Page 34 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

12 performance concepts and performance theory
(for an alternative interpretation, cf. Wall & Jackson, 1995). Meta-analytic findings sug-
gest that there is a small, but positive relationship between job characteristics and job
performance (Fried, 1991; Fried & Ferris, 1987). Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell (1985) also
reported positive effects of work redesign interventions on performance. The cross-
sectional nature of many studies does not allow for a causal interpretation. For example,
it might be that individuals who show high performance get the better jobs. However,
intervention studies showed that job design suggested by a job characteristics model has
a positive effect on performance (Griffin, 1991; Wall & Clegg, 1981).
Sociotechnical systems theory (Trist & Bamforth, 1951) also falls in this first category
of job design approaches which specify workplace factors that enhance performance.
Basically, sociotechnical systems theory describes work systems as composed of social
and technical subsystems and suggests that performance improvement can only follow
from the joint optimization of both subsystems. In more detail, sociotechnical systems
theory suggests a number of job design principles such as the compatibility between the
design process and its objectives, a minimal specification of tasks, methods, and task
allocations, and the control of problems and unforeseen events as near as to their origins
as possible (for a fuller description cf. Cherns, 1976; Clegg, 2000).
As Parker and Turner (this volume) pointed out, sociotechnical systems theory is more
concerned with group performance than with individual performance. However, one can
assume that work situations designed on the basis of this approach have also positive
effects on individual performance.
Approaches in the second category focus on factors that have a detrimental effect on
performance. Within role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), role
ambiguity and role conflict are conceptualized as stressors that impede performance.
However, empirical support for the assumed negative effects of role ambiguity and
role conflict is weak (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). In a recent meta-analysis Tubbs and
Collins (2000) found a negative relationship between role ambiguity and performance
in professional, technical, and managerial jobs. Additionally, they found a negative
relationship between role ambiguity and self-ratings of performance. However, the 90%
credibility interval of all other effect sizes included zero. Similarly, neither Jackson and
Schuler (1985) nor Tubbs and Collins (2000) found a significant relationship between
role conflict and job performance.
Situational constraints include stressors such as lack of necessary information, prob-
lems with machines and supplies as well as stressors within the work environment. Sit-
uational constraints are assumed to impair job performance directly. For example, when
a machine breaks down one cannot continue to accomplish the task and therefore per-
formance will suffer immediately. Moreover, situational constraints, as other stressors,
can have an indirect effect on performance by requiring additional regulation capacity
(Greiner & Leitner, 1989). Additional regulation capacity over and above the one needed
for accomplishing the task is required for dealing with the constraints. Because human
regulatory capacity is limited, less capacity is available for accomplishing the task and,
as a consequence, performance decreases. However, empirical support for the assumed
detrimental effect of situational constraints and other stressors on performance is mixed
(Jex, 1998). Recently, Fay and Sonnentag (2002) have shown that stressors can even
have a positive effect on personal initiative, i.e., one aspect of contextual performance.
These findings suggest that within a situational perspective, the performance-
enhancing factors (e.g., control at work, meaningful tasks) play a more important role