Library

Notes: It was the purpose of this investigation to examine the significance of the perceptions of incumbents on jobs regarding 1) how they did their work (Report of Performance), 2) how they thought their work should be done (Perceived True Requirements), and 3) how they thought their immediate supervisor wanted the work to be done (Perceived Supervisor's Requirements). It was predicted at the beginning of the study that different patterns of consistency and inconsistency among these three perceptions would be related to attitudes of the incumbents regarding themselves, their work, and their supervisors.The predictions worked out very much as expected, especially when the Perceived True Requirements were compared with the Perceived Supervisor's Requirements. This score is called “Role Agreement”, referring to the subject's report that the role requirements he has for the job agree with what he believes his supervisor requires. Subjects scoring high on Role Agreement rated their supervisors high. They also felt that they were free from pressure from their supervisors to do things the supervisor's way, and that they understood what their supervisors expected of them. They tended to be satisfied by their work and to see in it an opportunity to show what they could do.On the other hand, high Role Agreement had nothing to do with how a man rated his own work, or his basic qualifications to do the work. These attitudes were closely related to the amount of agreement between Perceived True Requirements and Report of Performance, called “Performance Suitability”. That is, people who reported that they were doing the job the way they thought it should be done tended to rate their work and their abilities high, and to derive satisfaction from their work. They felt also that their supervisors would rate their work high.A third comparison was made involving the Report of Performance and Perceived Supervisor's Requirements. To score high on this measure, a person reported that what he was actually doing was in line with what he believed his supervisor required of him. High scorers tended to rate high both their supervisor and their understanding of his requirements, and they tended to be satisfied with their work. The relationships between this type of agreement and positive attitudes were less pronounced than the others, and, in the case of over-all job satisfaction, disappeared when the effects of Role Agreement and Performance Suitability were partialed out.The results lead to the hypothesis that the two orientations, Role Agreement and Performance Suitability, are independent, and each contributes to general satisfaction and to specific job attitudes. If this hypothesis is true, much of the difficulty in finding clear-cut relations between gross measures of job satisfaction, and other variables such as productivity, and supervisory ratings may be explained.