appraisal process, and the importance of context to all of the above. This section
addresses these issues and, in addition, describes two theories for deWning and
rating performance.
The initial question that has to be addressed is what should supervisors be looking
for when observing and appraising an employee on the job? That is, what behavioral
items should constitute an appraisal/diagnostic performance instrument? A clear
articulation of what is meant by performance is necessary for the development of
valid performance diagnostic tools. Moreover, an appropriate deWnition of perform-
ance is a prerequisite for the feedback delivery and goal-setting process. In short, a
performance theory is needed that stipulates (a) the relevant performance dimen-
sions, (b) the performance standards or expectations associated with alternative
performance levels, (c) how situational constraints should be weighted (if at all)
when evaluating performance, (d) the number of performance levels or gradients
(see Cardy and Keefe 1994 ), and (e) the extent to which performance should be based
upon absolute vs. relative comparison standards (Austin and Villanova 1992 ;Wagner
and GoYn 1997 ). A request by the United States Army for a project, subsequently
known as Project A, to address these issues led to the formation of a performance
theory (Campbell et al. 1993 ).
Campbell et al.’s theory deWnes performance as behavior or action relevant to the
attainment of an organization’s goals that can be scaled, that is, measured. More-
over, job performance is deWned as what one is paid to do, or what one should be
paid to do. The theory states that the measurement options, be they ratings from
a supervisor, peer, or self, a simulated work sample, or hard criteria (e.g. tallying
revenue generated, costs saved, customer complaints, or some variant of a com-
puterized performance assessment) besides being valid, reliable, and not deWcient
should be free of contamination from sources of variation that are not under the
control of the individual (e.g. diVerences in technology impacting a person’s
performance). Situational enhancers or constraints, if not taken into account in
an appraisal, can contaminate the mean, variance, or both with regard to an
individual’s performance.
Campbell et al.’s theory further states that performance is multidimensional, and
that each dimension is represented by a category of similar behaviors or actions.
The theory posits a taxonomy of higher-order performance components, namely,
( 1 ) job-speciWc task proWciency, ( 2 ) non-job-speciWc task proWciency (i.e. organ-
izational citizenship behavior), ( 3 ) written and oral communication proWciency,
( 4 ) demonstration of eVort, ( 5 ) maintenance of personal discipline, ( 6 ) facilitation
of peer and team performance, ( 7 ) supervision/leadership, and ( 8 ) management/
administration. This theory provides a framework for any scientist who wants to
study performance and any practitioner who wants to improve it. Among the
determinants of performance are three types of choices an individual makes,
namely, the choice to perform, choice of eVort level, and choice of duration of
eVort, that is, a person’s persistence.
366 gary latham et al.