Page 109 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

88 work design and individual work performance
METHODOLOGICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Work design research has often been criticized on methodological grounds (e.g., Parker
& Wall, 1998). Some key issues include the use of perceptual measures of work char-
acteristics rather than objective measures, and the prevalence of problematic research
designs (e.g., laboratory studies using students, cross-sectional field studies). These crit-
icisms also apply to this more specific topic of work design and individual performance,
although we pointed to some studies that have moved the area forward through their
rigorous designs and their use of organizational samples, such as the longitudinal study
by Griffin (1991) and the studies in the last decade by Wall and colleagues in Sheffield.
Ideally, of course, we need not just longitudinal designs, but designs that allow assess-
ment of long-term, as well as short-term, effects of work design on performance. Some
of the more learning-based and developmental changes we proposed are only likely to
occur in the long term, and thus might be invisible to cross-sectional studies.
A notorious difficulty for this research is the assessment of performance. One approach
is to use supervisor or peer ratings of employees’ behaviours (e.g., Griffin, 1991) or
gather performance appraisal data. However, although better than self-ratings, biases
can occur in these ratings, such as observational biases that arise because supervisors
cannot observe the individual at all times, or actor–observer biases such as when ac-
tors attribute good performance to their own behaviour and observers attribute good
performance to external factors. Another issue is that expectations for performance can
increase over time, making it difficult to establish whether changes in actual behaviour
have occurred. Using more objective indicators of performance (e.g., amount produced,
machine utilization, customer satisfaction) overcomes some of the problems associated
with performance ratings, especially in combination with rigorous research designs.
Nevertheless, measures of objective job performance are typically influenced by more
than individual performance, and many of these factors are beyond the control of the
employee (e.g., quality of raw materials, timeliness of supplies, technology). In addition,
these measures are often rather narrow and short term, reflecting the status quo rather
than performance requirements for the future.
It is clear there is no one best measure of individual job performance, which highlights
the value of obtaining multiple sources of data (e.g., appraisals, objective performance
data, archival safety data) and attempting to triangulate the findings. Developments
in other fields, such as new methods of assessing customer satisfaction (e.g., the use
of mystery shoppers) could usefully be exploited. Likewise, developments in statistical
techniques (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling procedures) allow the teasing out of effects
at different levels—individual, group, and organizational—which will help researchers
to disaggregate the effects of work design on individual work performance from broader
consequences. This endeavor will also be helped by the increasing use of information
technologiestocollectinformationonemployees’workperformance(e.g.,Horton,Buck,
Waterson, & Clegg, 2000).
A final methodological point concerns the independent variable; that is, when evalu-
ating work redesigns, it is often hard to isolate the effects of a change in job content from
other changes implemented simultaneously (e.g., improved communication, changed
reward systems, increased training). Even with the Sheffield field studies, which are rig-
orousinmanyotherrespects,wecannotbesurethatthepositiveperformanceeffectsarose
solely because of changes in job content. In all likelihood, as we have proposed, work