IWP Indicators
IWP Indicators
IWP Indicators
DOI 10.3233/WOR-131659
3
Chapter 3
Abstract
Objective: This study was designed to 1) identify indicators for each dimension, 2)
select the most relevant indicators, and 3) determine the relative weight of each
dimension in ratings of work performance.
Methods: IWP indicators were identified from multiple research disciplines, via
literature, existing questionnaires, and expert interviews. Subsequently, experts
selected the most relevant indicators per dimension and scored the relative weight
of each dimension in ratings of IWP.
62
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
Introduction
63
Chapter 3
64
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
Methods
Identification of indicators
First, indicators were identified from a literature review on conceptual frameworks
of IWP [7]. Second, indicators were identified from existing IWP related
questionnaires. For this purpose, a systematic search was conducted to identify
questionnaires measuring individual work performance or work productivity. As the
terms work performance and work productivity are often used synonymously, we
incorporated both terms in our search strategies. Search strategies were developed
with the aid of experienced search specialists. Search terms included work
performance, work productivity, job performance, employee performance, or
employee productivity and questionnaire, scale, or index. Searches were conducted
in two medical databases (PubMed and Embase.com) and one psychological
(PsycINFO) database in September 2010. Additional questionnaires were identified
by scanning the authors’ personal collection of IWP literature. Third, interviews with
16 key-experts were held in November 2010. Key-experts were national and
international researchers with over 20 years of experience in the areas of
occupational health, psychology, or management.
A review of the literature, questionnaires and data from the experts
interviewed resulted in an initial list of IWP indicators. From this list, the first and
second author independently removed causal variables (e.g., motivation). In
addition, overlapping indicators between dimensions (e.g., ‘concentrating’ in
contextual performance, ‘not concentrating’ in counterproductive work behavior)
were removed from the dimension where they were least well suited. Differences in
judgment were resolved through a consensus procedure. Based on conceptual
overlap, the first and second author independently reduced the remaining list of
indicators, and using the definitions categorized each indicator into the dimension
where it best fitted. Differences in judgment were again resolved through a
consensus procedure.
Selection of indicators
Participants
A sample of 695 experts from different professional backgrounds (researchers,
managers, human resource managers (HRM), and occupational health professionals
(OHP)), including the key-experts, were invited to select the most relevant indicators
65
Chapter 3
of IWP. This sample consisted of participants from one national and one
international occupational health conference that took place in The Netherlands.
Each participant was invited by e-mail to participate in the study. A link to the online
questionnaire was included. Depending on their country of residence, participants
completed the questionnaire in Dutch or English. Participants had three weeks to
complete the questionnaire. After two weeks, non-responders received a reminder
via e-mail.
Questionnaire
After a brief introduction to the study, participants were shown a list of all indicators
per IWP dimension (task performance, contextual performance, adaptive
performance, and counterproductive work behavior). Within dimensions, indicators
were presented in random order. Per dimension, participants were asked to select
the 6 most important indicators, keeping in mind work performance on a generic
level. This means that they had to select indicators that were important in all types
of professions, not just in their own profession. For practical reasons, contextual
performance was split into two sub-dimensions (interpersonally directed and
organizationally directed) because of the large number of indicators related to this
dimension. In total, each participant selected 30 (5x6) indicators from the full list of
indicators, which he or she believed to be most relevant. After every category of
indicators, space was provided for comments and/or suggestions for additional
indicators. In the second part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to divide
100 points between the four dimensions, according to the relative weight they would
assign to each dimensions when rating IWP. They were also asked whether they
believed it possible to develop a generic questionnaire, or whether a combination of
a generic and job-specific questionnaire, or a job-specific questionnaire, was more
likely. Finally, participants were asked to fill out their gender, age, highest
educational level completed, profession, number of years experience in this
profession, number of people they manage, and branch of industry. Participants
were asked to leave their e-mail address if they wanted to receive the results of the
study and be eligible for one of the five gift vouchers to be allotted.
Data analysis
To rank the indicators in order of importance, the percentage of participants who
selected an indicator was calculated. Indicators were regarded relevant when they
were selected by 40% or more of the participants. Chi-square tests were performed
66
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
Results
Identification of indicators
In the literature review on conceptual frameworks, 54 IWP indicators were
identified. In the systematic questionnaire search, 77 questionnaires were identified
that aimed to measure the construct of individual work performance or productivity.
Of these, full texts of 14 questionnaires could not be retrieved. Another 11
questionnaires were excluded based on full text, because they either did not
measure work performance at the individual level, or did not measure work
performance at all. Additional scanning of personal collections added 29
questionnaires. The 81 questionnaires yielded 231 IWP indicators which were not
already identified in the literature review. None of the questionnaires were found to
measure all dimensions of IWP. Only one fifth of the questionnaires explicitly
measured one or two of the dimensions of IWP (task performance, contextual
performance, adaptive performance, or counterproductive work behavior [e.g.,
13,22,15]). More than one third of all questionnaires contained causal variables in
67
Chapter 3
Selection of indicators
In total, 253 participants (response rate of 36.4%) participated in the study, including
14 out of 16 key-experts. See Table 1 for participant characteristics. Table 2 presents
a list of the indicators that were selected as most relevant for each dimension. The
indicators are ranked based on the percentage of votes they received from the total
group. Data on the indicators that did not make the final selection is available from
the authors upon request. No additional indicators were suggested by the
participants during the selection process.
There was high agreement between all subgroups on the importance of the
indicators. For 20 items we found statistically significant differences between
experts from different professional backgrounds. Hence, subgroups based on
profession attributed similar importance to 84% (108 of 128) of the indicators.
Subgroups based on gender agreed on 95% of the indicators. Subgroups based on
age agreed on 93% of the indicators. Subgroups based on educational level agreed
on 87% of the indicators. Subgroups based on number of years work experience
agreed on 97% of the indicators. Subgroups based on the number of people one
manages agreed on 93% of the indicators. Subgroups based on branch of industry
agreed on 92% of the indicators.
68
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
69
Chapter 3
Task performance
The task performance dimension originally included 26 indicators. From these, 5
relevant task performance indicators were identified: work quality (69%), planning
and organizing work (56%), being result-oriented (46%), prioritizing (45%), and
working efficiently (44%).
There was a difference between experts from different professional
backgrounds on one of these indicators. On average, researchers judged being
result-oriented to be significantly less important (29%) than managers (64%) and
human resources managers (66%).
Contextual performance
Initially, there were 60 indicators included in contextual performance. For practical
reasons, these were split into two sub-dimensions (30 indicators at the
interpersonal level and 30 indicators at the organizational level). Four relevant
indicators at the interpersonal level were identified: taking initiative (51%),
accepting and learning from feedback (48%), cooperating with others (45%), and
communicating effectively (45%). Four relevant indicators at the organizational
level were also identified: showing responsibility (67%), being customer-oriented
(42%), being creative (41%), and taking on challenging work tasks (40%).
There were differences between experts from different professional
backgrounds on two of these indicators. On average, managers found taking
initiative significantly more important (75%) than researchers (41%), human
resources managers (53%), and occupational health professionals (50%).
Researchers found being customer-oriented significantly less important (21%) than
managers (57%), human resources managers (69%), and occupational health
professionals (47%).
Adaptive performance
The adaptive performance dimension originally included 18 indicators. Six relevant
adaptive performance indicators were identified: showing resiliency (coping with
stress, difficult situations and adversities; 70%), coming up with creative solutions
to novel, difficult problems (66%), keeping job knowledge up-to-date (57%),
keeping job skills up-to-date (52%), dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work
situations (48%), and adjusting work goals when necessary (43%).
Experts from different professional backgrounds differed on two of these
indicators. Managers found coming up with creative solutions to novel, difficult
70
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
71
Chapter 3
72
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
Table 2. Continued
Adaptive performance
4 Keeping job skills up-to-
date * 52 64 abc 41 a 43 b 42 c
5 Dealing with uncertain
and unpredictable work
situations 48 41 64 53 44
6 Adjusting work goals
when necessary 43 42 48 37 47
Counterproductive work behavior
1 Displaying excessive
negativity
(e.g., complaining,
making problems bigger
than they are) * 62 57 a 55 b 61 c 86 abc
2 Doing things that harm
your organization (e.g.,
not following rules,
discussing confidential
information) * 54 44 ab 73 ac 51 c 66 b
3 Doing things that harm
your co-workers or
supervisor (e.g., arguing,
leaving work for others
to finish) 52 58 43 47 54
4 Purposely making
mistakes * 48 54 a 50 31 ab 54 b
Notes: * = significant difference between profession subgroups.
abcd
= Denote which subgroups significantly differed from each other, for example,
in item 3 of task performance the score of the researchers (29%) differed statistically
significant from the score of the managers (64%) and HRM (66%).
73
Chapter 3
Table 3. The relative weight (scale 0 – 100) of each dimension in IWP ratings, in total
and per profession
Profession
Resear- Mana-
chers gers HRM OHP
Total (n=113) (n=48) (n=54) (n=38)
(n=253) Mean Mean Mean Mean
Dimension Mean (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
Task performance * 36 (13) 39 (15) a 33 (10) a 35 (13) 33 (10)
Contextual performance 22 (8) 22 (8) 23 (8) 23 (8) 23 (7)
Adaptive performance 20 (8) 19 (8) 20 (6) 22 (9) 22 (10)
Counterproductive work
behavior 21 (13) 20 (12) 24 (11) 20 (15) 22 (13)
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Notes: * = significant difference between profession subgroup.
a
Marginally significant difference (p = 0.058).
Discussion
The main goal of the current study was to gain consensus on how to measure IWP,
which would enable the development of a standardized, generic, short instrument.
Four broad, generic dimensions of IWP were used as a theoretical basis: task
performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counter-
productive work behavior. Using a multi-disciplinary approach, possible employee
behaviors or actions (indicators) were identified for each dimension, via a review of
the literature, existing questionnaires, and data from interviews with experts. In
total, 128 unique IWP indicators were identified, of which 23 were considered most
relevant for measuring IWP, based on notable consensus among experts. On
average, task performance received greatest weight when rating an employee’s
work performance. Contextual performance, adaptive performance, and
counterproductive work behavior received almost equal weightings. There was
agreement on 84% of the indicators between experts from different professional
backgrounds. Furthermore, experts agreed on the relative weight of each IWP
dimension in rating work performance. However, researchers weighed task
performance slightly higher than managers. Almost half of the experts believed in
the possibility of developing a completely generic questionnaire of IWP.
A multitude of measurement instruments aiming to measure IWP (or a
similar construct such as presenteeism or productivity) were identified in a
systematic search. Considering the large number of questionnaires (81), it is not
74
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
surprising that most IWP indicators were identified from questionnaires. Far more
indicators were identified for contextual performance than for the other dimensions
of IWP, although contextual performance was not rated higher than other
dimensions. As task performance rated the highest; one could expect more
indicators to be found for that dimension. This finding may indicate that task
performance is a less complex and more uniform dimension to measure than
contextual performance. However, it may also indicate that it is harder to think of
generic behaviors for task performance than for contextual performance. This may
mean that many task performance items are job-specific.
In the literature and questionnaire reviews, an indicator often (if not most
often) used for assessing task performance was quantity of work [7]. Surprisingly,
quantity of work was not selected as one of the most important indicators of task
performance in the current study. In fact, it was selected by only 13% of the
participants as an important indicator of IWP. This finding could be due to our sample
containing relatively few participants from trade and industrial work. Alternatively,
it could be due to the fact that quantity of work is captured in being result-oriented.
While being result-oriented was not mentioned in the literature or questionnaires,
it was selected as an important indicator for task performance in the current study,
mainly by managers and human resources managers. These findings indicate that it
may be more important to look at other indicators than work quantity to assess task
performance, such as work quality or being result-oriented.
Based on the current findings, some of the most often used IWP scales do
not incorporate all relevant indicators, or incorporate irrelevant indicators. Scales
often used to assess contextual performance include for example Podsakoff and
MacKenzie [13] or Van Scotter and Motowidlo [14]. The former focused on
measuring altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue.
The latter focused on measuring interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. The
first dimension of both scales is mainly operationalized by helpful behaviors, such as
helping others who have heavy work loads. In the current study, helping others was
not one of the most relevant behaviors for contextual performance (selected by 16%
of participants). Two of the top three contextual performance behaviors identified
in the current study (showing responsibility and accepting and learning from
feedback) are not directly included in either of these questionnaires.
Adaptive performance is a new and upcoming dimension in the work
performance literature [7]. Except for the Job Adaptability Index developed by
Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon [30], few researchers have identified
75
Chapter 3
76
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
77
Chapter 3
at 50% or 30% was also examined. For example, when using a 50% cut-off point, only
two relevant indicators for task performance remained. When using a 30% cut-off
point, 9 relevant indicators for task performance appeared. Therefore, to construct
a short, but comprehensive questionnaire, a cut-off point of 40% was deemed to be
sufficient.
Conclusion
Research on IWP would benefit greatly from a standardized, generic, short
measurement instrument. In the current study, 128 unique IWP indicators were
identified, of which 23 indicators were considered most relevant for measuring IWP,
based on notable consensus among experts. This provides an important step
towards the development of a standardized, generic, short instrument. Hopefully,
results of the current study remove some of the uncertainty regarding the definition
and measurement of IWP, and brings us one step closer to unraveling IWP and its
causes and consequences.
78
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
References
79
Chapter 3
11. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproductibility of a work
productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;
4: 353-365.
12. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The
World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire
(HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2003; 45: 156-
174.
13. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. A second generation measure of organizational
citizenship behavior. Indiana University, Bloomington; 1989.
14. Van Scotter JR, Motowidlo SJ. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology.
1996; 81(5): 525-531.
15. Bennett RJ, Robinson SL. Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85(3): 349-360.
16. LePine J.A., Erez A., Johnson D.E. The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Appl
Psychol. 2002; 87(1): 52-65.
17. Beaton D., Bombardier C., Escorpizo R., Zhang W., Lacaille D., Boonen A., et
al. Measuring worker productivity: frameworks and measures. J Rheumatol.
2009; 36(9): 2100-2109.
18. Evans C.J. Health and work productivity assessment: state of the art or state
of flux? J Occup Environ Med. 2004; 46(6): S3-S11.
19. Hunt S.T. Generic work behavior: an investigation into the dimensions of
entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology. 1996; 49(1): 51-
83.
20. Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to
measure health-related productivity loss. The American Journal of Managed
Care. 2007; 13(4): 211-217.
21. Baarda, De Goede, Van Dijkum. Basisboek Statistiek met SPSS.
Groningen/Houten, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff bv; 2003.
22. Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management. 1991; 17(3): 601-617.
23. Karidi MV, Papakonstantinou K, Stefanis N, Zografou M, Karamouzi G, Skaltsi
P, et al. Occupational abilities and performance scale: Reliability-validity
80
Identifying and Selecting Indicators
81