Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:39:20.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The validity of Performance Environment Perception Scales: Environmental predictors of citizenship performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Arthur E. Poropat
Arthur E. Poropat*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research examined the validity of Performance Environment Perception Scales (PEPS), a new instrument designed to assess performance-relevant aspects of the work environment. A sample of 156 employees of an Australian university completed PEPS and their supervisors rated their task and citizenship performance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed PEPS to have a valid factor structure, and PEPS were found to be significantly correlated with citizenship performance, but not with task performance. Although this finding is consistent with theoretical predictions, PEPS are apparently the first measures of work environment perceptions that have confirmed this. Thus PEPS show promise as measures for use in future research and organizational development projects that focus on relationships between the work environment and performance. Limitations of the research and implications for the validity of PEPS, as well as for future research and practice, are discussed.

Keywords

Performance Environment Perception Scalescitizenship performancetask performancevalidation study
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 180 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AMOS 6.0.0. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 836–874.10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.836Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30.Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bretz, R. D. Jr., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321–352.10.1177/014920639201800206Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In Ilgen, D. R. & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 399–430). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature ofjob performance variability. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4), 605–619.10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605Google Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.10.1006/obhd.2001.2958Google Scholar
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44.10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6Google Scholar
D'Amato, A., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2008). Psychological climate and individual factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 33–54.10.1080/13594320701307420Google Scholar
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.299Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555–566.Google Scholar
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424Google Scholar
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879.Google Scholar
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269Google Scholar
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Chia-Huei, E. K., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., & Wright, M. A. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5–32.10.1080/13594320701662550Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Morrison, R. F. (1998). Games Raters Play: Politics, Strategies, and Impression Management in Performance Appraisal. in Smither, J.W. (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 163–208.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52Google Scholar
May, K., & Hittner, J. B. (1997). Tests for comparing dependent correlations revisited: A Monte Carlo study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 257–269.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R. & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39–53). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.Google Scholar
Neal, A., West, M., & Patterson, M. (2005). Do organizational climate and competitive strategy moderate the relationship between human resource management and productivity? Journal of Management, 31(4), 492–512.Google Scholar
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., LaCost, H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389–416.Google Scholar
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), 879–903.10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879Google Scholar
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.Google Scholar
Poropat, A.E., & Jones, L. (2009). Development and validation of a unidimensional measure of citizenship performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 851–869.10.1348/096317908X374139Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2002). g2K. Human Performance, 15(1–2), 3–24.Google Scholar
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (1998). The development of the Performance Environment Perception Scale and its underlying theoretical model. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (2001). Performance Environment Perception Scale. Christchurch, NZ: University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (2003). A methodology for determining employee perceptions of factors in the work environment that impact employee development and performance. Human Resource Development International, 6(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
Ripley, D., Hudson, I., & Turner, R. (2006). Cross-national similarities and differences in employee perceptions of issues in the work environment: The implications of context beyond national culture for the design of employee performance improvement interventions. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 41–66.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199–223.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.Google Scholar
Turnipseed, D., & Murkison, G. (2000). Good soldiers and their syndrome: Organizational citizenship behavior and the work environment. North American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 281–302.Google Scholar
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525–531.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557–574.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. H., & Goffin, R. D. (1997). Differences in accuracy of absolute and comparative performance appraisal methods. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 95–103.Google Scholar