Page 218 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

202 the high performance cycle: standing the test of time
INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we discuss evidence regarding the validity of the high performance cycle
(HPC) initially presented by Locke and Latham (1990a, b). Specifically, we focus on the
historical background of issues that the HPC addresses, namely the relationships among
motivation, job satisfaction and performance. The remainder of the chapter addresses
the research published between 1990 and 2000 to determine the extent to which the HPC
has withstood the test of time.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Two primary variables of interest to industrial/organizational psychologists throughout
the twentieth century were job performance and job satisfaction. For the first half of that
century, job satisfaction was investigated in the belief that it was the causal variable; it was
the antecedent of job performance. The implicit, if not explicit, hypothesis of the human
relations school was that happy employees are productive employees (Roethlisberger,
1941).
In the middle of the twentieth century, an enumerative review of the literature cast
doubt on that hypothesis. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) found little empirical support for
a causal relationship between satisfaction and performance. Rather, there was suggestive
evidence for a causal arrow in the opposite direction. It appeared that job performance
might lead to job satisfaction, rather than the other way around. People derive enjoyment
from that which they do well and the inherent rewards that result. Perhaps the key to job
satisfaction was to focus on ways to increase job performance.
To further confuse matters, in this same time period Herzberg et al. (1959) argued
that job performance was defined too narrowly. When the definition of performance was
broadened to include variables such as voluntary employee turnover and absenteeism,
Herzberg stated that there was indeed evidence that by increasing job satisfaction, job
performance was increased.
Herzberg’s conclusions were based on his use of the critical incident technique (CIT)
developed by his graduate school mentor, John Flanagan. Herzberg’s data showed that
the opposite of high job satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather no satisfaction;
conversely, the opposite of high job dissatisfaction is not satisfaction but no dissatisfac-
tion. Hence he labeled his findings the two-factor theory. The CIT (Flanagan, 1954), as
Herzberg used it, showed that the causes of job dissatisfaction were hygiene or job con-
text variables, namely, the organization’s policies, benefits, physical working conditions,
equipment, pay, pension, etc. Hygiene variables, he argued, had little or no bearing on
performance. Satisfaction with job content variables, he believed, did increase employee
performance. His findings revealed that such variables as recognition, task variety, feed-
back, autonomy, and opportunities for advancement enriched the job and hence increased
job performance. His 1968 article, “One more time, how do you motivate employees?”
remains to this day among the most requested articles published in the Harvard Business
Review.
Nevertheless,therewasacriticalflawinHerzberg’stwo-factortheory,morecommonly
referred to as job enrichment. It was the methodology on which it was based, namely,
the CIT that Flanagan had developed for conducting a job analysis.