- Email: [email protected]
Comparison processes in task perceptions, evaluations, and reactions
281
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
Comparison Processes in Task Perceptions, Evaluations, and Reactions Ricky W. Griffin
E. Allen Slusher
The primary objective of this article is to present a social comparison model of how employees perceive, evaluate, and react to tasks. The model represents a synthesis of recent findings in the task design area and three social comparison theories. A three-stage process is described which suggests that employees first understand their tasks at an informational level, then understand their tasks at an evaluative level, and finally react to their tasks both affectively and behaviorally. Managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.
Introduction Task or job design has become a primary area of research in organizational science. Moreover, principles and concepts derived from such research have been widely applied in task design change programs in many organizations. These applications, however, have seldom been unqualified successes. Most reports of task design interventions tend to be anecdotal in nature, based upon weak methodology, biased in number toward successes rather than failures, and/or overly narrow in scope [ 1 I] . Hence, it has become increasingly apparent that researchers and managers do not fully understand the processes by which tasks affect employee attitudes and behaviors [23]. Understanding these processes is essential if task design interventions are to be more generally successful. The bulk of the task design research published in the last 20 years has focused on task perceptions and/or the relationships between these perceptions and outcome variables [19]. Little attention, however, has been directed at how employees explicitly evaluate their tasks and at how perceptions, evaluations, and reactions are interrelated. Recently, there has been renewed interest in determining whether a broader social context might affect the perception-evaluation-reaction process. Unfortunately, there is no conceptual framework available to link current insights and to guide future research efforts. The objectives of this article are to: 1) critically review selected task design articles that have been influential and are representative of current developments; 2) briefly review three social comparison frameworks that have relevance to the task design issues identified; 3) present a conceptual model that provides a more precise treatment of the issues raised in the task design articles; and 4) explicate managerial implications and avenues for future research suggested by the model.
Address correspondence ersity of Missouri-Columbia,
to E. Allen Slusher, College Columbia, MO 65211.
Journal of Business Research 13,287-299 (1985) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1985 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
of Business
and Public Administration,
Univ-
0148-2963/85/$3.30
288
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
Task
Design
Theory
Most current research in task design stems from the pioneering work of Turner and Lawrence [25]. Their findings and conclusions have been refined by Hackman and Lawler [ 131 and Hackman and Oldham [ 141. Collectively, these investigators identified several dimensions or characteristics that can be used to describe most jobs. Current formulations [ 121 identify five core job dimensions (or characteristics): skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. To the extent that a task is relatively high or low on these five core dimensions, it can be termed a high- or low-scope task. The assumption is that high-scope tasks provide more experienced meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. These psychological factors lead to intrinsic rewards from the job itself. The intrinsic rewards are, in turn, related to satisfaction, performance, and motivation. Although the identification of core task dimensions was a major contribution to the study of task design, it has not been without controversy. For example, Roberts and Click [20] and Aldag, Barr, and Brief [4] have recently critiqued theoretical and measurement problems within prevailing task design theory. One particularly important criticism is that the true nature of task design variables has not been specified. Specifically, debate has centered on whether task scope should be measured objectively or subjectively [23]. That is, should task scope be assessed through engineering measurement techniques and expert judgment or by determining employees’ perceptions of their own jobs? A basic artument in favor of objectively measuring task scope is that management must contend with real or objective jobs in task redesign efforts. Those who favor perceptual measures of task scope argue that an employee’s psychological reaction to a job depends on his or her own perception of that job no matter how much this perception might differ from an expert’s judgment. While not resolving the basic issue, insights into the role of both objective and perceptual task attributes are gained by treating the perceived task as an intervening variable between the objective task and employee reactions to the task [3, 231. In this perspective there are two causal linkages, the first between the objective task and the perceived task, and the second between the perceived task and employee reactions. In addition, other factors are viewed as mediating the relationships between the primary variables. Unfortunately, limited emphasis has been placed on identifying and examining the impacts of these mediators. Reviews of the task design literature [3, 231 typically mention only individual difference variables (e.g., educational level, job tenure, cognitive complexity) as potential moderators. Even for individual difference moderators, Research is just beginning on the second linkage and its moderators, but is nonexistent on the first. Yet attempts to change jobs involve manipulation of actual tasks, not perceptions of tasks. Questions of whether these manipulations result in shifts in employee perceptions and subsequent behaviors, and the causes of differences in these shifts, remain largely unanswered. [23, p. 321. Recent theoretical work has begun to focus on explaining how objective task characteristics become transformed into perceived task characteristics [24]. This work has been stimulated by two provocative articles by Salancik and Pfeffer [21,22] . The Salancik and Pfeffer
Critique
Salancik and Pfeffer [22] take issue with the basic individual need framework in organizational behavior from which task design theory has evolved. Specifically, Salancik and Pfeffer argue that the field of organizational behavior has failed to adequately consider
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
289
the social context of the workplace. They view individuals as adapting to a work situation that includes social factors as well as their own past and current behaviors. This adaptation process involves construction of appropriate needs, attitudes, and beliefs that provide guides to future behavior that will be acceptable in the particular situation. While there is some ambiguity in their arguments, Salancik and Pfeffer apparently see job attitudes and beliefs as arising through the impact of three factors: 1) the employee’s past behavior; 2) factual informational processes; and 3) affective informational processes. Although they use the term “task design” in their article, Salancik and Pfeffer define the term broadly to include procedures, supervision, and physical conditions. It will be helpful for our purposes to consider the task more narrowly as formal work responsibilites and the procedures by which they are completed. We can then use Salancik and Pfeffer’s more general framework to derive implications for narrower task design issues. Employee behaviors affect task attitudes and beliefs in two basic ways. First, the employee’s behavior can change and shape the task. Although task responsibilities and procedures are formally specified, employees typically have some “elbow room” to refine or redefine this objective task. To the extent that he or she eploits this opportunity, the employee has uniquely defined the task. Second, the employee makes many spontaneous behaviors for which she or he must later attribute meaning. This attribution process may lead to attitudes and beliefs regarding the task itself. Informational processes can result in either facts (beliefs) or feelings (attitudes) regarding the task. Constructing beliefs about a task involves both individual and social aspects. An employee can view her or his task and decide cognitively what characteristics are present. Whether the employee sees certain characteristics in the task is also affected by social cues which direct his or her attention, thus making some task characteristics more salient than others. Task attitudes are also formed through individual and social influences. The individual desires to avoid uncertainty regarding the appropriate affective reaction to the job and is therefore likely to consider the attitudes of relevant others. As a member of a social group, the employee may receive pressures to conform to prevailing task attitudes.
Relevant
Research
The research evidence pertaining to social contextual factors and task design is limited but very instructive. The most definitive studies have been conducted in the laboratory. Therefore, we begin by reviewing recent laboratory experiments before considering the more tentative findings from the field. Laboratory Research. Four laboratory experiments have directly dealt with the impact of social factors on task perceptions. White and Mitchell [28] used a 2 (enriched and unenriched tasks) X 2 (positive and negative social cues from coworkers) factorial design. They found that both enrichment and social cues affected task perceptions, but that only social cues affected satisfaction and performance. Where tasks and cues were incongruous, subjects expressed greater task ambiguity than when they received consistent information from both the task and the coworker. O’Reilly and Caldwell [ 171 also used a 2 X 2 design with enriched-unenriched tasks and positive-negative cues from other workers. Both task and cues affected satisfaction with the larger impact coming from the cues. The task itself has only a slight effect on task perceptions while social cues had a large and consistent impact. Weiss and Shaw [27] used a 2 (high- and low-scope tasks) X 2 (positive and neutral task attitudes) factorial design. Positive task attitudes were contained in a training film picturing student workers performing the same task that
290
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
the subject would later complete. In the neutral task attitudes condition, the models made no attitudinal comments about the task. Main effects were found for both the task and the model’s expressed attitudes, with the task having the greater impact. However, the model effect held only for subjects who were field dependent or low in self-esteem. Finally, O’Connor and Barrett [ 151 explored potential interactions among informational cues and individual difference variables as determinants of task perceptions. As found in the previous experiments, the results indicated that informational cues were a significant determinant of perceived task attributes. Further, individual difference variables were found to explain significant additional variance in task perceptions. Taken together, the results obtained from the laboratory experiments provide good support for the contention that social cues are potentially important variables in task design theory and research. However, the studies are not comprehensive with respect to all the factors that may affect task perceptions. The four experiments consider the person’s previous tasks and tasks performed by others. Such an informationally deprived situation may cause subjects to place more emphasis on social cues than might be true in a more realistic setting. The experiments by Weiss and Shaw [27] and by O’Connor and Barrett [ 1.51 suggest that individual differences may affect task perceptions. The experiments also raise other interesting issues. White and Mitchell’s [28] results as well as those by O’Reilly and Caldwell [I 7] are ambiguous regarding whether social cues directly impact satisfaction and performance or impact indirectly through task perceptions. The White and Mitchell experiment also suggests that subjects are forced to choose among conflicting information sources. Field Research. To date, little field research has explicitly addressed the role that social factors play in task design. Most evidence is available only indirectly and through inferential interpretation. For example, Bishop and Hill [6] conducted a field experiment to assess the affects of job changes on employees in contiguous, but nonmanipulated, jobs. They found that workers whose jobs were not changed, but who worked with others whose jobs were changed, experienced decreased status and work satisfaction and increased anxiety. It could be argued, then, that the workers focused attention not only on their own jobs, but also on the jobs of their coworkers. The change in status would also seem to indicate some form of task evaluation by the worker between his/her job and the jobs of relevant others. Wild and Kemper [29] examined the effects of community and plant characteristics on job attitudes. They concluded that community influences on job attitudes reflected the existence of a “frame of reference” which affected the worker’s evaluative judgments. Dunham [7] found that functional speciality moderated the task design and affective response relationship. Among the possible explanations that could be used for this result is that functional specialties provide the employees with varied frames of reference. O’Reilly, Parlette, and Bloom [18] sampled individuals holding the same objective job. They found that perceived task characteristics varied systematically with the individual’s frame of reference and professional nursing attitudes. They suggest that job satisfaction may cause task perceptions, rather than the reverse. However, their study was crosssectional and inferences of causality are tenuous, Oldham and Miller [ 161 used a sample of 658 employees in 62 different job classifications across seven organizations. Reasoning from equity theory [l] , Oldham and Miller hypothesized that employees on jobs either higher or lower in scope than comparison others would be less satisfied than their counterparts. However, employees on higher scope jobs than their peers were expected to be higher performers, while those on lower scope jobs were expected to be lower performers. That is, if the job is viewed as an
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
and Reactions
291
outcome those employees on high-scope jobs (relative to their comparison others) are “overpaid” and experience inequity which reduces their satisfaction. Workers who are “underpaid” through a low-scope job will also experience inequity and resultant dissatisfaction. Inequity can be reduced by adjusting one’s inputs to the job through changes in effort. Therefore, employees on high-scope jobs (i.e., overpaid) will increase their effort and those on low-scope jobs (i.e., underpaid) will decrease their effort. Oldham and Miller [ 161 assumed in that comparison that individuals were of the same sex, in the same organization, and having the same job classification. The research design categorized individuals by their perceived job scope and the average perceived job scope of same sex others in the same job classification. Results generally supported the hypotheses. In a field experiment, Griffin [lo] demonstrated that a change in verbal cues from supervisors caused employees to drastically alter their task perceptions and satisfaction with their jobs. In fact, the effects were as great as when objective job changes were made. The field research reviewed here not only supports the laboratory findings that social cues affect task perceptions, but suggests that employees compare their jobs to those of others. The field results also provide indirect evidence that broader frames of reference derived from functional specialties, community factors, and professional attitudes may impact task perceptions. In summary, our interpretation of available field and laboratory research emphasizes the need to more fully explore the processes by which social factors influence the manner in which employees perceive and react to their tasks. Unfortunately, current research efforts do not seem to be guided by any well-developed theoretical framework. One objective of this article is to propose a task comparison model as an initial step toward structuring a set of scattered observations and outlining future research directions. This task-comparison model is based on traditional job design theory, Salancik and Pfeffer’s [22] social information processing perspective, and social comparison theory. Before presenting the model, however, it is necessary to briefly summarize the three social comparison theories which contribute most directly to the task-comparison model.
Comparison
Theories
Festinger’s Social Comparison
Theory
The classic statement of social comparison theory was made by Leon Festinger [8]. Festinger began with the basic proposition that people have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. Our primary concern here is for the evaluation of opinions. Festinger also suggested that this drive ultimately influenced a person’s behavior, since holding an incorrect opinion could lead to punishment. That is, people use their opinions as a guide for deciding upon appropriate behaviors. The determination of whether an opinion is “correct” and an associated behavior “appropriate” rests upon comparisons which the individual makes. Comparisons can be made to objective conditions in the environment or to socially available cues. Where objective information is obtainable it will be used in preference to social information, presumably because it is considered more valid. Since objective information is often not available, social comparisons become crucial in the person’s attempts to understand his or her environment. Social comparison involves the comparison of a person’s opinion with the opinion of a comparison other. This raises the issue of how the comparison other is selected. Festinger answers this question by advancing what has become known as the “similarity hypothesis.” In this view, the person compares him or herself with another who holds opinions or has abilities close to
292
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
their own. Where there is neither an objective nor a social comparison available, one’s opinion will be unstable. When a social comparison is available, the stability of an opinion varies directly with the degree to which the comparison other is similar or divergent. When an opinion is very important to a person, there is a greater pressure to reduce discrepancies with comparison others. Individuals will be less attracted to situations where the other persons present are divergent with respect to abilities and opinions. This follows from the basic proposition that there is a drive to evaluate opinions and that in the absence of objective standards such evaluation requires comparison with a similar other. Within existing groups, there will be social influence processes directed toward uniformity of opinions, especially where the opinion is central to the group’s functioning. The group’s ability to enforce opinion uniformity will vary directly with the group’s cohesiveness. When Festinger’s social comparison theory is applied to the task design issue, several implications can be drawn. First, employees will try to evaluate their opinions toward the tasks to which they have been assigned. Second, in evaluating task opinions, employees will first look to the objective task and any other objective information available. Third, when objective information is insufficient, employees will compare their task opinions to those held by someone they consider similar. This similar other might be a co-worker having about the same ability and the same task assignment. Fourth, when similar others are not present, the employee will find the work situation less desirable and his or her task opinions will be less stable. This tendency is particularly strong when the task is a highly salient part of the worker’s life and the desire for consistent comparisons is high. Finally, work groups will use social influence to induce uniformity of task opinions within the group. Cohesive groups will have a greater ability to enforce conformity with respect to task opinions.
Albert’s Temporal Comparison Theory Stuart Albert [2] has conceptually translated Festinger’s social comparison theory into what he terms temporal comparison theory. Festinger [8] limited himself to considering how a person constructed a self-description at a given point in time. Albert expands this view by exploring how a person uses past, current, and future self-descriptions. The temporal comparison process involves intrapersonal comparisons at different times while social comparison involves interpersonal comparisons in the current period. Albert begins with the proposition that people are motivated to maintain an enduring self-identity and adjust to any changes that occur in self-identity over time. This adjustment is accomplished, where objective information is limited, by comparison of current self-descriptions to past self-descriptions. More recent self-descriptions are more relevant for comparison than those in the more distant past. Also, those past self-descriptions which are more similar to the current self-description are more likely to provide a relevant comparison. A similar and recent self-description that differs from the current self-description will produce pressures to change the current self-description. More distant and less similar self-descriptions will be altered to conform to the present selfdescription. Temporal comparisons do not occur continuously, but are more likely under certain conditions. When change is rapid, comparisons provide evidence of growth; and when the future is at issue, temporal comparisons are more likely. Although not analyzed in depth, Albert suggests two important extensions of temporal comparisons that go beyond intrapersonal processes. First, he suggests that persons may compare themselves to others in their past. Second, Albert notes that temporal comparisons may involve events or
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
293
occasions as well as self- descriptions. Such events may have a group or organization as the focus. Finally, Albert discusses the relationship between social and temporal comparisons. He advances the hypothesis that a person with strong self-identity based on temporal comparisons will be less likely to depend on contemporary social comparisons (and the converse). When applied to the task design problem, temporal comparison theory places emphasis on an employee’s past task experiences and their associated comparisons. Moreover, the employee is seen as attempting to establish a stable self-identity with respect to a history of task roles. Finally, the employee uses both past task experiences and contemporary comparisons with similar coworkers in formulating appropriate task beliefs and attitudes. Workers with stable and consistent task self-identity will be more likely to look within themselves rather than to rely on their social context.
Goodman’s Social Comparison Process Model Goodman [9] has extended Adam’s [l] familiar equity formulation into a more comprehensive and dynamic social comparison model. Goodman believes that the social comparison process begins when some external stimulus event triggers a search program. This search results in a set of potentially useful outcome-input ratios. Inputs refer to those factors which the individual brings to the situation and outcomes refer to rewards and punishments received as a result of contributing inputs. From among the set of available outcome-input ratios, the individual selects a subset for comparison to his or her own outcome-input ratio. In selecting referent others, the individual considers whether a sufficient quantity and quality of information about another’s inputs and outcomes is available. The person also relies on distribution rules which define and legitimate the appropriate inputs and outcomes and their relationship. It should be noted that persons search and compare serially while applying satisficing rules in a cyclical fashion. Although Goodman applies his model to several aspects of work organization, he does not explicitly discuss task design. However, if we treat task assignment as an outcome, then Goodman’s approach can be adopted to our analysis of task design. This interpretation is consistent with Goodman’s notion that comparisons occur with respect to almost any important organizational characteristic. Relevant inputs to task assignment would include ability and effort. A common distribution rule would be that ability and effort should be positively associated with a good task assignment. The comparison process would be triggered by an external stimuli, for example, a new task assignment or change in the current task. The comparison cycle begins with a search for information. This search may involve the definition of appropriate task characteristics and the collection of information concerning other’s tasks and inputs. When this information is available then a relevant comparison can be made. Multiple comparisons involving coworkers, friends, family, and general task categories could be made. Comparison is a relative phenomenon. The judgment of whether a task assignment is good or bad depends on the employee’s expectations and whether these expectations are confirmed through comparisons. A Task Comparison
Model
In this section, we present a task-comparison model that integrates key features of the task design, social information processing, and social comparison perspectives previously described. The model, as shown in Figure 1, is based on general points of convergence in the literature reviewed.
294
J BUS1N RES 1985: 13 -:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
Person’s
Objective Task
Stage I : Task Understanding At An Informational Level
Person’s Determination of Task Characteristics and Inputs (O/I Ratios)
-
Person’s Previous Tasks
f-l
Comparison
Process
Stage II: Task Understanding At P.n Evaluative Level
Task Evaluation: Expected 1. Meaningfulness 2. Responsibility 3. Results
Need for Growth -
1 Intrinsic Rewards
Stage III: Task Impacts
-
Figure 1. Task-comparison
model.
9
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
295
First, for clarity in exposition, the model is divided into three stages, emphasizing that tasks must first be understood at an informational level, then evaluated, and finally examined with respect to their impacts. These stages are derived from the more elaborate model of social comparison processes developed by Goodman [9]. Moreover, the stages are consistent with the emerging view in the task design literature that tasks are perceived, evaluated, and reacted to [24]. Second, the model emphasizes that there are multiple sources of information about the task. Whereas the traditional job design literature has focused exclusively on the objective job as the source of task information, both the social information processing and social comparison perspectives stress the necessity to understand how multiple sources are utilized. Third, the feedback loops in the model depict the cyclical development of understading about the social context which is integral to Salancik and Pfeffer’s [22] social information processing perspective and to Goodman’s [9] social comparison process model. Before any comparison process can begin, the employee must construct a basis for comparison. Hence, Stage I of the model represents task understanding at an informational level. We assume, as do Oldham and Miller [16], that task assignments represent important outcomes for employees. Typical inputs for obtaining a task outcome are effort and ability [9]. The model accepts the task design proposition that employees can distinguish between specific task characteristics. Therefore, the employee’s initial concern is to construct a set of relevant outcome-input ratios (O/I). Specifying an outcome requires selecting appropriate task characteristics and assigning a rating (or score) for each characteristic. This process is influenced by five major factors. Both Festinger [8] and Salancik and Pfeffer [22] agree that when factual information is available it will be selected in preference to more subjective information. This is consistent with the job design literature’s emphasis on the objective task. Therefore the most important factor affecting the selection and scoring of task characteristics is the employee’s own objective job. The objective tasks of others [6, 161 and the employee’s own previous tasks [2, 9, 221 also provide relatively factual information. The model also recognizes that the employee, through his or her own behavior, can modify or enact a task different to some extent from the objective task as specified by management [22, 261. Finally, as all of the available research evidence suggests, the employee will be influenced by the subjective information obtained from the social context. For example, a coworker might comment on how much control and freedom the employee has in making decisions about the task. Such a socially derived cue would direct the employee’s attention toward the autonomy characteristic. A number of such cues would facilitate the development of beliefs about the nature of one’s task. The informational stage culminates with the employee’s understanding of: 1) the task characteristics which are relevant for judging outcome; 2) the appropriate inputs (for example, ability and effort); and 3) the definition of a set of outcome-input ratios for relevant others that can be used for comparison purposes. The model’s first stage depicts a rational, nonevaluative process. The employee simply gathers information from his/her own past and the current situation to construct an understanding of his/her task assignment. This process begins when a sufficient stimulus is presented [2, 8, 93. For example, when a new task assignment is made or when major changes in the current assignment are made it is likely that the employee will seek task relevant information. In Stage II of the model, the focus moves from the factual to the evaluative level. The comparison process requires the employee to decide upon a comparison referent or referents. This selection will be guided by similarity, information availability, distribution
296
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
rules, and other factors [8, 91. Referents may involve the self, others, or situations in the past, present, or future [2,9] . Comparison leads to an evaluation of the task in terms of expectations. Through a relativistic process the employee comes to see the job as one which can (or cannot) provide meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. The employee thus begins by forming beliefs or factual judgments about the task and later develops expectancies regarding completion of the task [22]. The comparison process is moderated by the need for self-esteem [9] . Employees may avoid comparisons that could damage self-esteem, thus giving a lower limit effect to task comparisons. Needs for self-esteem and growth are developed through past behavior, rewards, and punishments [22]. However, in this model, needs are viewed as more stable than task perceptions and evaluations. Finally, Stage III of the model represents factors that are affected by the processes described in Stages I and II. Specifically, the task processes are seen as resulting in intrinsic rewards which, in turn, affect satisfaction, performance, and motivation. Stage III basically adopts the traditional job design perspective and adds feedback loops to indicate the dynamic nature of the task comparison process [22]. The four variables in the model that are most affected by this dynamic element are the: 1) person’s task behavior, because success and/or failure may change a person’s approach to task performance; 2) socially derived task cues, which may become more or less important; 3) the person’s previous tasks, through the accumulation of additional experience; and 4) needs in the evaluative stage, because of the reinforcement process. The task comparison model presented in Figure 1 is not intended to be comprehensive with respect to all variables and relationships that may affect task perceptions, evaluations, and reactions. Rather, the model summarizes the basic relationships that both current theory and research have identified as potentially important impacts on task perceptions and evaluations. The process is obviously more complex than depicted in Figure 1. For example, the model provides no guidance for determining how employees process information obtained from the multiple sources shown in Stage I. Shaw [24] has suggested that Anderson’s [S] information-integration approach would be useful in understanding this phenomenon. The task comparison model may also be simplifying the effect of social cues. The model indicates that these cues affect task understanding directly and therefore have only an indirect affect on task impacts. However, cues might have more direct affects on impacts such as satisfaction, although the current research evidence is ambiguous on this point [ 17,281. The model also provides little help in solving the persistent problem in comparison theory of identifying the appropriate referents [9]. In general, we have chosen to present a parsimonious and logically coherent model with the belief that elaboration of specific variables and relationships will be a natural outgrow+ of applying the model.
Implications
and Future
Directions
The task comparison model can be a rich source of research insights. For example, the model encompasses four basic types of comparisons: objective, social, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Although all of these types of comparisons could be present in a given situation, some types may be more prevalent under certain conditions. Intrapersonal comparisons are more likely when the employee has a relatively stable task self-identity and recent task experiences that are relevant [2]. For example, a person may view himself as a “blue-collar” worker and have a consistent understanding of what it means to be a blue-collar worker. Hence, the person’s expectation is to remain a blue-collar worker. Another person working on the same operative task may see this assignment as a
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
and Reactions
297
transition to a supervisory position. In this situation, the person’s task self-identity is in a developmental stage and previous blue-collar tasks are less relevant. Social comparisons are more likely when there are similar comparison others, high work-group cohesion, and limited task experiences [8, 91. These derivations from social comparison theory are illustrated in Figure 2. Essentially, we have constructed a contingency framework for predicting which comparisons will be most likely for a given employee’s situation. Cells I and 4, for example, contrast a situation where the employee relies on internal and rational information with one where the employee looks externally toward subjective factors. In addition to contingency issues, other important research questions should be addressed. The three-stage (information-evaluation-impacts) model proposed requires further refinement and empirical examination. Most other research directions are shared with other comparisons made in organizations (for example, pay). However, these directions should be pursued in the task evaluation context. For example, What are the relevant inputs and outcomes across work situations? What stimuli trigger task perceptions? How are referents selected? How do group factors influence task perceptions? How are multiple comparison merged? At this point, the managerial implications of the task-comparison model are very general. The comparison model expands current approaches in two ways. First, it indicates that the objective tasks performed by coworkers, as well as the employee’s previous objective task experiences can affect task perceptions. When one set ofjobs are enriched, this may affect workers on another task negatively if they had used the first task as a comparison point. Management could affect employees’ objective comparisons by providing valid information concerning jobs and their content. Task experience gained through job rotation programs may affect the comparisons made when a permanent assignment is received. Second, the task-comparison model emphasizes many social factors that have been generally ignored. Group processes and social cues may either facilitate or inhibit task redesign attempts. Hence, managers may fmd it necessary to augment enrichment efforts with group development programs. Consistently, successful task redesign efforts by organizations will require theorists and researchers to develop a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive process that
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Figure 2. Comparison
Objective
Social
(1) Stable
Stable
Recent
Recent
Dissimilar
Similar
Low
High
Many
Few
(3) Developing Distant
(4) Developing Distant
Dissimilar
Similar
(2)
Situational
Factors
Task self-identity Task experiences Comparison
Group cohesion Task experiences
(breadth)
Task self-identity Task experiences (temporal) Comparison
Low
High
Group
Many
Few
Task experiences
contingencies.
(temporal) others
others
cohesion (breadth)
298
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
underlies
a person’s
research
challenge
ductivity. stimulating
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
perception, will
We hope additional
that
evaluation,
ultimately
and response
contribute
the task-comparison
work in this crucial
to his or her job. Meeting
significantly model
research
to
enhanced
developed
here
worker
this pro-
will be helpful
in
area.
References in Social Exchange, in Advances in Experimental Social ed., Academic Press, New York, 1965, pp. 276-299.
1. Adams, J. Stacy, Inequity Psychology. L. Berkowitz, 2. Albert, Stuart, Temporal 1977): 485-503.
Comparison
3. Aldag, Ramon J., and Brief, Scott, Foresman and Company,
Theory,
Psychological Review 84 (November
Arthur P., Task Design and Employee Glenview, IL, 1979.
4. Aldag, Ramon .I., Barr, Steve H., and Brief, Arthur P., Measurement Task Characteristics, Psychological Bulletin 90 (198 1): 4 15-43 1.
Motivation. of Perceived
5. Anderson, Norman H., A Simple Model for Information Integration, in Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Robert P. Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William J. Mcguire, Theodore M. Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenberg, Percy H. Tannenbaum, eds., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1968, pp. 731-743. 6. Bishop, R. C., and Hill, J. W., Effects of Job Enlargement and Job Change on Contiguous but Nonmanipulated Jobs as a Function of Worker’s Status, Journal of , Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 175-181. 7. Dunham, Randall B., Reactions to Job Characteristics: Moderating Effects Organization, Academy ofManagement Journal 20 (March 1977): 42-65. Leon, 8. Festinger, (1954): 117-140.
A Theory
of Social
Comparison
Processes,
Human
of the
Relations
7
Paul S., Social Comparison Processes in New Directions in Organiza9. Goodman, tional Behavior. Gerald R. Salancik and Barry M. Staw, eds., St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1977, pp. 97-132. and Social Sources of Information 10. Griffin, Ricky W., Objective Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 184-200.
in Task Redesign,
in Man and Work 11. Hackman, J. Richard, On the Coming Demise of Job Enrichment, in Society. Eugene L. Cass and Frederick G. Zimmer, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975. 12. Hackman, J. Richard, Work Design, in Improving Life at Work: Behavioral Science Approaches to Organizational Change. J. Richard Hackman and J. Lloyd Suttle, eds., Goodyear, Santa Monica, 1977, pp. 96-162. J. Richard, and Lawler, Edward, Employee Reactions 13. Hackman, istics, Journal of Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 259-286. J. Richard, and 14. Hackman, Work: Test of a Theory, (August 1976): 250-279.
to Job Character-
Oldham, Greg R., Motivation Through the Design Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
of 16
Edward J., and Barrett, Gerald V., Informational Cues and Individual 15. O’Connor, Differences as Determinants of Subjective Perceptions of Task Enrichment, Academy of ManagementJournal 23 (December 1980): 697-716. 16. Oldham, Greg R., and Miller, Howard E., The Effect of Significant Other’s Job Complexity on Employee Reactions to Work, Human Relations 32 (March 1979): 247260. 17. O’Reilly, Charles A., and Caldwell, David F., Informational ant of Perceived Task Characteristics and Job Satisfaction, choZogy 64 (April 1979): 157-165.
Influence as a DeterminJournal of Applied Psy-
18. O’Reilly, Charles A., Parlette, G. Nicholas, and Bloom, Joan, Perceptual Measures of Task Characteristics: The Biasing Effects of Differing Frames of Reference and Job Attitudes, Academy ofManugementJournaZ 23 (March 1980): 118-131.
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
and Reactions
19. Pierce, Jon L., and Dunham, Randall B., Task Design: emy of Management Review 1 (October 1976): 83-97. 20.
Roberts, Design: 217.
A Literature
Acad-
Karlene H., and Click, William, The Job Characteristics Approach to Task A Critical Review, Journal of Applied Psychology 66 (April 1981): 193-
Gerald R., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey, An Examination 21. Salancik, Models of Job Attitudes, Administrative Science Quarterly 427-456. 22.
Review,
299
of Need-Satisfaction 22 (September 1977):
Salancik, Gerald R., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey A., A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design, Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (June 1978): 224-253.
23. Schwab, Donald P., and Cummings, L. L., A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Task Scope on Employee Performance, Academy of Management Review 1 (April 1976): 23-35. 24.
Shaw, James B., An Information-Processing Academy ofManagement Review 5 (January
2.5. Turner, Arthur N., and Lawrence, University, Cambridge, MA, 1965.
Approach to the Study 1980): 41-48.
of Task Design,
Paul R., Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Harvard
Processes in Organizations, in New Directions in Orguniza26. Weick, Karl E., Enactment tiona2 Behovior. Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik, eds., St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1977, pp. 267-300. 27. Weiss, Tasks, 140.
Howard M., and Shaw, James B., Social Influences on Judgements About Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24 (August 1979): 126-
28. White, Sam E., and Mitchell, Comparison and Competitive 1979): l-9.
Terence R., Job Enrichment Versus Social Cues: A Test, Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (February
T., Influence of Community and Plant Characteristics on 29. Wild, Ray, and Kempner, Job Attitudes of Manual Workers. Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (April 1972): 106-l 13.
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
Comparison Processes in Task Perceptions, Evaluations, and Reactions Ricky W. Griffin
E. Allen Slusher
The primary objective of this article is to present a social comparison model of how employees perceive, evaluate, and react to tasks. The model represents a synthesis of recent findings in the task design area and three social comparison theories. A three-stage process is described which suggests that employees first understand their tasks at an informational level, then understand their tasks at an evaluative level, and finally react to their tasks both affectively and behaviorally. Managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.
Introduction Task or job design has become a primary area of research in organizational science. Moreover, principles and concepts derived from such research have been widely applied in task design change programs in many organizations. These applications, however, have seldom been unqualified successes. Most reports of task design interventions tend to be anecdotal in nature, based upon weak methodology, biased in number toward successes rather than failures, and/or overly narrow in scope [ 1 I] . Hence, it has become increasingly apparent that researchers and managers do not fully understand the processes by which tasks affect employee attitudes and behaviors [23]. Understanding these processes is essential if task design interventions are to be more generally successful. The bulk of the task design research published in the last 20 years has focused on task perceptions and/or the relationships between these perceptions and outcome variables [19]. Little attention, however, has been directed at how employees explicitly evaluate their tasks and at how perceptions, evaluations, and reactions are interrelated. Recently, there has been renewed interest in determining whether a broader social context might affect the perception-evaluation-reaction process. Unfortunately, there is no conceptual framework available to link current insights and to guide future research efforts. The objectives of this article are to: 1) critically review selected task design articles that have been influential and are representative of current developments; 2) briefly review three social comparison frameworks that have relevance to the task design issues identified; 3) present a conceptual model that provides a more precise treatment of the issues raised in the task design articles; and 4) explicate managerial implications and avenues for future research suggested by the model.
Address correspondence ersity of Missouri-Columbia,
to E. Allen Slusher, College Columbia, MO 65211.
Journal of Business Research 13,287-299 (1985) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1985 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
of Business
and Public Administration,
Univ-
0148-2963/85/$3.30
288
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
Task
Design
Theory
Most current research in task design stems from the pioneering work of Turner and Lawrence [25]. Their findings and conclusions have been refined by Hackman and Lawler [ 131 and Hackman and Oldham [ 141. Collectively, these investigators identified several dimensions or characteristics that can be used to describe most jobs. Current formulations [ 121 identify five core job dimensions (or characteristics): skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. To the extent that a task is relatively high or low on these five core dimensions, it can be termed a high- or low-scope task. The assumption is that high-scope tasks provide more experienced meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. These psychological factors lead to intrinsic rewards from the job itself. The intrinsic rewards are, in turn, related to satisfaction, performance, and motivation. Although the identification of core task dimensions was a major contribution to the study of task design, it has not been without controversy. For example, Roberts and Click [20] and Aldag, Barr, and Brief [4] have recently critiqued theoretical and measurement problems within prevailing task design theory. One particularly important criticism is that the true nature of task design variables has not been specified. Specifically, debate has centered on whether task scope should be measured objectively or subjectively [23]. That is, should task scope be assessed through engineering measurement techniques and expert judgment or by determining employees’ perceptions of their own jobs? A basic artument in favor of objectively measuring task scope is that management must contend with real or objective jobs in task redesign efforts. Those who favor perceptual measures of task scope argue that an employee’s psychological reaction to a job depends on his or her own perception of that job no matter how much this perception might differ from an expert’s judgment. While not resolving the basic issue, insights into the role of both objective and perceptual task attributes are gained by treating the perceived task as an intervening variable between the objective task and employee reactions to the task [3, 231. In this perspective there are two causal linkages, the first between the objective task and the perceived task, and the second between the perceived task and employee reactions. In addition, other factors are viewed as mediating the relationships between the primary variables. Unfortunately, limited emphasis has been placed on identifying and examining the impacts of these mediators. Reviews of the task design literature [3, 231 typically mention only individual difference variables (e.g., educational level, job tenure, cognitive complexity) as potential moderators. Even for individual difference moderators, Research is just beginning on the second linkage and its moderators, but is nonexistent on the first. Yet attempts to change jobs involve manipulation of actual tasks, not perceptions of tasks. Questions of whether these manipulations result in shifts in employee perceptions and subsequent behaviors, and the causes of differences in these shifts, remain largely unanswered. [23, p. 321. Recent theoretical work has begun to focus on explaining how objective task characteristics become transformed into perceived task characteristics [24]. This work has been stimulated by two provocative articles by Salancik and Pfeffer [21,22] . The Salancik and Pfeffer
Critique
Salancik and Pfeffer [22] take issue with the basic individual need framework in organizational behavior from which task design theory has evolved. Specifically, Salancik and Pfeffer argue that the field of organizational behavior has failed to adequately consider
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
289
the social context of the workplace. They view individuals as adapting to a work situation that includes social factors as well as their own past and current behaviors. This adaptation process involves construction of appropriate needs, attitudes, and beliefs that provide guides to future behavior that will be acceptable in the particular situation. While there is some ambiguity in their arguments, Salancik and Pfeffer apparently see job attitudes and beliefs as arising through the impact of three factors: 1) the employee’s past behavior; 2) factual informational processes; and 3) affective informational processes. Although they use the term “task design” in their article, Salancik and Pfeffer define the term broadly to include procedures, supervision, and physical conditions. It will be helpful for our purposes to consider the task more narrowly as formal work responsibilites and the procedures by which they are completed. We can then use Salancik and Pfeffer’s more general framework to derive implications for narrower task design issues. Employee behaviors affect task attitudes and beliefs in two basic ways. First, the employee’s behavior can change and shape the task. Although task responsibilities and procedures are formally specified, employees typically have some “elbow room” to refine or redefine this objective task. To the extent that he or she eploits this opportunity, the employee has uniquely defined the task. Second, the employee makes many spontaneous behaviors for which she or he must later attribute meaning. This attribution process may lead to attitudes and beliefs regarding the task itself. Informational processes can result in either facts (beliefs) or feelings (attitudes) regarding the task. Constructing beliefs about a task involves both individual and social aspects. An employee can view her or his task and decide cognitively what characteristics are present. Whether the employee sees certain characteristics in the task is also affected by social cues which direct his or her attention, thus making some task characteristics more salient than others. Task attitudes are also formed through individual and social influences. The individual desires to avoid uncertainty regarding the appropriate affective reaction to the job and is therefore likely to consider the attitudes of relevant others. As a member of a social group, the employee may receive pressures to conform to prevailing task attitudes.
Relevant
Research
The research evidence pertaining to social contextual factors and task design is limited but very instructive. The most definitive studies have been conducted in the laboratory. Therefore, we begin by reviewing recent laboratory experiments before considering the more tentative findings from the field. Laboratory Research. Four laboratory experiments have directly dealt with the impact of social factors on task perceptions. White and Mitchell [28] used a 2 (enriched and unenriched tasks) X 2 (positive and negative social cues from coworkers) factorial design. They found that both enrichment and social cues affected task perceptions, but that only social cues affected satisfaction and performance. Where tasks and cues were incongruous, subjects expressed greater task ambiguity than when they received consistent information from both the task and the coworker. O’Reilly and Caldwell [ 171 also used a 2 X 2 design with enriched-unenriched tasks and positive-negative cues from other workers. Both task and cues affected satisfaction with the larger impact coming from the cues. The task itself has only a slight effect on task perceptions while social cues had a large and consistent impact. Weiss and Shaw [27] used a 2 (high- and low-scope tasks) X 2 (positive and neutral task attitudes) factorial design. Positive task attitudes were contained in a training film picturing student workers performing the same task that
290
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
the subject would later complete. In the neutral task attitudes condition, the models made no attitudinal comments about the task. Main effects were found for both the task and the model’s expressed attitudes, with the task having the greater impact. However, the model effect held only for subjects who were field dependent or low in self-esteem. Finally, O’Connor and Barrett [ 151 explored potential interactions among informational cues and individual difference variables as determinants of task perceptions. As found in the previous experiments, the results indicated that informational cues were a significant determinant of perceived task attributes. Further, individual difference variables were found to explain significant additional variance in task perceptions. Taken together, the results obtained from the laboratory experiments provide good support for the contention that social cues are potentially important variables in task design theory and research. However, the studies are not comprehensive with respect to all the factors that may affect task perceptions. The four experiments consider the person’s previous tasks and tasks performed by others. Such an informationally deprived situation may cause subjects to place more emphasis on social cues than might be true in a more realistic setting. The experiments by Weiss and Shaw [27] and by O’Connor and Barrett [ 1.51 suggest that individual differences may affect task perceptions. The experiments also raise other interesting issues. White and Mitchell’s [28] results as well as those by O’Reilly and Caldwell [I 7] are ambiguous regarding whether social cues directly impact satisfaction and performance or impact indirectly through task perceptions. The White and Mitchell experiment also suggests that subjects are forced to choose among conflicting information sources. Field Research. To date, little field research has explicitly addressed the role that social factors play in task design. Most evidence is available only indirectly and through inferential interpretation. For example, Bishop and Hill [6] conducted a field experiment to assess the affects of job changes on employees in contiguous, but nonmanipulated, jobs. They found that workers whose jobs were not changed, but who worked with others whose jobs were changed, experienced decreased status and work satisfaction and increased anxiety. It could be argued, then, that the workers focused attention not only on their own jobs, but also on the jobs of their coworkers. The change in status would also seem to indicate some form of task evaluation by the worker between his/her job and the jobs of relevant others. Wild and Kemper [29] examined the effects of community and plant characteristics on job attitudes. They concluded that community influences on job attitudes reflected the existence of a “frame of reference” which affected the worker’s evaluative judgments. Dunham [7] found that functional speciality moderated the task design and affective response relationship. Among the possible explanations that could be used for this result is that functional specialties provide the employees with varied frames of reference. O’Reilly, Parlette, and Bloom [18] sampled individuals holding the same objective job. They found that perceived task characteristics varied systematically with the individual’s frame of reference and professional nursing attitudes. They suggest that job satisfaction may cause task perceptions, rather than the reverse. However, their study was crosssectional and inferences of causality are tenuous, Oldham and Miller [ 161 used a sample of 658 employees in 62 different job classifications across seven organizations. Reasoning from equity theory [l] , Oldham and Miller hypothesized that employees on jobs either higher or lower in scope than comparison others would be less satisfied than their counterparts. However, employees on higher scope jobs than their peers were expected to be higher performers, while those on lower scope jobs were expected to be lower performers. That is, if the job is viewed as an
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
and Reactions
291
outcome those employees on high-scope jobs (relative to their comparison others) are “overpaid” and experience inequity which reduces their satisfaction. Workers who are “underpaid” through a low-scope job will also experience inequity and resultant dissatisfaction. Inequity can be reduced by adjusting one’s inputs to the job through changes in effort. Therefore, employees on high-scope jobs (i.e., overpaid) will increase their effort and those on low-scope jobs (i.e., underpaid) will decrease their effort. Oldham and Miller [ 161 assumed in that comparison that individuals were of the same sex, in the same organization, and having the same job classification. The research design categorized individuals by their perceived job scope and the average perceived job scope of same sex others in the same job classification. Results generally supported the hypotheses. In a field experiment, Griffin [lo] demonstrated that a change in verbal cues from supervisors caused employees to drastically alter their task perceptions and satisfaction with their jobs. In fact, the effects were as great as when objective job changes were made. The field research reviewed here not only supports the laboratory findings that social cues affect task perceptions, but suggests that employees compare their jobs to those of others. The field results also provide indirect evidence that broader frames of reference derived from functional specialties, community factors, and professional attitudes may impact task perceptions. In summary, our interpretation of available field and laboratory research emphasizes the need to more fully explore the processes by which social factors influence the manner in which employees perceive and react to their tasks. Unfortunately, current research efforts do not seem to be guided by any well-developed theoretical framework. One objective of this article is to propose a task comparison model as an initial step toward structuring a set of scattered observations and outlining future research directions. This task-comparison model is based on traditional job design theory, Salancik and Pfeffer’s [22] social information processing perspective, and social comparison theory. Before presenting the model, however, it is necessary to briefly summarize the three social comparison theories which contribute most directly to the task-comparison model.
Comparison
Theories
Festinger’s Social Comparison
Theory
The classic statement of social comparison theory was made by Leon Festinger [8]. Festinger began with the basic proposition that people have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. Our primary concern here is for the evaluation of opinions. Festinger also suggested that this drive ultimately influenced a person’s behavior, since holding an incorrect opinion could lead to punishment. That is, people use their opinions as a guide for deciding upon appropriate behaviors. The determination of whether an opinion is “correct” and an associated behavior “appropriate” rests upon comparisons which the individual makes. Comparisons can be made to objective conditions in the environment or to socially available cues. Where objective information is obtainable it will be used in preference to social information, presumably because it is considered more valid. Since objective information is often not available, social comparisons become crucial in the person’s attempts to understand his or her environment. Social comparison involves the comparison of a person’s opinion with the opinion of a comparison other. This raises the issue of how the comparison other is selected. Festinger answers this question by advancing what has become known as the “similarity hypothesis.” In this view, the person compares him or herself with another who holds opinions or has abilities close to
292
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
their own. Where there is neither an objective nor a social comparison available, one’s opinion will be unstable. When a social comparison is available, the stability of an opinion varies directly with the degree to which the comparison other is similar or divergent. When an opinion is very important to a person, there is a greater pressure to reduce discrepancies with comparison others. Individuals will be less attracted to situations where the other persons present are divergent with respect to abilities and opinions. This follows from the basic proposition that there is a drive to evaluate opinions and that in the absence of objective standards such evaluation requires comparison with a similar other. Within existing groups, there will be social influence processes directed toward uniformity of opinions, especially where the opinion is central to the group’s functioning. The group’s ability to enforce opinion uniformity will vary directly with the group’s cohesiveness. When Festinger’s social comparison theory is applied to the task design issue, several implications can be drawn. First, employees will try to evaluate their opinions toward the tasks to which they have been assigned. Second, in evaluating task opinions, employees will first look to the objective task and any other objective information available. Third, when objective information is insufficient, employees will compare their task opinions to those held by someone they consider similar. This similar other might be a co-worker having about the same ability and the same task assignment. Fourth, when similar others are not present, the employee will find the work situation less desirable and his or her task opinions will be less stable. This tendency is particularly strong when the task is a highly salient part of the worker’s life and the desire for consistent comparisons is high. Finally, work groups will use social influence to induce uniformity of task opinions within the group. Cohesive groups will have a greater ability to enforce conformity with respect to task opinions.
Albert’s Temporal Comparison Theory Stuart Albert [2] has conceptually translated Festinger’s social comparison theory into what he terms temporal comparison theory. Festinger [8] limited himself to considering how a person constructed a self-description at a given point in time. Albert expands this view by exploring how a person uses past, current, and future self-descriptions. The temporal comparison process involves intrapersonal comparisons at different times while social comparison involves interpersonal comparisons in the current period. Albert begins with the proposition that people are motivated to maintain an enduring self-identity and adjust to any changes that occur in self-identity over time. This adjustment is accomplished, where objective information is limited, by comparison of current self-descriptions to past self-descriptions. More recent self-descriptions are more relevant for comparison than those in the more distant past. Also, those past self-descriptions which are more similar to the current self-description are more likely to provide a relevant comparison. A similar and recent self-description that differs from the current self-description will produce pressures to change the current self-description. More distant and less similar self-descriptions will be altered to conform to the present selfdescription. Temporal comparisons do not occur continuously, but are more likely under certain conditions. When change is rapid, comparisons provide evidence of growth; and when the future is at issue, temporal comparisons are more likely. Although not analyzed in depth, Albert suggests two important extensions of temporal comparisons that go beyond intrapersonal processes. First, he suggests that persons may compare themselves to others in their past. Second, Albert notes that temporal comparisons may involve events or
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
293
occasions as well as self- descriptions. Such events may have a group or organization as the focus. Finally, Albert discusses the relationship between social and temporal comparisons. He advances the hypothesis that a person with strong self-identity based on temporal comparisons will be less likely to depend on contemporary social comparisons (and the converse). When applied to the task design problem, temporal comparison theory places emphasis on an employee’s past task experiences and their associated comparisons. Moreover, the employee is seen as attempting to establish a stable self-identity with respect to a history of task roles. Finally, the employee uses both past task experiences and contemporary comparisons with similar coworkers in formulating appropriate task beliefs and attitudes. Workers with stable and consistent task self-identity will be more likely to look within themselves rather than to rely on their social context.
Goodman’s Social Comparison Process Model Goodman [9] has extended Adam’s [l] familiar equity formulation into a more comprehensive and dynamic social comparison model. Goodman believes that the social comparison process begins when some external stimulus event triggers a search program. This search results in a set of potentially useful outcome-input ratios. Inputs refer to those factors which the individual brings to the situation and outcomes refer to rewards and punishments received as a result of contributing inputs. From among the set of available outcome-input ratios, the individual selects a subset for comparison to his or her own outcome-input ratio. In selecting referent others, the individual considers whether a sufficient quantity and quality of information about another’s inputs and outcomes is available. The person also relies on distribution rules which define and legitimate the appropriate inputs and outcomes and their relationship. It should be noted that persons search and compare serially while applying satisficing rules in a cyclical fashion. Although Goodman applies his model to several aspects of work organization, he does not explicitly discuss task design. However, if we treat task assignment as an outcome, then Goodman’s approach can be adopted to our analysis of task design. This interpretation is consistent with Goodman’s notion that comparisons occur with respect to almost any important organizational characteristic. Relevant inputs to task assignment would include ability and effort. A common distribution rule would be that ability and effort should be positively associated with a good task assignment. The comparison process would be triggered by an external stimuli, for example, a new task assignment or change in the current task. The comparison cycle begins with a search for information. This search may involve the definition of appropriate task characteristics and the collection of information concerning other’s tasks and inputs. When this information is available then a relevant comparison can be made. Multiple comparisons involving coworkers, friends, family, and general task categories could be made. Comparison is a relative phenomenon. The judgment of whether a task assignment is good or bad depends on the employee’s expectations and whether these expectations are confirmed through comparisons. A Task Comparison
Model
In this section, we present a task-comparison model that integrates key features of the task design, social information processing, and social comparison perspectives previously described. The model, as shown in Figure 1, is based on general points of convergence in the literature reviewed.
294
J BUS1N RES 1985: 13 -:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
Person’s
Objective Task
Stage I : Task Understanding At An Informational Level
Person’s Determination of Task Characteristics and Inputs (O/I Ratios)
-
Person’s Previous Tasks
f-l
Comparison
Process
Stage II: Task Understanding At P.n Evaluative Level
Task Evaluation: Expected 1. Meaningfulness 2. Responsibility 3. Results
Need for Growth -
1 Intrinsic Rewards
Stage III: Task Impacts
-
Figure 1. Task-comparison
model.
9
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
and Reactions
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
295
First, for clarity in exposition, the model is divided into three stages, emphasizing that tasks must first be understood at an informational level, then evaluated, and finally examined with respect to their impacts. These stages are derived from the more elaborate model of social comparison processes developed by Goodman [9]. Moreover, the stages are consistent with the emerging view in the task design literature that tasks are perceived, evaluated, and reacted to [24]. Second, the model emphasizes that there are multiple sources of information about the task. Whereas the traditional job design literature has focused exclusively on the objective job as the source of task information, both the social information processing and social comparison perspectives stress the necessity to understand how multiple sources are utilized. Third, the feedback loops in the model depict the cyclical development of understading about the social context which is integral to Salancik and Pfeffer’s [22] social information processing perspective and to Goodman’s [9] social comparison process model. Before any comparison process can begin, the employee must construct a basis for comparison. Hence, Stage I of the model represents task understanding at an informational level. We assume, as do Oldham and Miller [16], that task assignments represent important outcomes for employees. Typical inputs for obtaining a task outcome are effort and ability [9]. The model accepts the task design proposition that employees can distinguish between specific task characteristics. Therefore, the employee’s initial concern is to construct a set of relevant outcome-input ratios (O/I). Specifying an outcome requires selecting appropriate task characteristics and assigning a rating (or score) for each characteristic. This process is influenced by five major factors. Both Festinger [8] and Salancik and Pfeffer [22] agree that when factual information is available it will be selected in preference to more subjective information. This is consistent with the job design literature’s emphasis on the objective task. Therefore the most important factor affecting the selection and scoring of task characteristics is the employee’s own objective job. The objective tasks of others [6, 161 and the employee’s own previous tasks [2, 9, 221 also provide relatively factual information. The model also recognizes that the employee, through his or her own behavior, can modify or enact a task different to some extent from the objective task as specified by management [22, 261. Finally, as all of the available research evidence suggests, the employee will be influenced by the subjective information obtained from the social context. For example, a coworker might comment on how much control and freedom the employee has in making decisions about the task. Such a socially derived cue would direct the employee’s attention toward the autonomy characteristic. A number of such cues would facilitate the development of beliefs about the nature of one’s task. The informational stage culminates with the employee’s understanding of: 1) the task characteristics which are relevant for judging outcome; 2) the appropriate inputs (for example, ability and effort); and 3) the definition of a set of outcome-input ratios for relevant others that can be used for comparison purposes. The model’s first stage depicts a rational, nonevaluative process. The employee simply gathers information from his/her own past and the current situation to construct an understanding of his/her task assignment. This process begins when a sufficient stimulus is presented [2, 8, 93. For example, when a new task assignment is made or when major changes in the current assignment are made it is likely that the employee will seek task relevant information. In Stage II of the model, the focus moves from the factual to the evaluative level. The comparison process requires the employee to decide upon a comparison referent or referents. This selection will be guided by similarity, information availability, distribution
296
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
rules, and other factors [8, 91. Referents may involve the self, others, or situations in the past, present, or future [2,9] . Comparison leads to an evaluation of the task in terms of expectations. Through a relativistic process the employee comes to see the job as one which can (or cannot) provide meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. The employee thus begins by forming beliefs or factual judgments about the task and later develops expectancies regarding completion of the task [22]. The comparison process is moderated by the need for self-esteem [9] . Employees may avoid comparisons that could damage self-esteem, thus giving a lower limit effect to task comparisons. Needs for self-esteem and growth are developed through past behavior, rewards, and punishments [22]. However, in this model, needs are viewed as more stable than task perceptions and evaluations. Finally, Stage III of the model represents factors that are affected by the processes described in Stages I and II. Specifically, the task processes are seen as resulting in intrinsic rewards which, in turn, affect satisfaction, performance, and motivation. Stage III basically adopts the traditional job design perspective and adds feedback loops to indicate the dynamic nature of the task comparison process [22]. The four variables in the model that are most affected by this dynamic element are the: 1) person’s task behavior, because success and/or failure may change a person’s approach to task performance; 2) socially derived task cues, which may become more or less important; 3) the person’s previous tasks, through the accumulation of additional experience; and 4) needs in the evaluative stage, because of the reinforcement process. The task comparison model presented in Figure 1 is not intended to be comprehensive with respect to all variables and relationships that may affect task perceptions, evaluations, and reactions. Rather, the model summarizes the basic relationships that both current theory and research have identified as potentially important impacts on task perceptions and evaluations. The process is obviously more complex than depicted in Figure 1. For example, the model provides no guidance for determining how employees process information obtained from the multiple sources shown in Stage I. Shaw [24] has suggested that Anderson’s [S] information-integration approach would be useful in understanding this phenomenon. The task comparison model may also be simplifying the effect of social cues. The model indicates that these cues affect task understanding directly and therefore have only an indirect affect on task impacts. However, cues might have more direct affects on impacts such as satisfaction, although the current research evidence is ambiguous on this point [ 17,281. The model also provides little help in solving the persistent problem in comparison theory of identifying the appropriate referents [9]. In general, we have chosen to present a parsimonious and logically coherent model with the belief that elaboration of specific variables and relationships will be a natural outgrow+ of applying the model.
Implications
and Future
Directions
The task comparison model can be a rich source of research insights. For example, the model encompasses four basic types of comparisons: objective, social, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Although all of these types of comparisons could be present in a given situation, some types may be more prevalent under certain conditions. Intrapersonal comparisons are more likely when the employee has a relatively stable task self-identity and recent task experiences that are relevant [2]. For example, a person may view himself as a “blue-collar” worker and have a consistent understanding of what it means to be a blue-collar worker. Hence, the person’s expectation is to remain a blue-collar worker. Another person working on the same operative task may see this assignment as a
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:281-299
and Reactions
297
transition to a supervisory position. In this situation, the person’s task self-identity is in a developmental stage and previous blue-collar tasks are less relevant. Social comparisons are more likely when there are similar comparison others, high work-group cohesion, and limited task experiences [8, 91. These derivations from social comparison theory are illustrated in Figure 2. Essentially, we have constructed a contingency framework for predicting which comparisons will be most likely for a given employee’s situation. Cells I and 4, for example, contrast a situation where the employee relies on internal and rational information with one where the employee looks externally toward subjective factors. In addition to contingency issues, other important research questions should be addressed. The three-stage (information-evaluation-impacts) model proposed requires further refinement and empirical examination. Most other research directions are shared with other comparisons made in organizations (for example, pay). However, these directions should be pursued in the task evaluation context. For example, What are the relevant inputs and outcomes across work situations? What stimuli trigger task perceptions? How are referents selected? How do group factors influence task perceptions? How are multiple comparison merged? At this point, the managerial implications of the task-comparison model are very general. The comparison model expands current approaches in two ways. First, it indicates that the objective tasks performed by coworkers, as well as the employee’s previous objective task experiences can affect task perceptions. When one set ofjobs are enriched, this may affect workers on another task negatively if they had used the first task as a comparison point. Management could affect employees’ objective comparisons by providing valid information concerning jobs and their content. Task experience gained through job rotation programs may affect the comparisons made when a permanent assignment is received. Second, the task-comparison model emphasizes many social factors that have been generally ignored. Group processes and social cues may either facilitate or inhibit task redesign attempts. Hence, managers may fmd it necessary to augment enrichment efforts with group development programs. Consistently, successful task redesign efforts by organizations will require theorists and researchers to develop a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive process that
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Figure 2. Comparison
Objective
Social
(1) Stable
Stable
Recent
Recent
Dissimilar
Similar
Low
High
Many
Few
(3) Developing Distant
(4) Developing Distant
Dissimilar
Similar
(2)
Situational
Factors
Task self-identity Task experiences Comparison
Group cohesion Task experiences
(breadth)
Task self-identity Task experiences (temporal) Comparison
Low
High
Group
Many
Few
Task experiences
contingencies.
(temporal) others
others
cohesion (breadth)
298
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
underlies
a person’s
research
challenge
ductivity. stimulating
E. A. Slusher and R. W. Griffin
perception, will
We hope additional
that
evaluation,
ultimately
and response
contribute
the task-comparison
work in this crucial
to his or her job. Meeting
significantly model
research
to
enhanced
developed
here
worker
this pro-
will be helpful
in
area.
References in Social Exchange, in Advances in Experimental Social ed., Academic Press, New York, 1965, pp. 276-299.
1. Adams, J. Stacy, Inequity Psychology. L. Berkowitz, 2. Albert, Stuart, Temporal 1977): 485-503.
Comparison
3. Aldag, Ramon J., and Brief, Scott, Foresman and Company,
Theory,
Psychological Review 84 (November
Arthur P., Task Design and Employee Glenview, IL, 1979.
4. Aldag, Ramon .I., Barr, Steve H., and Brief, Arthur P., Measurement Task Characteristics, Psychological Bulletin 90 (198 1): 4 15-43 1.
Motivation. of Perceived
5. Anderson, Norman H., A Simple Model for Information Integration, in Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Robert P. Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William J. Mcguire, Theodore M. Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenberg, Percy H. Tannenbaum, eds., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1968, pp. 731-743. 6. Bishop, R. C., and Hill, J. W., Effects of Job Enlargement and Job Change on Contiguous but Nonmanipulated Jobs as a Function of Worker’s Status, Journal of , Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 175-181. 7. Dunham, Randall B., Reactions to Job Characteristics: Moderating Effects Organization, Academy ofManagement Journal 20 (March 1977): 42-65. Leon, 8. Festinger, (1954): 117-140.
A Theory
of Social
Comparison
Processes,
Human
of the
Relations
7
Paul S., Social Comparison Processes in New Directions in Organiza9. Goodman, tional Behavior. Gerald R. Salancik and Barry M. Staw, eds., St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1977, pp. 97-132. and Social Sources of Information 10. Griffin, Ricky W., Objective Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 184-200.
in Task Redesign,
in Man and Work 11. Hackman, J. Richard, On the Coming Demise of Job Enrichment, in Society. Eugene L. Cass and Frederick G. Zimmer, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975. 12. Hackman, J. Richard, Work Design, in Improving Life at Work: Behavioral Science Approaches to Organizational Change. J. Richard Hackman and J. Lloyd Suttle, eds., Goodyear, Santa Monica, 1977, pp. 96-162. J. Richard, and Lawler, Edward, Employee Reactions 13. Hackman, istics, Journal of Applied Psychology 55 (1971): 259-286. J. Richard, and 14. Hackman, Work: Test of a Theory, (August 1976): 250-279.
to Job Character-
Oldham, Greg R., Motivation Through the Design Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
of 16
Edward J., and Barrett, Gerald V., Informational Cues and Individual 15. O’Connor, Differences as Determinants of Subjective Perceptions of Task Enrichment, Academy of ManagementJournal 23 (December 1980): 697-716. 16. Oldham, Greg R., and Miller, Howard E., The Effect of Significant Other’s Job Complexity on Employee Reactions to Work, Human Relations 32 (March 1979): 247260. 17. O’Reilly, Charles A., and Caldwell, David F., Informational ant of Perceived Task Characteristics and Job Satisfaction, choZogy 64 (April 1979): 157-165.
Influence as a DeterminJournal of Applied Psy-
18. O’Reilly, Charles A., Parlette, G. Nicholas, and Bloom, Joan, Perceptual Measures of Task Characteristics: The Biasing Effects of Differing Frames of Reference and Job Attitudes, Academy ofManugementJournaZ 23 (March 1980): 118-131.
Task Perceptions,
Evaluations,
J BUSN RES 1985:13:287-299
and Reactions
19. Pierce, Jon L., and Dunham, Randall B., Task Design: emy of Management Review 1 (October 1976): 83-97. 20.
Roberts, Design: 217.
A Literature
Acad-
Karlene H., and Click, William, The Job Characteristics Approach to Task A Critical Review, Journal of Applied Psychology 66 (April 1981): 193-
Gerald R., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey, An Examination 21. Salancik, Models of Job Attitudes, Administrative Science Quarterly 427-456. 22.
Review,
299
of Need-Satisfaction 22 (September 1977):
Salancik, Gerald R., and Pfeffer, Jeffrey A., A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design, Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (June 1978): 224-253.
23. Schwab, Donald P., and Cummings, L. L., A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Task Scope on Employee Performance, Academy of Management Review 1 (April 1976): 23-35. 24.
Shaw, James B., An Information-Processing Academy ofManagement Review 5 (January
2.5. Turner, Arthur N., and Lawrence, University, Cambridge, MA, 1965.
Approach to the Study 1980): 41-48.
of Task Design,
Paul R., Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Harvard
Processes in Organizations, in New Directions in Orguniza26. Weick, Karl E., Enactment tiona2 Behovior. Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik, eds., St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1977, pp. 267-300. 27. Weiss, Tasks, 140.
Howard M., and Shaw, James B., Social Influences on Judgements About Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24 (August 1979): 126-
28. White, Sam E., and Mitchell, Comparison and Competitive 1979): l-9.
Terence R., Job Enrichment Versus Social Cues: A Test, Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (February
T., Influence of Community and Plant Characteristics on 29. Wild, Ray, and Kempner, Job Attitudes of Manual Workers. Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (April 1972): 106-l 13.