The effect of discretion, outcome feedback, and

process feedback on employee job satisfaction

McAfee, Bruce; Quarstein, Vernon; Ardalan, Alireza

Enlace de documentos de ProQuest

RESUMEN
A study reported that employees' performance increased when they were allowed to choose the production method
and were provided with the outcome feedback on their performance. That study is extended by analyzing the effect
of discretion, outcome feedback, and process feedback on employee satisfaction. The results of experiments
indicate that, although providing discretion and outcome feedback improved employee satisfaction, the improvement
was statistically insignificant. The more interesting result indicates that satisfaction was significantly improved when
employees were provided with process feedback in addition to discretion and outcome feedback.

TEXTO COMPLETO

Japanese production techniques and management have been the subject of numerous studies. This research has
focused on a variety of areas such as technology, product design and development, process design and
development, culture, and personnel management. These studies have made significant contributions to their fields
by enhancing our understanding of the way these systems operate, on the one hand, and the ways to improve/fine-
tune these systems on the other.

An interesting aspect of these systems is employee involvement and feedback in problem solving and
product/process improvement. Hackman and Oldham[1] have developed a well-known model which incorporates
both of these variables. The Hackman-Oldham job characteristics model contends that providing employees with
task variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and feedback, will lead to three critical psychological
states (experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of actual
results) which, in turn, will lead to high internal work motivation, high quality work performance, high work
satisfaction, and low absenteeism and turnover.

While Hackman and Oldham[1] did not explicitly distinguish between different types of feedback, Early et al.[2]
differentiate between outcome feedback (information regarding whether a standard was met), and process feedback
(information concerning the effectiveness of the work method used). They contend that, although outcome feedback
can identify the need to adjust action, it does not provide much information concerning how to adjust. Process
feedback facilitates an individual's performance by providing the information necessary to improve his/her
development of an effective work process or procedure. Tharp and Gallimore[3] provide a concrete example of
process feedback based on their research of John Wooden, former UCLA basketball coach. They found that at least
65 per cent of Wooden's comments during practice games consisted of specific comments to his players regarding
their current basketball techniques and how they could perform better in the future.

The continuous improvement philosophy of total quality management emphasizes the process type of feedback. It
encourages employees to experiment with the production system, to implement a variety of production methods, to
analyse how each affects the performance of the system, and to choose the method which best achieves the

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 9

organization's objectives. Total quality management states that employee involvement and feedback improves
employee satisfaction. Employees feel they are a major part of the organization and are motivated to further
participate in improving the system.

A recent article reported that allowing employees discretion in selecting a production method and providing them
with outcome feedback over repeated production cycles would result in higher performance[4]. It also found that
allowing this discretion combined with both outcome and process feedback would result in higher performance. The
study illustrated that when employees are given the freedom of choosing production techniques (within
organizational constraints) and are provided with outcome feedback, or both outcome and process feedback, they
will experiment with the production system and develop more effective production scheduling methods. However,
that study did not consider the effect on employee satisfaction.

One would expect that providing employees with discretion and feedback (outcome feedback or process feedback)
would not only improve employee performance but would enhance job satisfaction. The objective of this article is to
test these hypotheses by answering the following research questions:

* What effect does giving employees discretion to choose from a variety of different production techniques and
providing them with outcome feedback have on their satisfaction?

* What effect does giving employees discretion to choose from a variety of different production techniques and
providing them with both outcome and process feedback have on their job satisfaction? The first question addresses
the effect of discretion and outcome feedback on employee satisfaction. The second question considers the effect of
discretion and both types of feedback on satisfaction. Therefore, as part of this study, we will determine what type of
feedback (outcome feedback or a combination of outcome and process feedback) is most beneficial in terms of job
satisfaction. We conducted two experiments to examine these issues.

Experiment 1

The first experiment examined the first research question mentioned above. To save space we present the
experiment 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 21.5
years. Subjects had an average educational level of 3.5 years of college and three years of work experience.

Design and experimental task

The task assigned to subjects was to improve job shop scheduling operations. The experiment involved jobs with
different process times and delivery dates which arrived in batches of six. The subjects' task was to sequence jobs
to improve flow time and timeliness of delivery simultaneously. Three priority rules were used:

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

(2) earliest due-date (EDD);

(3) shortest processing time (SPT).

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 9

At the start of the experiment, subjects were randomly divided into two equivalent groups (Group 1 and Group 2).

After a practice session in which they learned how to execute the three scheduling methods (see T-1, Table I), all
subjects began the experimental phase using the EDD method to establish a common starting point (see T-2, Table
I). (Table I omitted) Then, each subject scheduled two series of batches (see T.3 and T.4, Table I) in
counterbalanced order so that each subject performed the task as both treatment and control. That is, Group 1
initially scheduled a series of batches (batches 2 to 5) using any of the three scheduling methods they chose. Then
they scheduled another series of batches (batches 6 to 1()) using the EDD method. The order for Group 2 was
reversed. They initially scheduled batches using the EDD method, and then chose among three different priority
rules to schedule the remaining batches. Subjects in Groups 1 and 2 were provided with performance (outcome)
feedback on the scheduling methods they used.

Procedure

The experiment included the following sequence of activities:

* Step I -- obtain goal assignment: The goal was to improve schedule performance by 20 per cent. Improvement was
computed by comparing subjects' scheduling :performance with that which would have been obtained if the first-
come first-served method was used.

* Step II -- review waiting jobs: Subjects were told to review a batch of waiting jobs randomly generated by the
computer.

* Step III -- obtain instructions: Each group was given instructions regarding how to schedule jobs. Whereas Group 1
was initially told that it could use any one of three scheduling methods (FCFS, EDD, and SPT), Group 2 was initially
given the assignment of using the EDD method. Later in the experiment (for batches 6 to 10), these instructions
were reversed so that Group 1 was assigned the EDD method and Group 2 was given discretion and allowed to pick
between the three methods.

* Step IV -- sequence jobs: Based on the job information provided to them in Step II and the method instructions
given in Step III, subjects were asked to schedule the jobs as effectively as they could.

* Step V -- obtain feedback on results: Subjects were given outcome feedback on their job scheduling performance.
Overall improvement (over the FCFS method) was shown as a percentage change.

Dependent measure

The dependent measure used in this experiment was the subjects' job satisfaction. To measure this, questionnaires
were administered via the computer program after the subjects' exposure to the results of their job scheduling
performance for the first, fifth and tenth batches. Six scales from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire[5] were
used in answer to the statement, "On this portion of the task, this is how I feel about", because of their relevancy to
the task situation:

(1) the feeling of accomplishment from scheduling the jobs;

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

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 9

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

(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 summing each subject's responses to these questions. Changes in
satisfaction that occurred from the first to the fifth and from the fifth to the tenth batches were also calculated.

Analytical analysis for Experiment 1

Paired t-tests were used to compare satisfaction measures for subjects when they were permitted scheduling
discretion (choice of method) with when they were assigned a specific procedure (scheduling batches using the
earliest due date priority rule).

In both cases subjects were provided with outcome feedback. Those subjects who could choose from different
scheduling methods could potentially use the outcome feedback as a basis for improving their performance.
Although the rest of the subjects were also provided with the outcome feedback for their chosen method, they were
not allowed to change their method and were therefore unable to experiment with the system and determine a better
method.

Specifically, we tested the following hypothesis: H1: Mu sub 1 >Mu sub 0 , where dependent variable Mu sub 1
represented the change in the mean value of satisfaction when discretion was afforded in scheduling batches, and
Mu sub 0 represented the same dependent variable when the subjects were assigned the EDD scheduling method
for scheduling batches and therefore no discretion was afforded.

Results

The results of this experiment (Table II) indicate that providing employees with discretion and outcome feedback
improves their satisfaction but the improvement is not statistically significant (p = 0.183).

Experiment 2

This experiment considered the second research question raised before.

Subjects

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

Design and experimental task

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

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 9

divided into two groups and were asked to sequence jobs. After three practice batches (T-1), they scheduled two
series of batches (T-3 and T-4) in counterbalanced order, as shown in Table III. (Table III omitted)

Procedure

Subjects in Experiment 2 began by following the same five step procedure as those in Experiment 1. However, in
addition, they were also presented with a sixth step. That is, when subjects had an opportunity to select between the
three methods (FCFS, EDD, and SPT) they also received feedback on the relative effectiveness of the scheduling
method employed (process feedback). Thus, not only did subjects receive outcome feedback, they received process
feedback. An example of the screen representing feedback on the effectiveness of method is shown in Table IV.

Table IV shows the values of the performance measures for the method selected by the subjects and the FCFS
method. It also shows the method that has the higher performance. The display included the best method in terms of
the average completion time, the average job lateness, the average number of jobs in the system, and the preferred
method for overall effectiveness. This quick feedback on the performance of the selected method in comparison with
other methods (process feedback) enabled subjects to detect the preferred method quickly and to improve their
performance.

Dependent measure

The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was measured using the same six questions and the scores were summed.
Changes in satisfaction after the first, fifth, and tenth batches were calculated.

Results

Results of this experiment (Table V) were different from those in the previous one in that satisfaction improved
significantly. Paired t-tests showed significant improvements in satisfaction (P = 0.018) when subjects had discretion
and were given both outcome and process feedback.

Implications for managers

Employees in successful Japanese organizations are trained in obtaining and analysing relevant production data
(real-time feedback) and using it to plan and implement future operations. The cycle (collect data, analyse, plan,
implement) is repeated continuously in the never-ending improvement process. As such, employee involvement
consists of either discretion and outcome feedback or discretion and both outcome and process feedback.

The studies presented in this article have empirically examined the effects of:

* providing discretion and outcome feedback on employee satisfaction;

* providing discretion and both outcome feedback and process feedback on their productivity and job satisfaction.

The results indicate that providing discretion and outcome feedback alone does not improve employee satisfaction
significantly. However, providing employees with discretion and both outcome and process feedback results in
statistically significant improvements.

These results point to the key role played by providing process feedback to employees who already have discretion.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 9

Employees need to understand the effects of using given processes and procedures on their job performance. Only
then will they know what behaviours must be changed and how to change them. If employees know only how well
they are performing a job but not why, they are likely to feel confused and frustrated and have relatively low
satisfaction. While discretion combined with process feedback is important, studies done on goal setting suggest
that combining 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 in which subjects could buy and sell blocks of stock
based on recommendations made by brokerage firms. Outcome and process feedback were available to the
subjects during the simulation via a computer program. Among other findings, the researchers found that process
feedback combined with goal setting had a powerful influence on an individual's information search and task
strategy quality. The investment strategies of individuals who received both specific, challenging goals and specific
process feedback were superior to those of the other subjects who did not receive this feedback. In two additional
studies, Early[6,7] found that subjects who were given strategy information had higher commitment and performance
than those not given this information. Furthermore, a study by Early and Kanter[8] found that subjects, given a
choice of both strategy and goal, performed better than subjects given only goal choice or neither choice. They also
found that strategy choice increased goal commitment. The findings from all of these studies suggest the importance
of augmenting discretion and process feedback by providing specific, challenging goals.

Deming[S] has argued that managers need to remove barriers which hinder the worker from becoming more
effective. He contends that these barriers rob workers of the right to be proud of their work and the right to do a good
job. Gitlow and Gitlow[10, p. 176] add that managers need to ask, "Does everyone in the organization feel that he or
she is an important part of it?". Takeuchi[11] has taken this philosophy a step further and argues that if employers
set loose limits and leave details to the discretion of the workers, employees will feel encouraged to work on their
own initiative and develop themselves in the company. He adds that the main goal of personnel management is to
confirm the confidence of fellow workers in each other. Similarly, Monden et al.[12] state that many process
innovations are successful only through the participation of workers. While the results of studies reported here are in
line with these recommendations, the results stress that managers not only need to allow employees a chance to
participate, but that they also need to provide them with an opportunity to obtain process feedback.

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 relation
of goal setting to task performance", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19, 1990, pp. 87-94.

3. Tharp, R.G. and Gallimore, R., "What a coach can teach a teacher", 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 discretion and
feedback", Industrial Management &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 Rehabilitation, 1967.

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

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 9

7. Early, P.C., "The influence of goal setting methods on performance, goal acceptance, self-efficacy expectations
across levels of goal difficulty", presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting, 23-27 August 1985,
Los Angeles, CA.

8. Early, P.C. and Kanter, R.M., "The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal
satisfaction and performance", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 378-90.

9. Deming, W.E., Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies,
Cambridge, MA, 1982.

10. Gitlow, H.S. and Gitlow, S.J., The Deming Guide to Quality and Competitive Position, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1987.

11. Takeuchi, H., "Motivation and productivity", in Thurow, L. (Ed.), The 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
and Management Press, Norcross, GA, 1985.

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

DETALLES

Materia: Studies; Feedback; Production planning; Job satisfaction; Production scheduling;

Quality management; Total quality; Employment; Employee involvement; Schedules;
Scheduling; Experiments; Questionnaires; Methods

Término de indexación de Asunto: Production planning Job satisfaction Production scheduling Quality
negocios: management Total quality Employment Employee involvement

Lugar: United States--US

Clasificación: 9190: US; 9130: Experimental/theoretical treatment; 5310: Production planning

&control; 2500: Organizational behavior

Título: The effect of discretion, outcome feedback, and process feedback on employee job
satisfaction

Autor: McAfee, Bruce; Quarstein, Vernon; Ardalan, Alireza

Título de publicación: Industrial Management &Data Systems; Wembley

Tomo: 95

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 9

 Número: 5

Páginas: 7

Número de páginas: 6

Año de publicación: 1995

Fecha de publicación: 1995

Editorial: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Lugar de publicación: Wembley

País de publicación: United Kingdom, Wembley

Materia de publicación: Computers--Data Base Management, Business And Economics--Computer

Applications

ISSN: 02635577

e-ISSN: 17585783

CODEN: IMDSD8

Tipo de fuente: Revista científica

Idioma de la publicación: English

Tipo de documento: Journal Article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02635579510088128

Número de acceso: 01062757

ID del documento de 234920135

ProQuest:

URL del documento: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effect-discretion-outcome-feedback-

process-on/docview/234920135/se-2?accountid=14609

Copyright: Copyright MCB University Press Limited 1995

Última actualización: 2023-11-25

Base de datos: ABI/INFORM Collection; Research Library

Copyright de la base de datos  2024 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 9

Términos y condiciones Contactar con ProQuest

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 9