Download full-text


Available from: Linda Koopmans, Sep 28, 2015
366 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A review of research on job performance suggests 3 broad components: task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance. This study examined the relative importance of each component to ratings of overall performance by using an experimental policy-capturing design. Managers in 5 jobs read hypothetical profiles describing employees' task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance and provided global ratings of performance. Within-subjects regression analyses indicated that the weights given to the 3 performance components varied across raters. Hierarchical cluster analyses indicated that raters' policies could be grouped into 3 homogeneous clusters: (a) task performance weighted highest, (b) counterproductive performance weighted highest, and (c) equal and large weights given to task and counterproductive performance. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that demographic variables were not related to raters' weights.
    Journal of Applied Psychology 03/2002; 87(1):66-80. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contemporary models of job performance are reviewed. Links between task performance, contextual performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, counterproductivity and organizational deviance are pointed out. Measurement issues in constructing generic models applicable across jobs are discussed. Implications for human resource management in general, and performance appraisal for selection and assessment in particular, are explored. It is pointed out that the different dimensions or facets of individual job performance hypothesized in the literature are positively correlated. This positive manifold suggests the presence of a general factor which represents a common variance shared across all the dimensions or facets. Although no consensus exists in the extant literature on the meaning and source of this shared variance (i.e., the general factor), rater idiosyncratic halo alone does not explain this general factor. Future research should explain the common individual differences determinants of performance dimensions.
    International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12/2002; 8(4):216 - 226. DOI:10.1111/1468-2389.00151 · 1.30 Impact Factor