Linking Individual Differences with Performance Improvement

LINKING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES WITH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

Steve L. Whatley The Ohio State University [email protected]

Chan Lee The Ohio State University [email protected]

Abstract Changing organizational environments will not only maintain, but also increase the importance of ability as organizational requirements continue to change. Personality also has been an important focus of individual differences that will become more important in the future as organizations focus more on contextual performance. Together personality and ability and applicable knowledge and skills become the critical individual differences that need to be measured in the rapidly evolving organizational environments. The authors discuss how organizations should measure individual differences to improve their performance.

Key words: Individual Differences, Performance Improvement, Performance Measurement

Introduction Individual differences contribute collectively to performance (Motowidlo & Schmitt, 1999). Individual differences are defined as the classification of the characteristics of people for purposes of selection, training, placement, and evaluation in the workplace. The definition is based on the theory of individual differences that offers “objective quantification” of individual differences (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1998, p. 224). Different individual differences have been offered by several researchers: mental ability, temperament, and motivation (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1992), cognitive ability, personality orientation (values and interests) and affective dispositions (Murphy, 1996), cognitive ability, personality, interests and physical ability (Schmitt & Chan, 1998). This paper will discuss the individual differences: cognitive ability, personality, interests and motivation. Ackerman and Humphreys (1992) offered three types of individual differences: interindividual differences, and two types of intraindividual differences. Interindividual differences are differences between individuals. For interindividual differences to be effective, diversity in the applicant population or the assessment of general abilities is required. Put differently, individual difference measures of a particular characteristic within a population may not assist in determining the best applicant. A more diverse population or general characteristic possessing greater variance may be required. Intraindividual differences encompass differences experienced over time, and “differences between attributes of an individual” (p. 224). Intraindividual differences change over time. For example, technology has changed our differences in competency with the advent of personal computers. Tasks formally performed on typewriters, machines in which people were competent, changed to personal computers beginning with zero-competency, but changing to the competency level equal or beyond that of 2 the typewriter. Differences between attributes of an individual could include differences in verbal and analytical skills. Individual differences also encompass knowledge, skills, abilities and other orientations (KSAOs). Knowledge refers to the declarative and procedural knowledge, which serves as the basis to build abilities and skills are built. Skills typically refer to psychomotor skills and abilities to cognition or cognitive ability. Other orientations refer to personality and motivation characteristics important for the performance of more contextual tasks (Schmitt & Chan, 1998). Individual differences are assessed using several methods discussed below.

Individual Differences to be Measured in Improving Performance According to Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) the “technical, economic, cultural and business environments” (p. 56) are changing at a rapid pace. Schmitt and Chan (1998) are more specific stating that resulting changes include “advances in technology (e.g. speed and communication), . . .outsourcing. . .use of temporary or part-time workers, downsizing, changing [to a more global] economy and privatization of government activities” (p. 262). These changes indicate that changes in the way organizations conduct business will lead to changes in the requirements of employees by more closely focusing on individual differences that could critical to how business operates (e.g. teams) and organizational success. Traditionally ability has been an important factor in performance. Changing organizational environments will not only sustain but also increase the importance of ability as organizational requirements continue to change. Personality also has been an important focus of individual differences that will become more important in the future as organizations focus more on contextual performance. Together personality and ability and applicable knowledge and skills become the critical individual differences that need to be measured in the rapidly evolving organizational environments (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999).

Personality Cognitive Ability Variables Variables

Contextual Contextual Contextual Task Task Task Habits Skill Knowledge Habits Skill Knowledge

Contextual Task Performance Performance Figure 1. A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997, p. 79). 3

Proficient task performance is essential to organizational performance, thus, success. It is also important that to recognize the importance of contextual performance. Although both contribute to the organization, they two types of tasks can be distinguished because they contribute to different aspects of the organization. One might argue that both types of tasks contribute to organizational effectiveness; if so, they approach this from different directions. Task performance, which contributes directly to the core business of the organization, whether it be producing a product or delivery of a service. Task performance is typically based on some prescribed role or function that is guided by particular knowledge, skills, abilities and other orientations (KSAOs). Usually, task performance varies across the organization, thus, having consistency in contributing to the core business. On-the-other-hand, contextual performance supports the core business by contributing to the environmental concerns whether it is “organizational, social, or psychological” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1999, p. 73). Contextual performance indicates the extra initiative and/or effort that an organization member is willing to provide. By not being guided by requirements contained in job description or other job requirements, members who engage in contextual performance do so because they have chosen to do so on the organization’s behalf. While unlike task performance, contextual performance does not necessarily vary with the different jobs, although because of the facets of a particular job, particular contextual performance may emerge. While proficient task performance will remain primary in the selection, training, placement and evaluation of organization members, one might consider the benefits of including contextual performance when considering the type of employee they wish to employee. Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) anticipate that organizations will become less bureaucratic making way for increased autonomy and participative decision-making. Greater autonomy and participative decision-making will require employees to have characteristics to assume more responsibility for themselves and with others in the form of teams. Teams have and will continue to become integral in the accomplishment of organizational mission and goals (Schmitt & Chan, 1998) that increases the importance of ability and personality characteristics. Moynihan and Peterson (2001) agree that personality has strong effects on group processes and that personality also can be a good predictor of group [team] performance. Ability and personality certainly have been important individual differences, however, the underlying purposes for assessing these differences have changed based on dynamic changes in business and how work is performed, and focus on contextual tasks and their correlation with organization effectiveness. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) lists the following contextual task ability requirements:

 Helping and cooperating with others o Working as a team member: good interpersonal and conflict resolution skills o Emphasis on customer service: internally and externally versus merely product or service delivery  Endorsing, supporting and defending organizational objectives o Essential for decision-making reflecting endorsement and support of organizational objectives.  Motivation to perform outside of job requirements o Initiative and willingness to take on more responsibilities  Self-development and flexibility 4

o Adaptability, flexibility and openness to different methods of operating and willingness to learn new skills

Contextual dimensions in a work environment will set the tone for task performance in the new business environment. Unlike the traditional jobs that are based on particular tasks, researchers (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; Schmitt & Chan, 1998) offer that jobs will change through job enrichment (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Based on the need for team-based environment, jobs will change by learning additional tasks that cross traditional boundaries. The team approach provides the organization with the tools through to respond to dynamic environments by having team members versatile in a variety of tasks.

Performance Component in the Measurement of Individual Differences Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) stated, “. . . [performance] measure should include both task elements and contextual elements” (p. 67). Campbell et al. (1993) articulated his equation for performance component (PC) as (p. 37):

PC = f (Declarative Knowledge x Procedural Knowledge and Skill x Motivation)

Therefore, performance evaluation as it pertains to the measurement of individual differences, must take into account the three dimensions within the equation as they pertain to individual differences. Evaluations will not necessarily be made on the individual difference constructs, but on the performance dimensions that represent those constructs. The performance dimensions above are basic in determining performance and accomplishment of tasks. Declarative knowledge is the “what” or foundational knowledge of how something is done. Declarative knowledge is interrelated to procedural knowledge which is the “how to” knowledge and can be demonstrated by actually performance of tasks which also demonstrate skill or psychomotor ability. Last, but not least is the desire or motivation that one possesses to perform tasks and the degree to which his or her motivation or effort will be expended. Individual differences of cognitive abilities, personality, physical ability, interests, to motivation (Schmitt & Chan, 1998) are included in each of Campbell et al. (1993) performance dimensions. According to McCloy (1990, in Campbell, et al, 1993) and Opper (1990, in Campbell et al, 1993) “individual differences in performance ratings, when rating content is carefully defined and raters are trained in their use, are a function of all three performance determinants” (p. 55). Although not included in the evaluation of every job, Campbell, et al. provide several performance measurements:

 Job-specific task proficiency  Non-job-specific task proficiency  Written and oral communication task proficiency  Demonstrating effort  Maintaining personal discipline  Facilitating peer and team performance  Supervision/leadership  Management/administration 5

The role of performance evaluation can serve several purposes not the least of which is to provide feedback on performance to individual employees. However, a performance evaluation system can also indicate changes that are needed in the form of additional declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivation. Finally, keeping the systems theory in mind of input, transformation and output, performance evaluation systems can also be an essential feedback mechanism relating to individual differences that could be measured when selecting individuals for employment.

Implications for Human Resource Development The nature of performance has changed with the advent of new technology and global economy, creating the need for organizations to respond to rapid responding situations. These changes impact individual differences resulting in the need to focus on the most important individual differences that relate to the type of performance required. Traditionally, one individual has conducted performance evaluations. With traditional jobs that are more static in nature, this process worked well. However, with the nature of work becoming more dynamic, people will not always work in the same environment, with the same team or for the same supervisor. Multiple-rater or 360 degree feedback evaluations have been used where performance information has been provided through supervisors, peers and customers. This has been used in team-based systems whereby peers evaluate one another as another aspect of their responsibilities. However, having people from these groups agree on an aggregated performance evaluation may be unreasonable. Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) suggest rather than evaluate using performance dimensions, to use “the real constructs of interest for personnel decisions. . . knowledge, skill and work habits” (p. 78). The researchers suggest designing tests for use in evaluating the individual differences one possesses. Additionally, future research should consider adopting the construct of motivation more clearly within the model by Motowidlo, Borman and Schmit.

References Ackerman, P. L., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Individual differences theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In. M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 223-282). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, J., et al. (1993). A theory of performance. In N.Schmitt, & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organization (pp.35-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43 (166), 38290-38315. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31-88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moynihan, L. M., Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational Behavior. 23, pp. 327-378. 6

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C. & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10 (2), pp. 71-83. Motowidlo, S., & Schmitt, M. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. Ilgen & E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance (pp. 56-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (1999). Mott, V. W. & Daley, B. J. (2000). Continuing professional education: From vision to reality. In Mott, V. W. & Daley, B. J. (Eds.) New Directions for adult and continuing education: Charting a course for continuing professional education: Reframing professional practice. 86, (pp. 80-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Murphy, K. R. (Ed.). (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1998). Personnel Selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Schultz, D. & Schultz, S. E. (1998). Psychology & work today: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.