Job performance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied
academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human
resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and
success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something
a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as
organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables. [1][2]

Contents

 1Features
o 1.1Outcomes
o 1.2Organizational goal relevance
o 1.3Multidimensionality
 2Types
 3Determinants
o 3.1Results of Personnel psychology
o 3.2Impact of work experience
o 3.3Detrimental impact of bullying
 4Core self-evaluations
 5Role conflict
 6Emotional intelligence
 7See also
 8References

Features[edit]
There are several key features to Campbell's conceptualization of job performance which help clarify
what job performance means.
Outcomes[edit]
First, Campbell defines performance as behavior—something done by an employee. This concept
differentiates performance from outcomes. Outcomes result partially from an individual's
performance, but they are also the result of other influences. In other words, there are more factors
determine outcomes than just an employee's behaviors and actions.
Campbell allows for exceptions when defining performance as behavior. For instance, he clarifies
that performance does not have to be directly observable actions of an individual. It can consist of
mental productions such as answers or decisions. However, performance needs to be under the
individual's control, regardless of whether the performance of interest is mental or behavioral.
The difference between individual controlled action and outcomes is best conveyed through an
example.[citation needed] In a sales job, a favorable outcome is a certain level of revenuegenerated through
the sale of something (merchandise, or some service such as insurance). Revenue can be
generated or not, depending on the behavior of employees. When the employee performs this sales
job well, he is able to move more merchandise. However, certain factors other than employees'
behavior influence revenue generated. For example, sales might slump due to economic conditions,
changes in customer preferences, production bottlenecks, etc. In these conditions, employee
performance can be adequate, yet sales can remain low. The first is performance and the second is
the effectiveness of that performance. One can de-couple these two because performance is not the
same as effectiveness.[3]
Another closely related construct is productivity.[4] One can think of productivity as a comparison of
the amount of effectiveness that results from a certain level of cost associated with that
effectiveness. In other words, effectiveness is the ratio of outputs to inputs—those inputs being
effort, monetary costs, resources, etc.
Utility, another related construct, is defined as the value of a particular level of performance,
effectiveness, or productivity.[citation needed] Utilities of performance, effectiveness, and productivity are
value judgments.
Organizational goal relevance[edit]
Another key feature of job performance is that it has to be goal relevant. Performance must be
directed toward organizational goals that are relevant to the job or role. Therefore, performance does
not include activities where effort is expended toward achieving peripheral goals. For example, the
effort put toward the goal of getting to work in the shortest amount of time is not performance (except
where it is concerned with avoiding lateness).
Multidimensionality[edit]
Despite the emphasis on defining and predicting job performance, it is not a single unified construct.
There are vastly many jobs each with different performance standards. Therefore, job performance
is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of more than one kind of behavior.
Campbell (1990) proposed an eight factor model of performance based on factor analytic research
that attempts to capture dimensions of job performance existent (to a greater or lesser extent)
across all jobs.

1. The first factor is task specific behaviors which include those behaviors that an individual
undertakes as part of a job. They are the core substantive tasks that delineate one job from
another.
2. On the other hand, non-task specific behaviors, the second factor, are those behaviors
which an individual is required to undertake which do not pertain only to a particular job.
Returning to the sales person, an example of a task specific behavior would be showing a
product to a potential customer. A non-task specific behavior of a sales person might be
training new staff members.
3. Written and oral communication tasks refer to activities where the incumbent is evaluated,
not on the content of a message necessarily, but on the adeptness with which they deliver
the communication. Employees need to make formal and informal oral and written
presentations to various audiences in many different jobs in the work force.
4. An individual's performance can also be assessed in terms of effort, either day to day, or
when there are extraordinary circumstances. This factor reflects the degree to which people
commit themselves to job tasks.
5. The performance domain might also include an aspect of personal discipline. Individuals
would be expected to be in good standing with the law, not abuse alcohol, etc.
6. In jobs where people work closely or are highly interdependent, performance may include
the degree to which a person helps out the groups and his or her colleagues. This might
include acting as a good role model, coaching, giving advice or helping maintain
group goals.
7. Many jobs also have a supervisory or leadership component. The individual will be relied
upon to undertake many of the things delineated under the previous factor and in addition
 will be responsible for meting out rewards and punishments. These aspects of performance
happen in a face to face manner.
8. Managerial and administrative performance entails those aspects of a job which serve the
group or organization but do not involve direct supervision. A managerial taskwould be
setting an organizational goal or responding to external stimuli to assist a group in achieving
its goals. In addition a manager might be responsible for monitoring group and individual
progress towards goals and monitoring organizational resources.
Another taxonomy of job performance was proposed and developed for the US Navy by Murphy
(1994). This model is significantly broader and breaks performance into only four dimensions.

1. Task-oriented behaviors are similar to task-specific behaviors in Campbell's model. This

dimension includes any major tasks relevant to someone's job.
2. Interpersonally oriented behaviors are represented by any interaction the focal employee has
with other employees. These can be task related or non-task related. This dimension
diverges from Campbell's taxonomy because it included behaviors (small talk, socializing,
etc.) that are not targeting an organization's goal.
3. Down-time behaviors are behaviors that employees engage in during their free time either at
work or off-site. Down-time behaviors that occur off-site are only considered job
performance when they subsequently affect job performance (for example, outside
behaviors that cause absenteeism).
4. Destructive/hazardous behaviors.
In addition to these models dividing performance into dimensions, others have identified different
types of behaviors making up performance.

Types[edit]
Another way to divide up performance is in terms of task and contextual (citizenship and
counterproductive) behaviors.[5] Whereas task performance describes obligatory behaviors,
contextual behaviors are behaviors that do not fulfill specific aspects of the job's required role.
Citizenship behaviors are defined as behaviors which contribute to the goals of the organization
through their effect on the social and psychological conditions. [6] Counterproductive behaviors, on the
other hand, are intentional actions by employees which circumvent the aims of the organization. [7]

Determinants[edit]
Campbell (1990) also suggested determinants of performance components. Individual differences on
performance are a function of three main determinants: declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge and skill, and motivation.
Declarative knowledge represents the knowledge of a given task's requirements. For instance,
declarative knowledge includes knowledge of principles, facts, ideas, etc.
If declarative knowledge is knowing what to do, procedural knowledge and skill is knowing how to do
it. For example, procedural knowledge and skill includes cognitive skill, perceptual skill, interpersonal
skill, etc.
The third predictor of performance is motivation, which refers to "a combined effect from three choice
behaviors—choice to expend effort, choice of level of effort to expend, and choice to persist in the
expenditure of that level of effort" (Campbell, 1990). It reflects the direction, intensity, and
persistence of volitional behaviors.[8] Campbell (1990) emphasized that the only way to discuss
motivation as a direct determinant of behavior is as one or more of these choices. (See also Work
motivation.)
Campbell (1990) also mentioned several performance parameters that may have important
implications for the job performance setting and should be investigated by industrial and
organizational psychologists.
The first one is the distinction between speed and accuracy. This distinction is similar to the one
between quantity and quality.[9] Important questions that should be considered include: which is most
valued by the organization, maximized speed, maximized accuracy, or some balance between the
two? What kind of trade offs should an employee makes? The latter question is important because
speed and accuracy for the same task may be independent of one another.
The second distinction is between typical and maximum performance. Sackett, Zedeck, and
Fogli[10] did a study on supermarket cashiers and found that there was a substantial difference
between scores reflecting their typical performance and scores reflecting their maximum
performance. This study suggested the distinction between typical and maximum performance.
Regular work situations reflect varying levels of motivation which result in typical performance.
Special circumstances generate maximum employee motivation which results in maximum
performance.
Additionally, the impact of organizational justice perceptions on performance is believed to stem
from Equity Theory. This would suggest that when people perceive injustice they seek to restore
justice. One way that employees restore justice is by altering their level of performance. Procedural
justice affects performance as a result of its impact on employee attitudes. Distributive justice affects
performance when efficiency and productivity are involved. [11] Improving justice perceptions improves
productivity and performance. [12]
Results of Personnel psychology[edit]
A meta-analysis of selection methods in personnel psychology found that general mental ability was
the best overall predictor of job performance and training performance. [13] While intelligence (general
mental ability) is the strongest known predictor of job performance, that is less true for fields that are
information-rich and require much instructional learning. Conscientiousness is another good
predictor, but correlates with intelligence and is sometimes excluded from meta-analyses.
The American Psychological Association's Research in Action [14] article on personnel selection
recounts evidence indicating that general cognitive ability and conscientiousness account for 20-
30% of the variance in job performance, with more complex jobs falling into the upper portion of that
range. However, an American Psychological Association article [15]states that conscientiousness
actually impedes success in creative, innovative or spontaneous jobs such as artistic, social and
investigative jobs. That article states that other psychological factors are also related to job
performance, namely: creativity, leadership, integrity, attendance and cooperation.
There are differences in the extent to which job performance is predicted by intelligence depending
on the occupation. A 1998[16] meta-analysis of the predictors of job performance for salesperson
found that extraversion and conscientiousness predicted both ratings and sales, but general
cognitive ability and age correlated with ratings but not sales. Social skills, a good mentor and
interpersonal virtues predict career success, a concept related to job performance, and happiness,
better than high education, IQ or cerebral virtues, except for certain occupations like theoretical
physics.[17]
Impact of work experience[edit]
The significance of work experience as a predictor of job performance is debatable [18] as experience
correlates with performance for people with 0-3 years’ experience, but the correlation is attenuating
to just 0.15 at 12+ years of experience. This suggests that experience doesn't increase performance
after any more than a few years’ experience.
Detrimental impact of bullying[edit]
Main article: Workplace bullying
Bullying results in a loss of productivity. In one study a moderate negative correlation was found
between self-rated performance and bullying, with the “currently bullied” on average reporting a
decrease of productivity of approximately 7% compared with those who were neither bullied nor had
witnessed bullying taking place.[19]

Core self-evaluations[edit]
Job performance is a consistent and important outcome of core self-evaluations (CSE).[20][21][22][23] The
concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) as a
dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, [24] and involves four personality dimensions; locus of
control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The way in which people appraise themselves
using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job
satisfaction and job performance. The most popular theory relating the CSE trait to job performance
argues that people with high CSE will be more motivated to perform well because they are confident
they have the ability to do so.[20]Motivation is generally the most accepted mediator of the core self-
evaluations and job performance relationship. [21] These relationships have inspired increasing
amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the
importance this trait may have for organizations.

Role conflict[edit]
Main article: Role conflict
Role conflict can have many different effects on the work-life of an individual as well as their family-
life. In a study in Taiwan, it was found that those suffering from role conflict also suffered greatly in
their work performance, mainly in the form of lack of motivation. Those with role conflict did not do
more than the bare minimum requirements at work. There was also a decline in the ability to assign
tasks. Having multiple roles will often lead to job dissatisfaction.
Experiencing role conflict within the work place may also lead to workplace bullying. When
companies undergo organizational change workers often experience either a loss or a gain in areas
of a workers job, thus changing the expectations of the worker. Change is often very stressful for
workers. Workers who might have lost a degree of power may feel like they lost their authority and
begin to lash out at other employees by being verbally abusive, purposefully withholding work
related items, or sometimes even physically to withhold their status. [25]
While there are many de-motivational effects of role conflict on work, there is also a positive. Those
undergoing role conflict often had an increase in work creativity. Due to multiple roles, there is an
increase in flexibility, different sources of information, and these people have many different
perspectives to bring to the table.[26]

Emotional intelligence[edit]
See also: Emotional intelligence §  Job performance
Research of emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance shows mixed results: a positive relation
has been found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This
led researchers Cote and Miners (2006) [27] to offer a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that
posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive
intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides,
Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory
model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior
directed at the organization, the higher their EI.
A meta-analytic review by Joseph and Newman [28] also revealed that both Ability EI and Trait EI tend
to predict job performance much better in jobs that require a high degree of emotional labor (where
'emotional labor' was defined as jobs that require the effective display of positive emotion). In
contrast, EI shows little relationship to job performance in jobs that do not require emotional labor. In
other words, emotional intelligence tends to predict job performance for emotional jobs only.
A more recent study suggests that EI is not necessarily a universally positive trait. [29] They found a
negative correlation between EI and managerial work demands; while under low levels of
managerial work demands, they found a negative relationship between EI and teamwork
effectiveness. An explanation for this may suggest gender differences in EI, as women tend to score
higher levels than men.[28] This furthers the idea that job context plays a role in the relationships
between EI, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance.
Another study assessed a possible link between EI and entrepreneurial behaviors and success. [30] In
accordance with much of the other findings regarding EI and job performance, they found that levels
of EI only predicted a small amount of entrepreneurial behavior.

Employee work performance

Like most employees, you want to do well in your job. In order to do that, you need a
clear understanding of what is expected of you. You may also need support and training
to meet those expectations.

Performance management isn’t simply a once-a-year evaluation. Good performance

management is a continuous, positive collaboration between you and your supervisor.
By staying connected with your supervisor all year round, you can make adjustments to
your work performance as needed, and your supervisor can assess and support your
performance and ability to meet your annual goals.

Planning for the year ahead

You and your supervisor should have a discussion about your work goals for the
upcoming year. You should expect to have this discussion around the time of your
annual performance review for the previous year.

The discussion may include:

 A review of your job description. Is it accurate and complete?

 A list of goals for the coming year. Your goals should be tied to departmental goals and
your job description.
 An assessment of skills and knowledge you need to develop in order to achieve your
goals.
 A discussion of your long-term professional goals. This is a good time to advocate for
your professional growth through training and job opportunities.

You and your supervisor should document your goals and any necessary professional
development. Make sure you get a copy of this document so that you can refer to it over
the next review period.

If you don’t understand any of your goals or expectations, be sure to clarify them with
your supervisor.
New employees
New classified employees, or current classified employees moving to a new position,
are usually required to serve a probationary or trial service period. The length of this
period is determined by the applicable collective bargaining agreement or employment
program.

Be sure that you understand the goals and expectations you need to meet in order to
successfully complete this period and transition to permanent status.

Professional staff don’t have a probationary or trial service period; instead, they serve
on an “at will” basis, which means that their appointment can be modified or ended for
any reason that does not unlawfully discriminate against the employee or violate public
policy.

Staying connected
Meet with your supervisor throughout the year, formally or informally, so that you can
receive timely and regular feedback about your performance. These meetings can also
be a great time to discuss any additional support or training you need to accomplish
your goals.

If your goals change over the course of the year, ask your supervisor to document the
changes.

Keep track of your achievements and professional development during the year,
particularly accomplishments related to your annual goals. This information can be
helpful when it is time for your annual performance review.

Reviewing the year
Performance reviews typically take place annually.

Your annual review has two parts: a written evaluation and a one-on-one meeting with
your supervisor to discuss the evaluation.

For the annual performance review, pull out the notes you have been keeping on your
achievements over the review period. These notes can be a useful aid if you are asked
to complete a self-evaluation. If no self-evaluation is required, offer to summarize your
achievements for your supervisor. Remembering all the accomplishments of multiple
employees is challenging. Your supervisor may appreciate a reminder when writing your
evaluation.

Written evaluation
Your department may have a standard form for performance evaluations. Ask your
supervisor for a blank copy of the form so that you can better understand how you are
being assessed.

Evaluation forms typically cover the following topics:

  Quality of work (accuracy, thoroughness, competence)
 Quantity of work (productivity level, time management, ability to meet deadlines)
 Job knowledge (skills and understanding of the work)
 Working relationships (ability to work with others, communication skills)
 Achievements

One-on-one meeting
For many employees, the face-to-face performance discussion is the most stressful
work conversation they’ll have all year. But remember that your supervisor wants you to
succeed at your job. If you and your supervisor have been communicating openly and
frequently all year round, nothing in your evaluation should come as a surprise.

Ask your supervisor if you can read the written evaluation prior to the meeting. This
gives you time to consider the feedback and gather your thoughts before talking in
person with your supervisor. And you should have the opportunity to provide input
before the written evaluation is finalized.

After you and your supervisor have discussed your evaluation, both of you need to sign
the form. Your evaluation is stored in your departmental personnel file for three years.

What if I don’t agree with my evaluation?

Your signature simply means that you have read the document. Signing your evaluation
form does not mean that you agree with what has been written.

If you disagree with any part of your evaluation, you can write a letter of response,
detailing your view of your performance and how it differs from the evaluation. Check
your employment program or collective bargaining agreement for the appropriate
process to express disagreement with your evaluation. Additionally, you can contact the
University’s Office of the Ombud if you would like support in presenting your concern.

Make a new plan

Once the annual performance review is completed, you and your supervisor should
develop and document goals and expectation for the next 12 months.