Comparing the Explanatory Capacity of Three Constructs in the Prediction of Engineers’ Proficiency, Adaptivity, and Proactivity

• Author: Concepción Varela‐Neira,Romina García‐Chas,Edelmira Neira‐Fontela
• Date: 01 July 2015
• Published date: 01 July 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21639

Human Resource Management, July–August 2015, Vol. 54, No. 4. Pp. 689–709

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21639

Correspondence to: Romina García-Chas, Santiago de Compostela University, School of Business and Economics,

Avda. Burgo, s/n, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Phone: + (34) 881811712, Fax: + (34) 881811706,

E-mail: romina.garcia@usc.es.

that the human capital resource provides a

promising source of competitive advantage (e.g.,

Barney & Wright, 1998; Boudreau & Ramstad,

2005). Human capital at the micro level is gener-

ally defined as the individuals’ knowledge, skills,

and abilities (KSAs) (e.g., Coff & Kryscynski, 2011)

and is the origin of the conceptualizations that

characterize human capital as a unit level resource

(e.g., Hatch & Dyer, 2004). In addition, accord-

ing to RBV, the highest-performing employees

Introduction

Environment turbulence and competitive

intensity make organizations increasingly

dependent of people’s talent (e.g., Wright

& McMahan, 2011). The resource-based

view (RBV) of the firm suggests that the

organization’s resources can be a source of com-

petitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991;

Teece, 1982; Wernerfelt, 1984). Consistent with

this perspective, many scholars have proposed

COMPARING THE EXPLANATORY

CAPACITY OF THREE CONSTRUCTS

IN THE PREDICTION OF ENGINEERS’

PROFICIENCY, ADAPTIVITY,

ANDPROACTIVITY

ROMINA GARCÍA-CHAS, EDELMIRA NEIRA-FONTELA,

AND CONCEPCIÓN VARELA-NEIRA

Advances in the research of work performance have been due in large part to

the conceptualization of performance as a multidimensional construct. Recently,

Griffi n, Neal, and Parker (2007), have identifi ed three different dimensions of

work role performance: profi ciency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Social effective-

ness constructs (i.e., political skill) have been receiving increased attention in

research and there have been recent calls for further research in the area. This

study compares the explanatory capacity of political skill, professional experience

and intrinsic motivation in the prediction of engineers´ profi ciency, adaptivity,

and proactivity. The relationships were tested with structural equations analysis

of 180 supervisor-engineer dyad data. Results indicate that the three dimensions

of individual work performance are signifi cantly infl uenced by political skill and

professional experience, but not by intrinsic motivation. The results also indicate

that political skill is the strongest predictor. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: engineers, political skill, professional experience, intrinsic motivation,

work performance

690 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2015

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

This model of job

performance posits

that the direct cause

of what people do

(their performance)

is some function of

skills, knowledge, and

motivation.

any variety of middle-class, office-based work

requiring a degree or equivalent, makes it nec-

essary to focus on groups of knowledge workers

with distinctive characteristics, such as engineers.

Engineers are an important professional group

both for organizations and society (United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

[UNESCO], 2010). Engineering relates to “the

understanding, design, development, invention,

innovation and use of materials, machines, struc-

tures, systems and processes for specific purposes”

(Marjoram & Zhong, 2010, p. 24). Some studies do

not distinguish between engineers and scientists;

however, there are important differences between

these two subsets in aspects such as their person-

ality characteristics, their professional activity,

their work goals, and how they communicate in

their work (e.g., engineers are more dependent on

personal contact with colleagues than scientists)

(Allen, 1997). The technical and social nature of

engineers’ work, their strong professional identity

and the high degree of uncertainty surrounding

their tasks (e.g., Anderson, Courter, McGlamery,

Nathans-Kelly, & Nicometo, 2010) cause engineers

to demand special treatment (Badawy, 1997) and

make managing them to pose specific challenges

for human resource (HR) managers. In addition,

HRM literature recognizes that workforce differen-

tiation is a crucial element of a successful strategy

execution and, consequently, firm performance

(e.g., Huselid & Becker, 2011).

In this study, we consider political skill

because researchers (e.g., Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, &

Hochwarter, 2008) have called for attention to be

focused on social cognitive constructs as work per-

formance predictors and, according to Trevelyan

(2010), a key attribute of effective engineers is the

ability to work with and influence other people.

Also, engineers’ work performance is likely to

benefit from intrinsic motivation, as engineers

perform tasks that are fundamentally intellec-

tual in nature, requiring discretion and judg-

ment (Watermayer, 2010). Finally, professional

experience is considered because, in engineering,

the means of reaching a solution often relies on

“practice-generated knowledge” more than formal

training (Anderson et al., 2010). Results from this

study will help academicians to conduct future

research and HR managers to design HRM prac-

tices oriented toward identifying and developing

a talent pool of high performing engineers.

Nature and Dimensionality

ofWorkPerformance

The nature of work and organizations has

changed. The main transformations are the

increasing interdependence and uncertainty of

generate disproportionate value for organizations

(e.g., Oldroyd & Morris, 2012).

Based on RBV, researchers have argued that

human resource management (HRM) practices

boost firm performance by leveraging human cap-

ital, discretionary effort, and desired attitudes and

behaviors (e.g., Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Wright,

McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). The underly-

ing assumption is that HRM practices are socially

complex and intricately related, hence making

them very difficult to replicate (e.g., Boxall, 1996;

Lado & Wilson, 1994).

The relevance of human capital for an organi-

zation’s competitive advantage is even more sig-

nificant in today’s environment. Consequently,

during the last decade there has been a grow-

ing interest in the topic of talent management

(e.g., Björkman, Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, Smale, &

Sumelius, 2013; Thunnissen, Boselie, & Fruityer,

2013), and it has been argued that organizations

need to develop a talent pool of

high-performing employees to fill

key positions as a basic element

to building organizational perfor-

mance (e.g., Collings & Mellahi,

2009). Therefore, identifying the

individual characteristics that

might increase work performance is

critical for human resource manage-

ment researchers and practitioners.

In this study, we integrate two

lines of research previously seen

separately; we associate the dimen-

sions of individual task perfor-

mance identified by Griffin, Neal,

and Parker (2007) in their new

model of work role performance—

proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity—with

three antecedents based on the prominent the-

ory of individual job performance proposed by

Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager (1993). This

model of job performance posits that the direct

cause of what people do (their performance) is

some function of skills, knowledge, and motiva-

tion. Political skill was chosen as a dimension of

skills, professional experience as a dimension of

knowledge, and intrinsic motivation as a dimen-

sion of motivation. All variables were selected

because they are especially relevant for the col-

lective sampled. In addition, the explanatory

capacity of the different predictors considered was

compared.

This study focuses on work role performance

of a specific group of knowledge workers: engi-

neers. Several scholars (e.g., Gleadle, Hodgson, &

Storey, 2012) argue that the overextension of the

expression “knowledge work,” to illustrate almost