EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE IN BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES

Author(s): Yuan Cheng and Arne L. Kalleberg

Source: Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 1996), pp. 115-129
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42857840 .
Accessed: 07/03/2015 05:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGY Vol. 30 No. 1 February1996
115-129

RESEARCH NOTE

EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE IN BRITAIN AND

THE UNITED STATES

Yuan Cheng and Arne L. Kalleberg

AbstractThispaperexaminesthedeterminants ofemployee job performanceinthe

U.S. and Britain.We use twonationally representativedatasets(the 1991 General
SocialSurveyandthe1992Employment in Britainsurvey)thatcontaincomparable
indicatorsof job performance and of motivation, abilityand taskcharacteristics.
Americanemployeeswere more likelyto reporthigherlevelsof performance
quantityand (especially)
quality.Mostofourexplanatory variables
affected
thetwo
dimensions of performance in similarwaysin thetwocountries. Bothqualityand
quantityperformance weremorestrongly byincomein theU.S. Qualityof
affected
performance was morestrongly relatedto the size of the workplacein Britain.
Quantity of performance was morestrongly relatedto the importance placedon
promotion and to tasksignificanceamongAmerican workers.

Key words:Qualityperformance, task

ability,motivation,
quantityperformance,
characteristics, differences.
country

Introduction
Identifying the factorsthat affectthe qualityand quantityof employees'job
performanceis an importantissue in the studyof work and the workplace.
Social scientistsand managersroutinelymake assumptionsabout the charac-
teristicsthatenhance or detractfromperformance.It is generallyassumed,for
example, that greaterorganisationalcommitmentcontributesto betterper-
formanceas more committedemployeesshould be more motivatedto work
hard on theirorganisation'sbehalf(Kalleberg and Marsden 1994). Moreover,
people withbetterskillsand greaterabilitiesare usually thoughtto be more
capable of performingtheir work tasks well, irrespectiveof their levels of
organisationalcommitment.Performanceis also assumed to be affectedby
structuraland task characteristicssuch as whetheremployees are able to
exerciseautonomyand discretionin theirwork,the extentto whichtheirtasks
are clearlydefined,and whethertheyare rewardedforhard work.
Despite the importance of understandingthe determinantsof job per-
formance,empirical research on this topic is conspicuously scarce (see
Kalleberg and Marsden 1994, for a review). Particularlysparse are studies
based on data fromdiverse and broadly representative samples of workers.
Cross-nationalstudiesof performanceare practicallynon-existent;most of the
extantstudiesof performanceare based on data fromthe United States.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

We attempt to overcome some of these limitationsin this paper by

comparing the level and correlatesof employee job performancein Great
Britainand the United States.These two countriespresentan interesting case
for comparison. Although many countries in Europe have developed eco-
nomicallysince World War II, America is by farstillthe world leader in per
capita real income and creationof jobs (Upset 1991). In spite of a relative
decline in the size of the American advantage in the 1970s, its economic
performancein the 1980s improvedremarkablycomparedwithotherleading
countries,and its economy has grown biggerboth in absolute and relative
terms (Huntington 1989). By contrast,Britain has undergone a period of
relativeeconomic decline. One reason oftengiven for its poorer economic
performanceis the lower productivityof Britishworkers,especiallyin manu-
facturingindustries.While many factorsmay account for the poorer per-
formanceof Britishworkers,it has been suggestedthatclass divisionand lack
of upward mobilitywithinthe firmweaken work incentivesand discourage
performanceexcellence (Dore 1973).
Analysingthe reasonsforthe relativeeconomic performanceof the U.S. and
Britainwould clearlyrequirean ambitiouscomparativeresearchprogramme.
Our objectivehere is much more modest. We seek to establishwhether:(i)
thereis any evidencethatjob performanceis greaterin the United States than
in Britain;and (ii) whetherthe determinantsof performanceare similaror
differentin the two nations.To examine these issues, we draw upon evidence
fromtwo recentnational surveysthat provide comparable measures of both
job performanceand a range of potentiallyimportantexplanatoryfactors.

Data and Variables

The Americandata come fromthe 1991 General Social Survey (GSS). The
GSS is a nearlyannual,multi-topicsurveyadministeredto an area probability
sample of roughly1500 English-speaking Americans(Davis and Smith 1992).
It includes a wealth of socio-demographicdata on the background and
currentstatusof respondents,as well as manyattitudinaldata. The 1991 GSS
included a topical module focused on 'work organisations'which asked
questions about job performanceas well as on commitment,abilityand task
This data set is the onlynationallyrepresentative
characteristics. sample in the
U.S. of which we are aware that contains informationon job performance.
Other existingdata, usually collected in a single occupation or organisation,
are based on restrictedsamples whichhâve littlegeneralisability.
The Britishdata are drawn fromthe 1992 Employmentin Britainsurvey
(EIB). The survey was sponsored by a consortium of industries,U.K.
Departmentof Employment,EmploymentService and LeverhulmeTrust. It
was conducted under the directionof Duncan Gallie of NuffieldCollege
(Oxford),and Michael Whiteof the PolicyStudies Institutein London (Gallie

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE
IN BRITAINAND THE U.S. 117

and White 1993). It provides a national sample of 3855 employees aged

between20 and 60. Data were collected on workhistories,attitudestowards
workand employmentexperiences,includingjob performance, organisational
commitment,abilityand task characteristics.Questions on job performance
and on many of the hypothesisedcorrelatesof performancewere identicalto
those in the GSS.

MeasuringJobPerformance
Our measures of the qualityand quantityof an employee'sjob performance
are based on the respondent'sself-reports of his/herperformancecomparedto
otherswho do similarwork.Table 1 givesthe two questionsthatwere used.
Self-reportmeasures such as these have been used previouslyby others
(Pruden and Rees 1972; Busch and Busch 1978; and Darden et al. 1989).
Subjective measures may be criticisedon the grounds that people cannot
evaluatetheirperformanceaccuratelydue to biases such as poor introspection
(Locke et al. 1988). Nevertheless,self-reportmeasures have been found to
correlatehighlywith more objective measures. In a study comparing self-
reportedjob performanceratingsand ratingsgiven by their superiors,for
example, Heneman (1974) found that self-reportmeasures had less halo
error,restrictionof range and leniencythan the more objective measures.
He concluded that self-reportmeasures are more appropriatefor research
purposes than for organisationalevaluations. In addition, more objective
measures,such as supervisor'sratingsand outputmeasures,are usefulonlyin
specific settingsand cannot be applied to the whole labour force (Steers
1977b; Judgeand Ferris 1993).
In the U.S., the mean for Question 1 (WORKWELL) is 4.07, while for
Britainit is 3.58. For Question 2 (WORKMUCH) the U.S. mean is 3.83; the
Britishmean is 3.46. That the mean scores are above 3 for both samples
indicatesthatrespondentsin both the U.S. and Britaingenerallyevaluatetheir
performancelevels to be above average. This result parallels that usually
obtained for self evaluations generally,and recalls Garrison Keillor's des-
criptionof the children in mythicalLake Wobegon, who were all 'above
average'. Why this is the case is less clear. One explanationmightbe that
respondentsin these surveys do indeed performbetter than people with
whom theycompared themselves.In that case, respondentstend to compare
themselveswithpeople whose performancelevel is below theirs.It mightalso
be thatpeople tend to inflatetheirown performancerelativeto others,and/or
to use different standardsof evaluation(see Kallebergand Marsden 1994).
U.S. respondents report higher average scores on both dimensions of
performancethan respondentsin Britain.The countrydifferencesin mean
scores (0.49 forWORKWELL, 0.37 forWORKMUCH) are both statistically
significantand may indicatethatthereis a higherlevel of job performancein
the U.S. than in Britain: American employees might performbetter and
produce more than theirBritishcounterpartson average.On the otherhand.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

Table 1
Measures ofJobPerformance,U.S. and Britain

U.S. Britain

N (%) N (%)
Question1
'Comparedto otherpeople
whodo thesameor similar
kindofworkthatyoudo,
howwellwouldyousay
youdo yourjob?'
(WORKWELL)
1. Muchworse 0 (0) 5 (0.1)
2. Somewhat worse 2 (0.3) 20 (0.6)
3. Aboutthesame 188 (25.7) 1688 (48.8)
4. Somewhat better 287 (39.3) 1179 (34.1)
5. Muchbetter 241 (33.0) 377 (10.9)
Missing 13 (1.8) 192 (5.5)
Mean (S.D.) 4.07 (0.78) 3.58 (0.70)a
Question2
'Comparedto otherpeople
whodo thesameor similar
kindofworkthatyoudo,
howmuchworkwouldyou
sayyoudo?'
(WORKMUCH)
1. Muchless 1 (0.1) 10 (0.3)
2. Somewhat less 18 (2.5) 83 (2.4)
3. Aboutthesame 251 (34.3) 1839 (53.1)
4. Somewhat more 276 (37.8) 1083 (31-3)
5. Muchmore 170 (23.3) 261 (7.5)
Missing 15 (2.1) 185 (5.3)
Mean (S.D.) (0.82) (0.69)a
3^3 3^6
aU.S.- Britaindifference at
significantp < 0.001 (2-tailedtest)

these countrydifferencesmay also be partiallyexplained by the different

groups of people which American and British employees choose as their
comparisongroups. It may be, for example, that American have a stronger
tendency than British employees to compare themselves to people who
performmore poorly than themselves,given a generallymore open and
competitive culture in the U.S., and the subsequent use of individual
strategiesto emphasise personal success in relativeterms.Accordingto this

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN BRITAINAND THE U.S.
EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE 119

reasoning,Americanrespondentstend to inflatetheirperformancelevel when

asked to compare themselveswith other people doing similarjobs. In that
job performancebetween the U.S. and
case, the differencesin self-reported
Britainmightbe artefactualand reflectmean countrydifferences in measure-
ment ratherthan true national differencesin employeeperformancelevel. A
final possibilityis that these country differencesare due to U.S. -British
differencesin levels of motivation,ability,and/ortask characteristics.If so,
then the countrydifferencesshould be reduced once we control for these
explanatoryvariables.

Correlates
ofJobPerformance

Our theoreticalmodel assumes that job performanceis affectedby three

major sets of variables:motivation;ability;and task characteristics(see also
Porterand Lawler 1968; Steers 1977a; Blumbergand Pringle 1982). 1Table 2
presentsdescriptivestatistics(mean and standarddeviations)forthe U.S. and
Britain.

Motivation
Mowday,Porterand Steers definedorganisationalcommitmentas:

by at leastthreefactors:(a) a strongbeliefin and acceptanceof

. . . characterized
theorganization's goalsand values;(b) a willingness
to exertconsiderableeffort
on
behalfof theorganization; and (c) a strongdesireto maintain membership in the
organization (1982: 27).
The second of these three dimensions- effort,or motivation- is the one
that should be theoretically
the most stronglyrelatedto performance.Thus,
Kalleberg and Marsden (1994) found that value commitmentand con-
tinuancecommitment(the firstand thirddimensionsrespectively)affectjob
performanceonly indirectlyby enhancingeffortand motivation.Motivated
employeesperformbetterbecause theyhave greaterneeds forsuccess, which
can be met only by good performance(Staw 1984). They are also more
goal-orientedand compelledby theircommitmentto exertgreateffortin their
work(Steers 1977b; Kiesler 1971).
We use two indicatorsof motivation:an itemthatasks respondentswhether
they are willing to work harder than they have to in order to help their
organisationsucceed, and the importancerespondentsplace on promotion.
The Americansscored significantly higherthan the Britishon both items.We
assume that people who value promotionhighlywill be motivatedto work
harderto achieve careersuccess.

Ability
We do not have directmeasuresof 'ability',so we use a varietyof ascribedand

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

Table 2
DescriptiveStatisticson ExplanatoryVariables,Mean StandardDeviation

U.S. Britain

MEAN (S.D.) MEAN (S.D)

Male 0.48 (0.50) 0.52 (0.50)
White 0.84 (0.37) 0.93 (0.26)a

Ability
Education 0.15 (0.46) 0.12 (0.35)
Class 3.27 (1.68) 3.16 (1.69)
Income 5.47 (2.93) 5.50 (2.87)
Full-time 0.85 (0.36) 0.79 (0.41)a
Unemployed 0.16 (0.37) 0.13 (0.34)
Employertenure 6.63 (7.47) 6.61 (7.12)
Supervisor 0.35 (0.48) 0.44 (0.50)a
Motivation
Effort 3.22 (0.65) 3.01 (0.67)a
Promotion Importance 2.65 (1-30) 2.28 (0.96)a
WorkOrganisation
WorkIndependently 3.06 (0.95) 3.26 (0.85)a
in Decisions
Participation 2.78 (0.92) 2.55 (0.98)a
TaskSignificance 3.17 (0.69) 3.00 (0.75)a
PerformanceVisibility 3.04 (0.66) 2.92 (0.67)a
PayforPerformance 0.68 (0.47) 0.39 (0.49)a
Size ofWorkplace 418 (517) 195 (193)a
UnionMembership 0.15 (0.36) 0.40 (0.49)a
is significantly
Coefficient betweenU.S. and U.K. at p < 0.001 (2-tailed
different
t-test)

achieved characteristicsthat may be regarded as indirectproxies for this

construct.First, education(representedby a measure of the highestyear of
school attended) is an indicator of ability,given its empirical link with
occupationalsuccess. Other indirectindicatorsof abilityinclude: occupational
, which is a scale based on Goldthorpe's (1980) class schema;
class position
relativeincomein the formof deciles; whetherthe person is employedfull-time
or part-time;supervisory status, an indicator of a person's level within the
organisationand his/heramount of responsibility (respondentsin Britainwere
significantly more likelyto be supervisors);numberof years withthepresent
employer ; and whetherthe respondenthad been unemployed in the past five
years.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE
IN BRITAINAND THE U.S. 121

TaskCharacteristics
Previousresearchhas found that autonomy(freedomto workindependently)
and discretion (participationin decision-making)enhance both motivationand
job performance(Darden et al. 1989). Workerswithgreaterautonomytend to
be more involvedin theirjobs (Britishworkersreportedgreaterautonomy
than U.S. workers). In addition, discretionor decision-makingbinds the
interestsof individual employees to the outcome of work (U.S. workers
reported greater discretionthan British workers). There are likely to be
substantialcross-nationaldifferences in the linksbetweenthese taskcharacter-
istics and performance.Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) found autonomyand
discretionto be generallymore importantfor American workersthan for
Japanese in accounting for organisationalcommitment,for example, while
Dore (1973) attributedthe relativelypoorer performanceof Britishindustry
partly to a lower level of organisational integrationthrough employee
participation.
Employeesare also assumed to workbetteriftheirjobs are well-definedand
if theyare recognisedwhen theydo theirworkwell. We use two measuresto
indicate the degree of visibilityof individualemployeesin the organisation.
One representsthe respondent'sevaluationof tasksignificance , i.e., the import-
ance of his/herwork for the success of the organisation.The second is the
respondent'sperceptionof performance , i.e., how easy it is forhis/her
visibility
efforts to be noticedby others.On both measures,U.S. workersscored higher
than British.
An additionaltask-relatedmeasureis the perceivedlinkbetweenperformance
and pay rises(Americanswere more likelythan the Britishto feel thatthese
were linked). We hypothesisethat people whose effortsare duly rewarded
financiallyare likelyto performbetterin theirwork.
We also include indicatorsof establishment size (Americansworkedin larger
organisationsthan the Britishin these samples) and unionmembership(the
Britishwere more likelyto be unionised) as proxiesforworkstructureslikely
to affectperformance.

BivariateCorrelations

Do employeeswith greaterabilities,highermotivationand more favourable

task characteristicsperformbetter at their jobs? In Table 3, we present
separatelyby country,zero-ordercorrelationsbetweeneach dimensionof job
performanceand the explanatoryvariables. As expected, both measures of
motivationare positivelyrelated to quality as well as to quantity of job
performancein each country.
All task characteristics,except performance-relatedpay rises, are also
positivelycorrelatedwith both dimensionsof performancein both countries.
The correlationbetweenpay rises and quantityof performanceis positiveand

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

Table 3
CorrelationbetweenPerformanceMeasures and ExplanatoryVariables

U.S. Britain

WORKWELLWORKMUCHWORKWELLWORKMUCH

Male -0.012 -0.048 0.080*** 0.034f

White -0.083* -0.030 -0.052** -0.028

Ability
Education -0.047 -0.073* -0.023 -0.018
Class 0.039 0.092* 0.071*** 0.096***
Income 0.124*** 0.142*** 0.111*** 0.087***
Full-time 0.064t 0.124*** 0.114*** 0.110***
Unemployed -0.043 -0.066f -0.015 -0.041*
Employertenure 0.087* 0.042 0.074*** 0.039*
Supervisor 0.126*** 0.173*** 0.127*** 0.135***

Motivation
Effort 0.095** 0.161*** 0.089*** 0.120***
Promotion Importance 0.106** 0.197*** 0.075*** 0.096***

WorkOrganisation
WorkIndependently 0.132*** 0.131*** 0.096*** 0.091***
in Decisions 0.131***
Participation 0.100** 0.126*** 0.138***
TaskSignificance 0.123*** 0.175*** 0.087*** 0.084***
PerformanceVisibility 0.138*** 0.104** 0.076*** 0.051**
PayforPerformance -0.007 0.050 0.036* 0.03If
Size ofWorkplace 0.018 0.017 0.078*** 0.038*
UnionMembership -0.028 -0.035 0.003 0.002

***:p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05; f: P < 0.10

significantonly in Britain.Employeesof largerestablishmentsperformbetter

in Britain,but not in the U.S., whereestablishmentsize is unrelatedto either
dimension of performance.Union membershipis unrelatedto both dimen-
sions of performancein each country.
Income decile is positivelyrelated to both quality and quantityof per-
formancein each country.Education is unrelatedto performance, except- for
-
quantityof performance in the U.S. Occupational class position is also
positivelyrelated to performance,though the positive correlationbetween
class and quality in the U.S. is not statisticallysignificant.Moreover, em-
ployeeswithfull-timejobs who are supervisorsalso reporttheyperformbetter
on both dimensions.Workerswho have previouslyexperiencedunemployment
appear to do less work,but do not differin the qualityof theirperformance
from those who have not been unemployed. Length of service with the

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN BRITAINAND THE U.S.
EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE 123

currentemployerappears to enhance performance, thoughits correlationwith

quantityof workin the U.S. is not significant.

Determinants : MultivariateResults
ofJobPerformance

QualityofPerformance
How do we account for differencesamong employeesin the qualityof their
job performance?And how do we explain the differences in qualityperform-
in
ance the U.S. and Britain?Table 4 presentsregressioncoefficients fromour
multivariateanalysisof qualityperformanceforemployeesin both countries.
It givesour assessmentof the effectsof motivation,abilityand task character-
istics on quality controls for all other explanatoryvariables and individual
characteristics.We test whether there is a statisticallysignificantcountry
difference betweena pair of coefficients by means of a (two-tailed)t-test.2

Motivation.Our hypothesisthateffortis positivelyrelatedto qualityof work

performanceis supported most stronglyin the British analysis; only pro-
motion importanceis (weakly) related to quality of job performancein the
U.S. However, the countrydifferencesin the effectsof these variables on
performancequalityare not statistically
significant.

Task Characteristics
. Employees with more autonomyin work also report
better quality performance.However, the effectof discretion on quality
performanceis not significant.A possible explanation of this pattern is
suggestedby results obtained by Gallie, Kalleberg and White (1994), who
found that discretionis more stronglyrelated to organisationalcommitment
than autonomy.It may be that the effectof discretionon performanceis
primarilyindirect,via the effortdimension of commitment,leaving only a
weak, direct effectof discretion on performanceonce commitment(i.e.,
effort)is controlled.
Respondentswho feltthattheyare noticed when theyworkwell were more
likelyto report better performance.However, respondentswho considered
theirworkto be significant forthe success of the organisationwere not more
likelyto reportbetterqualityperformance.
Contraryto expectations,workerswho reportthat hard work leads to pay
risestend to reportpoorerqualityperformance.This resultis surprising, since
pay rises are presumablyused by employersto stimulatebetterperformance.
We speculate that this negative effectmight reflecta resentmentagainst
pecuniaryrewardsbased on performanceevaluation,especiallyamong those
employeeswho receiverelativelylowerpay rises than theircolleagues. Union
membershipis unrelated to performancequality.Britishworkersin larger
establishments - but not in the U.S. - are more likelyto reportthattheirwork
is of higherquality.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

Table 4
Regressionsof QualityofJobPerformanceon Determinants,
U.S. and Britain

U.S. Britain

B (S.E.) B (S.E.)
Male -0.045 (0.076) 0.048 (0.037)
White -0.205 (0.095)* -0.185 (0.059)**

Ability
Education -0.082 (0.063) 0.017 (0.047)
Class -0.014 (0.024) 0.014 (0.011)
Income 0.031 (0.016)* -0.001 (0.008)b
Full-time -0.066 (0.110) 0.048 (0.049)
Unemployed 0.056 (0.106 0.045 (0.047)
Employertenure -0.0003 (0.005) 0.006 (0.002)**
Supervisor 0.102 (0.075) 0.087 (0.034)**
Motivation
Effort -0.022 (0.063) 0.041 (0.025)t
Promotion Importance 0.053 (0.03l)f 0.041 (0.016)**
WorkOrganisation
WorkIndependently 0.105 (0.042)** 0.058 (0.019)**
in Decisions
Participation -0.0007 (0.047) 0.011 (0.019)
TaskSignificance 0.042 (0.058) 0.024 (0.022)
PerformanceVisibility 0.104 (0.056)f 0.064 (0.024)**
PayforPerformance -0.182 (0.075)* -0.046 (0.032)b
Size ofWorkplace(X1000) -0.005 (0.06) 0.20 (0.08)**a
UnionMembership -0.041 (0.095) -0.054 (0.034)

Intercept 3.487 (2.61) 2.879 (0.127)

R2 (adj) 0.039 0.041

N 515 2210

p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05; f. p < 0.10

a: U.S.-Britaindifference at p < 0.05;
significant
b: U.S.-Britain difference at p < 0.10
significant

Ability.Education and occupational class position are unrelated to the

quality of performancein both Britain and the U.S. Income is positively
relatedto performanceonly in the U.S.; this countrydifference is statistically
significant.
Supervisorsin Britain(but not in the U.S.) are more likelyto reportbetter
quantityperformance.British(but not U.S.) workerswithlongerserviceare

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN BRITAINAND THE U.S.
EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE 125

also more likelyto reporthigherquality performance.Quality performance

differsby race: white employees in both countries report poorer quality
performancethan ethnic minorityemployees. In this respect, there is no
countryracial differencewith regard to the relativeperformancelevel of
non-whiteminorities(Cheng 1994).

Table 5
of of
Regressions Quantity JobPerformanceon Determinants,
U.S. and Britain

U.S. Britain
B (S.E.) B (S.E.)
Male -0.205 (0.079)** -0.012 (0.036)a
White -0.095 (0.099) -0.110 (0.058)f
Ability
Education -0.099 (0.066) -0.016 (0.046)
Class 0.004 (0.025) 0.004 (0.011)
Income 0.024 (0.017) -0.005 (0.008)
Full-time 0.015 (0.117) 0.114 (0.048)*
Unemployed -0.045 (0.110) -0.048 (0.046)
Employertenure -0.004 (0.005) 0.001 (0.002)
Supervisor 0.170 (0.078)* 0.104 (0.034)**
Motivation
Effort 0.036 (0.065) 0.076 (0.025)**
Promotion Importance 0.113 (0.032)*** 0.034 (0.016)*a
WorkOrganisation
WorkIndependendy 0.113 (0.044)** 0.048 (0.019)**
in Decisions - 0.057 0.037 b
Participation (0.049) (0.019)
TaskSignificance 0.140 (0.060)* 0.026 (0.022)b
PerformanceVisibility 0.027 (0.058) 0.013 (0.023)
PayforPerformance -0.028 (0.078) -0.069 (0.031)*
Size ofWorkplace(X1000) 0.03 (0.07) 0.07 (0.08)
UnionMembership 0.037 (0.099) -0.047 (0.033)
Intercept 2.709 (0.272) 2.819 (0.125)
R2 (adj) 0.077 0.036
N 512 2217
***:p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05; f: p < 0.10
a: U.S. - Britaindifference
significant at p < 0.05;
: U.S. - Britaindifferencesignificant at p < 0.10

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

QuantityofPerformance

Is the greateraverage perceived quantityof performanceamong American

than Britishemployeesdue to greaterability,motivationand/ormore favour-
able task characteristicsof American employees? In Table 5, we present
unstandardisedcoefficients(standard errors) obtained from regressionsof
quantityof workperformanceon the explanatoryvariables,again separately
by country.

Motivation . British employees- but not Americans- who say they are
willingto exert extraeffortto help theirorganisationsucceed are more likely
also to report that they do more work than comparable workers(but this
countrydifferenceis not significant).On the other hand, employees who
attachgreaterimportanceto promotionalso say theyproduce more thantheir
colleagues. Americanemployeesare even more likelythan the Britishto do
this,and the countrydifference is statistically
significant.

Task Characteristics
. Autonomyis positivelyrelatedto quantityperformance
in both countries,but discretionis not. American- but not British- em-
ployees who perceivethemselvesto 'matter'forthe success of theirorganis-
ation also report better quantityperformance.This countrydifferenceis
statistically
significant.

Ability.Income is relatedto quantityof performancein the U.S. but not in

Britain.The countrydifferenceis statisticallysignificant.Supervisorsreport
thattheyworkedmore in each country,as do full-timeworkersin Britain.
There is substantialgenderdifference in quantityperformancein the U.S.:
Americanwomen are more likelythan Americanmen (and more likelythan
Britishwomen relativeto Britishmen) to reportbetterquantityperformance.
A possible explanation for this country differencemight be that British
women with dependentchildrenare more likelyto take part-timejobs than
American women, though the countrygender differenceremains even after
employmentstatusis controlled.

Conclusions

between the quality and

Our resultsunderscorethe utilityof differentiating
quantity of employee job performancewhen comparing Britain and the
United States.We foundinitiallythatAmericanemployeesweremorelikelyto
reportthat theirqualityas well as quantityof performancewas higherthan
Britishemployees.The countrygap in qualityof performanceremainedlarge
afterwe controlledforthe explanatoryvariables (compare the interceptsfor

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN BRITAINAND THE U.S.
EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE 127

the two countries in Table 4). By contrast,the gap in the quantity of

performancebetween countrieswas drasticallyreduced (compare the inter-
cepts in Table 5), indicatingthat we were able to account for a substantial
portionof the countrydifference in performancequantity.
By and large,most of the explanatoryvariablesaffectedthe two dimensions
of performance(but especiallyqualityof performance)in similarways in the
U.S. and Britain.The abilityto work independently, for example, enhanced
both quality and quantity of performancein the two countries. In both
countries,whites were less likelythan non-whitesto report better quality
performance.
On the otherhand, some explanatoryvariableshad different effectsin the
U.S. as opposed to Britain.Employees'perceivedimportanceto the success of
the organisation,forexample,was more stronglyrelatedto quantityperform-
ance among American workers.The size of the establishmentwas more
strongly relatedto qualityperformancein Britainthanin the U.S. In addition,
income is a much strongerpredictorof both aspects of job performancein the
U.S. than in Britain.
Our analysesrepresenta firstattemptto compare and explaindifferences in
employeejob performancein Britain and the U.S. Furtherresearch,using
bettermeasures of performanceand its determinants,are needed to bolster
the conclusions we have drawn here about differencesin the quality and
quantityof job performancein these two countries.

Notes
1. It mightbe arguedthat motivation/commitment is an intervening
variable
betweenpersonalabilityand task characteristics, on the one hand,and job
performance, on the other.For instance, highlyqualifiedpeoplemaybe more
motivated and committed workers, who havea driveto succeedoccupationally
through hardworkand good performance. Moreover, tasksthatinvolvegreater
autonomy mayproducegreatercommitment (see Lincolnand Kalleberg1990)
as wellas betterperformance. This suggests thatabilityand taskvariableshave
directeffects
on performance, as wellas indirect effectsthroughmotivation.
2. The formula forthet-testis:
bļ - b2
t=
(Se12+se22)1/2,
where'V and '2' areregression coefficientsassociatedwiththeU.S. and Britain,
and se! and se2aretheircorresponding
respectively, standarderrors.

References
Blumberg,M. and Pringle, C. D. 1982. 'The MissingOpportunity in Organisa-
tionalResearch:Some Implications fora Theoryof WorkPerformance'.Academy of
Management Review7:560-569.
Busch, P, and Busch, R. F. 1978.'WomenContrastedto Men in theIndustrial
Sales
Force:JobSatisfaction,
Values,Role Clarity,
Performanceand Propensityto Leave'.
JournalofMarketingResearch 15:438-448.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 YUANCHENGAND ARNEL. KALLEBERG

CHENG,Y. 1994. Educationand Class: Chinesein Britainand theU.S.A. Aldershot:

Avebury Press.
Darden, W.R.,Hampton,R. andHowell, R. D. 1989.'CareerVersusOrganizational
Commitment: Antecedents and Consequencesof Retail Sales People'. Journalof
65:80-106.
Retailing
Davis,J.A. andSMITH,T. W. 1992.TheGeneral SocialSurvey: A User'sGuide.Newbury
Park,CA: Sage.
DORE,R. 1973. British Factory,
Japanese Factory: TheOrigins in Industrial
ofDiversity
Relations.
Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press.
Gallie, D. and WHITE,M. 1993. Employee Commitment and theSkillsRevolution.
London:PolicyStudiesInstitute.
Gallie, D., Kalleberg, A. L. andWhite,M. 1994.'Organizational Commitment in
Britainand theUnitedStates'.Paperpresented at the 1994 AnnualMeetingof the
American Sociological Association,Los Angeles.
GOLDTHORPE, J. 1980. SocialMobility and ClassStructure in ModernBritain.Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
Heneman,H. G. III. 1974.'Comparisons ofSelf-and SuperiorRatingsofManagerial
Performance'.Journal ofApplied Psychology59:638-642.
Huntington. 1989.'The U.S. - Declineor Renewal'.WallStreet Journal,23 January:
82-83.
Judge,T. A. and Ferris, G. R. 1993. 'Social Contextof Performance Evaluation
Decisions'.Academy ofManagement Review36:80-105.
Kalleberg, A. L. and Marsden, P. V. 1994. 'Organizational Commitment and Job
Performance in theU.S. LabourForce'.Research intheSociologyofWork, 5.
KlESLER, C. A. 1971. ThePsychology ofCommitment: ExperimentsLinkingBehaviour to
New
Belief. York:Academic Press.
Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A. L. 1990.Culture, Controland Commitment:A Study
of Work Organization and Work Attitudesin theUnited Statesand Japan.Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Lipset, S. M. 1991. 'AmericanExceptionalism Reaffirmed',in B. Shafer(ed) Is
America A NewLookat American
Different: Exceptionalism.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P. and Erez, M. 1988. 'The Determinants of Goal
Commitment'. Academy ofManagement Review13:23-39.
Mowday,R. T., Porter, L. W. and Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-Organizational
Linkages:ThePsychology ofCommitment , Absenteeismand Turnover.NewYork:Academic
Press.
PORTER, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. III. 1968. Managerial and Performance.
Attitudes
Homewood,Illinois:Irwin.
Pruden,H. O. and Rees, R. M. 1972.'Interorganizational Role-SetRelationsand the
Performance and Satisfactionof IndustrialSalesmen'.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly
17:601-609.
Staw, B. M. 1984, 'Organizational Behaviour:A Reviewand Reformulation of the
Field'sOutcomeVariables'. AnnualReviewofPsychology 35: 627-666.
Steers, R. M. 1977a. Organizational A BehavioralView.Santa Monica:
Effectiveness:
Goodyear.
Steers, R. M. 1977b.'Antecedents and Outcomesof Organizational Commitment.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly22: 46-56.
Note: YUAN CHENG is ResearchFellowat thePolicyStudiesInstitute.
Biographical
She receivedherD.Philin SociologyfromtheUniversityof Oxford(1992) whereshe
wassubsequentlyemployed as ResearchOfficer
workingon theEmployment in Britain
The bookand mainarticlesinclude:Education
survey. andClass:ChineseinBritainand
1994); 'EthnicOriginsand Class Destinations'
theU.S.A. (Avebury, OxfordReviewof

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EMPLOYEEJOBPERFORMANCE
IN BRITAINAND THE U.S. 129

Education(withAnthonyHeath, 1993); 'JobSearchEffortand Motivationin Un-

employment' and 'The Employment Commitment of Unemployed People' in White
(ed.) Unemployment and PublicPolicyin a Changing LabourMarket(PSI, 1994,with
Duncan Gallie,MichaelWhiteand Mark Tomlinson).ARNE L. KALLEBERG is
WilliamRand Kenan,Jr.Professor of Sociology,and Chair of the Department of
Sociology,at theUniversity
ofNorthCarolinaat ChapelHill.He has publishedabout
70 articlesand chapters,and co-authoredor editedfourbooks,on topicsin the
Sociologyof Work,LabourForce,and the studyof Organisations, Occupationsand
Industries.
His mostrecentbooksare:Culture andCommitment:
, Control, A StudyofWork
Organization and WorkAttitudesin theUnitedStatesandJapan(withJamesLincoln;
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity in America:A
Press, 1990); and Organizations
Portrait
oftheirStructures
andHumanResource Practices
(co-authoredwithDavidKnoke,
PeterMarsdenandJoeSpaeth;Sage, 1996).

Address:Yuan Cheng,PolicyStudiesInstitute,
100 ParkVillageEast,LondonNW1
3SR. Arne L. Kalleberg,Departmentof Sociology,University
of NorthCarolina,
ChapelHill,NC, USA 27599-3210.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:45:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions