The Relative Importance of Task, Citizenship, and CounterproductivePerformance to Global

Ratings of Job Performance: A Policy-Capturing Approach

The study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology aimed to investigate the relative
importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to ratings of overall job
performance using an experimental policy-capturing approach. The research reviewed 20 years of
literature and identified three broad components that constitute job performance: task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance. It was found that these components varied across raters and
could be grouped into three homogeneous clusters based on their weightings.

The study's findings supported the hypotheses, indicating that task performance was given
significant weight in ratings of overall performance, often receiving a larger weight than citizenship
performance. Additionally, the research revealed that counterproductive performance was also
given a significant weight in overall performance ratings. Furthermore, the study found that raters'
policies varied significantly, with some placing more emphasis on task performance, others on
counterproductive performance, and a third group balancing both task and counterproductive
performance. The results indicated that these three components influence overall job performance
ratings and that managers tend to have unique implicit rating policies.

Overall, the study provided empirical evidence of the varying importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance in overall job performance ratings. The research highlighted the
complexity of performance evaluation and the diverse perspectives of managers when assessing
different aspects of employee performance. These findings have significant implications for
understanding the multifaceted nature of job performance and the subjective nature of
performance evaluations, shedding light on the need for a comprehensive understanding of the
various components that contribute to overall job performance.

How much weight did raters give to task, citizenship, and

counterproductive performance when rating overall performance?
The study found that raters gave the most weight to task and counterproductive performance, with
less but still significant weight given to citizenship performance when rating overall job
performance. On average, task and counterproductive performance together explained a
substantial proportion of the variance in overall performance ratings, ranging from 51% to 64%,
while citizenship performance explained between 4% and 20% of the variation. The study also
revealed that raters' policies varied significantly, with some placing more emphasis on task
performance, others on counterproductive performance, and a third group balancing both task and
counterproductive performance. These findings indicate that raters demonstrate unique implicit
rating policies that can be grouped into three distinct clusters based on the relative importance
they assign to task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance.
What were the main findings regarding the relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to supervisory ratings of
overall job performance?
The main findings regarding the relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance to supervisory ratings of overall job performance are as follows:

1. The study revealed that all three components (task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance) influence ratings of overall job performance, but to different degrees. On average,
raters gave the most weight to task and counterproductive performance, with less but still
significant weight given to the citizenship component.

2. Task and counterproductive performance together explained a substantial proportion of the

variance in overall performance ratings, ranging from 51% to 64%, while citizenship performance
explained between 4% and 20% of the variation.

3. The study identified three homogeneous clusters of raters based on the weights they assigned to
the performance components: one cluster weighted task performance highest, another weighted
counterproductive performance highest, and a third cluster gave equal and large weights to both
task and counterproductive performance.

4. The results indicated that raters' policies varied significantly, with some placing more emphasis
on task performance, others on counterproductive performance, and a third group balancing both
task and counterproductive performance.

5. The study also found that raters' policies did not cluster according to the organizations they
represented, and raters in the clusters did not differ significantly in terms of various demographic
and background variables.

In summary, the study provided empirical evidence that all three components (task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance) influence ratings of overall job performance, but raters
demonstrate unique implicit rating policies that can be grouped into three distinct clusters based
on the relative importance they assign to these components.
How did raters' policies for combining information about task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance vary?
The study found that managers did not share a common policy for combining information about
task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance when rating overall job performance. The
within-subjects regression analyses revealed considerable variation in the relative weights given to
these performance components. Subsequent analyses grouped raters' policies into three distinct
clusters based on their relative weights. One cluster included raters who placed the most weight on
task performance, another cluster weighted counterproductive performance highest, and a third
cluster gave equal and large weights to both task and counterproductive performance. These
findings indicate that raters' policies for combining information about task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance varied significantly, with some placing more emphasis on task
performance, others on counterproductive performance, and a third group balancing both task and
counterproductive performance. The study also found that raters' policies did not cluster according
to the organizations they represented, and raters in the clusters did not differ significantly in terms
of various demographic and background variables.

What were the distinct clusters of raters based on their policies for combining
information about task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance?
The study identified three distinct clusters of raters based on their policies for combining
information about task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance. The first cluster included
raters who placed the most weight on task performance, emphasizing the successful completion of
job-related actions and behaviors. The second cluster consisted of raters who gave the most weight
to information about employees' counterproductive performance, valuing integrity and professional
conduct. The third cluster included raters who placed the most weight on both task and
counterproductive performance and less weight on citizenship performance, emphasizing the
importance of completing tasks and maintaining personal and professional integrity. These findings
indicate that raters' policies for combining information about task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance varied significantly, with some placing more emphasis on task
performance, others on counterproductive performance, and a third group balancing both task and
counterproductive performance.

The study aimed to investigate the relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance to supervisory ratings of overall job performance using an experimental policy-
capturing approach. The research reviewed 20 years of literature and identified three broad
components that constitute job performance: task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance. The study found that all three components influence ratings of overall job
performance, but to different degrees. On average, raters gave the most weight to task and
counterproductive performance, with less but still significant weight given to the citizenship
component. The results revealed that raters demonstrate unique implicit rating policies that can be
grouped into three distinct clusters based on the relative importance they assign to these
components.
The study identified three homogeneous clusters of raters based on their policies for combining
information about task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance. One cluster included
raters who placed the most weight on task performance, another cluster weighted
counterproductive performance highest, and a third cluster gave equal and large weights to both
task and counterproductive performance. These findings indicate that raters' policies for combining
information about task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance varied significantly.

The study also found that raters' policies did not cluster according to the organizations they
represented, and raters in the clusters did not differ significantly in terms of various demographic
and background variables. The results indicated that the relative importance of the three
performance components does not vary by job per se but by rater. The study provided empirical
evidence that establishes the relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance to supervisory ratings of overall job performance.

Key quotes from the document include:

- "The results revealed that although all three components influence ratings of overall job
performance, raters demonstrate unique implicit rating policies that can be grouped into three
distinct clusters."

- "The study provided empirical evidence that establishes the relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to supervisory ratings of overall job performance."

- "The findings from this study lend support to a conceptualization of job performance that goes
beyond task elements to one that includes citizenship and counterproductive behaviors."

In summary, the study provided empirical evidence of the varying importance of task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance in overall job performance ratings, shedding light on the need
for a comprehensive understanding of the various components that contribute to overall job
performance.

- **Article Title**: "The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance
to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach."

- **Authors**: Maria Rotundo, Paul R. Sackett

**Summary:**

- **Introduction**:
 - Job performance is often categorized into three broad components: task performance,
citizenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior.

- This study aims to investigate the relative importance of these components in overall
performance ratings using a policy-capturing approach.

- **Methodology**:

- Experimental policy-capturing design utilized hypothetical employee profiles describing task,

citizenship, and counterproductive performance.

- Managers from various job roles read these profiles and provided global ratings of performance.

- Within-subjects regression analyses were conducted to examine the weights given to task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance by raters.

- Hierarchical cluster analyses grouped raters' policies into homogeneous clusters based on their
weighting of performance components.

- Hierarchical linear modeling assessed the relationship between demographic variables and
raters' weights.

- **Findings**:

- Weights given to task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance varied across raters,
indicating individual differences in the importance assigned to each component.

- Hierarchical cluster analyses revealed three homogeneous clusters of raters based on their
performance weighting:

- Task performance weighted highest.

- Counterproductive performance weighted highest.

- Equal and substantial weights given to task and counterproductive performance.

- Demographic variables showed no significant relationship with raters' weights, suggesting that
individual characteristics did not influence the importance assigned to performance components.

- **Conclusion**:

- The study highlights the variability in the relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance in overall performance ratings.

- Individual raters exhibit distinct preferences and priorities regarding these performance
components.
 - Understanding these differences can inform performance evaluation processes and help tailor
feedback and development initiatives to align with the priorities of raters in different contexts.

- The findings underscore the complexity of performance evaluation and the need for nuanced
approaches to assess and manage job performance effectively.