xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001447444
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040114s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000186
Coole, David R.
The effects of citizenship performance, task performance, and rating format on performance judgments
h [electronic resource] /
by David R. Coole.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 47 pages.
ABSTRACT: The current study examined the effects of citizenship performance, task performance, and rating format on overall and task performance ratings. Levels of citizenship performance (high, medium, low), task performance (high, medium, low), and rating format (inclusion or exclusion of citizenship performance) were experimentally manipulated in a 3x3x2 between-subjects full factorial design. Ratings were provided by 360 undergraduate psychology students evaluating experimentally developed supervisory logs of first line financial managers. Targets' levels of citizenship and task performance were positively related to raters' judgments of overall and task performance. The prediction that this relationship would be moderated by task performance level was not supported. Furthermore, replicating the findings of J. M. Werner (1994), task performance ratings, assigned to targets with high levels of citizenship performance, displayed significantly more halo than ratings assigned to targets with low or medium levels of citizenship performance. Rating format did not influence raters' judgments of the targets' overall or task performance. Our findings indicate that including OCBs in job performance assessment fails to increase the accuracy of performance ratings. Study implications and limitations are discussed.
Adviser: Borman, Walter
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
The Effects of Citizenship Perf ormance, Task Performance, and Rating Format on Performance Judgments by David R. Coole A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Walter Borman, Ph.D. Carnot Nelson, Ph.D. Marcia Finkelstein, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 24, 2003 Keywords: OCB, assessment, evaluation, appraisal, feedback Copyright 2003, David R. Coole
Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Construct Definition and Development 1 Antecedents of OCB 4 Relationships between OCB and Organizati onal Effectiveness 6 OCB, Task Performance, and Rater Accuracy 9 Method 16 Performance Constructs and Measures 16 Citizenship Performance 16 Task Performance 18 Overall Performance 19 Sample 19 Procedure 20 Supervisory Logs 20 Design 22 Results 23 Overall Performance Ratings 23 Task Performance Ratings 25 Discussion 29 Implications 29 Limitations 32 Conclusion 33 References 34 Appendices 40 Appendix A: Motowidlo and Van ScotterÂ’s 16-item Scale of Citizenship Performance 40 Appendix B: Task and Overall Performance Scale 41 Appendix C: Annual Supervisory Report Log 42 i
List of Tables Table 1 Coleman and BormanÂ’s Taxonomy of Citizenship Performance 17 Table 2 Summary Table for Overall Perf ormance Ratings 25 Table 3 Summary Table for Task Perfor mance Ratings 27 ii
List of Figures Figure 1. The hypothesized interaction between citizenship and task performance levels as a function of overa ll performance ratings. 12 Figure 2. The hypothesized interaction between ci tizenship performance level and rating format as a function of ta sk performance ratings. 14 Figure 3. Overall performance ratings as a function of citizenship and task performance levels. 24 Figure 4. The effects of citizenship performance level on ratings of task performance as a function of rating format. 26 Figure 5. The effects of citizen ship performance level on ratings of task 28 performance pooled across rating formats. iii
The Effects of Citizenship Perf ormance, Task Performance, and Rating Format on Performance Judgments David R. Coole ABSTRACT The current study examined the effects of citi zenship performance, task performance, and rating format on overall and task performance ratings. Levels of citizenship performance (high, medium, low), task performance (high, medium, low), and rating format (inclusion or exclusion of citizenship performance) were experiment ally manipulated in a 3x3x2 between-subjects full factorial design. Ratings were provided by 360 undergraduate psychology students evaluating expe rimentally developed supervisory logs of first line financial managers. TargetsÂ’ levels of citi zenship and task performance were positively related to ratersÂ’ judgments of overall and ta sk performance. The prediction that this relationship would be moderated by task performance level was not supported. Furthermore, replicating the findings of J. M. Werner (1994), task performance ratings, assigned to targets with high levels of citi zenship performance, di splayed significantly more halo than ratings assigned to targets with low or medium levels of citizenship performance. Rating format did not influence ratersÂ’ judgments of th e targetsÂ’ overall or task performance. Our findings indicate that including OCBs in job performance assessment fails to increase the accuracy of performance ratings. Study implications and limitations are discussed. iv
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 1 Introduction In recent years, organizational citizensh ip behavior (OCB) has become one of the most popular areas of interest for industrial organizational psychol ogists. Since itÂ’s introduction to the I/O literature in 1 983 (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983), research has explored the construct do main of OCB and has linked OCB with organizational effectiveness, overall employee performance, Bi g Five personality trai ts, work attitudes, and procedural justice (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). These research findings have changed the wa y performance is defined, assessed, and compensated. Though OCB has had substantial effects on human resource ac tivities including selection, training, and performance evaluati on, more research is needed to understand the OCB construct domain and how it interacts with other dime nsions and predictors of job performance. The current study investig ates the relationship between citizenship performance, task performance, and overall performance. More sp ecifically, the study examines the interactive effects of citizenship performance, task performance, and rating format on performance ratings. Construct Definition and Development Organ popularized the construct of O CB as Â“individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly rec ognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective f unctioning of the organi zationÂ” (1988, p. 4).
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 2 Since then, there has been much debate concer ning the extent to which OCBs are in-role or extra-role behaviors, a nd whether or not they are re cognized by reward systems. Contributing to the debate, Borman & Motowidlo (1993) redefined OCB by introducing contextual performance to the literature. In doing so, they combined elements of OrganÂ’s conceptua lization of OCB, Brief and MotowidloÂ’s (1986) theory of prosocial organizational behavi or, and the model of soldie r effectiveness set forth by Borman and his colleagues (1983). Using facet s across these three related topics, they defined contextual performance as behaviors that shape Â“the organi zational, social, and psychological context that serve as a catalyst for task activitie s and processesÂ” (p. 71). As prescribed by their definition, contextual performance is not bound to extra-role behaviors nor is it beyond the recognition of reward systems. Borman and MotowidloÂ’s taxonomy of contextual performance consisted of five dimensions: (a) persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort as necessary to complete own task activities successfully; (b) volunteering to carry out task ac tivities that are not formally part of own job; (c) helping and cooperating with others; (d) following or ganizational rules and procedures; and (e) endorsing, supporting, and defending or ganizational objectives. Due to the similarities of these dimensions to the original construct domain of OCB including altruism, compliance, courtes y, sportsmanship, and civic virtue, Organ has reevaluated his original definition of OCB (Organ, 1997). The revised construct now includes in-role and extra-role behaviors that may or may not be recognized by organizational reward systems. Organ a nd Paine (1999, p. 4) have argued that OCBs may not be a part of the formal job descrip tion, but there will ofte n be Â“expectations by
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 3 peers, bosses, or the individual that those aspects of performa nce be rendered.Â” In light of these concessions, most researchers and applied psychologists semantically interchange OCB and contextual performance. More recently, researchers have atte mpted to summarize and configure the numerous dimension sets of contextual performance by renaming the performance domain as citizenship performance and settling on a representative dimensional model incorporating several related dimension sets (e.g. OCB, extr a-role behavior, prosocial organizational behavior, etc.), (Coleman & Borman, 2000). Coleman and Borman attempted to identify a single citizenship dimension set representing behavioral dimensions from 14 OCB related studie s. The researchers had 47 industrialorganizational psychologists so rt behavioral examples representing 27 dimensions into categories based on content similarity. Us ing the methodology employed by Borman and Brush (1993), the sorting task allowed for th e development of a pooled similarity matrix and the derivation of an indirect similarity matrix. Factor analyses, multidimensional scaling analyses, and cluster analyses of the de rived matrix resulted in the emergence of a consistent three-factor so lution. These factors were: (a) personal support, (b) organizational support, and (c) conscientious initiative. Borman and MotowidloÂ’s five-factor model of contextual performance fits neatly into the three-factor repr esentation of citizenship pe rformance. Personal support represents the single dimensi on of helping others; organi zational support combines the original facets reflecting c onscientiousness and organizati onal loyalty; conscientious initiative pools the elements of volunteering and extra effort The parsimony and stability
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 4 of the three-factor model has made it the cen tral construct paradigm for recent research efforts by Borman and his colleagues (Borman et. al., 2001). For the same reasons, the three-factor model of citizen ship performance is utilized in the current study. Antecedents of OCB Most of the early research on OCB exam ined its antecedents or predictive correlates. Numerous studies have focuse d on the link between O CBs and dispositional or attitudinal predictors. The most comprehe nsive review pertaining to the dispositional and attitudinal predictors of OCB has been Organ and RyanÂ’s meta-analysis (1995). They reviewed 55 studies investigating th e correlates of OCB. Correcting for unreliability, these researchers found weighted mean correlations demonstrating a link between job attitudes and facet s of OCB. Following the meta-analytical procedures of Hunter and Schmidt (1990), Organ and Ry an found OCB dimensions of general compliance and altruism to be positively re lated to employee attitudes reflecting job satisfaction (mean corrected rÂ’s = .28, .28), l eadership consideration (mean corrected rÂ’s = .35, .32), organizational commitment (mean co rrected rÂ’s = .32, .25), and perceptions of organizational justice (mean corrected rÂ’s = .27, .24). Although the causal direction of the relationship between OCB and job satisfac tion is still a topic of debate (Organ & Paine, 1999), it is clear that OCBs are more lik ely to be displayed if employees like their jobs, have intentions of stay ing at their jobs, and feel th ey are being treated fairly. Supportive and considerate leaders are likely to further facilita te the display of OCB. Organ and RyanÂ’s meta-analysis has al so provided evidence for relationships between personality characteristics and OCBs. These authors investigated the
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 5 relationships between altruism and genera l compliance and four personality traits, conscientiousness, agreeableness, positive a nd negative affectivity. They found corrected mean correlations between both OCB dimensi ons and conscientiousness (mean corrected rÂ’s = .22 and .30, respectively). The resear chers also reported weaker corrected correlations between agreeableness and both O CB dimensions (mean corrected rÂ’s = .13 and .11, respectively), and between positive aff ectivity and altruism (mean corrected r = .15). Correlations between OCB dimens ions and both conscientiousness and agreeableness were lower when analyses c ontrolled for self-report measures of OCB (mean corrected rÂ’s = .04 -.23). Although early research reported modest correlations between OCB dimensions and personality traits, more recently, research ers have reported stronger relationships. Miller, Griffin, and Hart (1999) found correlations as high as .42 between conscientiousness and citizenship performance even after neuroticism and extraversion had been controlled. Neuman and Kickul (1998) found correlations ranging from .20 and .41 between conscientiousness and all five of OrganÂ’s original components of OCB. Tillman (1998) found conscientiousness to co rrelate .55 with a composite measure of OCB in a sample of working college students. Though not as robust, support for pe rsonality constructs other than conscientiousness has been reported in resear ch spanning recent years. The Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo ( 2001) review of personality and citizenship performance yielded mean uncorrected correlations between several personality traits and OCB. Collapsing across OCB dimensions they f ound mean correlations ranging from .13 to .28
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 6 between OCB and personality characteristics including: conscientiousness (mean r = .24), agreeableness (mean r = .13), positive affectiv ity (mean r = .18), negative affectivity (mean r = -.14), locus of control (mean r = .16), collectivism (mean r = .15), and prosocial personality (mean rÂ’s = .22 .28). These correlatio ns were representative of 20 studies published subsequent to the Organ and Ryan review. Considering the findings of both reviews, there is moderate support fo r a positive link between conscientiousness and OCB. Research investigating the relationshi p between other persona lity characteristics and OCB has been mixed but promising. The research to date has made a reasonably strong case for the dispositional nature of OCB. Relationships Between OCB and Org anizational Effectiveness Understanding the antecedents of OCB has little value unless its construct domain is related to the successful functioning of an organization. Recognizing this, Organ (1988) hypothesized that OCB is linked to or ganizational performance. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997, p. 138) have postulated that OCBs have severa l channels through which they create advantageous outcomes for organizations: a) Enhancing coworker and managerial pr oductivity, b) freeing up resources to be used for more productive purposes, c) reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions d) helping to coordinate activities within and across work groups, e) stre ngthening the organizationÂ’s ability to attract and retain the best employees, f) increasing the stability of the organizationÂ’s performance, and g) enabli ng the organization to more effectively adapt to environmental changes. Consequently, there has been considerable interest in the OCB and citizenship performance literature attempting to validat e these assertions. Karambayya (1991) initiated this stream of research by exam ining the relationship between subjective
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 7 measures of work-unit performance and unit me mbersÂ’ OCB. Using a sample of 18 work units from white-collar professions, she found that high performing work units were more likely to have members who displayed OCBs than low performing units. Critical of the subjective performance criteria used in KarambayyaÂ’s study, researchers focused on replicating her findings using objective indicators of performance. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) revi ewed four studies examining the relationship between OCB and obj ective accounts of unit level performance. These four studies considered several OCB dimensi ons conceptualized by Organ (1988) and investigated their relationsh ip to quantitative and qualita tive work-group performance across diverse blue-collar and white-collar jobs (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1996; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz & Niehoff, 1996). These studies have found general support for the positive relationship between OCB and organizationa l effectiveness. Podsa koff and MacKenzie (1997, p. 142) provide a detailed summa ry of these findings: Across four diverse samples, OCBs account ed for an average of approximately 19% of the variance in performance quant ity, over 18% of th e variance in the quality of performance, about 25% of the variance in financial efficiency indicators, and about 38% of the variance in customer service indicators. The researchers also reported variance in the strength of the re lationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness contingent upon the particular OCB dimension. For instance, helping behaviors demonstrated a more consistent effect (with the exception of insurance sales teams) whereas sportsmanship and civic virtue were more limited in their
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 8 relation to organizational effectiveness. Taken together, these findings provide support for OrganÂ’s original conjecture that OCB is related to organizational performance. Evidence for the influence of OCB on unit level performance has been well established and replicated across at least five studies. It would follow that OCB would also contribute to performance at the individual level. The OCB literature has shown support for this inference. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found that independent task and citizenship performance ratings for 300 entry-level Air Force employees correlated .43 and .41 with overa ll performance ratings, respectively. Their findings have suggested that citizenship perf ormance contributes about as much as task performance to supervisory judgments of performance. Simila r findings have been reported from several other studies, each supporting the argument that citizenship performance and task performance are commensurate in predic ting an employeeÂ’s overall performance evaluation (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; M acKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). More recentl y, research has explored the mediating contingencies of the relationship between citizenship performance and judgments of overall performance. Allen and Rush (1998) found that liking and perceived affective commitment mediated the relationship in tw o diverse samples. For both students and managers, the influence of OCB on overall ra tings operated through the raterÂ’s liking of the target subordinate or their perception of subordinate commitment. While research has been successful in establishing a link between OCB and both subjective and objective evaluati ons of performance, studies have also provided support for the effects of OCB on the distribution of organizational rewards. Van Scotter,
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 9 Motowidlo, and Cross (2000) found that ci tizenship performan ce was related to promotability ratings and the attainment of informal systemic rewards for two large military samples. These relationships remained significant when experience and task performance were controlled through hierarch ical regression. Allen and Rush (1998) found similar results linking OCB to recommen dations for salary increase, promotion, high profile projects, public recognition, and opportunities for professional development. Accordingly, OCB has been shown to not onl y enhance organizationa l effectiveness, it also facilitates employees in the acquisiti on of organizational rewards and in efforts toward advancing oneÂ’s career. OCB, Task Performance, and Rater Accuracy Despite an abundance of research link ing OCB to ratings of overall employee performance, the majority of formal perfor mance appraisal systems fail to measure or consider dimensions of performance beyond the realm of in-role task requirements (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). Under such constraints, managers are forced to either ignore the relevance of OCB in evaluation or allo w perceptions of subordinate OCB to influence task or overall performance ra tings. If OCB is dismissed as a relevant performance dimension, performance ratings wi ll fail to capture th e entire performance domain and overall ratings will lack a citi zenship component. However, research has shown the effect of citizenship performan ce on overall performance ratings (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; MacKenzie, Podsa koff & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Accordingly, it is unlikely that
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 10 supervisory judgments of performance disreg ard OCBs, even when appraisal systems fail to formally assess citizenship performance. The alternative to ignoring the relevan ce of citizenship performance in formal evaluations is to allow perceptions of OCB to influence performan ce ratings outside the domain of citizenship, for example, in task performance ratings. Wh ile this would allow for a more representative assessment of the entire performance domain, as a consequence, the accuracy of dimensional (e.g. task) performa nce ratings would suffer. Both of these phenomena are consistent with Wyer and SrullÂ’s (1989) model of person memory. According to their theory, managers store information on the dimensional and general level concerning subordinate performance. Both sources of information are retrieved from memory when making performance j udgments. Subordinate behavior beyond a managerÂ’s dimensional paradigm of perf ormance may incrementally influence the managerÂ’s general impressions of the subordina te. Thus, if evaluation efforts fail to recognize citizenship performan ce, dimensional impressions of OCB could result in the inflation or deflation of overa ll performance impressions. This reasoning, coupled with research support for a relationship betw een OCB and overall performance ratings, provided the basis for our first hypothesis (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Hypothesis 1(a): The targetsÂ’ ratings of overall performance will be positively related to the level of OCB displayed by the target.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 11 Legally defensible performance appraisal systems must be validated through job analysis procedures (Bernardin, Kane, Ro ss, Spina, & Johnson, 1995). Traditional job analysis methodology focuses on in-role ta sk behaviors while sometimes ignoring performance dimensions beyond the scope of task activities. Though researchers have realized the need to look beyond task behaviors when assessing performance, managers may pay more attention to task behaviors be cause they are consistent with performance appraisal standards. Although perceptions of OCB may infiltrate judgments of overall performance, ratersÂ’ perceptions of over all performance may not be influenced by citizenship behaviors if target s fail to display a minimal le vel of task performance. Consistent with this logic, Werner (1994) found that personal s upport had more of an influence on overall performance ratings when the ratee also exhibited high task performance. We expected this interaction to be replicated in the current study and apply to the entire citizenship pe rformance domain. Hypothesis 1(b): The relationship between OCB and overall performance ratings will be moderated by the targetsÂ’ level of task performance. Specifically, OCB will have a weaker effect on overall pe rformance ratings under conditions of targetsÂ’ low task performance. A hypothetical line graph demonstrating the in teraction predicted in hypothesis 1(b) is presented in Figure 1.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 12 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5LowMediumHigh Citizenship Performance Overall Performance Ratings Task High Task Medium Task LowFigure1. The hypothesized interaction between ci tizenship and task performance levels as a function of overall performance ratings. Research has provided strong support for the influence of OCB on overall performance ratings; however, the OCB literature has overlooked the possible link between citizenship performance and ratings of task performance. Wyer and SrullÂ’s theory argues that behaviors with deficient cat egorical outlets are grouped into available behavioral dimensions that are most represen tative or similar. It would follow that perceptions of OCBs, failing to fit neatly into prescribed performance dimensions, would be grouped into relevant task dimensions or overall performance judgments during the evaluation process. The OCB literature ha s made a strong case for distinguishing between citizenship and task performance. For instance, Conway (1996) demonstrated that a panel of industrial-organizational psychologists could re liably sort 85% of
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 13 performance dimensions across 14 studies in to categories of task or citizenship performance. While subject matter experts may be able to distinguish between citizenship and task performance, managers may have more difficulty delineating the two performance domains. Organ (1988) has ar gued that OCBs benefiting the organization Â“straddle the boundaryÂ” between citizenship and task performan ce. It is possible that managers often confuse behaviors promoting organizational support for in-role task requirements. Considering OrganÂ’s argument and the postulate s of Wyer and Srull, we predicted that citizenship performance will also be relate d to task performance ratings. Hypothesis 2(a): The targetsÂ’ ratings of task performance will be positively related to the level of OCB displayed by the target. Recognition of citizenship within perfo rmance appraisal systems would allow managers to channel perceptions of OCB into the proper categories without sacrificing the accuracy of task performance ratings. Fo rmal evaluation of citizenship dimensions would counteract the tendency to accommoda te perceptions of OCB with incremental adjustments in ratings of task performa nce. Including citizenship performance dimensions in evaluation would not only provide a better representation of the performance domain, it should also increase th e accuracy of task pe rformance ratings. Hypothesis 2(b): The relationship between OCB and task performance ratings will be moderated by performance rating format. Specifically, the targetsÂ’ ratings of task performance will only be positively related to the level of OCB displayed by the target when OCB is not evaluated.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 14 A hypothetical line graph demonstrating the in teraction predicted in hypothesis 2(b) is presented in Figure 2. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5LowMediumHigh Citizenship Performance Task Performance Ratings Rating Format OCB included Rating Format OCB not includedFigure 2. The hypothesized interaction between ci tizenship performance level and rating format as a function of task performance ratings. The inclusion of citizenship dimensions in performance evaluations should serve to reduce ratersÂ’ tendency to ma ke inaccurate adjustments to task performance ratings in response to OCB perceptions. However, form al recognition of citizenship would not be expected to change impressions of over all performance. Overall performance encompasses all behaviors, task or otherwise, necessary for the successful performance of a job. Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmidt ( 1997, pg. 72) define overall job performance as the Â“aggregated value to the organization of the discrete behavioral episodes that an
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 15 individual performs over a standa rd interval of time.Â” They argue that as much as 30% of managerial performance is accounted for by citi zenship behaviors. If citizenship is a requisite of successful performance, OCB s hould influence overall performance ratings inadvertent of the dimensional considerations of performance appraisals. This logic was the basis for our final hypothesis. Hypothesis 3: The targetsÂ’ ratings of overall performance will not differ as a function of rating format.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 16 Method Performance Constructs and Measures Citizenship Performance The current study utilized mock supervisory logs to manipulate levels of OCB consistent with Coleman and BormanÂ’s (2000) threedimension model of citizenship performance. Dimensions of organizational support, personal support, and consci entious initiative were manipulated to create three performance levels for each facet (low, m oderate, and high performance). Behavioral definitions for each of the citizenship dimensions are provided in Table 1. Citizenship performance was measured using Motowidlo and Van ScotterÂ’s (1994) 15-item scale of OCB (See Appendix A). Rate rs judged the likelihood that targets would engage in acts of citizenship performance usi ng a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all likely, 5 = extremely likely). Motowidlo and Van Scotter reported a Cronbach reliability estimate of .95; in this study, the estimate wa s .94. Although this measure is based on the five-factor model of contextual performance, its items are consistent with Coleman and BormanÂ’s (2000) three-factor taxonomy of citiz enship performance. Average item scores for the 15-item scale were treated as the unit of analysis.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 17 Table 1 Coleman and BormanÂ’s (2000) Taxonom y of Citizenship Performance A. Personal Support Helping others by offering suggestions, t eaching them useful knowledge or skills, directly performing some of their tasks, and providing emotional support for their personal problems. Cooperating with others by accepting suggestions, informing them of events they should know about, and putting team objectives ahead of personal interests. Showing consideration, courtesy, and tact in relations with others as well as motivating and showing confidence in them. Subdimensions: Helping Cooperating Courtesy B. Organizational Support Representing the organization favorably by defending and promoting it, as well as expressing satisfaction and showing loyalty by staying with the organization despite temporary hardships. Supporting the organi zationÂ’s mission and objectives, complying with organizational rules and proced ures, and suggesting improvements. Subdimensions: Representing Loyalty Compliance C. Conscientious Initiative Persisting with extra effort despite difficult c onditions. Taking the initiative to do all that is necessary to accomplish objectives even if not normally a part of own duties, and finding additional productive work to pe rform when own duties are completed. Developing own knowledge and skills by taki ng advantage of opport unities within the organization and outside the organization using own time and resources. Subdimensions: Persistence Initiative Self-Development
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 18 Task Performance Supervisory logs also manipulated performance levels across task performance dimensions. Three dimensions of task performance were used to balance supervisory logs with an equal numbe r of OCB and task behavior statements. Task performance dimensions included Task Proficiency/Quality, Production/Efficiency, and Judgment/Problem Solving. These task performance dimensions were manipulated to create three performance levels for each f acet (low, moderate, and high performance). Construct definitions of high performance in each of the task dimensions are listed below. Definitions were written us ing Borman, Ackerman, and KubisiakÂ’s descriptions of general task performance dimensions (1994). Task Proficiency/Quality Â– Displaying a mastery of work tasks; demonstrating accuracy in own work; givi ng attention to detail and avoiding making mistakes and errors; producing a high quality standard of work. Productivity -Using resources effectivel y and operating in a cost-effective manner; using time well and meeting deadlines under any circumstance; consistently producing large amounts of work. Judgment and Problem Solving Â– Making good decisions when faced with problems or obstacles; accurately anal yzing situations or problems and determining the correct course of ac tion given the information available; successfully solving problems by making informed decisions. It should be noted; the three task perf ormance dimensions chosen for this study are not exhaustive of the task performance do main. However, they are consistent with the important functions of the job simulated in this study (i.e. Financ ial Manager). OÂ’Net
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 19 (2002) recognizes elements of task prof iciency, production, and problem solving among the most important skill requirements under the job title Â“Financial Managers, Branch or Department.Â” Task performance was measured with 9 items developed using behavioral task statements demonstrating high task perfor mance (See Appendix A, items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, & 12). Three items were written for each of the task performance dimensions being assessed in this study. Raters judged the likelihood th at targets would engage in acts of task performance using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all likely, 5 = extremely likely). The reliability estimate for the scale was .93. Average item scores for the 9 task items were used as the unit for analysis. Overall Performance. Three items were developed to assess the overall evaluation of the ratee. Using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all likely, 5 = extremely likely), raters judged the likeli hood that targetsÂ’ future performance would demonstrate overall excellence (See Appe ndix B, items 1, 7, & 10). One overall performance item (Item 7) was reverse scored. The reliability estimate for the scale was .76. Average item scores across the three over all performance items were used as the unit for analysis. Sample Participants consisted of 360 undergra duate psychology students enrolled in psychology courses at a large southeastern univ ersity. The sample consisted of 78 males and 282 females. ParticipantsÂ’ ages ranged between 18 and 50 years with a median of 21 years. All participants were compensated with extra credit in psychology courses.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 20 Likewise, all participants read and signed an informed consent before participating in the experiment. Procedure All experimental manipulations were perf ormed on paper via supervisory logs and rating scales. Random assignment to experi mental conditions was achieved by randomly ordering material sets before distribution and ad ministration. This allowed for data to be collected from groups of participants in a classroom setting while preserving random assignment. All participants received the same introduction to the experiment and the same instructions pertaining to the rating scal es. Participants were not trained on rater error, accuracy, or frame-of-reference. Each participant reviewed a single supervisory log and rated the targetÂ’s performance immediately after reading the log. As prescrib ed by the between subjects factorial model, each particip ant was exposed to a single le vel of task performance, a single level of citizenship pe rformance, and one rating format. Upon completion of the rating scale, all materials were collected and participants were debriefed simultaneously. Data collection sessions did not exceed 15 minutes. Supervisory Logs Supervisory logs were developed using work-related behaviors of first-line financial managers (See Appendix C). Logs were written to simulate the documentation of observed subordinate behavior by a divisional direct or of a financial management firm. Each log contained 12 statements describing a targetÂ’s work quality in each of the performance dimensions (6 citizenship pe rformance statements, 6 task performance
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 21 statements). Citizenship performance a nd task performance subdimensions were each represented with two behavior al statements per supervisory log. All 6 behavioral statements of citizenship performance corr esponded to a single level of performance within each log. Likewise, all 6 task performance statem ents corresponded to a single level of performance in each of the 9 logs. The name and gender of the subordinate was kept constant across all 9 logs. Behavioral statements were adapted fr om Borman, Ackerman, and KubisiakÂ’s technical report (1994) to refl ect three levels of perfor mance across both task and citizenship performance dimensions. A total of 119 behavioral statements of citizenship performance and 82 statements of task performance were developed. Four industrial/organizational psychology graduate st udents trained in performance assessment served as expert raters. These raters categ orized both citizenship and task statements according to dimension. They also rated each be havioral statement in terms of its relative level of effectiveness. Expert raters us ed a five-point Likert scale to assess each statement (5 = Exceptional performance, 4 = Good performance, 3 = Average performance, 2 = Below average performan ce, 1 = Poor performance). Behavioral statements failing to achieve 75% accuracy on dimension sorting across expert raters were disqualified from use in supervisory l ogs. Furthermore, mean expert ratings for each statement greater than .50 scale points fr om the intended performance level were also disqualified (Low = 1 1.5, Medium = 2.5 Â– 3.5, High = 4.5 Â– 5). A total of 14 behavioral statements failed to meet one or bot h of the established st andards of inter-rater agreement.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 22 Supervisory logs were developed with the remaining 187 statements meeting the qualification criteria. After each log had been assigned the appropriate number of statements, situational stems were added to th e behavioral statements to enhance the job simulation (e.g. At the board meeting John Â“ins ert behavioral statementÂ”). These stems were randomly assigned to statements within logs and remained constant across all 9 logs. After development of the supervisory l ogs, the four expert raters sorted the logs into nine categories representing all possibl e combinations of task and citizenship performance. Raters reached perfect consensu s on the appropriated categorization of the 9 supervisory logs on their first attempt. A ccordingly, log revisions were not necessary. Design The current study utilized a 3x3x2 between subjects full factorial model. The three independent variables included citizenship performa nce (three levels), task performance (three levels), and rating format (inclusion of OCB, or exclusion of OCB). Participants rated the targetÂ’s overall and ta sk performance, or they rated the targetÂ’s overall, task, and citizenship performance. A total of 20 participants were randomly assigned to each of the 18 cells of the factorial model.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 23 Results Two separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed to test all five study hypotheses. The probability of Type I er ror was maintained at .05 for significance tests of the F statis tic. FisherÂ’s LSDs were co mputed for all post hoc mean comparisons. Overall Performance Ratings The first MANOVA treated overa ll performance ratings as the dependent variable and tested the effects of task performance level, citizenship performance level, the interaction of task and citizen ship performance level, and rating format (See Table 2 for summary statistics). There were significant main effects for both task performance level and citizenship performance level, F( 2, 350) = 134.90, MSe = 0.56; F(2, 350) = 36.28, MSe = 0.56, respectively. As can be seen in Figure 3, overall performance ratings increased as the targetsÂ’ level of task pe rformance and citizenship performance were increased. A subsequent FisherÂ’s LSD of 0.19 indicated that this positive relationship was stable across all levels of both citizen ship and task performance. The positive relationship between citizensh ip performance and overall performance ratings provides support for hypothesis 1(a).
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 24 1 2 3 4 5 Low Medium High Citizenship PerformanceRatings of Overall Performance Task Low Task Medium Task High Figure 3. Overall performance ratings as a func tion of citizenship and task performance levels. Hypothesis 1(b) predicted that this relationship w ould be moderated by task performance level. Specifically, we predicte d that citizenship pe rformance would have less of an effect on overall performance ratings under conditions of low task performance. However, there was no signi ficant effect for the interaction term of citizenship and task performance level, F(4, 350) = 0.36, MSe = 0.56. The effect of citizenship performance level on overall perf ormance ratings was constant across all levels of task performance. A lack of an interaction fails to support hypothesis 1(b). Hypothesis 3 made a null prediction that the incl usion of OCBs in the performance assessment tool would not a ffect ratings of overall performance. Accordingly, we assumed that rating format would not influence par ticipantsÂ’ perceptions
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 25 of targetsÂ’ overall performance. In support of this assertion, our findings indicate that rating format did not affect overall perf ormance judgments, F(1, 350) = 3.10, MSe = 0.56. It should be noted, however, because th is prediction was conveyed in terms of a null hypothesis our results do not statistically disconfirm a relationship between rating format and overall performance ratings. Table 2 Summary Table for Overall Performance Ratings MANOVA Source SS df MS F Model 194.16921.5738.55*.0001 Citizenship Level 40.61220.3136.28*.0001 Task Level 151.00275.50134.90*.0001 Citizenship*Task .814.20 .36 .84 Rating Format 1.7411.74 3.10 .08 Error 195.88350.56 Total 390.04359 p < .01 Task Performance Ratings The second MANOVA treated task performa nce ratings as the dependent variable and tested the effects of citizenship performa nce level, rating format, and the interaction term for citizenship performance and rating fo rmat (See Table 3 for summary statistics). There were significant main effects for citi zenship performance level, F(2, 354) = 9.26, MSe = 0.94. Consequently, there was a pos itive relationship between citizenship performance level and ratings of task performance. This finding provides support for hypothesis 2(a).
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 26 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4Low Medium High Citizenship Performance Task Performance Rating Rating Format: OCB included Rating Format: OCB not included Figure 4. The effects of citizenship performance level on ratings of task performance as a function of rating format. Hypothesis 2(b) predicted th at the effects of citizensh ip level on task performance ratings would be moderated by rating format. Specifically, it was predic ted that the effect of citizenship performance on task perf ormance ratings would be reduced when citizenship performance was included in th e assessment tool. However, there was no significant effect for the interaction of c itizenship performance and rating format on ratings of task performance, F(2, 354) = 0.02, MSe = 0.94. As can be seen in Figure 4, the positive relationship between citizenship performance and task performance ratings is evident across both rating form ats. Consequently, hypothesis 2(b) was not supported.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 27 Table 3 Summary Table for Task Pe rformance Ratings MANOVA Source SS df MS F Model 18.5853.723.97*.002 Citizenship Level 17.3228.669.26*.0001 Rating Format 1.2311.23 1.31 .25 Citizenship*Format .042.02 .02 .98 Error 331.09354.94 Total 349.68359 p < .01 Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine if the positive relationship between citizenship performance and task performance ratings wa s stable across all citizenship performance levels. After pooli ng scores across rating formats, F(2, 359) = 9.30, MSe = .93, p<.0001, a subsequent FisherÂ’s LS D of 0.25 indicated that citizenship performance only influenced task performance ratings under conditions of high citizenship performance (See Figure 5).
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 28 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4LowMediumHigh Citizenship Performance Task Performance Rating Figure 5. The effects of citizenship performan ce level on ratings of task performance pooled across rating formats.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 29 Discussion Implications The results provided partia l support for the studyÂ’s hypotheses. Both citizenship and task performance levels positively influe nced judgments of overall performance. This finding is consistent with prio r findings (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991; Van Sc otter & Motowidlo, 1996). Interestingly, though, WernerÂ’s (1994) finding that this relationship was moderated by task performance level was not replicated. Our results indicate that perceptions of citizenship performance predict overall performance equally well across all task performance levels. It should be noted, however, that Werner Â’s study only consider ed the interactive effects of task performance and personal support on performance judgments. The current study manipulated citizenship across its entire performan ce domain capturing facets of conscientious initiative, persona l support, and organizational s upport. It may be the case that raters were unable to consistently distinguish between ci tizenship and task performance behaviors when evaluating OCBs beyond the dimension of personal support. As mentioned earlier Organ (1988) argued that O CBs, reflecting organizational support, are more likely to Â“straddle the boundary Â” of in-role and extr a-role behaviors. Similar arguments have been made by othe r researchers studying the OCB performance domain (VanDyne & Cummings, 1990). This boundary may become increasingly muddied for managerial jobs invol ving complex responsibilities.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 30 Although OCB theorists now acknowledge that OCBs may be in-role or extra-role behaviors (Organ, 1997), those evaluating the entire citizenship perf ormance domain may consider such behaviors material to over all performance ratings regardless of an employeeÂ’s level of task performance. C onsistent with this assertion, our findings indicate that there is no minimally accepta ble task performance requisite before citizenship behaviors are incorporated in ove rall performance judgments. This provides support for the argument that citizenship a nd task performance are commensurate in determining overall performance ratings. Another major finding of this study was the positive relationship between citizenship performance level and task perfor mance ratings. Post hoc analyses indicated that task performance ratings were inflated only when citizenship performance was high. This result is consistent with WernerÂ’s (1994) finding that raters are significantly more likely to commit halo error when targets disp lay high levels of OCB than when targets display neutral levels of OCB. Surprisingl y, however, the inclusion of OCBs in the rating scale did not increase the accuracy of th e task performance ratings. In fact, though not statistically significant, task performan ce ratings were slightly overestimated when citizenship performance was assessed. Following from Wyer and SrullÂ’s (1989) pe rson memory theory, we predicted that raters would not incorporate pe rceptions of citizenship perf ormance in task performance ratings when provided the opportunity to ev aluate citizenship in the performance assessment. As such, raters would be provide d an outlet to assess OCBs within relevant performance categories without sacrificing the accu racy of task performance ratings.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 31 One explanation for why our results failed to support this reasoning may be that raters were able to distinguish be tween task and citizenship pe rformance behaviors regardless of whether citizenship was included in the assessment scale. According to this explanation, the person memory theory w ould not apply to performance evaluation. An alternative explanation is that instead of adjusting task performance ratings in lieu of rateesÂ’ citizenship perf ormance levels, raters incorpor ated perceptions of targetsÂ’ citizenship into overall performance judgme nts. As mentioned earlier, the person memory theory contends that performance beha viors with deficient cat egorical outlets are grouped into the most representative or sim ilar behavioral dimensions being assessed. ConwayÂ’s (1996) research indicates that expe rienced raters can successfully distinguish between task and citizenship performance dime nsions. Thus, the dis tinction between task and citizenship performance dimensions may de ter raters from consid ering perceptions of targetsÂ’ citizenship when maki ng task performance judgments. However, the same logic would not apply for the assessment of overa ll performance. Because the overall performance domain collectively represents a ll facets of performance, the influence of citizenship perceptions on overall perform ance judgments is not only warranted but expected. In fact, perceptions of citizen ship performance should influence ratersÂ’ judgments of overall performance whether or not citizenship is includ ed in the appraisal scale. This is evident by our finding that overall performance ratings were unaffected by rating format. While the inclusion of O CBs in performance rating scales may add richness to performance ratings for job placement or developmental purposes, the current
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 32 findings suggest that the accuracy of task and overall performance ratings is not influenced. Limitations One limitation of this study was the utiliz ation of a fixed-effects design. This research carefully constructed two primary pe rformance dimensions (citizenship & task) and manipulated three performance levels while maintaining performance continuity across performance subdimensions (e.g. pe rsonal support, organizational support, conscientious initiative). The likelihood that a single level of citizenship performance or task performance behaviors would be displayed by an employee in a re al-world setting is questionable. Following the procedural assu mptions of Kirk (1982), study conclusions only apply to the treatment levels used in this experiment. It is possi ble that results could vary given other combinations of performan ce levels within the task or citizenship domain. A second limitation of this study was th e use of hypothetical Â“paperÂ” employees as targets and undergraduate ps ychology students as raters. The assessment task used in this experiment was relatively simple. Pa rticipants were required to make quick judgments of targetsÂ’ performance based on onl y twelve behavioral examples. Although the use of vignettes and mock supervisory lo gs allow for experime ntal manipulation of performance levels, they may not capture some of the contextual cues involved in making performance judgments in an organizational work setting. Similarly, an argument could be made that undergraduate students, serving as raters, are not repr esentative of real-
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 33 world supervisors evaluating employee perfor mance. Differences may exist between student and supervisory conceptualiza tions of the performance domain. Conclusion As has been evidenced in previous st udies, this resear ch found that both citizenship and task behaviors are importa nt in determining overall performance judgments. However, this study also demonstrat ed that levels of citizenship performance have an effect on ratings of task performance. Finally, our results i ndicate that including citizenship dimensions in the appraisal form at does not affect the accuracy of task or overall performance ratings. However, this isnÂ’t to say that performance assessment should dismiss the potential a dvantages of evaluating citizenship performance. By including OCBs in formal evaluations, employe rs can gain more complete information of employee performance across a wider behavior al range. Richer performance appraisal information can benefit employers in the areas of employee placement, retention, and development.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 34 Reference List Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The eff ects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260. Bernardin, H. J., Kane, J. S., Ross, S., Spina, J. D., & Johnson, D. L. (1995). Performance appraisal design, development, and implementation. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management : (pp. 462-493). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Borman, W. C., Ackerman, L. D., & Kubisiak, U. C. (1994). Development of a performance rating program in support of Department of Labor test validation research (Contract Nos. 93-2 and 93-3). S acremento, CA: Cooperative Personnel Services. Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). Towa rd a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6, 1-21. Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Motowidlo, S. J., Hanson, M. A., Stark, S., & Fritz, D. (2001). An examination of the comparativ e reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using com puterized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 965-973. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. ( 1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 35 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M. (1983). Development of a model of soldier effectiveness (Institute Rep. No. 95). Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions Research Institutes. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, (1-2), 52-69. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervis or and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168-177. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986) Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). I nvestigating the underl ying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 2544. Conway, J. M. (1996). Additi onal construct validity eviden ce for the task-contextual performance distinction. Human Performance, 9, 309-329.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 36 George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feel ing good--doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work--organiza tional spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Karambaya R. (1991). Contexts for organizational citizen ship: Do high performing and satisfying units have better citizens? Unpublished manuscript, York University, Ontario, Canada. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedur es for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Montery, CA: Brooks & Cole. Lepine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1), 52-65. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ah earne, M. (1996). Unpublished data analysis. Indiana University, Bloomington. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fe tter, R. (1991). Organi zational citizenship behavior and objective producti vity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersonÂ’s performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-150. Miller, R. L., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (1999). Personality and organizational health: The role of conscientiousness. Work & Stress, 13, 7-19.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 37 Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., Schmidt, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994) Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from cont extual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. Neuman, G. A., & Kickul, J. R. (1998) Organizational citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business and Psychology 13, 263-279. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizatio nal citizenship behavior: It Â’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behav ior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contri butions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 337-368. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta -analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of orga nizational citizen ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organi zational citizenship behavior and the quantity and qual ity of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 38 Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. ( 1997). Impact of organi zational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133-151. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. ( 1994). Organizational citi zenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351-363. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship be haviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26(3), 513-563. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: ItÂ’s nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Tillman, P. (1998). In search of moderators of the relationship between antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behav ior: The case of motives Unpublished maters thesis. University of South Florida. VanDyne, L., & Cummings, L. L. (1990, August). Extra-role behaviors: The need for construct and de finitional clarity. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, San Francisco, CA. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996) Interpersonal facilita tion and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 39 Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cro ss T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526-535. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Orga nizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational eff ectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of Management be st papers proceedings (pp. 307-311). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in role and extrarole behavior s on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 98-107. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and Cognition in its Social Context Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 40 Appendix A. Motowidlo and Van ScotterÂ’s (1994) 16 item scale of Citizenship Performance Please rate the manager by responding to each statement with the most appropriate answer: 1 = not at all likely 2 = not likely 3 = somewhat likely 4 = likely 5 = extremely likely While performing his or her job, how lik ely is it that this person wouldÂ… 1. Comply with instructions even when supervisors are not present. 2. Cooperate with others in the team. 3. Persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task. 4. Display proper company appearance and manner. 5. Volunteer for additional responsibilities. 6. Follow standard operating procedures and avoid unauthorized shortcuts. 7. Look for challenging assignments. 8. Offer to help others accomplish their work. 9. Pay close attention to important details. 10. Defend the supervisorÂ’s decisions. 11. Render proper business courtesy. 12. Support and encourage a co worker with a problem. 13. Take the initiative to solve a work task. 14. Exercise personal discipline and self-control. 15. Tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically. 16. Voluntarily do more than the job requires to help others or contribute to company effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Likel y Extremel y Likel y
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 41 Appendix B. Task and Overall Performance Scale Please rate the manager by responding to each statement with the most appropriate answer: 1 = not at all likely 2 = not likely 3 = somewhat likely 4 = likely 5 = extremely likely While performing his or her job, how lik ely is it that this person wouldÂ… 1. Perform at a level much higher than coworkers. 2. Produce a large amount of work. 3. Accurately analyze situations and determine the correct course of action. 4. Display a mastery of work tasks. 5. Make informed decisions. 6. Pay attention to detail and avoid making mistakes. 7. Consistently perform below work standards. 8. Use resources in a cost-effective manner. 9. Make good decisions in th e presence of obstacles. 10. Act as the best employee under your supervision. 11. Produce a high quality standard of work. 12. Meet deadlines under any circumstance. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Likel y Extremel y Likel y
Citizenship and Task Performance Ratings 42 Appendix C. Annual Supervisory Report Log Employee: ________________________ Supervisor: ___________________ Department: ______________________ Job Title: _____________________ Observation Date At the department staff meeting Bill offered sound suggestions for changes in administrative and organizational procedures that would better serve the companyÂ’s mission and objectives. (OS) Jan. 14 When preparing for the la st quarterly report Bill could be counted on to take additional tasks when others asked for help due to being overloaded. (PS) Mar. 3 On his last group assignment Bill voluntarily performed tasks that are not normally a part of his duties when necessary. (C) Mar. 29 It seems that Bill demonstrates knowledge of his position, skills needed to accomplish tasks, and the ability to perform those skills. (Q) May 2 IÂ’ve noticed that Bill independently thinks through problems and creatively pursues a resolution while allowing for more than one solution. (J) June 11 Bill accomplishes job assignments/tasks quickly while using the minimum amount of resources possible. (P) July 19 It is apparent that Bill takes the initiative to correct obviously non-standard conditions. (C) Aug. 8 BillÂ’s coworkers have told me that he gives encouragement when approached by workers who are experiencing adversity or setbacks. (PS) Aug. 31 Bill tends to effortlessly exceed requirements for amount of work performed. (P) Oct. 14 It is evident in BillÂ’s reports that he understands a problem/situation and takes the necessary steps to correct the problem. (J) Nov. 4 It is clear that Bill actively embraces the organiza tion's missions and objectives. (OS) Nov. 19 Bill performs tasks to achieve quality goals/sta ndards, thoroughly understanding the need for quality. (Q) Dec. 9 Supervisor Signature: __________________________ Date: _______________ Researcher notes: C = Conscientiousness J = Judgment/Problem Solving OS = Organizational Support P = Productivity PS = Personal Support Q = Quality/Task Proficiency *This is an example of a log for hi gh-citizenship/high-task performance. **Bold words indicate sentence st ems for behavioral statements