LITERATURE REVIEW: CONCEPTS
2.13 Dimensions of Employee Performance
2.13.4 Counterproductive Performance (Behaviour)
Counterproductive performance (behaviour) is generally seen as behaviours that have negative consequences for both the organisation and the individual (Hunt, 1996; Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Burton, Pransky, Conti, Chen and Edington, 2004; Allen, 2008; Escorpizo, 2008). They include behaviours such as absenteeism, lateness, engaging in off-task behaviours, theft, continuously arguing with colleagues, deviant behaviour, destructive/hazardous behaviour, anti-social behaviour, unruliness and lack of personal discipline, and substance abuse. According to Mount, Illies, and Johnson (2006) counterproductive behaviours breach organisational norms, are harmful to the interest of the organisation, and obstruct the accomplishment of organisational goals and therefore should be avoided because they are costly and pervasive.
According to Viswesvaran and Ones (2000), counterproductive behaviours can vary along two dimensions: organisational/interpersonal and serious/minor.
Therefore, on the basis of these two dimensions, Robinson and Bennett (1995: 565)
classified employee deviance into four categories: ―property deviance (serious deviance directed at the organisation), production deviance (minor deviance directed at the organisation), personal aggression (serious deviance directed at other individuals), and political deviance (minor deviance directed at other individuals).‖
Like other dimensions, there are numerous terms that have been used to describe counterproductive behaviours. These include deviant workplace behaviours, employee sabotage behaviour, and counterproductive work behaviour (Raelin, 1994;
Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Table 2.7 provides a summary of the dimensions of employee performance as adapted from Koopmans et al. (2011).
While these four dimensions capture the totality of employee performance, earlier studies make a distinction between typical and maximum performance (Sackett, Zedeck and Fogli, 1988). Generally, typical performance is what employees will do and maximum performance is what employees can do. While the typical and maximum performance construct has been widely use in employee selection, their indicators such as critical analytical skills for solving problems, effectual multitasking, working and successfully tackling complex issues, broadly fall under these four dimensions.
Koopmans et al. (2011) conducted a systematic review of the medical, psychological, and management databases on the subject of individual work performance (IWP). They found a total of seventeen general frameworks that apply to all occupations and eighteen job specific frameworks. They found that task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance and counterproductive work behaviours were the dimensions regularly used to describe IWP. Based on this, they came up with a heuristic conceptual framework for IWP. At the highest level of the framework is the latent general factor of IWP. At the second level are the four dimensions. At the third level are the individual measures. They were however quick to add that the precise indicators connected with each dimension may vary depending on the context involved. Figure 2.1 shows the heuristic framework of IWP adopted from Koopmans et al. (2011).
Koopmans et al. (2011) have argued that these four dimensions are related to each other. First, both task and contextual behaviours separately contribute to overall performance but through different means. Second, some behaviours can be seen as
task behaviours in some jobs while they may be seen as contextual behaviours in other jobs. Third, the correlation between task performance and counterproductive work behaviours is inconclusive and has been found to be either fairly or strongly negative (Conway, 1999). Studies have found a strong negative relationship between contextual behaviours and counterproductive work behaviours (Koopmans et al., 2011). Last, because adaptive performance is a behaviour that positively influences IWP, one can anticipate that it will have a positive relationship with both task and contextual performances but a negative relationship with counterproductive work behaviours (Koopmans et al., 2011). However, one of the contested areas in individual performance is the factors that influence performance.
Figure 2.1 Heuristic Framework of IWP Source: Koopmans et al, 2011.
Table 2.7 Conceptual Frameworks of IWP and Their Dimensions
Author(s) Task
performance
Contextual performance
Counterproductive work behaviour
Other Murphy (1989;
1990);
Viswesvaran (2002); Rotundo and Sackett (2002)
Task behaviours Interpersonal behaviours
Downtime behaviours,
destructive/hazardou s behaviours
Campbell (1990);
Viswesvaran and Ones (2000);
Griffin et al.
(2007);
Viswesvaran (2002; 1993);
Rotundo and Sackett (2002);
Wisecarver and Carpenter (2007);
Sinclair and Tucker (2006);
Borman et al.
(1997);
Motowidlo et al.
(1997)
Job-specific task proficiency Non-job specific task proficiency
Written and oral communications;
Demonstrating effort;
Maintaining personal discipline;
Facilitating peer and team performance;
Supervision and leadership;
Management and administration
Borman and Motowidlo (1997);
Viswesvaran (2000); Griffin et al. (2007)
Task performance Contextual performance
Viswesvaran (2002); Tubre et al. (2006);
Viswesvaran and Ones (2000);
Arvey and Murphy (1998);
Hoffman et al.
(2007);
Viswesvaran et al.
(2005)
Productivity Quality Knowledge
Effort;
Communication;
Leadership;
Administrative competence;
Interpersonal competence;
Compliance with and acceptance of authority
Overall work performance
Allworth and Hesketh (1999);
Pulakos et al.
(2000); Borman et al. (2003); Griffin et al. (2007)
Task performance Contextual performance
Adaptive performance
Table 2.7 (Continued)
Author(s) Task
performance
Contextual performance
Counterproductive work behaviour
Other Viswesvaran&
Ones (2000);
Viswesvaran et al.
(2005); Rotundo and Sackett (2002); Fay and Sonnentag (2010)
Task performance Organisational citizenship behaviour
Counterproductive behaviour
Bakker et al.
(2004)
In-role performance
Extra-role performance Burton et al.
(2004); Escorpizo (2008)
Absenteeism Presenteeism Griffin et al.
(2007); Fay and Sonnentag (2010)
Task proficiency Adaptability
Pro-activity Campbell et al.
(1990)
Job specific proficiency
Non-job –specific proficiency Campbell et al.
(1990); Campbell et al. (2001)
Core technical proficiency
General soldiering proficiency; Effort and leadership;
Personal discipline;
Physical fitness and military bearing Lance et al.
(1992)
Technical proficiency
Interpersonal proficiency Sinclair and
Tucker (2006)
Task performance Contextual performance
Counterproductive behaviour
Adaptive performance Wisecarver et al.
(2007)
Job-specific proficiency;
Interpersonal job- specific
proficiency
Non-job specific task proficiency;
Management;
Peer-team interaction;
Discipline Effort
Source: Koopmans et al., 2011.