This article was downloaded by: [TCU Texas Christian University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 01:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Human PerformancePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20

More Than Peaks and Valleys:Introduction to the SpecialIssue on Typical and MaximumPerformanceUte-Christine Klehe a , Neil Anderson a &Chockalingam Viswesvaran ba University of Amsterdamb Florida International UniversityPublished online: 05 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Ute-Christine Klehe , Neil Anderson & ChockalingamViswesvaran (2007) More Than Peaks and Valleys: Introduction to the Special Issueon Typical and Maximum Performance, Human Performance, 20:3, 173-178, DOI:10.1080/08959280701332943

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959280701332943

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

More Than Peaks and Valleys:Introduction to the Special Issue onTypical and Maximum Performance

Ute-Christine Klehe and Neil AndersonUniversity of Amsterdam

Chockalingam ViswesvaranFlorida International University

The literature on typical versus maximum performance—as much as there is of it atthis point in time—has undergone quite some curious development. About two de-cadesago,Sackett,Zedeck,andFogli (1988)adapted thedistinctionbetween typicalandmaximumpredictorsofperformanceoriginallyproposedbyCronbach(1960) toactual jobperformance.Theyargued that thebalancebetweenmotivationandabilityin predicting performance (Locke, Mento, & Katcher, 1978) was altered as soon asperformers facenota typicalbutamaximumperformancesituation.Sackett etal.de-fined a maximum performance situation as one in which performers know that theyare being evaluated, in which they accept some explicit or implicit instruction tomaximize their efforts, and one that is relatively short in duration.

Because the fundamental assumptions underlying typical versus maximum per-formance made a lot of sense to numerous researchers, this distinction was subse-quently cited copious times in conceptual papers, discussions, and overview chap-ters (e.g., Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Borman, 1991; Boudreau, 1991; Campbell,1990; Guion, 1991; Klehe & Anderson, 2005; Sackett & Larson, 1990). It has beenused for justifying empirical hypotheses (e.g., Janz, 1989; Taylor & Small, 2002)and has become part of the material taught to the next generation of students (e.g.,Cascio & Aguinis, 2005; Guion, 1998). At the same time, strikingly little researchhas addressed the typical versus maximum performance distinction empirically, anextended reanalysis of the Sackett et al. (1988) dataset (DuBois, Sackett, Zedeck,& Fogli, 1993) being the only publication in this line of research for about a dozenyears.

Fortunately, this situation has somewhat changed in the last few years with anincreasing number of empirical papers emerging (e.g., Kirk & Brown, 2003; Klehe

HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 20(3), 173–178Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

& Anderson, in press; Klehe & Latham, 2006; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Ployhart,Lim, & Chan, 2001; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001). Even so, the num-ber of empirical studies published on typical and maximum performance is smallat best, and thus we found it time to accumulate a number of studies adopting dif-ferent perspectives and research paradigms on the typical versus maximum perfor-mance literature. Over the last two decades it can be argued that changes in workenvironments and work organization have heightened the importance of the dis-tinction between typical and maximum performance situations (e.g., Klehe & An-derson, in press). Work demands have moved inexorably toward what might betermed “serial maximum” demand conditions, that is, job roles involving regularbut unpredictable peak-demand conditions where the pressure is on to meet dead-lines, to clear backlogs of built-up work, or to respond innovatively to changingconditions or structures of work organization (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad,2004). These conditions of serial maximum job demands place considerable addi-tional strain on employees whose work is typically less routinized and more teambased and where adaptability and flexibility have become important qualities to beable to react to such working conditions. From this viewpoint, it is therefore all themore curious that more empirical research has not been conducted into typi-cal–maximum performance as a potentially highly valuable typology by which toconceive of these varying conditions and demands on employees in a variety of jobroles, industries, and even in different cultures of work internationally.

OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE

This special issue is therefore timely and grounded in possibilities for organiza-tional practice in performance management and industrial, work, and organiza-tional psychology. The range of articles eventually accepted reflects well thisbreadth of conception and practical applicability. When scanning through the arti-cles in this special issue, we identified a number of general themes of researchemerging. First, a number of studies, now combined as a section of research notes,follow the stream of most studies currently published on typical versus maximumperformance (DuBois et al., 1993; Klehe & Latham, 2006; Ployhart et al., 2001) byaddressing possible predictors of typical versus maximum performance, eventhough the nature and/or combination of these predictors is new.

Marcus, Goffin, Johnston, and Rothstein present a long-overdue combinationof the literatures of typical versus maximum performance with that of typical ver-sus maximal predictors of performance (Cronbach, 1960). ForsterLee focuses ondiverse motivational predictors that by far exceed the scope of those previously ex-amined, whereas Ones and Viswesvaran focus on motivational and knowledge re-lated predictors primarily of maximum performance. Finally, Witt and Spitzmüllerextend the current ability-versus-motivation paradigm by including social support

174 KLEHE, ANDERSON, VISWESVARAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

as a predictor and by considering the role of social support as a possible moderatorto the predictor–criterion relationship.

The remaining five articles presented in this special issue address questions thatare, in some way, conceptually new to the typical versus maximum performanceliterature. Smith-Jentsch analyzes the consequence of transparency in a maximumperformance situation and relations with specific typical performance predictors.Mesmer-Magnur and Viswesvaran present a meta-analysis that focuses on typicalversus maximum learning through goal orientation. Klehe, Anderson, andHoefnagels address the typical versus maximum performance paradigm from a so-cial inhibition perspective, and Mangos, Steele-Johnson, LaHuis, and White sug-gest a multiple-task measurement framework for assessing the impact and devel-opment of maximum versus typical performance across tasks and time. Finally,Barnes and Morgeson focus not only on typical versus maximum performance perse but also on performers’ variability of performance and possible consequencesthat this may have.

In these articles we found a number of commonalities and overarching themes.One is the notion of extending the typical–maximum performance distinction, ei-ther by including performance variability (Barnes & Morgeson) or by consideringsimultaneous and follow-up measurements of typical and maximum performance(Mangos et al.). Another binding theme is the attempt to grasp typical and maxi-mum performance with the help of different, theoretically grounded and empiri-cally proven concepts, such as goal orientation (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran)or social facilitation and inhibition (Klehe et al.). Although the fit between thesedifferent literatures might not be obvious at first, the use of related theories canhelp us to gain a deeper conceptual understanding of the processes underlying typ-ical and maximum performance, thus helping both theory building and the creationof coherent empirical research programs.

At the same time, results of some articles suggest that the traditional conceptionof maximum performance may need to be qualified. One such issue is the use ofassessment center ratings for measuring maximum performance (see Sackett andOnes & Viswesvaran). Smith-Jentsch’s findings that the transparency of the rateddimensions will determine whether typical or maximum performance is generatedis also reflected in the Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran’s findings that maximumperformance can be induced by focusing attention of the participants to rated orevaluated dimensions. Mangos et al. also reflect this idea that drawing attention orpriority to tasks will make participants switch to maximum performance, andKlehe et al. indicate processes by which even a traditional maximum performancesituation may lead to unintended effects upon performance. All these findingsseem to suggest that there are several paths to maximum performance and re-searchers need to learn more about the processes underlying these paths for trig-gering or hindering maximum performance.

Beside any empirical value of each of the findings presented, we hope that thestudies in this special issue will encourage research on typical and maximum per-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

formance to advance into new directions, to consider new paradigms, and to gener-ally become more diverse in both the questions asked and the approaches used foranswering them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REVIEWERS

To our delight, Paul Sackett, one of the instigators of this stream of literature,agreed to write an introductory commentary that reveals the story behind the typi-cal–maximum performance distinction, his own perspective on the theoreticalconception, empirical research in this area, further points for consideration, and di-rections for future research. We thank him sincerely for his responsiveness and thefast turnaround of revisions to meet our publication deadline.

In closing, we thank Human Performance and its lead editors James Farr andWally Borman for providing us with the opportunity and space to collect and com-bine a diverse set of approaches and foci on typical and maximum performance.Their continuous support was highly appreciated. Finally, our sincere thanks go tothe reviewers Phil Ackerman, Bob Eisenberger, Robert ForsterLee, Peter Heslin,Joyce Hogan, Martin Kleinmann, Corrnelius König, Phillip Mangos, BerndMarcus, Klaus Melchers, Denise Potosky, Phil Roth, Sonja Schinkel, KimSmith-Jentsch, Christiane Spitzmüller, Chad van Iddekinge, Daniel Whitman, andAlan Witt, who provided diligent and timely reviews of submissions that served toimprove manuscripts at different stages in the review process.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research:A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,147–173.

Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 49, 141–168.

Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Typical Performance, Maximal Performance, and Perfor-mance Variability: Expanding Our Understanding of How Organizations Value Performance. Hu-man Performance, 3, 259–274.

Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed., pp. 271–326).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Boudreau, J. W. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (2nded., pp. 621–745). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizationalpsychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Up-per Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

176 KLEHE, ANDERSON, VISWESVARAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Harper.DuBois, C. L. Z., Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1993). Further exploration of typical and maxi-

mum performance criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white–black differences. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 205–211.

ForsterLee, R. (2007). Personality, Interest, and Motivational Determinants of Maximal and TypicalPerformances on a Verbal Knowledge Task. Human Performance, 3, 287–292.

Guion, R. M. (1991). Personnel assessment, selection, and placement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed., pp. 327–397).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Janz, T. (1989). The patterned behavior description interview: The best prophet of the future is the past.In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp.158–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirk, A. K., & Brown, D. F. (2003). Latent constructs of proximal and distal motivation predicting per-formance under maximum test conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 40–49.

Klehe, U.-C., Anderson, N. R., & Hoefnagels, E. A. (2007). Social Facilitation and Inhibition DuringMaximum Versus Typical Performance Situations. Human Performance, 3, 223–237.

Klehe, U.-C., & Anderson, N. (in press). Working hard versus working smart: Motivation and abilityduring typical and maximum performance. A test of the underlying assumptions. Journal of AppliedPsychology.

Klehe, U.-C., & Anderson, N. (2005). The prediction of typical and maximum performance. InA. Evers, N. Anderson, & D. Smit-Voskuijl (Eds.), Handbook of personnel selection, (pp. 331–353).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Klehe, U.-C., & Latham, G. P. (2006). What would you do—really or ideally? Constructs underlyingthe behavior description interview and the situational interview in predicting typical versus maxi-mum performance. Human Performance, 19, 357–382.

Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the Five-Factor modeland team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,610–621.

Locke, E. A., Mento, A. J., & Katcher, B. L. (1978). The interaction of ability and motivation in perfor-mance: An exploration of the meaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 31, 269–280.

Mangos, P. M., Steele-Johnson, D., LaHuis, D., & White, E. D., III. (2007). A Multiple-Task Mea-surement Framework for Assessing Maximum–Typical Performance. Human Performance, 3,241–258.

Marcus, B., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein M. G. (2007). Personality and Cognitive Abil-ity as Predictors of Typical and Maximum Managerial Performance. Human Performance, 3,275–285.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). Inducing Maximal Versus Typical Learning Throughthe Provision of a Pretraining Goal Orientation. Human Performance, 3, 205–222.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). A Research Note on the Incremental Validity of Job Knowledgeand Integrity Tests for Predicting Maximal Performance. Human Performance, 3, 293–303.

Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximumperformance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54, 809–843.

Sackett, P. R. (2007). Revisiting the Origins of the Typical–Maximum Performance Distinction. Hu-man Performance, 3, 179–185.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizationalpsychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and maximum jobperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2007). The Impact of Making Targeted Dimensions Transparent on RelationsWith Typical Performance Predictors. Human Performance, 3, 187–203.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T. (2001). To transfer or not to transfer? Investigatingthe combined effects of trainee characteristics, team leader support, and team climate. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 86, 279–292.

Taylor, P. J., & Small, B. (2002). Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: Ameta-analytic comparison of situational and past behaviour employment interview questions. Jour-nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 277–294.

Witt, L. A., & Spitzmüller, C. (2007). Person–Situation Predictors of Maximum and Typical Perfor-mance. Human Performance, 3, 305–315.

178 KLEHE, ANDERSON, VISWESVARAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TC

U T

exas

Chr

istia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014