Performance Flashcards
(33 cards)
Campbell & Wiernik (2015) *
The modeling and assessment of work performance
Performance should be defined as an actual behavior under the control of individuals, NOT outcomes that are susceptible to external determinants
outcomes CAN be useful, when external factors that affect outcomes are accounted for
individual performance = most basic unit of performance
performance is a formative multidimensional construct consisting of at least 8 FACTORS across organizations, org levels, and cultures:
[Campbell, 1990: job/task specific behaviors (proficiency); non-job/task specific behaviors (proficiency); communication (written/oral); personal discipline (following rules); helping peers/team perform (role modeling); supervision/leadership (rewarding and punishing; managerial/admin (setting org goals)]
ADAPTABILITY is a critical element for the process and dynamics of performance (not always trait-based)
ratings are susceptible to raters’ motivations and biases (e.g., leniency, halo) and simulations / work samples are expensive and could suffer from construct deficiency
DeNisi & Murphy (2017)
Performance appraisal 100 year review
Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?
Specific format of the rating scale is NOT the most important consideration in developing performance appraisal system
error measures are not the best the best way to evaluate these systems
demographic charatceristics have less influence on ratings thann we had thouhgt
- lab studies show some evidence of rater/ratee race interacts with black raters giving especially high ratings to black ratees
- HOWEVER, in the field, these variables dont have a large impact on performance ratinfs
- rater cognitive processes are related to performance appraisal decisions –> training can improve process of performance appraisal
Adler et al. (2016) *good example of adversarial collaboration
Getting rid of performance ratings debate
Side 1: why get rid of performance ratings? Advice, get rid of them but trad carefully
- disappointing interventions with not great improvements (BARS, rater error training, frame of reference training)
- disagreement when multiple raters evaluate the same performance
- failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings
- weak relationship between performance of ratees and the ratings they receive
- conflicting purposes of performance ratings in organizations
- inconsistent effects of performance feedback –> subsequent performance
- weak relationship between performance rating research and actual practice in organizations
Side 2: getting rid of performance ratings is a bad idea
- performance ratings does not = performance management
- performance is always evaluated and therefore needs some standardized language
- “performance is too hard to measure” is bad science, we can figure it out
- what alternatives do we have?
Cho et al. (2023)
Supervisor-perspective ratings to substitute actual supervisor ratings [meta analysis]
main point: supervisor perspective ratings (i.e., “how do you think your supervisor would rate your performance?”) are NOT recommended to substitute actual ratings
relationship with actual supervisor ratings is weak (r = .34) for a proxy measure.
supervisor perspective ratings can be more effective for individualistic culture and task performance, but it is still inadequate to use as a proxy of supervisor ratings
*Pulakos et al. (2019)
Evolution of Performance Management (Annual review)
Current thoughts on performance evaluation
- Ratings are inherently limited in their value as performance measures.
- Rater-ratee relationship differences yield actual performance differences, which raises questions about whether a “true” performance level exists that can be reliably captured across raters.
- Raters can accurately place others into general categories but cannot make nuanced performance judgments accurately.
- Political and social factors have very strong impacts on ratings.
- Properly selected, performance measures beyond ratings may mitigate challenges with ratings.
New approaches to performance management
- streamlining the formal performance management system
(a) reduce unnecessary and low value steps that are costly with no clear ROI
(b) CLEARLY DEFINE the purpose of the performance management (e.g., development, administrative, pay defensibility)
(c) combo of ongoing feedback and crowdsourced feedback is most effective - driving more effective PM behaviors
(a) provide more real-time feedback that helps employees perform better / adjust as situation changes
(b) managers should set clear expectations and criteria; provide regular informal (verbal) feedback; coach and enable them to succeed
(c) employees should be clear in their performance expectations and use feedback to self-correct
experiential learning on the job provides a platform for behavior change (DeRue et al., 2012) because work inherently contains several important drivers for deep learning
Anseel et al. (2025) *consider
A 25-Year Review of Research on Feedback in Organizations: From Simple Rules to Complex Realities [annual review]
issue: feedback research is messy because it is studied in too many different ways; no unified theory; use different assumptions; lacking consensus/guidance on when and how feedback improves performance
solution: researchers should be more explicit about their assumptions and focus on how feedback operates in real-world, dynamic, and social contexts.
Three Core Assumptions Shape Feedback Research
(a) Nature of Performance Criteria: is feedback about subjective or objective criteria?
(b) Communication Symmetry: is feedback one-way or back-and-forth?
(c) Temporal Window: Is feedback isolated or a process?
The Six “Faces” of Feedback Research: where is the focus?
(a) Feedback as One-Time Events: Focuses on reactions to immediate feedback (e.g., negative feedback creates resistance).
(b) Feedback as Learning in New Tasks: Examines how repeated feedback helps people learn new skills over multiple trials.
(c) Feedback as Part of Multisource Programs: Studies 360-degree feedback and how coaching impacts self-awareness and behavior change.
(d) Feedback as Continuous Task Information: Explores how frequent supervisor and coworker feedback influences daily performance.
(e) Feedback as Performance Conversations: Investigates how employees perceive and respond to formal performance reviews.
(f) Feedback in Creative Work: Analyzes how feedback shapes innovation and idea development over time
Future Directions for Research
(a) Clarify assumptions about what feedback is and how it works.
(b) Move beyond static, one-way feedback to study feedback as an ongoing, interactive process.
(c) Focus on long-term learning rather than immediate reactions
(d) Consider the broader feedback ecosystem, including AI-generated feedback and cultural factors.
Anseel (2017) *consider
Agile learning strategies for sustainable careers: a review and integrated model of feedback seeking behavior and reflection
Both reflection and feedback seeking behavior are instrumental in enhancing learning, performance, adaptability and well-being
the review suggests that investing effort and cognitive resources in reflection may be in vain without feedback.
why does FSB not lead to improvement sometimes? –> lack of reflection
Propose that research should take a dynamic look at interrelationships between FSB and reflection –> their outcomes
expect that FSB will guide reflection by directing cognitive attention to those mental models that are most in need of re-configuration and reflection –> may provide a deeper level of cognitive processing so that feedback seeking may be more likely to lead to competence development, compared to undirected feedback seeking (this can serve other motives like egoism and impression management)
the point = feedback seeking + reflection + structured way of receiving feedback = good
Rotundo & Sackett (2002)
*cite for task/OCB/CWB
The relative importance of task, citizenship, and CWB performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy capturing approach
Developed 3-component model: task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive performance
what do managers find weighs heavily into performance ratings?
performance raters fell into 3 clusters:
(A) weighting task performance the highest
(B) rating CWB the highest
(C) equal and large weights to task performance and CWB
OCB was generally given less weight across the board
contextual performance influences supervisor ratings on performance evaluations OVER TIME
OCB - includes behaviors that are discretionary and contribute to organizational effectiveness
Behavior that contributes to the goals of the organization by contributing to its social and psychological environment
(a) OCB-I (interpersonal)
(b) OCB-O (organizational)
CWB - behaviors that are similarly discretionary but violate organizational norms and intentionally threaten the wellbeing of organizations and employees
voluntary behavior that harms the wellbeing of the organization
(a) CWB-I (interpersonal)
(b) CWB-O (organizational)
Malik et al. (2021)
Workplace deviance review
Theories applied to workplace deviance
INDIVIDUAL FOCUSED THEORIES
(a) disposition-based: trait activation theory
(b) identity-based: self-verification; cognitive dissonance; moral licensing
(c) control and regulation-based: self-regulation theory; agency theory, SDT; COR; control theory
(d) appraisal-based: AET; cognitive appraisal
SOCIAL INFLUENCE THEORIES
(a) identification-based: social role theory; self-categorization
(b) cohesion-based: social bonding; belongingness; relational cohesion [my addition - normative social influence]
(c) information-based: social comparison; social learning; SCT; [my addition - informational social influence]
(d) exchange-based: equity theory; LMX; moral exclusion
New/developing influences on perpetrator-victim dynamics
(a) tech advancement / literacy: increased perpetration AND counteraction
(b) social media: increased and decreased (b/c of exposure) perpetration; increased counteraction
(c) also discussed: deskilling due to automation; job mobility; flexibility; surveillance
Ruhle et al. (2020)
“To work, or not to work, that is the question” – Recent trends and avenues for research on presenteeism
Provides definition of presenteeism: behavior of working in the state of ill-health. This understanding should encompass all kinds of health conditions, including mental disorders
68% workers work while ill when working from home compared to 27% in-person
occupations in the caring, helping, and primary teaching sectors are most prone to presenteeism – existence of cultures grounded in part on loyalty to and concern for vulnerable clients
research on presenteeism should recognize and include the specific context in which the behavior occurs; look at it from a process-based perspective / WP interactions
Hom et al. (2017) *good cite for turnover
Annual review of turnover concepts and theories
Potential negative consequences of turnover
- decreased productivity, decreased financial performance
- employees leaving to go work for a competitor can undermine the former employer’s competitive advantage (human social capital losses or trade secrets)
- can hinder workforce diversity when women of color exit or spread via turnover contagion\
Implications
(a) proactive: use empirically validated selection procedures that can filter out applicants at high risk of turnover, and RJPs so employees can self-select out
(b) track turnover trajectories; data on who is leaving and where they go
(c) looking at reasons for considering leaving in engagement surveys; come up with ideas for counteracting external reasons as well (e.g., less far-away travel for a new parent)
Dalal et al. (2020) *definitely
Within-person performance annual review
PERFORMANCE ANTECEDENTS
(a) ability; capacity to perform
(b) motivation; willingness to perform
(c) work situation; opportunity to perform (influences extent that ability/motivation can influence performance)
CONNECTED THEORIES
(a) CAPS - Identical situations can yield different perceptions – and results – by person (Mischel and Shoda, 1995)
(b) Density distributions theory - people differ in how much they fluctuate in state personality (in which this variability itself is a trait; Fleeson, 2001)
(c) Personality strength theory - higher personality strength (consistency in personality) has less variability in situations over time (Dalal et al., 2015)
(d) Affective events theory - certain work events lead to discontinuities in employee’s mood cycle; negative affect –> CWB; positive affect (a bit more complicated) –> eventually OCB; attentional pull and emotion regulation (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996)
IMPLICATIONS
(a) personnel selection: orgs can utilize assessment tools (e.g., multiple speed assessments) that are geared toward understanding applicants’ WP variability in traits; can determine whether high or low variability in performance levels are desired for specific positions/environments
(b) performance management: can supplement performance appraisals with weekly/ongoing/continuous supervisor feedback
We fully expect that the coming years will see job performance researchers using these
novel theoretical approaches and:
novel individual differences operationalizations to test:
novel performance-related predictions using:
novel research designs and to ultimately develop:
novel just-in-time adaptive interventions that facilitate individual and organizational functioning.
Sitzmann & Yeo (2013)
Meta-analytic self-efficacy and performance\
past performance is a good indicator of current self-efficacy, but self-efficacy doesn’t really predict future performance
—> rather, it’s likely that the self-efficacy that COMES FROM the past performance influences the future performance
—> in other words, your high self efficacy as a newcomer won’t have much impact for your performance if you haven’t done well in a similar area before.
Self-efficacy needs to be studied both at a between-person AND within-person level because about 25% to 35% of its variance lies at the within-person level of analysis
Within-person moderator results
(a) self-efficacy and effect on performance under various conditions were anywhere from null (when accounting for linear trajectory) to somewhat positive (ρ ranged from –.02 to .33); note: this is a very wide range and suggests that there are probably a lot of factors that go into this relationship!
“This finding is important because it challenges self-efficacy theory’s assumption that self-efficacy is the compelling force in human agency (Bandura, 1989; Bandura & Locke, 2003).” (p. 558)
Practical implication: greater return on investment may be achieved by selecting applicants based on indicators of past performance (e.g., work samples or structured interview questions)
Ayal et al. (2015)
*hmm, may be good to have
REVISE unethical behavior intervention
3 principles to revise people’s unethical behavior; classifies forces that impact dishonesty –> redirects those forces to encourage moral behavior
- Reminding
PROBLEM: Ambiguity of rules allows people to use self-serving justifications and turn a blind eye
SOLUTION: emphasizes the effectiveness of subtle cues that increase the salience of morality, providing moral reminders as cues at critical points (e.g., ‘be kind to one another’ next to handicapped spots) [aside: this goes along with habit and self-control literature] - Visibility
PROBLEM: Anonymity and lack of peer monitoring diffuses moral responsibility
SOLUTION: Include procedures that increase people’s feelings that they are being seen and identified (by peers/clients/supervisors; e.g., placing the camera with a screen in the makeup aisle) - Self-engagement
PROBLEM: disparity between people’s abstract perception of their moral image and actual behavior (e.g., “I’m a moral person” is vague) allows them to do wrong but feel they are moral
SOLUTION: break down morality into concrete behaviors; have self-commitment tools PRIOR to the potential behavior [aside: this was not replicated in research findings to increase honesty]
Bloom et al. (2022) *consider
How hybrid working from home works out
Hybrid definition: 2-3 days per week at home and remainder in office
Conducted RCT that found the following:
- WFH reduced attrition by 35% and improved work satisfaction
- hybrid arrangement reduced working hours on home days, increased hours on office days/weekend –> altering structure of workweek
- increased communication through individual messaging + group video even when all employees were in-office –> move towards electronic communication
- differences in valuations of hybrid arrangement among managers and non-managers (non-managers were more likely to volunteer themselves into a hybrid environment and have positive expectations)
- WFH had NO EFFECT on performance reviews and promotions [I assume there was a great deal of variability, kind of hard to tell; likely more factors making this null]
ROWE
Results only work environment
discussed as a work redesign approach by Perlow & Kelly (2014):
(a) implemented at department level
(b) reduced turnover (6% in ROWE leaving the organization vs 11% from traditional departments (Moen et al., 2011)
(c) significant increased schedule control and decreased WF conflict, increased sleep, energy and self reported health, positive impact on habits like smoking, drinking, and exercise frequency, and increased frequency of family meals
Kelly et al. (2011) - case study: ROWE intervention at best buy
quasi-experimental study (with control groups) and pre/post test of outcomes
found that ROWE:
(a) reduced work family conflict and spillover, improved WF fit and time adequacy
(b) these positive effects are mediated by increased schedule control
STAR intervention
Support, transform, achieve, results
STAR combines:
(a) participatory training sessions - for managers and employees together / managers alone, which focuses on results rather than the location or timing of work
(b) computer-based training - for managers to increase family supportive behaviors
(c) behavioral self-monitoring - for all employees to strengthen learning and put new concepts into practice
STAR intervention has 3 aims:
(a) increase job control over work time and schedule –> targets policies and normalize policy use / climate
(b) increase supervisor social support for family and job effectiveness –> target support / climate (FSSB)
(c) improve organizational culture and job re-design processes to foster orientation –> targets job design / climate (ROWE-based insights)
Feedback seeking behavior
Ashford & Cummings (1983)
feedback inquiry vs feedback monitoring
initially posited that different motives and situations would lead employees to:
(a) directly ask colleagues for feedback (feedback inquiry) instead of using
(b) a more indirect method of observing and inferring feedback information from the environment
Anseel et al. (2015) meta-analysis
cost-value framework = dominant theoretical model for FSB; employees have a conscious assessment of the costs and values that are associated with FSB
Generally, this cost-value analysis is regarded as the primary determinant of subsequent FSB
Barbosa et al. (2015)
Return on investment of a work-family intervention
Quasi-experimentally tested a network intervention (STAR)
RTOI analysis showed:
(a) intervention led to company savings of $1850/participant over 18 month period
(b) overall ROI was 1.68 = organizational costs fell by $1.68 for every $1 spent on STAR
point: employer’s investment in an intervention to reduce WF conflict can enhance business outcomes
Perlow & Kelly (2014) *consider
Toward a model of work redesign for better work and better life
compares the accommodation approach and work redesign approaches to help employees manage work and non-work roles
flexible work accommodations = usually negotiated and opted into individually
work redesign = changes to structure of work and/or the organizational culture; changes apply to everyone and don’t need to be opted into or negotiated
work redesign initiatives are frames as efforts to improve the work itself by making it both more efficient and effective
work/life outcomes are framed as a by-product
both approaches (predictable time off [PTO] and ROWE) involve changing the culture in ways that welcome individual variations in how work is done
predictable time off = team establishes a collective goal of personal interest (e.g., a predictable night off each week) and a weekly pulse check to see how things are going
Tannenbaum & Cerasoli (2013)
Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis
the points:
(a) debriefs are a relatively inexpensive and quick intervention for enhancing performance. results lend support for continued and expanded use of debriefing in training / in situ
(b) to gain maximum results, it it important to align participants, focus/intent, and levels of measurement
Found on average, debriefs improve effectiveness (compared to control group) by approximately 25% (d = .67)
average effect sizes were similar for both teams and individuals, across simulated and real settings, for within or between group control designs, and in medical and non-medical samples
bolstering effect of alignment and potential impact of facilitation and structure
looked at alignment of levels
(A) participant level: whether debrief is with a team or the individual as a participant
(b) focal level: whether the debrief is focused primarily on improving the team as a whole or independently improving each individual
(c) measurement level: considering whether the study measured performance at the individual or team level
Kell (2022) **definitely
The criterion problem in cross-cultural performance research
aspects of the definition of “criterion”
- conceptual criterion = abstract idea of what success constitutes in the given situation
- operational criteria = how we measure the criterion, defining the conceptual criterion
definition of criterion specifies “behaviors, outcomes, or both” due to these traditionally being the prime constituents of criteria - definition of criterion stipulates that it is “perceived as valuable to influential organizational constituencies” aka the big stakeholders have a certain concept of success
2 key components of the criterion problem
(a) lack of rigor in conceptualizing criterion
(b) thoughtlessness in selecting/developing procedures to measure the criterion
[there is a gap between what we intuitively think standards of criteria should entail and measures currently employed for evaluating those criteria]
General problems of operational criteria
- construct contamination, construct deficiency
- criterion distortion (improper combining of criterion)
- unreliability of criterion [intrinsic unreliability = true variation in the individuals; extrinsic unreliability = conditions beyond the sampled worker’s control, can be helped with standardization]
Problems of criteria: behavior and results
- long standing view that success is equivalent to what people do (behavioral tradition); observable actions that workers carry out
- many influential stakeholders are likely primarily concerned with whether the results of those behaviors are beneficial to the organization. has been argued that a behavior-centric approach misses what many organizational constituencies are most concerned with
- there are also advocates for defining success in terms of behavior AND results
problems of criteria: dimensionality and timeframes
- dimensionality: highly specific models of success are created anew in every situation, which can mean higher dimensionality; very difficult to define and construct “overall success”, difficult to combine criteria when intercorrelations among the criteria are low, vary in kind (e.g., dollar value, interpersonal skills), and have different patterns of intercorrelations with predictors
timeframe: major problem is when to gather data: when success is measured can influence how it is operationalized
Unfolding model of turnover; job embeddedness theory
Unfolding model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994)
introduced “shocks” or jarring events that prompt thought about leaving; drive alternative paths to turnover
4 distinct paths
(a) maturing script - already was thinking about it
(b) image violations - something violates an employee’s goals or values
(c) image compatibility - unsolicited job offers lead to comparing current with alternative levels
(d) conventional affect initiated path
shocks drive turnover more than job dissatisfaction
Job embeddedness theory (Mitchell & Lee, 2001)
- job embeddedness can buffer against shocks (combined forces that keep a person from leaving their job)
- what induces someone to leave is not a mirror of what induces someone to stay
Motowido & Borman (1994)
*mayybe
different dimensions of job performance
Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance
Job performance consists of several relatively independent dimensions; this article shows empirical distinctions
(a) task performance bears a direct relation to the organization’s technical core while contextual performance supports broader organizational/social/psychological environments in which the technical core needs to function
(b) task performance is prescribed whereas contextual performance is discretionary
(c) task performance includes behaviors that represent proficiency while contextual performance includes behaviors that do not represent proficiency; likely to serve as performance criteria predicted by separate individual difference variables
(B/M 1997 - discussed that overall performance ratings take both performance forms into account and contextual performance (compared to task performance) is more likely to be predicted by personality variables)
