Citizenship Performance: Its Nature, Antecedents, and ...annex.ipacweb.org/library/conf/04/borman.pdf · Citizenship Performance domain is important to consider Overall performance

Walter C. BormanUniversity of South Florida and

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes

Citizenship Performance: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Measurement

OutlineReview and provide examples of technical proficiency performanceIntroduce concept of Citizenship PerformancePresent summary taxonomyDescribe researchDescribe rating format (CARS)

Increase in Popularity of CitizenshipNumber of

Time Period Published Papers1983-1988 131993-1998 122

Examples of Task Criteria1. Sales Job

Product knowledgeClosing the saleOrganization and time management

Examples of Task Criteria (Continued)2. Transmission and Distribution Jobs

(Power Co.)Reading and understanding procedures, instructions, and technical informationCompleting paperwork/maintaining records and suppliesPlanning jobsTechnical troubleshooting

Citizenship Performance DefinedBehavior that supports the social and psychological fabric of the organization rather than contributing directly to the goods and services produced by the organization.

What is Citizenship Performance?Organizational citizenship behaviorProsocial organizational behaviorModel of soldier effectiveness

Determination:• Perseverance• Endurance• Conscientiousness• Initiative• Discipline

Allegiance:• Following orders• Following regulations• Respect for authority• Military bearing• Commitment

Teamwork:• Cooperation• Camaraderie• Concern for unit morale• Boosting unit morale• Leadership

Morale Socialization

Commitment

SoldierEffectiveness

Initial Contextual Performance TaxonomyVolunteering for extra workPersisting with extra effort to complete tasksHelping & cooperating with othersFollowing organizational rules & proceduresEndorsing & supporting organizational objectives

Final Citizenship DimensionsA. Personal Support

HelpingCooperationMotivating

Final Citizenship DimensionsB. Organizational Support

RepresentingLoyaltyCompliance

Final Citizenship DimensionsC. Conscientious Initiative

PersistenceInitiativeSelf-Development

Citizenship Performance DistinguishedTask activities vary across jobs/Citizenship activities often similarTask performance antecedents are KSAs/For Citizenship Performance, motivational & predispositional characteristics are likely antecedents

Supervisors’ WeightingMotowidlo & Van Scotter (1994) studyBorman, White, & Dorsey (1995) study

Motowidlo & Van ScotterAir Force Supervisors rated subordinates on task, citizenship, and overall performanceTask-overall performance r = .43Citizenship-overall performance r = .41

Borman, White, & DorseyArmy supervisors and peers rated soldiers on interpersonal factors and overall performanceTechnical proficiency and job knowledge scores also available for soldiersStrongest predictors of overall performance ratings:

Supervisor model - ratee dependability and technical proficiencyPeer model - ratee dependability, technical proficiency, and obnoxiousness

Predictors of Citizenship PerformanceProject A dataMotowidlo & Van Scotter

Project A Predictor - Criterion CorrelationsCore

Technical PersonalPredictors Proficiency Discipline

General Cog. Ability .33 .08Achievement .11 .18Dependability .11 .30Adjustment .10 .11

Motowidlo & Van Scotter Predictor -Criterion Correlations

Task CitizenshipPredictors Performance Performance

Work Orientation .23 .36Dominance .04 .12Dependability .21 .30Adjustment .09 .12Cooperativeness .04 .20Internal Control .08 .27Experience .37 .13

Links to Organizational EffectivenessEmpirical resultsFour studies

Empirical ResultsSample Criteria

1. 116 insurance agency units Sales performance2. 40 paper mill worker crews Quantity and quality of

product3. 306 pharmaceutical sales teams Percent of team sales quota4. 30 restaurants Food waste, revenues,

customer complaints, quality of service

Empirical Results (Continued)Variance Accounted

Sample for by CP in Criteria

1. Insurance units 17%2. Work crews 26, 17%3. Sales teams 16% 4. Restaurants 43, 18, 37, 20%

Computerized Adaptive Rating Scales (CARS)

Uses adaptive testing principlesPairs of behavioral statements presentedScoring system allows more differentiation

Example Behavioral Statements

C-4 Always finds additional productive work to do when ownnormally scheduled duties are completed.

B-2 Complains about adverse conditions and difficulties inthe organization.

A-1 Gloats in others’ adversity or setbacks.

CARS Performance Estimation Process

Very Somewhat VeryIneffective Ineffective Effective Effective

First Item Pair1 2 3 4

Second Pair

1 2 3 4

Third Pair

1 2 3 4

Fourth Pair1 2 3 4

Final EstimatedPerformance 1 2 3 4

ConclusionsCitizenship Performance domain is important to considerOverall performance ratings likely contain strong component of Citizenship PerformanceWhen Citizenship Performance dimensions are included as criteria, personality predictors more likely to be successfulCARS shows promise for measuring Citizenship performance

Importance of CP in Modern OrganizationsGlobal competitionTeam-based organizationsDownsizingCustomer service orientation