Page 35 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

perspectives on performance 13
than stressors. Framed differently, the lack of positive features in the work situation
such as control at work threatens performance more than the presence of some stressors
(cf. Karasek & Theorell, 1990, for a related argument). In terms of practical implica-
tions, the situational perspective suggests that individual performance can be improved
by job design interventions. For example, empirical job design studies have shown that
performance increases when employees are given more control over the work process
(Wall, Corbett, Martin, Clegg, & Jackson, 1990; Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992).

PERFORMANCE REGULATION PERSPECTIVE
The performance regulation perspective takes a different look at individual performance
and is less interested in person or situational predictors of performance. Rather, this
perspective focuses on the performance process itself and conceptualizes it as an action
process. It addresses as its core questions: ‘How does the performance process look
like?’ and “What is happening when someone is ‘performing’?” Typical examples for the
performanceregulationperspectiveincludetheexpertresearchapproachwithincognitive
psychology (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996) and the action theory approach of performance
(Frese & Sonnentag, 2000; Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1973; Hacker, 1998). Most of
these approaches focus on regulatory forces within the individual.
Research on expertise and excellence has a long tradition within cognitive psychology
(Ericsson & Smith, 1991) and is increasingly referred to within work and organizational
psychology (Sonnentag, 2000). It is one of the main goals of expertise research to
identifywhatdistinguishesindividualsatdifferentperformancelevels(Ericsson&Smith,
1991). More specifically, expertise research focuses on process characteristics of the task
accomplishment process. It aims at a description of the differences between high and
moderate performers while working on a task. Crucial findings within this field are that
high performers differ from moderate performers in the way they approach their tasks and
how they arrive at solutions (for an overview, cf. Sonnentag, 2000). For example, during
problem comprehension, high performers focus on abstract and general information,
they proceed from general to specific information, and apply a ‘relational strategy’ in
which they combine and integrate various aspects of the task and the solution process
(Isenberg, 1986; Koubek & Salvendy, 1991; Shaft & Vessey, 1998). Moreover, high
performers focus more on long-range goals and show more planning in complex and ill-
structured tasks, but not in well-structured tasks (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Sujan,
Weitz, & Kumar, 1994).
The action theory approach (Frese & Zapf, 1994) describes the performance process—
as any other action—from both a process and a structural point of view. The process
point of view focuses on the sequential aspects of an action, while the structural point
of view refers to its hierarchical organization.
From the process point of view, goal development, information search, planning,
execution of the action and its monitoring, and feedback processing can be distinguished
(Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1998). Performance depends on high goals, a good mental
model, detailed planning, and good feedback processes. Frese and Sonnentag (2000)
derived propositions about the relationship between these various action process phases
and performance. For example, with respect to information search they hypothesized that
processing of action-relevant, important—but parsimonious—and realistic information