LINKING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES WITH PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
Steve L. Whatley
The Ohio State University
Whatley.18@osu.edu
Chan Lee
The Ohio State University
Lee.1602@osu.edu
Abstract
Changing organizational environments will not only maintain, but also increase the
importance of ability as organizational requirements continue to change. Personality
also has been an important focus of individual differences that will become more
important in the future as organizations focus more on contextual performance. Together
personality and ability and applicable knowledge and skills become the critical
individual differences that need to be measured in the rapidly evolving organizational
environments. The authors discuss how organizations should measure individual
differences to improve their performance.
Key words: Individual Differences, Performance Improvement, Performance Measurement
Introduction
Individual differences contribute collectively to performance (Motowidlo & Schmitt, 1999).
Individual differences are defined as the classification of the characteristics of people for
purposes of selection, training, placement, and evaluation in the workplace. The definition is
based on the theory of individual differences that offers “objective quantification” of individual
differences (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1998, p. 224). Different individual differences have been
offered by several researchers: mental ability, temperament, and motivation (Ackerman &
Humphreys, 1992), cognitive ability, personality orientation (values and interests) and affective
dispositions (Murphy, 1996), cognitive ability, personality, interests and physical ability (Schmitt
& Chan, 1998). This paper will discuss the individual differences: cognitive ability, personality,
interests and motivation.
Ackerman and Humphreys (1992) offered three types of individual differences: interindividual differences, and two types of intraindividual differences. Interindividual differences
are differences between individuals. For interindividual differences to be effective, diversity in
the applicant population or the assessment of general abilities is required. Put differently,
individual difference measures of a particular characteristic within a population may not assist in
determining the best applicant. A more diverse population or general characteristic possessing
greater variance may be required. Intraindividual differences encompass differences experienced
over time, and “differences between attributes of an individual” (p. 224).
Intraindividual differences change over time. For example, technology has changed our
differences in competency with the advent of personal computers. Tasks formally performed on
typewriters, machines in which people were competent, changed to personal computers
beginning with zero-competency, but changing to the competency level equal or beyond that of
2
the typewriter. Differences between attributes of an individual could include differences in
verbal and analytical skills. Individual differences also encompass knowledge, skills, abilities
and other orientations (KSAOs). Knowledge refers to the declarative and procedural knowledge,
which serves as the basis to build abilities and skills are built. Skills typically refer to
psychomotor skills and abilities to cognition or cognitive ability. Other orientations refer to
personality and motivation characteristics important for the performance of more contextual
tasks (Schmitt & Chan, 1998). Individual differences are assessed using several methods
discussed below.
Individual Differences to be Measured in Improving Performance
According to Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) the “technical, economic, cultural and
business environments” (p. 56) are changing at a rapid pace. Schmitt and Chan (1998) are more
specific stating that resulting changes include “advances in technology (e.g. speed and
communication), . . .outsourcing. . .use of temporary or part-time workers, downsizing, changing
[to a more global] economy and privatization of government activities” (p. 262). These changes
indicate that changes in the way organizations conduct business will lead to changes in the
requirements of employees by more closely focusing on individual differences that could critical
to how business operates (e.g. teams) and organizational success.
Traditionally ability has been an important factor in performance. Changing
organizational environments will not only sustain but also increase the importance of ability as
organizational requirements continue to change. Personality also has been an important focus of
individual differences that will become more important in the future as organizations focus more
on contextual performance. Together personality and ability and applicable knowledge and skills
become the critical individual differences that need to be measured in the rapidly evolving
organizational environments (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999).
Personality
Variables
Contextual
Habits
Contextual
Skill
Contextual
Performance
Cognitive Ability
Variables
Contextual
Knowledge
Task
Habits
Task
Skill
Task
Knowledge
Task
Performance
Figure 1. A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance
(Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997, p. 79).
3
Proficient task performance is essential to organizational performance, thus, success. It is
also important that to recognize the importance of contextual performance. Although both
contribute to the organization, they two types of tasks can be distinguished because they
contribute to different aspects of the organization. One might argue that both types of tasks
contribute to organizational effectiveness; if so, they approach this from different directions.
Task performance, which contributes directly to the core business of the organization, whether it
be producing a product or delivery of a service. Task performance is typically based on some
prescribed role or function that is guided by particular knowledge, skills, abilities and other
orientations (KSAOs). Usually, task performance varies across the organization, thus, having
consistency in contributing to the core business.
On-the-other-hand, contextual performance supports the core business by contributing to
the environmental concerns whether it is “organizational, social, or psychological” (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1999, p. 73). Contextual performance indicates the extra initiative and/or effort that
an organization member is willing to provide. By not being guided by requirements contained in
job description or other job requirements, members who engage in contextual performance do so
because they have chosen to do so on the organization’s behalf. While unlike task performance,
contextual performance does not necessarily vary with the different jobs, although because of the
facets of a particular job, particular contextual performance may emerge.
While proficient task performance will remain primary in the selection, training,
placement and evaluation of organization members, one might consider the benefits of including
contextual performance when considering the type of employee they wish to employee.
Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) anticipate that organizations will become less bureaucratic
making way for increased autonomy and participative decision-making. Greater autonomy and
participative decision-making will require employees to have characteristics to assume more
responsibility for themselves and with others in the form of teams. Teams have and will continue
to become integral in the accomplishment of organizational mission and goals (Schmitt & Chan,
1998) that increases the importance of ability and personality characteristics.
Moynihan and Peterson (2001) agree that personality has strong effects on group
processes and that personality also can be a good predictor of group [team] performance. Ability
and personality certainly have been important individual differences, however, the underlying
purposes for assessing these differences have changed based on dynamic changes in business and
how work is performed, and focus on contextual tasks and their correlation with organization
effectiveness. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) lists the following contextual task ability
requirements:




Helping and cooperating with others
o Working as a team member: good interpersonal and conflict resolution
skills
o Emphasis on customer service: internally and externally versus merely
product or service delivery
Endorsing, supporting and defending organizational objectives
o Essential for decision-making reflecting endorsement and support of
organizational objectives.
Motivation to perform outside of job requirements
o Initiative and willingness to take on more responsibilities
Self-development and flexibility
4
o Adaptability, flexibility and openness to different methods of operating
and willingness to learn new skills
Contextual dimensions in a work environment will set the tone for task performance in
the new business environment. Unlike the traditional jobs that are based on particular tasks,
researchers (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; Schmitt & Chan, 1998) offer that jobs will change
through job enrichment (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Based on the need for team-based
environment, jobs will change by learning additional tasks that cross traditional boundaries. The
team approach provides the organization with the tools through to respond to dynamic
environments by having team members versatile in a variety of tasks.
Performance Component in the Measurement of Individual Differences
Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) stated, “. . . [performance] measure should include both
task elements and contextual elements” (p. 67). Campbell et al. (1993) articulated his equation
for performance component (PC) as (p. 37):
PC = f (Declarative Knowledge x Procedural Knowledge and Skill x Motivation)
Therefore, performance evaluation as it pertains to the measurement of individual
differences, must take into account the three dimensions within the equation as they pertain to
individual differences. Evaluations will not necessarily be made on the individual difference
constructs, but on the performance dimensions that represent those constructs. The performance
dimensions above are basic in determining performance and accomplishment of tasks.
Declarative knowledge is the “what” or foundational knowledge of how something is done.
Declarative knowledge is interrelated to procedural knowledge which is the “how to” knowledge
and can be demonstrated by actually performance of tasks which also demonstrate skill or
psychomotor ability.
Last, but not least is the desire or motivation that one possesses to perform tasks and the
degree to which his or her motivation or effort will be expended. Individual differences of
cognitive abilities, personality, physical ability, interests, to motivation (Schmitt & Chan, 1998)
are included in each of Campbell et al. (1993) performance dimensions. According to McCloy
(1990, in Campbell, et al, 1993) and Opper (1990, in Campbell et al, 1993) “individual
differences in performance ratings, when rating content is carefully defined and raters are trained
in their use, are a function of all three performance determinants” (p. 55). Although not included
in the evaluation of every job, Campbell, et al. provide several performance measurements:








Job-specific task proficiency
Non-job-specific task proficiency
Written and oral communication task proficiency
Demonstrating effort
Maintaining personal discipline
Facilitating peer and team performance
Supervision/leadership
Management/administration
5
The role of performance evaluation can serve several purposes not the least of which is to
provide feedback on performance to individual employees. However, a performance evaluation
system can also indicate changes that are needed in the form of additional declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivation. Finally, keeping the systems theory
in mind of input, transformation and output, performance evaluation systems can also be an
essential feedback mechanism relating to individual differences that could be measured when
selecting individuals for employment.
Implications for Human Resource Development
The nature of performance has changed with the advent of new technology and global
economy, creating the need for organizations to respond to rapid responding situations. These
changes impact individual differences resulting in the need to focus on the most important
individual differences that relate to the type of performance required.
Traditionally, one individual has conducted performance evaluations. With traditional
jobs that are more static in nature, this process worked well. However, with the nature of work
becoming more dynamic, people will not always work in the same environment, with the same
team or for the same supervisor. Multiple-rater or 360 degree feedback evaluations have been
used where performance information has been provided through supervisors, peers and
customers. This has been used in team-based systems whereby peers evaluate one another as
another aspect of their responsibilities. However, having people from these groups agree on an
aggregated performance evaluation may be unreasonable.
Motowidlo and Schmit (1999) suggest rather than evaluate using performance
dimensions, to use “the real constructs of interest for personnel decisions. . . knowledge, skill and
work habits” (p. 78). The researchers suggest designing tests for use in evaluating the individual
differences one possesses. Additionally, future research should consider adopting the construct
of motivation more clearly within the model by Motowidlo, Borman and Schmit.
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Individual differences theory in industrial and
organizational psychology. In. M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 223-282). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in
Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J., et al. (1993). A theory of performance. In N.Schmitt, & W. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel Selection in Organization (pp.35-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor,
and Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection
procedures. Federal Register, 43 (166), 38290-38315.
Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in
organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in
organizations (pp. 31-88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moynihan, L. M., Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding
the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational Behavior.
23, pp. 327-378.
6
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C. & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in
task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10 (2), pp. 71-83.
Motowidlo, S., & Schmitt, M. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. Ilgen & E.
Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance (pp. 56-86). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass (1999).
Mott, V. W. & Daley, B. J. (2000). Continuing professional education: From vision to reality. In
Mott, V. W. & Daley, B. J. (Eds.) New Directions for adult and continuing education:
Charting a course for continuing professional education: Reframing professional
practice. 86, (pp. 80-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. R. (Ed.). (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1998). Personnel Selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publication.
Schultz, D. & Schultz, S. E. (1998). Psychology & work today: An introduction to industrial and
organizational psychology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.