Comparative Effects of Personal and Situational ... - CiteSeerX

Journal of Applied Psychology 1987, Vol. 72. No. 4, 558-565

Copyrighl 1987 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 002I-9010/87/S00.75

Comparative Effects of Personal and Situational Influences on Job Outcomes of New Professionals Roger A. Dean

Stephen M. Colarelli Central Michigan University

School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics Washington and Lee University

Constantine Konstans Fogelman College of Business and Economics, Memphis State University

We investigated the relative and combined effects of personal and situational variables on job outcomes of new professionals. The personal variables were cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and career goals; the situational variables were job feedback, autonomy, and job context. Data were collected at two times from 280 newly hired, entry-level accountants at "Big Eight" firms. Both personal and situational variables predict job outcomes, but their relative influence depends on the outcome measure. Situational variables account for the most variance in job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; personal variables account for the most variance in promotability, internal work motivation, and turnover. The findings indicate that job performance does not take care of itself by selecting bright people, but requires constant vigilance and effective systems. The results also suggest that a given result can be achieved through a variety of behavioral science interventions.

Many strategies exist for improving worker productivity and satisfaction. Yet most research focuses on the effectiveness of one strategy at a time. Research on a single approach is impor-

different interventions might be substituted to achieve a given outcome. For example, Allison (1977) found that the same degree of academic achievement in an introductory economics

tant because it adds to the understanding of a strategy's particu-

class could be predicted either by selecting students with 200

lar dynamics and outcomes, but organizations must address a variety of concerns simultaneously. All organizations must set

more points on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or by substituting the best teachers for the worst teachers.

goals, design jobs, select and train employees, and evaluate performance. Curiously, there is little research that examines the effects of multiple approaches to improving job outcomes. Two recent reviews (Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell, 1985; Locke, Feren,

Personal Factors According to some researchers, variables reflecting characteristics of people are crucial for maximizing job performance.

McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980) examined the comparative

Schmidt, Hunter, and Pearlman (1982), for example, suggested

effects of behavioral science interventions across a number of

that the probabilities for successful performance are improved when selection and stalling are given priority. Literally hun-

studies. Although these reviews illustrate the effectiveness of specific strategies, little could be said about the effects of multi-

dreds of measures of personal characteristics exist that can be

ple strategies because most studies examined single interventions (Guzzo et al. 1985, p. 287).

used to select employees. However, several are consistently related to differences in occupational achievement. These are cog-

The purpose of this research is to examine the relative and

nitive ability, socioeconomic status (SES), and level of aspira-

combined influence of personal and situational variables on job outcomes. Our focus on personal and situational variables is

tion (career goals).

important for two reasons. First, it furthers our understanding of the comparative influence of personal and situational charac-

Cognitive Ability

teristics on job outcomes. Second, it focuses attention on how

For years some psychologists have argued that cognitive ability is a critical variable in predicting job and occupational success (Hale, 1982). It is suggested that information-processing and problem-solving skills are important influences on job per-

A previous version of this article was presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1986. The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions of Terry Beehr, Richard Guzzo, Dan King, Neal Schmitt, Ben Schneider, and John Wanous on earlier versions of this article. The helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers are also appreciated. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephen M. Colarelli, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 488S9.

formance (Schmidt, Hunter, & Pearlman, 1981). Recently, Hunter (1986) argued that cognitive ability affects the acquisition of job knowledge, which in turn influences job performance. A number of industrial psychologists now maintain that cognitive ability tests used for personnel selection could produce huge labor cost savings—as much as "$ 16 billion per year for large employers such as the federal government" (Schmidt & Hunter, 1981, p. 1128).

558

559

PERSONAL AND SITUAT1ONAL INFLUENCES

Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic status and similar background measures are strong predictors of success across a variety of occupations (Jencks, 1979) as well as success within occupations. For example, studies by Dreher, Dougherty, and Whitely (1985) and Pfeffer (1977) suggested that SES is related to managerial success. Family background may be important for career success for several reasons. The role models that parents provide to their offspring have implications for occupational success. Parents of middle and upper SES background may teach the speech and behavior patterns that facilitate career success. They may also inculcate work values respected by employers. And children from more affluent families may have access to experiences that develop effective work habits.

Career Goals

both performance and motivation (Latham & Wexley, 1981). There are several reasons why feedback is important to job performance. Feedback informs individuals about the effectiveness of their performance. It serves a corrective function—showing where and how much improvement is needed. And job feedback also provides goals toward which an individual may strive. In fact, Hogarth (1981) argued that giving periodic feedback during task activities may be a more effective method of assuring adequate performance than estimating the probability of success prior to the beginning of a task. All employees should receive timely feedback. But it is particularly important for new employees because they have had less opportunity to learn whether their performance is on target (Beehr & Love, 1983).

Job Context Job context includes the broad organizational characteristics

The influence of specific and challenging goals on task performance is well documented (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). One would expect, therefore, that an individual with a goal to reach specific career objectives would be more likely to achieve that objective than an employee without such a goal. A long-range goal should foster directed effort over time, strategy development, and receptivity to performance feedback.

Situational Strategies Others argue that performance (and job attitudes) are more influenced by what happens to people after they are hired. Individual performance is more a function of system qualities and management practices than personal attributes. For example,

in which a job occurs. Although there are a number of factors that may be included under the rubric of job context, the context factors considered here are satisfaction with supervision, coworkers, job security, and compensation. People are unlikely to perform well if they are dissatisfied with the immediate work environment. People who experience a dissatisfying work environment become distracted from their work and focus their energy on coping with unpleasant conditions rather than accomplishing work goals (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976). In sum, this study is concerned with the combined and relative effects of personal and situational variables on the job outcomes of new professionals. The personal variables are cognitive ability, SES, and career goals; the situational variables are job feedback, autonomy, and satisfaction with job context.

Roberts, Hulin, and Rousseau (1978, p. 123) argued that the evidence in organizational research suggests that situational characteristics account for a greater portion of responses by people than do personal characteristics. This study examined the influences of three situational factors: autonomy, feedback,

Method Subjects

Rhode, 1971). Autonomy is related to professional productivity for at least three reasons. First, autonomy of workers is congru-

This study uses data from a larger longitudinal study of newly hired, entry-level accountants. Data were collected from 468 subjects on their first day of work at 11 "Big Eight" accounting firm offices. Each of the Big Eight firms was represented. After one year on the job, subjects and their supervisors were surveyed. Questionnaires were received from 280 subjects (60% response), and information on 395 subjects (84%) was received from supervisors. The analysis sample consisted of 280 subjects (60% of the sample surveyed on their first day at work). The mean age of subjects was 23 years; 61% were men. All offices were located in the southwest United Slates.

ent with the open-systems principle oteguifinality—that a system can reach the same end state from varying initial conditions

Procedure

and satisfaction with job context

Autonomy Autonomy correlates with both performance and satisfaction of professionals (Pelz& Andrews, 1976). It is also a salient concern in the early stages of a professional's career (DeCoster &

and by a variety of paths. Autonomy allows fuller use of an individual's talents and ingenuity than close supervision and high formalization. Another reason why autonomy relates positively to productivity is that it increases a sense of personal responsibility for getting a job done (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, pp. 79-80). Finally, the absence of autonomy is related to work stress (Hall & Savery, 1986). Close supervision and lack of autonomy create excessive stress that could hinder performance.

Feedback Feedback is information on how well one is meeting goals. When it is understood, accepted, and acted upon, it enhances

During an orientation session, subjects were administered a questionnaire by one of the researchers. The questionnaire included items relating to subjects' background, education, and SES. Immediately following, aptitude tests were administered under standardized conditions. After one year, a second questionnaire was mailed to the subjects at work. This questionnaire included items about the work environment and measures of job attitudes (these are described in detail later). Subjects were requested to mail their completed questionnaires to a university address, and were assured that individual responses would be anonymous and confidential. At the same time, a performance measurement questionnaire and cover letter were mailed to each subject's supervisor. It requested first-year performance ratings (as per personnel file), and asked additional questions on performance, promotability, and turn-

560

S. COLARELLI, R, DEAN, AND C, KONSTANS

over. Again, anonymity and confidentiality were assured, and supervisors were asked to mail their completed questionnaires to a university address.

Table 1 Means and Measures of Dispersion

M

Variable

Measures Cognitive ability. The verbal and reasoning scales of the Ball Aptitude Battery (Layton, 1985) were used to measure cognitive ability. Alternate form reliability for the verbal scale is .98, and test-retest reliability for the reasoning scale is .71. The verbal and reasoning scales were modestly correlated (r = .25, p< .01), and were combined into a composite scale. Mean scores on the composite scale could range from 0 to 55. Undergraduate grade point average (GPA) was also used as a measure of ability. This was considered important because recruiters often use it as an index of ability. This is not totally unfounded; traditional cognitive ability tests do correlate with college grades—although more strongly with freshmen- than senior-year GPAs (Humphreys, 1968)—and have been found to relate to specific areas of job performance (Howard 1986). Grade point average was obtained by self-report on the questionnaire administered to subjects during their first day at work. Self-reports of verifiable biographical data are generally accurate (Cascio, 1975). Scores ranged from 0 to 4. SES. A measure of socioeconomic status, adapted from Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), was included on the first questionnaire. It was composed of items measuring the occupational and educational status of the subject's father and mother. Occupational status was anchored from I (executives and proprietors of large concerns and major professionals) to 7 (unskilled workers); educational status was anchored from I (graduate training) to 7 (less than 7 years of school). Responses were reverse coded so that higher scores would reflect higher SES. Scores could range from 14 (lowest SES level) to 98 (highest SES level). The highest parental SES score was used to index subjects' SES level. The coefficient alpha for the father's SES scale was .87; and for the mother's SES scale, it was .85. Career goals. Career goals were measured on the first and second questionnaires. Subjects were asked to check one statement from a list of 11 alternatives that best reflected their long-term career objective. Responses were recoded so that 2 equaled the career goal of becoming a partner in a public accounting firm and all other goals equaled 1. Career goals were dichotomized in this fashion because achieving partnership status is the top of the career ladder in public accounting firms. It is a difficult goal that only a small percentage of employees achieve. Autonomy, feedback, and satisfaction with job context. Autonomy, feedback, and satisfaction with job context were measured with scales from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Autonomy was measured with the respective scale on the JDS (a = .74). Feedback was measured by combining the scales measuring feedback from agents (a = .82), feedback from the job itself (a = .76), and knowledge of results (a = .82). Satisfaction with job context was indexed by combining the JDS context scales of satisfaction with supervision, coworkers, security, and pay (a = .77, .56, .85, and .85, respectively). These scales were anchored from 1 to 7. Dependent measures. Job performance was measured by a composite of subjects* annual performance rating and the two following questions: "Would you rehire this person to work for you if he or she were to quit?" (anchored from 1, definitely not, to 5, definitely yes), and "In general, how easy would it be to find someone who would do as good a job as this person is doing?" (anchored from 1, very easy, to 5, very difficult). The coefficient alpha for the three items was .82. Promotability was measured by a single item: "How promotable is this person?" anchored from 1 (definitely not promotable) to 5 (has recently been promoted). General satisfaction (a = .77) and internal work motivation (a = .67) were measured from the respective scales on the JDS. Organizational commitment (« m .88) was measured by Porter, Steers, Mow-

Personal Cognitive ability Undergraduate GPA Socioeconomic status Partnership goal First day Year one Situational Autonomy Feedback Job context Dependent Performance Promotability Job satisfaction Internal work motivation Organizational commitment Turnover

SD

42.50 3.46 80.14

229 279 263

6.50 0.34 15.77

.15 .10 .20

1.62 1.17

274 280

0.49 0.38

.30 .32

4.57 5.00 5.10

280 280 279

1.06 0.87 0.77

.23 .17 .15

3.94 4.24 4.26 5.72 5.03 1.03

246 246 280 280 280 232

0.83 0.71 1.09 0.61 0.87 0.16

.21 .17 .26 .11 .17 .16

Note. V = coefficient of variation; GPA = grade point average.

day, and Boulian's (1974) scale, anchored from 1 to 7. Turnover was assessed by an item on the performance questionnaire sent to supervisors. Supervisors were asked to indicate whether an individual terminated employment with the firm.

Results Means and Standard Deviations Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation (V). The results show that, as expected, the subjects" average cognitive ability is high, as is their GPA. The average SES of the subjects is also high. The career goal of a majority of the accountants on their first day at work was to become a partner (62%); after one year, the number of subjects who still had this career goal was much lower (17%). The average scores of the situational variables fell above the midpoint. The smallest V coefficients among the personal characteristics were cognitive ability scores (. 15) and GPA (. 10); and the largest variation occurred in year-one partnership goals (.32). The V scores on situational variables ranged from. 15 on the job context scale to .23 on the autonomy scale. A V score represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean (Cohen & Cohen, 1975), which provides a common metric for standard deviations. This is useful for comparing the relative sizes of standard deviations based on different raw scores.

Correlations A correlation matrix of the personal, situational, and dependent variables is presented in Table 2. Correlations in the triangles are correlations within each set of variables. Others are correlations between sets of variables. Within-set correlations. Most of the personal variables are not intercorrelated, except for moderate correlations between cognitive ability and GPA (r - .25, p < .01) and between firstday and year-one partnership goals (r = .29, p < .01). All of the

561

PERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES

situational variables are significantly intercorrelated. Among the dependent variables, performance is moderately correlated with promotability (r = .39, p < .01), and slightly correlated with satisfaction (r = . 1 8, / > < .0 1 ) and organizational commitment (r = . 14, p < .05). All affective measures are significantly intercorrelated. The high correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (r = .12, p < .01) may be because of a close relation between a professional's place of employment and a professional's career development. How one feels about one's organization may influence how one feels about one's job. Turnover is negatively related to organizational commitment (r = -. 14, p< .05). Between-set correlations.

Among the personal and situa-

tional variables there were significant correlations between year-one partnership goals and autonomy (r = . 1 3, p < .05), feedback (r = .17, p < .01), and job context (r = . 1 8, p < .01). College GPA was the only personal variable that correlated I &, oo