No. 2.

78
Organizational Control and Work Satisfaction

by Nary Ann Maguire* and William G. (Juchi**

J. HUGH JACKSON LIBRARY

Graduate School of Business

STANFORD UNIVERSITy

August 1975

L~
Stanford TJniversity
k

O~L~~L:~tL ~

*
**

Candidate for the Ph.D., Department of Sociology Associate Professor of Organizational ]3ehavior, Graduate School of Busines:~s

and (by courtesy) Department of Socilogy

This PaPer~is supported by the National Science Foundation, Sociology Section.

ABSTRACT

Data from 2,398 employees of two retail companies indicate that the relationship between control and job satisfaction is complex.

Control does not produce low job satisfaction unless the supervisor using the control is seen as unfair or as inexpert. In general, control disThe effects of

plays a small positive association with job satisfaction.

behavior control and of output control on job satisfaction are quite different. The effects of behavior control on satisfaction are mediated

by characteristics of the supervisor, while the effect of output control o~satisfaction is mediated by the interdependence of the job.

Control and Satisfaction Organizational control as it relates to employee work satisfaction has not been the topic of a great deal of research. Control was subsumed under

the more general topic of supervision in much of the Human Relations literature of the 1950s and early 1960s. For example Day and Hamblins (1964)

work on effects of close and punitive styles of supervision; Kahn and Katzs (1960) work on leadership practices and their effects on morale. What

research has been done on control and satisfaction usually treats control as undifferentiated, and argues that teceiving control reduces job satisfaction (Mann and Dent 1954) while giving control to others (Bachman and Tannenbaum, 1968) or having control over the task situation (Blauner, 1960; Tannenbaum, 1968) increaaes job satisfaction or morale.

Some distinction has been made in the literature between personal and impersonal forms of control; impersonal means of control (e.g., use of statistical records rather than direct observation), according to Blau and Scott (1962), result in higher job satisfaction. Gouldner (1954:162)

argued along similar lines, that control which is attributed to the organization will be perceived as less punitive than control which is attributed to am individual auperviso~. The evidence aurrounding a general dislike of receiving control has not been strong. While Blau and Scott and Gouldner

suggest that the personal/impersonal distinction is important, Bachman and Tannenbaum (1968;248) speculate that the control-satisfaction relationship may be mediated by personality.

-2-

We will argue in this paper that the control-satisfaction relationship is mediated by expectations for the amount and type of control one ought to receive. In particular, the employees level of education, task complexity,

and rank in the organizatioii,influence his or her control expectations. In addition to these individual characteristics, the nature of the task and the ability attributed to the giver of control (the supervisor) will determine whether control produces satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Control Type and Satisfaction:

A. Conting~ncyArg~zient

It is our intention to show that no one form of control exercised by a supervisor tthsubordinatesis in general superior to other forms. It is the

characteristics of the individuals and their jobs which determine whether one particular form of control will produce satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Specifically, employees with higher levels of education, or in higher-level jobs, or in more complex jobs will expect more freedom on the job and will expect to receive less control than persons with lower levels of education, or in lower-level jobs, or in less complex jobs. Persons high on any or

all of these three dimensions will experience greater dissatisfaction with personal forms of control because they will be more likely to perceive such control as arbitrary and/or punitive than will persons low on these dimensions.

Control refers to the process of monitoring and eventual evaluation by a supervisor of the work performed by subordinates. In this research, two

-3forms of control are recognized: behavior control and output control.

Behavior control is defined as control based upon direct personal surveillance and output control as control based upon the measurement of outputs.

Output control will be perceived by employees as a structural attribute of the job, much like working hours, salary and the nature of the work tasks. The finding by Ouchi and Maguire (1975) that the amount of output control used by a supervisor is correlated with the amount of output control he or she receives, suggests the existence of an organizational policy requiring evaluation on the basis of output.

Employees will not perceive a supervisors use of output control as a violation of expectations for freedom on the job. They expect a certain amount

of control to be exercised by their supervisors even if they would prefer otherwise.

Because the goals of various individual employees are often incompatible with (or at least differ from) those of the organization, the organization must set some boundaries on the behavior of individual employees in the aim of achieving organizational goals. part of the job. The employees accept this control as

When the type of control used ct~nhe justified with objective measures, for example, N dollars of merchandise to be turned over in N days, the control

-4may be seen as residing within the structure of the job. Because this form

of control is less likely to be used arbitrarily by a supervisor, it is less likely to be regarded by employees as punitive. A supervisors use of

output control will not affect employees job satisfaction either positively or negatively.

Behavior control on the other hand, is perceived by the employee as closely related to the leadership style of the particular supervisor. The supervisor

using behavior control is not operating within a set of standard guidelines. Output control, relying on some standard levels of output for the various work tasks, lacks the element of potential arbitrariness associated with behavior control.

The impact of behavior control on satisfaction

depends on whether or not it Behavior control

is used properly, from the point of view of the recipient.

is used most effectively when the supervisor understands the way in which the subordinates work is to be performed, so that it is neither arbitrary

nor capricious, and behavior control is best received when it is not seen as punitive. Persons who expect freedom on the job, that is, those with higher

levels of education, higher rank and/or more complex tasks, will react negatively to a supervisors use of behavior control.

Those who do expect less on-the-job freedom, that is, those with lower levels of education, or lower-level jobs, or jobs low in complexity, will experience

-5less dissatisfaction with a supervisors use of behavior control because they will be less likely to regard its use as punitive. (1965) argue along similar lines: Close supervision is apparently resented more strongly on complex than on simple jobs, assuming an equivalent need or expectation for independence and autonomy on the part of the workers involved. (p. 5). Turner and Lawrence

Hypotheses 1 through 3 specify the relationship output control to job satisfaction. 1.

of behavior control and of

Neither behavior control nor output control will be directly associated with job satisfaction.

2.

The negative association between behavior control and job satisfaction will be stronger when education, hierarchical level and/or task complexity are high than when they are low.

3.

No association between output control and job satisfaction

will

be obtained for either high or low levels of education, hierarchy, or task complexity.

In addition to the personal and job characteristics of the receiver of control (his or her education, task complexity, and job level), characteristics of the giver of control (fairness and expertise) and of the task situation (interdependence) may mediate the control-satisfaction relationship. The use

of behavior control by a supervisor regarded by subordinates as unfair or as

-6lacking expertise is more likely to be viewed as punitive than will the use of behavior control by fair or high expertise supervisors.

When interdependence is high, it will be difficult to attribute a collective output to various interdependent jobs and thus output control could be seen as arbitrary and punitive. However, because promotions and raises are awarded

on the individual level, some form of control must be used which takes into account the work of each individual involved. As a result, behavior control

may be perceived by the persons performing these interdependent jobs as a preferable means of control. difficulty (p. 153). Dornbusch and Scott (1975) also acknowledge the

of exercising control on employees in interdependent positions

Two additional hypotheses will be tested: 4. When perceived fairness or expertise of the supervisor is high,

behavior control will have a weaker negative association with job satisfaction 5. than when fairness and expertise are low.

When interdependence among jobs is high, behavior control will be positively associated with job satisfaction and output control negatively associated with job satisfaction.

The Data Research sites and other collection methods are described in Ouchi and Maguire (1974) and will be discussed only briefly here. Questionnaires were

distributed to employees at all levels of five retail stores in the midwest in 1972. 2875 questionnaires were distributed and 2469 were returned; of

-7those returned, 71 were not usable because they were blank or could not be assigned to a department within a store. Thus of the questionnaires When the

orginally distributed, 2398 were returned and usable, 837g.

sample is divided into managers and non-managers, no differences in response rates are observed.

The Measures Behavior control was measured with the question: How often does your immediate supervisor check to see what you are doing on the job? (8-point scale, from can see me almost all of the time to

checks once a week or less). The measure of output control was: When you are being evaluated for a raise or promotion, how much weight does your supervisor give to the records of your output? (7-point scale, from

decision is based entirely on output records to output records are not considered at all in the decision). Our measure of complexity was: How long do you think it would take an inexperienced person basics necessary to handling your job? less to more than 1 year). Supervisors expertise was measured with this item: Regardless of whether or not your supervisor checks often, how familiar is your supervisor with your on-the-job performance? from very familiar to not familiar at all). (5-point scale,

to

learn the

(5-point scale, from 1 month or

-8The measure of job satisfaction was: Which of these statements most closely describes how you feel about your present job? with five alternatives ranging from my job is interesting nearly all of the time to my job is completely dull and monotonous; there is nothing interesting about it.

Measures of other variables referred to in this paper are located in the Appendix.

Analysis Some support was received for hypothesis 1, that no form of control is~in general satisfying or dissatisfying to the employee. Zero order correla-

tions, (Table 1), show that behavior control is not related to job satisfaction (R.05), while output control is weakly related to job satisfaction (R=.l2). Table 2 supports the argument that behavior control is closely related to characteristics of the job and the person performing the job, while output control is not. Behavior control is used significantly more often on

persons of low education*, on non-managers~and on persons in jobs low in complexity than on persons high on these dimensions. Output control

does not differ by subordinates job complexity or level in the hierarchy. *}Tigh education includes junior college graduates and higher, low education includes high school graduates and lower and medium education, not included in our analysis, Includes persons with some college. **For a more detailed breakdown of control used on the various levels within management see Ouchi and Maguire (1974).

TABLE 1
MATRIX OF ZERO-ORDER CORRElATIONS1

1. 2. 3.
4.

Satisfaction Behavior Control Output Control Educational ~ Attainment Complexity Job Level Supervisors Expertise Interdependence Age Fairness of Supervisor

X 2324 1691 2333 ~ 2336 2290 2345 2323 2306 2331

.05 X 1675 2308 2311 2263 2322 2299 2281 2304

.l2**
.

-.14**
-

.35**
-

.2l**
.

.23**
.

.24** .00 .05 .03

.4O**
.

.29**
.

l8** X

l9**

ll**

21*-k

24**

13**

12**

-.l4** X

-.01 .13**

-.08** .32**

.14** -.04

.l6**

.12** .00

1685 1686 1658 1687 1682 1668 1675

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

2336 2287 2327 2324 2299 2312

X 2288
2331

.42** X 2284

.02 -.01

.26** .26** .05 X 2289 2301

.24** .00 .l2** .14** X 2285

.04 .06* .48** .05 .07**

.0

x
2318 2301 2326

2332 2302 2315

2275 2260 2273

*p

<.01

**p <.001 1Product-moment correlation coefficients are given in the upper right-hand triangle; numbers of cases (a) in the lower left-hand triangle.

-10-

TABLE 2 DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOR CONTROL AND IN OUTPUT CONTROL BY EDUCATION, TASK COMPLEXITY, AND JOB LEVEL

Behavior Control High Education Low education Mean 4.26 5.41 n 367 1358
_______

Output Control t-ratio 7.l9** 3.55 952 Mean 2.86 a 292 t ratio 4.38**
_______ -

High complexity Low complexity

4.69 5.35

572 4. 86** 1318

3.39 3.33

474 895

0.42

Managers Non-managers

3.37 5.24

208 0. 62** 2038

3.07 3.33

174 1468

1.38

**

p.<.oOl

-11Only among high and low education levels does a difference exist. The

absence of a relationship between the use of output control and job level was also noted by Dornbusch and Scott (1975).

As Table 3 indicates,

our data fail to support hypothesis 2 but provide There is no relationship between behavior

some support for hypothesis 3.

control and job satisfaction among persons high in education, job level or complexity, contrary to hypothesis 2. As predicted (hypothesis 3), there

is no relationship between output control and job satisfaction among these three groups. However, among persons low in education, job level or job

complexity, both behavior control and output control are positively related to job satisfaction, with only one eRception.

It is surprising that control has no effect on job satisfaction for those high in education, level, and task complexity and is positively related to satisfactionfor those low in these characteristics. One possible explana-

tion Is that because employees high In these characteristics received significantly less behavior control than the low employees (Table 2), they were less aware of it. Although high and low employees received the

same amount of output control, (Table 2) that form of control affected the satisfaction of lower-level employees only. We can provide no adequate

explanation for this positive relationship between output control and job satisfaction obtained among persons low in education, level, and/or complexity. It may be, however, that the low rewards received from the

12

TABLE 3

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONTROL TYPE AND SATISFACTION BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION, JOB, AND CONPLEXITY Behavior Control and Satisfaction High education .03 (365)1

Low education .04 (1357) Non-managers ** .09 (2035) Low complexity (1315)

Managers .11 (207) High complexity .000 (571) Output Control High education .02 (290) Managers .10 (173) High complexity .04 (472) and Satlsfactiqn

-~

Low education .13** (949) Non-managers .14 (1464) Low complexity .15 (893)
** **

p <.01
**

p< .001

1numbers of cases are in parentheses

-13organization by such persons makes them intolerant of ambiguity in their The

work tasks, that is, the payoffs are incommensurate with the risks. introduction of additional structure

In the form of output control may be their

welcomed because it clarifies freedom.

their goals even though it restricts

That behavior control should be positively rather than negatively associated with satisfaction is also contrary to expectations. These data show that Those low in edu-

behavior control is not generally regarded as punitive.

cation, level, and task cem~1exitynot only receive more behavior control, they seem to like it. Further analysis reveals, however, (Table 4) that

the positive effect of behavior control on satisfaction exists only when the supervisor Is perceived as fair.

In Table 4, the correlations between control type and satisfaction are reported separately for those who report their supervisors high or low in fairness. For those with fair supervisors, behavior control has a signifi-

cant positive effect on satisfaction, while more behavior control Is negatively related to satisfaction for those with unfair supervisors. Since

two-thirds of the respondents reported their supervisors as high in overall fairness, the zero-order correlation between behavior control and job satisfaction is slightly positive (R.05). As expected, the relationship

between output control and satisfaction is unaffected by supervisors fairness, supporting the argument that output control Is attributed to

14

TABLE 4

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONTROL TYPE AND SATISFACTION, BY LEVEL OF SUPERVISORS FAIRNESS

Behavior Control and Satisfaction High Fairness .09** (1559)1 (741)

Low Fairnesss

Output Control and Satisfaction High Fairness .1O** (1140) Low Fairness .11 (534)

p
**

<

.01 .001

<

numbers of cases are in parentheses

-15 organizations rather than to individual supervisors.

In addition to fairness, the degree of expertise attributed to the supervisor has an effect on job satisfaction (Table 5) and mediates the relationship between behavior control and job satisfaction (Table 6).

Table 6 presents data on supervisors expertise as it affects satisfaction with control type for the high and low education, job level, and complexity groups (Hypothesis 4). Among persons low in organizational level and persons

in less complex jobs there is a small positive relationship between behavior control and satisfaction when the supervisor is perceived as high in expertise. No negative associations between behavior control and satisfaction were observed when the supervisor had low expertise. However, in five out of the six

comparisons the correlation between behavior control and job satisfaction was lower with a low expertise supervisor than with a high expertise supervisor, i.e. in the predicted direction.

Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive effect of behavior control on satisfaction and a negative effect of output control under high task interdependence. evidence (Table 7) partially supports it. Output control has a positive The

effect on satisfaction under both high and low interdependence, but the effect is stronger under low interdependence. The behavior control-satisfaction

relationship is not mediated by interdependence, however; these results lend partial support to the expectation that output control is more appropriate under conditions of low task interdependence than under conditions

16

TABLE 5

DIFFERENCES IN MEAN LEVELS OF SATISFACTION BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW EXPERTISE GROUPS

Mean High Expertise Low Expertise 4.18 3.69

n 1428 917

tratio 13.O4**

**

<

.001

17

TABLE 6

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN BEHAVIOR CONTROL AND JOB SATISFACTION, BY SUPERVISORS EXPERTISE

High expertise High education

Low expertise High education .14 (157)

Low education

Low education .02 (852)

.06

.10 (505

(208)1

Managers .09 (114)

Nonmanagers .0~ (1245)

Managers .01 (93)

NonManagers .04

(790)

High complexity .02 (368)

Low complexity
*

High complexity .04 (272)

Low complexity

.09 (776)

.05 (539)

<

.01

1numbers of cases are in parentheses

-18

Table 7

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONTROL TYPE AND SATISFACTION BY LEVEL OF JOB INTERDEPENDENCE

Behavior Control and Satisfaction

High interdependence .04 (1958)1

Low interdependence

.03
(337)

Output Control and Satisfaction High interdependence Low interdependence

**

.09

**

.24

(1434)

(243)

**

<

.001

numbers of cases are in parentheses

-19of high task interdependence, although the expected effect on the behavior control-satisfaction relationship did not appear.

Finally, given the lack of support for the commonly-held position that control leads to dissatisfaction and given the consistently small correlation coefficients between control and satisfaction, it seems reasonable to compare the strength of control type as a predictor of satisfaction with other predictors. The results are shown in Table 8.

Behavior control is by far the poorest predictor of satisfaction, followed closely by output control, supporting Gouldners suggestion that supervisors often succeed in de-emphasizing control. increasing with age. Age predicts well, satisfaction

This variable was included because previous research

(Vollmer and Kinney (1955), for example) suggested a positive relationship to satisfaction. Complexity and supervisors fairness also predict well,

the higher the complexity the higher the level of satisfaction and the higher the fairness the higher the satisfaction.

Discussion The absence of a negative relationship between behavior control and job satisfaction among persons with high educational attainment, persons in high-level jobs and persons performing complex jobs is surprising, suggesting that even employees in these groups do not mind being watched and evaluated with more subjective criteria. here.
Some possible explanations are suggested

Table 8

MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF JOB SATISFACTION ON ITS DETERMINANTS (STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS)

Dependent Variable

Behavior Control

Output Control

A g

Supervisors Expertise

Job Level

Job Complexity

Educational Attainment

Interdependence

Supervisor s Fairness

Job Sat is fac tion

.7-

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

.02

.04

.27

.09

.12

.21

.10

.10

.22

1572

B at least 1 times its standard error

**

R2 B at least twice its standard error

.335

-21-

The first such explanation is that respondents did not interpret the qi.~ostionconcerning behavior control in the way we had intended. question is worded: The

How often does your immediate supervisor check to range from This

see what you are doing on the job?, and response categories

checks once a week or less to can see me almost all the time.. latter alternative,

however, may not have indicated highest behavior conClose proximity of the supervisors desk to the

trol to all respondents.

respondents work area may not necessarily mean that the supervisor is constantly monitoring the employees behavior. Dornbusch and Scott (1975)

mention a positive aspect of such employee visibility to the supervisor:

While performers may not value visibility for its own sake

they may tolerate or even welcome it because of the contribution which this condition makes to accuracy of performance evaluations (p. 154).

However, this criticism should apply equally to all respondents, not just to those of high education, level, or task complexity. mentioned earlier, A second possibility,

is that behavior control is not perceived as punitive by

persons with high education, higher-level jobs and/or highly complex jobs. A third possibility is that our measure of satisfaction was too general and Given the

should have been more specific to various facets of the job. relative unimportance of behavior control in predicting

satisfaction when

compared with age or complexity,

for example, whatever association there

may be between behavior control and satisfaction with supervision is cancelled out when only a measure of overall job satisfaction is used. Fin-

ally, the reader should be very careful in generalizing these findings to

-22other industries. One cannot immediately dismiss the possibility store results that the

physical layout of a retail the hierarchical

in more frequent contact between therefore, are accustomed

levels and that subordinates,

to seeing their supervisors frequently and do not perceive frequent contact as punitive control.

Clearly,

the relationship

between control and satisfaction

is not as simple Ex-

as the assertion that more control results

in less job satisfaction.

pectations of control play an important role in shaping its impact on satisfaction. Those low in education, level, and task complexity receive signifi-

cantly more behavior control, yet that control does not yield dissatisfaction. In fact, behavior control leads to dissatisfaction only when the giver of control is seen as unfair. Most of the employees in this study regarded

their supervisors as being high in fairness and thus reported more satisfaction when they received more behavior control.

Output control is quite different.

It does not differ by employees task Output

complexity or rank, but those of low education receive more of it. control, like behavior control, with job satisfaction, fairness or expettise,

generally displays a positive association

but this effect is not mediated by the supervisors perhaps because the source of control is felt to be

the organization and its policies rather than the individual supervisor. Output control has a more pronounced positive effect on satisfaction tasks are low in interdependence, more accurately attributable when

probably because output measurement is

to individuals under that condition.

-23-

The evidence here is strong against the position that control leads to dissatisfaction. That is not to say that an improper, arbitrary use of conRather, the evidence suggests that most

trol will not have that effect.

supervisors attempt to use their control judiciously and perhaps, as Gouldner (l954;l62) has noted, succeed at de-personalizing it and rendering it invisible. The close and punitive supervisory behavior that Day and Hamblin

(1964) fabricated in the laboratory may well exist only in the laboratory. In any ongoing organizatior~control is a subject which everyone prefers to avoid.

-24Appendix

Additional measures of variables are provided here; all are obtained from the questionnaires described earlier.

Job level was coded from the respondents

job title.

Age was an open-ended item.

Educational attainment was ascertained from the following item:

What

is the highest level of education that you have completed?, with six categories ranging from less than 8th grade to 4-year college graduate or beyond.

Interdependence was measured thus:

To what extent does your performance from

depend upon how well others do their job?, with five categories, almost none to a very great deal.

Finally,

supervisors fairness was determined with the question:

In

terms of overall fairness, with categories

how would you rate your direct supervisor?

from below average to one of the best.

-25Bibliography

Bachman, Jerald and Arnold S. Tannenbaum,

The Control-Satisfaction

Relationship Across Varied Areas of Experience, in Tannenbaum, Arnold S., Control in Organizations McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.

Blau, Peter N. and W. Richard Scott. San Francisco, 1962.

Formal Organizations.

Chandler.

Blauner, Robert.

Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern

Society, in Walter Galenson and Seymour Martin Lipset, Labor and Trade Unionism. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1960.

Day, Robert C. and Robert L. Hamblin, Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision, American Journal of Sociology 69, March, 1964.

Dornbusch, Sanford N. and W. Richard Scott. Authority. Josey-Bass.

Evaluation and the Exercise of

San Francisco 1975.

Gouldner, Alvin W., Patterns of Industrial Press, 1954.

Bureaucr~Z, New York:

The Free

-26Kahn, Robert L. and Daniel Katz. Leadership Practice in Relation to

Productivity and Morale in Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (Eds.) Group Dynamics 2nd ed. Harper and Row. New York. 1960.

Mann, Floyd and James Dent.

Appraisals of Supervisors and Attitudes of Survey Research

their Employees in an Electric Power Company. Center, University of Michigan. 1954.

Ouchi, William G. and Nary Ann Maguire. Functions. Administrative

Organizational

Control:

Two

Science Quarterly (forthcoming).

Tannenbaum, Arnold S., Control in Organizations:

Individual Adjustment

and Organizational Performance, in Tannenbaum, Control in Organ-ET1 w429 381 m5 izations.

McGraw-Hill. New York. 1968.

Turner, Arthur N. and Paul R. Lawrence.

Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. 1965.

Volimer, H. N. and J. A. Kinney.

Age, Education, and Job Satisfaction

Personnel, vol. 32, ~l, July, 1958.

~TAF~~

~U~NE~

U~\py