The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance.

Abstract

Although evidence supports the unique contribution of task performance and contextual performance to overall evaluations, little is known about the relative contribution that specific dimensions of contextual performance make to overall performance judgments. This study evaluated the extent to which supervisors consider task and contextual performance by using relative weights (J. W. Johnson, 2000) to statistically describe the relative importance of specific dimensions of each type of performance to overall performance ratings. Within each of 8 job families in a large organization, each of 4 dimensions of contextual performance made not only a unique contribution but a relatively important contribution to the overall evaluation. Evidence also supports the adaptive performance dimension of handling work stress as an aspect of contextual performance and job-task conscientiousness as an aspect of both task and contextual performance.

The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.

“…When employees work in teams, those who are dispositionally cooperative will be aware of opportunities to help others and they will target citizenship behaviors at their coworkers. In support of this, Hough (1992) and Borman and Motowidlo (1993) demonstrated significant relationships between agreeableness and teamwork, while Johnson (2001) and LePine and Van Dyne (2001) demonstrated positive relationships between agreeableness and cooperative behavior directed at other group members (see also Hurtz & Donovan, 2000;Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Thus, H2b: Agreeableness will be positively related to helping coworkers.…”

“…As such, finegrained conceptualizations can provide a better understanding of relationships between specific predictors and specific aspects of performance (Hogan & Holland, 2003;Johnson, 2001;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Since our research focused on engineering professionals working in teams, we focused on two types of performance critical to working in groups (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993Coleman & Borman, 2000;Organ, 1997;Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996): task performance and citizenship performance.…”

“…Several empirical studies provide indirect support for the prediction that conscientiousness should predict helping coworkers (Hough, 1992;Johnson, 2001). For example, past studies have shown that conscientiousness predicts cooperative behavior directed specifically at other group members in a team setting (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001) as well as helping and cooperation with other coworkers (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994;Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).…”

Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes.

“…Thus, relative importance can be expressed as the proportion of variance each variable explains. When predictor variables are correlated, however, these indices are considered inadequate for determining the relative importance of predictor variables because the indices are no longer equivalent, do not sum to R 2 , and take on different meanings (Budescu, 1993;Darlington, 1968;Johnson, 2001;Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). A common way of determining relative importance when predictors are correlated is through the use of epsilon (Johnson, 2000).…”

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate

“…Dozens of conceptualizations of what can and should be measured within an individual performance system have been put forth in the literature and in practice (five-, four-, three-, two-point rating scales; competency based, production based, objective based, task based, behavior based, etc. ; e.g., Benson, Buckley, & Hall, 1988;Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995;Borman, 1979;Catano, Darr, & Campbell, 2007;Fay & Latham, 1982;Goffin, Jelley, Powell, & Johnston, 2009;Jelley & Goffin, 2001;Johnson, 2001;Latham, Fay, & Saari, 1979;Thompson & Thompson, 1985;Tziner & Kopelman, 2002). Irrespective of the manner in which evaluations happen, judgments are made and decisions about rewards and roles in the future are based on those judgments.…”