implications of differential job perceptions
TRANSCRIPT
R O B E R T D U B I N , LYMAN W . P O R T E R , E U G E N E F . S T O N E ,
AND J O S E P H E . C H A M P O U X *
Implications of Differential Job Perceptions
AN ORGANIZATION, because it provides a complex environ- ment for its members, can be all things to all people. Complexity provides opportunities for individuals to “package” the features of their environment in various combinations and thus may facilitate the process by which a member achieves an adaptive fit with his employing organization. However, the adaptation of employees to an organization requires neither a uniform setting nor identical persons.
Organizations clearly are not so orderly that their stimulus value is consis- tently uniform for their members; individuals with obvious differences are not very likely to have identical perceptions of their employing organiza- tions, At the same time, however, organizations are not so disordered, or individuals so unique, that each employee has a distinct perception of his work that differs from that of all other employees. If the linkage between individual and organization is aided by the ability of persons to “see” their work environment in special ways-permitting individuals with varying outlooks to adapt to a complex organizational environment-then an impor- tant research question is, to what extent do similarly situated workers share common perceptions of their work?
Differential perceptions of various features of work and work organiza- tions have been reported in a wide range of studies. Contrasting perceptions have been noted, for example, between senders and receivers of business
* The authors are, res ectively, Professor of Sociology and Administration, School of Social
Graduate School of Administration, University of California, Irvine; Assistant Professor of Man- agement, School of Economics and Management, Oakland University; and Assistant Professor of Business and Administration, School of Business and Administrative Sciences, University of New Mexico.
Sciences, University of Ca E ‘fornia, Irvine; Dean and Professor of Administration and Psychology,
265
266 / ROBERT DUBIN, ET AL.
messages, between authority holders and their subordinates, among several kinds of work groups, and between industrial paternalists and their em- ployees. Different groups have distinctive views about the play element in work behavior, about technical work interactions, and about interaction in collective bargaining. Executives view their work from the standpoint of their functional roles, while scientists employed in industry see greater legitimacy in collegial than line auth0rity.l
This study measures the differential perceptions of 16 craft jobs by sev- eral groups of employees in a single stable organization2 We found that job incumbents view their jobs differently than other individuals who are familiar with the same jobs (i.e., supervisors and peers). These contrasting perceptions relate to skill level and position on a career ladder, but certain characteristics of the jobs are seen very differently by job incumbents and supervisors and peers regardless of skill level or career stage.
Sample and Measures The organization. Data for this study came from employees
in the Plant Department of a Southern California telephone company. The Plant Department’s function is to install equipment in the central office, at the customer’s location, and link the two together. Within the Plant Depart- ment were 16 jobs that at the time of the study had existed for a long period of time and were relatively unchanging. There was comparatively low turn- over within the divisions of the Plant Department, so job incumbents were
1 In the order of the subjects, the ap ropriate references are: (1) business messages-Torn Burns, “The Directions of Activity and eommunication in a Departmental Executive Group: A Quantitative Study in a British Engineering Factory with a Self-recording Technique,” Human Relations, VII (February, 1954), 73-79; T. D. Weinshall, “Communicogram: A Way to Describe the Pattern, Frequency, and Accuracy of Organizational Communication” (Haifa: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, 1964), mimrographed; (2) authority-Wilfred B. Brown, ExpZoratiun in M u m ement (New York: Wiley, 1960); (3) work groups-Leonard Sayles, Behavior of Industria& Work Groups: Prediction and Controol (New York: Wiley, 1958); (4) paternalism-Robert Dubin and Donald W. Wra , “Case Study 2: Metal Products,” in Milton Derber, ed., Labor-Mana ement Relations in Z&ni City (Urbana, Ill.: Universi of Illinois.
William J. Dickson, Manugement and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939), and Donald F. Roy, ‘‘ ‘Banana Time‘: Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction,” Human Organization, XVIII (Winter, 1959-1960), 158-168; (6) work interactions-William F. Whyte, H u m Rekztions in the Restaurant Industry (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1548); (7) collective bargaining-Neil W. Chomlserlain, Collectiue Bargaining (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951); (8) executives-DeWitt Dearborn and Herbert A. Simon, Selective Perception: A Note on the Departmental Idenacation of Executives,” Sociomety, XXI (June, 1958), 140-144; and (9) scientists-Simon Marcson, The Scientist in American Zdu.sty (Princeton: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, 1960).
2 This research was carried out under a contract from the Office of Naval Research (Con- tract No. N00014-69-A-420@-9001 NR 151-315). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Richard T. Mowday and Richard M. Steers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Institute of Labor and In f ustrial Relations, 1953); (5) play element-Fritz J, Roe$sbe.rger and
Diferentid Job Perceptions / 267
thoroughly familiar not only with their own jobs but with other jobs in the department. Furthermore, supervisory personnel were typically recruited from the 16 craft jobs and were, therefore, knowledgeable about them. The structure and departmentalization of the Plant Department had been stable over a number of years. In short, we were dealing with an organizational situation where there were relatively few and stable jobs and where the characteristics of these jobs were widely known.
Research instrument. Job incumbents, peers (i.e., other craft workers in the department), and supervisors rated the 16 jobs. A total of 164 ratings was obtained from incumbents rating their own jobs, or about an average of 10 per job. Craft workers, in addition, supplied 189 ratings (approxi- mately 11 per job) of jobs other than their own (peer ratings). Supervisors provided a total of 270 ratings. Individuals who participated in the study worked at one of 14 locations in the Southern California area.
The instrument used to obtain data on the job characteristics was a modified version of that developed by Hackman and Lawler.3 Eight job characteristics were rated:
1. Variety. The extent to which the individual uses different procedures and equipment in doing his work.
2. Autonomy. The extent to which the individual has discretion over the scheduling and execution of job related tasks.
3. Wholeness of Job. The extent to which the individual does a whole piece of work on his job and not just a part of a job which is finished by someone else.4
4. Feedback. The extent to which the individual receives information about his performance while doing his job.
5. Friendship Opportunities. The extent to which the individual can talk to other empIoyees about matters not related to the job.
6. Dealing with Others. The extent to which working with others is an important part of the job.
7. Prestige (craft jobs CIS a reference group). The extent to which an individual perceives his job as being prestigious when compared with other craft jobs in the company.
8. Prestige (all other jobs as a reference group). The extent to which an
3 J. Richard Hackman and Edward E. Lawler, 111, “Employee Reactions to Job Character- istics,” Journal of Applied Psychology, LV (June, 1971), 259-286.
4 This dimension was measured by the question: “To what extent does a person do a ‘whole‘ piece of work on this job (as op sed to doing part of a job which is finished by some other employee)?” Hackman and L a w g labelled this dimension “Task Identity.” We think “Whole- ness of Job” is a more accurate characterization of what was actually measured.
TAB
LE 1
COMPARISONS
OF
JOB
CH
AR
AC
TE
RIS
TIC
S M
EA
NS:
JO
B INCUMBENTS
vs. S
UPE
RW
SOR
S AND
PEE
RS
Who
lene
ss
9 2 F D
eali
ng
Frie
ndsh
ip
Pres
tige
Pres
tige
with
oth
ers
Aut
onom
y V
arie
ty
oppo
rtun
ihes
(a
ll)
Feed
back
(c
raft
) of
job
Lin
e A
ssig
ner
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
Mes
seng
er
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ SU
PPly
man
+
+ +
3-
+ +
Fram
eman
+
+ +
Plan
t Ser
vice
Cle
rk
+ +
+ +
+ + Pl
ant R
epor
ts C
lerk
4-
Stat
ion I
nsta
ller
4-
+ +
+ B
uild
ing
Mec
hani
c +
Line
man
4-
-
Des
lana
n I-
+ +
+ C
ontro
l Of6
ce
+ + +
Equi
pmen
tman
3.
+ +
Rep
orts
Cle
rk
-
+ St
atio
n Rep
airm
an
- +
+ Sp
licer
-
PBX
Ins
talle
r +
PBX
ReD
airm
an
-
+ + + -
+ +
+ +
- +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
- -
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
+ -
+ -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
c
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- N
OT
E: A
(+)
sign
indi
cata
tha
t th
e in
cum
bent
’s m
ean
rati
ng i
s gr
eate
r th
an t
he c
ombi
ned
mea
n of
sup
ervi
sors
and
pee
rs.
A (-
) si
gn i
ndic
ates
tha
t th
e in
cum
bent
’s m
ean
rati
ng is
Iw
than
the
com
bine
d m
ean
of s
uper
viso
rs a
nd p
eers
. A
n (=
) si
gn i
ndic
ates
tha
t th
e in
cum
bent
’s m
ean
rati
ng i
s eq
ual
to t
he c
ombi
ned
mea
n of
supe
rvis
ors
and
peer
s.
Diferential Job Perceptions / 269
individual perceives his job as being prestigious when compared with all other jobs in the company.
A seven point Likert-type scale was provided for each item in the instru- ment. The midpoint as well as the two end points on each scale were labeled. (See Hackman and Lawler for additional information about the question- naire.)
Analysis and Results Between-group perceptual differences. In order to assess the
degree of perceived similarity among jobs for a given rater group (incum- bents, peers, or supervisors), profiles were constructed for each job. The mean ratings for each rater group of the eight job characteristics across the 16 jobs were used to construct the profile^.^ Profile similarity was determined by computing inter-profile (Euclidian) distances. This resulted in a 16 x 16 inter-job distance matrix for each rater group which was then analyzed by the TORSCA nonmetric multidimensional scaling program.’ Solutions ranging from two to seven dimensions were obtained for each rater group, and, using standard criteria, the “best” reduced dimension configuration was selected.‘ A three-dimensional configuration was deemed “best” for all three rater groups.
To assess quantitatively the extent to which jobs were similarly per- ceived by the three rater groups, inter-job distances were used to compute product-moment correlations among distances for all possible pairs of rater groups. The correlations, in each case based on an n of 120 distances, are:
incumbents and peers incumbents and supervisors supervisors and peers
r = .ll r = .22 r = -78
These results clearly indicate that supervisors and peers perceived the 16 jobs similarly, while there was considerably less agreement between incum- bents and peers and between incumbents and supervisors.
Incumbent perceptions vs. those of peers and superuisors. Are there systematic differences in the perceptions of job incumbents as compared to the perceptions of supervisors and peers? Table 1 shows the results of
5 Lee J. Cronbach and Goldine C. Gleser, “Assessing Similarity Between Profiles,” Psycho- 2ogicaZ Bulktin, L (November, 1953), 45-73.
6 Forrest W. Young and Warren S. Torgerson, “TORSCA: A Fortran IV Program for Shep- ad-Kruskal Multidimensional Scaling Analysis,” Behaubral Science, XI1 (November, 1967), 498.
7 Roger N. Shepard, “Introduction t o Volume 1,” in Roger N. Shepard, A. Kimball Romney, and Sara Beth Nerlove, eds., MuZtidimensbnuZ Scaling (New York: Seminar Press, 1972).
270 / ROBERT DUBIN, ET AL.
comparing incumbents’ mean ratings of the eight job characteristics of their own jobs with those of peers and supervisors (we combined the ratings of peers and supervisors since, as indicated above, the correlation between their ratings was so high). A plus (+) entry in Table 1 indicates that the incumbents rated the job characteristic lugher than the combined rating by supervisors and peers, a minus (-) sign indicates that the incumbents had a lower rating, and an equal sign (=) indicates that the mean incumbent rating was the same as that of the other two rater groups.
Two features of Table 1 are notable. There were jobs which incumbents consistently rated differently than supervisors and peers. There also were job characteristics which incumbents consistently perceived differently than the other two rater groups. We will examine both of these findings.
Digerences among jobs. The first six jobs in Table 1 are ones for which job incumbents rated their own job higher than did supervisors and peers on six or more of the eight job characteristics. (If one assumes that the appearance of a plus sign in any given row is as likely as the probability of a minus sign, then the probability of a row having six or more entries of the same sign is equal to or less than .15.)’ It is notable that five of these six jobs (Messenger, Supplyman, Frameman, Plant Service Clerk, and Plant Reports Clerk) were entry-level jobs and among the lowest paid craft jobs. Thus, within this organization, it is clear that employees with low tenure and relatively low skilled jobs characteristically valued almost all features of their jobs more than did supervisors and peers.
The last three jobs in Table 1 are the ones for which job incumbents rated their own job below the ratings of supervisors and peers on six or more of the eight job characteristics (p I .15). All three jobs (Splicer, PBX Installer, and PBX Repairman) were skilled, terminal jobs in their respec- tive job progression ladders; any move beyond these highly skilled jobs was generally into supervision. Thus, the tendency to rate one’s own job lower than others rate the job was associated with holding a skilled, terminal-type job in the organization.
Differences among job characteristics. An examination of the columns of Table 1 reveals job characteristics for which there were differential incum-
8 Probabilities were computed using the cumulative binomial distribution, 011 the assumption that p(+) = p(-) = #. This appears to be a reasonable assumption sinw there would be nc a priori reason to suspect that the number of pluses in the table should either be less than or greater than the number of minuses.
For the pu ose of this analysis, equal signs in the table were treated as minuses. This con- vention allowe?the binomial distribution to be utilized.
Differential Job Perceptions / 271
bent-other ratings.Q For four job characteristics (Dealing With Others, Autonomy, Variety, and Wholeness of Job), there appeared to be systematic incumbent-other differences. For each of these characteristics, there were 11 or more entries of the same sign in their respective columns. (From the cumulative binomial distribution, it is known that the probability of having a column with 11 or more entries of the same sign is less than or equal
For Dealing With Others, Autonomy, and Variety, job incumbents rated their job higher than did supervisors and peers. For the Wholeness of Job dimension, however, incumbents rated their own jobs lower than did the other two groups.
to .11.)
Summary. The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: 1. There were substantial differences between the views incumbents
had of their own jobs and the views nonincumbents (either supervisors or peers) had of the same jobs; the ratings of peers and supervisors were more similar to each other than either of these were to the ratings of incumbents.
2. Incumbents in entry-level jobs rated their own jobs higher than did the other two groups on almost all of the eight job characteristics. Incum- bents in skilled, terminal-type jobs, however, rated their own jobs lower on almost all of the characteristics than did their supervisors and peers.
3. On four of the eight job characteristics there was a tendency for in- cumbents in most of the 16 jobs to systematically rate their own jobs higher on Dealing With Others, Autonomy, and Variety, and lower on Wholeness of Job than did their supervisors and peers.
Discussion and Implications The first finding just summarized, that standard and estab-
lished jobs in an organization are differentially perceived by job incumbents, supervisors, and peers, is especially noteworthy since the content of the 16 jobs included in this study has not changed for a relatively long period of time. Furthermore, only those employees familiar with the job supplied ratings of them. Thus, there is clear evidence that “objective” job charac- teristics are “seen” differently when viewed from different employee per- spec tives.
The finding that incumbents in certain entry-level jobs consistently rated their jobs higher on most (i.e., six or more) of the job characteristics than
9Of course, the fact that the findings reported for jobs (rows in Table 1) are not indepen- dent of the findings reported for characteristics (columns in Table 1) must be kept in mind. Given the fact that there were actually nine jobs for which systematic incumbent-other per- ceptual differences existed, the findings of only four columns showing systematic perceptual differences is not surprising.
272 / ROBERT DUBIN, ET AL.
did supervisors and peers, while incumbents in other terminal-type jobs consistently rated their jobs lower on most of these job characteristics than did others is of interest and may be attributable to what Thibaut and Kelley have referred to as “idealization” and “debunking.”l’ Idealization refers to a tendency on the part of an individual to evaluate his present situation more in terms of rewards (pay, prestige, power, etc.) than costs (effort, frustration, discomfort). This may occur in the case of entry-level job incum- bents who consistently rated their own jobs higher than did others. Debunk- ing, on the other hand, is said to occur when an individual evaluates his present situation more in terms of costs than rewards. This may have been a factor underlying the tendency for those in skilled, terminal-type jobs to rate their own job lower than did others. Incumbents in these ‘,top” jobs may view their chances of obtaining either substantial pay increases or promotions as being remote and, therefore, down-rate their own jobs. An alternative interpretation is that individuals in skilled, terminal-type jobs may have a downward career anchorage-they feel that they have already made “satisfying” advances from their career starting point-rather than being upwardly anchored in their career perspective on some, as yet, unat- tained job.” Perhaps a downward career anchorage is part of the “debunk- ing” process, and the two orientations complement each other.
The patterns of differences among the eight job characteristics is difficult to explain. However, we will offer some possible explanations that deserve further investigation. Why do job incumbents rate their jobs significantly higher on Dealing With Others, Autonomy, and Variety than do others who are familiar with the job? These three job characteristics seem to share one feature; very detailed information is necessary to evaluate them. By way of contrast, Feedback, Friendship Opportunities, and the two Prestige job characteristics require less intimate knowledge of a given job, and it was on these four job features that there was no difference of evaluation between fob holders and others. Someone doing a job is more likely to experience very small and/or minor aspects of the work as affording more opportuni- ties for autonomy or variety or working with others than an outsider can observe. If these experiences of job incumbents are added to the informa- tion about job characteristics that are readily observed, then we would expect that the job holders would “see” more of these features.
10 John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley, The Social PsychoZogy 01 Groups (New York: Wilev. 1959).
Curt Tausky and Robert Dubin, “Career Anchorage: Managerial Mobility Motivations,” Antedrun SodoZoglcnE Reutew, XXX (October, 1965), 725-735. In other data collected in the current stud , it was found that 48 per cent of the workers in high-skilled terminal jobs had a downwadcareer anchorage, while 35 per cent of the workers in entry-level jobs had the same downward career anchorage.
Diferential Job Perceptions / 273
On the characteristic of Wholeness of Job, incumbents of 12 of the 16 jobs down-rated their work relative to the ratings of peers and supervisors. One explanation for this result may lie in the fact that there is detailed specification of job tasks among all the jobs in the Plant Department and especially among the jobs involving direct work with, or on, the telephone equipment. Perhaps the existence of detailed standard operating proced- ures for each job, and even each piece of new equipment, may be viewed as a bureaucratic specification of task performance that lowers the individual’s feeling he is doing a whole job.”
One final point deserves comment. The systematic differences in percep- tion reported above for jobs and characteristics were not found for either all jobs or all characteristics. For seven of the 16 jobs and four of the eight job characteristics there were no systematic differences between the per- ceptions of job incumbents and supervisors and peers. These findings indi- cate the need for further systematic research to determine the fundamental bases of differential perceptions among various employee groups.
In summary, it is not only true that there are differential perceptions of certain job features but that some of these differences have systematic varia- tion. We need to know more about the orderliness of perceptions of job and organizational environments, for such knowledge may help answer the question: if differential perception of the work environment is the reality of work organizations, then is this very human condition functional for the organization? Does the opportunity to see what one wants to see in work make it possible for some workers to adapt to a wide variety of employment circumstances and difficult or impossible for other workers to do the same?
12 Something comparable was revealed in a study of a different list of job factors where incumbents rated their own jobs higher on “desirability” and “popular regard” but lower on “material rewards” and “safety” than did a sample drawn from the general population. See Peter H. Rossi and Alex Inkeles, “Multidimensional Ratings of Occupations,” Socfonzet~y, XX (September, 1957), 234-251.