Problem 1: The best and the rest
A theory of Individual differences in Task and Contextual Performance (Motowidlo et al., 1997)
→ Basic assumptions about JP
1. behavioral: performance is behavior with an evaluative component; results are changed by performance
and either contribute or detract from goal accomplishment; if focus in only on results then extraneous
factors are not taken into account; performance is not (always) results, also behaviors are important in
selection process.
2. episodic: JP is episodic so only when pp do something that does make a difference in relation to
organizational goals
3. evaluative: behavioral episodes have varying contribution values that range from extremely positive to
extremely negative behaviors
4. multidimensional: JP consists of various types of behaviors that can advance or hinder goals; these
behaviors are too diverse to be meaningfully compared as a single construct ⇒ therefore JP is
multidimensional
- There are various behaviors that can help or hinder goals. While we can compare the overall contributions
of different people, the specific actions they take are too diverse to compare their overall behavior
patterns. This creates a dilemma: We want to predict someone's overall contribution, but the mix of
behaviors they show is too messy to reveal any useful personal traits related to it.)
Solution to dilemma: to organize the performance domain into behaviorally homogeneous
categories and aggregate contribution values of behavioral episodes separately in each category
- Then, research should focus on predicting multiple criteria at once, each representing the combined contributions
of behaviors in one category.
→ Task Performance (TP) Contextual Performance (CP)
TP 2 types:
Type 1: activities that transform raw materials into the goods and services that are the organization's products;
Type 2: activities that service and maintain the technical core by replenishing its supply of raw materials;
distributing its finished products etc
⇒ TP has direct relation to the organization's technical core, either by executing its technical processes or by
maintaining and servicing its technical requirements
⇒ CP does not contribute through the organization's core technical processes→it maintains the broader
organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must function
TP: has positive contribution value; either it helps the transformation of raw materials into goods or services,
or it directly services the organization's technical core and improves its
CP: has positive contribution values; improves the organizational, social, or psychological environment
necessary for the technical core to function effectively and efficiently
⇒ motivation accounts for variability in TP and CP
⇒ both contribution values represent their ultimate effects on organizational goal accomplishment, but
through two quite different means
→ Individual differences in task and contextual performance
Hunter's results show that ability directly affects job knowledge and skill and that it affects job performance
only through its effects on knowledge and skill
→ 3 determinants of Job Performance (Cambell)
1. declarative knowledge: facts, principles, procedures→ can be measured by paper and pencil tests
, 2. procedural knowledge and skill: combination of knowing what to do and actually being able to do it → can
be measured by job sample tests
3. motivation: combination of choice of how much and how long effort to exert
⇒ Individual differences in personality, ability, and interests combine and interact with education, training,
and experience and shape declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge and skill.
→ Metatheoretical Framework (McCrae&Costa)
a. basic tendencies: fundamental capacities and dispositions; can be inherited or shaped to some degree by
early experience, but they are generally stable
b. characteristic adaptations: expressions of basic tendencies; specific skills, habits, preferences, attitudes,
and patterns of behavior that pp learn as their basic tendencies interact with their environments over time;
they are joint product of basic tendencies and learning processes
- Declarative and procedural knowledge and skill are characteristic adaptations.
c. objective biography: set of overt behaviors that theories of personality often try to predict. Objective
biography is job performance
⇒ basic tendencies directly affect characteristic adaptations that, in turn, directly affect objective biography;
no direct link between basic tendencies and objective biography;
→ Model
- proposed theory: individual differences in personality and cognitive ability, in combination with learning
experiences, lead to variability in characteristic adaptations that mediate effects of personality and
cognitive ability on job performance
-
- The kinds of traits and characteristic adaptations that are related to TP are different from the kinds of traits
and characteristic adaptations that are related to CP.
-2 categories of basic tendencies:
- 1) cognitive ability better predicts TP;
- 2) personality better predicts CP
-
- crossover effects:
- 1) cognitive ability has some effect on contextual knowledge that directly affect CP;
- 2) personality has some effect on task habits that directly affect TP
- but theory still expects that personality is most strongly related to CP and cognitive ability to TP
⇒ mediating variables:
task knowledge: e.g. software engineer has
extensive knowledge on programming languages
and software engineering principles
task skill: e.g. software engineer efficiently
optimizes software by using her technical knowledge
contextual knowledge: knowledge of facts,
principles, and procedures for effective action in
situations that call for helping and cooperating with
others; pp high in extraversion or agreeableness
should be better in learning contextual knowledge;
- cognitive ability also influences the acquisition of
, contextual knowledge through info processing,
memory etc.
contextual skill: carrying out actions known to be effective for handling situations that call for helping and
coordinating with others;
- determined by personality traits e.g. extraversion and agreeableness
habits: patterns of behavior that pp learn over time; not always the best way of dealing with a situation;
include characteristic motivational responses but not only
task habits: characteristic ways of using technical info, performing technical procedures, making decisions
etc.;
- affected by individual differences in both cognitive ability and in personality traits such as
conscientiousness
contextual habits: characteristic tendencies to approach or avoid various types of interpersonal and group
situations, preferred ways of handling conflict etc.;
- agreeableness and extraversion are more important here than conscientiousness
- According to our theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance, the frequency and
contribution value of behavioral episodes in performance are determined by knowledge, skills, and work habits.
- One personality trait in particular, conscientiousness, may also affect TP through its effects on task habits
2. Chapter: Performance Concepts and Performance Theory (Sonnentag & Frese)
Motivational constructs related to performance are:
Core Core assumptions and findings Practical
question Implications
Individual Which - differences in performance between pp can be explained by individual 1.focus on
differences individu differences in cogn. ability, personality,motivation and experience (positive and personnel
perspective al small effect) selection (select
perform -Campbell et al. model: declarative-, procedural knowledge, motivation are the pp on basis of
s best? only direct determinants of JP abilities,
-Motowidlo: adds that except cognitive abilities, personality variables have an personality etc.)
effect on CP 2.training
-strong relation→pp with high cognitive abilities perform better than pp with low programs
cognitive abilities across a broad range of different jobs (improve
- general relationships between personality factors and JP are small; strongest knowledge and
relationships for neuroticism/emotional stability and conscientiousness skills)
- need for achievement (motivational) related to JP -self-efficacy is also important 3.exposure to
in the learning process in the beginning of the learning process, self-efficacy is a specific
better predictor of performance than goals, while this relationship is reversed at a experiences like
later stage mentoring
-professional experience shows a positive, but small relationship with JP programs
situational In which - factors in the pp’ environment which support or hinder performance 1.job design
perspective situation - focus is on workplace factors but also specific motivational approaches or interventions:e.g.
s do approaches which aim at improving performance by reward systems or by giving workers
individu establishing perceptions of equity and fairness more control at
als job characteristics model: job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task work
perform significance, autonomy, feedback) have an effect on critical psychological states
best? (experienced meaningfulness and responsibility) which affect JP
-small positive relationship between job characteristics and JP found in studies
, and causal rship can’t be proven.
-sociotechnical systems theory: work systems composed of social and technical
subsystems; performance improvement can only follow from the joint
optimization of both systems; more focussed on group than individual
performance
-role theory: role ambiguity and role conflict are stressors that impede JP;
evidence for negative effects of role ambiguity and role conflict is weak
-no significant relationship between role conflict and job performance found yet
(only found for role ambiguity)
- Situational constraints include stressors such as lack of necessary info, problems
with machines and supplies as well as stressors within the work environment→
assumed to impair job performance directly
-evidence for the detrimental effect of situational constraints on performance is
mixed→stressors can have a positive effect on personal initiative
-performance-enhancing factors (e.g., control at work) play a more important role
than stressors
-lack of positive features in the work situation (e.g. control at work) threatens
performance more than the presence of some stressors
perforforma How -focuses on the performance process itself and conceptualizes it as an action 1.goal setting
nce does the process 2.feedback
regulation perform - aims to describe differences between high and moderate performers while interventions
perspective ance working on a task focused on task
process -high performers focus more on long-range goals and show more planning in not on self
look complex and ill-structured tasks, but not in well-structured tasks 3.behavior
like? -action theory: describes performance process from both a process and a modification
What is structural point of view; process point of view focuses on the sequential aspects (positive
happeni of an action; structural point of view refers to its hierarchical organization; reinforcement)
ng when process point of view→goal development, info search, planning, execution of the 4.improvement of
someon action and its monitoring action process
e is -excellent and moderate performers differed with respect to problem 5. training
performi comprehension, planning, feedback processing, and task focus 6.job design
ng? - Process regulation perspective is linked to specific performance improvement 7.combo of goal
interventions→most prominent are goal setting and feedback interventions setting plus
- Basic idea of goal setting→setting specific and difficult goals results in better task-related
performance than no or ‘do-your-best’ goals feedback better
-goal-setting theory: goals affect performance via 4 mediating mechanisms than only goal
(effort, persistence, direction, and task strategies); benefits of goal setting on setting.
performance are well supported by research
- feedback enhances performance if the feedback is task-related; but feedback
which refers primarily to self-related processes has no or at least a detrimental
effect on performance (even if it is positive feedback)
-a combination of a goal-setting intervention with a feedback intervention results
in better performance than a goal-setting intervention alone
Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES): intervention
approach based goal setting and feedback; suggests a procedure for firms to
improve productivity by identifying their products, developing indicators,
establishing contingencies, and finally putting the system together as a feedback
system
