You are on page 1of 15

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263325964

Adaptive Performance: A New Scale to Measure


Individual Performance in Organizations

Article in Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration
September 2012
DOI: 10.1002/cjas.232

CITATIONS READS

17 2,241

2 authors, including:

Audrey Charbonnier-Voirin
INSEEC
17 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marque employeur / Employer brand View project

Agilit organisationnelle / Organizational agility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Audrey Charbonnier-Voirin on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de ladministration
29: 280293 (2012)
Published online 25 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.232

Adaptive Performance: A New Scale to Measure


Individual Performance in Organizations
Audrey Charbonnier-Voirin* Patrice Roussel
INSEEC CRM - Universit Toulouse 1 & CNRS

Abstract Rsum
As a component of overall employee performance, adaptive Le concept de performance au travail volue pour tre en phase
performance refers to the ability of an individual to change avec un environnement plus complexe et incertain. Cette
his or her behaviour to meet the demands of a new environ- recherche sintresse une approche mergente de la perfor-
ment. The concept is relevant to rms that face especially mance: la performance adaptative. Dnie comme une
complex and volatile business conditions. Research and aptitude modier ses comportements pour sadapter la
practice have been hampered by a general lack of a widely demande dun environnement nouveau, la performance
available, psychometrically sound, multidimensional scale of adaptative reprsente un axe de recherche prometteur.
adaptive performance that is applicable across a wide range Malheureusement, il nexiste aucun instrument de mesure dis-
of job contexts. Using both qualitative and quantitative ponible pour rendre compte de la complexit du phnomne.
methods, we develop and evaluate a 19-item scale measuring partir dune tude qualitative et quantitative, cette
ve dimensions of adaptive performance. Copyright 2012 recherche prsente et discute les rsultats dune dmarche
ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. exploratoire et conrmatoire de dveloppement dune chelle
de mesure de la performance adaptative. Les rsultats montrent
que lchelle cre bncie de qualits psychomtriques
Keywords: individual work performance, adaptive satisfaisantes.
performance, development scale
Mots-cls : performance individuelle au travail, performance
adaptative, cration dune chelle de mesure

Characteristics inherent in the work context, such as modify behaviour according to the requirements of
increased uncertainty, complexity, turbulence, and interdepen- new environments, situations, or events (Johnson, 2001).
dence, have cast doubt on the adequacy of traditional Unfortunately, these advances in theory have rarely been
measures of employee performance, which almost exclusively accompanied by recommendations of measurement tools that
focus on the completion of tasks listed in job descriptions encompass the full range of desired behaviours. This study
(Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Murphy & Jackson, 1999). addresses this deciency by developing a multidimensional
Importantly, changes in work context have contributed to measure of adaptive performance that meets the needs of both
redening the behaviours that organizations encourage in researchers and practitioners.
order to achieve set objectives (Grifn, Neal, & Parker, This paper is comprised of three main sections. The rst
2007; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Indeed, since the early is dedicated to a review of prior studies of adaptive perfor-
1990s, the concept of employee performance has been mance. The second describes the process and ndings that
broadened to include behaviours that align with organizational guided construction of the new measurement scale. Finally,
development. For example, adaptive performance (Hesketh & the limitations of this paper are noted as are the applied
Neal, 1999; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000, implications and possibilities for future research.
Pulakos et al., 2002; Pulakos, Dorsey, & White, 2006) refers
to an individuals capacity for adaptation to dynamic work Adaptive Performance: Theoretical Perspectives
situations (Hesketh & Neal, 1999) and to the capability to
A Facet of Job Performance

Please note that this paper was submitted and reviewed in French. Individual performance in the workplace has often been
*Please address correspondence to: Audrey Charbonnier-Voirin, INSEEC, 26 dened in terms of a single global indicator with a set of
rue Raze, Bordeaux 33000 France. Email: acharbonnier@groupeinseec.com associated criteria reecting professional success (Bingham,

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 280 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

1926; Nagle, 1953) or the attainment of set objectives ongoing changes in sophisticated technology (Hesketh &
(Bailey, 1983). Criteria most frequently used include Neal, 1999).
productivity, sales, and/or the quality of goods and services. All these changes in the work environment made earlier
Dened in this manner, performance is as a black box models of job performance incomplete and underlie the need
similar to efciency, where the focus is solely on results. to explicitly address the adaptability of individuals and teams
These shortcomings resulted in a more in-depth study of (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Hesketh and Neal (1999) were the
the performance concept starting in the early 1990s, rst to propose the concept of adaptive performance, while
which yielded signicant advances (Borman & Motowidlo, Murphy and Jackson (1999) referred to role exibility and
1993; Campbell, 1990; Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996; London and Mone (1999) highlighted the importance of
Motowidlo, 2003; Sackett, 2002; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; employee capabilities to react to and manage new experiences.
Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Viswesvaran & Ones,
2000) such that performance is now explicitly regarded as Adaptive Performance: Denition and Content
a multidimensional construct reecting the totality of
behaviours or individual actions required to accomplish the The concept of adaptive performance is dened in general
objectives of an organization (Austin, Villanova, Kane, & terms as an individuals ability to adapt to dynamic work
Bernadin, 1991; Campbell, 1999; Mitchell, 1983; Naylor, situations (Hesketh & Neal, 1999). Employees demonstrate
Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980; Motowidlo, 2003). adaptive performance by adjusting their behaviours to the
Among the multifactor job performance models, Borman requirements of work situations and new events (Pulakos
and Motowidlo (1993) made a distinction between task and et al., 2000). Though others have highlighted the importance
contextual performance that has attracted substantial research of a variety of adaptive behaviours (Allworth & Hesketh,
attention (Conway, 1999; Johnson, 2001; Motowidlo & Van 1996; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Hollenbeck, LePine, & Ilgen,
Scotter, 1994). More recently, changes in the environment 1996; Ilgen, 1994; London & Mone, 1999; Murphy &
and their effects on the nature of work (e.g., team work, project Jackson, 1999), Pulakos et al. (2000) were the rst to propose
management, empowerment practices, customer-oriented a global model of adaptive performance. In a rst step, they
practices) have resulted in models that include the notion of reviewed research on individual performance and adaptability
adaptive performance (Allworth & Hesketh, 1996; Campbell, to changes. Then they analyzed 1,000 critical incidents
1999; Hesketh, Allworth, & Considine, 1996; Hesketh & (reective of new work situations requiring a behavioural
Neal, 1999; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; London & Mone, 1999; adjustment on the part of participants) involving 24 jobs in
Murphy & Jackson, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000, 2002, 2006). the army. Ultimately, they proposed eight dimensions of
These studies suggest that adaptive performance can be adaptive performance, including: dealing with uncertain or
meaningfully differentiated from other facets of performance unpredictable work situations; handling emergencies or crisis
(Hesketh et al., 1996; Hesketh & Neal, 1999). Further, situations; solving problems creatively; handling work stress;
Pulakos et al. (2000, 2002, 2006) proposed several learning new tasks, technologies and procedures; demonstrat-
components of adaptive performance by rst bringing to ing interpersonal adaptability; demonstrating cultural adapt-
light changes in the workplace. ability; and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability.
Different combinations of these factors were considered
Conditions Resulting in the Emergence of the Adaptive required depending on the specic organizational and
Performance Concept occupational circumstances associated with a given job
(Pulakos et al., 2000, 2002). We now consider each of these
Changes that have transformed the traditional nature of dimensions in detail.
employment and the structure of work include the use of Successful adaptive performance implies that employees
autonomous work teams and/or project teams, which results are able to efciently deal with uncertain and unpredictable
in changes to the responsibilities of individuals, assignments, work situations that may, for example, arise from organiza-
and employment relationships (Ilgen, 1994; Murphy, 1989). tional restructuring, a change in priorities, or the lowered
These working modes create new challenges for employees availability of resources (Ashford, 1986; Edwards &
who are required to maintain interpersonal and/or cultural Morrison, 1994; Goodman, 1994; Murphy, 1989; Weiss,
adaptability while they are made to cooperate with employees 1984). It requires that employees adapt quickly and easily
from other national and/or multinational companies. The and make decisions in the face of inherent uncertainty
importance of the quality of relationships with customers also and ambiguity.
increases the signicance of interpersonal skills (Bowen & For Pulakos and colleagues (2000, 2002), handling
Waldman, 1999). As the environment becomes more emergencies or crisis situations corresponds, among other
complex, turbulent, and unstable, the required level of things, to the speed with which an individual is able to react
adaptability also includes the capacity of individuals to set to or avoid a hazard, crisis situation, or an emergency in an
priorities and handle emergency situations, the ability to face appropriate way. Note that this dimension was identied from
new problems, as well as the capacity to learn and adapt to a sample of military personnel and as such, it is understood

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 281 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

more as the ability to deal with situations likely to threaten the Limitations Inherent in Existing Adaptive Performance
physical integrity of a person (dangerous or life-threatening Measurement Scales
situations) that require specic behaviours (emotional control,
instant decisions). One option for assessing behaviours within the domain
Another dimension of adaptability reects the capability to of adaptive performance is the Job Adaptability Inventory
solve new problems. For Pulakos and colleagues (2000, 2002), developed by Pulakos and colleagues (2000, 2002). The
this involves the ability to nd solutions and develop creative original version consists of 132 items while the short form
approaches to handle atypical, ill-dened, or complex problems has 68 items. Though the characteristics of the inventory
(Hatano & Inagaki, 1986; Zhang & Barthol, 2010). have been described in general terms, the items are not
Employees are also expected to be able to manage the generally available as the inventory is marketed for use on
stress associated with the rapid and unpredictable nature of a consulting basis (www.pdri.com).
change in their working conditions. They cannot panic and must As far as we know, none of the other existing scales
continue to make appropriate decisions. Included here is the ca- reect the full underlying dimensionality of adaptive perfor-
pability to positively inuence coworkers in stressful and/or mance. For example, Han and Williams (2008) developed a
frustrating situations (behaviours that help control team stress). 12-item measure (in Korean) based on Pulakos et al. (2000,
Given continuous technological innovation and the 2002), but they retained only four of the original eight
evolution of various occupations, employees need the ability dimensions (handling emergencies, solving problems
and willingness to engage themselves in new learning to deal creatively, handling work stress, and dealing with uncer-
with change in an efcient manner. They must anticipate, tainty), and did not present the items or the associated
prepare for, and learn the skills anticipated to be of importance factor analyses. Moreover, some of the t indicators that
in future jobs (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Kinicki & Latack, 1990; were disclosed did not meet the usual standard. For exam-
London & Mone, 1999; Noe & Ford, 1992; Patrickson, 1987). ple, the RMSEA index (cf. MacCallum et al., 1996) was
Thus, it is assumed that employees will be ready and willing to .11 and the scale dimensions were highly correlated,
be involved in their professional development. ranging from .79 to .87, suggesting that it is best viewed
To the extent that work environments are increasingly as one-dimensional.
characterized by team or project work and the formation of mul- Grifn and Hesketh (2005) also developed a scale based
tidisciplinary teams (Hollenbeck, LePine, & Ilgen, 1996), on Pulakos et al. (2000, 2002). It has between 18 and 20 items
employees are expected to adjust their interpersonal behaviours (depending on the sample) relating to how employees perform
to work effectively with a wide range of coworkers. Growth in a number of tasks requiring adaptability. Unfortunately, as
service activities, which presupposes extended client contact, with the assessments referred to above, the items have not
also requires that interpersonal exibility in order to better been published. Further, in terms of psychometric properties,
respond to client expectations (Bowen & Waldman, 1999; only Cronbachs alpha was presented and the underlying
Paulhus & Martin, 1988; Spiro & Weitz, 1990). dimensionality of the scale was not discussed.
Greater corporate emphasis on identifying growth Other alternative measures of adaptive performance are
opportunities, including expanded partnerships, requires limited to specic contexts. For example, based on Spiro and
cultural adaptability such that employees need to work Weitz (1990); de Jong and de Ruyter (2004) developed a
effectively in different national, international, and occupa- six-item scale to measure the ability of bank employees to
tional cultural contexts (Chao, OLeary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, adjust to their customers (for example, Our team is very
& Gardner, 1994; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Noe & Ford, sensitive to the needs of our customers). Chen, Thomas,
1992). The willingness to adapt to different cultures should and Graig (2005) assessed the adaptive performance of pilots
be reected by openness to others, consideration of different as demonstrated in a ight simulation, while Joung, Hesketh,
opinions and points of view, and adaptation to various and Neal (2006) used war games to investigate the number
personalities; in other words, behaviours that dene interper- of problems identied and viable responses generated by
sonal adaptability. participants.
Lastly, for Pulakos and colleagues, physical adaptability In all, there is a need to develop a psychometrically
involves the ability to work in uncomfortable or difcult sound, multidimensional scale of adaptive performance that
environments, involving, for example, heat and noise is applicable across a wide range of job contexts and is
(Edwards & Morrison, 1994; Fiedler & Fiedler, 1975). As generally available to researchers.
with the handling emergencies and crises dimension, the
nature of the sample (military personnel) should be kept in
mind. Under its current denition, physical adaptability The Development and Psychometric Testing of an
involves jobs that require the ability to withstand physical Adaptive Performance Scale
strain (for example, military service, the tourist industry,
emergency services, construction, public services, the The procedure used to construct our scale builds on the
restaurant business, and baking). paradigm of Churchill (1979), the methodology of Hinkin

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 282 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

(1998), and the use of factor analysis (Costello & Osborne, Samples
2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999).
After describing the item generation phase and data Three French independent samples were used to rene
collection, we present the results of exploratory and the original questionnaire and evaluate its psychometric
conrmatory factor analyses. properties (cf. Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1998; Hurley
et al., 1997).
The rst sample was a convenience sample of 111
Item Generation employees from a variety of companies. Demographically,
50.5% were female, the mean age was 31 years (standard
Item generation proceeded in two stages. First, the deviation = 8.7), with 49% of executives. Average company
denitions of the adaptive performance dimensions offered tenure was 5.6 years (standard deviation = 8.4).
by Pulakos et al. (2000, 2002, and 2006) were examined The second sample consisted of 228 employees from
along with their representative example items. Then, 11 two different companies: a telecommunications rm (297
employees (ve managers and six of their subordinates) employees surveyed with a response rate of 32%, i.e. 95
from a company in the dynamic industry sector of telecom- respondents) and a service company (133 respondents
munications were subject to a nondirective one-on-one from a workforce of 554 people surveyed with a response
interview. They were asked to describe generic work rate of 24%). Demographically, 53% were male, and
behaviours (those not specic to their positions) that were the mean age was 39.2 years (standard deviation = 9.9).
typically required to effectively deal with change in Average company tenure was 9.5 years (standard devia-
complex work situations. tion = 8.9). The level of education is relatively high in
NVivo 8 software was used to conduct thematic con- that 54% of respondents had a Masters degree (ve
tent analysis of the verbatim interview transcripts. This years of university). Moreover, 42% of the sample was
analysis helped to identify subtopics encountered across comprised of engineers.
all interviews and structure them around a hierarchical tree The third sample consisted of 296 respondents from an
consisting of the codes used to categorize the statements. aircraft company (468 employees surveyed for a response
The rst ve interviews were re-coded by a second rate of 63%); 64% were male, their mean age was 40 years
researcher using the list of thematic codes identied in the (standard deviation = 9.1), and average company tenure
initial analysis. An inter-coder coefcient of agreement of was 11.5 years (standard deviation = 11.2). The distribution
86% was obtained, which supports the validity of the initial of educational levels and occupational categories was
coding (cf. Miles & Huberman, 1991). Also, the thematic representative of the structure of the companys workforce;
content analysis of the qualitative data corroborated the 30% of respondents held a Masters degree (ve years of
adaptive performance dimensions identied by Pulakos and university) and 66% were exempt employees, including
colleagues (2000, 2002) and helped generate 45 items for executives.
potential use in our scale.
After adding a response scale format (a 7-point Likert Analysis
scale with 1 for Strongly Disagree to 7 for Strongly
Agree), the items were examined by a committee of SPSS 18.0 and Lisrel 8.8 software were used to conduct
researchers in organizational behaviour for clarity and for the data analyses. An exploratory approach consisting of a
alignment with the intended underlying conceptual dimension principal component analysis with a Promax rotation was
(content validity, cf. Evrard et al., 1997). This process led to applied to the rst two samples to evaluate the internal
the elimination of items that were poorly worded, ambiguous, consistency of the scale and dimensionality of the construct
least representative, and/or redundant. For example, some (cf. Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar et al., 1999). With
items were withdrawn or reworded because they did not match regard to the analysis of the rst sample, items were retained
the denitions in the strictest sense or because they were only when their highest loading was on the targeted factor.
deemed insufciently clear or excessively abstract (for Further, the level of the loading was required to be at least
example, the rst item, I willingly participate in training, .50. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the second
projects, and assignments that help me prepare for future sample as well to gauge the stability of the factorial structure
change became I prepare for change by participating in (cf. Hinkin, 1998).
every project or assignment that enables me to do so). In The analyses conducted on the rst two samples
the end, a consensus emerged with respect to 36 items as resulted in a scale consisting of 19 items. Each of the
shown in Table 1. To verify the clarity and intended meaning underlying dimensions were examined to ensure that
of the items, they were administered in a face-to-face session Cronbachs alpha was at least .70 in each case (cf. Nunnally
to 10 researchers and 18 employees. Since no deciencies & Bernstein, 1994).
were brought to light, all 36 items were retained for the A conrmatory factor analysis was then conducted on
quantitative pretest. these 19 items using the third sample. The t was evaluated

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 283 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Table 1
Original Scale for Adaptive Performance

Dimension 1: Handling Emergencies and Crises

At work, you may encounter various emergencies, risks, or even situations of a dangerous nature. How do you respond?
1. I am able to achieve total focus on the situation to act quickly
2. I analyze possible solutions and their ramications quickly to select the most appropriate one
3. I quickly decide on the actions to take to resolve the problem
4. I am not in a position to be able to respond quickly (1)(3)
Dimension 2: Managing work stress
Think of the most demanding and stressful situations at work to describe the way you act:
5. I feel at ease even if my tasks change and occur at a very fast pace (2)
6. I keep my cool in situations where I am required to make many decisions
7. Having to take on additional work unexpectedly makes me very anxious (1)(3)
8. I look for solutions by having a calm discussion with colleagues
9. Work-related stress impacts the quality of what I do (1)(3)
10. My colleagues ask my advice regularly when situations are difcult because of my self-control
Dimension 3: Solving Problems Creatively
New or ill- dened work situations may arise more or less frequently in your job. How do you respond?
11. I do not hesitate to go against established ideas to propose an innovative solution
12. I use a variety of sources/types of information to come up with an innovative solution
13. Whatever the problem to be solved, I never use anything but well-known methods (1)(3)
14. I develop new tools and methods to resolve new problems
15. Within my department, people rely on me to suggest new solutions
Dimension 4: Dealing with Uncertain and Unpredictable Work Situations
Events may occur unpredictably at work. You may, then, have to make snap decisions without a comprehensive grasp of the problem or without
all the resources at your disposal. How do you respond in situations like these?
16. I wait for more accurate information from my superior before acting (1)(3)
17. I easily reorganize my work to adapt to the new circumstances
18. I contribute to the stability of my team by driving others towards our priority assignments (1)
19. Uncertain or unpredictable work situations impair my ability to act (1)(3)
Dimension 5: Training and Learning effort
In the face of innovations that appear in your job/occupation (new procedures, methods, practices, technologies, work design, tools),
what do you do?
20. I am on the lookout for the latest innovations in my job to improve the way I work
21. I undergo training on a regular basis at or outside of work to keep my competencies up to date
22. I wait for the innovations having to do with my job to become widespread in the company before I put major effort into relevant
training or learning (2)(3)
23. I prepare for change by participating in every project or assignment that enables me to do so
24. I look for every opportunity that enables me to improve my performance (training, group project, exchanges with colleagues, etc.)
Dimension 6: Interpersonal Adaptability
In your professional relationships, which behaviors do you use?
25. I adapt my work practices to the requirements and suggestions of others (1)
26. I do not consider negative comments about my work very important (1) (3)
27. I adjust my work practices if someone points out a better solution (1)
28. Developing good relationships with all my counterparts is an important factor of my effectiveness
29. I try to understand the viewpoints of my counterparts to improve my interaction with them
Dimension 7: Cultural Adaptability
What does it entail for you if you are required to work with people or teams from other companies, or other nationalities?
30. I learn new ways to do my job in order to collaborate better with others.
31. I frequently feel awkward because of problems in understanding the work practices of others.(1)(3)
32. I willingly adapt my behavior whenever I need to in order to work well with others
33. Whatever the situation, I like to stay with my own work practices and act based on my own principles of cooperation (1)(3)
Dimension 8: Physical Adaptability
In relation to your specic working conditions (noise, degree of risk/danger inherent in your occupation, ergonomic properties of your
workplace, heat, cold. . .) how do you respond?
34. I strive to adapt, however difcult, to the working conditions I am in (1)

(Continues)

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 284 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Table 1(Continued)

Dimension 1: Handling Emergencies and Crises

35. I can only work efciently in a comfortable environment (1)(3)


36. I sometimes reach my physical limits to accomplish an urgent task (1)

7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree;


(1) Items discarded following exploratory factor analyses of the rst sample (N1 = 111); (2) Items discarded following exploratory factor analyses
of the second sample (N2 = 228); (3) Items reverse scored.

used a number of indices and criteria. For example, CFI, adaptive performance dimensions across organizations and
NFI, NNFI, GFI (above .90; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), cultural contexts. For example, the dimension of Physical
RMSEA (below.06; MacCallum et al., 1996) and w2/dl Adaptability may be applicable only to jobs requiring the
(ideally, below 3; Pedhazur & Pedhazur Schmelkin, 1991). ability to withstand physical strain and not to samples
The scale reliability was tested using Joreskogs Rh consisting mainly of employees for whom the physical
(Jreskog, 1971). The recommendations of Gerbing and demands are not substantial.
Anderson (1988) as well as Fornell and Larcker (1981) were The difculty of empirically differentiating some of the
followed to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. originally targeted dimensions is also apparent in the degree
To help place our scale within a nomological network, its to which cultural adaptability can overlap with interpersonal
relationship with two other variables was examined. The adaptability (cf. Johnson, 2001). Indeed, our results suggest
rst of these was a new 12-item measure of contextual that the willingness to adapt to different cultures is expressed
performance adapted from the typology presented by through behaviours that dene interpersonal adaptability. As
Coleman and Borman (2000). Second, a measure of transfor- described below, the labels of the ve retained factors were
mational leadership (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & adjusted accordingly.
Fetter, 1990) was used. For reasons described later, we The rst factor, Creativity, represents the employees
expected a signicant positive relationship between adaptive ability to nd solutions for, or new approaches to, complex
performance and transformational leadership (cf. Moss, or previously unknown problems. Reactivity in the Face of
Dowling, & Callanan, 2009), and contextual performance Emergencies or Unexpected Circumstances combines items
(cf. Johnson, 2001). that account for the ability to manage priorities and to adapt
Finally, the short 10-item version of Crowne and to new work situations. Interpersonal Adaptability represents
Marlowes (1960) social desirability scale was used to employee ability to adjust their interpersonal style to work
evaluate the possibility of a positive bias in response to our effectively with different others, whether within their own
scale given the tendency for employees to overestimate their organization or in partner rms. Training and Learning
own capabilities and performance (Mabe & West, 1982). Effort captures the tendency to initiate action to promote
personal development. The fth and nal factor, Managing
Results Stress, corresponds to an individuals ability to maintain his
or her composure and to channel his or her teams stress.
The exploratory factor analysis associated with the rst The results obtained from the second sample (N2 = 228;
sample (N1 = 111) is shown in Table 2. The KMO index see Table 2) support the stability of the structure obtained for
(.76) implied enough commonality among the variables to the rst sample. The KMO index (.83) suggested commonal-
justify a factor analysis. Though the principal component ity among the variables to justify a factor analysis (SPSS
analysis initially yielded six factors, the Physical Adaptability 18.0). After two items with insufcient loadings were
dimension was deleted due to poor internal consistency eliminated from sample two, the resulting analysis yielded
(Cronbachs alpha, .35). The resulting ve-factor solution ve similar factors and accounted for 69% of the variance
accounted for 60% of the variance. (see Table 2). Moreover, Cronbachs Alpha was satisfactory
The exploratory analysis resulted in a revaluation of for the individual dimensions (ranging from .78 to .87).
some dimensions considered to be conceptually distinct by A comparison of the results obtained from the rst two
Pulakos et al. (2000). For example, the items representing samples reveals that the weights associated with each of the
Interpersonal Adaptability and Cultural Adaptability loaded dimensions of adaptive performance vary by the companies
on a single factor. Similarly Dealing with Uncertain and investigated, which is consistent with the view of Pulakos
Unpredictable Work Situations loaded onto Handling et al. (2000, 2002) that each job may require a specic
Emergencies and Crises. These ndings illustrate the combination of adaptive performance factors to match the
difculty of adapting all eight of the Pulakos et al. (2000) occupational and organizational circumstances.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 285 29(3), 280293 (2012)
Table 2
Results of Exploratory Factor Analyses (Principle Component Analysis with Promax Rotation)

(n = 111) KMO = .764 (n = 228) KMO = .826

Factor Factor

Sample Item 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

I do not hesitate to go against established ideas and propose an innovative solution .869 .862
Within my department; people rely on me to suggest new solutions .540 .317 .806
I use a variety of sources/types of information to come up with an innovative solution .831 .705
I develop new tools and methods to resolve new problems .799 .682
I am able to achieve total focus on the situation to act quickly .730 .825
I quickly decide on the actions to take to resolve the problem .762 .931
I analyze possible solutions and their ramications quickly to select the most appropriate one .785 .824
I easily reorganize my work to adapt to the new circumstances .313 .563 .760
Developing good relationships with all my counterparts is an important factor of my effectiveness .757 .741

Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


I try to understand the viewpoints of my counterparts to improve my interaction with them .693 .818
I learn new ways to do my job in order to collaborate better with such people. .736 .806
I willingly adapt my behaviour whenever I need to in order to work with such people .723 .794
I undergo training on a regular basis at or outside of work to keep my competencies up to date .738 .883
I am on the lookout for the latest innovations in my job to improve the way I work .815 .807

286
I look for every opportunity that enables me to improve my performance (training, group project, .563 .760
exchanges with colleagues, etc.)
I prepare for change by participating in every project or assignment that enables me to do so .721 .733
I wait for the innovations having to do with my job to become widespread within the company before .773
I put major effort into relevant training*
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

I keep my cool in situations where I am required to make many decisions .819 .770
I look for solutions by having a calm discussion with colleagues .621 .806
My colleagues ask my advice regularly when situations are difcult because of my self-control -.340 .719 .821
I feel at ease even though my tasks change and occur at a fast pace .617
Variance explained by dimension (%) 10.6 10.0 7.6 24.8 6.6 6.7 32.1 11.0 13.1 6.1
Total variance (%) 59.6 69.0
Cronbachs Alpha by dimension .79 .76 .71 .79 .70 .82 .87 .81 .82 .78
Cronbachs Alpha for scale .84 .88

*Items discarded following exploratory factor analyses of the sample 2.

Can J Adm Sci


29(3), 280293 (2012)
CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and between adaptive and contextual performance was con-
correlations among the dimensions of adaptive performance strained to 1 to a model where the correlation was freely
associated with the second sample. estimated was signicant (difference of w2 for 1df = 44.89,
The results of the conrmatory factor analyses on the p < .05) (cf. Bagozzi & Yi, 1991).
third sample (N3 = 296) are shown in Table 4. The ve As an additional step in examining the nomological
factor model is a good overall t (w2/dl = 2.09; GFI = .90; validity of our overall scale, we examined its relationship
CFI = .95; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = 0.05; NFI = 0.92; to transformational leadership to determine if the ndings
NNFI = 0.94), especially relative to a single factor model reected what would be expected within the nomological
(w2/dl = 6.69; GFI = .69; CFI = .77; RMSEA = .15; network for adaptive performance. For example, Moss
SRMR = .11; NFI = .73; NNFI = .74). et al. (2009) argued that exposure to transformational
The internal consistency reliability of each of the ve leadership should enhance the adaptive performance of
factors is supported by Jreskogs rh which exceeded .70 employees. Specically the idealized inuence, inspirational
for each of the ve factors (cf. Fornell & Larcker, 1981). motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
Also supporting convergent validity, all of the loadings are consideration (cf. Bass, 1985) associated with such leader-
above .50 and signicant (with a Students T > 1.96 to a ship is thought to encourage subordinates to transcend their
5% threshold). Finally, rh of convergent validity associated personal interests, face change, and to perform above and
with each of the factors is above .50 (cf. Fornell & Larcker, beyond expectations. Transformational leadership is thought
1981). to be especially appropriate in changing, stressful, and
Data supporting the discriminant validity of the exible work contexts, where adaptive performance is most
construct dimensions were obtained using the criteria required (Moss et al., 2009).
recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1991). Specically, the As described earlier, this proposition was tested by
difference of w2 with 1 degree of freedom is statistically having participants in the third sample (N3 = 296) complete
signicant (> 3.84, p < .05; see Table 5, column 4) between the Podsakoff et al. (1990) transformational leadership scale.
a model where the correlation in question is freely estimated The scale translated for use in this research had good internal
and one where the correlation is constrained to equal 1. consistency (Jreskogs rh of .94 for the exemplarity
To examine the discriminant validity of the overall dimension; .93 for the articulating a vision dimension; .91
adaptive performance construct as measured by our scale, for promoting the acceptance of group objectives; .86 for
we compared it to a measure of contextual performance. intellectual stimulation; and .81 for high performance
Several researchers have maintained that adaptive expectations) as well as satisfactory overall t properties
performance can be distinguished from task and contextual (w2/dl = 4.17; GFI = .91; CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .05;
performance (Han & Williams, 2008; Hesketh et al., 1996; NFI = .95; NNFI = .95). (cf. Bentler & Bonett, 1980;
Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000). Nevertheless, MacCallum et al., 1996).
according to Johnson (2001), some behaviours inherent to Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations
adaptive performance (i.e. Managing Stress) are associated among the variables measured in the third sample. As
with both interpersonal contextual performance (through expected, adaptive performance is positively and signicantly
the calming inuence on others) and organizational related to transformational leadership (r = .41, p < .01). On the
contextual performance (through behaviours demonstrating other hand, the adaptive performance scale is not signicantly
individual resilience). Though the correlation between related to social desirability (r = .16, n.s.).
adaptive performance and contextual performance is Structural equation analysis also conrms that transfor-
substantial (r = .60), our results suggest that these are mational leadership is positively associated with adaptive
complementary but different constructs. Indeed, the performance (standardized structural coefcient: .48, p < .01).
chi-square comparing a model where the correlation Moreover, the model tested with only transformational

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between the Dimensions of Adaptive Performance (N2 = 228)

Dimension Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Creativity 5.21 .92


2. Reactivity in the face of emergencies or unexpected circumstances 5.67 .82 .46 .
3. Interpersonal adaptability 5.67 .81 .18 27
4. Training and learning effort 4.94 1.06 .49 .28 .26
5.Managing work stress 5.17 .92 .33 .44 .41 .23

p = 0.01.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 287 29(3), 280293 (2012)
Table 4
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (N3 = 296)

Factor

Reactivity Handling
in the face of Interpersonal Training work Variance T-
Item Creativity emergencies adaptability effort stress error statistic

I do not hesitate to go against established ideas and propose an .65 .57


innovative solution
Within my department, people rely on me to suggest new solutions .64 .60 7.90
I use a variety of sources/types of information to come up with an .85 .28 9.47
innovative solution
I develop new tools and methods to resolve new problems .69 .52 8.54
I am able to achieve total focus on the situation to act quickly .71 .49
I quickly decide on the actions to take to resolve problems .79 .38 10.47
I analyze possible solutions and their ramications quickly to select .81 .35 10.64

Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


the most appropriate one
I easily reorganize my work to adapt to the new circumstances .58 .66 8.01
Developing good relationships with all my counterparts is an important .75 .43
factor of my effectiveness
I try to understand the viewpoints of my counterparts to improve my .79 .38 8.26

288
interaction with them
I learn new ways to do my job better in order to collaborate with .67 .54 6.89
such people.
I willingly adapt my behaviour whenever I need to in order to work well .62 .62 6.80
with others
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

I undergo training on a regular basis at or outside of work to keep my .71 .49


competencies up to date
I am on the lookout for the latest innovations in my job to improve .67 .55 8.90
the way I work
I look for every opportunity that enables me to improve my .74 .45 9.70
performance
(training, group project, exchanges with colleagues, etc.)
I prepare for change by participating in every project or assignment that .75 .43 9.77
enables me to do so
I keep my cool in situations where I am required to make many .72 .48
decisions
I look for solutions by having a calm discussion with colleagues .69 .51 7.79
My colleagues ask for my advice regularly when situations are difcult .72 .48 8.12
because of my self-control

Can J Adm Sci


29(3), 280293 (2012)
CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Table 5
Reliability and Convergent Validity Indices for Adaptive Performance Dimensions (N3 = 296)

Discriminant validity of dimensions


Reliability (Jreskogs Convergent validity (Difference of w2 for 1 dl > 3.84 for a 5%
Dimension Rh > .70) (Rh > .50) probability of error )

Creativity (CR) .80 .51 CR and GI = 38,18


CR and AI = 46.39
CR and EA = 40.70
CR and GS = 41.74
Reactivity in the face of emergencies or unexpected .82 .53 GI and AI = 51.30
circumstances (GI) GI and EA = 43.29
GI and GS = 39.39
Interpersonal adaptability (AI) .80 .51 EA and AI = 36.72
AI and GS = 33.57
Training effort (EA) .81 .52 EA and GS = 37.56
Handling work stress(GS) Managing stress .75 .51

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables (N3 = 296)

Variable Mean Standard deviation 1 2 3

1. Adaptive Performance 5.38 .87


2. Social Desirability 4.65 .58 .16
3. Contextual Performance 5.5 .93 .60** .18
4. Transformational Leadership 4.94 1.02 .41** .04 .49**

**p = .01, *p = .05

leadership and adaptive performance demonstrates a good t of inquiry emerged to account for changes in workplace
(w2/dl = 2.04; GFI = .94; CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06; SRMR = expectations, and innovative multifactor models were
.05; NFI = .96; NNFI = .97) (cf. Bentler & Bonett, 1980; proposed that, among other things, recognized the importance
MacCallum et al., 1996), thus supporting the nomological of employee adaptiveness. The present research supports this
network of the scale. trend by developing a scale that has good psychometric
properties. First, factor analyses revealed good reliability and
Discussion internal validity with a stable structural factor model across
the three samples. Conrmatory factor analysis results support
Summary the t of the ve-factor model. Finally, additional structural
equation modeling supports the discriminant, convergent and
For many employers, employee adaptability has become nomological network validity of the overall scale.
increasingly important as the nature of work has changed in The results of this study largely corroborate the research
ways that demand a wide array of interpersonal skills, the by Pulakos et al. (2000, 2002) with respect to the multidimen-
capability to deal with unstable competitive environments, sionality of adaptive performance. The ve factors returned by
and adjustments to the ongoing evolution of technology. the exploratory and the conrmatory analyses reected the
Research has been hampered by the lack of a valid, widely behavioural domain they identied with the exception of
available, multidimensional measure of the concept. We meet Physical Adaptability. The lack of evidence in support of this
this need by using data from three independent samples to factor is likely a reection of the samples used here, which are
present a 19-item scale that assesses ve dimensions of dominated by employees with jobs unlikely to have substan-
adaptive performance. tial physical demands. As Pulakos et al. (2000) note, specic
occupational and organizational circumstances likely require
Contribution to Scholarship different combinations of adaptability.
Findings of the present research also differed from
Study of the construct of individual employee perfor- Pulakos et al. (2000, 2002) in that Interpersonal and Cultural
mance has been renewed since the early 2000s. New avenues Adaptability are best represented by a single factor. Similarly,

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 289 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

among the three samples and in line with Johnson (2001), Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Dealing with Uncertain and Unexpected Work Situations
and Handling Emergences and Crises are best viewed as Given that this new scale was developed and adminis-
aspects of the same dimension. Research now needs to tered in French, there is a need to evaluate the English
ascertain the robustness or generalizability of these ve translation to verify that the factor structure and its external
adaptability factors (Creativity, Reactivity in the Face of (convergent and discriminant) validity. Indeed, there is a
Emergencies or Unexpected Circumstances, Interpersonal need to expand the nomological network of the adaptability
Adaptability, Training and Learning Effort, and Managing scale regardless of language.
Stress) across samples reecting a broader range of Although the scale does not correlate signicantly with
occupations. Regardless of the exact nature of the factorial social desirability, research needs to examine how self-
components, this scale sets the stage for advances in research assessments relate to evaluations from other sources (e.g.
concerning the antecedents and consequences of adaptive coworkers and the immediate line manager; cf. Grifn &
performance. Hesketh, 2005; Han & Williams, 2008). While it was
desirable to collect data from manager-employee dyads, this
was not possible given constraints imposed by the participat-
ing organizations.
Applied Applications Our analysis did not support a Physical Adaptability
dimension similar to that found in Pulakos et al. (2000,
Individual performance appraisals assess task (or in- 2002). This suggests the need to further investigate this facet
role) performance as well as contributions toward the of adaptive performance across different types of occupa-
achievement of broader organizational objectives. Never- tions, environments and organizations. Further research
theless, it is not uncommon for human resource managers concerning the links between adaptive, contextual, and task
to express disappointment with current systems of appraisal performance is also called for. For example, in many
(Charles-Pauvers, Commeiras, Peyrat-Guillard, & Roussel, contemporary organizations, behaviours investigated within
2007) that may not do well in assessing the extent to which the framework of contextual performance could be directly
employees will be effective in adapting to a changing and linked to task performance as an implicit part of the
dynamic workplace over the medium- to long-term. Organi- prescribed role (cf. Johnson, 2001; Stone-Romero Alvarez,
zations stand to benet by becoming more nimble through & Thompson, 2009). The relationships between adaptive
developing their entire workforce to be anticipatory, and task performance is likely higher in situations where
creative, and broadly adaptive (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, the jobs in question are subject to substantial change.
1995; Shafer, Dyer, Kilty, Amos, & Ericksen, 2001; The availability of the adaptability scale offered here
Volberda, 1998). The adaptive performance construct thus will ideally encourage further research on individual differ-
meets the needs human resource managers who are looked ences as predictors of adaptive performance. Predictors,
upon to ensure that the overall workforce prole is in line such as cognitive ability and personality and motivational
with the macro level needs of the business, and line traits, have provided mixed results (e.g., Grifn & Hesketh,
managers who must conduct timely relevant appraisal of 2005; Grifn et al., 2007; Lepine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000).
their immediate subordinates. Other potential predictors, such as feelings of self-efcacy
In line with the above, the content of our scale could be and perceived empowerment (cf. Logan & Ganster, 2007;
used within the context of an overall performance manage- Spreitzer, 2007) are likely to inuence the expression of
ment system in companies faced with complex, uncertain, adaptability. Also, given the positive relationship between
and turbulent environments. Indeed, with small changes transformational leadership and adaptive performance
in wording, the scale could be adapted as needed for reported here, the inuence of various other types of
self-assessment or for use by an immediate supervisor in leadership (as well as perceived supervisor support) should
evaluating his/her subordinates. As with any performance be investigated (Allworth, 2003; Grifn & Hesketh, 2005).
evaluation tool, when the adaptability scale is used to evaluate Likewise, organization-level predictors should also be
others, only individuals with multiple direct opportunities to investigated, such as organizational decentralization and
observe the others performance should be completing the climate-adaptive performance should be particularly preva-
assessments. lent within organizations that are engaged in targeted and
Organizations looking for greater exibility or agility visible efforts to foster a climate of innovation (van der
could also use the scale as a diagnostic tool. For example, Vegt, van de Vliert, & Huang, 2005).
it could be used to help assess individual competencies, In conclusion, there is a wide range of employee, leader,
informing the design of specic programs for job content, and organization-level variables that have the potential to
training, and personnel support. Finally, depending on the enhance adaptive performance. The new scale developed
needs of managers, the scale could also be used to inform and presented will hopefully help facilitate research in this
internal selection/placement decisions. area.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 290 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Notes Bowen, D. E., & Waldman, D. A. (1999). Customer-driven employee


performance. In D. R. Ilgen & D. P. Pulakos (Eds.), The chang-
1. Task performance represents prescribed behaviours relating to ing nature of performance: Implications for stafng, motivation
the accomplishment of tasks and activities contributing to and development (pp. 154191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
attainment of organizational objectives. Contextual performance Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction
refers to behaviours that go above and beyond the prescribed role problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.
and contribute to organizational effectiveness by inuencing Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Dir), Handbook of Industrial and
the psychological, social, and organizational context in the Organizational Psychology (pp. 687732). Palo Alto: Consult-
workplace, such as behaviours facilitating mutual assistance ing Psychologists Press.
and cooperation or those that reect loyalty to and support of Campbell, J. P. (1999). The denition and measurement of perfor-
the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
mance in the New Age. In D. R. Ilgen & D. P. Pulakos (Eds.),
2. This information is available from the authors.
3. These two independent samples were combined because t-tests The changing nature of performance: Implications for stafng,
indicated no signicant differences between them in terms of motivation and development (pp. 399429). San Francisco:
the means and variances of the variables. Jossey-Bass.
4. Promax rotation (an oblique rotation) was selected based on Campbell, J. P., Gasser M. D., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The sub-
the expectation that the factors within the scale would be stantive nature of job performance variability. In K. R. Murphy
signicantly correlated. (Dir.), Individual differences and behaviour in organizations
5. To minimize social desirability at the outset, phrases likely to (pp. 258299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
engage value judgments were avoided (e.g., I am able Chao, G. T., OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner,
to. . .; I was not used to). Instead, the items typically P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and conse-
employed a situational brieng such that the respondent could
quences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730743.
refer to an actual situation and behaviours mobilized.
6. For example, This employee develops new tools and Charles-Pauvers, B., Commeiras, N., Peyrat-Guillard, D., & Roussel,
methods to resolve new problems, or This employee eas- P. (2007). La performance au travail et ses dterminants
ily reorganizes his/her work to adapt to the new psychologiques. In S. Saint-Onge, et V. Haines (Coord.), Ges-
circumstances. tion des Performances au travail. Bilan des connaissances
(pp. 97150). De Boeck: collection Mthodes et Recherches.
Chen, G., Thomas, B., & Graig, W. (2005). A multilevel examina-
References tion of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating
regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of
Allworth, E. (2003). Adaptability in the workplace: Key attributes Applied Psychology, 90(5), 827841.
for the resilient student. Keynote address to the Counsellors Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures
in Education Conference, University of New South Wales, of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1),
Sydney. 6473.
Allworth, E. A., & Hesketh, B. (1996). Construct-based biodata Coleman, V. I ., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the under-
and the prediction of adaptive performance. Twelfth Annual lying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Resource Management Review, 10(1), 2544.
Psychology. St. Louis, MO. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied
A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Psychology, 84(1), 313.
29(3), 465487. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in explor-
Austin, J. T., Villanova, P., Kane, J. S., & Bernadin, H. J. (1991). atory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the
Construct validation of performance measures: Denitional most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
issues, development, and evaluation of indicators. Research in Evaluation, 10(7), 19.
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 159233. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349354.
426439. de Jong, A., & de Ruyter, K. (2004). Adaptive versus proactive
Bailey, C. T. (1983). The measurement of job performance. Alder- behavior in service recovery: The role of self-managing teams.
shot, England: Gower. Decisions Sciences, 35(3), 457491.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. Edwards, J. E., & Morrison, R. F. (1994). Selecting and classifying
New York: Free Press. future naval ofcers: The paradox of greater specialization in
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and broader areas. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker & J. H. Harris
goodness of t in the analysis of covariance structures. (Eds.), Personnel selection and classication (pp. 6984).
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bingham, W. V. (1926). Measures of occupational success. Evrard, Y., Pras, B., Roux, E., Choffray, J. M., Dussaix A.-M., &
Harvard Business Review, 5(1), 110. Claessens, M. (1997). Market: Etudes et recherches en market-
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion ing: fondements, mthodes (2me dition). Paris: Editions Nathan.
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Fabrigar L. R., Wegener D. T., MacCallum R. C., & Strahan E. J.
Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
organizations (pp. 7198). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272299.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 291 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Fiedler, F. E., & Fiedler, J. (1975). Port noise complaints: Verbal Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual
and behavioral reactions to airport related noise. Journal of performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall
Applied Psychology, 60(4), 498506. performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 984996.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa- Jreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric
tions models with unobservable variables and measurement tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109133.
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Joung, W., Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (2006). Using war stories to
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm train for adaptive performance. It is better to learn from error
for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and or success? Applied Psychology, 55(2), 282302.
its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), Kinicki, A. J., & Latack, J. C. (1990). Explication of the construct of
186192. coping with involuntary job loss. Journal of Vocational
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors Behavior, 36, 339360.
and virtual organizations. Strategies for enriching the customer. Lepine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability,
Goodman, J. (1994). Career adaptability in adults: A construct whose conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel
time has come. The Career Development Quarterly, 43(1), 4362. Psychology, 53, 563593.
Grifn, B., & Hesketh B. (2005). Are conscientious workers adapt- Logan, M. S., & Ganster, D. C. (2007). The effects on empower-
able? Australian Journal of Management, 30(2), 245259. ment on attitudes and performance: The role of social support
Grifn, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies,
work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and 44(8), 15241550.
interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous Learning. In D. R.
50(2), 327347. Ilgen & D. P. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of perfor-
Han, T. Y., & Williams K. J. (2008). Multilevel investigation of mance: Implications for stafng, motivation and development
adaptive performance: Individual and team level relationships. (pp. 119153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Group & Organization Management, 33(6), 657684. Mabe, P., & West, S. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability:
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development 67(3), 280296.
and education in Japan (pp. 5277). New York: Freeman. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996).
Hesketh, B., Allworth E., & Considine, G. (1996). Preliminary re- Power analysis and determination of sample size for co-
port on phase one of the selection project for the Hilton Hotel. variance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1,
Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Macquarie 130149.
University, Sydney, Australia. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1991). Analyse des donnes
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In qualitatives: Recueil de nouvelles mthodes. Bruxelles: De
D.R. Ilgen & D.P. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of Boeck Universit.
performance: Implications for stafng, motivation and Mitchell, T. R. (1983). The effects of social, task, and situational
development (pp. 2155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. factors on motivation, performance, and appraisal. In F. J.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of Landy, S. Zedeck & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance
measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational measurement and theory (pp. 2959). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Research Methods, 1(1), 104121. Moss, S. A., Dowling, N., & Callanan, J. (2009). Towards an
Hollenbeck, J. R., LePine, J. A., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Adapting to integrated model of leadership and self regulation. The Leader-
roles in decision making teams. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.), Individ- ship Quarterly, 20(2), 162176.
ual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 300333). Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. psychology, 12, Industrial and organizational psychology.
T., Seers, R. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis: guidelines, Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, performance should be distinguished from contextual perfor-
18, 667683. mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475480.
Ilgen, D. R. (1994). Jobs and roles: Accepting and coping with the Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R.
changing structure of organizations. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Dillon, & J. Pelligrino (Eds.), Testing: Applied and theoretical
Walker & J. H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classi- perspectives (pp. 218247). New York: Praeger.
cation (pp. 1322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work role
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job performance: Challenges for twenty-rst-century organiza-
design and roles. In M.D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), tions and their employees. In D. R. Ilgen & D. P. Pulakos
Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (pp. (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications
165207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. for stafng, motivation and development (pp. 325365). San
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
todays organizations. In D.R. Ilgen & D.P. Pulakos (Eds.), Nagle, B. (1953). Criterion development. Personnel Psychology, 6,
The changing nature of performance: Implications for staff- 271289.
ing, motivation and development (pp. 118). San Francisco: Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of
Jossey-Bass. behavior in organization. New York: Academic Press.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 292 29(3), 280293 (2012)
ADAPTIVE PERFORMACE: A NEW SCALE TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CHARBONNIER-VOIRIN AND ROUSSEL

Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (1992). Emerging issues and new direc- Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of causal models
tions for training research. In G.R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland of processes determining job performance. Current Directions
(Eds.). Research in personnel and human resource manage- in Psychological Science, 1, 8992.
ment, 10, 345384. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001).
Nunnally J. C., & Bernstein I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd Crafting a human resources strategy to foster organizational
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, 40(3),
Patrickson, M. (1987). Adaptation by employees to new technol- 197211.
ogy. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(1), 111. Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: conceptual-
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional exibility: A ization measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of
new conception of interpersonal exibility. Journal of Person- Marketing Research, 27(1), 6169.
ality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 88101. Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Toward the integration of two perspec-
Pedhazur E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, tives: A review of social-structural and psychological empow-
design, and analysis, an integrated approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: erment at work. In C. Cooper & J. Barling, (dir), The
Lawrence Erlbaum. Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. Sage Publications.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their Stone-Romero, E. F., Alvarez, K., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). The
effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction and organiza- construct validity of conceptual and operational denitions of
tional citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, contextual performance and related constructs. Human Re-
107142. source Management Review, 19, 104116.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005).
(2000). Adaptability in the work place: Development of Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate
taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied depend on national power distance. Academy of Management
Psychology, 85(4), 612624. Journal, 48, 11711182.
Pulakos, E. D., Dorsey, D. W., & White, S. S. (2006). Adaptability Van Dyne, L. V., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-
in the work place: Selecting an adaptive workforce. In C. S. role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and denitional clarity.
Burke, L. G. Pierce & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding adapt- Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215285.
ability: A prerequisite for effective performance within Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of
complex environments. Advances in Human Performance job performance. International Journal of Selection and
and Cognitive Engineering Research 6, 4172. Oxford, Assessment, 8, 216226.
UK: Elsevier Ltd. Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the exible rm: How to remain
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge J. W., & competitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borman, W. C. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further Weiss, S. J. (1984). The effects of transition modules on new grad-
tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15(4), uate adaptation. Research in Nursing and Health, 7, 5159.
299323. Zhang, X., & Barthol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering lead-
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work ership and employee creativity: The inuence of psycholog-
behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of ical empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
job performance. International Journal of Selection and process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1),
Assessment, 10, 511. 107128.

Can J Adm Sci


Copyright 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 293 29(3), 280293 (2012)

View publication stats

You might also like