the relationship of management level to effort level, direction of effort, and managerial...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, 226-239 (1986)

The Relationship of Management Level to Effort Level, Direction of Effort, and Managerial Performance

GARY J. BLAU

Temple University

Using a sample of 100 managers at different levels, within a government agency, this study examined the relationship of management level to effort level, direction of effort, and managerial performance. Management level was found to be significantly related to effort level and several direction of effort scales. Management level was also found to moderate the relationship between direction of effort and managerial performance. Results and limitations of the study are discussed. 0 1986 Academic Press, Inc.

Research on the determinants of an individual’s performance has been an important topic for behavioral scientists for the last 25 years. According to most models (e.g., Cummings & Schwab, 1973; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964), performance in organizational settings is a function of at least three variables: motivation level, role perceptions, and individual differences. Campbell and Pritchard (1976) defined motivation in terms of the direction, effort level, and persistence of behavior. Direction of behavior looks at what behaviors people choose and how often they choose these behaviors. Effort level of behavior focuses more on how hard a person initially tries to carry out a chosen behavior. Persistence seems to add a time perspective to effort, i.e., will the individual keep trying until the behavior is accomplished? Within this multidimensional view of motivation, simple self-reports of how hard or how much one worked (effort level) cannot adequately represent motivation without automatically assuming that the activities into which effort is directed are appropriate. Thus, attempts to understand the relationship between motivation and performance will be incomplete until the theoretical perspective of motivation as a multidimensional construct is translated into multidimensional operationalization and measurement (Terborg & Miller, 1978).

Please send correspondence, including reprint requests, to Gary J. Blau, Human Resource Administration Dept.-SBA, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

226 OOOl-8791/86 $3.00 Copyright 0 1986 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

MANAGEMENT LEVEL AND PERFORMANCE 227

Laboratory studies by Terborg (1976, 1977) have demonstrated the importance of measuring direction of behavior as well as effort level of behavior in operationahzing motivation, although in constrained laboratory settings only relatively simple directional choices are possible. In more recent theoretical work, Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980) emphasized the importance of the directional component of motivation. Their model represented motivation as a process of allocating resources. Individuals have an energy reservoir that can be allocated among a variety of activities, some of which will be productive and others of which will not. Naylor et al. (1980) suggested that regardless of one’s level of available energy, the allocation of energy between relevant and irrelevant activities can make the difference between success and failure. Again, there is an emphasis here on the directional component of motivation.

Additional conceptual support for studying direction and effort level of behavior comes from the career development literature. Dalton, Thompson, and Price (1977) have developed a model of professional career stages. They note that one key to successful career development is carrying out appropriate behaviors and roles at particular stages. Their model suggests an association between direction of behavior and performance as a function of career stage. Underlying Hall’s work on psychological success, performance, and career development (e.g., Hall, 1971, 1976; Hall & Nougaim, 1968) is the theme that individual goal- directed behavior and effort can lead to goal attainment (performance), which leads to psychological success. Goal-directed behavior determines direction and amount of behavior, i.e., what and how much must be done to reach certain goals. Hall (1976) states that goals leading to career development are those which are challenging, relevant to the person’s self-image, set by the person (individually or collaboratively), and im- plemented by the person’s independent effort. Another potentially important influence on an individual’s career development which Hall (1976) and others (e.g., Webber, 1976) have noted is the quality of the relationship between an individual and his/her superior. It is important for the individual to become a crucial subordinate to his/her superior so that he or she will get important job assignments.

Studying direction of behavior is not new to the motivation literature. Role perceptions has been one construct used to represent a very gen- eralized directional component (e.g., Gavin, 1970; Porter & Lawler, 1%8). Porter and Lawler (1968) defined role perceptions as where the person believes or perceives he or she should direct his or her effort. Measures of role ambiguity (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) and role clarity (Lyons, 1971) have been used to operationalize this general directional component. However, studies show that the relationship between role perceptions and performance is inconsistent (Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). For example, Brief and Aldag (1976) and Greene (1972) found a

228 GARY J. BLAU

significant negative correlation between role ambiguity and performance, while Sims and Szilagyi (1975) and Tosi (1971) did not.

Perhaps partly because role perceptions operationalizes a very gen- eralized directional component, its relationship to performance has been inconsistent. Furthermore, role perceptions may not necessarily be motivational. An individual can believe that a role requires a certain behavior and yet not actually perform that behavior. The directional component of motivation needs to be operationalized in terms of specific job- or role-related behaviors. Staw (1984) has noted that studying how individuals direct their energies on the job is important to advance job performance research. Using a sample of real estate agents, Katerberg and Blau (1983) found that both direction of behavior and effort level of behavior were significant predictors of real estate agent performance. Furthermore, they found that direction of behavior contributed uniquely to the prediction of agent performance, beyond the agent performance accounted for by effort level. Direction of behavior was operationalized using four behavioral scales determined to be part of the real estate agent’s job: social network activity, professional development activity, visibility activity, and client selectivity activity. The purpose of this study was to extend fieldwork by investigating the relationship between direction of behavior, effort level of behavior, and performance for a new sample, that is, managers.

Much research has investigated the nature of managerial work in terms of the impact of managerial level on general roles and activities (e.g., Hughes & Singler, 1985; Mahoney, Jerdee, & Carroll, 1965; Mintzberg, 1980; Pavett & Lau, 1982). For example, Mintzberg (1980) proposed that, partly due to level, managers would perceive that various roles differ in importance. Thus upper level managers, according to Mintzberg (1980), would focus more attention on external roles (e.g., liason, spokesperson), while lower level managers would focus more attention on internal roles (e.g., leader). Pavett and Lau (1982) found empirical support for this difference in role emphasis due to managerial level. Although managers at different levels perceive diierent roles, an interesting research question becomes, “do such role perceptions translate into different specific behaviors” (i.e., direction of behavior)? Mahoney et al. (1%5) found that managers spend different amounts of time on various general work di- mensions as a function of level (e.g., higher level managers have a higher percentage of assignments that deal with planning than lower level managers). Other studies (e.g., Hughes 8z Singler, 1985; Strong, 1956) found that higher level managers spend more time at work than lower level managers. Based upon this literature review, the following hypotheses are proposed.

HI: Management level will have a significant positive relationship to effort level.


Hz: Management level will significantly influence direction of effort such that lower level managers will focus on different job behaviors than upper level managers.

Hj: Management level will influence the relationship between direction of effort and performance, such that when different level managers focus on their appropriate job behaviors, their performance will improve.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Management personnel from several divisions within a government agency were voluntary participants in this study. The regional office for the agency was located in a large eastern city. On approval of the study by the agency’s personnel office, the author arranged data collection procedures with the help of agency personnel. A series of interviews with managers was conducted to aid in questionnaire development. Once developed and approved, the questionnaire was mailed to 129 managers in different divisions and office locations within the agency. Subjects were told that the purpose of the study was to learn more about the nature of their jobs. One hundred out of 129 (78%) of the surveys were completed and mailed back to the personnel office. A cover letter from top management within the agency endorsing the study undoubtedly helped the response rate. Complete confidentiality of individual responses was guaranteed and maintained.

A demographic breakdown of the participating managerial sample showed that (1) average age was 38 years, (2) 70% were male, (3) average job tenure as a manager was 4.6 years while average organization tenure was 11.4 years, (4) 86% were married, and (5) 70% had either a bac- calaureate or master’s degree. In addition, the sample was drawn from different management levels within the agency. Seventy-four percent were first-level managers, 17% were second-level managers, 5% were third-level managers, and 4% were fourth-level managers. Conversations with agency personnel indicated that first-level managers represented lower level management (e.g., section or unit chiefs). Second-level managers represented middle level management (e.g., branch chiefs), while third- and fourth-level managers represented upper level management (e.g., division chiefs or executives).

Measures

This section describes how study variables were operationalized. All descriptive and psychometric results for these variables are given in the Results section.

Eflort level was operationalized as the average number of hours per week the respondent said he or she invested in his or her job. This is

230 GARY J. BLAU

consistent with previous operationalizations of effort as time spent on a task (Katerberg & Blau, 1983; Terborg, 1977). A self-report measure of average hours worked per week was necessary because subjects have autonomous jobs and do not formally “punch in” and “punch out” from work. Katerberg and Blau (1983) used a similar measure because of the autonomous nature of jobs in their sample. The item was recorded on a 7-point response scale, where 1 = less than 40 hr, 2 = 41-45 hr, 3 = 46-50 hr, 4 = 51-55 hr, 5 = 56-60 hr, 6 = 61-65 hr, and 7 = 66 or more hr.

Direction of e#ort was a particularly important variable to operationalize in this study. Interviews were conducted with six different managers across various levels and divisions in order to define the typical behaviors exhibited on the job. This information was content analyzed and was used to develop a set of 31 items representing different managerial behaviors. As noted earlier, it is important to focus on specific behaviors and not general role perceptions. Subjects were instructed to indicate if they carried out a certain behavior and if so then how often. Following Tot-now and Pinto’s (1976) research on their Managerial Position Description Questionnaire, responses to items were made on a 6-point scale, where 0 = definitely not a part of the position (not performed), and 5 = definitely a most significant part of the position (very frequently performed). Respondents were asked to consider a behavioral item’s frequency of occurrence when making their response. This approach is similar to previous work operationalizing direction of behavior (Katerberg & Blau, 1983; Terborg, 1977). Prior to sample distribution, the validity of this 31-item behavioral measure was independently checked in two ways. Behavioral items were cross-checked against formal job descriptions of the interviewed managers. Also several personnel office managers, not part of the study sample but knowledgeable about the managerial jobs being studied, examined the accuracy of the 31-item behavioral measure. The personnel office managers indicated that this measure represented a comprehensive sample of managerial behaviors.

Rather than forming scales based on a priori conceptualizations of managerial behaviors, factor analysis of the 31 items was conducted to provide an empirical basis for developing an internally consistent and meaningful set of scales. Cautious interpretation is warranted due to potential instability of a factor solution that is based on a small sample. Both orthogonal and oblique factor solutions were evaluated in terms of interpretability. Relative size of the eigenvalues and factor interpretability were the basis for using a three-factor orthogonal solution which represented 51% of the variance. These three factors were used for scale construction. This procedure is consistent with prior work by Katerberg and Blau (1983), and it resulted in 21 items with adequate loadings (2 .30) (Nunnally, 1978) on one of three factors. The remaining items were eliminated due


to small or multiple loadings. Table 1 presents the three-factor orthogonal solution for the 21 managerial behavior items.

The first factor was interpreted as representing managerial behaviors outside a section or unit. The 10 items loading on this factor concern making pay recommendations, writing branch or division level reports, justifying branch or division level expenses, planning for future budgets, developing long-range objectives, etc. The second factor was interpreted as representing subordinate-related behaviors. The five items loading on this factor concern counseling, evaluating, and training subordinates. The third factor was interpreted as representing managerial behaviors within u section or unit. The six items in this factor concern scheduling work, administrative work, attending section meetings, etc. Items were summed to form the respective three scales.

Quality of superior-subordinate work relationship was measured by asking managers about their perceived work relationship with their sub-

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings of 21 Managerial Behavior Items

Factor

Item content 1 2 3

1. Review subordinate’s work 2. Write performance evaluations for subordinates 3. Develop/train subordinates 4. Counsel subordinates on work-related matters 5. Hire/recruit new employees 6. Get involved with labor relations issues (e.g.,

subordinate grievances) 7. Make merit pay recommendations 8. Keep detailed and accurate records 9. On the average, spend at least 2 h/day

completing routine paper work 10. Attend section meetings 11. Write branch or division level reports 12. Forecast volume of branch or division level work 13. Schedule work so it flows evenly 14. Approve the introduction of new services 15. Justify branch or division level expenditures 16. Trouble-shoot special problems as they arise 17. Sign financial documents obligating part of

the organization 18. Develop long-range objectives 19. Plan for future budgets 20. Engage in self-development activities 21. Get involved with AIMS (Automated

Income Maintenance System)

.17 .54 .lO

.08 .77 .17 - .Ol .76 .22 - .03 .8a .19

SO .28 .15

.21 .4a .16 Ai4 .04 - .02

- .03 .14 a

.02 .20 .47 .14 .22 Sl .SS - .02 .08

.54 .18 .28 .09 .24 .73 .56 - .08 .15 .75 - .lO .17 .31 .21 .20

.58 .ll .02 .68 .15 .14 .77 .17 - .Ol .15 .13 .53

.17 - .07 .45

Eigenvalues 4.73 4.03 1.95

232 GARY J. BLAU

ordinates. A five-item scale was used and the item content for the scale was partially based upon Graen’s leader-member exchange measure (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). Sample items include “how well do you feel your subordinates understand your job problems and concerns?” and “how effective is your working relationship with your subordinates?” A S-point response scale was used (1 = Not at all, 5 = Completely).

Supervisor performance rating, the dependent variable, was measured by checking the three most recent biannual performance ratings given to each subject by his or her supervisor. These performance ratings were gathered after the survey had been administered. These l-item measures were recorded on a S-point scale (1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Outstanding). Although such ratings can suffer from rater errors, such as leniency, the records gathered indicate that the full range of ratings were used. Each performance rating was subsequently used as a separate item so that an overall 3-item performance rating scale could be created by summing items, and an internal reliability coefficient calculated. The average in- tercorrelation among the three items was 60. Subject social security numbers were used to retrieve this performance data from personnel office records.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates for multi-item measures are shown in Table 2. Gf particular interest are the results concerning the three “direction of behavior” scales; managerial behaviors-outside section, subordinate-related behaviors, and managerial behaviors-within section. The results in Table 2 indicate that these scales possess adequate internal consistencies and are fairly independent from one another. As can be seen in Table 2, neither effort level nor the three direction-of-behavior scales significantly predicted rated performance. The demographic characteristics of sex and job tenure are included in the correlation matrix because they were the only demographic characteristics significantly related to major study variables.

The first hypothesis stated that management level will have a significant positive relationship to effort level. The strength and direction of the correlation in Table 2 provides support for this hypothesis. Higher level managers tend to spend more hours on their jobs than lower level managers. This result is consistent with prior work (Hughes & Singler, 1985; Strong, 1956).

The second hypothesis stated that management level will significantly influence direction of effort, such that lower level managers will focus on different job behaviors than upper level managers. Inspection of Table 2 provides basic support for this hypothesis. Management level was found to be significantly positively related to the managerial behaviors outside a section scale, and significantly negatively related to the managerial

TABL

E 2

Desc

riptiv

e St

atis

tics,

Re

liabi

lities

, an

d In

terc

orre

latio

ns

amon

g St

udy

Varia

bles

Varia

ble

5 SD

s

JT

S-SW

R M

L EL

M

B-OS

M

B-SR

M

B-

WS

SPR

5 s 1.

Sex

1.

7 0.

5 W

A)

Ls

2. J

ob T

enur

e 2.

6 1.

6 .3

0**

WA)

sz

3.

Sup

erior

-Sub

ordin

ate

2 W

ork

Rela

tions

hip

17.1

2.

9 .1

7*

0.05

(.7

8)

4. M

anag

emen

t Le

vel

1.4

0.9

.27*

* 0.

09

.17*

W

A)

E 5.

Effo

rt Le

vel

2.9

0.9

.20*

-

.07

- .0

3 .2

6**

U’W

6.

Man

ager

ial

Beha

vior-

is r O

utsid

e Se

ctio

n 20

.0

8.3

.OS

.lS

.23*

.3

9**

.24*

* (.8

4)

7. M

anag

erial

Be

havio

r- $

Subo

rdina

te

Rela

ted

17.9

4.

3 -.1

6 .0

8 -.0

5 -

.03

.09

.12

(31)

8.

Man

ager

ial

Beha

vior-

z

With

in

Sect

ion

16.8

5.

0 -

.10

- .1

4 -

.09

- .1

9’

.05

.20*

.3

7**

(.75)

E

9. S

uper

visor

$2

Pe

rform

ance

Ra

ting

9.1

2.0

.08

.19*

.1

8*

.15

.14

.06

.12

.ll (.7

7)

F

Note

. N

= 10

0.

a In

tern

al

cons

iste

ncy

estim

ates

(C

ronb

ach’

s (Y

); NA

=

not

appl

icabl

e du

e to

one

ite

m m

easu

re

* P

< .0

5.

** P

<

.ot.

234 GARY J. BLAU

behaviors within a section scale. Thus, upper level managers spend a significantly greater part of their jobs focusing on managerial behaviors outside a section than lower level managers, while lower level managers spend a significantly greater part of their jobs focusing on managerial behaviors within a section than upper level managers. These significant differences found between specific manageriai behavior scales for lower level versus upper level managers are consistent with previous research (Mahoney et al., 1965; Pavett & Lau, 1982), which showed differences in general managerial roles across management levels.

The third hypothesis stated that management level will influence the relationship between direction of effort and performance, such that when different level managers focus on their appropriate job behaviors, their performance will improve. In order to test for the moderating influence of management level on the relationship between the three direction of effort scales and performance, hierarchical regression analysis was used (Nie, Hull, Jenkins Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. As can be seen in Table 3, prior to working with the main effects of management level and a particular direction of effort scale, the infhtence of sex, job tenure, superior- subordinate work relationship, and effort level was controlled for, since these variables were significantly related to either direction of effort, management level, or performance. After accounting for sex, job tenure, superior-subordinate work relationship, and effort level, plus the main effect variables, the management level x direction of effort scale interaction

TABLE 3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Predicting Managerial Performance

Predictor Set

1. S,JT,S-SWR,EL 2. ML,MB-OSb 3. INT’

1. S,JT,S-SWR,EL 2. ML,MB-SR” 3. INT

1. S,JT,S-SWR,EL 2. ML,MB-WSb 3. INT

F Significance R

2.82 ,029 .33 0.97 ,411 .36 2.43 .O% .41

2.82 .029 .33 1.51 .276 .38 3.17 .042 .44

2.82 ,029 .33 1.26 .324 .37 0.61 s47 .39

RZ AR2

.I1

.13 .02

.17 .04

.ll

.14 .03

.19 .05

.ll

.14 .03

.I5 .Ol

Note. N = 100. a S=Sex; JT= Job Tenure; S-SWR = Superior-Subordinate Work Relationship;

EL = Effort Level. b ML = Management Level; MB-OS = Managerial Behavior-Outside Section; MB-

SR = Managerial Behavior-Subordinate Related; MB-WS = Managerial Behavior-Within Section.

’ INT= Interaction term multiplicatively combining preceding second set predictors.


term was included to see if additional significant performance variance could be predicted. The N/K (subjects/independent variable) ratio for these hierarchical regression equations was 14: 1. Herzberg (1969) found that there is minimal shrinkage in R2 as long as the N/K ratio approximates 15 : 1.

The results in Table 3 show that one interaction term, management level x managerial behavior-subordinate-related, was significant at p < .05. The management level x managerial behavior-outside section and management level x managerial behavior-within-section interaction terms were nonsignificant. To check the directionality of the significant interaction, subgroups were formed by management level. Two different management levels are distinguished, lower level (N = 74) and middle/upper level (N = 26). The middle and upper management levels were combined to create a more testable subsample size. Conversations with personnel office administrators indicated that many of the job responsibilities of middle and upper management were similar. Fisher’s r to z transformation (McNemar, 1969) was used to test for subgroup correlation differences. The relationship between subordinate-related managerial behaviors and performance was significantly (p < .05) stronger for middel/upper level managers (r = .37) versus lower level managers (r = - .Ol). Examination of the relationship between outside section managerial behaviors and performance indicated no significant differences for middle/upper level managers (r = .18) versus lower level managers (r = - .07), but closer inspection of this relationship indicated that there was a restriction of range on the outside section managerial behavior scale for middle/upper level managers. Applying the formula (McNemar, 1969) to correct for range restriction (after checking for a linear relationship and homosce- dasticity) increased the correlation between outside section managerial behaviors and performance from .18 to .31 for middle/upper level managers. Although there is a significant difference 0, < .05) between correlations of .31 and - .07, one should be cautious in inferring this difference, since one of the correlation coefficients was “artificially” corrected.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results of this study further demonstrate the need to dis- tinguish direction of behavior from effort level of behavior when operationalizing motivation (Katerberg & Blau, 1983; Naylor et al., 1980; Staw, 1984; Terborg, 1977). It is necessary to note, however, that directional choices may be more important in some jobs than in others. Technological constraints may remove the flexibility available in some jobs (e.g., computer programming) such that individual resource allocation decisions are pre- determined. Routinized operations in assembly or manufacturing may preclude directional choices in behavior. In many jobs, however, a large amount of autonomy and flexibility is given to the worker in terms of

236 GARY J. BLAU

time usage, task focus, work procedures, etc. In these kinds of job situations, the directional component of behavior becomes more important. Individuals in managerial positions, sales-related positions, and many professions are likely to frequently find themselves making decisions about the direction of their behaviors. Subsequent job performance for such individuals is likely to be affected by the direction of behavior chosen, rather than simply the level of effort expended.

In terms of the specific results found, middle/upper level managers put in more hours per week than lower level managers, and middle/upper level managers focus on different job behaviors than lower level managers. In addition, direction of effort seems to have implications for performance. The results suggest that more successful middle/upper level managers invest more of their effort on subordinate-related behaviors. The immediate subordinates of middle/upper level managers are lower level managers. These lower level managers spend a significantly greater part of their time on within-section or within-unit behaviors than middle/upper level managers. However, middle/upper level managers may focus some of their time on training, evaluating, and counseling their subordinates, so that these lower level managers can handle the within-section managerial behaviors. Post-study discussions with personnel officials indicated that as a rule middle/upper level managers have previously served as lower level managers, so the middle/upper level managers have the needed background expertise to train the lower level managers. This focus on subordinate-related behaviors allows middle/upper level managers to delegate certain tasks to their subordinates. Having delegated such tasks, this allows middle/upper level managers more time to focus on managerial behaviors outside of a section. Cumulatively, these results in general seem to suggest that investing time in training one’s subordinates so that they can handle certain tasks can allow a supervisor to spend time on tasks more pertinent to the supervisor’s job and also enhance his or her performance.

However, middle/upper level managers may not be able to delegate tasks to just any lower level manager under them. The quality of superior- subordinate work relationship between each upper level manager and his/her lower level managers may be important to consider. Leadership research by Graen and his associates (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980), using lower level and upper level managers, shows that when superiors report a higher quality (leadership) exchange with certain subordinates, they are able to delegate more tasks to, and expect more from, such subordinates. However, the exchange is two-way in that these selected subordinates also expect more from their superior in terms of job latitude and decision-making influence. From a career-oriented perspective, task delegation can be important to both superiors and their subordinates. One suggestion by Webber (1976) to enhance career ad-


vancement in higher managerial ranks is to train a subordinate to take over certain responsibilities so that one can have more time to initiate ideas and create opportunities. Van Maanen and Schein (1977) have noted that certain employees often orient themselves toward their jobs so as to increase the likelihood of career advancement. For example, certain police patrolmen set goals of gaining promotions and attaining a high rank in the police service. Van Maanen and Schein (1977) found that these individuals focused on certain behaviors, including attending college during off-duty hours, studying conscientiously for promotion exams, and actively seeking additional responsibilities from their superior. By choosing certain behaviors to focus on, this also points out the importance of direction of behavior for influencing subsequent performance.

Despite the study’s encouraging results, these findings should be regarded as tentative. The generalizability of the results are constrained by the nature of the managerial sample (predominantly male, lower level, highly educated), as well as the specific organizational context (government agency). In addition, the direction and effort level variables are self- reported, and the performance measure is unidimensional. Certainly additional research is called for using other samples and measures in different organizational contexts. In conclusion, increased understanding of specific behaviors that lead to successful job performance is important to both the organization and individual, if productivity is to improve. As noted by various researchers (e.g., Naylor et al., 1980; Terborg, 1977), more attention needs to be given to operationalizing behaviors which represent motivational choices that relate to performance. Once such behaviors can be found and measured, training programs can be developed within organizations to help employees utilize such behaviors. This training should increase the probability of such employees becoming more effective performers for the organization.

REFERENCES Brief, A., & Aldag, R. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology,

61, 468-472. Campbell, J., & Pritchard, R. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cummings, L., & Schwab, D. (1973). Performance in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Dalton, G., Thompson, P., & Price, R. (1977). The four stages of professional careers- A new look at performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, 6, 19-42.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 433- 454.

Gavin, J. (1970). Ability, effort, and role perceptions as antecedents of job performance. Experimental Publication System, 5, Manuscript No. 190A.

238 GARY J. BLAU

Greene, C. (1972). Relationships among role accuracy, compliance, and performance eval- uation and satisfaction within managerial dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 205-215.

Hall, D. (1971). A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 50-76.

Hall, D. (1976). Careers in organizations. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D., & Nougaim, K. (1968). An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an or-

ganizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 12-35. Herzberg, P. (1969). The parameters of cross validation. Psychometrika, Monograph Suppl.

No. 16. Hughes, G., & Singler, C. (1985). Strategic sales management. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley. Katerberg, R., & Blau, G. (1983). An examination of level and direction of effort and job

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 249-257. Liden, R., & Graen, G. (1980). Generahzability of the vertical dyad linkage model of

leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. Lyons, T. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension and withdrawal.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99-l 10. Mahoney, T., Jerdee, T., & Carroll, S. (1965). The job(s) of management. Industrial

Relations, 4, 97-l 10. McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley. Mintzberg, H. (1980). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall. Naylor, J., Pritchard, R., & Ilgen, D. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New

York: Academic Press. Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. (1975). SPSS: Statistical

package for the social sciences. McGraw-Hill: New York. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Pavett, C., & Lau, A. (1982). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and

functional speciality. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 170-177. Porter, J., & Lawler, E. (1%8). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL:

Irwin-Dorsey. Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Sims, H., & Szilagyi, A. (1975). Leader structure and subordinate satisfaction for two

hospital administrative levels: A path analysis approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 194-197.

Staw, B. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome variables. M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 627-666). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Strong, L. (1956). Gf time and top management. The Management Review, 45, 486-493. Terborg, J. (1976). The motivational components of goal-setting. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 61, 613-621. Terborg, J. (1977). Validation and extension of an individual differences model of work

performance. Organizational Behavioral and Human Performance, 18, 188-216. Terborg, J., & Miier, H. (1978). Motivation, behavior, and performance: A closer examination

of goal-setting and monetary incentives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 29-39. Tomow, W., & Pinto, P. (1976). The development of a managerial job taxonomy: A system

for describing, classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 410-418.

Tosi, H. (1971). Organizational stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role response. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 7-20.


Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. (1977). Career development. In J. Hackman & J. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A., & Schuler, R. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43-71.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Webber, R. (1976). Career problems of young managers. California Management Review,

18, 19-33.

Received: April 22, 1986.

the relationship of management level to effort level, direction of effort, and managerial...

Documents