A Study on the Exploration of the Constructs of Job PerformanceBased on Task Performance, Contextual Performance,Adaptive Performance and Counterproductive Work Behavior

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to (1) propose and validate the integrative job performance model composed of task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB), which have been identified as major dimensions of job performance in existing research, (2) explore the possibility of G factor in the 4 dimensions based on the integrative model, and (3) compare differences in the antecedents of personality variables and criteria of job effectiveness to confirm independence among performance dimensions. A total of 649 employees from various organizations participated in two online surveys. The main results were as follows. First, the factor structures of individual performance dimensions were examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis before verifying the integrated model. A single factor structure for task performance and two-factor structure for CWB aimed at individuals (CWB-I) and organizations (CWB-O) were identified. Both contextual and adaptive performance were shown to have a hierarchical factor structure. Specifically, contextual performance consists of the 3-6 factor structure of individual-oriented (help-cooperation and consideration-courtesy), organization-oriented (organizational support and compliance), and conscientious-initiative (persistence-initiative and self-development). For adaptive performance, the 2-5 factor structure was extracted. That is, the five factors of adaptive performance are divided into two factors of reactive (coping, interpersonal adaptation, and stress) and proactive (creativity and learning). The integrative job performance model of task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and CWB was verified. The hierarchical factor structure of the integrated model composed of the sub-factors of each performance dimension was also confirmed. Second, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) demonstrated that the variance of G factor is 62.0%, supporting the presence of G factor in performance. Third, the differences were found in both antecedents of personality (HEXACO and dark personality factors) and criteria of job effectiveness (wage, promotion, job satisfaction, job engagement, burnout, and turnover intention) among the 4 dimensions of job performance. indicating the discriminant validity of performance dimensions. Finally, the implications and limitations of this study were discussed based on the above findings.