Poor performers: Supervisors' and subordinates' responses

Abstract Forty-one groups with appointed supervisors and either two or three subordinates worked on a clerical task for three 10-min sessions and received feedback on their performance. Supervisors evaluated subordinate performance and provided feedback for the subordinates. Four variables were manipulated in a two-phase study. These were: the supervisor's power over subordinate pay (high power and low power), the degree of interdependence between supervisors and their subordinates (high and low), the nature of feedback to subordinates (general, specific with a focus upon quantity, and specific with a focus upon quality), and the level of subordinate performance reported to the supervisor (high and low). It was found that the responses of supervisors toward subordinates were influenced by both the level of subordinate performance and by the degree of interdependence. Subordinates, on the other hand, were influenced by the leader's power as it interacted with the nature of the feedback and by the nature of the feedback. These feedback influences were entirely upon attitudes and beliefs; they did not influence performance on the task after feedback.

[1]  E. Fodor,et al.  Group stress, authoritarian style of control, and use of power. , 1976, Journal of Applied Psychology.

[2]  J. Hackman,et al.  Employee reactions to job characteristics. , 1971 .

[3]  H. Kelley.  Attribution theory in social psychology , 1967 .

[4]  Robert D. Pritchard,et al.  Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. , 1972 .

[5]  D. Cherrington.  The effects of a central incentive-motivational state on measures of job satisfaction , 1973 .

[6]  Aaron Lowin,et al.  The influence of level of performance on managerial style: an experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data , 1968 .

[7]  Timothy W. Elig,et al.  Measuring Causal Attributions for Success and Failure , 1980 .

[8]  D. Kipnis,et al.  Does power corrupt? , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  W. J. Bigoness.  Effects of Locus of Control and Style of Third Party Intervention Upon Bargaining Behavior. , 1976 .

[10]  John M. Ivancevich,et al.  Punishment in Organizations: A Review, Propositions, and Research Suggestions , 1980 .

[11]  M. Taylor,et al.  Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. , 1979 .

[12]  Robert E. Wood,et al.  Supervisor's responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional model☆ , 1980 .

[13]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Leader Responses to Poor Performance: An Attributional Analysis. , 1978 .

[14]  SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATION: THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGERS WHO HELD THEIR SUBORDINATES' POSITIONS1 , 1963 .

[15]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[16]  D. Hamilton.  A Cognitive -Attributional Analysis of Stereotyping1 , 1979 .

[17]  L. Porter,et al.  Communication in Organizations. , 1972 .

[18]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[19]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Attributional processes of leaders in leader–member interactions. , 1979 .

[20]  C. D. Fisher,et al.  Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation , 1979 .

[21]  David M. Herold,et al.  Two-Way Influence Processes In Leader-Follower Dyads , 1977 .