Page 33 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

perspectives on performance 11
(Speier & Frese, 1997) and developing ideas and suggestions within an organizational
suggestion system (Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999). Additionally, self-efficacy has been of
particular importance in the learning process. For example, in a careful process analysis,
Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, and George-Falvy (1994) have looked at the effects of self-
efficacy on learning. In the beginning of the learning process, self-efficacy is a better
predictor of performance than goals, while this relationship is reversed at a later stage.
Moreover, professional experience shows a positive, although small relationship with
job performance (Qui˜nones et al., 1995). Additionally, there are interactions between
predictors from several areas. For example, high achievement motivation was found to
enhance the effects of high cognitive ability (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1994).
Somepracticalimplicationsfollowfromthisindividualdifferencesperspective.Above
all, the individual differences perspective suggests a focus on personnel selection. For
ensuring high individual performance, organizations need to select individuals on the
basis of their abilities, experiences, and personality. The individual differences perspec-
tive also suggests that training programs should be implemented which aim at improving
individual prerequisites for high performance. More specifically, training should address
knowledge and skills relevant for task accomplishment. Furthermore, exposing individ-
uals to specific experiences such as traineeships and mentoring programs are assumed
to have a beneficial effect on individuals’ job performance.

SITUATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The situational perspective refers to factors in the individuals’ environment which stim-
ulate and support or hinder performance. The core question to be answered is: In which
situations do individuals perform best? The situational perspective encompasses ap-
proaches which focus on workplace factors but also specific motivational approaches
which follow for example from expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) or approaches which
aim at improving performance by reward systems or by establishing perceptions of equity
and fairness (Adams, 1963; Greenberg, 1990). Most of the existing leadership research
can be subsumed under this perspective. Because of space constraints, we will concen-
trate on workplace factors as major situational predictors of individual performance.
Interested readers may refer to Folger and Cropanzano (1998), Lawler (2000) and Van
Eerde and Thierry (1996) for specific motivational approaches, or to Yukl (1998) for
research within the leadership domain.
With respect to workplace factors and their relationship to individual performance two
major approaches can be differentiated: (1) those that focus on situational factors which
enhance and facilitate performance and (2) those that attend to situational factors which
impede performance.
A prominent approach within the first category is the job characteristics model
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In this model, Hackman and Oldham assumed that job
characteristics (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback)
have an effect on critical psychological states (i.e., experienced meaningfulness, experi-
enced responsibility for work outcomes, knowledge of the results of the work activities)
which in turn have an effect on personal and work outcomes, including job performance.
Additionally, they expected an interaction effect with employee growth need strength.
In essense, the job characteristics model is a motivational model on job performance