Psychological Reports, 1990, 6 7 , 656-658.
63 Psychological Reports 1990
DISTRESS A N D PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SATISFACTION ' JAMES L. JORDAN
University of California, Riverside Summary.-120 quality assurance engineers indicated how frequently job stressors, causing distress related to role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and career development, affected them at work. They also indicated their satisfaction with their most recent performance appraisal. Satisfaction with performance appraisal was significantly negatively correlated with each stressor.
Distress has been defined as resulting from a situation which occurs when an individual perceives a personal state to be less satisfactory than the desired state (6, 7, 16). Consequently, the individual consciously attempts to rectify the discrepancy so that satisfaction of motives (or desires) can be met. There are several possible sources of distress at work in which environmental demands exceed individual abilities. They may be intrinsic to the job (e.g., poor physical working conditions, work overload, time pressures), one's role in the organization (e.g., role ambiguity/conflict), career development (e.g., overpromotion, underpromotion, lack of job security), relationships at work (e.g., poor relations with others), organizational structure and climate (e.g., impotence in decision-making activities, restrictions on behavior) (2), and perceptions of one's worth in relation to how one perceives others value one's worth. I n terms of actual work-related activities, distress may result from several activities, including sexual harassment ( 5 , 14), excessive overtime work (18), repetitive tasks (10, 18), conflict between job description and tasks (role conflict) (12), inadequate information on how to perform one's task(s) (8, 18), responsibibty for other persons' lives and/or safety (18), inconsiderate behavior by others (e.g., supervisor) (1, l l ) , workers' skill level, educational background, and competence (17, 18), leadership style of managers and group pressure (18). Although distress may adversely affect job satisfaction and work performance (e.g., 13), no studies were located discussing the relationship of such distress with either the appraisal of work performance or with satisfaction with performance appraisal. Since actual ratings of performance were not available, this study addressed the relationship between satisfaction with performance appraisal and distress. Subjects were 120 quality assurance engineers employed at a defense-related company in the Pacific Northwest. They were rated by their immediate supervisors on graphic rating scales. While several classifications of stressors 'Address correspondence to James L. Jordan, Botany and Plant Sciences Department, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, Cahfornia 92521.
DISTRESS AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SATISFACTION
65 7
causing distress have been proposed (e.g., 3, 4, 9, 15, 16), this study utilized the following as sources of distress: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and career development. Each subject was asked to indicate how frequently, on a five-point scale, different activities may cause distress with 1: "never," 3 : "occasionaUy," and 5: "always" had occurred. Each stressor was computed as the mean of five statements. Statements relating to role ambiguity were "unclear job duties and/or work objectives," "unclear directions as to who I report to or who reports to me," "lack of authority to d o job responsibilities," "lack of understanding about what I am expected to do," and "part the job (activity) plays in organization is not understood." Statements relating to role conflict were "unnecessary tasks and/or projects," "being caught between supervisors and subordinates," "no formal chain of command being followed," "some, but not all, persons accept things I do on the job," and "receiving conflicting requests from more than one person." Statements relating to role overload were "unreasonable work quality demands," "difficult and/or complex tasks," "tasks becoming more complex," "employer expects too much of me considering my' skills and/or abilities," and "inadequate time for breaks." Statements relating to career development were "inadequate opportunities for advancement," "promotion is only possible with another employer," "injury to career by staying with present employer," "not enough opportunities to advance skills or knowledge," and "feeling that career is at standstill." The question regarding performance appraisal was "How satisfied are you with the overall outcome of the most recent performance appraisal?" I t was answered on a 5-point Likert scale with 1: "highly dissatisfied" and 5: "highly satisfied." The means and standard deviations, respectively, for the stressors were as follows: role ambiguity (1.96 and 0.43), role conflict (2.27 and 0.52), role overload (1.87 and 0.40), and career development (2.00 and 0.63). Pearson correlations ( p ,051 ~ for occurrences of stressors with performance appraisal satisfaction were as follows: role ambiguity (-0.18), role conflict (-0.25), role overload (-0.3 4), and career development (-0.40). As the perceived frequency of a stressor causing distress increased, satisfaction with performance appraisal decreased. I n terms of management practice, success with a performance appraisal may depend upon how the ratee perceives the evaluation and the prevalence of other stressors coexisting with the appraisal. Therefore, both unrelated stress and reaction to the performance appraisal will affect the individual's response to the appraisal. When a ratee is dissatisfied with a performance appraisal, its effectiveness to improve and/or reward the employee's performance may diminish. Thus, if a ratee is under distress a manager may consider reducing the level of job stressors causing distress encountered by the ratee, conducting the per~
658
J. L. JORDAN
formance appraisal at times less distressful to the employee, reducing the amount of distress encountered during the performance evaluation, using the performance evaluation and/or appraisal interview to detect stressors causing distress that adversely affect performance, monitoring performance frequently to detect stressors hindering optimal performance, and a combination of the previous strategies. An employer may want to avoid making the performance any more distressful than need be and/or conducting appraisals when stressors, causing distress, may most likely be already heightened. REFERENCES 1. BUCK,V. (1972) Working tinder pressure. London: Staples Press. 2. COOPER,C. L. (1986) Job distress: recent research and the emerging role of the clinical occupational psychologist. Bulletin of the British Psychological SocieQ, 39, 325-331. 3. COOPER,C. L., & M A R S I - uJ., (1976) Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 11-28. 4. COOPER,C. L., & MARSHALL, J. (1978) Sources of managerial and white collar stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Catrses, coping and consequences ofstress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 81-105. 5. CRULL,P (1982) Stress effects of social harassment on the job: implications for counselling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539-543. 6. CUMMINGS, T. G., & COOPER,C. L. (1979) A cybernetic framework for studying occupational stress. Human Relations, 32, 395-418. 7. EDWARDS, J. R. (1988) The determinants and consequences of coping with stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 233-263. 8. FRENCH, J. R. P., & CAPLAN,R. D. (1970) Psychosocial factors in coronary heart disease. Industrial Medicine, 39, 383-398. 9. IVANCEVICH, J. M., & MATTESON,M. T. (1980) Stress and work: a managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 10. KORNHAUSER, A. (1965) M e n d health ofthe industrial worker. New York: Wiey. 11. MCLEAN,A. A. (1979) Work stress. Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley. 12. MILES, R. H . , & PERREAULT, W. P (1976) Or anizational role conflicts: its antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior anf urna an Performance, 17, 19-44. 13. MURPHY, L. R. (1988) Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 301-339. 14. POPOVICH,P. M., & LICOTA,B. J. (1989) A role model approach to sexual harassment. Journal of Management, 13, 149-162. 15. QUICK,J. C., & QUICK,J. D. (1984) Organizational stress and preventive management. New York: McGraw-Hill. 16. SCHULER,R. S. (1980) Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184-215. 17. SHOSTAK, A. B. (1980) Blue-collar stress. Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley. V. J., & COOPER,C. L. (1988) Sources of work stress. In J. L. HurreU, Jr., 18. SUTHERLAND, L. R. M u r p , S. L Sauter, & C. L Cooper (Eds.), Occupational stress: issues and d m l opments. P adelpha, PA. Taylor & Francis.
Accepted September 17, 1990.
63 Psychological Reports 1990
DISTRESS A N D PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SATISFACTION ' JAMES L. JORDAN
University of California, Riverside Summary.-120 quality assurance engineers indicated how frequently job stressors, causing distress related to role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and career development, affected them at work. They also indicated their satisfaction with their most recent performance appraisal. Satisfaction with performance appraisal was significantly negatively correlated with each stressor.
Distress has been defined as resulting from a situation which occurs when an individual perceives a personal state to be less satisfactory than the desired state (6, 7, 16). Consequently, the individual consciously attempts to rectify the discrepancy so that satisfaction of motives (or desires) can be met. There are several possible sources of distress at work in which environmental demands exceed individual abilities. They may be intrinsic to the job (e.g., poor physical working conditions, work overload, time pressures), one's role in the organization (e.g., role ambiguity/conflict), career development (e.g., overpromotion, underpromotion, lack of job security), relationships at work (e.g., poor relations with others), organizational structure and climate (e.g., impotence in decision-making activities, restrictions on behavior) (2), and perceptions of one's worth in relation to how one perceives others value one's worth. I n terms of actual work-related activities, distress may result from several activities, including sexual harassment ( 5 , 14), excessive overtime work (18), repetitive tasks (10, 18), conflict between job description and tasks (role conflict) (12), inadequate information on how to perform one's task(s) (8, 18), responsibibty for other persons' lives and/or safety (18), inconsiderate behavior by others (e.g., supervisor) (1, l l ) , workers' skill level, educational background, and competence (17, 18), leadership style of managers and group pressure (18). Although distress may adversely affect job satisfaction and work performance (e.g., 13), no studies were located discussing the relationship of such distress with either the appraisal of work performance or with satisfaction with performance appraisal. Since actual ratings of performance were not available, this study addressed the relationship between satisfaction with performance appraisal and distress. Subjects were 120 quality assurance engineers employed at a defense-related company in the Pacific Northwest. They were rated by their immediate supervisors on graphic rating scales. While several classifications of stressors 'Address correspondence to James L. Jordan, Botany and Plant Sciences Department, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, Cahfornia 92521.
DISTRESS AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SATISFACTION
65 7
causing distress have been proposed (e.g., 3, 4, 9, 15, 16), this study utilized the following as sources of distress: role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and career development. Each subject was asked to indicate how frequently, on a five-point scale, different activities may cause distress with 1: "never," 3 : "occasionaUy," and 5: "always" had occurred. Each stressor was computed as the mean of five statements. Statements relating to role ambiguity were "unclear job duties and/or work objectives," "unclear directions as to who I report to or who reports to me," "lack of authority to d o job responsibilities," "lack of understanding about what I am expected to do," and "part the job (activity) plays in organization is not understood." Statements relating to role conflict were "unnecessary tasks and/or projects," "being caught between supervisors and subordinates," "no formal chain of command being followed," "some, but not all, persons accept things I do on the job," and "receiving conflicting requests from more than one person." Statements relating to role overload were "unreasonable work quality demands," "difficult and/or complex tasks," "tasks becoming more complex," "employer expects too much of me considering my' skills and/or abilities," and "inadequate time for breaks." Statements relating to career development were "inadequate opportunities for advancement," "promotion is only possible with another employer," "injury to career by staying with present employer," "not enough opportunities to advance skills or knowledge," and "feeling that career is at standstill." The question regarding performance appraisal was "How satisfied are you with the overall outcome of the most recent performance appraisal?" I t was answered on a 5-point Likert scale with 1: "highly dissatisfied" and 5: "highly satisfied." The means and standard deviations, respectively, for the stressors were as follows: role ambiguity (1.96 and 0.43), role conflict (2.27 and 0.52), role overload (1.87 and 0.40), and career development (2.00 and 0.63). Pearson correlations ( p ,051 ~ for occurrences of stressors with performance appraisal satisfaction were as follows: role ambiguity (-0.18), role conflict (-0.25), role overload (-0.3 4), and career development (-0.40). As the perceived frequency of a stressor causing distress increased, satisfaction with performance appraisal decreased. I n terms of management practice, success with a performance appraisal may depend upon how the ratee perceives the evaluation and the prevalence of other stressors coexisting with the appraisal. Therefore, both unrelated stress and reaction to the performance appraisal will affect the individual's response to the appraisal. When a ratee is dissatisfied with a performance appraisal, its effectiveness to improve and/or reward the employee's performance may diminish. Thus, if a ratee is under distress a manager may consider reducing the level of job stressors causing distress encountered by the ratee, conducting the per~
658
J. L. JORDAN
formance appraisal at times less distressful to the employee, reducing the amount of distress encountered during the performance evaluation, using the performance evaluation and/or appraisal interview to detect stressors causing distress that adversely affect performance, monitoring performance frequently to detect stressors hindering optimal performance, and a combination of the previous strategies. An employer may want to avoid making the performance any more distressful than need be and/or conducting appraisals when stressors, causing distress, may most likely be already heightened. REFERENCES 1. BUCK,V. (1972) Working tinder pressure. London: Staples Press. 2. COOPER,C. L. (1986) Job distress: recent research and the emerging role of the clinical occupational psychologist. Bulletin of the British Psychological SocieQ, 39, 325-331. 3. COOPER,C. L., & M A R S I - uJ., (1976) Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 11-28. 4. COOPER,C. L., & MARSHALL, J. (1978) Sources of managerial and white collar stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Catrses, coping and consequences ofstress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 81-105. 5. CRULL,P (1982) Stress effects of social harassment on the job: implications for counselling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539-543. 6. CUMMINGS, T. G., & COOPER,C. L. (1979) A cybernetic framework for studying occupational stress. Human Relations, 32, 395-418. 7. EDWARDS, J. R. (1988) The determinants and consequences of coping with stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 233-263. 8. FRENCH, J. R. P., & CAPLAN,R. D. (1970) Psychosocial factors in coronary heart disease. Industrial Medicine, 39, 383-398. 9. IVANCEVICH, J. M., & MATTESON,M. T. (1980) Stress and work: a managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 10. KORNHAUSER, A. (1965) M e n d health ofthe industrial worker. New York: Wiey. 11. MCLEAN,A. A. (1979) Work stress. Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley. 12. MILES, R. H . , & PERREAULT, W. P (1976) Or anizational role conflicts: its antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior anf urna an Performance, 17, 19-44. 13. MURPHY, L. R. (1988) Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. New York: Wiley. Pp. 301-339. 14. POPOVICH,P. M., & LICOTA,B. J. (1989) A role model approach to sexual harassment. Journal of Management, 13, 149-162. 15. QUICK,J. C., & QUICK,J. D. (1984) Organizational stress and preventive management. New York: McGraw-Hill. 16. SCHULER,R. S. (1980) Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184-215. 17. SHOSTAK, A. B. (1980) Blue-collar stress. Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley. V. J., & COOPER,C. L. (1988) Sources of work stress. In J. L. HurreU, Jr., 18. SUTHERLAND, L. R. M u r p , S. L Sauter, & C. L Cooper (Eds.), Occupational stress: issues and d m l opments. P adelpha, PA. Taylor & Francis.
Accepted September 17, 1990.
