Research
Toward a holistic model of task design for IS professionals
Stanley E. Gambill
a,*, W. Jeff Clark
a,1, Ronald B. Wilkes
b,2aDepartment of Computer Information Systems, Middle Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 45, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA bDepartment of Management Information Systems and Decision Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
Received 3 February 1997; accepted 28 December 1997
Abstract
IS Task design issues and employee motivation can impact information system effectiveness. A questionnaire was developed to integrate important job design factors from equity, expectancy, job characteristics, and goal setting theories. Data was collected from 30 organizations using questionnaires. Job design factors identi®ed were feedback, justice, employee voice, task identity, individual differences, physical dressings, autonomy, and goal dif®culty. Limitations of the research and practical implications for both IS practitioners and academics are discussed.#2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Motivation; Work motivation; Task design; Job; Design; Job characteristics theory; Equity theory; Goal-setting theory; Expectancy theory
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Research has shown that IS personnel are different from personnel in other professions [8,9]. If IS per-sonnel are indeed different, then the possibility exists that generally accepted methods of motivation may not work for them. In spite of this reported difference, research on the motivation of IS professionals has largely been ignored [3].
Even though very little research has been conducted speci®cally on personnel in the IS world, it is con-sidered important [12]. According to Brancheau and
Hoffman [4], `It seems reasonable to question whether it is possible to operate IS effectively without satis®ed and highly motivated employees.' Most of the job related research focuses on the introduction and use of technology [5,49]. This research examines motivation and the problems that IS professionals experience when designing tasks.
1.2. Purpose of this effort
This research attempts to integrate four widely used task design theories: equity, expectancy, job charac-teristics, and goal setting, into a single model. Focus-ing on a sFocus-ingle task design theory provides a limited view of a very broad ®eld. Development of an inte-grative model will allow IS professionals to broaden their understanding and application of task design. This integration can improve the understanding of task design, motivation and IS personnel.
*Corresponding author. Tel.:1-615-848-0918. 1Tel.:1-615-898-2838.
2Retired.
1.3. Overview of the study
A ®eld study was conducted to investigate task factors used in designing IS jobs. A survey instrument was developed that integrated task design factors from the four different theories. Data was collected to help measure the degree to which an organization's job design increases work motivation.
The survey instrument was distributed to human resource and IS management to gather data about how jobs are designed for IS professionals. The subjects were asked to be as objective as possible and to answer the questions in terms of how jobs are actually designed rather than express their own design opi-nions. This data was used to determine whether: work motivation is considered important; the job design process follows anticipated theoretical guidelines; and there were task design variables in these IS organizations.
2. Review of four key task design and motivation theories
2.1. Key task design factors
From an organizational viewpoint, the main value of the theories of task design is their power to predict what variables can be manipulated to improve employee work motivation. Studies have shown that task design variables are positively related to internal work motivation and outcomes.
2.2. Equity theory
Equity theory says that a major determinant of job performance and satisfaction is the degree of equity, or inequity, that an individual perceives in a work situation [1]. The degree of equity is de®ned in terms of the ratio of an individual's inputs (such as effort) to outcomes (such as pay) compared to a similar ratio for someone in a similar role [39]. The strength of the person's motivation is directly related to the level of inequity perceived to exist; it may be based on subjective perception or objective reality [20]. If the ratios are unequal, the inequitably overpaid individual will experience feelings of guilt and the others will experience feelings of anger. Equal
ratios are assumed to yield equitable states and equal feelings of satisfaction. When inequity is perceived to exist, the individual tries to restore equity. This is supposedly true even for those bene®ting from inequity.
Some more important extensions to equity theory include distributive justice [27], which focuses on the fairness of evaluations received relative to work per-formed, and procedural justice [41], which focuses on the fairness of the evaluation procedures used to determine ratings and rewards. A more recent exten-sion, organizational justice, focuses on the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace in general [17,19].
Most applied research in equity theory focuses on procedural issues related to performance evaluation. Key factors in understanding and applying equity theory can be summarized in terms of standards, observation and communication [2,14,16,28,29,43, 44].
Effective standards should be clear, consistent and well known. Actual work observation must occur frequently and directly. Communication should be bi-directional with active solicitation of input from the employee, including opportunities for appeal and the expression of opinions. Feedback should be inter-active and include proposals for the resolution of dif®culties and rationale for conclusions.
Other factors affecting states of equity or inequity include workspace characteristics [18]. These include ¯oor and desk space, privacy, and the capacity to personalize or decorate workspace.
2.3. Expectancy theory
The basic concepts of expectancy theory are [36]:
1. Performance-outcome expectancy Ð The indivi-dual's belief that a certain type of behavior will result in certain outcomes.
2. Valence Ð Each outcome has a certain value or attractiveness to a specific individual and that outcome varies among individuals.
3. Effort-performance expectancy Ð Each behavior has a certain expectancy or probability of success. These concepts form the foundation for the design of incentive systems. From the perspective of expectancy theory the manager's role focuses on defining clear goals, setting clear expectations, and providing payoffs based on individual differ-ences [46].
While there has been very little speci®c agreement on the standards and measures of expectancy theory there are some common dimensions in the literature. The two most prevalent of these dimensions are individual differences, referring to the consideration of variations in ability, and leader behavior, which includes using positive rewards, clarifying expecta-tions, and engaging in supportive behavior. Other key dimensions are organizational practices, such as rules, constraints and reward systems, and communication, which includes both feedback and participatory deci-sion-making. [11,24,38].
2.4. Job characteristics theory
Job characteristics theory, from Hackman and Old-ham, identi®es three critical psychological states that lead to high internal work motivation [22]. It is based on the belief that all three of these states must be present for strong internal motivation to develop and persist. These states suggest that a person must:
1. Have knowledge of the results of his or her work. 2. Feel responsibility for the results of the work, believing that he or she is personally accountable for the outcome.
3. Experience the work as meaningful, as something that counts in one's own system of values.
Since these states are internal and not directly subject to manipulation, Hackman and Oldham have identi®ed ®ve job characteristics that they consider to be `reasonably objective, measurable, changeable
properties of the work itself that foster these psycho-logical states, and through them, enhance internal work motivation' [21].
Three of these ®ve characteristics are said to con-tribute to the experienced meaningfulness of the work. It is recognized that there are other ways for work to take on meaning for the person who performs it, but that these three `seem especially powerful in in¯uen-cing the experienced meaningfulness of work.' These three characteristics are:
1. Skill variety Ð The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying it out, involving the use of a number of different skills and talents.
2. Task identity Ð The degree to which a job requires completion of a `whole' and identi®able piece of work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.
3. Task signi®cance Ð The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people, whether they are in the immediate organization or outside it.
A person can experience work as meaningful, even if one or two of these task characteristics are quite low. Another characteristic fosters increased feelings of personal responsibility for the work out-comes:
4. Autonomy Ð The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and dis-cretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out.
The ®nal characteristic involves knowledge that the results of one's work is affected directly by the amount of feedback one receives from doing it.
5. Job feedback Ð The degree to which carrying out the work activities provides the individual with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance.
Individual differences play an important role in job characteristics theory. Just as some employees will respond positively to a job that is high in motivating potential, others will respond negatively to it.
People with suf®cient knowledge and skill to per-form well should feel positive about their job perfor-mance, while people lacking suf®cient knowledge and skill will have negative feelings. People with a need for personal growth are expected to develop higher internal motivation, especially when they work on a challenging job. People's willingness to take advan-tage of opportunities in a high motivating job is impacted by various job and organizational character-istics such as pay, job security, co-workers, and super-visors.
The Job diagnostic survey (JDS), a companion instrument designed to operationalize job character-istic theory, is one of the most widely used instruments for research on task design and motivation [15,37,40]. The wide use of the JDS lends to its credibility as well as to its validity and reliability.
2.5. Goal setting theory
The two major premises of goal setting theory pertain to the effects of goal dif®culty and goal speci®city/dif®culty on task performance. Goals that are hard to achieve, if accepted, lead to better task performance than do easy goals [30]. Individual moti-vation and performance are improved when a worker knows clearly what is expected and is challenged by it. Gutknecht and Miller list three requirements for goal setting:
1. Proper goal de®nition, knowing its purpose and the needs.
2. Specific, exact goals that are definable, measur-able, challenging, and attainable.
3. Feedback, knowing how well the goal is being attained.
Goal setting theory has been referred to as among the most scienti®cally valid theories in organizational science [31]. Several researchers have reported strong support for the impact of goal setting on task perfor-mance [25,26,32]. Two recent meta-analyses support the major propositions of goal setting theory: goal dif®culty, goal speci®city, participation, and feedback relate positively to task performance [33,42]. The literature on goal setting theory reveals widespread support for four key variables: participation in goal setting, speci®city of goals, dif®culty of goals, and feedback of progress in meeting goals.
2.6. IS motivation
While the very little research on motivation of IS personnel has resulted in primarily inconclusive results it tends toward the position that IS personnel are different [10,34]. Cougar and Zawacki, in their work using a modi®ed version of the Job Diagnostic Survey to 2500 IS personnel, concluded that IS per-sonnel were signi®cantly different from people in other professions, in that they had low social needs and high growth needs. Later work also indicates that IS personnel are different [7,48].
Woodruff [47], using the `Personality Research Form' from behavioral psychology, provides limited support for the work of Couger and Zawacki in his study of personality differences. Later research [34] found IS personnel in the insurance industry to be quite different from the IS community as a whole. However, Ferratt and Short [13] failed to ®nd IS personnel different in their survey of 1005 people in insurance companies in midwestern US.
A study of various industries found differences between traditional (working before the 1980s) and nontraditional (began work since 1980) IS profes-sionals [33]. In this study the traditional staff reported lower internal and social needs than nontraditional staff.
3. Research method
3.1. Instrumentation and formulation of hypotheses
The instrument, Motivational Design Rating Form (MDRF), designed for this research represents a synthesis of Equity Theory (EQT), Expectancy The-ory (EXT), Job Characteristics TheThe-ory (JCT) and Goal Setting Theory (GST). It was developed from several previously validated instruments based on one of the four theories. Each instrument has been shown to possess predictive power for variables like internal work motivation and work outcomes (individual per-formance), as well as many not addressed here. Each instrument included validated items that were factor analyzed and shown to load on factors similar to those being investigated here.
these `original factors,' identi®es their source theory or theories and projects their mapping to a new set of predicted factors.
3.2. Discussion of the predicted factors mapping
The original factors were extracted from instru-ments developed and validated in several prior studies. It was expected that some of the theories would overlap. Therefore, the integrative nature of this research was expected to produce fewer factors than the original 14.
Eight of the original factors appeared to map to just four factors in the integrated instrument. Six of the original factors appeared to map in a one-to-one relationship with a single factor each in the integrated instrument.
Task identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (GST, EXT)
appear to be similar.Identityrefers to doing a whole,
identi®able piece of work.Speci®cityrefers to clear,
speci®c goals that are readily identi®able. For a goal to be speci®c, the task(s) must be clearly identi®ed with a clear beginning and end. It is hypothesized that task identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (JCT and EXT) will combine to form one factor.
Participation (GST) and employee voice (EQT and EXT) both deal with the extent people are allowed to have input into the decision making pro-cess. Empirical evidence based on equity theory and
expectancy theory suggests that employee participa-tion is important in any decision that affects the employee. Goal setting theory only addresses employee participation in terms of work objectives and this appears to be a subset of participation in general. It is hypothesized that participation in goal setting (GST) and employee voice (EQT and EXT) will combine to form one factor.
Feedback in JCT deals with the job itself while feedback in GST deals with speci®c goals. Even though JCT refers to feedback from the job itself and not people, both deal with feedback and are expected to be related. It is hypothesized that feedback from the job itself (JCT) and feedback on goal effort (GST) will combine to form one factor.
On the surface, skill variety (JCT) and goal dif®-culty (GST) do not appear to have much in common. However, examination of the individual items asso-ciated with each factor reveals striking similarities. The ®rst skill variety question on the JCT instrument also determines job dif®culty when it states `the job is
quite simple. . .' It appears to measure the same
con-cepts as GST questions number one (`. . .little
dif®-culty in reaching their work objectives; they appear to
be fairly easy') and number three (`. . .great deal of
effort for IS professionals to complete'). Also, item two from the instruments of both theories address skill level (`Number of complex and sophisticated skills'± JCT, and `high degree of skill and know-how'±GST).
Table 1
Original factors (14) and predicted factors (10)a
Original factors Source Predicted factors
Task identity JCT Task/Goal clarity
Goal specificity GST
Participation GST and EXT Participation
Employee voice EQT and EXT
Feedback from job JCT Feedback
Feedback from goals GST
Skill variety JCT Job complexity
Goal difficulty GST
Task significance JCT and EXT Task significance
Autonomy JCT Autonomy
Procedural justice EQT and EXT Procedural justice
Distributive justice EQT Distributive justice
Physical dressings EQT Physical dressings
Individual differences EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST Individual differences
It seems reasonable to assume that a task or goal that is dif®cult to complete will require a variety of skills and talents. It is hypothesized that skill variety (JCT) and goal dif®culty (GST) will combine to form one factor. The remaining six original factors have no apparent similarities and should emerge from the factor analy-sis in the same way as prior research.
3.3. Data collection
MDRF questionnaires were distributed in 30 orga-nizations. Of the 180 questionnaires distributed, 117 were returned for a response rate of 65%. The parti-cipants represented a variety of government and industry organizations, including city and county government, wholesale distribution, ®nancial ser-vices, food processing, health care, higher education, hotel/casino, manufacturing, service, software devel-opment, and transportation. The participating organi-zations were located in seven states.
The MDRF instrument was distributed to six sub-jects in each organization. These included one per-sonnel (human resources) manager and ®ve IS managers. In some smaller organizations senior man-agement members were used as substitutes. Senior managers were chosen because they were expected to have more direct input into the job design process than they would in larger organizations.
4. Analysis of results
4.1. Discussion of expected mapping factors
The expected factor mappings were tested using principle components factor analysis with a varimax rotation. The eigenvalue criterion was used to deter-mine signi®cant factors (eigenvalues greater than one). Generally, minimum factor loadings of 0.5 were required for a question to be included in a factor. Five questions were used that had loadings less than 0.5, however, all the ®ve had loadings of 0.47 or greater and seemed to ®t with their respective factors. This is considered an acceptable level since some researchers use loadings as low as 0.3 for a cutoff [6]. Appendix A lists the individual questions and factor loadings asso-ciated with each of these eight factors identi®ed in this research and the theories and factors originally asso-ciated with the individual questions. Table 2 shows that the support for the predicted factors was mixed. The expected mapping of task identity and goal speci®city factors into a single factor was not sup-ported. Two of the three questions from the original task identity factor loaded on one factor. Two addi-tional questions also loaded on this factor.
There was only partial support for the expectation that participation in goal setting and employee voice factors would form one factor. All three questions
Table 2
Mapping of original factors (14) to predicted factors (10)
Original factors Predicted factors Supported
Task identitya Task/Goal clarity No
Goal specificity
Participation Participation Partial
Employee voicea
Feedback from job Feedback Yes
Feedback from goals
Skill variety Job complexity No
Goal difficultya
Task significance Task significance No
Autonomy Autonomy Yes
Procedural justice Procedural justice Yesb
Distributive justice Distributive justice Yesb
Physical dressings Physical dressings Yes
Individual differences Individual differences Yes
aSupport exists for single factor, which was originally predicted to join with another factor.
previously associated with employee voice loaded on one factor, as did one of three questions originally associated with participation in goal setting.
The expected mapping of feedback from the job and feedback on goal effort into one factor was supported. Five of the six associated questions loaded on the factor. Another question from goal setting theory (GST) also loaded on this factor. Although the addi-tional question was originally associated with a `spe-ci®c goal' factor, it addresses the issue of a person having a clear sense of priorities.
The expectation that skill variety and goal dif®culty would form one factor was not supported. However, a goal dif®culty factor was identi®ed.
Three of the six original factors mapped directly to a single factor as expected. The mapping for one factor, task signi®cance, was not supported. Also, procedural justice and distributive justice mapped to form a single factor. Six out seven related questions loaded on this factor. Table 3 lists the 14 factors identi®ed from prior research, theory of origin, and the eight factors that actually occurred.
4.2. Importance of work motivation
Additional data was gathered on the importance of work motivation in the organization to determine how important motivation was in participating organiza-tions. Analysis indicated that work motivation was considered important in design of jobs for general and
IS professionals. The statement `work motivation is considered important in the design of jobs for profes-sionals in general' resulted in a mean response of 5.5 (7-point Likert scale with a 7 as the highest positive response) with a standard deviation of 1.7. The mean response to the statement `work motivation is con-sidered important in the design of jobs for information systems professionals' was 5.6 (on a 7-point Likert scale) with a standard deviation of 1.5. These two variables were highly correlated with a correlation
coef®cient of 0.886 and ap-value of 0.000.
4.3. Interpretation of research findings
4.3.1. Job design factors
Of the 10 expected factors feedback, autonomy, individual differences and physical dressings were the only ones that correlated. Four other factors iden-ti®ed in this research were task identity, employee voice, goal dif®culty, and justice. Individual differ-ences is common to all four job design theories in this research. Together, these eight task design factors form the holistic task design model shown in Fig. 1.
4.4. Limitations of the research
Several factors limit the generalizability of the results of this research.
Table 3
Original factors (14) and identified factors (8)a
Original factors Source Identified factors
Task identity JCT Task identity
Goal specificity GST
Participation GST and EXT
Employee voice EQT and EXT Employee Voice
Feedback from job JCT Feedback
Feedback from goals GST
Skill variety JCT Goal difficulty
Goal difficulty GST
Task significance JCT and EXT
Autonomy JCT Autonomy
Procedural justice EQT and EXT Justice
Distributive justice EQT
Physical dressings EQT Physical dressings
Individual differences EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST Individual differences
1. The participating organizations were from seven states, predominately in southern US. Possibly, organizations in other parts of the country are managed differently.
2. It is also possible that organizations may differ by industry. Although the overall total number of participating organizations was sufficient for this research, there were not enough for analysis by industry.
4.5. Implications of the research
This study provides empirical support through fac-tor analysis for eight of the 14 job design facfac-tors identi®ed in prior research. Five them were conspic-uous in their absence: goal speci®city, participation in goal setting, skill variety, and task signi®cance. Because the job design factors and items loading on their respective factors had been validated in prior research, they were expected to manifest themselves in some form here. Their failure to appear may be because they were `watered down' or affected by the integrative nature of this research, or that the partici-pating organizations were either not aware of these factors or did not consider them important.
With today's shortage of IS personnel and high turn-over rates, it is important that organizations make every reasonable effort to retain valuable employees. An important aspect of any retention effort is job design in a way that promotes highly satis®ed and motivated employees. This research provides a single integrated model of task design that is simpler to use than trying to combine several independent models. It also helps ensure the application of a wider variety of task design techniques than if a single task design model is used.
Fig. 1. Holistic task design model.
Appendix
Feedback factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.69101 JCT Feedback Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for a
person to figure out how well he or she is doing.
0.47544 GST Feedback IS professionals receive a considerable amount of feedback concerning
the quantity of work they produce.
0.55553 GST Feedback IS professionals are well-informed by their supervision about how well
they are doing in their work toward their work objectives.
0.70505 GST Specific IS professionals understand fully which of their work objectives are
more important than others; they have a clear sense of priorities on their goals.
0.64177 GST Feedback IS professionals are provided with a great deal of feedback and guidance
on the quality of their work.
0.64666 JCT Feedback To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job where `doing the
Justice factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.61736 EQT Procedural There is two-way communication between the rater and ratee during
their formal performance evaluation interview.
0.60779 EQT Procedural The person being evaluated during performance evaluations is given a
real opportunity to challenge or rebut the evaluation.
0.79410 EQT Procedural The person conducting the formal performance evaluation interview is
very familiar with the work of the person being evaluated.
0.76258 EQT Procedural Standards for evaluating performance are consistently applied for
everyone being evaluated.
0.84063 EQT Performance ratings are clearly based on actual performance of the
individual being evaluated.
0.49291 EQT Distributive Recommendations for salary increases and promotion are based on
ratings received.
Employee voice factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.66192 EXT EQT
GST
Employee voice
IS professionals are encouraged to speak up when they disagree with a decision.
0.47160 EXT EQT
GST
Employee voice
Management makes most decisions concerning the IS function without asking IS professionals for their opinions.
0.50621 EXT EQT
GST
Participation IS professionals have little voice in the formulation of work
objectives.
0.60653 EXT EQT
GST
Employee Voice
IS professionals participate in decisions on adopting new policies and programs that involve the IS function.
Task identity factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.49166 JCT Task identity The job is arranged so that a person does `not' have the chance
to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.
0.67521 JCT Task significance The job itself is `not' very significant or important in the
broader scheme of things.
0.59912 GST Goal specificity Work objectives for IS professionals are ambiguous and
unclear.
0.53294 JCT Task identity To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job that
Individual differences factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.77543 ALL Individual
differences
Work assignments for IS professionals are generally made based on who is available to do the work at the time without regard to individual differences.
0.74884 ALL Individual
differences
Serious consideration is given to individual differences when work assignments are made for IS professionals.
0.77638 ALL Individual
differences
Very little consideration is given to individual differences when work assignments are made for IS professionals.
Physical dressings factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.89470 EQT Physical
dressings
IS professionals within the same job classification have similar amounts of floor space, storage space, and desk space in their personal work area or office.
0.83739 EQT Physical
dressings
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar amounts of privacy in their personal work area or office.
0.54922 EQT Physical
dressings
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar opportunities to select the decor and furnishings of their personal work area or office.
Autonomy factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.59058 JCT Autonomy The job gives a person considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how he or she does the work.
0.64875 GST Participation IS professionals are pretty much in control of setting their own work
goals.
0.49555 JCT Autonomy To what extent is `autonomy' considered in job design. That is, to what
extent does the job allow the worker to decide on their own how to go about doing the work?
Goal difficulty factor
Loadings Theory Factor Question
0.70917 GST Goal difficulty IS professionals have little difficulty in reaching their work
objectives; they appear to be fairly easy.
0.54123 GST Goal difficulty IS professionals must possess a high degree of skill and
know-how to fully attain their work objectives.
0.75649 GST Goal difficulty Work objectives require a great deal of effort for IS
5. Summary
Speci®c hypotheses about job design factors for IS professionals were presented. These hypotheses were tested using data collected from 30 different organiza-tions primarily located in southern US. Signi®cant ®ndings indicate that:
1. Organizations consider task design for IS profes-sionals important.
2. Task identity, employee voice, feedback, goal difficulty, autonomy, justice, physical dressings, and feedback (combined) are important task design variables.
References
[1] J.S. Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 1963, pp. 422±436. [2] R.J. Bies, D.L. Shapiro, Voice and justification: their
influence on procedural fairness judgements, Academy of Management Journal 31, 1988, pp. 676±685.
[3] R. Bostrom, L. Olfman, M. Sein, The importance of learning style in end- user training, MIS Quarterly 14 (1), 1990, pp. 100±119.
[4] J.C. Brancheau, T.R. Hoffmann, Managing information systems for effectiveness and humanity: applying research on organizational behavior, Information & Management 13, 1987, 233±243.
[5] J.C. Brancheau, J.C.J. Wetherbe, The adoption of spreadsheet software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing, Information Systems Research 1 (2), 1990, pp. 115±143.
[6] N. Cliff, Analyzing Multivariate Data, Academic Press, New York, 1987.
[7] J.D. Couger, New challenges in motivating MIS personnel, Journal of Information Systems Management, 1989. [8] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, What motivates DP professionals,
Datamation, 1978, 118±123.
[9] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, Motivating and Managing Computer Personnel. Wiley, New York, 1980.
[10] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 1989, 319±339.
[11] W.L. Dellva, J.G. Wacker, R.K. Teas, Motivational ante-cedents: a test of predictor models, Psychological Reports 56, 1985, pp. 447±461.
[12] G.W. Dickson, J.C. Wetherbe, The Management of Informa-tion Systems. McGraw-Hill, 1985.
[13] T.W. Ferratt, L.E. Short, Are information systems people different? An investigation of how they are and should be managed, MIS Quarterly 12 (3), 1988, pp. 427±443. [14] R. Folger, M.A. Konovsky, Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions, Aca-demy of Management Journal 32 (1), 1989, pp. 115±130.
[15] Y. Fried, G.R. Ferris, The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta analysis, Personnel Psychology 40, 1987, pp. 287±322.
[16] J. Greenberg, Determinants of perceived fairness of perfor-mance evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (2), 1986, pp. 340±342.
[17] J. Greenberg, Equity and workplace status: a field experi-ment, Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 1987, pp. 606± 613.
[18] J. Greenberg, Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity, Academy of Management Journal 32 (1), 1989, pp. 174±184.
[19] J. Greenberg, Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow, Journal of Management 16 (2), 1990, pp. 399±432. [20] D.B. Gutknecht, J.R. Miller, The Organizational and Human Resources Sourcebook, University Press of America, New York, 1990.
[21] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
[22] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 1976, pp. 250±279.
[23] A. Harrell, M. Stahl, Additive information processing and the relationship between expectancy of success and motivational force, Academy of Management Journal 29 (2), 1986, pp. 424±433.
[24] R.J. House, G. Dessler, The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests, Paper presented at the Second Leadership Symposium: Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 1973, in: H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, Ante-cedents of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Manage-ment Journal,1976, pp. 547±559.
[25] R.A. Katzell, R.A. Guzzo, Psychological approaches to productivity improvements, American Psychologist 38, 1983, pp. 468±472.
[26] G.P. Latham, T.W. Lee, Goal setting, in: E.A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing for Laboratory to Field Settings: Research Findings from Industrial±Organizational Psychology, Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA, 1985.
[27] G.S. Leventhal, Fairness in social relationships, in: J.W. Thibaut, J.T. Spence, R.C. Carson, Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, 1976.
[28] G.S. Leventhal, J. Karuza, W.R. Fry, Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences, in: G. Mikula (Eds.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer, New York, 1980, pp. 167± 218.
[29] E.A. Lind, T.R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
[30] E.A. Locke, Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives, Organization Behavior and Human Performance 3, 1968, pp. 157±189.
[32] E.A. Locke, K.N. Shaw, L.M. Saari, G.P. Latham, Goal setting and task performance: 1969±1980, Psychological Bulletin 90, 1981, pp. 125±152.
[33] A.J. Mento, R.P. Steel, R.J. Karren, A meta-analytic study of goal setting on task performance: 1966±1984, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 1987, pp. 52±83. [34] M.J. Meyers, An examination of motivation in the
informa-tion systems profession, Ph.D. Dissertainforma-tion (unpublished), University of Texas, Austin, 1989.
[35] L.E. Miller, J.E. Grush, Improving predictions in expectancy theory research: effects of personality, expectancies, and norms, Academy of Management Journal 31 (1), 1988, pp. 107±122.
[36] D. Nadler, E. Lawler, Quality of work life: perspectives and directions, Organizational Dynamics 11 (3), 1983, pp. 20±30. [37] R.W. Renn, A Holistic Evaluation of the job characteristics model: a longitudinal structural equation analysis, Unpub-lished dissertation, Georgia State University, 1989. [38] H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, D.R. Antecedents
of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Management Journal December, 1976, 547±559.
[39] R.M. Steers, L.W. Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
[40] T.D. Taber, E. Taylor, A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey, Personnel Psychology 43, 1975, pp. 467±500.
[41] J. Thibaut, L. Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975. [42] M.E. Tubbs, Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 1986, pp. 474±483.
[43] T.R. Tyler, R.J. Bies, Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural justice, in: J. Carroll (Ed.), Advances in Applied Social Psychology: Business Settings, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989, pp. 77±98.
[44] T.R. Tyler, K. Rasinski, N. Spodick, The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: exploring the meaning of process control., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 1985, pp. 72±81.
[45] V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, 1964. [46] M.E. Weiner, Managing people for enhanced performance, Administration in Social Work 11 (3±4), 1987, pp. 147±160. [47] C.K. Woodruff, Data processing people±are they really different? Information and Management 3, 1980, pp. 133± 139.
[48] R.A. Zawacki, The Real Key to MIS Motivation is in the Matchups, Business Month, 1989, 77±78.
[49] R. Zmud, An examination of `Push-Pull' theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work, Management Science 30 (6), 1984, pp. 727±738.
Stanley E. Gambill is an Associate Professor of Computer Information Sys-tems at Middle Tennessee State Uni-versity in Murfreesboro, TN. He worked as a systems analyst and systems specialist for DuPont prior to entering the academic field. He holds a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of Memphis.
Ronald B. Wilkesis semi-retired and most recently was Chief Technology Officer for Global Operations and Tech-nology at Citicorp. His Ph.D. is in Management Information systems from the University of Minnesota. He has held faculty positions in Management Infor-mation Systems at Georgia State Uni-versity and in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the Univer-sity of Memphis. His primary research interests are in management of the information technology resource. He has served as President of the Memphis chapter of the Society for Information Mamange-ment.
