Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 18/12580 18. Wahlperiode 31.05.2017 Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Finanzausschusses (7. Ausschuss) zu dem Gesetzentwurf der ...
Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Measuring Individual Work Performance Identifying And
Background Theoretically individual work performance IWP can be divided into. four dimensions task performance contextual performance adaptive performance. and counterproductive work behavior However there is no consensus on the. indicators used to measure these dimensions, Objective This study was designed to 1 identify indicators for each dimension 2. select the most relevant indicators and 3 determine the relative weight of each. dimension in ratings of work performance, Methods IWP indicators were identified from multiple research disciplines via. literature existing questionnaires and expert interviews Subsequently experts. selected the most relevant indicators per dimension and scored the relative weight. of each dimension in ratings of IWP, Results In total 128 unique indicators were identified Twenty three of these. indicators were selected by experts as most relevant for measuring IWP Task. performance determined 36 of the work performance rating while the other three. dimensions respectively determined 22 20 and 21 of the rating. Conclusions Notable consensus was found on relevant indicators of IWP reducing. the number from 128 to 23 relevant indicators This provides an important step. towards the development of a standardized generic and short measurement. instrument for assessing IWP,Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Introduction, Although an individual s performance at work is one of the most important. outcomes of studies in the occupational setting recent research has shown that. there is no consensus on the definition and measurement of individual work. performance 1 3 Various terms often used interchangeably are used to describe. individual work performance IWP such as presenteeism performance or. productivity The definitions of these terms are often unclear This is undesirable. because a clear definition and theoretical framework of IWP is a prerequisite for its. valid measurement Valid measurement in turn is necessary to accurately establish. the causes and consequences of IWP,Defining individual work performance. Considering the importance of IWP it is not surprising that disciplines other than. occupational medicine have concerned themselves with defining and measuring the. concept Within work and organizational psychology defining the construct of IWP. and attempting to understand its underlying structure has received much attention. 4 In the latter discipline IWP is generally defined as behaviors or actions that are. relevant to the goals of the organization 5 Thus IWP is defined in terms of. behaviors or actions of employees rather than the results of these actions In. addition IWP consists of behaviors that are under the control of the individual thus. excluding behaviors that are constrained by the environment 6. Recently a heuristic framework of IWP was proposed in a multi disciplinary. systematic literature review 7 in which IWP consisted of four broad and generic. dimensions The first dimension task performance refers to the proficiency with. which an employee performs central job tasks 5 The second dimension contextual. performance refers to employee behaviors that support the organizational social. and psychological environment in which the central job tasks are performed 8 The. third dimension adaptive performance refers to an employee s proficiency in. adapting to changes in work roles or environment 9 The fourth dimension. counterproductive work behavior refers to behavior that is harmful to the well being. of the organization 6,Measuring individual work performance. While four generic dimensions of IWP can be distinguished there is still little. consensus on how to measure the concept Within occupational medicine various. questionnaires exist to measure IWP or similar constructs such as the Stanford. Presenteeism Scale 10 Work Productivity and Activity Impairment 11 and Health. and Performance Questionnaire 12 Within work and organizational psychology. numerous scales have also been developed to measure task performance e g 13. contextual performance e g 14 or counterproductive work behavior e g 15. The multitude of scales in this discipline is perhaps best illustrated by LePine Erez. and Johnson 16 who identified more than 40 different measures of contextual. performance, The heterogeneous content of IWP measures is likely related to the use of. different definitions of IWP or a lack thereof and by the use of different. developmental or target populations What is noticeable in the measures developed. in occupational medicine is that a clear definition and theoretical model of IWP is. often lacking 17 19 Although the measures developed in work and organizational. psychology do use definitions of IWP dimensions none of them captured the. complete range of individual behaviors at work Moreover measures from. occupational medicine are often designed for individuals with physical or mental. health problems 20 This makes these measures less suitable for assessing IWP in. healthy workers In addition the measures developed in work and organizational. psychology although intended to be generic were often developed and refined. based on a specific occupation,Goal of the current study. The current lack of consensus on how to measure IWP impedes valid measurement. of the construct Research on IWP would benefit greatly from a standardized generic. short instrument The four dimensional framework of IWP 7 provides a theoretical. starting point for developing such an instrument Next it is essential to gain. consensus on the indicators important employee behaviors or actions for each. dimension of IWP Therefore we designed a study to 1 identify indicators for each. IWP dimension 2 select the most relevant indicators and 3 determine the relative. weight of each dimension in ratings of IWP Secondary aims of this study were to. determine 4 whether there were differences between the views of experts from. different professional backgrounds researchers managers human resource. managers and occupational health professionals on the aforementioned research. questions and 5 whether the experts preferred a generic or job specific. questionnaire,Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Identification of indicators, First indicators were identified from a literature review on conceptual frameworks. of IWP 7 Second indicators were identified from existing IWP related. questionnaires For this purpose a systematic search was conducted to identify. questionnaires measuring individual work performance or work productivity As the. terms work performance and work productivity are often used synonymously we. incorporated both terms in our search strategies Search strategies were developed. with the aid of experienced search specialists Search terms included work. performance work productivity job performance employee performance or. employee productivity and questionnaire scale or index Searches were conducted. in two medical databases PubMed and Embase com and one psychological. PsycINFO database in September 2010 Additional questionnaires were identified. by scanning the authors personal collection of IWP literature Third interviews with. 16 key experts were held in November 2010 Key experts were national and. international researchers with over 20 years of experience in the areas of. occupational health psychology or management, A review of the literature questionnaires and data from the experts. interviewed resulted in an initial list of IWP indicators From this list the first and. second author independently removed causal variables e g motivation In. addition overlapping indicators between dimensions e g concentrating in. contextual performance not concentrating in counterproductive work behavior. were removed from the dimension where they were least well suited Differences in. judgment were resolved through a consensus procedure Based on conceptual. overlap the first and second author independently reduced the remaining list of. indicators and using the definitions categorized each indicator into the dimension. where it best fitted Differences in judgment were again resolved through a. consensus procedure,Selection of indicators,Participants. A sample of 695 experts from different professional backgrounds researchers. managers human resource managers HRM and occupational health professionals. OHP including the key experts were invited to select the most relevant indicators. of IWP This sample consisted of participants from one national and one. international occupational health conference that took place in The Netherlands. Each participant was invited by e mail to participate in the study A link to the online. questionnaire was included Depending on their country of residence participants. completed the questionnaire in Dutch or English Participants had three weeks to. complete the questionnaire After two weeks non responders received a reminder. via e mail,Questionnaire, After a brief introduction to the study participants were shown a list of all indicators. per IWP dimension task performance contextual performance adaptive. performance and counterproductive work behavior Within dimensions indicators. were presented in random order Per dimension participants were asked to select. the 6 most important indicators keeping in mind work performance on a generic. level This means that they had to select indicators that were important in all types. of professions not just in their own profession For practical reasons contextual. performance was split into two sub dimensions interpersonally directed and. organizationally directed because of the large number of indicators related to this. dimension In total each participant selected 30 5x6 indicators from the full list of. indicators which he or she believed to be most relevant After every category of. indicators space was provided for comments and or suggestions for additional. indicators In the second part of the questionnaire participants were asked to divide. 100 points between the four dimensions according to the relative weight they would. assign to each dimensions when rating IWP They were also asked whether they. believed it possible to develop a generic questionnaire or whether a combination of. a generic and job specific questionnaire or a job specific questionnaire was more. likely Finally participants were asked to fill out their gender age highest. educational level completed profession number of years experience in this. profession number of people they manage and branch of industry Participants. were asked to leave their e mail address if they wanted to receive the results of the. study and be eligible for one of the five gift vouchers to be allotted. Data analysis, To rank the indicators in order of importance the percentage of participants who. selected an indicator was calculated Indicators were regarded relevant when they. were selected by 40 or more of the participants Chi square tests were performed. Identifying and Selecting Indicators, to examine whether there were significant differences in scores between subgroups. gender age educational level profession number of years experience in this. profession number of people managed and branch of industry Although it was not. possible to compute a statistical agreement score e g Cohen s kappa subgroups. showing few statistically significant differences were considered to be in agreement. To determine the relative weight of each dimension in IWP ratings the. mean number of points assigned to each dimension was calculated Independent. samples t tests were performed to examine differences in weights between. subgroups with two levels gender One way analyses of variance were performed. to examine differences in weights between subgroups with more than two levels. age educational level profession number of years experience in this profession. number of people managed and branch of industry Post hoc tests with Bonferroni. correction were performed to determine which subgroups differed from one. another If assumptions of homogeneity of variance were not met then Tamhane s. T2 tests were performed to determine which subgroups differed 21. Finally the percentage of participants that believed in the development of. a generic questionnaire a combination of a generic and job specific questionnaire. or a job specific questionnaire was calculated SPSS version 17 was used for the. Identification of indicators, In the literature review on conceptual frameworks 54 IWP indicators were. identified In the systematic questionnaire search 77 questionnaires were identified. that aimed to measure the construct of individual work performance or productivity. Of these full texts of 14 questionnaires could not be retrieved Another 11. questionnaires were excluded based on full text because they either did not. measure work performance at the individual level or did not measure work. performance at all Additional scanning of personal collections added 29. questionnaires The 81 questionnaires yielded 231 IWP indicators which were not. already identified in the literature review None of the questionnaires were found to. measure all dimensions of IWP Only one fifth of the questionnaires explicitly. measured one or two of the dimensions of IWP task performance contextual. performance adaptive performance or counterproductive work behavior e g. 13 22 15 More than one third of all questionnaires contained causal variables in. combination with indicator variables e g 10 23 In addition a quarter of the. questionnaires were developed for individuals with a mental or physical health. problem e g 24 25 More than two third of the questionnaires were developed for. generic purposes e g 26 27 whereas around one third were developed for a. specific job e g 28 29 The interviews with 16 key experts yielded 32 additional. IWP indicators which were not identified in the literature or questionnaires. In total the literature questionnaires and expert interviews resulted in a. list of 317 IWP indicators The first and second author removed causal variables and. indicators overlapping between dimensions Based on conceptual overlap the first. and second author reduced the remaining list to 128 unique IWP indicators and. categorized each indicator into one of the IWP dimensions Task performance. consisted of 26 indicators Both sub dimensions of contextual performance. consisted of 30 indicators Adaptive performance consisted of 18 indicators. Counterproductive work behavior consisted of 24 indicators. Selection of indicators, In total 253 participants response rate of 36 4 participated in the study including. 14 out of 16 key experts See Table 1 for participant characteristics Table 2 presents. a list of the indicators that were selected as most relevant for each dimension The. indicators are ranked based on the percentage of votes they received from the total. group Data on the indicators that did not make the final selection is available from. the authors upon request No additional indicators were suggested by the. participants during the selection process, There was high agreement between all subgroups on the importance of the. indicators For 20 items we found statistically significant differences between. experts from different professional backgrounds Hence subgroups based on. profession attributed similar importance to 84 108 of 128 of the indicators. Subgroups based on gender agreed on 95 of the indicators Subgroups based on. age agreed on 93 of the indicators Subgroups based on educational level agreed. on 87 of the indicators Subgroups based on number of years work experience. agreed on 97 of the indicators Subgroups based on the number of people one. manages agreed on 93 of the indicators Subgroups based on branch of industry. agreed on 92 of the indicators,Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Table 1 Participant characteristics,Profession,Researchers Managers HRM OHP. N 253 113 48 54 38,Gender female 47 59 33 44 29,30 years or younger 11 18 0 9 5. 31 50 years 51 51 58 52 42,51 years or older 38 31 42 39 53. Completed educational level,Middle level applied,apprenticeship or. certificate 1 0 2 0 5,Higher vocational,Bachelor s degree 26 0 35 67 34. Higher academic,Master s degree 38 37 40 31 50,Postgraduate. academic PhD 35 63 23 2 11,Work experience,0 5 years 23 26 25 17 21. 6 10 years 21 21 19 28 16,10 or more years 56 53 56 56 63. Employees managed,None 48 47 19 59 71,1 5 employees 23 28 15 22 18. 6 20 employees 18 17 33 15 10,21 50 employees 6 4 21 2 0. 50 or more employees 5 4 13 2 0,Branch of industry. Scientific 42 88 5 2 9,Policy 5 1 2 16 3,Commercial 5 2 12 10 0. Service 26 5 50 37 43,Trade industry 4 0 10 4 6,Other 18 4 21 31 40. Task performance, The task performance dimension originally included 26 indicators From these 5. relevant task performance indicators were identified work quality 69 planning. and organizing work 56 being result oriented 46 prioritizing 45 and. working efficiently 44, There was a difference between experts from different professional. backgrounds on one of these indicators On average researchers judged being. result oriented to be significantly less important 29 than managers 64 and. human resources managers 66,Contextual performance. Initially there were 60 indicators included in contextual performance For practical. reasons these were split into two sub dimensions 30 indicators at the. interpersonal level and 30 indicators at the organizational level Four relevant. indicators at the interpersonal level were identified taking initiative 51. accepting and learning from feedback 48 cooperating with others 45 and. communicating effectively 45 Four relevant indicators at the organizational. level were also identified showing responsibility 67 being customer oriented. 42 being creative 41 and taking on challenging work tasks 40. There were differences between experts from different professional. backgrounds on two of these indicators On average managers found taking. initiative significantly more important 75 than researchers 41 human. resources managers 53 and occupational health professionals 50. Researchers found being customer oriented significantly less important 21 than. managers 57 human resources managers 69 and occupational health. professionals 47,Adaptive performance, The adaptive performance dimension originally included 18 indicators Six relevant. adaptive performance indicators were identified showing resiliency coping with. stress difficult situations and adversities 70 coming up with creative solutions. to novel difficult problems 66 keeping job knowledge up to date 57. keeping job skills up to date 52 dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work. situations 48 and adjusting work goals when necessary 43. Experts from different professional backgrounds differed on two of these. indicators Managers found coming up with creative solutions to novel difficult. Identifying and Selecting Indicators, problems significantly more important 82 than human resources managers. 57 and occupational health professionals 58 Researchers found keeping job. skills up to date significantly more important 64 than managers 41 human. resources managers 43 and occupational health professionals 42. Counterproductive work behavior, Initially there were 24 indicators included in counterproductive work behavior. Four relevant indicators were identified displaying excessive negativity 62. doing things that harm your organization 54 doing things that harm your co. workers or supervisor 52 and purposely making mistakes 48. Experts from different professional backgrounds differed on three of these. indicators Occupational health professionals found displaying excessive negativity. significantly more important 86 than researchers 57 managers 55 and. human resources managers 61 Managers 73 and occupational health. professionals 66 found doing things that harm your organization significantly. more important than researchers 44 Last human resources managers found. purposely making mistakes significantly less important 31 than researchers and. occupational health professionals both 54,Weight of dimensions in IWP ratings. Table 3 presents the relative weight that experts assigned to each of the IWP. dimensions On average task performance received the heaviest weight when rating. an employee s work performance 36 points Contextual performance 22 points. adaptive performance 20 points and counterproductive work behavior 21 points. received almost equal weightings Experts from different professional backgrounds. differed significantly on the mean weight they assigned to task performance. F 3 225 3 318 p 0 05 Researchers 39 points assigned a marginally significant. p 0 058 greater weight to task performance than managers 33 points. Generic versus job specific questionnaire, Forty four percent of the experts believed it possible to develop a generic. questionnaire of IWP while 23 of the experts believed that a combination of a. generic and job specific questionnaire was more likely to be effective whereas 33. of the experts believed that a job specific questionnaire was more likely appropriate. Table 2 Individual work performance indicators that were selected as most. relevant for each dimension and the percentage of votes they received from. the total group and per profession,Profession,Resear Mana. Total chers gers HRM OHP,n 253 n 113 n 48 n 54 n 38. Task performance,1 Work quality 69 70 67 70 66,2 Planning and organising. work 56 55 56 58 58,3 Being result oriented 46 29 ab 64 a 66 b 45. 4 Prioritising 45 39 42 57 47,5 Working efficiently 44 47 38 43 42. Contextual performance interpersonal,1 Taking initiative 51 41 a 75 abc 53 b 50 c. 2 Accepting and learning,from feedback 48 50 34 55 50. 3 Cooperating with others 45 41 48 47 50,4 Communicating. effectively e g,adequately expressing,ideas and intentions 45 43 48 45 50. Contextual performance organizational,1 Showing responsibility 67 67 70 35 67. 2 Being customer,oriented 42 21 abc 57 a 69 bd 47 cd. 3 Being creative 41 44 41 39 33,4 Taking on challenging. work tasks 40 45 41 25 42,Adaptive performance,1 Showing resiliency. coping with stress,difficult situations and,adversities 70 71 70 73 67. 2 Coming up with creative,solutions to novel,difficult problems 66 67 82 ab 57 a 58 b. 3 Keeping job knowledge,up to date 57 59 50 57 56,Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Table 2 Continued,Adaptive performance,4 Keeping job skills up to. date 52 64 abc 41 a 43 b 42 c,5 Dealing with uncertain. and unpredictable work,situations 48 41 64 53 44,6 Adjusting work goals. when necessary 43 42 48 37 47,Counterproductive work behavior. 1 Displaying excessive,negativity,e g complaining,making problems bigger. than they are 62 57 a 55 b 61 c 86 abc,2 Doing things that harm. your organization e g,not following rules,discussing confidential. information 54 44 ab 73 ac 51 c 66 b,3 Doing things that harm. your co workers or,supervisor e g arguing,leaving work for others. to finish 52 58 43 47 54,4 Purposely making,mistakes 48 54 a 50 31 ab 54 b. Notes significant difference between profession subgroups. Denote which subgroups significantly differed from each other for example. in item 3 of task performance the score of the researchers 29 differed statistically. significant from the score of the managers 64 and HRM 66. Table 3 The relative weight scale 0 100 of each dimension in IWP ratings in total. and per profession,Profession,Resear Mana,chers gers HRM OHP. Total n 113 n 48 n 54 n 38,n 253 Mean Mean Mean Mean. Dimension Mean SD SD SD SD SD, Task performance 36 13 39 15 a 33 10 a 35 13 33 10. Contextual performance 22 8 22 8 23 8 23 8 23 7,Adaptive performance 20 8 19 8 20 6 22 9 22 10. Counterproductive work,behavior 21 13 20 12 24 11 20 15 22 13. Total 100 100 100 100 100, Notes significant difference between profession subgroup. Marginally significant difference p 0 058,Discussion. The main goal of the current study was to gain consensus on how to measure IWP. which would enable the development of a standardized generic short instrument. Four broad generic dimensions of IWP were used as a theoretical basis task. performance contextual performance adaptive performance and counter. productive work behavior Using a multi disciplinary approach possible employee. behaviors or actions indicators were identified for each dimension via a review of. the literature existing questionnaires and data from interviews with experts In. total 128 unique IWP indicators were identified of which 23 were considered most. relevant for measuring IWP based on notable consensus among experts On. average task performance received greatest weight when rating an employee s. work performance Contextual performance adaptive performance and. counterproductive work behavior received almost equal weightings There was. agreement on 84 of the indicators between experts from different professional. backgrounds Furthermore experts agreed on the relative weight of each IWP. dimension in rating work performance However researchers weighed task. performance slightly higher than managers Almost half of the experts believed in. the possibility of developing a completely generic questionnaire of IWP. A multitude of measurement instruments aiming to measure IWP or a. similar construct such as presenteeism or productivity were identified in a. systematic search Considering the large number of questionnaires 81 it is not. Identifying and Selecting Indicators, surprising that most IWP indicators were identified from questionnaires Far more. indicators were identified for contextual performance than for the other dimensions. of IWP although contextual performance was not rated higher than other. dimensions As task performance rated the highest one could expect more. indicators to be found for that dimension This finding may indicate that task. performance is a less complex and more uniform dimension to measure than. contextual performance However it may also indicate that it is harder to think of. generic behaviors for task performance than for contextual performance This may. mean that many task performance items are job specific. In the literature and questionnaire reviews an indicator often if not most. often used for assessing task performance was quantity of work 7 Surprisingly. quantity of work was not selected as one of the most important indicators of task. performance in the current study In fact it was selected by only 13 of the. participants as an important indicator of IWP This finding could be due to our sample. containing relatively few participants from trade and industrial work Alternatively. it could be due to the fact that quantity of work is captured in being result oriented. While being result oriented was not mentioned in the literature or questionnaires. it was selected as an important indicator for task performance in the current study. mainly by managers and human resources managers These findings indicate that it. may be more important to look at other indicators than work quantity to assess task. performance such as work quality or being result oriented. Based on the current findings some of the most often used IWP scales do. not incorporate all relevant indicators or incorporate irrelevant indicators Scales. often used to assess contextual performance include for example Podsakoff and. MacKenzie 13 or Van Scotter and Motowidlo 14 The former focused on. measuring altruism conscientiousness sportsmanship courtesy and civic virtue. The latter focused on measuring interpersonal facilitation and job dedication The. first dimension of both scales is mainly operationalized by helpful behaviors such as. helping others who have heavy work loads In the current study helping others was. not one of the most relevant behaviors for contextual performance selected by 16. of participants Two of the top three contextual performance behaviors identified. in the current study showing responsibility and accepting and learning from. feedback are not directly included in either of these questionnaires. Adaptive performance is a new and upcoming dimension in the work. performance literature 7 Except for the Job Adaptability Index developed by. Pulakos Arad Donovan and Plamondon 30 few researchers have identified.
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 72 Pages
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 18/12580 18. Wahlperiode 31.05.2017 Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Finanzausschusses (7. Ausschuss) zu dem Gesetzentwurf der ...
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 33 Pages
equivariant surgery on nonorientable surfaces developed in this paper will help to open up the study of involutions on 3-manifolds which contain incompressible, nonorientable surfaces, especially with finite fundamental groups. Theorem C. Let h be a PL involution on M = M(p, q). Then there exists an
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 6 Pages
ANN vs. FUZZY in Automated Irrigation . Er. Faruk Poyen, Adrish Pal, Biswanath Majumder, Dr. Apurba Ghosh, and Prof. Rajib Bandyopadhyay. Abstract---Irrigation happens to be the backbone of the civilized society since time immemorial.
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 5 Pages
communicative methods. Grammar is used as the starting point for the development of all language skills ... Basic English Grammar Beginners: Third Edition
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 6 Pages
research institutions beginner (Undiksha) 2015.The objectives of this study to describe: (1) unity of language (sentences) on faculty research abstracts beginner Institutions (Undiksha) 2015 and (2) effectiveness languages (sentence) on faculty research abstracts beginner Institutions (Undiksha) by 2015. To achieve these objectives
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 234 Pages
Table 6.1 Formwork Measurement Rules in HKSMM4 57 Table 6.2 Assumed Reinforcement Ratios 63 Table 6.3 Example of Internal Finishing in G/F 65
26-Jan-2020 2 Views 11 Pages
KwaMashu CHC management notes. The KwaMashu Community health Center management would like to wish all the sta? a prosper? ous new year (2013). As manage? ment of this ins tu on we would also like to thank our sta? for their day by day e?ort to achieve excellence, we are so pleased to
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 431 Pages
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MODEL BILLS OF QUANTITIES FOR BUILDING WORKS The Government of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Architectural Services ...
26-Jan-2020 1 Views 59 Pages
26-Jan-2020 2 Views 8 Pages
ADR Digest 1 DigestEVgicZgh ^c 6aiZgcVi^kZ 9^hejiZ GZhdaji^dc Issue 8 Summer 2009 Sam Woo Bored Pile Foundations Limited & China Overseas Foundation