Recent theoretical statements by Lord and Hanges (1987) and by Carver and Scheier (1981) suggest that supervision in the workplace can be analyzed as a control system made up of supervisors and subordinates. Two experiments are described which raise doubts about this claim. Subjects were engaged as supervisors and asked to provide performance feedback to a subordinate. It was found that subjects did not respond to subordinate work performance in the straightforward way predicted by control theory, but instead responded based on analyses of the context-dependent meanings of that performance. Implications of these results for applying the control system metaphor to social behavior in the workplace more generally are discussed.
CAMPION, M. A., & LORD, R. G.A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1982, 30, 265-287.
2.
CARVER, C. S., & SCHEIER, M. F.Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, (1981.
3.
FELDMAN, J.Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981, 66127-148.
4.
FISHER, C. D.Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 24533-540.
5.
HOFSTADTER, D. R., & DENNETI, D. C.The mind's I. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
6.
HOLLENBECK, J.Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioral responses to work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe, 1989.
7.
ILGEN, D. R., & FELDMAN, J.Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI press, 1983.
8.
KLEIN, H. J.An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 150-172.
9.
LARSON, J. R., Jr.The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1984, 33, 42-76.
10.
LARSON, J. R., Jr.Supervisors' performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1986, 37, 391-408.
11.
LARSON, J. R., Jr.The dyadic interplay between employees' feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors' delivery of performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 408-422.
12.
LOCKE, E. A., SHAW, K. N., SAARI, L. M., & LATHAM, G. P.Goal-setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90, 125-152.
13.
LORD, R. G., & HANGES, P. J.A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 1987, 32, 161-178.
14.
LORD, R. G., KERNAN, M. C.Scripts as determinants of purposeful behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1987, 12265-277.
15.
LORD, R. G., & SMITH, J. E.Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 1983, 8, 50-60.
16.
LOUIS, M. R.Career transitions: Varieties and commonalities. Academy of Management Review, 1980, 5, 329-340.
17.
MADDALA, G. S.Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill Books, 1977.
18.
MARKEN, R. S.The nature of behavior: Control as fact and theory. Behaioml Science, 1988,33, 1988-1988.
19.
MILLER, G. A., GALANTER, E., & PRIBRAM, K. H.Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960.
20.
POWERS, W. R.Feedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 1973, 179, 351-356. (a)
21.
POWERS, W. R.Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine, 1973. (b)
22.
SEARLE, J.Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard, 1984.
23.
SEARLE, J.Is the brain's mind a computer program?Scientific American, 1990, 262, 26-31.
24.
WEBER, C. O.Homeostasis and servo-mechanisms for what?Psychological Review, 1949, 56234-239.
