Assessment of the Situational and Individual Components of Job Performance

Deficiencies in the measures used to assess situational constraints and job perform- ance are proposed to have played a major role in the failure of prior research to confirm the theorized strength of the relation between constraints and performance. In Study I the use of assessments that avoided the deficiencies of earlier studies resulted in the perceived constraint measure explaining 69.7% of the variance in the performance measure, whereas the perceived constraint measure used in earlier research explained only 10% of the variance in the same performance measure. Study I1 showed that the individual component of performance can be measured even in the presence of such extensive perceived constraints. A surprising finding was that as perceived constraints became more severe, performance fell even faster, possibly due to some discourage- ment or learned helplessness phenomenon.

[1]  H. John Bernardin,et al.  Performance appraisal : assessing human behavior at work , 1984 .

[2]  J. Terborg.  Validation and extension of an individual differences model of work performance , 1977 .

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

[4]  L. H. Peters,et al.  Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field replication and extension. , 1984 .

[5]  Melvin Blumberg,et al.  The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance , 1982 .

[6]  S. B. Gurwitz,et al.  Attributions of freedom by actors and observers. , 1975 .

[7]  Robert J. Wherry,et al.  THE CONTROL OF BIAS IN RATINGS: A THEORY OF RATING , 1982 .

[8]  L. James,et al.  Perceptions of psychological influence: A cognitive information processing approach for explaining moderated relationships. , 1981 .

[9]  William H. Mobley,et al.  Construct validation of an instrumentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation: Some theoretical boundary conditions. , 1973 .

[10]  Lawrence H. Peters,et al.  Measuring work obstacles: Procedures, issues, and implications. , 1988 .

[11]  L. R. Goldberg.  Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain, neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of oneself and various types of others. , 1981 .

[12]  David A. Waldman,et al.  Putting Together the Pieces: A Closer Look at the Determinants of Job Performance , 1989 .

[13]  Benjamin Schneider,et al.  PERSON-SITUATION SELECTION: A REVIEW OF SOME ABILITY-SITUATION INTERACTION RESEARCH , 1978 .

[14]  L. R. Goldberg.  Differential attribution of trait-descriptive terms to oneself as compared to well-liked, neutral, and disliked others: A psychometric analysis. , 1978 .

[15]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. , 1989 .

[16]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology of Thoughts Unspoken Social Inference and the Self-regulation of Behavior , 2022 .

[17]  D. Gilbert,et al.  On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. , 1988 .

[18]  E. E. Jones,et al.  A robust attribution error in the personality domain , 1981 .

[19]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[20]  M. Seligman,et al.  Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. , 1978, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[21]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources. , 1988, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  W. Deming.  Out of the crisis : quality, productivity and competitive position , 1986 .

[23]  Robert P. Steel,et al.  Impact of situational constraints on subjective and objective criteria of managerial job performance , 1986 .

[24]  L. Cronbach.  Response Sets and Test Validity , 1946 .

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

[26]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Actors, observers, and the attribution process: Toward a reconceptualization☆ , 1977 .

[27]  Jeffrey S. Kane,et al.  The analytic framework: The most promising approach for the advancement of performance appraisal , 1992 .

[28]  Attibution of attitudes to speakers and listeners under assigned-behavior conditions: Does behavior engulf the field? , 1977 .

[29]  L. H. Peters,et al.  The Joint Influence of Situational Constraints and Goal Setting on Performance and Affective Outcomes , 1982 .

[30]  L. Cronbach.  Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design , 1950 .

[31]  L. Ross.  The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .

[32]  Melvin L. Snyder,et al.  Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained , 1974 .

[33]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[34]  Lawrence H. Peters,et al.  The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational variables☆ , 1980 .

[35]  Jeffrey S. Kane,et al.  The conceptualization and representation of total performance effectiveness , 1996 .

[36]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness , 1971 .

[37]  L. H. Peters,et al.  Situational Constraints and Work Outcomes: The Influences Of a Frequently Overlooked Construct , 1980 .