Performance Concepts and Performance Theory

joP1: FDJ/IKJ P2: FDJ/IKJ QC: FDJ/UKS T1: UKS

0471877263C1 WU005.cls December 17, 2001 16:43

Chapter 1 Performance Concepts and Performance Theory

Sabine Sonnentag University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, and Michael Frese
University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany

INTRODUCTION 4 RELEVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 4 DEFINITION OF PERFORMANCE 5 PERFORMANCE AS A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CONCEPT 6 TASK PERFORMANCE 6 CONTEX TUAL PERFORMANCE 6 RELATIONSHIP BE T WEEN TASK AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE 7 PERFORMANCE AS A DYNAMIC CONCEPT 7 PERSPECTIVES ON PERFORMANCE 8 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PERSPEC T IVE 8 SI TUATIONAL PERSPECT I VE 11 PERFORMANCE REGULATION PERSPECTIVE 13 RELAT IONSHIPS AMONG THE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES 15
PERFORMANCE IN A CHANGING WORLD OF WORK 15 CONT INUOUS LEARNING 15 PROACTIVITY 16 WORKING IN TEAMS 17 GLOBALIZ AT ION 17 TECHNOLOGY 18
CONCLUSION 18
NOTES 19
REFERENCES 19

SUMMARY

This chapter gives an overview of research on individual performance. Individual per- formance is highly important for an organization as a whole and for the individuals working in it. Performance comprises both a behavioral and an outcome aspect. It is a multi-dimensional and dynamic concept. This chapter presents three perspectives on performance: an individual differences perspective with a focus on individual charac- teristics as sources for variation in performance; a situational perspective with a focus on situational aspects as facilitators and impediments for performance; and a perfor- mance regulation perspective with a focus on the performance process. The chapter describes how current

References: Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288– 318. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436. Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–34). Chichester: Wiley. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Age and work performance in non- managerial jobs: The effects of experience and occupational type. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 407–422. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: Freeman. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118. Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589. P1: FDJ/IKJ P2: FDJ/IKJ QC: FDJ/UKS T1: UKS 0471877263C1 WU005.cls December 17, 2001 16:43 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organi- zations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. Bowen, D. E., & Waldman, D. A. (1999). Customer-driven employee performance. In D. R. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In D. R. Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job perfor- mance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for man- agerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13. Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, S. E. (Eds.) (1997). Creating tomorrow’s organizations. A handbook for future research in organizational behavior. Chichester: Wiley. Cox, T. J., & Tung, R. L. (1997). The multicultural organization revisited. In C. L. Cooper & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations. A handbook for future research in organizational behavior (pp. 7–28). Chichester: Wiley. Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305. Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2000). Stressors and personal initiative: A study on organizational behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Frese, M. (1997). Dynamic self-reliance: An important concept for work in the twenty-first century. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161. P1: FDJ/IKJ P2: FDJ/IKJ QC: FDJ/UKS T1: UKS 0471877263C1 WU005.cls December 17, 2001 16:43 Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63. Frese, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2000). High performance: An action theory approach. Working paper. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139–1155. Fried, Y. (1991). Meta-analytic comparison of the Job Diagnostic Survey and Job Characteristics inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 690–697. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Manage- ment, 16, 399–432. Greiner, B. A., & Leitner, K. (1989). Assessment of job stress: The RHIA-instrument. In K. Landau & W. Rohmert (Eds.), Recent developments in work analysis (pp. 53–66). London: Taylor & Francis. Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes and behaviors: A long-term investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 425–435. Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291. Hacker, W. (1973). Allgemeine Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie: Psychische Struktur und Regulation von Arbeitsta¨ tigkeiten Hacker, W. (1998). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Arbeitsta¨ tigkeiten. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319. Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance. Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Howard, A. (Ed.) (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job perfor- mance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.) (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ilgen, D. R., & Schneider, J. (1991). Performance measurement: A multi-discipline view. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 71–108). Chichester: Wiley. P1: FDJ/IKJ P2: FDJ/IKJ QC: FDJ/UKS T1: UKS 0471877263C1 WU005.cls December 17, 2001 16:43 Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1–21. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.