The development of the performance environment perception scale and its underlying theoretical model

Practitioners wishing to contribute significantly to performance improvement efforts need tools to help them, and that was the focus of this study. One important first step was to determine where in the work environment inhibitors to performance may exist. Knowing where to look, other tools could then be used to determine specifics of the problem and develop solutions.

The primary objectives of the study were to (a) identify items that have been shown by research to interact with people in the work environment and influence behaviors that lead to high or improved performance; (b) design an instrument to measure employees’ perceptions of the degree to which the identified items are operating in the work environment in a positive or negative manner; and (c) develop a theoretical model of the underlying factors of the finalized instrument’s scale items.

Pilot instrument testing was done using the Unweighted Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood methods of common factor analysis. The pilot data were subjected to reliability tests and tests of suitability for factor analysis. Final instrument testing involved primarily descriptive statistics.

Pilot study participants were 273 hourly workers from a light industrial plant in Maryville, Tennessee. Final testing was conducted with 261 participants from three facilities, including another air bag manufacturer, a drive train components manufacturer. and a bank operations center, all near Knoxville, Tennessee. The three final test populations were 89, 81, and 91 employees respectively.

The pilot phase of the study resulted in a five-factor solution which provided an interpretable underlying theoretical model that served as the basis for the development of the final instrument.

The final testing phase found that analysis of the means and standard deviations of the data, which were produced using the final instrument, identified the variables that employees perceived to be operating most negatively in their work environment and those variables where there was the most significant difference of opinion among employees. The final instrument also differentiated among different populations with different characteristics.

It was concluded that the primary purpose and objectives of the study were met. Other findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations are discussed.