Job performance

INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

GROUP MECHANISMS

ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISMS

Organizational Culture

Teams: Characteristics &

Diversity

Ability

Personality & Cultural Values

Leadership: Power &

Negotiation

Organizational Commitment

Job Performance

Job Satisfaction

Stress

Motivation

INDIVIDUAL MECHANISMS

Trust, Justice, & Ethics

Learning & Decision Making

Organizational Structure

Leadership: Styles &

Behaviors

Teams: Processes &

Communication

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 30 11/27/15 08:03 PM

chapter2 Job Performance Final PDF to printer

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 31 11/27/15 08:03 PM

L E A R N I N G G OA L S

2.1 What is job performance? 2.2 What is task performance? 2.3 How do organizations identify the behaviors that underlie task performance? 2.4 What is citizenship behavior? 2.5 What is counterproductive behavior? 2.6 What workplace trends are affecting job performance in today’s organizations? 2.7 How can organizations use job performance information to manage employee performance?

After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions:

© John Moore/Getty Images

Final PDF to printer

32 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 32 11/27/15 08:03 PM

J O B P E R F O R M A N C E

We begin our journey through the integrative model of organizational behavior with job perfor- mance. Why begin with job performance? Because understanding one’s own performance is a critical concern for any employee, and understanding the performance of employees in one’s unit is a critical concern for any manager. Consider for a moment the job performance of your univer- sity’s basketball coach. If you were the university’s athletic director, you might gauge the coach’s performance by paying attention to various behaviors. How much time does the coach spend on the road during recruiting season? How effective are the coach’s practices? Are the offensive and defensive schemes well designed, and are the plays called during games appropriate? You might also consider some other behaviors that fall outside the strict domain of basketball. Does the coach run a clean program? Do players graduate on time? Does the coach represent the univer- sity well during interviews with the media and when in public?

Of course, as your university’s athletic director, you might be tempted to ask a simpler ques- tion: Is the coach a winner? After all, fans and boosters may not care how good the coach is at the previously listed behaviors if the team fails to win conference championships or make it deep into the NCAA tournament. Moreover, the coach’s performance in terms of wins and losses has important implications for the university because it affects ticket sales, licensing fees, and booster donations. Still, is every unsuccessful season the coach’s fault? What if the coach develops a well-conceived game plan but the players repeatedly make mistakes at key times in the game? What if the team experiences a rash of injuries or inherits a schedule that turns out to be much tougher than originally thought? What if a few games during the season are decided by fluke baskets or by bad calls by the referees?

JPMorgan Chase is one of the oldest financial institutions in the United States. Its roots go back to the late 1700s when Arron Burr and Alexander Hamilton established a company to supply fresh water to the inhabitants of Lower Man- hattan. Burr inserted creative language in the company’s char- ter, allowing him to use the company’s excess capital to start a commercial bank in 1799. This bank, called The Bank of the Manhattan Co., was the only competitor to a bank Alexander Hamilton founded 15 years earlier. If you’re a history buff you may already know that the two became antagonistic, and that, in addition to serving as Thomas Jefferson’s vice president for one term, Burr also killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804.

Over the next 200 years, hundreds of mergers resulted in today’s JPMorgan Chase. Most relevant to the company’s namesake was the merger of The Bank of the Manhattan Co. and Chase National Bank in 1955, and then the merger of this company—called The Chase Manhattan Group—and J.P. Morgan and Co. in 2000. Today, with assets of $2.6 trillion and operations in 60 countries, the company’s 240,000 employ- ees must perform their jobs effectively to serve customers in investment banking, consumer financial services, small business

and commercial banks, financial transaction processing, asset management, and private equity.

So what does effective job performance mean for employees of JPMorgan Chase? Obviously the answer depends a great deal on the specific job in question. Whereas the job performance of an investment banker may depend on the amount of money a client company makes on an initial public offering, the job per- formance of a customer service representative may depend on whether concerns of customers are resolved quickly. There are also general aspects of job performance that are determined by the company’s business practices. Across jobs at JPMorgan Chase, employees need to be cooperative and have a customer focus, an entrepreneurial spirit and discipline. Finally, the com- pany has recently had costly legal and regulatory problems and has responded to these challenges, in part, by emphasizing ways in which employees contribute negatively to the company. Accordingly, effective job performance at JPMorgan Chase means that employees must not only perform their core job duties well and engage in activities that support the company’s way of doing business, but they must also refrain from engaging in behaviors that violate company policies and regulations.

J P M O R GA N C H A S E

Final PDF to printer

33C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 33 11/27/15 08:03 PM

This example illustrates one dilemma when examining job performance. Is performance a set of behaviors that a person does (or does not) perform, or is performance the end result of those behaviors? You might be tempted to believe it’s more appropriate to define performance in terms of results rather than behaviors. This is because results seem more “objective” and are more connected to the central concern of managers—“the bottom line.” For example, the job perfor- mance of salespeople is often measured by the amount of sales revenue generated by each person over some time span (e.g., a month, a quarter, a year). For the most part, this logic makes per- fect sense: Salespeople are hired by organizations to generate sales, and so those who meet or exceed sales goals are worth more to the organization and should be considered high performers. It’s very easy to appreciate how the sales revenue from each salesperson might be added up and used as an indicator of a business’s financial performance.

However, as sensible as this logic seems, using results to indicate job performance creates potential problems. First, employees contribute to their organization in ways that go beyond bottom-line results, and so evaluating an employee’s performance based on results alone might give you an inaccurate picture of which employees are worth more to the organization. Second, there is evidence that managers’ focus on bottom line results can create a bottom line mentality among employees, which in turn, results in social undermining—sabotaging coworkers’ reputa- tions or trying to make them look bad.1 Similarly, as our opening example illustrates, the quest to enhance the bottom line of JPMorgan Chase may have led employees to violate policies and reg- ulations, which in turn, cost the company billions of dollars. Third, results are often influenced by factors that are beyond the employees’ control—product quality, competition, equipment, technology, budget constraints, coworkers, and supervisors, just to name a few. Fourth, even if these uncontrollable factors are less relevant in a given situation, there’s another problem with a results-based view of job performance: results don’t tell you how to reverse a “bad year.” That is, performance feedback based on results doesn’t provide people with the information they need to improve their behavior. Walgreens, for example, uses knowledge of job performance behaviors to create comprehensive training and development programs so that employees can be effective at various jobs they may have throughout their careers with the company.2 In sum, given that the field of OB aims to understand, predict, and improve behavior, we refer to job performance as behavior. We use the term “results” or “job performance results” to describe the important out- comes that are associated with those behaviors.

So what types of employee behaviors constitute job performance? To understand this ques- tion, consider that job performance is formally defined as the value of the set of employee behaviors that contribute, either positively or negatively, to organizational goal accomplishment.3 This definition of job performance includes behaviors that are within the control of employees, but it places a boundary on which behaviors are (and are not) relevant to job performance. For example, consider the behavior of a server in a restaurant that prides itself on world-class cus- tomer service. Texting a friend during a work break would not usually be relevant (in either a positive or negative sense) to the accomplishment of orga- nizational goals. That behav- ior is therefore not relevant to the server’s job performance. However, texting in the mid- dle of taking a customer’s order would be relevant (in a negative sense) to organiza- tional goal accomplishment. That behavior, therefore, is relevant to the server’s job performance.

2.1 What is job performance?

Geno Auriemma has led the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team to ten national championships, five perfect seasons, and 100 percent graduation rate for all four-year players. He’s been the Naismith College Coach of the Year six times since taking over the team in 1985. If the Huskies suf- fered through a couple los- ing seasons, would Coach Auriemma be considered a low performer?

© Mike Carlson/Getty Images

Final PDF to printer

34 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 34 11/27/15 08:03 PM

W H AT D O E S I T M E A N TO B E A “ G O O D P E R F O R M E R ” ?

Our definition of job performance raises a number of important questions. Specifically, you might be wondering which employee behaviors fall under the umbrella heading of “job performance.” In other words, what exactly do you have to do to be a “good performer”? We could probably spend an entire chapter just listing various behaviors that are relevant to job performance. How- ever, those behaviors generally fit into three broad categories.4 Two categories are task perfor- mance and citizenship behavior, both of which contribute positively to the organization. The third category is counterproductive behavior, which contributes negatively to the organization. The sections that follow describe these broad categories of job performance in greater detail.

TA S K P E R F O R M A N C E Task performance includes employee behaviors that are directly involved in the transforma- tion of organizational resources into the goods or services that the organization produces.5 If you read a description of a job in an employment ad online, that description will focus on task performance behaviors—the tasks, duties, and responsibilities that are a core part of the job. Put differently, task performance is the set of explicit obligations that an employee must fulfill to receive compensation and continued employment. For a flight attendant, task performance includes announcing and demonstrating safety and emergency procedures and distributing food and beverages to passengers. For a firefighter, task performance includes searching burning buildings to locate fire victims and operating equipment to put out fires. For an accountant, task performance involves preparing, examining, and analyzing accounting records for accuracy and completeness. Finally, for an advertising executive, task performance includes developing adver- tising campaigns and preparing and delivering presentations to clients.6

Although the specific activities that constitute task performance differ widely from one job to another, task performance also can be understood in terms of more general categories. One way of categorizing task performance is to consider the extent to which the context of the job is routine, changing, or requires a novel or unique solution. Routine task performance involves well-known responses to demands that occur in a normal, routine, or otherwise predictable way. In these cases, employees tend to behave in more or less habitual or programmed ways that vary little from one instance to another.7 As an example of a routine task activity, you may recall watching an expres- sionless flight attendant robotically demonstrate how to insert the seatbelt tongue into the seatbelt buckle before your flight takes off. Seatbelts haven’t really changed since … oh … 1920, so the instructions to passengers tend to be conveyed the same way, over and over again.

In contrast, adaptive task performance, or more commonly “adaptability,” involves employee responses to task demands that are novel, unusual, or, at the very least, unpredictable.8 For example, on August 2, 2005, Air France Flight 358, carrying 297 passengers and 12 crew members from Paris, France, to Toronto, Canada, skidded off the runway while landing and plunged into a ravine. Amid smoke and flames, the flight attendants quickly responded to the emergency and assisted three-quarters of the 297 passengers safely off the plane within 52 sec- onds, before the emergency response team arrived. One minute later, the remaining passengers and 12 crew members were out safely.9 From this example, you can see that flight attendants’ task performance shifted from activities such as providing safety demonstrations and handing out beverages to performing emergency procedures to save passengers’ lives. Although flight attendants receive training so they can handle emergency situations such as this one, executing these behaviors effectively in the context of an actual emergency differs fundamentally from anything experienced previously.

Adaptive behaviors are becoming increasingly important as globalization, technological advances, and knowledge-based work increase the pace of change in the workplace.10 In fact, adaptive task performance has become crucial in today’s global economy where companies have been faced with the challenge of becoming more productive with fewer employees on staff. For example, Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin–based Johnsonville Sausage feels that adaptability is

2.2 What is task performance?

Final PDF to printer

35C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 35 11/27/15 08:03 PM

important for employees at all levels of the organization and has invested significant resources in training to ensure that employees develop competency in this aspect of job performance.11 As another example, at the German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer, the hiring of plant directors involves the search for candidates who not only possess a wide range of skills and abilities so that they can adapt to various job demands, but in addition, competence in helping others adapt to changes that occur in the workplace.12 Table 2-1 provides a number of examples of adaptability that are relevant to many jobs in today’s economy.13

Finally, creative task performance is the degree to which individuals develop ideas or physical outcomes that are both novel and useful.14 The necessity of including both novelty and usefulness in the definition of creativity can be illustrated with the following example of what effective performance for a swimsuit designer involves. Consider first the case of a swimsuit designer who suggests in a meeting that next season’s line of swimsuits should be made entirely out of chrome-plated steel. Although this idea might be very novel, for many reasons it’s not likely to be very useful. Indeed, someone who offered an idea like this would likely be consid- ered silly rather than creative. Another swimsuit designer suggests in the meeting that swimsuits for next season should be made out of materials that are attractive and comfortable. Although

TABLE 2-1 Behaviors Involved in Adaptability

BEHAVIORS SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

Handling emergencies or crisis situations

Quickly analyzing options for dealing with danger or crises and their implications; making split-second decisions based on clear and focused thinking

Handling work stress Remaining composed and cool when faced with difficult circumstances or a highly demanding workload or schedule; acting as a calming and settling influence to whom others can look for guidance

Solving problems creatively Turning problems upside-down and inside-out to find fresh new approaches; integrating seemingly unrelated informa- tion and developing creative solutions

Dealing with uncertain and unpre- dictable work situations

Readily and easily changing gears in response to unpredict- able or unexpected events and circumstances; effectively adjusting plans, goals, actions, or priorities to deal with changing situations

Learning work tasks, technologies, and work situations

Quickly and proficiently learning new methods or how to perform previously unlearned tasks; anticipating change in the work demands and searching for and participating in assignments or training to prepare for these changes

Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability

Being flexible and open-minded when dealing with others; listening to and considering others’ viewpoints and opinions and altering one’s own opinion when it’s appropriate to do so

Demonstrating cultural adaptability Willingly adjusting behavior or appearance as necessary to comply with or show respect for others’ values and cus- toms; understanding the implications of one’s actions and adjusting one’s approach to maintain positive relationships with other groups, organizations, or cultures

Source: E.E. Pulakos, S. Arad, M.A. Donovan, and K.E. Plamondon, “Adaptability in the Workplace: Development of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000), pp. 612–24. Copyright © 2004 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without permission from the American Psychological Association.

Final PDF to printer

36 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 36 11/27/15 08:03 PM

under some circumstances such an idea might be useful, the idea is not novel because attractive- ness and comfort are generally accepted design elements for swimsuits. Someone who offered an idea like this might be appreciated for offering input, but no one would consider this individual’s performance to be particularly creative. Finally, a third designer for this swimsuit manufacturer suggests that perhaps a two-piece design would be preferred for women, rather than a more traditional one-piece design. Although such an idea would not be considered creative today, it certainly was in 1946 when, in separate but nearly simultaneous efforts, Jacques Heim and Louis Reard introduced the bikini.15

Although you might be tempted to believe that creative task performance is only relevant to jobs such as artist and inventor, its emphasis has been increasing across a wide variety of jobs. Indeed, more than half the total wages and salary in the United States are paid to employees who need to be creative as part of their jobs, and as a consequence, some have argued that we are at the “dawn of the creative age.”16 This increase in the value of creative performance can be explained by the rapid technological change and intense competition that mark today’s business landscape.17 In this context, employee creativity is necessary to spark the types of innovations that enable organizations to stay ahead of their competition. Creative ideas do not always get implemented, thus it is important to recognize creative performance behaviors, as well as the creative outcomes that result from those behaviors.18

Now that we’ve given you a general understanding of task performance behaviors, you might be wondering how organizations identify the sets of behaviors that represent “task performance” for dif- ferent jobs. Many organizations identify task performance behaviors by conducting a job analysis. Although there are many different ways to conduct a job analysis, most boil down to three steps. First, a list of the activities involved in a job is generated. This list generally results from data from several sources, including observations, surveys, and interviews of employees. Second, each activity on this list is rated by “subject matter experts,” according to things like the importance and frequency of the activity. Subject matter experts generally have experience performing the job or managing the job and therefore are in a position to judge the importance of specific activities to the organization. Third, the activities that are rated highly in terms of their importance and frequency are retained and used to define task performance. Those retained behaviors then find their way into training pro- grams as learning objectives and into performance evaluation systems as measures to evaluate task performance.

As an example, to determine training objectives for production workers, Toyota uses a highly detailed job analysis process to identify important tasks as well as the behaviors necessary to effec- tively complete those tasks.19 The core job tasks involved in the job of a bumper-molding operator, for example, include “routine core tasks,” “machine tending,” and “quality,” and each of these tasks further consists of several more detailed steps. For example, routine core tasks include de-molding, trimming, spray-molding, and sanding. Each of these tasks can be broken down further into more detailed steps, and in turn, the specific behaviors involved in each step become the focus of the train- ing. For example, to de-mold the left side of the bumper, the worker must “use left thumb to push along edge of bumper,” “place pressure in the crease of thumb,” “push toward left side away from mold,”

and “grasp top edge when bum- per is released.” Although this level of detail might seem like an awful lot of analysis for what one might imagine to be a relatively straightforward job, Toyota competes on the basis of quality and cost, and its suc- cess in selling millions of Pri- uses, Camrys, Tacomas, and Highlanders each year has been attributed to its ability to train production workers to follow the standardized and efficient procedures.20

2.3 How do organizations identify the behaviors that underlie task performance?

Toyota production workers assemble vehicles using a

highly standardized and effi- cient set of tasks.

© Eric Gay/AP Images

Final PDF to printer

37C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 37 11/27/15 08:03 PM

Men’s Wearhouse, the Houston-based retailer, provides another good example of an orga- nization that uses task performance information to manage its employees.21 The company first gathers information about the employee’s on-the-job behaviors. For example, the job of wardrobe consultant involves greeting, interviewing and measuring customers properly, ensur- ing proper alteration revenue is collected, and treating customers in a warm and caring man- ner. After the information is gathered, senior managers provide feedback and coaching to the employee about which types of behaviors he or she needs to change to improve. The feedback is framed as constructive criticism meant to improve an employee’s behavior. Put yourself in the place of a Men’s Wearhouse wardrobe consultant for a moment. Wouldn’t you rather have your performance evaluated on the basis of behaviors such as these rather than some overall index of sales? After all, those behaviors are completely within your control, and the feedback you receive from your boss will be more informative than the simple directive to “sell more suits next year than you did this year.”

If organizations find it impractical to use job analysis to identify the set of behaviors needed to define task performance, they can turn to a database the government has created to help with that important activity. The Occupational Information Network (or O*NET) is an online database that includes, among other things, the characteristics of most jobs in terms of tasks, behaviors, and the required knowledge, skills, and abilities (http://www.onetonline.org). Figure 2-1 shows the O*NET output for a flight attendant’s position, including many of the tasks discussed previ- ously in this chapter. Of course, O*NET represents only a first step in figuring out the important tasks for a given job. Many organizations ask their employees to perform tasks that their com- petitors do not, so their workforce performs in a unique and valuable way. O*NET cannot capture those sorts of unique task requirements that separate the most effective organizations from their competitors.

For example, the authors of a book titled Nuts identify “fun” as one of the dominant values of Southwest Airlines.22 Southwest believes that people are willing to work more productively and creatively in an environment that includes humor and laughter. Consistent with this belief, flight

O*NET, or Occupational Information Network, is an online government database that lists the characteristics of most jobs and the knowledge required for each. This sample is for the job of flight attendant.

FIGURE 2-1 O*NET Results for Flight Attendants

Final PDF to printer

38 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 38 11/27/15 08:03 PM

attendant task performance at Southwest includes not only generic flight attendant activi- ties, such as those identified by O*NET, but also activities that reflect a sense of humor and playfulness. Effective flight attendants at Southwest tell jokes over the intercom such as, “We’ll be dimming the lights in the cabin . . . pushing the light-bulb button will turn your reading light on. How- ever, pushing the flight atten- dant button will not turn your

flight attendant on.”23 As another example, Nisshinbo Automotive, a part of the Japanese com- pany Nisshinbo Holdings, was faced with the challenge of increasing productivity with fewer workers. They developed a system where they not only evaluated and compensated employees for behaviors reflected in their job descriptions, but also in behaviors that supported the com- pany’s mission defined more broadly.24 In summary, though O*NET may be a good place to start, the task information from the database should be supplemented with information regarding behaviors that support the organization’s values and strategy.

Before concluding our section on task performance, it’s important to note that task perfor- mance behaviors are not simply performed or not performed. Although poor performers often fail to complete required behaviors, it’s just as true that the star performers often exceed all expectations for those behaviors.25In fact, you can probably think of examples of employees who have engaged in task performance that’s truly extraordinary. As an example, consider the case of Chesley B. Sullenberger, the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549, which lost power after hitting a flock of birds shortly after taking off from New York’s LaGuardia Airport on January 15, 2009.26 Sullenberger calmly discussed the problem with air traffic control and decided that the only course of action was to land in the Hudson River. Three minutes after the bird strike, he executed a textbook landing on the water, saving the lives of all 150 passengers and crew. Experts agree that Sullenberger’s performance that day was remarkable. Not only did Sullenberger accurately assess the situation and make the right decision about where to ditch the aircraft, he also piloted the landing perfectly. If the plane had approached the water going too slow, it would have lost lift and crashed into the water nose first; if the plane had been going too fast when it touched, it would have flipped, cart-wheeled, and disintegrated.27

C I T I Z E N S H I P B E H AV I O R Sometimes employees go the extra mile by actually engaging in behaviors that are not within their job description—and thus that do not fall under the broad heading of task performance. This situation brings us to the second category of job performance, called citizenship behavior, which is defined as voluntary employee activities that may or may not be rewarded but that con- tribute to the organization by improving the overall quality of the setting in which work takes place.28 Have you ever had a coworker or fellow student who was especially willing to help someone who was struggling? Who typically attended optional meetings or social functions to support his or her colleagues? Who maintained a good attitude, even in trying times? We tend to call those people “good citizens” or “good soldiers.”29 High levels of citizenship behavior earn them such titles. Although there are many different types of behaviors that might seem to fit the definition of citizenship behavior, research suggests two main categories that differ according to who benefits from the activity: coworkers or the organization (see Figure 2-2).30

The first category of citizenship behavior is the one with which you’re most likely to be familiar: interpersonal citizenship behavior. Such behaviors benefit coworkers and colleagues and involve assisting, supporting, and developing other organizational members in a way that

2.4 What is citizenship behavior?

The pilot of Flight 1549 displayed exceptional per-

formance and saved the lives of his passengers and crew.

© Steven Day/AP Images

Final PDF to printer

39C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 39 11/27/15 08:03 PM

goes beyond normal job expectations.31 For example, helping involves assisting coworkers who have heavy workloads, aiding them with personal matters, and showing new employees the ropes when they first arrive on the job. Do you consider yourself a helpful person? Check the OB Assessments feature to see how helpful you really are. Courtesy refers to keeping coworkers informed about matters that are relevant to them. Some employees have a tendency to keep rel- evant facts and events secret. Good citizens do the opposite; they keep others in the loop because they never know what information might be useful to someone else. Sportsmanship involves maintaining a good attitude with coworkers, even when they’ve done something annoying or when the unit is going through tough times. Whining and complaining are contagious; good citi- zens avoid being the squeaky wheel who frequently makes mountains out of molehills.

Although interpersonal citizenship behavior is important in many different job contexts, it may be even more important when employees work in small groups or teams. A team with mem- bers who tend to be helpful, respectful, and courteous is also likely to have a positive team atmosphere in which members trust one another. This type of situation is essential to foster the willingness of team members to work toward a common team goal rather than goals that may be more self-serving.32 In fact, if you think about the behaviors that commonly fall under the “team- work” heading, you’ll probably agree that most are examples of interpersonal citizenship behav- ior (see Chapter 12 on team processes and communication for more discussion of such issues).33

The second category of citizenship behavior is organizational citizenship behavior. These behaviors benefit the larger organization by supporting and defending the company, working to improve its operations, and being especially loyal to it.34 For example, voice involves speaking up and offering constructive suggestions for change.35 Good citizens react to bad rules or policies by constructively trying to change them as opposed to passively complaining about them (see Chapter 3 on organizational commitment for more discussion of such issues).36  Civic virtue refers to participating in the company’s operations at a deeper-than-normal level by attending voluntary meetings and functions, reading and keeping up with organizational announcements, and keeping abreast of business news that affects the company. Boosterism means representing the organization in a positive way when out in public, away from the office, and away from work. Think of friends you’ve had who worked for a restaurant. Did they always say good things about the restaurant when talking to you and keep any “kitchen horror stories” to themselves? If so, they were being good citizens by engaging in high levels of boosterism.

FIGURE 2-2 Types of Citizenship Behaviors

Organizational

Interpersonal

- Helping - Courtesy - Sportsmanship

- Voice - Civic Virtue - Boosterism

Final PDF to printer

40 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 40 11/27/15 08:03 PM

HELPING How helpful are you? This assessment is designed to measure helping, an interpersonal form of citizenship behavior. Think of the people you work with most frequently, either at school or at work. The questions below refer to these people as your “work group.” Answer each question using the scale below, then sum up your answers. (Instructors: Assessments on sportsmanship, boosterism, political deviance, and trait creativity can be found in the PowerPoints in the Con- nect Library’s Instructor Resources and in the Connect assignments for this chapter).

SCORING AND INTERPRETATION If your scores sum up to 40 or higher, you perform a high level of helping behavior, which means you frequently engage in citizenship behaviors directed at your colleagues. This is good, as long as it doesn’t distract you from fulfilling your own job duties and responsibilities. If your scores sum up to less than 40, you perform a low level of helping behaviors. You might consider paying more attention to whether your colleagues need assistance while working on their task duties. Source: L.V. Van Dyne and J.A. LePine, “Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predic- tive Validity,” Academy of Management Journal 41 (1998), pp. 108–19.

OB ASSESSMENTS

1 STRONGLY DISAGREE

2 MODERATELY

DISAGREE

3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE

4 NEITHER

DISAGREE NOR AGREE

5 SLIGHTLY

AGREE

6 MODERATELY

AGREE

7 STRONGLY

AGREE

1. I volunteer to do things for my work group. _______________

2. I help orient new members of my work group. _______________

3. I attend functions that help my work group. _______________

4. I assist others in my group with their work for the benefit of the group. _______________

5. I get involved to benefit my work group. _______________

6. I help others in this group learn about the work. _______________

7. I help others in this group with their work responsibilities. _______________

Three important points should be emphasized about citizenship behaviors. First, as you’ve probably realized, citizenship behaviors are relevant in virtually any job, regardless of the par- ticular nature of its tasks,37 and research suggests that these behaviors can boost organizational effectiveness.38 As examples, research conducted in a paper mill found that the quantity and quality of crew output was higher in crews that included more workers who engaged in citizen- ship behavior.39 Research in 30 restaurants also showed that higher levels of citizenship behavior promoted higher revenue, better operating efficiency, higher customer satisfaction, higher per- formance quality, less food waste, and fewer customer complaints.40 Thus, it seems clear that citizenship behaviors have a significant influence on the bottom line.

Second, because citizenship behaviors are relatively discretionary and influenced by the spe- cific situation the employee is working in, they can vary significantly over time.41 In other words, an employee who engages in citizenship behavior during one point in time might not engage in citizenship behavior at other points in time. As an example, it’s likely that you’ve had a very posi- tive experience working with another student or colleague on a project and were willing to invest

Final PDF to printer

41C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 41 11/27/15 08:03 PM

a great deal of extra effort in order to be helpful. At some point, however, the person with whom you were working may have done something that made you feel much less positive about the collaboration and, as a consequence, you decided to withhold your extra help so that you could focus your energies elsewhere.

Third, from an employee’s perspective, it may be tempting to discount the importance of citi- zenship behaviors—to just focus on your own job tasks and leave aside any “extra” stuff. After all, citizenship behaviors appear to be voluntary and optional, whereas task performance require- ments are not. However, discounting citizenship behaviors is a bad idea because supervisors don’t always view such actions as optional. In fact, research on computer salespeople, insurance agents, petrochemical salespeople, pharmaceutical sales managers, office furniture makers, sew- ing machine operators, U.S. Air Force mechanics, and first-tour U.S. Army soldiers has shown that citizenship behaviors relate strongly to supervisor evaluations of job performance, even when differences in task performance are also considered.42 As we discuss in our OB Internationally feature, the tendency of supervisors to consider citizenship behaviors in evaluating overall job performance appears to hold even across countries with vastly different cultures.43 Of course, this issue has a lot of relevance to you, given that in most organizations, supervisors’ evaluations of employee job performance play significant roles in determining employee pay and promo- tions. Indeed, employee citizenship behavior has been found to influence the salary and promo- tion recommendations people receive, over and above their task performance.44 Put simply, it pays to be a good citizen.

C O U N T E R P R O D U C T I V E B E H AV I O R Now we move from the “good soldiers” to the “bad apples.” Whereas task performance and citizenship behavior refer to employee activities that help the organization achieve its goals and objectives, other activities in which employees engage do just the opposite. This third broad category of job performance is counterproductive behavior, defined as employee behaviors that intentionally hinder organizational goal accomplishment. The word “intentionally” is a key aspect of this definition; these are things that employees mean to do, not things they accidentally do. Although there are many different kinds of counterproductive behaviors, research suggests that—like task performance and citizenship behavior—they can be grouped into more specific categories (see Figure 2-3).45

Property deviance refers to behaviors that harm the organization’s assets and possessions. For example, sabotage represents the purposeful destruction of physical equipment, organiza- tional processes, or company products. Do you know what a laser disc is? Probably not—and the reason you don’t is because of sabotage. A company called DiscoVision (a subsidiary of MCA) manufactured laser discs in the late 1970s, with popular movie titles like Smokey and the Bandit and Jaws retailing for $15.95. Although this price is approximately the same as a new movie on a Blu-ray disc today, it was far less than the $50–$100 needed to buy videocassettes (which were of inferior quality) at the time. Unfortunately, laser discs had to be manufactured in clean rooms because specs of dust or debris could cause the image on the television to freeze, repeat, skip, or drop out. When MCA merged with IBM in 1979, the morale of the employees fell, and counterproductive behaviors began to occur. Employees sabotaged the devices that measured the cleanliness of the rooms. They also began eating in the rooms—even popping potato chip bags to send food particles into the air. This sabotage eventually created a 90 percent disc failure rate that completely alienated customers. As a result, despite its much lower production costs and higher- quality picture, the laser disc disappeared, and the organizations that supported the technology suffered incredible losses.46

Even if you’ve never heard of the laser disc, you’ve certainly eaten in a restaurant. The cost of counterproductive behaviors in the restaurant industry is estimated to be 2–3 percent of revenues per year, but what may be more disturbing is the nature of those counterproductive behaviors.47 Thirty-one percent of employees who responded to a survey knowingly served improperly pre- pared food, 13 percent intentionally sabotaged the work of other employees, and 12 percent admitted to intentionally contaminating food they prepared or served to a customer (yuck!). At

2.5 What is counterproductive behavior?

Final PDF to printer

42 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 42 11/27/15 08:03 PM

a minimum, such sabotage of the restaurant’s product can lead to a bad meal and a customer’s promise to never return to that establishment. Of course, such behaviors can also lead to food poisoning, health code violations, and a damaging lawsuit. Employees who sabotage customers may do so, under certain circumstances, as a response to perceived mistreatment by customers. It’s important to note, however, that retaliation in this manner is not justified, so it’s still consid- ered a form of counterproductive behavior.48

Theft represents another form of property deviance and can be just as expensive as sabotage (if not more). Research has shown that up to three-quarters of all employees have engaged in counterproductive behaviors such as theft, and the cost of these behaviors is staggering.49 For example, one study estimated that 47 percent of store inventory shrinkage was due to employee theft and that this type of theft costs organizations approximately $14.6 billion per year.50 Maybe

As we’ve already explained, citizenship behavior tends to be viewed as relatively voluntary because it’s not often explicitly outlined in job descriptions or directly rewarded. However, peo- ple in organizations vary in their beliefs regarding the degree to which citizenship behavior is truly voluntary, and these differences have important implications. As an example, consider a situation in which an employee engages in citizenship behaviors because of his or her belief that the behaviors are part of the job. However, this employee works for a supervisor who believes that citizenship behaviors are unnecessary. Assuming that the supervisor would not consider the citizenship behaviors on a performance evaluation, the employee would likely react negatively because he or she has not been recognized for putting effort into activities that help other mem- bers of the organization.

So what types of factors cause differences in beliefs regarding whether or not citizenship behavior is discretionary? One factor that would appear to be important is national culture. It is widely believed that the culture in countries like the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands encourages behaviors that support competition and individual achievement, whereas the culture in countries like China, Colombia, and Portugal encourages behaviors that promote cooperation and group interests over self-interests. On the basis of these cultural differences, it seems logi- cal to expect that people from the former set of countries would consider citizenship behavior relatively unimportant compared with people from the latter set of countries. In reality, however, the findings from one recent study comparing Canadian and Chinese managers found that this cultural stereotype was simply not true.  Managers in both countries not only took citizenship behavior into account when evaluating overall job performance, but the weight they gave to citizenship behavior in their overall evaluation of employees was the same. One explanation for this result is that the realities of running effective business organizations in a global economy have a significantly stronger impact on managerial practices than do cultural norms. It is impor- tant to note that the results of this study do not mean that we can ignore culture when trying to understand employee job performance. In fact, there are reasons to believe that cultural differ- ences are important to consider when designing and implementing systems to manage employee performance. Sources:  F.F.T.  Chiang and T.A. Birtch, “Appraising Performance across Borders: An Empirical Examination of the Purposes and Practices of Performance Appraisal in a Multi-Country Context.” Journal of Management Studies 47 (2010), pp. 1365–92; G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991;  E. W. Morrison, “Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Importance of the Employee’s Perspec- tive.” Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994), pp. 1543–67. M. Rotundo, and J.L. Xie, “Understanding the Domain of Counterproductive Work Behavior in China.”  International Journal of Human Resource Management 86 (2008), pp. 856–77.

OB INTERNATIONALLY

Final PDF to printer

43C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 43 11/27/15 08:03 PM

FIGURE 2-3 Types of Counterproductive Behaviors

Source: Adapted from S.L. Robinson and R.J. Bennett, “A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimen- sional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal 38 (1995), pp. 555–72.

Production Deviance - Wasting resources - Substance abuse

Property Deviance - Sabotage - Theft

Political Deviance - Gossiping - Incivility

Personal Aggression - Harassment - Abuse

Organizational

Interpersonal

Minor Serious

you’ve had friends who worked at a restaurant or bar and been lucky enough to get discounted (or even free) food and drinks whenever you wanted. Clearly that circumstance is productive for you, but it’s quite counterproductive from the perspective of the organization.

Production deviance is also directed against the organization but focuses specifically on reducing the efficiency of work output. Wasting resources, when employees use too many materials or too much time to do too little work, is the most common form of production devi- ance. Manufacturing employees who use too much wood or metal are wasting resources as are restaurant employees who use too many ingredients when preparing the food. Workers who work too slowly or take too many breaks are also wasting resources because “time is money” (see Chapter 3 on organizational commitment for more discussion of such issues). Substance abuse represents another form of production deviance. If employees abuse drugs or alcohol while on the job or shortly before coming to work, then the efficiency of their production will be compro- mised because their work will be done more slowly and less accurately.

In contrast to property and production deviance, political deviance refers to behaviors that intentionally disadvantage other individuals rather than the larger organization. Gossiping— casual conversations about other people in which the facts are not confirmed as true—is one form of political deviance. Everyone has experienced gossip at some point in time and knows the emotions people feel when they discover that other people have been talking about them. Such behaviors undermine the morale of both friendship groups and work groups. Incivility represents communication that’s rude, impolite, discourteous, and lacking in good manners.51 The erosion of manners seems like a society-wide phenomenon, and the workplace is no excep- tion. Taken one by one, these political forms of counterproductive behavior may not seem particularly serious to most organizations. However, in the aggregate, acts of political devi- ance can create an organizational climate characterized by distrust and unhealthy competitive- ness. Beyond the productivity losses that result from a lack of cooperation among employees,

Final PDF to printer

44 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 44 11/27/15 08:03 PM

organizations with this type of climate likely cannot retain good employees. Moreover, there’s some evidence that gossip and incivility can “ spiral”—meaning that they gradually get worse and worse until some tipping point, after which more serious forms of interpersonal actions can occur.52

Those more serious inter- personal actions may involve personal aggression, defined as hostile verbal and physical actions directed toward other

employees. Harassment falls under this heading and occurs when employees are subjected to unwanted physical contact or verbal remarks from a colleague. Abuse also falls under this heading; it occurs when an employee is assaulted or endangered in such a way that physical and psychological injuries may occur. You might be surprised to know that even the most extreme forms of personal aggression are actually quite prevalent in organizations. For exam- ple, on average in the United States about one employee each week is murdered by a current or previous coworker.53 As another example, about 54 million Americans are bullied at work each year.54 Bullying involves psychological harassment and abuse directed toward an indi- vidual or group of individuals.55 Examples of bullying include humiliation, social isolation, and systematic maltreatment, all of which results in the target of these behaviors feeling help- less.56 It might surprise you to learn that the source of the bullying is often a boss. We don’t believe that bosses are inherently evil, but some undoubtedly lose sight of the line between being tough and being a bully, and that what matters isn’t the intent of the behavior, but rather the perception of the person to whom the behavior is targeted.57 Acts of personal aggres- sion can also be quite costly to organizations. For example, Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America settled a class action sexual harassment lawsuit for $34 million after women at a plant in Normal, Illinois, complained of widespread and routine groping, fondling, lewd jokes, lewd behavior, and pornographic graffiti.58

Four points should be noted about counterproductive behavior. First, there’s evidence that people who engage in one form of counterproductive behavior also engage in others.59 In other words, such behaviors tend to represent a pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents. Sec- ond, like citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior is relevant to any job. It doesn’t matter what the job entails; there are going to be things to steal, resources to waste, and people to be uncivil toward. Third, counterproductive behavior may be contagious. For example, researchers have found evidence that abusive behavior on the part of supervisors may result in organizational deviance of subordinates and vise versa.60 Fourth, it’s often surprising which employees engage in counterproductive behavior. You might be tempted to guess that poor performers would be the ones who engage in high levels of counterproductive behavior, and that highly effective task performers do not engage in counterproductive behavior. In fact, however, there’s only a weak negative correlation between task performance and counterproductive behavior,61 and if you think about it for a moment, you can probably come up with a few examples of people who are very effective in their jobs but who also engage in high levels of counterproductive behavior. Sometimes the best task performers are the ones who can best get away with counterproduc- tive actions, because they’re less likely to be suspected or blamed. Moreover, counterproductive behaviors might even be tolerated for a while where the individual is able to effectively accom- plish very challenging tasks. Our OB on Screen feature illustrates an example of this apparent contradiction in behavior.

Counterproductive behav- ior by employees can be

destructive to the organiza- tion’s goals. In some set-

tings, such as a restaurant, it can even be a problem for

customers.

© Frank Wartenberg/Picture Press/Getty Images

Final PDF to printer

45C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 45 11/27/15 08:03 PM

O B O N S C R E E N

FLIGHT

The FAA and the NTSB took 10 pilots, placed them in simulators, re-created the events that led to this plane falling out of the sky. Do you know how many of them were able to safely land the planes? Not one. Every pilot crashed the aircraft, killed everybody on board. You were the only one who could do it!

With those words, South Jet Air attorney Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) tells Captain Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) that his performance as a pilot is extraordinary in the movie Flight (Dir. Robert Zemeckis, Paramount Pictures, 2012). On a trip from Orlando to Atlanta, the aircraft Whip was flying malfunctioned, and to get the plane out of an uncontrollable dive, Whip managed to invert it and fly it this way, eventually rolling it upright just before crash-landing in a field. Normally, a pilot who performs such a feat, and who saves the lives of most of his passengers and crew, would be considered a hero. But there’s a hitch. You see, Whip not only consumed copious amounts of alcohol and drugs before flying, but he actu- ally mixed himself a strong cocktail while flying. Although Whip had nothing to do with the equipment malfunction, and in spite of his heroics, responsibility for the crash and for the six deaths that resulted would likely rest with him and his employer if investigators found out about his condition.

© Paramount Pictures/Photofest

The movie centers on a dichotomy in Whip’s job performance. On the one hand, he’s remarkably competent in the activities involved in flying a jet. In fact, to the extent that the equipment malfunction was totally unforeseen and required altogether new responses to cope with the situation, Whip is particularly strong in the adaptive performance aspect of task per- formance. On the other hand, substance abuse is considered to be a form of counterproductive behavior. This contrast in positive and negative job performance behaviors should serve as a reminder that it’s a mistake to presume that employees are effective or ineffective in their jobs based on how well they do in one aspect of job performance, however visible this aspect of job performance may be.

Final PDF to printer

46 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 46 11/27/15 08:03 PM

S U M M A R Y: W H AT D O E S I T M E A N TO B E A “ G O O D P E R F O R M E R ” ?

So what does it mean to be a “good performer”? As shown in Figure 2-4, being a good per- former means a lot of different things. It means employees are good at the particular job tasks that fall within their job description, whether those tasks are routine or require adaptability or

FIGURE 2-4 What Does It Mean to Be a “Good Performer”?

Interpersonal - Helping - Courtesy - Sportsmanship

Organizational - Voice - Civic virtue - Boosterism

Property Deviance - Sabotage - Theft

Production Deviance - Wasting resources - Substance abuse

Political Deviance - Gossiping - Incivility

Personal Aggression - Harassment - Abuse

COUNTER- PRODUCTIVE

BEHAVIOR

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

TASK PERFORMANCE

Routine

Adaptive

JOB PERFORMANCE

Creative

Final PDF to printer

47C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 47 11/27/15 08:03 PM

creativity. But it also means that employees engage in citizenship behaviors directed at both coworkers and the larger organization. It also means that employees refrain from engaging in the counterproductive behaviors that can badly damage the climate of an organization. The goal for any manager is, therefore, to have employees who fulfill all three pieces of this good performer description.

As you move forward in this book, you’ll notice that almost every chapter includes a description of how that chapter’s topic relates to job performance. For example, Chapter 4 on job satisfaction will describe how employees’ feelings about their jobs affect their job performance. You’ll find that some chapter topics seem more strongly correlated with task performance, whereas other topics are more strongly correlated with citizenship behavior or counterproductive behavior. Such differences will help you understand exactly how and why a given topic, be it satisfaction, stress, motivation, or something else, influences job perfor- mance. By the end of the book, you’ll have developed a good sense of the most powerful driv- ers of job performance.

T R E N D S A F F E C T I N G P E R F O R M A N C E

Now that we’ve described exactly what job performance is, it’s time to describe some of the trends that affect job performance in the contemporary workplace. Put simply, the kinds of jobs employees do are changing, as is the way workers get organized within companies. These trends put pressure on some elements of job performance while altering the form and function of others.

K N OW L E D G E WO R K Historically speaking, research on organizational behavior has focused on the physical aspects of job performance. This focus was understandable, given that the U.S. economy was industrial in nature and the productivity of the employees who labored in plants and factories was of great concern. However, by the early 1990s, the majority of new jobs required employees to engage in cognitive work, applying theoretical and analytical knowledge acquired through formal educa- tion and continuous learning.62 Today, statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor confirm that this type of work, also called knowledge work, is becoming more prevalent than jobs involving physical activity.63

In addition to being more cognitive, knowledge work tends to be more fluid and dynamic in nature. Facts, data, and information are always changing. Moreover, as time goes by, it becomes easier to access more and more of these facts and data, using Google on an iPhone for example. In addition, the tools used to do knowledge work change quickly, with software, databases, and computer systems updated more frequently than ever. As those tools become more powerful, the expectations for completing knowledge work become more ambitious. After all, shouldn’t reports and presentations be more comprehensive and finished more quickly when every book used to create them is available online 24/7 rather than at some library? In fact, as many have recently noted, expectations regarding knowledge work can become overwhelming for employ- ees, and as a consequence, new and innovative ways of performing this type of work may be necessary.64

S E RV I C E WO R K One of the largest and fastest growing sectors in the economy is not in industries that pro- duce goods but rather in industries that provide services. Service work, or work that pro- vides nontangible goods to customers through direct electronic, verbal, or physical interaction, accounts for approximately 55 percent of the economic activity in the United States,65 and

2.6 What workplace trends are affecting job performance in today’s organizations?

Final PDF to printer

48 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 48 11/27/15 08:03 PM

about 20 percent of the new jobs created are service jobs, trailing only professional services in terms of growth.66 Retail sales- persons, customer service representatives, and food service workers represent the bulk of that service job growth. By comparison, maintenance, repair, construction, and pro- duction jobs are projected to account for only 4–7 percent of new jobs over the next several years.

The increase in service jobs has a num- ber of implications for job performance. For example, the costs of bad task performance are more immediate and more obvious.

When customer service representatives do their job duties poorly, the customer is right there to notice. That failure can’t be hidden behind the scenes or corrected by other employees chipping in before it’s too late. In addition, service work contexts place a greater premium on high levels of citizenship behavior and low levels of counterproductive behavior. If service employees refuse to help one another or maintain good sportsmanship, or if they gossip and insult one another, those negative emotions get transmitted to the customer during the service encounter. Maintain- ing a positive work environment therefore becomes even more vital.

In fact, some very notable organizations compete successfully by placing special emphasis on the performance of people who do service work. Amazon, for example, believes that the best way to ensure that customers keep using its website to purchase merchandise is to ensure customers are satisfied with their experience, especially when a transaction goes wrong, such as if merchandise arrives broken or an order doesn’t ship because the product is back ordered.67 Amazon customer service employees receive a great deal of training so that they can provide timely and consistent responses to customers who have questions or problems. In fact, customer service is so important to Amazon that each and every employee, including CEO Jeff Bezos, spends two days a year answering customer service calls.68 Apparently all this training has paid off: Amazon now ranks number one in customer service quality, scoring above companies such as The Ritz-Carlton and Lexus, which are famous for providing world- class customer service.69

A P P L I C AT I O N : P E R F O R M A N C E M A N AG E M E N T

Now that we’ve described what job performance is, along with some of the workplace trends that affect it, it’s time to discuss how organizations use job performance information. Good compa- nies understand the linkage between employee job performance and organizational performance, and as a consequence they invest resources collecting information about employee performance so that it can be managed in a way that helps the organization achieve its mission. In this section, we describe general ways in which job performance information is used to manage employee performance. We spotlight four of the most representative practices: management by objectives, behaviorally anchored rating scales, 360-degree feedback, and forced ranking. We’ll also dis- cuss how social networking software is being used for performance management purposes in organizations.

M A N AG E M E N T BY O B J EC T I V E S Management by objectives (MBO) is a management philosophy that bases an employee’s evaluations on whether the employee achieves specific performance goals.70 How does MBO work? Typically, an employee meets with his or her manager to develop a set of mutually

2.7 How can organizations use job performance information to manage employee performance?

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos stresses the importance of

customer service.

© Marcus A. Donner/AP Images

Final PDF to printer

49C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 49 11/27/15 08:03 PM

agreed-upon objectives that are measurable and specific (see Chapter 6 on motivation for more discussion of such issues). In addition, the employee and the manager agree on the time period for achieving those objectives and the methods used to do so. An example of a perfor- mance objective for a line manager in a factory might be something like, “Reducing produc- tion waste by 35 percent within three months by developing and implementing new production procedures.” Employee performance then can be gauged by referring to the degree to which the employee achieves results that are consistent with the objectives. If the line manager cuts production waste by 37 percent within three months, the manager’s performance would be deemed effective, whereas if the manager only cuts production waste by 2 percent, his or her performance would be deemed ineffective. MBO is best suited for managing the perfor- mance of employees who work in contexts in which objective measures of performance can be quantified.

B E H AV I O R A L LY A N C H O R E D R AT I N G S CA L E S You might have noticed that MBO emphasizes the results of job performance as much as it does the performance behaviors themselves. In contrast, behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) measure performance by directly assessing job performance behaviors. The BARS approach uses “critical incidents”—short descriptions of effective and ineffective behaviors—to create a measure that can be used to evaluate employee performance. As an example of a BARS approach, consider the measure of task performance shown in Table 2-2, which focuses on the “planning, organizing, and scheduling” dimension of task performance for a manager.71 The rater reads the behaviors on the far left column of the measure and matches actual observations of the behavior of the manager being rated to the corresponding level on the measure by placing a check in the blank.72

Typically, supervisors rate several performance dimensions using BARS and score an employ- ee’s overall job performance by taking the average value across all the dimensions. Because the critical incidents convey the precise kinds of behaviors that are effective and ineffective, feed- back from BARS can help an employee develop and improve over time. That is, employees can develop an appreciation of the types of behaviors that would make them effective. Such informa- tion provides a nice complement to MBO, which is less capable of providing specific feedback about why an objective might have been missed.

3 6 0 - D EG R E E F E E D BAC K The 360-degree feedback approach involves collecting performance information not just from the supervisor but from anyone else who might have firsthand knowledge about the employee’s performance behaviors. These other sources of performance information typi- cally include the employee’s subordinates, peers, and customers. With the exception of the supervisor’s ratings, the ratings are combined so that the raters can remain anonymous to the employee. Most 360-degree feedback systems also ask the employee to provide ratings of his or her own performance. The hope is that this 360-degree perspective will provide a more bal- anced and comprehensive examination of performance. By explicitly comparing self-provided ratings with the ratings obtained from others, employees can develop a better sense of how their performance may be deficient in the eyes of others and exactly where they need to focus their energies to improve.

Although the information from a 360-degree feedback system can be used to evaluate employees for administrative purposes such as raises or promotions, there are problems with that sort of application. First, because ratings vary across sources, there is the question of which source is most “correct.” Even if multiple sources are taken into account in generating an over- all performance score, it’s often unclear how the information from the various sources should be weighted. Second, raters may give biased evaluations if they believe that the information will be used for compensation, as opposed to just skill development. Peers in particular may be unwilling to provide negative information if they believe it will harm the person being rated.

Final PDF to printer

50 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 50 11/27/15 08:03 PM

As a result, 360-degree feedback is best suited to improving or developing employee talent, especially if the feedback is accompanied by coaching about how to improve the areas identi- fied as points of concern.

F O R C E D R A N K I N G One of the most notable strategies that Jack Welch, Fortune’s Manager of the 20th Century,73 used to build a great workforce at General Electric involved evaluations that make clear distinctions among employees in terms of their job performance. Although Welch considered several systems that could differentiate employees, the most effective relied on the “vitality curve,” depicted in Figure 2-5, which forces managers to rank all of their people into one of three categories: the top 20 percent (A players), the vital middle 70 percent (B players), or the bottom 10 percent (C players). The A players are thought to possess “the four Es of GE leadership: very high energy levels, the ability to energize others around common goals, the edge to make tough yes-and-no decisions, and finally the ability to consistently execute and deliver on their promises.”74 The

Source: D.G. Shaw, C.E. Schneier, and R.W. Beatty, “Managing Performance with a Behaviorally Based Appraisal System,” in Applying Psychology in Business: The Handbook for Managers and Human Resource Professionals, ed. J.W. Jones, B.D. Steffy, and D.W. Bray (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 2001), pp. 314–25.

TABLE 2-2 BARS Example for “Planning, Organizing, and Scheduling”

RATING RATING BEHAVIORAL ANCHORS

[ 7 ] Excellent s��%FWFMPQT�B�DPNQSFIFOTJWF�QSPKFDU�QMBO �EPDVNFOUT�JU�XFMM � obtains required approval, and distributes the plan to all concerned.

[ 6 ] Very Good s��1MBOT �DPNNVOJDBUFT �BOE�PCTFSWFT�NJMFTUPOFT��TUBUFT�XFFL� by week where the project stands relative to plans. Maintains up-to-date charts of project accomplishment and backlogs and uses these to optimize any schedule modifications required.

s��&YQFSJFODFT�PDDBTJPOBM�NJOPS�PQFSBUJPOBM�QSPCMFNT�CVU�DPN- municates effectively.

[ 5 ] Good s��-BZT�PVU�BMM�UIF�QBSUT�PG�B�KPC�BOE�TDIFEVMFT�FBDI�QBSU�UP�CFBU� schedule; will allow for slack.

s��4BUJTGJFT�DVTUPNFS�T�UJNF�DPOTUSBJOUT��UJNF�BOE�DPTU�PWFSSVOT� occur infrequently.

[ 4 ] Average s��.BLFT�B�MJTU�PG�EVF�EBUFT�BOE�SFWJTFT�UIFN�BT�UIF�QSPKFDU�QSP- gresses, usually adding unforeseen events; investigates fre- quent customer complaints.

s��.BZ�IBWF�B�TPVOE�QMBO�CVU�EPFT�OPU�LFFQ�USBDL�PG�NJMFTUPOFT�� does not report slippages in schedule or other problems as they occur.

[ 3 ] Below Average s��1MBOT�BSF�QPPSMZ�EFGJOFE��VOSFBMJTUJD�UJNF�TDIFEVMFT�BSF� common.

s��$BOOPU�QMBO�NPSF�UIBO�B�EBZ�PS�UXP�BIFBE��IBT�OP�DPODFQU�PG�B� realistic project due date.

[ 2 ] Very Poor s�)BT�OP�QMBO�PS�TDIFEVMF�PG�XPSL�TFHNFOUT�UP�CF�QFSGPSNFE� s�%PFT�MJUUMF�PS�OP�QMBOOJOH�GPS�QSPKFDU�BTTJHONFOUT�

[ 1 ] Unacceptable s��4FMEPN �JG�FWFS �DPNQMFUFT�QSPKFDU�CFDBVTF�PG�MBDL�PG�QMBOOJOH� and does not seem to care.

s��'BJMT�DPOTJTUFOUMZ�EVF�UP�MBDL�PG�QMBOOJOH�BOE�EPFT�OPU�JORVJSF� about how to improve.

Final PDF to printer

51C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 51 11/27/15 08:03 PM

B players are developed. According to Welch, B players are the backbone of the company but lack the passion of As. The C players are those who cannot get the job done and are let go. The system was taken so seriously at GE that managers who couldn’t differentiate their people tended to find themselves in the C category.75

Today, approximately 20 percent of Fortune 500 companies use some variant of Welch’s forced ranking system, which is popularly known as “rank and yank” or the “dead man’s curve.”76 However, there are some important controversies to consider. For example, some believe the system is inherently unfair because it forces managers to give bad evaluations to employees who may be good performers, just to reach a preestablished percentage. As another example, employees may become hypercompetitive with one another to avoid finding themselves in a lower category. This type of competitiveness is the opposite of what may be needed in today’s team-based organizations.

S O C I A L N E T WO R K I N G SYST E M S Most of you reading this book are familiar with social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter. Well, this technology has recently been applied in organizational contexts to develop and evaluate employee job performance.77 As an example, Accenture uses a Facebook-styled program called “Performance Multiplier,” which requires that employees post and update weekly and quarterly goals. Managers then monitor the information and provide feedback.78 As another example, a Toronto-based software company called Rypple uses a Twitter-like program to enable employees to post questions about their own performance so that other employees can give them anonymous feedback.79 Although the effectiveness of social networking applications for perfor- mance evaluation and employee development purposes has not been studied scientifically, there are some advantages that make us believe that they will grow in popularity. For example, these types of systems provide performance information that is much more timely, relative to tradi- tional practices that measure performance quarterly or even yearly. Although it might be unpleas- ant to learn from your peers that a presentation you gave was boring, it’s much better than giving 50 boring presentations over the course of the year and then getting the news from your boss. For an interesting discussion of other implications of social media to employee job performance, see our OB at the Bookstore feature. 

Source: From Jack by Jack Welch with John A. Byrne. Copyright © 2001 by the John F. Welch Jr. Foundation.

FIGURE 2-5 Jack Welch’s Vitality Curve

“Top 20” “The Vital 70” “Bottom 10”

Final PDF to printer

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 52 12/12/15 01:46 AM

52 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

O B AT T H E B O O K S TO R E

A WORLD GONE SOCIAL by Ted Coiné and Mark Babbitt (New York: Amacom, 2014). 

Welcome to the social age. 

With those words, authors Coiné and Babbitt explain that companies today exist in a world that’s much more social, collaborative and open than in the “indus- trial age” of the past, and that accordingly, companies must adapt their practices to survive. In particular, the authors suggest that organizational leaders and employ- ees need to change the way they think and behave in order to leverage social media and avoid its traps. The book covers a wide array of topics that are relevant to management, but of special interest are the implications of social media to employee job performance.

Most generally, the authors describe how social media creates new opportunities for employees to con- tribute positively to the organization. For example, Chapter 4 discusses how recruiting new employees can be more effective when existing employees use social media to champion a job opportunity, the organization, or its brands. As the authors note, “Who else would you want talking to a potential team member about join- ing your company instead of the competition than the person who has drunk the most company Kool-Aid and

shows it every day on social networking sites?” Of course, social media creates opportunities for employees to make negative contributions to the organization as well. The authors provide several examples of how a single complaint posted on social media by an employee can become amplified by others who casually weigh in on the matter. The problem here is obvious. Potential employees and customers could view this information and interpret it as an objective real time resource to make employment or purchase decisions.

In sum, although social media creates opportunities for new forms of citizenship perfor- mance, it also creates opportunities for counterproductive performance as well. The challenge for managers is to identify implications of social media to job performance, and to incorporate this knowledge into organizational practices and policies. As we alluded to above, for example, the first step might be to identify specific types of social media related activities that contribute positively and negatively to the organization. These activities could then be reflected in changes to hiring, training and development, and performance feedback systems.

Photo of cover: © Roberts Publishing Services

2.1 Job performance is the set of employee behaviors that contribute to organizational goal accomplishment. Job performance has three dimensions: task performance, citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior.

2.2 Task performance includes employee behaviors that are directly involved in the transforma- tion of organizational resources into the goods or services that the organization produces.

TA K E AWAY S

Final PDF to printer

53C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 53 11/27/15 08:03 PM

Examples of task performance include routine task performance, adaptive task perfor- mance, and creative task performance.

2.3 Organizations gather information about relevant task behaviors using job analysis and O*NET.

2.4 Citizenship behaviors are voluntary employee activities that may or may not be rewarded but that contribute to the organization by improving the overall quality of the setting in which work takes place. Examples of citizenship behavior include helping, courtesy, sportsmanship, voice, civic virtue, and boosterism.

2.5 Counterproductive behaviors are employee behaviors that intentionally hinder organiza- tional goal accomplishment. Examples of counterproductive behavior include sabotage, theft, wasting resources, substance abuse, gossiping, incivility, harassment, and abuse.

2.6 A number of trends have affected job performance in today’s organizations. These trends include the rise of knowledge work and the increase in service jobs.

2.7 MBO, BARS, 360-degree feedback, and forced ranking practices are four ways that organi- zations can use job performance information to manage employee performance.

K E Y T E R M S

∙ Job performance p. 33 ∙ Task performance p. 34 ∙ Routine task performance p. 34 ∙ Adaptive task performance p. 34 ∙ Creative task performance p. 35 ∙ Job analysis p. 36 ∙ Occupational Information Network

(O*NET) p. 37 ∙ Citizenship behavior p. 38 ∙ Interpersonal citizenship

behavior p. 38 ∙ Helping p. 39 ∙ Courtesy p. 39 ∙ Sportsmanship p. 39 ∙ Organizational citizenship

behavior p. 39 ∙ Voice p. 39 ∙ Civic virtue p. 39 ∙ Boosterism p. 39 ∙ Counterproductive behavior p. 41

∙ Property deviance p. 41 ∙ Sabotage p. 41 ∙ Theft p. 42 ∙ Production deviance p. 43 ∙ Wasting resources p. 43 ∙ Substance abuse p. 43 ∙ Political deviance p. 43 ∙ Gossiping p. 43 ∙ Incivility p. 43 ∙ Personal aggression p. 44 ∙ Harassment p. 44 ∙ Abuse p. 44 ∙ Knowledge work p. 47 ∙ Service work p. 47 ∙ Management by objectives

(MBO) p. 48 ∙ Behaviorally anchored rating

scales (BARS) p. 49 ∙ 360-degree feedback p. 49 ∙ Forced ranking p. 51

2.1 Describe your “job” as a student in terms of the job performance dimensions discussed in this chapter. What would be the benefit of approaching student performance from a behav- ior perspective rather than from an outcome (grades) perspective? What would the down- sides of this approach be? How would grading policies in your classes have to change to accommodate a behavior approach to student performance?

D I S C U S S I O N Q U E S T I O N S

Final PDF to printer

54 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 54 11/27/15 08:03 PM

JPMorgan Chase and its predecessor institutions have long had a significant impact on the lives of Americans and others throughout the world. For example, the company took on the responsibility for financing large-scale risky large projects such as the Erie Canal, the Panama Canal, and the railroad expansion that opened the door to commerce and economic develop- ment throughout the United States. The company has also been at the forefront of important innovations such as credit cards, automatic teller machines, and online banking. In fact, it’s not too far of a stretch to suggest that both creativity and the willingness to take bold risks for high returns have been hallmarks of effective employees at JPMorgan Chase, and this has been true throughout its long history. Less we not forget that the genesis of the company rests with the creative language inserted into the charter of a fledgling water company by one of its principals so that excess capital could be invested in opportunities to make money in a risky environment. 

Unfortunately, bold and creative behavior of employees at JPMorgan Chase has not always resulted in positive consequences. In fact, the company has recently paid tens of billions of dol- lars in fines, settlements, and legal fees due to highly questionable employee behavior. As an example, the company paid $13 billion in a settlement for allegedly selling fraudulent mortgage backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. Other highly publicized probes into the company include its involvement in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, rigging of currency and energy markets, and the London Whale inci- dent in which a team of employees gambled on complex financial derivatives that resulted in more than $6 billion in trading loses.

As a response to these incidents, which obviously hurt the company’s reputation and bot- tom line, company executives have taken a number of major steps. For example, CEO Jamie Dimon published a document that acknowledges the company’s role in these incidents and outlines expectations of employees with regard to compliance with legal and ethical stan- dards. The company also set up phone and e-mail lines so employees can anonymously report compliance concerns and related bad behavior. Perhaps the most notable initiative has been the use of a computer algorithm, originally developed for counterterrorism, that monitors and analyzes a large set of employee behaviors to try to catch employees before they actually do anything that results in a costly problem. Employees who miss a compliance class, violate minor rules regarding personal trading, exceed risk limits, or use certain words in e-mails may be flagged as being likely to violate a regulation or policy. Although JPMorgan Chase has not described all the information considered by the system, or what will be done to employees who are identified as likely rule breakers, it hopes that surveillance of employees will help the

C A S E : J P M O R G A N C H A S E 

2.2 Describe the job that you currently hold or hope to hold after graduation. Now look up that job in the O*NET database. Does the profile of the job fit your expectations? Are any task behaviors missing from O*NET’s profile?

2.3 Describe a job in which citizenship behaviors would be especially critical to an organiza- tion’s functioning, and one in which citizenship behaviors would be less critical. What is it about a job that makes citizenship more important?

2.4 Figure 2-3 classifies production deviance and political deviance as more minor in nature than property deviance and personal aggression. When might those “minor” types of coun- terproductive behavior prove especially costly?

2.5 Consider how you would react to 360-degree feedback. If you were the one receiving the feedback, whose views would you value most: your manager’s or your peer’s? If you were asked to assess a peer, would you want your opinion to affect that peer’s raises or promotions?

Final PDF to printer

55C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 55 11/27/15 08:03 PM

company police itself better and build a culture where employees understand that bad behav- ior will not be tolerated.  2.1 Which dimensions of job performance do you think JPMorgan Chase emphasized prior

to the financial crisis and the costly legal problems that followed? In what ways did this emphasis contribute to both the company’s success and its problems?

2.2 Which dimensions of job performance do you think JPMorgan Chase is emphasizing now? In what ways will this shift in emphasis help the company? Might there be reasons to believe the shift in emphasis will hurt the company?

2.3 Which specific dimension of job performance is the company trying to manage with the computer algorithm? How might there be unintended job-performance related conse- quences of using this system? Explain how the company could manage some of the poten- tial downsides of the system?

Sources: JPMorgan Chase & Co. “How We Do Business,” 2014, http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ONE/0x0x 799950/14aa6d4f-f90d-4a23-96a6-53e5cc199f43/How_We_Do_Business.pdf; JPMorgan Chase & Co. “The History of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,” 2008, http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/About-JPMC/document/shorthistory.pdf; and S. Hugh “JPMorgan Tests an Algorithm to Identify Potential Rule Breakers Before they Stray.” Bloomberg Businessweek, April 13–15, 2015, pp. 34–35.

E X E R C I S E : P E R FO R M A N C E O F A S E RV E R

The purpose of this exercise is to explore what job performance means for a server in a res- taurant. This exercise uses groups of participants, so your instructor will either assign you to a group or ask you to create your own group. The exercise has the following steps: 2.1 Conduct a job analysis for a restaurant server. Begin by drawing a circle like the one below.

Use that circle to summarize the major job dimensions of a restaurant server. For example, one job dimension might be “Taking Orders.” Divide the circle up with four additional job dimen- sions. Now get more specific by listing two behaviors per job dimension. For example, two behaviors within the “Taking Orders” dimension might be “Describing the Menu” and “Mak- ing Recommendations.” At the end of step 1, you should have a list of eight specific behav- iors that summarize the tasks involved in being a restaurant server. Write your group’s behaviors  down on the board or on a transparency, leaving some space for some additional behaviors down the line.

Taking Orders

2.2 Take a look at the resulting list. Did you come up with any behaviors that would be described as “citizenship behaviors”? If you didn’t include any in your list, does that mean that citizen- ship behavior isn’t important in a restaurant setting? If your group includes someone who has worked as a server, ask him or her to describe the importance of citizenship behavior. Come up with two especially important citizenship behaviors and add those to your list.

Final PDF to printer

56 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 56 11/27/15 08:03 PM

2.3 Take another look at your list. Did you come up with any behaviors that would be described as “counterproductive behaviors”? If you didn’t include any, does that mean that counterpro- ductive behavior isn’t an important concern in a restaurant setting? If your group includes someone who has worked as a server, ask him or her to describe the potential costs of coun- terproductive behavior. Come up with two costly counterproductive behaviors and add (the avoidance of) them to your list.

2.4 Class discussion (whether in groups or as a class) should center on how a restaurant owner or manager might use the resulting list to evaluate the performance of restaurant servers. How could this list be used to assess server performance? Would such an approach be valu- able? Why or why not?

2.1 Duffy, M.K.; K.L. Scott; J.D. Shaw; B.J. Tepper; and K. Aquino. “A Social Context Model of Envy and Social Undermining.” Academy of Man- agement Journal 55 (2012), pp. 643–66; and Greenbaum, R.L.; M.B. Mawritz; and G. Eissa. “Bottom- Line Mentality as an Antecedent of Social Undermining and the Moderating Roles of Core Self-Evalutions and Conscientious- ness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012), pp. 343–59.

2.2 Shawel, T. “Home- grown Career Develop- ment.” HR Magazine, April 2011, pp. 36–38.

2.3 Campbell, J.P. “Model- ing the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Orga- nizational Psychol- ogy.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psy- chology, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., ed. M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press,

1990, pp. 687–732; and Motowidlo, S.J.; W.C. Borman; and M.J. Schmit. “A Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance.” Human Performance 10 (1997), pp. 71–83.

2.4 Borman, W.C., and S.J. Motowidlo. “Expand- ing the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contex- tual Performance.” In Personnel Selec- tion in Organizations, ed. N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993, pp. 71–98.

2.5 Ibid. 2.6 Occupational Informa-

tion Network (O*NET) OnLine (n.d.), http:// online.onetcenter.org/.

2.7 Weiss, H.M., and D.R. Ilgen. “Routinized Behavior in Organi- zations.” Journal of Behavioral Economics 24 (1985), pp. 57–67.

2.8 LePine, J.A.; J.A. Colquitt; and A. Erez. “Adaptability to Changing Task

Contexts: Effects of General Cognitive Ability, Conscientious- ness, and Openness to Experience.” Personnel Psychology 53 (2000), pp. 563–93.

2.9 CBC News. “Plane Fire at Pearson Airport: Flight 358.” Indepth Website, August 8, 2005, http://www.cbc .ca/news/background/ plane_fire/.

2.10 Ilgen, D.R., and E.D. Pulakos. “Employee Performance in Today’s Organizations.” In The Changing Nature of Work Performance: Implications for Staff- ing, Motivation, and Development, ed. D.R. Ilgen and E.D. Pulakos. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1999, pp. 1–20.

2.11 Haneberg, L. “Training for Agility: Building the Skills Employees Need to Zig and Zag.” Training and Develop- ment, September 2011, pp. 51–56.

2.12 Associated Press. “Unemployed Find Old Jobs Now Require More Skills.”

E N D N OT E S

Final PDF to printer

57C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 57 11/27/15 08:03 PM

Gainesville Sun, Octo- ber 11, 2010, p. 7A.

2.13 Pulakos, E.D.; S. Arad; M.A. Donovan; and K.E. Plamondon. “Adaptability in the Workplace: Develop- ment of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Perfor- mance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000), pp. 612–24.

2.14 Amabile, T.M. “How to Kill Creativity.” Harvard Business Review 76 (1998), pp. 76–88.

2.15 “Bikini Trivia: His- tory of the Bikini” (n.d.), http://www. everythingbikini.com/ bikini-history.html.

2.16 Florida, R. “America’s Looming Creativity Crisis.” Harvard Busi- ness Review 82 (2004), pp. 122–36.

2.17 Grant, A.M., and J.W. Berry. “The Necessity of Others Is the Mother of Invention: Intrinsic and Prosocial Moti- vations, Perspective Taking, and Creativ- ity.” Academy of Man- agement Journal 54 (2011), pp. 73–96; and George, J.M. “Creativ- ity in Organizations.” Academy of Manage- ment Annals, Vol. 1, ed. J.P. Walsh and A.P. Brief. New York: Erlbaum, 2007, pp. 439–77.

2.18 Baer, M. “Putting Cre- ativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Orga- nizations.” Academy of Management Journal 55 (2012), pp. 1102–19.

2.19 Liker, J.K., and D. P. Meier. Toyota Tal- ent: Developing Your People the Toyota Way. New York: McGraw- Hill, 2007.

2.20 Ibid. 2.21 O’Reilly III, C.A.,

and J. Pfeffer. Hid- den Value: How Great Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People. Boston: Harvard Busi- ness School Press, 2000.

2.22 Freidberg, K., and J. Freidberg. Nuts! South- west Airlines’ Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Suc- cess. Austin, TX: Bard Press, 1996.

2.23 Kaplan, M.D.G. “What Are You, a Comedian?” USA Weekend.com, July 13, 2003, http://www .usaweekend.com/03_ issues/030713/030713 southwest.html.

2.24 Krell, E. “All for Incen- tives, Incentives for All.” HR Magazine, January 2011, pp. 35–38.

2.25 Ibid. 2.26 McFadden, R.D.

“Pilot Is Hailed after Jetliner’s Icy Plunge.” NYTimes. com, January 16, 2009, http://www.nytimes. com/2009/01/16/ nyregion/16crash. html?_r=1&hp.

2.27 Newman, R. “How Sullenberger Really Saved US Airways Flight 1549.” USNews. com, April 13,

2009, http://www. usnews.com/blogs/ flowchart/2009/2/3/ how-sullenberger- really-saved-us-air- ways-flight-1549.html.

2.28 Borman and Motow- idlo, “Expanding the Criterion Domain.”

2.29 Organ, D.W. Organi- zational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.

2.30 Coleman, V.I., and W.C. Borman. “Inves- tigating the Underlying Structure of the Citi- zenship Performance Domain.” Human Resource Management Review 10 (2000), pp. 25–44.

2.31 Ibid. 2.32 MacMillan, P. The

Performance Factor: Unlocking the Secrets of Teamwork. Nash- ville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

2.33 LePine, J.A.; R.F. Pic- colo; C.L. Jackson; J.E. Mathieu; and J.R. Saul. “A Meta-Analysis of Teamwork Process: Towards a Better Understanding of the Dimensional Structure and Relationships with Team Effectiveness Criteria.” Personnel Psychology 61 (2008), pp. 273–307.

2.34 Coleman and Bor- man, “Investigating the Underlying Structure.”

2.35 Coleman, V.I., and W.C. Borman. “Inves- tigating the Underly- ing Structure of the

Final PDF to printer

58 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 58 11/27/15 08:03 PM

Citizenship Perfor- mance Domain.” Human Resource Man- agement Review 10 (2000), pp. 25–44.

2.36 Burris, E.R. “The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up: Mana- gerial Responses to Employee Voice.” Academy of Man- agement Journal 55 (2012), pp. 851–75; Liu, W.; S. Tangirala; W. Lam; Z. Chen; R.T. Jia; and X. Huang. “How and When Peers’ Positive Mood Influence Employ- ees’ Voice.” Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy 100 (2015), pp. 976–89; and Van Dyne, L., and J.A. LePine. “Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behavior: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Valid- ity.” Academy of Man- agement Journal 41 (1998), pp. 108–19.

2.37 Motowidlo, S.J. “Some Basic Issues Related to Contex- tual Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Human Resource Management.” Human Resource Management Review 10 (2000), pp. 115–26.

2.38 Podsakoff, N.P; S.W. Whiting; P.M. Podsa- koff; and B.D. Blume. “Individual- and Organizational-Level Consequences of Orga- nizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta- Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009), pp. 122–41;

and Podsakoff, P.M.; S.B. MacKenzie; J.B. Paine; and D.G. Bachrach. “Organi- zational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theo- retical and Empirical Literature and Sug- gestions for Future Research.” Journal of Management 26 (2000), pp. 513–63.

2.39 Podsakoff, P.M.; M. Ahearne; and S.B. MacKenzie. “Organi- zational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Per- formance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997), pp. 262–70.

2.40 Walz, S.M., and B.P. Neihoff. “Organi- zational Citizenship Behaviors and Their Effect on Organiza- tional Effectiveness in Limited-Menu Res- taurants.” In Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, ed. J.B. Keys and L.N. Dosier. Statesboro, GA: College of Busi- ness Administration at Georgia Southern University, 1996, pp. 307–11.

2.41 Dalal, R.S.; H. Lam; H.M. Weiss; E.R. Welch; and C.L. Hulin. “A Within-Person Approach to Work Behavior and Perfor- mance: Concurrent and Lagged Citizenship- Counterproductivity Associations, and Dynamic Relationships with Affect and Over- all Job Performance.”

Academy of Man- agement Journal 52 (2009), pp. 1051–66.

2.42 Allen, T.D., and M.C. Rush. “The Effects of Organizational Citizen- ship Behavior on Per- formance Judgments: A Field Study and a Labo- ratory Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (1998), pp. 247–60; Avila, R.A.; E.F. Fern; and O.K. Mann. “Unravel- ing Criteria for Assess- ing the Performance of Sales People: A Causal Analysis.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 8 (1988), pp. 45–54; Lowery, C.M., and T.J. Krilowicz. “Relation- ships among Nontask Behaviors, Rated Performance, and Objective Performance Measures.” Psycho- logical Reports 74 (1994), pp. 571–78; MacKenzie, S.B.; P.M. Podsakoff; and R. Fet- ter. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Objective Produc- tivity as Determinants of Managerial Evalua- tions of Salespersons’ Performance.” Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses 50 (1991), pp. 123–50; MacKenzie, S.B.; P.M. Podsakoff; and R. Fetter. “The Impact of Organi- zational Citizenship Behavior on Evaluation of Sales Performance.” Journal of Marketing 57 (1993), pp. 70–80; MacKenzie, S.B.; P.M. Podsakoff; and J.B.

Final PDF to printer

59C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 59 11/27/15 08:03 PM

Paine. “Effects of Orga- nizational Citizenship Behaviors and Produc- tivity on Evaluation of Performance at Differ- ent Hierarchical Levels in Sales Organizations.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (1999), pp. 396–410; Motowidlo, S.J., and J.R. Van Scotter. “Evidence That Task Performance Should Be Distinguished from Contextual Perfor- mance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994), pp. 475–80; Podsakoff, P.M., and S.B. MacKenzie. “Orga- nizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing Research 3 (February 1994), pp. 351–63; and Van Scotter, J.R., and S.J. Motowidlo. “Inter- personal Facilitation and Job Dedication as Separate Facets of Con- textual Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (1996), pp. 525–31.

2.43 Rotundo, M., and P.R. Sackett. “The Relative Importance of Task, Citizenship, and Counterproduc- tive Performance to Global Ratings of Job Performance: A Policy Capturing Approach.” Journal of Applied Psy- chology 87 (2002), pp. 66–80.

2.44 Allen and Rush, “The Effects of Organi- zational Citizenship Behavior on Perfor- mance Judgments”; Kiker, D.S., and S.J. Motowidlo. “Main

and Interaction Effects of Task and Contex- tual Performance on Supervisory Reward Decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1999), pp. 602–9; and Park, O.S., and H.P Sims Jr. “Beyond Cog- nition in Leadership: Prosocial Behavior and Affect in Managerial Judgment.” Working Paper, Seoul National University and Penn- sylvania State Univer- sity, 1989.

2.45 Robinson, S.L., and R.J. Bennett. “A Typol- ogy of Deviant Work- place Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scal- ing Study.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (1995), pp. 555–72.

2.46 Cellitti, D.R. “MCA DiscoVision: The Record That Plays Pic- tures,” June 25, 2002, http://www.oz.net/blam/ DiscoVision/Record- PlaysPictures.htm.

2.47 Hollweg, L. “Inside the Four Walls of the Restaurant: The Reality and Risk of Counter- Productive Behaviors,” 2003, http://www .batrushollweg.com/ files/Website.Inside_ the_Four?_Walls_ of_the_Restaurant1. Reprint_9.pdf.

2.48 Wang, M.; H. Liao; Y. Zhan; and J. Shi. “Daily Customer Mistreatment and Employee Sabotage Against Customers: Examining Emotion and Resource Perspec- tives.” Academy of Management Journal 54 (2011), p. 31.

2.49 Harper, D. “Spotlight Abuse—Save Profits.” Industrial Distribution 79 (1990), pp. 47–51.

2.50 Hollinger, R.C., and L. Langton. 2004 National Retail Secu- rity Survey. Gaines- ville: University of Florida, Security Research Project, Department of Crimi- nology, Law and Soci- ety, 2005.

2.51 Andersson, L.M., and C.M. Pearson. “Tit for Tat? The Spiral- ing Effect of Incivility in the Workplace.” Academy of Manage- ment Review 24 (1999), pp. 452–71.

2.52 Ibid.

2.53 Armour, S. “Manag- ers Not Prepared for Workplace Violence.” USA Today, July 19, 2004, http://www. usatoday.com/money/ workplace/2004- 07-15-workplace- violence2_x.htm.

2.54 Daniel, T.A. “Tough Boss or Workplace Bully?” HR Magazine, June 2009, pp. 83–86.

2.55 Baillien, E.; N. De Cuyper; and H. De Witte. “Job Autonomy and Workload as Ante- cedents of Workplace Bullying: A Two-Wave Test of Karasek’s Job Demand Control Model for Targets and Perpetrators.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology 84 (2010), pp. 191–208.

2.56 Cowie, H.; P. Naylor; I. Rivers; P.K. Smith; and

Final PDF to printer

60 C H A P T E R 2 Job Performance

coL45091_ch02_030-061.indd 60 11/27/15 08:03 PM

B. Pereira. “Measuring Workplace Bullying.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002), pp. 35–51; Baillien et al. “Job Autonomy and Workload as Anteced- ents of Workplace Bul- lying” and Einarsen, S.S.; B. Matthisen; and L.J. Hauge. “Bully- ing and Harassment at Work. In The Oxford Handbook of Person- nel Psychology, ed. S. Cartwright and C.L. Cooper. London: Sage, 2009, pp. 464–95.

2.57 Ibid.

2.58 PBS. “Isolated Inci- dents?” Online News- hour, April 26, 1996, http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/bb/-business/ april96/mitsubi- shi_4-26.html.

2.59 Sackett, P.R. “The Structure of Coun- terproductive Work Behaviors: Dimension- ality and Performance with Facets of Job Performance.” Interna- tional Journal of Selec- tion and Assessment 10 (2002), pp. 5–11.

2.60 Lian, H.; D.L. Ferris; R. Morrison; and D.J. Brown. “Blame it on the Supervisor or the Subordinate? Recipro- cal Relations Between Abusive Supervision and Organizational Deviance”. Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2014), pp. 651–664.

2.61 Sackett, P.R., and C.J. DeVore. “Counterpro- ductive Behaviors at Work.” In Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational

Psychology, Vol. 1, ed. N. Anderson; D.S. Ones; H.K. Sinangil; and C. Viswesvaran. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, pp. 145–51.

2.62 Drucker, P.F. “The Age of Social Transforma- tion.” The Atlantic Monthly 274 (1994), pp. 53–80.

2.63 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Tomor- row’s Jobs” (n.d.), http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ oco2003.htm.

2.64 Allen, D. Getting Things Done. New York: Pen- guin Books, 2001.

2.65 U.S. Census Bureau. “Welcome to the Ser- vice Annual Survey,” March 30, 2009, http:// www.census.gov/econ/ www/servmenu.html.

2.66 Hecker, D. “Occu- pational Employ- ment Projections to 2012.” Monthly Labor Review 127 (2004), pp. 80–105, http:// www.proquest.com.

2.67 Green, H. “How Ama- zon Aims to Keep You Clicking.” Business- Week, March 2, 2009, pp. 34–40.

2.68 Ibid. 2.69 McGregor, J. “Behind

the List.” Business- Week, March 2, 2009, p. 32.

2.70 Drucker, P.F. The Prac- tice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954.

2.71 Shaw, D.G.; C.E. Schneier; and R.W. Beatty. “Managing Performance with a

Behaviourally Based Appraisal System.” In Applying Psychology in Business: The Hand- book for Managers and Human Resource Professionals, ed. J.W Jones; B.D. Steffy; and D.W. Bray. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 2001, pp. 314–25.

2.72 Pulakos, E.D. “Behav- ioral Performance Measures.” In Applying Psychology in Busi- ness: The Handbook for Managers and Human Resource Pro- fessionals, ed. J.W. Jones; B.D. Steffy; and D.W. Bray. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 2001, pp. 307–13.

2.73 “Fortune Selects Henry Ford Business- man of the Century,” November 1, 1999, http://www.timewarner .com/corp/print/ 0,20858,667526,00 |.html.

2.74 Welch, J.F. Jr. Jack: Straight from the Gut. New York: Warner Books, 2001, p. 158.

2.75 Ibid. 2.76 Johnson, G. “Forced

Ranking: The Good, the Bad, and the Alternative.” Training Magazine, May 2004, pp. 24–34.

2.77 McGregor, J. “Job Review in 140 Key- strokes: Social Net- working-Style Systems Lighten up the Dreaded Performance Evalua- tion.” BusinessWeek, March 29, 2009, p. 58.

2.78 Ibid. 2.79 Ibid.

Final PDF to printer