Estimating the Subjective Nature of Job Perceptions

1. 2010 SIOP Presentation Estimating the Subjective Nature of Job Perceptions Ronald F. Piccolo, Rollins College Manuela Priesemuth, University of Central Florida Adam Grant, University of Pennsylvania

2. Leadership and Job Perceptions • Transformational leadership is related to employee perceptions of job characteristics. • Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) • Purvanova, Bono, and Dzieweczynski (2006) • Thus, recent studies have reported effects of Leadership on subjective Job Perceptions, but failed to control for the job’s objective nature.

3. Research Purpose To examine the influence of leadership on employees’ job perceptions, controlling for objective measures of job characteristics. This research extends previous work by Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger (2010)

4. Transformational Leadership Transformational leaders… • “concentrate their efforts on long term goals,” • “place emphasis and value on developing a vision,” • “Inspire followers to pursue the vision”, • “change or align systems to accommodate their vision rather than work within existing systems,” and • “coach followers to take greater responsibility toward their own development .”B B Howell & Avolio(1993)

5. Transformational LeadershipSensemaking and A Social Information Processing Perspective • Followers rely on cues from the environment to form judgments about work.A • As central in the work context, leaders foster job perceptions by sharing relevant info, role modeling, and directing follower attention to relevant information. B • Often, judgment about work (i.e., job perceptions) diverge from the actual reality of work conditions • Subjective Perceptions ≠ Objective Reality ASalancik & Pfeffer (1978); B Griffin (1981)

6. Objective vs. Subjective Influence • This research is on Leadership and on Job Perceptions • In the Job Design literature, there is subtle yet important distinction between objective properties of the job – and subjective perceptions. • Objective ≠ Subjective • Leaders have an influence on both!

7. Theoretical Model Objective Job Characteristics (Control) Leadership Employee Job Perceptions Employee Outcomes

8. To what extent do these leaders shape the subjective perception of jobs beyond objective properties? TransformationalLeadership JCT Autonomy & Significance Performance Task & OCB

9. Three Studies Snowball Sampling Design: Working undergrad and graduate students (with a coworker) were recruited to participate.

10. Methods: Study 2 • Measures • Transformational Leadership was assessed using the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1995). • “ My supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs to be done.” • Task Significance was assessed using Grant’s (2008) measure of Prosocial Impact. • “ My job frequently improves the lives of other people.” • Job Autonomy was measured using Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) measure. • “ This job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.” • Objective job characteristics • Coworkers rated the task significance and job autonomy of the focal employee.

11. Measures cont’d • Dependent variables (Supervisor Rated) • Taking Charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) • “This employee often tries to change how his/her job is executed in order to be more effective.” • Voice (van Dyne & LePine,1998) • “This employee speaks up in this department with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.” • Organization Member Proficiency (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) • “ This employee talks about the organization in positive ways.”

12. Correlations Study 2 *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01

13. SEM Results (Study 2) Task SignCOW TAKING CHARGESUP TASKSIGNIFICANCE .42* .22* .21* Transformational Leadership .20* .25* VOICESUP .14 † .19* AUTONOMY ORG MEMBER PROFICIENCYSUP .35** .52* .35* AutonomyCOW Leaders shaped subjective job perceptions, even when controlling for an objective measure. n = 126. *p ≤ .05. †p ≤ .10

14. Study 3 (working paper) • Assessing the influence of leadership on an individual’s job perceptions controlling for objective measures of the job (O*Net)

15. Study 3 • Measures • Ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005) • Task Significance and Job Autonomy (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) • O*Net data

16. Study 3: O*Net vs. JCT JCT ~ Autonomy • The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative and judgment in carrying out the work • The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work O*Net ~ Structure versus Unstructured Work • To what extent does this job allow the worker to determine tasks, priorities, and goals? • r = .19* JCT ~ Task Significance • The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things • This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done O*Net ~ Impact of Decisions on Co-workers or Company Results • How do the decisions an employee makes impact the results of co-workers, clients or the company? • r = .22*

17. Correlations, Study 3 (O*Net Ratings) Structured versus Unstructured Work — To what extent does this job allow the worker to determine tasks, priorities, and goals? Impact of Decisions on Co-workers or Company Results — How do the decisions an employee makes impact the results of co-workers, clients or the company? n = 155. *p ≤ .05.

18. Regression Results (Study 3) Task SignO*Net TASKSIGNIFICANCE .29* ETHICAL LEADERSHIP .28* .06 AUTONOMY .40* AutonomyO*Net n = 159. *p ≤ .05.

19. Implications and Conclusion • Leaders help shape meaning of peoples’ jobs. • Here, we found a unique effect of leadership on subjective job assessments, controlling for objective features of the job. • Employees rely on informational and behavioral cues in the environment to construct their work.

20. Implications and Conclusion (cont’d) • In all, managers in organizations can enhance job perceptions of employees through persuasion, communication or behavioral patterns. • This research created new insights for the job and work design literature as well as the leader’s role in shaping one’s work experience.