THE EFFECTS OF JOB CONTROL PERCEPTIONS AND … · THE EFFECTS OF JOB CONTROL PERCEPTIONS AND SUPERVISOR PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTIONS ON SUBORDINATE REACTIONS TO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 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


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

halla

This figure is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library.

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

halla


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)

halla

This table is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library.

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


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

halla


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

halla


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

_____________________

halla


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:


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:


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

___


H1 H3

H4



Reactions to

Performance

Evaluation

(satisfaction

and utility)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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_______________________________________________________________


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


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

_______________________________________________________________


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

_______________________________________________________________


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

_______________________________________________________________


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:


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

_______________________________________________________________


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:


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

_______________________________________________________________


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

_______________________________________________________________


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

_______________________________________________________________


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


H1 H3

H4




Reactions to

Performance

Evaluation

(satisfaction

and utility)

167


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

THE EFFECTS OF JOB CONTROL PERCEPTIONS AND … · THE EFFECTS OF JOB CONTROL PERCEPTIONS AND SUPERVISOR PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTIONS ON SUBORDINATE REACTIONS TO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Documents