feedback on employee job satisfaction

8/12/2019 feedback on employee job satisfaction

1/6

Japanese production techniques and management havebeen the subject of numerous studies. This research hasfocused on a variety of areas such as technology, productdesign and development, process design anddevelopment, culture, and personnel management. Thesestudies have made significant contributions to their fieldsby enhancing our understanding of the way thesesystems operate, on the one hand, and the ways toimprove/fine-tune these systems on the other.

An interesting aspect of these systems is employeeinvolvement and feedback in problem solving andproduct/process improvement. Hackman and Oldham[1]have developed a well-known model which incorporatesboth of these variables. The Hackman-Oldham jobcharacteristics model contends that providing employeeswith task variety, task identity, task significance, taskautonomy, and feedback, will lead to three criticalpsychological states (experienced meaningfulness of thework, experienced responsibility for outcomes, andknowledge of actual results) which, in turn, will lead tohigh internal work motivation, high quality workperformance, high work satisfaction, and lowabsenteeism and turnover.

While Hackman and Oldham[1] did not explicitlydistinguish between different types of feedback, Early etal.[2] differentiate between outcome feedback(information regarding whether a standard was met), andprocess feedback (information concerning theeffectiveness of the work method used). They contendthat, although outcome feedback can identify the need toadjust action, it does not provide much informationconcerning how to adjust. Process feedback facilitates anindividuals performance by providing the informationnecessary to improve his/her development of an effectivework process or procedure. Tharp and Gallimore[3]

provide a concrete example of process feedback based ontheir research of John Wooden, former UCLA basketballcoach. They found that at least 65 per cent of Woodenscomments during practice games consisted of specificcomments to his players regarding their currentbasketball techniques and how they could perform betterin the future.

The continuous improvement philosophy of total qualitymanagement emphasizes the process type of feedback. Itencourages employees to experiment with the productionsystem, to implement a variety of production methods, toanalyse how each affects the performance of the system,and to choose the method which best achieves theorganizations objectives. Total quality managementstates that employee involvement and feedback improvesemployee satisfaction. Employees feel they are a majorpart of the organization and are motivated to furtherparticipate in improving the system.

A recent article reported that allowing employeesdiscretion in selecting a production method and providingthem with outcome feedback over repeated production

cycles would result in higher performance[4]. It alsofound that allowing this discretion combined with bothoutcome and process feedback would result in higherperformance. The study illustrated that when employeesare given the freedom of choosing production techniques(within organizational constraints) and are provided withoutcome feedback, or both outcome and processfeedback, they will experiment with the productionsystem and develop more effective production schedulingmethods. However, that study did not consider the effecton employee satisfaction.

One would expect that providing employees withdiscretion and feedback (outcome feedback or processfeedback) would not only improve employee performancebut would enhance job satisfaction. The objective of thisarticle is to test these hypotheses by answering thefollowing research questions:

7THE EFFECT OF DI SCRETION, OUTCOM E FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK

The ef f ect of d i scr et i on , ou t com ef eedb a ck , a nd p r ocess f eedb a ckon em p lo yee jo b sa t isf a ct io nBruce McAfee, Vernon Quarstein and Ali reza Ardalan

Extends a pr ev ious stud y on emp loyees increased per f orm ance

Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 95 No. 5, 1995, pp. 7-12MCBUniversity Press Limited, 0263-5577


2/6

What effect does giving employees discretion tochoose from a variety of different productiontechniques and providing them with outcome

feedback have on their satisfaction? What effect does giving employees discretion to

choose from a variety of different productiontechniques and providing them with both outcomeand process feedback have on their job satisfaction?

The first question addresses the effect of discretion andoutcome feedback on employee satisfaction. The secondquestion considers the effect of discretion and both typesof feedback on satisfaction. Therefore, as part of thisstudy, we will determine what type of feedback (outcomefeedback or a combination of outcome and processfeedback) is most beneficial in terms of job satisfaction.We conducted two experiments to examine these issues.

Exper im ent 1The first experiment examined the first research questionmentioned above.To save space we present theexperiment briefly. Interested readers are referred to[4]for a more detailed discussion of this experiment.

Subjects

The 32 subjects who participated were approximately

half male and half female and had an average age of 21.5years. Subjects had an average educational level of 3.5years of college and three years of work experience.

Design and experimental task

The task assigned to subjects was to improve job shopscheduling operations. The experiment involved jobswith different process times and delivery dates which

arrived in batches of six. The subjects task was tosequence jobs to improve flow time and timeliness ofdelivery simultaneously. Three priority rules were used:

(1) first-come first-served (FCFS);

(2) earliest due-date (EDD);

(3) shortest processing time (SPT).

At the start of the experiment, subjects were randomlydivided into two equivalent groups (Group 1 andGroup 2).

After a practice session in which they learned how toexecute the three scheduling methods (see T-l, Table I), allsubjects began the experimental phase using the EDDmethod to establish a common starting point (see T-2,

Table I). Then, each subject scheduled two series ofbatches (see T-3 and T-4, Table I) in counterbalancedorder so that each subject performed the task as bothtreatment and control. That is, Group 1 initiallyscheduled a series of batches (batches 2 to 5) using any ofthe three scheduling methods they chose. Then theyscheduled another series of batches (batches 6 to 10)using the EDD method. The order for Group 2 wasreversed. They initially scheduled batches using the EDDmethod, and then chose among three different priorityrules to schedule the remaining batches. Subjects inGroups 1 and 2 were provided with performance

(outcome) feedback on the scheduling methods they used.

Procedure

The experiment included the following sequence ofactivities:

Step I obtain goal assignment :The goal was toimprove schedule performance by 20 per cent.

8 I NDUSTRI AL M ANAGEM ENT & DATA SYSTEM S 9 5,5

Tab le I . T ime-phased design for Experiment 1

Group/time T-1 T-2:batch 1 T-3: batches 2-5 T-4: batches 6-10

GP 1 Three practice Schedule one batch using an Schedule four batches using a Schedule five batches usingbatches assigned method (EDD) chosen methoda an assigned method (EDD)b

After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtainoutcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results,and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questionson satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction

GP 2 Three practice Schedule one batch using Schedule four batches using Schedule five batches usingbatches an assigned method an assigned method (EDD)b a chosen methoda

After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtainoutcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results,

and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questionson satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction

Notes:achosen method data were taken from Group 1, T-3 and Group 2, T-4b assigned method data were taken from Group 1, T-4 and Group 2, T-3


3/6

Improvement was computed by comparingsubjects scheduling performance with that whichwould have been obtained if the first-come first-

served method was used.

Step II review wait ing jobs:Subjects were told toreview a batch of waiting jobs randomly generatedby the computer.

Step II I obtain i nstr ucti ons:Each group wasgiven instructions regarding how to schedule jobs.Whereas Group 1 was initially told that it coulduse any one of three scheduling methods (FCFS,EDD, and SPT), Group 2 was initially given theassignment of using the EDD method. Later in theexperiment (for batches 6 to 10), these instructions

were reversed so that Group 1 was assigned theEDD method and Group 2 was given discretionand allowed to pick between the three methods.

Step IV sequence jobs:Based on the jobinformation provided to them in Step II and themethod instructions given in Step III, subjectswere asked to schedule the jobs as effectively asthey could.

Step V obtain feedback on results:Subjects weregiven outcome feedback on their job schedulingperformance. Overall improvement (over the FCFSmethod) was shown as a percentage change.

Dependent measure

The dependent measure used in this experiment was thesubjects job satisfaction. To measure this, questionnaireswere administered via the computer program after thesubjects exposure to the results of their job schedulingperformance for the first, fifth and tenth batches. Sixscales from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire[5]were used in answer to the statement, On this portion ofthe task, this is how I feel about, because of theirrelevancy to the task situation:

(1) the feeling of accomplishment from scheduling thejobs;

(2) the chance to do something which makes use ofmy abilities;

(3) the chance to try different methods of doing thejob;

(4) the rewards I get for doing a good job;

(5) the freedom to use my own judgement;

(6) the freedom to use my own goal.

The overall internal reliability of the satisfaction

questionnaire using the Cronbach Alpha test was 0.745.

An overall satisfaction score was calculated by summingeach subjects responses to these questions. Changes insatisfaction that occurred from the first to the fifth andfrom the fifth to the tenth batches were also calculated.

Analyt ical analysis for Experiment 1

Paired t-tests were used to compare satisfaction measuresfor subjects when they were permitted scheduling

discretion (choice of method) with when they wereassigned a specific procedure (scheduling batches usingthe earliest due date priority rule).

In both cases subjects were provided with outcomefeedback. Those subjects who could choose from differentscheduling methods could potentially use the outcomefeedback as a basis for improving their performance.Although the rest of the subjects were also provided withthe outcome feedback for their chosen method, they werenot allowed to change their method and were thereforeunable to experiment with the system and determine a

better method.

Specifically, we tested the following hypothesis:

H1: Mu1>Mu0,

where dependent variableMu1represented the change inthe mean value of satisfaction when discretion wasafforded in scheduling batches, andMu0 represented thesame dependent variable when the subjects wereassigned the EDD scheduling method for schedulingbatches and therefore no discretion was afforded.

ResultsThe results of this experiment (Table II) indicate thatproviding employees with discretion and outcomefeedback improves their satisfaction but the improvementis not statistically significant (p= 0.183).

Exper im ent 2This experiment considered the second research questionraised before.

Subjects

The 38 subjects who participated in Experiment 2 hadcharacteristics similar to the pool in Experiment 1.

9THE EFFECT OF DISCRETION, OUTCOM E FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK

Tab le I I . Means, mean difference,and the results of pair edt-test for Exper iment 1

Discretionand outcome

feedback Assigned

Measures Mu1 Mu0 Mu1 Mu0 t p

Change insatisfaction 0.379 0.138 0.241 0.450 0.183

Note:n= 32


4/6

Design and experimental task

The design and experimental task for Experiment 2 wasidentical to that of Experiment 1. Subjects were randomly

divided into two groups and were asked to sequence jobs.After three practice batches (T-l), they scheduled twoseries of batches (T-3 and T-4) in counterbalanced order,as shown in Table III.

Procedure

Subjects in Experiment 2 began by following the samefive step procedure as those in Experiment 1. However, inaddition, they were also presented with a sixth step. Thatis, when subjects had an opportunity to select betweenthe three methods (FCFS, EDD, and SPT ) they also

received feedback on the relative effectiveness of thescheduling method employed (process feedback). Thus,not only did subjects receive outcome feedback, theyreceived process feedback. An example of the screenrepresenting feedback on the effectiveness of method isshown in Table IV.

Table IV shows the values of the performance measuresfor the method selected by the subjects and the FCFSmethod. It also shows the method that has the higherperformance. The display included the best method interms of the average completion time, the average job

lateness, the average number of jobs in the system, andthe preferred method for overall effectiveness. This quickfeedback on the performance of the selected method incomparison with other methods (process feedback)

enabled subjects to detect the preferred method quicklyand to improve their performance.

Dependent measure

The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was measuredusing the same six questions and the scores weresummed. Changes in satisfaction after the first, fifth, andtenth batches were calculated.

Results

Results of this experiment (Table V) were different fromthose in the previous one in that satisfaction improvedsignificantly. Paired t-tests showed significant improve-

1 0 I NDUSTRI AL M ANAGEM ENT & D ATA SYSTEM S 9 5 ,5

Table I I I . T ime-phased design for Experiment 2

Group/time T-1 T-2:batch 1 T-3: batches 2-5 T-4: batches 6-10

GP 1 Three practice Schedule one batch using an Schedule four batches using a Schedule five batches using

batches assigned method (EDD) chosen methoda an assigned method (EDD)b

After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtainoutcome and process outcome and process outcome and processfeedback on results, feedback on results, feedback on results,and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questionson satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction

GP 2 Three practice Schedule one batch using Schedule four batches using Schedule five batches usingbatches an assigned method an assigned method (EDD)b a chosen methoda

After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtainoutcome and process outcome and process outcome and processfeedback on results, feedback on results, feedback on results,

and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questionson satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction

Notes:achosen method data were taken from Group 1, T-3 and Group 2, T-4b assigned method data were taken from Group 1, T-4 and Group 2, T-3

Table IV. Effectiveness of method (FCFS vs.SPT )

FCFS SPT Best Overall

Average completion time 4.9 4.4 SPT SPT

Average job lateness 0.4 0.7 FCFS

Average jobs in system 3.5 3.1 SPT

Note:Compared to standard, the chosen method performs as shownabove


5/6

ments in satisfaction (p= 0.018) when subjects haddiscretion and were given both outcome and processfeedback.

Imp l i ca t ions fo r mana gersEmployees in successful Japanese organizations aretrained in obtaining and analysing relevant productiondata (real-time feedback) and using it to plan andimplement future operations. The cycle (collect data,analyse, plan, implement) is repeated continuously in thenever-ending improvement process. As such, employeeinvolvement consists of either discretion and outcomefeedback or discretion and both outcome and processfeedback.

The studies presented in this article have empiricallyexamined the effects of:

providing discretion and outcome feedback onemployee satisfaction;

providing discretion and both outcome feedback

and process feedback on their productivity and jobsatisfaction.

The results indicate that providing discretion andoutcome feedback alone does not improve employeesatisfaction significantly. However, providing employeeswith discretion and both outcome and process feedbackresults in statistically significant improvements.

These results point to the key role played by providingprocess feedback to employees who already havediscretion. Employees need to understand the effects of

using given processes and procedures on their jobperformance. Only then will they know what behavioursmust be changed and how to change them. If employeesknow only how well they are performing a job but notwhy, they are likely to feel confused and frustrated andhave relatively low satisfaction.

While discretion combined with process feedback isimportant, studies done on goal setting suggest thatcombining these two techniques with specific goals can

be even more advantageous. For example, Early et al.[2]conducted a study involving a stock market simulation inwhich subjects could buy and sell blocks of stock basedon recommendations made by brokerage firms. Outcomeand process feedback were available to the subjectsduring the simulation via a computer program. Amongother findings, the researchers found that processfeedback combined with goal setting had a powerfulinfluence on an individuals information search and taskstrategy quality. The investment strategies of individualswho received both specific, challenging goals and specificprocess feedback were superior to those of the other

subjects who did not receive this feedback. In twoadditional studies, Early[6,7] found that subjects whowere given strategy information had higher commitmentand performance than those not given this information.Furthermore, a study by Early and Kanter[8] found thatsubjects, given a choice of both strategy and goal,performed better than subjects given only goal choice orneither choice. They also found that strategy choiceincreased goal commitment. The findings from all ofthese studies suggest the importance of augmentingdiscretion and process feedback by providing specific,challenging goals.

Deming[9] has argued that managers need to removebarriers which hinder the worker from becoming more

effective. He contends that these barriers rob workers of theright to be proud of their work and the right to do a goodjob. Gitlow and Gitlow[10, p. 176] add that managers needto ask, Does everyone in the organization feel that he orshe is an important part of it?. Takeuchi[11] has taken thisphilosophy a step further and argues that if employers setloose limits and leave details to the discretion of theworkers, employees will feel encouraged to work on theirown initiative and develop themselves in the company. Headds that the main goal of personnel management is toconfirm the confidence of fellow workers in each other.Similarly, Monden et al .[12] state that many process

innovations are successful only through the participation ofworkers. While the results of studies reported here are inline with these recommendations, the results stress thatmanagers not only need to allow employees a chance toparticipate, but that they also need to provide them with anopportunity to obtain process feedback.

11THE EFFECT OF DISCRETION, OUTCOM E FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK

Ta bl e V. Means, mean difference, and the results of pairedt-test for Exper iment 2

Discretion,outcome

feedback andprocessfeedback Assigned

Measures Mu1 Mu0 Mu1 Mu0 t p

Change insatisfaction 1.180 0.130 1.310 2.340 0.018

Note:n= 38

Bar r i e rs rob w orke rs o fthe r i gh t to be p roud o f

t h ei r w o rk


6/6

References

1. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., Motivation through the

design of work: test of a theory,Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, August 1976, pp. 250-79.

2. Early, P.C., Northcraft, G.B., Lee, C. and Lituchy, T.R.,Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relationof goal setting to task performance, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 19, 1990, pp. 87-94.

3. Tharp, R.G. and Gallimore, R., What a coach can teach ateacher, Psychology Today, Vol. 9 No. 8, January 1976,pp. 75-8.

4. Ardalan, A., Quarstein, V.A. and McAfee, R.B.,Enhancing performance through employee discretionand feedback, Industr ial M anagement & Data Systems,forthcoming.

5. Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.V. and Lofquist, L.H.,Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire,Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabil itation, 1967.

6. Early, P.C., Influence of information, choice and taskcomplexity upon goal acceptance, performance: apersonal goal,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4,1985, pp. 481-91.

7. Early, P.C., The influence of goal setting methods onperformance, goal acceptance, self-efficacy expectationsacross levels of goal difficulty, presented at the

American Psychological Association Meeting, 23-27August 1985, Los Angeles, CA.

8. Early, P.C. and Kanter, R.M., The influence ofcomponent participation and role models on goalacceptance, goal satisfaction and performance,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 378-90.

9. Deming, W.E., Quali ty, Productivi ty, and Competi ti vePosition, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies,Cambridge, MA, 1982.

10. Gitlow, H.S. and Gitlow, S.J.,T he Deming Guide to Qualit yand Competit ive Posit ion, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, 1987.11. Takeuchi, H., Motivation and productivity, in Thurow,

L. (Ed.), T he Management Challenge, The MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 1985, pp. 18-30.

12. Monden, Y., Shibakawa, R., Takayangi, S. and Nagoa, T.,Innovations in Management, Industrial Engineering andManagement Press, Norcross, GA, 1985.

1 2 I NDUSTRI AL M ANAGEM ENT & D ATA SYSTEM S 9 5 ,5

Bruce McAfee is Professor of Management, Vernon Quarstein is Associate Professor of Business Administration, andAlireza Ardalan is Chairman of the Decision Sciences and MISDepartment, all at the College of Business and PublicAdministration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.

Documents

feedback on employee job satisfaction