age, job complexity, satisfaction, and performance

Journal of Vocational Behavior 14, 209-223 (1979)

Age, Job Complexity, Satisfaction, and Performance

SAM GOULD

University of Texas at San Antonio

Job complexity was measured for jobs in a Public Agency. Perceptions of job complexity were obtained from self-reports of 133 employees. Independent measures were obtained from interviews with the subjects. Career stages, based upon age groupings, were found to moderate the relationship between (I) job- satisfaction and perceived job complexity and (2) job-performance and independently rated job complexity. These results are discussed in light of the current literature.

Increasing the complexity of jobs has been an objective of organizational theorists for over two decades. This emphasis has been expressed by those advocating greater participation in decision making (e.g., Likert, 1961; Coch & French, 1948; Drucker, 1954; Odiorne, 1965; Raia, 1974). Others have advocated redesign of the job itself (e.g., Herzberg, 1966; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce 1976). In each of these cases, the emphasis has been placed upon reducing the repetitiveness or routineness in jobs and increasing the opportunity for creativity and autonomy in decision making.

Ideally, increasing a job’s complexity results in higher challenge. This has been credited with leading to higher job involvement (Hall, 1976) and higher organizational identification (Brown, 1969; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Still others (e.g., Berlew & Hall, 1966; Hall & Nougaim, 1968; Dunnette, Arvey, & Banas, 1973) have found that job challenge early in a person’s career is important to developing commitment to both the organization and the career in later years.

There may be situations or conditions under which increasing a job’s complexity will lead to confusion, ambiguity and perhaps frustration. For example, there is evidence that a person will be less receptive to enlarged jobs if he or she is low in high order need strength (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Oldham et al., 1976) and has personal values which do not embrace the protestant work ethic (Hulin & Blood, 1968).

There is some evidence that both these and other variables may vary systematically with a person’s age (Aldag & Brief, 1977; Hall & Mans- field, 1975). In fact, Hall and Mansfield (1975) have found empirical

209

OOOt-8791/79/020209-15$02.0010 Copyright @ 1979 by Academic Press. Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

210 SAM GOULD

evidence to support the existence of age based life-vocational or career stages as suggested elsewhere by Super, Crites. Hummel, Moser, Over- street, and Warnath (1957). The purpose of this current study is to investigate the influence of these career stages upon the relationship between job complexity and two important variables: (1) satisfaction with work and (2) job performance.

CAREER STAGING

The concept of career stage has been addressed in the literature from two viewpoints. One approach, “organizational” career staging deals with one’s adaptation, adjustment, and growth as an organizational member. This approach to career staging is evident in the work of Hall and Nougaim (1968), Schein (1971), and others. Career stages in this sense are usually measured in terms of how long the person has been a member of the organization.

While organizational career stage has been shown to impact career and job related variables (e.g., Hall & Nougaim, 1968; Buchanan, 1974; Gould & Hawkins, 1978), there is also evidence that career stages based upon appropriately chosen life stages may impact the type of needs that a person desires to satisfy through his work. This second approach is based largely upon the work of Super et al. (1957) who have suggested that individuals pass through five vocational life stages: (1) growth, (2) exploration, (3) establishment, (4) maintenance, and (5) decline. According to Super and his colleagues, the exploration, establishment, and maintenance stages occur during the working years of 20 to 65. Finer distinctions of interest within these broader categories suggested by these authors are:

1. Trial Stage-ages 22 to 30. During the early 20’s an appropriate occupation is found and a beginning job is tried. In the later 20’s one or more changes in jobs may occur before one settles on a life work.

2. Stabilization Stage-ages 31 to 44. The career pattern now be- comes clearer and effort is put forth to secure a firm foothold in the career. The authors suggest that these are the creative years.

3. Maintenence Stage-ages 45 to 65. The emphasis now shifts to maintaining what one has achieved. The authors suggest that little new ground is broken and there is a continuation along established lines.

This view is consistent with Havighurst (1950) who viewed the 20’s as a period of exploration, the 30’s as a time of digging-in-characterized by a high dedication to work, and the 40’s as a time of reevaluation of past commitments and the setting of new directions.

Hall and Mansfield (1975) in a study of research scientists found empirical support for three career stages (during the working years) as follows,

JOB SATISFACTION AND PERFORMANCE 211

(1) early-ages 20-34, (2) mid-ages 35-49. and (3) late-over 50. During these periods, higher order need strength declined and job involvement rose. It must be noted that assigning ages to career stages is not a trivial matter. The age grouping may be influenced by occupational, institu- tional, and cultural differences. For example, the careers of military officers are institutionalized with clear patterns of advancement and spe- cific minimum time periods which must elapse between increases in rank. Further, advanced professional training may serve to delay entry into a career and hence make the career stages occur later in life than would be the case for the typical business or administrative career. This could explain the differences between Hall and Mansfield’s age groupings and those proposed by Super, et al. (1957).

JOB COMPLEXITY

For the purpose of this study, job complexity is defined as the extent to which the job (1) lacks repetitiveness and routineness, (2) provides oppor- tunities for exercising independent judgment, and (3) requires creativeness and originality in the performance of duties. This definition is heavily influenced by earlier work (i.e., Turner & Lawrence, 1965; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham. 1975).

Job complexity has been estimated by (I) asking individuals the extent to which they are challenged by their work (e.g., Hall & Lawler, 1970) and (2) measuring task characteristics which are believed to result in challenging jobs (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971: Turner & Lawrence. 1965: Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The first approach suffers from the difficulty of obtaining verification through independent measures since challenge is internally mediated. What is challenging or complex to one person may not be to another! The second approach has the advantage of permitting independent measurements of task characteristics. However, it is not clear how these task dimensions relate to a global measure of job challenge. Hackman and Oldham (1975) address this problem by combining task dimensions derived from their Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) in a multiplicative manner. These authors define the motivational potential score (MPS) of a job as follows:

MPS = Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance13 x Feedback x Autonomy

The theoretical justification for the multiplicative relationships is simply that if one of the multiplicative terms is small, the motivational potential of the job should be small. Unfortunately, combining these interval scales multiplicatively is not statistically justifiable since by nature the interval scales lack a true zero point. Hence Schmidt’s criticism of expectancy theory research is operative here (Schmidt, 1973) and the MPS score should be eyed cautiously. For the purpose of this study a global measure of the job’s complexity was used to provide some insight into how challenging the job might be.

212 SAMGOULD

JOB COMPLEXITY, WORK SATISFACTION, AND CAREER STAGE

Many theorists have argued that reducing routineness and increasing the opportunity for creativeness and independent decision making in jobs will result in higher work satisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Oldham, et al., 1976). This is probably a valid assumption in many cases. However, Scott (1966) proposes that the relationship between satisfaction and job complexity may be U-shaped. At very low levels of complexity the job may be done almost at a subconscious level, leaving one’s mind free to daydream about favorite activities or time to socialize with co-workers. As complexity increases. satisfaction may decrease since the added consciousness required may infringe upon one’s daydreaming and socializing. However, the job may still be dull and routine. As a result, satisfaction declines. Then at some point satisfaction should again rise as complexity increases. This is assumed to occur since after some point the added complexity will result in challenge or a level of arousal which may become intrinsically satisfying to the individual.

Scott’s argument, while certainly plausible, assumes a broad range of complexity in jobs. In the current study which deals with clerical and administrative jobs. it is unlikely that any of the positions could be done subconsciously. The least complex jobs at-e likely to be those which may be dull and routine but require a moderate to high level of consciousness. Therefore, in this study it is likely that only the right most half of the U will be operative.

Another exception to the suggested job complexity-work satisfaction relationship may occur if (I) the job complexity reaches a level that threatens the person’s competency and (2) competency is important to the persons self-esteem. This exception may have important implications to this study. For example, high job challenge perceived during early careet has been reported to result in higherjob satisfaction, lower turnover, and greater involvement (Hall. 1976). Dunnette, Arvey. and Banas (1973) report in a study of early career college graduates that the primary difference between “stayers” and “leavers” at a large multinational manufacturing company. was whether or not the individuals perceived that they were placed in meaningful jobs with “real” responsibility. Fat this group one would expect a strong positive relationship to exist between complexity and satisfaction.

However, the relationship between job complexity and work satisfaction may be different in later years. Super et nl. (1957) and Hall (1976) characterize the maintenance stage as years where one attempts to hold on to the gains made in previous years rather than searching out new challenges. Aldag and Brief (1977) report evidence that poor job performance is mot-e likely to lead to feelings ofguilt or self-doubt in older rather than younger workers. Hence. performance to older employees may be


more indicative of their self-worth. Job complexity which threatens the older worker’s performance is likely to decrease their work satisfaction. These findings suggest the following hypothesis.

Hl: The relationship between perceived job complexity and job satisfaction will vary with career stage. The strongest positive relationship will occur in the trial stage. A negative relationship will occur in the maintenance stage.

JOB COMPLEXITY, JOB PERFORMANCE, AND CAREER STAGE

A job incumbent’s perceptions of job complexity may frequently be influenced by his or her own needs, desires, abilities, and expectations. Therefore, job designers must rely on more objective measures of job complexity to predict the impact of the job’s characteristics on a potential job incumbent (Schwab & Cummings, 1976). An independent estimate from an experienced observer from outside of the organization may prove to be a more objective view of the job’s complexity from which predic- tions can be made.

Van Maanen (1977) reports that job complexity may be dysfunctional for individuals in the first few years of a job or organization. Apparently when this occurs, the job’s complexity may reach a point where it be- comes too difficult for the employee to handle successfully. Hence performance then declines. Since job changes and organization changes may be numerous during the early career years (as indicative of Super’s term “trial” stage), the individual will tend to have low tenure in a given job 01 organization. In this case, high job complexity could actually adversely affect job performance during the early years.

The mid years or stabilization stage is characterized by steady growth in one’s vocational area. During these years, it is likely that the highest performers will be placed in the most complex jobs. Hence, during these advancement years job complexity should be strongly related to job performance.

The maintenance stage again may be different. Here, the job one has may be more a function of one’s past accomplishments. Hence the level of complexity a person has in their job may not be as strongly related to job performance as during the stabilization years. This leads to a second hypothesis:

H 2: The relationship between independently measured job complexity and performance will vary with career stage. The strongest positive relationship will occur in the stabilization stage. The weakest relationship will occur in the trial stage.

214 SAM GOULD

METHOD

Procedure

One hundred and fifty three employees in a public agency were inter- viewed by three researchers over a 2-week period. Each subject’s job complexity was rated by one of the researchers after an interview during which the subject’s job duties were discussed. Each of the ratings were based upon a standard scoring instrument selected for this purpose. Upon completion of the interviews a questionnaire was sent to each employee’s supervisor. The supervisor rated the employee’s performance on the job. The employees themselves were administered a questionnaire which included a version of the job complexity scale along with other variables of interest. These questionnaires were administered to groups of employees in four separate sessions during a l-week period. Employees were asked to put their names on the questionnaire. One hundred and thirty four usable matches were obtained from the three data sources. Employees were assured that the contents of the questionnaire would be kept confidential and that only aggregate statistics would be reported back to their management.

Subjects consisted of all administrative and managerial employees in a small public agency employing approximately 300. Jobs included clerk typist, computer programmers, accountants, maintenance clerks, first line supervisors, division managers, personnel clerks, and others. The aver- age respondent was 37 years of age, had been with the agency for 6.8 years and earned approximately $9,877. The mean educational level of subjects was 2 years of college training.

Variables

Age, tenure, salary, and education were obtained by asking a single and direct objectively worded question. Level was ascertained with the aid of an organization chart. All nonsupervisory personnel were given a level value of 1 (one). First line supervisors received a score of 2 (two), middle managers a score of 3 (three), and division heads received a score of 4 (four).

Satisfaction with work was measured using nine items selected from the satisfaction with work scale of the Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Shortening the scale was done to aid in its administration by reducing the questionnaire’s size. This action did not appear to adversely affect the scales reliability. Split half reliability for the scale was .98.

Job performance was measured by asking each subject’s supervisor to respond to five questions relating to (1) quality of work performed, (2) quantity of work performed, (3) effort and time devoted to the job, (4) ability to do the job, and (5) overall performance. The questions were


formatted in a 5-point scale anchored at the top by excellent and at the bottom by poor. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .96. This high level of internal consistency may indicate the presence of some halo effect in these supervisor ratings-which is not uncommon. However, supervisory ratings appear to provide the clearest measure of employee initiative and work related knowledge available for administrative and managerial positions which lack easily identifiable objective performance measures (Miner, 1974).

Career stage was defined by using Super’s age classifications (Super et al., 1957). Hence the trial stage (n = 44) was defined as under age 30; the stabilization stage (n = 52) was defined as ages 30 to 44; and the maintenance stage (n = 38) was defined as 45 years and over.

Occupational class was determined by the individuals job title. For the purpose of classification, subjects were placed into one of the following groups: (1) clerical, (2) social, (3) administrative, and (4) supervisory and managerial. Clerical workers included clerk typists, secretaries, maintenance clerks, inventory clerks, etc. Social workers included those who dealt with the agency’s clients on issues of social welfare. Administrative employees include those with job titles such as management aide, administrative assistant, computer programmer, accountant, etc. The supervisory and managerial group included all those in supervisory or managerial positions. For the analysis which follows, it was necessary to code these occupational groups such that their effect could be controlled in the regression analysis for control purposes. Therefore, the occupational classes were coded “1” for clerical, “2” for social, “3” for administrative, and “4” for supervisory and managerial. This classification was assumed to represent increasing levels of occupational prestige or status in this organization and, hence, appeared to be a logical method for coding this variable. Table 3 indicates empirical support for this method. Occupa- tional class as coded was positively related to work satisfaction (r = .47, p < .OOl), self-reported job complexity (r = .37, p < .OOl), and observer- reported job complexity (r = .73, p < .OOl). Hence this method of coding appears to be reasonable and necessary for controlling the confounding effects of occupational class in the regression analysis.

The job complexity scale was taken from a job complexity measure reported in Beach (1975) for use in job evaluation studies. Schwab and Cummings (1976) have suggested that traditional areas of personnel literature, such as job evaluation, may be a fruitful area to tap for identifying more objective measures of task characteristics. The scale appears in Table 1. The researchers scored the level of job complexity after an interview with each of the subjects. Each of the researchers were thoroughly trained in the use of the instrument. For the self-report measure, the levels of job complexity were presented in an altered sequence to avoid making the ascending levels of job complexity obvious. Table 2

216 SAM GOULD

TABLE 1 The Job Complexity Measure

Complexity of Work - I. Work is routine, consisting of simple repetitive operations, such as filing, sorting,

duplicating, copy typing, etc., performed under immediate supervision or where little choice exists as to method of performance.

- 2. Perform work from detailed instructions or where variation in procedures are limited. Work is semi-repetitive requiring minor decisions and some judgment in analysis of data or situations from which an answer can readily be obtained.

- 3. Perform work where producers are of a varied or diversified nature within a well-defined field under direct supervision. Requires initiative and independent judgment to analyze data or situations and determine solutions to problems within the limits of standard practice.

- 4. Plan and perform complex work where only general policies or procedures are available in an established field requiring their application to cases not previously covered. Job duties involve working independently toward general results, devising new methods, and modifying or adapting standard procedures to meet new conditions. Requires analytical ability, initiative, and exercise of judgment to obtain solutions to problems and make decisions based on precedent and Authority policy.

- 5. Plan and perform highly complex or technical work where no procedures or standard methods are available. Duties require a high degree of orginality, initiative, and independent action to deal with complex factors difficult to evaluate or the making of decisions based on conclusions for which there is little precedent.

indicates that self-reported job complexity tended to be higher than the observer ratings. The two measures were correlated with a Pearson r of .48 (p < .ool).

Table 3 presents some indication of the validity of these measures. Since the measure, as previously stated, was selected to tap the (1) lack of routineness in the job, (2) opportunity for exercising independent judgment, and (3) creativeness required in the performance of duties, one

TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Variables

Variable M SD

Age Tenure Salary Sex Level Occupational class Satisfaction with work Job complexity

Self-report Observer

Performance

36.91 II.66 6.78 7.06

9,877.17 5,986.72 1.65 .48 I.50 .84 2.40 1.24

24.20 3.25

3.57 1.04 2.69 I.10

20.25 4.17

Note: N = 134.


TABLE 3 Pearson Correlations

(1) (2) (3) (4) (3 (6) (7) (8)

1. Salary 2. Sex 3. Tenure 4. Occupational class 5. Level 6. Self-reported complex 7. Observer-reported complex 8. Work satisfaction 9. Performance

r> .l4; p< .05.

- .34 .56 .04 .69 -.33 .57 .76 -.37 .50 .70 .36 -.23 .22 .45 .37 .70 - .43 .46 .80 .73 .48 .39 -.I6 .3l .47 .34 .39 .48 .46 -.09 .37 .44 .4l .24 .40 .35

would expect this scale to be positively correlated to level in the organization; salary and perhaps occupational class. From Table 3 we can see that the correlations with self-reported job conplexity were .36 (p < .OOl) for salary; .45 (p < .OOi) for occupational class; and .37 (p < .OOl) for level. The correlations with observer-reported complexity were .70 (p < .OOl) for salary; .80 (p < .OOl) for occupational class, and .73 (p < .OOl) for level. From these correlations it would appear that both measures of job complexity have adequate levels of construct validity.

Analysis

The objective of this analysis is to test the effect of these career stages on the relationship of job complexity and (1) satisfaction with the work and (2) supervisory rated performance. This was done in the current study using analysis of covariance via multiple regression techniques. Career stage is treated as a categorical variable with the use of dummy variables. Since three career stages are included in the analysis, two dummy variables are required. Each dummy variable represents a career stage. The third career stage not represented by a dummy variable is the reference category. R* values are compared for significance between the restricted (main effects only) regression model and the full (main effects plus interaction terms) regression model. This test is described in Hulin and Smith (1965). Restricted and full regression models were run for each of the measures ofjob complexity with work satisfaction and performance as dependent variables.

The full regression model can be further analyzed to determine if the job complexity-work satisfaction or job complexity-performance relationships differ among career stages. This is done by examining the regression coefficients (P-weights) in the manner described by Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent (1975). A significant P-weight on an interaction term indicates that the relationship in that career stage differs significantly

218 SAM GOULD

from the relationship in the reference group career stage. Since only two dummy variables are used in this procedure, to test the difference between the relationships of the career stages represented by the dummy variables, a third regression was run for the job complexity measure within each of the dependent variables. On this third regression the reference category was changed to another career stage. This permitted a test to be made for the remaining career stages.

One advantage of using this type of analysis is that several potential confounding variables can be controlled in the regression model. It is particularly important in this study since several variables could confound this analysis. These include the following: (1) salary, (2) tenure, (3) sex, (4) level, and (5) occupational group. Each of these variables are likely to be related to both job satisfaction and the level ofjob complexity. For this reason these variables are controlled in the regression analysis.

RESULTS

Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for the variables in this study. Table 3 contains the zero order correlations for the variables.

Hypothesis 1 suggests that career stage will moderate the relationship between perceived job complexity and work satisfaction. Table 4 supports this notion. Only the self-reported measure significantly interacted with career stage. In this regression model the interaction terms explained slightly over 5% greater variance in work satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 also indicated that for the perceived job complexity measure, that the strongest positive relationship would occur in the trial stage and a negative relationship would occur in the maintenance stage. Table 4 partially supports this part of the hypothesis. It can be seen from Column 2 of Table 4 that the stabilization stage x job complexity interactions were negative and significant, This indicates that the relationships between perceived job complexity and work satisfaction were significantly smaller than during the trial stage. Column 3 of Table 4 indicates that the stabilization stage did not differ significantly from the maintenance stage in terms of the relationship between perceived job complexity and work satisfaction. Thus, while the beta weight for the stability stage x job complexity interaction (Column 3) was in the hypothesized direction, it failed to reach significance. Thus, we cannot conclude that the relationship here is weaker than the one found for the stabilization stage. Further, from Column 3, the nonsignificant negative beta weight for job complexity indicates a significant negative relationship did not exist between job complexity and satisfaction in this stage. Hence, the hypothesized negative relationship was not supported.

From Table 4, it can be noted that the beta weights for job complexity are significant and positive for the observer ratings of job complexity. Here there is no interaction with career stage. Hence, it appears that


TABLE 4 Regression Coefficients for the Restricted (R)

and Full (F) Regression Models Dependent Variable: Work Satisfaction

Independent variables W

Self-report

(F)’ (W

Observer

W (F)’

Control variables Salary .I4 .I7 .I6 .II .II Tenure .08 .04 .03 .06 .06 Sex .Ol .03 .02 .04 .OS Level -.II - .02 -.02 -.I7 -.I5 Occupational group .32* .31* .31* .23 .22

Job complexity .23** .48** -.06 .34* .37* Trial stage (under 30) - - -.89* - - Stabilization stage (30-34) .06 .74** -.I6 .06 .I0 Maintenance stage (45 and over) - .02 .91** - -.02 .07 Trial x job complexity - - .90* -

Stability x job complexity - - .77** .I5 -.06 Maintenance x job complexity .28 -1.03* - -.I2 RZ .28 .33 .33 .27 .27 Lutz .05* .oo

’ Reference group for this regression is the trial stage. * Reference group for this regression is the maintenance stage

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

*** p < ,001.

work satisfaction is positively related to job complexity when rated by the independent observer for all career stages.

Hypothesis 2 suggests that the independent measures ofjob complexity will interact with career stage in predicting job performance. Table 5 supports this hypothesis. Job complexity, when rated by the observers. interacted significantly with career stage. The interaction terms accounted for 5% additional variance.

Hypothesis 2 also suggested that the strongest relationship between objectively rated job complexity and performance would be in the stabilization stage, while the weakest relationship would occur in the trial stage. Table 5 indicates that this notion was partially supported. Colum 4 of Table 5 indicates that the stabilization stage had a significantly stronger performance-job complexity relationship than did the trial stage. How- ever, there was not a difference between either the trial and maintenance stage or the stabilization and maintenance stage although the beta weights were in the hypothesized direction.

Levels of perceived job complexity did not appear to have any impact upon job performance in this study.

220 SAM GOULD

TABLE 5 Regression Coefficients for the Restricted (R)

and Full (F) Regression Models Dependent Variable: Performance

Independent variables

Self-report Observer

(R) (F)’ (RI (F)’ (W

Control variables Salary .26* .27* .26* .?a* .26* Tenure .lI .I0 .I1 .II .09 Sex .lI .II .II .I2 .I2 Level .08 .09 .07 -.07 - .04 Occupational group .23 .2l .2l .I7 .I7

Job complexity .03 .O? .05 -.24 .II Trial stage (under 30) - - - - .37 Stabilization stage (30-44) .I2 -.?I -.I? -.79*** -.40 Maintenance stage (45 and over) .I3 .I4 -.I3 -.41 - Trial x job complexity - - - - .36 Stability x job complexity - .I0 - .87** .4l Maintenance x job complexity - -.27 - .53 - RZ .27 .27 .27 .32 .32 AR2 .oo .05*

’ Reference group for this regression is the trial stage. * Reference group for this regression is the maintenance stage.

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

*** p < .ool.

DISCUSSION

This study set out to investigate the relationship of job complexity to work satisfaction and performance over three career stages. Two measures of job complexity were used. The first measure was a self-report measure tapping perceived job complexity. The second measure was reported by independent observers who rated job complexity after an extensive interview with each job incumbent. The results of this investiga- tion suggest that one’s career stage, as fashioned after the typology suggested by Super et a/. (1957), impacts the relationship between (1) perceived job complexity and work satisfaction and (2) independently measured job complexity and performance.

More specifically, there was a strong positive relationship between perceived job complexity and work satisfaction during the trial careet stage (ages 20-29). This finding is consistent with earlier studies (e.g.. Berlew & Hall, 1966; Dunnette. Arvey, & Banas, 1973) which have shown self-reported job challenge to be related to work satisfaction and commitment during early career.

The anticipated negative relationship between complexity and satisfac-


tion did not materialize for the older group which would fall into Super’s maintenance stage. This may be due to a restriction of range. This is a period in one’s career when advancement is likely to be slowest. Hence, tenure and experience in the job is greatest. As a result the perception of complexity may not have been threatening to this group. This would explain the nonsignificant relationship reported.

The independent measure of job complexity was positively related to job performance in the stabilization stage (ages 30-44). This is consistent with Super’s description of this stage as a period when careers begin to take their shape (Super er al., 1957). It is the creative years when the greatest strides are made. Hence, these should be the years when job complexity would result in the greatest motivation to perform. Further, in a well managed organization. it is the highest performer which will be placed in the most complex jobs, i.e., those which are less routine and have more opportunity for creative and independent decision making. Therefore, we might expect to find the strongest relationship to exist between job performance and job complexity in this stage.

There was not a significant relationship between job performance and job complexity in the trial or maintenance stages. This is also consistent with Super’s career stages. These years are a period to learning and developing skills which will be required in the chosen vocation (Hall, 1976). Therefore, performance is more likely to be related to the quality of supervision and coaching received during this period than to the complexity of the job itself.

Further, the maintenance stage is a time of leveling off in terms of career advancement and aspirations. It appears likely that the level of complexity in one’s job will be a result of past performance and accom- plishment rather than present performance. Hence, it is logical that this group would also not have a significant job complexity-job performance relationship.

A final result which should be examined is that work satisfaction was positively related to job complexity as measured by the independent observers. If these independent observations are more objective and closer to the actual complexity of the job, then this may imply that jobs can be objectively designed in such a way that satisfaction will increase. However, other action may need to be taken to manipulate the perceived job complexity of individuals who are in the early career stage. For these individuals, the complexity of their jobs should be stressed in order to obtain maximum satisfaction and retainability.

While the findings in this study are consistent with the life-career stages suggested by Super et nl. (1957), Hall and Mansfield (1975), and others, it must be pointed out that this study does not provide direct support for these career stages. The current study utilizes a cross-sectional research design. Thus. systematic differences (perhaps due to natural selection or

222 SAM GOULD

differential socialization experiences) may exist between the age groupings. These differences, rather than the career stages, could account for the results obtained. For example, the organization may discourage high achievement. If this were the case, young high achievers may leave the organization. Older employees remaining in the organization would then tend to be lower in achievement motivation. For this group satisfaction with work would probably not be strongly related to perceived job complexity. It should be noted that’in the current study, tenure and level were controlled via multiple regression techniques which may have reduced the likelihood for some confounding influences (such as natural selection procedures), however, alternative explanations to the career stage hypothesis will remain until more powerful experimental and longitudinal designs can be utilized.

REFERENCES Aldag. R. J., & Brief, A. P. Effects of age and experience on productivity. Industrial

Gerentology, 1977. 4, 192-197. Beach, D. S. Personnel: The management of people at work. 3rd ed.. New York: Macmil-

lan, 1975. Berlew. D. E., & Hall, D. T., The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on

performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11 207-223. Brown, M. E. Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 346-355. Buchanan, B. II. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in

work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974 19, 533-546. Coch. L., & French, J. R. P.. Jr. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948,

1, 5 12-532. Drucker. P. The practice of management. New York: Harper, 1954. Dunnette, M. D., Arvey. R. D.. & Banas. P. A. Why do they leave? Personnel, 1973.

May-June, 25-39. Gould, S., & Hawkins, B. L. Organizational career stage as a moderator of the

satisfaction-performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 425-436.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oidham, G. R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170.

Hall, D. T. Careers in organizafions. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear, 1976. Hall, D. T., & Lawler, E. E. Unused potential in R & D organizations. Research Manage-

ment. 1970, 12, 339-354. Hall. D. T., & Mansfield, R. Relationship of age and seniority with career variables of

engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 201-210. Hall, D. T., & Nougaim. K. An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an organiza-

tional setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 12-35. Hall, D. T.. Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. I. Personal factors in organization identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 176-190. Havighurst, R. J. Developmental tasks andeducation. New York: Longmans, Green, 1950. Herzberg. F. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, Ohio: World, 1966.


Hulin, C. L., & Blood, M. R. Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker re- sponses. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 43-55.

Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C. A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 209-216.

Likert, R. New patterns in management. New York: McGraw, 1961. Miner, J. B. Management appraisal: A review of procedures and practices. In W. C.

Hammer & F. L. Schmidt (Eds.), Contemporary problems in personnel. Chicago: St. Clair, 1974, pp. 246-257.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H., Statisticalpackage for the social sciences, Znd, ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Odiorne, G. Management by objective. New York: Pitman, 1965. Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. Conditions under whichemployees respond

positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 395-403. Raia, A. P. Management by objectives. Glenview, Ohio: Scott, Foresman, 1974. Schein, E. H. The Individual, the organization and the career: A conceptual scheme.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7, 401-426. Schmidt, F. L. Implications of measurement problem for expectancy theory research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 243-25 I. Schwab, D. P., & Cummings, L. L. A theoretical analysis of the impact of task scope and

employee performance. Academy of Management Review,, 1976, 1, 23-35. Scott, W. E. Activation theory and task design. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 1966, 1, 3-30. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and

retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Super, D. E., Crites, J., Hummel, R., Moser, H., Overstreet, P., & Warnath, C. Vocational

development: A framework for research. New York: Teachers College Press, 1957. Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. Industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard

University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1965. Van Maanen, J. Organizational careers: Some new perspectives, New York: Wiley, 1977.

Received: June 5. 1978

age, job complexity, satisfaction, and performance

Documents