Managerial actions that significantly affect employees' perceptions.

ABSTRACT

Managerial actions have long been recognized as important determents of employee perception and behavior. What specific managerial actions that significantly affect employee perceptions remain debatable. In other words, are their specific managerial actions more important than others? The purpose of this paper is to identify those managerial actions that significantly affect employee perceptions and are crucial to them in deciding whether to trust or distrust management. This paper identifies the ten pivotal managerial actions that cause employees to assess and reassess their perceptions of management.

Keywords: management, actions, employee perceptions, applied management.

1. INTRODUCTION

Recently the Associated Press (2005) published a story that noted the findings of a six-year study financed by the Department of Homeland Security. One of the findings reported was that corporate employees who sabotage computers are commonly motivated by revenge against their bosses. Employee anger frequently stemmed from their perception that managerial actions caused them to have a hostile attitude and sabotage was a way to vent their dissatisfaction. The importance of managerial actions has long been recognized by both management researchers and practitioners as being a significant variable that affects employee perception and as a consequence, their reaction to management attempts to influence them.

The authors in previous papers and articles (Philippe & Koehler) have reported the results of their investigation on the factors that have significantly affected employee perceptions on organization hypocrisy. They identified the following three factors: perceived managerial actions, perceived culture and perceived rewards systems. What was not reported were the specific managerial actions that caused employees to re-evaluate their perceptions of management. Our research generated data that gave us further insight into what are the most crucial managerial actions that employees deem to be the significant. The purpose of this paper is to specifically identify those managerial actions that employees take notice of and that influence how they react to management attempts to guide their behavior. In a nutshell, our intent is to identify managerial actions that cause employees to re-think their evaluation of management and are pivotal in deciding how they will react to management. Our prior research has uncovered the importance of managerial action in causing consequences that may have detrimental affects on employee perceptions and behavior. What it failed to report are those most significant managerial actions that cause employees to distrust and respect management.

2. MANAGERIAL ACTIONS

Our research allowed us to study delineated managerial actions that had impact on the individual employee. We found that employees have as many different expectations of managerial actions and those managerial actions that are noticed and are important to the employee. Morris and Moberg (1994) classified these important expectations as "pivotal expectations". We utilize the concept of pivotal expectation to describe managerial actions that the employee considers as important. Managerial actions that are perceived as important to the employee are actions that exceed the employees' pivotal expectations for the action under scrutiny. These are the actions that are noticed and are of an impact on the employee. Managerial actions that do not exceed the pivotal expectation are not seen as important or having impact on the employee.

Perceived managerial actions are defined as a specific trustee or work group supervisor, or the organization in terms of the authority over the individual. Perception of management actions gives an employee the view of an observer in a manager's implementation of the organizational directives, missions and values. This is what the employee perceives management doing or not doing. It should be noted that perceptions of managerial actions are not based in object reality but are in the mind of each and every employee. In addition, what one employee perceives as an important managerial action may not be perceived by another employee as such. This extents to the dimension of time, where an action may be perceived as pivotal at one point in time but that same action at another point in time may not (Morrison and Robinson, 1997).

Perceptions of management actions are the employees' perceptions of what management does, the perceptions how management does it and the perceptions of atmosphere in which is it based. Managerial actions in conjunction with organizational values will, in themselves, create pivotal expectations in the eyes of the employee. Perceptions of managerial actions are created and maintained by what the employee detects management doing in relation to the values of the organization and pivotal expectations (Philippe and Koehler, 2003).

3. METHODOLOGY

The intent of this paper is to identify significant management actions that affect employee perceptions and behaviors. To identify those significant managerial actions, the authors developed a survey instrument using the Churchill paradigm for developing better measures (Churchill, 1979). Following Churchill's suggested procedures for instrument development; the construct domain of employee perceptions was specified from an extensive literature review and the use of focus groups. Academic studies from many disciplines were analyzed for their respective content and included engineering, philosophy, management and psychology.

Next, a large item pool was generated to encompass employee perceptions. Item wording was reviewed for preciseness and meaning. Modifications were made to the wording of the survey items in order to eliminate ambiguity and to ensure the appropriate level for the targeted respondents. The survey contained the measurement items that compose and operationalize the concept of employee perceptions. Each measurement item required a subjective response from the respondents specifying the magnitude to which they agreed or disagreed with the measurement item. The statements were rated with a seven point Likert Scale. Subjects responded with their perceptions of how each item applied to them.

The final survey is comprised of two sections. The first section contains the measurement items that were designed to understand the employee perceptions were deemed as pivotal by the employees. The second consisted of items about subject demographic and the organization in which they were affiliated.

4. SURVEY SUBJECTS

During a six-month time period, a total of 500 measurement instruments were administered with 396 responses received from the procedures outlined above. This corresponds to a 79.2% response rate. Two hundred twenty males and one hundred sixty females responded with 16 subjects not responding to this question. Two hundred seventy-four had completed a college degree. Ninety-one respondents had completed a master or higher degree (M.D., J.D., or Ph.D.); 31 did not specify. The mean age of the respondents was 32.5 years with a range of 20 to 62 years of age. The respondents had a mean of 11.1 years of experience in the work force (range: 1-43 years), with a mean of 4.4 years of experience in their present organizations (range: 1-31 years) and 2.8 years of experience in their present positions (range: 125 years).

In order to facilitate the data analyses, an exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation was performed to examine the underlying properties of the perception-based scale. The purpose of the factor analysis was not only to begin the process of assessing item weighting and validating scale construction, but also to empirically support the theory that the perception based scale is made up of identifiable constructs.

The number of factors extracted from the perception-based scale was based on a scree plot of eigenvalues for each of the scales, parallel analysis, as well as the selection of the solution with the best interpretation by the researcher. A common factor analysis was conducted using a three, four and five factor solution with orthogonal and non-orthogonal rotation (promax) in order to choose the solution with the best interpretation. The three-factor solution explained 84% of the common variance for the items. As a result, a three-factor solution was selected.

The three-factor solution had one specific factor, which contained 19 measurement items that concentrated around the theme of management actions; as a result, this factor was named perceptions of management actions. Examples that typified this factor included items such as "It seems goals are changed at random", or "The organization says things that I do not expect to happen" or "Most of what management says can be ignored." The management actions factor correlated .69 with Factor 1 and .57 with Factor 3. The internal consistency of the management actions factor was .92. Item Ioadings on the structure matrix (simple correlations) ranged from .34 to .76. These Ioadings only change slightly after the effects of the other factors were removed (.45 to .81 regression coefficients) which provided evidence that this factor of perceived management actions contributed most of the variances for its items. From this method of analyzing the data, we were able to evaluate which management actions were perceived as pivotal by the employees.

5. RESULTS

The dominate managerial actions that are perceived by subjects in this survey were actions that revolved around perceived consistency with organizational values, perceived consistency of actions, perceived fairness and perceived comparisons within the organization. In the broader context of social exchange, the employee makes comparisons to deduce consistency with and/or between management actions and the organizations. The results are as follows (Table 1):

TABLE 1. MANAGERIAL ACTIONS

MANAGERIAL ACTIONS                                              LOADING

Saying one thing and doing another                              76
values in order to get things done                              64
Randomly changing goals with explaining why                     62
Making claims that are not likely to happen                     62
Taking actions that are judged to be unfair                     61
Treating goals as more important than values                    56
Not a I in the same standard of performance to all employees    50
Failure to demonstrate commitment to organizational values      40
Not holding all personnel accountable for mistakes              39
Failure to provide feedback about job performance               39

6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1 Saying One Thing and Doing Another Perceived failure to follow through on proclamations, promises or other important declarations is considered by the subjects as a prominent managerial action. We hasten to point out that the perception is in the mind of the employee and the manager may dispute the actual intent of the statement under question. Our research results suggests that the employee will see any important deviation between what management says it is going to do with what management action is taken as a major breach in the relationship between the employee and the manager. Being consistent with what you say as a manager and what you do as a manager appears to be a very significant action. Many managers' fall into the trap of changing there actions to be more flexible and adaptable to the situation, but not informing employees of their change in action can cause serious consequences. Many managers do not recognize the need to inform employees the changes in attitude and are often perplexed when employees do not respond to their leadership. When managers keep employees out of the loop, a perception "saying one thing and doing another" becomes prevalent to the employee. Employee observations of inconsistency may affect their effort, compliance, or a lack of active participation. Consistency between management words and management actions according to our study is a salient issue. Even with multiple communication interactions with management the employee readily the consistency or inconsistency between managers communication and managers action.

6.2 Changing Values in Order to Get Things Done

Managers may make adjustment to get the job done now. They may pragmatically state that quality is an important value in the company, but decide to ship products that are suspect.

Subjects in our study viewed this type of inconsistency between values and managerial actions as salient in their perceptions of the organization. When employees perceive of managerial actions as being in conflict with the values of the organization, employees perceive a conflict and may question the proper course to proceed. If management can use any means to justify the accomplishment of a goal then the employee may come to the conclusion they can use any means to enhance their position. There can no longer be a synergy between the workers if they are all using different value systems in the same organization. This type of inconsistency may lead to employees no longer recognizing the organizational values as important, only the immediate achievement of goals. These goals may or may not be sanctioned by the organization. This is the type of behavior patterns we are currently reading about in the popular press with the likes of Worldcom, Enron and the like.

6.3 Randomly Changing Goals without Explaining Why

Managers often take the position that it is their prerogative to change goals. This is justified because of the fast changing global environment and an ever-increasing velocity of information. Most managers agree that being quick and nimble is key in being able to position the organization to capitalize on current trends. However, results of our study indicate that managers must quickly respond to the employee needs to understand why a goal or goals are being changed. This communication allows the employee to better adapt to changes and then provide specific information that might help in the manager being better able to make the appropriate decisions.

6.4 Making Claims that are not Likely to Happen

Although making claims appears to be a pejorative action. It was perceived, by the subjects in our study as a managerial action with strong ramifications. It appears that claims that managers make that are not likely to happen be the result of management's poor assessment of the situation or making claims with inadequate information. Claims that are perceived by employees as being unreal are very likely to result in employee noticing the inconsistency and become suspect. This can create a situation where there may not sufficient confidence in information that is presented. This may slow employee discretion and decision making. Many low level decisions are based on organizational policy, and left to the employee to implement. When the reliability of the organizational information becomes uncertain, the employee ability to react to certain situations may become limited because the consequences are no longer assured.

6.5 Taking Action that is Judged as Unfair

Management actions are viewed from the lens of the employee perception and employee perception may not be based in reality. Manager's can make the appropriate action for a given situation and still be judged as unfair. The results of our study indicate that managers should exercise great care in trying to be fair in their decisions. For example recently an airline executive whose company had lost millions of dollars, took a multimillion-dollar bonus and then asked for the employee's to take sizable pay cuts. According to the results of our study this action would be perceived as very negative and would likely caused great harm to employee morale.

6.6 Treating Goals as More Important than Values

Managers often point to organizational values as the foundation for guiding the behavior of the employees. Yet, when urging employee to step up their efforts, they focus on goal achievement and guiding values are put aside. This managerial action is noticed by the employees and according to the results of our study. Employees may resent management actions that displace values in order to achieve immediate goals.

6.7 Not Applying the Same Standard of Performance to All Employees

If in a contingency based leadership model many practitioner's are advised that each situation is unique and most be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Our interpretation of the data we collected suggest that when management action is perceived as different when it come to standards of performance, these actions will be given considerable scrutiny by employees. Such actions come in direct conflict with the contingency-based leadership model. It appears that when dealing with standards of performance, managers should use consistent criteria to deal with all employees. If managers use different performance standards for different employees, great effort should be utilized in communicating to the employee's to explain why different standards used are different. Employee's will compare themselves to each other and make suitable accommodations based on those perceived differences.

6.8 Failure to Demonstrate Commitment to Organizational Values

This finding closely parallels the managerial action cited earlier where employees took notice of the manager treating goals as more important then values. However, this finding enlarges the employee perspective of the importance of managers paying attention to organizational values. Our data indicates that employees take notice of managerial actions that are not aligned with organizational values. It appears that role modeling organizational values are perceived by employees as very important and any violation by a manager is noticed.

6.9 Not Holding All Personnel Accountable for Mistakes

Mistakes by organization members occur and managers must take corrective action. Employees appear to not resent corrective action by management. However, what appears to be crucial is the perception by employees that managers do not hold all employees accountable. Selectively pointing out the mistakes of some employees and ignoring the mistakes of other's is likely to diminish the credibility of the manager and have a significant impact on his or her ability to manage.

6.10 Failure to Provide Feedback about Job Performance

A common complaint made by employees is that they do not receive adequate feedback about their job performance. The results of our study indicate that employees perceive performance feedback as a significant managerial action. It appears that managers who fail to provide feedback about employee performance will be noticed and will suffer the consequences.

Finally, the results of our study yielded no significant differences found within the demographic data. For example, no significant difference was found in gender, tenure in the position, tenure in the organization, or the total work experience of the employee. The lack of significant difference in demographic data means that managers should not think their behavior is not noticed by employees who happen to be newcomers to a position, male or female, or have very little or lengthy experience.

7. SUMMARY

The study suggests that perceptions management actions are perceived and analyzed by the employee, often to the detriment of the organization. Those managers who blindly do as they will with no regard to the employee reaction, because they are the boss, will soon realize that managerial actions are not ignored. This data from this study sustains the concept an employee's expectations of the organization are created by perceptions of management actions. These expectations are developed on an on-going basis. (Philippe and Koehler, 2005).

The result if our study identified ten significant management actions as they are perceived by employees. These few managerial actions are perceived by employees as very important and any inconsistencies represent a real potential hazard to managers in the organization and even to the organization itself. Careers and the organization may "periodically be put at risk by ambitious, selfish, deceitful people who care more about their own advancement than they do about the mission of the organization" (Hogan and Hogan, 1994, p. 94). Hogan and Hogan suggest that this internal threat, not an external competitive threat, is the greatest danger to the modern organization. It is important to note that managerial actions cannot be fully understood independently of the contexts of the workplace in which they occur (Philippe and Koehler, 2004).

REFERENCES:

Associated press. (2005). Retrieved May 31, 2005, from http://www.kron4com/Global/story.asp?s=3352350

Churchill, G A., (1979). "A Paradigm for developing better measures of marketing concepts", Journal Of Marketing Research, 16, 1 : 64-73

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1994). The mask of integrity". In T. Sarbin, R. Carney, and C. Eoyang (Eds.) Citizen espionage: Studies in trust and betrayal: 107-125. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Philippe, T.W. & Koehler, J.W. (2004). "The effects of perceived organizational hypocrisy on intention to leave and job satisfaction", Review of Business Research, 3(1) 14-21

Morris, J.H., & Moberg, D.J. (1994). Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal, In T. Sarbin, R. Carney, and C. Eoyang (Eds.) Citizen espionage: Studies in trust and betrayal, 163-187. Westport, CT: Praeger

Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). "When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops", Academy of Management Review. 1, 226-256

Thomas Philippe, St. Petersburg College, St Petersburg, Florida, USA

Jerry W. Koehler, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA