Page 104 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

developing the research agenda and a proposed model 83
executing the task, and environmental uncertainty, or the extent to which the environ-
ment is unpredictable and dynamic. Others have also identified the importance of the
degree of uncertainty (also referred to as ‘operational uncertainty’ and ‘process uncer-
tainty’) in the work environment in shaping work design decisions (e.g., Wall & Jackson,
1995; Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, in press.) The idea is that, the greater the degree of uncer-
tainty, the more important an enriched work design. A highly uncertain situation means
there are many decisions to be made and many information-processing requirements,
hence control cannot be achieved through direct supervision or the routinization of rules
and procedures (Ouchi, 1977). In these cases, it is argued that decision-making rights
should be devolved to the lowest level possible. These work design-related arguments
parallel those introduced in the organizational theory literature over 40 years ago. Burns
and Stalker (1961) observed that mechanistic structures worked best in stable and pre-
dictable situations, whereas organic structures with decentralized decision making were
most suited to uncertain and dynamic environments.
The implication from the above is that job redesign involving enhanced autonomy is
most likely to lead to performance gains where uncertainty is high. The study by Wall
et al. (1990), described earlier, provided some support for this suggestion. In addition
to showing a linking between increased operator job autonomy and performance, they
found that the gains were greatest for highly uncertain machines that were used to insert
more delicate components. There was little gain in performance for low production un-
certainty machines. A study in a quite different context (i.e., autonomous group working
within water treatment plants), showed the same pattern of most performance improve-
ment in areas with high production uncertainty (Cordery, Wright, Morrison, & Wall,
in press).
One explanation for these findings is that it is in uncertain contexts where the proposed
knowledge-based mechanism underpinning the link between work design and perfor-
mance applies (Wall & Jackson, 1995; Parker & Wall, 1998). When uncertainty is low,
this essentially means that problems are relatively predictable and the ‘one best way’
of solving them can be identified and specified. However, in highly uncertain settings,
problems are less predictable and it is not necessarily clear how to solve them. In other
words, there are higher information-processing requirements. In such a situation, au-
tonomy will allow employees to use existing knowledge and acquire new knowledge.
This same argument can also be applied to some of the other proposed mechanisms. For
example, it is in highly uncertain situations that employee proactivity and cognitive com-
plexity is most likely to be critical for individuals’ effective performance (Parker, 2000).
Nevertheless, although contextual performance might be more important under complex
and uncertain condition, situational constraints such as tight deadlines or safety-critical
situations might force employees to focus on task-related behaviours instead (Griffin,
Neal, & Neale, 2000).
One proviso that does not appear among existing evidence about work design, un-
certainty, and performance is consideration of the relative maturity of the work design
structure. It is conceivable that the performance of employees involved in less well-
developed work design initiatives might suffer under conditions of high uncertainty,
especially if employees are not given adequate support. Employees who are only just
adapting to increases in autonomy might benefit from more stable technological condi-
tions under which to develop on-the-job knowledge, participate in formal training, and
gain confidence in their expanded core tasks. In high variance conditions, if employees