L IMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Findings must be interpreted in the light of the study’s limitations. First, cross-sectional data were used, and consequently the time sequence of the transfer could not be determined without any further analysis. Two groups were independently transferred, approximately ten months apart. The results of pair wise comparison of the two samples showed no significant differ-ences, so we assumed equality of variances and equality of means. This should be analyzed further, e.g., it could be interesting to see if differences could be found when asking transplants closer to the transfer and even right before the transfer. Second, the respondent’s task performance was measured as self-perception and these perceptions may not have corresponded exactly with the objective facts. The issue of self-rated versus supervisor evaluations of transplants’ task performance are discussed separately in the following section. Third, because a limited sample of transplanted IT workers was used, caution is necessary in making generalization without additional em-pirical testing of the models. Fourth, the respondents provided all the meas-ures of the explanatory and dependent variables and these measmeas-ures were obtained at the same time by similar scaling procedures. Method variance therefore may have inflated the strength of some of the relationships.

7.2.1 Self-rated vs. supervisor evaluations of transplant’s task per-formance

Researchers seem to agree that common method variance is a potential prob-lem in behavioral research. Although random errors are probprob-lematic, sys-tematic measurement errors are particularly serious because they provide an alternative explanation for the observed relationships between measures of different constructs that is independent of the one hypothesized (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). According to Podsakoff et al., one of the most widely used techniques that has been used to address the issue of common method variance is what has come to be called Harman’s one-factor test. The basic assumption of this technique is that if a substantial amount of common method variance is present, either a) a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or b) one general factor will account for the majority of the covariance among the measures. The principal component analysis conducted in this research generated six factors with eigenvalues of one or more, and an explained variance of the factors ranging from 24.470% (factor 1) to 4.006% (factor 6). The diagnostic technique indicates that no single factor accounts for all of the covariance among the items. Despite this, the

113

single-factor test is not evidence that the measures are free of common method variance.

In this research, transplants’ task performance could potentially have been rated by supervisors, peers, and even by client managers or users. Scullen, Mount, and Goff (2000) demonstrated substantial bias in a variety of subjec-tive evaluations, whether they are completed by managers, by self, by peers, or by subordinates. They found that 62 percent of the variance across mana-gerial evaluations was due to rater bias effects, whereas only 27 percent of the variance was due to actual job performance. Levy and Sharma (1993) demonstrated that self-reports are significantly correlated with objective information, whereas managerial evaluations are not. The academic litera-ture referred above finds no support for a low correlation between self-report and objective measures of performance; nor does it support a high correla-tion between managerial evaluacorrela-tions and objective measures of performance.

There is no reason to presume differences in applying these findings to trans-plants of IT outsourcing. As transtrans-plants continue delivering ongoing services back to their previous employer, it is likely that they know their responsibili-ties and how to meet quality standards of these services. Transplants also know their responsibilities according to demands from their new employer.

As indicated by respondents in follow-up interviews, transplants try to sat-isfy expectations and demands from both client and vendor managers. None-theless, these two groups of managers do not necessarily know the effort and quality of each individual transplant’s work. Thus, there is no reason to be-lieve that self-reported measures of transplant’s task performance are less accurate than supervisor or client evaluations.

Research conducted by Sharma, Rich, and Levy (2004), suggests that sales-people’s self-rated performance tends to be upward biased, but also that the amount of bias does not seem to vary across performance levels. They calcu-lated managerial and self-ratings for three performance tiers — low, me-dium, and high performers. Managerial ratings of low performers were found to be significantly lower than high performers. However, there were no differences in managerial evaluations of the low and medium groups, and the medium and high groups. The results from self-ratings show significant differences between each of the three groups.

It is not unlikely that the transplants in the present study may have overesti-mated their performance levels, but such overestimations may not have af-fected the results. Furthermore, whereas performance rating by supervisors helps rule out the validity threats of the self-report and mono-methods, pre-sent research suggests that performance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than transplants’ self-reported measures. Conse-quently, it is far from obvious that the extra effort involved in gathering data by supervisors could have produced better performance data.

114

7.2.2 Interpreting and modifying the research model

Drawing from the general literature on stress, Fevre et al. (2003) have devel-oped a series of three tenets. First, stress is the response to stressors in the environment. By definition, stress is either good or bad or a combination of the two. Second, in addition to the amount of stress they cause, stressors can be identified by a series of characteristics: the timing of the stressor, the source of the stressor, the perceived control of the stressor, and the perceived desirability of the stressor. Third, whether stressors result in good stress and bad stress depends on the individual’s interpretation.

In this research, three outsourcing arrangement stressors were found to influ-ence transplants’ perception of role stress. Two dimensions of role stress were role conflict and role ambiguity. Findings showed that outsourcing arrangement stressors affected the two dimensions of role stress, which in turn affected work outcome. The amount of stress and the sign of the rela-tionship varied. Although the research model addressed environmental stim-uli and individual perception of those stimstim-uli, the impact of individual char-acteristics on transplants’ interpretation of stressors was not addressed. The dimensions were neither defined as “good stress” nor as “bad stress.”

Given the limitations above, the researcher encourages others to examine findings through more rigorous research designs and across different compa-nies. We also recognize the value, in future studies, of extending the research models to (1) include the transplant’s perception of one’s locus of control, efficacy, and affective disposition; (2) identify even more outsourcing ar-rangement stressors; (3) examine more thoroughly transplants’ response to role stress. In Figure 7.2, a revised research model is presented, which incor-porates the three tenets of occupational stress drawn from Fevre et al.

(2003).

Figure 7.2. Revised research model.

Transplant’s role stress Transplant’s

locus of control

Transplant’s work outcome

Outsourcing arrangement stressors

115