Green Tape and Job Satisfaction Do Effective Organizational Rules Make Employees Happy

Green Tape and Job Satisfaction: Do Good Rules Make Employees Happy?

Leisha DeHart Davis, PhD

Associate Professor

School of Government

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Knapp-Sanders Building

Campus Box 3330

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330

Email: [email protected]

Cell: (785) 766-1554

Office Phone: (919)966-4189

Randall S. Davis

Assistant Professor

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

MPA Program, Department of Political Science

Faner Hall, Mail Code 4501

Carbondale, Illinois 62901

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 618-536-2371

Zachary Mohr

Assistant Professor

University of North Carolina Charlotte

Department of Political Science and Public Administration

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 316-613-9680

Paper presented at the 11th Public Management Research Conference, Madison, WI, June 20 –

22, 2013.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Green Tape and Job Satisfaction 2

Abstract

This paper explores the degree to which organizational rules can facilitate job satisfaction in

public sector work environments. By examining the connections between formalization, or the

extent to which rules are written, and three attributes of quality rules—optimal control,

consistent application, and stakeholder comprehension—we assess the extent to which well-

crafted rules encourage employees to be more satisfied with work. The findings from a series of

structural equation models indicate that employees perceive written rules as more optimally

controlling, more consistently applied, and more easily understood as compared to unwritten

rules. Furthermore, results suggest that optimally controlling and consistently applied rules

increase job satisfaction. Thus, written rules are a satisfying element of work to the extent that

they increase optimal control and consistent application.


Green Tape and Job Satisfaction: Do Good Rules Make Employees Happy?

Written organizational rules have been construed by scholars and practitioners as both boon and

bane to employee morale. From the boon perspective, the extent of written organizational rules

has been linked with higher organization commitment (Morris and Steers 1980; Michaels et al.

1988; Podsakoff, Williams, and Todor 1986), higher job satisfaction (Snizek and Bullard 1983;

Zeitz 1984), lower self-estrangement from work (Organ and Greene 1981) and greater

satisfaction with the work environment (Zeitz 1983, 1984; Stevens, Diedriks and Philipsen

1992). From the bane perspective, written rules have been associated with less intrinsic pride in

work (Greene 1978), lower organization commitment (Zeffane 1994) and less satisfaction with

various facets of work (Rai 2013, Aiken and Hage 1966, Rousseau 1978, Finlay et al, 1995,

Dewar and Werbel 1979).

One potential explanation for the divergent effects of written rules on employee morale is

the failure by these studies to capture the nature of written rules themselves (Adler and Boris

1996). Consequently, it is unclear whether rules themselves or particular qualities of rules are

influencing the morale effects observed in these studies (DeHart-Davis 2009).

This paper seeks to overcome this gap in knowledge by using green tape theory to

examine the influence of rule attributes on public employee job satisfaction. Green tape theory

argues that achieving effective organizational rules involves creating well-designed rules and

stakeholder cooperation, i.e., good rules that people follow. Five attributes of rule design and

implementation are expected to increase the likelihood of achieving well-designed rules and

stakeholder cooperation: written and logical requirements that are consistently applied, optimally

controlling, and have purposes understood by stakeholders.


In crafting theoretical linkages between green tape attributes and job satisfaction, we rely

on scholarly conceptualizations of job satisfaction as a “a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). The

favorable emotions tied to job satisfaction develop as employees experience and evaluate

elements of the work context. One specific element of the work context, the design and

implementation of organizational rules, is likely to shape one’s job satisfaction (Wright and

Davis, 2003). Accordingly, the presence of four green tape attributes in workplace rules is

expected to increase job satisfaction: consistent rule application by conveying procedural

fairness (Leventhal 1976); optimal control by enabling self-determination (Gagne and Deci

2005); and rule comprehension (both rule logic and understanding) by reducing work alienation

(Blauner 1964). If these arguments are valid, they imply that the manner of rule design and

implementation has significant implications for job satisfaction in public organizations.

To test these expectations we examine quantitative data collected from two local

government organizations in the Midwestern U.S. The statistical technique we employ,

structural equation modeling, corrects for measurement error and examines complex causal

relationships between rule attributes and job satisfaction. The results of the analysis suggest that

rule design and implementation are significant contributors to public employees’ satisfaction

levels.

Theory and Hypotheses

In crafting theoretical linkages between green tape attributes and job satisfaction, we rely on

scholarly conceptualizations of job satisfaction as a cognitive exercise that involves the continual

assessing one’s standing within the organization (Organ 1988). In the context of organizational


rules, we borrow on this conceptualization to contend that public employees interpret attributes

of rule design and implementation as signals of their value to the organization. If these

arguments are valid, they imply that the manner of rule design and implementation have

significant implications for job satisfaction in public organizations.

Consistent Rule Application and Job Satisfaction

Green tape theory argues that the consistent application of organizational rules across individuals

and groups increases rule effectiveness by eliciting stakeholder cooperation with rule

requirements and ensuring organization-wide implementation of managerial preferences

(DeHart-Davis 2009). In the context of job satisfaction, consistent rule application is expected to

increase job satisfaction through perceptions of fairness in the procedures that allocate system

resources (Leventhal 1980). The concept of procedural fairness was originally identified in the

context of legal settings (Thibaut and Walker 1975) but later expanded to organizational settings

generally (Leventhal 1980) and authoritative procedures specifically (Tyler 2006). The

procedural fairness literature focuses on two major precursors, the influence that individuals

have over decision-making processes, such as presentation of evidence and voice (Folger 1977;

Thibaut and Walker 1975) and the characteristics of processes used in decision-making

(Leventhal 1980). Of the two precursors, process characteristics appear to exert more influence

on decision influence (van de Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1996, Colquitt 2001).

Consistent rule application is one attribute of the decision characteristics model of

procedural fairness.1 Conceptually, the consistency of decision rules furthers procedural fairness

by imparting advantage to no particular individuals, yielding equality of opportunity for

1 Other characteristics include accuracy of results, bias suppression, the correctability of

decisions, representativeness, and ethicality (Leventhal 1976, 1980).


everyone, and leveling the playing field (Leventhal 1976: 40). The relationships of consistency

to procedural fairness have been born out in a range of studies, including experiments with

university students (Colquitt and Jackson 2006; Sheppard and Lewicki 1987; Van den Bos,

Vermunte, and Wilke 1996), multinational corporate managers (Kim and Mauborgne 1991),

citizens (Tyler 1990, 1991) and test takers (Ployhart and Ryan 1998). In studies comparing the

relative effects of the six procedural fairness principles, consistency appears to be one of the (if

not the) most important influence (Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986; Greenberg 1986).

The link between procedural fairness and job satisfaction relies on the assumption that

job satisfaction is based in part on comparisons that organization members make between their

own workplace treatment and that of other organizational members (Organ 1988). Organizational

members use comparisons about procedural fairness to interpret their own status, identity and

belonging within the group (De Cremer and Tyler 2005), which informs the organizational

member’s assessment of the long-term potential of their relationship with organizational

authorities (Tyler 1989). Unfair procedures (such as those inconsistently applied across people

and groups) lead organization members to perceive themselves as having less standing and group

value (Bryant 2010) and a more uncertain long-term relationship with their organization (De

Cremer and Tyler 2005). Such negative comparisons are conceptualized as damaging to job

satisfaction and empirically supported in empirical studies of savings and loan corporation

employees (Mossholder, Bennett, & Martin, 1998), performance management system trainees

(Masterson, Lewis, et al. 2000); employees of two private firms in the Midwest (Moorman

1991); clerical employees (Dittrich and Carrell 1979); tellers and customer service managers in a

large Midwestern bank (Bettencourt and Brown 1997); retail sales personnel (Dubinsky and

Levy 1998); and federal employees (Alexander and Ruderman 1987).


Based on the empirical evidence linking procedural fairness and job satisfaction, and on

conceptualizations of consistent rule application as one dimension of procedural fairness, we

hypothesize that:

H1: Employees who perceive consistently applied rules will indicate higher job

satisfaction than those who perceive inconsistently applied rules.

Rule Control and Job Satisfaction

Organizational rules evoke formal control, defined as processes by which managers “direct

attention, motivate, and encourage organizational members to act in ways desirable to achieving

the organization’s objectives” (Cardinal, Sitkin and Long 2010: 56). Rule control pertains to the

level of discretion enabled by rule requirements, with high control constraining and low control

enabling the discretion of individual organizational members. Green tape theory envisions this

control along a continuum that relates to the technical capacity of the rule for achieving

organizational objectives, as well as stakeholder cooperation in doing so (DeHart-Davis 2009).

The continuum contains a theoretical optimum that imposes just enough constraint – and allows

just enough discretion -- for achieving rule objectives. Rule control above the optimum is

inefficient, reducing more discretion than necessary for achieve rule objectives and wasting

organizational effort. Rule control below the optimum imposes inadequate constraint (and

excessive discretion) than necessary for achieving rule objectives and thus is ineffective.

Although organizational behavior researchers emphasize overcontrol, (Engel 1969, Landau and

Stout 1979), managerial undercontrol can undercut organizational effectiveness and must be

considered in crafting an effective rule (Bozeman 2000, 95).


The level of control contained within an organizational rule is expected to affect job

satisfaction by altering an employee’s sense of self-determination, which is based on a sense of

autonomy, competence and relatedness (Gagne and Deci 2005). Autonomy makes individuals

feel that their actions are self-determined and have an internal locus of control (Ryan and Deci

2000). Competence relates to the sense that one can effectively execute optimally challenging

tasks and achieve desirable ends (Baard, Deci and Ryan 2004). And relatedness provides a

feeling of positive social connection to the workplace, mutual respect and reliance (Baard, Deci

and Ryan 2004). The autonomy, competence and relatedness arising from manager-supervisor

relationships have been linked to job satisfaction and other indicators of employee morale in a

variety of private sector settings (Illiard, et al, 1993; Baard, Deci and Ryan 2004).

In the context of organizational rules, control can increase or decrease employee

autonomy depending on the level of constraint imposed by the rule. When control is high, it

reduces the employee’s perception that required behaviors are self-chosen (Weibel 2010) and the

feeling that employees are connected to their jobs (Adler and Boris 1996). For example, in the

scientific management era, work procedures dictated every worker’s physical movement,

rendering the level of discretion and autonomy to near-zero (Biljsma-Frankema and Costa 2010).

When control is optimal – neither too high or too low – required behaviors are not highly

specified, leaving room for autonomous action and a greater sense that the locus of control is

internal.

Reduced autonomy is the implicit causal mechanism that lies between excessively

controlling rules and various forms of lower employee morale, including lower organizational

commitment (Stazyk et al 2011), less likelihood of fulfilling job aspirations (Aiken and Hage

1966), and lower job satisfaction among New York state agency employees (Wright and Davis


2003), information technology managers in health and human service agencies (DeHart-Davis

and Pandey 2005; Dutch health care professionals (Tummers 2012), and public and nonprofit

managers in Georgia and Illinois (Chen 2012).

Rule control may also influence the competence dimension of self-determination by

signaling the extent to which managers trust employee abilities to execute tasks without

excessive direction (DeHart-Davis 2009). The extent to which employees perceive that managers

hold favorable impressions of their abilities has been linked to positive employee morale

measured as organizational citizenship behavior, intention to quit, and affective commitment

(Brower et al 2009; Colquitt Scott and Lepine 2007). In the context of organizational rules,

coercive qualities (including excessive control) essentially ask employees to “check their brains

at the door” (Adler and Boris 1996: 83), suggesting a lack of faith in employee capacity to act

effectively. In support of these arguments, red tape (excessively controlling and ineffective rules)

has been linked to lower employee morale both directly (DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005) and

indirectly, through lower self-efficacy (Wright 2004).

Finally, the level of control in a rule poses implications for the relatedness dimension of

self-determination. Relatedness theoretically leads people to internalize group values as a result

of feeling respected and relied on by a group (Baard, Deci and Ryan 2004). When a rule is

optimally controlling, it potentially enables organization members to identify with the

organization by conveying organizational objectives along with trust that organization members

are capable of pursuing those objectives without excessive control. In a similar vein, the enabling

rule – which construes organization members as capable of problem solving without excessive

direction – enables them to identify, rather than disconnect, with the organization (Adler and

Boris 1996: 80). In support of these arguments, formalization has been linked with higher


organizational identification among scientists and engineers (Organ 1978), presumably by

“providing a Gestalt within which he can define more reassuringly the nature of his own

contribution to the larger enterprise” (Organ and Greene 1981). However when rule control

exceeds that required to achieve rule objectives, it can convey a distrust in employees that

disrupts social relationships and emphasizes power distance (Weibel 2010: 442).

Assuming that rule control levels affect the autonomy, competence and relatedness

dimensions of self-determination, and based on the relationship between self-determination and

job satisfaction, we expect that:

H2: Employees who perceive optimally controlling rules will indicate higher job

satisfaction than those who perceive excessively controlling rules;

Rule Comprehension and Job Satisfaction

Green tape theory holds that two attributes of organizational rules, logical design and understood

purposes, increase rule effectiveness (DeHart-Davis 2009). Logical design pertains to the valid

relationship between rule requirements and rule objectives: when the requirements of a rule

logically relate to the managerial objectives that rules seek to serve, then the rule has a higher

chance of achieving its purposes than a rule that lacks such a connection. Rule comprehension

relates to the extent to which rule stakeholders – those who explain, comply or enforce a rule –

understand the rule’s managerial objectives. Rule stakeholders who understand a rule’s

managerial objectives are better likely to comply with the rule (DeHart-Davis 2009b), thus

increasing rule effectiveness (DeHart-Davis, Chie and Little forthcoming). While logic is a

characteristic of rule design and understanding is an attribute of rule implementation, perceptions

of each are expected to influence job satisfaction through the same psychological mechanisms.


Accordingly, for analytical ease we combine these concepts under the category of rule

comprehension.

Rule comprehension is expected to enhance job satisfaction by increasing the

meaningfulness of work activities. Meaningfulness occurs when employees experience work

processes and outcomes as significant and worthwhile, which theoretically contributes to “higher

order needs satisfaction” (Hackman and Lawler 1971). Conversely, the absence of intrinsically

meaningful activity is thought to increase workplace alienation (Seeman 1959), conceptualized

as a general cognitive state of psychological disconnection from work (Kanungo 1979). One way

that work loses meaningfulness is by increasingly complex divisions of labor that reduce an

employee’s ability to see his or her contribution to organizational goals (Kanungo, 1982:26;

Erikson 1986). An organization member’s perception that s(he) plays no significant role in

overall production processes has been empirically correlated with aspects of workplace

alienation (Mottaz 1989).

One theoretical mechanism for increasing the meaningfulness of work is to provide

explanations for the purpose of organizational activity. Such was the approach in a laboratory

experience in which research subjects were randomly assigned to uninteresting activities with

and without explanations of purpose (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone 1994). Subjects who

received an explanation for the uninteresting activity were more likely to continue working on it

even when the experiment was over. This result led the researchers to conclude that rationales for

activity increase intrinsic motivation to engage in that activity, without the requirement to do so.

H3: Employees who understand rules purposes will indicate higher job satisfaction than

employees who do not understand rule purposes.


Research Design

The data for testing these hypotheses were collected in 2010 from paper and Internet surveys

distributed to the employees of two large local government organizations in a Midwestern state.

The sampling frame was drawn from the lists of employees provided to the research team by the

local government organizations, representing 3,216 possible respondents.

The research team sought to evaluate the perceptions of employees throughout the

organizational hierarchy. As such, questionnaires were distributed to all members of both

organizations. All communication between researchers and respondents was structured based on

the tailored design method for mixed mode surveys (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). In

both cities the city manager’s office alerted employees of the opportunity to participate, and

informed them that participation was voluntary and responses would remain confidential.

Surveys were distributed electronically to the majority of employees, but paper questionnaires

were distributed to those without regular email access and those who preferred the paper form.

The workplace rules survey instrument included measures designed to tap job satisfaction

and rule attributes (DeHart-Davis 2009). Each survey process began with an alert letter from the

local government managers’ offices to employees expressing support for the study and

encouraging participation. Within two weeks, survey invitations were distributed to employees

via email containing a hyperlink to the survey along with guarantees of respondent

confidentiality. This process yielded 1,665 usable responses, representing a response rate of 52

percent. The demographic characteristics of survey respondents are outlined in table 1.

Although this paper examines the relationship between consistent rule application,

optimal rule control, rule comprehension, and job satisfaction other explanatory variables could

influence perceptions of formalization attributes and job satisfaction. As such, several variables


have been included in the model as covariates to rule out potential alternative explanations.

First, the written quality of organizational rules – rule formalization -- is included in our model.

While we do not formally hypothesize directions for the indirect relationship between rule

formalization and job satisfaction, we expect positive relationships between rule formalization,

rule consistency, optimal rule control, and increased rule comprehension. The written quality of

formalized rules should enable consistent rule application by conveying explicit preferences for

organizational behavior (Kieser Beck and Tainio 2001: 600); increase the likelihood of optimal

rule control by enabling organizational rules to be better constructed and vetted than their

unwritten counterparts (DeHart-Davis, et al, forthcoming); and enhance understanding of rule

requirements by making rules explicit and their logic more transparent (Adler and Boris 1996).

We also include several demographic variables including age, gender, race, and

management status as full covariates. Age is a continuous variable measured in years. Gender

takes a value of 0 for males and a value of 1 for females. Race takes on a value of 0 for whites

and 1 for nonwhites. Finally, those respondents in managerial roles are assigned a value of 1,

whereas others are assigned a value of 0. For the purposes of this analysis the written nature of

rules is modeled as a predictor of rule attributes, and the demographic characteristics of

respondents are modeled as predictors of all latent variables.

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Our theoretical constructs are measured using multiple survey items. First, formalization

is defined by three questionnaire items that assess the degree to which employees observe

organizational rules as available in writing. Second, three items assess the degree to which

organization members feel rules are optimally controlling. Third, three measures evaluate the


degree to which employees perceive rules as being applied consistently. Fourth, rule

comprehension is measured by four items that examine the degree to which employees feel rules

are logical and valid. All rule measures derive from DeHart-Davis 2009, with the exception of

the second rule formalization measure, which is borrowed from Aiken and Hage 1967. Finally,

job satisfaction is measured using three items designed to tap employees’ affective evaluation of

the work experience. The descriptive statistics for all model variables are included in table 2,

and each item is discussed in greater detail in the appendix.

[INSERT TABLE 2]

A preliminary analysis of manifest variables indicated that steps should be taken to

recover missing information. Table 1 illustrates the percentage of missing information on

demographic covariates, and table 2 illustrates the percentage of missing data for each manifest

variable in the model. Current missing data analysis techniques, such as multiple imputation and

full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) can effectively recover lost information

resulting from missing data (Allison, 2003; Graham 2009). For the purposes of this analysis

missing data were recovered using FIML estimation. FIML estimation allows for specifying the

measurement model without needlessly discarding observations that provide useful information

in the analysis, and is superior compared to many other missing data strategies (Enders, 2010;

Enders & Bandalos, 2001). FIML, however, discards observations with data missing on model

covariates and observations with no usable information for the analysis. This reduced the

number of usable responses for the structural equation model to 1,313.


The statistical techniques we employ in this paper, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

and structural equation modeling (SEM), are advantageous for at least two reasons. First, CFA

and SEM correct for measurement error by using several manifest variables to measure

underlying latent constructs. Latent constructs are defined by the shared variance between

observed variables, and the unique item variance is assumed to be measurement error (Kline,

2005). Second, SEM allows for specifying more complex models that account for indirect

effects. This model explores the influence of formalization on job satisfaction through rule

control, consistent application of rules, and rule comprehension.

Before exploring the findings from the CFA and SEM models it is necessary to discuss

some elements of model specification and estimation. An analysis of preliminary models

suggested that the theoretical model did not adequately fit the data. Results from the

modification indices suggested that those items with bipolar scales (e.g. written to unwritten or

logical to illogical) shared non construct specific variance. Although not depicted in the diagram

each variable with a bipolar scale was allowed to load on a bipolar wording construct. The

bipolar wording construct extracts the shared variance in these items due to bipolar wording from

construct specific variance. This resulted in a model that more accurately represents the data.

Second, due to the scaling of the observed variables it may not be reasonable to treat them as

continuous variables. As such, we modeled all variables in the analysis as ordered categorical.

Findings

Prior to examining relationships between constructs it is necessary to determine if the theoretical

model is an accurate representation of the data. General rules suggest that .08RMSEA ,

.90CFI , and .90NNFI indicate models that adequately fit the data. The results from the


measurement model we present in figure 1 surpass model fit recommendations for the CFI and

NNFI, while falling short of model fit guidelines for the RMSEA. Determining quality of model

fit, however, should not be based on a single fit statistic. Since two of the three fit statistics we

examine suggest that our model is a good fit to the data we examined the relationships between

constructs with a structural equation model.

[INSERT FIGURE 1]

In the structural equation model we introduced four demographic covariates to rule out

possible alternative explanations. The inclusion of these covariates increased the model fit to

acceptable levels on all three fit statistics (see figure 2). The findings we present in the structural

equation model also suggest that the relationships between job satisfaction and elements of

formalization are complex. First, two of the three hypothesized relationships are significant.

Those employees who report more optimally controlling rules also report greater job satisfaction

( .05p ). Likewise, employees who believe rules to be more consistently applied also report

higher degrees of job satisfaction ( .001p ). Second, although we did not specifically

hypothesize about these effects, rule formalization significantly correlates with higher levels of

the other green tape attributes. In particular, employees who perceive higher levels of

formalization also believe that rules are more optimally controlling, perceive rules as more

consistently applied, and better comprehend rules. Figure 2 provides the standardized parameter

estimates from the structural equation model

[INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]


Finally, we tested a model where rule formalization was used to predict job satisfaction.

That relationship was insignificant, suggesting that the influence of written rules on job

satisfaction is fully mediated by the other rule attributes. This finding comports with our

expectation that written rules increase job satisfaction through more optimal control, consistent

rule application, and rule comprehension. Although the SEM diagram illustrates several direct

relationships, it does not provide information of the total effect of written rules on job

satisfaction. Total indirect effects are the product of multiple direct effects (Kline, 2005). In our

analysis the indirect effect of written rules on job satisfaction through optimal rule control is .125

( .05p ), the indirect effect of written rules on job satisfaction through consistent rule

application is .256 ( .001p ), and the indirect effect of written rules on job satisfaction through

rule comprehension is .045 (n.s.). The total indirect effect of written rules on job satisfaction is

estimated as the sum of all indirect effects, which in this model is .426 ( .001p ).

Unlike traditional regression models that estimate a single 2R value associated with the

dependent variable, structural equation models estimate multiple 2R values for each endogenous

variable. First, the demographic covariates in the model explain 1.6% of the variation in written

rules. Second, the demographic covariates and the written nature of rules explain 35.2% of the

variation in optimal rule control, 73.9% of the variation in consistent rule application, and 72.5%

of the variation in rule comprehension. Finally, the three rule attributes and demographic

controls explain 32.9% of the variation in job satisfaction. Taken as a whole the 2R values

suggest that our model has reasonable explanatory capacity.

Finally, there are a few significant relationships between demographic control variables

and other model constructs. First, female survey respondents indicate working in less formalized


work environments, whereas non-white employees indicate more formalized work environments.

Female employees and managers are more likely to perceive rules as optimally controlling,

whereas older employees and managers indicate greater consistent rule application. Female

employees and managers are more likely to indicate higher rule comprehension. Finally older

employees, nonwhite employees, and managers report higher degrees of job satisfaction. Table 3

reports the unstandardized parameter estimates and significance levels for the relationships

between each of the demographic covariates and other model constructs.

[INSERT TABLE 4]

Discussion and Conclusions

Studies of written rules and job satisfaction have focused on formalization, the extent of written

rules in organizations, rather than attributes of that formalization that can affect employee morale

(Alder and Boris 1996). This study departs from that approach by testing the relationship

between specific attributes of organizational rules and job satisfaction. This approach contributes

a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between bureaucracy and employee morale.

The attributes examined in this study are identified by green tape theory, which identifies

five attributes of rule design and implementation argued to increase the likelihood of

organizational rule effectiveness (DeHart-Davis 2009). We extend the relevance of three of these

attributes to job satisfaction, first through consistent rule application, which is theorized to

convey the procedural fairness (Leventhal 1976, 1980) that communicates the value and standing

of individual group members (Cropanzano 2007; De Cremer and Tyler 2005) and thus increases

job satisfaction (Alexander and Ruderman 1987). Optimal rule control – imposing neither


excessive nor inadequate constraint in rules – is expected to enhance job satisfaction by

increasing employee self-determination through greater autonomy, a sense of individual

competence, and connection to the work environment (Ryan and Deci 2000). Rule

comprehension, the combined green tape attributes of logical rule design and stakeholder

understanding of rule purposes, is expected to increase job satisfaction by increasing the

meaningfulness of work activities, one part of higher-order needs satisfaction (Hackman and

Lawler 1971).

The hypotheses are tested using a structural equation model of survey data collected from

the employees of two local government organizations in a Midwestern state. The model uses

multiple measures of consistent rule application, optimal control, and rule comprehension, as

well as the written quality of organizational rules, which is employed as a precursor to other

variables.

The results suggest that the data fit the theoretical model, with two of the three

hypotheses supported and nearly 1/3 of the variance in job satisfaction explained. Consistent rule

application and optimal control (measured as the absence of excessive control) are significantly

correlated with higher job satisfaction. Rule comprehension is an insignificant influence on job

satisfaction.

That consistent rule application correlates with job satisfaction suggests that managerial

discretion involves tradeoffs, between the flexibility of managers to tailor rules to the situation at

hand and the morale of employees who observe them doing so. Does this mean that managers

must apply rules consistently regardless of the needs of the situation at hand? Not necessarily.

Consistent rule application is not about never bending rules, but rather not systematically

exempting individuals and groups from rule requirements. While it is unclear the nature of


consistent rule application observed in this data, it is clear that perceptions of rule consistency

have tangible morale effects, regardless of underlying managerial intentions. From a scholarly

perspective, this finding applies the theoretical concept of procedural fairness to organizational

rules and expands its testing from private to public sector settings.

The correlation between perceived rule control and job satisfaction suggests that self-

determination in an importance influence on employee motivation. Logically, excessive control

lowers autonomy, conveys managerial distrust in employee competence, and disrupts the

relationship between individuals and organizations. While this research did not measure these

interim mechanisms, the strength and significance of the relationship between rule control and

job satisfaction suggest their presence.

Rule comprehension is not a significant influence on job satisfaction. This nonfinding

may be due to the greater strength of consistent rule application and rule control on job

satisfaction or important distinctions between the work context and job characteristics. First, the

work context refers to observable elements of of the organization, such as formalization, that

shape the relationship between organization and employee. Alternatively, job characteristics

refer to specific tasks associated with one's work that shape employee growth and development.

Job characteristics are an important predictor of job satisfaction through task significance, social

meaning of work, and employee growth. Rules and formalization, in the abstract, are an element

of the work context that need not necessarily influence job characteristics. For example, an

organization may impose a rule that an employee who is 5 minutes late for work receives a

formal reprimand. However, that does not change how the employee carries out their duties

during the routine course of work. An employee could say that this rule is excessively


controlling due to the seemingly narrow time frame, which reduces satisfaction, but still believe

that their work duties are socially meaningful.

Second, it could also be that rule comprehension belongs to the set of “hygienic”

motivators whose presence does not necessarily increase job satisfaction, but whose absence

lowers it (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman 1959). To explore this possibility, we examined

the relationship between rule comprehension and job satisfaction, expecting that a hygienic

motivational influence should exhibit no linear relationship to job satisfaction. The raw data

depicts a linear trend, suggesting that rule comprehension is linearly related to job satisfaction,

but a weaker influence compared with consistent rule application and optimal control.

Caveats accompany all research and this study is no exception. In collecting data from

the employees of two local government organizations, we raise questions about the

generalizability of results to other forms of government. There are also measurement issues,

notably optimal control measured by the absence of excessive control: such an approach fails to

capture rules that are inadequately controlling. While undercontrolling rules are less common,

they nonetheless represent a potential phenomenon for which future research should account.

The combination of rule understanding and logical rule design into one measure, rule

comprehension, blurs the original theory’s conceptualization of green tape as rules logical

designed in an objective sense, but understood more or less in a subjective sense. While the use

of survey data to test these concepts has all been subjective, future research should seek to

distinguish them to test the theory’s validity.

Caveats aside, the data suggest that organizational rule design and implementation have

tangible effects on public employee morale. From the perspective of those who study

formalization and its outcomes, it will no longer be enough to look at the extent of written rules


and its effects on employee morale. Rather, formalization varies in specific and theoretical ways,

as do its outcomes. Generalizing beyond formalization, organizational structure can no longer be

construed as a monolithic whole; it, too, is variegated and that variegation has implications for

organizational outcomes. This study is hopefully one small step in that direction.


References

Adler, Paul S and Borys, Bryan, 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.

Administrative Science Quarterly:61-89.

Aiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage. 1966. Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis.

American Sociological Review: 497

Alexander, Sheldon and Ruderman, Marian, 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice

in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research 1:177-198.

Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing Data Techniques for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 545-557.

Baard, Paul P, Deci, Edward L and Ryan, Richard M, 2004. Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A

Motivational Basis of Performance and Weil‐Being in Two Work Settings. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology 34:2045-2068.

Barrett-Howard, Edith and Tyler, Tom R, 1986. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation

decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:296.

Bettencourt, Lance A and Brown, Stephen W, 1997. Contact employees: Relationships among

workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of retailing

73:39-61.

Biljsma-Frankema, KM and Costa, A, 2010. Consequences and antecedents of managerial and

employee legitimacy interpretations of control: A natural system approach. Control in

organizations: New directions in theory and research:396-433.

Blauner, Robert. 1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry: University

of Chicago Press Chicago.

Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Bureaucracy and red tape: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.


Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust

between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being

trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2), 327-347.

Bryant, Phil C., Davis, C. A., Hancock, J, Vardaman, J.M. When Rule Makers Become Rule

Breakers: Employee Level Outcomes of Managerial Pro-Social Rule Breaking. Employee

Responsibility and Rights Journal (2010) 22:101–112

Cardinal, LB, Sitkin, SB and Long, CP, 2010. A configurational theory of control.

Organizational Control:51-79.

Chen, C. A. (2012). Explaining the Difference of Work Attitudes Between Public and Nonprofit

Managers The Views of Rule Constraints and Motivation Styles. The American Review

of Public Administration, 42(4), 437-460.

Colquitt, Jason A and Jackson, Christine L, 2006. Justice in Teams: The Context Sensitivity of

Justice Rules Across Individual and Team Contexts1. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology 36:868-899.

Colquitt, Jason A, 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation

of a measure. Journal of applied psychology 86:386-400.

Colquitt, Jason A, Scott, Brent A and LePine, Jeffery A, 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust

propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job

performance. Journal of applied psychology 92:909.

De Cremer, David and Tyler, Tom R, 2005. Managing group behavior: The interplay between

procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in experimental social

psychology 37:151-218.


Deci, Edward L, Eghrari, Haleh, Patrick, Brian C and Leone, Dean R, 1994. Facilitating

internalization: The self‐determination theory perspective. Journal of personality

62:119-142.

DeHart-Davis, Leisha, J. Chen and T. Little. Written vs. Unwritten Rules: The Role of Rule

Formalization in Green Tape. Forthcoming in International Public Management Journal.

DeHart-Davis, L. L. 2008. Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (2) (-02): 361-84.

Dehart-Davis, L., and S. K. Pandey. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule

dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 15

(1) (1): 133,

DeHart-Davis, Leisha L. 2009. Green tape and public employee rule abidance: Why

organizational rule attributes matter. Public Administration Review 69 (5) (-09): 901-10.

Dewar, Robert and Werbel, James, 1979. Universalistic and contingency predictions of

employee satisfaction and conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly:426-448.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode

Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dittrich, John E and Carrell, Michael R, 1979. Organizational equity perceptions, employee job

satisfaction, and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance 24:29-40.

Dubinsky, Alan J., M. Levy. 1989. Influence of Organizational Fairness on Work Outcomes of

Retail Salespeople. Journal of Retailing. 65 (2) 221-252.

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.


Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The Relative Performance of Full Information

Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models.

Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430 - 457.

Engel, Gloria V. 1969. The Effect of Bureaucracy on the Professional Autonomy of the

Physician. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 10 (1) 30-41.

Erikson 1986 Mottaz, Clifford J, 1989. An analysis of the relationship between attitudinal

commitment and behavioral commitment. The Sociological Quarterly 30:143-158.

Finlay, William, JK Martin, PM Roman and TC Blum. 1995. Organizational Structure and Job

Satisfaction: Do Bureaucratic Organizations Produce More Satisfied Employees?

Administration & Society 27: 427.

Folger, Robert, 1977. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and

improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

35:108.

Gagné, Marylène and Deci, Edward L, 2005. Self‐determination theory and work motivation.

Journal of Organizational behavior 26:331-362.

Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World. Annual

Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549-576. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

Greenberg, Jerald. 1986. Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 71 (2) 340-342.

Greene, Charles N. 1978. Identification modes of professionals: Relationship with formalization

role strain and alienation. Academy of Management Journal 21 (3): 486-92.

Hackman, J Richard and Lawler, Edward E, 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics.

Journal of applied psychology 55:259.


Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard and Snyderman, Barbara Bloch. 1959. Motivation to

work: Transaction Publishers.

Illiard, et al, 1993

Kanungo, Rabindra N, 1979. The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited.

Psychological Bulletin 86:119.

Kanungo, Rabindra N, 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of applied

psychology 67:341.

Kieser, Alfred, Beck, Nikolaus and Tainio, Risto, 2001. Rules and organizational learning: the

behavioral theory approach. Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge:598-

623.

Kim, W Chan and Mauborgne, Renee A, 1991. Implementing global strategies: The role of

procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal 12:125-143.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Landau, Martin and Stout Jr, Russell, 1979. To manage is not to control: Or the folly of type II

errors. Public Administration Review: 148-156.

Leventhal, G. S. 1976. Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J., Spence, J. T., and Carson,

R. T. (eds.), Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, General Learning Press,

Morristown, NJ, pp. 211-239.

Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory. In Social exchange:

Advances in theory and research, ed. K. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis.

New York, NY: Plenum Press.


Locke, Edwin A 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, ed. M.D. Dunnette, 1297-1349. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Masterson, Suzanne S, Lewis, Kyle, Goldman, Barry M and Taylor, M Susan, 2000. Integrating

justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on

work relationships. Academy of Management journal 43:738-748.

Michaels, Ronald E., William L. Cron, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Erich A. Joachimsthaler. 1988.

Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of

salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (4): 376-83,

Morris, James H and Steers, Richard M, 1980. Structural influences on organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 17:50-57.

Moorman, Robert H, 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship. Journal of

applied psychology 76:845-855.

Mossholder, Kevin W, Bennett, Nathan and Martin, Christopher L, 1998. A multilevel analysis

of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19:131-141.

Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome:

Lexington books Lexington, MA.

Organ, Dennis W., and Charles N. Greene. 1981. The effects of formalization on professional

involvement: A compensatory process approach. Administrative Science Quarterly: 237.

Ployhart, Robert E and Ryan, Ann Marie, 1998. Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection

procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of

Applied Psychology 83:3.


Podsakoff, Philip M., Larry J. Williams, and William D. Todor. 1986. Effects of organizational

formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals. Academy of

Management Journal 29 (4): 820

Rai, G. S. 2012. Job Satisfaction Among Long Term Care Staff: Bureaucracy Isn't Always Bad.

Administration in Social Work, 37:1, 90-99.

Rousseau, Denise M, 1978. Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Contexts

for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly:521-540.

Ryan, Richard M and Deci, Edward L, 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist 55:68-

78.

Seeman, Melvin, 1959. On the meaning of alienation. American sociological review: 783-791.

Sheppard, Blair H and Lewicki, Roy J, 1987. Toward general principles of managerial fairness.

Social Justice Research 1:161-176.

Snizek, William E and Bullard, Jerri Hayes, 1983. Perception of bureaucracy and changing job

satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis. Organizational behavior and human performance

32:275-287.

Stazyk, Edmund C, Pandey, Sanjay K and Wright, Bradley E, 2011. Understanding Affective

Organizational Commitment The Importance of Institutional Context. The American

Review of Public Administration 41:603-624.

Stevens, Fred, Diederiks, Joseph and Philipsen, Hans, 1992. Physician satisfaction, professional

characteristics and behavior formalization in hospitals. Social Science & Medicine

35:295-303.


Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: L.

Erlbaum Associates.

Tummers, Lars, 2012. Policy alienation of public professionals: The construct and its

measurement. Public Administration Review 72:516-525.

Tyler, Tom R 1990. Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance.

In Book Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance City:

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, Tom R, 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model.

Journal of personality and social psychology 57:830.

Tyler, Tom R, 1991. Using procedures to justify outcomes: Testing the viability of a procedural

justice strategy for managing conflict and allocating resources in work organizations.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12:259-279.

Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why people obey the law: Princeton University Press.

Van den Bos, Kees, Vermunt, Riel and Wilke, Henk AM, 1997. Procedural and distributive

justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 72:95-104.

Weibel, A. 2010. Managerial objectives of formal control: High motivation control mechanisms.

In S. Sitkin, L. Cardinal, & K. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational Control, pp.

434-462. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, Bradley E and Davis, Brian S, 2003. Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector the Role of the

Work Environment. The American Review of Public Administration 33:70-90.


Wright, Bradley E, 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector

application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of public administration

research and theory 14:59-78.

Zeffane, R. 1994. Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A

comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations (New York) 47 (8):

977.

Zeitz, G. (1983). Structural and individual determinants of organization morale and satisfaction.

Social Forces, 61(4), 1088-1108.

Zeitz, G. (1984). Bureaucratic Role Characteristics and Member Affective Response in

Organizations The Sociological Quarterly, 25(3), 301-318.


Appendix: Operational Definitions

Written Rules

The extent of formalization, or the degree to which rules are written, was assessed using three

items, all borrowed from DeHart-Davis 2009 except for the second item, from Aiken and Hage

1968. All items were scaled such that higher values indicate a greater degree of written rules.

Respondents were asked to evaluate the extent of written rules based on the following

statements:

1. Please rate the rules in your workplace between the following opposite characteristics:

Written to Unwritten [1=Unwritten; 5=Written]

2. Whatever situation arises, my work division has written policies and procedures to follow

[1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Niether Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly

Agree].

3. To what extent are unwritten rules a problem in your workplace [1= A Major Problem;

2=Somewhat a Problem; 3=Not a Problem].

Rule Comprehension

Rule comprehension was assessed using four items introduced by DeHart-Davis 2009. All items

were scaled such that higher values indicate a greater degree of rule comprehension.

Respondents were asked to evaluate the extent of written rules based on the following

statements:


Logical to Illogical [1=Illogical; 5=Logical]

2. For the most part, policies and procedures in my work division are logical [1=Strongly

Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Niether Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree].



Clear Purposes to Unclear Purposes [1=Unclear Purposes; 5=Clear Purposes].

4. I understand the purpose of most of the policies and procedures in my work division

[1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly

Agree].

Rule Consistency

Rule consistency was assessed using three items from DeHart-Davis 2009. The first two were

rated on a five point scale and the third was rated on a three point scale. Respondents were asked

to assess agreement with the following statements:


Consistently Applied to Inconsistently Applied [1=Inconsistently Applied;

5=Consistently applied]

2. Policies and procedures in my work division are administered consistently [1=Strongly

Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Niether Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree].

3. To what extent are inconsistently applied rules a problem in your workplace [1= A Major

Problem; 2=Somewhat a Problem; 3=Not a Problem].

Rule Control

Rule control was assessed using three items rated on a 5-point scale (DeHart-Davis 2009).

Respondents were asked to assess agreement with the following statements:

1. To what extent are misunderstood rules a problem in your workplace [1= A Major

Problem; 2=Somewhat a Problem; 3=Not a Problem].


Burdensome to Not Burdensome [1=Not Burdensome; 5=Burdensome]



Adequate Control to Excessive Control [1=Excessive Control; 5=Adequate Control]

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was assessed using three items rated on a 5 point scale. Respondents were asked

to assess agreement with the following statements:

1. Doing my job gives me a sense of personal satisfaction [1=Strongly Disagree;

2=Disagree; 3=Niether Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree].

2. I am proud to work for this organization [1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Niether

Agree nor Disagree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree].

3. My work is rewarding [1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Niether Agree nor Disagree;

4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree].

Model Controls

This project uses a series of socio-demographic variables as covariates, or model controls. The

following demographic characteristics were collected in the survey instrument:

Race was dichotomized to reflect white and non-white employees.

Role in the organization was dichotomized to include management and non-management.

Gender

Age


Table 1: Respondent Demographics

Total Percent

Gender

Male 948 56.9

Female 698 41.9

Missing 19 1.1

Race

White 1215 73.0

Hispanic 120 7.2

Black 243 14.6

Other (e.g., Asian,

Pacific Islander, etc.)

57 3.4

Missing 30 1.8

Organizational Role

Department head 39 2.3

Division

head/superintendent

70 4.2

Administrative or

policy staff

87 5.2

Supervisor/manager 320 19.2

Lead worker 388 23.3

Clerical 224 13.5

Technical 230 13.8

Missing 307 18.4

Mean S.D.

Age 45.33 10.555

14

10.56


Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

N % Missing Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Written1 1467 11.89% 1 5 3.7519 1.14134

Written2 1298 22.04% 1 5 3.3598 1.0693

Written3 1259 24.38% 1 3 2.278 0.69331

Comprehension1 1456 12.55% 1 5 3.456 1.0977

Comprehension2 1277 23.30% 1 5 3.5309 0.94522

Comprehension3 1471 11.65% 1 5 3.4405 1.11409

Comprehension4 1291 22.46% 1 5 3.897 0.87395

Consistent1 1468 11.83% 1 5 3.2084 1.26788

Consistent2 1491 10.45% 1 5 3.053 1.18231

Consistent3 1471 11.65% 1 3 2.1407 0.73673

Control1 1448 13.03% 1 5 3.1222 1.13661

Control2 1467 11.89% 1 5 3.8228 1.10435

Control3 878 47.27% 1 5 3.3576 1.09508

Job Satisfaction1 1400 15.92% 1 5 3.8721 0.95207




Figure 1: Standardized CFA Estimates

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Written Consistent Comp-

rehension Control Job Sat.

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3

.675 .723 .546 .708 .846 .248 .868 .790 .776 .650 .968 .857 .840 .724 .740 .697

.420

.837 .511

.500 .831 .657 .581

.470 .826

.860

Model Fit: (88, n=1,523)

= 1256.829, p < .001; RMSEA = .093(.089, .098)

; CFI = .961; NNFI(TLI) = .947


Figure 2: Standardized SEM Estimates

Note: * .05p ; ** .01p ; *** .001p

.846*** Written Consistent

Comp-

rehension

Control

Job Sat.

.570***

.834***

.302***

.054

.220*

.375***

.377***

.833***

Model Fit: (133, n=1,313)

= 1195.671, p < .001; RMSEA = .078(.074, .082)

; CFI = .962;

NNFI(TLI) = .948


Table 3: Parameter Estimates and Significance Levels for Demographic Covariates

Written Rules

Variable Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p

Age -0.003 0.002 -1.593 0.111

Female -0.091 0.041 -2.216 0.027

Nonwhite 0.102 0.045 2.253 0.024

Managerial Role 0.037 0.042 0.889 0.374

Optimal Control


Age 0.001 0.001 0.622 0.534

Female 0.040 0.019 2.185 0.029

Nonwhite -0.008 0.020 -0.416 0.678

Managerial Role 0.082 0.021 3.968 0.000

Consistent Rule Application


Age 0.007 0.002 3.290 0.001

Female 0.012 0.044 0.269 0.788

Nonwhite -0.020 0.049 -0.408 0.683

Managerial Role 0.199 0.046 4.339 0.000

Rule Comprehension


Age 0.002 0.002 0.984 0.325

Female 0.106 0.043 2.487 0.013

Nonwhite -0.026 0.047 -0.550 0.582

Managerial Role 0.266 0.045 5.904 0.000

Job Satisfaction


Age 0.011 0.002 4.747 0.000

Female 0.050 0.051 0.981 0.327

Nonwhite 0.161 0.056 2.888 0.004

Managerial Role 0.117 0.051 2.306 0.021

Green Tape and Job Satisfaction Do Effective Organizational Rules Make Employees Happy

Documents

Transcript of Green Tape and Job Satisfaction Do Effective Organizational Rules Make Employees Happy