Job Performance Sabine Sonnentag, Judith Volmer and Anne Spychala Individual performance is of high relevance Researchers agree that performance has to be for organizations and individuals alike. Show­ considered as a multi-dimensional concept. ing high performance when accomplishing On the most basic level one can distinguish tasks results in satisfaction, feelings of self­ between a process aspect (i.e., behavioral) and efficacy and mastery (Bandura, 1997; Kanfer an outcome aspect of performance (Borman et aL, 2005). Moreover, high performing and Motowidlo, 1993; C ampb ell, McCloy, individuals get promoted, awarded and hon­ Oppler, and Sager, 1993; Roe, 1999). ored. Career opportunities for individuals who The behavioral aspect refers to what perform well are much better than those of people do while at work, the action itself moderate or low performing individuals (Van (Campbell, 1990). Performance encompasses Scotter et aI., 2000). specific behavior (e.g., sales conversations This chapter summarizes research on indi­ with customers, teaching statistics to under­ vidual performance and addresses perfor­ graduate students, programming computer mance as a multi-dimensional and dynamic software, assembling parts of a product). This concept. First, we define the concept of conceptualization implies that only actions performance, next we discuss antecedents of that can be scaled (i.e., counted) are regarded between-individual variation of performance, as performance (Campbell et al., 1993). More­ and describe intraindividual change and over, this performance concept explicitly only variability in performance, and finally, we describes behavior which is goal-oriented, present a research agenda for future research. i.e. behavior which the organization hires the employee to do well as performance (Campbell et al., 1993). JOB PERFORMANCE AS A The outcome aspect in turn refers to the MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CONCEPT result of the individual's behavior. The actions described above might result in contracts The concept and definition of individual per­ or selling numbers, students' knowledge in formance has received considerable scholarly statistical procedures, a software product, or research attention over the past 15 to 20 years. numbers of products assembled. Empirically, 428 the behavioral and outcome aspect are related. to actions that are part of the formal However, there is no complete overlap, as reward system (i.e., technical core), and the outcome aspect is affected by other addresses the requirements as specified in detenninants than the behavioral aspect. job descriptions (Wi1liams and Karau, 1991). Imagine a car retailer who communicates At a general level, task performance con­ the preferences of a product (behavioral sists of activities that transform materials aspect) excellently, but who nevertheless into the goods and services produced by achieves low sales figures (outcome aspect) the organization or to allow for efficient due to low demand of this specific type functioning of the organization (Motowidlo of cars. Similarly, a teacher who provides et al., 1997). Thus, task performance covers an excellent statistics lesson which fulfills the fulfillment of the requirements that are all learning requirements (behavioral aspect) part of the contract between the employer and might not provide students with knowledge employee. (outcome aspect) if students' lack motivation Moreover, task performance in itself can be or cognitive abilities. described as a multi -dimensional construct. Moreover, performance must be distin­ Campbell (1990) proposed a hierarchical guished from effectiveness and from produc­ model of eight performance factors. Among tivity or efficiency (Campbell et al., 1993; these eight factors, five refer to task perfor­ Pritchard et al., 1992). Effectiveness refers to mance: the evaluations of the results of performance (i.e., financial value of sales). In comparison, (1) job-specific task proficiency; productivity is the ratio of effectiveness to the (2) non-job-specific task proficiency; cost of attaining the outcome. For example, (3) written and oral communication proficiency; the ratio of hours of work (input) in relation (4) supervision, in case of leadership position; and to products assembled (outcome) describes partly productivity. (5) management/administration. A great deal of attention has been paid to the distinction between task and contextual Each of these five factors itself consists of performance. There are three basic differences subfactors which are differently important for between task and contextual performance various jobs. For example, the supervision (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo factor includes (1) guiding, directing, and et al., 1997; Motowidlo and Schmit, 1999): motivating subordinates and providing feed­ back, (2) maintaining good working relation­ (1) contextual performance activities are com- ships, and (3) coordinating subordinates and parable for almost all jobs, whereas task others resources to get the job done (Borman performance is job specific; and Brush, 1993). (2) task performance is predicted mainly by ability, whereas contextual performance is mainly predicted by motivation and personality; Contextual performance (3) task performance is in-role behavior and Often it is not sufficient to comply with part of the formal job-description, whereas contextual performance is extra-role behavior the formal job requirements, one needs and discretionary (Le. not enforceable), and to go beyond what is formally required often not rewarded by formal reward systems (Parker et al., 2006; Sonnentag and Frese, or directly or indirectly considered by the 2002). Contextual performance consists of management. behavior that does not directly contribute to organizational performance but supports the organizational, social and psychological Task performance environment. Contextual performance is dif­ Task performance covers a person's contri­ ferent from task performance as it includes bution to organizational performance, refers activities that are not formally part of the 429 job description. It indirectly contributes to (Organ, 1988; 1997). OCB consists of five an organization's performance by facilitating components: task performance. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) enumerate • altruism (i.e. helping others); five categories of contextual performance: • conscientiousness (Le., compliance to the organi­ zation); (1) volunteering for activities beyond a person's 11 civic virtue (e.g., keeping up with matters that formal job reqUirements; affect the organization); (2) persistence of enthusiasm and application • courtesy (e. g., co nsu Iting with others before taki ng action); and when needed to complete important task requirements; • sportsmanship (e.g., not complaining abouttrivial (3) assistance to others; matters) (4) following rules and prescribed procedures even when it is inconvenient; and (LePine et al., 2002; Organ, 1988). (5) openly defending organization objectives. The more 'pro active ' view on contextual performance includes concepts such as per­ Examples of contextual performance are sonal initiative (Frese et al., 1996), taking demonstrating extra effort, following orga­ charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999), and nizational rules and policies, helping and proactive behavior (Crant, 1995). Personal cooperating with others, or alerting colleagues initiative is characterized as a self-starting about work-related problems (Borman and and active approach to work and comprises Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo et al., 1997). activities that go beyond what is formally In the past, contextual performance was required. Consequently, employees show per­ conceptualized and measured in numerous sonal initiative when their behavior fits to ways. On a very general level, these different an organization's mission, when their goals conceptualizations can be identified that aim have a long-term focus, and when they are at the effective functioning of an organization capable of finding solutions for challenging as it does at a certain time ('stabiliz­ situations. Similarly, taking charge implies ing' contextual performance), and proactive that employees accomplish voluntary and behaviors which intend to implement new constructive efforts which effect organiza­ and innovative procedures and processes in tionally functional change. Proactive behavior an organization, thus changing the organi­ refers to showing self-initiated and future­ zation ('proactive' contextual performance; oriented action that aims to challenge the Sonnentag and Frese, 2002). status quo and improve the current situation The 'stabilizing' contextual performance (Crant, 1995; Parker et al., 2006). In sum, comprises organizational citizenship behavior contextual performance is not a single set of (OCB; Organ, 1988), and some aspects of uniform behaviors, but is multidimensional in prosocial organizational behavior (Brief and nature (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Motowidlo, 1986). OCB describes discre­ tionary behavior which is not necessarily recognized and rewarded by the formal Adaptive performance reward system. Discretionary means that the Campbell et al. 's (1993) taxonomy of work behavior is not enforceable and not part of performance did not initially include adaptive the formal role in terms of the person's performance. However, due to changing and contract with the organization. Furthermore, dynamic work environments, the need for Organ (1988) explains that not every single adaptive employees has become increasingly discrete