relationships of task performance and … · relationships of task performance and contextual...

RELATIONSHIPS OF TASK PERFORMANCEAND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE WITH

TURNOVER, JOB SATISFACTION, ANDAFFECTIVE COMMITMENT

James R. Van Scotter

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

The effects of task performance and contextual performance on

turnover, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment

were examined for two samples of Air Force mechanics. Supervisor

ratings of task performance and contextual performance were obtained

in 1992 (N = 419) for one sample and in 1993 for the second sample

(N = 991). In both samples, task performance and contextual

performance predicted turnover and job satisfaction in 1996. Task

performance predicted reenlistment eligibility and promotion eligibility

in the 1992 sample, but only reenlistment eligibility in the 1993

sample. Contextual performance only predicted promotion eligibility in

the 1992 sample, but predicted both outcomes in the 1993 sample.

Results support the distinction between task performance and con-

textual performance.

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT

It is becoming apparent that job performance is not a one-dimensional

construct. As interest grows in the type of helpful, cooperative, and innovative

job performance behavior that Borman and Motowidlo (1993) labeled as

``contextual performance,'' it becomes more important to understand its influ-

ence on organizational and individual outcomes. It would be especially valu-

able to learn whether or not contextual performance predicts different kinds of

outcomes than other dimensions of job performance.

It has been widely assumed that contextual performance and related

elements of performance such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB:

Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), prosocial organiza-

Direct all correspondence to: James R. Van Scotter, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University

of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA; E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management Review, Copyright # 2000

Volume 10, Number 1, 2000, pages 79±95 by Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN : 1053 ± 4822

tional behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and organizational spontaneity

(George & Brief, 1992) contribute to organizational effectiveness. Unfortu-

nately, this belief is based more on logical arguments than empirical evidence

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). Studies have focused on the

antecedents of contextual performance more than its outcomes.

Research showing its effects on supervisory ratings of employees' overall

effectiveness (e.g., Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,

1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) supports the value of contextual

performance in work settings. If contextual performance influences decisions

about employees' overall effectiveness, it also seems likely to influence super-

visors' decisions about whether or not an employee should be considered for a

promotion or rewarded in other ways. If contextual performance leads to

positive outcomes, it should also be associated with higher levels of job

satisfaction (Steers & Porter, 1983), organizational commitment (Mowday,

Porter, & Steers, 1982), and lower levels of turnover. Thus, research examining

the impact of contextual performance on a wider range of criteria may be of

practical and theoretical value (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Podsakoff &

MacKenzie, 1997).

As an initial effort, this study investigates the usefulness of contextual

performance and task performance as predictors of turnover, reenlistment

eligibility, promotion eligibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commit-

ment over time. Task performance and contextual performance ratings were

obtained in 1992 for one sample (N = 419) of Air Force mechanics and in 1993

for another sample (N = 991). Self-report measures and organizational criteria

were obtained in 1996.

BACKGROUND

A growing body of research has investigated various aspects of contextual

performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), OCB (Smith et al., 1983), prosocial

organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and organizational spon-

taneity (George & Brief, 1992). Although these constructs emerged from

different research streams with different traditions and objectives, they have

much in common. They all focus on job performance behaviors that are more

discretionary and interpersonally oriented than task performance, but are still

expected to meet important organizational needs. Contextual performance by

Borman and Motowidlo (1993) is the least restrictive of these constructs. It is

based on the characteristics of the behaviors, without reference to role

expectations, the actor's intentions, or the expected beneficiaries. For conve-

nience, I will refer to all of them, generically, as contextual performance

throughout the rest of this article.

Recent studies (e.g., Borman et al., 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994;

Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) support the distinction between task perfor-

mance and contextual performance made by Borman and Motowidlo (1993).

When employees use technical skills and knowledge to produce goods or

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 10, NUMBER 1, 200080

services through the organization's core technical processes, or when they

accomplish specialized tasks that support these core functions, they are

engaging in task performance. When employees voluntarily help coworkers

who are getting behind, act in ways that maintain good working relationships,

or put in extra effort to complete an assignment on time, they are engaging in

contextual performance.

It has been suggested that contextual performance benefits organizations in

several ways. Contextual performance behaviors involving persistence, effort,

compliance, and self-discipline are expected to increase the effectiveness of

individual workers and managers (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997;

Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Helpful, considerate, and cooperative beha-

viors are expected to increase work group effectiveness and improve organiza-

tional coordination and control by reducing friction among organizational

members and promoting a social and psychological context that facilitates

task performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Smith et al., 1983). Innovative

and voluntary behaviors enhance an organization's ability to solve unantici-

pated problems and adapt to change. In the aggregate, these behaviors are

expected to improve organizational efficiency by freeing up resources that

would otherwise be needed to handle disciplinary problems, solve communica-

tion difficulties, resolve conflicting demands, or provide closer monitoring of

employee performance (Motowidlo et al., 1997). It is not difficult to make the

case that employees who follow instructions, display initiative, persist on

difficult tasks, cooperate with others effectively, or voluntarily act on the

organization's behalf contribute more to the organization than employees who

do not.

While a single act of contextual performance is not likely to earn anyone a

pay raise or a promotion, over time and situations, employees' contextual

performance should influence supervisors' decisions about their contribution to

the organization and potential for advancement. Bateman and Organ (1983)

suggested that contextual performance might show an employee's willingness

to help the organization. Voluntary behaviors may also be used to demonstrate

skills and abilities that are required for advancement, but are not needed in

the employee's present job.

Personnel Selection

There is already considerable evidence that, for at least some jobs, con-

textual performance may be a valuable addition to the job performance criteria

used in personnel selection (Borman et al., 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,

1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). These studies have focused on indivi-

dual differences (Motowidlo et al., 1997) that predict the extent to which

employees engage in these behaviors. Results support the distinction between

contextual performance and task performance made by Borman and Motowidlo

(1993). The evidence shows that supervisors weigh task performance and

contextual performance about equally when judging employees' overall perfor-

mance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).

OUTCOMES OF CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE 81

Turnover

Employee turnover is an especially important outcome for many organiza-

tions, yet few studies have examined the impact of contextual performance on

turnover. The nature of contextual performance suggests one very basic link

between contextual performance and turnover. Contextual performance is a

form of discretionary behavior that demonstrates an employee's willingness to

participate in the organization and interact with other members. In contrast,

turnover is described as the culmination of a series of withdrawal behaviors.

Although other factors certainly influence participation or turnover, higher

levels of participation seem likely to be associated with lower levels of turnover

and lower levels of participation seem likely to be associated with higher levels

of turnover.

Organizations also need to ensure that effective performers are rewarded

and encouraged to stay. Ineffective performers must be informed that their

substandard performance must be improved or they will risk administrative

action or involuntary termination (Kerr, 1975; Steers & Porter, 1983). Moto-

widlo et al. (1997) suggested that employees learn which types of behaviors are

rewarded by supervisors and adapt their behavior in ways that are positively

reinforced. Thus, an employee's contextual performance can be expected to

influence the favorability of the feedback an employee receives concerning

opportunities for advancement and continued membership in the organiza-

tion, in the same way feedback about the value of task performance does.

After receiving feedback, employees may decide to modify their performance

or begin searching for another job.

The costs or benefits of turnover depend on who leaves and who stays

(Mobley, 1982). The meta-analysis of 24 studies (total N = 7,717) by McEvoy

and Cascio (1987) reported a mean correlation of r = ÿ0.28 between perfor-

mance and turnover, suggesting that better performers are less likely to leave.

Unfortunately, they did not distinguish between task performance and con-

textual performance. Turnover is considered to be functional when poorer

performers leave. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) suggest the type of helping

behaviors included in contextual performance might tend to decrease dysfunc-

tional turnover, by helping to maintain a more pleasant and cohesive work

environment. This is the type of turnover that occurs when better performers

leave, presumably, to obtain better pay, opportunities for advancement, or

working conditions.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has stimulated a great deal of research interest, partly

because it is viewed as important in its own right and partly because of its

association with other important outcomes. In a recent meta-analysis, Organ

and Ryan (1995) found an average corrected correlation of r = .28 (N = 2,845)

between job satisfaction and behaviors much like those that comprise con-

textual performance. Like Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984), they did not


have enough evidence to determine the direction of the relationship. With a

few exceptions, research in this area has been cross-sectional in nature,

making it difficult to establish the direction of relationships.

Steers and Porter (1983) suggested that performance leads to rewards and

rewards lead to satisfaction. In their view, employees are satisfied when they

receive outcomes that are valued and when they feel they have been treated

fairly. However, they also acknowledged that employees might find some tasks

rewarding or enjoyable by themselves. Many of the interpersonal aspects of

contextual performance, especially those that involve expressing oneself seem

likely to fit in this category.

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) suggested contextual performance in-

creases employees' job satisfaction by making the work context more pleasant

and supportive. This is consistent with the description by Borman and

Motowidlo (1993) of contextual performance as a category of behavior that is

valuable to organizations because it helps support and maintain the psycho-

logical and social context in which task activities are performed. Both

approaches agree that employees with more effective contextual performance

are likely to be more satisfied with their jobs.

Organizational Commitment

Employees with high levels of organizational commitment are more

work-oriented than other employees. They get more satisfaction from work

and view their jobs as fulfilling more of their personal needs. As a result, they

are willing to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization (Mowday

et al., 1982). Research (e.g., Williams & Hazer, 1986) supports the view that job

satisfaction is an antecedent of affective organizational commitment.

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) suggested that by helping to create a

more attractive work environment, contextual performance might increase

employee commitment and improve retention. The model by Steers and

Porter (1983) also suggests that as organizational commitment leads to more

effective contextual performance, the employee would receive proportionally

higher levels of rewards, which would lead to increased satisfaction and

higher commitment.

Summary

Employees who are more helpful, cooperative, and team-oriented are

more likely to be judged effective employees. They are also more likely to

receive positive supervisory feedback concerning their chances of advancing

to the next level of the organization and more likely to be encouraged to

remain with the organization. As a result, they are expected to be more

satisfied with their jobs, more highly committed to the organization, and

less likely to leave it.

Finding that contextual performance explains variance in eligibility for

promotion, eligibility to reenlist, actual turnover, or employees' affective


reactions to their jobs and organizations beyond what is explained by task

performance would provide additional evidence of its value.

METHOD

Samples

Two samples were available for this study. Members of the first sample

were enlisted Air Force mechanics (N = 419) who participated in the 1992

study (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). The second sample was comprised of a

similar group of mechanics (N = 991) who participated in the 1993 study (Van

Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Both groups were predominately white (85%),

males (95%), and included Blacks (12%), Hispanics (2%), and persons of Asian

descent (1%). When the studies were conducted about 50 percent of the

participants had under 5 years service, 32 percent had 5±10 years of experi-

ence and the rest had over 10 years of service.

Procedures

In the 1992 study, each mechanic's task performance and contextual perfor-

mance was rated by one of two supervisors. To eliminate same-source bias, each

supervisor rated one and only one dimension. Only one of the raters was the

formally designated supervisor, but it was required that each rater: (a) had

observed the mechanic for at least 90 days, (b) had supervisory authority over

the mechanic, and (c) was qualified in all aspects of the job. (For convenience, all

raters are referred to as supervisors throughout the remainder of the article.)

Supervisors were briefed on the study's purpose and rating procedures

in group meetings. Most rated their subordinates at that time. Ratings

were completed independently. Supervisors who could not attend a meeting

were contacted in person and asked to participate. The same procedures were

used in the 1993 study to obtain supervisors' ratings of their subordinates'

task performance and two separate dimensions of contextual performance.

Performance Feedback

Supervisors were required to counsel mechanics who were determined to be

ineligible for promotion or ineligible for reenlistment. At this time, they were

required to sign a personnel form acknowledging that they were aware of the

administrative action. This was separate from the regular performance feed-

back sessions conducted by their supervisors.

Follow-Up Survey

Job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment were measured

with a follow-up survey. It was administered by maintenance training officials


at each participant's location in the Summer of 1996. The response rate was

68.6 percent, yielding 528 useable responses.

Predictors of Employee Outcomes

Task Performance. For the 1992 sample, task performance was measured by

14 items adapted from critical incident dimensions developed for the Army's

Project A (Campbell, 1987), supplemented with information from Air Force

task analyses: ``In comparison to others in this AFSC (Air Force Specialty

Code), how effective is this person in: (a) inspecting, testing, and detecting

problems with equipment; (b) trouble-shooting; (c) performing routine main-

tenance; (d) repairing; (e) using tools and test equipment; (f) using technical

documentation; (g) operating equipment; (h) planning and organizing work;

(i) performing administrative duties; (j) working safely; (k) cleaning shop

facilities; (l) inventorying tools; (m) cleaning and lubricating equipment

components; (n) overall technical performance.'' Supervisors used a five-

point scale ranging from 1 = much below average to 5 = much above

average to rate their subordinates' performance on each item. The mean

of the 14 items formed the task performance score (� = 0.95, N = 169). To

preserve sample size, this mean was computed for all cases with ratings on

at least 10 items.

Before conducting the main portion of the 1993 study, factor analysis was

used to identify a set of six homogenous items that measured task performance

efficiently. This analysis was accomplished using ratings for an independent

set of mechanics. The revised measure consisted of items a, c, d, e, g, and n

above. The task performance score was computed as the mean of these six

ratings. To preserve sample size, this mean was computed for all cases with

ratings on at least five items. In the current sample, � = 0.94 (N = 776). The

single-rater intraclass correlation for this measure was 0.50 in an independent

sample of 192 mechanics that were rated by two supervisors (Van Scotter &

Motowidlo, 1996).

Contextual Performance. In the 1992 study, contextual performance was

measured by 16 items developed to tap the construct described by Borman

and Motowidlo (1993): ``While performing his or her job, how likely is it

that this person would: (a) comply with instructions even when supervisors

are not present; (b) cooperate with others in the team; (c) persist in

overcoming obstacles to complete a task; (d) display proper military appear-

ance and bearing; (e) volunteer for additional duty; (f ) follow proper

procedures and avoid unauthorized shortcuts; (g) look for a challenging

assignment; (h) offer to help others accomplish their work; (i) pay close

attention to important details; (j) defend the supervisor's decisions; (k)

render proper military courtesy; (l) support and encourage a coworker with

a problem; (m) take the initiative to solve a work problem; (n) exercise

personal discipline and self-control; (o) tackle a difficult work assignment

enthusiastically; (p) voluntarily do more than the job requires to help others


or contribute to unit effectiveness.'' Supervisors rated participants on a five-

point scale ranging from 1 = not at all likely to 5 = extremely likely

(Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). The mean of the item scores formed the

contextual performance score (� = 0.95, N = 298) for cases rated on at least

11 items.

Job Dedication. In the 1993 study, two dimensions of contextual perfor-

mance were rated by separate supervisors. Items measuring job dedication

illustrated effort, initiative, persistence, and self-discipline. Factor analyses

of 13 items, using a separate sample, identified eight unidimensional

items. They ask supervisors to rate mechanics on a five-point scale

according to how likely they are to: (a) put in extra hours to get work

done on time, (b) pay close attention to important details, (c) work harder

than necessary, (d) ask for a challenging work assignment, (e) exercise

personal discipline and self-control, (f) take the initiative to solve a work

problem, (g) persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task, and (h)

tackle a difficult work assignment enthusiastically. The job dedication score

was computed as the mean of these items for cases with responses on at

least six items. Six of the items (b, d, e, f, g, and h above) were taken

from the 1992 measure of contextual performance. The single-rater intra-

class correlation was 0.69 in an independent sample of 168 mechanics that

were rated by two supervisors (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). In the

present study, � = 0.94 (N = 862).

The second dimension of contextual performance was interpersonal facil-

itation. It includes helpful, considerate, and cooperative behaviors that facil-

itate other workers' performance. Factor analysis of 13 items, using data from

an independent sample, identified seven unidimensional items. They ask

supervisors to rate mechanics on a five-point scale according to how likely

they are to: (a) praise coworkers when they are successful, (b) support or

encourage a coworker with a personal problem, (c) talk to others before taking

actions that might affect them, (d) say things to make people feel good about

themselves or the work group, (e) encourage others to overcome their

differences and get along, (f ) treat others fairly, and (g) help someone without

being asked. The interpersonal facilitation score was the mean of these

ratings for cases with responses to at least six of the items. The single-rater

intraclass correlation was 0.41 in an independent sample of 147 mechanics

that were rated by two supervisors (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). In the

present study, � = 0.89 (N = 862).

Experience. For the 1992 sample, job experience was measured via a self-

report item. It was a grouped measure that was coded 1 for 140 persons with

1±2 years of experience in the Air Force, 2 for 58 persons with 3±4 years of

experience, 3 for 108 persons with 5±8 years of experience, 4 for 64 persons

with 9±12 years of experience, 5 for 32 persons with 13±16 years of experi-

ence, and 6 for 14 persons with 17±20 years of experience. For the 1993

sample, personnel records indicating the number of months the mechanics

had been on active duty were used as the experience measure.


Employee Outcomes

Turnover. Turnover was operationalized as a dichotomous variable signifying

whether or not the subject was a member of the organization at the end of

1995. It was coded 0 for mechanics who had left the Air Force and 1 for those

who stayed.

Eligibility for Reenlistment. Eligibility for reenlistment was a dichotomous

variable obtained from organizational records indicating whether or not an

individual was or was not eligible to reenlist. Mechanics who had disciplinary

problems, could not adapt to the Air Force, or were determined to be unfit for

continued service for other reasons were not allowed to reenlist. This measure

was coded 0 for mechanics who were not eligible to reenlist and 1 for those who

were eligible.

Eligibility for Promotion. Eligibility for promotion was a dichotomous variable

obtained from organizational records indicating whether or not an individual

could be considered for promotion. Mechanics who had failed to complete a job

knowledge test required for promotion, were involved in disciplinary actions,

or were deemed to be unfit for a higher grade were ineligible for promotion.

This measure was coded 0 for mechanics who were not eligible and 1 for those

who were eligible for promotion. In most cases, a mechanic's eligibility for

promotion could be restored if his or her performance improved.

Job Satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured by asking partici-

pants how strongly they agreed or disagreed with five statements: ``Overall, I

am happy to be in the Air Force; I am very pleased with the kind of work I

do in the Air Force; I work in some very nice places; The people I work with

are very pleasant; and, I am dissatisfied with the work I do in the Air Force

(Reversed).'' They used a five-point response scale anchored with 1 = strongly

disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral; 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree and

� = 0.64 (N = 333).

Affective Organizational Commitment. Affective organizational commitment

was measured with three items based on the instrument of Mowday et al.

(1982). The mechanics were asked the strength of their agreement that:

``The Air Force is the finest organization I have ever worked with; I would

not recommend an Air Force career to my friends or relatives (Reversed); I

take pride in being a part of the Air Force.'' Responses were on the same

five-point disagree±agree scale used for job satisfaction. For this sample,

� = 0.72 (N = 336).

Analysis

Separate analyses were performed for subjects in the 1992 sample and

subjects in the 1993 sample. Correlation and regression were used to estimate

the relationships between performance, promotion eligibility, reenlistment

eligibility, turnover, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.


TA

BL

E1

Inte

rcorr

ela

tions

am

ong

Variable

sfo

rth

e1992

Sam

ple

Variable

12

34

56

78

NM

SD

1.

Task

perf

orm

ance

(0.9

5)

305

3.4

90.6

9

2.

Conte

xtu

al

perf

orm

ance

0.2

5**

(0.9

5)

310

3.8

00.7

3

3.

Experience

0.4

0**

0.1

4**

(1.0

)415

2.6

11.4

64.

Turn

over

ÿ0.1

8**

ÿ0.1

2*

0.0

6(1

.0)

419

0.2

50.4

35.

Pro

motio

nelig

ibili

ty0.1

5*

0.1

1*

0.0

9*

ÿ0.2

0**

(1.0

)419

0.9

30.2

5

6.

Reenlis

tment

elig

ibili

ty0.1

6**

0.0

80.0

7ÿ0

.38**

0.4

8**

(1.0

)355

0.9

30.2

5

7.

Job

satis

factio

n0.2

7**

0.1

8*

0.4

4**

aÿ0

.01

0.0

4(0

.64)

128

17.8

43.3

8

8.

Affectiv

ecom

mitm

ent

0.0

80.2

4**

0.1

0a

ÿ0.0

8ÿ0

.10

0.6

4**

(0.7

2)

128

10.4

32.4

5

Note

s:

*p<

.05

(one-t

aile

d).

**p

<.0

1.

aT

here

were

no

cases

with

both

of

these

variable

s.

N=

95±128

for

corr

ela

tions

involv

ing

job

satis

factio

nor

aff

ectiv

ecom

mitm

ent.

N=

232±

419

for

inte

rcorr

ela

tions

am

ong

all

oth

er

variable

s.

The�

sare

on

the

dia

gonal.

Relia

bili

ties

for

sin

gle

-ite

mm

easure

sestim

ate

dat

1.0

.


TA

BL

E2

Inte

rcorr

ela

tions

am

ong

Variable

sfo

rth

e1993

Sam

ple

Variable

12

34

56

78

9N

MS

D

1.

Task

perf

orm

ance

(0.9

4)

909

3.5

80.7

9

2.

Inte

rpers

onal

facili

tatio

n0.3

6**

(0.8

9)

925

3.5

20.8

0

3.

Job

dedic

atio

n0.4

8**

0.3

6**

(0.9

4)

910

3.6

20.9

0

4.

Experience

0.3

5**

0.1

4**

0.2

3**

(1.0

)991

71.4

349.7

95.

Turn

over

ÿ0.1

3**

ÿ0.1

1**

ÿ0.1

4**

0.0

1(1

.0)

991

2.0

30.4

06.

Pro

motio

nelig

ibili

ty0.0

50.1

0**

0.1

2**

0.0

9**

ÿ0.2

1**

(1.0

)991

0.9

30.2

5

7.

Reenlis

tment

elig

ibili

ty0.1

6**

0.1

4**

0.1

8**

0.0

8**

ÿ0.3

2**

0.3

9**

(1.0

)861

0.9

00.2

9

8.

Job

satis

factio

n0.1

1*

0.2

2**

0.1

4**

0.2

8**

a0.0

10.0

2(0

.64)

333

16.9

23.4

2

9.

Affectiv

ecom

mitm

ent

ÿ0.0

20.1

4**

0.0

8ÿ0

.04

aÿ0

.04

ÿ0.1

0*

0.5

2**

(0.7

2)

336

10.3

32.3

4

Note

s:

*p<

.05

(one-t

aile

d).

**p

<.0

1.

aT

here

were

no

cases

with

both

of

these

variable

s.

N=

304±336

for

corr

ela

tions

involv

ing

job

satis

factio

nor

aff

ectiv

ecom

mitm

ent,

and

N=

725±991

for

inte

rcorr

ela

tions

am

ong

all

oth

er

variable

s.

The�

sare

on

the

dia

gonal.

Relia

bili

ties

for

sin

gle

-ite

mm

easure

sestim

ate

dat

1.0

.


To control for differences in mechanics' experience levels in the regression

analysis, the experience variable was entered into the regression equation

first, before any of the other independent variables. Either task or contextual

performance was entered on the second step and the other one was entered on

the third step. For the 1993 sample, the two facets of contextual performance,

interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication, were entered as a set (Cohen &

Cohen, 1983). Next, the correlations were adjusted for attenuation caused by

measurement error (cf. Guilford, 1965) and the regression analyses were re-

accomplished. This helped ensure that the effects of measurement error did

not affect the conclusions.

RESULTS

The zero-order correlations for the 1992 sample are shown in Table 1. Both

dimensions predicted mechanics' eligibility for promotion. Task performance

and contextual performance in 1992 each predicted the level of job satisfaction

reported by those who were still on active duty in 1996, but only contextual

performance significantly predicted their organizational commitment (r = .24,

p < .01). Task performance (r = ÿ.18, p < .01) and contextual performance

(r = ÿ.12, p < .05) each predicted turnover.

Intercorrelations for the 1993 sample are shown in Table 2. Interper-

sonal facilitation (r = .10, p < .01) and job dedication (r = .12, p < .01)

predicted eligibility for promotion, but task performance did not. All three

TABLE 3Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Showing Incremental Effects of Task Performance and

Contextual Performance in the 1992 Sample

Dependentvariable

Step 1 �R2 Step 2 �R2 Step 3 �R2

Promotioneligibility(N = 229)

Exp 0.03** CP 0.01 TP 0.01Exp 0.03** TP 0.01 CP 0.01

Reenlistmenteligibility(N = 229)

Exp 0.00 CP 0.00 TP 0.02*Exp 0.00 TP 0.03* CP 0.00

Turnover(N = 229)

Exp 0.00 CP 0.02 TP 0.04**Exp 0.00 TP 0.05** CP 0.01

Job satisfaction(N = 86)

Exp 0.18* CP 0.04* TP 0.01Exp 0.18* TP 0.02 CP 0.03*

Affective Exp 0.01 CP 0.07* TP 0.00commitment(N = 87)

Exp 0.01 TP 0.01 CP 0.06*

Notes: *p < .05.**p < .01.Exp = experience, CP = contextual performance, and TP = task performance.


performance variables significantly predicted turnover (r = .13) and

reenlistment eligibility (r = .16). Table 2 also shows that task perfor-

mance (r = .11, p < .05), interpersonal facilitation (r = .22, p < .01), and

job dedication (r = .14, p < .01) each predicted the level of job satisfaction

reported by those who were still on active duty in 1996, but only

interpersonal facilitation significantly predicted their organizational com-

mitment (r = .14, p < .01).

Hierarchical regression results for the 1992 sample (Table 3) show task

performance predicted reenlistment eligibility, but contextual performance did

not. Table 3 shows that contextual performance explained separate variance in

self-reported job satisfaction (�R2 = .03, p < .05) and affective organizational

commitment in 1996 (�R2 = .03, p < .05), but task performance did not.

Results for the 1993 sample (Table 4) show that contextual performance

explained a small but significant amount of additional variance in turnover

(�R2 = .01, p < .05) after controlling for the effects of task performance, but

task performance did not account for variance in turnover over and above what

was explained by contextual performance. Thus, the analyses with turnover as

the criterion produced results that were opposite those found for the 1992

sample. As with the 1992 sample, contextual performance accounted for

unique variance in affective commitment (�R2 = .03, p < .01) and job satisfac-

tion (�R2 = .03, p < .01) beyond the effects of task performance, but task

performance failed to account for a significant amount of variance beyond what

was explained by contextual performance.

TABLE 4Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Showing Incremental Effects of Task Performance and

Contextual Performance in the 1993 Sample

Dependentvariable

Step 1 �R2 Step 2 �R2 Step 3 �R2

Promotioneligibility(N = 812)

Exp 0.01** IF, JD 0.01** TP 0.00Exp 0.01** TP 0.00 IF, JD 0.01**

Reenlistmenteligibility(N = 709)

Exp 0.01* IF, JD 0.03** TP 0.00Exp 0.01* TP 0.01* IF, JD 0.02**

Turnover(N = 812)

Exp 0.00 IF, JD 0.03** TP 0.00Exp 0.00 TP 0.02** IF, JD 0.01*

Job satisfaction(N = 270)

Exp 0.07* IF, JD 0.03* TP 0.00Exp 0.07* TP 0.00 IF, JD 0.03*

Affective Exp 0.00 IF, JD 0.02* TP 0.00commitment(N = 271)

Exp 0.00 TP 0.00 IF, JD 0.03*

Notes: *p < .05.**p < .01.Exp = experience, IF = interpersonal facilitation, JD = job dedication, and TP = taskperformance.


Table 5 shows that mechanics from the 1992 sample who stayed in the Air

Force had significantly higher task performance (F = 10.61, df = 1,303, p < .01)

and contextual performance ratings (F = 4.23, df = 1,308, p < .05) than those

who left the Air Force.

Results for the 1993 sample were consistent with those reported above.

Mechanics who stayed with the organization were rated significantly higher in

interpersonal facilitation (F = 12.24, df = 1,923, p < .01), job dedication (F =

18.45, df = 1,908, p < .01), and task performance (F = 14.56, df = 1,907, p < .01)

than those who left.

Two more sets of regression analyses were conducted to gauge the effects of

measurement error on the results. The results of hierarchical regression

analyses for the 1992 and 1993 samples after adjusting the correlations for

attenuation differed very little from the results shown in Tables 3 and 4. None

of the results gave any reason to suspect that measurement error affected the

study's conclusions. To save space, the results of these regressions are not

shown here.

TABLE 5Results of ANOVAs Comparing the Contextual Performance and Task Performance of

Leavers and Stayers for the 1992 Sample

Variable M SD N F for test of means

Contextual performanceStayers 3.85 0.74 234 4.23*Leavers 3.65 0.68 76

Task performanceStayers 3.56 0.70 232 10.61**Leavers 3.26 0.61 73

Notes: *p < .05.**p < .01.

TABLE 6Results of ANOVAs Comparing the Interpersonal Facilitation, Job Dedication, and Task

Performance of Leavers and Stayers for the 1993 Sample

Variable M SD N F for test of means

Interpersonal facilitationStayers 3.56 0.77 735 12.24**Leavers 3.37 0.88 190

Job dedicationStayers 3.69 0.87 725 18.45**Leavers 3.37 0.97 185

Task performanceStayers 3.63 0.78 727 14.56**Leavers 3.38 0.81 182

Note: **p < .01.


DISCUSSION

The results leave little doubt that contextual performance is related to

important organizational criteria. In the 1993 sample, contextual perfor-

mance explained a significant amount of incremental variance in promotion

eligibility, reenlistment eligibility, and actual turnover, over and above the

variance that task performance explained in those outcome variables.

Across two samples, and several years, results consistently showed that

task performance and contextual performance ratings for employees who

remained with the organization were higher than the ratings for those

who left (see Tables 5 and 6). Thus, the turnover that occurred between

1992 and 1995 in the first sample, or between 1993 and 1995 in the

second sample appears to have been functional for the organization

(Mobley, 1982). These results are compatible with the meta-analysis of

McEvoy and Cascio (1987) showing a negative correlation between perfor-

mance and turnover.

The relationships between task performance, contextual performance,

and job satisfaction and organizational commitment were very consistent

across the two samples. Employees whose contextual performance was

higher also reported being more satisfied with their jobs and more

committed to the organization (Tables 1 and 2). Hierarchical regression

analyses (Tables 3 and 4) showed that contextual performance explained

additional variance in job satisfaction or organizational commitment,

over what was explained by task performance, but task performance

did not explain significant incremental variance in either of these

dependent variables.

The inconsistent results for hierarchical regressions predicting turnover

and reenlistment eligibility in the 1992 and 1993 samples (Tables 3 and 4)

were a surprise. In retrospect, they may not be too hard to explain. The

performance measures used in the 1993 study differed from those in the

1993 study. Correlational results for the 1993 study (Table 2) suggest that

refining them was generally useful.

Although comparing the incremental variance accounted for by a single

variable (task performance) with that accounted for by a set of variables

(interpersonal facilitation and job dedication) is theoretically meaningful

(Cohen & Cohen, 1983), comparing results for different measures across

studies may not be. The time lag between obtaining supervisory ratings

and criterion data also differed in the two samples. Given these differences,

the amount of consistency in the results for these two samples is impress-

ive. It is hard to conclude that contextual performance is not related to

important outcomes.

Even if contextual performance has not been formally incorporated in job

performance criteria, the results show that supervisors, recognize it, value it,

and reward it. Finding that task and contextual performance predict differ-

ent outcomes supports the distinction Borman and Motowidlo (1993) made

between task performance and contextual performance.


REFERENCES

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relation-

ship between affect and employee ``citizenship.'' Academy of Management Journal, 26,

587±595.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel

selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task and contextual performance: The meaning for

personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99±109.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and

interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 168±177.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 11, 710±725.

Campbell, J. P. (1987). Improving the selection, classification, and utilization of Army

enlisted personnel: Annual report, 1985 fiscal year. ARI Technical Report 746.

Arlington, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the

behavioral sciences, (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good±doing good: A conceptual analysis of the

mood at work±organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,

112, 310±329.

Guilford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education, (4th edn.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management

Journal, 18, 769±783.

McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1987). Do good or poor performers leave? A meta-analysis of

the relationship between performance and turnover. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 30, 744±762.

Mobley, W. H. (1982). Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research.

Academy of Management Review, 7, 111±116.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, 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 contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,

475±480.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee±organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.

Human Performance, 10, 85±97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and disposi-

tional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48,

775±800.

Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships

between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 9, 712±721.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on

organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human

Performance, 10, 133±151.


Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 453±463.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1983). Motivation and work behavior, (3rd edn.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedica-

tion as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81, 525±531.

Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and

commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural

equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219±231.


relationships of task performance and … · relationships of task performance and contextual...

Documents