The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work
Abstract
Perceived control by employees is a variable that has been heavily researched in two popular areas, job design (as autonomy) and participative decision-making. A meta-analysis was conducted of studies relating perceived control variables to 19 employee outcome variables. For all studies combined, it was found that high levels of perceived control was associated with high levels of job satisfaction (overall and individual facets), commitment, involvement, performance and motivation, and low levels of physical symptoms, emotional distress, role stress, absenteeism, intent to turnover, and turnover. A similar pattern was found for the autonomy and participation studies analyzed separately, with one exception. Participative decision-making was not associated with absenteeism in the single study available.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign
Karasek, R. A. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392498 · Cited by 12,597
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031152 · Cited by 2,442
Cited by
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 · Cited by 2,616
4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23005-6 · Cited by 1,453
The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806 · Cited by 1,364
Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention
Yukl, G. (2012) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088 · Cited by 1,264
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311410060 · Cited by 1,085
Metadata
- Authors
- Spector, P. E.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1986-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1005-1016
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2160291208
- Cited by
- 1,393
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001872678603901104
- The paper
- Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603901104
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
