Journal of Applied Psychology
1996, Vol. 81, No. 5, 525-531
In the public domain
Interpersonal Facilitation and Job Dedication
as Separate Facets of Contextual Performance
James R. Van Scotter
U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
Stephan J. Motowidlo
University of Florida
This study attempts to refine the construct of contextual performance by dividing it into
2 narrower constructs, interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. Supervisors rated
975 U.S. Air Force mechanics on at least 1 of 4 aspects of job performance (different
supervisors rated each aspect of performance), and 515 of these mechanics also com-
pleted self-report individual difference measures. Correlations between performance rat-
ings and individual difference variables support distinguishing task performance from
interpersonal facilitation but not from job dedication. Thus this study suggests the need
to redefine task performance to include motivational elements of job dedication. Then
task performance would include task proficiency and motivation to perform one’s own
tasks effectively, and contextual performance would include interpersonal skills, the mo-
tivation to maintain good working relationships and help others perform their tasks.
Despite persistent concerns about the criterion prob-
lem, there has been little research to explicate the perfor-
mance criterion domain (Austin & Villanova, 1992).
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have suggested expand-
ing it to include patterns of behavior that go beyond job-
specific task performance, and defined contextual perfor-
mance as a set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors
that support the social and motivational context in which
organizational work is accomplished. Motowidlo and
Van Scotter’s (1994) empirical evidence bolsters the ar-
gument that task performance should be differentiated
from contextual performance.
Our purpose in this research was to continue the effort
to identify specific behavioral elements that define
contextual performance. In particular, we have tried re-
fining the construct of contextual performance by divid-
ing it into two facets: interpersonal facilitation, which in-
cludes cooperative, considerate, and helpful acts that as-
James R. Van Scotter, Graduate Department of Management
Systems, School of Logistics and Acquisition Management
(LAR), U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT),
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB); Stephan J. Motowidlo,
Department of Management, University of Florida.
This article is based in part on James R. Van Scotter’s doc-
toral dissertation completed at the University of Florida. The
opinions expressed are ours and are not necessarily those of the
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of Defense, or the federal
government.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to James R. Van Scotter, AFIT/LAR, 2950 P Street, Building
641, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-7765.
sist co-workers’ performance, and job dedication, which
includes self-disciplined, motivated acts such as working
hard, taking initiative, and following rules to support or-
ganizational objectives.
Researchers have paid far more attention to task per-
formance than contextual performance (Borman & Mo-
towidlo, 1993). The essence of task performance is pro-
ficiency in job-specific tasks. It is broader than work sam-
ple measures (e.g., Lance, Teachout, & Donnelly, 1992)
but retains their focus on skilled job-specific perfor-
mance. Thus, task performance captures the portion of
the performance domain that differentiates one job from
another but excludes important performance elements
common to most jobs.
Incorporating contextual behavior into performance
criteria acknowledges that working in an organizational
setting is different from working alone. Organizations im-
pose requirements for conduct, dress, and demeanor on
their members. Besides accomplishing skilled job-spe-
cific tasks, workers must communicate with one another,
coordinate their actions, follow instructions, and occa-
sionally perform in ways that go beyond their job descrip-
tions (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Brief & Motowidlo,
1986). Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that such behav-
iors are essential to organizational survival and success.
Others have suggested that they reduce interdepartmen-
tal friction (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), aid in coordi-
nating work (Thompson, 1967), and help workers cope
with problems affecting their performance (Kaplan &
Cowen, 1981).
As defined by Borman and Motowidlo (1993) and
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994), the construct of
525

526 VAN SCOTTER AND MOTOWIDLO
contextual performance is quite broad. It includes both
interpersonal elements, such as maintaining good work-
ing relationships and cooperating with others, and voli-
tional or motivational elements, such as persisting in the
face of adversity and volunteering to perform additional
tasks. This distinction between interpersonal and motiva-
tional elements in job performance has also appeared in
other areas of study such as personnel selection (Borman,
White, & Dorsey, 1995; Campbell, McHenry, & Wise,
1990), occupational stress (Motowidlo, Packard, &
Manning, 1986), and organizational citizenship behavior
(MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Smith et al.,
1983). Thus, we argue it might be worthwhile to preserve
this distinction in the construct of contextual perfor-
mance by denning separate facets that we call interper-
sonal facilitation and job dedication.
Interpersonal facilitation consists of interpersonally
oriented behaviors that contribute to organizational goal
accomplishment. It differs from job-specific task perfor-
mance. In addition to the spontaneous helping behaviors
that Smith et al. (1983) called altruism, and George and
Brief (1992) labeled helping coworkers, interpersonal fa-
cilitation encompasses deliberate acts that improve mo-
rale, encourage cooperation, remove barriers to perfor-
mance, or help coworkers perform their task-oriented job
activities. Thus, interpersonal facilitation encompasses a
range of interpersonal acts that help maintain the inter-
personal and social context needed to support effective
task performance in an organizational setting.
Traits and other individual difference measures seem
likely to covary with these interpersonally oriented be-
haviors. For example, people high in agreeableness tend
to act courteously, help others, and treat them fairly
(Costa & McCrae, 1989). A recent meta-analysis re-
ported positive correlations between agreeableness and
job performance ratings (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Sim-
ilarly, people high in social confidence (Fleming & Cour-
tney, 1984), extroversion (Costa & McCrae, 1989), and
positive affectivity (PA; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)
are more likely to seek opportunities to interact with oth-
ers or engage in social activities (Borman & Motowidlo,
1983). These predictors are expected to covary with each
other and with interpersonal facilitation.
Job dedication centers on self-disciplined behaviors
such as following rules, working hard, and taking the ini-
tiative to solve a problem at work.. It encompasses Smith
et al.’s (1983) generalized compliance dimension, as well
as the "will do" factors identified in recent personnel
selection research conducted for the U.S. Army in Pro-
ject A (Campbell et al., 1990). Job dedication is the mo-
tivational foundation for job performance that drives
people to act with the deliberate intention of promoting
the organization’s best interests. Thus, we expect behav-
ioral expressions of job dedication to covary with moti-
vational and volitional traits such as conscientious-
ness (Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, & White, 1993;
Borman et al., 1995; Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler,
1991; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth,
1990), generalized expectancy of task success (Moto-
widlo, 1979, 1981), and goal orientation (Malouffet al.,
1990).
A series of studies has provided evidence that experi-
ence and ability predict job knowledge, that job knowl-
edge predicts task performance, and task performance
explains variance in ratings of overall performance
(Borman et al., 1991, 1993; Hunter, 1983; Schmidt,
Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986). Recent field studies
(Borman etal., 1995; MacKenzie etal., 1991; Motowidlo
& Van Scotter, 1994), and studies on policy capturing
(e.g., Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Werner, 1994) have
extended this research toward a new direction by showing
that contextual performance also explains substantial
variance in supervisory judgments of overall perfor-
mance. Borman et al.’s (1995) finding that task and
contextual factors accounted for nearly equal amounts
of variance in overall performance ratings echoes earlier
results (e.g., MacKenzie et al., 1991; Motowidlo & Van
Scotter, 1994).
Our study sought to move another step forward by test-
ing the merit of distinguishing between task performance
and two facets of contextual performance. It tested
whether or not interpersonal facilitation and job dedica-
tion can be distinguished from each other and from task
performance on the basis of their separate contributions
to supervisors’judgments of overall performance. We ex-
pected that task performance, interpersonal facilitation,
and job dedication each contribute unique variance to
supervisors’ judgments of overall performance. This
study also tested whether the three aspects of job perfor-
mance can be distinguished from each other according to
their correlations with individual difference variables.
We expected that (a) experience, ability, and job knowl-
edge correlate more with task performance than with in-
terpersonal facilitation or job dedication; (b) extrover-
sion, agreeableness, positive affectivity, and social confi-
dence correlate more with interpersonal facilitation than
with task performance or job dedication; and (c) consci-
entiousness, goal orientation, and generalized expec-
tancy of task success correlate more with job dedication
than with task performance or interpersonal facilitation.
Method
Participants
In all, 1,136 U.S. Air Force mechanics participated by com-
pleting self-report measures, receiving performance ratings, or
both. They were responsible for aircraft, ordnance, and arma-
ment systems. Most of those who completed the self-report