Japanese production techniques and management have

been the subject of numerous studies. This research has

focused on a variety of areas such as technology, product
design and development, process design and
development, culture, and personnel management. These
studies have made significant contributions to their fields
by enhancing our understanding of the way these
systems operate, on the one hand, and the ways to
improve/fine-tune these systems on the other.
An interesting aspect of these systems is employee
involvement and feedback in problem solving and
product/process improvement. Hackman and Oldham[1]
have developed a well-known model which incorporates
both of these variables. The Hackman-Oldham job
characteristics model contends that providing employees
with task variety, task identity, task significance, task
autonomy, and feedback, will lead to three critical
psychological states (experienced meaningfulness of the
work, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and
knowledge of actual results) which, in turn, will lead to
high internal work motivation, high quality work
performance, high work satisfaction, and low
absenteeism and turnover.
While Hackman and Oldham[1] did not explicitly
distinguish between different types of feedback, Early et
al.[2] differentiate between outcome feedback
(information regarding whether a standard was met), and
process feedback (information concerning the
effectiveness of the work method used). They contend
that, although outcome feedback can identify the need to
adjust action, it does not provide much information
concerning how to adjust. Process feedback facilitates an
individuals performance by providing the information
necessary to improve his/her development of an effective
work process or procedure. Tharp and Gallimore[3]
provide a concrete example of process feedback based on
their research of John Wooden, former UCLA basketball
coach. They found that at least 65 per cent of Woodens
comments during practice games consisted of specific
comments to his players regarding their current
basketball techniques and how they could perform better
in the future.
The continuous improvement philosophy of total quality
management emphasizes the process type of feedback. It
encourages employees to experiment with the production
system, to implement a variety of production methods, to
analyse how each affects the performance of the system,
and to choose the method which best achieves the
organizations objectives. Total quality management
states that employee involvement and feedback improves
employee satisfaction. Employees feel they are a major
part of the organization and are motivated to further
participate in improving the system.
A recent article reported that allowing employees
discretion in selecting a production method and providing
them with outcome feedback over repeated production
cycles would result in higher performance[4]. It also
found that allowing this discretion combined with both
outcome and process feedback would result in higher
performance. The study illustrated that when employees
are given the freedom of choosing production techniques
(within organizational constraints) and are provided with
outcome feedback, or both outcome and process
feedback, they will experiment with the production
system and develop more effective production scheduling
methods. However, that study did not consider the effect
on employee satisfaction.
One would expect that providing employees with
discretion and feedback (outcome feedback or process
feedback) would not only improve employee performance
but would enhance job satisfaction. The objective of this
article is to test these hypotheses by answering the
following research questions:
7 THE EFFECT OF DI SCRETI ON, OUTCOME FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK
The ef f ect of di scr et i on, out come
f eedback , and pr ocess f eedback
on empl oyee j ob sat i sf act i on
Bruce McAfee, Vernon Quarstein and Alireza Ardalan
Ext ends a pr evi ous st udy on empl oyees i ncr eased per f or mance
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 95 No. 5, 1995, pp. 7-12
MCBUniversity Press Limited, 0263-5577
G What effect does giving employees discretion to
choose from a variety of different production
techniques and providing them with outcome
feedback have on their satisfaction?
G What effect does giving employees discretion to
choose from a variety of different production
techniques and providing them with both outcome
and process feedback have on their job satisfaction?
The first question addresses the effect of discretion and
outcome feedback on employee satisfaction. The second
question considers the effect of discretion and both types
of feedback on satisfaction. Therefore, as part of this
study, we will determine what type of feedback (outcome
feedback or a combination of outcome and process
feedback) is most beneficial in terms of job satisfaction.
We conducted two experiments to examine these issues.
Exper i ment 1
The first experiment examined the first research question
mentioned above.To save space we present the
experiment briefly. Interested readers are referred to[4]
for a more detailed discussion of this experiment.
Subjects
The 32 subjects who participated were approximately
half male and half female and had an average age of 21.5
years. Subjects had an average educational level of 3.5
years of college and three years of work experience.
Design and experimental task
The task assigned to subjects was to improve job shop
scheduling operations. The experiment involved jobs
with different process times and delivery dates which
arrived in batches of six. The subjects task was to
sequence jobs to improve flow time and timeliness of
delivery simultaneously. Three priority rules were used:
(1) first-come first-served (FCFS);
(2) earliest due-date (EDD);
(3) shortest processing time (SPT).
At the start of the experiment, subjects were randomly
divided into two equivalent groups (Group 1 and
Group 2).
After a practice session in which they learned how to
execute the three scheduling methods (see T-l, Table I), all
subjects began the experimental phase using the EDD
method to establish a common starting point (see T-2,
Table I). Then, each subject scheduled two series of
batches (see T-3 and T-4, Table I) in counterbalanced
order so that each subject performed the task as both
treatment and control. That is, Group 1 initially
scheduled a series of batches (batches 2 to 5) using any of
the three scheduling methods they chose. Then they
scheduled another series of batches (batches 6 to 10)
using the EDD method. The order for Group 2 was
reversed. They initially scheduled batches using the EDD
method, and then chose among three different priority
rules to schedule the remaining batches. Subjects in
Groups 1 and 2 were provided with performance
(outcome) feedback on the scheduling methods they used.
Procedure
The experiment included the following sequence of
activities:
G Step I obtain goal assignment: The goal was to
improve schedule performance by 20 per cent.
8 I NDUSTRI AL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS 95,5
Tabl e I . Time-phased design for Experiment 1
Group/time T-1 T-2:batch 1 T-3: batches 2-5 T-4: batches 6-10
GP 1 Three practice Schedule one batch using an Schedule four batches using a Schedule five batches using
batches assigned method (EDD) chosen method
a
an assigned method (EDD)
b
After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain
outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results,
and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questions
on satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction
GP 2 Three practice Schedule one batch using Schedule four batches using Schedule five batches using
batches an assigned method an assigned method (EDD)
b
a chosen method
a
After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain
outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results, outcome feedback on results,
and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questions
on satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction
Notes:
a
chosen method data were taken from Group 1, T-3 and Group 2, T-4
b
assigned method data were taken from Group 1, T-4 and Group 2, T-3
Improvement was computed by comparing
subjects scheduling performance with that which
would have been obtained if the first-come first-
served method was used.
G Step II review waiting jobs: Subjects were told to
review a batch of waiting jobs randomly generated
by the computer.
G Step III obtain instructions: Each group was
given instructions regarding how to schedule jobs.
Whereas Group 1 was initially told that it could
use any one of three scheduling methods (FCFS,
EDD, and SPT), Group 2 was initially given the
assignment of using the EDD method. Later in the
experiment (for batches 6 to 10), these instructions
were reversed so that Group 1 was assigned the
EDD method and Group 2 was given discretion
and allowed to pick between the three methods.
G Step IV sequence jobs: Based on the job
information provided to them in Step II and the
method instructions given in Step III, subjects
were asked to schedule the jobs as effectively as
they could.
G Step V obtain feedback on results: Subjects were
given outcome feedback on their job scheduling
performance. Overall improvement (over the FCFS
method) was shown as a percentage change.
Dependent measure
The dependent measure used in this experiment was the
subjects job satisfaction. To measure this, questionnaires
were administered via the computer program after the
subjects exposure to the results of their job scheduling
performance for the first, fifth and tenth batches. Six
scales from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire[5]
were used in answer to the statement, On this portion of
the task, this is how I feel about, because of their
relevancy to the task situation:
(1) the feeling of accomplishment from scheduling the
jobs;
(2) the chance to do something which makes use of
my abilities;
(3) the chance to try different methods of doing the
job;
(4) the rewards I get for doing a good job;
(5) the freedom to use my own judgement;
(6) the freedom to use my own goal.
The overall internal reliability of the satisfaction
questionnaire using the Cronbach Alpha test was 0.745.
An overall satisfaction score was calculated by summing
each subjects responses to these questions. Changes in
satisfaction that occurred from the first to the fifth and
from the fifth to the tenth batches were also calculated.
Analytical analysis for Experiment 1
Paired t-tests were used to compare satisfaction measures
for subjects when they were permitted scheduling
discretion (choice of method) with when they were
assigned a specific procedure (scheduling batches using
the earliest due date priority rule).
In both cases subjects were provided with outcome
feedback. Those subjects who could choose from different
scheduling methods could potentially use the outcome
feedback as a basis for improving their performance.
Although the rest of the subjects were also provided with
the outcome feedback for their chosen method, they were
not allowed to change their method and were therefore
unable to experiment with the system and determine a
better method.
Specifically, we tested the following hypothesis:
H1: Mu
1
> Mu
0
,
where dependent variable Mu
1
represented the change in
the mean value of satisfaction when discretion was
afforded in scheduling batches, and Mu
0
represented the
same dependent variable when the subjects were
assigned the EDD scheduling method for scheduling
batches and therefore no discretion was afforded.
Results
The results of this experiment (Table II) indicate that
providing employees with discretion and outcome
feedback improves their satisfaction but the improvement
is not statistically significant (p= 0.183).
Exper i ment 2
This experiment considered the second research question
raised before.
Subjects
The 38 subjects who participated in Experiment 2 had
characteristics similar to the pool in Experiment 1.
9 THE EFFECT OF DI SCRETI ON, OUTCOME FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK
Tabl e I I . Means, mean difference,and the results of paired
t-test for Experiment 1
Discretion
and outcome
feedback Assigned
Measures Mu
1
Mu
0
Mu
1
Mu
0
t p
Change in
satisfaction 0.379 0.138 0.241 0.450 0.183
Note: n= 32
Design and experimental task
The design and experimental task for Experiment 2 was
identical to that of Experiment 1. Subjects were randomly
divided into two groups and were asked to sequence jobs.
After three practice batches (T-l), they scheduled two
series of batches (T-3 and T-4) in counterbalanced order,
as shown in Table III.
Procedure
Subjects in Experiment 2 began by following the same
five step procedure as those in Experiment 1. However, in
addition, they were also presented with a sixth step. That
is, when subjects had an opportunity to select between
the three methods (FCFS, EDD, and SPT) they also
received feedback on the relative effectiveness of the
scheduling method employed (process feedback). Thus,
not only did subjects receive outcome feedback, they
received process feedback. An example of the screen
representing feedback on the effectiveness of method is
shown in Table IV.
Table IV shows the values of the performance measures
for the method selected by the subjects and the FCFS
method. It also shows the method that has the higher
performance. The display included the best method in
terms of the average completion time, the average job
lateness, the average number of jobs in the system, and
the preferred method for overall effectiveness. This quick
feedback on the performance of the selected method in
comparison with other methods (process feedback)
enabled subjects to detect the preferred method quickly
and to improve their performance.
Dependent measure
The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was measured
using the same six questions and the scores were
summed. Changes in satisfaction after the first, fifth, and
tenth batches were calculated.
Results
Results of this experiment (Table V) were different from
those in the previous one in that satisfaction improved
significantly. Paired t-tests showed significant improve-
10 I NDUSTRI AL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS 95,5
Tabl e I I I . Time-phased design for Experiment 2
Group/time T-1 T-2:batch 1 T-3: batches 2-5 T-4: batches 6-10
GP 1 Three practice Schedule one batch using an Schedule four batches using a Schedule five batches using
batches assigned method (EDD) chosen method
a
an assigned method (EDD)
b
After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain
outcome and process outcome and process outcome and process
feedback on results, feedback on results, feedback on results,
and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questions
on satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction
GP 2 Three practice Schedule one batch using Schedule four batches using Schedule five batches using
batches an assigned method an assigned method (EDD)
b
a chosen method
a
After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain After scheduling, obtain
outcome and process outcome and process outcome and process
feedback on results, feedback on results, feedback on results,
and complete the questions and complete the questions and complete the questions
on satisfaction on satisfaction on satisfaction
Notes:
a
chosen method data were taken from Group 1, T-3 and Group 2, T-4
b
assigned method data were taken from Group 1, T-4 and Group 2, T-3
Tabl e I V. Effectiveness of method (FCFS vs. SPT)
FCFS SPT Best Overall
Average completion time 4.9 4.4 SPT SPT
Average job lateness 0.4 0.7 FCFS
Average jobs in system 3.5 3.1 SPT
Note:
Compared to standard, the chosen method performs as shown
above
ments in satisfaction (p= 0.018) when subjects had
discretion and were given both outcome and process
feedback.
I mpl i cat i ons f or manager s
Employees in successful J apanese organizations are
trained in obtaining and analysing relevant production
data (real-time feedback) and using it to plan and
implement future operations. The cycle (collect data,
analyse, plan, implement) is repeated continuously in the
never-ending improvement process. As such, employee
involvement consists of either discretion and outcome
feedback or discretion and both outcome and process
feedback.
The studies presented in this article have empirically
examined the effects of:
G providing discretion and outcome feedback on
employee satisfaction;
G providing discretion and both outcome feedback
and process feedback on their productivity and job
satisfaction.
The results indicate that providing discretion and
outcome feedback alone does not improve employee
satisfaction significantly. However, providing employees
with discretion and both outcome and process feedback
results in statistically significant improvements.
These results point to the key role played by providing
process feedback to employees who already have
discretion. Employees need to understand the effects of
using given processes and procedures on their job
performance. Only then will they know what behaviours
must be changed and how to change them. If employees
know only how well they are performing a job but not
why, they are likely to feel confused and frustrated and
have relatively low satisfaction.
While discretion combined with process feedback is
important, studies done on goal setting suggest that
combining these two techniques with specific goals can
be even more advantageous. For example, Early et al.[2]
conducted a study involving a stock market simulation in
which subjects could buy and sell blocks of stock based
on recommendations made by brokerage firms. Outcome
and process feedback were available to the subjects
during the simulation via a computer program. Among
other findings, the researchers found that process
feedback combined with goal setting had a powerful
influence on an individuals information search and task
strategy quality. The investment strategies of individuals
who received both specific, challenging goals and specific
process feedback were superior to those of the other
subjects who did not receive this feedback. In two
additional studies, Early[6,7] found that subjects who
were given strategy information had higher commitment
and performance than those not given this information.
Furthermore, a study by Early and Kanter[8] found that
subjects, given a choice of both strategy and goal,
performed better than subjects given only goal choice or
neither choice. They also found that strategy choice
increased goal commitment. The findings from all of
these studies suggest the importance of augmenting
discretion and process feedback by providing specific,
challenging goals.
Deming[9] has argued that managers need to remove
barriers which hinder the worker from becoming more
effective. He contends that these barriers rob workers of the
right to be proud of their work and the right to do a good
job. Gitlow and Gitlow[10, p. 176] add that managers need
to ask, Does everyone in the organization feel that he or
she is an important part of it?. Takeuchi[11] has taken this
philosophy a step further and argues that if employers set
loose limits and leave details to the discretion of the
workers, employees will feel encouraged to work on their
own initiative and develop themselves in the company. He
adds that the main goal of personnel management is to
confirm the confidence of fellow workers in each other.
Similarly, Monden et al.[12] state that many process
innovations are successful only through the participation of
workers. While the results of studies reported here are in
line with these recommendations, the results stress that
managers not only need to allow employees a chance to
participate, but that they also need to provide them with an
opportunity to obtain process feedback.
11 THE EFFECT OF DI SCRETI ON, OUTCOME FEEDBACK, AND PROCESS FEEDBACK
Tabl e V. Means, mean difference, and the results of paired
t-test for Experiment 2
Discretion,
outcome
feedback and
process
feedback Assigned
Measures Mu
1
Mu
0
Mu
1
Mu
0
t p
Change in
satisfaction 1.180 0.130 1.310 2.340 0.018
Note: n= 38
Bar r i er s r ob wor k er s of
t he r i ght t o be pr oud of
t hei r wor k
Ref er ences
1. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., Motivation through the
design of work: test of a theory, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, August 1976, pp. 250-79.
2. Early, P.C., Northcraft, G.B., Lee, C. and Lituchy, T.R.,
Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation
of goal setting to task performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 19, 1990, pp. 87-94.
3. Tharp, R.G. and Gallimore, R., What a coach can teach a
teacher, Psychology Today, Vol. 9 No. 8, January 1976,
pp. 75-8.
4. Ardalan, A., Quarstein, V.A. and McAfee, R.B.,
Enhancing performance through employee discretion
and feedback, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
forthcoming.
5. Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.V. and Lofquist, L.H.,
Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire,
Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1967.
6. Early, P.C., Influence of information, choice and task
complexity upon goal acceptance, performance: a
personal goal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4,
1985, pp. 481-91.
7. Early, P.C., The influence of goal setting methods on
performance, goal acceptance, self-efficacy expectations
across levels of goal difficulty, presented at the
American Psychological Association Meeting, 23-27
August 1985, Los Angeles, CA.
8. Early, P.C. and Kanter, R.M., The influence of
component participation and role models on goal
acceptance, goal satisfaction and performance,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 36, 1985, pp. 378-90.
9. Deming, W.E., Quality, Productivity, and Competitive
Position, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies,
Cambridge, MA, 1982.
10. Gitlow, H.S. and Gitlow, S.J., The Deming Guide to Quality
and Competitive Position, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
11. Takeuchi, H., Motivation and productivity, in Thurow,
L. (Ed.), The Management Challenge, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1985, pp. 18-30.
12. Monden, Y., Shibakawa, R., Takayangi, S. and Nagoa, T.,
Innovations in Management, Industrial Engineering and
Management Press, Norcross, GA, 1985.
12 I NDUSTRI AL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS 95,5
Bruce McAfee is Professor of Management, Vernon Quarstein is Associate Professor of Business Administration, and
Alireza Ardalan is Chairman of the Decision Sciences and MISDepartment, all at the College of Business and Public
Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.