A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF SITUATIONAL

CONSTRAINTS AND WORK-RELATED

OUTCOMES: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
TO CONCEPTUALIZATION
Peter Villanova
Appalachian

State University

Marie A. Roman
Northern Illinois University

This article reviews current conceptualizations of constraints and reports

the results of a quantitative review of published research on situational
constraints. The results of the meta-analysis are consistent with those of
previous reviews that used a traditional narrative review method; constraint scores bear a weak relationship with performance measures (- .14)
and a fairly robust relationship with self-reported affect (- .32 with satisfaction, .39 with frustration). It is concluded that this weak pattern of findings
suggests the need for alternative conceptualizations of constraints. Toward
that end, a variety of conceptual framing schemes from which to generate
alternative measurements of constraints and hypotheses about constraintoutcome relationships are presented.

Situational factors, as facilitators or inhibitors of performance, have only recently received some of the attention lavished on traditional ability and motivation predictors of performance. As a result, expectations regarding progress in understanding situational factors must be moderated by the relative
paucity of research on situational factors. Nonetheless, systematic study of
situational factors holds much promise for providing additional understanding
of performance dynamics. Also, because human resource management professionals often undertake situational changes with the aim of influencing worker
contributions to effectiveness there is a corresponding need for practice to be
informed by research.
Our purpose in writing this article is to stimulate different ways of thinking
about situational constraints, their causes, and how they influence performance. The article is divided into three sections. We begin with a review of
Direct all correspondence
Boone, NC 28608.

to: Peter Villanova,

Human Resource
Management Review,
Volume 3, Number 2,1993, pages 147-175
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Management

Department,

Appalachian

State University,
Copyright 0 1993
by JAI Press, Inc.
ISSN:1053-4822

148

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3, NUMBER

2. 1993

current conceptualizations
of situational constraints. The article then proceeds to a quantitative review of published research on situational constraints.
This section quantitatively
summarizes research on situational constraints,
including the reliability of measures used to represent constraints, and observed relationships between variables that comprise the nomological network
from which construct validity evidence for situational constraints is inferred.
Although the published research on constraints constitutes a relatively small
body of literature, the review serves as a first attempt at quantitative summary of empirical evidence relevant to the hypothesized relationships between
constraints and other constructs. Finally, in the last section of the article, we
introduce some alternative conceptualizations
of constraints with the aim of
stimulating alternative ways of thinking about constraints and the conduct of
research involving the constraint concept.

CURRENT

CONCEPTUALIZATION

OF CONSTRAINING

FACTORS

Attempts to improve performance efficiency through the manipulation of situational factors served as a catalyst to the scientific study of work behavior and
stimulated work redesign interventions (e.g., Gilbreth 1909). However, subsequent progress in conceptualizing
situational factors that influence performance was not commensurate with the scope of activity undertaken to change
situational factors in specific circumstances. And, although situational factors
were widely acknowledged
as having significant practical implications for
work behavior, no model of performance explicitly incorporated situational
factors as a determinant of performance until the seminal work of Campbell,
Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970). In their model, Campbell et al. include
situational constraints as one component of task demands that interact with
individual differences, training and development experiences,
and reward
structures to influence job behavior, and subsequently job performance.
In
1976, Campbell and Pritchard characterized situational performance determinants as facilitating and inhibiting conditions not under the control of the
individual. This latter characterization was more inclusive as it allowed for the
possibility that situational factors could promote or impede performance.
However, aside from the recognition afforded situational factors in these
models, no noticeable progress was made in developing taxonomies of situational factors. Situational factors were roughly categorized as stemming from
different levels of aggregation, the task characteristics, work setting, or organization. Further description of the dimensions that constitute them, whether
these dimensions were generalizable
across levels of aggregation or other
achievement-related
contexts, or whether they were situationally specific, remained open to question. More often than not, situational factors were chosen
on the basis of their availability and perceived relevance to the phenomena
studied.
Kahn and Quinns (1970; see also Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal
1964) resource inadequacy concept was identified as one of several factors

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

149

thought to contribute to work stress. However, it did not receive the systematic
attention extended to other concepts associated with this framework (e.g., role
conflict and ambiguity). Even though understanding
of job stress has been
limited by the absence of a widely accepted definition of what is meant by
stress (Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman, & Phillips 1990), the idea that inadequate resources deemed necessary for successful work performance might
serve as a putative cause of stress is both intuitively and logically appealing.
That is, if individuals value achievement and the path to achievement is somehow made more cumbersome by the absence of necessary supports, it seems
reasonable to include inadequate resources as a stressor responsible for some
of the stress symptoms (strains) that might be observed (e.g., decreased satisfaction, higher rates of turnover). However, measures of resource inadequacy
used in stress research have been of limited breadth, including only a small
sample of the potential domain of resources that workers in these studies
might find necessary for successful execution of their work roles. For example,
although these studies have included occupations as diverse as health, bluecollar, and clerical, the items used to measure resource inadequacy have been
limited to including work load, insutlicient job knowledge, and inadequate
time. Thus, although the resource inadequacy concept was an early attempt to
provide operational statement to situational factors that affect work outcomes,
the necessary conceptual and taxonomic work of detailing its component parts
was not pursued with sufficient rigor to make it a promising vehicle for understanding how situational factors impact on performance.
More recently, the work of Peters and OConnor (1980; Peters, OConnor, 8~
Eulberg 1985) has provided operational examples of situational constraints
that influence performance buttressed by more systematic taxonomic efforts.
In a retrospective account of the ideas which occurred to them early in their
research, they stated:
. . . examples of constraining work factors came easily to mind. Factors
such as broken or improper machinery and inadequate supplies quickly
suggested themselves as types of situational factors we had in mind. To be
sure, persons who were both able and motivated should not produce as
much output as their ability and motivation levels suggested . . . (Peters,
OConnor, & Eulberg 1985,pp. 80431).
u

To identify constraints in the work environment,

Peters and OConnor
(1980) asked 62 persons employed in a variety of jobs to provide accounts of bad
performance caused by situational factors. These responses were then content
analyzed and eight resource variables necessary for task accomplishment were
identified as potentially applicable across a variety of work settings. Further,
these resource variables were thought to vary along three dimensions: (a)
availability, (b) quantity, and (c) quality.
Although described by the authors as tentative, the Peters and OConnor
(1980) taxonomy has emerged as the most widely accepted method of representing constraints in the work setting. Laboratory studies of constraints typically

150

HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

KILUME

3. NUMBER

2. 1993

involve the manipulation of three or four of these resource variables. For example, job-related information, required materials, and work environment might
be manipulated so that they are more or less available, of more or less sufficient quantity, and of more or less sufficient quality (cf. Peters, Chassie, Lindholm, OConnor, & Kline 1982; Peters, Fisher, & OConnor 1982b; Peters,
OConnor, & Rudolf 1980). These variables would be manipulated
simultaneously to test main effect hypotheses from this framework (e.g., situational
constraints impede performance and reduce satisfaction). However, such tests
are not very interesting from a theoretical viewpoint because situations which
impede performance can be engineered easily, might overstate the impact of
constraints in actual work settings, and serve only to affirm a tautology. Peters
et al. (1985) correctly concluded that future research on the impact of constraints should largely be investigated in field settings.
Below, we describe a meta-analysis conducted on the findings reported in
the published literature. Meta-analysis is a method of statistically combining
the results of separate studies in order to facilitate conclusions about the
strength of a relationship between two variables. Several different procedures
exist and their suitability depends on the circumstances surrounding a specific
problem area. However, some conventions regarding the appropriate methods
of meta-analysis
are better established today and encourage its more widespread use than had formerly been the case. Initial information sought from a
meta-analysis includes: (a> an estimate of the average magnitude of an effect
observed across studies, typically in the form of a correlation coefficient; (b) a
test or series of tests involving the representativeness
of the estimated average
effect size as it applies to a set of studies; (c) an investigation, if necessary, of
potential factors associated with the studies that may account for differences
in observed effect sizes, and (d) an estimate of the fail-safe N, or the number of
studies finding nonsignificant tests of the hypothesis that need to be observed
in order to threaten the validity of a positive conclusion regarding the hypothesized relationship.
Specifically, the meta-analysis
focuses on the relationship between constraints and outcome variables including: (a) job performance, (b) job satisfaction, (cl frustration, (d) turnover and intentions to leave, and (el organizational
commitment. In addition, mean correlations among these variables are also
estimated based on the reported relationships appearing in the literature germane to situational constraints.

QUANTITATIVE

REVIEW OF SITUATIONAL

CONSTRAINTS

RESEARCH

Method
Literature Search.
The search strategy consisted of a number of components. First, the Social Sciences Citation Index for the period of January 1980June 1987 was searched, guided by the keywords situation, constraints,

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

151

and conditions. Next, a search was made in Psychological Abstracts for the
period (January 1987-December
1992) employing the key phrases and words
situational constraints, performance obstacles, and stressors. Third, the
reference sections of selected articles were examined for additional studies.
Only English language sources were considered.
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria:
(a) the study examined the effects of situational factors on employee behavior
and attitudes such as job performance, job satisfaction, frustration, and commitment to the organization; (b) the study provided adequate description of the
sample, measurement
of constructs, analyses, and findings. Studies which
reported only the presence of a significant finding without reporting the effect
size or significance level were excluded from the meta-analysis. Applying these
criteria resulted in the retrieval and coding of 15 studies (see Appendix for a
list of the 15 studies).
Coded Features. The following study characteristics were coded: (a) research
design (experiment/simulation
versus survey), (b) research setting (laboratory/
classroom versus field), (c) nature of respondent sample (students, managers,
or subordinates), (d) sample size, (e) reliability of measurement operations, (f)
criterion measurement strategy (objective, supervisor ratings, or self-ratings
of performance), and (g) zero-order correlations between the variables of interest. These include: (a) ratings of situational constraints, (b) performance ratings, (c) job satisfaction, (d) frustration, (e) turnover, and (f) organizational
commitment.
Data were coded by the first and the second author. Any inconsistencies were discussed until consensus was reached, thereby resulting in complete
agreement.
Procedure. An estimate of the combined, sample-size weighted effect size of all
studies dealing with a particular hypothesized bivariate relationship was determined using the weighted effect size combinatorial procedure suggested by
Hunter and Schmidt (1990). Findings which were reported as t or F values
were converted to zero-order correlations (Rosenthal 1984). When studies reported more than one effect size pertaining to a bivariate relationship, the
effect sizes were averaged to arrive at a single estimate. This was considered
appropriate in light of the desire to maintain independence of the observations
for combinatorial purposes and also because all of the multiple effect sizes from
single studies were generated under similar study conditions. The variance of
the observed coefficients and the variance due to sampling error were computed using formulas from Hunter and Schmidt (1990). Because of missing
information and the large range of criterion reliabilities, the variance of the
coefficients attributable to other artifacts such as range restriction or criterion
unreliability was not estimated. However, this omission may not seriously
affect the accuracy of the variance estimates reported given that previous
studies have found that variance attributable to sample size differences accounts for 90% of artifactual variance (e.g., Pearlman, Schmidt, & Hunter

152

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3, NUMBER

2.1993

1980). In the case of one study (Peters et al. 1982) only significance levels were
reported. Thus, the zero-order correlation estimates derived from these values
are conservative estimates.
Results
The sample sizes of the fifteen studies examined here ranged from 70 to
5080 with field studies generally employing larger sample sizes than did laboratory studies which never exceeded 120 subjects. Subjects in the studies included individuals
employed in a wide variety of managerial
and nonmanagerial positions.
Table 1 details measures of the constructs examined in the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis.
Information includes the instruments used to
measure the constructs, the mean reliability estimates, and the range of reliability estimates of the measurement instruments. The mean reliability of
each measure used in the research reviewed here exceeds .70.
Tables 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 provide summaries of the published studies used in
the meta-analysis including the setting and design of the studies, the sample
size, the number of effect sizes examined in each study, the source (e.g., supervisory, self-ratings) and the form of the performance appraisal data (low or
high judgment measures), and the mean effect size for each study. Also included in each table are the estimates of effect sizes generated from the published tests of the hypothesized relationships, the variance of observed effect
sizes across studies, variance of the sampling error, the 95% credibility interval, a test for homogeneity of effect sizes, and a file drawer estimate of studies
with nonsignificant findings needed to return the aggregated probability level
across studies to .05.
Table 2 reports the estimates of effect size among published studies for the
hypothesized negative effect of situational constraints on performance. The
obtained mean effect size across studies was found to be -.14. Note that while
the 95% credibility interval centers in negative values, it includes the value
.OO, suggesting that the calculated corrected mean effect size is an estimate of
the mean of several population parameters or subpopulations identified by the
operation of moderators (Whitener 1990). This is reflected in two passive observation field studies, Peters, OConnor, Eulberg, and Watson (1988) and Olson
and Borman (1989), both with large sample sizes (971 subjects and 5080 subjects, respectively), that found no relationship between situational constraints
and performance ratings (7. = .OO). Also, in a study of time pressure effects on
performance, Peters, OConnor, Pooyan, and Quick (1984) found a positive correlation between ratings of constraining situations (time pressure and di&
culty) and performance ratings (study effect size = .30).
The test for homogeneity of effects sizes (X2 (10, N = 9273) = 289.75, p <
.Ol) indicates that it is not likely that each observation in this sample of effect
sizes was drawn from the same population. Additionally, sampling error explains only 3.3% of the observed variance in effect sizes. Application of the
Hunter and Schmidt (1990) critical ratio of expected variance due to sampling

153

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL~~TIONS

Reliability
Constructs

and Types of Measures

TABLE 1
Used in Situational

and Measures

Constraints,
Peters and OConnor
Goal Difficulty Rating
Time Pressure Ratings
Kahns Job Related Tension Index
Composite Tailored to Study
Satisfaction
Index of Organiza~onal Reactions (Smith, 1976)
Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & H&in, 1969)
Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975)
Hoppack (1935)
Cammann et al.
Bullock Scale (Robinson, Athanasiou, & Head, 1969)
Frustration
Peters et al. (1980) 3 item scale
Composite Tailored to Study
Turnover
Company records @ 12 & 18 months subsequent to
study
Intent (1 item)
Performance
Supervisor Ratings
overall
quality
quantity
Self ratings
Objective indices
Commitment
Porter, steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974)
Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979)
Alutto, Hrebiniak, and Alonso (1973)

Constraints

Research

Mean Reliability

Range

.81(4)

.67-.91

.78(14)

.49-.91

.84(8)

.53-.91

.87(5)

.83-.a9

Note. All reliability estimates are coefficient alphas with the exception of one reported for performance which is an inter-rater reliability. Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of observed
reliability estimates used to the compute the mean.

error to observed variance (75%) suggests that substantive moderators as opposed to additional artifacts, may explain considerable variability among observed effect sizes across studies. Because the data were consistent with the Xz
test, the credibility interval application and 75% variance heuristic, moderator
analysis was conducted on the hypothesized relationship between situational
constraints and performance ratings.
Two methodological features of the studies in the meta-analysis were identified and examined for their potential moderating influence on the relationship
between situational constraints and performance: (a) the setting in which the

154

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3, NUMBER

2,1993

TABLE 2
Estimates of Effect Size among Published Studies for the Hypothesized Negative
Effect of Situational Constraints on Performance
Setting and
Design

Study
Peters

et al. (1988)

Field Study

Number
of Effect
Sizes

Performance Inokx
(Source)

971

Mean
Effect
Size

.oo

Over-all
(Supervisor)

Steel et al. (1987)

Field Study

368

Quality,

Quantity,

Over-all,

-.26

and

Objective
(Supervisor
Peters

et al. (1984)

Field Study

164

and Self)

Over-all

.30

(Supervisor)
Steel

and Mento

Field Study

438

(1986)
OConnor

et al.

Field Study

1450

et al. (1982)

Lab Experiment

120

Peters

et al. (1980)

Lab Experiment

70

Parasuraman

and

Field Study

217

Field Study

181

(1984)
et al.

-.21

and Self)

Over-all

-.12

(1984)

Quantity
Over-all

& Quantity

Over-all

-.87
-.29
-.09

(Supervisor)

(1988)
Jamal

and Objective

(Supervisor)

Peters

Allutto

Over-all

(Supervisor

(1984)

Spector

Over-all

-.05

(Supervisor)
Field Study

214

Over-all

-.42

(Supervisor)
Olson

and Borman

(1989)

Field Study

5080

Over-all

.oo

(Peer and Supervisor)

Mean effect size across studies = - .14; Variance of observed effect sizes across studies: ~2 = .03;
Variance of the sampling error: (T,
2 = ,001; 95% Credibility interval: -.47 to .19; Test for homogeneity of Effect Sizes: X2 (10, N = 9273) = 289.64,p < .Ol; File drawer Estimate: N = approximately
66 studies of ns findings (r = .OO) needed to return the aggregated p level across studies to .05.

study was conducted (lab/classroom

versus field studies), and (b) the source
which provided ratings of constraints (the supervisor or the subordinate).
A summary of the data relevant to the potential moderating effect of study
setting and constraint rating source is contained in Table 3. The subset method
of moderator analysis was used as recommended
by Hunter and Schmidt
(1990, p. 292). It is important to note that all lab studies involved manipulation
of constraints and all field studies involved ratings of situational constraints.
Also, measures of performance in both the lab studies and the field studies
included hard criteria (e.g., output quantity, cash shortages, and loan growth)
as well as soft criteria (e.g., over-all performance ratings).
As shown in Table 3, the average correlation of situational constraints and
performance measures for studies done in the lab differs from that computed
for field studies. However, the variance in one subset (studies done in the lab) is
greater than the total variance in effect size. This is perhaps due to the small

AL~R~TIVE

155

~ONCEPTUALI~TIONS

number of studies done in the lab and their correspondingly smaller sample
sizes, both of which may contribute to large second-order sampling error
(Hunter & Schmidt 1990). There are too few published studies to allow a more
careful examination of this hypothesis.
The picture for source of constraint ratings is quite similar. While there is a
sizable difference in mean effect size between the subsets, the observed variance is larger in the one subset than the total variance effect size. The increase
in observed within group variance may also be related to the differences in the
relationship between constraint ratings and objective criteria (r = 0 for those
two studies which reported those correlations) and the relationship between
constraint ratings and performance ratings (non-zero).
Table 4 reports the estimates of effect size among published studies for the
hypothesized negative effect of situational constraints on job satisfaction. The
obtained mean effect size across studies was found to be -.32. The 95% credibility interval includes the values of -.46 to -.18. This credibility interval
suggests then, that one would expect to find a non-zero constraint-satisfaction
relationship when conditions in an organization similar to those in the studies
reviewed predominate (Schmitt & Klimoski 1991).
The test for homogeneity of effect sizes (X2 (9, iV = 9273) = 32.46, p < .Ol)
indicates that it is not likely that each observation in this sample of effect sizes
was drawn from the same population. Additionally, sampling error explains
only 28.6% of the observed variance in effect sizes. As for performance, moderator analysis was conducted on the hypothesized relationship between situational constraint and job satisfaction ratings.
One methodological feature of the studies in the meta-analysis was identified and examined for its potentially moderating influence on the relationship
between situational constraint ratings and job satisfaction ratings: the setting
in which the study was conducted (lab/classroom versus field studies).
Table 5 shows the summary of moderator analysis for the situational
TABLE 3
Summary of Moderator Analyses for the
Constraint-Pe~o~~ce
~lationship
Study setting
Lab Studies

Field Studies

i; = -49
CT:= .08

i; = -.05
CT:= .Ol

a,2 =

02 =
e

.004

Source of constraint
Supervisor

.OOl

rating

Subordinate

i = -.17

P = -.04

02 =

.12

02

CT2 =

,004

ue; =

.oos

.OOl

156

HUMANRESOURCEMANAGEMENTREVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2. 1993

TABLE 4
Estimates of Effect Size among Published Studies for the Hypothesized Negative
Effect of Situational Constraints on Satisfaction
Setting and
Design

Study
Peters

et al. (1988)

Field Study

N
971

Number
of Effect
Sizes
1

Satisfaction Measure
Satisfaction

Mean
Effect
Size

With

-.32

With

-.28

With

-.36

Work

OConnor et al.

Field Study

1450

Satisfaction
Work

(1984)

OConnor et al.
(1982)

Classroom
Survey

Phillips and Freed-

Classroom

237

Satisfaction

Work and General

Satisfaction
1

Survey

man (1984)
Peters

82

et al. (1982)

Lab Experiment

General

-.55

Satisfaction

120

Satisfaction

With

-.23

Work and General

Satisfaction
Parasuraman
Hansen
Peters

and

Field Study

215

Over-All

Satisfaction

70

Satisfaction

-.13

(1987)

et al.

Lab Study

With

-.14

Work and General

Satisfaction
Parasuraman
Alutto
Spector

and

Field Study

217

With

-.20

Work

(1984)
et al.

Satisfaction

Field Study

181

Over-All

Satisfaction

-.47

Field Study

215

Over-All

Satisfaction

-.33

(1988)
Jamal

(1990)

Mean effect size across studies = -.32; Variance of observed effect sizes across studies: cr2 = .007;
Variance of the sampling error: (T,2 = .002; 95% Credibility interval: - .46 to - .18; Test for homogeneity of Effect Sizes: Xz (9, N = 3758) = 32.46, p < .Ol;
File drawer Estimate: N = approximately
97 studies of ns findings (r = ,001 needed to return the aggregated p level across studies to .05.

constraint-job satisfaction relationship. The mean correlation for studies conducted in the lab or classroom does not appear to differ greatly from the mean
correlation for studies conducted in the field. Also, the observed variance in the
subgroups is similar to that of all 15 studies. This finding, coupled with the
indications of the credibility interval, suggest that study setting does not have
a moderating effect on the relationship between situational constraints and job
satisfaction. Perhaps an unidentified moderator is responsible for the variance
observed in these effect sizes.
Table 6 reports the estimates of effect size among published studies for the
hypothesized positive effect of situational constraints on frustration. The mean
effect size across studies was estimated to be .39. While the test for homogeneity of effect sizes (X2 (7, N = 3246) = 13.52, p < .lO) indicate that observations in this sample of effect sizes may not be drawn from the same population,
it is important to note that the 95% credibility interval t.30 - .48) suggests

157
TABLE 5
Summary of Moderator Analysis for the
Constraint-Satisfaction Relationship
Study setting
LablClassroom

Studies

Field Studies

i = -.33

r = -.29

$72 =

.015

cr,2=

AI04

ai =

.006

0,2 =

.OOl

that a moderator is not likely to produce zero test-criterion relationships under

given conditions. Thus, moderator analyses of the relationship between situational constraints and frustration were not undertaken.
The estimates of effect size among published studies for the hypothesized
positive relationship between situational constraints and turnover is shown in
Table 7. The obtained mean effect size across studies was found to be -21. The
test for homogeneity of effect sizes resulted in a nonsignificant chi-square
value Xz (5, N - 3248) = .97, p < .95. Since the chi-square test has high
statistical power, a nonsignificant finding is strong evidence that there is no
true variation across studies (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson 1982; Sackett, HarTABLE 6
Estimates of Effect Size among Published Studies for the Hypothesized Positive
Effect of Situational Constraints on Frustration

Study

Setting and
Design

Number
of Effect
Sizes

Peterset al. (1980)

FieldStudy

971

O%onnor et al.
(19841
OConnor et al.
(19821
Peters et al. (19823

Field Study

1450

Classroom Survey

237

Lab Experiment

120

Peters et al. (1980)

Lab Study

70

Parasuraman and
Alutto(1984)
Spector et, al.
(1988)

Field Study

217

Field Study

181

Frustration
Measure
Peters et al.
3 item Scale
Peters et al.
3 item Scale
Peters et al.
3 item Scafe
Peters et al.
3 item Scale
Peters et al.
3 item Scale
4 item Scale
Peters et al.
3 item Scale

Mean
Effect
Size
.42
.36
.49
.30
.25
.41
.51

Mean effect size across studies = .39; Variance of observed effed sizes across studies: u2 = .003;
Variance of the sampling error: W,2 = .OOf; 95% Credibility interval: .30 to .48; Test for homogeneity of Effect Sizes: X2 (6, N = 32461 = 13.52, p < .05; File drawer Estimate: N = approxima~iy
61 studies of ns findings fr = .OO)needed to return the aggregated p level across studies to .05.

158

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2, 1993

TABLE 7
Estimates of Effect Size among Published Studies for the Hypothesized Positive
Effect of Situational Constraints on Turnover

Study
Peters

Number
of Effect
Sizes

Field Study

971

Intentions

.28

Field Study

1450

Actual

.ll

Setting
and Design
et al. (1988)

OConnor

et al.

Parasuraman
Spector

18 Months

Mean
Effect
Size

After Study

(1984)
AIutto

Turnover
Measure

and

Field Study

217

(1984)
et al.

Actual

1 year

.02

After Study
Field Study

181

Intentions

.57

(1988)
Jamal

(1984)

Field Study

214

Intentions

.24

Jamal

(1990)

Field Study

215

Intentions

.38

Mean effect size across studies = .21; Variance of observed effect sizes across studies: crz = ,017;
Variance of the sampling error: cre
2 = .002; 95% Credibility interval: - .03 to .45; Test for homogeneity of Effect Sizes: Xz (5, N = 3248) = .97, p < .95; File drawer Estimate: N = approximately 25
studies of ns findings (r = .OO) needed to return the aggregated p level across studies to .05.

ris, & Orr 1986). Thus, a search for moderators does not appear to be
necessary.
However, it should be noted that the credibility interval (-.03 to .45) includes a zero value. This is quite likely due to the fact that two of the studies
examined in the meta-analysis, OConnor, Peters, Pooyan, Weekly, Frank, and
Erenkrantz (1984) and Parasuraman and Alutto (1984) measured actual turnover 12 months and 18 months, respectively, after collection of constraint data.
Four other studies which examined the hypothesized constraint-turnover
relationship, Peters, et al. (19881, Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (19881, Jamal (1984), and
Jamal (1990), employed measures of intent to leave as indicators of turnover.
The difference between intent to leave by an employee and the actual subsequent behavior may account for the lack of consistent findings. Thus, analysis
was conducted on the data examining the moderating influence of turnover
measurement technique on the constraint-turnover
relationship (see Table 8).

TABLE 8
Summary of Moderator Analysis of the
Constraint-Turnover Relationship
Turnover Measure
Intended

Actual

P = .37

i = .07

a,2 = .007

up = .002

u,2 = .002

a,2 = .OOl

159

ALTERNATIVECONCEPTUALIZATIONS

The results of the moderator analysis show that the mean correlations between situational constraints and turnover are quite different in the two subgroups. Additionally, the observed variance in the subgroups is less than the
observed variance in effect sizes. Thus, it can be concluded that constraints
appear to be more highly correlated with intentions to leave than with actual
turnover. This is quite likely due to the large number of influences on an
employees decision to terminate his/her employment relationship (i.e., opportunity for alternative employment; cf. Hulin, Rosnowski, & Hachiya 1985).
The estimates of effect size among published studies for the hypothesized
negative effect of situational constraints on organizational commitment are
found in Table 9. The obtained mean effect size across studies was found to be
-.22. The 95% credibility interval, which includes the values of -.37 to -.07
suggests that one would expect to find a non-zero constraint-organizational
commitment relationship given similar conditions to those in the reviewed
studies.
The test for homogeneity of effect sizes (x2 (4, N = 1098) - 28.47, p < .lO)
indicates that observations in this sample of effect sizes may not be drawn from
the same population. Additionally, sampling error explains only 14% of the
observed variance in effect sizes. However, given the small number of studies
which examined the constraint-commitment
relationship, moderator analysis
is not beneficial since any conclusions drawn would be tenuous at best.
Summa/y of Results. The pattern of observed relationships between variables
constituting the nomological network which help define constraints are summarized in Figure 1. The nomological network refers to a network of relation-

TABLE 9
Estimates of Effect Size among Published Studies for the Hypothesized Negative
Effect of Situational Constraints on Organizational Commitment

Study
OConnor et al.
(1982)
Parasuraman and
Hansen (1987)
Parasuraman and
Alutto (1984)
Jamal (1984)

Setting
and Design
Classroom
survey
Field Study

Number
of Effect
Sizes

237

215

Measurement
Method
Porter et al.
Scale
Mowday et al.

Mean
Effect
Size
-.37
-.14

Scale

Field Study

217

Field Study

214

Alutto et al.
Scale
Mowday et al.

-.17
-.17

Scale

Jamal (1990)

Field Study

215

Mowday et al.

-.24

Scale

Mean effect size across studies = -.22; Varianceof observedeffectsizes acrossstudies:02 = .007;
Varianceof the samplingerror: u,2= ,001;95% Credibilityinterval:- .37 to - .07; Test for homogeneity of Effect Sizes:X2 (4, N = 1098) = 28.47, p < .Ol;File drawerEstimate:N = approximately
13 studies of ns findings (r = .OO)needed to return the aggregatedp level across studiesto .05.

160

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

-08

Situational \
Constraints

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

-28

(3)

2,1!393

(3)

39 (7)
16 (3)

..\
\

/r-l
Commitment

33 (3)

Figure 1. Network of Observed Relationships among Scores on Measures of Constraints

and Outcome Variables.

Note: Decimal points are omitted. The number of study effect sizes used to compute
average correlations between measures appear in parentheses.

ships among measures of the constructs that is used to infer the meaning of the
measures used to represent the constructs. To the extent that the pattern of
relationships observed among these measures is consistent with the hypothesized relationships as articulated by a theory or model, greater confidence is
warranted in the theory, concepts, and/or measures. However, if the relationships fail to conform to an expected pattern, the validity of the theory, concepts, and/or measures is suspect.
The correlation coefficients between constraints and outcome variables in
Figure 1 represent the mean effect size estimates reported in the tables. In
addition, correlation coefficients between outcome variables in the figure represent estimates of mean relationships between the outcome variables as reported in the 15 original studies reviewed. Some caution is required in interpreting the displayed relationships, as they are based on a small number of
observed coefficients, not corrected for measurement
error. Just the same,
several observations are worth expanded discussion with respect to their im-

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

161

plications for future research involving current conceptualizations

of constraints.
The small effect of -.14 averaged across these 15 studies and the small
filedrawer estimate lead us to conclude that the constraint-performance
relationship has yet to be convincingly established. This conclusion agrees with
that of Peters et al. (1985) who used a traditional review methodology on a
smaller number of studies. Thus, the status of the constraint-performance
hypothesis hasnt changed despite the fact that twice as many studies are
included in this analysis as were in the Peters et al. review. The small magnitude of this relationship is particularly striking, given that, without exception,
each correlation between constraints and performance was cross-sectional and
in some instances ratings of constraints and performance came from the same
source (supervisor). Given the variety of potential artifacts that might inflate
estimates of concurrent validity vis-a-vis estimates of predictive validity in
those instance where one source provides ratings for both constraints and
performance (e.g., desire for consistency), the mean effect size observed in the
literature could be interpreted as an upper-bound estimate of the relationship.
The pattern of results across studies involving self-reports of both constraints and outcomes stands in stark contrast to the pattern observed for
relationships between variables that are based on greater method- and sourceindependence. That is, affective outcomes such as satisfaction and frustration,
which employ similar questionnaire-based
measurement methods and rely on
a single source for responses, demonstrate a consistent relationship to constraint scores whereas data involving constraints and outcomes that are measured through different measures and by different sources, tend to be unrelated. This conclusion is also replicated at the individual study level; field
research that has investigated
the relationship between situational constraints and performance measures that were defined through multiple operations indicates that constraint scores correlate more highly with performance
measures derived through methods more similar to those used to represent
constraints. For example, Steel and Mento (1986) found that supervisory ratings of situational constraints correlated -.36 with supervisory ratings of
performance and - .31 with subordinate self-appraisals whereas constraints
were largely unrelated to objective indices of subordinate performance. A
second study using multiple measures of performance conducted by Steel,
Mento, and Hendrix (1987) largely replicated the pattern of relationships between constraints and multiple measures of performance found by Steel and
Mento (1986).
No conclusion regarding the cause-effect relationship of constraints and putative outcomes is tenable on the basis of these studies as the exclusive use of
single panel designs (i.e., cross-sectional or concurrent measurement of both
constraints and outcomes) confuses inferences regarding the cause-effect relationship between constraint and outcome measures. With the exception of
findings based on laboratory data, the observed covariation between constraints and outcomes in the field studies conducted to date could be attributable to the desire of respondents (subordinates or supervisors) to keep their

162

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

WLUME

3, NUMBER

2. 1993

constraint and affective self-reports consistent (cf. Salancik & Pfeffer 1977).
Similar logic applies to those instances that solicit performance and constraint
ratings from supervisors. Too few studies have been conducted to derive accurate estimates of the extent to which these relationships are inflated.
The weak evidence of support for the hypothesized relationship between
constraints and performance prompted a reformulation of the framework by
Peters et al. (1985). Peters et al. (1985; Peters & OConnor 1988) proposed four
boundary conditions (Fromkin & Streufert 1976; Lynch 1982) in the form of
additional assumptions that must be present in order for constraints to correlate with performance.
First, the reformulation
assumes that persons are
assigned tasks that require the use of their abilities and motivation (p. 114). If
performance standards are not sufficiently demanding and if performance
standards are not maintained by management, then the impact of low to moderate levels of constraints should have little impact on performance. Second, it
is assumed that organizations value individual performance such that slippage in performance standards is kept to a minimum. Third, the model assumes that individuals cannot easily invoke self-handicapping
explanations
as an excuse for poor performance. That is, the impact of constraints on performance is not compensated for by a supervisor who evaluates individual performance. If supervisors were to adjust performance ratings based on worker
accounts of constraints responsible for poor performance, then essentially, the
impact of constraints on performance would be removed. Finally, given the first
three assumptions are met, the reformulated framework also requires that
resources vary in their availability across individuals. Should resources be
so plentiful that shortage is improbable, then situational obstacles to effective performance can no longer offer a plausible account for performance differences.
In tandem, these conditions characterize what Peters et al. (1985) refer to as
a high performance tension situation in which: (a) people must marshal1
their abilities and motivation in order to succeed, (b) high standards of performance are maintained by management,
(cl excuse-making
for poor performance is an ineffective strategy for altering performance scores, and (d) resource availability is variable across individuals. Performance tension is a
complex notion; it requires that all four conditions described above are present
in a situation. Thus, each assumption is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for the prediction of performance scores from situational constraints
scores.
Limitation of the circumstances in which a relationship is expected to occur
is one response to a series of empirical disconfirmations.
Additional assumptions can reduce confidence in prior nonsupportive research findings and simultaneously expand the domain of questions remaining to be answered. It
might in this way, contribute to the viability of a conceptual framework and
maintain interest in a research program. On the other hand, the failure to
accumulate empirical support for the core propositions of the framework could
also suggest the need for examining constraints through different conceptual

163

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

frames. The aim of this section is to stimulate

ceptualizing and measuring constraints.

alternative

approaches

to con-

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO CONCEPTUALIZING

SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Several articles have appeared recently to stimulate novel approaches to familiar research problems (Bobko 1985; Brinberg & McGrath 1985; Campbell,
Daft, &, Hulin 1982; Wicker 1985). In each instance, these authors describe one
or more different heuristics, including for example, the use of metaphors, the
challenging of assumptions, the consideration of different contexts and levels
of aggregation, the casting of stable entities into a dynamic process, and more
careful scrutiny of conceptual frameworks in order to expand the scope of
empirical inquiry. Several strategies can be applied to examine concepts, expand their conceptual frameworks, and assess their suitability to different
contexts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, concepts that explain a larger set
of phenomena across a variety of contexts and that retain their distinctive
attributes at higher levels of abstraction are possible (Osigweh 1989). Below,
we describe alternative ways of thinking about and measuring constraints that
may contribute to that aim.
The most systematic and frequently studied conceptualization of situational
constraints is reflected in the work of Peters and OConnor (1980). Our reading
of this literature identified three necessary attributes that distinguish situational constraints from other situational factors. Incorporated into a single
statement, the three attributes define situational constraints as follows:
Situational constraints are aspects of the immediate work situation, beyond
the immediate control of persons, and that prevent people from fully utilizing their relevant abilities and motivation.
First, the content domain of constraints is limited to those conditions relevant to the immediate work situation. Situational factors that are removed
from the immediate work situation, such as those located at the organizational
level, are considered outside the taxonomic scope of the concept as currently
defined (Peters et al. 1985). Second, constraints are not the products of persons,
but rather reflect events that are uncontrollable
and impersonal (Peters &
OConnor 1980). This attribute avoids the problem associated with the concept
of accident in that personal responsibility is excluded as a cause of constraints. Third, constraints negatively affect a limited number of outcomes,
primarily individual affect, motivation, and performance (Peters et al. 1985).
As a result, the concept is precise at a specific level, pertains to a narrow
behavior domain, and its constituent entities are distinct. According to Osigwebs (1989) classification of scientific concepts, constraints can be described as

164

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3, NUMBER

2. 1993

high with respect to connotation (depth of description) and low with respect to
extension (breadth of coverage).
Concept attributes, such as those noted above, serve an essential function
with respect to scientific concepts by delineating the characteristics necessary
for representing the construct. However, our review of the published literature
on constraints indicates that several distinguishing attributes of the concept
have not been investigated, but rather have been assumed to be true. For
example, although defined as uncontrollable, there has been no direct test of
constraint controllability
in field settings, nor any data bearing on whether
responses differ when workers are instructed to consider only the status of
uncontrollable resources versus when they are not provided specific instructions to do so. If constraints are somewhat controllable, then the small effect of
constraints on performance comes as no surprise. Also, the inductive method
used to construct the situational constraints taxonomy coupled with the objective of describing aspects of the immediate work situation appears to have
resulted in a regretfully narrow application of a concept that may generalize to
other levels of aggregation and a greater variety of contexts.
Confusion about the scientific status of the constraint concept, as exemplified by the equivocal meta-analysis findings, is in part due to the absence of
information about these concept attributes. The asking of higher order questions such as those involving causal relations among variables presupposes
satisfactory answers to more basic questions about the phenomena and concepts involved. As a simple example, it seems reasonable that a good representation of concept X needs to be established in a setting before proceeding to
estimate the causal relationship between X and Y. Dillon (1984) notes that the
logic of question sequences has not received much systematic study and that
failure to do so makes some research questions posed by scientists premature
relative to the current status of answers to lower level questions. Quite simply,
the truth value of tests of higher order hypotheses must be buttressed by
supporting tests of subordinate hypotheses. One recommendation
we offer
from the above discussion is that research on constraints needs to proceed
more carefully and systematically with respect to testing fundamental attributes of the concept, perhaps following Dillons scheme for the classification of
research questions. Research attempting to answer higher order questions
needs to include information about more basic questions in order to support
otherwise tenuous answers to higher order research questions.

Generalizing

Across Levels of Aggregation

and Context

Alternatives to the Peters and OConnor (1980) framework for conceptualizing and researching constraints have begun to emerge. For example, in contrast to the inductive method used by Peters and OConnor in order to identify
constraints, Schoorman and Schneider and their associates (1988a; Moeller,
Schneider, Schoorman, & Berney 1988) described a deductive method of identi-

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

165

fying work facilitators and inhibitors on the basis of Katz and Kahns (1978)
open systems model. This procedure entails identifying the functions performed by various organizational
subsystems (e.g., supportive, maintenance,
production, etc.) in the service of organizational
goals and the requisite resources available for the subsystem to perform adequately. The approach is
also novel in that it applies the concept of facilitators/inhibitor
at a higher level
of aggregation-the
work unit as opposed to the individual. Schoorman and
Schneider (1988b) note that the appropriateness of one approach or the other
to study constraints might depend on the degree of interdependence between
work group members in a particular work setting. When workplace technology
encourages interdependent
and interactive effort as opposed to independent
and individual effort, the work group might be a preferable unit of analysis.
The work of Schoorman and Schneider (1988a) is encouraging in that it suggests further generalization
of the facilitation/inhibition
concept to higher
levels of aggregation might be feasible.
The conceptualization
of constraints as aspects of the immediate work environment does not necessarily obviate extension of the concept to other behavioral contexts. However, like generalization to a higher level of aggregation,
generalization to a broader context requires that the context, or substantive
system (Brinberg & McGrath 1985), to which the concept is generalized maintains an essential similarity to the original context. The original context used
as the basis for developing the Peters and OConnor (1980) framework was the
work environment of the respondents who generated data for taxonomic purposes. These respondents represented a cross-section of employees engaged in
different work located in a variety of settings, some of whom may have performed their job functions in multiple work settings. This would seem particularly likely with respect to responses from managers. Thus, the attribute
immediate work environment does not necessarily proscribe application of
the constraint concept to other behavioral contexts that are virtually isomorphic in function. Isomorphism of behavioral function refers to similarity of
purpose with respect to behavior in a setting. One common aspect of the diverse respondents described above is that they were describing constraints
that impeded the effectiveness of behavior directed toward some tangible
achievement (performance, mastery, pay). Isomorphism of behavioral function
could serve as a substantive system boundary for purposes of identifying instances where the constraint concept might appropriately apply. Application of
this notion suggests numerous settings are characterized by their emphasis on
instrumental behavior including traditional vocational settings, education,
and sports. The recent work of Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Salas (1992) illustrates one application of constraints in the context of a proofreading skills
training program.
Expansion of the context to which constraints may reasonably apply has
several advantages. First, extension of a concept to multiple contexts allows for
the possibility that the concept may explain a greater variety of phenomena,
thereby augmenting its specific scope. Second, the extension of the concept to

166

HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2.1993

more contexts allows for more opportunities to test the concept and its attendant theoretical framework. Ellsworth (1977, p. 605) notes that all settings
have unfavorable quirks and characteristic sources of error and that to avoid
these problems, research might need to be pursued in alternative contexts. As
Peters et al. (1985) noted, field research on situational constraints has consistently reported low levels of constraining factors, rarely exceeding the scale
midpoint. This restriction in the range of constraint levels in traditional vocational contexts suggests a need to test the effects of constraints in settings that
include more elevated levels of constraints. Future research on constraints
should follow Ellsworths prescription that the choice of setting for the test of
the hypothesis if X, then Y is determined by X. Settings should be chosen in
such a way as to maximize the likelihood of finding a good representation of
constraints.
Finally, constraints can be construed as both causes and effects. Brown and
Mitchell (1991) investigated employee perceptions of performance obstacles
during a conversion from a batch to a just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing system.
Their findings indicated that the conversion to a JIT system reduced some
obstacles (material delivery, resource availability, information quality) and
magnified others (training, computer use, scheduling, reliance on coworkers).
More studies that construe constraints as dependent variables are needed in
order to better understand how tractable different constraints might be to
different types of interventions.

Modeling of Constraint

Relationships

Another way of advancing alternative conceptualizations

of constraints is to
focus on modeling of the constraint-motivation/performance
relationship. Currently constraints are thought to have a negative, linear relationship with
motivation and performance. Perhaps when faced with a work situation characterized by a moderate level of constraint, individuals experience increased
physiological arousal and attention to the task that facilitates performance.
On the other hand, when constraints are severe, individual arousal becomes
debilitating in that only obvious remedies to the constraining circumstances
are considered and the individual becomes preoccupied with reducing anxiety.
Such a model of the constraint-motivation/performance
relationship is consistent with the Yerkes-Dodson law which states that there is a curvilinear relationship between arousal and performance. Further extension of the YerkesDodson law to the constraint-motivation/performance
relationship
would
include the moderating influence of task complexity. This complicates matters
further in that each task is characterized by its own optimal level of constraint
induced arousal, depending on its complexity. Moreover, for highly complex
tasks, the relationship
between constraints
and motivation/performance
might deviate altogether from the inverted-U-shaped
function in that a negative, linear function might better characterize the relationship. This suggests
that the relationship between constraints and motivation/performance
might

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

167

be more contingent on task or activity factors than previously considered.

Indirect empirical support for more complex modeling of the constraintmotivation/performance
relationship comes from the literature on frustration
(reviewed by Spector 19781, goal setting (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham 19811,
and work stress (McGrath 1976). In fact, several studies have found that the
relative scarcity of resources (e.g., time), that would ordinarily be characterized as constraining, actually serve to facilitate the rate of work (Andrews &
Farris, 1972) and level of performance (Peters et al. 1984). No simple model of
constraints seems capable of accounting for these diverse patterns. Moreover,
as discussed by Schoorman and Schneider (1988131, a number of logical difficulties result from simplifying
assumptions
such as conceptualizing
constraints and facilitators as two independent dimensions, or conversely, as being extremes along a single continuum.
To further underscore the significance of task characteristics for the modeling of constraint effects on outcomes, consider the concept time-span of discretion (TSD) introduced by Jaques (1964). TSD is defined as the longest period
which can elapse before substandard performance is recognized as such. In
simpler terms, it is the time before a persons sins catch up with him (McCormick 1979, p. 308). For some jobs, such as those involving production, the TSD
is very short, perhaps a couple of hours. For other jobs, the TSD can extend to a
period of weeks, months, or years, as in the case of management and executive
positions. If the TSD for job performance extends beyond the measurement
window of gathering constraint and performance data, the self-reports of constraints and the supervisory ratings of performance may not be related. Some
individuals who report severe levels of constraints might not find these situational obstacles reflected in their performance ratings or accomplishment record because the TSD may extend beyond the period covered by the latest
performance review. Also, jobs with a long TSD permit an individual time to
respond, perhaps effectively, to performance obstacles before the decline in
performance comes to the attention of a supervisor. The idea that constraints
may be characterized by different TSDs suggests careful job analysis must lie
at the basis of identifying relevant dimensions along which constraints might
vary. The current dimensions used to represent the level of constraints (ratings
of availability, quantity, and quality summed across resources) may not be the
most suitable for representing potential disruption or interference with the
translation of abilities and motivation into effective performance. The TSD
concept has potential implications for the dimensionality of constraints and
the dynamic modeling of constraint-outcome
relationships.
Moreover, the current focus on constraint chronicity is reminiscent of the
exclusive focus on chronic work stressors that characterized decades of research on work stress (Eden 1982). Perhaps, as persuasively argued by Bobko
(19851, more attention needs to be directed at modeling dynamic events, nonlinear relationships,
and challenging bipolar assumptions. The constraints
that have the greatest impact on performance may well be those that are
variable as opposed to those that are constant since variability of resource
availability and quality may be more disruptive of work continuity. Also, this

168

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3, NUMBER

2, 1993

variability could contribute to perceptions of instability and uncontrollability

in the work environment,
potentially increasing strain. Should this be the
case, then representing the severity of constraints by the average rating on a
semantic differential scale fails to capture this variability and hence, is less
able to predict important outcomes. The critical incident technique (CIT) was
used fruitfully to develop the prevailing taxonomy of situational constraints.
Bobko describes one such application of the CIT to measuring the underlying
variation of a focal construct.
The work of Eden (1982) on critical job events (CJE), acute stress, and strain
offers yet another way of modeling the debilitating effects of disruptive events.
CJE are defined by Eden as time-bounded peak performance demand made on
the individual as an integral part of [the] job (p. 314). Examples include
firefighters mobilized for extinguishing a fire, air crews during flight emergencies, and students sitting for exams. In each case, the event described is transient, may recur intermittently, and may conform to a cyclical pattern. Representation of CJE and measurement
of associated outcomes may be more
idiographic and setting specific than more nomothetic and generalizable measurement strategies (e.g., questionnaires). Moreover, it could also be that measures of chronic constraints, or steady state measures, are influenced to some
extent by discrete events. A series of CJE co-occuring with constraining circumstances and accompanied with occasional respites, might be perceived as
stemming from a chronic shortage of necessary resources. The implication as
drawn by Eden is clear: measures of both chronic and acute situational conditions may augment the prediction equation.
Individual

Differences and Constraints

The current conceptualization

of constraints would seem to ascribe a minimal role to individual differences in the reporting of constraint severity. One of
the desirable features of a concept with descriptive depth is that it can be
defined carefully and in sufficient detail to mitigate against perceptual differences attributable to persons. Yet, Peters et al. (1985) were careful to point out
that the systematic influence of factors other than the physical work environment on persons ratings of constraints cannot be ruled out. The systematic
influence of one such factor was illustrated in a study by Pooyan, OConnor,
Peters, Quick, Jones, and Kulisch (1982). They found substantive differences in
subordinate/supervisor
perceptions of situational constraints among a sample
of bank employees. Subordinates ratings of constraint severity were consistently higher than supervisors ratings across twelve constraint dimensions;
statistically significant differences were found between seven of the twelve
pairs of means. Also, interrater reliabilities of supervisor/subordinate
ratings
never exceeded .27. These differences in constraint levels attributable to position differences of respondents suggest that perception-based measures of constraints might be susceptible to a host of personal and situational influences.
Inclusion of person sources of variance in the constraint-motivation/performance relationship makes the modeling of the putative effects of constraints
more involved but it also expands the scope of inquiry.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

169

Although numerous individual difference variables might influence perceptions of and responses to constraining circumstances, we will briefly discuss
one in order to illustrate their potential relevance for perception-based
measures of situations. Drawing on Gibsons (1979) notion of affordances,
Dworkin and Goldfinger (1985) described processing biases in the cognitive
appraisal of situations. Affordances refer to characteristics of the environment
that facilitate particular behaviors or aims specific to an organism. For example, some surfaces afford support for resting objects; because humans possess
sight, lighting affords us the ability to avoid collision with other objects; and
some tools afford manipulation. Dworkin and Goldfinger define processing bias
as inclinations or tendencies for individuals to differ in the extent to which
they are oriented toward recognizing the availability of different affordances.
Individuals placed in a situation that provides affordances consistent with
their own processing bias are more apt to know what to look for, how to conduct
a perceptual search effectively, and are able to discriminate quickly, efficiently, and accurately relevant objects from irrelevant ones (p. 484). Thus,
some individuals may be more capable of identifying a greater variety of uses
for an affordance if they possess traits that orient them toward that affordance.
For example, Type A individuals, who are sensitive to time constraints, could
be expected to make greater use of available time when working under time
pressure than Type B individuals. Type A individuals would be predicted to
perceive time constraints to be more severe than Type B individuals, but because they are oriented to maximizing this affordance, they would also achieve
more than Type Bs. Such a perception-response
pattern could produce a positive correlation between perceived time constraints and job performance. Further evidence for the influence of individual differences on perceptions of situations comes from work on perceptions of environmental uncertainty. Downey,
Hellriegel, and Slocum (1977) found that cognitive process variables (cognitive
complexity, anomie, and independence of judgment) were more strongly related to perceived environmental
uncertainty than were perceived environmental characteristics (static-dynamic, simple-complex).
Systemic Validity of the Constraint Concept
The recent conceptualization
of stress as involving perceptions of uncertainty involving desired outcomes stemming from encounters with opportunities,
constraints, and demands (Beehr & Bhagat 1985; Schuler 1980) suggests some
commensurability between the situational constraints framework and theories
of work stress. As used here, commensurability
refers to the extent to which
elements and patterns of relationships constituting one theoretical framework
can be compared to another using similar language, methods, problem scope,
and explanations. Commensurability
is a prerequisite for systemic validity
(Zaltman, Pinson, & Angelmar 1973). Systemic validity represents the degree
to which a concept facilitates integration of different theoretical systems. Sirgy
(1988) describes seven different strategies that can be used to construct unified
theories from nominally disparate conceptual domains. Like concept extension, theory integration is desirable in that it, too, has the potential to ex-

170

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2, 1993

plain a broader array of phenomena, may do so more parsimoniously,

and
furthers the aim of scientific unity. Also, Campbell et al. (1982) and others have
noted that in almost every instance, the theory or knowledge for generating
resolutions to significant problems faced by the subdiscipline of industrialorganizational psychology have been borrowed or transported from other allied
disciplines.
Stress researchers have been at the vanguard of the person-situation
debate. Perhaps more than any other body of research on organizational phenomena, the stress literature reflects a preoccupation
with models of personenvironment interaction. Given the need to identify environmental sources of
stress in order to compliment work on the personal side, it is not surprising
that the earliest systematic attempt to include situational constraints as a
causal variable came from this body of literature (see above). Theorizing about
the processes involved in individual perception of and response to situational
conditions might be advanced by embedding constraints in a process model of
stress such as that described by Lazarus and colleagues (1981; Lazarus &
Launier 1978).

CONCLUSION
Our knowledge about situational constraints as a concept, its potential influence on behavior, and its applicability to different contexts remains limited
because systematic effort at understanding
constraints as a concept, as opposed to treatment as an artifact for which control might suffice, has occurred
only recently. Similar ways of thinking about extraneous sources of variance
in criterion measures contributed to the relative lack of attention given to the
dynamic nature of criteria (Austin & Villanova 1992). However, once a phenomenon is reliably demonstrated, the need for a conceptual framework to explain
its occurrence becomes more urgent. Just the same, original conceptualizations are frequently incomplete or erroneous and may require alternative conceptual schemes that hold the potential for more frequent comirmatory evidence than an existing framework. We hope that the foregoing discussion
stimulates further thought about constraints and promotes research that explores the implications of different conceptual schemes for representing constraints and their putative effects on work outcomes.

STUDIES

APPENDIX
INCLUDED IN THE META-ANALYSIS

Jamal, M. 1984. Job Stress and Job Performance Controversy: An Empirical Assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33: 1, 21.
-.
1990. Relationship of Job Stress and Type-A Behavior to Employees Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment,
Psychosomatic
Turnover Motivation. Human Relations 43: 727-738.

Health

Problems,

and

171

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

OConnor, E. J., L. H. Peters, A. Pooyan, J. Weekly, B. Frank, and B. Erenkrantz. 1984.

Situational Constraint on Performance, Affective Reactions, and Turnover: A
Field Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 663-672.
OConnor, E. J., L. H. Peters, C. J. Rudolph, and A. Pooyan. 1982. Situational Constraints and Employee Affective Reactions: A Field Replication. Group and Organization
Studies 7: 418-428.
Olson, D. M. and W. C. Borman. 1989. More Evidence on Relationships between the
Work Environment and Job Performance. Human Performance 2: 113-130.
Parasuraman, S. and J. A. Alutto. 1984. Sources and Outcomes of Stress in Organizational Settings: Toward the Development of a Structural Model. Academy of
Management
Journal 27: 330-350.
Parasuraman, S. and D. Hansen. 1987. Coping with Work Stressors in Nursing: Effects
of Adaptive versus Maladaptive Strategies. Work and Occupations
14: 88-105.
Peters, L. H., M. B. Chassie, H. R. Lindholm, E. J. OConnor, and C. R. Kline. 1982. The
Joint Influence of Situational Constraint and Goalsetting on Performance and
Affective Outcomes. Journal of Management
8: 7-20.
Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, J. R. Eulberg, and T. W. Watson. 1988. An Examination of
Situational Constraints in Air Force Work Settings. Human Performance 1: 133144.
Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, and C. J. Rudolph. 1980. The Behavioral and Affective
Consequences of Performance-Relevant
Situational Variables. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 25: 79-96.
Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, A. Pooyan, and J. C. Quick. 1984. The Relationship
between Time Pressure and Performance: A Field Test of Parkinsons Law. Journal of Occupational
Behavior 5: 293-299.
Phillips, J. S., and S. M. Freedman. 1984. Situational Performance Constraints and
Task Characteristics: Their Relationship to Motivation and Satisfaction. Journal of Management
10: 321-331.
Spector, P. E., D. J. Dwyer, and S. M. Jex. 1988. Relation of Job Stressors to Affective,
Health, and Performance Outcomes: A Comparison of Multiple Data Sources.
Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 11-19.
Steel, R. P., and A. J. Mento. 1986. Impact of Situational Constraints on Subjective and
Objective Criteria of Managerial Performance. Organizational
Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 37: 254-265.
Steel, R. P., A. J. Mento, and W. H. Hendrix. 1987. Constraining Forces and the Work
Performance of Finance Company Cashiers. Journal of Management
13: 473482.

REFERENCES
Andrews, F. M. and G. F. Farris. 1972. Time Pressure and Performance of Scientists
and Engineers: A Five-year Panel Study. Organizational
Behavior and Human
Performance 8: 185-200.
Austin, J. T. and P. Villanova. 1992. The Criterion Problem: 1917-1992. Journal of
Applied Psychology 77: 836-874.
Beehr, T. A. and R. S. Bhagat. 1985. Introduction to Human Stress and Cognition in
Organizations. Pp. 3-19 in Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations,
edited by T. A. Beehr and R. S. Bhagat. New York: Wiley.

172

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2, 1993

Bobko, P. 1985. Removing Assumptions of Bipolarity: Towards Variation and Circularity. Academy of Management Review 10: 99-108.
Brinberg, D. and J. E. McGrath. 1985. Validity and the Research Process. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Brown, K. A. and T. R. Mitchell. 1991. A Comparison of Just-in-time and Batch Manufacturing: The Role of Performance Obstacles.Acao!emy of Management Journal
34: 906-917.
Campbell, J. P., R. L. Daft, and C. L. Hulin. 1982. What to Study: Generating and
Developing Research Questions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick. 1970. Managerial
Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Campbell, J. P. and R. D. Pritchard. 1976. Motivation Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Pp. 63-130 in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Dillon, J. T. 1984. The Classification of Research Questions. Review of Educational
Research 54: 327-361.
Downey, H. K., D. Hellreigel, and J. W. Slocum. 1977. Individual Characteristics as
Sources of Uncertainty Variability. Human Relations 30: 161-174.
Dworkin, R. H. and S. H. Goldfinger. 1985. Processing Bias: Individual Differences in
the Cognition of Situations. Journal of Personality 53: 480-501.
Eden, D. 1982. Critical Job Events, Acute Stress, and Strain: A Multiple Interrupted
Time Series. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30: 312-329.
Ellsworth, P. C. 1977. From Abstract Ideas to Concrete Instances: Some Guidelines for
Choosing Natural Research Settings.American
Psychologist 32: 604-615.
Fromkin, H. L. and S. Streufert. 1976. Laboratory Experimentation. Pp. 415-465 in
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilbreth, F. B. 1909. Bricklaying System. Chicago: Myron C. Clark.
Hulin, C. L., M. Rosnowski, and D. Hachiya. 1985. Alternative Opportunities and
Withdrawal Decisions: Empirical and Theoretical Discrepancies and an Integration. Psychological Bulletin 97: 233-250.
Hunter, J. E. and F. L. Schmidt. 1990. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and
Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., F. L. Schmidt, and G. B. Jackson. 1982. Meta-anulysis: Cumulating
Research Findings Across Studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ivancevich, J. M., M. T. Matteson, S. M. Freedman, and J. S. Phillips. 1990. Worksite
Stress Management Interventions. American Psychologist 45: 252-261.
Jamal, M. 1984. Job Stress and Job Performance Controversy: An Empirical Assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33: 1-21.
1990. Relationship of Job Stress and Type-A Behavior to Employees Job Satis-.
Psychosomatic
Health Problems, and
faction, Organizational
Commitment,
Turnover Motivation. Human Relations 43: 727-738.
Jaques, E. 1964. Time-span Handbook. London: Heineman Educational Books.
Kahn, R. L. and R. P. Quinn. 1970. Role Stress: A Framework for Analysis. In Occupational Mental Health, edited by A. McLean. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Q umn, J. D. Snoek, and R. A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

173

Katz, D. and R. L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations

(2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S. 1981. The Stress and Coping Paradigm. Pp. 174-214 in Models for
Clinical Psychopathology,
edited by C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman, and
P. Maxim. New York: Spectrum.
Lazarus, R. S. and R. Launier. 1978. Stress-related Transactions between Person and
Environment. Pp. 287-327 in Perspectives in interactional
psychology, edited by
L. Pervin and M. Lewis. New York: Plenum.
Locke, E. A., K. N. Shaw, L. M. Saari, and G. P. Latham. 1981. Goal-setting and Task
Performance: 1969-1980. Psychological
Bulletin 90: 125-152.
Lynch, J. G. 1982. On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer Research.
Journal of Consumer Research 9: 225-239.
Mathieu, J. E., S. I. Tannenbaum, and E. Salas. 1992. Influences of Individual and
Situational Characteristics on Measures of Training Effectiveness. Academy of
Management
Journal 35: 828-847.
McCormick, E. J. 1979. Job Analysis.
New York: Amacom.
McGrath, J. E. 1976. Stress and Behavior in Organizations. In Handbook of Zndustrial/Organizational
Psychology,
edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Moeller, A., B. Schneider, F. D. Schoorman, and E. Berney. 1988. Development of the
Work Effectiveness,
Work-Facilitation Diagnostic. Pp. 79-104 in Facilitating
edited by F. D. Schoorman and B. Schneider. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
OConnor, E. J., L. H. Peters, A. Pooyan, J. Weekly, B. Frank, and B. Erenkrantz. 1984.
Situational Constraint on Performance, Affective Reactions, and Turnover: A
Field Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 663-672.
OConnor, E. J., L. H. Peters, C. J. Rudolf, and A. Pooyan. 1982. Situational Constraints
and Employee Affective Reactions: A Field Replication. Group and Organization
Studies 7: 418-428.
Olson, D. M. and W. C. Borman. 1989. More Evidence on Relationships between the
Work Environment and Job Performance. Human Performance 2: 113-130.
Osigweh, C. A. B. 1989. Concept Fallibility in Organizational Science. Academy of
Management
Review 14: 579-594.
Parasuraman, S. and J. A. Alutto. 1984. Sources and Outcomes of Stress in Organizational Settings: Toward the Development of a Structural Model. Academy of
Management
Journal 27: 330-350.
Parasuraman, S. and D. Hansen. 1987. Coping with Work Stressors in Nursing: Effects
of Adaptive versus Maladaptive Strategies. Work and Occupations
14: 88-105.
Pearlman, K., F. L. Schmidt, and J. E. Hunter. 1980. Validity Generalization Results
for Tests Used to Predict Job Proficiency and Training Success in Clerical Occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 373-406.
Peters, L. H., M. B. Chassie, H. R. Lindholm, E. J. OConnor, and C. R. Kline. 1982. The
Joint Influence of Situational Constraint and Goalsetting on Performance and
Affective Outcomes. Journal of Management
8: 7-20.
Peters, L. H., C. D. Fisher, and E. J. OConnor. 1982. The Moderating Effect of Situational Control of Performance Variance on the Relationship between Individual
Differences and Performance. Personnel Psychology 35: 609-621.
Peters, L. H. and E. J. OConnor. 1980. Situational Constraints and Work Outcomes:
The Influences of a Frequently Overlooked Construct. Academy of Management
Review 5: 391-397.

174

HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

3. NUMBER

2,1993

Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, and J. R. Eulberg. 1985. Situational Constraints: Sources,

Consequences and Future Considerations. Pp. 79-l 13 in Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management,
edited by K. Rowland and G. Ferris. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, J. R. Eulberg, and T. W. Watson. 1988. An Examination of
Situational Constraints in Air Force Work Settings. Human Performance 1: 133144.
Peters, L. H., E. J., OConnor, and C. J. Rudolf. 1980. The Behavioral and mective
Consequences of Performance-relevant
Situational Variables. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance
25: 79-96.
Peters, L. H., E. J. OConnor, A. Pooyan, and J. C. Quick. 1984. The Relationship
between Time Pressure and Performance: A Field Test of Parkinsons Law. Journal of Occupational
Behavior 5: 293-299.
Phillips, J. S. and S. M. Freedman. 1984. Situational Performance Constraints and
Task Characteristics: Their Relationship to Motivation and Satisfaction. Journal of Management
10: 321-331.
Pooyan, A., E. J. OConnor, L. H. Peters, J. C. Quick, N. D. Jones, and A. Kulisch. 1982.
Supervisory/Subordinate
Differences in Perceptions of Situational
Constraints:
Barriers Are in the Eye of the Beholder. Presented at the Southwest Academy of
Management Meeting.
Rosenthal, R. 1984. Meta-Analytic
Procedures for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Sackett, P. R., M. M. Harris, and J. M. Orr. 1986. On Seeking Moderator Variables in
the Meta-analysis of Correlational Data: A Monte Carlo Investigation of Statistical Power and Resistance to Type 1 Error. Journal of Applied Psychology 71:
302-310.
Salancik, G. R. and J. Pfeffer. 1977. An Examination of Need-Satisfaction Models of Job
Attitudes. Administrative
Science Quarterly 22: 427-456.
Schmitt, N. W. and R. J. Klimoski. 1991. Research Methods in Human Resources Management. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.
Schoorman, F. D. and B. Schneider. 1988a. Grappling with Work Facilitation: An
Evolving Approach to Understanding Work Effectiveness. Pp. 3-20 in Facilitating Work Effectiveness,
edited by F. D. Schoorman and B. Schenider. Lexington,
MA: Lexington.
. 1988b. Integration and Overview of the Research on Work Facilitation. Pp.
215-230
in Facilitating
Work Effectiveness,
edited by F. D. Schoorman and
B. Schneider. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Schuler, R. S. 1980. Definition and Conceptualization
of Stress in Organizations.
Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 25: 184-215.
Sirgy, M. J. 1988. Strategies for Developing General Systems Theories. Behavioral
Science 33: 25-37.
Spector, P. E. 1978. Organizational
Frustration: A Model and Review of the Literature. Personnel Psychology 31: 815-829.
Spector, P. E., D. J. Dwyer, and S. M. Jex. 1988. Relation of Job Stressors to Affective,
Health, and Performance Outcomes: A Comparison of Multiple Data Sources.
Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 11-19.
Steel, R. P., and A. J. Mento. 1986. Impact of Situational Constraints on Subjective and
Objective Criteria of Managerial Performance. Organizational
Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 37: 254-265.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

175

Steel, R. P., A. J. Mento, and W. H. Hendrix. 1987. Constraining Forces and the Work
Performance of Finance Company Cashiers. Journal of Management
13: 473482.
Whitener, E. M. 1990. Confusion of Confidence Intervals and Credibility Intervals in
Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 315-321.
Wicker, A. W. 1985. Getting Out of Our Conceptual Ruts: Strategies for Expanding
Conceptual Frameworks. American Psychologist
40: 1094-1103.
Zaltman, G., C. Pinson, and R. Angelmar. 1973. Metatheory in Consumer Research. New
York: Wiley.