Performance Management Systems: Task‐Contextual Dilemma Owing to the Involvement of the Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12167
• Date: 01 June 2019
• Author: Gaye Özçelİk,Cavİde B. Uyargİl
• Published date: 01 June 2019

Performance Management Systems:

Task-Contextual Dilemma Owing to the

Involvement of the Psychological Contract and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

GAYE ÖZÇELİK

1

and CAVİDE B. UYARGİL

2

1

Faculty of Communication, İstanbul Bilgi University,34060, İstanbul, Turkey

2

School of Business, İstanbul University, 34320, İstanbul, Turkey

The two dimensions of the performance management system, namely task and contextual performance have

received the most attention from various scholars with regard to their contributive role in employees’goal

accomplishment. It has been the case for decades that in addition to task performance; employers have started to

use competency evaluations, which usually involve contextual performance dimensions as well. Organizational

citizenship behavior (OCB) and the psychological contract (PC) have become more intertwined with performance

management systems. The objective of this study is to assess whether competency frameworks in performance

management systems are actually incorporating OCBs and PC dimensions. The competency definitions and

behavioral indicators within the performance management handbooks of 10 organizations were considered as the

data set. The findings reveal that many terms of OCB and PC dimensions are embedded in the competency

frameworks. This introductory paper provides important insights helping to restructure the PMS domain in which

both task and discretionary behaviors are taken into account when appraising employee success.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior (OCB); psychological contract (PC); performance management

system (PMS); competencies; behavioral indicators

Introduction

The performancemanagement system (PMS) isone of the

most important and controversial areas among the

practices of human resource management in

organizations. Effective and efficient performance

appraisal systems enable just and fair determination of

rewards, provide managerial feedback, foster correct

assessment of training and development needs and

provide human resource planning information (Talukder,

2014). On the other hand, an organization’s performance

appraisal system, despite its emphasis, leads to the

appraisal system often being controversial and

problematic, mainly with respect to the criteria developed

and used for appraisingperformance, the absence of tools

directed at improving the system as well as a lack of

understanding and/or communication. (Dargham and

Abi, 2008; Daoanis, 2012).

In traditionalperformance managementapproaches, the

main appraisal criteria were considered to be based on the

job descriptionsor the in-role behaviorswhich is related to

the task performance (Griffin et al., 2007; Hawkes and

Weathington, 2014). Today however, PMS is regarded

as a multidimensional construct (Borman and Motowidlo,

1993; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Befort and

Hattrup, 2003) and has been argued to involve not only

task performance but also contextual performance

dimensions by various scholars (Borman and Motowidlo,

1993; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter,

2000) who have drawn a distinction between the two.

Task performance involves those work activities that

refer to the organization’s technical core processes and

maintenance activities and is prescribe by the formal job

role. Contextual performance, on the other hand, refers

to those voluntary activities that are discretionary in

nature. It has been for decades that in addition to task

performance employers have started to consider

contextual performance as a fundamental part of the

employee performance criteria (Werner, 2000).

Correspondence: Gaye Özçelik, Facultyof Communication, İstanbulBilgi

University,34060, İstanbul, Turkey.E-mail gaye.ozcelik@bilgi.edu.tr

European Management Review, Vol. 16, 347–362, (2019)

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12167

©2018 European Academy of Management

Competency-based approaches have been argued to be

embedded in contextual performance dimension as a

basis for staffing, appraisal and development decisions

(Krausert, 2008). They have been brought to the fore as

effective criteria, not only for appraising performance,

but also for creating human resources (HR) systems, in

preference to traditional job descriptions (Hawkes and

Weathington, 2014). The main starting point regarding

the implementation of competencies in HR systems is

the focus on workers’knowledge, skills and attributes

rather than job descriptions (Lawler, 1994). Campion

et al. (2011) pointed outthat competency models are used

for many different processes of HR, including selection,

appraisal, promotion and training. The competency-based

approach haslong been highly deliberated uponregarding

its ability to attract new and high potential employees as

well as to retain current ones (Lawler, 1994; Dubois and

Rothwell, 2010).

One of the theoretical implications of contextual

performance is its link with organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB). OCB is defined as a set of voluntary

behaviors that goes beyond the job requirements or job

descriptions of employees in organizations (Organ,

1988; George, 1991; Jahangir et al., 2004). OCB is

compared to contextual performance that also refers to

non-task related work behaviors and activities that

contribute to the social and psychological aspects of the

organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Werner,

2000). Both OCB and contextual performance involve

the extra-role behaviors other than those required to

perform the job requirements. The dynamic changes in

organizationalenvironments asking for broaderemployee

performance requirements have led employers to expect

some new and broader skills and behaviors from their

employees so as to achieve the strategic goals of their

organizations. Two crucial frameworks in the study of

behavior, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)

and the psychological contract (PC), have become more

intertwined with the individual performance management

system, which thus has resulted in a broader performance

management system (Robinson and Morrison, 1995).

A considerable body of theoretical research about the

performance management construct has examined the

relationship of performance management (MacKenzie

et al., 1991; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Bush and

Jiao, 2011; Zheng et al., 2012; Yeh, 2011) with OCB

(Podsakoff et al., 2000; Nasir et al., 2011). However,

contradictory findings have arisen with respect to

whether OCBs are formally embraced in performance

management systems on the basis of diverse research

findings or not. Many studies (Podsakoff et al., 2000;

Marinova et al., 2010) have found that employees are, in

general, not expected to perform extra-role behaviors by

their managers and correspondingly, employees cannot

expect to be rewarded for these behaviors Bateman and

Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988(Podsakoff et al., 2000;

Jahangir et al., 2004). That is, OCB is not considered as

part of criteria assessed within employee performance

evaluations (Organ, 1988). However, some researchers

have paid attention to the broadened job performance

domains that include not only task, but also contextual

performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000, 2009). Research

efforts considering the relationship between OCB and

PMS have discovered that inclusion of discretionary

behaviors in performance evaluation can motivate

employees when they see their contributions to this effect

are valued in the organization. In turn, this could also

contribute to employees’perception s of fairness in the

performance management process (MacKenzie et al.,

1991; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Johnson et al.,

2009; Yeh, 2011). Similarly, the less the emphasis on

performing beyond employees’job requirements, the

more the probability that it will result in the overlooking

of employee contri butions and the lower the fairness

perceptions about PMS on the part of the employee(Bush

and Jiao, 2011; Yeh, 2011). Schroeder (2010: 5) asserted

that OCB is considered as being ‘an alternative form of

performance differentiated from traditional performance

on the basis of its relative freedom from situational and

ability constraints’. Allen and Rush (1998) also indicated

that an employee’s overall performance is highly

influenced by their task-related performance and OCB,

as assessed by their managers. These paradoxical findings

guide us to examining further the extent to which OCBs

are explicitly evident within the behavioral dimension of

performance for appraising employees.

Although not many, a number of studies have put

forward that the psychological contract is associated with

individual performance management (Stiles et al., 1997;

Davila and Elvira, 2007; Scheepers and Shuping, 2011).

The term refers to employee beliefs regarding the

promises of the organization and employees’acceptance

of and reliance upon, expectations or promises (Davila

and Elvira, 2007; Scheepers and Shuping, 2011).

Different organizational units and organizational

processes can send different messages regarding

expectations. HR practices can play an important role in

developing psychological contract with individuals as

each of these can function as a source of promise and

when a new HR practice is introduced, it changes the

conditions or terms of the psychological contract. For

instance, when a new performance appraisal system is

developed and launched for execution, this can change

employees’perceptions of what the organization expects

of them in terms of, for example, performance standards

(competencies and/or goals), reward systems for

successful performance, feedback processes etc. (Davila

and Elvira, 2007). In these contexts, the perceived

psychological contract can come into question on thepart

of the employee, if the new expectations are not

348 G. Özçelik and C.B. Uyargil

©2018 European Academy of Management