Page 108 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

developing the research agenda and a proposed model 87
There are five key features of model. First, the outcome variable is described as
individual work performance rather than individual job performance to signify that an
employee’s performance can extend beyond the execution of specified tasks in a job
descriptiontoincludecontextual,proactive,andadaptivebehaviorsthatsupportthewider
work environment. Second, the model proposes that enriched work design influences
individual work performance via three key categories of psychological mechanisms:
motivation (motivated effort, proactive motivation, change in motivating dispositions),
knowledge and skill (skill acquisition and development, in-depth knowledge, integrated
knowledge, and cognitive development), and opportunity (quick response, job crafting/
role revision). Although it is likely that there are stronger links between some of these
mechanisms and the different types of work performance as proposed by Neal and
Griffin (1999), these more specific suggestions are not depicted in this initial version
of the model. The mechanisms are also suggested to influence each other. For example,
if a person acquires greater knowledge about customers, then that is likely to enhance
his/her proactive motivation. Likewise, the greater the opportunity arising from enriched
work design, the more learning and knowledge development that is likely to occur; and
the more learning and development that occurs, the more roles might be expanded.
Third, we propose that the link between work design and performance is moderated by
individual and organizational contingencies. We suggest that individual contingencies
will primarily influence the links between enriched work design and performance deter-
minants(i.e.,knowledge/skill,motivation,andopportunity).Forexample,ifanindividual
has a low tolerance for role ambiguity, enriched work design might have less impact on
his/her motivation than if he/she had tolerance for role ambiguity. Similarly, a proactive
individual might take advantage of the opportunities offered by work redesign to a greater
extent than a more passive individual. It is possible that individual contingencies will also
moderate the relationship between mediators and performance, although we see these
moderating influences as likely to be weaker than those affecting links between enriched
work design and performance determinants. The model also shows the proposed mod-
erating influence of organizational and contextual variables on the links between work
design and the performance determinants (e.g., enriched work design accompanied by
poor training is less likely to promote knowledge development than if adequate training
is in place), as well as the links between the performance determinants and individual
work performance (e.g., proactive motivation is more likely to be important for effective
performance in highly uncertain situations than in less uncertain environments).
Fourth, the double-arrow dotted path from enriched work design to individual contin-
gencies depicts, first, that enriched work design might affect the development of relatively
stable individual variables (e.g., growth need strength, proactive personality, cognitive
development) which in turn act as moderators; and, second, that individual differences
might enhance or inhibit the degree to which work is enriched. For example, employees
with a proactive personality are more likely to actively influence the work environment
to enhance their job autonomy.
Fifth, the arrow from organizational contingencies to enriched work design depicts
that enriched work design is potentially more possible and feasible in some situations
compared to others (e.g., higher levels of uncertainty create more scope for enrichment;
some forms of technology such as assembly lines inhibit the potential for enriching jobs).