The controllability principle stipulates that the evaluation of a manager should be based
only on elements that are under the manager's control. Arguments for and against its application
are theoretically well understood, but empirical evidence based on the evaluation of
the perceptions of managers and their implications for managerial performance is scarce.
By empirically analyzing the effects on managerial performance, this paper explores managers'
responses to the application of the controllability principle. We draw on role theory
and analyze how role ambiguity and role conflict mediate this basic relationship. Moreover,
we test whether application of the controllability principle equally affects role perceptions
of top-level managers and those of lower and middle-level managers. Empirical analysis of
survey responses from 440 managers reveals that role perceptions completely mediate the
effect of application of the controllability principle on managerial performance. This effect
is insignificant in the group of top-level managers, who appear to cope with uncontrollable
factors more effectively.