Feeling I cannot record all the time I spend on a specific work, project, or job assignment
(N = 236) Variable L abel
No. o f item s Cronbach Alpha Theoretical
range A ctual range M edian M ean
S td
D ev Skewness K u rtosis
Actual Performance
Rating® AP 1 - 1 -5 2 - 5 3.00 3.49 .72 .08 -.25
Effort EFF 1 - 1 - 7 2 - 7 6.00 5.49 .99 -.35 -.09
Equity & Fairness
Perception EFP 4 .80 1 -7 1 - 7 4.40 4.34 1.18 -.38 -.15
Goal Commitment GC 3 .67 1 - 7 2.33 - 7 5.33 5.31 .88 - A l .16
Goal Difficulty GD 1 - 1 - 7 1 - 7 4.00 3.97 1.32 .01 -.46
Interactive Use Of
Control Systems ICS 4 .86 1 - 7 1 - 7 4.50 4.44 1.23 -.44 -.21
Intention To
Turnover IT 1 - 1 - 7 1 - 7 3.00 2.96 1.65 .93 .23
Job Related Tension JRT 4 .69 1 - 5 1.5-5 3.25 3.21 .672 .19 -.12
Job Satisfaction JS 1 - 1 - 7 1 - 7 5.00 4.84 1.44 -.73 .12 Managerial Performance6 MP 1 - 1 - 7 1 - 7 5.00 5.21 1.11 -1.02 1.59 Organisational Commitment OC 4 .78 1 - 7 1.25-7 4.75 4.76 1.19 -.54 .15 Organisational
Hierarchical Level OHL 5 - 1 -5 1 -5 3.00 2.78 1.07 .29 -.73
Quality Threatening
Behaviour QTB 5 .69 1 -5 1 -4.6 2.60 2.56 .67 .24 -.01
Relative Emphasis
On Financial Goals REFG 1 - 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 50.00 42.02 30.19 .07 -1.15
Relative Emphasis On Quantitative Goals REQG 1 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 42.50 45.20 25.03 .04 -.77 Supervisory Trust ST 5 .89 1 -7 1 - 7 5.20 5.17 1.19 -.59 .28 Target Focused Style-Full TFl 6 - 1 -7 1.17-5.67 3.42 3.34 .75 .06 .07 Target Focused Style-Short TF2 2 - 1 - 7 1 - 7 2.50 2.86 1.24 1.09 1.00
Target Focused Style Hopwood TFH
Ratio
2:1 - .1 4 - 7 .2 9 -4 .91 0.93 .32 5.08 43.65
Note’. Standard error (SE) o f skewness = .158; SE of kurtosis - .316.
Chapter 6 Data A nalysis & Hypothesis Testing 180
6.4.2 Tests of Hypothesis 1 & 2 - Directs Effects of TF PES
Recall that Hypothesis 1(a) and 1(b) posit a positive association between TF PES and quality
threatening behaviour (QTB), and TF PES and intention to turnover (IT). QTB and IT were
regressed on TFl to test these hypotheses, and results from the regression analysis are
presented in Table 6-12 below. The results show that TFl is a significant predictor o f QTB
(bu =.16, p-value <.01) though with a small variance explained (.R2 = .03). The results using
TF2 and TFH measures are also consistent with that using TFl but with higher R 2, .10 and .05 respectively. Thus Hypothesis 1(a) is supported.
In the second panel o f Table 6-12, the results show that TF PES is positively associated with
IT as expected though the association is not significant using the TFl measure (bu = .06, p
>.10). However, parameter estimates for the TF2 measure (bn = .21) and the TFH measures
(&n = .80) are positive and significant. Thus although Hypothesis 1(b) is not supported using
TFl PES measure, there is indication o f a positive association as supported using the TF2 and TFH PES measures.
Table 6 -12 Sum mary o f regression analysis: TF PES Predicting QTB & IT
<N
II TFl TF2
TFH
E q u a tio n P a ra m ete rs & E x p e c te d sign
P
SE B p SE BP
S E B Y = QTB Constant 2.01** .196 2.06** .105 2.13** .131 TF (/>„) + .16** .057 .18 .18** .034 .32 .47** .134 .22 R 2 .034 .104 .05 F 8.14** 27.21** 12.35** Y = IT Constant 2.77** .490 2.35** .269 2.22** .327 TF ( b u ) + .06 .143 .03 .21** .086 .16 .80** .334 .16 R2 .001 .025 .024 F .151 5.99** 5.77**N ote /? is unstandardized beta & B is standardized beta;
A p < . 10; * p < .05; **p < .01. Note: For hypothesis testing purposes a 10% significance level is o f course a test at the 5% level if the hypotheses are directional. However, in this table and subsequent tables o f results the 2- tailed p-values are reported and used in testing the hypotheses. This allows for discussion o f significant results opposite in direction to the hypothesis.
Chapter 6 Data A nalysis & Hypothesis Testing 181
Given that higher TF PES is associated with higher QTB and possibly higher IT, further
analysis was conducted to check if there were differences in QTB and IT between high TF
PES based mainly on financial measures and high TF PES based mainly on non-financial
measures. In order words we investigate to see if the observed positive association is driven
by the nature of the performance measure used in a target focused manner in performance
evaluation. First, data was grouped into high (low) TF PES if the TF PES score was above
(below) the TF PES median. Then the high TF PES groups were subdivided into high TF PES
based mainly on financial or non-financial measures based on if scores on the relative
emphasis on financial goals (REFG) measure were above or below the REFG median. Scores
above the REFG represented TF PES based mainly on financial measures, and scores below
represented TF PES based mainly on non-financial measures. This grouping was represented
by the variable TFl Fin, TF2_Fin, and TFH Fin respectively for the 3 PES measures with a
value o f ‘ 1’ representing high TF PES based mainly on financial measures and ‘O’ otherwise.
Finally, the QTB and IT mean scores for the two sub-groups were compared. The results,
presented in the first panel o f Table 6-13 below, show no significant differences in QTB (for
T F l, t = .69, p = .49) and in IT (for T F l, t = .49, p = .622) between the two sub-groups. The
same results apply using the TF2 and TFH measures. This implies that when quantitative
financial and quantitative non-financial measures are used in the same target focused manner,
they result in similar unintended consequences. Thus Hypothesis 2(a) and 2(b) are supported.
To evaluate this point further data was grouped into two based on whether performance
measures were mainly quantitative or mainly qualitative. Scores above (below) the median on
the relative emphasis on quantitative goals (REQG) measure were identified as use o f more
quantitative (qualitative) performance measures.61 This was represented by a dummy variable
Quant which equalled 1 (0) if performance measures were more quantitative (qualitative).
61 REQG measure asked respondents to indicate the emphasis their superior currently placed on meeting quantitative vs. non-quantitative goals when evaluating their performance. And the REFG measure asked respondents to indicate the amount o f emphasis superiors placed on meeting the financial vs. non-financial measures o f their quantitative measures. See Appendix 3, page 259
Chaptei 6 Data A nalysis & Hypothesis Testing 182
Result o f the analysis, presented in the 2nd panel of Table 6-13, show that those whose
performance measures were mainly quantitative did not report significantly different levels of QTB (t — .66, p =.51) and IT (/ = -.95, p =.34) compared to those with mainly qualitative performance measures.
Table 6-13 T-test o f D ifferences in QTB & IT Means
Groups based on Nature o f Performance Measures - Financial vs. Quantitative N on-finan cial Measures; Quantitative vs. N on-quantitative_________ _______ _________________ Group T F l Fin* T F l F i n T F H F i r f N Mean t (Std. (2-tailed Dev) Sig.) N Mean (Std. Dev) t (2-tailed Sig.) N Mean (Std. D ev) (2-tailed Sig.) QTB 1 50 2.70 .69 46 2.85 1.21 43 2.74 1.30 (0.59) (.490) (0.60) (0.23) (0.68) (0.20) 0 44 2.61 40 2.68 55 2.55 (0.75) (0.73) (0.75) IT 1 50 3.00 .49 46 3.13 -0.43 43 2.88 -0.65 (1.93) (.622) (1-96) (0.67) (1.62) (0.52) 0 44 2.82 40 3.30 55 3,11 (1.59) (1.62) (1.75) Q uanT Fin1 Mean t Mean /
Group N (Std. Dev) (2-tailed Sig..) N (Std. D ev) (2-tailed Sig.)
QTB 1 2.59 0.66 2.67 1.73 118 (0.67) (0.51) 80 (0.67) (0.08) 0 2.53 2.49 118 (0.68) 114 (0.68) IT 1 2.86 -0.95 2.93 -0.09 118 (1.67) (0.34) 80 (1.78) (0.93) 0 3.06 2.95 118 (1.63) 114 (1.6 6)
‘ T F l F in = 1 for high TFl PES based mainly on financial measures and O' for high TFl PES based mainly on non-financial measures; same for TF2_Fin,and TFH_Fin.
b Q u a n t = 1 (0) when mainly quantitative (non-quantitative) performance measures are emphasized; Fin = 1 (0) when mainly financial (non-financial) performance measures are used.
In addition, comparisons were also made between those whose performance measures were
mainly quantitative financial and those with more quantitative non-financial measures. This
was measured byf the dummy'- variable Fin which equalled 1 (0) for scores above (below) the REFG median. Again no significant differences were found between the two groups, although
Chapter 6 Data A nalysis & Hypothesis Testing 183
those with more financial measures reported marginally more QTB (t = 1.73, p =.08). This
marginal difference provide some support to the findings o f Hopwood (1972) and others, i.e.
that emphasis on the short-term meeting of budget targets, which are quantitative and
financial, are associated with dysfunctional behaviours. However, it is also shown here to be
o f less importance with the more general quantitative vs. qualitative measures thus extending
the findings o f earlier studies. Furthermore, combining this and the finding o f similar QTB
levels between the high TF PES financial and non-financial groups indicate that using
quantitative non-financial measures in the same target focused manner as quantitative
financial measures produces similar unintended consequences. Thus this study further extends
earlier studies in showing that emphasis on achieving targets in general, budget or non budget
related, has similar unintended consequences.
6.4.3 Tests o f Hypothesis 3 -D irect (Curvilinear) Effects o f TF PES
Recall that Hypothesis 3 posits a convex, i.e. inverted U-shaped, curvilinear relationship
between TF PES and effort (EFF), and TF PES and performance. Recall also that performance
is measured in terms o f the actual performance ratings respondents received in their last
performance review (AP) and by managers self rated measure of performance, i.e. managerial
performance (MP). A hierarchical regression analysis was employed to evaluate the
hypothesized curvilinear relationship. EFF was regressed on the gender control variable in the
first step, then the linear TF PES term w as added in the second step, and the cu n ilinear term
(i.e. squared TF PES) was entered in the last step. Similarly, the criterion variables (AP and
MP) were regressed on the linear TF PES term in the first step, and the curvilinear TF PES
term was added in the second step. If the relationship between TF PES and the criterion
variables are best represented by linearity, then a significant amount o f the variation in these
variables should be explained by the TF PES term alone. If on the other hand the inclusion of
the squared TF PES term explains a significant amount o f variation beyond that explained by
Chapter 6 Data Analysis & Hypothesis Testing 184
form best represents the relationship between TF PES and the criterion variable. Results are presented in Table 6-14 below.
Table 6 -1 4 Summary o f hierarchical regressions: Linear & curvilinear TF PES predicting Effort
N = 2 3 6