Journal of Vocational Behavior 10, 302-3 I5 (1977)

The Effects of Formalization on

Perceptions of Discrimination, Satisfaction,
Effort and Performance

EARL VINSON AND MADISON HOLLOWAY

Unib~ersity of' Colorado

The study uses a contingency approach to examine the effects of standardiza-

tion and formalization on employee perceptions of discrimination. The sample
used consisted of 144Black and 208 White white-collar employees. Subjects were
selected from organizations that were considered by the authors to possess either
a high or a moderate degree of formalization. These organizations included banks,
public utilities, insurance companies, governmental agencies, a large public works
department of a city government, and a state university and hospital.
It was hypothesized that perceptions of discrimination would vary according to
the degree of formalization present in the organization with respect to selection
and advancement procedures and also according to the race of the subject. The
results of the study supported these hypotheses. Workers reported higher percep-
tions of discrimination in organizations where the work rules pertaining to selec-
tion and advancement were vaguely defined rather than in organizations where
these same work conditions were precisely defined. In all instances, Blacks
reported higher perceptions of discrimination than Whites.
It was concluded that formalization is a key variable which could affect Black’s
choice of jobs. The immediate implications of the study suggest that if employers
are concerned about upgrading their work force with respect to Blacks, it would
seem appropriate for them to know where Blacks work and why.

The purpose of this study is to use the contingency approach to exam-

ine the effects of standardization and formalization on employee percep-
tions of discrimination. The effects of perceived discrimination on job
attitudes (e.g., performance expectancy, performance instrumentality,
and satisfaction) and job behavior (e.g., effort and performance) are also
examined. Perceptions of discrimination are expected to vary according
to race. Thus, the intent of this study is to examine the structural-
psycho-social relationship in a racial context.

Requests for reprints should be directed to Dr. Earl Vinson, Management and Organiza-
tion Department, Graduate School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
80309
The authors would like to thank Drs. Cyril Morgan and Terence Mitchell for their
comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
302
Copyright @ 1977 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN 000-8791
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 303

The conceptual foundation of the present study is based on the work of

Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, and Turner (1969). Their findings indicate that
organizations high on some dimensions of structure (e.g., standardization
and formalization) may be low on others (e.g., centralization, configura-
tion, etc.) which suggest a contingency approach to the study of the
structural-psycho-social relationship.
The major independent variables of the present study are standardiza-
tion and formalization. Standardization refers to work rules and proce-
dures. “A procedure is taken to be an event that has regularity of occur-
rence and is legitimized by the organization. There are rules or definitions
that purport to cover all circumstances and that apply invariably” (Pugh,
Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968, p. 74). “Formalization denotes the
extent to which rules, procedures, instructions, and communication are
written” (Pugh et al., 1968, p. 75). Standardization and formalization are
therefore highly interdependent variables. The coefficients have been
reported as high as 0.83 (Pugh et al., 1968). Pugh et al. (1968) found that
standardization of procedures for selection and advancement, one of two
component variables of standardization, correlates significantly with
overall standardization (v = 0.23) and overall formalization (r = 0.38).
Data from the Pugh et al. (1969) Study revealed a significant relationship
between the public accountability of organizations (the degree to which
organizations are subject to public scrutiny in the conduct of their affairs)
and the standardization of procedures for selection and advancement (r =
0.56).
Since organizational formalization varies according to public accounta-
bility, it is probable that organizations with high versus low degrees of
formalization would fall on different points along a continuum of public
accountability. A public accountability continuum could indicate the ex-
tent to which organizations have standard and formal work rules and
procedures with respect to selection and advancement. In the present
study, organizations with a high degree of formalization and high account-
ability to the public will be referred to as “accountable” organizations
(AOs) and those with a moderate degree of formalization and moderate
accountability to the public will be referred to as “unaccountable” or-
ganizations (UAOs). Here the authors posit that the more accountable an
organization is to the public, the greater will be the degree of formaliza-
tion present in that organization with respect to its selection and ad-
vancement procedures.
There are numerous studies that have focused on the relationship
between structural, attitudinal, and behavioral variables in a nonracial
context (e.g., Herman, Dunham, & Hulin, 1975; Ivancevich & Donnelly,
1975). The findings of these studies appear to have a common theme.
They suggest that work attitudes and behavior depend in part on the
structure of the organization. In the present study, where these variables
304 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

are examined in a racial context, it is believed that Blacks, more than

Whites, may see precise definitions of work rules as a mechanism that
helps to stabilize their work environment. In work settings perceived as
stable by Blacks, it is believed that Blacks will have favorable impres-
sions about their White co-workers, supervisors, and total work environ-
ment. The reverse will be true in less certain work settings.
Research studies pertaining to the work attitudes (aspirations,
motivations, expectancies, and satisfaction) and work behavior (effort
and performance) of Blacks and Whites have reported similar findings.
With respect to attitudes, Blacks seem to have higher aspirations but
lower expectations about their occupation and job than do Whites (Arvey
& Mussio, 1974). They see working hard as more instrumental for the
attainment of rewards than do Whites (Feldman, 1973). In sum, these
studies suggest that while Blacks’ expectations about job outcomes are
low, they see the outcomes as being tied very closely to their work effort.
This is especially true with respect to extrinsic rewards. Most studies on
job behavior, particularly effort and performance, tend to suggest little, if
any, differences in the amount of effort and the quality of performance of
Blacks and Whites (e.g., Gavin & Ewen, 1974; Luthans, 1968).
While the bulk of the literature suggests that some differences exist in
the work attitudes and behavior of Blacks and Whites, before the present
study no attempt had been made to examine these differences under
different organizational structures. The authors posit that formalization
will affect the attitudes and behaviors of Blacks and Whites differently.
This belief is based on the historical employment patterns of Blacks and
how Blacks view their work environment. Blacks have been systemati-
cally excluded from entry into important jobs in many organizations that
are less subject to public scrutiny (UAOs), i.e., banks, insurance com-
panies, industrial firms, etc. Only recently (after the enactment of the
1964 Civil Rights Act) have these organizations begun to take affirmative
steps to accommodate Blacks in meaningful jobs.
Contrary to this trend, organizations subject to public scrutiny (AOs)
were the first to open the door to significant numbers of Blacks. Organiza-
tions in this category are primarily departments of local and central
governments, governmental agencies, and state institutions, i.e., U. S.
postal and military organizations, state universities, and hospitals. While
AOs have also relegated Blacks to powerless positions, menial jobs, etc.,
the authors believe that the psychological impact of job discrimination on
Blacks has been less severe in AOs than in UAOs. While the work rules
governing extrinsic rewards in AOs could be more or less discriminatory
against Blacks than those in UAOs, they tend to be more standardized
and formalized, which creates a work atmosphere of stability and cer-
tainty. In UAOs, the work rules tend to be less standardized and for-
malized, which creates an unstable, uncertain atmosphere. In these
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 305

organizations the work environment of Blacks becomes more “ran-

domized” and things appear to happen by chance. Thus, the psychologi-
cal impact of discrimination should be greater in UAOs than in AOs.
The authors also believe that the degree of perceived discrimination
will be greater in those organizations where the rules and procedures are
less precise than in those organizations where the rules and procedures
are more precise. It is hypothesized that in work settings where there are
clearer definitions of work rules, performance criteria, promotion criteria,
etc., Blacks will work harder and possess a favorable attitude toward
their co-workers and supervisors than they will in work settings where the
rules are less precise. It is also believed that the work attitudes and
behavior of Whites will be unaffected by the degree of formalization
present on their job because Whites have not been subjected to the
pattern of historical job discrimination experienced by Blacks.

METHOD
Procedure
Subjects were selected from a number of organizations ranging in size
from 17 to 11,955employees. Attempts were made to select subjects from
organizations that were both high and low on public accountability. The
participating organizations were banks, public utilities, insurance com-
panies, governmental agencies, a large public works department of a city
government, and a state university and hospital. Within these organiza-
tions, the personnel directors determined those departments that em-
ployed Blacks and Whites in comparable white collar jobs and distributed
the questionnaires to all Blacks and Whites in these departments. (In most
of the departments, Whites outnumbered Blacks in these jobs.) This
distribution process, however, provided for maximum possible job match-
ing capability between the Black and White subjects.
Eight hundred questionnaires were distributed and 370 were returned
for a response rate of 46%. Of those returned, 352 were complete and
usable. The workers were asked to participate in the study on a voluntary
basis, which contributed to the low response rate. Although the response
rate was low, chi square analyses showed that respondents were similar
to nonrespondents on our major demographic variables of interest (Race,
Type of Organization, and Job Level). The interactions of demographic
variables were also analyzed and the results showed that respondents and
nonrespondents were again similar, with one exception. For Type of
Organization x Race analysis for UAOs o( 2 = 12.0, p < .Ol), there was a
greater percentage of White respondents than Black respondents. The
respondents were 144 Black and 208 White clerical, professional, and
managerial employees. There were 80 Blacks and 71 Whites in AOs, and
64 Blacks and 137 Whites in UAOs.
An interview was conducted with the personnel director of each or-
306 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

ganization to determine organization size (the total number of employees)

and to determine the extent to which the organization was subject to
public scrutiny as measured by Pugh et al. (1969). The results of their
work indicate that the most publicly accountable organization would be
departments of local and central governments, i.e., governmental agen-
cies and state universities and hospitals; moderately accountable or-
ganizations would be those that raise money publicly by having equity
capital quoted on the stock exchange and public cooperative societies,
i.e., public utilities, banks, and insurance companies; and least publicly
accountable organizations would be companies not quoted on the stock
exchange, i.e., privately owned companies. In the present study, the
participating organizations fell only into the first two categories, highly
accountable and moderately accountable. None fell into the least publicly
accountable category.
To minimize the effects of size on the results of the study, an attempt
was made to select subjects from both AOs and UAOs that were similar in
size. The average size of the UAOs is 3,365 employees, ranging from 16to
9,609. The average size of the AOs is 3,118 employees, ranging from 129
to 11,955. The UAOs consist of six organizations and the AOs consist of
four organizations.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were: (1) perceptions of discrimination, (2)
performance expectancy, (3) performance instrumentality, (4) satisfac-
tion, (5) effort, and (6) performance. They were measured by the Em-
ployee Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ) and the Employee Behavior Ques-
tionnaire (EBQ). Only those parts of questionnaires relevant to the pres-
ent study are discussed. The EAQ assessed the following variables:
Part l-measures of performance expectancy. That is, the perceived
probability that working hard would lead to a good performance
evaluation.
Part IZ-measures of performance instrumentality. That is, the belief
that successful job performance would lead to particularjob rewards.
The intrinsic rewards used were: (1) feelings of self-esteem, (2) op-
portunity for independent thought and action, (3) opportunity for
personal growth and development, (4) feelings of self-fulfillment, and
(5) feelings of worthwhile accomplishment. The extrinsic rewards
were: (1) security, (2) opportunity to develop close friendships, (3)
salary, (4) promotion, and (5) recognition.
Part W-measures of satisfaction. The subject was asked to rate
his/her job on three bipolar adjectives scales: My Job Is (pleasant vs.
unpleasant, good vs. bad, and valuable vs. worthless). The average
scores were used.
Part V-measure of perceived discrimination. That is, the belief that
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 307

other employees, individually and/or collectively, in the primary

work unit, department, or organization were engaging in activities or
performing acts which had the effect of withholding or restricting
extrinsic rewards in a discriminatory manner. The extrinsic rewards
measured were: (1) good performance appraisals, (2) merit raises, (3)
promotions or advancements, (4) adequate job security, (5) opportu-
nity to develop close friendships, and (6) opportunity to receive more
authority.
Part VIZ-measures of demographic characteristics, i.e., age, educa-
tion, sex, income, tenure, type of organization, race, etc.
In general, each question was asked on a seven-point bipolar scale. For
example, performance expectancy = to what extent will working hard
lead to a good performance appraisal: (never) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (all the time).
Performance instrumentality = doing a good job (i.e., getting a good
performance rating) will lead to high esteem (i.e., the feeling of self-
pride): (not at all true) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very true).
The EAQ was constructed according to the procedures delineated by
Vroom (1964). The reliability and validity of the instrument constructs
have been measured in previous investigations and the results have been
rather good (e.g., Mitchell & Nebeker, 1973; Dachler & Mobley, 1973).
The data generated in these studies reflect interrater reliabilities of per-
formance instrumentalities. The coefficients ranged from 0.37 to 0.92.
The EBQ generated ratings by the employee’s supervisor on the dimen-
sions of the employee’s effort and performance. Seven-point scales from
High to Low were used. For example: effort = please evaluate your
subordinate by indicating the amount of effort he/she expends: (low) 12 3
4 5 6 7 (high). Effort and performance have been measured in previous
studies where multiple supervisor ratings were available (e.g., Mitchell &
Albright, 1972; Gavin & Ewen, 1974). In the Mitchell and Albright study,
where there is a more detailed description of these measures, the inter-
rater reliabilities were .73 versus 52, and .56 versus .78 for the effort and
performance ratings, respectively. These studies provide good support
for the reliability and validity of the EBQ.
Hypotheses
The present investigation attempts to determine the effects of formali-
zation on perceptions of discrimination, satisfaction, effort, and perfor-
mance by testing the following hypotheses:
H-l Perceptions of discrimination will be higher in UAOs than in
AOs when variability due to race and job level is removed.
H-2 Perceptions of discrimination of Blacks will be higher than
those of Whites when variability due to type of organization
and job level is removed.
308 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

H-3 Perceptions of discrimination is hypothesized to be different

for Blacks than Whites depending on whether subjects are
members of AOs or UAOs. In particular, this hypothesized
interaction between race and type of organization is expected
to take the form as delineated in Hypotheses H-3a through
H-3d.
H-3a Perceptions of discrimination of Blacks and Whites in AOs
will be similar.
H-3b Perceptions of discrimination of Blacks in UAOs will be
higher than those of Whites.
H-3c Perceptions of discrimination of Blacks will be lower in AOs
than in UAOs.
H-3d Perceptions of discrimination of Whites in AOs and UAOs
will be similar.
H-4 Satisfaction in AOs and UAOs will be similar when variability
due to race and job level is removed.
H-5 Effort and performance ratings will be higher in AOs than in
UAOs when variability due to race and job level is removed.
H-6 Effort and performance ratings of Blacks and Whites will be
similar when variability due to type of organization and job
level is removed.
H-7 Perceptions of discrimination will be an intervening variable
and will have differential effects on attitudes (expectancies,
instrumentalities, satisfaction) and behavior (effort and per-
formance) of Blacks and Whites.
RESULTS
Six 2 x 2 x 3 analyses of variance were conducted to test the hypoth-
eses. Independent variables were Race (Black/White), Type of Organiza-
tion (AOs’/UAOs) , and Job Level (managerial/professional/clerical). Job
Level was included as another independent variable to provide statistical
control of this important source of variance and to determine whether the
results must be qualified due to interaction effects. The dependent varia-
bles consisted of four attitudinal variables and two behavioral variables.
The attitudinal variables were Perceptions of Discrimination, Satisfac-
tion, Performance Expectancy, and Performance Instrumentality. The
behavioral variables were Effort and Performance. Since no hypotheses
existed for three-way interactions, and since three-way interactions are
difficult to interpret, these were eliminated from all analyses by pooling
variance due to three-way interactions with the within-cell variances.
Table 1 presents a summary of the major findings.
These data show a significant main effect of Type of Organization on
Perceptions of Discrimination. An examination of_the means revealed
differences in the hypothesized direction (UAOs’ X = 16.28, AOs’ X =
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 309

14.26). That is, Perceptions of Discrimination are significantly higher in

UAOs than in AOs when variability due to Race and Job Level is re-
moved (H- 1). The data in Table 1 also show a significant main effect of
Race on Perceptions of Discrimination. Again, an examination of the
means revealed differences which support the hypothesis (Blacks’ 2 =
16.27, Whites’ 2 = 14.82). Here it was hypothesized that the Perceptions
of Discrimination of Blacks will be higher than those of Whites when
variability due to Type of Organization and Job Level is removed (H-2).
As hypothesized (H=3), a significant interaction effect of Race X Type
of Organization was found. To elucidate significant interactions between
Race and Type of Organization, individual comparisons between Blacks
and Whites within and between AOs and UAOs were done using t-tests.
These l-tests show: (a) no differences in Perceptions of Discrimination of
Blacks and Whites in AOs (t = .l 1, p < .91); (b) Perceptions of Discrimi-
nation of Blacks in UAOs are higher than those of Whites (t = 2.13, p <
.03); (c) Perceptions of Discrimination of Blacks are lower in AOs than
in UAOs (t = 2.45, p < .02); and (d) no differences in Perceptions of
Discrimination of Whites in AOs and UAOs (t = .75,p < .46). In Fig. 1 it
can be seen that when organizations are more accountable to the public,
the severity of the difference in the Perceptions of Discrimination be-
tween Blacks and Whites is less. Hypotheses H-3 through H-3d are
confirmed.
As can be seen from Table 1 there were no significant main effects of
Type of Organization on Satisfaction when variability due to Race and
Job Level was removed. This finding strongly supports Hypothesis H-4.
Finally, significant main effects of Type of Organization on the other two
attitudinal variables (Expectancy and Instrumentality) were found. Here
an examination of the means shows that performance expectancies and
performance instrumentalities are lower in AOs than in UAOs (Expec-
tancy and Instrumentality Fs = 5.38 versus 5.80 in AOs, and 49.81
versus 54.20 in UAOs). These findings give credence to the theory that
attitudes depend in part on the structure of the organization.
The ANOVA data in Table 1 also show a significant main effect of Type
of Organization on Effort and Performance. It was determined by an
examination of the means that effort and performance ratings are higher in
AOs than in UAOs (Effort and Performance ps = 5.70 versus 5.32 in
AOs, and 5.55 versus 5.20 in UAOs). This finding supports Hypothesis
H-5, the prediction that effort and performance ratings will be higher in
AOs than UAOs when variability due to Race and Job Level is removed.
As predicted in Hypothesis H-6, no significant main effects of Race on
Effort and Performance were found. Even when variability due to Type of
Organization and Job Level was eliminated, Blacks and Whites reported
similar effort and performance ratings. To summarize, the findings related
to Effort and Performance (the behavioral variables) provide support for
310 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

TABLE 1
Analysis of Variance for the Dependent Variables of Formalization
Source df SS MS F P

Analysis of variance of Perceptions of Discrimination

Race (R) 1 391.16 391.16 4.25 ,038
Type (‘0 1 589.27 589.27 6.40 ,011
Job Level (JL) 2 135.85 67.92 .74 .999
RxT 1 339.41 339.41 3.69 ,052
R x JL 2 224.49 112.25 1.22 .296
T x JL 2 60.99 30.50 .33 .999
Within 342 31471.52 92.02 - -

Analysis of variance of Satisfaction

Race (R) 1 8.51 8.51 .57 .999
Type CT) 1 .40 .40 .03 .999
Job Level (JL) 2 9.84 4.92 .33 .999
RxT 1 5.63 5.63 .38 .999
R x JL 2 3.92 1.96 .13 .999
T x JL 2 1.04 .52 .04 .999
Within 342 5070.30 14.83 - -

Analysis of variance of Performance Expectancy

Race (R) 1 2.42 2.42 1.60 .204
Type U7 1 6.58 6.58 4.35 .035
Job Level (JL) 2 22.12 11.06 7.31 ,001
RxT 1 .44 .44 .29 ,999
R x JL 2 3.93 1.97 1.30 .273
T x JL 2 1.48 .74 .49 .999
Within 342 517.61 1.51 - -

Analysis of variance of Performance Instrumentality

Race (R) 1 28.83 28.83 .29 .999
Type 03 1 1135.66 1135.66 11.51 .OOl
Job Level (JL) 2 373.74 186.87 1.89 ,150
RxT 1 6.36 6.36 .06 .999
R x JL 2 193.60 96.80 .98 ,999
T x JL 2 211.03 105.52 1.07 ,345
Within 342 33751.17 98.69 - -

Analysis of variance of Effort

Race (R) 1 .05 .05 .03 .999
Type VI 1 9.32 9.32 5.41 ,020
Job Level (JL) 2 .21 .lO .06 .999
RxT 1 1.46 2.77 .85 .999
R x JL 2 5.84 1.46 1.69 .184
T x JL 2 1.10 2.92 .32 399
Within 270 465.84 .55 - -
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 311

TABLE 1 (Conrind)

Analysis of variance of Performance

Race (R) 1 .so .50 .34 999
Type CT) 1 7.20 7.20 4.95 .025
Job Level (JL) 2 5.76 2.88 1.98 .138
RxT 1 .08 .08 .06 399
R x JL 2 5.93 2.96 2.04 ,130
T x JL 2 4.40 2.20 1.51 .220
Within 270 392.60 1.45 - -

the theory that work behavior is influenced by Formalization and that

little difference, if any, exists in the work behavior of Blacks and Whites.
It was hypothesized (H-7) that Perceptions of Discrimination will be an
intervening variable and will have differential effects on the attitudes
(expectancies, instrumentalities, satisfaction) and behavior (effort and
performance) of Blacks and Whites. To test this hypothesis, the continu-
ous scale which was used to measure Perceptions of Discrimination was
converted to a dichotomous measure. Subjects were split at the mean into
groups of high versus low Perceptions of Discrimination. Workers in high
and low groups are referred to as discrimination (D) and nondiscrimina-
tion (ND) subjects respectively.
ANOVA results indicated that the effects of Perceptions of Discrimina-
tion on Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Satisfaction for Blacks and
Whites were statistically insignificant. Only a significant main effect of

I9
18
17

16
15
14

FIG. 1. 0 = Blacks 0 = Whites. Blacks: AO& = 14.34, UAOs.? = 18.69. Whites: AOs
8 = 14.17, UAOsz = 15.15.
312 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

Perceptions of Discrimination on Effort (a behavioral variable) was found

(F = 5.42, p < .02). An examination of the means revealed that ND
subjects exert more effort than D subjects (NDs’ 2 = 5.54 and Ds’ ,i? =
5.00).
In addition to this main effect, an interaction effect of Perceptions of
Discrimination versus Type of Organization approached significance (F =
2.82, p < .09). This moderate interaction effect was elucidated by t-tests.
The results of r-tests revealed two significant variations in the amount of
effort exerted by D and ND subjects in UAOs and AOs. These were: (a) D
subjects exert less effort in UAOs than do ND subjects (p < .Ol), and (b)
D subjects exert more effort in AOs than in UAOs (p < .04).
Finally, since Perceptions of Discrimination only moderate the
Formalization-Effort relationship and has no significant main or differ-
ential effects on the job attitudes and behaviors of Blacks versus Whites,
Hypothesis H-7 was generally not confirmed. The results pertaining to
this hypothesis were omitted from the summary table for the sake of
brevity and simplicity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The finding that perceptions of discrimination are lower in AOs than in
UAOs is consistent with the notion that workers are more likely to feel
discriminated against in work environments where the rules pertaining to
selection and advancement are less standardized and formalized. The
finding that Blacks more than Whites feel discriminated against suggests
that Blacks and Whites tend to see their work environments differently.
These perceptions tend to vary according to type of organization. Blacks
in AOs see their environments as being more stable and definite. In terms
of extrinsic rewards, i.e., merit raises, promotions, etc., they know what
to expect and when to expect them because the rewards are determined
by a body of formal rules, i.e., pay grades, classification systems, etc.
Blacks in UAOs see their environment as being more “random” and less
certain. External rewards are administered at management’s discretion
according to an ambiguous set of performance criteria. Hence, Blacks’
perceptions of discrimination in uncertain work settings are much higher
than they are in formalistic work environments. Contrary to this, Whites’
perceptions of discrimination are less severe and do not vary according to
type of organization.
The differences in perceptions of discrimination between Whites and
Blacks could be due to the following:
a. Whites in AOs or UAOs have not been subjected to the types of
discrimination in work environments that Blacks historically have experi-
enced and, therefore, are less conscious of discriminatory behavior.
b. Whites in AOs or UAOs know that the institutional reward sys-
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 313

terns were created and are still managed by other Whites, and therefore
have no reason to fear any racial discrimination in the manner in which re-
wards are distributed.
c. Blacks in AOs might believe that recent civil rights legislation has
forced many organizations, especially AOs, to develop nondiscriminatory
work rules that are consistent with national policy. This affords them
some protection against discrimination.
d. Blacks in organizations where selection and advancement
guidelines are explicitly stated (usually AOs), might feel that their White
co-workers and supervisors are less likely to violate existing standards.
They may see themselves, their White co-workers, and supervisors as in
the same “ball park”, with little reason to discriminate against each
other.
e. Blacks in UAOs generally do not feel as protected by civil rights
legislation and are more likely to perceive themselves as being in uncer-
tain work settings where policy is not always clearly stated. Con-
sequently, they are more suspicious of their White supervisors and co-
workers.
Although Perceptions of Discrimination varied with Race and Type of
Organization when treated as an independent variable, they did not signif-
icantly affect Job Satisfaction. It is probable, however, that the vari-
ations in Job Satisfaction were insignificant because the sample consisted
only of white-collar workers and because the sample was not stratified
according to demographic variables associated with job satisfaction, i.e.,
income, age, tenure, and sex.
Effort and performance ratings were reported higher in AOs than in
UAOs, which supported the hypothesis. It is suspected that these findings
represent a reflection of managerial attitudes toward performance ap-
praisals in different organizational structures. The more an organization
relies on rules, pay grades, classification systems, etc. to reward its
workers, the less will be the degree of importance placed on performance
evaluations. It is hard to imagine that workers in AOs actually work
harder and produce more than workers in UAOs. No support for this
notion is available in the literature. These results are therefore attributed
to managerial attitudes about the utility of performance evaluations.
Managers in UAOs probably see performance appraisals as the mecha-
nism which determines how rewards are distributed and therefore care-
fully evaluate their subordinates so that rewards distributed are based on
performance. These realistic and serious appraisals may result in lower
ratings. On the other hand, managers in AOs may see little, if any,
connection between performance appraisals and the actual distribution of
rewards. They may see the performance appraisal as an added burden,
“additional paper work”, or another element of bureaucratic “red tape”.
Managers in AOs may see other formal procedures (e.g., classification
314 VINSON AND HOLLOWAY

systems, seniority systems, etc.) as the mechanism which determines

how rewards are actually distributed rather than the performance ap-
praisal. This attitude could result in higher ratings.
The findings of the present study concerning performance expectancy
(the extent to which one feels that working hard would lead to a good
performance appraisal) and performance instrumentality (the worker’s
belief that a good performance appraisal would lead to a particular re-
ward) lend support to the above explanation. Performance expectancy
and performance instrumentality were reported lower in AOs than in
UAOs. Workers in AOs saw little relationship between working hard and
good performance appraisals and between good performance appraisals
and job rewards, whereas the reverse was true for workers in UAOs.
The finding that Blacks and Whites received similar effort and perfor-
mance ratings is consistent with the findings of previous investigations. It
should be noted that while there were no controls for the race of the
raters, it can be said with a high degree of accuracy that an overwhelming
majority of the raters were White. The ratings were therefore subject to
possible rater bias (Bass & Turner, 1973), but it should be a consistent
bias.
The problems of the present study involved minor measurement prob-
lems and possible sampling errors. For instance, one could question the
indirect measure used for Formalization as well as the direct measures of
Perceptions of Discrimination and Satisfaction. The Type of Organization
X Race analysis for UAOs, where the sample consisted of a greater
percentage of Whites than Blacks, combined with the overall nonrandom
sampling technique could affect the generalizability of results. These
limitations were recognized and conclusions drawn accordingly.
The implications of the findings suggest that precise definitions of work
rules with respect to selection and advancement could be an important
element of affirmative action programs that are designed to attract more
Blacks in white-collar jobs. Not only will Blacks see this as a positive
feature of the organization’s recruitment program, they may even estab-
lish better interpersonal relationships with their White co-workers and
work harder if they elect to join the organization.
To conclude, Formalization is seen as a key variable which could affect
Blacks’ choice of jobs. If employers are serious about upgrading their
work force with respect to Blacks, it would seem appropriate for them to
know where Blacks work and why. Once this knowledge is available to
employers, there is no reason why they could not alter their work rules to
make the organization more attractive to Blacks.
REFERENCES
Arvey, R. D., & Mussio, S. J. Job expectations and valances of job rewards for culturally
disadvantaged and advantaged clerical employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1974, 59, 230-232.
 THE EFFECTS OF FORMULATION 315

Bass, A. R., & Turner, J. N. Ethnic group differences in relationships among criteria of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 101-109.
Dachler, H. P., & Mobley, W. H. Construct validation of an instrumentahty-
expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation: Some theoretical boundary condi-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1973, 58, 397-418.
Feldman, J. M. Race, employment and perceived outcomes of work and unemployment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 16-22.
Gavin, J. F., & Ewen, R. B. Racial differences in job attitudes and performance: Some
theoretical considerations and empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27,
455-464.
Herman, J. B., Dunham, R. B., & Hulin, C. L. Organizational structure, demographic
characteristics, and employee responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1975, 13, 206-232.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, H. H. Relationship of organizational structure to job
satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975,
20, 272-280.
Luthans, F. Training for qualification: The Negro worker’s dilemma. Training and De-
velopment Journal, 1968, 22, 3-7.
Mitchell, T. R., & Albright, D. Expectancy theory predictions of the satisfaction, effort,
performance, and retention of naval aviation officer. Organization Behavior and
Human Performance, 1972, 8, l-20.
Mitchell, T. R., & Nebeker, D. M. Expectancy theory predictions of academic effort and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 61-67.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, D. H. Job satisfaction among Whites and non-Whites: A
cross-cultural approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 295-299.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. Dimensions of organization
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1%8, 13, 65-105.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. The context of organization
structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 91-114.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Received: June 14, 1976.