1 – THE BEST AND THE REST
a theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance – motowidlo
et al.
job performance – degree to which an individual helps the
organization reach its goals; behavioral, episodic, evaluative,
multidimensional
-as a behavioral construct:
-performance = behavior with an evaluative component
(=positive or negative for individual or organizational
effectiveness)
-results = states that are changed by performance; they
either contribute or detract from organizational goal
accomplishment
-performance behavior is episodic:
-streams of work behavior are punctuated by occasions
when people do something that makes a difference
-people perceive behavior as a series of actions separated
by breakpoints (= endings & beginnings)
-performance behavior is evaluative:
-behavioral episodes have varying contribution values
range from slightly to extremely negative/positive)
-people can judge incidents for their level of effectiveness
using specified rating scales
-performance is multidimensional:
-many different kinds of behavior that would advance or
hinder organizational goals
-behavioral episodes are heterogenous cannot make
meaningful comparisons
task performance & contextual performance
*task performance
*2 types:
1 - activities that transform raw materials into
goods/services
-selling merchandise, operating machines, teaching
2 – activities that service/maintain the technical core
-replenishing supplies, planning, supervising
*direct relation into organizations technical core
*motivation (=persistence, volunteering) to perform one’s
task effectively
*contextual performance
*maintains the broader social and psychological
environment
*includes helping other, cooperating, extra enthusiasm,
defending organizational objectives,…
, *motivation to facilitate group & interpersonal processes
*task behaviors have positive contribution values because they
improve the company’s capability to produce accordingly
*contextual behaviors have positive contribution values
because they improve the social environment needed for
effective and efficient work
individual differences:
*theory: individual differences lead to variability in
characteristic adaptions that mediate effects of personality &
cognitive ability on job performance
*task knowledge – knowledge of facts and principles related
to functions of the organization’s technical core, knowledge of
procedures, heuristics; shaped by cognitive ability
*contextual knowledge – knowledge of facts and procedures
for effective action in situations of cooperation; cognitive ability
also has effect
-e.g. people high on extraversion or agreeableness are
more likely to learn effective responses reflecting
extraversion or agreeableness
*task skill – skill in actually using technical info & performing
procedures; cognitive ability has direct effects
*contextual skill – skill in carrying out actions known to be
effective for helping others; largely determined by personality
traits
*task habits – learned pattern of behavior; can either facilitate
or interfere with performance
,*contextual habits – characteristic motivational responses;
also include characteristic responses to situations that do not
necessarily include motivational processes
frequency and contribution value of behavioral episodes in
the performance domain are directly determined by relevant
knowledge, skills, and work habits
appraisal – fletcher
*performance appraisal (PA): processes whereby an individual’s
work performance is assessed
*criticism of PA: too many objectives, inconsistent
*key element has been neglected: appraisal interview
*3 factors that influence AI: appraiser, appraisee, relationship
between them
the appraiser:
*attitude towards appraisal: frequently avoid carrying out
appraisals because they see no or negative consequences
-appraiser’s goals are: 1 – projecting a favorable image of the
work unit so as to reflect on them personally
2 – procuring access to organizational
resources and rewards
3 – presenting themselves as a caring boss
4 – avoiding conflict with subordinates and
the negative consequences
5 – avoiding disapproval from peers
*organisational politics: managers sometimes manipulate
performance scores
*gave excessive scores to avoid confrontation or
conflict/prevent a permanent written record of poor
performance
, *gave too low scores to scare them into performing
better/punish non-compliant subordinates/encouraging
unwanted subordinates to leave
*managers frequently allow their assessments to be influenced
by non-performance issues
*the extent to which they are susceptible to other influences on
their assessment is determined by various factors:
-their confidence in their own position (= greater
confidence, better ratings)
-their relationship with the subordinate
-their personality
the appraisee:
*self-disclosure makes people more vulnerable
*motivation, self-awareness and -esteem, such as locus of
control, attributional style and feedback influence an
individual’s reaction to being appraised
motivation
-appraisee may wish to know how they are viewed by the
manager
-they might wish to present a counter point
-may use appraisal as a springboard for development
-may wish to solve job problems
self-awareness, -esteem and -efficacy
-affects the reaction to PA
-if the individual can stand back from their own needs & assess
the performance in an unbiased manner, the appraiser will have
an easier job
-higher self-awarenessfound to be higher performers (bc it is
part of emotional intelligence)
assessment (whether positive or negative) will be very
close to their self-assessment, no disappointment
-women = more modest and more congruent with others in
their self-assessments
-self-assessment influenced by self-esteem
high self-esteem evaluated themselves more favorably
-2 hypotheses:
1 – self-consistency: individuals with low self-esteem will
prefer less positive feedback (because it fits with their self-
image) than people with high self-esteem
2 – self-enhancement: both high and low performers will
want positive feedback
-neither one is better than the other, both little support
a theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance – motowidlo
et al.
job performance – degree to which an individual helps the
organization reach its goals; behavioral, episodic, evaluative,
multidimensional
-as a behavioral construct:
-performance = behavior with an evaluative component
(=positive or negative for individual or organizational
effectiveness)
-results = states that are changed by performance; they
either contribute or detract from organizational goal
accomplishment
-performance behavior is episodic:
-streams of work behavior are punctuated by occasions
when people do something that makes a difference
-people perceive behavior as a series of actions separated
by breakpoints (= endings & beginnings)
-performance behavior is evaluative:
-behavioral episodes have varying contribution values
range from slightly to extremely negative/positive)
-people can judge incidents for their level of effectiveness
using specified rating scales
-performance is multidimensional:
-many different kinds of behavior that would advance or
hinder organizational goals
-behavioral episodes are heterogenous cannot make
meaningful comparisons
task performance & contextual performance
*task performance
*2 types:
1 - activities that transform raw materials into
goods/services
-selling merchandise, operating machines, teaching
2 – activities that service/maintain the technical core
-replenishing supplies, planning, supervising
*direct relation into organizations technical core
*motivation (=persistence, volunteering) to perform one’s
task effectively
*contextual performance
*maintains the broader social and psychological
environment
*includes helping other, cooperating, extra enthusiasm,
defending organizational objectives,…
, *motivation to facilitate group & interpersonal processes
*task behaviors have positive contribution values because they
improve the company’s capability to produce accordingly
*contextual behaviors have positive contribution values
because they improve the social environment needed for
effective and efficient work
individual differences:
*theory: individual differences lead to variability in
characteristic adaptions that mediate effects of personality &
cognitive ability on job performance
*task knowledge – knowledge of facts and principles related
to functions of the organization’s technical core, knowledge of
procedures, heuristics; shaped by cognitive ability
*contextual knowledge – knowledge of facts and procedures
for effective action in situations of cooperation; cognitive ability
also has effect
-e.g. people high on extraversion or agreeableness are
more likely to learn effective responses reflecting
extraversion or agreeableness
*task skill – skill in actually using technical info & performing
procedures; cognitive ability has direct effects
*contextual skill – skill in carrying out actions known to be
effective for helping others; largely determined by personality
traits
*task habits – learned pattern of behavior; can either facilitate
or interfere with performance
,*contextual habits – characteristic motivational responses;
also include characteristic responses to situations that do not
necessarily include motivational processes
frequency and contribution value of behavioral episodes in
the performance domain are directly determined by relevant
knowledge, skills, and work habits
appraisal – fletcher
*performance appraisal (PA): processes whereby an individual’s
work performance is assessed
*criticism of PA: too many objectives, inconsistent
*key element has been neglected: appraisal interview
*3 factors that influence AI: appraiser, appraisee, relationship
between them
the appraiser:
*attitude towards appraisal: frequently avoid carrying out
appraisals because they see no or negative consequences
-appraiser’s goals are: 1 – projecting a favorable image of the
work unit so as to reflect on them personally
2 – procuring access to organizational
resources and rewards
3 – presenting themselves as a caring boss
4 – avoiding conflict with subordinates and
the negative consequences
5 – avoiding disapproval from peers
*organisational politics: managers sometimes manipulate
performance scores
*gave excessive scores to avoid confrontation or
conflict/prevent a permanent written record of poor
performance
, *gave too low scores to scare them into performing
better/punish non-compliant subordinates/encouraging
unwanted subordinates to leave
*managers frequently allow their assessments to be influenced
by non-performance issues
*the extent to which they are susceptible to other influences on
their assessment is determined by various factors:
-their confidence in their own position (= greater
confidence, better ratings)
-their relationship with the subordinate
-their personality
the appraisee:
*self-disclosure makes people more vulnerable
*motivation, self-awareness and -esteem, such as locus of
control, attributional style and feedback influence an
individual’s reaction to being appraised
motivation
-appraisee may wish to know how they are viewed by the
manager
-they might wish to present a counter point
-may use appraisal as a springboard for development
-may wish to solve job problems
self-awareness, -esteem and -efficacy
-affects the reaction to PA
-if the individual can stand back from their own needs & assess
the performance in an unbiased manner, the appraiser will have
an easier job
-higher self-awarenessfound to be higher performers (bc it is
part of emotional intelligence)
assessment (whether positive or negative) will be very
close to their self-assessment, no disappointment
-women = more modest and more congruent with others in
their self-assessments
-self-assessment influenced by self-esteem
high self-esteem evaluated themselves more favorably
-2 hypotheses:
1 – self-consistency: individuals with low self-esteem will
prefer less positive feedback (because it fits with their self-
image) than people with high self-esteem
2 – self-enhancement: both high and low performers will
want positive feedback
-neither one is better than the other, both little support
