Typical versus maximum performance

Last updated

The distinction between typical and maximum performance is one way to classify job performance in industrial/organizational psychology. Typical performance is how an employee performs on a regular basis, while maximum performance is how one performs when exerting as much effort as possible.

Contents

Workers usually exhibit maximum performance when they are being observed. Therefore, some conditions that tend to foster maximum performance include work samples (often given to a potential employee during an interview), manager evaluations, and job knowledge tests. The results from these situations are the ones that are most accessible to supervisors; however, they are usually not reflected in an employee's typical, or day-to-day, performance. This dichotomy makes it harder for managers to have an accurate picture of how an employee will typically act on the job. Therefore, an example of the importance of this distinction can be seen when a manager hires an employee based on high performance during an interview; the manager is essentially hiring the employee based on viewing their maximum performance, which may not be representative of their typical performance. Additionally, this distinction has led some organizations to take measures to get their employees to perform at their maximum level more often.

Characteristics

Psychological tests are broadly divided by the British Psychological Society into the following two types.

  1. Test of typical performance. In this case, an individual's performance is assessed according to a given situation. Answers are not right or wrong, but identify choices, preferences and strengths of feeling.
  2. Test of maximum performance: These assess the individual's ability to perform effectively under standard conditions. Performance on these tests, which includes ability and aptitude tests, can be judged as right or wrong. Ability tests come in many different forms and may test a general intellectual functioning or a specific ability. [1]

Both typical and maximum performances are characterized by different conditions. Managers and organizations should be aware of these so that they are able to identify whether an employee is performing at a typical or maximum level.

Sackett, Zedeck, and Fogli, the researchers who first studied the typical/maximum distinction in 1988, proposed that several conditions must be present for maximum performance to occur:

a. the individual must be aware that they are being observed;
b. the individual must be instructed to maximize their effort; and
c. the measure of performance must occur over a short period of time so that the individual can remain focused on the appropriate goal. [2]

Alternatively, typical performance would occur in situations where the individual is not aware of evaluation, is not consciously attempting their best performance, and is monitored over a long period of time.

More recently, Sackett elaborated on the definition of maximum performance, saying that one can view it as the level of performance an employee can "produce on demand" if exerting maximum effort for a short period of time. This means that maximum performance cannot be due purely to luck or chance. As an example, he says that when concentrating, he could make 7 of 10 free throws. But, if he has a hot streak and makes 10 baskets in a row, this wouldn't be maximum performance because it was probably just due to luck. [3]

Original findings

The original research on typical and maximum performance studied supermarket employees scanning items at a cash register. Typical performance was determined by the average number of items scanned and the number of voids per shift. Maximum performance was calculated according to the speed and accuracy of several timed observation periods. The researchers found that those two measures were not statistically related, suggesting that typical and maximum performance are actually distinct categorizations. [3]

Confirming research

Continued support has been found for the typical vs. maximum performance distinction since the initial supermarket study. In one study looking at antecedents of the two types of performance, statistical analyses revealed that typical and maximum performance are conceptually different variables. [4] In addition, other studies have revealed that typical and maximum performances do not share the same antecedents, which suggests that these are two separate forms of performance.

Components

Job performance is viewed as an employee's results, determined by their combined intelligence and motivation. [5] [6] Since motivation is dependent on an individual's choices, one can control the direction, level, and persistence they put into a task. Intelligence, however, is stable and not under personal control.

Motivation and intelligence

All tasks require some form of ability and motivation; [7] however, Sackett and colleagues hypothesized that the difference between typical and maximum performance is determined by a combination of these two factors. [2] They expected that maximum performance is primarily determined by the intelligence of an individual. Since maximum performance occurs when the individual is highly motivated to perform well, the impact of intelligence is higher under these conditions. Everyone under this condition would be exerting the maximum amount, so the difference between individuals lies in their ability. In typical performance, both intelligence and motivation are thought to influence the quality of an employee's job performance. However, motivation is believed to be the more influential factor in this situation.

Research has investigated the strength of these original theories driving typical and maximum performance. A recent study confirmed Sackett and colleagues' ideas, finding that maximum performance was related to the employee's knowledge of the job (e.g., intelligence), while typical performance was related to persistence, self-efficacy, and other measures of motivation. [6]

Antecedents

Because maximum performance can be misleading, it is important for managers to be able to recognize the antecedents of both maximum and typical performances. This can further allow them to recognize when they are most likely to observe either type of performance.

Intelligence

Since all individuals in a maximum performance situation are expected to have similarly high levels of motivation, the differences in their performance should be primarily based on the differing ability of each person. [8] Following these thoughts, researchers have hypothesized that intelligence would be predictive of maximum performance. A few studies have supported this thought, finding that intelligence is more highly related with maximum performance than it is typical performance. [4] [8]

Personality

Researchers have hypothesized that typical performance would be predicted by personality factors, since much of the variability in this type of performance is controlled by an individual and their exertion of effort. Specifically, neuroticism and conscientiousness have been believed to be the personality factors that contribute to motivation, since neuroticism is related to self-esteem and confidence, and conscientiousness is related to perseverance and desire to achieve. [5] This idea has received mixed results in the research. A study by Ployhart and colleagues found that the personality factors of neuroticism and extroversion significantly predicted typical performance, and extroversion and openness significantly predicted maximum performance. This research appears to indicate that personality is predictive of both types of performance. [9] A separate study, however, found slightly different results, concluding that overall personality is more predictive of typical performance, while intelligence is still the best predictor of maximum performance. [4]

Honesty

Many organizations give tests to potential employees during the interview process to determine their job knowledge, overall intelligence, or honesty, and use these to predict how the employee will perform if hired. Research has touched on how maximum performance can be predicted by these tests. For example, one tool is the integrity test, which is a test that attempts to assess whether potential employees will engage in deviant behavior on the job. [10] Examples of such behavior can range from gossiping about a co-worker to stealing money from the organization. Researchers have linked integrity testing to maximum performance because they hypothesize that integrity levels will determine differences in how individuals perform their job, differences which can affect maximum performance in particular. [11] Results obtained by Ones & Viswesvaran supported the use of integrity testing in predicting maximum performance, but also mentioned that job knowledge tests predicted maximum performance as well. [11] Integrity tests are related to the personality factor of conscientiousness, [12] which, as mentioned previously, has not been shown to be related to maximum performance. [9]

Race

Research has also investigated racial differences in typical and maximum performance. Traditionally, studies have found that minority groups, specifically African Americans, score lower than Whites on intelligence tests, [13] but that personality tests are less biased when predicting performance. [14] As mentioned previously, typical performance has been linked to personality, and maximum performance has been linked to intelligence. Therefore, researchers expected African Americans to exhibit lower levels of maximum performance than Whites, with both ethnic groups showing similar levels of typical performance. However, a study by DuBois and colleagues found just the opposite. Whites outperformed African Americans when they observed typical performance; whereas, the difference was much less pronounced when they examined maximum performance. [8] While this should not impact selection of employees, managers should be aware of the trend when observing performance.

Purpose of distinction

Distinguishing between typical and maximum performance can have both theoretical implications for researchers and practical purposes for organizations.

Academic implications

Conceptually, the different types of performance could have different predictors, which will affect research in this domain. For example, many studies have found differences in performance ratings depending on whether the rater is a supervisor or a peer. The typical/maximum distinction could explain this difference if, for instance, supervisors observe more maximum performance while peers observe more typical performance.

Practical implications

On the practical side, the typical/maximum distinction can be important when organizations hire new employees. For instance, even though many companies intend to evaluate what an individual's typical performance would be when making a hiring decision, often organizations use measures that should be associated with maximum performance. These common evaluations include assessment centers, intelligence tests, and situational interviews.

Very little research has attempted to look at how various selection tools can predict an employee's behavior with regard to typical and maximum performance; however, one recent study did focus on behavior description interviews and situational interviews. Behavior description interviews ask applicants to describe past behavior related to specific aspects of the job, while situational interviews have applicants respond to hypothetical job-related dilemmas. Klehe and Latham found that both the behavior description interview and the situational interview predicted typical performance, and the situational interview also predicted maximum performance. [15] While many researchers have expressed concerns about using these tools to predict typical performance, this study suggests that they may actually be quite useful.

Another practical implication of this distinction is the effect it has on employee compensation. Managers may value typical and maximum performance differently, resulting in different rewards. Research suggests that both typical and maximum predict compensation levels, but organizations should ensure that this is the practice they wish to employ. [16]

Unanswered questions

While there have been advances in typical vs. maximum performance theory since Sackett and colleagues' seminal paper, studies on this topic have been limited and many questions are still unanswered. In focusing on the antecedents of both performance types, conflicting research has prohibited researchers from drawing concrete conclusions as to how to forecast employees' potential performances. Specifically, there has not been consistent support for either personality as an antecedent of typical performance or intelligence as an antecedent of maximum performance. In addition, very few other antecedents have been suggested as relating to either type of performance.

Another unanswered question is the time period that may elapse when studying maximum and typical performance. As mentioned, a requirement of maximum performance is that it must be observed over a "short period of time," whereas typical performance is observed over an extended period of time. However, Sackett and other researchers have left the exact duration requirements vague. Future research could examine where the cutoff point between typical and maximum performance lies. [3]

Summary

The distinction between typical and maximum performance has been evident for the past 20 years. Research shows that employees perform at a higher level when they are being temporarily observed compared to other times. The level of typical performance one will usually exhibit, and the level of maximum performance one can achieve, both seem to have particular antecedents. These may include intelligence, personality, honesty, and race. However, further research is needed to confirm and expand upon these findings.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial and organizational psychology</span> Branch of psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology, an applied discipline within psychology, is the science of human behavior in the workplace. Depending on the country or region of the world, I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is most often defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust emotions to adapt to environments. Although the term first appeared in 1964, it gained popularity in the 1995 best-selling book Emotional Intelligence, written by science journalist Daniel Goleman. Goleman defined EI as the array of skills and characteristics that drive leadership performance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentedness with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

The g factor is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor. The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, and simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests. However, the g factor itself is merely a mathematical construct indicating the level of observed correlation between cognitive tasks. The measured value of this construct depends on the cognitive tasks that are used, and little is known about the underlying causes of the observed correlations.

In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personnel selection</span> Methodical process used to hire

Personnel selection is the methodical process used to hire individuals. Although the term can apply to all aspects of the process the most common meaning focuses on the selection of workers. In this respect, selected prospects are separated from rejected applicants with the intention of choosing the person who will be the most successful and make the most valuable contributions to the organization. Its effect on the group is discerned when the selected accomplish their desired impact to the group, through achievement or tenure. The procedure of selection takes after strategy to gather data around a person so as to figure out whether that individual ought to be utilized. The strategies used must be in compliance with the various laws in respect to work force selection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job interview</span> Type of interview

A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most popularly used devices for employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from a totally unstructured and free-wheeling conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wonderlic test</span> Intelligence test

The Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test is an assessment used to measure the cognitive ability and problem-solving aptitude of prospective employees for a range of occupations. It is a proprietary assessment created and distributed by Wonderlic. It consists of 50 multiple choice questions to be answered in 12 minutes. The test was created in 1939 by Eldon F. Wonderlic (1909–1980), while he was a graduate student at Northwestern University. The score is calculated as the number of correct answers given in the allotted time. A score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affective events theory</span> Psychological model

Affective events theory (AET) is a model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Employment testing is the practice of administering written, oral, or other tests as a means of determining the suitability or desirability of a job applicant. The premise is that if scores on a test correlate with job performance, then it is economically useful for the employer to select employees based on scores from that test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Situational judgement test</span>

A situational judgement test (SJT), or situational stress test (SStT) or inventory (SSI) is a type of psychological test which presents the test-taker with realistic, hypothetical scenarios and ask them to identify the most appropriate response or to rank the responses in the order they feel is most effective. SJTs can be presented to test-takers through a variety of modalities, such as booklets, films, or audio recordings. SJTs represent a distinct psychometric approach from the common knowledge-based multiple choice item. They are often used in industrial-organizational psychology applications such as personnel selection. Situational judgement tests tend to determine behavioral tendencies, assessing how an individual will behave in a certain situation, and knowledge instruction, which evaluates the effectiveness of possible responses. Situational judgement tests could also reinforce the status quo with an organization.

Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables.

Contextual performance is defined as the activities that employees carry out to contribute to the social and psychological core of an organisation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Situational strength</span>

Situational strength is defined as cues provided by environmental forces regarding the desirability of potential behaviors. Situational strength is said to result in psychological pressure on the individual to engage in and/or refrain from particular behaviors. A consequence of this psychological pressure to act in a certain way is the likelihood that despite an individual's personality, they will act in a certain manner. As such, when strong situations exist, the relationship between personality variables and behaviors is reduced, because no matter what the personality of the individual is, they will act in a way dictated by the situation. When weak situations exist, there is less structure and more ambiguity with respect to what behaviors to perform.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. These behaviors can harm organizations or people in organizations including employees and clients, customers, or patients. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.

Goal orientation, or achievement orientation, is an "individual disposition towards developing or validating one's ability in achievement settings". In general, an individual can be said to be mastery or performance oriented, based on whether one's goal is to develop one's ability or to demonstrate one's ability, respectively. A mastery orientation is also sometimes referred to as a learning orientation.

Trait leadership is defined as integrated patterns of personal characteristics that reflect a range of individual differences and foster consistent leader effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations. The theory of trait leadership is developed from early leadership research which focused primarily on finding a group of heritable attributes that differentiate leaders from nonleaders. Leader effectiveness refers to the amount of influence a leader has on individual or group performance, followers’ satisfaction, and overall effectiveness. Many scholars have argued that leadership is unique to only a select number of individuals and that these individuals possess certain immutable traits that cannot be developed. Although this perspective has been criticized immensely over the past century, scholars still continue to study the effects of personality traits on leader effectiveness. Research has demonstrated that successful leaders differ from other people and possess certain core personality traits that significantly contribute to their success. Understanding the importance of these core personality traits that predict leader effectiveness can help organizations with their leader selection, training, and development practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Typical intellectual engagement</span>

Typical intellectual engagement (TIE) is a personality construct referring to a person's enjoyment of intellectually demanding activities. TIE was developed to identify aspects of personality most closely related to intelligence and knowledge and measures a person's typical performance in intellectual domains rather than their maximal performance. TIE is moderately positively associated with crystallized intelligence, and with general knowledge, and predicts academic performance. TIE is hard to distinguish from the earlier construct need for cognition and is positively correlated with openness to experience.

Adaptive performance in the work environment refers to adjusting to and understanding change in the workplace. An employee who is versatile is valued and important in the success of an organization. Employers seek employees with high adaptability, due to the positive outcomes that follow, such as excellent work performance, work attitude, and ability to handle stress. Employees, who display high adaptive performance in an organization, tend to have more advantages in career opportunities unlike employees who are not adaptable to change. In previous literature, Pulakos and colleagues established eight dimensions of adaptive performance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trait activation theory</span>

Trait activation theory is based on a specific model of job performance, and can be considered an elaborated or extended view of personality-job fit. Specifically, it is how an individual expresses their traits when exposed to situational cues related to those traits. These situational cues may stem from organization, social, and/or task cues. These cues can activate personality traits that are related to job tasks and organizational expectations that the organization values. These cues may also elicit trait-related behaviors that are not directly related to job performance.

References

  1. ↑ Laurie J Mullins, Management and organisation behaviour, 8th ed, Prentice Hall p. 140.
  2. 1 2 Sackett, P.R.; Zedeck, S.; Fogli, L. (1988). "Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 73 (3): 482–486. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482.
  3. 1 2 3 Sackett, P.R. (2007). "Revisiting the origins of the typical-maximum performance distinction". Human Performance. 20 (3): 179–185. doi:10.1080/08959280701332968. S2CID   145006126.
  4. 1 2 3 Marcus, B.; Goffin, R.D.; Johnston, N.G.; Rothstein, M.G. (2007). "Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of typical and maximum managerial performance". Human Performance. 20 (3): 275–285. doi:10.1080/08959280701333362. S2CID   143983053.
  5. 1 2 Locke, E.A.; Mento, A.J.; Katcher, B.L. (1978). "The interaction of ability and motivation in performance: An exploration of the meaning of moderators". Personnel Psychology. 31 (2): 269–280. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb00446.x.
  6. 1 2 Kleh, U.-C.; Anderson, N. (2007). "Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (4): 978–992. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.978. PMID   17638459.
  7. ↑ Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  8. 1 2 3 Dubois, C.L.Z.; Sackett, P.R.; Zedeck, S.; Fogli, L. (1993). "Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white-black differences". Journal of Applied Psychology. 78 (2): 205–211. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.205.
  9. 1 2 Ployhart, R.E.; Lim, B.C.; Chan, K.Y. (2001). "Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality". Personnel Psychology. 54 (4): 809–843. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00233.x.
  10. ↑ Brown, T.S.; Jones, J.W.; Terris, W.; Steffy, B.D. (1987). "The impact of pre-employment integrity testing on employee turnover and inventory shrinkage losses". Journal of Business and Psychology. 2 (2): 136–149. doi:10.1007/BF01014208. S2CID   143792337.
  11. 1 2 Ones, D.; Viswesvaran, C. (2007). "A research note on the incremental validity of job knowledge and integrity tests for predicting maximal performance". Human Performance. 20 (3): 293–303. doi:10.1080/08959280701333461. S2CID   144842754.
  12. ↑ Hogan, J.; Brinkmeyer, K. (1997). "Bridging the gap between overt and personality-based integrity tests". Personnel Psychology. 50 (3): 587–599. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00704.x.
  13. ↑ Hunter, J.E.; Hunter, R.F. (1984). "Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance". Psychological Bulletin. 96 (1): 72–98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72.
  14. ↑ Hogan, R.; Hogan, J.; Roberts, B.W. (1996). "Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers". American Psychologist. 51 (5): 469–477. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.5.469.
  15. ↑ Kleh, U.-C.; Latham, G. (2007). "What would you do—really or ideally? Constructs underlying the behavior description interview and the situational interview in predicting typical versus maximum performance". Human Performance. 19 (4): 357–382. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_3. S2CID   55461680.
  16. ↑ Barnes, C.M.; Morgeson, F.P. (2007). "Typical performance, maximal performance, and performance variability: Expanding our understanding of how organizations value performance". Human Performance. 20 (3): 259–274. doi:10.1080/08959280701333289. S2CID   54016423.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.