The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and performance

Abstract

SummaryJob dimensions of autonomy, variety, and feedback were objectively manipulated to evaluate their effect on perceptions of job characteristics and on job outcomes. Except for feedback level, manipulations and perceptions independently predicted satisfaction, and one significant two-way interaction emerged. In a high variety task, increased autonomy led to increased satisfaction, while in a low variety task, increased autonomy had a negligible effect on satisfaction. For performance, objective variety and autonomy also interacted, indicating that in a low variety task, autonomy had little impact, while in a high variety task, increased autonomy contributed 16 per cent to performance. In addition, autonomy and feedback interacted with one another, with increased feedback in a high autonomy task again contributing 16 per cent to performance, while increased feedback in a low autonomy task had little impact on performance. Findings are discussed from both the Job Characteristics Model and control theory perspectives.

The effect of autonomy, training opportunities, age and salaries on job satisfaction in the South East Asian retail petroleum industry

“…Dodd and Ganster (1996) provided evidence that contextual factors such as type of supervision, type of co-workers, and satisfaction with pay, also played a moderating role on job satisfaction. However, the holistic impact of specific job characteristics on actual work behavior such as turnover, absenteeism and work effectiveness has not been fully supported in the extensive research that followed the JCM.…”

“…For example, recent literature suggests that there is a need to take a holistic perspective by examining multiple variables in addition to those specified by JCM. In particular, including both individual and contextual factors is an improvement over earlier studies which have typically examined organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction from a compartmentalized perspective (Hon and Rensvold, 2006;Macky and Boxall, 2007;Wright and Geroy, 2001;Dodd and Ganster, 1996). As noted by Parker et al (2001, p. 417):…”

A model of task demands, social structure, and leader–member exchange and their relationship to job satisfaction

“…More specifically, the following characteristics have been found to relate positively to job satisfaction: autonomy and variety (Dodd & Ganster, 1996), (positive) task characteristics in general (Stepina et al, 1991), task variety (Zaffane, 1994), task clarity and significance (Ting, 1997), and task responsibilities (Blau, 1999). In the following section, some of the results of these studies are reported with respect to the relationship between task demands and job satisfaction.…”

“…In a laboratory study, Dodd and Ganster (1996) examined the interactive effects of variety, and autonomy on job satisfaction. In Pearson correlations, objective task variety (r = .19), objective task autonomy (r = .30), perceived task variety (r = .48), and perceived task autonomy (.40) related positively to job satisfaction.…”

“…There are three main areas of research into job satisfaction: first, job satisfaction is regarded as an antecedent of organizational outcomes such as performance (see meta-analyses by Iffaldano, & Muchinski, 1985, and by Six, & Eckes, 1991), turnover (e.g., Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000;Mobley, 1977;Williams, & Hazer, 1986), and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Organ, & Ryan, 1995). Second, job satisfaction is regarded as an outcome of organizational conditions such as, for example, leadership (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996;Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992;Sparks, & Schenk, 2001), sex of leader (e.g., Trempe, Rigny, & Jacoun, 1985), social support (Frone, 2000;Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000;Sargent, & Terry, 2000;Schirmer, & Lopez, 2001;Stepina, Perrewe, Hassell, Harris, & Mayfield, 1991), and task characteristics (Dodd, & Ganster, 1996;Seers, & Graen, 1984;Stepina et al, 1991). Third, job satisfaction is regarded as a disposition influenced by personality traits (e.g., Dormann, & Zapf, 2001;Judge, & Bono, 2001;Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000;Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998).…”