Page 32 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

10 performance concepts and performance theory
personality variables are assumed to have an effect on contextual knowledge, contextual
skill, contextual habits and, additionally, task habits. Task knowledge, task skills, and
task habits in turn are seen as predictors of task performance; contextual knowledge, con-
textual skill, and contextual habits are regarded as predictors of contextual performance.
This implies that task performance is predominantly a function of cognitive ability and
contextual performance is predominantly a function of personality. However, according
to this model cognitive ability has a minor effect on contextual performance—mediated
by contextual knowledge—and personality has a minor effect on task performance—
mediated by task habits. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) largely supported this model.
There is a large body of research which addresses individual performance within
the individual differences perspective. Empirical studies in this area are not always
explicitly linked to the models proposed by Campbell (1990) or Motowidlo et al. (1997).
Nevertheless, virtually all studies on individual predictors of job performance can be
subsumed under the individual differences perspective. More specifically, this research
addresses cognitive ability, personality, motivational factors, and experience as predictors
of job performance.
Meta-analytic evidence speaks for a strong relationship between cognitive ability and
job performance. Individuals with high cognitive abilities perform better than individuals
with low cognitive abilities across a broad range of different jobs (Bobko, Roth, &
Potosky, 1999; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Most authors assume
an underlying mechanism of cognitive ability helping to acquire job knowledge and
job skills which in turn have a positive impact on job performance (Schmidt, Hunter,
Outerbride, & Goff, 1988; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986).
Researchers also addressed the question whether personality accounts for performance
differences across individuals. Meta-analyses showed that the general relationships
between personality factors and job performance are relatively small; the strongest rela-
tionships emerged for neuroticism/emotional stability and conscientiousness (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). However, the relevance of specific per-
sonality factors for performance varies between different jobs (cf. Vinchur, Schippmann,
Switzer, & Roth, 1998) (for a more detailed discussion on personality and job perfor-
mance, cf. Kanfer & Kantrowitz in this volume).
Individual differences in motivation may be caused by differences in motivational
traits and differences in motivational skills (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). Motivational
traits are closely related to personality constructs, but they are more narrow and more
relevant for motivational processes, i.e., the intensity and persistence of an action. Kanfer
and Heggestad (1997) described achievement and anxiety as two basic work-relevant
motivational traits. Vinchur et al.’s meta-analysis provides evidence for the need for
achievement to be related to job performance (Vinchur et al., 1998). Motivational skills
refer to self-regulatory strategies pursued during goal striving. In contrast to motivational
traits, motivational skills are assumed to be more domain-specific and influenced by situ-
ational factors as well as learning and training experiences. Motivational skills comprise
emotional control and motivation control (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997; Kuhl, 1985).
Self-efficacy—the belief that one can execute an action well—is another construct
in the motivational domain which is highly relevant for performance (Bandura, 1997;
Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). More specifically, self-efficacy has been shown to be related
both to task performance, such as business success in small business owners (Baum,
Locke,&Smith,inpress),aswellastocontextualperformance,suchaspersonalinitiative