Understanding job performance

2.1.1. The fundamental logic of using psychological information in personnel selection

A central aim of selection procedures in organisations is to identify applicants who are likely to perform well on the job. In larger organisations, a range of selection methods are often used in conjunction with each other, for example, structured interviews, psychometric testing, and work sample tests, for the purpose of identifying applicants who will be able to perform well to the requirements of the job.

Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of these methods in predicting applicants’ future performance on the job. These studies typically involve analyses of criterion- related validity, estimating how well the variable (such as assessment) predicts the real-world outcome (job performance). The fundamental logic is that higher correlations between the

predictor and outcome variables represent greater predictive validity.

2.1.2. Models of performance

To predict performance at work, it is necessary to both define and measure the performance domain. In simplest terms, performance can be defined as behaviour and actions that relate to the goals of the organisation (McCloy, Campbell, & Cudeck, 1994). Performance

is also distinct from related concepts of work effectiveness and productivity. It is also different to outcomes, or the consequences of actions, as performance is the actions themselves (McCloy et al., 1994).

Campbell’s determinants of performance and performance components

Campbell’s (1990; 1993) model of performance determinants and performance

components identified the common aspects of performance across jobs, and acknowledged that performance is a multi-faceted construct, rather than a broad, single component.

According to Campbell, performance has three causes or determinants: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and motivation. Declarative knowledge is knowledge about facts,

principles and task requirements, or ‘knowing what’. In contrast, procedural knowledge is ‘knowing how’ to perform. Motivation refers to the choice to perform, effort, and persistence. Campbell hypothesised performance to be a function of these three determinants, as shown below.

PC = f(DK, PKS,M)

(PC represents the job performance component, DK is declarative knowledge, PKS is procedural knowledge and skill, and M is motivation (McCloy et al., 1994)).

Individual differences such as ability, personality, and experience were also thought to impact on performance, but in an indirect way through influencing the determinants.

Campbell (1990; 1993) distinguished between performance determinants and performance behaviours (components). Eight performance components were identified: job- specific proficiency, non-job-specific proficiency, written and oral communication, task

proficiency, demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, facilitating team and peer performance, supervision/leadership, and management/administration. Of the eight

components, three were proposed to be common to all jobs: job-specific task proficiency, maintaining personal discipline, and demonstrating effort. The other factors were

hypothesised to vary between jobs.

2.1.3. Expansion of the performance domain

Since Campbell’s (1990; 1993) model, researchers have proposed expansions to the performance domain. This has included an expansion of outcomes associated with

performance and recognition of the facets within performance (Schmitt, 2014). There is

greater interest in the dimensionality of performance and the specific types of performance that are important in the work context.

Typical and maximum performance

It has been proposed that understanding criterion measures of performance can be

improved by distinguishing between typical and maximum performance (Sackett, 2007; Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988). Whereas maximum performance is considered the very best an employee can do, typical performance is the employee’s usual or general level of

performance. Common selection procedures assess maximum performance, for example, through work sample tests. However, this may not predict long-term typical performance. It

has been suggested that this error lies in the assumption that measures of maximum

performance are interchangeable with measures of typical performance (Sackett et al., 1988).

Low correlations have been found between typical and maximum performance (Sackett et al., 1988), leading to the proposal that different predictors may be behind typical and maximum performance. It is thought that maximum performance is mostly related to

Sackett et al. (1988) also identified that supervisory ratings correlated more highly with maximum performance, rather than typical performance.

Contextual and task performance

Performance models have also been expanded by distinguishing between the types of behaviours that represent performance. One of the most influential distinctions in the

literature is between task and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). This is the concept that performance can include workplace behaviours besides the performance of tasks. Contextual performance describes behaviours that relate to the social and psychological

work environment, rather than to the technical work environment. It contrasts with task performance, which is an individual’s proficiency at performing the tasks that are formally recognised as part of the job.

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) has received attention in the organisational

psychology literature. Earlier definitions described organisational citizenship behaviour as discretionary, non-rewarded behaviour (Organ, 1988, cited in Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Later definitions (Organ, 1997) aligned organisational

citizenship behaviour more closely with contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Organisational citizenship behaviour can be broken

down further into altruistic behaviours (to other individuals and groups within the organisation) and generalised compliance (helping the broader organisation) (Williams & Anderson, 1991).

There is increasing interest in organisational psychology in OCB as a form of

performance, with possible relationships to other variables. This may be due to the trend to look at positive aspects of a job, consistent with the field of positive psychology. The literature

has indicated that measures of cognitive ability are more closely associated with task performance, whereas personality is a better predictor of OCB and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).

A further way of looking at performance is from the opposing view, of what is considered undesirable performance. This is known as counterproductive work behaviour

(CWB), and it can also be viewed as a facet of performance (Sackett, 2002). There are different types of counterproductive work behaviour, for example, CWB for self-gain or for

organisational gain. Counter-productive work behaviour can therefore take a variety of forms, ranging from theft through to sabotage. It has been suggested that OCB and CWB might be different ends of a continuum; however, research suggests that these are in fact two distinct

Adaptive performance

Adaptive performance and how to predict it has been identified as a growing area of interest in the literature (Schmitt, 2014). Adaptive performance refers to an individual’s

flexibility and ability to adapt to changing circumstances and work environments. It has been proposed that emergencies tend to bring out adaptive behaviour (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000), and that modern workplaces are characterised by change and uncertainty (Hesketh & Griffin, 2008).

Adaptive performance is thought to be multidimensional. Pulakos et al. (2000)

proposed a taxonomy of adaptive behaviour: handling emergencies and crisis situations, handling work stress, solving problems creatively, dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations, learning work tasks, technologies and procedures, demonstrating

interpersonal adaptability, demonstrating cultural adaptability, and demonstrating physically-

oriented adaptability.

Pulakos et al. (2000) investigated the dimensionality of adaptive behaviour by investigating more than 1,000 critical incidents in 11 different organisations representing the private sector, government, and military. Participants described critical incidents, along with the behaviours representing performance in relation to these incidents. Incidents were sorted

by five organisational psychologists into the proposed eight dimensions. An analysis showed that 83% of the incidents were categorised into the same dimension by 60% of the

psychologists. Some jobs were thought to involve more adaptive behaviour than others, and the distribution of behaviour across the categories varied from job to job. This suggests that different types of adaptive behaviour may be required in different jobs (Pulakos et al., 2000).

Research to date into the prediction of adaptive performance suggests that the dimensions of adaptive performance are linked to predictor variables in theoretically logical ways (Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson, & Nelson, 2012). For instance, cognitive ability predicts the cognitively-oriented components of adaptive performance, such as learning new tasks and solving problems. Non-cognitive predictors are linked to interpersonal and cultural dimensions.

Pulakos et al. (2012) also suggested investigating individual difference constructs, including resilience, cognitive complexity, and self-awareness in relation to predicting adaptive performance.

Adaptive performance is thought to closely align with trainability, which can be

conceptualised as the ability and motivation to attain the required level of proficiency to effectively perform the job (Pulakos et al., 2012). Adaptability and trainability are arguably

important to all types of jobs, given that most jobs involve training and developing capabilities to progress in the job.