Q

Technical Paper 337 ~~

LEV

~~~~~~ [AD _ 1

PERCEIVED WORK EFFORT AS TIME

DEVOTED TO AN ACTIVITY

John R. Turney and Stanley L. Cohen

LU 

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS TECHNICAL AREA

‘C-,

DDC

H 

_ _

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

A p p ,ovi ~ij In, pu blic reIe~~ .,, Ii

~ (,iI ’Ut,, n unl,m,i,, i

~~ 

12 iS .iio

’(

H ______ _________ ____ ______
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR TH E BE HAVIORAL AN D SOCIAL SC IE NC ES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of t he

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical I)irector Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Prim.ry distri bution of this report h.s been m.d. by ARI. Pie.,. address COr r.,po ndSn

~.

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Psis.rch Inst itu t e for the Behe,,or.l end Soci.I Science,. ATTN PERI.P , 5001 Eisenhrs~ e, Avenue. AlexancIri.. Virqinia fl333

PINAL DISPOSITION. This report may b. d.stroyad iehen it is no longer needed. Pie., do not return iI to

the U. S. Army Re,e.rch Inst itute f or th. B.huvior.I end Sac..l Science..

~.QIL The finding. in t hie report Ire not to be construed es en official Oeo.rtment of the Army position.

unless so designated by other .utho riz.d documents.

— . - —i——. — ,_.__. — — -——— . .— —. —
.— -

~~~~~~~T~ Unclassified t /

~~ 

- ‘ 7 F - 1

/ SECURITY CLASS FICATION OF THIS PAGE (1PPIW Dee. tnter.dJ

n~~l

~a~~~ r ~~~ #9Iu i.ITAI’SfbIJ DA 1~E READ INSTRUCTIONS

l%CF VI~ U U’J~..UM J

~ I 

~ I ~~~~~ ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

t

~~~~~~ORT NUMBER 2. GOVT~A’ ‘~ Wfl 3. RECIPIENT’S CATA LOG M~~~BER

~ 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

/ ,

‘ PERCEIVED WORK~~~FFORT AS ~~IME ~~~VOTED TO --

AN ~CTIVI~ Y . - - -

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) _____ ~~~~. 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT HUMBER(.c

I ~~~ ;/

Jo~~ 7rn~~~~~~ Stanley L/Cohe !T? —

9- PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS .W~ PROGRAM ELEM~~NT PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioraf~ ~- j and Social Sciences - /2Ql627l7A779~ ‘~—~~~

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 1 ~~~~~~~~ . 1. /\ ç

~~

—: I I . CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,— .14 REP151~T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel ( /

~ ~~~~78 -

Wash ington , DC 20310

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADDRESS(U dttMr.ii t frcne Conf rotf ln~ Ottic.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (ol lAt, rep ort)

.

. 

Unclassif ied

/

~~ —— ~~~~~~~ ._.~~~~—.——---—— IS.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRAOING SCH E DULE — —

IS. olsTpIou r,oN STATEMENT (of SAl. Report) -

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

t7. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (o

~ IA. .b.tr. ct .nt.red In Block 20, I dIff .r.,,r fro m Report)

ti SUPPLEMEN TARY NOTES

I~ . KEY WOROS (Continue on ree.re. .i

~~ if n.c...ay ond id.ntily by block ntm,b.r)

Organizational effectiveness

Measurement of work effort

Perceived performance

30 ASi~~~ *CT (Continu, on r.v.re. elde If nec..eeey ond tdontil~ by block m vbes’)

Work effort is one of the quantitative measures in organizational effectiveness programs, but little ha~ been done to measure effort itself or its external indicators. ‘Lhis research explores the extent to which self— estimates of effort expended on specific activities are related to actual

time spent . ~ Self-estimates of the effort and amount of time spent on specific activities were collected from 31 soldiers in an information-processing facility .

DO I

~~2~~~ S 1473 ~ DITlON OF ? Nov as .1041r1’s! 1 

~ 

I b uflc~~ !~~~ ied (z

~~~.4~

/&

~ — ~~ I )_L - — 

S~~CURITV CLASSIFICATION OF iMPS PAGE (

~~~~ I Dee. t”i.r.~~ -

_________ 

- - 

. 

- .
Unclassified

SE CU RITY CLASSI FICATION OP THIS PAGt(W~~~ Bela Int.e.d)

20.

the same time , a computer recorded the amount of time actually spent on

each activity . Analysis of the data indicated that the perceptual measures

of effort correlated significantly wi th actual durations across different

activities and different measures of time. On the average , 25% of the variance in effort was accounted for by time.&

Ex€ inal Tñdicators of work effort can measure either intensity or duration of expended effort . When external indicatcirs of intensity are also developed , it should be possible to determine how adequately self-estimates of

effor t can be anchored in external rea lity by incorporating measures of both

intensity and duration across a range of Army jobs and organizational settings.

NTIS

aoc

U~~NNOLtNCLL o ~iSTIFiC.tfl ’jN ______________

AVAIL ar~,.’or sP~ iAj

~

I. LI

Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUIPICATION OP THIS PAGEf’WPI W Dale &iIer. ~) -- .
I

Technical Paper 337

PERCEIVED WORK EFFORT AS TIME

DEVOTED TO AN ACTIVITY

John R. Turney and Stanley L. Cohen

— ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by:

T.O. Jacobs E. Ralph Dusek , Director Technical Area ChIef INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

S.pt.mb.r 1978

Army Proj.ct Nur’b r Organizational Effectiveness 20762722A765

Apprawed for public release; distri bution unlimited.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task , formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by brief ing or Disposition Form.

_____________________ - —~~ 

.—

~~ 

.,

~.. -. ~ L_!” ~ -

~~~
t

FOREWORD

Resertrch of the Organizational Effectiveness Technical Area of the

Army Re sear ch Instit u te for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI ) has

he l ped p r ovide the foundation for the Army ’s present programs in organizat ional effectiveness (OE). ARI Technical Pa rs 272 and 275 described

the development and validation of the Work Environment ue aire

(WEQ), used to identify OE problem areas. This Technical Paper reports an investigation of a method of measuring work effort——one of the criteria in OE programs——by correlating self—estimates of effort with actual

time spent in specific activities. Technology base research in OE, of

which this investigation is a part , is conducted under Army Project

2Q162717A 779 , Techniques for Organizat ional Effectiveness and Management

~~ ninq ,~~ T78 Work Program.

JO EPH ZEIDN

hnical Director

/1

I 

— — 

,.
t

PERCEIVED WORK EFFORT AS TIME DEVOTED TO AN ACTIVITY

BRIEF

Requirement:

Work effor t func tions as ei the r an implici t or exp lici t standard of

measurement in theories of work motivation and in organizational effect iveness programs . However, little evidence is available on how adequately the perceptual measures that are assumed to tap this variable

actually perform. Although a self—estimate may represent the most direct

measure of internally generated exertion , no attempt has been made to

relate this variable to external indicators with wh ich it should covary.

This research investigated the relationship between perceived effort and

one such external indicator , the duration of behavior .

Procedure:

Perceptual measures of self—estimated effort devoted to specific

work activities were collected in an Army field installation. They were

related to measures of duration defined as time devoted to each activity.

Time was measured by means of self—estimates and behavioral indexes collected over a 6—week interval. These data were analyzed in a multi—

act ivity—mul timethod correlation matrix.

Findings:

The perceptual measure of effort was found to correlate significan tly

with duration across different activities and different measures of time .

On the average, time accounted for 25% of the variance in effort.

Utilization of Find ings:

It is still necessary to develop other external indicators of

exer ted effort dealing with intensity. Then by incorporating both measures of intensity and duration across a range of Army jobs and organiza—

t ional setti ngs , it should he possible to determine how adequately self—

est imates of effort can be anchored in external reality.

Valid measures of effort that focus on specific activities serve

sever al funct ions in Army organizations. They can be used to develop

effor t activity profiles for soldiers , to determine the activities on

which personnel are expend ing most effort. Such activities may not contribute to optimal productivity ; therefore change may be needed to

- 

- .

-

- ..-

-

-

.. ~~~~~~- -

, 

- -
develop programs designed to restructure the way personnel distribute

their effort. Measures of effort expenditure can also provide sensitive ,

direct data for the evaluation of the impact of programs designed to

improve soldier job motivation. Finally , job training programs can be

evaluated in terms of the extent to which trainee distribution oL work

effor t among tasks fulfills the requirements of forma l operating

procedures.

—
PERCEIVE D WORK EFFORT AS TIME DEVOTED TO AN ACTIVITY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Li terature Review 

Measuring Effort 2

METHOD 3

Participants 3

Measures 3

RESULTS 5

DISCUSSION 

REFFRENCES 9

DISTRIBUTION 11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Multiactivity—Multjm ethod Effort Matrix 6

- ., . ~ .

- -

~ 

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 
PERCEIVED WORK EFFORT AS TIME DEVOTED TO AN ACTIVITY

INTRODUCTION

Work effort is a construct that underlies a substantial volume of

theory and research in organizational/industrial psychology. In any

theory of work motivation or in the conduct of any organizational development program designed to improve employee job satisfaction and performa nce , we a re , at least implicitly, dealing with the work effort construct. The work effort construct serves as an implicit or explicit

criterion in most theoretical and applied research formulations in the

area of motivation ; it therefore seems appropriate to devote attention

to the development and validation of measures of this construct . In

actuality, li ttle research effort has thus far been expended in examining measures of the construct itself. This study describes an initial

attempt to address this need by focusing on self—est imates of effort

expended and exploring the extent to which actual time spent performing

specific wor k activities is related to perceived effort devoted to these

act ivities.

Literature Review

The recen t prolifera t ion of studies opera t ionaliz ing and testing

various path-goal expectancy conceptualizations emphas izes the lack of

attention paid to the measurement of work effort in much of the theoretical work on motivation . (This deficiency has been noted in reviews by

Mitc hell , 1971; House , Shapiro , & Wahba , 1974; Mitchell , 1 974.) In most

of tt~ese studies , complex multivariate operations of the theoretical

model are develooed to tap the level of motivational force that exists

for a worker. However , the measure of how this force is discharged,

whic h is used to test the expec tancy model, generally consists of single

variables of uncer tain validity and reliability. In an examination of

3 1 expectancy theory studies , 1 5 were found to use only measures of performance or output as criteria. Although these criteria do contain the

“ef fort ” component , they are likely to be influenced by various situat ional, task , and abil ity factors. Sixteen studies incorporated some

measur~

-~ of work effort as a criterion . However , ther e was no evidence of

the reliability or validity of these measures beyond a few attempts to

compare self—estimates and others ’ estimates of effort (e.g., Porter &

Lawler , 1968; Lawler & Suttle , 1973) . It is interesting to note that in

stud ies conducted by Mitchell and A lbri ght (1972) , Turney (1974) , and

Porter and Lawler (1968) , wherein both me~

isures of effort and performance

were u tiliz v l , the effort criteria yielded much stronger relationships

with the expectancy theory variables.

A sim i lar lack of cri t r ~r~ on specificity is found in the theoretical

~ )rk of llerzherg (1966) , whose model of work motivation has served as t h e

foundat ion for many applied job enrichment programs . Her zberg assumes

that factors such as job responsibility and job autonomy influence an
emp loyee ’s level of job satisfac t ion a nd moti va t ion and , in turn , ultimately determine the amount of work effort expended. Therefore, job

enrichmen t programs focusing on these factors to make a job store satisfying and intrinsically motivating should, in turn , positively affect the

employee ’s work effor t. However , close examina tion of Herzh erg ’s wor k

does not r eveal any discuss ion of cr iter ia of wor k effor t that he would

use to determine the impact of changes in any satisfiers and motivators.

In rev iews of job enrichment studies by Maher (1971), Ford (1969), and

Paul , Robertson , and Herzberg (1969) , we found no references to any cc—

search in which work effort exerted by participants was a criterion measure of a job enrichment prog r am . A measure of work effort that taps the

actual expression of motivation seems to be a more appropriate criterion

than the attitude or performance measures utilized in these studies.

On~ reason for omitting work effort as a criterion is the absence of

measures ~~ the actual expenditure of work effort. There are a numbe r of

scales available that are intended to measure the motivation to work— —for

example , those developed by Landy and Guion (1970) and Kahoe (1974) .

Howeve r , the focus in these measures is on the predisposition to exert

effor t rather than actual effort expenditure. For example, two dime nsions included in the Landy and Guion scales are task concentration and

pers istence . Both are defined as the tendency to work , over time , and

ar e measured in terms of behavior al descript ions of this tendency. We

ar e interested here in the actual effort expended rather than in the more — general description conveyed by data based on predispositions or tende ncies. Such specific information on actual effort is necessary for developing the criterion information required in evaluation of models (e.g.,

expectancy theory) and appl ied implementation prog rams (e.g., job earich—

rnent), for which one must isolate the effects of motivation.

Measuring Effor t

Effort can be viewed as the product of an individual’ s internal

motivation , which in tur n derives from variou s need depr iva tions or goal

aspirations. It can be influenced by factors in the external environment ,

such as a supervisor who eithe r encourages a worker to exert greater

effort in productive tasks or imposes job structure that focuses the

expenditure of effort on specific activities. Expressed in terms of

Lewin ’s (1951) field theory approach , effort can he viewed as the result

of a field of forces generated by these internal and external factors.

These forces dri ve and di r ec t behav ior , and an individual exerts effort

per formi nq those specific activities perce ived by this individual as most

likely to lead to need reduction or goal attainment.

The most d irect source of information on actual effort exerted would

be the individual worker himself , because effort is internally generated.

Moreove r , as shown by Mitchell and A lbright (1972) and Williams and Seller

(1973) , observers who must rely on external cues are unlikely to dis—

ci irninate between effort exerted and job performance, which mixes effort

with ability. However, workers ’ own percept ions of the effort they have

2

-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~~—.-

.- —--— -.—. -

~

-.--—----.-.,——- - - 

--
exerted may be a function of various combinat ions of factors that they

take into account in arriving at their effort estimates. These combinat ions may result in possible response biases that reduce the comparability of workers ’ effor t estimates among themselves or against some

standard. One approach to this problem is to attempt to relate effort

est imates to external, object ive meas ure s of variables, wh ich should co—

vary wi th work effort. Following this procedure , it should be poss ible

to deter m ine empirically the amou nt of var iance in effor t est ima tes tha t

is solely a function of unique individual biases and the amount accounted

for by standardized, objective factors. This study initiates this exploration by focusing on one relationship between an external variable and

self—estimates of effort expended.

External indicators of how much effort an individual exerts per forming a given activity can be viewed as falling in to two general ca tegor ies ,

intensity and duration . Intensity refers to how much force an individual

puts into the activity at any one time ; durat ion refers to the total force

devoted to the activity over an extended period of t ime . Therefore, total

effort expended performing an activity should be a function of some combinat ion of these two variables. In this study , our interest was to

examine the extent of the relationship between perceived effort expended

and selected measures of duration . Intensity was left for later research ,

because extensive initial groundwork is required to explore possible un—

obtrusive measures of this variable (e.g., muscle tension and eye contact) .

As noted earlier , our interest is in actual effort expended rathe r

than intended effort or global estimates of tendencies described as task

concentration or persistence. Therefore, we selected as our measure of

dura tion the actual time which an individual worker devoted to various

activities. We also examined a number of different activities to determ ine whe ther dura tion was more strongly rela ted to perceived effor t

expended for some activities than for others.

METHOD

Participants

Enlisted U.S . Army personnel assigned to an information—processing

facility served in this study. All 31 participants in the study performed

the same job duties.

Measures

The activities that the workers performed had been differentiated by

internal organizational staff personnel into fiv€~ discrete behavioral

d imensions. Three of these activities were selected for focus in this

study . One of the unselected activities was eliminated because it was

performed infrequently, and the other was omitted because interviews with

the workers themselves indicated various interpretat ions of the nature of

3

________________________ -- --—---—- - ---.________ - 

-: ___________________ _______________________________________________________________________
this activity. The three activities utilized in this study consisted of

searching for cer tain informat ion with the aid of sophist icated electronic

equi pmen t , copying key parts of the information , and taking work breaks .

The respondents were requested to complete the following scales for

each of the three activities. They were asked to think of an average

workday in formulating their responses.

1. Effort. A measure directly addressing work effort as follows :

The amount of work effort you per sonally put out performing this

activity in a workday.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Extreme Some No

High Ef fort Effort Effort

2. Time . A measure of the t ime devoted to each activity expressed

as:

The amount of t ime you actually spend per forming this activity in a

wor kday.

t 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Very Some No

Much Time Time Time

3. Amount of Time. A measure developed by Bass, Cascio , and O’Connor

(1974) with adjectives describing statistically determined increasing

amounts along a 7—point scale with each point anchored. The seven descrir—

t ions in ascending degrees of amoun t are none of my time , somewha t of my

t ime , a moderate amount of time , quite a bit of time , a great amount of

t ime , an extraordinary amount of t ime , and all of my time . This measure

was included as an alternative measure of t ime devoted to an activity.

A separate , more direct measure of t ime devoted to each activity was

based on the computer—monitored time that a worker devoted to each activity. The worker was required to make a predetermined input on a teletype

at his work station ; this input indicated to the computer that he was per—

formi ng a specific activity. The computer kept track of the t ime the

worker devoted to that activity until a new input indicated a change to

another activity. Data on total t ime spent per forming each of the activities examined in this study were collected for a full 7 weeks prior to

t he administration of the questionnaire measures. This t ime interval was

selected because of fluctuations in the work cycle , which reduced the

relia bility of data based on shorter periods of t ime . The percent of

wor ktime devoted to each of the three activities , which was used for the

analyses in this study , will be referred to as monitored t

ime.4
RES ULTS

Th explore the relationships beti~een effor t and time devoted to

content-specific activities , we drew upon Campbell’s and Fiske ’s (1959)

approach to construct validation and structured our correlational data in

the form of a multiactivity—multimethod matrix. Our initial interest in

ex amin ing this matrix , presen ted in Table 1 , was whethe r or not the perceived effort measure itself differentiated the effort exerted per forming

each of the three focal work activities. The three correlations in the

lower righ t triangle of the matrix show that there were no signif ican t

rela tionships in effort expended, when one activity is correlated against

another. Perceived effort exerted searching correlated .24 with effort

exer ted copying and — .15 with effort spent taking breaks. Effort spent

copying correlated — .06 with work break effort.

The triangles off the main diagonal of the matrix deal with how well

the three t ime measures discriminate among activities. Only the correlat ions be tween search time and copy time show any over lap wi th sign ificant

correlations of .41 for Time and .30 for Amount Time . Monitored Time

showed a significant negative correlation between these same two activities of — .36, indicating tha t one of these activi ti es may supplant the

other.

We also find tha t our three meas ur es of time show fairLy consisten t

rela tionshi ps with each other. Time and Amount Time yield significan t,

higher correlations when measuring the same activity than when measurinç,

different activities as shown in the matrix. The diagonal correlations

representing the relationship between the two measu~

res for each activity

taken in turn show positive correlations of .79, .83, and .47, all significan t at p < .01. Correlations involving comparisons of two different

activities are insignificant with the exception of the correlation between search time and copy t ime of .36, wh ich is significan t at p < .05.

Time and Monitored Time show the same consistent pattern. The diagona l

correlations are all significant and positive with values of .32 , .40,

and .37 for the three activities , respectively, whereas no off—diagonal

correlat ions attain statistical significance . In comparing the Monitored Time and Amount measures we find a sign ificant positive correlat ion

of .35 for these two mea sur~ s when they both focus on searching . However , nei ther correlat ion reaches significance when the other two activities are the focus. Therefore, perceived t ime holds ui more consistently

across activities in comparisons with the computer—moi. - tored measure of

t ime than does perceived amount of time .

Taken together , these data provide support for the discr iminant

validity of the Perceived Time and Monitored Time measures through their

ability to differentiate among activities and for their convergent validity in terms of their sign ificant relationships when measuring the same

activity. Sli ghtly less support is found for the convergent validity of

Amount Time , because it yields consistent relationships across activities

in comparisons with Time ; but only one of the three correlations is signif icant in comparisons involving Monitored Time .

5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-- — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- -—
~ Q, a. ‘. s 0.

in—o

’o V -D 000

. . . 4) ‘40 NVVV V

C 0. 0. 0. 0.

4) 

E ...d 

O

~~~’ 44

.4 I., r.~ 6
Turning now to the examination of the relat ionships between effort

and time spent performing the focal activities , we refer to the lowe st

rows of the matrix. The correlations between time and effort are shown

in each diagonal. There are significan t positive correlat ions between

t ime and effort for eight of the nine diagonal coefficients. The ninth ,

involving work break monitored time , demonstrates borderline sign i ficance

(p < .06). The range of the correlations across the three activities

runs from .84 to .29, with the median at .44. In all cases, these correlations are stronger than the off—diaqonal correlat ions involving comparisons between two different activities.

The computer—monitored t ime -measure yielded the lowest but most consistent correlations with effort across the three activities with two signif icant correlations of .32 and .37 md one of borderline significance.

The two perceptual measures of t ime yielded stronge r correla tions but

were less consistent across activities. Both perceived t ime and amouut

of t ime showed similar high correlations with effort , of .81 and .82,

respectively, for the search activity, and similar correlations (half

this magnitude) of .44 and .47 for the copy activity. Finally, perceived

t ime had a correlat ion of .84 with effort for the work break activity,

whereas perce ived amount of time correlated .35 with effort for this same

activity. Taken together, these data demonstrate sign ificant relat ionships between effort and time devoted to specific work activities ,

although the strength of the relat ionship varies between activities and

measures of time .

DISCUSSION

Although the data demonstrate that the effort a worker expends per—

f9rming specific activities is related to the time he devotes to each

activity, there is considerable varia tion in the strength of the relationship as a function of the measure of time utilized and the activity

focused on. The time measure showing the most consistent relationships

across activities is the computer—monitored measure. As this measure was

based on actual accumulations of t ime devoted to each activity over a 7-

week interval , it was more firmly anchored to workers ’ actual behavior

than eithe r of the two perceptual estimates of t ime . The fact that effort

was measured at one point in t ime following the 7—week interval may have

served to attenuate this t ime—effort relationship to some extent. A more

consistent approach might have been to obtain estimates of effort throug hout the 7—week interval for each activity and calculate a composite or

average across these data points. However , the fact that two of the three

activity correlations using only one data point for perceived effort and

a 7—week , behaviorally based time interval were significant provides

strong evidence for the presence of a measurable t ime—effort linkage.

A l thouqh the monitored time measure yielded relatively consistent

correla tions with effort across all three activities , and two perceptual

measures varied as a function of the focal activity. Both demonstrated

consistent t ime-effort correlations for the search and copy activities .

7

- --—-_____ ; - _r.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -- - -
If we examine the pattern of correlat ions for all three activities ,

we find that the copy time activity demonstrated the most consistent pattern of time-effort correlations across all three measures . The search

time activity showed the greatest discrepancy between the perceptual

measures and monitored time . Some of these discrepancies may be resolved

in future research if data are collected for both time and effort over an

extended period of time , to increase reliab ilit y in both meas ur es and to

de termi ne systema tic va r iance in eff or t as a func tion of cha nges in time

devoted to a given activity. For example , does reduced time devoted to

an activity result in percept ions of proportionate reduction in effort?

Although there are discrepancies among the measures for different

activities in the exact amount of variance in effort that is accounted

for by t ime , a significant time-effort relationship has been clearly

demonstrated. Averaging all of the time—effort correlations across

activities , we find that approx imately 25% of the variance in effort is

accounted for by time (11% if only the monitored t ime—effort correlations

are considered) . Future research must examine measures of intensity as

well as duration , to determine how much total variance in effort can be

accounted f or by variables external to the individual worker. By this

procedure , we can see how adequately we can ancho’- self-estimates of

eff ort in external reality. Such information is critical if we are to

rely on effort as a primary quantitat ive criterion to evaluate organizat ional psychology theory and appl ication .

8
REFERENCE S

Bass , B. M ., Cascio, W. F., & O’Conno r , E. J. Magnitude Estimations of

Expressions of Frequency and Amount . ~

3ournal of Appl ied Psychology,

1974 , 59 , 313—320.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske , D. W. Convergent and Discriminant Validation

by the Multitrait—Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959,

56, 81—105.

For d , R. N. Motivation Through the Work Itself. American t4anagement

Associations , 1969.

Herz berq , F. Work and the Nature of Man. New York: World , 1966.

House, R. J., Shapiro , H. J., & Wahba, M. A . Expectancy Theory as a Pre- dictor of Work Behavior : A Re-evaluation of Empirical Evidence.

Decision Sciences, 1974 , 5, 481—506.

Kahoe , R. D. A Negro—White Difference in Psychological Meaning of Job

Incentives . Journal of Social Psychology, 1974 , 92, 157—158.

Landy , F. V., & Guion , R. M. Development of Scales for th~ Measurem ent

of Work Motivation. Organizat ional Behavior and Huma n Performance , 1970 , 5, 93—103.

Lawler , E. E., & Suttle , J. L. Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior.

Organizational Behavior and. Human Performance, 1973 , 9, 482-503.

Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science. C. D. Cartwr iqht , Ed., New

York: Harpe r , 1951.

Maher, J. R. (Ed.) New Perspectives in Job Enrichment. Van Nostrand

Reinhold , 1971.

Mi tchell , T. R. Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction , Occupa tional

Preference , and Effort: A Theoretical, Methodolog ical, and Empirical Appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81 , 1053—1077 .

Mitchell , T. R., & Albright , D. W. Expectancy Theory Predictions of

the Satisfaction , Ef fort, Performance , and Retention of Naval Av iation Officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

1972 , 8 , 1—20.

Mitchell , V. F. Expectancy Theorien o

~ Managerial Motivation. Proceedings , flst Annua l Meeting , Anademy of Management , 1971 , 210—238.

Paul , W . .1 ., Robertson , K. B., & Herzherq, F. Job En r ichment Pays Off.

Harvard Business Review, 1969 , 47 , 61—7 8 .

~ 

k ..— — .— —--

— 0
I

Porter , L. W., & Lawler , E. E. Managerial Attitudes and Per formance.

Homewood , Ill.: Irwin, Inc., 1968.

Turney, J. R. Activity Outcome Expectancies and Intrinsic Activity Values as Predictors of Several Motivation Indexes for Technical—

Professionals. Organizattonal Behavior and Human Performance, 1974 , 11 , 65—82.

Williams , W . E., & Sei]er, D. A. Relationship Between Measures of Effort

and Job Performance . Jou rnal of Applied Psychology, 1973 , 57 , 49—54.

10

-
DISIRIBUTION

AR) Distribut.on Liat

4 JAS U )M&RA) 2 HUUSACDEC , Ft Ord , ATTN Llra ry

2 HODA DAM) CSZ) 1 HOUSACOEC . Ft Ord, ATTN ATEC EX- E-Hum Factors

1 HODA )DAPI eRR 2 USAEEC , Ft Benjamin Harrison . ATTN Library

1 HOL) A )DAMA AR) I USAPACOC , Ft Benjamin Han son , ArT S: ATCP - -HR

1 HODA DAPE HRE P0) 1 USA Comm- Elect Sc),, Ft Mi rirnouth , ATTN : ATSN—EA

I HUDA (SORD ID) USAEC, f

~ Mnnmo .’f., ATTN . AMSEL - CT -~HDP

1 HQOA )DAMI DOT-C) 1 USAEC . Ft Morirnouth, AIT N’ AMSEL-PA- P

1 HODA (DAPC PM? AI 1 USAEC , Ft Monrnouth , ATTN ,‘MSEL ~l -CB

I 1-IODA (DAC H PP? Al 1 USAEC . Ft Monmouth , A n N: C, i’ ..’ .l Dry Br

1 HODA )OAPL HRE) I USA Materials ‘y

~ Anal Ayc~, Atw rde” n, ATTN: AMXSY—P

1 HOL)A )OAPE MPO Cl 1 Edgewood Arsenal Aherdyon ATTN SAMt A— B L - H

I HODA )l)API 11W ) 1 USA OrrI CI, & Sd’ , Abnri),,’~ A T I N - AT SL -- TTM--C

1 HODA (nAP) IIRL) 7 USA Hum Enq r ).ab , Alwrdern A TTN L brurylD’r

I HOD.\ )UAP F CPS) I USA (‘ :rt-if at Arr,i ~ Tog Bd I )ti-”r.’i.’ , ATTN . Ad Supervisor

I Hot1A (FIAF)) MF A) 1 )‘,A Ir ’f .ntry H at, Ar c h Unit , Ft Bcra rij, A ri N: Chief

1 IIOIJA 11AM.)) AIlS I’) 1 USA li l.i t i y 80, Ft Beonin’), ATTN ST PE.C - TI. T

1 HJ tA )r)AP( F’AS A) 1 USASMA . Ft Itlos , ATTN A T ~;S & RC

I HODA IDUSA tH 1 USA Air Def Sch, Fttt liss, AITN A1’SA CTD - - MF

I HODA )DAMO HUH) 1 USA Ar , Del Sch, Ft b)i~s ATTN Tech Ii),

I HODA ))AS(,) 1 LISA Au Del 80 , 3 Hi ss ATTN H)

1 HODA )l)A IttPlI I USA Al’ DCI R,I , Ft II,- .. A l IN . I;Tl.BD P1’)

I Chief C,’ ,*iilt It s IDA 0 I’SG). Ad.Ip#ri, MD 1 USA CrocI & Gu’nsna) Sri Cii) u’.~- Ii L e e v - . ~~i’i- ATT N - LOu

M .i Assi I-fur,, Ru’s , OttOR&1 OAO (E&L.S) 1 USA Cu rd & G,n,’ia) SI) CrslIeq~, ‘I ‘.ua ”nworlli, Airs: Al ~

IW SIT

I HO USARA L , APO Seiti)~ ATTN AAAGP H 1 Ii’,A Cmu( & Ge ”i ,,l Sit Cul”

~ ’ I L,’ ,,yr,tworth A TIN: [.1 Advisor

ff 0 3 ‘

~r A,ns~ ~

.T1N AFK&-OI TI I USA Cuind,i ,i ’ , A,i,i~ CrnI,l j’h.v At Ft I ,‘av, iiwrirll ATTN Di’pCrlr

2 110 F ri’ ftsmy, F1 Sam Houtton I USA Combined A,rrtsCmtut Dcv Ac, , Ut ),i- ,wyi,wor rh , ATTN C(S

1 Di, A rm y S’l Sr,,l,,-, Of c . AITh: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combin.d Arm, Cmht 0ev Act . ri Leavenworth , ATTN ATCASA

I 01⁄4 Chief of Si). Studr.

~ Ofc 1 USA Cornitineil Arms Cmhr Dee Act , Ft Leaven worth , AT’TN: ATCACO F

I OCSPFM ATTN (;Ps 0 ‘ 1 USA Combined Arms n i,i ),, (Lee 1,-i , i Leavenworto , ATTN: ATCP.CC C)

The A- - ufl, Lii,, Pentagon , ATTN RSB Chief 1 USAECOM , Night Vision Lab, It B,’)vn ,, A 1TN : AM SEL— NV—SD

I The Aimy Lii,, Pentagon, ATTH: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Be)vnir , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Awt Sect of the Army IR&D) 1 USAMEROC , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB- - DO

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sc),. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

I USASA ,,Arlingtori, ATTPI: ARD-T 1 USA Topoqraphic Lab, Ft Be)voir , ATTN: ETL TO—S

1 USA Rsch Ofc , Dri,hani, ATTN: Life Scienuc,g Dir 1 USA Topographic Cab , Ft Belnou . ATT N STINFO Center

2 U’.ARIEM, Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA I USA Toitographir Lab, Ft Helen ’

, ATTN: ETL—GSL

I USATTC , Ft Clayton, ATT N S’TET C MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sc),, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: CTD—MS

I USAIMA , Ft ffragq, ATTN ATSU.CTO-OM I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch Ft H iw’huca , P,T’TN: ATS—CTD—MS

I USAIMA Ft Rraqq ATTN: MarquiS Lb 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sc),. Ft lf,,a. ftu~~, ATTN: ATSI—T C

1 US WAC Cr & ‘,i ii F r McClellan, A TTN I. iii 1 USA Inteltigence Ctr & Srh, Fr Huachuca , ATTN - A T’S)- T EX—GS

US WAC Ctu A Sch, F r McClellan , ATTN Tog Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sc),, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I--OTS--O R

1 LISA Otiartermecter Sr), Ft Lee, ATTN ATSM TE 1 USA Intelligence Cit & Sc),. Ft H,, vh,~~,, ATT N. ATS I—CTD—DT

I )rrtu ’llrujrnc, Material 0ev Ok , EW L . Ft 3-lolaburd 1 USA )ntelligencum Ct, & S. h , Ii Fluiaclt,ica , ATTN ATSI—CTD—CS

1 (iSA SI Signal Srh It ticailirit , ATTN ø.TSO-EA USA Intelligence Cm & Sc),, Ft )l,’iri:lrui’,u ATTN DAS/SHO

I USA ( hajil, i’i’ Cr, A ‘ i ’l, Ft Hamilton ATTN: ATSC TE RD 1 USA Intelligence Ct, & 5.1 ,fi l’liu.ii duly , ATTN ATSI 1FM

1 ‘ SA l i’ll Ft (u.S? . A T TN- F ‘b.c Aalvisiur I USA Intilligence Ct, A i I, Ft Hui,ui’Iiuit

~~, A I’TN Lib,ary

I USA W .v i’

°~

t ’ - ,

~~

, (:.,ilisle Hwr.cks , ATTN ( ii 1 CDR . HO Ft Mt,achiica, ATT N Errt Ref Div

I W HA)R N.’ iii’ .i.sv ~-la,uI ry the 7 COM , USA F h it ,,a,i i: Poot Go) A TN : STE EP MT -S

1 1)1. 1 , SIJA Mo,,i,’, ,- I CI’) It, P,iiprv~ MA.SSTI A A TI N ‘I ,‘el, ) ii)ui (‘ ‘liii ’,

I USA ( ‘ “- ‘i Aii,,l Aq. ‘

~ Ik’ttawl.i , Al TN MOCAWGC 1 liii MASSTL H, USATRADOC I Nil

I LISA (T,,,, u ,,t it A,i .iI A’F’y R,’t)i,”,d~ ATTN MOCA MR I R,weri 1 lntlitujt.i, 110 MA’ ’. ER , Ft ll,,,i, I

I USA & ‘ ,iii i ’,’ir l A,.,il Aiti y tel hiitdiu , A TIN MOCA ii 1 USA Ri’rru,ting CmcI, Ii Shr’,,i.ii,, Al ~N i 

~

5Al1CPM P

I USA A,tir lest Ctu , AP(l Seattle ATTN 511 AC M0-ANL I Sein e Army Adv., (JSAFA( ,ODrTAC , Elijiri AF Au, FbI No 9

I lISA Ai r’. Jmt It, Al’ i I Seatili’ , frI TN AMS I F CL TS I fliT USARPAC , FSCSPL H tJ’i) 54 %55I3 ATTN GPPF SF

I ‘A Anini,itwu,I Cnn.t H

~d~iuj n r.’ Arsenal, A T rN ATSK TEM 1 Sh in.” Lii,, Ac,.ulen,s’ ,, Hi-alp, Si - ,,’nci,s 115am Houston

1 USA Aruvnwnui’nir Coal Hitch Island, ATTN AMSAR TDC 1 M,,,,,ii’ Corps Inst., AT 1N Dean MCI

I FAA NA ) FC , Arl ,r-, i n. i ’ ,t ’, 

- AT TN L’Iwa,v 1 Ill) I’TMC Commausulaiiu ATTN ;‘,.nile MTM) 51

I I AA NAF I I,’ Atl,inirn. ’ I i

~ AT TN I-hu n L ug, Ri 1 1-401 ‘MC , Cn’nnin,irinlaiit S ‘ TN (ii i.’ FiPi ~I)

I FAA A,atonar,tir,.l Cti Ohlatroirte City , ATTN AAC 441) 2 USCO Au’ad.,my, New Lriii’ .i, i , ATTN . A’frnispon

2 USA FbI Arty Sr I, Ft Sill , ATT N Library 2 USC , Academy, New Londr’ir , ATTN Library

I USA Armor Seh, F, ~~i,,i, , A ITN Library 1 USCO Training CI,, NV , ATTN: CO

I USA Auns,’u SrI, I-I I.,ituna , ATTN ATSD-Ol-F 1 USCO Training Ctr . NV , AITN . E,l,~ Svc Ofc

1 USA Arm.’n Sc), Ft k ,,,c ATTN ATSR-O1 TP I USCG,Paythol Ae,Bt ,DC, ATTN . UP 1/62

I USA 4ru~ ou 5.1’ Ft e,,,,,. ATTN. AT SR crI Al) 1 P40 McI - Range Br, MC Del, Cluliltirir . AT’TN: P&S Di,

11

5. ”
I US Manuruu’ Corps vision (ic , AMC, Alexarsd’ie, ATTN: AMCGS.-F 1 0.4 & Clvii Inst of Enviro Md’icine , Can.da

1 USAT RADUC, Ft Mo nuoe , ATTN: ATRO—ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATTN: Info Sys Sr

6 USATHA DOC . ft Monroe, ATTN: ATPR—AD 1 MiIita.rpsykofcgidi Tjsnseta.Cot*hagsn

1 USATRADOC . Ft Monnue , ATTN: AUS-EA I MilItary Attach., Francis Embessy, ATTN: Doc Sec

1 USA F uy , .,’

~ Onud , Ft McPherson , ATTN: Library I MidiCifl Chef, C.E.R.P.A.—Ananal. Torsion/Navel France

2 USA Aviation Test ad . Ft Rucker , ATTN: STEBG—PO I PrIn Scientific Off . A4451 Uwn Enge Reds Div . MiniUry

1 USA Agry for Aviation Safety , Ft Ruckon , ATTN: Library of Dufan,.. New D,Ihi

I USA Agcy for Avuation Safety, Ft Rucker , ATTN : Educ Advisor 1 P.,i RiCh Ofc Libi vy , AKA , ive.I Defense Forces

1 USA Aaiat non Sch, Ft Rucker , ATTN: PU Drawer 0 1 Minlstaris van D.fenele, DOOP/KL Afd Soclael

1 HOUSA Aviat ion Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psydsologhch. Zek.n. The Hague. Netherlands

2 USA A~let( nin Syl T.’tt Act , Edwards AFB , ATEN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Del Sch . Ft Bliss , AT’TN: ATSA TEM

1 USA Ar Mobility Arch & Dcv Lob , Moffe~ FId , ATTN: SAVOL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sch, Has Tng MgI, Ft Ruckcn , ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch , CO. Ft Rucker , A’fl’N: ATST—D--A

1 HO, DARCOM . Alesanidnia , ATTN: AMXCD—TL

I I-IC), CIAITCOM . A)urranclr ia , ATTN: CDR

1 US Mulutury Ac,r(k’:ruy. West Point, A’fl’N: Serials Unit

1 U

~ Mluiary A,. ,uuI.u. ’y, West Pouu ut , ATTN : Otc of Milt Ldrshp

1 I iS Mt’ ~~p Acuid,uuuiv. Wi’s, Point , ATTN: MAOR

1 L::

~A Si,u : ,lyrilu:atni Op. UK, FPO NY , AT’T’N: MA$E -GC

1 (lii of Nav ,il Rtch , Au)ingt on, ATTN: Code 452

‘) Dl’, ol “ live) HsCh , A,)ington, ATTN: Code 458

I s af N,rvat 8

~ ’l,, Au )iuigturni , AT rN Code 450

1 01” ‘I Navul llsr.l’ Au)ungluu n , ATTN: Code 441

I N,iv.uI Au’, , ’, Med Has I ,ut, Pensacola , ATTN: Acout Sch Div

1 Njsal A~’,,spr Med Ru’s LOt , Pen,taco)a , A’ITN: Code 151

1 N,,~.,I Ai’l,ui ui , Mcii IT’,s Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code 15

1 (.h,eI .1 NavI’ u - r ’ ,. ATTN: Puns OR

1 NAVdSII1SrA Norfolk . ATT H: Safety Ctr

I Ni, Ocean ograp h i c , DC, A n N- Cods 6251, Charts A lec),

1 1’: ,,ieu ol flyral Ann), ATTN. Duc Ctr

S t’layAurSysCom, AT’TN: /01) - b3130

1 Nay BuiMed ATTN: 713

1 NavHelicop erSuibSqn,a 2, IPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (PT) FV ullua rn Al-B

1 A) iiRLlrrl Lujwr’i AFD

I AFHRL (AS) W PAFB . OH

2 AFHPL )f)OJZ) Brooks Al-B -

I AFHRI. I3OJN( L:ickland AFB

1 HOUSAF liNYSOl

T l’IQUsAI’ )IDPXXA)

1 AFVTG (A D) Raninbu)pli Al- B

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFII , OH

2 AT Ins t ol Tc.’lu, W3’AFB , OH, ATTN: ENC/SL

I AIC (XP1Ci I A.iflifr,) ith AFII

1 ISAF Ai’rr,Meui L u ) - Uuook, Ar- B (SUL 4), ATTN: DOC SEC 1 Al-USA INI I Auiun,jIon

1 At’ Loq Cml , Muh, 1,l)sui Al- B, Al ) . J AIC/OPCRB

1 Au Funrrm ’ Au:j u)umy, CO. AT TN: Depi of 0.1 Scn

5 N.rvPn’rs & Dcv Crc , Sen Diego

7 Navy M.d Nuniuruitlycltlatric Rseh Uuril . San Diego

I N,, Elu’cluoniuu lab , Ssn Diego , AT IN: ties Lab

I Nan t , u u’ i Un’,u ‘ii.. I’)ueqo , AT’lN: Cut,).t 9000 -‘Lu),

1 N.,.,’’,,st (i’ u:; I. M,’

~

r ri’muy, AT’IN: Cod,, bSAa

1 N,,vu ’i - ’i( ,‘n:.~’ M,,,,ti’rn”, Al T N: Cud,

’ 1124

I Suet, ‘~

.,I ‘1. - I T’ I), hauuulun , ATTN - Tech Cub

1 US On’)’i il I lvi, , UC, At IN: Mairls,wle Admin

1 US Dept ‘0 .I,u,i,u:e , DC. Al l N - Drug En forc e Admin

I Nat Ru’ il ‘‘,., ,i il,nm ,ls , DC, ‘.T IN Co nputCr Info Section

1 Nut I’’ ,- . u,,:, liii,,’ ’ l,,u fill ),i I,, _

I 11,’

,,, ., I,,,. , ii Cr, & ,iki’wooul ATTN . FIL M 17 (1 .1, -,s, - ii ’ S , - ‘ ‘i, - ‘i Iii,’ Cun,Iu’r

4 (‘i ii P-., -I, A ‘iv .1,1 H ni l) Olcs , Cenluorre

I Scuu’nuu l,r’ A, 5- . Mi) Rd. Ar ms Hq, R,u,~

ell Oles, Canberra I )I - ,tui u) A,’ Art .‘, h. , Auvrr i n,, I nitlivity

I t nt,,’ -I’ lt, ’

,’i ‘,-,, - lu.’ fr’s I i-ri’’,,, , IIu,r,n,,,rne di’ Ii Dut fautso

Ni iyro ,il,

’, II:’

I , .,,,,,t, ,,,, Iou,’ t SIJIl I/,luuriuiui titu ,ui

I i’ An, ‘Ii , ll.’

~ ) i ’,u,,,rr) , ,uui Al , Al IN. Pars ‘

,,(d A,a~

e4 Br

I Chin-I C.uunni),,,,, ilel lisu:)i hell Al TN C/CR DS(W )

4 flun~uslr I),’) 51,11 . Uuitr slr l. .ulnassy , WashIngton

- 12

-‘

_ _

‘~~~~~~ 

‘- -.-- . - .- -- - 5 

, . .

- ~~— i~

tJ”'. — .

-

~~~~~~~

,

‘ 

, . . — -

~~~