Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A latent profile analysis of job performance types based on task performance, contextual performance and counterproductive work behavior

과업수행, 맥락수행, 반생산적 업무행동 기반의 직무수행 유형 분석: 잠재프로파일분석을 중심으로

  • Yoo, Young-Sam (Division of Industrial Psychology, Hoseo University) ;
  • Kim, Myoung-So (Division of Industrial Psychology, Hoseo University) ;
  • Noh, So-Yeon (Division of Industrial Psychology, Hoseo University)
  • 유영삼 (호서대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 김명소 (호서대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 노소연 (호서대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2020.01.07
  • Accepted : 2020.04.03
  • Published : 2020.04.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since Campbell (1990) proposed multidimensionality of job performance, unlike the single structure of traditional job performance, it has been largely classified as task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behavior. The objective of this study is to validate the threecriteria currently considered major aspects of job performance, to identify different types of performance based on three dimensions, and to compare the power of personality factors among performance types. A total of 681 employees working at various organizations participated in an on-line survey. The survey included boththe exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. A 3-factor job performance model consisting of three dimensions was also included. The relationships between performance dimensions and personality factors differedby dimensions of performance, supporting the validity of the 3-factor structure of performance.The results of the Latent Profile Analysis identified four types of performance: exemplary, moderately conscientious moderate, and conscientious, butlow.. The Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed each type differed significantly according to the predictors of personality variables. In conclusion, implications and limitations of the study were noted.

Campbell(1990)이 수행의 다차원성을 제안한 이후 전통적 직무수행의 단일구조와는 달리 크게 과업수행, 맥락수행, 반생산적 업무행동으로 분류되어 왔다. 이에 본 연구의 목적은 (1) 지금까지 직무수행의 다양한 측면으로 제시된 과업수행, 맥락수행, 반생산적 업무행동으로 구성된 수행의 요인구조를 확인하고, (2) 이들 3요인을 기반으로 수행 유형을 도출한 후 (3) 수형 유형별 성격 변인들의 예측력을 비교하는 것이다. 이를 위해 국내 직장인 681명을 대상으로 자기보고식 온라인 설문조사를 실시하였다. 탐색적 및 확인적 요인분석 결과, 과업수행, 맥락수행, CWB로 이루어진 3요인 직무수행 모델이 확인되었다. 성격 변인과의 관련성도 각 수행 차원별로 구분되는 결과가 나타나 3요인 구조의 타당성이 입증되었다. 또한, 위 3요인을 기반으로 잠재프로파일 분석(Latent Profile Analysis, LPA)을 실시하여 4개 수행 유형을 도출하였다(즉, 모범적 수행자, 양심적 중간수행자, 반생산적 중간수행자, 양심적 저수행자). 다항 로지스틱 회귀분석 결과, 이들 4개 유형별로 각기 다른 성격 변인이 선행변인으로 작용하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 위 연구 결과를 토대로 본 연구의 시사점과 제한점에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Murphy, P. R & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing Work-Role Performance: Challenges for 21st Century Organizations and Employees. In D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos(eds.). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. c1999. pp.325-365 ISBN: 978-0-787-94625-8
  2. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 35-69, ISBN-10: 1555424759
  3. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P.(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68:653-663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
  4. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 71-98, ISBN-10: 1555424759
  5. Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), pp. 47-74. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427
  6. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Counterproductive work behaviors: Concepts, measurement, and nomological network. APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology, Vol. 1: Test Theory and Testing and Assessment in Industrial and Organizational Psychology., pp. 643-659. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/14047-035
  7. Brogden, H. E., & Taylor, E. K. (1950). The Dollar Criterion? Applying the Cost Accounting Concept to Criterion Construction. Personnel Psychology, 3(2), pp. 133-154. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1950.tb01691.x
  8. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 67-69. ISBN-10: 0136090958
  9. Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes. Journal of Management, 39(4), 958- 984. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407508
  10. Bergman, M. E., Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., Overton, R. C., & Henning, J. B. (2008). Test of Motowidlo et al.'s (1997) theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 21(3), 227-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280802137606
  11. Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 823-854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01484.x
  12. Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2017). Variable-Centered, Person-Centered, and Person-Specific Approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846-876. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021
  13. Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0037408
  14. Cortina, J. M., & Luchman, J. N. (2012). Personnel Selection and Employee Performance. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212007
  15. Campbell, J. P. (2012). Behavior, performance, and effectiveness in the twenty-first century. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 159-194. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0006
  16. Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 570-581. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.570
  17. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 99-109. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
  18. Carpenter, N. C., & Arthur, W. Jr. (2013). The conceptual versus empirical distinctiveness of work performance constructs: The impact of work performance items. In D. Svyantek & K. Mahoney (Eds.), Received Wisdom, Kernels of Truth, and Boundary Conditions in Organizational Studies. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC. pp. 201-238 ISBN-13: 9781623961893
  19. Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. & Spychala, A. (2008). Job performance. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior: Volume I - micro approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 427-448. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448.n24
  20. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee "Citizenship". Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/255908
  21. Currall, S. C., & Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(2), 331. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/2393071
  22. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
  23. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theroetical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
  24. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the Underlying Structure of the Citizenship Performance Domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(99)00037-6
  25. Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 965-973. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.96
  26. Motowidlo, S. J., & Kell, H. J. (2012). Job Performance. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. pp. 82-130. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212005
  27. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., de Vet, H., & van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Construct validity of the individual work performance questionnaire. PsycEXTRA Dataset. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113
  28. Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R. F. Dillon & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Praeger Publishers. pp. 218-247. ISBN-10: 0275927598
  29. Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic Work Behavior: An Investigation Into The Dimensions Of Entry-Level, Hourly Job Performance. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 51-83. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01791.x
  30. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
  31. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Goff, S. (1988). Joint relation of experience and ability with job performance: Test of three hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 46-57. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.46
  32. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
  33. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581
  34. Lee, Michael C. Ashton, The H Factor of Personality Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive-And Why It Matters for Everyone, Munyea, 2013, pp. 50-52, ISBN: 9788931007442
  35. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 945-959. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013329
  36. Yoo T Y. (2007). The Relationship between HEXACO Personality Factors and a Variety of Performance in Work Organization. The Korean Psychological Association: Industrial & organizational, 20(3), 283-314. DOI: http://doi.org/10.24230/ksiop.20.3.200708.283
  37. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
  38. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2013). Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus. Higher Education Press, N.J: Wiley. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118356258
  39. Kim D Y, Yoo T Y. (2002). The relationships between the Big Five personality factors and contextual performance in work organizations, The Korean Psychological Association: Industrial & organizational, 15(2), 1-24, pp. 1-24, 2002, UCI: http://uci.or.kr/G704-000280.2002.15.2.005
  40. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
  41. Yoo T Y, Lee K B, Michael C. A. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. The Korean Psychological Association: Social & personality, 18(3), 61-75. UCI: http://uci.or.kr/G704-000424.2004.18.3.003
  42. Hong S H, Binary and multinomial logistic regression, p.141, Education & Science, 2005, pp.117-139, ISBN: 8982874186
  43. Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.882697
  44. Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01138.x