1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 7, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 7, 2020

Within-Person Job Performance Variability Over Short Timeframes: Theory, Empirical Research, and Practice

Abstract

We begin by charting the evolution of the dominant perspective on job performance from one that viewed performance as static to one that viewed it as dynamic over long timeframes (e.g., months, years, decades) to one that views it as dynamic over not just long but also short timeframes (e.g., minutes, hours, days, weeks)—and that accordingly emphasizes the within-person level of analysis. The remainder of the article is devoted to the newer, short-timeframe research on within-person variability in job performance. We emphasize personality states and affective states as motivational antecedents. We provide accessible reviews of relevant theories and highlight the convergence of theorizing across the personality and affect antecedent domains. We then focus on several major avenues for future research. Finally, we discuss the implications of these perspectives for personnel selection and performance management in organizations as well as for employees aiming to optimize their job performance.

Keyword(s): intraindividual, job performance, personality states, state affect, within-person, within-subject
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
2020-01-21
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/7/1/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman PL. 1988. Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive abilities and information processing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 117:288–318
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguinis H. 2019. Performance Management Chicago: Chicago Bus. Press. , 4th ed..
  3. Alaybek B, Dalal RS. 2019. Within-person variability and job performance. The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes J Rauthmann. Elsevier In press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allport GW. 1927. Concepts of trait and personality. Psychol. Bull. 24:284–93
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Alvares KM, Hulin CL. 1972. Two explanations of temporal changes in ability-skill relationships: a literature review and theoretical analysis. Hum. Factors 14:295–308
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:367–403
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ariely D, Carmon Z. 2000. Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the defining features of summarized events. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13:191–201
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baard SK, Rench TA, Kozlowski SW 2014. Performance adaptation: a theoretical integration and review. J. Manag. 40:48–99
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baltes PB. 1997. On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. Am. Psychol. 52:366–80
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bandura A. 1983. Temporal dynamics and decomposition of reciprocal determinism: a reply to Phillips and Orton. Psychol. Rev. 90:166–70
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Barrett GV, Caldwell MS, Alexander RA 1985. The concept of dynamic criteria: a critical reanalysis. Pers. Psychol. 38:41–56
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barsade SG, Knight AP. 2015. Group affect. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:21–46
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Beal DJ. 2015. ESM 2.0: State of the art and the future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:383–407
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Beal DJ, Trougakos JP, Weiss HM, Dalal RS 2013. Affect spin and the emotion regulation process at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:593–605
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Beal DJ, Weiss HM, Barros E, MacDermid SM 2005. An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1054–68
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Berry CM, Carpenter NC, Barratt CL 2012. Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:613–36
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bliese PD, Adler AB, Flynn PJ 2017. Transition processes: a review and synthesis integrating methods and theory. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4:263–86
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bliese PD, Lang JWB. 2016. Understanding relative and absolute change in discontinuous growth models: coding alternatives and implications for hypothesis testing. Organ. Res. Methods 19:562–92
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Blumberg M, Pringle CD. 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: some implications for a theory of work performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 7:560–69
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bollen KA, Curran PJ. 2006. Latent Curve Models: A Structural Equation Perspective Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
  21. Boyce CJ, Wood AM, Daly M, Sedikides C 2015. Personality change following unemployment. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:991–1011
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Buckingham M, Goodall A. 2015. Reinventing performance management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93:40–50
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Campbell JP. 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 MD Dunnette, LM Hough 687–732 Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Campbell JP, Wiernik BM. 2015. The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:47–74
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cattell RB. 1963. The structuring of change by P-technique and incremental R-technique. Problems in Measuring Change CW Harris 167–98 Madison, WI: Univ. Wisc. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chaffin D, Heidl R, Hollenbeck JR, Howe M, Yu A et al. 2017. The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 20:3–31
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Church AT, Katigbak MS, Ching CM, Zhang H, Shen J et al. 2013. Within-individual variability in self-concepts and personality states: applying density distribution and situation-behavior approaches across cultures. J. Res. Pers. 47:922–35
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Clark MA, Robertson MM, Carter NT 2018. You spin me right round: a within-person examination of affect spin and voluntary work behavior. J. Manag. 44:3176–99
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Conway JM, Rogelberg SG, Pitts VE 2009. Workplace helping: interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Hum. Perform. 22:321–39
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cropanzano R, Weiss HM, Hale JM, Reb J 2003. The structure of affect: reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity. J. Manag. 29:831–57
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dahlke JA, Kostal JW, Sackett PR, Kuncel NR 2018. Changing abilities versus changing tasks: examining validity degradation with test scores and college performance criteria both assessed longitudinally. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:980–1000
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dalal RS. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1241–55
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Dalal RS, Alaybek B, Sheng Z, Holland SJ, Tomassetti AJ 2019. Extending situational strength theory to account for situation-outcome mismatch. J. Bus. Psychol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09632-z
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dalal RS, Bhave DP, Fiset J 2014. Within-person variability in job performance: a theoretical review and research agenda. J. Manag. 40:1396–436
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dalal RS, Lam H, Weiss HM, Welch ER, Hulin CL 2009. A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 52:1051–66
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Dalal RS, Meyer RD, Bradshaw RP, Green JP, Kelly ED, Zhu M 2015. Personality strength and situational influences on behavior: a conceptual review and research agenda. J. Manag. 41:261–87
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Dalal RS, Sheng Z. 2019. When is helping behavior unhelpful? An interdisciplinary review and future research agenda. J. Vocat. Behav. 110:Part B272–85
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Debusscher J, Hofmans J, De Fruyt F 2016. Do personality states predict momentary task performance? The moderating role of personality variability. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89:330–51
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dierdorff EC, Bell ST, Belohlav JA 2011. The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:247–62
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dormann C, Griffin MA. 2015. Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychol. Methods 20:489–505
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Edwards JR, Berry JW. 2010. The presence of something or the absence of nothing: increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organ. Res. Methods 13:668–89
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fiske DW, Rice L. 1955. Intra-individual response variability. Psychol. Bull. 52:217–50
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fleeson W. 2001. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80:1011–27
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Fleeson W, Gallagher P. 2009. The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97:1097–114
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Fleeson W, Jayawickreme E. 2015. Whole trait theory. J. Res. Pers. 56:82–92
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC 2009. The interpersonal signature. J. Res. Pers. 43:155–62
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fredrickson BL. 2000. Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: the importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cogn. Emot. 14:577–606
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fredrickson BL. 2003. The value of positive emotions: the emerging science of positive psychology is coming to understand why it's good to feel good. Am. Sci. 91:330–35
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Bennett AA, Sloan MD 2017. It's about time: The promise of continuous rating assessments for the organizational sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 20:32–60
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Gelfand MJ, Lun J. 2013. The culture of the situation: the role of situational strength in cultural systems. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 16:34–38
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gelfand MJ, Nishii LH, Raver JL 2006. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1225–44
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Golder SA, Macy MW. 2011. Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science 333:1878–81
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Grant AM, Ashford SJ. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:3–34
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Green JP, Dalal RS, Swigart KL, Bleiberg MA, Wallace DM, Hargrove AK 2019. Personality strength and situational influences on within-person performance variation. J. Manag. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Halbesleben JRB, Neveu J-P, Paustian-Underdahl SC, Westman M 2014. Getting to the “COR”: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manag. 40:1334–64
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hamaker EL, Ceulemans E, Grasman RPPP, Tuerlinckx F 2015. Modeling affect dynamics: state of the art and future challenges. Emot. Rev. 7:316–22
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Herde CN, Lievens F. 2018. Multiple speed assessments: theory, practice, and research evidence. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Heron KE, Smyth JM. 2010. Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behavior treatments. Br. J. Health Psychol. 15:1–39
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hofmans J, De Clercq B, Kuppens P, Verbeke L, Widiger TA 2019. Testing the structure and process of personality using ambulatory assessment data: an overview of within-person and person-specific techniques. Psychol. Assess. 31:432–43
     [Google Scholar]
  60. House RJ, Rousseau DM, Thomas-Hunt M 1995. The meso paradigm: a framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 BM Staw, LL Cummings 71–114 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Huang JL, Ryan AM. 2011. Beyond personality traits: a study of personality states and situational contingencies in customer service jobs. Pers. Psychol. 64:451–88
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hulin CL, Henry RA, Noon SL 1990. Adding a dimension: time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychol. Bull. 107:328–40
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ilies R, Scott BA, Judge TA 2006. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 49:561–75
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Judge TA, Simon LS, Hurst C, Kelley K 2014. What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:199–221
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kahneman D 1999. Objective happiness. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology D Kahneman, E Diener, N Schwarz 3–25 New York: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kahneman D. 2000. Evaluation by moments: past and future. Choices, Values and Frames D Kahneman, A Tversky 693–708 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Russell: Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Keil CT, Cortina JM. 2001. Degradation of validity over time: a test and extension of Ackerman's model. Psychol. Bull. 127:673–97
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Koopman J, Lanaj K, Scott BA 2016. Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: a daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Acad. Manag. J. 59:414–35
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kuppens P. 2019. Temporal dynamics. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences V Zeigler-Hill, TK Shackelford New York: Springer In press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kuppens P, Oravecz Z, Tuerlinckx F 2010. Feelings change: accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99:1042–60
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kuppens P, Van Mechelen I, Nezlek JB, Dossche D, Timmermans T 2007. Individual differences in core affect variability and their relationship to personality and psychological adjustment. Emotion 7:262–74
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kuppens P, Verduyn P. 2017. Emotion dynamics. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 17:22–26
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lang JWB, Bliese PD. 2009. General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change: applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:411–28
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee H, Dalal RS. 2011. The effects of performance extremities on ratings of dynamic performance. Hum. Perform. 24:99–118
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee S, Dalal RS. 2016. Climate as situational strength: safety climate strength as a cross-level moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and safety behavior. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:120–32
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Lievens F, Lang J, De Fruyt F, Corstjens J, Van de Vijver M, Bledow R 2018. The predictive power of people's intraindividual variability across situations: implementing whole trait theory in assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:753–71
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lievens F, Ones DS, Dilchert S 2009. Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1514–35
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lord RG, Diefendorff JM, Schmidt AM, Hall RJ 2010. Self-regulation at work. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61:543–68
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:356–76
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 34:410–76
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR, D'Innocenzo L 2014. Time and teams. Time and Work, Vol. 2: How Time Impacts Groups, Organizations and Methodological Choices AJ Shipp, Y Fried 6–29 New York: Psychology Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Mathieu JE, Rapp TL. 2009. Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:90–103
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Mathieu JE, Taylor SR. 2007. A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 28:141–72
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Matta FK, Erol-Korkmaz HT, Johnson RE, Biçaksiz P 2014. Significant work events and counterproductive work behavior: the role of fairness, emotions, and emotion regulation. J. Organ. Behav. 35:920–44
     [Google Scholar]
  85. McCormick BW, Reeves CJ, Downes PE, Li N, Ilies R 2019. Scientific contributions of within-person research in management: making the juice worth the squeeze. J. Manag. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Meißner M, Oll J. 2017. The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: a taxonomy, review, and future avenues. Organ. Res. Methods 22:590–617
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Merlo KL, Shaughnessy SP, Weiss HM 2018. Affective influences on within-person changes in work performance as mediated by attentional focus. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27:126–39
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Mestdagh M, Pe M, Pestman W, Verdonck S, Kuppens P, Tuerlinckx F 2018. Sidelining the mean: the relative variability index as a generic mean-corrected variability measure for bounded variables. Psychol. Methods 23:690–707
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Bonaccio S 2009. A meta-analytic investigation into situational strength as a moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 30:1077–102
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J. Manag. 36:121–40
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, José I, Hermida R, Chen TR et al. 2014. Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. J. Manag. 40:1010–41
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Minbashian A, Wood RE, Beckmann N 2010. Task-contingent conscientiousness as a unit of personality at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:793–806
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Mischel W, Shoda Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102:246–68
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Mitchell TR, James LR. 2001. Building better theory: time and the specification of when things happen. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:530–47
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Moghimi D, Zacher H, Scheibe S, Van Yperen NW 2016. The selection, optimization, and compensation model in the work context: a systematic review and meta-analysis of two decades of research. J. Organ. Behav. 38:247–75
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Molenaar PCM, Campbell CG. 2009. The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18:112–17
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D 2015. Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40:515–37
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC. 2004. Flux, pulse, and spin: dynamic additions to the personality lexicon. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86:880–93
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Murphy KR. 1989. Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time. ? Hum. Perform. 2:183–200
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Murphy KR. 2008. Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:148–60
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, Collins LM, Witkiewitz K et al. 2018. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann. Behav. Med. 52:446–62
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Nesselroade JR, McArdle JJ, Aggen SH, Meyers JM 2002. Dynamic factor analysis models for representing process in multivariate time-series. Multivariate Applications Book Series. Modeling Intraindividual Variability with Repeated Measures Data: Methods and Applications DS Moskowitz, SL Hershberger 235–65 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Ng TW, Feldman DC. 2013. How do within-person changes due to aging affect job performance. ? J. Vocat. Behav. 83:500–13
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Ohly S, Schmitt A. 2015. What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried? Development and validation of an affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping methodology. J. Bus. Psychol. 30:15–35
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Orlitzky M, Benjamin JD. 2001. Corporate social performance and firm risk: a meta-analytic review. Bus. Soc. 40:369–96
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Pink DH. 2018. When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing New York: Riverhead Books
  107. Plato 1992. Theaetetus Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
  108. Ployhart RE, Vandenberg RJ. 2010. Longitudinal research: the theory, design, and analysis of change. J. Manag. 36:94–120
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Podsakoff NP, Spoelma TM, Chawla N, Gabriel AS 2019. What predicts within-person variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:727–54
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Pratkanis AR, Greenwald AG, Leippe MR, Baumgardner MH 1988. In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead: Long live the sleeper effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54:203–18
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Pulakos ED, Mueller Hanson R, Arad S, Moye N 2015. Performance management can be fixed: an on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 8:51–76
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ. , 2nd ed..
  113. Rauthmann JF, Gallardo-Pujol D, Guillaume EM, Todd E, Nave CS et al. 2014. The situational eight DIAMONDS: a taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:677–718
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Reb J, Cropanzano R. 2007. Evaluating dynamic performance: the influence of salient Gestalt characteristics on performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:490–99
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Reeve CL, Bonaccio S. 2011. On the myth and the reality of the temporal validity degradation of general mental ability test scores. Intelligence 39:255–72
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Reise SP, Ventura J, Nuechterlein KH, Kim KH 2005. An illustration of multilevel factor analysis. J. Pers. Assess. 84:126–36
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL 2017. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychol. Bull. 143:117–41
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Roberts BW, Mroczek D. 2008. Personality trait change in adulthood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17:31–35
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W 2006. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 132:1–25
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Roberts BW, Wood D, Caspi A 2008. The development of personality traits in adulthood. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research OP John, RW Robins, LA Pervin 375–98 New York: Guilford
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Robinson MD, Clore GL. 2002. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol. Bull. 128:934–60
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Rotundo M, Sackett PR. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:66–80
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Rudolph CW, Harari MB, Nieminen LRG 2015. The effect of performance trend on performance ratings occurs through observer attributions, but depends on performance variability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 45:541–60
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Schwab K. 2018. Ideo redesigns the dreaded annual review. Fast Company May 29. https://www.fastcompany.com/90173554/ideo-redesigns-the-dreaded-annual-review
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Sened H, Lazarus G, Gleason MEJ, Rafaeli E, Fleeson W 2018. The use of intensive longitudinal methods in explanatory personality research. Eur. J. Pers. 32:269–85
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Şimşek B, Pakdil F, Dengiz B, Testik MC 2013. Driver performance appraisal using GPS terminal measurements: a conceptual framework. Transportation Res. Part C 26:49–60
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Sitzmann T, Yeo G. 2013. A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance. ? Pers. Psychol. 66:531–68
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Sliwinski MJ. 2008. Measurement-burst designs for social health research. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2:245–61
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Sliwinski MJ, Almeida DM, Smyth J, Stawski RS 2009. Intraindividual change and variability in daily stress processes: findings from two measurement-burst diary studies. Psychol. Aging 24:828–40
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Solomon RL, Corbit JD. 1974. An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol. Rev. 81:119–45
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Sosnowska J, Kuppens P, De Fruyt F, Hofmans J 2019. A dynamic systems approach to personality: The Personality Dynamics (PersDyn) model. Pers. Ind. Differ. 144:11–18
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Spector PE, Fox S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 12:269–92
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Spector PE, Fox S. 2010a. Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior. ? Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 59:21–39
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Spector PE, Fox S. 2010b. Theorizing about the deviant citizen: an attributional explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20:132–43
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Stawski RS, MacDonald SWS, Sliwinski MJ 2016. Measurement burst design. Encyclopedia Adulthood Aging 2:854–59
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sturman MC. 2007. The past, present, and future of dynamic performance research. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26 JJ Martocchio 49–110 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sturman MC, Cheramie RA, Cashen LH 2005. The impact of job complexity and performance measurement on the temporal consistency, stability, and test-retest reliability of employee job performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:269–83
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tasselli S, Kilduff M, Landis B 2018. Personality change: implications for organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12:467–93
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Tetrick LE, Zaccaro SJ, Dalal RS, Steinke JA, Repchick KM et al. 2016. Improving Social Maturity of Cybersecurity Incident Response Teams Fairfax, VA: George Mason Univ.
  140. Thoresen CJ, Bradley JC, Bliese PB, Thoresen JD 2004. The Big Five personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:835–53
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Vancouver JB, Purl JD. 2017. A computational model of self-efficacy's various effects on performance: moving the debate forward. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:599–616
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Van Iddekinge CH, Aguinis H, Mackey JD, DeOrtentiis PS 2018. A meta-analysis of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance. J. Manag. 44:249–79
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Waller MJ, Kaplan SA. 2018. Systematic behavioral observation for emergent team phenomena: key considerations for quantitative video-based approaches. Organ. Res. Methods 21:500–15
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Watson D. 2000. Mood and Temperament New York: Guilford Press
  145. Weiss HM, Beal DJ. 2005. Reflections on affective events theory. Res. Emot. Organ. 1:1–21
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:1–74
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Wood W, Rünger D. 2016. Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:289–314
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Woods SA, Lievens F, De Fruyt F, Wille B 2013. Personality across working life: the longitudinal and reciprocal influences of personality on work. J. Organ. Behav. 34:7–25
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
Loading
Within-Person Job Performance Variability Over Short Timeframes: Theory, Empirical Research, and Practice
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7, 421 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error