Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to introduce and test a model of the managerial promotion process.Design/methodology/approachUtilizing longitudinal data from multiple sources (i.e. employees, their immediate supervisors, their personnel files, and task forces charged with succession planning), the study reported examined a model of the promotion process involving district managers being considered for advancement to the position of regional manager in a large organization.FindingsResults support a model in which a district manager's past performance, current job tenure, and prior job tenure predict the manager's promotability rating which, in turn, predicts whether or not the manager is promoted.Research limitations/implicationsGiven that data were used for actual employment decisions by an organization, reliance on single‐item measures was necessary.Practical implicationsSeveral issues that employers should be evaluating (e.g. adverse impact, whether promotability ratings are valid predictors of performance in the next higher level job) are discussed.Social implicationsGiven that women and older employees face hurdles in advancing in organizations, a better understanding of the promotion process may shed light on how to remove impediments.Originality/valueAlthough the process by which organizations make employee promotion decisions is an important one, it has received relatively little attention from researchers.

Recently, Breaugh (1985) developed an instrument that measures three facets, i.e., method, scheduling, and criteria, of work autonomy. This paper presents the results of several analyses designed to evaluate the construct validity of these work autonomy scales. One set of analyses involved the use of confirmatory factor analysis to assess the underlying factor structure of the three work autonomy facet measures. Both indices for assessing the fit of a theoretical model confirmed that a three-facet autonomy model clearly fits the sample data. A second set of analyses involved subgroup comparisons. As predicted, unionized employees reported less autonomy in all three areas than non-union workers. Also as hypothesized, individuals in supervisory positions reported having more autonomy than those not in supervisory positions. The paper also reports a number of additional analyses relevant to the construct validity of the work autonomy scales. When the results reported in this paper are taken in combination with those reported in Breaugh (1985) and Breaugh and Becker (1987), there is substantial evidence supporting both the construct validity and the importance of the work autonomy facet scales.

The importance of autonomy has been asserted by numerous writers in a variety of research domains, e.g., leadership, organizational climate, professionalism, and job design. In this paper, it is argued that research on job autonomy has been hindered by the way it has been conceptualized and operationalized by recent researchers. More specifically, it is suggested that the most commonly used measures of job autonomy operationally confound job autonomy with a conceptually distinct job characteristic (job interdependence/independence). Furthermore, it is suggested that for both theory development and improved organizational interventions it is important to distinguish separate areas (facets) of autonomy. This paper presents the development of a new instrument capable of tapping three distinct types, i.e., "Method A utonoly," "Scheduling Autonomy," and "Criteria Autonomy," of work autonomy. Data relevant to the reliability and the validity of the instrument were gathered in two organizations. The results of several psychometric analyses suggest that the three work autonomy scales are both reliable and valid.

Recently, Breaugh (1985) developed an instrument that measures three facets, i.e., method, scheduling, and criteria, of work autonomy. This paper presents the results of three studies designed to evaluate both the construct validity and the perceived usefulness of Breaugh's Work Autonomy Scales. In the first study, confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the underlying factor structure of the three work autonomy facet measures. Each of several methods for assessing the fit of a theoretical model confirmed that a three-facet model clearly fit the sample data. In Study 2, an experimental design was used to examine the degree to which individuals'self-reports of autonomy actually reflected objective conditions. A close correspondence between the experimental manipulations and subjective ratings of autonomy was found. In Study 3, the perceived usefulness of the information provided by the three autonomy scales was examined. In both an absolute and a comparative sense, i.e., in comparison to measuring autonomy globally, the three autonomy scales were perceived as providing valuable information.