Opening the valves
‘how to stimulate contextual performance’
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
14 July 2009 Rob Lubbers Studentnumber: 1668692 Meerssenerweg 118 6222 AK MAASTRICHT tel.: +31 (0)653734479 e-mail: r.b.h.lubbers@student.rug.nl University supervisor:Assistant professor Dr. Frank Walter Company supervisor:
SUMMARY
The goal of this thesis was to find out what are key drivers of contextual performance which can be influenced by the management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf of the
Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg. Contextual performance consists of „behaviors which do not support the technical core directly, but create and maintain the psychological, social and organizational environment in which task performance takes place‟ (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993: 72). Contextual performance is of importance to organizations because higher levels of these behaviors facilitate the meeting of organizational goals, organizational performance and help to shape the internal environment of the organization. In the literature four possible antecedents of contextual performance were found. Leader – member exchange, team – member exchange, organizational commitment and job involvement were proposed to have a positive relation with contextual performance. All four hypotheses were tested by means of an e-mailed survey amongst 77 of the 112 organizational members of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf of the Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg. A linear regression analysis showed that team – member exchange and organizational commitment did have a positive relation with contextual
INTRODUCTION
Contextual performance is of importance to organizations because higher levels of these behaviors facilitate the meeting of organizational goals, organizational performance (Allen & Rush, 1998) and help to shape the internal environment of the organization (Schneider, Goldstein & Smith, 1995). Borman & Motowidlo (1993: 72) defined contextual performance as „behaviors which do not support the technical core directly, but create and maintain the psychological, social and organizational environment in which task performance takes place‟. They mention a number of behaviors like volunteering, persisting, helping, following rules and endorsing organizational objectives as examples. The contextual behaviors, which together make up contextual performance, are not related to any specific job but are common across many jobs (Muse, Harris & Field, 2008) and can thus be exhibited by every
organizational member. Contextual performance is mostly voluntary in nature and as such not directly enforceable by the organization (McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996). Contextual performance, organizational citizenship behavior, prosocial organizational behavior, and extra-role behavior are terms in literature which share
considerable overlap (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo & Borman, 1998; Organ, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) and are often used interchangeably. Their substantive overlap leaves the possibility open to apply theories on organizational citizenship behavior, prosocial
organizational behavior and extra-role behavior to the contextual performance domain. The unit Zuiveringsbedrijf of the Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg has as its primary task the transport and purification of waste water which is washed away by citizens and companies onto the municipal sewage systems in the province. The management of the Zuiveringsbedrijf decided in 2008 that the organization should become a so-called high performance
at lower costs. The management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf has defined non-financial results such as performance goals, customer- and employee satisfaction and working conditions and safety to meet this objective. Furthermore the management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf, together with several employees, created two lists (one for managers and one for employees) of behaviors they would like to see from organizational members in order to support the process of becoming an HPO. Many of the behaviors on these lists are of a discretionary nature and could be summarized as contextual performance (e.g., confronting, supporting and coaching colleagues; approaching problems or objections in positive way). Contextual performance is thus of crucial importance to the Zuiveringsbedrijf. The goal of this research is thus to provide the management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf with
recommendations on how to stimulate organizational members (i.e. both managers and employees) of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf to exhibit more contextual behaviors and thus improve the contextual performance. This leads to the following main research question:
What are key drivers of contextual performance which can be influenced by the
management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf?
In the literature I found four antecedents of contextual performance which can be divided into two categories: exchange relationships and attitudes. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) are used to explain the influence of exchange relationships on contextual performance whereas the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is used to explain the influence of attitudes on contextual
Secondarily the different variables, together, cover various organizational levels.
Organizational commitment relates to the organizational level, team – member exchange relates to the group level and leader – member exchange and job involvement relate to the individual level. The model will be tested empirically within the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf and my contribution the body of scientific knowledge lies thus primarily in the reproduction of previous work.
--- insert figure 1 about here ---
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter will elaborate on two theories which are used to explain contextual
performance by organizational members. Many researchers build upon social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) to explain the fact that people exhibit contextual behaviors (e.g., Jawahar & Carr, 2007; Lambert, Hogan & Griffin, 2008). Social exchange theory suggests that interpersonal relationships develop around the exchange of resources, rewards, and psychological and emotional support (Sparrow & Liden, 1997; Yukl, 1989). According to Organ (1990), people in general assume that they have a social exchange relationship with people in the organization and expect that their favorable behavior will be rewarded in the future. If this does not happen they proceed to redefine their
behaviors to reciprocate benefits they receive or expect to receive from (someone in) the organization. Because task performance is usually prescribed and thus does not leave much opportunity for discretionary behavior it is reasonable to expect that people will reciprocate through contextual performance rather than task performance (Edwards, Bell, Arthur & Decuir, 2008). Consequently organizational members who redefine their relationship with someone in the organization as an economic exchange relationship will exhibit less contextual behavior or none at all.
Another way to explain why organizational members exhibit contextual performance can be found in the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Fishbein & Ajzen describe in their theory that the intention of an individual to exhibit certain behavior is influenced by the attitude towards the behavior. An attitude can be described as „a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object‟ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In other words an attitude is the way a person thinks and feels about a situation, idea, person or object and which has an influence on the way that person acts. For example, if a person has a positive attitude towards an organization or
towards his or her job, this will positively influence the intention to exhibit behaviors positive towards that organization. Contextual behaviors are such positive behaviors which can be aimed towards an organization or individuals in that organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Leader–member exchange and contextual performance
theory is that leaders form differential relationships with each of their subordinates and that the quality of this relationship has an impact on the behaviors of individuals (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In lower quality leader-member exchange relationships, the leader and member have a more formal relationship and their behavior is very much based on the formal work contract (Erdogan et al, 2004). In other words the relationship is closer to an economic exchange relationship than to a social exchange relationship. A leader-member exchange relationship which is characterized as high quality is based on high levels of respect, mutual trust and understanding. Members in such relationships receive higher performance
evaluations (Gerstner & Day, 1997) and more satisfying positions (Graen, Wakabayashi, Graen & Graen, 1990). Leaders in such relationships in return receive competent, committed and conscientious subordinates (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). These relationships go beyond the formal work contract (Liden & Graen, 1980) and could be labeled social exchange relationships. It has been proposed that the leader is often seen as the primary representation of the organization (Liden, Bauer & Erdogan, 2004). As the leader is seen as the primary representative of the organization, members will want to reciprocate to the organization by engaging in contextual performance if they have a high-quality relationship with the leader. Thus I come to the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between leader – member exchange and
contextual performance.
Team–member exchange and contextual performance
team members who receive valued information, resources and/or support from coworkers reciprocate in kind (Seers, 1989). A difference between team - member exchange and leader - member exchange is that leader - member exchange is dyadic of nature whereas team - member exchange contains the relationship between one person and a group of persons. As is the case with leader - member exchange, team - member exchange relationships may be of high quality or of lower quality. Lower quality team - member exchange relationships are limited to the exchange of resources which are required to complete a task and could be labeled economic exchange relationships whereas high quality team – member exchange relationships involve exchanges of resources and support beyond which are necessary for the completion of tasks (e.g., work related expertise and feedback; Liden, Wayne & Sparrow, 2000) and could be labeled social exchange relationships.
Team – member exchange has found to be positively related to job performance (Liden, Wayne & Sparrow, 2000; Seers, 1989) and sharing information, ideas and feedback in teams (Seers, 1989). I did not find any research which specifically looked at the relationship
between team – member exchange and contextual performance. However, there were several studies which provided indirect support for a relationship between team – member exchange and contextual performance. Settoon and Mossholder‟s (2002) field data from two
helping coworkers, which is an aspect of contextual performance. Based on the above I expect that when organizational members experience a high quality team - member exchange they are more likely to engage in contextual behaviors, thus I come to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between team – member exchange and
contextual performance.
Organizational commitment and contextual performance
Organizational commitment has been defined as identification and involvement with the organization via believing in the organization‟s values and goals, exerting effort on behalf of the organization, and desiring to remain with the organization (Mowday, Seers, & Porter, 1979). It provides the motive for incorporating organizational goals into a system of personal goals and values (Wiener, 1982). The positive relationship between organizational
commitment and contextual performance has been researched and established several times before (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Harrison et al, 2006). Furthermore, individuals who are highly committed to their organization have been shown to exhibit higher levels of effort and higher levels of performance than uncommitted individuals (Mowday, Seers & Porter, 1979).
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky (2002) and Hackett & Lapierre (2004) found a positive relation between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. According to the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) a positive attitude towards an object will lead to positive behavior towards that same object. In other words, when an organizational member is organizationally committed (the attitude) to a high degree this leads to the intention to exhibit behaviors which are positive for the organization (the object). Contextual behaviors are a good example of such behaviors and thus I come to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between organizational commitment and
Job involvement and contextual performance
Another important attitude is job involvement. Job involvement can be defined as „the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with one‟s present job‟ (Paullay et al, 1994). Given the fact that job involvement is thought to be an important determinant of effort and motivation (Diefendorff et al, 2002) and other job attitudes have been shown to be positively related to contextual performance (Van Scotter, 2000) it is anticipated that those high in job involvement will engage in more contextual behaviors and thus have a higher contextual performance. I expect that the more an individual is involved with his or her job the stronger the intention to protect or increase the „status‟ of their job becomes. The protection or increase of status can be achieved by showing that they can provide others in the organization with valuable resources. Resources like knowledge and power could be shared by helping and cooperating, which are contextual behaviors. Other organizational members might then attribute these resources to the job, so the status of the job is enhanced. With a stronger intention to protect or enhance the status of the job it thus
becomes more likely that an organizational member will actually exhibit contextual
behaviors. Furthermore, since Diefendorff et al. (2002) found evidence that job involvement is a predictor of contextual performance, I come to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between job involvement and the
contextual performance.
METHODS
Sample and procedure
outcomes of the research could be traced back to individual organizational members. 77 people replied which made for a response rate of 64 percent. Respondents were primarily male (five percent of the respondents were female). The average age of the respondents was 46 years, where 19 percent of the respondents came from the age group of 30 to 39 years. 56 percent of the respondents came from the 40 to 49 years age group and 25 percent in the age group above 50 years. 34 percent of the respondents worked at staff units, which the
Zuiveringsbedrijf calls support teams. All the other respondents worked in one of the three teams in the water purification process. The organizational members in the support teams are generally higher educated, meaning they have a bachelor or masters degree. The
organizational members in the teams in the water purification process generally have a vocational education (LBO/MBO).
Measures
The questionnaire measured contextual performance as a dependent variable and job involvement, organizational commitment, leader – member exchange and team – member exchange as independent variables.
Leader – member exchange. Leader – member exchange was measured by using the
LMX-MDM scale by Liden & Maslyn (1998)consisting of 13 items with answers on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)and a Cronbach‟s alpha of .92. An example of one the statements used is: „I like my supervisor very much as a person‟.
Team – member exchange. To measure team – member exchange, the TMX Quality
scale by Seers, Petty, & Cashman (1995) was used. This scale consists of 10 items which are rated on a 5 point scale and has a Cronbach‟s alpha of.75. „How often do you make
Organizational commitment. To measure organizational commitment I used the
affective commitment scale by Meyer, Allen & Smith (1993). The six statements to which the subjects had to react were rated on a 5 point scale with answers ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). An example statement is „I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization‟. The scale has a Cronbach‟s alpha of .88 .
Job involvement. I used the job involvement scale by Reeve & Smith (2001) which
originally consisted of 9 questions to measure job involvement. However, after negative feedback in the test round and a discussion with the supervisor from the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf I decided to remove the question „I live, eat and breathe my job‟ as this question might
negatively influence the response rate. Even without that question the scale still had a
Cronbach‟s alpha of .80 . The scale was rated on a 5 point scale with answers ranging from 1 (highly agree) to 5 (highly disagree). An example question is: „I am very much involved personally in my work‟.
Contextual performance. To measure contextual performance I used the organizational
citizenship behavior scale by Lee & Allen (2002). The scale consists of 16 items, asking respondents to indicate how often they themselves exhibited the respective behaviors. An example item is: „I help others who have been absent‟. Items were rated on a 5 point scale from 1 (always) to 5 (never). The scale has a Cronbach‟s alpha of .92.
Control variables. The control variables which were included were sex, organizational
tenure, team tenure. Sex was coded as either a 0 for male or a 1 for female. Respondents had to fill in their organizational tenure and team tenure in years.
Data analysis
organizational commitment and job involvement were entered. Contextual performance was entered as the dependent variable.
RESULTS
Correlations
The averages, standard deviations and Pearson correlations of the independent,
dependent and control variables are displayed in table 1. As can be seen in table 1 none of the control variables correlate significantly with the dependent variable: contextual performance1. Furthermore all the independent variables do correlate significantly with contextual
performance: leader - member exchange (r = .38, p < .01) , team - member exchange (r = .54, p < .01), organizational commitment (r = .49 , p < .01) and job involvement ( r = .39, p < .01). This is consistent with my expectations as I expected all independent variables to have a positive correlation with the dependent variable.
-- insert table 1 about here --
Hypothesis testing
After controlling for sex, organizational tenure and team tenure the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable turned out to be significant ( Δ R2 = .47, p < .01). This means that 47 percent of the variance in contextual performance can be explained by the independent variables taken together, over-and-above the control variables. The results of the regression analysis are displayed in table 2.
-- insert table 2 about here –
Table 2 furthermore shows that leader – member exchange did not predict contextual performance significantly (β = .09, p = n.s.). This means that hypothesis 1: there is a positive
relationship between leader – member exchange and contextual performance, was not
supported by the data. Team – member exchange on the other hand does predict contextual
1
performance significantly (β = .49, p < .01). Thus hypothesis 2: there is a positive
relationship between team – member exchange and contextual, was supported by the data.
The third hypothesis: there is a positive relationship between organizational commitment and
contextual performance, was supported by the data (β = .40, p < .01 , two – tailed) . Job
involvement does not significantly predict contextual as the data shows (β = -.07 , p = n.s.) Thus, hypothesis 4: there is a positive relationship between job involvement and contextual
performance, was not supported. To summarize, although the bivariate correlations supported
all my hypotheses the regression analysis only supports two out of four hypotheses.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Findings and practical implications
The starting point for this research was a question from the management of the unit
Zuiveringsbedrijf of the Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg. They wanted to know how they could stimulate certain behaviors which mostly turned out to be examples of contextual
performance. This question led to the following research question: what are key drivers of
contextual performance which can be influenced by the management of the unit
Zuiveringsbedrijf? The research process led to four antecedents of contextual which were
interesting to the management of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf. The hypotheses I set up all assumed a direct and positive relationship between the antecedent and contextual performance.
Two out of four hypotheses were supported by the data. Specifically, hypothesis 1:
there is a positive relationship between leader – member exchange and contextual
performance, was not supported. This can possibly be explained by two factors. The first
works, you could reason that it is why the relationship with the leader is the relatively unimportant for their contextual performance. The organizational members in the support teams could all be considered professionals. They also work with little or no supervision of their leader. This again could be an explanation for the lack of significant correlation between leader – member exchange and contextual performance. Seers (1989) made a similar
argument when he stated that „the more self-directing a team is expected to be, the more consequential team – member exchange relationships may be relative to leader – member exchange relationships‟. Furthermore, this could very well be an explanation for the
discrepancy between the bivariate correlations and the regression analysis concerning leader – member exchange. It is quite possible that, since leader – member exchange and team – member exchange are conceptually overlapping and provide individuals with similar benefits, this explains why leader – member exchange loses its significance when team – member exchange is included in the regression analysis. The second factor in explaining why leader – member exchange does not predict contextual performance could be that 66 percent of the respondents work in a team where they have recently (in the last half to one-and–a-half year) started working under a new leader. Graen & Uhl-Bien (1991) showed that the relationship between a leader and member develops over time. Keeping in mind that most organizational members have relatively little contact with their leader, it could be that they have not yet formed such a relationship with their leader that it influences their contextual performance. This means that leader – member exchange could develop to be a factor of influence in the future.
The second hypothesis: there is a positive relationship between team – member
exchange and contextual performance was supported by the data. This means that the unit
leaders can improve the team – member exchange of their organizational members by “facilitating and supporting friendship development in employee socialization processes”. Teambuilding activities could also contribute to this. Another possibility is featuring team accomplishments on the intranet and in organizational newsletters. Another strategy to improve the team – member exchange is to train or coach organizational members on interactional justice, as this is the most relevant perception for social exchange relationships like team – member exchange (Murphy, Wayne, Liden & Erdogan, 2003). A concrete example could be a training in giving feedback to other team members. Furthermore, Ford and Seers (2006) point to the detrimental effect that freeriding has on team – member exchange. Consequently any action to diminish (the perceptions of) freeriding in a team are likely to improve the team – member exchange in a team.
The third hypothesis: there is a positive relationship between organizational
commitment and contextual performance, was supported by the data. This means that the
contextual performance of organizational members of the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf can be improved by stimulating their organizational commitment. A possible course of action to improve the organizational commitment of organizational members of the unit
Zuiveringsbedrijf lies in the application of intrinsic rewards. According to Emery and Barker (2007), organizations which are able to meet employee needs by providing achievement opportunities and by recognizing achievements can significantly improve commitment and involvement. Thus in order to stimulate organizational commitment the unit Zuiveringsbedrijf could develop intrinsic reward systems that focus on personal importance or self-esteem, integrate individual and organizational goals, and design challenging jobs. Steyrer,
group orientation and considerate, participative leadership foster goal identification, and so can reduce resistance and withdrawal tendencies”. In other words: leaders should a embrace a more team-oriented, participative and humane-oriented leadership style, in order to stimulate the organizational commitment of the organizational members.
The fourth hypothesis: there is a positive relationship between job involvement and
contextual performance, was not supported by the data. A possible reason for the lack of a
significant correlation between contextual performance and job involvement is presented by Rotenberry and Moberg (2007: 211). They suggest that „organizational members may be committed to multiple entities, such as the organization, their team, and/or their supervisors.‟ According to them it stands to reason that job-involved employees may develop greater commitment to specific individuals (only those who are relevant for their job) in the organization rather than just the organization in general. This, according to the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), would then lead to positive behavior directed at those specific individuals. But this positive behavior does not necessarily have to be
contextual performance. Furthermore, Keller (1997) suggested that „job involvement is especially important for knowledge workers who are cosmopolitans and have internalized professional norms„. According to Keller the primary loyalty of such cosmopolitans is to the scientific field or their professional peer community outside of the organization. Examples of such cosmopolitans are physicians, attorneys or college professors. According to this
overlapping as job involvement loses its significance when organizational commitment is included in the regression analysis.
Theoretical implications
My research contributes to the body of scientific knowledge related to contextual performance and its antecedents in several ways. I have established a positive direct
relationship between team – member exchange and contextual performance. To the best of my knowledge that has not been done before, although Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) did
research into the relationship between team – member exchange and citizenship behavior targeted at coworkers. By doing so I have expanded the domain of both the contextual performance and team – member exchange literature. I furthermore add to the contextual performance literature by showing that both exchange relationships and attitudes are of importance to contextual performance, as variables from both categories have been found to have a positive relation with contextual performance. Also, Diefendorff et al. (2002) were the first to research the relationship between job involvement and contextual performance by using a measurement scale which is known to accurately measure job involvement. Previous research used to use scales that were contaminated by a related concept called work centrality (Diefendorff et al, 2002: 94). In their article Diefendorff et al called for retesting and
replication of their results. By retesting Diefendorff et al‟s work I tried to replicate their results. However my results make the question if there is positive relation between job involvement and contextual performance as salient as ever. Still more research needs to be done to answer to this question.
Strong points and limitations/recommendations for further research
unit Zuiveringsbedrijf, are positively related to contextual performance this does not mean that an increase in team – member exchange or organizational commitment are also the cause of an increase in contextual performance. Since I did a cross-sectional study, the relationship could be reverse or a third variable could even play a role. Another point of improvement in my research is the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Since both the dependent and the independent variables are measured from the same point of view; the organizational member, all kinds of biases could be introduced which can distort the results of my research. One good example could be the social
desirability bias. However, as Spector (2006) points out, common method variance in a cross-sectional, self reported study does not necessarily influence the results in a significant way. So although common method variance might be present in this research this is not fatal to the results.
Since I chose to ask people how they behave, I have to assume that the behavior that respondents describe is their actual exhibited behavior. Although this is a possible limitation, it is common practice in organizational research (e.g. Roe, Zinovieva, Dienes & Ten Horn, 2000; Ford & Seers, 2006; O‟Connell, Hartman, McDaniel, Gurbb & Lawrence, 2007). Another limitation in the research concerns the demographic properties of the sample. None of the respondents fell in the age category below 30 and only five percent of the respondents were female. Although the age distribution of the respondents was representative of the age distribution of the organization, this limits the generalizability of the results towards other, more gender and age-balanced organizations.
be a suitable candidate to do this, as this is commonly done in organizational research (e.g. Smith, Organ & Near, 1983; Murphy et al, 2003; Tse, Dasborough & Askanasy, 2008). Alternatively, 360 degree feedback would even be better to measure actual contextual behaviors (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Further research should be conducted in more than one organization, with different organizational characteristics and a more diverse population demographic in order to be able to generalize the research to other organizations as well. In particular the relationship between team – member exchange and contextual performance is interesting with respect to this. As I am the first to establish this direct relationship my results need to be substantiated. Also interesting with respect to future research is the relationship between job involvement and contextual performance. As my results contradicted the results of Diefendorff et al (2002), rigorous retesting is necessary to find out whether this
REFERENCE LIST
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83: 247–260.
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. 2000. Does one good turn deserve another? coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of organizational behavior, 24: 181– 196.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N., & Borman, W.C. Personnel selection in
organizations. 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10: 99-109
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. 2005. Relational correlates of interpersonal
citizenship behavior: a social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 70– 91.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process.
Organizational behavior and human performance, 13: 46-78.
De Waal, A. A. 2008. Maak van je bedrijf een toporganisatie!, de vijf pijlers van een high
performance organization. Culemborg: Van Duuren Management.
Diefendorff, J.M., Brown, D.J., Kamin, A.M., & Lord, R.G. 2002. Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of organizational behavior, 23: 93-108
Edwards, B.D., Bell, S.T., Arthur, W., & Decuir, A.D. 2008. Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and Task and Contextual Performance. Applied psychology: an international
review, 57: 441-465.
Emery, C.R., & Barker, K.J. 2007. Effect of commitment, job involvement and teams on customer satisfaction and profit. Team performance management. 13(4): 90-101
Erdogan, B., Sparrow, R.T., Liden, R.C, & Dunegan, K.J. 2004. Implications of
organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Human resource management review, 14: 19-45
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to
Ford, L.R., & Seers, A. 2006. Relational leadership and team climates: pitting differentiation versus agreement. The leadership quarterly, 17: 258-270
Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827–844.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161–177
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1991. The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions : toward a theory of leader-making. Journal of
management systems, 3(3):33-48
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member exchange (leader - member exchange) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership quarterly, 6: 219–247.
Graen, G.B., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M.R., & Graen, M.G. 1990. international
generalizability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: a strong inference investigation. Leadership quarterly, 1: 1-23.
Hackett, R.D., & Lapierre, L.M. 2004. A meta-analytical explanation of the relationship
between leader - member exchange and ocb. Academy of management best conference
paper.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytical comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of
management journal, 49: 305-325
Hogan, J., Rybicki, S.L., Motowidlo, S.J., & Borman, W.C. 1998. Relations between contextual performance, personality and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11: 189-207
Jawahar, I.M. & Carr, D. 2007. Conscientiousness and contextual performance, the compensatory effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange.
Journal of managerial psychology. 22(4): 330-349
Kamdar, D. & Van Dyne, L. 2007. The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal
of applied psychology. 90(5): 1286-1298
Keller, R.T. 1997. Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance: a study of scientist and engineers. Journal of applied psychology. 82(4): 539 - 545
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, L.N. & Griffin, M.L. 2008. Being the good soldier, organizational citizenship behavior and commitment among correctional staff. Criminal justice and
behavior. 35(1): 56-68
Liden, R. C., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. 2004. The role of leader–member exchange in the dynamic relationship between employer and employee: Implications for employee
socialization, leaders, and organization. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E.Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and
contextual perspectives 226–250. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of management journal, 23: 451–465.
Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management. 24(1): 43-72 Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Sparrowe, R.T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships and work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology. 85(3): 407-416
McNeely, B.L., & Meglino, B.M. 1994. The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 19: 836-844.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of applied psychology. 78(4): 538-551
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. 2002. Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61: 20-52
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of applied psychology, 79: 475-480 Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14: 224–247.
Murphy, S.M., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Erdogan, B. 2003. Understanding social loafing: the role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human relations, 56: 61-84 Muse, L., Harris, S.G., & Field, H.S. 2008. Work-life benefits and positive organizational behavior: is there a connection? Journal of organizational behavior, 29: 171-192
O‟Connell, M.S., Hartman, N.S., McDaniel, M.A., Grubb, W.L., & Lawrence, A. 2007. Incremental validity of situational judgment tests for task and contextual job performance.
O‟Driscoll, M.P., & Randall, D.M. 1999. Perceived organizational support, satisfaction with rewards, and employee job involvement and organizational commitment. Applied
psychology: and international review. 28(2): 197-209
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytical review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48: 775-800
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: it‟s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10: 85–97.
Organ, D.W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. Research
in organizational citizenship behaviour, 12: 43-72
Paullay, I.M., Alliger, G.M., & Stone-Romero, E.F. 1994. Construct validation of two instruments designs to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of applied
psychology, 79: 224–228
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of applied psychology. 88(5): 879-903
Reeve, C.L., & Smith, C.S. 2001. Refining Lodahl and Kejner‟s job involvement scale with a convergent evidence approach: applying multiple methods to multiple samples.
Organizational research methods. 4: 91-111
Roe, R.A., Zinovieva, I.L., Dienes, E., & Ten Horn, L.A. 2000. A comparison of work motivation in Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Netherlands: test of a model. Applied psychology:
an international review. 49(4): 658-687
Rotenberry, P.F., & Moberg, P.J. Assessing the impact of job involvement on performance.
Management Research News. 30(3): 203-215
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. 1995. The ASA framework: an update.
Personnel psychology, 48: 747–773.
Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 43: 118−135.
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. 1995. Team–member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group and Organization
Management, 20: 18−38.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: the differential effects of perceived organizational support and leader member exchange. Journal
of applied psychology, 81: 219–227.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: it‟s nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology. 68(4): 653-663
Sparrow, R.T., & Liden, R.C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange.
Academy of management review, 22: 522-552
Spector, P.E. 2006. Method variance in organizational research, truth or legend?
Organizational research methods. 9(2): 221-232
Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M., & Lang, R. 2008. Organizational commitment – a missing link between leadership behavior and organizational performance? Scandinavian journal of
management, 24: 364 – 374
Tse, H.H.M., & Dasborough, M.T. 2008. A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group organization management, 33: 194-215
Tse, H.H.M., Dasborough, M.T., Ashkanasy, N.M. 2008. A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. The leadership quarterly, 19: 195-211
Van Scotter, J.R. & Motowidlo, S.J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance, Journal of applied psychology, 81: 525-531. Van Scotter, J.R. 2000. Relationship of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction and affective commitment. Human resource management review, 10: 79-95
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of management journal, 40: 82–111.
Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy of management
review. 7(3): 418-428
Table 2: Regression analysis Contextual Performance Variable R2
∆R
2 β Step 1 0.1 0.1 Sex .05 Organizational Tenure .01 Team Tenure .10 Step 2 .48 ** .47** Sex .07 Organizational Tenure .01 Team Tenure .11 Organizational Commitment .40 **Leader Member Exchange .09
Team Member Exchange .49 **
Job Involvement -.07
