“Oh, give us the man who sings at his work.” – Thomas Carlyle
In this essay, job performance has been defined and the main categories of job performance have been laid out to show the exact difference between task, contextual and counterproductive performance. Also, the association between job performance and satisfaction has been reviewed thoroughly to prove what matters most in order for an organization’s employees to perform at soaring levels.
Job performance is formally defined as the value of the set of employee behaviors that contribute, either positively or negatively, to organizational goal accomplishment (Colquitt, Wesson and LePine, 2009, p. 37). Job performance comprises of actions which are under the employees’ control, however it puts a limit on which actions are and are not significant to job performance. Under job performance, there are mainly three behaviors fit into categories that are significant. Task and contextual performance are the two categories that supportively promote the organization. Counterproductive behavior is the third category which promotes harmfully to the organization. Task performance includes the employee behaviors that are directly involved in the transformation of organizational resources into the goods or services that the organization produces (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 38). In other words, the group of clear responsibilities which an employee should accomplish in order for obtaining reimbursement and continuous occupation is known as task performance.
Whereas, contextual performance (OCB) is defined as voluntary employee activities that may or may not be rewarded but contribute to the organization by improving the overall quality of the setting in which the work takes place (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 43). OCB is applicable in practically any work, irrespective of the actual nature of its duties, and in respect of the efficiency of work units and organizations, these behaviors provide many benefits. An examination of 30 restaurants indicated that greater heights of OCB brought improved operational productivity, greater consumer contentment, greater revenue, and greater performance value, reduced consumer criticisms, and reduced food leftovers. Therefore, this gives the impression that OCB has a substantial effect after all. OCB seems to be unpaid and non-compulsory in nature. On the other hand, task responsibilities are paid and compulsory in nature. Nevertheless, overlooking OCB is not a good thought, since superiors judge it as being non-compulsory. Actually, studies conducted amid insurance representatives, pharmaceutical sales executives, petrochemical salesmen, office furniture producers, sewing machine workers, computer salesmen have made known that OCB is a matter of concern to superior assessments of job performance, also when variances in task performance are studied. In many companies, superiors’ assessments of job performance have substantial parts in controlling remuneration and raises. To be sure, OCB was discovered to control pay and raises the employees get on their performance in tasks. In other words, it pays to instill organizational citizenship behavior in a workplace (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 46).
A Meta analytic study conducted by Lapierre and Hackett (2007) linked organizational citizenship behavior to job satisfaction, trait conscientiousness (being determined and setting a goal to achieve) and leader-member-exchange (LMX - studies the relationship between supervisor and subordinate) quality and created an integrative model, where it was shown that OCB was the result of job satisfaction and higher LMX quality. The model was built upon the assumption that conscientious employees behave in ways that lead to rewards which keeps them satisfied at work. One of the goals to achieving success was to engage in OCB to benefit one’s supervisor, thereby nurturing LMX quality, and attracting job or career enhancing opportunities. This ‘instrumentality’...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document