Rasch 1992

Factors Affecting Software Developers' Performance: An Integrated Approach
Author(s): Ronald H. Rasch and Henry L. Tosi

Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 395-413
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249535
Accessed: 15-12-2015 16:30 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:30:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PredictingDevelopers' Performance
Factors
Affecting
Developers'
Software
Performance:
Integrated
An
Approach'
By: Ronald H. Rasch

University of Florida
208 Business
Gainesville, Florida 32611 U.S.A.
Henry L. Tosi
University of Florida
208 Business
Gainesville, Florida 32611 U.S.A.
a positive relationshipto effort.Because of this

off-settingeffect, the degree of goal difficultyhas
a relativelysmall overalleffect on performance.
Goal clarityalso has a relativelysmall effect on
performance.Individualabilityhas the strongest
direct effect on perceived performance, more
than twiceas strongas the effects of workeffort,
personalitydimensions, and perceived characteristics of the task. High achievement needs
were directlyrelatedto both effortand perceived
performance,whereas self-esteem and locus of
control have a direct relationshipto perceived
performance.
Keywords: Management,productivity,software
development performance, expectancy theory, goal-setting theory
ACMCategories: K.4.2, K.4.3, K.6.1, K.7.1
Backgroundand Introduction
Abstract
Software developers' performancehas a direct
An
impacton softwaredevelopmentproductivity.
understandingof the factors thataffect this performancecouldhelp determinewhereto concentrate management efforts (and related financial
resources)froma practicalstandpoint,and where
to focus research efforts from an academic
perspective.Togain furtherinsightintothese factors, this study extends prior research by integrating elements from expectancy theory,
goal-settingtheory,and organizationalbehavior
specific to the software development process.
Theresearchresultsprovidenew insightsregarding the relative importanceof how expectancy
theory, goal-setting theory, and individual
characteristicsaffect the perceivedperformance
of software development professionals. These
preliminaryfindings indicate that goal-setting
theory may have complex implicationsfor software developmentperformance. Goal difficulty
has a negative relationshipto performancebut
1This research was sponsored by the SoftwareEngineering

Research Center(SERC),whichis a jointcenter comprised
of industryaffiliates, NSF, the Universityof Florida,and
PurdueUniversity.
Two theoretical behavioralapproaches, expectancy theory (Mitchell,1974; 1979; 1982) and

goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham, 1990),
have often been used to examine relationships
between variables that effect individualmotivationand performance.These theoriesidentifycircumstances that motivatean individualto exert
a greater level of workeffortthat leads to higher
work performanceand increased productivity.
There is also a large body of theoreticaland empiricalliteraturethat addresses the effects of individualcharacteristicson performance.A portion
of this work is directlyfocused upon the effects
of individual characteristics on software
developers' performance. McGarry(1984) and
Curtis(1986)show that individualcharacteristics
are a majorfactorin predictingprogrammingperformance. Goldstein and Rockart(1984) found
that individualleadershipcharacteristicsare correlatedwithsoftwaredevelopers' perceptionsof
job satisfaction.They recommendedthat further
research be conductedto evaluatethe impactof
individual characteristics on job-related outcomes. Baroudi(1985) investigates the effect of
role variables on software developers' turnover
intentions. He suggested that better models be
developed to explicitlyevaluate the job-related
behaviorof individualsoftware developers. The
results of a nation-widestudy by Couger and
MIS Quarterly/September1992 395
Zawacki(1980)indicatethatdata processingprofessionals have higher individualgrowthneeds

and lower social needs than the general
population.
Ina latersurveyof ACM'sSpecial InterestGroup
on Software Engineering,Couger (1986) found
thatsoftwareengineers have the highestachievement needs of any computer-related group
previouslysurveyed.Further,a morerecentstudy
conductedby the Microelectronics
and Computer
Technology Corporation (MCC) stresses the
crucial role of individualtalent and skill on project performance(Curtis,et al., 1988). Results
such as these led Reneau and Grabski(1987) to
stress the need for additionalresearch directed
at the effects of individualcharacteristicson the
system development process. Using worldwide
projected software cost trends, Boehm (1987)
predictsthat a 20 percent improvementin software productivitywould be worth $90 billion
worldwidein 1995. The workmotivationand performanceof softwaredevelopmentprofessionals,
therefore,is an importantarea of research in the
software development literature.
The purpose of this paper is to develop an integratedapproach,combiningconcepts fromexpectancy theory, goal-setting theory, and
individualcharacteristics research, to examine
factors that affect the performanceof software
development professionals. A knowledgeof the
relativeimportanceof how these theories affect
software development performancecould help
determinewhereto concentratemanagementefforts(and relatedfinancialresources) in orderto
motivate software developers to become high
performersin an organization.Froman academic
perspective, the results of this study provideinsights regardingwhere to focus futureresearch
effortsaimedat furtherunderstandingfactorsthat
impactthe performanceof softwaredevelopment
professionals.
Conceptual Framework
Integrated research model
The research just cited shows the effects of
several independentvariables on performancerelated dependent variables using separate
behavioralmodels. Ourresearchdevelops an integrated model that permitsthe assessment of
the relative effects of the level of effort, goal

characteristics,and individualcharacteristicson
performanceto facilitatea greaterunderstanding
of the complexities inherent in the software
development process. The research model is
constructedfromthree sets of concepts: expectancy theory, goal-settingtheory, and individual
characteristics.Because of the inherentcomplexityof integratingthree different,yet related,lines
of research, the research model is limitedto addressingseveral key elements fromeach of these
concepts. The variables and the natureof their
relationshipsare summarized in Figure 1.
Expectancy theory
Expectancytheory continues to be widely used
to examine motivationalissues (Baker, et al.,
1989; Brownelland Mclnnes, 1986; Butlerand
Womer, 1985; Harrelland Stahl, 1984; Kaplan,
1985; Nickerson and McClelland,1989). Much
of the interest in expectancy theory research
stems from the belief that highly motivated individualswill exert higher effortlevels and consequently will tend to performat higher levels
thantheirless motivatedcontemporaries.The expectancy theory component of the research
model is shown in Figure la.
As shown in the equation, performance(P) can
be described as a function of an individual's
effort-level(E), ability(A), and role perceptions
(R) (Ferris, 1977; Lawlerand Suttle, 1973).
P = f (E, A, R)
Ability(A)refers to factors such as the person's

native intellectualcapabilitiesand the qualityof
his or her formaleducation or training.Abilityis
hypothesizedto be positivelyrelatedto performance (Path 6). Role ambiguity(R) refers to how
well individuals understand their role in the
organization. Ideally, the individualknows the
limits of assigned authority,what is to be accomplished,and howperformancewillbe judged.
Role ambiguityis hypothesized to be inversely
related to effort (Path 7). Effort(E), in turn, is
hypothesized to be positively related to performance (Path 8).
The performancemodel (see equation)aims at
explainingdifferences in performancebetween
individuals.The equation posits that individuals
exertdifferenteffortlevels, possess differentabili-
396 MIS Quarterly/September1992
Figure 1. Integrated Research Model

ty levels, and have differentrole perceptions.As
a result, they are expected to exhibit different
levels of performance.Inessence, the equation
impliesthat, if individualdifferencesin abilityand
role perceptions are considered, differenteffort
levels can be expected to directlyaffectworkperformance (Lawler and Suttle, 1973). Prior
research has not always supportedthis contention. Ferris(1977), for example, concludes that
afterconsideringindividualdifferences in ability
and role perceptions, effortlevel has no impact
uponthe workperformanceof professionalpublic
accountants.
Goal-settingtheory
Goal-settingtheory research shows that expectancies about the level of success may also be
related to the clarity and difficultyof work requirements(Carrolland Tosi, 1973; Locke and
Latham, 1990; Locke, et al., 1981). The goalsetting theorycomponentof the research model
is depicted in Figurelb. Whentasks are unclear,

the ambiguityis related to task anxiety, hesitation in makingdecisions, and lowerperformance.
Goal specificity should reduce role ambiguity
(Path5) (Lockeand Latham,1990).Roleambiguity, in turn,is inverselyrelatedto effortlevel (Path
7) (Porterand Lawler,1968). As goals become
moredifficult,the individualexerts greatereffort
(Path 4), which should also result in improved
performance(Path9) as long as goals remainattainable (Locke and Latham, 1990).
The theory of goal setting and its supporting
research have been summarizedand reviewed
by Locke and Latham (1990). Early empirical
work focuses largely on tasks in laboratory
studies that are relatively simple (Landy and
Becker, 1987). Studies of more complex tasks,
however,have failedto producethe same strong
results as those studies using simple tasks. For
instance,Wood,et al. (1987)analyzedthe results
of over 70 studies withvariouslevels of task complexityand found that the magnitudeof goal ef-
Path 8
Figure 1a. Expectancy Theory Model
Figure 1b. Goal-Setting Model
398
MIS Quarterly/September 1992
fects on performancewas greateron simpletasks

than on complex tasks.
Thisstudyaddresses the job performanceof software development professionals. Goal theory,
however,has mainlyaddressed the issue of task
performance and is only a start toward
understandingjob performance. Job performance is a much more encompassing global concept than task performance. In the context of
software development,job performancerelates
to more than technical tasks such as program
coding,writingdesign specifications,and debugging programs. It also encompasses aspects
such as determiningsystem requirements,communicatingwithpeers and users, and translating
"soft" user needs into "hard" design criteria.
Since the tasks inherentin softwaredevelopment
are considerablymore complex than tasks performedin most priorgoal theorystudies, the impact of goal characteristicsmay differfromsome
of the priorstudy results.
Individualcharacteristics
Softwaredevelopers' performancemay also be
affected by individualcharacteristics. The individualcharacteristicsdimensionof the research
model is shown in Figure lc. Performancehas
been relatedto an individual'sneed for achievement, locus of control,and self-esteem (Mitchell,
1974; 1979; 1982). Need for achievement is the
extent to which the person values success
(McClelland,1961). Individualswithhighachievement needs preferto workin situationswherethe
desired resultsare clear. Individualachievement
needs have been shown to be positivelyrelated
to both effort (Path 2a) and performance(Path
2b) (Mitchell, 1979; Porter and Lawler, 1968;
Steers, 1975; Steers and Porter,1983). Locus of
control refers to whether people believe that
their fate is controlledby external factors or by
the people themselves. There is evidence that
people with a strong internal locus of control
(where they believe they controltheir own fate)
Figure 1c. IndividualCharacteristics Model
exert greater effort(Path 3a) and higher performance (Path3b) than those witha strong external locus of control(wherethey believe theirfate
is controlledby others) (Anderson, 1977). Selfesteem is a person's sense of self-worth.High
self-esteem is proposed to be positivelyrelated
to both effort (Path 1b) and performance(Path
la). Evidence shows that managers with high
self-esteem reporthigher levels of performance
when they have difficultgoals to achieve than
those with low self-esteem (Carrolland Tosi,
1973). However, argument shows that an individual'sneed forachievementand self-esteem
may moderatethe relationshipbetweenworkperformanceand the characteristicsof workgoals.
Method
Subjects
The data for this study were gathered at three
major software development organizations
locatedin the midwest,southwest,and southeast
United States. These firms are involvedwith a
wide spectrumof softwaredevelopmentprojects
ranging from embedded systems on classified
governmentcontractsto telecommunicationsfor
publictelephonesystems and payrollsystems for
business organizations.All three firms are advocates of the principlesof softwareengineering,
and they use the term software engineer interchangeably with software developer. The
respondentsactuallyparticipatedinthe totalsoftware developmentprocess fromproblemdefinition through debugging and implementation.
Because these three firmssupportthe concept
of theirsoftwaredevelopers' involvementwitha
project from its beginning to its end, the
respondents provideda homogeneous sample
knowledgeable of the entire software development process. The evidence of this homogeneity was apparent from the separate analyses
performed for each company. There were no
statisticallysignificantdifferences between the
demographics,individualcharacteristics,or other
variables measured for the respondents.
Responses were thereforecombinedacross the
three firmsforthe subsequent analyses reported
below.Thisfindingalso providedevidence forthe
generalizationof the results across at least the
three firm environments. These responses,
however, might differfrom those of subjects in
other firms that do not advocate the software

engineering approach to developing software.
The research questionnairewas administeredto
softwaredeveloperson-siteat twoof the locations
and administeredby mailat the third.Threehundredthirty-five
useable responses were obtained.
On-site administration ellicited 105 useable
responses (53 of 54 in CompanyA and 52 of 53
in CompanyB). On-siteadministrationof the test
instrument at Company C was not feasible
because of the large number of software
developersthatparticipated.Therefore,questionnaires, with returnenvelopes, were distributed
to 500 individualsthrough the company mail
system. Ofthese, 230 useable responses (46 percent) were received. Table 1 shows summary
descriptive statistics for the 335 respondents.
Allrespondentswere informedof the purpose of
the study and were asked to identifythemselves
on the survey instrumentso thatthe researchers
could relate their responses with internalcompany information.They were, however,told that
only summaryresults would be providedto their
firmand thattheiranonymitywouldbe protected.
Each firm, in addition, provided a cover letter
signed by the appropriatevice presidentthat encouraged the respondents to participatein the
study, stated that internaldata wouldbe used in
addition to the survey data so their individual
assessments could be correlated with internal
company information,and reinforced that individualanonymitywould be protected by the
researchers. The management of Company B
also provided confidential managerial performance ratings of the subjects, which made it
possible to relatean independentassessment of
performancewith the self-reportedmeasure of
performanceobtained from the respondents.
Measures
A preliminaryquestionnairewas pilot-testedwith
17 softwaredevelopers to assess logical inconsistencies, ease of understanding, and task
relevance.Therewere some modificationsto the
originalinstrumentto clarifythe meaning of particularsections. None of these responses were
used in the analysis reported in this study.
Performance
Perceived performance was measured by a
single item, which asked each subject to com-
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Respondents

Number
Percent
Gender
Female
Male
89
246
27
73
Education
HS Diploma + Some College
Bachelors Degree
BS + Some GraduateWork
Masters Degree
PhD
53
153
67
60
2
16
45
20
18
1
Category
Age
Mean
Standard Deviation
Software Engineering Experience
Mean
Standard Deviation
pare his or her overall job performance with

others in the firmat the same level in the same
specialtyarea. A nine-pointscale was used, with
anchors ranging from "very inferior,the very
worst" to "very superior,the very best."
While "objective" performance measures or
management ratingsare desirable indicatorsof
performance,there is evidence thatself-reported
performanceis useful for research of the type
done here. One study on the accuracy of selfappraisals found that self-appraisals are as
predictive as other assessment methods (i.e.,
psychologicaltests, past performance,and peer
ratings)withwhichthey are compared(Shrauger
and Osberg, 1981). Anotherstudy showed that
self-appraisals conducted for the purpose of
distributingrewardsare more lenientthan those
conducted for research purposes (Farh and
Werbel,1986). However,the same studyshowed
that leniencydiminisheswhen individualsare informedthattheirself-appraisalswillbe evaluated
against objective records, as is the case in this
study.
A recent field evaluationconcludes that though
self-assessments may be inflated,they contain
little halo effect; and inflated ratings do not
necessarily contradictaccuracy of assessment
(Foxand Dinur,1988).An empiricalinvestigation
36.4 years
8.2 years
9.8 years
6.9 years
of self-appraisal-basedperformanceevaluation
concludes that lenient self-appraisalsare likely
to occur when they lead to some personal gain
or when no independentperformancemeasures
are available (Farh, et al., 1988). The level of
ratings, however, should not influence validity
unless there is severe restriction-of-range.
Anotherinvestigationon assessing the utilityof
self-evaluationsof work performancesuggests
that in theoreticalstudies of job performance,the
researcher is probablywell-advised to include
self-descriptionsas a source of data (Thornton,
1980).
A characteristicof the performancemeasure is
that it is a single item, ratherthan a multiple-item
measure. The use of a single-item measure for
performancecontinuesto be a topic of academic
controversy in the psychological literature
(Cascio, 1987). This was not foreseen as a problem forthis study, however,because it has been
demonstratedthat single items that capture the
global meaningof a concept may be effective indicators of performance(Scarpello and Campbell, 1983). While it is not possible to estimate
reliabilitywith conventional methods such as
alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951), there is
some evidence of the validityof this measure for
this study.Itwas possibleto correlatethe respon-
401
dent's self-assessments with an independent

managerialratingof performanceforthe software
developers in CompanyB. The managerialperformance ratingwas highly correlatedwith the
self-rating (r=.51, p=.0001), suggesting that
there was criterion-relatedvalidityfor using this
measurementat CompanyB. Further,therewere
no significant differences between the performance self-assessments of individualsat CompanyB and the othertwocompanies,whichlends
furthercredibilityto the validityof this measure.
Effort
Individual
effortwas assessed withan instrument
based on expectancy theory.Expectancytheory
emphasizes the cognitive aspects of motivation
(Vroom,1964). Notingthis aspect of the theory,
Mitchelland Beach (1977) and Zedeck (1977)
proposedthatjudgmentmodelingtechniquesfrequently employed to examine cognitive issues
could be used for an examinationof expectancy
theory.Stahland Harrell(1981; 1983)developed
such a judgment modeling approachfor an examinationof the explanatoryabilityof the expectancy theory models. Using the same approach
for this study, an individual'seffort level was
assessed withan instrumentbased uponthe expectancy theory of motivation.This instrument
operationalizesVroom's(1964)theoreticalmodel
of expectancytheory.Usingthis instrument,subvalence, expectanjects providedinstrumentality,
fortheircurrentjob
cy and effort-levelinformation
(see Appendix A for a description of the
instrument).
First,subjects were asked to indicatetheirprobability estimates of the likelihood of a set of
second-leveljob outcomes (e.g., frequentlywork
overtimeto meet deadlines, be admiredby peers
and colleagues). Keeping these probabilitiesin
mind, they were then asked to indicate the
valence of beinga highlyeffectiveworkperformer
(Response A).
Following Response A, the respondent was
asked to indicatethe likelihood(probability)
that,
if a great effortwere exerted, he or she would
be a highly effective work performer.Then the
subject indicated the level of effort he or she
would exert, given the circumstances of his or
her currentjob (Response B).
This measure is not a typical, multi-itemscale
fromwhich a score is obtained by some mathe-
matical combinationof items. It is designed to

take the subject throughthe sort of calculus implied in expectancy theory. This behaviorally
orientedmeasure is very consistent withthe expectancy theory notion of motivationand has
been validatedby a numberof priorstudies. Stahl
and Harrell(1981) performedtwo separate experiments using the instrumentand found that
this approachexplains significantportionsof the
variance in an individual'seffortlevel (R2 = .77
and .84). Additionalstudies also found that the
measure is a good predictorof effort:Harrelland
Stahl (1984) reportthat R2 = .74, and Harrell,
et al. (1985) indicate R2 = .85.
Ability
Abilitywas operationalizedwithtwo items. One

item asked the software developer to compare
his or her level of native intellectualabilitywith
others in the firmat the same level in the same
specialtyarea. Self-evaluationsof abilityare valid
indicators,given certain conditions (Mabe and
West, 1982). First,the participantsmust be informed that the self-evaluationwould be compared with criterion measures. Second, the
self-evaluations should remain anonymous.
Third,the subjects must compare themselves
with others. Fourth,the self-evaluationsshould
be relatedto a specificabilityor category;the participants'self-evaluationsof abilityrelateto their
nativeintellectualability.A fifthfactorsuggested
by Mabe and West (1982), i.e., the rater's experience withself-evaluation,is unknownforthis
study. Withthe exception of the last factor, all
of the above conditions were met in this study.
The second item was a ratingof the qualityof
the respondents' formal training or education
relativeto others in their firmat the same level
in the same specialty area. Rasch and Harrell
(1991) found that these two items constitute a
reasonable measure of abilityin a study involving accountingprofessionals.Theyoriginallyproposed three items to measure ability:(1) native
intellectualability,(2) qualityof academic education, and (3) extent of academic education (in
years). Theiranalysis shows strong supportfor
the first two, but very weak and statisticallyinsignificant support for the extent of academic
education. Based on theirfindingswe elected to
include native intellectualabilityand qualityof
academic education as items to measure abili-
ty. Anotherreasonwe chose these two itemswas

because their study was- also concerned with
global concepts of performanceand abilityand
their subjects included consulting/information
system professionals.The measurementwas actually a nine-pointscale, with anchors ranging
from "very inferior,the very worst" to "very
superior,the very best." Inthe data analysis,the
two items were shown to "load"on one conceptual factor-ability. The factor loadings for both
variables were statisticallysignificantat p <.05
(see Appendix B).
Individual Characteristics
Three individualcharacteristicswere measured:
need forachievement, locus of control,and selfesteem. Need forachievementwas measuredusing a five-itemscale developed by Steers and
Braunstein (1976) (a=0.73). Locus of control
refersto the degree to whichindividualsfeel they
can controltheirown "destiny."Individualswith
a stronglocus of controlfeel thatmost thingsthat
happen to them are influenced by themselves,
whereas individualswith a low locus of control
feel they have littleor no controlover things that
happento them. Rotter's(1966) 15-itemmeasure
of locus of control was used for this study
(a =0.71). Self-esteem was measured with the
25-five item adult formof Coopersmith's(1967)
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguitywas measured using the six-item
role ambiguityscale developed by Rizzo, et al.
(1970). Role ambiguityis the degree to whichthe
individualhas knowledgeaboutwhat behavioris
expected and whetherthere are guidelines concerning appropriate behavior. The internal
reliability (Cronbach, 1951) was very high
self-esteem scale (a =0.80).
Analysis
The simple correlationmatrixforthe variablesis
shown in Table 2. Structuralequation modeling
using LISRELVII(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988)
was appliedto test the fit of the research model
(shown in Figure 1) to the data collected using
sample covariance matrices. Two-stage least
squares and maximum-likelihoodprocedures
yielded initial and final parameter estimates,
respectively. This analysis provides direct
measures of the degree to whichtheoreticalconstructs are related, the extent of errors in
variables and equations, and the relationships
of
between constructsand the operationalization
(a = 0.89).
Goal Attributes
Thereis ampletheoryand evidence thatspecific,
challenging goals lead to higher performance
than general, easy goals (Carrolland Tosi, 1973;
Lathamand Locke, 1979; Locke, et al., 1981).
The Task-Goal AttributesScale developed by
Steers (1975)was used to measuregoal specificity (a =0.83) and goal difficulty(a =0.81).
Table 2. Zero-OrderCorrelation Matrixfor Research Variables
PE
Variable
EF
RA
AN
Performance
Effort
(PE) 1
(EF) .38*
Role Ambiguity
AchievementNeeds
Locus of Control
1
(RA) -.15* -.32*
1
.39* -.25*
(AN) .40*
.20*
-.08
-.11*
-.03
(LC)
Self-Esteem
(SE)
Goal Specificity
Goal Difficulty
(GS) .08
(GD) -.01
.23*
Intellectual
(IA) .61*
Ability
Qualityof Education (QE) .17*
LC
SE
GS
GD
IA
QE
1
.20*
.15*
-.23*
.26*
1
-.30*
.20* -.79*
.23* -.03
.22*
1
.15* -.19*
.13*
.16* -.11* - .01
.19* .01
.11* -.06
.27* -.03
.14* .06
.05
.07
-.06
.01
.01
.07
*Statistically
significantat p < 0.05.
403
those constructs (Pedhazur, 1982). LISREL

of scale
analysispermitsthe explicitincorporation
reliabilitiesinto the measurement errorterms,
providinga greater degree of statistical control
than classical path analytic techniques. A
descriptionof the LISRELstructuralmodel and
a discussion of its statisticalpropertiesare contained in Appendix B.
Because the role ambiguityand goal specificity
scales were highly correlated (r= -.79), a fac-
toranalysis was performedusing theirindividual

scale items (six for role ambiguityand three for
goal specificity).The scale-item scores were adjustedto ensure thatthey went inthe same direction. All nine items loaded heavily on a single
factor,whichis called goal clarityin the empirical
performancemodel.The internalreliability
(Cronbach, 1951) for the goal clarityscale was very
high (a =0.92).
Results
Resultsof the analysisare shown as the empirical
performance model (Figure 2). The proposed
linkages of the research model (Figure 1) were
tested at a statisticalsignificancelevelof p <0.05.
Allsignificantlinkages were retainedin the empiricalperformancemodel.
The strength of the relationships among the
variables in the empirical performance model
(Figure2) is represented by standardizedsolution coefficients. These coefficientscould range
from -1 to +1 and provide meaningful
measuresto assess the relativestrengthbetween
variables.The empiricalperformancemodel explains 54 percent of the variance in the reported
individualperformancelevels (R2= .54).
The total effect of a variable on software
developers' perceptions of performanceis due
to both direct and indirecteffects of intervening
variables.An individual'sachievementneeds, for
example, have a totaleffect of 0.26 on perceived
performance(directeffect of 0.18 and indirecteffect of 0.08). Indirecteffects are calculated by
combiningtheireffects withinterveningvariables.
The indirecteffect of achievementneeds on performance is computed by multiplyingthe direct
effect of achievement needs on effort by the
direct effect of efforton performance.The total
effects on performance for all variables are
shown in Table 3.
As shown, high achievement needs were

positivelyrelatedto effortand perceived performance. Those individualswitha strongsense of
controlover theirlives and high self-esteem also
had higher perceived performance than their
counterparts.The hypothesizedrelationshipsbetween effortand self-esteem and locus of control(Paths 1b and 3a in Figure1), however,were
not supported in this study.
As predicted,goal claritywas positivelyrelated
to an individual'seffortlevel. Goal difficultywas
also positivelyrelatedto effort,as predicted.The
expected positive effect of goal difficultyon performance was not, however, found by this
research. In fact, goal difficultywas negatively
related to performance.As predicted, both individualeffortand perceivedabilitywere positively relatedwithsoftwaredevelopers' perceptions
of performance.
Individual
abilityhad the strongesttotaland direct
effect (.54) on reportedperformance.This result
is consistent with the finding by Hunter and
Hunter(1984)thatthe best single predictorof performance is ability. Effort was less strongly
related to software developers' perceived
performance,though still a very importantfactor (total effect=.21).
Achievementneeds had the second greatesttotal
effect on perceived performance (.26). The
relativelysmall total effect of goal difficultyon
perceived performance (-.07) was due to a
positiveindirecteffect througheffort(.04)and the
off-settingnegative directaffect on performance
(-.11). Goal clarity had the smallest effect on
perceived performance(.04).
Discussion
Priorto discussing the results, there are three
methodologicalissues in this study that warrant
mention.First,this researchemploysa structural
equation modeling technique, but because the
data are cross-sectional,the causal linksbetween
the variablesshould be considered withcaution
and subjectedto additionalfutureresearch.Second, with scales of the type used here there is
the possibility of common method variance,
whichwouldinflatethe relationshipsbetweenthe
variables.This does not appear to be a problem
with this data for two reasons. First, if common
methodvariancewas a serious problem,the zero
Figure 2. Empirical Performance Model

Table 3. Empirical Performance Effects
Relation
Achievement Needs
With Performance
Direct
Effect
Indirect
Effect
Total
Effect
0.18
0.08
0.26
0.15
----
0.15
0.11
----
0.11
With Performance
----
0.04
0.04
Goal Difficulty
With Performance
- 0.11
0.04
-0.07
Self-Esteem
With Performance
Locus of Control
With Performance
Goal Clarity
Effort
With Performance
0.21
---
0.21
0.54
----
0.54
Ability
With Performance
ordercorrelations(see Table 3) would be more

similarthan is the case. The rangeof correlations
is from .01 to .79. Second, a test for common
methodvariancerevealed no indicationof a unidimensionalfactor(Podsakoffand Organ,1986).
The third methodological issue relates to the
variables included in this study. Although the
research model integrates expectancy theory,
goal-settingtheory,and individualcharacteristics,
othervariablesnotassessed inthis researchmay
affectperformance.The modeldoes notconsider
environmentalfactors or situationalconstraints.
Futureresearch should include such variables
to more fully understand the contextual and
individual effects on software development
performance.
The performancemodel developed in this study
extends priorresearch by integratingelements
fromexpectancytheory,goal-settingtheory,and
organizationalbehaviorspecific to the software
developmentprocess. Thisresearchis in linewith
the argumentsof Curtis,et al. (1988), Goldstein
and Rockart(1984), and McGarry(1984) where
individualcharacteristics are the predominant
factors affecting software developers' performance. Ofthese factors,abilityhas the strongest
direct effect on perceived performance-more
than twice as strongas the effects of workeffort,
personality dimensions, and perceived
characteristicsof the task.
Performanceis also affected by the natureof the
work goals in a relativelycomplex way. While
goal difficultyis negativelyrelateddirectlyto performance, if the difficultgoals lead to increased
effort,then it is the increasedeffort(drivenby the
difficultgoals) that has a positive effect on performance.Similarly,goal clarityhas no directeffects on performancebut appears to increase
the individual'slevel of effortand, subsequently, performance.
One reason that may account forthe differences
between these results and goal-settingtheory is
the complexityinherentin softwaredevelopment.
Goal-settingtheory, as explicated by Lockeand
Latham (1990), is developed largely from experimentalstudies in which the tasks were very
simple. These studies demonstrate that the effects of goal specificityand difficultyare not nearly as strong in the case of more complex tasks.
Anotherpossibilityis thatthe difficultyof the tasks
faced by the subjects inthis situationvaries more
widelythan in a laboratorysetting, thus creating

the perceptionof unattainabilityby the subject.
A thirdpossibilityis thatthis study measuredsoftware developer's perceived performance and
perceived ability.An individual'sperceived performance may tend to drop as goals become
moredifficult,althoughtheiractual performance
may increase (Locke and Latham, 1984). This
phenomenon is due to an increase of individual
effort,whichresults in higherperformanceon an
absolute scale; yet the individualmay feel a
sense of less accomplishmentwhen measured
againstthe new (higher)standards.Because this
study measures an individual'sperceptionsat a
point in time, as compared to a perceptionover
changing time periods and changing goals, this
phenomenonmay notexist inthis researchstudy.
The researchresultsprovidenew insightsregarding the relative importanceof how expectancy
theory, goal-setting theory, and individual
characteristicsaffectthe perceivedperformance
of software development professionals. These
preliminaryfindings indicate that goal-setting
theory may have complex implicationsfor software development performance.Goal difficulty
had a negative relationshipto performancebut
a positive relationto effort. Because of this offsetting effect, the degree of goal difficultyhad a
relativelysmall overall effect on performance.
Goal clarityalso had a relativelysmall effect on
perceived performance. Further research is
needed to gain additionalinsight intothe extent
to which goal-setting theory affects software
development performance.
characteristicswere foundto be related
Individual
to both effort and performance. High achievement needs were directlyrelated to both effort
and perceivedperformance,whereasself-esteem
and locus of control had a direct relation to
perceived performance.Since these individual
characteristicshad a relativelylarge combined
effect on perceived performance, further
research is needed to provide greater insight
into potentialcasual linksamong these relationships and the reasons for such causality.
Summary and Conclusions

Thisstudydevelopedan empiricallybased model
to analyze factors that affect the perceived performance of software developers. A numberof
significant hypotheses can be generated from

this modelto be empiricallyvalidated,or refuted,
by futureresearch. Several of these hypotheses
are related to the impact of goal-setting theory
on the performance of individual software
developers.The resultsindicatethatgoal difficulty had a negativerelationshipto performancebut
a positive relationshipto effort. Because of this
off-setting effect, the degree of difficulty of
organizationalgoals had a relativelysmalloverall
effect on performance.Goal clarity,in addition,
also had a relativelysmall overalleffect on performance.Futureresearch is needed to gain additional insight into this finding. This research
could focus on establishingcausal relationships
based on the tenets of goal theory. The relative
strength of these relationships could then be
compared to the strength of both individual
motivationand individualdifferences regarding
theireffect on softwaredevelopers'performance.
The resultsof this studyalso indicatedthata software developer's abilityand individualneed for
achievement were the two strongest factors
determining individual performance. Further
research needs to be conducted to investigate
this finding in greater detail, specifically with
respectto causal relationshipsbetweenindividual
characteristicsand workperformance.Increased
knowledge of these relationshipscould provide
managementinsightintowherethe "highpayoff"
areas exist to furtherenhance the performance
of software developers.
The study also indicated that a software
developer's motivation or level of effort was
anotherimportantfactorin determiningindividual
performance.Althoughthis study used an expectancy theory model to determine the individual
motivationlevel, furtherworkis needed to determine specific intrinsicand extrinsicfactors that
impact the motivationof software developers.
These findingscould providevaluablei isightinto
effective management techniques and approaches to improvethe software development
process.
The above findings identifya numberof issues
relatedto boththe relativeeffects of factorsthat
affect perceived performance of software
developmentprofessionalsand the measurement
of those factors. Extension of this work could
have a majorimpact on understandingand improvingsoftwaredevelopmentperformancefrom
both a theoreticaland an applied perspective. It
is hoped that this initialstudy willstimulatefurther examinationof these issues.
References
Anderson, C. "Locus of Control, Coping
Behaviorsand Performancein a Stress Setting," Journal of Applied Psychology (62:1),
February1977, pp. 446-451.
Baker, D., Ravichandran,R., and Randall, D.
"ExploringContrastingFormulationsof Expectancy Theory,"Decision Sciences (20:1),
Winter1989, pp.1-13.
Baroudi,J. "The Impactof Role Variableson IS
Personnel Work Attitudes and Intentions,"
MIS Quarterly(9:4), December 1985, pp.
341-356.
Boehm, B. "ImprovingSoftware Productivity,"
Computer(20:9),September 1987, pp. 43-57.
Brownell,P. and Mclnnes, M. "BudgetaryParticipation, Motivation, and Managerial
Performance,"TheAccountingReview(62:4),
October 1986, pp. 587-600.
Butler,J. and Womer,K. "Hierarchicalvs. NonNested Tests for Contrasting ExpectancyValence Models: Some Effects of Cognitive
Characteristics," Multivariate Behavioral
Research (20:3), July 1985, pp. 335-352.
Carroll,S. and Tosi, H. Managementby Objectives, McMillan,New York, NY, 1973.
Cascio, W. Applied Psychology in Personnel
Management,PrenticeHall,EnglewoodCliffs,
NJ, 1987.
Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of SelfEsteem, Freeman,San Francisco,CA, 1967.
Couger, J. "Motivation Norms for Software
Engineers Versus Those for Programmer
Analysts," Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on InformationSystems,
December 15-17, 1986, San Diego, CA, pp.
214-223.
Couger, J. and Zawacki, R. Motivatingand
Managing ComputerPersonnel, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, 1980.
Cronbach, L. "CoefficientAlpha and the Internal Structureof Tests," Psychometrika(16:3),
September 1951, pp. 297-334.
Curtis,B. "By the Way, Did Anyone Study Any
Real Programmers?"in EmpiricalStudies of
Programmers, E. Soloway and S. lyengar
(eds.), Alex PublishingCorp., Norwood,NJ,
1986, pp. 256-262.
Curtis, B., Krasner,H., and Iscoe, N. "A Field
Predicting Developers' Performance
Study of the Software Design Process For
of theACM
LargeSystems," Communications
(31:11), November 1988, pp. 1268-1287.
Farh, J. and Werbel, J. "The Effects of Purpose
of the Appraisal and Expectation of Validation
on Self-Appraisals Leniency," Journal of Applied Psychology (71:3), August 1986, pp.
527-529.
Farh, J., Werbel, J., and Bedeian, A. "An Empirical Investigation of Self-Appraisal-Based
Performance
Personnel
Evaluation,"
Psychology (41:1), Spring 1988, pp. 141-156.
Ferris, K. "A Test of the Expectancy Theory of
Motivation in an Accounting Environment,"
TheAccountingReview(52:3),July 1977, pp.

605-615.
Fox, S. and Dinur, Y. "Validity of Self Assessment: A Field Evaluation," Personnel
Psychology (41:3), Autumn 1988, pp. 581-592.
Goldstein, D. and Rockart, J. "An Examination
of Work Related Correlates of Job Satisfaction in Programmer/Analysts," MIS Quarterly (8:2), June 1984, pp. 103-115.
Harrell, A. and Stahl, M. "Modeling Managers'
Effort-Level Decisions for a Within-Persons
Examination of Expectancy Theory in a
Budget Setting," Decision Sciences (15:1),

Winter 1984, pp. 52-73.
Harrell, A., Caldwell, C., and Doty, E. "Expectancy Theory Predictions of Accounting
Students' Academic Success Motivation,"
The Accounting Review (60:4), October 1985,
pp. 724-735.
Hayduk, L. Structural Equation Modeling with
LISREL: Essentials and Advances, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD,
1987.
Hunter, J. and Hunter, R. "Validity and Utilityof
Alternative Predictors of Job Performance,"
Psychological Bulletin (96:1), July 1984, pp.
72-98.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. LISREL 7: A Guide
to the Program and Applications, SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL, 1988.
Kaplan, S. "Evaluation of Research on Expectancy Theory Predictions of Auditor Effort
Judgments," Advances in Accounting (3),

1985, pp. 332-340.
Landy, F. and Becker, W. "Motivation Theory
Reconsidered," Research in Organizational

Behavior(9), 1987, pp. 1-38.
Latham, G. and Locke, E. "Goal Setting: A
Motivational Technique That Works,"
408
OrganizationalDynamics(8:2),Autumn1979,
pp. 68-80.
Lawler, E. and Suttle, J. "Expectancy Theory and
Job Behavior,"OrganizationalBehaviorand
Human Performance (9:3), June 1973, pp.
482-503.
Locke, E. and Latham, G. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
Locke, E. and Latham, G. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
Locke, E., Saari, L., Shaw, K., and Latham, G.
"Goal Setting and Task Performance: 19691980," Psychological Bulletin (90:1), July
1981, pp. 125-152.

Mabe, P. and West, S. "Validity of SelfEvaluation of Ability: A Review and MetaAnalysis," Journal of Applied Psychology
(67:3), June 1982, pp. 280-296.
McClelland, D. The Achieving Society, Van
Nostrand, New York, NY, 1961.
McGarry,F. "What Have We Learned in the Last
Six Years?" Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Software Engineering
Workshop
(SEL-82-007), NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD, 1984.
Mitchell, T. "Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction, Occupational Preference and Effort: A
Theoretical, Methodological and EmpiricalAppraisal," Psychological Bulletin (81:12),
December 1974, pp. 1053-1077.
Mitchell, T. "Organizational Behavior," Annual
Review of Psychology (30), 1979, pp. 243-281.
Mitchell, T. "Expectancy-Value Models in
Organizational Psychology," in Expectations
and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in
Psychology, N. Feather (ed.), Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982.
Mitchell, T. and Beach, L. "Expectancy Theory,
Decision
and Occupational
Theory,
Preference and Choice," in Human Judgment
and Decision Processes in Applied Settings,
M.F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds.), Academic
Press, New York, NY, 1977, pp. 203-226.
Nickerson, C. and McClelland, G. "AcrossPersons Versus Within-Persons Test of
Expectancy-Value Models: A Methodological
Note," Journal of Behavioral Decision Mak1989, pp.
ing (2:4), October-December
261-270.
Pedhazur, E. Multiple Regression in Behavioral
Research: Explanation and Prediction, 2nd
edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New

York,NY, 1982.
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. "Self-Reports in
Research:Problemsand ProsOrganizational
pects," Journalof Management(12:4),Winter
1986, pp. 531-543.
Porter,L.and Lawler,E. ManagerialAttitudeand
Performance, Irwin-Dorsey,Homewood, IL,
1968.
Rasch, R. and Harrell,A. "A PreliminaryExaminationof FactorsThat Impactthe Performance of CPAFirmProfessionals,"Southeast
American Accounting Association Proceedings, Auburn,AL, 1991, pp. 112-116.
Reneau, J. and Grabski, S. "A Review of
Researchin Computer-Human
Interactionand
IndividualDifferences Within A Model for
Research in Accounting Information
Systems," The Journal of Information
Systems (2:1), Fall 1987, pp. 33-53.
Rizzo,J., House, R., and Lirtzman,S. "RoleConflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly
(15:2), June 1970, pp. 150-163.
Rotter,J. "GeneralizedExpectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs (80:1),
1966, pp. 1-27.
Scarpello,V. and Campbell,J. "JobSatisfaction:
Are All the Parts There?" Personnel
Psychology(36:3),Autumn1983, pp. 577-600.
Shrauger, J. and Osberg, T. "The RelativeAccuracyof Self-Predictionsand Judgments by
Others in Psychological Assessment,"
Psychological Bulletin (90:2), September
1981, pp. 322-351.
Stahl, M. and Harrell,A. "ModelingEffortDecisions With Behavioral Decision Theory:
Towardan IndividualDifferencesModelof Expectancy Theory," OrganizationalBehavior
and HumanPerformance(27:3), June 1981,
pp. 303-325.
Stahl, M.and Harrell,A. "Using Decision Modeling to MeasureSecond LevelValences in Expectancy Theory," OrganizationalBehavior
and HumanPerformance(32:1),August1983,
pp. 23-34.
Steers, R. "TaskGoalAttributes,inAchievement,
and Supervisory Performance," Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance

(13:3), June 1975, pp. 392-403.
Steers, R. and Braunstein, D. "A Behaviorally
Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work
Settings," Journal of Vocational Behavior
(9:2), October 1976, pp. 251-266.
Steers, R. and Porter, L. Motivationand Work
New York,
Behavior,3rdedition,McGraw-Hill,
NY, 1983.
Thornton,G.C. "PsychometricPropertiesof SelfAppraisalsof Job Performance,"Personnel
Psychology (33:2), Summer 1980, pp.
263-271.
Vroom, V. Workand Motivation,Wiley, New
York, NY, 1964.
Wood, R., Mento,A., and Locke, E. "TaskComplexityas a Moderatorof Goal Effects:A MetaAnalysis," Journal of Applied Psychology
(72:3), August 1987, pp. 416-425.
Zedeck, S. "An InformationProcessing Model
and Approachto the Study of Motivation,"
OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance (18:1), February1977 pp. 47-77.
About the Authors

Ronald H. Rasch is assistant professor of accountingand informationsystems at the University of Florida.Dr.Rasch receivedhis Ph.D.from
the Universityof Texas at Austin. He was an informationsystems consultant and designer for
the United States Air Force priorto joining the
facultyat the Universityof Florida.His research
interestsincludethe determinationof information
requirementsfor informationsystem designs in
an organizationalsetting and factors that affect
the performanceand productivityof information
systems analysts and designers.
Henry L. Tosi is professor of management and
organizational behavior at the University of
Florida. Dr. Tosi received his Ph.D. from The
Ohio State University.His research interests include the development of organizations and
motivationalprocesses. He is a Fellow of the
Academy of Management,past member of the
reviewboardsof Administrative
Science Quarterly and the Academyof ManagementReview,and
is currentlythe editorof the LeadershipQuarterly.
Appendix A
Motivation Level Information for Current Job
Your Current Job
In the followingsituation,you are asked to providelikelihood(probability)informationfor your current
job. Any response ranging from p = 0% (never) to p = 100% (always) is appropriate. If, however, you
can't estimate these likelihood(probability)

values precisely,you may respondwitheitherp = 10% (low)
or p = 90% (high).
If you are a highly effective performerin your currentjob, the likelihood(probability)that you will
-frequently work overtimeto meet deadlines is ...........................
(p =
(p =
-be admired by your peers and colleagues is .............................

-be assigned challenging duties that increase your
professional competence is ...........................................
(p =
(p =
.. (p =
-get more economic rewardsthan in another job is ........................

-have good futurejob security is .....................................
-be promotedto a more influentialjob is .................................

(p =
Response A: Withthese factors in mind, indicate the attractiveness to you of being a highly effective performerin your currentjob.
-4
-5
-2
-3
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Very
Very
Unattractive
Attractive
Further Information: If you exert a great effort, the likelihood(probability)that you will be a highly
effective performerin this job is:
)
(P=
B:
With
information
in
how
much
effort do you make to be a highly efthe
above
mind,
Response
fective performerin your currentjob?
0
Zero
Effort
Average
Effort
9
Great
Effort
Appendix B
Analysis Using the LISRELModel
In this paper, the Joreskog-Keesling-Wiley model, commonly known by the copyrighted name of the
computer program LISRELVII(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988), was used. Detailed results of the analysis
are contained in this appendix.

Empirical Performance Model: r7 =
r + rF + s
(A1)
Where:
=
effort
performance
self-esteem
achievement needs
locus of control
t =
goal difficulty
goal clarity
ability
.00
.21
.00
.00
.00
.15
.39
.18
.00
.11
.19
-.11
.19
.00
.00
.54
.71
.46
Where r represents a vector of latent dependent variables, t represents a vector of latent independent
variables, A and r are coefficient matrices, and s is a random vector of residuals (errors in equations,
randomdisturbanceterms).
Based on the proposed Integrated Research Model (Figure 1) 3(1,1), 0(1,2) and 0(2,2) were initially set
to zero to test the proposed relationship between effort and performance. Since there are no proposed
relationships between goal clarity and performance or effort and ability, r(2,5) and r(1,6), respectively,
were also set to zero. Following the intitialdata analysis, r(1,1) and r(1,3) were also set to zero because
there was no statistically significant relationship (p<.05) between effort and either self-esteem or locus
of control.
The Dependent Variable Measurement Model

This equation constitutes a measurement model for the dependent variables in the empirical performance model (Equation Al). In LISREL modeling, dependent indicator variables are designated as y,
Ay defines the structural relationship between the latent dependent variables and their indicator
variables,and Erepresents the measurement error.The relationshipbetween the dependent variables

and the indicator (observable) variables used to measure them is captured by the following measure-
ment model:
y = Ayn + e
(A2)
Where:
effort level
perceived performance
Ay =
effort
performance
.00
e =
.00
Because the indicator variable for effort was captured using a behavioral decision-making scenario and
the indicator variable for performance was a single-item measure, it is not possible to estimate their
internal error terms, e. As is customary in LISREL analysis, these error terms are explicitly set to zero.
As a point of interest, it should be noted that this procedure is exactly the same as is done implicitly
using ordinaryleast squares linear regression techniques.
The Independent Variable Measurement Model

In LISRELmodeling, independent indicator variables are designated as x, Ax defines the structural relationship between the latent dependent variables and their indicator variables, and 6 represents the
measurement error. The relationship between the independent variables and the indicator variables used
to measure them is captured by the followingmeasurement model:

x = Ax E + 6
(A3)
Where:
self-esteem
need for achievement
locus of control
goal difficulty
goal clarity
intellectualability
qualityof education
100000
1
0
010000
0
0001000
0
1
000100
A,=
0 0 0
000010
0
0
0
0
0
0
.95
.22
0
0
0
0
self-esteem
achievement needs
locus of control
E =
goal difficulty
goal clarity
ability
.20
.27
.29
=
.19
.08
.10
.95
Because five of the observed variables (self-esteem, need for achievement, locus of control, goal difficulty,and goal clarity)were measured using multiple-itemscales, priorto the analysis the errorterms
forthese variableswere fixed at the quantityone minus their internalconsistency (reliability)multiplied
by the varianceof each measure (Hayduk,1987).This approachenables the explicitrecognitionof known
measurementerrorto be incorporatedintothe structuralequationmodel. Forexample, the internalconsistency for self-esteem was .80. The variables were standardizedto a mean of zero and a variance
of one, therefore the errorterm for self-esteem was computed as 1*(1- .80)= .20.
The remainingtwo observable variables (intellectualabilityand qualityof education) were combined
in a factormodel to estimate the conceptual variable,ability.The abilityto combine factoranalytictechniques and estimationtechniques is enabled throughthe LISRELapproachto data analysis.The squared
multiplecorrelationsof .95 and .22 (see Ax)indicatethat these two observable variables "load" on the
conceptual variableability.The factor loadings for both variables are statisticallysignificantat p<.05.
The assessment of fitof the ActualPerformanceModelto the data consists of three steps: (1) examination of the LISRELsolution, (2) measures of overallfit, and (3) detailed assessment of fit (Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1988). With respect to examinationof the solution, careful attentionwas paid to parameter
estimates, standarderrors,correlationsof parameterestimates, squared multiplecorrelations,and coefficients of determination.The main parameterestimates of interest in this study (standardizedsolution
coefficients) are all significant. In addition,there are no identificationproblems that might be caused
by highly correlated parameterestimates.
Measures of overall fit and detailed assessment of fit gave no indicationof any problems. The x2
measurewas 10.75 (p = .38),whichgave no statisticalevidence to rejectthe model.Inaddition,an analysis
of the magnitudeof standardizedresiduals, and a q-plotof standardizedresiduals did not reveal any
non-normalityor identificationproblems with the model.
413

Rasch 1992

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rasch 1992

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Affecting Software Developers' Performance: An Integrated Approach

Author(s): Ronald H. Rasch and Henry L. Tosi

By: Ronald H. Rasch

a positive relationshipto effort.Because of this

1This research was sponsored by the SoftwareEngineering

Two theoretical behavioralapproaches, expectancy theory (Mitchell,1974; 1979; 1982) and

MIS Quarterly/September1992 395

Zawacki(1980)indicatethatdata processingprofessionals have higher individualgrowthneeds

the relative effects of the level of effort, goal

Ability(A)refers to factors such as the person's

396 MIS Quarterly/September1992

Figure 1. Integrated Research Model

is depicted in Figurelb. Whentasks are unclear,

MIS Quarterly/September1992 397

Figure 1a. Expectancy Theory Model

Figure 1b. Goal-Setting Model

MIS Quarterly/September 1992

fects on performancewas greateron simpletasks

Figure 1c. IndividualCharacteristics Model

MIS Quarterly/September1992 399

other firms that do not advocate the software

400 MIS Quarterly/September1992

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Respondents

pare his or her overall job performance with

MIS Quarterly/September 1992

dent's self-assessments with an independent

matical combinationof items. It is designed to

Abilitywas operationalizedwithtwo items. One

402 MIS Quarterly/September1992

ty. Anotherreasonwe chose these two itemswas

self-esteem scale (a =0.80).

Table 2. Zero-OrderCorrelation Matrixfor Research Variables

MIS Quarterly/September 1992

those constructs (Pedhazur, 1982). LISREL

toranalysis was performedusing theirindividual

As shown, high achievement needs were

404 MIS Quarterly/September1992

Figure 2. Empirical Performance Model

MIS Quarterly/September1992 405

ordercorrelations(see Table 3) would be more

widelythan in a laboratorysetting, thus creating

Summary and Conclusions

406 MIS Quarterly/September1992

significant hypotheses can be generated from

is hoped that this initialstudy willstimulatefurther examinationof these issues.

MIS Quarterly/September1992 407

Predicting Developers' Performance

Study of the Software Design Process For

TheAccountingReview(52:3),July 1977, pp.

Budget Setting," Decision Sciences (15:1),

Judgments," Advances in Accounting (3),

Reconsidered," Research in Organizational

1981, pp. 125-152.

MIS Quarterly/September 1992

edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New

tional Behavior and Human Performance

About the Authors

MIS Quarterly/September1992 409

can't estimate these likelihood(probability)

-be admired by your peers and colleagues is .............................

-get more economic rewardsthan in another job is ........................

-be promotedto a more influentialjob is .................................

410 MIS Quarterly/September1992

are contained in this appendix.