METHOD

Design and Task

The experiment employed a between-subjects, random factorial design. The two independent
variables, accounting information and subordinate work styles, were manipulated at two levels while
one additional independent variable, supervisor work style, was measured using self-reported scales.
The dependent variables were (1) liking toward subordinate (LIKING), (2) causal attributions for the
performance (ATTRIB), and (3) evaluation of subordinate (EVAL).

TABLE 1
Work Styles of Adaptors and Innovators
Adaptors Innovators
Employs disciplined, precise, methodical, Approaches tasks from unusual angles
efficient approach
Is concerned with resolving problems Discovers problems and discovers
rather than finding them avenues of solution
Is an authority within structured situations Takes control in unstructured situations

Seeks to resolve problems with tried Treats accepted

means with little regard and accepted means
Produces few ideas, generally aimed at Produces numerous ideas, some of which
improving existing system appear unsound,
generally aimed at changing the existing system
Values continuity, stability, consensus, Is catalyst to settled groups; irreverent of
and group cohesion consensus, custom, and group norms
Capable of doing routine work for long Has little tolerance for routine and periods
structure
Provides a safe base for the innovator.s about
riskier operations Provides the dynamics to bring periodic radical
change
Subjects were provided with a short decision case involving a hypothetical manufacturing
company in which participants were placed in the role of the division manager. The division manager
is told that he needs to evaluate the performance of a plant manger, Jack Smith, in preparation for
awarding merit-based pay increases. Participants were given accounting information related to Jack.s
performance and a narrative description of Jack.s work style as either an adaptor or innovator. Based
on this information, the subjects were asked to answer eight questions regarding how much they
would like Jack, to what causes they attribute Jack.s performance, and how they would rate Jack.s
performance.

Manipulated Variables
Two variables, accounting information and subordinate work styles, were manipulated by
providing subjects with different case scenarios. There were four different versions of the decision
case corresponding to a 2 × 2 factorial design on these two variables. The details of these
manipulations are described next.

Accounting Information
Accounting information was manipulated at two levels as (1) exceeding or (2) falling short of
industry averages based on three accounting performance indicators. The three accounting
performance measures used in this experiment are based on the work of Tuttle and Kershaw (1998).
Under the condition of good accounting performance, participants were given the following data in
which the plant outperforms the industry average on all three measures.

Measure The Plant Industry Average

On-Time Delivery (percent of on-time shipments) 96% 89%
Delivery Quality (percent of defect-free shipments) 98% 95%
Scrap Minimization 88% 84%
(percent of finished unitsproduced compared to input units)
Under the condition of poor accounting performance, participants were provided with the information
that the plant has under-performed in comparison to the industry average on all three measures
as follows:
Measure The Plant Industry Average
On-Time Delivery (percent of on-time shipments) 82% 89%
Delivery Quality (percent of defect-free shipments) 92% 95%
Scrap Minimization 80% 84%
(percent of finished units produced compared to input units)
Subordinate.s Work Styles
The subordinate.s work style was manipulated at two levels by providing subjects with a narrative
description of Jack as either an adaptor or innovator. The description of the two work styles is
adapted from the work of Kirton (1976) and Summers et al. (2000). As explained earlier and shown in
Table 1, the two work styles describe the manner in which people prefer to solve workrelated
problems. Individuals with the adaptor style tend to .do things better. and those with the innovator
style prefer to .do things differently.. The styles are assumed to be on a continuum, with adaptors. at
one end and .innovators. at the other. As discussed earlier, both work styles represent valid
approaches to problem solving in the workplace and, therefore, they are both assumed to be useful
for success.

Measured Variables
Four variables were measured in this study, which include (1) supervisor.s work style used to
compute a similarity score in relation to the manipulated work style of Jack, the subordinate, (2)
liking toward subordinates (LIKING), (3) causal attributions for the performance (ATTRIB), and (4)
evaluation of subordinates (EVAL).
The supervisor.s work style was measured on the basis of their self-reported scores on a
seven item Adaptor and Innovator (A-I) measure developed for this study. Each question is anchored
by Adaptor characteristics (coded 1) on one side and Innovator characteristics (coded 9) on the other.
The A-I measure matches the narrative description of Jack as either an adaptor or innovator based on
the description of characteristics of adaptors. and innovators. styles in Kirton (1976), as adapted to
an accounting context by Summers et al. (2000). Subjects. response scores on the seven-item
measure ranges from 1 to 9 in which 1 represents an extreme adaptor and 9 represents an extreme
innovator. The subjects. response is compared with the subordinates. work style scores (as
manipulated) that are coded as either 1 for the adaptor style or 9 for the innovator style to determine
similarity. A formula used to compute the work style similarity score is: 9 . |Rs . Ms|, where Ms is the
manipulated value and Rs is the response value. For example, if a subject responds with 1 (i.e., an
extreme adaptor) on the seven-item A-I measure and has received a description of an innovator
subordinate (coded 9), then the work style similarity score equals 1 (i.e., 9 . |1 . 9| = 1). Work style
similarity scores range from 9 to 1. Higher scores reflect similar work styles between evaluator and
subordinate whereas lower scores represent dissimilar work styles. 1
LIKING was measured by three items using a nine-point scale which was developed in this
study. Subjects were asked to respond to (1) .How much do you feel you would like Jack as a
subordinate?. (1 = not at all, 9 = very much), (2) .What type of working relationship would you expect
with Jack?. (1 = very poor, 9 = very good), and (3) .How likely do you think that you would get along
with Jack?. (1 = very unlikely, 9 = very likely).
The variable ATTRIB was elicited with two measures (Dobbins and Russell 1986). Subjects
were asked to rate, on a nine-point scale, the extent to which they feel the subordinate.s performance
is caused by characteristics of the situation or something outside his control (= 1) versus Jack.s
personal characteristics or something about Jack (= 9). They were also asked to give, on a nine-point
scale adapted from the work of Dobbins and Russell (1986), the extent to which they feel that the
subordinate.s performance is caused by something about the subordinate or something outside
the subordinate.s control. Prior studies have tended to view causal attributions as a single dimension,
i.e., a continuum between internal versus external factors. The measure we employ is consistent with
this idea in that a higher score represents a more internal attribution and a lower score represents a
more external attribution.
EVAL was measured by three items on a nine-point scale adapted from the work of Turban
and Jones (1988). Subjects (1) rated .the overall performance evaluation. of the subordinate (1 = very
low, 9 = very high), (2) gave .the extent. to which they consider the subordinate .an effective
employee.. (1 = not at all, 9 = completely), and (3) responded to the likelihood that they would
recommend .a merit-based pay increase. for the subordinate (1 = very unlikely, 9 = very likely).

Materials and Procedures

The instrument consisted of four pages. The first page included a description of the decision
case and the two variable manipulations (accounting information and subordinate work style). On
the second page, subjects were asked to answer eight questions that are used to measure the three
dependent variables (LIKING, ATTRIB, and EVAL). On the third page, subjects responded to
questions regarding (1) the manipulations, (2) a single-item measure of subjects. work style similarity
to the person described in the case, and (3) demographic information. On the last page, subjects
were given a seven-item measure regarding their own work style on a nine-point scale.

Subjects
Subjects in this study were 140 M.B.A. and P.M.B.A. (professional M.B.A.) students at a large
university in the Southeast. Of the 140 responses, 1 was incomplete, producing 139 usable
responses. Subject demographics suggest that these subjects had sufficient course and work
background to understand the basic accounting information and decision task.
Random assignment of the subjects to one of the four treatments was performed to make the
groups as comparable as possible. In addition, participation was voluntary and informed consent was
obtained. Subjects were assured that their responses were confidential and anonymous.