Individuals within organizations have to confront the conflict between being accountable for their performance and trying to maintain autonomy and exercise discretion when accomplishing complex tasks. It is usually assumed that individuals, particularly professionals, face complex tasks that are difficult to evaluate and will resist attempts to control their performance through organizational rules. However, routinizing tasks and decentralizing decision-making authority to the individual may clarify rules and give individuals some control over their jobs, making the individual more amenable to the evaluation of performance. Hypotheses concerning the somewhat conflicting demands of job complexity and organizational control were tested by analyzing attitudes towards a performance appraisal system undergoing change in two United States federal agencies. Changes in attitudes were measured by a LISREL panel analysis over five points in time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlauPeter M.ScottWilliam R., 1962. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler
2.
BurtRonald S.1973. “Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Structures and the Theory Construction Process.”Sociological Methods and Research2: 131–190
3.
BurtRonald S.1976. “Interpretational Confounding of Unobserved Variables in Structural Equation Models.”Sociological Methods and Research5: 3–49
4.
CoserRose L.1975. “The Complexity of Roles as a Seedbed of Individual Autonomy.” Pp. 237–263 in The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, edited by CoserLewis A., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
5.
CrozierMichel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
6.
DaftRichard L.1982. “Bureaucratic versus Nonbureaucratic Structure and the Process of Innovation and Change.”Research in the Sociology of Organizations1: 129–166
7.
GlaserEdward M.AbelsonHarold H.GarrisonKathaleen N., 1983. Putting Knowledge to Use. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
8.
GoldbergAlbert I.1976. “The Relevance of Cosmopolitan/Local Orientations to Professional Values and Behavior.”Sociology of Work and Occupations3: 331–356
9.
HeiseDavid R.1970. “Causal Inference From Panel Data.” Pp. 3–27 in Sociological Methodology, edited by BorgattaE.F.BohrenstedtG.W., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
10.
KatzRalph. 1982. “Managing Careers: The Influence of Job and Group Longevities.” Pp. 154–181 in Career Issues in Human Resource Management, edited by KatzR., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
11.
KohnMelvin L.1971. “Bureaucratic Man: A Portrait and Interpretation.”American Sociological Review36: 461–474
12.
KohnMelvin L.SchoolerCarmi. 1981. “Job Conditions and Intellectual Flexibility: A Longitudinal Assessment of Their Reciprocal Effects.” Pp. 281–310 in Factor Analysis and Measurement in Sociological Research, edited by JacksonD.J.BorgattaE.F., Beverly Hills: Sage
13.
KornhauserWilliam. 1962. Scientists in Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press
14.
LathamGary P.YuklGary. 1975. “A Review of Research on the Application of Goal Setting in Organizations.”Academy of Management Journal18: 824–845
15.
LyonsThomas F.1971. “Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Tension, and Withdrawal.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance6: 99–110
16.
MertonRobert K.1957. “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.” Pp. 195–206 in Social Theory and Social Structure, edited by MertonR.K., New York: Free Press
17.
MeyerHerbert H.1975. “The Pay for Performance Dilemma.”Organizational Dynamics3: 39–50
18.
OrganDennis W.GreenCharles N., 1981. “The Effects of Formalization on Professional Involvement: A Compensatory Process Approach.”Administrative Science Quarterly26: 237–252
19.
PerryJames L.PorterLyman. 1981. Organizational Assessments of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Personnel Management
20.
PodsakoffPhillip M.WilliamsLarry J.TodorWilliam D., 1986. “Effects of Organizational Formalization on Alienation Among Professionals and Nonprofessionals.”Academy of Management Journal4: 820–831
21.
RaineyHal G.1979. “Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform.”Public Administration Review39: 440–448
22.
RizzoJohn R.HouseRobert J.LirtzmanSidney I., 1970. “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly15: 151–163
23.
RogersEverett M.1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press
24.
WeberMax1946. “Bureaucracy.” Pp. 196–264 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by GerthH.H.MillsC.W., New York: Oxford University Press
25.
WheatonBlairMuthenBengtAlwinDuane F.SummersGene F., 1977. “Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models.” Pp. 84–136 in Sociological Methodology, edited by HeiseD.R., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
26.
WhortonJoseph W.WorthleyJohn A., 1981. “A Perspective on the Challenge of Public Management: Environmental Paradox and Organizational Culture.”Academy of Management Review6: 357–361
27.
WilsonJames Q.1966. “Innovation in Organizations: Notes Toward a Theory.” Pp. 195–218 in Approaches to Organizational Design, edited by ThompsonJ.D., Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
