THE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS AND …orion2020.org/archivo/investigacion/muestras_2/ejemplo_doc2.pdf · kinds of CP behavior and this perceived accountability for the ... of

THE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS AND PERCEIVED ACCOUNTABILITY ON CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

A Dissertation

Presented for

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree

The University of Memphis

SeungYong Kim

May, 2003

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3092444

UMIUMI Microform 3092444

Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by SeungYong Kim entitled "The Effects

of Situational Factors and Perceived Accountability on Contextual Performance." I have

examined the final copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy with a major in Business Administration.

James Van Scotter, Ph. D. Major Professor

We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:

Carol Danepower, Hh. D.

DavrdAllin, Ph. D. j

RobertOtondo,Ph. p . x?

Robert Taylor, Ph. D

Accepted for the Council:

Karen D. Weddle-West, Ph.D. Interim Assistant Vice Provost for Graduate Studies


ABSTRACT

To extend the current contextual performance (CP) literature that emphasizes

individuals’ discretion on CP behaviors, this study was prepared to test a premise that job

situations and managerial actions encourage employees to feel accountable for specific

kinds of CP behavior and this perceived accountability for the behavior leads to the actual

behaviors. To test this premise, the current study identified seven situational factors,

including task significance, task identity, autonomy, supervisor feedback, initiated task

interdependence, received task interdependence, and behavioral norms. All of these

situational factors, except received task interdependence, were hypothesized to have

indirect positive effects on CP through perceived accountability. Received task

interdependence was expected to have an indirect negative effect on CP through

perceived accountability. Data was collected from 409 supervisor-subordinate dyads

from various organizations in terms of size and industry. Results showed that even after

the effects of individual difference variables, such as personality traits, job experience,

and hierarchical organizational position, on CP behaviors were controlled, perceived

accountability level explained a significant amount of variance in CP behaviors. In turn,

all the situational factors, except received task interdependence, predicted a significant

amount of variance in perceived accountability. Particularly, three situational factors (i.e.,

behavioral norms, supervisor feedback, and autonomy) still explained unique variances in

perceived accountability when other situational factors were controlled. Also, the results

of mediation analyses showed that perceived accountability fully mediated the effects of

task significance, task identity, autonomy, and behavioral norms on CP behaviors, while

supervisor feedback and initiated task interdependence still had direct effects on CP.

ii


These findings supported the premise of the current study. That is, managers can

increase employees’ perceived accountability for CP behaviors particularly by

developing and supporting behavioral norms corresponding to the CP behaviors,

designing jobs in a way that employees can exercise their own discretion in carrying out

tasks, and providing subordinates with more feedback on their performance. In turn,

people are likely to display more CP behaviors, as they experience a higher level of

perceived accountability for CP behaviors. Detail discussions on theoretical and practical

implications of the current findings and directions for future research are provided.

iii


Table of Contents

List of Tables............................. vii

List of Figures........................................................................... viii

CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION ................. 1

Overview of A Research Framework......................... 4

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .............. 8

Contextual Performance vs. Task Performance.................. 8

Perceived Accountability ............ 16

Job-related Characteristics as the Sources of Perceived Accountability....................... 22

Task Significance...........................................................................................................26

Task Identity and Autonomy .......... 28

Supervisor Feedback.............................. 30

Task Interdependence................................................................................................... 33

Behavioral Norms..............................................................................................................36

Summary and Mediation Effects of Perceived Accountability and Job Dedication 39

CHAPTER III METHOD..................................................................................................... 44

Data Collection Design..................................................................................................... 44

Procedure & Sample............................................ 46

Measures ......................................................................... 47

Control Variables........................................ 47

Job-related Characteristics............................................................................................ 49

Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication......................................................................... 51

Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication....................... 52

Performance Elements........................ 53

CHAPTER IV ANALYSES & RESULTS............................ 56

Initial Analyses .......... 59

Personality Traits ...... 59

iv


Job-related Characteristics ............... 60

Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication ................... 62

Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication .......... 63

Performance Elements ............. 63

Hypotheses Testing................................... 67

Interrelationships among Performance Elements .......... 67

Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication - Job Dedication ..... 74

Situational Factors - Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication .............75

Perceived Accountability and Job Dedication as Mediators................. 86

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 90

Study Summary ........ 90

Limitations .................. 92

Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications...................... 93

Directions for Future Research.........................................................................................97

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................102

APPENDIXES

A. Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication...................................................122

B. Task Identity........................................................................................................118

C. Task Significance................................................................................................119

D. Autonomy............................................................................................................ 120

E. Supervisor Feedback.......................................................................................... 121

F. Initiated Task Interdependence...........................................................................121

G. Received Task Interdependence............................................................ 122

H. Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication ........................................................ 122

I. Conscientiousness.................................................................................................123

J. Extroversion/Introversion................................................................................. 124

K. Agreeableness....................................................................... 125

L. Demographic Variables - Subordinate.............................................................. 126

v


M. Job Dedication ...................... 127

N. Interpersonal Facilitation ...... 128

O. Task Performance .......... 129

P. Demographic Variables - Supervisor ................ 131

vi


List of Tables

Table 2-1 Taxonomies and Typologies of Contextual Performance ............ .........11

Table 4-1 Factor Structure of Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness.... 59

Table 4-2 Factor Structure of Job-Related Characteristics....................... ................. . 61

Table 4-3 Factor Structure of Behavioral Norms.................................................. ...........62

Table 4-4 Factor structure of Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication ........... 64

Table 4-5 Factor Structure of Performance Elements.................. .. .. ..............................65

Table 4-6 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics..................... 66

Table 4-7 Effects of Job Dedication on Interpersonal Facilitation controlling for

individual difference .......................................................... 69

Table 4-8 Effects of Job Dedication on Task Performance-Technical controlling for

individual difference ............. 70

Table 4-9 Effects of and Job Dedication on Task Performance-Managerial controlling

for individual difference...................................... 70

Table 4-10 Effect of Perceived Accountability on Job Dedication ...................74

Table 4-11 Unique Contribution of Each Situational Factors on Perceived

Accountability.......................................... 76

Table 4-12 Effect of Task Significance on Perceived Accountability ......................77

Table 4-13 Effect of Task Identity on Perceived Accountability.................................... 78

Table 4-14 Effect of Autonomy on Perceived Accountability.........................................79

Table 4-15 Effect of Supervisor Feedback on Perceived Accountability........................80

Table 4-16 Effect of Initiated Task Interdependence on Perceived Accountability .....81

Table 4-17 Effect of Received Task Interdependence on Perceived Accountability 82

Table 4-18 Effect of Presented Behavioral Norms on Perceived Accountability 83

Table 4-19 Effect of Conscientiousness x Received Task Interdependence on Perceived

Accountability...................................................................................................85

Table 4-20 Mediation Effect of Perceived Accountability on Situational Factors - Job

Dedication ............. 87

Table 4-21 Mediation Effect of Job Dedication on Perceived Accountability - Other

Types of Performance.... ........ 89

vii


List of Figures

Figure 1-1 A Preliminary Research Framework.... ............... 5

Figure 2-1 A Revised Research Framework..................................................................... 22

Figure 2-2 A Model of Perceived Accountability .......................................... 24

Figure 2-3 Summary of Hypotheses ........... 40

Figure 4-1 Interrelationships among Performance Elements........................................... 73

Figure 4-2 Patterns of Perceived Accountability of Conscientiousness x Received Task

Interdependence................................................................................................ 85

viii


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

While performance has been defined primarily in terms of task performance

elements (Borman, 1991), researchers have recognized the importance of the non-

traditional performance behaviors, described as contextual performance (Borman &

Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Contextual performance (CP) refers

to activities that differ from job-specific task performance but are still important for

achieving organizational goals. Some examples include volunteering to carry out

difficult task activities, persisting with extra enthusiasm or effort when necessary to

complete own task activities successfully, and helping and cooperating with others

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993: 73). Research has consistently shown that these behaviors

contribute to organizational effectiveness in different ways from the way task

performance does (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Kiker

& Motowidlo, 1999; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, Aheame & MacKenzie, 1997; Van

Scotter, 2000). CP is important in achieving organizational goals, because innovative

and spontaneous behaviors help organizations cope with volatile and dynamic business

environments (Katz, 1964). However, compared with task performance, CP is much less

likely to be listed in a formal job description or explicitly included in promotion criteria

(Lepine & Dyne, 2001; Organ, 1988). Despite its importance CP has been assumed to be

exhibited as a matter of individual discretion (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997),

although organizations cannot afford to depend on chance or employees’ goodwill to

provide the innovative and spontaneous activities they need (Kerr, 1975). So, the

1


question that this study will address is, “What can managers do to encourage their

subordinates to engage in CP?”

This study argues that physical, psychological, and social environments created

by managers make employees feel accountable for performing CP. In particular,

employees’ performance is influenced by task and organizational environments that

facilitate CP, communicate expectations about CP, and monitor employees’ CP

behaviors. Just as the situational constraints literature (Peters, Chassie, Lindblom,

O'Conner & Kline, 1982; Peters & O'Connor, 1980) that suggests that people may be

prevented from successfully accomplishing a task due to situational characteristics

beyond their control, the literature on job characteristics and organizational culture

suggests that task environments and social environments can increase performance. One

reason may be that work environments may increase employees’ perceptions of the

responsibility for performing specific work behaviors or by increasing their perceptions

that they are accountable for their actions (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999; Dose & Klimoski,

1995; Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; O'Reilly, 1989; Pearce &

Gregersen, 1991). For example, Morrison’s study (1994), found that increased

interactions with supervisors lead subordinates to perceive a broader scope of task

responsibility and eventually induce more CP behaviors. Research on accountability

(Frink & Klimoski, 1998; London, Smither & Adsit, 1997; Tetlock & Kim, 1987) shows

that managers’ monitoring activities affect their subordinates’ behavior by requiring them

to answer for their actions and by informing them of consequences of the decision or

behaviors.

2


The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among some of these

situational factors and supervisory behavior, employees’ perceptions of accountability for

contextual performance and actual contextual performance. The premise of this study is

that job situations and managerial actions encourage employees to feel accountable for

specific kinds of behavior and this perceived accountability for the behavior leads to the

actual behavior.

This study contributes to the CP literature by investigating a new source of

variance in CP and adding to results suggesting that employees’ individual discretion

explains contextual performance exhibited at the work place (Motowidlo et al., 1997).

The emphasis has led researchers to focus on individual variables, such as personality

traits and moods, as the antecedents of CP. For example, studies that examined the

nature of non-traditional performance elements (Conway, 1999; Motowidlo & Van

Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) and their antecedents (Beaty, Cleveland

& Murphy, 2001; Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo & Borman, 1998; Hogan & Shelton, 1998;

Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Motowidlo et al., 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van

Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) provide evidence that contextual performance differs across

personality traits. That is, people would work harder than necessary and persist to

overcome work problems, because they are conscientious; people would help coworkers,

because they are agreeable or extraverted (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van Scotter &

Motowidlo, 1996). Other researchers (Carlson, Charlin & Miller, 1988; George & Brief,

1992; Isen & Baron, 1991; Morris, 1989) supporting a mood state perspective suggest

that people display good behaviors when they feel good. This stream of research has

broadened our understanding of why people display contextual performance and provided

3


practical implications for recruitment and selection activities. That is, the literature

suggests that organizations should recruit and select people who have the job experience,

skills, knowledge, and ability needed to achieve acceptable task performance and who

possess the relevant personalities to foster contextual performance (CP). However,

organizations cannot obviously afford to fire all their existing employees and hire new

ones who will perform more CP. Findings from the current study will show what else

managers can do to foster contextual performance in the work place.

Overview of A Research Framework

As mentioned earlier, the premise of this study is that some situational factors

may influence employees’ perceptions of accountability for specific kinds of behavior

and this perception leads to the actual behavior. Testing the premise of this study

requires three groups of constructs: situational factors, accountability, and performance

behaviors. Figure 1-1 shows the variables that this study will examine to test the

premise.

Regarding the situational factors, the current study will focus on only six

situational factors: task significance, task identity, autonomy, task interdependence,

supervisor feedback, and behavioral norms. In their accountability model, Dose and

Klimoski (1995) suggested that when individuals perceive their jobs or actions as having

significance and have enough control over the situation to achieve tasks, they are likely to

feel accountable for their behaviors. The job characteristics literature identified task

autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and task interdependence (Pearce & Gregersen,

1991) as the sources of felt responsibility, which is suggested as a core component of

perceived accountability (Cummings & Anton, 1990; Daft, 2002; Schlenker, Britt,

4


Pennington, Murphy & Doherty, 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). Frink and Klimoski

(1998) suggested that accountability is subject not only to structural contingencies, such

as evaluation systems, reward systems, and disciplinary procedures, but also to social

contingencies, such as organizational culture and behavioral norms. Finally, while both

goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) and control theory (Taylor, Fisher & Ilgen,

1984) emphasize that performance improvement requires specific goals and specific

feedback, some characteristics of the feedback process are determinants of perceived

accountability for using the information obtained from the feedback (London et al., 1997).

Task Significance

Task Identity

Autonomy

Supervisor Feedback

Task Interdependence

1 s« 1 W Su s« ©e- g

<

ContextualPerformance

Performance

TaskPerformance

Behavioral Norms

Figure 1-1 A Preliminary Research Framework

Although selection of these variables is based upon their likely relatedness to

perceived accountability, this should not be interpreted as an indication that the other

5


variables are less related to accountability than are the selected variables. In fact,

managers can use a much wider variety of factors to encourage employees to feel

accountable in the work place. Since an organization must induce more than a modest

level of predictability and conformity in the behavior of its members to accomplish

organizational goals (Katz & Kahn, 1978), an organization’s structural and social

features, such as job structure, formal reporting relationships, monitoring system,

performance appraisals, compensation, training, group norms, corporate culture, and

loyalty to an individual’s superior and colleagues, are aimed at establishing a certain level

of accountability for a certain type of behaviors (Daft, 2002; Dose & Klimoski, 1995;

Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Managers can use any of these, or some combinations of these

features to make employees feel accountable for specific kinds of behaviors.

While accountability is often described in terms of requirements to report to a

supervisor based upon a combination of authority and responsibility etched into a

position (Daft, 2002), the current study employs a phenomenological approach (i.e., state

of mind). To the understanding of accountability, this approach does not necessarily

demand - yet still allows for the existence of formal reporting requirements and

perceptual distortion (Camevale, 1985; Frink, 1994). This approach is more appropriate

for the current study than one that emphasizes a particular state of affairs faced by an

individual for two reasons (Cummings & Anton, 1990). First, while the current study

focuses on the relationship of accountability to CP, CP is not usually explicitly prescribed

in a job description or contract, and therefore, not directly subject to the official or

organizationally imposed reporting obligation. Second, the extent to which different

individuals perceive themselves accountable may vary even with the same organizational

6


or job-related structure or features (Frink, 1994). Therefore, the current study focuses on

people’s perceived accountability level rather than on an official or organizationally

imposed accountability level.

A phenomenological approach to the conceptualization of accountability requires

that measures of accountability and performance behaviors are each fairly specific,

because people experience different levels of perceived accountability for different target

behaviors (London et al., 1997). However, contextual performance spans a wide range of

behaviors (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Therefore, before focusing on a specific type of

contextual performance, it is important to discuss the rationale for expecting

accountability for a certain type of CP behavior to lead to the actual CP behavior. Kiker

and Motowidlo (1999) reported a positive interaction between interpersonal facilitation

behaviors and task performance on supervisors’ reward decisions, and suggested that if

people do not perform job tasks at least at some minimum level of effectiveness, CP will

have little bearing on supervisors’ judgments about their value to the organization. In

contrast, Griffin and others (2000) found evidence suggesting a negative interaction

effect between CP and task performance on perceived effectiveness rated by supervisors.

That is, there was a strong relationship between CP and effectiveness under the low task

performance situation. Unfortunately, they lumped all subdimensions of CP into one CP

score in their analysis, even though they reported that one of the sub-dimensions (i.e.,

teamwork) of their CP measures was similar to interpersonal facilitation behaviors that

Kiker and Motowidlo (1999) used. Therefore, it is not clear which type of CP behaviors

caused the opposite interaction between CP and TP.

7


CHAPTER2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will review the literature on performance domain and examine the

interrelationship among the performance domains to identify elements of CP that may be

target behaviors of perceived accountability. Then, possible relationships between

perceived accountability for the CP behaviors and six situational factors will be proposed.

Contextual Performance vs. Task Performance

As mentioned earlier, while performance has traditionally been defined primarily

in terms of task performance elements (Borman, 1991; Campbell, 1990), researchers have

recently started incorporating non-task performance elements into the performance

domain. Among the issues raised through this effort, there are two issues that seem

particularly relevant to the current discussion. The first one is the labeling. Recognizing

the importance of non-traditional performance behaviors, researchers have suggested

various terms, such as contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo

& Van Scotter, 1994), prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational

citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983), and organizational spontaneity

(George & Brief, 1992), to capture the new performance domain. While each of these

concepts has originated from different research traditions and evolved with slightly

different perspectives (see Coleman & Borman, 2000), some researchers have argued that

despite different research traditions, approaches, and objectives the labels all describe

patterns of behaviors that have much in common (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Kiker &

Motowidlo, 1999; Motowidlo, 2000; Organ, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff,

8


MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). For example,

Podsakoff and others (2000) noted that the ‘altruism’ construct of OCB literature

considerably overlaps the ‘interpersonal facilitation’ construct of Van Scotter and

Motowidlo’s (1996) CP typology, while the courtesy and conscientiousness dimensions

of OCB are similar to the job dedication construct of CP. Kiker and Motowidlo (1999)

also suggested that interpersonal facilitation is essentially the same dimension that

Borman and Motowidlo (1993) referred to as helping and cooperating with others and

that Organ (1997) referred to as altruism or helping. Drawing on this finding, Motowidlo

(2000) concluded that the labeling issue is less important than careful definition and

measurement of the behavioral dimensions that these terms embrace. Since the term,

contextual performance subsumes most of the behavioral patterns described by other

labels (Organ, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), all of these behaviors are referred

to as contextual performance throughout this paper.

The second issue is about the dimensionality of the performance domain. As the

behaviors captured by contextual performance have been brought into the performance

domain, researchers have also attempted to delineate the structure of the new domain.

The result of continuous research attention on the “true” structure of the domain is a wide

variety of taxonomies and typologies, each of which identifies up to five sub-domains

(see table 2-1). For example, while Borman and Motowidlo (1993) coined the term

contextual performance to refer to all the activities that do not fall under the category of

task performance but are still important for organizational effectiveness, Van Dyne and

others (1994) identified four dimensions: social participation, loyalty, obedience, and

functional participation. Organ’s (1988) typology consists of five sub-dimensions

9


including altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness.

Observing these various classifications, Coleman and Borman (2000) tried to come up

with an integrated taxonomy of contextual performance by using multidimensional

scaling analysis. Their taxonomy involves also five sub-dimensions: interpersonal

altruism, interpersonal conscientiousness, organizational loyalty, compliance, andjob-

task conscientiousness. Table 2-1 adapted from their work shows more complete lists of

typologies and taxonomies of contextual performance. Although Coleman and Borman

(2000) argued that there is no one best way to partition the contextual performance

domain, they also suggested that the decision-making about including or excluding

specific dimensions should depend on whether the pattern of theoretical and/or empirical

relations is different or similar among the various dimensions. That is, the construct

validity of the dimensions is an important criterion. From this perspective, Van Scotter

and Motowidlo’s typology (1996) seems to be a good choice for the following reasons.

First, early research (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) on contextual performance

attempted to distinguish CP from task performance by conceptualizing all non-task

performance behaviors in terms of a motivation component with a unidimensional

perspective. However, this attempt was not empirically supported. Van Scotter and

Motowidlo (1996) further partitioned CP into two subcategories: interpersonal facilitation

and job dedication, while they, following Borman and Motowidlo (1993), defined task

performance as the job proficiency with which incumbents perform job-specific task

activities.

10


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without perm

ission.

Table 2-1 Taxonomies and Typologies of Contextual Performance

Coleman & Borman (2000)

Graham (1989);

Moorman & Blakely (1995)

Smith, et at (1983)

Organ(1988)

Morrison(1994)

Williams & Anderson

(1991)

Becker & Vance (1993)

George & Brief (1992);

George & Jones(1997)

Van Dyne, etal. (1994)

Van Scotter &

Motowidlo(1996)

InterpersonalAltruism

InterpersonalConscientiousness

Organizational

Loyalty

Inter-personalHelping Altruism Altruism Altruism OCB

Individual

Courtesy

Compliance

Sportsmanship

CivicVirtue

Consctentiousness

Organizational Loyalty

Organiza-tonal

Obedience

GeneralizedCompliance

Sportsmanship

Involvement

Keeping up with Changes

OCBOrganiza

tional

Altruism(Local)

Altruism(Distant)

Conscientiousness

HelpingCoworkers

SocialParticipation

SpreadingGoodwill

ProtectingOrganization

Loyalty

Obedience

MakingConstructiveSuggestion

Interpersonal

Facilitation

JobDedication

Conscientiousness

PersonalIndustryJob/Task

Conscientiousness Individual

Initiative

FunctionalParticipation

Note: Adapted from Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. HumanResource Management Review. 10(1). 25-44; Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26. 513-564.

Interpersonal facilitation refers to interpersonally oriented behaviors that involve

the cooperative, considerate, and helpful acts that assist co-workers’ performance. Job

dedication refers to self-disciplined, motivated behaviors, such as working hard, taking

initiative, and following rules to support organizational objectives. One conceptual

difference between these two elements is that while the former focuses on interpersonal

relationships, the latter is primarily concerned with personal motivation to perform one’s

own job. As recognized by Organ (1997), this kind of distinction has been a recurrent

theme in the organization behavior/human resources management literature on personnel

selection (Borman et al., 1995; Campbell, McHenry & Wise, 1990), occupational stress

(Motowidlo, Packard & Manning, 1986), organizational culture (Cooke & Lafferty, 1986;

Kilman & Saxton, 1983) and organizational citizenship behavior (Smith et al., 1983).

Therefore, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) argued that it might be worthwhile to

preserve the distinction between interpersonally oriented elements and motivational

elements in the construct of contextual performance.

Second, the construct validity of these three dimensions (i.e., job dedication,

interpersonal facilitation, and task performance) has been supported by empiric al studies

showing that each dimension makes a unique contribution to overall performance

(Conway, 1999; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) and other organizational effectiveness

measures (Podsakoff et al., 1997; Van Scotter, 2000) and is associated with different

antecedents (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Organ, 1997; Van Scotter, 2000; Van Scotter,

Motowidlo & Cross, 2000). For example, in Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) study,

each of the dimensions made a unique contribution to the overall performance ratings

(job dedication: AR2 = .07, p < .01; interpersonal facilitation: AR2 = .04, p < .01; task

12


yperformance: AR = .08, p < .01). Conway’s (1999) study also reported similar results.

A structural equation modeling analysis showed that all path coefficients from the three

dimensions to overall performance rating were significant (job dedication: y= .31;

interpersonal facilitation: y= .21; task performance: y= .48). Moreover, his multitrait -

multirater correlation analysis rendered clear evidence for convergent validity of the

dimensions. In his study, correlations for the same dimension rated by different raters

(i.e., supervisor, peer, self) were consistently higher than those for different dimensions

rated by the same raters. Studies that examined the antecedents of the dimensions also

provide evidence supporting discriminant validity of the dimensions. Task performance

is shown to be predicted by job experience, skills, knowledge, and ability (Hunter &

Hirsh, 1987; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe & Kirsch, 1984). In

contrast, interpersonal facilitation is associated with agreeableness (Costa & McCrae,

1989; Organ & Ryan, 1995), positive affectivity (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988), and

extroversion (Costa & McCrae, 1989; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) and job

dedication is related to conscientiousness (Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos & White,

1993; Borman et al., 1995; Borman, White, Pulakos & Oppler, 1991) and goal orientation

(Malouff et al., 1990).

Since the focus of the studies cited above was on the dimensionality of the non-

traditional performance domain, the relationships of the dimensions to potential

antecedents and consequence variables, which could be used as evidence for construct

validity of the dimensions, were heavily investigated. However, potential

interrelationships among the performance elements have not received much attention.

13


Some possible relationships among the elements can be drawn by reviewing the role of

CP with respect to the task performance.

Although early research on contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993)

attempted to distinguish CP from task performance by including motivational elements

such as persisting and volunteering in the definition of CP, but not in the definition of

task performance, later empirical research (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) showed that

such motivational elements are still related to task performance. With this result, Borman

and Motowidlo (1997) maintained that CP contributes to organizational effectiveness by

developing and maintaining the organizational, social, and psychological context that

serve as the catalysts for task activities and processes. While this assertion generally

implies that CP elements may have some effects on task performance, Motowidlo and

others’ (1997) suggestion is more specific. They suggested that motivation to perform

one’s own tasks effectively, shown in part through persistence and volunteering, would

account for some of the variability in task performance; motivation to facilitate

interpersonal activities, shown again in part through persistence and volunteering, would

account for some of the variability in contextual performance. This suggestion is

consistent with the performance model by Campbell (1990). This model states that an

individual’s performance is function of declarative knowledge (i.e., knowledge of facts,

principles, and procedures), procedural knowledge and skills (i.e., knowing how to do

what should been done), and motivation, which is in turn the combination of choice to

exert effort, choice of how much effort to exert, and choice of how long to continue to

exert the effort. With this model, Campbell (1990) argued that performance will not

occur unless there is a choice to perform specific activities at some level of effort, that is,

14


motivation is always a determinant of performance. He went on to argue that other

antecedents than skill levels might determine the decision to act, amount of effort, and

persistence level.

These studies imply that the motivational elements captured by job dedication are

likely to affect one’s own performance level (i.e., task performance) or contextual

activities (i.e., interpersonal facilitation) that contribute to other people’s performance.

Van Scotter’s work (1994) revealed this possibility. His post-hoc structural equation

modeling analyses on the sample of 760 Air Force mechanics revealed such relationships

among the performance elements. In his data, job dedication explained a substantial

amount of the variance in both task performance ( rc2 = .67: standard ICC estimate) and in

interpersonal facilitation ( r 2 = .41: standard ICC estimate). This finding suggests that

while task performance and interpersonal facilitation may require some minimum level of

proficiency in terms of job-related and interpersonal knowledge/skills (Kiker &

Motowidlo, 1999; Motowidlo et al., 1997), beyond this point it may be highly affected by

the level of job dedication (i.e., direction, intensity, duration; Van Scotter, 1994). From

the discussion to this point, the following hypotheses on the interrelationships among the

performance elements can be drawn out:

Hypothesis la: As job dedication increases, interpersonal facilitation will

increase.

Hypothesis lb: As job dedication increases, task performance will increase.

These hypotheses imply that job dedication behaviors are less likely to be

influenced by other types of performance behaviors, and therefore, would be a better

choice for the target behaviors of perceived accountability in this study to exclude an

15


alternative explanation that the examined contextual performance might be the results of

other types of performance behaviors instead of the effect of perceived accountability for

the behaviors. In the following section, the concept of perceived accountability will be

clarified further and its relationship with job dedication behaviors will be discussed

Perceived Accountability

Accountability has been suggested to be the most fundamental factor that

influences people’s behavior, especially performance, in organizations (Ferris et a l,

1997; Frink & Ferris, 1998, 1999; Lemer & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1985b). To

accomplish organizational goals, managers cannot afford to depend on chance or

employees’ goodwill for obtaining the performance behaviors needed for the

achievement of goals (Kerr, 1975). Their role is to induce proactively all desirable

behaviors from their members to accomplish organizational goals by increasing the

accountability for the behaviors through various formal or informal organizational or job-

related features (e.g., job characteristics and behavioral norms, etc.: Dose & Klimoski,

1995; Drucker, 1993; Frink & Klimoski, 1998).

In organizational context, a formal or official accountability is set by an

organization based on delegated authority and responsibility, etched in organizational

structure and positions, and is often manifested through requirements to report to a

supervisor. However, this externally set and posed accountability is interpreted by people

and their perceived accountability level even on the same organizational position or under

the same organizational structure may vary (Frink, 1994; Frink & Ferris, 1998). In this

case, an individual’s behaviors are more likely to be a function of his or her perceived

accountability rather than of objective accountability. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, a

16


phenomenological (i.e., state of mind) approach will be taken in conceptualizing

accountability and discussing its relationships with other variables.

Perceived accountability refers to an individual’s feeling of obligation and need to

justify one’s actions to others or self (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; London et al., 1997;

Tetlock, 1985b; Weigold & Schlenker, 1991). By employing a phenomenological (i.e.,

state of mind) approach (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), this conceptualization differentiates

the construct from other similar concepts, such as expectation and felt responsibility.

Although expectation and perceived accountability appear to be similar, perceived

accountability is not merely a set of external expectations that all individuals perceive in

the same way (Erdogan, Sparrowe, Liden & Dunegan, 2001). Not only is an individual’s

perceived accountability formed through more interactional processes than expectation

(Schlenker & Weigold, 1989), it also involves a justification process by which reward

and sanctions are implied (Tetlock, 1985b). Perceived accountability is related to, but

still distinct from felt responsibility. Schlenker and his colleagues conceptualized felt

responsibility as one of the components of the perceived accountability system

(Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). Similarly, Cummings and Anton

(1990) posited that felt responsibility and accountability are distinct outcomes of

responsibility by saying that felt responsibility is an internal path and accountability is an

external social and public process. That is, felt responsibility refers to the personal

acceptance of responsibility, which is in turn defined as the personal causal influence on

an event, while accountability involves the evaluation of other people’s expectations on

an event and the consequences. Since felt responsibility is the result of personal or

individualized process of accepting a responsibility and does not take external factors

17


(e.g., other people’s evaluation of a behavior or an event, possible reward or sanction),

the acceptance of the responsibility is likely to be affected by individual differences.

This means that even with the exactly same result the extent to which people feel

responsible for the result would be subject to some individual differences, such as growth

need strength as identified in job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Due

to the effect of such individual differences, the variance in felt responsibility on the same

event is likely to be large. In contrast, perceived accountability does take both internal

factors (e.g., value system incorporated in self-image; Schlenker et al., 1994) and external

factors (e.g., formal evaluation systems, reward systems, disciplinary procedures,

organizational culture, social norms, informal organizational network, and so forth; Frink

& Klimoski, 1998). Therefore, the more the external factors are homogenous, the smaller

the variance in perceived accountability would be. This literature suggests that felt

responsibility is a necessary condition for perceived accountability, not a sufficient

condition.

The concept of accountability needs to be further clarified for more focused

discussion of its relationships with the performance elements. London and others (1997)

suggested an accountability process model, which identified some elements of

accountability, such as actor, source of accountability, objective of accountability,

accountability forces, and mechanism. Among these elements, the source and objective

of accountability are most relevant to the current discussion. The source of

accountability refers to whether individuals feel accountable for behaviors that are self-

imposed or for behaviors that are imposed by others (London et al., 1997). In other

words, this element is about to whom an individual is held accountable (e.g., supervisors,

18


coworkers, or self). The objective of accountability describes the target behaviors for

which individuals feel accountable. Thus, an individual’s perceived accountability refers

to the extent to which an individual feels accountable for what kind of behaviors to

whom.

Although an individual may feel accountable for various behaviors to various

sources, the discussion hereafter will focus on job dedication behaviors (i.e., the choice to

act, amount of effort exerted, and persistence) as the objective of perceived accountability

because of two reasons. First, as discussed earlier, job dedication is less likely to be

influenced by other types of performance behaviors, and therefore, an alternative

explanation that the displayed job dedication behaviors are the result of other types of

contextual or task performance behaviors rather than of the perceived accountability for

the job dedication behaviors can be excluded. Second, the concept of perceived

accountability is closely related to the job dedication concept by sharing motivation

elements in common. While accountability can be thought of as a motivational state in

which there is an increased sense of self-relevance for a certain situation (Klimoski,

1992; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989), job dedication captures the motivational elements,

which are in turn always the determinants of other performance-related behaviors

(Campbell, 1990; Motowidlo et al., 1997). Also, the source of accountability (target

audience) in this discussion will be limited to supervisors, primarily because they play an

important role in shaping subordinates’ accountability perceptions (Tetlock, Skitka &

Boettger, 1989) by exercising a significant amount of influence on subordinates’

behaviors (Tetlock, 1985a).

19


Perceived accountability conceptualized in this manner is expected to be

positively associated with the job dedication. More specifically, if an individual feels

accountable for job dedication behaviors to his or her supervisor, then he or she is likely

to display these behaviors. This expectation is based on the premise of accountability

theory: accountability has an influence on people’s decision-making by affecting both

what people think and how they think (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Klimoski & Inks, 1990;

London & Smither, 1995; Tetlock, 1985b; Tetlock, 1992; Tetlock et al., 1989). It has

been suggested and found that when people feel obligated to explain their decision to

other people (i.e., audience), their perceived accountability increases (Klimoski & Inks,

1990). Furthermore, individuals understand the prevalence and viability of accountability

for behaviors and put themselves into positions where the defense for their behaviors is

most likely to be successful to build and maintain social acceptance and approval

(Tetlock, 1985b; Tetlock, 1992). In doing so, people may either conform to other

people’s expectations, try to generate high-quality and justifiable decisions (Tetlock &

Kim, 1987), or simply defend their existing opinions (Tetlock et al., 1989).

In the organizational context, individuals would likely choose to conform to other

people’s expectations rather than attempt to develop alternative justifiable decisions or

defend their opinions, especially when the expectation of the audience is well known

(Tetlock & Boettger, 1989; Tetlock & Kim, 1987; Tetlock et al., 1989). Since people are

generally cognitive misers (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Tetlock, 1992), the latter two strategies

- require more resources than simply complying with other people’s expectations - are

less likely to be attractive than the former one. The idea that people frequently choose

the most clearly defensible action open to them has been supported by some experimental

20


studies on negotiation behavior. For example, Klimoski (1971) found that negotiators

who did not have to justify bargaining outcomes to the groups they represented more

easily arrived at mutually compromising agreements than their counterparts under the

justification pressure. Negotiators under the justification pressure responded by

employing more competitive bargaining tactics, which is perceived as socially desirable

or required by the audience to protect their image in the eyes of the audience (Camevale,

1985).

This finding would particularly be the case in high accountability situations where

a formal authority exists between the audience and the focal person as in a supervisor -

subordinate relationship. Because supervisors usually exercise a significant amount of

influence on employees as the agents of an organization, and because supervisors’

expectations and criteria for rewards or sanctions for specific behaviors are usually well

known to employees (Frink & Ferris, 1998; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Tetlock, 1985a;

Tetlock et al., 1989), subordinates would likely perceive higher accountability to their

supervisors than to other audiences. Therefore, when an individual perceives high

accountability for job dedication behaviors to his or her supervisor, he or she is more

likely to display such behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates’ perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors

to their supervisors will positively be related to their job dedication behaviors.

Hypothesis 2 in conjunction with hypothesis la and lb further clarifies the

relationship between perceived accountability and performance by limiting the target

behaviors of perceived accountability to job dedication behaviors, which in turn influence

21


the other types of performance behaviors. Figure 2-1 reflects this clarification as well as

the direction of the relationships as specified in the hypotheses.

Task Significance

Task Identity

Autonomy

Supervisor Feedback

Task Interdependence f

JobDedication

TaskPerformance

InterpersonalFacilitation

Behavioral Norms

Figure 2-1 A Revised Research Framework

Job-related Characteristics as the Sources of Perceived Accountability

While the preceding section proposed a positive relationship between the

perceived accountability for job dedication and job dedication behaviors, it did not

discuss what the sources of perceived accountability for job dedication would be. In this

section, it is suggested that some job-related characteristics would serve as the sources of

perceived accountability.

Instead of relying on employees’ goodwill to accomplish organizational goals,

managers try to induce more predictable levels of conforming behaviors from

22


subordinates by communicating their expectations of the performance behaviors.

Performance expectations are often expressed through formal and informal organizational

mechanisms, such as job characteristics and behavioral norms (Cabrera & Bonache,

1999; Daft, 2002; Drucker, 1993; Frink & Klimoski, 1998). These characteristics and

norms, in turn, condition employees’ perceptions of accountability for certain behaviors

to the supervisor or other members of the organization. Although organizational and/or

job characteristics used for developing formal accountability mechanisms could be

expected to lack variance within an organization, employees’ perceptions of them do vary

and they generate variance in peoples’ behavior by influencing their perception (Frink &

Klimoski, 1998). In other words, there is individual variation in the accountability

perception levels within organizations. And, this variance in accountability should be

greater across organizations due to their different organizational structure and social

context.

While this general expectation has become one of the premises of accountability

literature (Dose & Klimoski, 1995; Ferris et al., 1997; Frink, 1994; Frink & Klimoski,

1998; Klimoski, 1992; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989; Tetlock, 1985b), it is also consistent

with the basic idea of job characteristics literature. That is, a certain type of task

environment may provide a favorable setting for a specific type of behaviors by making

them more salient (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kiggundu, 1981; Pearce & Gregersen,

1991; Taber & Taylor, 1990). Among the studies supporting this general idea, two

studies by Schlenker and his colleagues (Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker & Weigold,

1989) seem to provide a link between job characteristics and individuals’ perceived

accountability.

23


Drawing on identity theory (Stryker, 1980), Schlenker and his colleagues

proposed a model that explains the effect of accountability on individuals. As shown in

Figure 2-2, this model consists of three elements: event, identity, and prescriptions.

Event is the unit of action or its consequences that the audience regards as a unified

segment for an evaluation purpose. It includes individuals’ behavior or performance.

Identity refers to a component of one’s self-concept. According to identity theory

(Stryker, 1980), identities constitute self-concepts with values. They locate the self in

socially recognizable categories. People derive meaning from being linked to social

collectives (e.g., a company, a family, etc.) through their identities (e.g., an employee, a

parent, etc.). While identities consist of various values, roles, and qualities, only those

relevant to specific events and prescriptions are salient in the accountability process

(Schlenker & Weigold, 1989).

Prescriptions

i EventIdentity

PA =/[(identity - event) x (identity - prescription) x (event - prescriptions) x audience)

Figure 2-2 A Model of Perceived Accountability

Note: Adapted from Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review. 101. 632-652.

24


For example, a person is not accountable for parental behaviors to supervisors; he

or she is accountable to supervisors only with respect to an identity as an employee. In

the meantime, a prescription represents a set of rules for what should be done and how

things should occur. It serves to provide codes or rules for conduct and explicitly or

implicitly includes information about the goals and standards for performance and the

appropriate ways of reaching those goals.

Schlenker and his colleagues (Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989)

suggested that the linkages among these three elements would determine the degree to

which an individual feels accountable for a certain type of behaviors. The stronger the

linkages are, the higher level of accountability an individual perceives. The identity-

event linkage refers to the extent to which an individual is seen as having responsibility

for the event. This linkage is strong, primarily when an individual is seen to have control

over the event. The identity-prescription linkage indicates the extent to which an

individual is bound or committed to the rules or standards associated with the event. This

would be affected by the extent to which the individual is socialized to hold the same

rules as the organization (Dose & Klimoski, 1995). The prescription-event linkage

represents the extent to which there are clear rules or standards for behaviors in the

situation. Considering all of these linkages together, an individual would perceive a high

level of accountability when he or she feels identified with an event, when there are clear

standards for good or poor performance, and when the standards are seen to be applied to

him or her (Klimoski, 1992).

25


Drawing on this model, the current paper proposes that some job-related

characteristics, such as task identity, task significance, autonomy, supervisor feedback,

and task interdependence, would affect the degree to which an individual perceives

accountability for job dedication behaviors either by strengthening or by weakening at

least one of these linkages. Some possible relationships between the job-related

characteristics and perceived accountability for job dedication discussed below.

Task Significance

Task significance refers to the degree to which a job has a substantial impact on

the lives or work of other people, whether in the immediate organization or in the

external environment (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). It is expected that when task

significance is high, people would perceive higher accountability for job dedication.

High task significance, by definition, means that the outcome of the job incumbent’s task

has significant impact on others’ well-being or job performance. As the significance of

the task outcomes increases, it is likely that the standards, rules, and procedures relevant

to the task are more readily available and applied in more strict ways in evaluating the job

incumbent’s performance than in the opposite case. For example, flying a commercial

airplane requires much more strict rules than delivering a pizza; a pilot’s mistake is more

strictly scrutinized than a pizza delivery person’s mistake because of the significance of a

mistake. This means that high task significance would lead to a strengthened event-

prescription linkage. Also, when a task is important to other people, particularly to

supervisors (i.e., audience), the job incumbent’s performance may constantly be

monitored by other people. This increases the visibility of the job incumbent’s

performance. Combined with the heightened event-prescription linkage, the increased

26


visibility of the job incumbent’s performance is likely to induce the individual to develop

a coping strategy to handle possible undesirable situations, where his or her identity can

be impaired. That is, the job incumbent needs to justify his or her actions that may

produce unsatisfying work outcomes. One likely way of doing so is to bind him/herself

to available standards, rules, and procedures in carrying out the task (i.e., a strengthened

identity-prescription linkage), because the job incumbent can more easily defend

him/herself against possible criticism of poor performance than generating his or her own

justifiable decisions (Tetlock & Kim, 1987). As the identity-prescription linkage is

strengthened, an individual may feel a need to increase effort and persistence toward

goals by following the supervisor’s instructions, avoiding shortcuts when work is overdue,

and overcoming obstacles to complete a task (Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker &

Weigold, 1989). In this way, the job incumbent may allow him/herself to develop an

expectation that if he or she exerted much more effort than required, then his or her

performance would more favorably be evaluated regardless of the outcome (Simonson &

Staw, 1992).

An empirical study by McAllister and others (McAllister, Mitchell & Beach,

1979) provides indirect evidence for this reasoning. They proposed a contingency model

for the selection of decision strategies, in which the significance of decision making and

accountability imposed by the decision environment were hypothesized to increase the

perceived pressure for choosing a correct decision strategy that would increase the

perceived benefits of a decision. Three independent experiments supported these

hypotheses, that is, when decisions were significant and when the accountability

27


condition was imposed, the subjects chose a decision strategy that resulted in a greater

investment of time and effort than when the opposite conditions were given.

From the reasoning and evidence above, it is likely that task significance is

positively related to a perceived high level of accountability for job dedication behaviors.

Hypothesis 3a: Task significance will positively be related to subordinates’

perceived accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

Task Identity and Autonomy

Task identity is defined as the degree to which a job requires completion of a

whole and identifiable piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a

visible outcome. Autonomy refers to the degree to which the job provides substantial

freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in

determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

These two job characteristics are discussed together here, because the same reasoning

seems to be applicable to both of them in relation to the perceived accountability for job

dedication.

Like the task significance, task identity and autonomy are also expected to have a

positive influence on job incumbents’ perceived accountability for job dedication yet in a

slightly different way. With high task identity, ajob incumbent may exercise a

significant amount of control over the task performance. This increases the visibility of

the job incumbent’s identity with respect to the work outcome. In other words, since the

work outcome of a task with high task identity is primarily function of the job

incumbent’s ability and qualities, this visibility is likely to strengthen the identity - event

linkage (Dose & Klimoski, 1995; Schlenker et al., 1994). Similarly, the high level of

28


autonomy on the task allows the job incumbent to exercise a substantial amount of

freedom and discretion in scheduling the work and determining the procedures to be used

(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Since more freedom and discretion on a task provide the

job incumbent with more control over the work process as well as the means, it is less

likely that poor performance on the task can be ascribed to situational factors beyond the

worker’s control (Schlenker et al., 1994). This may also strengthen the extent to which

the job incumbent is seen as having responsibility for the work outcome, that is, the

identity-event linkage.

As the identity-event linkage is strengthened, the job incumbent is likely to

experience a high level of accountability for the work outcome. Since the evaluation of

the event (i.e., work outcome) will directly lead to the categorization of the identity of the

job incumbent in terms of the ability and qualities (Schlenker et al., 1994), poor

performance would lead to criticism on the job incumbent’s identity. Because people’s

identity constitutes their self-concept and because people are motivated toward

maintaining and enhancing their self-concept (Shamir, 1991), the job incumbent working

on easily identifiable tasks may feel a need to exert an appropriate level of effort and

persistence on the job to prevent such criticism. As discussed earlier with relation to the

task significance, one possible and most likely way of doing this is to cling to available

standards, rules, and procedures in carrying out the task (i.e., strengthened identity-

prescription linkage). Not only would this way be more defensible for the job incumbent

than generating his or her own justifiable decisions (Tetlock & Kim, 1987), it may also

allow him or her to develop a socially acceptable excuse, like “I did my best.”

29


One study by Findley and others (2000) seems to provide indirect evidence for

this expectation. They examined the relationship between performance appraisal facets

and CP behaviors and found that the more supervisors clarified future goals and

improvement, the less contextual performance was exhibited (/?= -.22,p < .01). This

finding suggests that managers’ interventions or planning activities might reduce the

employees’ perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors through decreased

autonomy and lowered task-identity, because they were told by the supervisors what they

needed to do. If this were the case, the subordinates might feel accountable only for what

they were told to do by the supervisors, not for job dedication behaviors, because the

supervisor’s order could be used as an excuse for possible undesirable work outcomes.

Therefore,

Hypothesis 3b: Task identity will positively be related to subordinates’ perceived

accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

Hypothesis 3c: Autonomy will positively be related to subordinates’ perceived

accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

Supervisor Feedback

Feedback can be defined as “actions taken by (an) external agent(s) to provide

information regarding some aspects(s) of one’s task performance” (Kluger & DeNisi,

1996, p. 235). The feedback literature (Greller & Herold, 1975; Hanser & Muchinsky,

1978; Herold, Liden & Leatherwood, 1987) shows that various sources, such as self,

tasks, supervisors, coworkers, and organization, can serve as a source of feedback, and

that the amount and usefulness of information provided by the feedback sources varies.

Empirical evidence indicates that self and tasks usually provide more feedback on job

30


incumbents’ performance than do supervisors. However, feedback from supervisors may

do more to create perceptions of accountability for job dedication. This expectation is

suggested by the feedback literature and accountability literature. Viewing feedback as

an integral component of an organizational control system and a key factor for enhancing

the overall effectiveness of organization (Larson, 1984; Taylor et al., 1984), the literature

suggests that feedback serves both to keep its members’ behavior directed toward desired

goals, and to stimulate and maintain high levels of effort (Locke & Latham, 1990; Payne

& Hauty, 1955; Vroom, 1964). The accountability literature suggests that individuals

make assessments of both the standards and the application of the standards by the

audience (i.e., supervisors in the current paper), and then form strategies for coping with

the specific conditions as perceived and interpreted (Tetlock, 1992). Schlenker and his

colleagues have labeled this as the prescription-event linkage. It denotes the extent to

which there are clear rules or standards for conduct in a situation (Schlenker et al., 1994;

Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). The clearer rules or standards for conduct (i.e., event) in a

situation, the stronger the linkage is, and the higher perceived accountability the job

incumbent experiences.

Supervisor feedback is expected to strengthen this prescription - event linkage by

providing information about both an event (i.e., actual performance) and corresponding

standards. Feedback is basically information about the appropriateness of a job

incumbent’s behavior, which must be judged against standards or rules corresponding to

the behavior. The control theory explanation of the feedback process proposes that

without a standard serving as a reference point for comparison, a recipient is likely to

view feedback as “noise,” information containing no particular meaning or value (Taylor

31


et al., 1984). With a strong prescription-event linkage, the desirable outcome and the

procedure to achieve the outcome are likely to be clearer and perceived uncertainty

should be reduced (Schlenker et al., 1994). In this case, the individual would get some

ideas from supervisor feedback about what should be done and how it should be done for

better future performance.

When supervisor feedback articulates what the job incumbent is supposed to do

for better future performance, the individual is likely to perceive higher accountability for

job dedication behaviors to supervisors because of an increased salience of the

individual’s subsequent performance for supervisors. Since feedback, especially

information about poor performance, is usually given with the intention of improving

future performance, the supervisor would likely monitor the job incumbents’

performance to make sure his or her feedback was effective (Larson, 1984). In this

monitoring process, the supervisor may assume that the job incumbent would get some

ideas about what to do from the feedback and expect the job incumbent to exert an

appropriate level pf effort. This expectation of the supervisor is likely to be

acknowledged by the job incumbent through the role negotiation process between the

supervisor and the subordinate (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Tetlock, 1985a; Tetlock et al.,

1989). As Tetlock and others (1989) suggested, this known expectation of an audience

(i.e., the supervisor), with power over the job incumbent, would increase the job

incumbent’s perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors to supervisors.

In contrast, incumbents, who do not get enough supervisory feedback, may not

know what to do (i.e., weak prescription-event linkage) and experience high uncertainty

(Taylor et al., 1984). When it is not clear what should be done, the job incumbent is

32


likely to experience a low level of perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors,

such as putting in extra hours to get work done on time, persisting in overcoming

obstacles to complete a task, or working harder than necessary. It is hard to imagine why

an employee would exert extra effort without understanding what needs to be done.

Therefore,

Hypothesis 3d: Supervisor feedback will be positively related to subordinates’

perceived accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

Task Interdependence

Task interdependence can be defined as the extent to which one’s job is

interconnected to other people’s jobs in terms of scope, resources, and criticality

(Kiggundu, 1983). The scope here represents the breadth of interconnectedness of a

particular job with other jobs; resources refer to the degree to which the

interconnectedness between two jobs involves the exchange of resources necessary to do

the focal job; criticality is the extent to which the interconnectedness between the focal

job and other jobs is crucial for the performance of the focal job (Kiggundu, 1981, 1983).

Kiggundu’s (1983) conceptualization of two different types of task

interdependence, initiated task interdependence and received task interdependence

appears to be relevant to the development of a possible relationship between task

interdependence and perceived accountability for job dedication, because each of the task

interdependence type is likely to have different effects on the linkages among identity,

event, and prescriptions. Initiated task interdependence was defined as the extent to

which work flows from one incumbent to other incumbents such that the successful

performance of the latter depends on the former job. On the other hand, received task

33


interdependence is the extent to which a person in a particular job is affected by the

workflow from one or more other jobs.

This paper proposes that initiated task interdependence would have a positive

effect on the perceived accountability for job dedication through a strengthened identity-

prescription linkage, whereas received task interdependence would have negative effect

on the perceived accountability for job dedication through a weakened identity-event

linkage. Higher initiated task interdependence means, by definition, that the work

outcome of the task has a significant impact on other people who depend on the task

outcome through a broad range of resource exchanges. That is, when a job incumbent’s

work initiates or facilitates other people’s work, the quality of the person’s work outcome

is likely to precondition the quality of other people’s work outcome. In this context, the

other people are likely to monitor constantly the focal person’s performance as well as

the work outcome. Noticing this, the focal person may develop a sense of accountability

for performing his or her work well so that the task performance of others is maximally

facilitated and minimally hindered (Thomas, 1957). Otherwise, the other people’s

unacceptable work outcomes could be attributed to the quality of the focal person’s work.

In an attempt to hedge against such potential accusation, the job incumbent would likely

experience a high level of perceived accountability for such behaviors as paying close

attention to important details of his or her work to perfect the work outcome, avoiding

shortcuts when work is overdue, and taking the initiative to solve a work problem.

A few studies provide some indirect evidence for this expectation. For example,

Horsfall and Aresensburg’s study (1966) at a shoe factory found that employees who

were in roles of high initiated interdependence experienced a strong sense of

34


responsibility, because others depended on them for means (i.e., shoes to work on).

Turner and Lawrence (1965) also reported a correlation of .53 (p < .01) between required

interaction and the employees’ sense of responsibility.

Unlike initiated task interdependence, received task interdependence is likely to

weaken the identity-event linkage, because the job incumbent’s job is preconditioned by

the work outcome of other people’s works. This implies that increased received task

interdependence leads to decreased autonomy, and therefore may reduce the job

incumbent’s control over his or her job (Thompson, 1967). As personal control decreases,

the job incumbent can ascribe his or her poor performance to external factors, that is, the

quality of other people’s work outcomes, which are likely to be claimed as something

beyond his or her control (Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). In this

context, the job incumbent may develop an expectation that poor performance would not

lead to harsh evaluation by supervisors nor to an impaired identity (e.g., ability), because

managers often consider situational constraints when they evaluate their subordinates’

performance (Dubinsky, Skinner & Whittier, 1989; Mowen, Fabes & Laforge, 1986;

Peters & O'Connor, 1980). Accordingly, the job incumbent would be less likely to feel

accountable for such job dedication behaviors as working harder than necessary, tackling

a difficult work assignment enthusiastically, paying close attention to important details,

and the like. Therefore, received task interdependence is likely to be negatively related to

the perceived accountability for job dedication to a supervisor.

Hypothesis 3e: Initiated task interdependence will be positively related to

subordinates’ perceived accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

35


Hypothesis 3f: Received task interdependence will be negatively related to

subordinates’ perceived accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

Behavioral Norms

In the preceding section, some job-related characteristics were discussed as the

sources of individuals’ perceived accountability. In other words, organizations are likely

to use those formal job-related features as the means for influencing individuals’

perceived accountability and eventually for inducing some desirable behaviors.

However, the means are not necessarily limited to formal organizational or job-related

features. Organizations also use less formal and explicit yet quite effective means, such

as behavioral norms (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999; Cook & Szumal, 1993; Frink &

Klimoski, 1998; O'Reilly, 1989; Schwartz & Davis, 1981). Behavioral norms can be

defined as expectations regarding which behaviors are appropriate and which behaviors

are inappropriate (McGrath, 1984). While behavioral norms are based on certain values

shared by organizational members (O'Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991), the

development of norms revolves around the appropriate division of labor and activities

(Frink & Klimoski, 1998). In other words, behavioral norms are developed and

maintained primarily because they make working together easier and more pleasurable

and have been proven to be effective and efficient in achieving organizational goals. The

development of such norms are often encouraged, facilitated, and enforced by an

organization to draw out desirable behaviors from its members (Cabrera & Bonache,

1999).

Behavioral norms are expected to be positively related to individuals’ perceived

accountability for job dedication by strengthening the prescription-event linkage of the

36


tripod model of perceived accountability (Schlenker et a l, 1994; Schlenker & Weigold,

1989). According to the model, the level of accountability perceived by an individual is

in part a function of the extent to which an individual perceives the existence of a clear

and salient set of prescriptions and their application to an event. This linkage is strong to

the extent the goals and rules are clearly specified, not subject to alternative

interpretations, and not in conflict with other potentially applicable prescriptions.

While behavioral norms are rules for appropriate behavior rooted in expectations

(McGrath, 1984), their development standardizes some behavioral sequences that have

been found valuable in a specific situational context. For example, in some organizations

people share their opinions with other people, while in others people would never express

their disagreement with their colleagues. Likewise, in some organizations a good worker

would be a person who is willing to help other people, while in others an employee who

is quite efficient on his or her own work would be perceived as a good worker.

These behaviors displayed by other people in an organization may send a strong

cue to an individual regarding his or her own behaviors in a particular situation. The

literature on social information processing theory suggests that cues from other people

(e.g., co-worker, supervisors, customers, etc.) have a powerful effect on individuals’

perceptions and cognitions with respect to their roles in an organization and eventually

shape their behaviors in a maimer consistent with the cues that they receive from others

(Thomas & Griffin, 1983). For example, Trevino and Victor (1992) found that

individuals feel more responsible for reporting unethical behavior, and are more likely to

do so, when such reporting is supported by group norms. Morrison (1994) also found

evidence that to the extent that employees are exposed to similar social cues from co-

37


workers and supervisors, the employees are likely to define their roles on the jobs in a

similar way. In this way, behavioral norms are likely to serve as the prescriptions for

what is expected, who should do it, and when (Cook & Szumal, 1993; Frink & Klimoski,

1998).

In turn, these prescriptions for a specific situational context are likely to

strengthen the prescription-event linkage. When strong behavioral norms for job

dedication behaviors are present in the work place, deviation from the norms may evoke

other people’s attention and an evaluation process of the deviant behaviors. In this

process, the deviant may be expected to come up with an acceptable excuse for why he

or she does not follow the generally accepted standards (i.e., behavioral norms). Not only

is generating such rationales difficult, there is also a risk that the justification would be

perceived as unacceptable, because the justification may shake the other people’s

fundamental belief systems. Recognition of these risks would motivate people to comply

with other people’s expectation, that is, behavioral norms. Therefore, when other people

display such behaviors as working harder than necessary, persisting in overcoming

obstacles to complete a task, putting in extra hours to get work done on time, and

supporting supervisors’ decisions, an individual is likely to perceive higher accountability

for such behaviors.

Hypothesis 4: Behavioral norms for job dedication behaviors will positively be

related to subordinates’ perceived accountability for job dedication to their supervisors.

38


Summary and Mediation Effects of Perceived Accountability and Job Dedication

To test the premise that job situations and managerial actions encourage

employees to feel accountable for specific kinds of behavior and this perceived

accountability for the behavior leads to the actual behavior, the current study developed

ten hypotheses that incorporate seven situational factors, perceived accountability for job

dedication, and three performance elements. In short, it was proposed that people

experience higher perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors, (1) when they

think that their tasks are important, (2) when they perform a complete task from the

beginning to the end, (3) when they get appropriate feedback from the task itself

regarding their performance, (4) when other people depend on their work, and (5) when

they perceive clear behavioral norms for the behaviors. When job incumbents depend on

other people’s work (i.e., received task interdependence), they are less likely to feel

accountable for job dedication behaviors. It was also proposed that when people

experience a high level of perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors, they

would more likely be engaged in job dedication behaviors, which, in turn, leads to more

interpersonal facilitation and task performance.

Figure 2-3 summarizes all the hypotheses developed in terms of the relationships

among the constructs that this study examines and the directions of the relationship. The

interrelationships among the performance elements proposed here exclude interpersonal

facilitation and task performance as the antecedents of job dedication. The hypothesis on

the relationship between perceived accountability for job dedication and job dedication

suggests that managers can do something to foster employees’ contextual performance

contrary to what the current literature suggests. And, the hypotheses on the situational

39


factors with respect to perceived accountability identify some means that managers can

utilize to encourage people to engage in CP.

Task Significance

Task Identity

InterpersonalFacilitation

Supervisor Feedback

Task Performance I

Behavioral Norms

JobDedication

Autonomy

Initiated Task Interdependence

Received Task Interdependence

Figure 2-3 Summary of Hypotheses

These hypotheses taken altogether imply that perceived accountability for job

dedication would mediate the effects of situational factors on job dedication at least

partially, and that job dedication would mediate the effect of perceived accountability for

job dedication on interpersonal facilitation and task performance at least partially. The

expected mediation effect of perceived accountability on the relationships of situational

factors to job dedication is similar to that of perceived responsibility on autonomy to

work outcomes as shown in the job characteristics model (JCM: Hackman & Oldham,

40


1976). Also, as discussed earlier, if motivation elements are key components of

individuals’ performance (Campbell, 1990; Motowidlo et al., 1997) and perceived

accountability for job dedication is one of the key determinants of people’s job dedication

behavior, then job dedication should mediate the effect of perceived accountability for

job dedication on other types of performance to some extent. Therefore, when the

aforementioned hypotheses are empirically supported, at least partial mediation effects of

perceived accountability and job dedication are expected as stated below.

Hypothesis 5a: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of task significance on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5b: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of task identity on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5c: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of autonomy on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5d: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of supervisor feedback on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5e: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of initiated task interdependence on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5f : Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of received task interdependence on job dedication.

Hypothesis 5g: Perceived accountability for job dedication will at least partially

mediate the effects of behavioral norms on job dedication.

Hypothesis 6a: Job dedication will at least partially mediate the effects of

perceived accountability for job dedication on interpersonal facilitation.

41


Hypothesis 6b: Job dedication will at least partially mediate the effects of

perceived accountability for job dedication on task performance.

While the model depicted in figure 2-3 appears to be similar to the JCM in the

sense that situational factors influence an individual’s psychological state, which in turn

affects some work-related outcomes, there are several differences. First of all, the job

characteristics model focuses on the linkages between perceived job characteristics and

individuals’ affective responses to the job perceptions (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Taber

& Taylor, 1990). In contrast, the current model incorporates individuals’ performance

defined in terms of behaviors (Borman, 1991; Motowidlo et al., 1997) as the work-related

outcome and the behaviors are rated by supervisors - avoiding percept-percept errors

(Roberts & Glick, 1981).

Second, the current model is different from the JCM in explaining why and how

the specified work-related outcomes are resulted. JCM states that the work-related

outcomes are the results of a within-person psychological process of the job characteristic

information (Roberts & Glick, 1981). For example, JCM suggests that an individual may

feel responsible for work outcomes, because he or she perceives a high level of autonomy.

While the current model still employs the phenomenological approach to the job

characteristics, it suggests that an individual’s performance behaviors are the results of a

between-person psychological process of the information on situational factors. That is,

even if an individual perceived a high level of autonomy, whether he or she feels

accountable for job dedication behaviors is still subject to social contingencies (e.g., other

people’s expectations, roles, relationships, etc.) and structural contingencies (e.g.,

monitoring system, performance evaluation, compensation, etc.) In other words, the

42


current model incorporates the effect of structural and/or social contingencies on an

individual’s psychological process of job characteristics information processing in a

different way than the JCM.

This difference leads to the incorporation of different predictors of the

psychological states. While JCM focuses on an individual’s own task environment, the

current model spans work relationships with other people, supervisory activities, and a

cultural factor at the work place, as well as a focal person’s own task environment. With

empirical corroboration of the hypotheses depicted in the current model, each of these

differences will be the basis of the current study’s theoretical contribution to the literature

beyond that of JCM.

43


CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Data Collection Design

The constructs discussed in this paper largely determine the approach toward data

collection and sample identification. First, a field study design seems more appropriate

for testing the hypotheses than an experimental study design. Not only is it quite difficult

to manipulate all aforementioned job-related characteristics and behavioral norms in an

experimental setting, perceived accountability must be measured in a realistic situation,

because subjects are not likely to experience the same level of perceived accountability in

an experimental setting as in an actual situation. Although many studies have explored

the effects of accountability in laboratory settings, researchers have pointed out that the

manipulation of accountability in those experiments may not generate variance

resembling what would be found in actual job settings (Erdogan et al., 2001; Frink, 1994;

Frink & Ferris, 1998; Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Weigold & Schlenker, 1991).

Second, accountability researchers also noted that accountability conditions are

likely to be very similar for most people within the same specific social context (Frink,

1994; Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Even though some variance in perceived accountability

within the same social context is still expected, data collection from the same division or

department may produce too little variance in this variable to detect its significant

relationships with other variables. Therefore, it is necessary to collect data from a variety

of companies and departments in which organizational and social context differ to some

extent.

44


Third, all the constructs incorporated in the hypotheses have typically been

measured based on respondents’ perceptions. This raises questions about the issue of

common method variance. When all the data for the constructs under consideration are

collected from the same source, especially when a self-report method is employed,

common method variance is likely to inflate the strength of relationships among the

investigated variables (Roberts & Glick, 1981), threatening the internal validity of a

study. Although some researchers suggest that common method variance might not be a

serious issue in some research situations (Crampton & Wagner, 1994), and that some

methodological techniques can be utilized to correct the bias (Jo, 2000; Lindell & Brandt,

2000; Lindell & Whitney, 2001), the best way to reduce the risk of common method

variance would be to collect data from different sources.

Since job characteristics, behavioral norms, and perceived accountability are

within-person perceptions, it is inappropriate to collect the data from other sources.

However, there are good reasons to collect performance ratings from other sources. It

seems desirable to collect the data for the performance elements from respondents’

supervisors, because of the following reasons. First, supervisor ratings are likely to be

the best source of information on performance. Borman (1991) argued that the most

important standard for criteria is relevance, which refers to the correspondence between

criteria and the actual performance demands of the target job. Supervisor ratings are

more accurate than ratings from other sources and the use of supervisor ratings is more

consistent with the notion of accountability to supervisors.

45


Procedure & Sample

Participants were recruited from undergraduate and graduate classes of a

university located in the southeastern United States. Survey participation was voluntary,

but the participants were offered extra class credits. After being given a brief explanation

about the purpose of the current study and instructions on the questionnaire, the

participants filled out the questionnaire in the classroom. The participants were also

given another questionnaire in a return envelope and asked to pass it to their supervisors

for completion. The questionnaire for the supervisors included detailed information on

the study’s purpose and the questionnaire itself. Participants were assured that their

responses would be held in confidence. Subordinates’ and a supervisors’ responses were

combined into one data set by using identification numbers, which were labeled on each

questionnaire and the envelope. The participants were informed of the purpose of using

the numbers and assured that no individual identification was possible by using the

numbers.

Before the primary data was collected, a small sample of data was collected for

use in instrument development or revision. As will be discussed in the following section,

measurements of some constructs, such as behavioral norms for job dedication, perceived

accountability for job dedication, and task performance, needed to be developed or

revised, either because they were not available or because the existing measures were

inappropriate for the current study. Data for 63 supervisor-subordinate dyads were

collected through the procedure described above. Approximately 40% both of the

supervisors and of the subordinates were male and 70% of supervisors and 60% of

subordinates were white. Supervisors were approximately 38 years old (SD = 11.16)

46


with 6.1 years (SD = 6.34) of job experience measured in position tenure, and

subordinates were 22 years old (SD = 3.2) with 2.9 years (SD = 3.9) of job experience.

This pilot data was analyzed primarily to improve the reliability and factor structure of

the measurements and to redesign the survey questionnaire.

After revising the measurements and questionnaire design based upon the pilot

test, an additional 544 subordinates and 409 supervisors were recruited for testing

hypotheses. The demographic characteristics of the primary data were similar to those of

the pilot data. The subordinates were typically white (55.4%) males (48.1%) and 24.3%

of the total sample was African-American (34%) female (51.9%). In the case of

supervisors, the participants were white (54.6%) males (52.9%) and 19.9% of the total

sample was African-American (35.5%) female (47.1%). The average ages of

subordinates and supervisors were 25 (SD — 6.35) and 40 (SD = 11.52) respectively.

Subordinates’ and supervisors’ job experience measured in tenure on the current position

were about 3 years (SD = 4.28) and 9 years (SD = 8.01) respectively, the average

supervisory time was about 2 years (SD = 2.71).

Measures

Control Variables

The hypotheses proposed earlier suggest that the variance in job dedication

accounted for by perceived accountability and the variance in interpersonal facilitation

and task performance explained by job dedication would be above and beyond those by

some individual antecedents, such as personality traits and job experience. The

performance literature (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter &

47


Motowidlo, 1996) shows that personality dimensions significantly correlate with the

contextual performance elements, while job experience correlates with task performance.

If these variables are not controlled in testing the hypotheses, an alternative explanation

that the performance variance explained by the perceived accountability derived from

job-related characteristics and behavioral norms is actually the same variance due to the

individual variables cannot be excluded.

In addition, some personality traits can possibly affect perceived accountability

for job dedication. For example, given that all the other conditions are constant,

conscientious people are likely to experience a higher level of perceived accountability

for job dedication behaviors than less conscientious people, because conscientiousness is

defined as a construct consisting of a set of characteristics that includes responsibility

(Barrick & Mount, 1993), which is in turn partially related to perceived accountability

(Cummings & Anton, 1990; Schlenker et al., 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). In fact,

Frink and Ferris (1999) found that conscientiousness interacted with accountability

condition on individual performance level (/?= -16, p < .05).

To control the effects of personality traits on performance elements and perceived

accountability, three personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness) that have been shown to be closely related to the performance

elements were measured by using Goldberg’s (1999) scales. In the current study, these

items were presented to the subjects in a 7-point Likert style format with “very inaccurate

(1)” and “very accurate (7)” anchors.

Job experience was measured by tenure on the current position, because a job

incumbent is likely to perform similar tasks on the same position and the number of times

48


performing the same task predicts performance better than other types of tenure, such as

organizational tenure or occupational tenure (Quinones, Ford & Teachout, 1995; Sego,

Ford & Teachout, 1995).

Another variable that might affect the perceived accountability level and

contextual performance is a hierarchical organizational position. A traditional

organization is usually structured in a triangle shape and a promotion is often time used

for screening people who can handle higher level of accountability etched in higher

positions (Ferris et al., 1997; Gardner & Martinko, 1996; Nadler & Ancona, 1992). As

Conway (1999) implied, those people in managerial position are likely to display more

contextual performance than those at lower organizational level. Ferris and others (1997)

reported a significant correlation (r =.18, p < .05) between hierarchical organizational

level and accountability. To control for the effect of the hierarchical organizational

position on subordinates’ perceived accountability level, subordinates’ organizational

position information was obtained from supervisors. Since the organizational positions

vary across different organizations, a Likert-style measurement was used to standardize

the position information. Supervisors were asked to mark between 1 and 10 to indicate

the relative organizational positions of their subordinates (see Appendix P for the actual

measurement).

Job-related Characteristics

All job-related characteristics except task interdependence and supervisor

feedback were measured by using the Job Diagnostic Survey scale (Hackman & Oldham,

1975). Although Aldag and others (Aldag, Barr & Brief, 1981) rated the internal

consistency of JDS as “acceptable,” a meta-analysis by Taber and Taylor (1990)

49


revealed moderate levels of internal consistency (autonomy: a = .69, N = 9,873; task

identity: a= .68, N= 8,742; task significance: a= .65, N - 9,013). They suggested that

the internal consistency could be improved by lengthening the scales. This suggestion

was echoed by other researchers. Kulik and others (1988) tried to augment the original

scale by adding some parallel items and obtained better internal consistency. Idaszak and

others (1988) also recommended lengthening the JDS scale in order to improve factorial

stability. Their suggestion was based on the findings of the Idaszak and Drasgow’s

(1987) study, which showed that reverse-scored items lowered the internal consistency

and disordered the factor structure. Following these suggestions, the current study

revised the original JDS scale for the job characteristics by replacing the original reverse-

scored items with Idaszak and Drasgow’s (1987) revised items, which do not have to be

reverse scored, and by adding a few items from the Job Characteristics Inventory (Sims,

Szilagyi & Keller, 1976). Through this modification, 11 items, including three task

identity items, four task significance items, and four autonomy items, were prepared in a

standard 7-point Likert style format with the anchors used by Hackman & Oldham (1975).

The subjects were asked to respond to each item by rating between 1 (“very inaccurate”)

and 7 (“very accurate.”)

Supervisor feedback was measured by using the Castaneda and others’ (1999)

three item measure. The measurement includes: “My supervisor has made it perfectly

clear to me how well he/she thinks I am doing on my job,” “My supervisor is up-front

with me about how well he/she thinks I am doing my job,” and “My supervisor

consistently provides me with information about my job performance.” These items used

50


a standard 7-point Likert scale format with the same anchors used for other job-related

characteristics.

Two types of task interdependence (i.e., initiated task interdependence and

received task interdependence) were measured by using Kiggundu’s scale (1983). While

the original instrument consisted of 15 initiated task interdependence items and 13

received task interdependence items, only seven items for each task interdependence type

were selected to reduce the volume of the instruments. The selection was based both on

the factor loadings of the items reported in Kiggundu’s (1983) and of a pilot test of the

current study and on the nature of the items so that the reduced version still captures the

three dimensionalities of task interdependence: scope, criticality, and resources. When

measured in a 7-point Likert style format, the reliability of this reduced version was

slightly higher (initiated task interdependence: a - .90; received task interdependence: a

= .89) than those of Kiggundu’s original scales (a= .85 respectively).

Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication

In various research areas, the construct of behavioral norms has often been

conceptualized as an element of a broader concept. For example, organizational culture

is frequently defined in terms of behavioral norms (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999) and its

measurement instruments, such as Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Lafferty,

1986) and Culture Gap Survey (Kilman & Saxton, 1983), are based on a configuration of

some behavioral norms related to people and task (Xenikou & Fumham, 1996). The

reliability and validity of these instruments have been corroborated by subsequent studies

on organizational culture. However, these scales do not appear to be appropriate for the

51


current study, because they measure too general behavioral norms, while the current

study limits the target behaviors of behavioral norms to job dedication behaviors.

The literature on theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and theory

of planned behaviors (Ajzen, 1985; 1991) has been taking another approach to measure

behavioral norms. Treated as one of the elements determining behavior or behavioral

intention, behavioral norms are typically measured by using some Likert-type question

items, like “Most people who are important to me think that I should do (a certain type of

behaviors).” Combining this approach with the content of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s

(1996) job dedication scale, a new 7-point Likert-type scale was developed. Some

example items are: “My coworkers work harder than necessary.”; “In this organization, I

feel pressure to display proper appearance and bearing.”; “My company encourages

employees to overcome obstacles to complete a task” (see Appendix for all the items.)

The subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they would agree with each

statement, like those mentioned above, by marking between 1 (“not at all”) and 7 (“very

much”).

Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

While most accountability studies have taken an experimental design and the

level of accountability was measured only for the purpose of a manipulation check (Frink,

1994; Seigel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996; Tetlock & Boettger, 1989; Tetlock & Kim, 1987;

Tetlock, 1985a; Yamold, Mueser & Lyons, 1988), two recent studies (Ferris et al., 1997;

Frink, 1994) used a self-report measure for perceived accountability. Ferris and others

(1997) developed a four-item scale, including: (1) “To what extent are employees

checked for adherence to the rules?”; (2) “To what extent do people who do the same

52


work you do feel they are constantly being watched to see that they obey the rules?”; (3)

“To what extent are you required to follow strict operating procedures at all times?”; (4)

“In your job, to what extent do you have to justify your work-related decisions and

performance to your superior?” These items were measured on a 1-5 Likert-type scale

(1= no extent, 5 = great extent). Although this scale appears to tap some portion of the

perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors, it still seems to be too general.

Also, the internal consistency of the scale was somewhat low (a= .60; n= 209).

Therefore, a new scale that specifically measures the perceived accountability for job

dedication behaviors was developed by using Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) job

dedication scale. The subjects were asked to indicate how much they feel accountable for

the behaviors captured by the job dedication scale to their supervisors with an instruction:

“Each statement below describes some common activities in the work place. By using

the scales, please indicate the extent to which you feel accountable for each of these

behaviors to your supervisor to whom you will pass the other questionnaire. Please note

that you are not asked to indicate how much you are formally or officially accountable

for these activities. Instead, we want to know about your feeling of obligation and need

to justify your behaviors on these activities to your supervisor.”

Performance Elements

Supervisors’ ratings of job dedication and interpersonal facilitation were obtained

by using the scales developed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). In their study, both

job dedication and interpersonal facilitation showed high internal consistency ( a - .94

and .89 respectively). Their task performance scale needed to be revised for the current

study, because it was designed for blue-collar workers (i.e., US Air Force mechanics),

53


while the current sample was not restricted to blue collar workers or to any specific

occupation.

To develop a new task performance scale to accommodate a wide range of

subjects, the current study employed a worker-oriented approach to job analysis. The

most important criterion for performance is job-relevance (Borman, 1991), and a job

analysis provides the basis for determining the job-relevance. Between two primary

approaches to job analysis, task-oriented approach and worker-oriented approach, the

latter seems to be more appropriate for the purpose of the current study, because it

focuses on a general understanding of worker activities (Harvey, 1991). Since the

worker-oriented approach is based on the idea that a coherent order or structure underlies

the observed domain of work activities and this underlying structure can be described in

terms of a relatively small number of dimensions (McCormick, 1976), meaningful

comparison can be made among jobs that are highly dissimilar at the task levels (Harvey,

Friedman, Hakel & Cornelius, 1988). Some techniques and tools employing this

approach include Position Analysis Questionnaire (McCormick, Jeanneret & Mecham,

1972) and Job Element Inventory (JEI: Cornelius & Hakel, 1978).

With this approach, Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) task performance scale

was augmented by adding some items from Harvey and others’ work (1988). Harvey and

his colleagues extracted five factors from JEI. Those factors include ‘decision

making/communication/general responsibility,’ ‘skilled job activities,’ ‘information

processing activities,’ ‘physical activities/related environmental conditions,’ and ‘using

equipment/providing services.’ Since Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) task

performance scale focused on the ‘skilled job activities,’ some items representing the

54


other factors were extracted from Harvey and others’ study (1988) and added to the task

performance scale.

In the case of job dedication and facilitation behaviors, the supervisors were asked

to indicate the extent to which the employee who passed the questionnaire to them would

likely display each of the performance behaviors by marking between 1 (“not at all”) and

7 (“extremely likely”). While task performance items were also presented in a 7-point

Likert style format, different anchors were assigned (1: much below average, 4: average,

7: Much above average). In responding to the task performance items, the supervisors

were also allowed to check 0 (“never perform”) for each of the item, if their subordinates’

job did not require such behaviors.

55


CHAPTER 4

ANALYSES & RESULTS

This chapter is organized into two sections. The first section describes the results

of the reliability test and factor analysis on the measurements for the variables. The

primary purpose of these tests was to obtain an interpretable factor structure and an

acceptable level of internal consistency. The factor analysis employed a traditional

approach (i.e., maximum likelihood method for factor extraction with varimax rotation)

in an iterative process. That is, if an initial factor analysis showed that some

measurement items loaded on the wrong factor or loaded on an appropriate factor but had

factor loadings that were too low (i.e., \X\ < .30), they were either dropped one by one to

get a clearer factor structure. Then, the remaining measurement items were put into

another factor analysis and examined through the same process. This process was

repeated until an acceptable factor structure was obtained. The final set of measurement

items from the process was rechecked for internal consistency. If the internal consistency

was also acceptable, then an index score for a construct was calculated by averaging the

actual scores of the final set of measurement items.

The second section of this chapter describes the result of various statistical

analyses for hypothesis testing. Since all of the hypotheses developed in this study are

stated in the form of a correlation between two variables, a correlation analysis provides a

piece of evidence supporting or rejecting those hypotheses. However, to draw out

stronger evidence and to eliminate some alternative explanations, additional computation

and analyses were conducted. First of all, it is necessary to determine whether the

56


supervisors discriminated between various types of performance. To test the discriminant

validity of the performance elements, a procedure suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983:

53-54) was used.

Second, previous empirical studies showed that different types of performance are

predicted by different antecedents. Although the relationships between the antecedents

and the performance elements are not the primary focus of this study, the examination of

the relationships may provide another evidence for the construct validity of the

performance elements in addition to the factor analysis results. By using a formula

suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983, p. 57), it was examined whether an antecedent

was more significantly related to one type of performance element than to the other types

of performance in the current data as the literature suggests.

Third, since the correlation coefficients do not take the effect of the control

variables on the dependent variables into account, a hierarchical regression analysis was

conducted to control the covariance of the control variables with the dependent variables.

Some of the basic principles underlying the hierarchical order for entry are causal priority

and the removal of confounding or spurious relationships (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 120).

In testing hypotheses la, lb, and 2, the primary purpose of this analysis was to control for

the effect of personality traits and other demographic variables on the performance

elements. In testing the hypotheses on the relationships between situational factors and

perceived accountability, the focus was to show the unique contribution of a focal

situational factor on the perceived accountability while all other situational factors were

controlled.

57


Fourth, while a hierarchical regression analysis is effective in partitioning the

covariance structure among predictors, it does not accommodate more than one

dependent variable. Structural covariance analysis using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1996) can corroborate the evidence from the hierarchical regression analyses by taking

the covariance structure both of endogenous constructs and of exogenous constructs at

the same time. Therefore, the interrelationships among the performance elements were

further examined by using LISREL 8.

Finally, to test the hypotheses on the mediation effects of perceived accountability

and job dedication, I conducted a series of regression analyses to examine four conditions

of causal step method suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981).

They suggested that a mediation relationship among variable X, Y, and Z exists (i.e., X

-> Y -> Z) if four conditions are met: 1) the path from variable X to variable Y must be

significant; 2) the path from variable Y to variable Z must be significant; 3) the path from

variable X to variable Z should be significant; 4) the coefficient of variable X on Z

should be no longer significant in a regression model that includes variable Y. While the

first two conditions are always required, a less stringent variation of the causal step

method does not require latter two conditions (1981). That is, when variable Y

completely mediates the effect of variable X on variable Z, the direct relationship

between X and Z may not be significant. Also, when the coefficient of variable X in a

model including variable Y is not zero, mediation is regarded as partial. Since the focus

of this analysis is to identify the effect of a mediator between an exogenous variable and

an endogenous variable, each of the situational factors and perceived accountability were

58


individually examined with respect to the corresponding endogenous variable and control

variables were not included in the regression analyses.

Initial Analyses

Personality Traits

An initial factor analysis of the items measuring the three personality traits items

extracted five factors instead of three factors. The examination of the question items

revealed that some extraversion and agreeableness items that were negatively stated were

loaded on the fourth and the fifth factor

Table 4-1 Factor Structure of Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness

Items Extraversion Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

I talk to a lot of different people at parties. .77 . 1 0 .05I start conversations. .76 . 2 1 . 1 1

I feel comfortable around people. .65 .24 .24I don't mind being the center of attention. .63 -.09 .13I am the life of the party. .56 .05 .04I feel others' emotions. .05 .75 . 1 0

I take time out for others. .16 .67 .25I sympathize with others' feelings. .15 .63 . 1 0

I have a soft heart. -.05 .58 .03I make people feel at ease. .28 .57 .33I am exacting in my work. . 1 1 . 1 0 .70I follow a schedule. . 1 0 . 1 1 .62I am always prepared. .13 . 1 1 .54I like order. .03 . 1 2 .54Eigen Value 2.48 2.24 1.74Percentage of variance explained 17.69 16.02 12.41Note: n = 544, Maximum Likelihood extraction with Varimax rotation, total variance explained: 46.12%

59


Eliminating these items generated three factors with .50 or higher factor loadings

(see Table 4-1). Only the positively stated items were averaged for calculating

individuals’ personality traits scores. The internal consistency of the restructured scales

based upon the factor analysis results was equivalent to those reported by Goldberg

(extraversion: a = .82; agreeableness: a - .80; conscientiousness: a= .71).

Job-related Characteristics

Since all the job-related characteristics were measured through the subjects’

perception of their jobs, all items for the variables were entered into one factor analysis at

the same time to check if the items reflected their designated job characteristics for which

they were originally designed. The result of factor analysis with maximum likelihood

extraction and varimax rotation revealed that three items, each for task autonomy, task

identity, and initiated task interdependence, either had too low factor loadings (\A\ < .30)

or were loaded on two different factors at the same time almost equivalently. For clearer

results, these items were eliminated from the scaling of the constructs. Table 4-2 shows

the factor structure of the job-related characteristics with the loadings. All of these

restructured scales showed an acceptable level of internal consistency (task significance:

a= .82; autonomy: a - .72; task identity: a = .78; supervisor feedback: cr= .93; initiated

task interdependence: a= .90; received task interdependence: a = .89).

60


Table 4-2 Factor Structure of Job-Related Characteristics

Items RTI IT! SFB TS AT TII depend on other people’s work for information I need to do .79 .16 .01 .07 .06 .02my work.My job depends on the work of many different people for its .73 .14 .03 .16 -.07 .00completion.My job performance depends on support and services provided by other people. .71 .06 .02 .07 -.01 .04

I need other people’s service or advice to do my work. .71 .19 .14 .12 -.01 .06Unless other people get their work done, I cannot start my work. .71 .16 .01 .10 -.03 .05

The quality of my work activities is usually pre-conditioned by .70 .17 .06 .14 -.02 .02the quality of other people’s work.My work depends on other people’s work to obtain the tools, materials, or equipments for its completion. .61 .27 .07 .18 -.05 .09

I spend a significant amount o f time in giving help or advice .16 .85 .03 .09 .02 .04other people need to do their work.Other people need my help or advice to do their work. .18 .84 .11 .11 .11 .02My job requires me to provide help or advice that other people .13 .71 .18 .18 .09 .04must have to be able do their jobs.I provide other people with information they need to do their work. .33 .64 .04 .21 .14 .06

1 provide support services that other people need to do their work. .29 .57 .05 .24 .10 .05

Other people’s work depends directly on my job. .37 .52 .02 .34 .10 .06My supervisor is up-front with me about how well he/she .03 .07 .93 .14 .12 .09thinks I am doing my job.My supervisor has made it perfectly clear to me how well .05 .07 .92 .13 .10 .07he/she thinks 1 am doing on my job.My supervisor consistently provides me information about my .14 .16 .78 .08 .05 .11job performance.The outcome of my job is important to other people’s well .20 .17 .07 .80 .14 .06being or jobs.This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by .19 .20 .08 .61 .02 .15how well the work gets done.To what extent do the outcomes of your work likely to affect .15 .19 .16 .61 .19 .00significantly the lives or well-being of other people?The job itself is very significant and important in the broader .18 .22 .12 .56 .25 .17scheme of things.The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence .00 .09 .10 .12 .70 .20and freedom in how I do the work.How much autonomy is there in your job? -.09 .15 .03 .06 .69 .03I am left pretty much on my own to do my job. -.02 .03 .09 .18 .55 .05The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work 1 begin. .09 .04 .08 .10 .16 .95

The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work .06 .07 .13 .13 .11 .62from beginning to end.Eigen value 4.04 3.38 2.50 2.19 1.52 1.45Percentage of variance explained 16.42 13.54 10.01 8.74 6.09 5.79

Note: n = 544, Maximum Likelihood extraction and Varimax rotation, Total variance explained: 55.13%IT1: Initiated Task Interdependence; RTI: Received Task Interdependence; SFB: Supervisor Feedback; TS: Task Significance; AT: Task autonomy; TI: Task Identity

61


Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication

A factor analysis of the behavioral norms for job dedication items revealed two

factors. Table 4-3 presents the factor structure and the loadings. The review of the

question items suggests that the items loaded on the first factor seem to reflect

“consequence of individual interpretation,” while the items loaded on the second factor

seem to reflect “behavioral norms presented to the subjects.”

Table 4-3 Factor Structure of Behavioral Norms

ItemsConsequence

ofBeh. Norms

Presented Beh. Norms

I feel pressure to take the initiative to solve a work problem. .85 .05I feel pressure to tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically. .84 . 1 2

I feel pressure to pay close attention to important details. .68 .07I feel pressure to ask for a challenging work assignment. .64 .08I feel pressure to put in extra hours to get work done on time. .62 . 1 1

I feel pressure to display proper appearance and bearing. .60 .14My coworkers persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task. . 0 2 .89My coworkers work hard. . 0 0 .88My coworkers follow the supervisor’s instructions. . 0 1 .50My coworkers defend the supervisor’s decisions. .24 .40The company culture encourages people to exercise personal discipline and self-control. .18 .37Eigen value 3.15 2.17Percentage of variance explained 28.61 19.72

Note: n = 544, Maximum Likelihood extraction and Varimax rotation, Total variance explained: 48.33%

62


Since the meaning of presented behavioral norms appear to be closer to the

definition of behavioral norms used in this study (i.e., “expectations regarding which

behaviors are appropriate and which behaviors are inappropriate”), only the second factor

will be used for subsequent hypothesis testing. Also, one item (i.e., “the company

culture encourages people to avoid shortcuts”) equivalently loaded on both factors was

removed for clearer factor structure. The Cronbach’s a o f this scale was .77.

Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

An initial factor analysis of the perceived accountability for job dedication items

generated a two-factor structure. However, two items (i.e., putting in extra hours to get

work done on time; asking for a challenging work assignment) loaded highly on the

second factor did not seem consistent with other items as the target of perceived

accountability. Elimination of these items produced one-factor structure as shown in

Table 4-4. The Cronbach’s a o f the scale based on these items was .8 8 .

Performance Elements

Although an initial factor analysis of the performance elements generated seven

factors, the last three factors were not interpretable based upon the examination of the

question items. Moreover, the combined variance explained by these three factors was

just 9.4%. Therefore, these factors were discarded. A further examination of the items

loaded on the remaining four factors suggests that task performance may have two

dimensions: a technical facet and a managerial facet.

63


Table 4-4 Factor structure of Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

Items Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

Persisting to overcome obstacles to complete a task. .77Taking the initiative to solve a work problem. .75Paying close attention to important details. .73Tackling a difficult work assignment enthusiastically. .72Working hard. .71Exercising personal discipline and self-control. .70Following the supervisor’s instructions. . 6 8

Displaying proper appearance and bearing. . 6 6

Defending the supervisor’s decisions. .51Avoiding shortcuts. .44Eigen value 4.55Percentage of variance explained 45.53

Note: « = 544, Maximum Likelihood extraction and Varimax rotation

All the items that reflect the technical facet were those developed by Van Scotter

and Motowidlo (1996) and the items loaded on the managerial factor were those

borrowed from the Harvey and others’ study. Table 4-5 shows the factor structure of the

performance elements and the factor loadings.

When this four-factor structure was compared with the one-factor structure in

which all measures were forced to be loaded on one performance factor by using LISREL

(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996), it showed a much better fit { £ - 1012.93, d f~ 164) to the

current data than did one-factor structure = 2989.10, df= 170). The internal

reliability of all the performance elements was acceptable (job dedication: a ~ .8 8 ;

Interpersonal Facilitation: a = .8 6 ; Task Performance - Technical: a = .87; Task

Performance - Managerial: a = .90).

64


Table 4-5 Factor Structure of Performance Elements

Items TP-M JD IF TP-T

Obtaining needed information .80 .29 .17 . 2 0

Distributing information that may be needed by other people .73 .25 .28 . 2 2

Following certain set procedures .66 .31 .19 . 2 2

Acquiring needed materials and equipments .55 .25 .23 .30

Working in changing situations .54 .25 .32 . 2 0

Persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task. .30 .71 .24 . 2 1

Ask for a challenging work assignment. .18 .64 .28 .23

Put in extra hours to get work done on time. .42 .61 .23 . 1 2

Pay close attention to important details. .19 .61 . 2 2 .25

Tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically. .28 .59 .42 . 2 2

Display proper appearance and bearing. .29 .52 .24 .14

Praise coworkers when they are successful. . 2 1 .26 .80 . 1 2

Say things to make people feel good about themselves... .19 .26 .75 .05Support or encourage a coworker with a personal problem. .17 .19 .66 .09

Listen to others’ ideas about getting work done. .26 .29 .60 . 2 0

Using tools and/or testing equipment . 1 0 . 1 0 .07 .75

Using technical documentation . 1 1 .17 .09 .73

Operating equipment .31 . 2 1 -.03 .64

Performing routine maintenance .14 .15 .16 .60

Trouble-shooting .33 .19 . 2 2 .54

Eigen value 3.12 3.03 2 . 8 6 2.74

Percentage of variance explained 15.59 15.17 14.31 13.71Note: n = 409, Maximum Likelihood extraction and Varimax rotation, Total variance explained: 45.48%

JD: Job Dedication; IF: Interpersonal Facilitation; TP-T: Task Performance - Technical; TP-M: Task Performance - Managerial

65


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without perm

ission.

Table 4-6 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics3

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Task Significance 5.19 1.36 (,82)b

2. Autonomy 5.29 1.30 .32** (.72)

3. Task Identity 5.08 1.59 29** .26** (.78)

4. Supervisor Feedback 5.10 1.61 .32** .21** .25** (.93)

5. Initiated Task Interdependence 4.43 1.55 5 j** .23** .18** .26** (.90)

6. Received Task Interdependence 3.94 1.53 .38** .01 .16** .19** .49** (.89)7. Presented Behavioral Norms 4.90 1.07 .26** .20** .31** .30** .16** .15** (.77)

8. Perceived Accountability 5.79 .98 .26** .28** .23** .34** .26** .13** .37** (.88)

9. Job Dedication 5.66 .95 .15** 14** .09 26** .18** .05 . 12* .22** (.88)

10. Interpersonal Facilitation 5.67 1.02 .18** .13** .09 .21** .13** .04 .16** .19** .63** (.86)

11. Task Performance - Technical0 5.21 1.18 . 11* .06 .02 .12* .13** .07 .10 .05 .55** .37** (.87)

12. Task Performance - Managerial0 5.74 .96 19** . 11* .05 12** .16** .09 .12* .17** .69** .58** .59** (.90)

13. Conscientiousness 5.49 1.00 .20** .12* .12** .19** 2 ] ** .08 .20** .38** .13** .15** .05 .20** (.71)

14. Extraversion 4.86 1.28 .12** .07 .10* 17** .15** .10* .15** .17** .04 .08 .07 .07 .25** (.82)

15. Agreeableness 5.40 .97 .20** . 10* .12** .17** 11** .05 .16** 2 i** .11* .18** .02 . 12* .32** .26** (.80)

16. Job Experience 2.93 4.28 .14** .07 .00 .04 .17** .02 -.04 -.02 .16** .15** .06 .14** .02 -.04 .06 (■)

17. Organizational Position 5.65 2.65 .17** .13* -.02 .12* .09 .05 -.01 .08 .25** .24** .16** .25** .07 .02 .03 19** (■)

Note: * p < .05 (two-tailed) ** p < .01 (two-tailed)a. 404 < n < 541.b. The figures in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach’s a.c. 306 <n <405

Hypotheses Testing

Interrelationships among Performance Elements

Table 4-6 shows the uncorrected correlations and reliabilities of all measures. As

hypothesized with the hypothesis la and lb, job dedication significantly correlated both

with interpersonal facilitation (r = .63) and task performance facets (task performance -

technical: r = .55; task performance - managerial: r = .69.) These coefficients are

relatively higher than those reported in the literature. The corresponding coefficients

reported by Van Scotter & Motowidlo (1996) ranged from .36 to .56. When the

coefficients are corrected for measurement errors, they go up to .72 (job dedication -

facilitation), .63 (job dedication - task performance-technical), and .78 (job dedication -

task performance-managerial). These coefficients were transformed into Fisher’s z ’ to

test if they were significantly different from 1 , which would mean that two performance

elements are the same (Cohen & Cohen, 1983: 53-54). For conservative comparison, . 8

instead of 1 was used as the hypothetical criterion value, z-tests on all the correlations

showed that all the correlations significantly depart from the hypothetical criterion value

at the 99% confidence interval (i.e., job dedication - facilitation: z = 6.59; job dedication

- task performance-technical: z = 8.16; job dedication - task performance-managerial: z =

5.55). These figures provide evidence that there is discriminant validity of the

performance elements.

The patterns of the correlations between the control variables and the performance

elements are consistent with the literature. As Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996)

reported, the personality traits do not correlate with task performance - technical facet,

67


while conscientiousness and agreeableness correlate with the contextual performance

elements. In addition, agreeableness correlates more significantly with interpersonal

facilitation than with job dedication (t = 1.66, p < .05, Cohen & Cohen, 1983). As in Van

Scotter and Motowidlo’s study (1996), there is no significant difference between job

dedication and interpersonal facilitation in terms of their correlations with extraversion

and conscientiousness. However, job experience measured in position tenure did not

significantly correlate with task performance - technical facet, while it did with job

dedication. Unlike task performance - technical facet, task performance - managerial

facet correlates with all of the personality traits except extraversion. While agreeableness

was more strongly correlated with interpersonal facilitation than with task performance -

managerial facet (t = 1.76, p < .05, Cohen & Cohen, 1983), its significant correlation

with task performance - managerial facet is not surprising. Conway (1999) hinted at this

correlation by conceptualizing interpersonal facilitation as a part of managers’ task

performance. Finally, subordinates’ organizational position was significantly correlated

both with task performance - managerial facet (r = .25, p < .05) and with task

performance - technical facet (r = . 16, p < .05).

Although the correlations among the performance elements support the

hypothesis la and lb, they do not control for the influence of individual difference

variables on the performance elements. To control the effects of the individual difference

variables, such as personality traits, job experience, and subordinates’ organizational

position, on interpersonal facilitation and task performance facets, hierarchical regression

analyses were conducted. In these analyses, the individual difference variables were

68


entered first as control variables, and then job dedication was entered at the second step.

Table 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 summarize the results.

In the first step, conscientiousness explained a significant amount of variance only

in task performance - managerial facet (/?= .18,/? < .0 1 ), while agreeableness

significantly predicted only interpersonal facilitation (ft = .13, p < .05). Also,

subordinates’ organizational position was always significant in predicting the

performance elements, while extraversion was not at all. Job dedication entered at the

second step always explained a significant amount of variance in all of the performance

elements (/?> .54, p < .01) above and beyond those accounted for by all other variables.

Table 4-7 Effects of Job Dedication on Interpersonal Facilitation controlling for individual difference

Variable B SEB A R2

Step 1Conscientiousness .08 .06 .08Agreeableness .14 .06 .13*Extraversion . 0 0 .05 . 0 0

Subordinates’ Organizational Position .09 . 0 2 .2 2 **Job Experience . 0 2 . 0 1 .1 0 *

Step 2 .30**

Conscientiousness .03 .05 .03Agreeableness . 1 2 .05 .1 0 *Extraversion . 0 1 .04 . 0 1

Subordinates’ Organizational Position .04 . 0 2 .09*Job Experience . 0 1 . 0 1 .04Job Dedication .65 .05 .58**

Note: n = 333; * p < . 05 ** p < .01; R2 = .41

69


Table 4-8 Effects of Job Dedication on Task Performance-Technical controlling for individual difference

Variable B SEB P A R2

Step 1Conscientiousness .04 .07 .04

.04

Agreeableness -.08 .08 -.06Extraversion .05 .06 .05Subordinates’ Organizational Position .07 .03 .16**Job Experience . 0 1 . 0 1 .04

Step 2Conscientiousness - . 0 2 .06 - . 0 2

.26**

Agreeableness - . 1 0 .07 -.08Extraversion .05 .05 .06Subordinates’ Organizational Position . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 2

Job Experience . 0 0 . 0 1 - . 0 1

Job Dedication .68 .07 .54**Note: n = 297; * p < .05 **p < .01; R2 = .30

Table 4-9 Effects of and Job Dedication on Task Performance-Managerial controlling for individual difference

Variable B SEB A R2

Step 1Conscientiousness .16 .05 .18**

.1 1 **

Agreeableness - . 0 1 .06 - . 0 1

Extraversion . 0 1 .04 . 0 1


Step 2Conscientiousness . 1 1 .04 .1 1 *

.36**

Agreeableness -.03 .04 -.03Extraversion . 0 2 .03 .03Subordinates’ Organizational Position .03 . 0 2 .08Job Experience . 0 1 . 0 1 .03Job Dedication .64 .04 .63**

Note: n = 329; * p < .05 ** p < .01; R2 = .47

70


However, the significance level of the individual difference variables on the

dependent variables at the second step varied. While agreeableness (/?= .10,/? < .05) and

subordinates’ organizational position (/?= .09, p < .05) were still significant predictors of

interpersonal facilitation, only conscientiousness was a significant predictor (/? = .1 1 , p

< .05) of task performance - managerial facet when job dedication was entered.

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses provide further evidence

supporting the hypotheses. However, the evidence does not take into account the

possible covariance structure among the dependent variables (i.e., interpersonal

facilitation, task performance-technical, & task performance-managerial). That is, a

hierarchical regression analysis can accommodate only one dependent variable in

analyzing its covariance with predictors. To analyze the covariance structure of all three

dependent variables with job dedication as well as other relevant control variables at the

same time, a structural covariance analysis was conducted by using LISREL 8 (Joreskog

& Sorbom, 1996).

While all the variables used in the previous hierarchical regression analyses were

needed to be included in a structural model, the size of covariance structure that the

LISREL program can handle is limited by the program’s design. Therefore, for all the

variables except the job experience and organizational hierarchical position measured by

using a single item, index scores instead of actual scores on measurement items were

used for generating a covariance structure of the variables. An index score of a variable

was calculated by averaging all actual scores on the measurement items loaded on the

same factor, as shown earlier in Table 4-1 and 4-5. When a single index score was used,

the LISREL procedure that automatically corrects measurement errors in scaling a latent

71


variable does no longer take the measurement errors into account in determining the unit

of measurement for a latent variable. Therefore, the unit of measurement for a latent

variable (i.e., Tx, and Ty) was manually calculated by using a reliability coefficient of the

latent variable and so was the error variance (i.e., S’s and s’s) of the corresponding

observed variable (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

Figure 4-1 presents a path diagram of a model tested with the procedure described

above. This model specifies not only the hypothesized relationships among the

performance elements (i.e., job dedication -> interpersonal facilitation, task performance-

technical, and task performance-managerial) but also some additional paths from

personality traits, job experience, and organizational hierarchical position to the

endogenous latent variables. These additional paths were specified based upon the

current literature. For example, as mentioned earlier, while conscientiousness has been

found to be associated both with task performance (Hunter & Hirsh, 1987) and with job

dedication (Borman et al., 1995), job experience has been shown to be a primary

predictor of task performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt et al., 1984). Likewise,

agreeableness and extroversion are associated with interpersonally facilitative behaviors

(Costa & McCrae, 1989), while organizational hierarchical position were suggested to be

related to contextual performance in general (Conway, 1999; Ferris et al., 1997).

All the path coefficients shown in the Figure 4-1 are standardized solutions.

Similar to the result of the hierarchical regression analyses, all the path coefficients from

job dedication to other performance elements were significant (p < .01). Job dedication -

task performance -managerial path was the strongest (/?=74), followed by job dedication

- interpersonal facilitation (/?=.62) and task performance-technical path (/?=.59).

72


Regarding the control variables, while conscientiousness was a significant predictor of

job dedication, it did not explain a significant amount of variance in the task performance

elements. Also, organizational hierarchical position predicted job dedication

significantly, but not interpersonal facilitation. Agreeableness, as suggested in the

literature, predicted a significant amount of variance in interpersonal facilitation.

However, contrary to the current literature, the current data does not support significant

relationships between extraversion and interpersonal facilitation and between job

experience and task performance elements.

Figure 4-1 Interrelationships among Performance Elements

Note: n = 407; ** p < .01; all figures are standardized solutions/=69.61, #=14, RMSEA=.09, NFI = .91, CFI = .93, GFI = .96.JD: Job Dedication, IF: Interpersonal Facilitation, TFT: Task Performance- Technical, TPM: Task Performance-Managerial, AGREE: Agreeableness, EXT: Extraversion, POSI: Organizational hierarchical position, CON: Conscientiousness, EXP: Job Experience

73


Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication - Job Dedication

As shown in Table 4-6, perceived accountability for job dedication significantly

correlates with job dedication (r = .21, p < .01). This significance level was not

diminished even after the effects of the individual difference variables on the job

dedication were addressed (see Table 4-10.) While subordinates’ organizational position

and job experience explained a significant amount of variance in job dedication at the

second step, perceived accountability for job dedication was shown to explain variance

above and beyond the variance of job dedication explained by the individual difference

variables (ft = 23,p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 4-10 Effect of Perceived Accountability on Job Dedication

Variable B SE B A R2

Step 1 .09**Conscientiousness .08 .05 .09Agreeableness .03 .06 .03Extraversion - . 0 2 .04 - . 0 2


Step 2 .04**

Conscientiousness . 0 1 .06 . 0 2

Agreeableness - . 0 1 .06 - . 0 1

Extraversion -.03 .04 -.05Subordinates’ Organizational Position .08 . 0 2 .2 1 **

Job Experience . 0 2 . 0 1 .1 2 *

Perceived accountability for Job Dedication .24 .06 .23**Note: n = 335; * p < .05 * * p < .01; R2 = .13

74


Situational Factors - Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

The correlations presented earlier (see Table 4-6) showed that behavioral norms

for job dedication and all the job-related characteristics except received task

interdependence were positively correlated with perceived accountability for job

dedication as expected. Behavioral norms (r = .37) were most strongly correlated with

perceived job dedication, followed by supervisor feedback (r = .34), autonomy (r = .28),

task significance (r = .26), initiated task interdependence (r = .26), and task identity (r

= .23). Although received task interdependence (r = .13) was also significantly

correlated with perceived accountability for job dedication, the direction was positive

contrary to the hypothesis 3f. These correlations provide a piece of evidence supporting

the hypothesis 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, and 4, but not hypothesis 3f.

Given these correlations, two questions seem to be worth asking. The first

question is, which factor would be more important than others in predicting perceived

accountability for job dedication after controlling other situational factors? To answer

this question, seven hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In each of these

analyses, individual difference variables were entered at the first step. At the second step,

all the job characteristic variables except a focal job characteristic variable were entered.

The focal variable was entered at the last step. The results of the individual hierarchical

regression analyses are presented in Table 4-12 through 4-18. As shown in the tables,

among the three personality traits, conscientiousness is the only personality trait that

consistently explained a significant amount of variance in perceived accountability for

job dedication. This significance did not diminish even when other situational factors

were entered. Table 4-11 summarizes the results of seven hierarchical regression

75


analyses in terms of the statistics of the focal situational factor at the last step. Consistent

with the results of correlation analysis, presented behavioral norms for job dedication {fi

= .2 1 ) was the most important situational factor in explaining the variance in the

dependent variable, followed by supervisor feedback (/? = .15) and autonomy (J3= .11).

Table 4-11 Unique Contribution of Each Situational Factors on Perceived Accountability

Variable B SEB fi A R2 Total R2

Step3a

Task Significance - . 0 1 .04 - . 0 1 . 0 0 .31

Task Identity . 0 2 .03 .04 . 0 1 .32

Autonomy . 1 1 .04 .15** .0 2 ** .32

Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15** .0 2 ** .31

Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 . 1 0 . 0 1 .32

Received Task Interdependence . 0 0 .03 . 0 0 . 0 0 .31

Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .2 1 ** .04** .32Note: n = 331; * p < .05 ** p < .01

a. Results from separate hierarchical regression analysis

The second question is why received task interdependence positively correlated

with perceived accountability for job dedication contrary to the expectation. One

possible explanation is based on the interaction effect between conscientiousness and

received task interdependence on the perceived accountability level. That is, people with

different conscientiousness levels may respond to a potential risk of poor performance in

different ways when they highly depend on other people’s work outcomes.

76


Table 4-12 Effect of Task Significance on Perceived Accountability

Variable B SEB fi A R2

Stepl .16**Conscientiousness .31 .05 .33**Agreeableness .09 .05 .09Extraversion .04 .04 .06Job Experience - . 0 1 . 0 1 -.04Subordinate Position . 0 2 . 0 2 .05

Step2 .15**Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .04Extraversion . 0 0 .04 . 0 0

Job Experience - . 0 1 . 0 1 -.05Subordinate Position . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 2

Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .03 .10Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .21**

Step 3 . 0 0

Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion . 0 0 .04 . 0 0


Task Identity . 0 2 .03 .04Autonomy . 1 1 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 . 1 0

Received Task Interdependence . 0 0 .03 . 0 0

Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .2 1 **

Task Significance -.01 .04 -.01Note: n =332, * p < M * * p < .05, ^ = .31

77


Table 4-13 Effect of Task Identity on Perceived Accountability





Task Significance .00 .04 .00Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .16**Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 .10Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .04 .22**

Step 3 . 0 1

Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion . 0 0 .04 . 0 0


Task Significance - . 0 1 .04 - . 0 1

Autonomy . 1 1 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 . 1 0



Task Identity .02 .03 .04Note: n =332, * p < M * * p < .05, R2 = .32

78


Table 4-14 Effect of Autonomy on Perceived Accountability


Stepl .16**Conscientiousness .31 .05 33 **Agreeableness .09 .05 .09Extraversion .04 .04 .06Job Experience - . 0 1 . 0 1 -.04Subordinate Position . 0 2 . 0 2 .05


Job Experience - . 0 1 . 0 1 -.05Subordinate Position . 0 1 . 0 2 .03Task Significance .02 .04 .02Task Identity .04 .03 .06Supervisor Feedback .10 .03 .16**Initiative Task Interdependence .07 .04 .12*Received Task Interdependence -.02 .03 -.03Presented Behavioral Norms .20 .05 .22**

Step 3 .0 2 **Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion . 0 0 .04 . 0 0



Task Identity . 0 2 .03 .04Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15*Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 . 1 0



Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Note: n =332, *p < .01 ** p < .05, R2 = .32

79


Table 4-15 Effect of Supervisor Feedback on Perceived Accountability




Job Experience - . 0 1 . 0 1 -.06Subordinate Position . 0 1 . 0 2 .03Task Significance .01 .04 .01Task Identity .03 .03 .05Autonomy .11 .04 .16**Initiative Task Interdependence .07 .04 .11Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00Presented Behavioral Norms .21 .05 .24**

Step 3 .0 2 **Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion . 0 0 .04 . 0 0



Task Identity . 0 2 .03 .04Autonomy . 1 1 .04 .15**Initiative Task Interdependence .06 .04 . 1 0


Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .2 1 **Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**

Note: n =332, < .01 ** p < .05, R2 = .31

80


Table 4-16 Effect of Initiated Task Interdependence on Perceived Accountability


Stepl .16**Conscientiousness .31 .05 .33**Agreeableness .09 .05 .09Extraversion .04 .04 .06Job Experience -.01 .01 -.04Subordinate Position .02 .02 .05

Step2 .15**Conscientiousness .25 .05 .26**Agreeableness .04 .05 .04Extraversion .01 .04 .01Job Experience -.01 .01 -.04Subordinate Position .01 .02 .02Task Significance .01 .04 .02Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .12 .04 .16**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .16**Received Task Interdependence .02 .03 .03Presented Behavioral Norms .18 .05 .21**

Step 3 .01Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion .00 .04 .00Job Experience -.01 .01 I © L

/4

Subordinate Position .01 .02 .02Task Significance -.01 .04 -.01Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .11 .04 15 **

Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .21**

Initiated Task Interdependence .06 .04 .10Note: n =332, */?<.01 ** p < .05, R2 = .32

81


Table 4-17 Effect of Received Task Interdependence on Perceived Accountability

Variable B SEB f i A R2

Stepl .16**Conscientiousness .31 .05 3 3 **

Agreeableness .09 .05 .09Extraversion .04 .04 .06Job Experience -.01 .01 -.04Subordinate Position .02 .02 .05

Step2 .15**Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion .00 .04 .00Job Experience -.01 .01 -.05Subordinate Position .01 .02 .02Task Significance -.01 .04 -.01Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiated Task Interdependence .06 .03 .10Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .21**

Step 3 .00Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion .00 .04 .00Job Experience -.01 .01 -.05Subordinate Position .01 .02 .02Task Significance -.01 .04 -.01Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiated Task Interdependence .06 .04 .10Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .21**Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00

Note: n =332, * p < .01 ** p < .05, R2 = .31

82


Table 4-18 Effect of Presented Behavioral Norms on Perceived Accountability


Stepl .16**Conscientiousness .31 .05 .33**Agreeableness .09 .05 .09Extraversion .04 .04 .06Job Experience -.01 .01 -.04Subordinate Position .02 .02 .05

Step2 .12**Conscientiousness .26 .05 .27**Agreeableness .05 .05 .05Extraversion .01 .04 .01Job Experience -.01 .01 -.07Subordinate Position .00 .02 .01Task Significance .01 .04 .01Task Identity .05 .03 .08Autonomy .12 .04 .17**Supervisor Feedback .11 .03 .19**Initiated Task Interdependence .06 .04 .09Received Task Interdependence .01 .03 .01

Step 3 .04**Conscientiousness .24 .05 .25**Agreeableness .04 .05 .05Extraversion .00 .04 .00Job Experience -.01 .01 -.05Subordinate Position .01 .02 .02Task Significance -.01 .04 -.01Task Identity .02 .03 .04Autonomy .11 .04 .15**Supervisor Feedback .09 .03 .15**Initiated Task Interdependence .06 .04 .10Received Task Interdependence .00 .03 .00Presented Behavioral Norms .19 .05 .21**

Note: n =332, *p<.0\ **p< .05, R2 = .32

83


For example, as hypothesized in this study, less conscientious people are likely to

respond to a poor performance under high received task interdependence situation by

blaming other people’s poor performance. Highly conscientious people, however, are

more likely to try to fix any problems given by other people rather than to blame other

people. If this were the case, then the direction between received task interdependence

and perceived accountability for highly conscientious people would be positive, while

that for less conscientiousness people would be negative.

To examine this possibility, a hierarchical regression analysis on perceived

accountability was conducted. In this analysis, both conscientiousness and received task

interdependence were entered first, and then the interaction item (i.e., conscientiousness

x received task interdependence) was entered (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). As shown in

Table 4-19, the interaction item was not significant at the 95% confidence interval,

although the significance value of the interaction item was quite close to the conventional

value {p = .06). Moreover, both conscientiousness and received task interdependence,

which explained a significant amount of variance of perceived accountability at the first

step, became insignificant once the interaction item was entered. Figure 4-2 presents

different patterns of perceived accountability level of three conscientiousness level

groups at three levels of received task interdependence. The different levels in this figure

were determined by adding and subtracting one standard deviation (Sx) from the

corresponding mean value (A ) of the variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The perceived

accountability level of low conscientious people decreased as the received task

interdependence increased as hypothesized in this study, while middle or high

84


conscientious people experienced higher level of perceived accountability as received

task interdependence increased.

Table 4-19 Effect of Conscientiousness x Received Task Interdependence on Perceived Accountability


Step 1 .15**Conscientiousness .36 .04 .37**Received Task Interdependence .05 .03 .08*

Step 2 .01Conscientiousness (A) .17 .11 .18Received Task Interdependence (B) -.20 .14 -.31A x B .04 .02 .45a

Note: n = 540; * p < .05 ** p < .01 a. p = .06

Conscientiousness

M iddle

Low M iddle High

Received Task Interdependence Level

Figure 4-2 Patterns of Perceived Accountability of Conscientiousness x Received TaskInterdependence

85


Perceived Accountability and Job Dedication as Mediators

The evidence found from the preceding analyses indicates that perceived

accountability is likely to mediate the effects of situational factors on job dedication, and

that job dedication is likely to mediate the effect of perceived accountability on other

types of performance. As mentioned earlier, a series of regression analyses were

conducted to check if the current data support the mediating effects of perceived

accountability and job dedication. In these analyses, received task interdependence was

not included, because its hypothesized relationship with perceived accountability was not

supported from the previous analysis in terms of the direction.

Following Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981), three regression

analyses per a focal factor were conducted to examine the aforementioned four conditions

of a mediation relationship (see table 4-20 and table 4-21). The first model was to check

the first condition, that is, a significant relationship between an independent variable (i.e.,

situational factors in table 4-20 and perceived accountability in table 4-21) and a

moderator (i.e., perceived accountability in table 4-20 and job dedication in table 4-21).

The second model was to examine the third condition, that is, a relationship between an

independent variable and a dependent variable (i.e., job dedication in table 4-20 and

interpersonal facilitation and two task performance facets in table 4-21). In the third

model, a dependent variable was regressed both on an independent variable and on a

mediator to check the second condition (i.e., a relationship between a mediator and a

dependent variable) and the fourth condition.

86


Table 4-20 Mediation Effect of Perceived Accountability on Situational Factors-Job Dedication

Models Situational Factors B SEB j3

1 Task Significance -> Perceived Accountability .18 .03 .26**2 Task Significance -> Job Dedication .10 .03 .15**3 Task Significance -> Job Dedication .07 .03 .10

Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .20 .05 .20**

1 Task Identity -> Perceived Accountability .13 .03 23 **

2 Task Identity -> Job Dedication .05 .03 .093 Task Identity -> Job Dedication .03 .03 .04


1 Autonomy -> Perceived Accountability .21 .03 .28**2 Autonomy -> Job Dedication .10 .04 .14**3 Autonomy -> Job Dedication .06 .04 .08


1 Supervisor Feedback -> Perceived Accountability .20 .03 .34**2 Supervisor Feedback -> Job Dedication .15 .03 .25**3 Supervisor Feedback -> Job Dedication .12 .03 .20**


1 Initiated Task Interdependence -> Perceived Accountability .16 .03 .26**2 Initiated Task Interdependence -> Job Dedication .11 .03 .18**3 Initiated Task Interdependence -> Job Dedication .08 .03 .13**

Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .19 .05

1 Behavioral Norms -> Perceived Accountability .33 .04 .37**2 Behavioral Norms -> Job Dedication .10 .04 .12*3 Behavioral Norms -> Job Dedication .03 .05 .04

Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .21 .05 .21 **N o t e : * / ? < . 0 5 * * p < . 01

87


If the regression coefficient of an independent variable in the third model is

smaller than that in the second model while the path from the mediator to the dependent

variable is significant, then a mediation relationship among them exists.

Table 4-20 summarizes 18 regression analyses on situational factors. As shown

in the table, perceived accountability fully mediated the effects of task significance, task

identity, autonomy, and behavioral norms on job dedication. Especially, the direct effects

of task significance, autonomy, and behavioral norms on job dedication became no longer

significant when regressed with perceived accountability. With less stringent conditions

of a causal step method, the effect of task identity on job dedication also appears to be

fully mediated by perceived accountability. In contrast, the direct effects of supervisors’

feedback and initiated task interdependence on job dedication were still significant, while

their indirect effects through perceived accountability were also significant. Therefore,

hypothesis 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5g are supported. This finding suggests that while

some situational factors may directly govern a portion of people’s CP behaviors, it is still

people’s perception of their accountability for the behaviors that plays an important role

in deriving CP from physical, social, and organizational factors.

Job dedication also fully mediated the paths of perceived accountability - other

types of performance (see table 4-21). The direct effect of perceived accountability on

interpersonal facilitation and task performance-managerial facet was no longer significant

when regressed with job dedication. The regression coefficients of perceived

accountability on interpersonal facilitation and task performance-managerial facet were

decreased by .15 respectively from the second to the third model. Therefore, hypotheses

6a and 6b are supported. This finding provides additional evidence that motivational

88


elements captured by job dedication play an important role in converting an individual’s

perception on accountability into other types of performance.

Table 4-21 Mediation Effect of Job Dedication on Perceived Accountability - Other Types of Performance

Models Situational Factors B SEB fi1 Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .22 .05 .22**2 Perceived Accountability -> Interpersonal Facilitation .21 .05 19 **

3 Perceived Accountability -> Interpersonal Facilitation .06 .04 .05Job Dedication -> Interpersonal Facilitation .66 .04 .62**

1 Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .22 .05 .22**2 Perceived Accountability -> Task Performance -Technical .06 .07 .05

3 Perceived Accountability -> Task Performance -Technical -.10 .06 -.08Job Dedication -> Task Performance -Technical .70 .06 .56**

1 Perceived Accountability -> Job Dedication .22 .05 .22**

2 Perceived Accountability Task Performance -Managerial .17 .05 .17**

3 Perceived Accountability -> Task Performance -Managerial .02 .04 .02

Job Dedication -> Task Performance -Managerial .69 .04 .68**Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

89


CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Study Summary

Inspired by a research question: “What can managers do to encourage their

subordinates to engage in CP?” this study was conducted to establish a theoretical linkage

between situational factors and contextual performance by employing perceived

accountability as a proposed mediator. It was suggested that managers may be able to

encourage employees to display CP behaviors by influencing their perceptions of

accountability for job dedication, and that the higher level of accountability people

experience, the more likely they are to display job dedication behaviors. Employees’ job

dedication behaviors, in turn, affect both interpersonally facilitative behaviors and task

performance. To generate more specific implications for managers, this study identified

several job-related characteristics and behavioral norms as the potential sources of

perceived accountability. Drawing on relevant literature and theories, it was

hypothesized that people would experience higher perceived accountability for job

dedication behaviors, (1) when they think that their tasks are important, (2) when they

perform a complete task from the beginning to the end, (3) when their supervisors

provide appropriate performance feedback, (4) when they initiate a work process for

other people, (5) when their work is less dependent on the work of other people’s work,

and (6) when they perceive clear behavioral norms for the behaviors.

A field survey approach was employed because of the need to include variation in

situational factors and normative influences on accountability. From graduate and

undergraduate classes of a university located in the southeastern United States, 544

90


subordinates and 409 supervisors (n of complete dyads = 409), who were working under

various organizational situations, were surveyed. Once the data from both subordinates

and supervisors were obtained, the dyadic responses were combined into one data set by

using questionnaire matching identification numbers.

To test the hypotheses, correlation analyses and hierarchical regression analyses

were primarily used. However, some additional analyses and computation, such as

structural covariance analysis, ANOVA, and the computation of the significance of the

difference between dependent r ’s, were also employed to draw out additional evidence

and to eliminate some alternative explanations.

These analyses rendered evidence supporting all of these hypotheses except three.

That is, all of the situational factors except received task interdependence positively

correlated with perceived accountability for job dedication as expected. Among these

situational factors, three factors (i.e., autonomy, supervisor feedback, and behavioral

norms) explained the variance in perceived accountability above and beyond those by

other situational factors and individual difference variables. Perceived accountability for

job dedication also explained a significant amount of variance in job dedication even

after the effects of individual difference variables (i.e., personality traits, job experience,

and organizational position) were controlled. As expected from the hypotheses on these

relationships, perceived accountability partially mediated the effects of situational factors

except received accountability on job dedication. In turn, job dedication predicted

interpersonal facilitation (y= .62) and task performance (technical facet: y= .59;

managerial facet: y - .74) at the 99% confidence interval. This significance level was

still held even after the effects of the individual difference variables on interpersonal

91


facilitation and task performance facets were taken into account. Job dedication also

partially mediated the effects of perceived accountability for job dedication on

interpersonal facilitation and task performance-managerial facet as expected, but not on

task performance-technical facet.

Limitations

While most of the hypotheses were supported by the data, there are some

limitations to this study. First, the current study is cross-sectional in nature. Although all

the hypotheses were developed based upon relevant theories and some indirect evidence

shown in the literature, the lack of a longitudinal design precludes asserting causal

relationships among the variables. Therefore, the results reported here should not be

taken as evidence for causal relationships, because all the figures from the analyses

reflect only covariance between the variables at a single point in time.

Another limitation of the current study was entailed by the data collection design.

Although it was ideal to collect each of the performance elements data from three

different supervisors, as Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) did, the conditions for this

study made this approach practically infeasible. As mentioned earlier, since the

measurement of perceived accountability and situational factors in an experimental

design would not resemble the variance that would be found in actual job setting, the

current study employed a field survey design. To collect data from subjects who were

working for different organizations of which social and organizational structure, and

therefore, accountability levels, would vary, subjects who were working under other

people’s supervision were recruited from undergraduate and graduate classes and the

questionnaire for supervisors were passed through the subjects. In this procedure, it was

92


practically quite difficult not only to recruit subordinates who report to three different

supervisors, but also to get all the supervisors to participate voluntarily in the survey with

no direct inducement. Given this difficulty, the current study employed a dyadic data

collection design.

Due to this design, all the hypotheses, except the one on perceived accountability

for job dedication-job dedication relationship, are still subject to possible common

method variance confounding. Since common method variance usually inflates the

strength of the relationships between variables, the internal validity of the current

findings should be taken with caution.

Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications

Despite the aforementioned limitations empirical corroboration of the hypotheses

of the current work will extend our knowledge about people’s performance in the work

place through both theoretical contribution to the current literature and provision of

practical implications for HR managers.

First, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis and structural covariance

analysis supported the hypothesized interrelationships among the performance elements.

This finding is important for two reasons. First, this finding eliminates an alternative

explanation for the relationship of perceived accountability for job dedication to actual

job dedication behaviors. In other words, since job dedication is likely to induce other

types of performance elements, the variance in job dedication explained by perceived

accountability for job dedication cannot be attributed to other types of performance

elements. Second, not only does the finding on the interrelationships among the

performance elements support Campbell’s (1990) performance model and confirm Van

93


Scotter’s (1994) post-hoc analysis result, it also clarifies the role of motivational

components in the performance domain. Noting that the initial research attempts to

include motivation components as a part only of contextual performance was not

empirically supported, Motowidlo and others (1997) suggested that motivational

components may be manifested into both interpersonally facilitative behaviors and task

performance and called for an empirical study. The evidence found in this study support

their contention. That is, job dedication capturing motivational components was shown

to be a strong predictor both of interpersonal facilitation and of task performance. This

corroboration consequently means that job dedication needs to be treated as a separate

dimension of performance domain, as suggested by Conway (1999), because of its unique

role in capturing motivational components and being a driving force of other types of

performance.

This role that job dedication plays in the performance domain provides a practical

implication for managers. In general, motivation is viewed as a psychological or mental

state in terms of arousal, direction, and persistence of intention (Gray & Starke, 1988:

104-105; Hellriegel, Slocum & Woodman, 1995: 170; Steers & Porter, 1983; Sullivan,

1988). However, as Campbell (1976) noted, attempts to clarify the meaning of the term

motivation have not been successful, because researchers tried to equate the term to a

specific behavior or construct. The value of job dedication with respect to the

unsuccessful attempts is that job dedication is defined in terms of behaviors rather than of

psychological or mental states, while it still tends to be general across jobs (Borman &

Motowidlo, 1997; Conway, 1996). That is, job dedication captures motivational

components into a more visible format (i.e., behaviors) with more generalizability across

94


different jobs than does the traditional motivation concept. When motivational

components are more visible to managers, it would be much easier for managers to take

employees’ motivation toward jobs into account, and therefore, their managerial

decisions (e.g., performance appraisal, compensation, etc.) would less likely be result-

driven.

Second, the significant relationship between perceived accountability and job

dedication even after the effects of individual difference variables were controlled

suggests that CP behaviors cannot be totally discretionary if they can be induced by

managers through appropriate setup of social, organizational, and psychological

environments. This finding suggests that a different perspective on contextual

performance can enhance our understanding about what managers can do to foster and to

deal with people’s contextual performance at work place more effectively. While

contextual performance has been assumed to be exhibited as a matter of individual

discretion (Motowidlo et al., 1997) and less constrained by work characteristics than task

performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Neal & Griffin, 1999), the current finding

suggests that this assumption needs to be revised in a way that contextual performance,

like task performance, includes desirable behaviors that organizations are trying to and

can induce from their members through organizational and/or job-related characteristics

to achieve organizational goals. This perspective will enable future CP research to

examine the potential influences of various situational factors that managers can engineer

on CP behaviors, without negating the usefulness of individual difference variables.

The empirical corroboration of the relationship between perceived accountability

and job dedication also has a practical implication for managers. When CP behaviors

95


can be induced through perceived accountability for the behaviors, managers have

alternative means for fostering such behaviors to achieve organizational effectiveness and

do not need to depend solely on recruitment and selection. These alternative means put

the burden of effective and efficient communication efforts on managers. That is,

managers need to communicate their expectations of the performance elements clearly to

the employees, because, as Cumming and Anton (1990) implied, what managers think

about the accountability level of their subordinates does not automatically induce CP

behaviors, unless it is effectively and efficiently communicated to and acknowledged by

the subordinates. It is the subordinates’ perceptions that matter.

Third, the results of correlation analysis on the relationships between perceived

accountability and situational factors showed that all but received task interdependence

significantly correlated with perceived accountability for job dedication as expected.

Furthermore, the results of hierarchical regression analyses, in which the effects of

individual difference variables on perceived accountability for job dedication were

controlled, revealed that behavioral norms, autonomy, and supervisor feedback explained

more variance in perceived accountability above and beyond those explained by all other

factors. Combined with the finding on the perceived accountability for job dedication -

job dedication relationship, this finding does not only provide another empirical evidence

supporting the premises of the situational constraint literature (Herman, 1973; Peters &

O'Connor, 1980) and job characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) but also

identified some places managers can start to foster CP behaviors. By developing and

supporting behavioral norms corresponding to the job dedication behaviors, designing

jobs in a way that employees can exercise their own discretion in carrying out tasks, and

96


providing subordinates with more feedback on their performance, managers are likely to

be able to influence employees’ perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors and

encourage them to engage in more job dedication behaviors.

However, the finding also suggests that even if organizations identified and hired

people who possess the personalities relevant to CP behaviors through recruitment and

selection processes, they may not benefit from the selection if subsequent HR activities

such as job design, supervising, compensation, and performance evaluation are not well

aligned in a way that employees perceive accountability for the behaviors. In addition,

simply identifying the behavioral norms corresponding to the job dedication behaviors

and implanting such norms in the work place may not be sufficient to induce job

dedication behaviors, unless the HR practices are consistent with them. As the

organizational culture literature shows, for behavioral norms to be an effective means for

influencing people’s behaviors, they need to be intensified and crystallized through

consistent HR practices (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999). Being intensified means that norms

are strictly associated with a certain amount of approval or disapproval and being

crystallized means that those norms are held in a consistent way across different parts of

an organization (O'Reilly, 1989). It is obvious that development and implementation of

behavioral norms needs organization-wide effort.

Directions for Future Research

While a significant amount of literature on performance dimensionality and

individual difference antecedents of contextual performance has been accumulated, very

scant research attention has been given to the interrelationships among the performance

elements and situational antecedents of contextual performance. Therefore, the current

97


findings on the interrelationships can serve as an ignition for future CP research that

explores several new avenues. From the current findings, three primary points can be

explored in future research. First, the current study examined the direct relationships

between job dedication and the other two performance elements. In doing so, the current

study examined both job dedication - interpersonal facilitation and job dedication - task

performance relationships simultaneously. However, there is a possibility that an

employee’s increased job dedication may not increase both interpersonally facilitative

behaviors and one’s own task performance simultaneously because of limited resources

(e.g., time, money, energy, and the like.) Instead, the increased job dedication can be

channeled either into interpersonally facilitative behaviors or into one’s own task

performance. One potential question is what would determine this channeling process.

Among the potential determinants are task demand, the reward system, and some

individual difference variables.

As Griffin and others (2000) suggested, with a highly demanding task an

employee is likely to channel more resources to one’s own task performance than to other

people’s work or life (interpersonal facilitation behaviors). In contrast, when handling a

less demanding task, an employee would have more chance to be involved in

interpersonally facilitative behaviors. An organization’s reward system also likely affects

this channeling mechanism. In a situation where the reward system emphasizes team

performance, people are likely to channel more available resources to interpersonal

facilitation behaviors than in a situation where an individual performance is emphasized.

Furthermore, while some of individual difference variables (e.g., personality traits and

job experience) were controlled in this study, those variables may act as moderators

98


between job dedication and the other performance elements. For example, the channeling

behavior of a person who is highly agreeable yet not conscientious with little job

experience would be different from that of a person who is highly conscientious with an

ample amount of job experience yet not agreeable. The current literature suggests that

agreeableness is more related to interpersonal facilitation than to task performance, while

job experience and conscientiousness are more related to task performance than to

interpersonal facilitation. From this suggestion, it is likely that the former would feel

comfortable by channeling available resources more to interpersonal facilitation than to

task performance, while the latter would feel more comfortable by doing it in the

opposite way.

Examining this channeling behavior may explain the mixed results of some

studies on the relationship between accountability and individuals’ performance. Frink

(1994) found that the accountability level was positively related to the level of goals, but

not to actual performance (i.e., revenue per hour and calls per hour in a field study). In

contrast, Yamold and others (1988) reported that accountability condition was positively

related to individuals’ performance (i.e., tearing pages from a telephone directory). Since

both studies measured only taskoperformance elements without considering CP elements,

it is not clear what might happen to the CP elements. One possible explanation for these

mixed results is that in Frink’s (1994) study the increased job dedication might have been

channeled more into interpersonal facilitation than into task performance, whereas in

Yamold and others’ study (Yamold et al., 1988) it might have been channeled into one’s

own task performance than into interpersonal facilitation.

99


Second, the current study limited the target audience of perceived accountability

to immediate supervisors, assuming that supervisors would be the most influencing

audience to subordinates in an organizational context. However, other types of audiences

(i.e., coworkers and clients) are also likely to be perceived as an important audience in

some situations. For example, when an employee’s income is heavily subject to

customers’ satisfaction (e.g., restaurants), the employee is likely to experience a high

level of perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors to customers. As the

accountability literature suggests (London et al., 1997), even for the same behaviors,

people experience different levels of perceived accountability to different audiences.

Measuring and comparing perceived accountability levels to different audiences may

further clarify why people display CP behaviors in a specific situation and what managers

can do in specific situations.

Likewise, the target behaviors of perceived accountability, which were limited to

job dedication behaviors in this study, can be extended to other performance elements.

This will bring about numerous interesting propositions concerning the relationships

between the situational factors and perceived accountability for the other performance

elements. It also seems to be interesting to examine the role of perceived accountability

for other performance elements with respect to the interrelationships among the

performance elements. For instance, would the perceived accountability for interpersonal

facilitation and task performance be the direct antecedents of the performance elements

or indirect antecedents through job dedication? Or, would they moderate the

interrelationships conjectured above? What would be the relationships among the

perceived accountability for the performance elements?

100


Third, while the current study tested seven antecedents of perceived

accountability for job dedication, identifying and examining other situational factors is

warranted. Besides the situational factors examined in this study, some other job-related

characteristics, such as task difficulty, role conflict and ambiguity, and job type (i.e., full

time vs. part-time, permanent vs. contemporary), would seem to be promising as potential

antecedents of perceived accountability. For example, employees may feel less

accountable for job dedication when they experience high role conflict and ambiguity

than in an opposite case because of a possibly weakened identity - prescription linkage.

Also, supervisors’ leadership styles and group cohesion also seem to deserve future

research attention. A subordinate whose supervisor exercises a directive or autocratic

leadership style may experience a lower level of perceived accountability for job

dedication behaviors than those whose supervisors exercise a democratic or consultative

leadership style, because of a possibly weakened identity - event linkage due to the

direction from the supervisor. Also, when group members are attracted to the group

because of satisfactory relationships and friendships with other group members (i.e., high

interpersonal group cohesion), group members may possibly experience a low level of

perceived accountability for job dedication behaviors, because the increased

communication and interaction resulting from the high interpersonal group cohesion may

direct the group away from group task (Davis, 1969; Hackman, 1976), unless managers

exhibit strong task initiation behaviors (Bartkus, 1995).

101


REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhland & J.

Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From Cognitions to Behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg:

Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Aldag, R. J., Barr, S. H., & Brief, A. P. (1981). Measurement of perceived task characteristics.

Psychological Bulletin, 90 , 425-431.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between

the big five dimensions and job performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 78, 111-

118.

Bartkus, K. R. (1995). Group cohesiveness and performance in the salesforce: The impact of

active and passive mechanisms of direction. Journal o f Travel Research, 75(1), 56-63.

102


Beaty, J. C. J., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and

contextual performance in "strong" versus "weak" situations. Human Performance, 14(2),

125-148.

Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 271-326).

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., Pulakos, E. D., & White, L. A. (1993). Role of

early supervisory experience in supervisor performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology,

78, 1-26.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements

of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in

Organizations (pp. 71-98). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and

interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal o f Applied

Psychology^80(1), 168-177.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory job

performance ratings. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 76, 863-872.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The

Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy o f

Management Review, 11, 710-725.

103


Cabrera, E. F., & Bonache, J. (1999). An expert HR system for aligning organizational culture

and strategy. Human Resource Planning, 22(1), 51-60.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 688-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Analyses of criterion measures: The

modeling of performance. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313-343.

Campbell, J. P. (1976). Psychometric theory. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook o f Industrial

and Organizational Psychology (pp. 185-222). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College

Publishing.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six

hypotheses. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211-229.

Camevale, P. J. D. (1985). Accountability and the dynamics of group presentation. In E. J.

Lawler (Ed.), Vol. 2. Advances in Group Process (pp. 227-248).

Castaneda, M., Kolenko, T. A., & Aldag, R. J. (1999). Self-management perceptions and

practices: A structural equations analysis. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 20(1),

101- 120.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

104


Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the

citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44.

Conway, J. M. (1996). Additional construct validity evidence for the task-contextual

performance distinction. Human Performance, 9, 309-329.

Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for

managerial jobs. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 84, 3-13.

Cook, R., & Szumal, J. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectation

in organizations: The reliability and validity of the Organizational Culture Inventory.

Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1986). Level V: Organizational Culture Irrventory-form III.

Plymouth, MI: Human Synergies.

Cornelius, E. T., & Hakel, M. D. (1978). A study to develop an improved enlisted performance

evaluation system for the U.S. Coast Guard. Washington, D. C.: Department of

Transportation, United States Coast Guard.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual Supplement. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. I. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational

research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 79,

67-76.

105


Cummings, L. L., & Anton, R. J. (1990). The logical and appreciative dimensions of

accountability. In S. Srivastva & D. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative Management and

Leadership (pp. 257-286). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Daft, R. L. (2002). Management (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Dose, J. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (1995). Doing the right thing in the work place: Responsibility in

the face of accountability. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 8, 35-56.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist Society. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dubinsky, A. J., Skinner, S. J., & Whittier, T. E. (1989). Evaluating sales personnel: An

attribution theory perspective. Journal o f Personal Selling & Sales Management, 9(1), 9-

19.

Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Dunegan, K. J. (2001). Implications of

organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Unpublished manuscript^

Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., Frink, D. D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T. R., & Matthews, L. M.

(1997). Job and organizational chacteristics, accountability, and employee influence.

Journal o f Managerial Issues, 9(2), 162-175.

Findley, H. M., Mossholder, K. W., & Giles, W. F. (2000). Performance appraisal process and

system facets: Relationships with contextual performance. Journal o f Applied

Psychology^85(4), 634-340.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

106


Frink, D. D. (1994). Accountability in Human Resource Systems: The Impression Management

and Performance-directed Functions of Goal Setting in The Performance Evaluation

Process. University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign

Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in

the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51, 1259-1283.

Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The moderating effects of accountability on the

conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 13(4),

515-524.

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and

human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 16, 1-51.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study

managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal o f Management, 22(1), 45-

83.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the

mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-

329.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Human

Relations, 50(4), 393-416.

107


Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt, &

F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The

Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,

operationalization, and validation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University o f

Chicago, Chicago: IL

Gray, J. L., & Starke, F. A. (1988). Organizational Behavior: Concepts and Applications (4th

ed.). New York: Macmillian.

Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 244-256.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Neale, M. (2000). The contribution of task performance and

contextual performance to effectiveness: Investigating the role of situational constraints.

Applied Psychology: An International Review Special Issue: Work motivation: Theory,

research and practice, 49(3), 517-533.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal o f

Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, O. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

108


Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as an information environment.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21 ,47-60.

Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook o f

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 71-163).

Harvey, R. J., Friedman, L., Hakel, M. D., & Cornelius, E. T. I. (1988). Dimensionality of the

job elementary inventory, a simplified worker-oriented job analysis questionnaire.

Journal o f Applied Psychology, 73(4), 639-646.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Organizational Behavior (West Publisher

ed.). St. Paul: MN.

Herman, J. B. (1973). Are situational contingencies limiting job attitude - job performance

relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 208-224.

Herold, D. M., Liden, R. C., & Leatherwood, M. L. (1987). Using multiple attributions to assess

sources of performance feedback. Academy o f Management Journal, 30, 826-835.

Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between

contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human

Performance, 11(2/3), 189-207.

Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytical perspective on job performance. Human

Performance, 11(2/3), 129-144.

109


Horsfall, A. B., & Arensberg, C. M. (1966). Teamwork and productivity in a shoe factory. In A.

H. Rubenstein & C. J. Haberstroh (Eds.), Some Theories o f Organizations (pp. 116-137).

Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Hunter, J. E., & Hirsh, H. R. (1987). Applications of meta-analysis. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.

Robertson (Eds.), International Review o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp.

321-357).

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Idaszak, J. R., Bottom, W. P., & Drasgow, F. (1988). A test of the measurement equivalence of

the revised job diagnostic survey: Past problems and current solutions. Journal o f Applied

Psychology. 73. 647-656.

Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). Revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a

measurement artifact. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 72(1), 69-74.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 1-54.

Jo, M. S. (2000). Controlling social-desirability bias via method factors of direct and indirect

questioning in structural equation models. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 137-148.

Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An Attributional Approach. Morristown, NJ:

General Learning Press.

110


Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the

SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process Analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment

evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.

Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology o f Organizations. New York: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc.

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy o f Management

Journal, 18, 769-783.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy o f

Management Review, 6(3), 499-508.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 145-172.

Kiker, S. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and contextual

performance on supervisory reward decisions. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 84(4),

602-609.

Kilman, R. H., & Saxton, M. J. (1983). The Kilman-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey. Pittsburgh, PA:

Organizational Design Consultants.

I l l


Klimoski, R. (1992). The nature of accountability. In R. Klimoski (Ed.), Doing the right Thing.

Las Vegas, NE: Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management.

Klimoski, R. J. (1971). The effects of intragroup forces on intergroup conflict resolution.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 363-383.

Klimoski, R. J., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal.

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. S. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A

historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Langner, P. H. (1988). Measurement of job characteristics:

Comparison of the original and the revised Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal o f Applied

Psychology, 75, 462-466.

Larson, J. R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 53(1), 42-76.

Lepine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of

helping in the context of groups. Academy o f Management Review, 26(1), 67-84.

Lemer, J., & Tetlock, P. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological

Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275.

112


Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the

relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal o f Applied

Psychology, 85(3), 331-348.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-

sectional research designs. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86(\), 114-121.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory o f Goal Setting and Task Performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal

accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based

applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803-839.

London, M., Smither, J. W., & Adsit, D. J. (1997). Accountability: The Achilles' heel of

multisource feedback. Group & Organization Management, 22, 162-185.

Malouff, J., Schutte, N., Bauer, M., Mantelli, D., Pierce, B., Cordova, G., & Reed, E. (1990).

Development and evaluation of a measure of the tendency to be goal oriented.

Personality, 11, 1191-1200.

McAllister, D. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1979). The contingency model for the

selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance,

accountability, and reversibility. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 24,

228-244.

113


McCormick, E. J. (1976). Job and task analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook o f Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 65).

McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1972). A study of job characteristics and

job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal o f

Applied Psychology, 56, 347-368.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference

predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal o f Organizational Behavior,

16(2), 127-142.

Morris, W. N. (1989). Mood: The frame o f mind. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The

importance of the employee's perspective. Academy o f Management Journal, 37, 1543-

1567.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational

citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management

Review, 10(1), 115-126.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and

consequences for job performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology . 71, 618-629.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be

distinguished from contextual performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.

114


Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in

task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.

Mowen, J. C., Fabes, K. J., & Laforge, R. W. (1986). Effects of effort, territory situation, and

rater on sales person evaluation. Journal o f Personal Selling and Sales Management,

b(May), 1-8.

Nadler, D., & Ancona, D. (1992). Teamwork at the top: Creating executive teams that work. In

D. e. a. Nadler (Ed.), Organizational Architecture (pp. 209-231). New York: Jossey-

Bass.

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (1999). Developing a theory of performance for human resource

management. Asia Pacific Journal o f Human Resources, 37, 44-60.

O'Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in

organizations. California Management Review, 31, 9-25.

O'Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile

comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy o f Management

Journal, 34, 487-516.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10, 85-97.

115


Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 775-802.

Payne, R. B., & Hauty, G. T. (1955). The effects of psychological feedback upon work

decrement. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 50, 343-351.

Pearce, J., & Gregersen, H. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the

mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 76(6), 838-844.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated

Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Peters, L. H., Chassie, M. B., Lindblom, H. R., O'Conner, E., & Kline, C. R. (1982). The joint

influence of situational constraints and goal setting on performance and affective

outcomes. Journal o f Management, 8(2), 7-20.

Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The

influences of frequently overlooked constructs. Academy o f Management Review, 5(3),

391-407.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal o f Management, 26, 513-564.

Podsakoff, P. M., Aheame, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior

and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology,

82(2), 262-270.

116


Quinones, ML, Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience

and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48,

887-910.

Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical

review. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 66(2), 193-217.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle

model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In A.

Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression Management in Organizations (pp. 21-43).

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies

published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.

Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-422

Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy.

Organizational Dynamics, 10, 30-48.

Sego, D. J., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). A multi-level investigation of the work

experience-performance relationships: The importance of partitioning performance

variance. Orlando, FL.

Seigel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on

judgment quality. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 1-17.

117


Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),

405-422.

Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for

reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 77,

419-426.

Sims, H. P. Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics.

Academy o f Management Journal, 19(2), 195-212.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature

and antecedents. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 68, 453-463.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1983). Motivation and Work Behaviors (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structure Version. Menlo Park, CA:

Benjamin/Cummings.

Sullivan, J. J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy o f Management

Review, 73(1), 104-115.

Taber, T. D., & Taylor, E. (1990). A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the

job diagnostic survey. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 467-500.

Taylor, S. M., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals' reactions to performance

feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. M. Rowland & G. R.

118


Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (pp. 73-120).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Tetlock, P., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: Social magnifier of the dilution effect.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.

Tetlock, P., & Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality

prediction task. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700-709.

Tetlock, P. E. (1985a). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.

Tetlock, P. E. (1985b). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297-332.

Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social

contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

(pp. 331-377).

Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with

accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 5 7 , 632-640.

Thomas, E. J. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human

Relations, 10, 3347-366.

Thomas, J., & Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processing model of task design: A

review of the literature. Academy o f Management Review, 8, 672-682.

119


Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior. Academy o f

Management Journal, 35, 38-54.

Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial Jobs and The Worker. Boston: Harvard

University, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Van Dyne, L. V., Graham, J. M., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy o f Management Journal,

37, 765-802.

Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence for The Usefulness of Task Performance, Job Dedication,

and Interpersonal Facilitation as Components of Performance. University of Florida

Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with

turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management

Review, 10(1), 79-95.

Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as

separate facets of contextual performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.

Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and

contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 4, 526-535.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

120


Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Accountability and risk taking. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 77(1), 25-29.

Xenikou, A., & Fumham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four

questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49(3), 349-371.

Yamold, P. R., Mueser, K. T., & Lyons, J. S. (1988). Type A behavior, accountability, and work

rate in small groups. Journal o f Research in Personality, 22, 353-360.

121


APPENDIXES


A. Perceived Accountability for Job Dedication

Each statement below describes some common activities in the work place. By using the scales, please indicate the extent to which you F E E L accountable for each of these behaviors to vour supervisor to whom you will pass the other questionnaire. Please note that you are NOT asked to indicate how much you are formally or officially accountable for these activities. Instead, we want to know about vour feeling of obligation and need to justify your behaviors on these activities to vour supervisor.

I f e e l a c c o u n t a b l e to m y s u p e r v i s o r f o r . . .N o t A t a l l 4r

V e r y rk M u c h

W o rk in g h a rd .1□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

P e rs is t in g to o v e rc o m e o b s ta c le s to c o m p le te a ta s k .1□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

D is p la y in g p ro p e r a p p e a ra n c e a n d b e a r in g .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

P u tt in g in e x tr a h o u rs to g e t w o rk d o n e o n t im e .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

A v o id in g s h o r tc u ts .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

A s k in g fo r a c h a lle n g in g w o rk a s s ig n m e n t.l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

P a y in g c lo s e a tte n tio n to im p o r ta n t d e ta ils .t□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

D e fe n d in g th e s u p e r v is o r ’s d e c is io n s .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

F o llo w in g th e s u p e r v is o r ’s in s tru c t io n s .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

T a k in g th e in i tia tiv e to so lv e a w o rk p ro b le m .l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

E x e rc is in g p e rs o n a l d is c ip l in e a n d s e l f -c o n tro l .i□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

T a c k lin g a d if f ic u l t w o rk a s s ig n m e n t e n th u s ia s t ic a l ly .

l□ 2□ 3□ 4□ 5□ 6□ 7□

122


B. Task Identity

Please indicate how accurately each statement below describes your job by checking one of the boxes.

Items

The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece o f w ork from beginning to end.

The jo b provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces o f work I begin.

Very VeryInaccurate 4* Accurate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

Following questions are about your job. Please circle a number that most accurately describes your job._______________________________________________________

To what extent does your job involve doing a ‘whole’ and identifiable piece of work? That is, is the job a complete piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end? Or is it only a small of part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other people or by automatic machineries?

1 27Very LittleM y jo b is only a tiny p a rt o f the overall p iece o f w ork; the resu lts o f m y activ ities cannot be seen in the final p roduc t o rservice.

3 4

ModerateM y jo b is a m odera te sized ‘ch u n k ’ o f th e overall piece

o f w ork ; m y ow n contribu tion can be seen in

th e final outcom e.

5 6

Very MuchM y jo b involves do ing the w hole

p iece o f w ork from start to finish;the resu lts o f m y activ ities are

easily seen in the final p roduc t or service.

118


C. Task Significance


Items

This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done.The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things.The outcome of my job is important to other people’s well-being or jobs.

V e ryIn a c c u ra te <■

V e ryA c c u ra te

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □


In general, to what extent do the outcomes of your work likely to affect significantly the lives or well-being of other people?

1

Not Very Significant The outcomes of my work are not likely to have important effects on other people.

3 4

Moderate Significant Highly Significant The outcomes of my

work can affect other people in very important

ways.

119


D. Autonomy


Items

The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work.The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.

I am left pretty much on my own to do my job.

VeryInaccurate f

VeryAccurate

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □


How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go about the work?

1 27Very LittleThe job gives me almost no personal ‘say’ about how and when the work is done.

MODERATE AUTONOMY Many things are standardized and

not under my control, but I can make some decisions about the

work.

5 6

Very Much The job gives me almost

complete responsibility for deciding how and when the

work is done.

120


E. Supervisor Feedback


Very VeryInaccurate -> Accurate

My supervisor has made it perfectly clear to me how well he/she thinks I am doing on my job.

1

□2

□3

□4

□5

□6

□7

□

My supervisor is up-front with me about how well he/she thinks I am doing my job.

i

□2

□3

□4

□5

□6

□7

□

My supervisor consistently provides me with information about my job performance.

l

□2

□3

□4

□5

□6

□7

□

F. Initiated Task Interdependence


Items Very VeryInaccurate Accurate

M y j o b re q u ire s m e to p ro v id e h e lp o r a d v ic e th a t o th e r 1

p e o p le m u s t h a v e to b e a b le d o th e i r jo b s .

O th e r p e o p le n e e d m y h e lp o r a d v ic e to d o th e i r w o rk .

I s p e n d a s ig n if ic a n t a m o u n t o f t im e in g iv in g h e lp o r a d v ic e o th e r p e o p le n e e d to d o th e i r w o rk .

O th e r p e o p le ’s w o rk d e p e n d s d ir e c t ly o n m y jo b .

I p ro v id e o th e r p e o p le w ith in fo rm a t io n th e y n e e d to d o th e i r w o rk .

I p ro v id e s u p p o r t s e r v ic e s th a t o th e r p e o p le n e e d to d o

th e i r w o rk .

U n le s s m y j o b g e ts d o n e , o th e r p e o p le c a n n o t d o th e i r

w o rk .

1□ 2□ 3

□

4□ 5□ 6□ 7□1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ , □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □

121


G. Received Task Interdependence

Items

My w o rk d e p e n d s o n o th e r p e o p le ’s w o rk to o b ta in th e to o ls , m a te r ia ls , o r e q u ip m e n ts fo r its c o m p le tio n .

T h e q u a l i ty o f m y w o rk a c tiv it ie s is u s u a l ly p r e c o n d it io n e d b y th e q u a l i ty o f o th e r p e o p le ’s w o rk .

M y j o b p e r fo rm a n c e d e p e n d s o n s u p p o r t a n d s e rv ic e s p ro v id e d b y o th e r p e o p le .

I d e p e n d o n o th e r p e o p le ’s w o rk fo r in fo rm a tio n 1 n e e d to d o m y w o rk .

M y j o b d e p e n d s o n th e w o rk o f m a n y d if fe re n t p e o p le fo r its c o m p le tio n .

I n e e d o th e r p e o p le ’s s e rv ic e o r a d v ic e to d o m y w o rk .

U n le s s o th e r p e o p le g e t th e i r w o rk d o n e , I c a n n o t s ta r t

m y w o rk .

H. Behavioral Norms for Job Dedication

VeryInaccurate <-

VeryAccurate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

Please indicate the extent to which you would agree with each statement below.

In my company,...

M y c o w o rk e rs w o rk h a rd .

M y c o w o rk e rs p e r s is t in o v e rc o m in g o b s ta c le s to

c o m p le te a ta s k .

I fe e l p re s s u re to d is p la y p ro p e r a p p e a ra n c e a n d b e a r in g , q

I f e e l p re s s u re to p u t in e x tr a h o u rs to g e t w o rk d o n e o n

tim e .

T h e c o m p a n y c u ltu re e n c o u ra g e s p e o p le to a v o id s h o r tc u ts .

I fe e l p re s s u re to p a y c lo s e a tte n tio n to im p o r ta n t

M y c o w o rk e rs d e fe n d th e s u p e r v is o r ’s d e c is io n s .

NotAt all

1 2 3 4 5

VeryMuch

6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

122


In my company,...

My coworkers follow the supervisor’s instructions.

I feel pressure to take the initiative to solve a work problem.

The company culture encourages people to exercise personal discipline and self-control.

I feel pressure to tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically.

I. Conscientiousness

Not At all

1 2 3 4 5

VeryMuch

6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

Please indicate how accurately each statement below describes YOU by checking one of the boxes. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in thefuture. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age._______________________

I am always prepared.

I leave my belongings around.

I pay attention to details.

I make a mess o f things.

I get chores done right away.

I often forget to put things back in their proper place.

I like order.

I shirk my duties.

I follow a schedule.

I am exacting in my work.

VeryInaccurate

VeryAccurate

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

123


J. Extroversion/Introversion


I am the life o f the party.

I don't talk a lot.

I feel comfortable around people.

I keep in the background.

I start conversations.

I have little to say.

I talk to a lot o f different people at parties.

I don't like to draw attention to myself.

I don't mind being the center o f attention.

I am quiet around strangers.

VeryInaccurate •€■

Very 4 Accurate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

124


K. Agreeableness


I feel little concern for others.

I am interested in people.

I sometime criticize people.

I sympathize with others' feelings.

I am not interested in other people's problems.

1 have a soft heart.

1 am not really interested in others.

I take time out for others.

I feel others' emotions.

I m ake people feel at ease.

VeryInaccurate 4r

Very 4 Accurate

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

125


L. Demographic Variables - Subordinate

What is your gender? (Check one)

O Male O Female

What is your age in years? (Fill in)

About how long have you been in the current occupation?

_______ Years________ months

About how long have you been working for the current organization?

_________Years______ _ _ months

About how long have you been working on the current position?

Years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ months

To how many supervisors are you directly reporting in the current organization?

What is your marital status? (Check one)

O Single O Married O Separated Q Divorced

O Widowed O Engaged O Other

What is your current educational level?

O High school student O College Freshman

O College sophomore O College junior

O College senior O Masters degree student or above

O Other

What is your ethnic/racial background?

O African-American O Asian American

O Native-American O Hispanic

O White O Other O Multiethnic/multiracial

126


M. Job Dedication

Each of the statements below describes some behaviors that can be displayed by the employee who passed this questionnaire to you. Please indicate the extent to which the employee who passed this questionnaire to you would likely display each of the behaviors in the work place by using the scale.________________________________

While performing his or her job, how likely is it that this person would...

W ork hard.

Persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task.

Display proper appearance and bearing.

Put in extra hours to get work done on time.

Avoid shortcuts.

Ask for a challenging work assignment.

Pay close attention to important details.

Defend the supervisor’s decisions.

Follow the supervisor’s instructions.

Take the initiative to solve a work problem.

Exercise personal discipline and self-control.

Tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically.

Not at all Likely <€■

1 2 3 4 5

Extremely4 Likely

6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

127


N. Interpersonal Facilitation

While performing his or her job, how likely is it that this person would...

Communicate effectively at work.

Say things to make people feel good about themselves or the work group.

Display a cheerful, confident outlook.

Offer to help others in their work.

Help someone without being asked.

Support or encourage a coworker with a personal problem.Talk to others before taking actions that might affect them.

Praise coworkers when they are successful.

Treat others fairly.

Cooperate effectively with others.

Listen to others’ ideas about getting work done.

Encourage others to overcome differences and get along.Give coworkers advice on what to do when they need help to get started

N o t a t a l l E x t r e m e l y

L i k e l y 4 L ik e ly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

128


O. Task Performance

Please read the statements below and select the number that best describes the employee who passed this questionnaire to you by using the scale.If a statement is totally irrelevant to the employee’s job, please check “Never Perform (0)’\ __ _________

NeverPerform

0

Much Below Average 4"

1 2

AverageI

Much Above

4 Average6 7

How effective is this person in...

Inspecting, testing, and detecting problems with equipm ent

Trouble-shooting

Performing routine maintenance

Repairing tools, equipments, and/or machineries

Using tools and/or testing equipment

Using technical documentation

Operating equipment

W orking safely

Organizing tools and equipment

Overall technical performance

Assigning priorities to tasks

Preparing plans and schedules

Discussing issues and problems

Demonstrating techniques and procedures

Answering questions from others

Acquiring needed materials and equipments

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

129


How e f f e c t iv e i s t h i s p e r s o n i n . . .

Analyzing problems

Drafting written materials

W orking in changing situations

Setting up or adjusting office tools and machineries for tasks

Using algebraic and statistical methods

Following certain set procedures

Using quantitative materials

Arranging information into m eaningful order

Obtaining needed information

Distributing information that may be needed by other people

Using verbal communication

Operating in emergency situation

N ev erP e rfo rm

0

M u chBelow A v e ra g e •€•

1 2 3

A verage4

4 5

M u chA bove

A v erag e

6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

130


P. Demographic Variables - Supervisor

W hat is your gender? O Male O Female

W hat is your age in years? ________________ ________

About how long have you been in the current occupation?

_____________ Y e a rs ______________ m o n th s

About how long have you been working for the current organization?

________ Years _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ months

About how long have you been working on the current position?

____________ Y ears months

A bout how long have you been supervising the employee who passed this questionnaire to you?

________ Y ears___________ months

How many employees are working in y

W hat is your current educational level?

O High school O M asters degree or above

W hat is your ethnic/racial background?

O African-American Q Native-American O White

Multiethnic/multiracial

Please indicate the organizational rank o f the su b o rd in a te w ho passed th is questionnaire to you by using the scale below.

0----o-—O——O-—O-—O-—O-----O-—O-—o1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low M------------------------------------- Middle ► High

Please indicate your organizational rank by using the scale below.

o— o— 0— 0— 0— 0— 0— 0— 0— o1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low M------------------------------------- Middle ► High

131

our company? (Approximately)

O College & University O Other

O Asian American O HispanicO Other O


THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS

Institutional Review Board

To: Seung Yong Kim Management

From: Chair, Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects Administration 315

Subject: The Effect of Situational Factors on Contextual Performance(E02-223)

Approval Date: June 3, 2002

This is to notify you that the Institutional Review Board has designated the above referenced protocol as exempt from the full federal regulations. This project was reviewed in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations as well as ethical principles.

W hen the project is finished or terminated, please complete the attached Notice of Completion and send to the Board in Administration 315.

Approval for this protocol does not expire. However, any change to the protocol must be reviewed and approved by the board prior to implementing the change.

Chair, Institutional Review BstsardT h e * I l n i \ / o r e i f \ / o f M o m n h s oThe University of Memphis

Dr. J. Van Scotter


Documents

THE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS AND …orion2020.org/archivo/investigacion/muestras_2/ejemplo_doc2.pdf · kinds of CP behavior and this perceived accountability for the ... of