Description
Performance management (PM) includes activities which ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner. Performance management can focus on the performance of an organization, a department, employee, or even the processes to build a product of service, as well as many other areas.
Why Do I Like Thee: Is It Your Performance or My Orders?
This study experimentally examined the extent to which employee evaluations are determined by the leaders' influence tactics and the leaders' assessments of the followers' motives rather than by the performance of the followers. The sample consisted of 113 business majors who were randomly assigned to act as authoritarian or democratic leaders of five-person work groups. Each group manufactured model airplanes. Measures of leader influence tactics, leader assessments of the extent to which followers were either internally or externally motivated to work effectively, and leader evaluations of followers were gathered at the end of the work session. The number of airplane models produced was used as the performance measure. It was found that (a) the leaders assigned to act democratically perceived the followers as internally motivated to work effectively, (b) the leaders' perception of the followers as internally motivated was strongly related to favorable evaluations of the followers, and (c) the leaders' employee evaluations were not related to the followers' performance. The findings are discussed in terms of previous research that has linked the use of power to evaluations of followers.
The possibility that managers in autocratic and democratic settings differ in their evaluations of employees was originally suggested by McGregor (1960) and Likert (1961). Implicit in their suggestions is the belief that democratic leaders will evaluate their employees more favorably than will autocratic leaders. Within the context of leadership style, however, there currently are two competing explanations of this phenomenon. One explanation, the performance-evaluation model, is based on the human relations' assumption that democratic leadership actually improves employee performance. As a result, managers respond to the improved performance by evaluating their employees more favorably. This model expresses the commonsense view that evaluations of employees are based on levels of performance. The model of the posited sequential relationship between leadership style and employee evaluations is shown in Figure 1. In this model, employees' performance meRequests for reprints should be sent to David Kipnis, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122.
diates between leadership style and managerial evaluations. An alternative explanation for the relationship between leadership style and the evaluation of employee performance may be derived from attribution theory (Kclley, 1967; Weiner & Kukla, 1970) as this theory is utilized in a model of power usage presented by Kipnis (1976). In this model, the manager's perception of who is "in charge" of the employee's behavior—the manager or the employee—is the critical variable in explaining employee evaluations. The underlying assumption of this model (See Figure 2) is that equal performance is evaluated differentially depending on whether the employee's performance is attributed to the manager's orders or to the employee's own efforts. Specifically, this view hypothesized that managers who use strong and controlling tactics of influence (i.e., autocratic leadership) come to believe that the subsequent behavior of the employee is due to their orders rather than to the employee's own efforts and motivation. As a result of the belief that the employee's behavior is controlled by the manager, the manager devalues the worth of the employee. This devaluation oc324
ORDERS
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE IMPROVED PERFORMANCEFAVORABLE - •• EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
325
Figure I. Performance-evaluation model.
curs because the employee is considered to be not self-motivated in performing acceptable work but simply following the manager's orders. A democratic leadership style will lead to the use of noncontrolling tactics of influence in which managers and employees discuss work-related issues. The result of using noncontrolling tactics is an increased tendency for managers to perceive their employees as self-motivated. In turn, favorable employee evaluations are related to the degree to which employees are viewed as self-motivated (Kipnis, 1976). In order to determine which of the above two models fits the empirical data, an experiment was designed in which subjects acted as managers of work crews who were doing standard production work. The data are used to test whether managers based their employee evaluations on actual employee performance or on their beliefs about the sources of employee motivation. Method Subjects
A total of 678 Temple University students in an undergraduate introductory organizational behavior course participated in a leadership exercise as part of the course.
addition, the leaders were given individual sets of printed instructions detailing how they were to lead their group. Fifty-seven leaders were assigned to act authoritatively and were given the following instructions: During the following period, you are to manage your group in a highly autocratic manner. This means you are to make the decisions for the group. You are to decide, without consultation or consideration of individual member's opinions, how much is to be produced of which design and who is to perform what activities. You are to be dominant and aggressive. Your effectiveness will be measured by your ability to maintain control over the group. You are to give orders and to insure that these orders are carried out by individual group members. No one but you is to make any decisions. You are not to solicit opinions. When individuals begin to tell you what they think, you are to interrupt them and continue to make your point. You are to aggressively attack opposing points of view through interruption and by forceful verbal measures. Fifty-six leaders were assigned to act democratically and were given the following instructions: During the following period, you are to manage your group in a democratic manner. By this we mean that all decisions, such as the division of labor and the quantity to be produced, are to be made by the total group, no matter how much time this takes. Your concern during this process should be to get the total involvement of everyone in the decision-making process. Try to get complete agreement on all decisions and, at the very least, insist that a majority agree before any action can be taken. Therefore, your strategy is to keep everyone involved and include every group member in all plans and decisions. The leaders returned to their groups, and the instructor then announced that there would be a 10-minute planning period. During this period, the groups had to make two decisions: (a) how many paper airplanes of each design they would produce and (b) how to divide the production evenly among the group members. The following stipulations were placed on the decisions: (a) The leader was not to take part in the production of airplanes, and (b) a group could produce no more than 60% and no less than 40% of either airplane design. After the 10-minute planning period, there was a 5minute production period. Following the production phase, each leader and subordinate completed the appropriate questionnaires (described below).
ATTRIBUTION THAT EMPLOYEES ARE SELFMOTIVATED
Procedure
The leadership exercise involved work groups consisting of one assigned leader and five followers, with a total of 113 groups. Each group was told by the class instructor that the exercise involved the production of paper airplanes and that the objective of the exercise was for each group to produce as many airplanes as possible. The group leaders (randomly selected from class lists) were then temporarily segregated from their groups to meet with the class instructor. The group leaders were given the designs for two models of paper airplanes (all the group leaders received the same two designs). In
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE
,L
NON -CONTROLLING + »• INFLUENCE —-- » . TACTICS
.
••
FAVORABLE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
Figure 2. Power-usage model.
326
KIPNIS, SCHMIDT, PRICE, AND STITT portant" (1). High scores reflected the belief that subordinates were self-motivated. Employee evaluations. The Satisfaction with CoWorker subscale of the Job Description Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) was renamed "Subordinate Scale" and was used to assess each leader's satisfaction with his or her subordinates. This form was completed by the leaders after the exercise. High scores on the scale reflect positive evaluations of subordinates.
Table 1 Correlations Between Leader's Report and Subordinate's Report of Each Influence Tactic Influence tactic
Demanded that people do as told Criticized poor work Simply ordered people to do as asked Set time deadlines Held mutual discussions Let people work on their own Asked in a polite manner Praised people for their work * p< .001.
r
.74* .55* .62* .52* .67* .55* .58* .58*
Results The effectiveness of the manipulation was evaluated by correlating the subordinates' reports of leader influence tactics with the leaders' self-reports of these tactics. The resulting correlations are shown in Table 1. The magnitude of the correlations indicates a substantial degree of agreement between the self-reports of the leaders and the perceptions of the subordinates. It should be noted that the subordinates had no knowledge of the leaders' assigned roles. We conclude that the 15-minute experimental procedure was sufficient to allow the leaders actually to carry out the assigned roles. They were not simply reporting that they tried to do what they were asked to do. A combination of zero-order correlations and path analysis was used to test and compare the two alternative explanations of the relationship between managerial style and employee evaluation. Zero-order correlations between all variables in both models are reported in Table 2. Of the four potential determinants of employee evaluation (leadership style, influence tactics as reported by leaders, performance, and leader assessments of motivation), only influence tactics and leader assessments were significantly associated with the criterion. Leadership style was correlated strongly only with leaders' influence tactics.
Measures
Influence tactics. Leaders and subordinates were asked to describe, using a set of items, the extent to which a number of influence tactics were employed. Each item was answered on a 5-point scale, ranging from "usually used this tactic" (5) to "never used this tactic" (1). Four items described the use of strong and controlling influence tactics in which leaders retained decision-making powers. These items were as follows: (a) demanded that they do as told, (b) set time deadlines, (c) criticized poor work, and (d) simply ordered them to do what was asked. A second set of four items described the use of influence tactics that allowed subordinates to participate in the decision-making process and used praise. These items were as follows: (a) held mutual discussions in order to decide what to do next, (b) let them work on their own, (c) asked in a polite way, and (d) praised them for their work. The eight items were combined (reverse scoring for noncontrolling items) to form a scale to measure the extent to which leaders used controlling or noncontrolling influence tactics. High scores reflected the use of controlling tactics. Performance. The total number of airplanes produced by each group was used as a measure of performance. Attribution of motivation. The extent to which the leaders attributed subordinate performance to the subordinates' own motivations was measured by the following question: "How important were your workers' own motivations to do well as a reason for their attempts to work productively?" Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from "very important" (7) to "not im-
Tablc 2 Zero-Order Correlations Between All Variables
Controlling influence tactics .82" Assessment of motivation -.16 -36»» .23* Favorable employee evaluation -.14 -31*» .18 65*»
Variable Leadership style 0 = Democratic 1 = Autocratic Controlling influence tactics Performance Assessment of motivation Note.N'
Performance .04 -.03
• p < 05. ••/>
113. .01.
ORDERS
327
Path analysis is an appropriate form of multivariate analysis to use in comparing alternate, recursive models (Asher, 1976; Heise, 1972; Land, 1969). The results of the path analysis, which combines the variables of the performance-evaluation and powerusage models, are reported in Figure 3. The path coefficients can be interpreted as the direct effect of one variable on another when controlling for all intercorrelations with other variables. As can be seen in Figure 3, there is no direct path between leadership style and employee evaluations. Rather, evaluations were mediated by both influence tactics and leaders' assessments of motivation. The path analysis supports the following explanations: Leaders who were placed in a setting in which they were expected to act autocratically or democratically used controlling or noncontrolling influence tactics, respectively. In turn, the use of either of these sets of tactics differentially affected the leaders' assumptions about their subordinates' motivations to perform satisfactorily. Those leaders who used controlling influence tactics reported that their subordinates were not self-motivated. On the other hand, the leaders who used noncontrolling tactics attributed their subordinates' performances to self-motivation to perform. Also, the path model supports the assertion that the major determinant of favorable employee evaluation is the leader's assumption about the extent to which her or his subordinates were self-motivated. Subordi-
nates who were seen as self-motivated were evaluated more favorably than were those not so seen. The results further indicate that there was no direct path between subordinate performance and evaluations of subordinates. Level of subordinate performance did not influence the evaluations directly. Thus no support is found for the performance-evaluation model shown in Figure 1. As indicated in Figure 3, however, performance did contribute to the leaders' assessments of motivation. The higher the subordinates' performance, the more likely the leader believed the subordinates were self-motivated. Discussion We started this research by asking why democratic managers evaluate their employees more favorably than do autocratic managers. The answer is that the use of democratic forms of influence tactics, which provide employees with some freedom to decide for themselves, encourages the belief among managers that employees are selfmotivated. Given average or better levels of performance, this belief leads to favorable evaluations. These findings are similar to findings in other studies of the use of power. Both within married couples and between organizations negotiating with each other (Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976; Wilkinson & Kipnis, 1978), the use of strong and controlling tactics of influence was found to be associated with devaluation of the target of influ-
Figure 3. Path model of leadership style and employee evaluation.
78"
57°
19
NON-CONTROLLING , INFLUENCE TACTICS. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE I
82V
I
PERFORMANCE -
ATTRIBUTION THAT 59 EMPLOYEES ARE SELFMOTIVATED 03
FAVORABLE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
i;
99" o • RtuduQl path cotlficitnt
•• p !•»« than 05
328
KIPNIS, SCHMIDT, PRICE, AND STITT
ence. The results of this study extend these relationships to the evaluation of employees. Of course the results are based upon a laboratory simulation of leadership using college students, and as a result the external validity of the study may be questioned. A logical next step is to relate managerial leadership tactics to evaluations of employees in actual field settings. The present study, however, does provide evidence that employee evaluations are directly mediated by managers' perceptions of who is in control of the employee's performance—the employee or the manager. It was shown that the employee was evaluated favorably to the extent to which group leaders believed the employee's performance could be attributed to the employee's own efforts. To the extent to which managers believed performance was controlled by outside forces such as the managers' orders, the employees were devalued. The relationship between assessments of motivation and employee evaluations is more complex than would be suggested by the present study. In this study, the overwhelming majority of the groups performed at satisfactory levels, as measured by the production of model airplanes. Further, our measure of attribution asked the leaders why they thought their subordinates worked productively. Thus our findings are in terms of the evaluation of objectively defined, acceptable levels of performance. Suppose, however, that an employee was performing far below acceptable standards: Would managers evaluate the employee favorably if the employee were seen as internally motivated? A review of past research indicates that the answer is "No." It has been consistently found that when managers attribute an employee's poor performance to the employee's own motivation (e.g., poor attitude, lack of motivation), then judgments of performance are far harsher than when the same poor performance is attributed to external factors (e.g., a difficult task, lack of ability). It has been discovered that employees are most likely to be punished by being fired, suspended, and demoted when managers attribute the poor work to causes such as lack of motivation, interest, and drive rather than to a lack of ability or of technical competence (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970; Kipnis & Cosentino, 1969).
On the basis of these past studies and the present results, we suggest that managerial evaluations of employees are in part a function of attributional processes. To the extent that an employee is performing satisfactorily, managers will evaluate the employee more favorably if the performance is attributed to the employee's own efforts (e.g., selfmotivation, creativity) than if the performance is attributed to outside forces (e.g., managers' orders). To the extent that an employee is performing unsatisfactorily, managers will evaluate the employee less favorably if the poor performance is attributed to the employee's own efforts (e.g., lack of motivation) than if the performance is attributed to outside forces (e.g., a difficult task). A similar analysis has been offered by Mitchell, Larson, and Green (1977). References
Asher, H. B. Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976. Goodstadt, B., & Kipnis, D. Situational influence on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54. 201-207. Heise, D. R. How do I know my data? Let me count the ways. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 58-61. Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Kipnis, D. The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Kipnis, D., Castell, P., Gergen, M.,& Mauch, D. Metamorphic effects of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976,6/. 127-135. Kipnis, D , & Cosentino, J Use of leadership powers in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969,53. 460-466. Land, K. C. Principles of path analysis. In E. Bargatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology. 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Mitchell, T , Larson, J., & Green, S. Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18. 254-268. Smith, P. C , Kendall, L. M , & Hulin, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. An attribution analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15. 1-20. Wilkinson, I., & Kipnis, D. Interfirm use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63. 315-320.
Received February 4, 1980 •
doc_431507125.docx
Performance management (PM) includes activities which ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner. Performance management can focus on the performance of an organization, a department, employee, or even the processes to build a product of service, as well as many other areas.
Why Do I Like Thee: Is It Your Performance or My Orders?
This study experimentally examined the extent to which employee evaluations are determined by the leaders' influence tactics and the leaders' assessments of the followers' motives rather than by the performance of the followers. The sample consisted of 113 business majors who were randomly assigned to act as authoritarian or democratic leaders of five-person work groups. Each group manufactured model airplanes. Measures of leader influence tactics, leader assessments of the extent to which followers were either internally or externally motivated to work effectively, and leader evaluations of followers were gathered at the end of the work session. The number of airplane models produced was used as the performance measure. It was found that (a) the leaders assigned to act democratically perceived the followers as internally motivated to work effectively, (b) the leaders' perception of the followers as internally motivated was strongly related to favorable evaluations of the followers, and (c) the leaders' employee evaluations were not related to the followers' performance. The findings are discussed in terms of previous research that has linked the use of power to evaluations of followers.
The possibility that managers in autocratic and democratic settings differ in their evaluations of employees was originally suggested by McGregor (1960) and Likert (1961). Implicit in their suggestions is the belief that democratic leaders will evaluate their employees more favorably than will autocratic leaders. Within the context of leadership style, however, there currently are two competing explanations of this phenomenon. One explanation, the performance-evaluation model, is based on the human relations' assumption that democratic leadership actually improves employee performance. As a result, managers respond to the improved performance by evaluating their employees more favorably. This model expresses the commonsense view that evaluations of employees are based on levels of performance. The model of the posited sequential relationship between leadership style and employee evaluations is shown in Figure 1. In this model, employees' performance meRequests for reprints should be sent to David Kipnis, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122.
diates between leadership style and managerial evaluations. An alternative explanation for the relationship between leadership style and the evaluation of employee performance may be derived from attribution theory (Kclley, 1967; Weiner & Kukla, 1970) as this theory is utilized in a model of power usage presented by Kipnis (1976). In this model, the manager's perception of who is "in charge" of the employee's behavior—the manager or the employee—is the critical variable in explaining employee evaluations. The underlying assumption of this model (See Figure 2) is that equal performance is evaluated differentially depending on whether the employee's performance is attributed to the manager's orders or to the employee's own efforts. Specifically, this view hypothesized that managers who use strong and controlling tactics of influence (i.e., autocratic leadership) come to believe that the subsequent behavior of the employee is due to their orders rather than to the employee's own efforts and motivation. As a result of the belief that the employee's behavior is controlled by the manager, the manager devalues the worth of the employee. This devaluation oc324
ORDERS
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE IMPROVED PERFORMANCEFAVORABLE - •• EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
325
Figure I. Performance-evaluation model.
curs because the employee is considered to be not self-motivated in performing acceptable work but simply following the manager's orders. A democratic leadership style will lead to the use of noncontrolling tactics of influence in which managers and employees discuss work-related issues. The result of using noncontrolling tactics is an increased tendency for managers to perceive their employees as self-motivated. In turn, favorable employee evaluations are related to the degree to which employees are viewed as self-motivated (Kipnis, 1976). In order to determine which of the above two models fits the empirical data, an experiment was designed in which subjects acted as managers of work crews who were doing standard production work. The data are used to test whether managers based their employee evaluations on actual employee performance or on their beliefs about the sources of employee motivation. Method Subjects
A total of 678 Temple University students in an undergraduate introductory organizational behavior course participated in a leadership exercise as part of the course.
addition, the leaders were given individual sets of printed instructions detailing how they were to lead their group. Fifty-seven leaders were assigned to act authoritatively and were given the following instructions: During the following period, you are to manage your group in a highly autocratic manner. This means you are to make the decisions for the group. You are to decide, without consultation or consideration of individual member's opinions, how much is to be produced of which design and who is to perform what activities. You are to be dominant and aggressive. Your effectiveness will be measured by your ability to maintain control over the group. You are to give orders and to insure that these orders are carried out by individual group members. No one but you is to make any decisions. You are not to solicit opinions. When individuals begin to tell you what they think, you are to interrupt them and continue to make your point. You are to aggressively attack opposing points of view through interruption and by forceful verbal measures. Fifty-six leaders were assigned to act democratically and were given the following instructions: During the following period, you are to manage your group in a democratic manner. By this we mean that all decisions, such as the division of labor and the quantity to be produced, are to be made by the total group, no matter how much time this takes. Your concern during this process should be to get the total involvement of everyone in the decision-making process. Try to get complete agreement on all decisions and, at the very least, insist that a majority agree before any action can be taken. Therefore, your strategy is to keep everyone involved and include every group member in all plans and decisions. The leaders returned to their groups, and the instructor then announced that there would be a 10-minute planning period. During this period, the groups had to make two decisions: (a) how many paper airplanes of each design they would produce and (b) how to divide the production evenly among the group members. The following stipulations were placed on the decisions: (a) The leader was not to take part in the production of airplanes, and (b) a group could produce no more than 60% and no less than 40% of either airplane design. After the 10-minute planning period, there was a 5minute production period. Following the production phase, each leader and subordinate completed the appropriate questionnaires (described below).
ATTRIBUTION THAT EMPLOYEES ARE SELFMOTIVATED
Procedure
The leadership exercise involved work groups consisting of one assigned leader and five followers, with a total of 113 groups. Each group was told by the class instructor that the exercise involved the production of paper airplanes and that the objective of the exercise was for each group to produce as many airplanes as possible. The group leaders (randomly selected from class lists) were then temporarily segregated from their groups to meet with the class instructor. The group leaders were given the designs for two models of paper airplanes (all the group leaders received the same two designs). In
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE
,L
NON -CONTROLLING + »• INFLUENCE —-- » . TACTICS
.
••
FAVORABLE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
Figure 2. Power-usage model.
326
KIPNIS, SCHMIDT, PRICE, AND STITT portant" (1). High scores reflected the belief that subordinates were self-motivated. Employee evaluations. The Satisfaction with CoWorker subscale of the Job Description Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) was renamed "Subordinate Scale" and was used to assess each leader's satisfaction with his or her subordinates. This form was completed by the leaders after the exercise. High scores on the scale reflect positive evaluations of subordinates.
Table 1 Correlations Between Leader's Report and Subordinate's Report of Each Influence Tactic Influence tactic
Demanded that people do as told Criticized poor work Simply ordered people to do as asked Set time deadlines Held mutual discussions Let people work on their own Asked in a polite manner Praised people for their work * p< .001.
r
.74* .55* .62* .52* .67* .55* .58* .58*
Results The effectiveness of the manipulation was evaluated by correlating the subordinates' reports of leader influence tactics with the leaders' self-reports of these tactics. The resulting correlations are shown in Table 1. The magnitude of the correlations indicates a substantial degree of agreement between the self-reports of the leaders and the perceptions of the subordinates. It should be noted that the subordinates had no knowledge of the leaders' assigned roles. We conclude that the 15-minute experimental procedure was sufficient to allow the leaders actually to carry out the assigned roles. They were not simply reporting that they tried to do what they were asked to do. A combination of zero-order correlations and path analysis was used to test and compare the two alternative explanations of the relationship between managerial style and employee evaluation. Zero-order correlations between all variables in both models are reported in Table 2. Of the four potential determinants of employee evaluation (leadership style, influence tactics as reported by leaders, performance, and leader assessments of motivation), only influence tactics and leader assessments were significantly associated with the criterion. Leadership style was correlated strongly only with leaders' influence tactics.
Measures
Influence tactics. Leaders and subordinates were asked to describe, using a set of items, the extent to which a number of influence tactics were employed. Each item was answered on a 5-point scale, ranging from "usually used this tactic" (5) to "never used this tactic" (1). Four items described the use of strong and controlling influence tactics in which leaders retained decision-making powers. These items were as follows: (a) demanded that they do as told, (b) set time deadlines, (c) criticized poor work, and (d) simply ordered them to do what was asked. A second set of four items described the use of influence tactics that allowed subordinates to participate in the decision-making process and used praise. These items were as follows: (a) held mutual discussions in order to decide what to do next, (b) let them work on their own, (c) asked in a polite way, and (d) praised them for their work. The eight items were combined (reverse scoring for noncontrolling items) to form a scale to measure the extent to which leaders used controlling or noncontrolling influence tactics. High scores reflected the use of controlling tactics. Performance. The total number of airplanes produced by each group was used as a measure of performance. Attribution of motivation. The extent to which the leaders attributed subordinate performance to the subordinates' own motivations was measured by the following question: "How important were your workers' own motivations to do well as a reason for their attempts to work productively?" Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from "very important" (7) to "not im-
Tablc 2 Zero-Order Correlations Between All Variables
Controlling influence tactics .82" Assessment of motivation -.16 -36»» .23* Favorable employee evaluation -.14 -31*» .18 65*»
Variable Leadership style 0 = Democratic 1 = Autocratic Controlling influence tactics Performance Assessment of motivation Note.N'
Performance .04 -.03
• p < 05. ••/>
113. .01.
ORDERS
327
Path analysis is an appropriate form of multivariate analysis to use in comparing alternate, recursive models (Asher, 1976; Heise, 1972; Land, 1969). The results of the path analysis, which combines the variables of the performance-evaluation and powerusage models, are reported in Figure 3. The path coefficients can be interpreted as the direct effect of one variable on another when controlling for all intercorrelations with other variables. As can be seen in Figure 3, there is no direct path between leadership style and employee evaluations. Rather, evaluations were mediated by both influence tactics and leaders' assessments of motivation. The path analysis supports the following explanations: Leaders who were placed in a setting in which they were expected to act autocratically or democratically used controlling or noncontrolling influence tactics, respectively. In turn, the use of either of these sets of tactics differentially affected the leaders' assumptions about their subordinates' motivations to perform satisfactorily. Those leaders who used controlling influence tactics reported that their subordinates were not self-motivated. On the other hand, the leaders who used noncontrolling tactics attributed their subordinates' performances to self-motivation to perform. Also, the path model supports the assertion that the major determinant of favorable employee evaluation is the leader's assumption about the extent to which her or his subordinates were self-motivated. Subordi-
nates who were seen as self-motivated were evaluated more favorably than were those not so seen. The results further indicate that there was no direct path between subordinate performance and evaluations of subordinates. Level of subordinate performance did not influence the evaluations directly. Thus no support is found for the performance-evaluation model shown in Figure 1. As indicated in Figure 3, however, performance did contribute to the leaders' assessments of motivation. The higher the subordinates' performance, the more likely the leader believed the subordinates were self-motivated. Discussion We started this research by asking why democratic managers evaluate their employees more favorably than do autocratic managers. The answer is that the use of democratic forms of influence tactics, which provide employees with some freedom to decide for themselves, encourages the belief among managers that employees are selfmotivated. Given average or better levels of performance, this belief leads to favorable evaluations. These findings are similar to findings in other studies of the use of power. Both within married couples and between organizations negotiating with each other (Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976; Wilkinson & Kipnis, 1978), the use of strong and controlling tactics of influence was found to be associated with devaluation of the target of influ-
Figure 3. Path model of leadership style and employee evaluation.
78"
57°
19
NON-CONTROLLING , INFLUENCE TACTICS. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE I
82V
I
PERFORMANCE -
ATTRIBUTION THAT 59 EMPLOYEES ARE SELFMOTIVATED 03
FAVORABLE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
i;
99" o • RtuduQl path cotlficitnt
•• p !•»« than 05
328
KIPNIS, SCHMIDT, PRICE, AND STITT
ence. The results of this study extend these relationships to the evaluation of employees. Of course the results are based upon a laboratory simulation of leadership using college students, and as a result the external validity of the study may be questioned. A logical next step is to relate managerial leadership tactics to evaluations of employees in actual field settings. The present study, however, does provide evidence that employee evaluations are directly mediated by managers' perceptions of who is in control of the employee's performance—the employee or the manager. It was shown that the employee was evaluated favorably to the extent to which group leaders believed the employee's performance could be attributed to the employee's own efforts. To the extent to which managers believed performance was controlled by outside forces such as the managers' orders, the employees were devalued. The relationship between assessments of motivation and employee evaluations is more complex than would be suggested by the present study. In this study, the overwhelming majority of the groups performed at satisfactory levels, as measured by the production of model airplanes. Further, our measure of attribution asked the leaders why they thought their subordinates worked productively. Thus our findings are in terms of the evaluation of objectively defined, acceptable levels of performance. Suppose, however, that an employee was performing far below acceptable standards: Would managers evaluate the employee favorably if the employee were seen as internally motivated? A review of past research indicates that the answer is "No." It has been consistently found that when managers attribute an employee's poor performance to the employee's own motivation (e.g., poor attitude, lack of motivation), then judgments of performance are far harsher than when the same poor performance is attributed to external factors (e.g., a difficult task, lack of ability). It has been discovered that employees are most likely to be punished by being fired, suspended, and demoted when managers attribute the poor work to causes such as lack of motivation, interest, and drive rather than to a lack of ability or of technical competence (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970; Kipnis & Cosentino, 1969).
On the basis of these past studies and the present results, we suggest that managerial evaluations of employees are in part a function of attributional processes. To the extent that an employee is performing satisfactorily, managers will evaluate the employee more favorably if the performance is attributed to the employee's own efforts (e.g., selfmotivation, creativity) than if the performance is attributed to outside forces (e.g., managers' orders). To the extent that an employee is performing unsatisfactorily, managers will evaluate the employee less favorably if the poor performance is attributed to the employee's own efforts (e.g., lack of motivation) than if the performance is attributed to outside forces (e.g., a difficult task). A similar analysis has been offered by Mitchell, Larson, and Green (1977). References
Asher, H. B. Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976. Goodstadt, B., & Kipnis, D. Situational influence on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54. 201-207. Heise, D. R. How do I know my data? Let me count the ways. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 58-61. Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Kipnis, D. The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Kipnis, D., Castell, P., Gergen, M.,& Mauch, D. Metamorphic effects of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976,6/. 127-135. Kipnis, D , & Cosentino, J Use of leadership powers in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969,53. 460-466. Land, K. C. Principles of path analysis. In E. Bargatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology. 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Mitchell, T , Larson, J., & Green, S. Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18. 254-268. Smith, P. C , Kendall, L. M , & Hulin, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969. Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. An attribution analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15. 1-20. Wilkinson, I., & Kipnis, D. Interfirm use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63. 315-320.
Received February 4, 1980 •
doc_431507125.docx