
al (2001) examined 214 UK salespeople’s perceptions regarding
performance appraisal. The results indicate that not all salespeople
felt they were being evaluated by the ideal set of criteria,
demonstrating that total satisfaction with the evaluative criteria did
not exist. According to the authors these sentiments may also affect
the usefulness of the appraisal in terms of improving sales
behaviours, performance, morale, satisfaction and turnover.
Importantly, one-fifth of the participants indicated they would prefer
that 7 of the 12 criteria in the performance evaluation be changed to
emphasise aspects which they can control or influence. The
conclusion from the study was that sales representatives may
logically be desirous of being appraised by criteria that are within
_____________________________________________________________
85
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ their control and by criteria that are positively related to their future
success.
The above research is similar to previous work from Waldman (1994)
and Cardy et al, (1995) who argue for the benefits of not only
allowing more control to individuals in the work environment but also
assessing employees on aspects of the job that they can control.
This is also important in the present study as it is expected that the
level of timing and method control employees perceive they have will
impact on sentiments of the satisfaction and usefulness of the
performance evaluation. If an employee does not react positively to
the performance appraisal system, there is a reduction in motivation
to change behaviour, a rejection of the usefulness and validity of the
information, and an unwillingness to accept decisions based on
appraisal information (Cawley et al, 1998; Dobbins et al, 1993).
The issue for the current study in the lead up to Hypothesis Two is
that perceptions of control and performance evaluation appear to be
closely linked. Firstly, the control literature says that generally
employees will react positively when they perceive appropriate levels
of control in performing their job with a tendency to higher
performance. Secondly, and similar to the research on control, the
performance evaluation literature indicates that generally employees
are desirous of having their performance assessed on aspects of
their job within their control. If this occurs, employees will generally
be expected to react more positively to performance evaluation. It is
therefore considered appropriate to bring together these two
variables in order to assess the relationship and significance of
control and performance evaluation in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. As employees’ perception of the amount of control they have in performing their job increases, they will react more positively to their performance evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility.
_____________________________________________________________
86
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ As previously mentioned subordinate perceptions of their level of
control over their jobs and work environment has been assessed
quite extensively in the literature. Generally, high levels of perceived
control were found to be positively associated with a variety of
outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, involvement, performance). In
contrast, low levels of perceived control appear associated with
among other things, absenteeism and turnover (Parkes, 1989: 35).
What has been given much less attention is identification of the
similarities and differences in both supervisor perceptions of their
employee’s level of job control and subordinate perceptions of job
control (Delvecchio, 1996; Messmer, 1990) and applying this
framework to situations of employee reactions to performance
evaluation. Since the manager and subordinate arrive at the
performance review with independent assessments of performance,
there is the potential for inconsistency between them (Greller and
Jackson, 1997). In addition Greller and Parsons (1992) argue that
employees will react quite strongly if feedback contradicts information
gathered about employee performance, particularly on aspects not
within the control of the employee. This is considered important in
the present study, as understanding both perspectives of a situation
is important to understanding the subordinates’ behaviour (Balser
and Stern, 1999) and understanding if differences may have a
negative effects on job-related outcomes (Delvecchio, 1996).
By identifying areas where the differences are most pronounced,
organisations can gain a better sense of where employees’
perceptions stand in sharpest contrast to those of their supervisors
(Lester et al, 2002). Thus, comparing each member’s perceptions of
the independent variable and subsequent subordinate behaviours
towards performance evaluation should be revealing. Therefore, if
the research suggests that differences may elicit negative reactions
to work related outcomes (Delvecchio, 1996; Yammarino and
Dubinsky, 1992), it seems reasonable to suggest that achieving as
_____________________________________________________________
87
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ close a match as possible, will elicit positive reactions to work related
outcomes. It is therefore predicted:
Hypothesis 3. The greater the match between the level of job control the employee perceives they have and the level of job control the supervisor perceives their employee has, the more positive the employees’ reactions to performance evaluation. As previously noted an important element of performance evaluation
is the rating of one person by another. This would suggest that
ratings play a large role in how employees react to performance
evaluation. The typical performance evaluation situation involves
supervisors informing subordinates they have performed well or
poorly on aspects of their job and in many instances, providing a
rating to the subordinate (Liden, Ferris and Dienesch, 1988).
Subordinate reactions to the evaluation process are therefore
important not only from a research standpoint but also for practicing
managers in organisational settings. Due to this importance it was
considered appropriate to include reactions to performance
evaluation in the present study.
A second, related dimension on which employees have the potential
to react to performance evaluation is the attributions supervisors
make in relation to subordinate performance (Levy et al, 1998). That
is, giving information concerning the perceived causes of
performance to the subordinate. If employee performance is to be
differently rewarded or punished depending upon a supervisor’s
belief about the cause of that performance (Ashkanasy, 1989; Green
and Mitchell, 1979) it should be important that there be agreement
between supervisor and subordinate about aspects of the
subordinate’s job performance being evaluated. Disagreements over
performance between supervisor and subordinate was a key area of
_____________________________________________________________
88
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ conflict in performance evaluations (Fedor and Rowland, 1989),
specifically whether the cause of the performance was system or
person related.
Given the problems that may arise in the performance evaluation, it
is not surprising the debate continues about the place for
performance evaluation in organisations. Deming (1986)
commenced the debate arguing that the process for determining
performance leads one to believe that variations in performance are
caused by the individual as opposed to the real situation that such
variations are caused by the systems created and controlled by
managers. In the context of performance evaluation, a supervisor
attempts to discern causes of their subordinate’s work performance
and working from the attribution theories developed by Weiner et al
(1972) and Kelley (1972), supervisors attribute causes of
performance to internal (ability and effort) or external (task difficulty
or luck). Based on the specific attribution, the supervisor will then
respond accordingly towards the subordinate. Thus, the inclusion of
causal attributions in the present study provides additional
justification on which to assess subordinate reactions to performance
evaluations. The attribution literature will now be discussed.
2.10 ATTRIBUTIONS
A large body of research has concentrated on how supervisors arrive
at causal interpretations for subordinate performance and how they
may react or behave towards the subordinate as a result of these
causal interpretations. (Ashkanasy, 1989; Blakely, 1993; Green and
Mitchell, 1979; Fedor and Rowland, 1989; Kelley, 1973; Knowlton
and Mitchell, 1980; Martinko and Gardener, 1987; Mitchell, Green
and Wood, 1981; Weiner et al, 1972). In contrast there is less
directed research on how subordinates react to these causal
judgements. For example, DeCarlo, Teas and McElroy (1997) and
_____________________________________________________________
89
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Levy (1993) assessed individual’s performance attributions following
self-appraisal, but not individual’s reactions to supervisor attributions
to performance.
One of the few studies on attributional feedback was conducted by
Bannister (1986), who suggested that attributional differences are
likely between two parties and ‘may be important in an evaluative
appraisal and feedback context’. This statement is based on, what
Bannister (1986:203) refers to as ‘a large body of attribution literature
and research which points to perceptual and motivational differences
between the source (observer) and recipient (actor), which lead to
established differences in attributional responses’. These differences
may interact with the favourableness of the performance feedback to
determine recipient response such as acceptance of and satisfaction
with the feedback. Importantly, whilst attributions are known to affect
leader behaviours towards the subordinate, there is every reason to
believe these attributions will also have the potential to affect how
subordinates respond in the face of these attributions. Due to the
limited research in this area, the current study attempts to extend this
work by focusing on the subordinate reactions to performance
evaluation as a function of attributional feedback.
Firstly, the theoretical background of attributions will be discussed,
followed by two theoretical approaches to attributions which appear
to have contributed significantly to research in causal attributions,
one of which was used in the present study. This will be followed by
empirical evidence in relation to supervisor attributions to subordinate
performance, followed by subordinate reactions to these attributions.
Finally, the hypothesis and conceptual model for the present study
are proposed to bring together the two variables of supervisor
attributions and subordinate reactions to performance evaluation.
_____________________________________________________________
90
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ 2.10.1 Theoretical Background
Attribution theory has had considerable influence on research and
theory within a number of areas of organisational psychology and
include such areas as performance evaluation, employee motivation
and small group performance (Schmidenberg and Cordery, 1988).
One strand of the attribution research is concerned with leaders’
attributions in relation to subordinate performance, which is of
interest for the present study. Two views which have influenced
attribution research – Kelley (1973) and Weiner et al (1972) will now
be discussed. This will be followed by a more recent addition to
attribution models, that proposed by Green and Mitchell (1979).
2.10.2 Models of Attribution
Two major theoretical contributions in the area of causal attributions
were proposed by Kelley (1973) and Weiner et al (1972). Firstly,
Kelley suggests that the primary atttributional task of the leader is to
categorise the causes of member behaviour into three major source
dimensions: ‘person, entity or context’. That is, a leader’s task is to
determine if the productivity of the employee was caused by the
employee (person), by the task (entity) or by some unique set of
circumstances surrounding that particular event (context). These
attributions guide the leader’s responses in the leader-member
interaction (refer to Table 2.8).
_____________________________________________________________
91
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Figure 2.8. Attributional data for leader attributions concerning member behaviour
Source : Kelley (1973: 110)
The second theoretical contribution that is particularly pertinent to the
leader-member interaction describes causal explanations for success
and failure at achievement-related tasks (Weiner et al, 1972). They
propose that individuals utilise four main elements for explaining and
predicting outcomes of achievement-related tasks. The four
elements - ability, effort, task difficulty and luck are seen as
representing two major dimensions: stability and locus of control’
(Weiner et al, 1972) (see Table 2.4). The four main elements are
also seen as explaining and predicting outcomes of achievement-
related tasks.
_____________________________________________________________
92
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Table 2.3. Classification Scheme for the Perceived Determinants of Achievement Behaviour
Source: Weiner et al (1972: 96) The decision to use the four main elements of the Weiner model in
the present study was a result of previous research by Green and
Mitchell (1979). They argued that the above model appears relevant
for leader-member interactions in work organisations where the focus
of behaviours is on the member’s performance. In addition,
researchers tend to focus on the four basic causes of performance:
ability, effort, and luck and task difficulty. These four basic causes of
performance can be categorised as either internal (ability and effort)
or external (luck and task difficulty).
Hewstone (1989) highlights previous research in relation to the
conflicting views about the measurement of internal and external
attributions, and whether they should be viewed as a single-cause
measure or as separate response scales (internal and external).
More recently Martinko (1995) argued that there are numerous
attributional dimensions and to a large extent the relevance depends
on the domain of interest. Therefore, in the present study the domain
of interest is to assess attributions on two dimensions, that of the
internal dimension (ability, effort) and the external dimension (task
difficulty and luck). In addition, as further justification for using a
dual-dimensional approach to attributions, previous literature
(Waldman, 1994; Cardy et al, 1995) has highlighted the importance
of taking into account both internal (person) and external (system)
_____________________________________________________________
93
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ factors when assessing employee performance and in the present
study it was considered important to understand where the
supervisor was directing their attributional responses. The dual-
dimensional nature of attributions is further discussed in Section
2.10.3.
Green and Mitchell (1979) drew on the work of Kelley and Weiner
and developed a model to describe how leaders respond to their
subordinates’ behaviour. The Green and Mitchell model is presented
in Figure 2.9, with parts of the model relevant to the current study
highlighted. The Green and Mitchell model has had a good deal of
empirical support (Ashkanasy, 1997; Ashkanasy and Gallois, 1994;
Mitchell, Green and Wood, 1981). Green and Mitchell proposed that
in the first stage, performance by subordinates leads to formation of
attributions by their leader. Leaders may attribute subordinate
performance to internal causes like ability and effort, or to external
causes like luck and task difficulty. In the second stage, these
attributions produce different leader behaviours toward a
subordinate.
_____________________________________________________________
94
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Figure 2.9. Basic Attributional Model.
Source: Green and Mitchell (1979: 450).
The present study focuses on the attributions
supervisor attributes the causes of the perfor
externally to the subordinate. In addition, the
the model by assessing how these attribution
subordinate reactions to performance evalua
2.10.3 Dimensions of Attributions
As previously noted, one of the issues in attr
aspect of uni-dimensionality versus multi-dim
of attributional style has been discussed for s
Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale, 1978) an
(1990) who proposed two types of attribution
proposed by Weiner (1972). That is, that attr
________________________________________
95
and whether the
mance internally or
current study extends
s may influence
tion.
ibution research is the
ensionality. The concept
ometime (e.g.
d later by Seligman
al style, similar to that
ibutional style can be
_____________________
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ explained by the optimistic explanatory style (OES) and the
pessimistic explanatory style (PES). People who are characterised
by an OES usually attribute failures to external, unstable and specific
causes and successes to internal, stable and global causes. In
contrast, people who have a PES style often attribute bad events to
internal, stable and global factors and good events to external,
unstable and specific causes. Global causes signify a perception by
the individual that the causes occur in a broad range of situation.
Therefore, in this example, attributional style is considered to be a
single bi-polar dimension.
More recent research brings into question the concept of a bi-polar
scale. For example, Xenikou, Furham and McCarrey (1997) suggest
that if a manager attributes poor performance to internal causes they
will not necessarily attribute good performance to external causes.
The authors undertook to test these concepts with 189 insurance
sales staff of a British financial organisation. Participants consisted
of 34 females and 155 males, ranging in aged from 22 to 53 years of
age. Justification for selecting a sample from this occupational group
was that as sales staff repeatedly encounter failure, rejection and
indifference from prospective clients, this group would be particularly
suitable for investigating attributional style. They found a lack of
significant intercorrelations between the scales for positive (internal)
events and the scales for negative (external) events. The findings
suggest that ‘attributional styles for positive and negative events
should be considered as separate variables…and that high scores on
the scales for positive events are not related to low scores on scales
for negative events’ (Xenikou et al,1997: 61). These findings,
according to the authors, are ‘in contrast with Seligman’s (1990)
definition of attributional style in which he suggests that a person who
attributes success to internal, stable and global factors will also
attribute failures to external, unstable and specific causes’. This
suggests that internal and external attributions should be considered
_____________________________________________________________
96
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ as two dimensions, and therefore, additional justification for using a
dual-dimensional attribution scale in the present study.
2.10.4 Work Locus of Control
According to Furnham, Brewin and O’Kelly (1994) another measure
of cognitive style related to attributional style is locus of control. In an
organisational setting, Spector (1988) developed the work locus of
control scale (WLOC). It was specifically concerned with the work
domain to measure the expectancy that rewards, reinforcements or
outcomes in organisational settings are controlled either by one’s
own actions (internality) or by other forces (externality). According to
Spector (1988: 335) ‘internals could be expected to be more satisfied
with their jobs than externals, see their supervisors as higher on
consideration and initiating structure, report less role stress,
perceived more autonomy and control and enjoy longer job tenure’.
In the development of WLOC, Spector (1988) did not report a factor
analysis and treated the measure as uni-dimensional. Later, Spector
(1992) found a two-factor structure – internality and externality and
encouraged further studies to explore the possibility that the internal
and external items reflect different constructs.
Later, Macan, Trusty and Trimble (1996) undertook to examine,
among other things, the factor structure of WLOC. The evidence
suggests that WLOC consists of two factors: Internal and External.
That is, their findings ‘support the dual-dimensional view of WLOC
and that it be conceptualised as two dimensions, internal and
external, making it possible for individuals to be high (or low) on both
internal and external control’. They therefore suggest computing
separate subscales, given the multi-dimensionality of the measure
(Macan et al, 1996: 353).
_____________________________________________________________
97
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ As a result of the aforementioned recent research, the present study
focused on the attributions of effort, ability, task difficulty and luck
(Weiner et al 1972). However, these attributions were tested on two
dimensions, internal (effort and ability) and external (luck and task
difficulty). In addition, as previously mentioned in the ‘Control’
section, work locus of control has been used as a control variable,
based on previous research (Greenberger et al, 1989). Therefore,
based on the research, work locus of control has also been
computed as separate sub-scales – internal and external.
In summary, the present study will examine the attributions
supervisors make about subordinate performance in terms of
whether the attribution is internal dimension (ability, effort) or the
external (task difficulty and luck), which is further discussed below.
The present study will also examine the reactions subordinates have
based on these attributions. Subordinate reactions will follow the
discussion on supervisor attributions to subordinate performance.
2.10.5 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance
A variety of literature has concentrated on how supervisors arrive at
causal interpretations for subordinates’ performance and as a result
of these causal interpretations, supervisors will react or behave in a
certain way towards their subordinates. That is, a leader’s response
to a subordinate’s performance will depend on whether the
performance or behaviour is attributed to ability, effort, task difficulty
or luck.
The behaviour of the supervisor has been most evident in relation to
the dispensation of organisational rewards and sanctions (Rosenthal,
1996), which is usually undertaken in the feedback process of the
performance evaluation. Supervisor behaviour is important in the
present study, as the types of supervisor responses (negative or
_____________________________________________________________
98
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ positive) have the potential to affect the way the subordinate reacts
or responds, not only towards the supervisor but, in the present
study, towards the performance evaluation itself. The reaction or
response by the subordinate, according to Bannister (1986) may be
more pronounced when there is disagreement about performance
level.
Types of supervisor responses identified by researchers demonstrate
that attributions for work performance are related to – higher
evaluations when performance was high and attributed to effort
(Knowlton and Mitchell, 1980); more rewards when success is seen
as accompanied by effort (Mitchell et al, 1981); more punitive
responses (e.g. reprimands) for poor performance attributed to effort
(Green and Liden, 1980); while ability attributions to poor
performance might result in the offer of more training (Mitchell et al,
1981). Additionally, ‘when the outcome of performance failure is
serious, the supervisor is more likely to make internal attributions and
utilise personal punitive responses than when the outcome is not
serious’ (Mitchell et al, 1981: 228). In addition, rewards were
withheld from employees whose success was attributed to external
causes such as luck or the ease of their assigned tasks (Rosenthal,
1996). Fedor and Rowland (1989) also add that supervisors are
more likely to blame subordinates for poor performance because
attributions to the environment (external) can suggest, among other
things, inappropriate supervision.
A study of 188 supervisors was undertaken by Heneman,
Greenberger and Anonyuo (1989). The study assessed the
relationship between supervisor attributions to subordinate
performance, leader-member exchange and critical performance
incidents. The results indicated that supervisors make internal
attributions to subordinate performance depending on their
relationship with the subordinate. Internal attributions were
_____________________________________________________________
99
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ significantly higher for in-group members than out-group members
when performance was considered successful, while out-group
members received internal attributions for poor performance. There
was also a non-significant result in relation to external attributions to
performance, suggesting that there is less consistency in assigned
external attributions. Finally, Moss and Martinko (1998) say the type
of feedback response provided by leaders will be affected by the
degree to which the leader perceives the subordinate to be
personally responsible for his or her performance. For the most part,
subordinates are generally seen as being responsible for their
performance, even though research suggests otherwise (Deming,
1986; Cardy et al, 1995). Therefore, in the present study further
consideration will be given to the attributions supervisors make in
relation to their subordinate’s performance.
While a considerable amount of research has considered the leader
behaviour/reactions following causal attributions, limited research
has been conducted which demonstrates how supervisor attributions
to subordinate performance may affect the subordinate attitudes and
response. As previously noted in the Literature Review, employee
reactions to performance evaluation are seen as important
determinants of the success and effectiveness of a performance
management system. Thus the primary focus of the present study in
relation to attributions is to consider the relationship between
supervisor attributions and subordinate reactions to performance
evaluation. Some types of subordinate reactions in relation to
attributions are now outlined.
2.10.6 Subordinate Reactions to Supervisor Attributions
Supervisor feedback to the subordinate is important as it provides
information from which subordinates can make inferences about the
causes of their level of performance. Appraising performance and
_____________________________________________________________
100
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ providing feedback to subordinates is regarded as an important, if not
essential, managerial activity. Performance attributions (effort,
ability, luck or task difficulty) made by the supervisor in relation to
subordinate performance have been shown to affect how
subordinates react to feedback that contains causal information
(Bannister, 1986; Blakely, 1993; Ferris 1994; Levy et al, 1998; Liden
and Mitchell, 1985; Liden, Ferris and Dienesch, 1988; Fedor and
Rowland, 1989).
While there is support for the proposition that positive feedback is
more accurately recalled and accepted than negative feedback, the
feedback should extend to a discussion about the causes of
performance (Bannister, 1986), as a potential influence on
subordinate reactions is the supervisor’s attributed locus of cause,
either internal or external for performance. One would expect that if
both the supervisor and subordinate agreed not only on the rating but
also on the causes of performance, the evaluation process would not
present any problems. However, in reality this is unlikely and there is
the potential for employees to react in different ways towards the
system, the supervisor and even the organisation.
In two studies, Levy et al (1998) examined how performance rating
discrepancies and attributional discrepancies between subordinates
and supervisors impact on subordinates’ reactions. They expected
that positive reactions from individuals would be higher when positive
feedback was provided and a more internal attribution was made to
performance. In addition, they also expected negative reactions from
those given feedback that was worse than expected and internal
attributions by the supervisor.
The first study was a laboratory study which comprised 114
undergraduate psychology students. Individuals were asked to
evaluate their own performance and to make attributions (effort,
_____________________________________________________________
101
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ ability, luck and task difficulty) for their performance. They were then
given feedback (including attributions) on their own performance.
Findings indicated that individuals reacted more positively to internal
attributions than to external attributions, in relation to feedback and
the performance appraisal system. In the second study, research
was extended to a field study. Participants were from a large
manufacturing company and comprised 61 supervisor-subordinate
dyads. The study took an internal attribution focus due to the
findings in Experiment 1. Effort and ability were combined to form
one internal dimension. Subordinates were requested to complete a
self-appraisal, supervisors were requested to complete the same
form regarding their subordinate’s overall performance and then the
subordinate and supervisor met for the performance review. Soon
after this review, subordinates were requested to identify how much
they agreed with their supervisor regarding the causal attributions for
their performance. The subordinates were also asked to provide
reaction to the appraisal feedback, source and system.
The findings from the second study indicated that participants whose
performance was appraised as better than their own self-appraisal
reacted more positively to feedback and the performance evaluation
system than those whose appraisal was worse than their self-
appraisal. This indicated that the rating ‘colors how individuals view
and accept feedback and view the entire system’ (Levy et al, 1998:
445). The other major finding was that participants who received an
internal attribution to performance responded more positively to the
appraisal system than did those who received an external attribution
or those who attributions matched the supervisors’ attributions.
However, attributional discrepancy did not interact with performance
discrepancy indicating that participants liked being told that internal
factors were responsible for their performance, regardless of whether
that performance was positively evaluated. Levy et al (1998)
suggested explanations for these findings relate to control. That is,
_____________________________________________________________
102
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ individuals made more internal attributions for their own performance
due to the need to view themselves as experiencing effective control.
In addition, there is theoretical work to indicate that individuals prefer
controllable situations. Levy et al have referred this explanation to
Wiener’s (1972) attributed causes of behaviour being controllable
(e.g. effort) or uncontrollable (e.g. task difficulty). It follows then that
these controllable situations should be preferred over uncontrollable
ones’ (Levy et al, 1998: 446) and this has been demonstrated in the
previous section relating to Subjective Control.
Liden and Mitchell (1985) assessed reactions to negative feedback in
an experimental simulation on 165 undergraduate students. They
expected that reactions to feedback would vary depending on
whether the attribution to poor performance was either internal (effort
and ability) or external (luck and task difficulty). In addition they said
that those who received information suggesting internal causes for
poor performance are more likely to blame themselves than are
those who receive feedback suggesting external causes. As
predicted, subjects rated feedback on their poor performance that
suggested external causes, more positively than they rated specific
feedback suggesting internal causes. There were a number of
limitations with this study, such as the generalisability to an
organisational setting and the feedback provided came from only one
source. However, within the limits of the study, Liden and Mitchell
(1985) found, among other things, that subjects did rate feedback
that suggested external causes more positively, when performance
rating was negative, than they rated specific feedback suggesting
internal causes, even though all feedback in this study was negative.
While previous research indicates that individuals are more likely to
react more favourably to positive feedback than negative feedback
(Ilgen et al, 1979; Levy et al, 1998), the results indicated that
individuals can react more positively to negative feedback
_____________________________________________________________
103
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ attributable to external causes than to a consistent pattern of failure
(Liden and Mitchell (1985).
Similarly, Liden et al (1988) examined the effects of causal feedback
on work outcomes, where 320 undergraduate students undertook a
task as part of a research requirement for an introductory
management course. The task was assessed by professors, who
were required to attribute the performance on the task to four causes
(ability, effort, exam difficulty or luck). Findings suggest that
subordinates seemed to be most satisfied and perceived the
appraisal session as most fair and accurate when feedback dealing
with internal causes (ability, effort) was given for success.
Attributions to luck (external), regardless of performance level,
resulted in lower perceptions of appraisal fairness and accuracy.
In summary, research has identified the potential for employees to
exhibit both positive and negative reactions to the feedback provided
by the supervisors as a result of the attributions the supervisor
makes in relation to the performance of their subordinate. These
reactions may result from a variety of factors such as the ability of the
subordinate, the effort applied by the subordinate, the ease or
difficulty of the task or the luck the employee encounters in
performing their job. Thus, not only do causal attributions lead to
certain leader behaviours towards a subordinate (as proposed by the
Green and Mitchell model), it seems that a leader’s attribution to
subordinate performance has the potential to result in subsequent
subordinate behaviours. If supervisors are required to make the
system work through effective employee performance, they must
make appropriate evaluations and attributions of their employee’s
performance in order to elicit positive reactions.
Therefore, the present study expects that when supervisors believe
their subordinate has succeeded in performing their job and
_____________________________________________________________
104
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ supervisors have made an internal attribution to performance. it is
expected that the subordinate will react positively to their
performance evaluation. Therefore the final hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 4: When the supervisor makes an internal attribution to subordinate performance, the higher (more positive) will be the subordinate reaction to performance evaluation when the subordinate receives a satisfactory or higher assessment of their performance.
This hypothesis is conceptualised in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.10. A Model of the Effects of Supervisor Attributions on Subordinate Reactions to Performance Evaluation.
Positive subordinate reactions to performance evaluation
Supervisor Internal
Attribution To Subordinate
Performance
Supervisor
Evaluation of Subordinate Performance
_____________________________________________________________
105
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ 2.11 CONCLUSION The present study was undertaken for a number of reasons. The
study aimed to explore the concept of subjective control and the
variety of definitions falling under this sub-stream of control.
Particularly, the area of interest related to the perceptions individuals
hold about their levels of timing and method control. The research
presented in this Literature Review indicates that generally
individuals are desirous of control and that perceptions of control are
important aspects of an individual’s active orientation to his or her
work role. The limited research available also indicates that there
are differences between the perceptions of control a supervisor
believes their employees has in performing their job and the
perceptions of control an employee perceives they have in
performing their job (Harley, 1999; Delvecchio, 1996; Messmer,
1990). Assessing these differences in perceptions forms the first
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between supervisor perceptions of subordinate levels of job control and subordinate perceptions of their own level of job control.
In the present study it was determined that a specific reaction would
be investigated. The reaction identified was that of subordinate
reaction to performance evaluation. As previously identified, the
literature presented indicates that generally individuals will exhibit a
variety of positive outcomes or reactions, such as job satisfaction,
motivation and improved performance, if they perceive appropriate
levels of control in performing their job. Pettijohn et al (2001) argued
that employees are desirous of being appraised by criteria that are
within their control and by criteria that are positively related to their
future success. It seems reasonable then to propose a link between
control and performance, that when employees’ perception of control
_____________________________________________________________
106
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ increases there will be a corresponding positive reaction. In the
present study this positive reaction was to performance evaluation.
Thus hypothesis two is:
Hypothesis 2. As employees’ perception of the amount of control they have in performing their job increases, they will react more positively to their performance evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility.
There should be regular interaction between a subordinate and their
supervisor in the employment relationship, therefore, the supervisor
ought to be expected to be aware of the level of control their
subordinate has in performing their job. However according to
Greller and Jackson (1997) the manager and subordinate arrive at
the performance review with independent assessments of
performance, with the potential for inconsistency between them. This
inconsistency may produce a variety of reactions, particularly on the
part of the subordinate. Therefore, it seems reasonable then to
expect that when there is less inconsistency or incongruency, there is
the potential for positive reactions. Knowing the comparative
similarity or dissimilarity in these two perceptions may provide
additional information about a subordinate’s attitudes and reactions
to performance evaluation and adding insight into the processes that
affect job outcomes and organisational initiatives. Thus, Hypothesis
Three proposes:
Hypothesis 3. The greater the match between the level of job control the employee perceives they have and the level of job control the supervisor perceives their employee has, the more positive the employees’ reactions to performance evaluation.
_____________________________________________________________
107
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ Finally, a second, related dimension on which subordinates and
supervisors are likely to disagree is the attribution(s) supervisors
make in relation to subordinate performance. Previous research has
indicated that the attributions (effort, ability, task difficulty or luck) a
supervisor makes about the causes of a subordinate’s performance
are tied to the evaluation they make about their subordinate’s
performance. Research has shown how supervisors respond to
observed levels of subordinate performance (Mitchell & O’Reilly,
1982 in Fedor & Rowland, 1989) and subordinates react to feedback
that contains causal information (Bannister, 1986; Levy et al, 1998;
Liden & Mitchell, 1985). Importantly, the literature seems to suggest
that supervisors will generally make internal attributions to successful
performance and that this will result in positive feedback to the
subordinate. The present study proposes to take this one step
further to posit that there will also be positive reactions by the
subordinate as a result of a particular attribution and performance
evaluation rating. This then forms the final Hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: When the supervisor makes an internal attribution to subordinate performance the higher (more positive) will be the reaction to performance evaluation when the subordinate receives a satisfactory or higher (positive) assessment of performance,
Understanding the difference between employees’ perceptions of
their control levels and their supervisor’s perceptions of the
subordinate’s levels of control, the attributions supervisors make in
relation to their subordinate’s performance and the effects on
performance evaluation are important. They are important for
theoretical reasons, to understand and explain any apparent
relationships between the concepts. They are also important for
practical reasons in order for management to initiate a variety of
_____________________________________________________________
108
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ actions or make certain decisions (e.g. job redesign, performance
management system redesign, improved training for managers).
These four hypotheses are conceptualised in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11. Conceptual framework H2
Ch
us
Th
pro
Tw
va
ide
of
to
___
Subordinate Perceptions of their level of job control
H1 H3
H4
Supervisor Perceptions of their subordinate’s level of job control
Supervisor attributions to subordinate performance
Reactions to
Performance
Evaluation
(satisfaction
and utility)
Supervisor evaluation of subordinate performance
apter Three will outline the design and rationale of the methods
ed to collect data to answer the hypotheses posed. Chapter
ree is intended to complement and build on Chapter One, which
vided a background and a summary of the thesis and Chapter
o, which consisted of an extensive literature review of the
riables under consideration. A wide range of literature was
ntified in relation to Subjective Control, and highlighted a number
definitions under this sub-stream of Control. The literature related
studies in both laboratory and organisational settings, and the
__________________________________________________________
109
Chapter Two: Literature Review ____________________________________________________________ responses that may result in relation to these levels of control.
Performance evaluation and the types of reactions that may inhibit or
enhance these types of organisational initiatives were also
considered. Finally the attributions that supervisors make in relation
to the causes of subordinate performance and the types of reactions
that subordinates may exhibit as a result of these attributions were
discussed.
_____________________________________________________________
110
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction Chapter Three addresses the design and measurement issues and
methods of data collection as they relate to the present study.
Firstly, a discussion on the pre-test of the instrument will be
undertaken. This will be followed by an outline of the sampling
strategy. Demographic information will be provided, followed by
detailed information on the measures used to collect the data. Data
collection methods are outlined concluding with a statement in
relation to response rates.
3.2 Pre-Test
Firstly, a pre-test study was undertaken before the actual study in
order to determine feasibility and to ensure all questions posed were
understood by potential respondents. By undertaking a pre-test it
was determined that there were no problems with the wording or
measurement (Sekaran, 2000:248). Occupational groups identified
for the pre-test were one Nurse Manager and the manager’s
subordinate (admin assistant), a HR Manager and the manager’s
subordinate (health and safety officer) and a Senior Manager and the
manager’s subordinate (personal assistant).
Participants were either emailed or verbally asked if they would like
to participate in the pre-test. All agreed to participate and were then
provided with the relevant instruments to complete. No other
instructions were given to the participants except a request for
feedback on their general reactions to the questionnaire, including a
request to highlight any problems they may have had in completing it,
how they felt about completing the instrument and the approximate
length of time to complete. Feedback from the pre-test indicated no
_______________________________________________________ 111
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
problems in understanding questions. All participants indicated they
were comfortable in answering all the questions and the instruments
took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
3.3 Sampling Strategy
The study takes a comprehensive approach to the assessment of the
perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of various levels of nursing and
allied health-care staff in a large Queensland health care
organisation. In the health care organisation, the sample comprised
dyads of senior supervisory and subordinate nursing allied health-
care staff. Data was collected from two groups.
In Group One, supervisors were selected as the person with overall
responsibility for the care unit. The ‘subordinate’ was a Registered
Nurse systematically selected from a staff listing. To achieve a
systematic approach every third Registered Nurse on the staff listing
was selected. Another critereon for selection was that the
‘subordinate’ in both groups must have undergone a performance
evaluation in the last 12-18 months. Therefore, if the third person on
the staff listing was known not to have undergone a performance
evaluation, the next person on the staff listing was selected.
In Group Two, the next Registered Nurse (not being the same as in
Group one) on the staff listing was selected to complete the
‘supervisor’ survey. This person was selected on the basis as the
person responsible for evaluating the performance of either an
Assistant Nurse or Personal Carer. Once again the ‘subordinate’
(Assistant Nurse or Personal Carer) was systematically selected from
the staff listing. That person was the third person on that listing or
closest to the third person as having undergone a performance
evaluation in the last 12-18 months.
_______________________________________________________ 112
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
3.4 Sample
Twenty-seven (27) males and one hundred and seventeen (117)
females from the health care sector voluntarily participated. All
participants were aged between 24 and 66 years of age (mean age =
44.9 years). The matched pairs of supervisors and subordinates
totalled 45. The mean age of supervisors was 43.8 years and
ranged between 28 and 66 years of age. The mean age for
subordinates was 45.5 and ranged between 24 and 60 years of age.
The total number of supervisor responses totalled 70 or 48.6% while
the number of subordinate responses totalled 74 or 51.4%.
Other sample data collected included number of years worked for
the organisation, which ranged from 1 year to 29 years with the mean
being 6.21 years. Average hours worked each week ranged from 10
hours to 50 hours with the mean being 30.73 hours per week.
Job titles included a variety of levels of nursing staff and allied health
staff. Titles of participants and frequencies are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Frequency Table by Job Title Current Position Frequency Percent Director of Nursing 15 10.4
Nurse Manager 23 16.0
Registered Nurse 50 34.7
Enrolled Nurse 8 5.6
Assistant Nurse 7 4.9
Personal Carer 33 22.9
Allied Health 8 5.6
TOTAL 144 100.0
_______________________________________________________ 113
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
The remaining sample data is detailed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Frequency Table by Employment Status and Education Levels
Item Frequency Percent Employment Status - Full time 63 43.8 - Part time 75 52.0 -Casual 6 4.2 TOTAL 144 100.0 Education Levels -Year 10 16 11.1 - Year 12 9 6.3 - Certificate III and IV 36 25.4 - Diploma 14 9.7 - Degree 41 28.5 - Other 26 18.1 TOTAL 144 100.0 3.5 Testing Instruments
Two questionnaires were administered – one for the supervisor (refer
to Appendix 2) and one for the subordinate (refer to Appendix 3).
Firstly, factors common to both instruments, will be discussed,
followed by a discussion on the subordinate scales, and finally
supervisor scales will be discussed.
_______________________________________________________ 114
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
3.5.1 Factors common to both instruments
3.5.1.1 Work Locus of Control (WLOC)
WLOC was used as a control variable as previous studies
(Greenberger et al, 1986; 1989) suggest that WLOC is different to
perceptions of control – the former being a relatively stable
propensity while the latter may be subject to fluctuations and may
therefore vary according to the situation. As a result some confusion
appears to exist in the literature concerning the differences between
the two. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate empirically the
distinctions between timing and method control and WLOC. Where
appropriate WLOC has been statistically controlled for in testing the
relevant hypotheses.
Spector’s (1988) 16-item, 5 point Likert-type scale was used to
measure work locus of control ranging from 1 (disagree very much)
to 6 (agree very much). The scale is designed to balance equal
numbers of internally and externally worded items. Later work by
Spector (1992) and Macan and Trusty (1996) suggests that the
WLOC scale consists of two factors: Internal and External. Therefore
separate subscales were computed to take account of the
multidimensionality of the measure. Example questions include ‘a
job is what you make of it; most people are capable of doing their
jobs well if they make effort; getting the job you want is mostly a
matter of luck; promotions are usually a matter of good fortune;
promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job’.
Co-efficient alphas for internal and external dimensions ranged from
.72 to .87 for both dimensions (Macan and Trusty, 1996).
_______________________________________________________ 115
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
3.5.1.2 Demographic Data
Both the supervisor and subordinate questionnaires contained the
same questions in relation to demographic information. General
demographic measures included current position, average number of
hours worked each week, employment status (full time, part time or
casual), age, gender, level of education and number of years worked
for the organisation. These were tapped by direct single questions.
All other variables are discussed below.
3.5.2 Subordinate Instrument
3.5.2.1 Assessment of Subordinate Perceptions of Level of Job
Control
Timing and method control are two sub-scales that were used in this
study to measure perceptions of control and were previously
developed by Wall et al (1990); Jackson et al, (1993) and Wall et al
(1995). Three other subscales - monitoring demand, problem-solving
demand and production responsibility from Wall et al (1995) were not
included in the present study. The five scales are considered to be
distinct from one another and can be used separately or together.
The three subscales not included were not considered relevant to the
present study, as the questions related more closely to production
tasks rather than the nursing/care tasks/support services tasks. In
addition the three sub-scales not used related to demand, which is
not the focus of the present study.
In assessing perceptions of control, individuals were invited to record
the strength of their beliefs on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (a great deal). Timing control refers to’ the individual’s
opportunity to determine the scheduling of their work ‘and method
control assesses the ‘extent to which an individual has choices in
_______________________________________________________ 116
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
how to carry out work tasks’ (Wall et al, 1995: 432). The first four
items measured timing control. An example item from timing control
is ‘to what extent do you decide the order in which you do things’.
Cronbach’s alpha for timing control was .86 (Wall et al, 1995).
The remaining six items measured method control, an example being
‘to what extent can you choose the methods used in carrying out
your work’. The words ‘piece of work’ in the original instrument on
questions 2 and 3 were replaced with ‘particular task’ to better reflect
the nature of the work of the participants. Cronbach’s alpha for
method control was .76 (Wall et al, 1995).
3.5.2.2 Reactions to Performance Evaluation
Reactions to performance evaluation were measured on the extent to
which employees will be satisfied with the performance evaluation/
system and how they perceive the utility of the performance
evaluation/system. The variables of satisfaction and utility are
measured and adapted from well established protocols (Dipboye and
de Pontbriand, 1981; Dobbins, Cardy and Platz-Vieno, 1990; Landy,
Barnes and Murphy, 1978).
A 6 point Likert scale to measure both satisfaction and utility was
used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly disagree).
Satisfaction and utility are discussed in detail below.
3.5.2.2.1 Satisfaction
Satisfaction was measured using 9 items on a one to six Likert scale.
Examples of the items being: ‘considering the skill and effort I put into
my work, I am satisfied with my performance evaluation’.
Amendments to the scale included the removal of two questions that
were negatively worded, as it may have confused participants. In
_______________________________________________________ 117
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
addition, the word appraisal was substituted for evaluation, to better
reflect the terminology used in the subject organisation. Coefficient
alpha for satisfaction was .91 (Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981) and
subsequent research by Dobbins et al, (1990) of .95.
3.5.2.2.2 Utility
Utility of the performance evaluation was measured using four
questions, on a one to six Likert scale. An example item being: ‘the
evaluation helped me recognise my strengths and weaknesses’.
Coefficient alpha for perceived utility was .71 (Dobbins et al, 1990).
3.5.3 Supervisor Instrument
3.5.3.1 Assessment of Supervisor Perceptions of Subordinate’s
Level of Job Control
Timing and method control were the two sub-scales used to assess
supervisor perceptions of their employee’s level of control. The
same items for timing and method control were used as for the
subordinates. Timing control consisted of 4 items and method
control consisted of 6 items. However, the items were reworded to
capture supervisor perceptions of employee’s level of job control. An
example item being : ‘to what extent does your employee choose the
methods used in carrying out their work’.
3.5.3.2 Assessment of Staff Member’s performance
Supervisors were asked to rate their employee’s performance on a
scale of 1-7 with 1 being ‘one of the worst’ to 7 being ‘one of the
best’. This comparison scale was adapted from Rudman (1995) and
asked supervisors to rate their staff member’s overall performance in
comparison to other staff members doing the same job.
_______________________________________________________ 118
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
3.5.3.3 Supervisor Attributions to Subordinate Performance
After assessing the staff member’s performance, the supervisor was
asked what accounted for their staff member’s performance. The
four variables : attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty and luck
were assessed using measures derived from scales developed by
Weiner et al, (1972). As previously discussed ability and effort are
internal attributions, while luck and task difficulty are external
attributions. Therefore, ability and effort were measured together as
one internal dimension and luck and task difficulty were measured
together as one external dimension. After asking the supervisor to
provide an assessment of their staff member’s performance,
supevisors were asked what contributed to their staff member’s
performance. That is, whether it was - ‘the ability of the staff
member; the effort the staff member puts into their job; the amount of
luck; the difficulty of the tasks’. Internal and external attributions were
measured using a five point scale ranging from 1 being ‘rarely’ and 5
being ‘very much’.
3.6 Data Collection Method In this cross-sectional field study, data on the variables were
collected from employees in a large health care organisation in
Queensland. Mail questionnaires were sent to 300 participants
between 1 February and July 2002. As the participants were located
in geographically dispersed areas throughout Queensland, mailed
questionnaires were considered appropriate for this study. The
questions were structured and put into a five-page format (refer to
Appendices 2 and 3). An Information Sheet (refer to Appendix 1)
was attached to the questionnaire providing information on the study,
how the participant was selected, the voluntary nature of participation
and assurances of confidentiality in relation to the responses. In
addition, the Information Sheet also contained contact names and
numbers of the researcher and the supervisor to allow respondents _______________________________________________________ 119
Chapter Three : Methodology _______________________________________________________
the opportunity to clarify any doubts (Sekaran, 2000). Reply paid
QUT envelopes were also included in the package to assist in
maximising the return rate. Questionnaires were coded and
participants who had not responded were sent a follow-up letter
requesting that they return the completed questionnaire by a certain
date.
3.6.1 Response Rate
Two further attempts to improve the response rate of the matched
pairs was undertaken in August and December 2002. An additional
forty (40) surveys were sent to potential respondents This resulted
in an additional fifteen (15) matched pair surveys being returned,
resulting in a total of 45 matched pairs as identified at the beginning
of this chapter. The level of response is further discussed in Chapter
5 under Limitations.
3.7 Summary
In summary the data collection method and different primary sources
of data have been identified as well as the reasons for these choices.
A large health care organisation was the target population for this
study. Occupational groups of nursing and and allied health-care
staff were identified as the target sample. Scales with suitable
psychometric properties were identified which have been linked to
the variables under consideration.
Reports on findings and the actual data analysis follow in the next
chapter.
_______________________________________________________ 120
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS 4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter outlined the development and administration
of a mailed questionnaire to participants. The questionnaire was
designed to capture data that would allow the researcher to answer
the hypotheses posed in Chapter 1. The goal of the analyses in
this chapter was to test the strength of the relationship between the
variables and present the results of the data analysis, regarding
perceptions of control, attributions and reactions to performance
evaluation. Analysis of data to test the four hypotheses presented
was undertaken using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) Version 10.
The first section (Section 4.2) provides descriptive statistics with the
alpha coefficients of all the variables in the study, intercorrelations
and factor analyses. The next section (Section 4.3) presents the
results of the hypothesis tests. The statistical tests performed for
each hypothesis are described followed by an examination of the
data.
121_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
SECTION 4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the variables are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations and Cronbach Alpha Coefficients Variable
Mean
SD
Alpha
N = 144 (Total Sample) Timing control 3.87 .95 .91 Method control 3.80 .74 .85 Satisfaction of PE 5.07 .86 .94 Utility of PE 4.57 1.03 .87 WLOC – Internal 4.71 .71 .84 WLOC – External 2.24 .96 .80 N = 73 (Subordinate)
Timing control 3.82 1.05 .93 Method control 3.73 .78 .85 Satisfaction of PE 5.08 .92 .96 Utility of PE 4.67 1.06 .86 WLOC – Internal 4.69 .82 .84 WLOC – External 2.41 1.04 .83 N = 70 (Supervisor) Timing control 3.97 .79 .87 Method control 3.92 .66 .85 Assessment of employee performance 5.36 1.22 ---- Attribution - Internal 4.35 1.23 .62 - External 2.36 1.77 .53 WLOC – Internal 4.71 .60 .84 WLOC – External 2.06 .83 .74 Satisfaction of PE for employee 5.07 .81 .92 Utility of PE for employee 4.48 1.15 .88 4.2.1 Intercorrelations The intercorrelations between all variables are shown in Table 4.2.
The table presents total sample correlations first, followed by
supervisor and then subordinate correlations.
122_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results
Table 4.2. Intercorrelations between variables
* p < .05. ** p < .01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Total Sample 1. Timing Control 1.00
2. Method Control .733** 1.00
3. Internal WLOC .207* .252** 1.00
4. External WLOC -.041 -.119 -.293** 1.00
5. Satisfaction of PE .218** .334** .316** .151 1.00
6. Utility of PE .258** .340** .526** -144** .504** 1.00
Supervisor 7. Timing control
.911** .685** .078 .123 .122 -.009 1.00
8. Method control .664** .997** .258 -.040 .168 .104 .681** 1.00
9. Overall assessment .217 .350** .030 -.169 .478** .089 .217 .350 1.00
10. Internal attribution .307** .319** .087 -.056 .247** .058 .335** .335** .506** 1.00
11. External attribution .085 .061 .078 .387** .093 .242** .062 .051 -.024 .033 1.00
12. Internal WLOC .108 .250* 1.00 -.065 .179 .422** .125 .214 .034 .070 .098 1.00
13. External WLOC .102 -.058 -.065 1.00** -.007 -.057 .137 -.040 -.167 -.074 -406** -.065 1.00
14. Satisfaction of PE .095 .184 .200 .026 1.00** .407** .095 .184 .507** .331** .114 .200* .026 1.00
15. Utility of PE .003 .117 .444** -.029 .407** 1.00** .003 .117 .119 .067 .218 .444** -.029 .407** 1.00
Subordinate 16. Timing control 1.00** .766** .249* -.124 .300** .448** .404* .397** .039 .302 .136 .109 -.043 .322* .551** 1.00
17. Method control .766** 1.00** .250* -.134 .450** .542** .242 .368** .164 .165 -.050 .116 -.198 .438** .610** .766** 1.00
18. Internal WLOC .258* .252* 1.00** -.419** .405** .612** -.176 -.110 .123 .169 -.138 -.048 -.294 .374* .544** .258* .252** 1.00
19. External WLOC -.100 -.130 -.417** 1.00** -.239* -.237* .108 -.084 -.237 -.032 .170 -.117 .065 -.192 -.153 -.103 -.132 -.419** 1.00
20. Satisfaction of PE .295** .449** .397** -.261* 1.00** .582** .184 .180 .317* .420** -.103 -.084 -.343* .994** .575** .295* .449** .404** -.251 1.00
21. Utility of PE .440** .536** .604** -.251* .574** 1.00** -.014 .003 .064 .128 -.235 .100 -.315* .541** .986** .440** .536** .610** .244* .575** 1.00
123
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
4.2.2 Factor Analyses The 4 attribution items, 15 reactions to performance evaluation
items and 16 work locus of control items were factor analysed
separately to clarify and refine the hypothesised constructs. Each
analysis used the principal components extraction technique, with
orthogonal rotation of factors having eigen values of 1.0 or greater
to a Varimax solution. These factor analyses were performed on
supervisor and subordinate data, except for the attribution scales,
which was only provided by supervisors. Tables 4.3 - 4.5 presents
loadings of variables on these factors. Factor loadings less than
.40 have been removed.
Table 4.3 Factor Loading for Attribution Items based on Supervisor Perceptions.
Factor 1 2
Internal Attribution Items
Ability contributes to overall assessment of performance .84
Effort contributes to overall assessment of performance .84
External Attribution Items
Luck contributes to overall assessment of performance .81
Task difficulty contributes to overall assessment of performance
.82
The factor analysis demonstrates that there are two separate
factors for attributions – internal attributions and external
attributions.
124
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
Table 4.4. Factor Loadings for Work Locus of Control Items
Factor 1 2
A job is what you make of it .62
On most jobs people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish
.79
If you know what you want out of a job, you find a job that gives it to you
.63
If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it
.44
Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck .60
Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune .65
Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make effort .61
In order to get a really good job you need to have family members or friends in high places
.82
Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune .81
When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know.
.71
Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job
.62
To make a lot of money you have to know the right people
.75
It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs.
.50
People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded for it .72
Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do.
.52
The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little is luck. .74
Internal work locus of control (WLOC) items are highlighted. The
items not highlighted relate to external WLOC items. The factor
analysis show there are 2 clear factors for work locus of control –
internal WLOC and external WLOC.
125
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
Table 4.5. Factor Loadings for Reactions to Performance Evaluation
Factor 1 2 Considering my skills and effort I put into my work, I am very satisfied with my performance evaluation
.82
In general, my evaluation measured up to what I expected. .83
I am satisfied with my most recent evaluation. .89
Based on what I contribute to the organisation, I am fairly and accurately evaluated.
.82
My performance has been fairly and accurately evaluated .80
I consider my most recent evaluation to be fair and accurate .90
I understand why my immediate supervisor evaluated me as he or she did on my last evaluation.
.86
I think evaluations are handled fairly in my organisation .45 .45
I am satisfied with the manner in which I was evaluated by my supervisor
.81
My evaluation helped my supervisor to better understand my problems
.77
My evaluation improved day to day relations with my supervisor .87
My evaluation improved day to day relations with my peers .84
My evaluation helped me recognise my strengths and weaknesses.
.82
The items highlighted represent measures of satisfaction of
performance evaluation. The items not highlighted represent
measure of utility of performance evaluation. Satisfaction and utility
were two separate factors. The item relating to ‘evaluations are
handled fairly in the organisation’ loaded equally on both
satisfaction and utility. However, this item was included in the
satisfaction factor, in line with previous research (Dobbins et al,
1990; Landy et al, 1978).
126
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
4.3 RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING In the present study, statistical tests were used to test the various
hypotheses. To test Hypothesis One a univariate analysis of
variance was used. The second, third and fourth hypotheses were
tested using multiple regressions.
4.3.1 Hypothesis One
Hypothesis One tested the differences between supervisor
perceptions of their employee’s level of control and that of the
subordinate perceptions of control in performing their job, with the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between supervisor perceptions of subordinate levels of job control and subordinate perceptions of their own level of job control.
A univariate analysis of variance was conducted on each of
supervisor and subordinate perceptions of timing control and
method control. Results show there was no significant difference
between the supervisor perceptions of their employee’s level of job
control and that of the employee’s perceptions of their own level of
control, in relation to method control (F (1,142) =1.53, p = .217) and
timing control (F (1,142) = .733, p = .393). Therefore, Hypothesis 1
was rejected. The means are presented in Table 4.6.
127
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
Table 4.6 Mean for Control Perceptions
Variable
Mean
N = 73 (Subordinate) Timing control 3.82 Method control 3.73 N = 70 (Supervisor) Timing control 3.97 Method control 3.92
4.3.2 Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Two tested the relationship of employee perceptions of
control with their reactions to performance evaluation with the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. As employees’ perception of the amount of control they have in performing their job increases, they will react more positively to their performance evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility.
Two regressions were conducted, one each for the prediction of
satisfaction and utility. In both regressions, subordinate work locus
of control (WLOC) was entered on the first step so as to control for
its effects. WLOC was computed on the separate subscales of
internal and external. Timing and method control were entered on
the second step.
As hypothesised, multivariate results showed that subordinates
were more satisfied (R2adj. = .29; F (4, 66) = 8.18, p = .000) with
performance evaluation and rated performance evaluation as being
more useful (R2adj. = .53; F (4, 66) = 20.80, p = .000) when they
128
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
perceived higher levels of control. WLOC accounted for 14% and
18% respectively, of the variance. Method control, was a significant
predictor for both satisfaction (β = .52, p = .001) and utility (β = .46,
p = .001).
Despite the significant bivariate correlations between timing control
and satisfaction and utility (r = .29, p = < .05 and r = .44, p = < .01
respectively) timing control was not a significant predictor of either
satisfaction (β = -.19, p = .24) or utility (β = -.03, p = .79) when
placed in the regression equation with method control. This was
probably due to the high correlation between the two control
measures (r = .76, p = .000), so that in the regression model, the
large amount of shared variance (36%) between the two control
measures was attributed to method control. Therefore, Hypothesis
Two was partially supported.
4.3.3 Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis 3 predicted that when employees’ perceptions of control
matched supervisor perceptions of their employees’ level of control,
employees were expected to react positively to performance
evaluation. That is:
Hypothesis 3. The greater the match between the level of job control the employee perceives they have and the level of job control the supervisor perceives their employee has, the more positive the employees’ reactions to performance evaluation.
To assess Hypothesis Three, the differences were computed
between the perceptions of job control held by the subordinate and
the level of job control the supervisor perceives their employee has.
Absolute value scores of these perceptions were then computed.
Scores ranged from zero to three with zero being considered a
129
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
perfect match. Two regressions were then conducted, one each for
the prediction of satisfaction and utility of performance evaluation.
Results showed that when there was a close match between
supervisor perceptions of subordinate job control and the
subordinate perceptions of job control, subordinates found more
utility (R2adj. = .11; F (1, 45) = 6.63, p = .013) with performance
evaluation. When a similar regression was conducted for
satisfaction of performance evaluation the results were not
significant (R2adj. =.-.022; F (1, 45) = .011, p = .91). Method control
was a significant predictor for utility of performance evaluation (β = -
.36, p = .01) but not a significant predictor of satisfaction (β = -.16, p
=.27). In addition, timing control was not a significant predictor of
either subordinate perceptions of the utility of performance
evaluation (β = -.23, p = .12) nor satisfaction with performance
evaluation (β = -.016, p =.92). Therefore, the results offer partial
support for this hypothesis.
4.3.4 Hypothesis Four Hypothesis 4 predicted that the higher the supervisor’s internal
attribution to subordinate performance the more positive the
subordinate reaction to performance evaluation when the
subordinate is given, at least, a satisfactory assessment of their
performance. Specifically:
Hypothesis 4. When the supervisor makes an internal attribution to subordinate performance, the higher (more positive) will be the reaction to performance evaluation when the subordinate receives a satisfactory or higher (positive) assessment of performance.
130
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Four : Results ______________________________________________________
Attributions were tested on two dimensions, internal and external. Regressions were conducted on supervisors’ internal and external
attributions to subordinate performance and subordinates reactions
to performance evaluations. Only those subordinates who received
at least satisfactory evaluations of their performance were included
in the analysis. That is, those subordinates who received a rating
of 4 or better on a 1-7 scale were included in the analysis. Two
participants did not receive at least a satisfactory evaluation from
their supervisor, and were therefore excluded from the analysis.
Results showed that when the supervisor made an internal
attribution to their subordinate’s performance, subordinates were
more satisfied (R2adj. = .19; F (1, 43) = 11.33, p = .002) with
performance evaluation. Supervisor internal attributions to
subordinate performance were not a significant predictor of
subordinate perceptions of the utility of performance evaluation
(R2adj. = .002; F (1, 43) = 1.10, p = .30). Supervisor internal
attributions to subordinate performance was a significant predictor
of subordinate perceptions of the satisfaction of performance
evaluation (β = .46, p = .001) but was not a significant predictor of
the utility of performance evaluation ((β = .16, p = .30).
Supervisor external attributions to subordinate performance were
not a significant predictor of either subordinate perceptions of the
utility of performance evaluation (R2adj. = .053; F (1, 43) = 3.45, p =
.07) or satisfaction with performance evaluation (R2adj. = .001; F (1,
43) = 1.02, p = .32). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was only partially
supported.
The next chapter provides a discussion of the findings in light of
theory, further research, the implications for practice and the
limitations of the present study.
131
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction This Chapter provides a conclusion to the thesis. In the first section,
the results of the study are discussed in light of the hypotheses
proposed. Following the discussion on each of the hypotheses,
implications for theory will be discussed, followed by the directions
for future research and implications for practice. Finally the issues
relating to limitations are considered, followed by a conclusion to the
study.
5.2 Hypotheses and Related Findings
5.2.1 Hypothesis One
Hypothesis One expected to find differences between the
perceptions the supervisor holds in relation to their employee’s level
of job control compared to that of the subordinate’s perception of
level of control. Findings indicated that there were no significant
differences between the perceptions the subordinate holds in relation
to job control (timing and method control) compared to that of their
supervisor. Timing and method control refers to the individual’s
opportunity to determine the scheduling of their work and the choice
of how to carry out given tasks, respectively. Therefore, Hypothesis
One was rejected.
These findings were contrary to limited previous research
(Delvecchio, 1996; Harley, 1999; Messmer, 1990) which indicated
differences, albeit conflicting differences. For example, Delvecchio
(1996) found that employees perceived higher control in performing
aspects of their job than did their supervisor’s perceptions of the
employee’s level of control. This was not the case for the present
132
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
study, with findings showing relatively high mean control levels for
both supervisors in their perceptions of their employees level of
timing control and method control and subordinates’ perceptions of
their level of timing control and method control (all were close to 4 on
a 1-5 scale). Harley (1999), also assessed perceptions of employee
empowerment in relation to their work and over management of their
workplaces. He found some variations in perceptions. For example,
60% of employees perceived little or no control over decision-
making and workplace management and low levels of control in
relation to type of work and starting and finish times (similar to timing
control). However, in relation to pace of work (similar to timing
control) and how work was done (similar to method control),
participants reported high levels of control. This is similar to the
present study, not only for subordinates but also for supervisor
perceptions of their employee’s levels of method control. Overall,
although the hypothesis was rejected, it is suggested that the results
reflect positively on the degree to which employees perceive their
levels of job control.
A provisional explanation for the findings in the present study for
Hypothesis One is that the results may indicate the perception of a
shared process of control or support. This may be the result of the
model of care that operates in the organisation. Previous studies in
the acute health-care sector have indicated health care workers
perceive low levels of control or empowerment (Honneger and
Appelbaum, 1998). This is particularly so in relation to self-
determination, impact and perceived control. However, the acute
sector generally operates on a medical model of care. A medical
model of care tends to focus on locating disease within the person
and conceptualises the sources of disease in terms of ‘germs,
physical insult or defects in the individual’s physical structure or
function’ (Broom, 1991: 52) and tends to exert control over body and
health (Owen and Lennie, 1992).
133
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
In contrast, in non-acute health-care sectors, such as the
organisation in the present study, the model of care tends toward a
social model of care. A social model of care is said to demedicalise
the control of health care and allows for a variety of groups to provide
control to the individual over issues which affect their health (Wass,
1994). However, to allow this shift of control to the client, there also
needs to be a shift of control in the way work is done, as the social
model of care sets very wide parameters for health promotion
practice (Wass, 1994). Thus, there needs to be a wider approach to
individual health care. Interestingly, the concept of the social model
of health care evolved from the women’s health movement, which is
interested in the whole woman and her social environment. This
model has now evolved and recognises the relevance of social and
economic factors in the cause and prevention of ill health, disability
and premature mortality (Broom, 1991).
It may be that the social model of care is better suited to
organisations with a predominately female workforce. Whilst gender
was not specifically studied in the present study, the participants
were predominately female (117 female; 27 male). It is possible that
organisations in which women predominate, such as health care,
create cultures which are open to sharing control (Parker and Price,
1994). In addition, the supervisors in the present study may work
closely with their employees to achieve outcomes for the clients that
are individual and based to some extent on a social model rather
than a medical model of care. According to Laschinger and Havens
(1996:32) ‘empowerment structures create environments that support
true professional practice because nurses who feel empowered are
more likely to provide more effective and efficient care and ….a
model that emphasises point of care decision-making and the
importance of new models of care’, such as the growing
understanding of the social dimensions of health care. That is,
providing clients, as much as possible, the freedom and social
stimulation that they would have experienced in the home
134
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
environment.
The findings may also indicate what is known as the ‘balanced
interpersonal relationships approach’ (Yammarino and Dubinsky,
1992: 577). That is, within each supervisor-subordinate dyad there is
agreement on workplace issues with the supervisor/subordinate
involved in exchange relationships – the supervisor makes
investments in the subordinate and receives returns (in the form of
performance) from the subordinate (Yammarino and Dansereau,
2002). In the present study, it may be that one of these investments
is the level of control the employee is accorded in performing their
job. The balanced approach was evident in the service sector
(retail) in the Yammarino study, so it may be logical to assume a
similar model in the present study, which is also service (health)
focused. Additionally, in these types of balanced relationships what
appears to be more important is the perception of similarity and
equity rather than the actual similarity and equity (Yammarino and
Dubinsky, 1992). Perceptions of control are particularly important in
the present study given the considerable importance and value
placed on control by both dyad members (DelVecchio, 1996).
Managers who are viewed as supportive may be those who listen to
their workers and hence are perceived as sharing control (Parker and
Price, 1994) and it may be that managers in the present study are
supportive of their employees. Pfeffer (1994) notes that achieving
competitive success through people means working with them, not
limiting the scope of their activities. This is similar to Kanter (1993)
who recommends spreading formal authority through such
mechanisms as participative management, shared governance,
decentralisation and autonomous work units. Spreading formal
authority and sharing control appears to be an antecedent to
achieving perceptions of control and the resultant outcomes (Parkes,
1989. Thus it could be expected that managers play an important
role in the process of employee empowerment. By transferring or
135
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
ceding some part of control to the subordinate, managers may be
seen as attempting to remove obstacles to good performance and in
the process allowing employees to feel valued and respected for
what they do (Coleman, 1996).
Ceding this control may depend in part of the managers’ belief that
their subordinates can be trusted. In high trust relationships
managers engage in little control-based monitoring (McAllister,
1995). This can be viewed as both parties going beyond the
prescriptions of the employment relationship of formal rules, policies
and procedures. Behaviours are less precise, governed by the
norms of reciprocity, with expectations becoming more diffuse and
implicit in nature. A part of this means changing the nature of the
distribution of control which is said to be one of the most challenging
work redesigns to achieve (Axtell and Parker, 2003). However, in the
present study it may be that the organisation has achieved this
redistribution of control, which is evidenced by the similarity in
perceptions the supervisor has of their employees’ level of job control
and the perceptions the subordinate has of their levels of job control.
It may also be that the findings indicate a high interconnectedness
and interdependence between the supervisor and subordinate or the
supervisor has a sound understanding of the job the subordinate
does. This may be indicative of the lack of difference in perceptions
in the present study. However, it is important to note the warnings of
some authors of the dangers interconnectedness and
interdependence poses, such as the inability to clearly separate the
boundaries and duties of different jobs, or may do so, but incorrectly
(Campbell and Lee, 1988). In addition, managers that are recruited
from outside the organisation may have incomplete or inaccurate
beliefs about a subordinate’s job, and inadequate observation may
occur due to the nature of the supervisor’s job. Therefore, it is not
surprising that in some instances, employees and supervisors may
136
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
come to different conclusions about the employee’s roles,
responsibilities and standards.
As identified in the Literature Review control or empowerment means
removing obstacles to good performance to allow employees to
decide and act in real time (Coleman, 1996). Therefore it is
necessary to empower the person at the point of contact with the
customer or supplier. This appears to be the case for the present
study, as nursing/allied health staff must interact closely with the
client to achieve health and well-being outcomes. The nature of the
work is such that employees, including supervisors, may interact with
clients for many years and build special relationships. Thus,
providing or ceding a level of control or empowerment signals to the
employee a level of trust in providing care to those in need. This is
particularly pertinent if the employee can see that the choices given
them will lead to positive outcomes for the clients, themselves and
the organisation.
Another explanation for the lack of difference between perceptions
may be that staff have specialised knowledge about how to perform
their work and often have the capacity to make better decisions than
do their supervisors regarding how their work is accomplished. This
is supported by Spreitzer and Mishra (1999) who suggest the
reasons for increased control is the result of trends toward
downsizing, which has left larger spans of control and fewer
managers to monitor more employees, hence the need to empower
employees to accomplish work processes. In some organisations
the trend to downsizing and flatter structures has enlarged jobs and
in doing so has failed to produce psychological empowerment
(Corsun and Enz, 1999). However, in the present study, while
structures are flatter, the efforts to empower may have been due to
attention given by supervisors and other senior staff, in creating
relationships and providing a supportive work environment, which
has produced higher feelings of control.
137
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Organisations can examine workplace structures that may act as
barriers to employees’ perceptions of control, such as routine work,
unclear job requirements, low discretion and low supervisor trust. In
addition, providing access to work empowerment structures to
create environments that achieve the goals of the organisation, will in
turn allow employees to feel valued and respected for what they do.
This is perhaps why there is no significant gap between the
perceptions of control as viewed by supervisors and perceptions
viewed by employees.
5.2.2 Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis Two undertook to examine how employees will react to
performance evaluation, as their perceptions of their level of job
control increases. One of the objectives of the current study was to
examine whether increases in perceptions of subordinate method
and timing control would elicit positive reactions to performance
evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility. It was clear that
together timing and method control were salient predictors of
satisfaction with the performance evaluation and utility of
performance evaluation, thus supporting Hypothesis Two. These will
now be discussed.
Firstly, in the present study, the high levels of control are consistent
with previous research, that argue for the benefits of allowing more
control to individuals in the work environment (Cardy et al,1995;
Pettijohn et al, 2001; Waldman, 1994). Furthermore, both timing
control or work scheduling and method control or work procedures,
are considered central to individual job design and job characteristics
(Breaugh and Becker, 1987; Wall et al, 1990). Achieving
appropriate levels of control have been found to be related to a
variety of positive outcomes. These include motivation, self-esteem,
personal adjustment (Skinner, 1996), psychological involvement in
138
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
the work and satisfaction with the workplace (Ashforth and Saks,
2000; Blau, 1999). Enhancing perceptions of control, choice or
empowerment have also been shown to serve to reduce negative
outcomes (Koberg et al,1999; Williams, 1998) such as decreased
job satisfaction, lower work effectiveness and intention to leave and
enhance perceptions of competence and self-determination. This in
turn can improve task performance and overall task satisfaction.
Similarly, perceptions of timing control appear to be a highly
desirable job attribute (McGilton and Pringle, 1999), as historically
nurses have had extensive responsibility but limited control (Parker,
1993). However, levels of control perceptions can vary according to
nursing specialty (Parker, 1993) therefore, the similarity in
perceptions as well as the relatively high perceptions of control in the
present study may be due to the nature of the ‘specialty’ of the job.
Importantly, the model of care may also be related to the nature of
the jobs. Certainly, there appears to some definite differences
between a social model of care and a medical model of care in terms
of jobs, with a social model tending towards participative
management and shared governance where individual responsibility
and control are emphasised (McGilton and Pringle, 1999). This
appears to be the case for the present study. In addition, one of the
most important determinants of positive work outcomes is the degree
to which employees feel they can make their own decisions and
influence what happens on the job. In health care settings, studies
have shown significant results for perceptions of timing control. This
has been linked to positive outcomes, which in turn had a direct
effect on how patients experienced their care from the nursing staff
(Laschinger and Havens, 1996; McGillton and Pringle, 1999; Parker
and Price, 1994. Therefore, other research also seems to indicate
that timing control is a desirable job attribute.
139
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Hypothesis Two also considered the job control effects on reactions
to performance evaluation. In the literature a number of authors
argue that employees are more positive in their opinions of
performance evaluation or appraisals and appraisal systems to the
extent that they perceive the factors on which they are evaluated to
be relevant to their jobs. This seems to be especially so when
employee development and performance improvement were
emphasised (Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981). Certainly, for the
participants in the present study the performance evaluation is used
for developmental purposes rather than for administrative purposes
and it clearly linked to position descriptions and task lists, where
applicable. Clearly linking performance evaluation to factors relevant
to jobs is said to improve subordinate perceptions of the utility of
performance evaluation, as it is an opportunity for mutual goal-setting
and for the supervisor to create a sense of acceptance and convey a
sense of caring and consideration in the process (Greller, 1978).
The present study supports these views, as employees were
satisfied with performance evaluation and found it useful when they
perceived high levels of control in performing their job.
A part of the performance evaluation process is the effect of how
employees perceive their task responsibilities. As suggested by Blau
(1999) perceptions of the complexity of tasks, the importance of
tasks and the extent that supervisors influence the assignment of
task responsibilities via delegation is related to satisfaction facets,
and therefore seems important for supervisors to monitor. So, for the
present study some of these suggestions seem relevant and also
highlights that the supervisor plays an important role in influencing
subordinate perceptions of the performance evaluation process.
In contrast, if an employee does not see the performance evaluation
system as useful, such as the type and level of feedback given and
the extent that subordinates feel they were fairly appraised, there is a
reduction in motivation to change behavior, a rejection of the
140
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
usefulness and validity of the information, and an unwillingness to
accept decisions based on appraisal information (Cawley et al, 1998;
Dobbins et al, 1993). It may be that employees are desirous of being
evaluated on job criteria that are relevant, within their control and by
criteria that are positively related to their future success. Removing
obstacles which can impede these perceptions of control should be
provided to employees in order to assist in improving these
perceptions. This may in turn provide positive benefits to the
individual and the organisation in achieving goals (Greenberger and
Strasser, 1986). Similarly, performance standards that are clear,
descriptive and specific and consequently allow for feedback along
performance dimensions, should produce more desirable responses
from employees (Bobko & Colella, 1994). These findings are critical
to the arguments that performance appraisal must be participative,
goal-oriented and task-relevant in order to be successful, including
reducing the likelihood of negative reactions to performance
evaluation.
The findings in the present study are contrary to a more recent study
by Bradley and Ashkanasy (2001) who also assessed perceptions of
satisfaction and usefulness of performance evaluation. They found
that a large number of participants did not find the performance
appraisal interview process particularly useful, while a small number
indicated they thought the process was useful in terms of having a
positive effect on their work behaviour. The results of their study
indicated that performance appraisal may have limited usefulness for
the particular organisations studied, and it may be that the formal
review may not add anything to employee outcomes and that a
different type of review of feedback could be considered.
However, the results for the present study generally support the
research identified in the Literature Review, that employees who
perceive increasing levels of control will react positively to
organisational initiatives. In this present study, the organisational
141
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
initiative was performance evaluation. For the organisational
participants in the present study, performance evaluation is an
essential process and part of the organisation’s accreditation/quality
process. As a result, evaluations are conducted regularly and on the
vast majority of staff. So from that perspective it could be seen as an
essential organisational exercise. Additionally, the program is also
developmental and provides opportunities for work improvement and
additional training opportunities. So it might be concluded that the
process offers potential opportunities and benefits to both parties.
These mutual benefits seek to work towards a common mission, of
providing quality care to the clients. For participants in the present
study, all except 2 received at least a satisfactory or higher rating of
their performance (M = 5.36 on a 7 point scale) from their
supervisors, thus indicating supervisors perceived some degree of
subordinate skill or competence. This rating may be due to the
supervisor’s opportunity to observe performance, with previous
research indicating that opportunities to observe performance was
positively related to ratings (Ferris et al, 1994).
Similarity has also been linked to favourability of performance ratings
and subsequent consequences and reactions to the organisation and
its process (Lefkowitz, 2000). Similarity is the degree to which
members of a group are alike in terms of personal attributes or other
characteristics (Smith, 1998). For example, Dwyer, Richard and
Shepherd (1998) highlight the research in the similarity area as
having significant implications for organisations. They cite a variety
of research that indicates that demographic makeup, such as gender,
age, race and education have been found to influence a number of
interpersonal and organisation processes. Certainly for the present
study there were similarities in age and gender for all participants,
which may have contributed to the similar perceptions of control held
by supervisor of their employee and that of the employee, as outlined
in Hypothesis One. In addition, as a result of the opportunities to
observe performance as well as the similarities in age and gender,
142
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
supervisors may have treated their employees more favourably (Tsui,
Porter and Egan, 2002). In the present study, the favourable
treatment may relate to the amount of control provided to the
employee. The employee may have responded by working harder,
received a higher rating as a result and then reacted positively to
performance evaluation
5.2.3 Hypothesis Three
A third objective in the present study was to match supervisor
perceptions of the level of control they believed their subordinate
held in performing their job with that of subordinate perceptions of
their level of control in performing their job. The objective being to
determine if a close match would elicit positive subordinate reactions
to performance evaluation. Perceptual congruence appears to be
important in understanding the relationship to work related outcomes
(Evans, et al, 2002). The direction and strength of the results
provides partial support for Hypothesis Three. That is, when
employees and supervisors perceptions of method control matched,
employees rated the performance evaluation useful. There was no
significant relationship between perceptions of timing control and
satisfaction with performance evaluation.
The findings in the present study are consistent with previous
research which has found supervisor-subordinate perceptual
congruence to be positively related to job related outcomes
(Delvecchio, 1996; Wexley et al, 1980). Importantly subordinate
perceptions of control may affect the sentiments towards the
usefulness of the performance evaluation process in such ways as
morale, satisfaction and turnover. Thus it would appear important
that the supervisor and subordinate both have input into the job and
performance criteria. Both parties having input into job and
performance criteria appears important, particularly for the employee
143
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
in terms of the reactions they may exhibit, but also potentially useful
to the manager in terms of developing future job criteria.
Conversely, if the subordinate perceives the supervisor as not
providing an appropriate level of control to them, there is chance of
perceptual incongruity or imbalance, disagreement and a negative
effect on job-related outcomes (Delvecchio, 1996). In addition, when
the subordinate perceives the employment relationship has been
handled appropriately, there is generally a return from the
subordinate, such as high levels of performance, which results in
positive evaluations of the subordinate’s performance (Yammarino
and Dansereau, 2002). This was also the case for the present study,
as supervisors did in fact rate the performance of the majority of their
employees highly. Other outcomes as a result of the balanced
relationship can be reduced turnover, reduced absenteeism and
improved morale. It seems important then that a balanced
relationship is achieved, because when workers and supervisors
have differing expectations about the labour process, supervisors
may interpret these discrepancies as poor performance and the
potential for conflict may arise (Balser and Stern, 1999).
If both supervisor and subordinate have input into the job and
performance criteria, there is reason to believe there will be more
interaction and the opportunity for agreement. There is then a higher
chance of the subordinate being evaluated on criteria that is within
their control and the opporrtunity for less conflict over the
performance evaluation. In the performance evaluation meeting one
would expect a two-way communication process, which may assist in
achieving perceptual congruence. That is, one would expect both
supervisor and subordinate engaging in mutual discussion about
aspects of the subordinate’s job. As Campbell and Lee (1998) so
rightly suggest, employees must know what standards are to be used
in judging the final outcome. This is important as disagreements
over what is being evaluated may underlie negative outcomes of the
144
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
performance evaluation process (Levy, 1993). How this is
determined should be achieved by a close consultation with the
individual’s supervisor, thus ensuring identical cognitions about job
requirements. In reality though, such complete agreement can be
difficult to achieve. However, in the present study, the findings
suggest that employees did in fact perceive the performance
evaluation to be useful when there was a close match on method
control and perhaps the similarity in cognitions as proposed by Levy
(1993) and the developmental aspects of the performance evaluation
system, played some part in this process.
The findings from Hypothesis Three may also suggest a high-quality
relationship between the supervisor and subordinate (Duarte,
Goodson and Klich, 1994). This may have arisen from the role-
making process within dyads emphasised by Graen and Scandura
(1987). That is, supervisors send role information to the employee,
which establishes roles between supervisor and subordinate. Over
time the roles become stabilised. This may be similar to the present
study where control perceptions need to be balanced in order for
certain reactions to performance evaluation to occur.
5.2.4 Hypothesis Four
The final objective was to consider the relationship between
supervisors’ attributions to subordinate performance and subordinate
reactions to performance evaluation. The current study attempted to
extend attribution research by focusing on the subordinate reactions
to performance evaluation, as there appears to be limited recent
research that focuses on the reactions subordinates may have as a
result of supervisor attributions to performance. The findings from the
present study showed that subordinates perceived higher satisfaction
with the performance evaluation when supervisors made internal
attributions to subordinates’ performance. However, the supervisor’s
level of internal attributions to subordinate performance was not
145
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
significantly related to the utility of the performance evaluation,
thereby partially supporting Hypothesis Four.
An important distinction in supervisors’ attributions of subordinate
performance is the attribution to internal or external causes (Weiner,
1972) and therefore, the tendency of observers to explain other’s
behaviours in dispositional terms (internal) or caused by situational
factors (external) (Mitchell et al, 1981). In the eyes of those to whom
they report, employees are in the main personally responsible for
both their success and their failures. They are seen to succeed
mainly because of their ability and because they work hard
(Rosenthal, 1996). In the present study, supervisors have made
certain attributions for subordinate behaviours that have resulted in
an evaluation of the subordinate. This decision will then have a
substantial influence on the satisfaction and motivation of
subordinates and the effectiveness of the organisation (Knowlton and
Mitchell, 1980).
Findings from the study showed that the majority of employees’
performance was rated satisfactory or higher. That is, supervisors
attributed the generally good performance of the individual to the
effort the employee put into their job and the abilities the employees
have brought to the job. This is consistent with findings from
previous research (Ilgen et al, 1979; Liden et al, 1988) that supports
the effects of causal feedback on subordinate reactions to
performance appraisal in terms of satisfaction, fairness and
accuracy. That is, subordinates seems to be most satisfied and
perceive the appraisal session as most fair and accurate when
feedback dealing with internal causes (ability, effort) was given for
success. In the present study, it seems then that the supervisor
believed that the individual was the major influence on job
performance.
146
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
On a positive note an explanation for this finding may be that
subordinates were evaluated on aspects of the job within their
control. As a result they would be more likely to become involved
and exert effort. This means subordinates will generally perform
better, which will then result in a successful performance outcome.
This was the case for the present study, with the majority of
participants’ performance rated satisfactory or above and their
performance attributed to their effort and ability. Supervisors in the
present study may also believe they provide a high level of support to
their subordinates and as a result have assessed their subordinate’s
performance as successful. This is supported by Dorfman et al
(1986) who found that supervisors’ performance ratings of their
subordinates were positively associated with the level of support
provided by the supervisor. While Green and Mitchell (1979) suggest
that leaders have different relationships with employees, depending
on whether their success was seen as internal or external.
Secondly, on a not so positive note, the findings may suggest that
the belief supervisors have of their subordinate’s performance, that
is, an internal belief, could lead to the unjustified overemphasis on
person differences about which Carson et al (1991) says Deming
(1986) is concerned . Even when given the opportunity to consider
external constraints, the supervisors in the present study actually
held the subordinate accountable for the observed level of
performance. This seems to fit with Cardy et al (1995) who suggest
that ratees are thought to be incapable of distinguishing between
person-caused as opposed to system-caused variation in
performance.
The present study has highlighted that consistent with previous
literature, supervisors will generally make an internal attribution to
subordinate performance, particularly as a result of past performance
success of the subordinate. Ashkanasy (1989) also highlights there
is a general association between attributions and evaluative
147
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
responses, particularly internal attributions. That is, due to past
performance success and an internal attribution, the supervisor has
an expectation of future successful performance. This is part of the
essence of Weiner et al’s (1972) work, which indicates that the more
a leader attributes a subordinate’s successes to internal factors, the
higher the leader’s aspirations for that subordinate’s future
performance.
Therefore, it seems logical to assume that if the supervisor perceives
their employee is in control of their job they will also believe their
employee is responsible for their performance and will therefore
make an internal attribution to performance. In addition, individuals
who believe that they are in control of their work will generally
perceive they have performed better than those who believe that the
causes of events lie outside of their control (Levy, 1993). This was
the case as identified in Hypothesis One that the supervisors in the
present study did in fact perceive their employees to have relatively
high levels of control.
It seems important that supervisors need to be aware of the issues
surrounding their attributions to subordinate performance. As
Ashkanasy (1989) suggests, there are different thought processes
involved in attributing causes of performance, depending on whether
the performance was successful or poor. If performance is poor then
how the supervisor responds to the subordinate is much more
complex. Therefore, it is important for supervisors to be aware of the
attribution process when assessing employee performance. For
example, the more control the subordinate is seen to have, the more
responsible he or she is seen to be for their performance. High
perceived control will likely result in both more rewarding and more
punishing behaviour by the leader (Mitchell et al, 1981). Thus, it is
important for supervisors to be aware of how attributions can effect
their behaviours.
148
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Whilst self-assessment data was not collected from subordinates in
the present study, research indicates that when feedback is more
positive than self-assessment and attributed to internal factors of
ability and effort, the subordinate is expected to respond favourably
to performance evaluation (Fedor and Rowland, 1989). Employees
generally psychologically self-assess their performance, based on
their perceptions and beliefs concerning what their job requires. This
in turn regulates the employee’s behaviours to achieve certain goals
in the job. The employee then evaluates whether they have
achieved these goals. If there is a difference or disagreement
between the supervisor and subordinate assessment, this may lead
to negative reactions towards the appraisal system and process
(Levy et al, 1989). In addition, having employees self-assess is
important as they can be used as an additional data point, for
assessing where disagreement between supervisor and subordinates
lie (Campbell and Lee, 1988). Thus, the positive reaction to
performance evaluation in the present study may, in part be due to
the fact that employee self-ratings were positive, but less positive
than that of the supervisor.
In the subject organisation, employees are required to self-assess
their performance, as part of the process of self-development.
However, as self-ratings by subordinates were not collected as part
of the present study, it is not known if knowledge of subordinate self-
ratings has influenced the rating of the supervisor. This aspect is
further discussed shortly. However, it is important to note that there
can be problems with supervisors knowing the formal self-rating of
their subordinates and knowing the self-rating may influence the
supervisor’s ratings of the subordinates (Blakely, 1993).
One other possible reason that may be attributed to the findings that
subordinates were satisfied with performance evaluation, was that
the organisation in the present study aims to give feedback as part of
the performance evaluation and it may be that this is one reason for
149
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
the levels of satisfaction. Feedback is seen as an essential activity
as a means of ensuring the employee is aware of the standard of
work required and as an opportunity to discuss future training and
other opportunities within the organisation. Importantly, previous
research highlights the importance of feedback. Moss and Martinko
(1998) have suggested that leaders tend to perceive that feedback is
most beneficial when the subordinate has control over what led to the
performance and can do something about it. However, it is probably
the poor performers that would benefit the most (Ashford and
Cummings, 1983) and these are generally the ones that supervisors
are often reluctant to provide feedback to (Larson, 1989). Therefore,
it is important for supervisors to be aware of this tendency,
particularly for the present organisation, whose employees were for
the most part rated as high performers.
Interestingly, the internal attributions to subordinate performance ny
the supervisor revealed no significant relationship with perceptions
the subordinates held of the utility of the performance evaluation.
Utility items measured such aspects of the performance evaluation
as, ‘the evaluation helped me to better understand my problems’; the
evaluation helped me to recognise my strengths and weaknesses;
‘the evaluation improved day to day relations between myself and my
supervisor’. This is somewhat surprising as the system in the subject
organisation allows employees the opportunity to participate in the
process, and develop action plans, both of which are said to provide
positive feelings of satisfaction as well as utility (Cawley et al, 1998).
There may be a number of reasons for this.
The first and probably the most plausible, is that employees in the
subject organisation are given regular and on-going feedback. This
allows them to adjust or improve any behaviours throughout the year,
so that when they actually get to the formal review, there are
generally no surprises for them. This proposition is consistent with
previous research which suggests that performance evaluation is
150
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
most successful when staff are given on-going, regular feedback
(Ilgen et al, 1993; Nemeroff and Wexley, 1979). In addition, subordinate acceptance of the performance evaluation is such that
feedback must be given often and as soon as possible after both
good and bad performance, so that employees know where they
stand. This will ensure the necessary action can be taken (Fisher et
al, 1999).
A second reason may be that ratees have low trust in the system
itself, although this was not specifically measured. This suggestion is
supported by Dobbins, et al (1993) who found that employees who
have low trust in the appraisal system may not perceive it as being
useful and may question the accuracy of appraisals (Dobbins et al,
1993). However, in the present study the mean for subordinates’
perceptions of utility of performance evaluation was close to 5 on a 1-
6 scale indicating that subordinates did in fact perceive the
performance evaluation to be useful but not as a result of the internal
attribution to their performance. If trust is indeed important, factors
which improve trust in the system may assist in improving how
employees view the usefulness of the performance evaluation
system in relation to the performance assessment provided by their
supervisor.
Another not so surprising result and in line with expectations, was the
fact that supervisor external attributions to subordinate performance
produced no significant results on subordinate reactions to
performance evaluation. This was the case for both satisfaction and
utility. This may indicate that supervisors in the present study
believed their subordinates performed successfully due to personally
controllable causes, hence the internal attribution, which was also
evidenced by the evaluation of the subordinate, which indicated
successful performance. Subordinates must have been happy with
the internal attribution/successful performance combination and did
not consider external attributions to be important. The importance
151
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
factor may also relate to the fact that external or situational issues
are not considered in the performance evaluation discussion, hence
the lack of importance attributed to external factors. However, an
alternative explanation may be that it was difficult for raters to take a
system-oriented approach to performance evaluation and thus they
may be hesitant to incorporate systems factors in their ratings, even
when such factors are explicitly presented to them (Cardy et al,
1995).
In the present study, the outcomes for the subordinates were
positive, that is, the majority of participants received positive
performance evaluations from their supervisors. However, a
question then arises if performance diminishes, when provided with
both person and situational information, how do the raters use this
information and do they adjust their ratings accordingly? If at some
time in the future the supervisor perceives poor performance from a
previously high performing employee, and the supervisor still makes
an internal attribution to performance and does not attempt to
ascertain the reasons, there is the potential for the subordinate to
react negatively to performance evaluation. This is consistent with
previous research, that within the context of performance appraisal
there is an assumption that once a supervisor categorises an
employee along certain performance dimensions, only highly
discrepant information will lead to a change in the supervisor’s
perception of performance (Duarte et al,1994).
5.3 Implications for theory The results of the present study underscore the importance of a
number of aspects of subjective control, performance evaluation and
supervisor attributions to subordinate performance for theory. One of
the main contributions of the present study was to examine the
effects of control on performance evaluation. The present study
developed a theoretical model linking control perceptions and
152
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
reactions to performance evaluation. Findings supported the
contention that when subordinates perceived they had high levels of
method control they responded more positively to performance
evaluation. The importance of this finding is that individuals will
attempt to make meaning of their environment and they will react in
relation to this interpretation of their situation. In the present study
the employees reacted to performance evaluations based on their
perceptions of their own levels of control in the situation. Therefore,
perceived control has been shown to impact on perceptions ofan
important organisation process.
The results of this study also provide support for the proposition that
supervisor and subordinate perceptual congruence is a valuable
approach to understanding the reactions employees have to
performance evaluation. It would seem that the more congruence
between these perceptions, the more positive the subordinate’s
reaction to performance evaluation. Theoretically, this supports the
idea of perceptual similarity being important to individual reactions to
certain situations.
Further, it has been shown that attributions continue to play an
important role in organisational life, as the findings from the present
study indicated that an internal attribution to subordinate
performance, together with a successful performance evaluation,
elicited positive reactions from subordinates. The link supports the
notion that performance levels are not only a direct function of how
individuals perform but that individuals are seen as responsible
(internal attribution) for their performance when they receive a
successful performance evaluation. Therefore, it stands to reason
they will be satisfied with the performance evaluation. Thus, given
that evaluation processes are generally designed to assess causes
and identify responsibilities, performance evaluation and attributional
processes are an important part of evaluative decisions and
feedback processes (Moss and Martinko, 1998). The attributions
153
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
concept needs to be better integrated theoretically in future
performance evaluation research.
The present study extended prior empirical research by
demonstrating the utility of the measures of timing and method
control (Wall et al, 1995) in a non-AMT setting and also assisted in
gathering further normative data outside the groups of jobs identified
in the Wall et al studies – that is health care. As with the Wall et al
studies, this will provide a useful comparative base for future studies.
The present study also supported the internal reliability of timing and
method control not only for subordinates (.93 and .85) but also a new
scale for supervisor’s perceptions of subordinate timing and method
control (.87 and .85) indicating satisfactory and consistent internal
reliabilities. Thus the constructs of timing and method control were
operationalised not only through subordinate self-reports but through
supervisors reporting their perceptions of their subordinates’ control
levels.
In separating timing and method control in the present study, it was
considered empirically justified, based on previous research by Wall
et al (1995) to assess the effects on the dependent variable. It was
greater method control, not timing control which appeared to prevent
negative effects of reactions to performance evaluation. Method
control was also a significant predictor for positive reactions to
performance evaluation, thus supporting in part Wall et al’s (1995)
studies of the relationship between control and psychological
outcomes. The present study therefore, supported the importance of
being able to distinguish between these two aspects of control.
5.3.2 Attributions
Another aspect for the present study concerns the attributed causes
of subordinate performance and how they were measured. It seems
possible that attributions can be conceptualised on two dimensions,
154
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
internal and external, making it possible for individuals to be high (or
low) on both internal and external attributions. Consistent with
previous research, (Xenikou et al, 1997) findings from the present
study’s factor analysis gave strong support for the 2-factor
measurement model. Lack of significant intercorrelations between
the two scales in the present study adds further support that internal
and external attributions should be considered as separate variables.
The findings in the present study were clear in terms of strength.
That is employees were satisfied with performance evaluation when
supervisors made an internal attribution to their performance and the
performance was successful. Thus, the assessment of employee
control perceptions held by the supervisor was assumed to be the
result of supervisor attributions to subordinate performance. While
the present study offers some additional insights concerning the
relationship between attributions and outcomes, the next step is to
further investigate attributions, particularly in terms of control and in
the use of the multi-dimensional scale.
In the present study, the measures of ability and effort were
combined to form one internal attribution dimension and luck and
task difficulty were combined to form one external attribution
dimension, which produced lower than expected reliabilities
However, reliability is specific to the group on which it is calculated,
and can be higher in one situation than another, because of
situational circumstances that may affect the preciseness of
measurement (Gatewood and Feild, 2001). One explanation for the
reliabilities, particularly in relation to external attributions is that the
supervisors may have given more careful attention to internal
attributions than for external attributions and may be more familiar
with what contributes to internal attributions (Greenberger et al,
1989). However, what is important in the present study was to
demonstrate that such attributional processes do occur, there is a
155
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
two-factor structure and they can have an important impact on
behaviours.
5.3.3 Work Locus of Control (WLOC)
As previously highlighted, the analysis in the present study controlled
for WLOC where appropriate in testing hypotheses. Controlling for
WLOC was considered important to demonstrate empirically the
conceptual distinctions between timing and method control and
WLOC and to identify the effects of timing and method control on
reactions to performance evaluation. This decision was justified, as
subordinate internal work locus of control and subordinate timing and
method control were significantly correlated and had WLOC not
been controlled, would have distorted the results of the hypothesis
test.
Work locus of control has been shown to relate to a number of
organisationally relevant variables and consists of internals and
externals (Spector, 1988). Internals are seen to be more satisfied
with their jobs and perceived more autonomy and control than their
external counterparts. Internals are also said to believe that the
events in their life result from their own behaviours, whereas
externals believe events are the result of circumstances beyond their
control. As identified in Chapter Four both supervisors and
subordinates exhibited high scores on the internal scale, indicating
high levels of internality and low scores on the external scale,
indicating low levels of externality. The empirical qualities of the
WLOC instrument in the present study were also confirmed through
the demonstration of the factor analyses, which indicates a two-factor
structure – internality and externality.
156
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
5.4 Directions for future research
The present study offers some additional and interesting insights
concerning the relationships between control, attributions and
reactions to performance evaluation and also offers some interesting
directions for future research.
As previously highlighted, the majority of participants in the present
study were female. Therefore, future research should investigate
whether the hypotheses in the present study are supported in
samples where there is a larger proportion of males represented in
similar jobs and organisations, to test for any gender effects. It may
also be important for future research to assess the role of gender and
other factors as they relate to dyads, control, attributions and
performance evaluation.
The present study also highlights one particular aspect of how
perceptions of control may affect reactions to performance
evaluation. In a context rich environment, that is a real organisation,
such as the one in the present study, other variables may act in
concert with perceived control, to deliver the consequences outlined.
However, it seems the psychological situation plays a major role in
determining what expectancies will operate at a particular moment in
time (Wallston et al, 1987) and that perceptions of control are an
important psychological construct for employees. Others propose
that a managers’ sense of empowerment or control can also
influence workers’ sense of empowerment (Parker and Price, 1994)
or it may also be that the workers are the ones influencing managers.
However, use of other designs will fully determine the causal
direction of the relationships observed in the present study.
Psychological control should be further tested and refined as a
means for research to examine the individual and organisational
outcomes of providing control to employees.
157
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
It may be that trust is important in affecting employee reactions to
performance evaluation. It may therefore be appropriate for
researchers and practitioners to identify factors that result in high
levels of trust in the appraisal system. Suggestions include
providing high procedural justice and fairness (Greenberg, 1986;
Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995); accurate feedback to employees
(Dobbins et al, 1993) and improving performance rating discrepancy
between supervisor and subordinate (Levy et al, 1998).
Longitudinal studies in similar organisational settings at various
points in time may also be useful to assess predictor variables
relating to job control and other organisational outcomes. Such a
strategy is particularly important for hypothesising the influences
between the work environment and human resource initiatives. This
may be particularly so in organisations supporting the notion of a
social model of health care, which will serve as a useful comparison.
It may be that the social model provided in the subject organisation
has enhanced employees’ sense of control or empowerment, which
appears to be the result of the opportunity provided them by the
organisation and their supervisors.
5.4.1 Perceptual Congruence
While much research has focused on perceptual congruence of roles
between the supervisor and subordinate in sales settings, limited
research has cast the net wider. Therefore, the present study has
extended research to examine another industry setting, namely
health care. It may be that in some settings it is not practical to
expect the perceptions of the supervisor and subordinate to be the
same and in fact some level and type of incongruity may still provide
for positive reactions to work related outcomes. What is important is
to further investigate to what extent perceptual incongruity will
produce negative reactions and what types of perceptions will
produce such negative reactions relative to industry characteristics.
158
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Further investigation of the implications of perceptual congruence or
incongruence of supervisor/subordinate perceptions of other job
characteristics is also certainly warranted. The evidence from the
present study suggests that the direction of congruence plays an
important role in influencing employee’s perceptions of at least one
HR initiative.
From the findings in the present study, it seems important that
agreement between supervisor and subordinate on levels of control
will elicit positive reactions. So it is important for organisations and
supervisors to be aware that discrepancies or disagreements
between supervisor and subordinate may lead to negative reactions
toward the appraisal system, the supervisor and the process (Levy et
al, 1998) as well as the potential to affect other HR and
organisational initiatives. Future research should also examine why
there is agreement on levels of control, if there are differences
between control possessed and control desired (Greenberger et al,
1989) and the process to achieve this agreement and whether this
agreement is linked to positive reactions to other organisational
initiatives.
The sample was insufficient to provide a useful statistical analysis of
the three-way interaction between timing control, method control,
attributions and the dependent variable of reactions to performance
evaluation. However, the individual mean results of these variables
indicate high levels of timing and method control and satisfaction and
utility of performance evaluation on the part of subordinates. This
strengthens the argument for further investigation and analysis of
these three variables together.
In the present study when supervisors made internal attributions to
subordinate performance subordinates reacted positively to
performance evaluation. However, it also seems that a number of
processes might lead to this attribution such as the leader-member
159
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
exchange (Graen, and Scandura, 1987), respect and liking and
similarity (Dwyer et al, 1998; Tsui et al, 2002) . For the present study
the results were positive, however, the concern is what happens in
the case of poor performance. Will an internal attribution to
performance continue to be made, even if there were situational
influences, beyond the control of the employee? Future research
may wish to collect not only supervisor ratings of subordinate
performance but also the self-ratings of the subordinates to assess
the effects this may have on supervisor performance ratings. The
outcomes reflect the perceptions and interpretations that supervisors
and subordinates hold in relation to perceptions of control and the
significance of these for organisations. Some practical implications
are now addressed.
5.5 Implications for practice
This study makes a practical contribution by investigating possible
issues in relation to employees’ perceptions of control and the
relationship to performance evaluation in a field setting. Employees’
and supervisors perceptions of control affect the enactment of a
variety of workplace issues in the employment relationship. A basic
obligation of employees is adequate performance. How well an
employee fulfils their obligations depends on the degree to which the
supervisor and the employee agree on how the job will be done.
This includes using clearly defined performance dimensions and
providing the employee with sufficient support, training, tools, to
perform adequately. Thus, managers need to be cognisant of
individuals’ needs and desires for control and provide congruent
opportunities for control. This should be done as soon as possible in
an employees’ job tenure (Ashforth and Saks, 2000) before these
needs and desires impact on job and organisational involvement.
Providing opportunities for personal control may contribute to a cycle
where the expectation of successful performance stimulates
increased effort and high performance. As assessment of
160
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
performance via performance evaluation is a much-used
organisational tool, positive reactions to this type of initiative are
important to the long-term success of such initiatives (Cawley et al,
1998).
A further practical implication to draw out is that the success of
improving perceptions of levels of job control depends to a large
extent on supervisors. Supervisors are generally the ones who are in
a position to influence the objective aspects of their subordinate’s
job, through such strategies as participative management and job
design. However, as Corsun and Enz (1999) point out neither the
good intentions nor job redesign efforts can always mean individuals
will experience psychological empowerment, as individuals will vary
in the degree to which their job affects their psychological state or
perceptions. These perceptions will only be significant if the
individual recognises a gain or a loss (Parker, 1993). So for the
present study it would appear that subordinates have recognised that
they possess a relatively high level of control and the supervisor also
believes their subordinates have relatively high levels of control,
which has had the effect of elicting positive reactions to performance
evaluation.
Whilst supervisors may be in a position to alter the individual’s
perceptions of control by considering aspects of objective control,
Greenberger and Strasser (1986) also suggest caution in raising the
expectations of employees if the programs do not have a flow on
effect by increasing those perceptions of control. This may then lead
to the opposite effect found in the present study, that of lowered
performance and negative reactions to organisational initiatives and
the organisation itself. Supervisors should be aware of job design
and job characteristics and how they can affect employee
perceptions, particularly in relation to job control. In the present
study, perceptions of job control had the capacity to predict one
particular organisational initiative, that is, reactions to performance
161
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
evaluation. In addition, the Literature Review revealed these
perceptions of control can cause an effect on the employee which
can be positive or negative.
Recruitment and retention of staff is a major concern for many
organisations, particularly in jobs operating in constrained labour
markets, such as nursing and allied health. It is therefore important
to provide employees with opportunities to enhance their
psychological empowerment or control, as a means to retain skilled
employees to meet organisational goals. To achieve this, programs
designed to train supervisors to identify needs of employees as well
as potential constraints on subordinate performance, should be
incorporated into manager training. In addition supervisors must be
willing to provide that control to subordinates to achieve the desired
results.
In particular, it seems important to highlight the issues surrounding
the attributions supervisors make in relation to subordinate
performance. It may be useful to train raters to be more attentive to
both internal and external influences and to factor these influences
into ratings. Factoring these influences into ratings seems
particularly pertinent when supervisors are faced with poor
performing employees. It may also be useful to design the
performance evaluation forms in such a way as to allow for both
internal and external factors to be taken into account not only when
evaluating an employee’s performance but also for employee self-
assessment. As highlighted by Carson et al (1991) there are
difficulties with some management actions if the supervisor has
difficulty in separating person from system factors, as these factors
may impact on promotions, pay increases and disciplinary.
Attributional discrepancies are important, as they have the potential
for faulty assumptions and possible supervisor-subordinate conflict.
While this does not appear to be the case for the present study, it
may be that attributions should be part of the formal performance
162
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
review. Cawley and Levy (1992) also note that attributional
discrepancies are important determinants of reactions and that self-
appraisals as well as the evaluation from the supervisor should
incorporate specific causal attributional information as part of the
feedback session.
In addition, managers must be aware of any influences that
subordinate self-ratings may have on their own subsequent rating of
their subordinate’s performance, as this will have ramifications for
some staff in their future success with the organisation. Any
modification of supervisor ratings should be based on sound reasons
for doing so. As noted by Bernardin and Beatty (1984) leniency in
ratings particularly, is one of the major problems with performance
appraisal. Performance ratings of subordinates in the present study
were generally favourable (M = 5.36 on a 1-7 scale), which may
indicate that supervisors tended not to greatly discriminate between
their subordinates in a desire to report fairly safe performance
responses. Thus, supervisors should be given appropriate training to
highlight the importance of sound and valid ratings of their
employees’ performance, influencing aspects within the control of the
employee and not within their control.
Organisational contexts are changing rapidly and in many
organisations, such as the one in the present study, there is a shift to
smaller teams, more flexible and flatter structures with an emphasis
on teams and teamwork. These types of arrangements are a result
of efforts by organisations to decrease bureaucratic rules to enhance
control (McGilton and Pringle, 1999). The success of these types of
organisational forms can be measured or understood in terms of
what individuals need to experience or feel in order for such
interventions to be effective (Spreitzer et al, 1997). These types of
initiatives will depend upon improved dyadic relationships to maintain
and enhance performance and development. Therefore, agreement
between supervisors and subordinates on job criteria and the causes
163
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
of performance, prior to actual ratings, may reduce the size of the
rating discrepancy between the two sources.
Whilst it is clear individuals desire control, and it is now known from
the present study, that one of the beneficial effects associated with
providing employees control is that of issues relating to performance
evaluation, and further exploration in this potentially useful area
should continue. Further research in this area should also continue,
focusing on additional consequences as a result of the control
provided to individuals, as it may be beneficial to know some of the
other HR effects associated with the aspects of control. Given the
importance of performance, well-being (e.g. job satisfaction) and
related attitudes to organisations and HR initiatives, this seems
particularly important as an avenue of continued research.
5.6 Limitations A discussion of the findings from the present study should also be
underscored by some potential limitations.
Firstly, a limitation of the present study is that the sample size of the
matched pairs may limit generalisability to other organisational
settings. However, it is believed that the data has the capacity to
draw some general conclusions regarding control and reactions to
performance evaluation, in a non-acute health care setting. A
strength of the present study is that it was field-based research,
which can to some extent provide greater external validity than
laboratory-based studies. It is also important to note that the sample
size limited assessing the interactive effects of timing and method
control, attributions and reactions to performance evaluation. Future
research should examine whether a stronger pattern of results would
be observed in the context of this interaction.
164
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Secondly, participants in the present study consisted of a large
percentage (82%) of females, which is common in health care
settings. As a result gender effects could not be included. Research
indicates that demographic make-up of groups, including gender
have been found to influence a number of interpersonal and
organisational processes. These processes include communication,
satisfaction, performance, cohesion and integration (Dwyer et al,
1998). Therefore, the small number of males in the present study
precludes generalisability to this group.
Thirdly, the use of self-reports can be problematic in terms of
common method variance. However, as described in the Methods
section, it was demonstrated that not only were reliable measures
used but also self-reports were taken from two sources, namely
supervisors and subordinates to measure perceptions of control, thus
reducing the potential threat of common method variance (Wagner
and Gooding, 1987). However, attribution data provided in this study
came from only one source, the supervisor. Thus future research
should consider other sources of causal feedback (such as the self-
assessments of causes of performance from subordinates).
For the present study a further limitation is what some may consider
low reliabilities for the attribution scales. However, Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994) say that the reliability of any particular sample of
measures depends on the number of items and in the present study,
the small number of items as well as the small sample of participants
may have contributed to the lower reliabilities.
While the findings were clear, participants were ‘forced’ to choose
single causal explanations for the subordinate’s performance at a
particular point in time. In practice, managers may not be presented
with such clear-cut choices about an individual’s job performance,
and uncertainty about responses may have impacted on the
supervisor responses. In addition, people will glean from the
165
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
available data whatever best fits with their already developed
cognitive schemas, thus making it difficult to create particular
attributions scenarios (Moss and Martinko, 1998).
Finally, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, self-assessments of
performance were not collected from subordinates. For the present
study, just as matching perceptions of control was undertaken, self-
assessments might have proven useful as additional data points, to
further assess where any differences may lie.
5.7 CONCLUSION
In summary, this thesis provided an introduction and overview in
Chapter One. The objective was to examine subordinate perceptions
of job control and supervisors’ perceptions of their subordinates’ level
of job control. In addition, the attributions the supervisor made in
relation to their employee’s performance was also highlighted as an
important area, warranting further consideration. Ultimately, three
disparate areas of literature were brought together in an attempt to fill
a gap in the research. It was believed that these variables would
impact on the dependent variable – employee reactions to
performance evaluation, specifically in relation to satisfaction and
utility. The research issue was then outlined and the aims of the
thesis justified. Specific hypotheses were put forward and the
methodology used to answer the hypotheses was briefly described.
Four hypotheses were proposed.
Hypothesis 1. There will be a difference between supervisor
perceptions of subordinate control levels and subordinate perceptions of
their own control levels.
Hypothesis 2. As employees’ perception of the amount of control
they have in performing their job increases, they will react more positively
to their performance evaluation in terms of satisfaction and utility.
166
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Hypothesis 3. The greater the match between the level of control an
employee perceives they have over their performance and the level of
control the supervisor assumes their employee has, the more positive the
employee reaction to performance evaluation will be.
Hypothesis 4. When the supervisor makes an internal attribution to
subordinate performance, the higher (more positive) will be the reaction to
performance evaluation when the subordinate receives a satisfactory or
higher (positive) assessment of performance.
A model of control, attributions and performance evaluation is
outlined in figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Conceptual framework H2
Subordinate Perceptions of their level of job control
H1 H3
H4
Supervisor Perceptions of their subordinate’s level of job control
Supervisor attributions to subordinate performance
Supervisor evaluation of subordinate performance
Reactions to
Performance
Evaluation
(satisfaction
and utility)
167
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
Chapter Two provided an extensive literature review examining
possible determinants of reactions to performance evaluation.
Drawing from a range of sources, types of Subjective Control were
identified. Subjective Control was chosen for the present study, as it
appeared to be a more salient predictor of personal and work
outcomes (Burger, 1989; Parker, 1993). It was argued that
employees will generally react more positively to their job and their
organisation when they perceive an increasing level of control in
performing their job. This argument stems from the literature
reviewed which indicates individuals will generally react positively
when they believe they can control situations in their personal and
work life.
Chapter Three reported the design and administration of the study
carried out in the thesis. The study collected data from a variety of
nursing and allied health staff in a large health organisation in
Queensland, Australia. The study collected data using a self-
administered questionnaire. A description of the questionnaire
design process was provided, examining such areas as scale
development, questionnaire format and pre-test procedures. A
variety of demographic information was also provided.
Chapter Four presented the results of the study. The results were
examined in light of each the four hypotheses presented. The main
contribution being that the present study tested hypotheses which
have not been empirically examined together in a field setting. For
the most part results provided some positive and significant results
for the organisation in the present study.
Chapter Five provided a conclusion to the thesis. The results of the
study were discussed in light of the four hypotheses and the wider
literature. The research was also discussed assessing the
implications for theory, practice and future research. Finally, the
168
Chapter Five : Discussion _____________________________________________________________
limitations of the thesis were acknowledged as a means to assist
future studies in this area.
In the present study the findings give reason to be optimistic about
the ability of workers and managers to share control in relation to
jobs - the consequences being, an expectation of certain positive
outcomes for an organisation. One type of control consistently
contributed to the subordinate reactions to performance evaluation in
terms of satisfaction and utility. That is when subordinates perceived
high levels of method control and when the subordinate perceptions
of control were matched with that of the supervisor there were
positive reactions to performance evaluation. In addition,
subordinates were satisfied with performance evaluation, when
supervisors made an internal attribution to their performance
accompanied by a successful performance evaluation. For
organisations, moving towards this type of structure and reducing
discrepancies or disagreements between supervisor and subordinate
may assist in reducing negative reactions to the performance
evaluation process and perhaps other organisational initiatives
undertaken.
169
REFERENCE LIST
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. and Teasdale, J.D. (1978) ‘Learned
Helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation’, Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 49.74.
Ashford, S. and Cummings, L. (1983) ‘Feedback as an individual
resource: personal strategies of creating information’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 32, pp.
370-398.
Ashforth, B.E. and Saks, A.M. (2000) ‘Personal control in
organizations: A longitudinal investigation with newcomers’.
Human Relations, vol. 53(3), pp. 311-339.
Ashkanasy, N.M. (1989) ‘Causal Attribution and Supervisors’
Response to Subordinate Performance: the Green and Mitchell
Model Revisited’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 19, no.
4, pp. 309-330.
Ashkanasy, N.M. (1997) ‘Attributions for the performance of Self and
Other: It Matters Who the “Other” Is. Australian Journal of
Psychology, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 14-20.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Gallois, C. (1994) ‘Leader Attributions and
Evaluations: Effects of Locus of Control, Supervisory Control and
Task Control’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, vol. 59, pp. 27-50.
Averill, J.A. (1973). ‘Personal Control Over Aversive Stimuli and Its
Relationship to Stress’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 80, pp. 286-
303.
Axtell, C.M. and Parker, S.K. (2003) ‘Promoting role breadth self-
efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training’, Human
Relations, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 113-131.
Balser, D.B. and Stern, R.N. (1999) ‘Resistance and Cooperation: A
Response to Conflict Over Job Performance’, Human Relations,
vol. 532, no. 8, pp. 1029-1053.
181
Bannister, B.D. (1986) ‘Performance Outcome Feedback and
Attributional Feedback: Interactive Effects on Recipient
Responses’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 203-
210.
Bazerman, M.H. (1982) ‘Impact of Personal Control on Performance:
Is Added Control Always Beneficial?’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4. pp. 472-479.
Bell, N.E. and Staw, B.M. (1989) ‘People as sculptors versus
sculpture: the roles of personality and personal control in
organizations’ in Arthur, M.B. Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (eds),
Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge University Press: Canada.
Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R.W. (1984) Performance Appraisal:
Assessing human behaviour at work, Boston: Kent Publishing.
Blakely, G.L. (1993) ‘The Effects of Performance Rating Discrepancies
on Supervisors and Subordinates’, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, vol. 53, pp. 57-80.
Blau, G. (1999) ‘Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and
performance appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job
satisfaction’, Human Relations, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1099-1133.
Bobko, P. and Colella, A. (1994) ‘Employee Reactions to Performance
Standards: A Review and Research Propositions’, Personnel
Psychology 1994. (47).
Boswell, W.R. and Boudreau, J.W. (2000) ‘Employee Satisfaction with
Performance Appraisals and Appraisers: The Role of Perceived
Appraisal Use’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 11,
no. 3, pp. 283-299.
Boxall, P. (1996) ‘The Strategic HRM Debate and The Resource-
Based view of the Firm’, Human Resource Management, vol. 6, no.
3, pp. 59-75.
Bradley, L.M. and Ashkanasy, N.M. ‘Formal performance appraisal
interviews: Can they really be objective, and are they useful
anyway?’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 83-97.
182
Breaugh, J.A. and Becker, A.S. (1987) ‘A further Examination of the
Work Autonomy Scales: Three Studies’, Human Relations, vol. 40,
no. 6, pp. 381-400.
Broom, D.H (1991) Damned if we do: Contradictions in women’s
health care. Allen & Unwin Pty. Ltd. : Sydney, Australia
Brown, D. (1992) ‘Why participative management won’t work here’,
Management Review, pp. 42-46.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993) ‘Antecedents and
consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: meta-analysis and
assessment of causal effects’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
30, pp. 63-77.
Burger, J.M. (1987) ‘Increased Performance with Increased Personal
Control: A Self-Presentation Interpretation’, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 350-360.
Burger, J.M. (1989) ‘Negative Reactions to Increases in Perceived
Personal Control’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 246-256.
Burger, J.M., Brown, R and Allen, C.A. (1983) ‘Negative Reactions to
Personal Control’, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 1,
pp. 322-342.
Campbell, D.J. and Lee, C. (1988) ‘Self Appraisal in Performance
Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 302-314.
Cardy, R.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Carson, K.P. (1995) ‘TQM and HRM:
Improving performance appraisal research, theory and practice’,
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 105-117.
Carson, K.P., Cardy, R.L., Dobbins, G.H. (1991) ‘Performance
Appraisal as Effective Management or Deadly Management
Disease’, Group & Organization Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 143-
159.
183
Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M. and Levy, P.E., (1998) ‘Participation in
the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A
Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 615-633.
Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. and Williams, R.E. (1999) in Fisher,
C.D., Schoenfeldt, L.F. and Shaw, J.B. (eds.), Human Resource
Management, 4th edition, p. 498.
Coleman, H.J. (1996) ‘Why employee empowerment is not just a fad’,
Leadership and Organization Development, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 29-
36.
Collins, D. (1996) ‘Control and isolation in the management of
empowerment’, Empowerment in Organizations, vol. 4, no. 2. pp.
29-39.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) ‘The Empowerment Process:
Integrating Theory and Practice’, Academy of Management
Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 471-482.
Corsun, D.L. and Enz, C.A. (1999) ‘Predicting Psychological
Empowerment Among Service Workers: The Effect of Support-
Based Relationships’, Human Relations, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 205-
224.
Daley, D.M. (1993) ‘Performance appraisal as an aid in personnel
decisions: Link’, American Review of Public Administration;
Parkville; Sep 1993, vol. 23, issue 3.
Daniels, K. and Guppy, A. (1994) ‘Occupational Stress, Social
Support, Job Control, and Psychological Well-Being’, Human
Relations, vol. 47, no. 12, 1994, pp1523-1544.
DeCarlo, T.E., Teas, R.K. and McElroy, J.C. (1997). ‘Salespersonal
Performance Attribution Processes and the Formation of
Expectancy Estimates’, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, vol. XVII, no. 3, pp. 1-17.
DelVecchio, S. (1996) ‘Differences in Salesperson and manager
perceived control: a comparison of dyadic disagreements’, Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 60-72.
184
Deming (1986) Out of the Crisis, Cambridge: MIT Institute for Advance
Engineering Study.
Dickinson, T.D. (1992) ‘Attitudes about performance appraisal’, in
Schuler, H., Farr, J.L. and Smith, M. (eds.) Personnel Selection
and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dipboye, R.L. and de Pontbriand, R. (1981), ‘Correlates of Employee
Reactions to Performance Appraisals and Appraisal Systems’,
Journal of Applied Psychology 1981, vol. 66, no. 2, 248-251.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L. and Platz-Vieno, S.J. (1990), ‘A
Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction: An Initial
Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables and
Appraisal Characteristics’, Journal of Management 1990, vol. 16,
no. 3, pp. 619-632.
Dobbins, G.H., Platz, S.J., and Houston, J. (1993), ‘Relationship
Between Trust in Appraisal and Appraisal Effectiveness: A Field
Study’, Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 7, no. 3 Spring
1993, pp.309-321.
Dorfman, P.W., Stephan, W.G. and Loveland, J. (1986) ‘Performance
Appraisal Behaviors: Supervisor Perceptions and Subordinate
Reactions’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 39, pp. 579-597.
Duarte, N.T., Goodson, J.R. and Klich, N.R. (1994) ‘Effects of Dyadic
Quality and Duration on Performance Appraisal’, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 499-521.
Dubinsky, A.J., Skinner, S.J. and Whittler, T.E. (1989) ‘Evaluating
sales pesonnel: an attribution theory perspective’, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, vol. 8, pp. 9-21.
Dugan, K.W. (1989) ‘Ability and Effort Attributions: Do They Affect
How Managers Communicate Performance Feedback
Information?’ Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp.
87-114.
185
Dwyer, S, Richard, O. and Shepherd, C.D. (1998) ‘An Exploratory
Study of Gender and Age Matching in the Salesperson-Prospective
Customer Dyad: Testing Similarity-Performance Predictions’,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XVIII, no. 4,
pp. 55-69.
Elangovan, A.R. and Xie, J.L. (2000) ‘Effects of perceived power of
supervisor on subordinate work attitudes’, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 319-328.
Erez, M., Earley, P.C. and Hulin, C.L. (1985) ‘The impact of
participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step
model’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 28, pp. 50-66.
Evans, B.K. and Fischer, D.G. (1992) ‘A Hierarchical Model of
Participatory Decision-Making, Job Autonomy and Perceived
Control’, Human Relations, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 1169-1182.
Evans, K.R., Schlacter, J.L., Schultz, R.J., Gremler, D.D., Pass M.,
and Wolfe, W.G. (2002) ‘Salesperson and Sales Manager
Perceptions of Salesperson Job Characteristics and Job
Outcomes: A Perceptual Congruence Approach’, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Fall 2002, pp. 30-44.
Fedor, D.B. and Rowland, K.M. (1989) ‘Investigating Supervisor
Attributions of Subordinate Performance’, Journal of Management,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 405-416.
Ferris, G.R., Judge, T.A., Rowland, K.M. and Fitzgibbons, D.E. (1994),
‘Subordinate Influence and the Performance Evaluation Process:
Test of a Model’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 58, pp. 101-135.
Fisher, C.D., Schoenfeldt, L.F. and Shaw, J.B. (1999) Human
Resource Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Fletcher, C. (1997) ‘Performance Appraisal Context: Organizational
Changes and Their Impact on Practice’, in Anderson, N. and
Herriott, P. (eds.) International Handbook of Selection and
Assessment, London : John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 567-580.
186
Forrester, R. (2000) ‘Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea’, The
Academy of Management Executive, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 67-80.
Furnham, A., Brewin, C. and O’Kelly, H. (1994) ‘Cognitive style and
attitudes to work’, Human Relations, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1509-
1518.
Ganster, D.C., and Fusilier, M.R. (1989), ‘Control in the Workplace’,
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
1989, pp. 235-280.
Gatewood, R.D. and Feild, H.S. (2001) Human Resource Selection, 5th
edition, Florida, Harcourt Inc.
Glass, D.C. and Singer, J.E. (1972) Urban Stress, New York:
Academic Press.
Glendinning, P.M. (2002) ‘Performance Management: Pariah or
Messiah’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 161-
178.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987) ‘Toward a psychology of
dyadic organizing’, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (eds.),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
Green, S.G. and Liden, R.C. (1980) ‘Contextual and Attributional
Influences on Control Decisions’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 453-458.
Green, S.G. and Mitchell, T.R. (1979) ‘Attributional Processes of
Leaders in Leader-Member Interactions’, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, vol. 23, pp. 429-458.
Greenberg, J. (1986), ‘Determinants of Perceived Fairness of
Performance Evaluations’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71,
no. 2, pp. 340-342.
Greenberger, D.B., Heneman, R.L. and Anonyuo, C. (1989)
‘Attributions and Exchanges: The Effects of Interpersonal Factors
on the Diagnosis of Employee Performance’, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 466-476.
Greenberger, D.B. and Strasser, S. (1986) ‘Development and
Application of a Model of Personal Control in Organizations’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 164.177.
187
Greenberger, D.B., Porter, G., Miceli, M.P. and Strasser, S. (1991)
‘Responses to Inadequate Personal Control in Organizations’,
Journal of Social Issues, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 111-128.
Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S, Cummings, L.L. and Dunham, R.B.
(1989) ‘The Impact of personal Control on Performance and
Satisfaction’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 43, pp. 29-51.
Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S., and Lee, S. (1988) ‘Personal Control
as a Mediator Between perceptions of Supervisory Behaviors and
Employee Reactions’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 405-417.
Greller, M.M. (1978), ‘The Nature of Subordinate Participation in the
Appraisal Interview’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 21, no.
4, pp. 646-658.
Greller, M.M. (1998), ‘Participation in the Performance Appraisal
Review: Inflexible Manager Behavior and Variable Worker Needs’,
Human Relations, vol. 51, no. 8.
Greller, M.M. and Jackson, J.H. (1997), ‘A Subordinate’s Experience
and Prior Feedback as Determinants of Participation in
Performance Appraisal Reviews’, Psychological Reports, . 80, 547-
561.
Greller, M.M. and Parsons, C.K (1992) ‘Feedback and Feedback
Inconsistency as Sources of Strain and Self-Evaluation’, Human
Relations, vol. 435, no. 6, pp. 601-620.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) ‘Motivation through the
design of work – Test of A theory’, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 250-279.
Halaby, C.N. and Weakliem, D.L. (1989) ‘Worker Control and
Attachment to the Firm’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 95,
no. 3, pp. 549-591.
Hales, C. and Kildas, A. (1998) ‘Empowerment in five-star hotels:
choice, voice or rhetoric?’, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 88-95.
188
Harley, B. (1999) ‘The Myth of Empowerment: Work Organisation,
Hierarchy and Employee Autonomy in Contemporary Australia
Workplaces’, Work, Employment & Society, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 41-
66.
Hedge, J.W. and Teachout, M.S. (2000) ‘Exploring the concept of
acceptability as a criterion for evaluating performance measures’,
group & Organization Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 22-44.
Hewstone, M. (1989) Causal Attribution: from Cognitive Processes to
Collective Beliefs, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Honneger, K. and Appelbaum, S.H. (1998) ‘The impact of perceived
control and desire to be empowered: an analysis of perception and
reality’, Managing Service Quality, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 426-439.
Honold, L. (1997) ‘A Review of the Literature on Employee
Empowerment;, Empowerment in Organizations, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
202-211.
Hunt, S. (1995) ‘The resource-advantage theory of competition’,
Journal of Management Enquiry, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 317-322.
Hurrell, J.J. (1981) Psychological, Physiological and Performance
Consequences of Paced Work: An Integrative View, Ohio, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Ilgen, D.R., Barnes-Farrell, J.L., and McKellin, D.B. (1993),
‘Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What Has
It Contributed to Appraisals in Use?’, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, vol. 54, pp. 321-368.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, S.M. (1979) ‘Consequences of
Individual Feedback on Behavior in Organizations’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 349-373. Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R. and Davids, K. (1993) ‘New
Measures of Job Control, Cognitive Demand, and Production
Responsibility’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 5, pp.
753-762.
189
Jimmieson, N.L. and Terry, D.J. (1998) ‘An Experimental Study of the
Effects of Work Stress, Work Control and Task Information on
Adjustment, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 47
(3), pp. 343-369.
Kanter, R.M. (1983) The Change Masters. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Kanter, R.M. (1993) ‘Mastering Change’, Executive Excellence, vol.
10, no. 4, pp. 11-12.
Keller, T. and Dansereau, F. (1995) ‘Leadership and empowerment: a
social exchange perspective’, Human Relations, vol. 48, no. 2, pp.
127-145.
Kelley, H.H. (1973) ‘The Process of Causal Attribution’, American
Psychologist, vol. 28, pp. 107-128.
Knowlton, W.A. and Mitchell, T.R. (1980) ‘Effects of Causal
Attributions on a Supervisor’s Evaluation of Subordinate
Performance’, ‘Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp.
459-466.
Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999),
‘Antecedents and Outcomes of Empowerment: Empirical Evidence
from the Health Care Industry’, Group & Organization
Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 71-91.
Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995) ‘Procedural Justice in
Performance Evaluation: The Role of Instrumental and Non-
instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Discussions’, Journal
of Management, vol. 21. no. 4, pp. 657-669.
Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E. and Liden, R.C. (1999) ‘Psychological
empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct
validity’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 59, no.
1, pp. 127-142.
Kramer. R., McGraw, P. and Schuler, R.S. (1997) Human Resource
Management in Australia, South Melbourne, Australia: Addison
Wesley Longman Australia Pty Limited.
190
Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L., and Murphy, K.R. (1978) ‘Correlates of
Perceived Fairness and Accuracy of Performance Evaluation’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 751-754.
Langer (1983) The Psychology of Control, Calfornia : Sage
Publications Inc.
Langer, E. (1979) ‘The illusion of competence’, in Perlmutter, L. and
Monty, R. (eds.), Choice and perceived control, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Langer, E.J. (1975) ‘The Illusion of Control’, Journal of Personality and
Social Pschology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 311-328.
Larson, J.R. (1989) ‘The dynamic interplay between employees
feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 14, pp. 408-422.
Laschinger, H.K.S. and Havens, D.S. (1996) ‘Staff Nurse Work
Empowerment and Perceived Control over Nursing Practice’,
JONA, vol. 26, no.9, pp. 27-35.
Lawler (1992) ‘ Affective Attachments to nested Groups: A Choice-
Process Theory’, American Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.
327-339.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1973) ‘The function of the illusions of control and
freedom’, American Psychologist, vol. 28, pp. 417-425.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000) ‘The role of interpersonal affective regard in
supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed
causal model’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 73, pp. 67-85.
Lester, S.W., Turnley, W.H., Bloodgood, J.M. and Bolino, M.C. (2002)
‘Not seeing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate
perceptions of attributions for psychological contract breach’,
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 23, pp. 39-56.
Levy, P.E. (1993) ‘Self-Appraisal and Attributions: A Test of a Model’,
Journal of Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 51-62.
Levy, P.E., Cawley, B.D. and Foti, R.J. (1998) ‘Reactions to Appraisal
Discrepancies: Performance Ratings and Attributions’, Journal of
Business and Psychology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 437-455.
191
Liden, R.C. and Mitchell, T.R. (1985) ‘Reactions to Feedback: The
Role of Atrribtions’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 28, no.
2, pp. 291-308.
Liden, R.C., Ferris, G.R. and Dienesch, R.M. (1988) ‘The Influence of
Causal Feedback on Subordinate Reactions and Behavior’, Group
& Organization Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 348-373.
Longenecker, C. and Fink, L. (1999) ‘Creating Effective Performance
Appraisals’, Industrial Management, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 18-25.
Macan, T.H. and Trusty, M.L. (1996) ‘Spector’s Work Locus of Control
Scale: Dimensionality and Validity Evidence’, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 349-358.
Martinko, M.J. (1995) ‘The Nature and Function of Attribution Theory
with the Organizational Sciences’, in Martinko, J. (ed.), Attribution
theory : an Organizational Perspective, Florida: St Lucie Press.
Martkinko, M.J. and Gardner, W.L. (1987) ‘The Leader/Member
Attribution Process’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no.
2, pp. 235-249.
McAllister, D.J. (1995) ‘Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations
for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 38, pp. 24-59.
McGilton, K.S. and Pringle, D.M. (1999) ‘The Effecst of Perceived and
Preferred Control on Nurses’ Job Satisfaction in Long Term Care
Environments’, Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 22, pp. 251-261.
Menon, S.T (2001) ‘Employee Empowerment: An Integrative
Psychological Approach’, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, vol. 50 (1), pp. 153-180.
Messmer, M. (1990) ‘How to put Employee Empowerment Into
Practice’, The Woman CPA, Summer, 1990, p. 25.
Meyer, H.H., Kay, E. and French, J.R.P (1965) ‘Split roles in
performance appraisal’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 43, pp.
123-129.
192
Milkovich, G.T. and Boudreau, J.W. (1997) Human Resource
Management, Bur Ridge: Irwin.
Mitchell, T.R. and Wood, R.E. (1980) ‘Supervisor’s Responses to
Subordinate Poor Performance: A Test of an Attributional Model’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 25, pp.
123-138.
Mitchell, T.R., Green, S.G. and Wood, R.E. (1981) ‘An Attributional
Model of Leadership and the Poor Performing Subordinate:
Development and Validation’, Research in Organizational
Behavior, vol. 3, pp. 197-234.
Moss, S.E. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) ‘The effects of performance
attributions and outcome dependence on leader feedback behavior
following poor subordinate performance’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, vol. 19, pp. 259-274.
Nathan, B.R., Mohrman, A.M., and Milliman, J. (1991) ‘Interpersonal
relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on
performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study’, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 34, pp. 352-369.
Nemeroff, W.F. and Wexley, K.N. (1979) ‘An exploration of the
relationship between performance feedback interview
characteristics and interview outcomes as perceived by managers
and subordinates’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 52, pp.
25-34.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd
edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
O’Driscoll, M.P. and Beehr, T.A. (2000) ‘Moderating Effects of
Perceived Control and Need for Clarity on the Relationship
Between Role Stressors and Employee Affective Reactions’, The
Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 140, no. 2, pp. 151-159.
Owen, A. and Lennie, I. (1992) ‘Health for all and community health’ in
Community Health Policy and Practice in Australia, Australia: Pluto
Press Australia Limited, pp. 6-27.
193
Parker, L.E. (1993) ‘When to Fix It and When to Leave: Relationships
Among Perceived Control, Self-Efficacy, Dissent, and Exit’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 949-959.
Parker, L.E. and Price, R.H. (1994) ‘Empowered Managers and
Empowered Workers: The Effects of Managerial Support and
Managerial Perceived Control on Workers’ Sense of Control over
Decision Making’, Human Relations, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 911-928.
Parkes, K.R. (1989) ‘Personal control in an occupational context’,
Steptoe, A. and Appels, A (eds.) in Stress, Personal Control and
Health, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. pp. 21-47.
Peters, L.H. & O’Connor, E.J. (1980) ‘Situational Constraints and Work
Outcomes: The Influences of a Frequently Overlooked Construct’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 391-397.
Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage Through People, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Pettijohn, L.S., Parker, R.S., Pettijohn, C.E. and Kent, J.L. (2001)
‘Performance appraisals: usage, criteria and observations’, Journal
of Management Development, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 754-771.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986) ‘Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and Prospects’, Journal of Management, vol.
12, pp. 531-544.
Prince, J.B. and Lawler, E.E. (1986) ‘Does salary discussion hurt the
developmental performance appraisal?’, Organizational Behavior
and Human Resource Decision Processes, vol. 37, pp. 357-375.
Robinson, R.F. and Fink, R.L. (1996) ‘The influence of organizational
constituent groups on rater attitudes toward performance appraisal
compliance’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp.
141-152.
Rodin, J., Rennert, K. and Solomon, S.K. (1980) ‘Intrinsic motivation
for control: Fact or fiction in Baum, A. and Singer, J.E. (eds.),
Advances in environmental psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 131-148.
194
Rosenthal, P. (1996) ‘Gender and Managers’ Causal Attributions for
Subordinate Performance: A Field Story’, Sex Roles, vol. 34, no. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J.R. and Snyder, S.S. (1982) ‘Changing the
World and Changing the Self: A Two-Process Model of Perceived
Control’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 42, no.
1, pp. 5-37.
Rothstein, L.R. (1995) ‘The empowerment that came undone’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 20-31.
Rotter, J.B. (1966) ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement’, Psychological Monographs, vol
80, no. 609.
Rudman, R. (1995) Performance Planning and Review, Melbourne:
Pitman Publishing.
Sargent, L.S. and Terry, D.J. (1998) ‘The effects of work control and
job demands on employee adjustment and work performance’,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 71,
pp. 219-236.
Schmidenberg, O.C. and Cordery, J.L. (1988) ‘The Impact of Causal
Attributions on Managers’ Responses to Subordiante Poor
Performance: An Exploratory Study Using Naturalistic Data’,
Australian Journal of Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 333-350.
Scholtes, P.R. (1995) ‘Performance appraisal: obsolete and harmful’,
The Quality Magazine, October, pp. 66-70.
Sekaran, U. (2000) Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building
Approach, 3rd edition, New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1990) Learned Optimism: How to Change your
Mind and your Life, London: Pocket Books.
Skinner, E.A. (1996) ‘A Guide to Constructs of Control’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 549-570.
Smith, C.S., Tisak, J., Hahn, S.E. and Schmieder, R.A. (1997) ‘The
measurement of job control ’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
vol. 18, pp. 225-237.
195
Smith, J.B. (1998) ‘Buyer-Seller Relationships: Similarity Relationship
Management and Quality’, Psychology and Marketing, vol 15, pp.
3-21.
Spector, P.E. (1986) ‘Perceived control by employees. A meta-
analysis of studies concerned autonomy and participation at work’,
Human Relations, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1005-1016.
Spector, P.E. (1988) ‘Development of the Work Locus of Control
Scale’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 335-340.
Spector, P.E. (1992) Summated Rating Scale Construction, Newbury
Park: Sage.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason , S.W. (1997) ‘A Dimensional
Analysis of the Relationship between Psychological, Empowerment
and Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Strain’, Journal of
Management, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 679-704.
Spreitzer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K. (1999) ‘Giving up control without
losing control: Trust and its substitutes’ effects on managers’
involving employees in decision making’, Group and Organization
Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 155-187.
Stanton, J.M. and Barnes-Farrell, J.L. (1996) ‘Effects of Electronic
Performance Monitoring on Personal Control, task Satisfaction and
Task Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 81, no. 6,
pp. 738-745.
Staw, B.M. (1986) ‘Beyond the Control Graph: Steps toward a Model
of Perceived Control in Organizations’, in Stern, R.N. and
McCarthy, S (eds.) The Organizational Practice of Democracy, Chichester : John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp. 305-321.
Tafarodi, R.W., Milne, A.B. and Smith, A.J. (1999) ‘The Confidence of
Choice: Evidence for an Augmentation Effect on Self-Perceived
Performance’, Personalithy and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25,
no. 11, pp. 1405-1416. Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990) ‘Cognitive Elements of
Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 666-681. Tichy, N. (1995) ‘
196
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., Tripoli, A.M. (1997) ‘Alternative
approaches to the employee-organization relationship: does
investment in employees pay off?’, Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 40, pp. 1089-1121.
Tsui, A.S., Porter, L.W. and Egan, T.D. (2002) ‘When both similarities
and dissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational
demography’, Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 899-929.
Veitch and Gifford (1996) ‘Choice, Perceived Control, and
Performance Decrements in the Physical Environment’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, vol. 16, pp 269-276.
Wagner, J.A. and Gooding, R.Z. (1987) ‘Shared influence and
organization behaviour: A neta-analysis of situational variables
expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships’,
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 30, pp. 524-541.
Waldman, D.A. (1994) ‘The contributions of total quality management
to a theory of work performance’, Academy of Management
Review, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 510-533.
Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R. and Mullarkey, S. (1995) ‘Further evidence
on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and
production responsibility’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.
16, pp. 431-455.
Wall, T.D., Martin, Corbett, J.M., Clegg, C.W., Jackson P.R. and
Martin, R. (1990) ‘Advanced manufacturing technology and work
design: Towards a theoretical framework’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol.11, pp. 201-219.
Wallston, K.A., Wallston, S.S. and Dobbins C.J. (1987) ‘Perceived
Control and Health’, Current Psychological Research & Reviews,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 5-25.
Wanous, J.P. (1989) ‘Installing A Realistic Job Preview: Ten Tough
Choices’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 117-133.
Wass, A. (1994) Promoting Health – The Primary Health Care
Approach, Sydney: W.B. Saunders.
197
Weiner, B., Frieze, I, Kukla, A, Reed, L, Rest, S. and Rosenbaum,
R.M. (1972) ‘Perceiving the Causes of Success and Failure’ in
Jones, E..E., Kanhouse, H.H., Kelley, R.E., Nisbett, S., Weiner, B.
(eds.) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behaviour, Morristown:
General Learning Press, pp. 95-120.
Wexley, K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenwalt, J.P. and Couch, M.A.
‘Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal
evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads’, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 23, pp. 320-330.
Wexley, K.N. and Klimoski, R. (1984) ‘Performance appraisal:An
update’ in Rowland K.M. and Gerris, G.D. (eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management, Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Williams, S. and Luthans, F. (1992) ‘The impact of choiceof rewards
and feedback on task performance’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, vol. 13, pp. 653-666.
Williams, J.R. and Levy, P.E. (2000) ’Investigating some Neglected
Criteria: The Influence of Organizational Level and Perceived
System Knowledge on Appraisal Reactions’, Journal of Business
and Psychology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp 501- 513.
Williams, S. (1998) ‘An Organizational Model of Choice: A Theoretical
analysis differentiating choice, personal control and self-
determination’, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 465-483.
Xenikou, A., Furnham, A. and McCarrey, M. (1997) ‘Attributional style
for negative events: A proposition for a more reliable and valid
measurement of attributional style’, British Journal of Psychology,
vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 53-65.
Yammarino, F.J. and Dansereau, F. (2002) ‘Individualized
Leadership’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, vol.
9., no. 1, pp. 90-99.
Yammarino, F.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1992) ‘Superior-Subordinate
Relationships: A Multiple Levels of Analysis Approach’, Human
Relations, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 575-591.
198
Yoon, J., Han, & Seo, Y.J. (1996) Sense of control among hospital
employees: An assessment of choice process, empowerment and
buffering hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol.
26, pp. 686-716.
199
top related