Latent constructs of proximal and distal motivation predicting performance under maximum test conditions.

Abstract

The concept of a maximum-typical performance dimension has received theoretical and empirical support in research on the construct of job performance. The critical distinction between maximum and typical performance resides in the postulate that under maximum test conditions motivational factors will be constant and maximal. The present study challenges the notion of the maximum performance paradigm by testing the effects of proximal (self-efficacy) and distal (need for achievement) motivation on performance under maximum test conditions. The authors used a walk-through performance test to evaluate the performance of 90 employees. The structural model demonstrates significant pathways between latent measures of motivation and performance ratings. The findings confirm the explanatory power of the motivation construct under maximum test conditions.

Rational or demoralized responses to work restructuring in Hong Kong?

“…That is, a demoralized person loses the motivation and energy to do anything actively, including improving job performance, undergoing training, and seeking alternative job opportunities (Kirk & Brown, 2003;Patterson, 1997;Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001). This is because the person is not rationally oriented toward finding a better job.…”

What Would You Do—Really or Ideally? Constructs Underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in Predicting Typical Versus Maximum Performance

“…Prior research has employed relatively strong manipulations, with assessments of maximum performance lasting minutes (Klehe & Anderson, 2004;Sackett et al, 1988;Smith-Jentsch et al, 2001), hours (Kirk & Brown, 2003), or days (Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). Very short observation time periods, especially when assessing sociopsychological variables such as teamplaying, are vulnerable to at least two threats to validity relative to longer observation periods (Cascio, 1998).…”

Some Ethical Implications of Individual Competitiveness

“…6;Morey and Gerber 1995;Riskind and Wilson 1982;Tassi and Schneider 1997), are inclined toward counterproductive work behaviors (Dahling et al 2009), and are poor contributors to work teams (Tjosvold et al 2008). Highly competitive people rarely tend to be high performers, whether the specific context is school (Bing 1999;Elliot and McGregor 2001;Farmer 1985;Olds and Shaver 1980;Schroth and Andrew 1987), or various tasks (Johnson and Perlow 1992;Kline and Sell 1996) or jobs Fletcher and Nusbaum 2010;Kirk and Brown 2003;Helmreich et al 1986), even that of astronaut (Musson et al 2004;Rose et al 1994). Highly competitive nations (as assessed by mean levels of citizen competitiveness) tend to perform relatively poorly in terms of Gross Domestic Product (Furnham et al 1994) and national wealth (Van de Vliert et al 2000).…”