Productive Behavior in Organizations PDF

Productive Behavior in Organizations  DEFINING PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR Employee behavior that contributes positively to the goals and objectives of the organization. When productive behavior is viewed in financial terms, it represents the point at which the organizat...

Productive Behavior in Organizations  DEFINING PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR Employee behavior that contributes positively to the goals and objectives of the organization. When productive behavior is viewed in financial terms, it represents the point at which the organization begins to achieve some return on the investment it has made in the new employee.  DEFINING PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR job performance, organizational citizenship behavior(OCB), innovation  Defining Job Performance At the most general level, it can be defined simply as ‘‘all of the behaviors employees engage in while at work.’’ Many behaviors that have no relation to organizational goals would be included (e.g., talking with coworkers about last night’s game).  Defining Job Performance According to Campbell (1990), – job performance represents behaviors employees engage in while at work that contribute to organizational goals. – more precise definition than simply defining performance as all behaviors that employees perform at work. – job performance represents behaviors that are formally evaluated by the organization as part of the employee’s responsibilities and duties. – distinguishes job performance from the other forms of productive behavior  Models of Job Performance are aimed at identifying a set of performance dimensions that are common to all jobs. IS VITALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE SO MUCH RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CENTERS AROUND PERFORMANCE PREDICTION-most common dependent variable A major reason for studying many of the variables that we do (e.g., motivation, leadership, stress) is their potential impact on performance.  Models of Job Performance Models of job performance contain many different dimensions, two major categories of job performance can be found across models: – in-role (task) performance performance on the technical aspects of an employee’s job. (A nurse would be required to perform specific tasks such as drawing blood.) – extra-role (contextual) performance nontechnical abilities such as being able to communicate effectively, exhibiting motivation and enthusiasm at work, and being a good team member.  Campbell’s model of job performance The distinction between in-role and extra-role performance can be seen in Campbell’s (1990,1994) comprehensive model of job performance. According to Cample, performance on all jobs can be broken down into the eight dimensions listed in Table 4.1. Campbell’s model of job performance  Campbell’s model of job performance Job specific task proficiency: – behaviors associated with the core tasks that are unique to a particular job. – bank teller; behaviors such as counting money, recording deposits, and cashing checks. – teacher at a daycare center; scheduling activities, maintaining discipline, and communicating with parents.  Campbell’s model of job performance Non job specific task proficiency: – Behaviors that must be performed by some or all members of an organization. – Job-related activities of a college professor are teaching and research in a given area (e.g., physics). – Regardless of one’s specialty, most professors are required to perform common tasks such as advising students and representing the university at ceremonial events.  Campbell’s model of job performance Written and oral communication task proficiency: Ability to write and communicate effectively. Demonstrating effort: – represents an employee’s level of motivation and commitment to his or her job tasks. – demonstrate a willingness to persist in order to accomplish difficult or unpleasant tasks Maintaining personal discipline: – Following specified rules and refraining from negative behaviors such as substance abuse or other forms of unproductive behavior. These two dimensions represent the degree to which an employee is a good citizen in the workplace.  Campbell’s model of job performance Facilitating peer and team performance: – is the degree to which an employee is helpful to his or her coworkers when they need assistance. – could involve assisting a coworker who is having trouble meeting an impending deadline, or perhaps just providing encouragement. – represents the degree to which an employee is a team player, or is working to further the goals of his or her work group. – have little relevance if one worked in complete isolation. – today many companies place strong emphasis on  Campbell’s model of job performance Supervision/Leadership: Effectively supervising and leading others Management/Administration Effectively organizing and keeping track of critical information Both of these dimensions represent aspects of job performance that obviously apply only to jobs that carry some supervisory responsibilities.  Campbell’s model of job performance All eight dimensions would not be relevant for all jobs. Campbell (1990) argued that three (core task proficiency, demonstrating effort, and maintenance of personal discipline) are major performance components for all jobs. provides a common metric for examining performance across jobs. the performance of different types of jobs could be compared across the dimensions. helpful in understanding the general determinants of job performance. Models of Job Performance-2  Murphy’s Model of Job Performance breaks performance down into four dimensions. the first of these is labeled task-oriented behaviors, which mirrors the job-specific task proficiency dimension in Campbell’s model. for supervisory jobs, this label would include the dimensions related to supervision and management/ administration. represents performing the major tasks associated with one’s job. is the only component of Murphy’s model refers to in-role performance. The remaining dimensions refer to extra-role performance.  Murphy’s Model of Job Performance Interpersonally oriented behaviors: – represents all of the interpersonal transactions that occur on the job. – include a retail store clerk answering a customer’s question, a nurse consulting a doctor about a patient’s medication, or an auto mechanic talking to a service manager about a repair that must be done on a car. – this dimension mirrors facilitating peer and team performance in Campbell’s model.  Murphy’s Model of Job Performance Down-time behaviors: – represents behaviors that may lead the worker to be absent from the worksite. – include counterproductive behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, and other violations of the law. – Considered aspects of performance because an employee with a substance abuse problem, may be frequently absent from work and is therefore not performing well. Destructive/hazardous behaviors: include such things as safety violations, accidents, and sabotage.  Murphy’s Model of Job Performance Down-time behaviors and destructive/ hazardous behaviors dimensions are related to the dimension of maintaining personal discipline in Campbell’s model. Destructive/hazardous behaviors may result from a lack of effort (e.g., not taking the time to put on safety equipment), may overlap with the demonstrating effort dimension in Campbell’s model.  Measurement of Job Performance According to Murphy performance can be assessed in eight different ways: paper/pencil tests, job skills tests, on-site hands-on testing, off-site hands-ontesting, high- fidelity simulations, symbolic simulations, task ratings, global ratings. Two most common methods of performance assessment in organizations are ratings of employees’ performance on specific tasks and ratings of overall performance on the job.  rating was used by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). assessed in-role and extra-role performance by having employees, their coworkers, and supervisors respond to items assessing different aspects of performance. Sample items in table 4.3. Measures of Job Performance  Measures of Job Performance Performance ratings – There are many potential sources of error in performance ratings. 1. a rater may not have an adequate opportunity to observe performance, 2. ratings may be biased by the degree to which the rater likes or dislikes the ratee, 3. different raters may employ different internal performance standards.  Measures of Job Performance Performance ratings – steps can be taken to reduce error in performance ratings. 1. rater training has been shown to increase accuracy in performance ratings (Pulakos, 1984). 2. seek more objective performance measures, such as output produced or sales commissions.  Measures of Job Performance Unfortunately, these more objective performance measures may have serious flaws of their own. The most obvious flaw is that most are really measures of effectiveness or productivity and not actual job performance (Campbell, 1990). Another disadvantage is that employees may lack control over objective performance indicators. How? Measures of Job Performance  Instability of Job Performance over Time Some have claimed that performance is relatively stable over time; many others have argued that performance is more dynamic. The weight of the evidence seems to support the position that performance criteria are dynamic. Deadrick and Madigan (1990) examined the stability in performance of sewing machine operators over time – Correlations between performance levels were quite strong when the time interval was very short. However, the correlation between performance at one point in time and 23 weeks later was considerably weaker (Deadrick and Madigan, 1990). Instability of Job Performance over Time Ployhart and Hakel (1998) examined 8 years of performance from a sample of 303 securities analysts. Performance among securities analysts approximated a basic learning curve. – performance rose steadily; it reached a leveling-off point. – not all curves were the same. – there were differences in how quickly performance initially accelerated and reached a leveling-off point. – patterns of change in performance over time were predictable; (those who described themselves as persuasive exhibited the quickest initial rate of acceleration in sales) although performance is not stable over time, it does not fluctuate randomly. there may be individual differences that predict patterns of performance variability over time. possible to screen out individuals whose performance peaks very quickly and then declines.  Instability of Job Performance over Time Murphy (1989b) proposed that jobs are characterized by what he termed maintenance stages and transition stages. Maintenance stages, the tasks comprising the job become somewhat routine and automatic for the worker. For example, once a person learns to drive an automobile, the steps necessary to perform this task become so routine that little conscious thought is required. Transition periods in jobs may occur during the introduction of new technology or perhaps when a major change in laws impacts the job being performed. In the transition phase performance can be predictor  Instability of Job Performance over Time Sturman, Cheramie, and Cashen (2005) has also emphasized the importance of job characteristics in examining the stability of performance over time. also examined whether job performance was assessed with subjective ratings or more objective indicators. found that test-retest correlations for job performance over the course of a year were highest for jobs that were low in complexity and assessed through subjective ratings, and were lowest for jobs that were high in complexity and assessed through objective indicators.  DETERMINANTS OF JOB PERFORMANCE Campbell’s Model of Job Performance: – Job performance is determined by the interaction among declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge/skill, and motivation.  DETERMINANTS OF JOB PERFORMANCE it, and is How to do able to carry out these behaviors. Declarative knowledge is simply knowledge about facts and things.  DETERMINANTS OF JOB PERFORMANCE Campbell’s Model of Job Performance: – even if an employee has achieved a very high level of procedural knowledge/skill, low motivation may prevent the skill from being translated into a high level of performance. – The value of the model: it states the factors within the person that determine performance, and the interplay among those factors. it has received empirical support reminds us that the interaction among the factors that determine performance is complex. can be used to generate ideas and hypotheses about performance and its determinants  General Mental Ability as a Predictor of Job Performance Capacity to process and comprehend information. Schmidt and Hunter (1998), in which nearly 85 years of research findings on various predictors of job performance were summarized. Their analysis indicated that the corrected correlation between general mental ability and performance across jobs was.51—that is, over 25% of the variance in performance across jobs is due to differences in general mental ability. A recent meta-analysis of 283 independent samples conducted in the United Kingdom also revealed coefficients between general mental ability and performance in the.5 to.6 range (Bertua, Anderson, & Salgado, 2005). Whay general mental ability? Job Experience as a Predictor of Job Performance Job Experience as a Predictor of Job Performance  Job Experience as a Predictor of Job Performance Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) proposed that job experience can also be viewed in terms of both the density and timing of job-related experiences. – density: exposure to to many developmental experiences in a relative short period of time. (increased responsibilities, and even being required to perform under very difficult conditions) – timing of job-related experiences: certain experiences might have more, or less, developmental value, depending on whether they occur at the beginning, middle, or latter stage of one’s career. (mistakes have a greater developmental impact when they occur at the eary stages of one’s career.  Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance The personality trait consistently found to predict job performance over a wide range of jobs is conscientiousness. A person who is conscientious can be described as dependable, goal oriented, planful, and achievement oriented. Barrick and Mount (1991) found that the correlation between conscientiousness and performance, across a wide variety of jobs, was 0.22.  Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance Why conscientiousness? Schmidt and Hunter (1998) Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance  Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance Erez and Judge (2001)- CORE SELF EVALUATION self-esteem: person’s overall attitude toward himself or herself. locus of control: whether individuals believe the causes of their behavior are either due to their own actions (internal locus of control) or the environment (external locus of control). generalized self-efficacy: whether people think they can generally accomplish the tasks they face. neuroticism: lack of emotional stability and the tendency to experience negative affective states. Neuroticism contributes negatively to an individual’s core self-evaluation.  Personality as a Predictor of Job Performance Erez and Judge (2001) found that the four separate personality traits all contributed to the one larger trait of core self evaluation. This larger trait was predictive of performance in both student samples and insurance salespeople for sales volume and for rated performance. The correlations between core self-evaluations and performance were greater than any of the correlations between the four traits that made up the larger trait.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR The second form of productive behavior to be discussed in this chapter is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ, 1977, 1994). OCB refers to behaviors that are not part of employees’ formal job descriptions (e.g., helping a coworker who has been absent; being courteous to others). Behaviors for which employees are not formally rewarded. Such behaviors are not formally mandated by organizations, are believed to enhance the effectiveness of groups and organizations  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR OCB in organizations can be categorized into five different types: – Alturism – Courtesy – Sportsmanship – Conscientiousness – Civic virtue  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR Altruism : represents what we typically think of as ‘‘helping behaviors’’ in the workplace. referred to as prosocial behavior. employee’s voluntarily assisting a coworker who is having difficulty operating his or her computer.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR Courtesy : represents behaviors that reflect basic consideration for others. periodically ‘‘touching base’’ with one’s coworkers to find out how things are going, or letting others know where one can be reached.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR Sportsmanship: is different from otherforms of OCB. exhibited by not engaging in certain forms of behaviors, such as complaining about problems or minor inconveniences.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR Conscientiousness: being a good citizen in the workplace. doing things such as arriving on time for meetings.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR Civic virtue : is somewhat different from the others. target is the organization or the work group—rather than another individual. attending a charitable function sponsored by the organization.  Reasons for OCB positive affect, typically in the form of job satisfaction. cognitive evaluations of the fairness of employees’ treatment by an organization certain personality traits (helpfulness) predispose individuals to engage in OCB.  To evaluate the relative impact of various antecedents of OCB, Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 55 studies. Their results suggest that job satisfaction and perceived fairness were correlated with OCB at approximately the same magnitude. Personality traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity were all unrelated to OCB. The most logical conclusion is that affective and cognitive influences combine in an additive fashion to determine OCB.  INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS Instances in which employees come up with very novel ideas or concepts that further the goals of the organization. Hellstrom and Hellstrom (2002) coined the term organization ideation to refer to ‘‘the process of creating useful conceptual novelty, and the circulation and taking on of that novelty in an organization’’ (p. 108).  INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS Employee Attributes that Contribute to Creativity and Innovation Organizational Determinants of Creativity and Innovation  Employee Attributes that Contribute to Creativity and Innovation creativity is due to… – task relevant skills general ability, task specific ability, knowledge, formal education)  Employee Attributes that Contribute to Creativity and Innovation creativity is due to… – creativity-relevant skills meta-skills: being creative requires being able to see a problem from multiple perspectives and having the willingness needed to break the mold in order to solve a problem.) creative personality, some personality traits do seem to be associated with creative activity. These include self- discipline, ability to delay gratification, perseverance in the face of frustration, independence, an absence of conformity in thinking, and lack of dependence on social approval.  Employee Attributes that Contribute to Creativity and Innovation creativity is due to… – task motivation perceptions of enjoyment and intrinsic motivation depend on one’s initial level of intrinsic motivation toward the task being performed, the presence or absence of external constraints in the social environment, and the individual’s ability to block out or minimize external constraints.  Organizational Determinants of Creativity and Innovation hire creative people influencing task motivation assess an organization’s climate for innovation.  Organizational Determinants of Creativity and Innovation Amabile and Conti (1999) extended Amabile’s work on individual creativity work into organizations. Argue the importance of organizational context in facilitating the creativity of employees. Five environmental factors that contribute to creativty of employees: – Encouraging creativity – Autonomy and freedom – Resource (opposite of removing constraints) – Pressures (increasing positive challenges and reducing such factors as workload) – Obstacles to creativity (conservatism and conflict)  Organizational Determinants of Creativity and Innovation The strongest predictor, not surprisingly, was technical knowledge resources. Organizations are more likely to adopt innovations when they have employees who possess the technical expertise to understand and facilitate the implementation The second most powerful predictor process. of A fourth predictor of innovation was innovation was the organization’s identified as functional differentiation. level of A high specialization. level of functional differentiation Third predictor is the level of external simply communication in an organization means that distinct and identifiable