Typical Performance, Maximal Performance, and Performance Variability: Expanding Our Understanding of How Organizations Value Performance

Existing research has distinguished between typical and maximal performance. Performance variability is another potentially important aspect of performance that has been infrequently studied. Using longitudinal data from the National Basketball Association (N = 269), we address this gap by examining how these three conceptualizations of performance are related to how organizations compensate their employees. Results indicate that each of these performance aspects is bivariately related to compensation levels, accounting for between 32% and 58% of the variance in compensation. In addition, typical performance and performance variability incrementally predicts compensation levels, although maximal performance does not. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

[1]  J Noak,et al.  Performance rating. , 1999, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[2]  W. Clay Hamner,et al.  The influence of variations in performance profiles on the performance evaluation process: An examination of the validity of the criterion. , 1975 .

[3]  Angelo S. DeNisi,et al.  Profiles of Performance, Performance Evaluations, and Personnel Decisions , 1981 .

[4]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Goals and intentions as mediators of the effects of monetary incentives on behavior. , 1968 .

[5]  Steven D. Jones,et al.  Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. , 1988 .

[6]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[7]  John R. Nesselroade,et al.  Beyond static concepts in modeling behavior , 2000 .

[8]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[9]  Dirk D. Steiner,et al.  Distributional ratings of performance: Further examination of a new rating format. , 1993 .

[10]  J. Shaw,et al.  Reactions to merit pay increases: a longitudinal test of a signal sensitivity perspective. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  R. Larsen,et al.  Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  David A. Hofmann,et al.  Dynamic criteria and the measurement of change. , 1993 .

[13]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  S. Zedeck,et al.  Relations Between Measures of Typical and Maximum Job Performance , 1988 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[16]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  There are stable individual differences in performance variability, both from moment to moment and from day to day , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[17]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[18]  Karl M. Newell,et al.  Is Variability in Human Performance a Reflection of System Noise? , 1998 .

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[20]  Shaul Fox,et al.  The impact of variability in candidate profiles on rater confidence and judgements regarding stability and job suitability , 1995 .

[21]  Jeffrey S. Kane,et al.  Performance distribution assessment. , 1986 .

[22]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: definitional issues, prediction, and White−Black differences , 1993 .

[23]  William H. Bommer,et al.  Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research , 2006 .

[24]  J. Shaw,et al.  Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. , 1998 .

[25]  Joseph J. Martocchio,et al.  CHINESE AND AMERICAN MANAGERS' COMPENSATION AWARD DECISIONS: A COMPARATIVE POLICY‐CAPTURING STUDY , 2001 .

[26]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes in Performance Appraisal , 1981 .

[27]  J. Myerson,et al.  Age, variability, and speed: between-subjects diversity. , 1988, Psychology and aging.

[28]  V. Vroom Work and motivation , 1964 .

[29]  E. Johnsen Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[30]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality : Nomothetic or Idiographic ? A Response to Kenrick and Stringfield , 2005 .

[31]  W. Borman,et al.  A Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance , 1997 .

[32]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Determinants of Goal Commitment , 1988 .

[33]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[34]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[35]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .

[36]  N. Fox,et al.  The relation between neonatal heart period patterns and developmental outcome. , 1985, Child development.

[37]  W. Borman,et al.  Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance , 1993 .

[38]  John E. Delery,et al.  AN ORGANIZATION-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY TURNOVER , 2005 .

[39]  P. Ghisletta,et al.  Intraindividual Variability and Level of Performance in Four Visuo-Spatial Working Memory Tasks , 2004 .