PORTRAITS OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE AT WORK: A REVIEW OF THE HIGH LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

The contemporary work context is characterized by complexity, a constant need for innovation and continuous improvement (Seidle et al., 2016), which reiterates the centrality of performance in organizational studies and practices. Performance is a central theme in the field of management and organizational and work psychology, which began to be researched as a construct in the 1980s (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015), and encompasses defined tasks and the broader context of work.

The construct can cover both defined tasks and the broader context of work (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Thus, it contemplates behaviors and results of employees and managers (such as decision-making capacity and relationships with their team), influenced by components at the organizational level (such as productivity, turnover rates, corporate social responsibility, return on investment, growth and competitiveness) (Schleicher et al., 2019).

The origin of any performance result lies in the behavior of individuals, making the variable of fundamental importance for an organization as a whole and for the individuals who work there (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Furthermore, despite the fact that work performance is one of the most relevant constructs in the fields of people management, organizational behavior and organizational studies, few papers are dedicated to researching the state of the art on the subject (Fogaça et al., 2018).

Given that, the general aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the construct of individual performance at work, describing bibliometric and methodological results, as well as the main empirical findings. To achieve this objective, we carried out a literature search using journals with a high impact factor (Journal Citation Report (JCR) from 2016 to 2023. This study brings an update and new contributions on the subject, compared to the systematic review presented by Fogaça et al. (2018), who worked on articles published between 2006 and 2015 in twelve leading journals in the areas of management, applied psychology and business, with the highest impact factor.

During the period covered by this review, the world went through the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying the possible impacts of this fact on the production of knowledge about the construct of interest, as well as gaps and research agendas, is among the main contributions of this study. How did this production react or not to the changes in the world of work resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic? What were the most relevant results found in the empirical studies?

This study seeks to investigate the primary theoretical and methodological features of knowledge production on individual performance at work between 2016 and 2023. We hope that mapping the state of the art of the individual performance at work construct will generate inputs for more effective actions around its management in organizations, ultimately benefiting performance management practices.

Thus, we expect to contribute to the literature on performance, presenting a portrait of what has been produced so far and highlighting the main research trends for this area of such organizational relevance, with emphasis on changes arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Individual performance at work is a multi-determined phenomenon, associated with factors at the individual level (wanting to do), variables related to the task (knowing how to do) and the context (being able to do, perceiving support in the work environment) (Coelho Junior & Borges-Andrade, 2008, 2011). It involves behavioral and result aspects (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002), that is, it can be guided by indicators related to work results or by behaviors, the actions taken to achieve them (Coelho Junior et al., 2016).

There is a consensus that individual performance at work corresponds to what people do that contributes to the organization's goals (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). In other words, performance does not cover any individual's behavior at work, but only that which is related to their tasks and responsibilities (Coelho Junior et al., 2017) and those which are relevant to the organizational goals (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Factors such as time, cost, quality and quantity of work are essential in defining and evaluating work performance (Coelho Junior et al., 2016).

Theories on individual performance at work have two main strands: the first has as its main reference Campbell’s (1990) multidimensional model, eminently task-oriented and based on individual characteristics related to levels of knowledge, effort and discipline; the second strand defines that performance at work results from individual and situational factors, in a dynamic process that involves the individual's adaptation to their context, and has Sonnentag and Frese (2002, 2009) as its main references. Between these two strands it is possible to identify the common element that the performance construct is situated in the relationship between individuals and work processes.

Campbell and Wiernik (2015) argue that performance should be defined in behavioral terms (what people do), and differentiated from both its determinants and its results when these are due to factors other than the individual's level of performance. The authors note that these distinctions are often overlooked, particularly in relation to leadership. Fogaça et al. (2018), based on a review of the literature, note the complexity of defining what performance is and the fact that, while theoretical definitions emphasize behavioral dimensions, empirical definitions and measures are mainly based on organizational results.

Research on performance highlights the dimensions of task and context performance corresponds to that provided in job titles and corresponds to the proficiency with which an individual carries out activities that contribute to the organization's technical issues, whether working directly on them or indirectly (at management level, for example). Contextual performance corresponds to actions to support the organizational, social and psychological environment, which go beyond the attributions of specific tasks and are independent of them (such as, for example, helping work colleagues or contributing to respect, inclusion and appreciation of diversity in the organization) (Coelho Junior, 2009; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002).

METHOD

The main guide for this study is the theoretical and empirical development of the high-impact literature on the construct of individual performance at work. Starting from the assumptions identified by Fogaça et al. (2018) with regard to the variable in the period between 2006 and 2015, the aim is to consolidate the understanding of its scientific field in recent, current and subsequent years by means of a systematic literature review with bibliometric analysis (Paul & Criado, 2020).

To this end, we used Templier and Paré’s (2015) protocol, which consists of six main stages that guide the systematic review. The initial stage consists of formulating the research problem, represented here by the objective of this study. The second stage is the search for literature. With this in mind, we selected the scientific databases Scopus and Web of Science, which stand out for their large number of indexed journals, as well as their temporal scope and the quality of the journals (Chadegani et al., 2013; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016).

Considering the delimitation of the study by Fogaça et al. (2018) to the years 2006 to 2015, we adopted in this study the time frame of 2016 to October 2023, when data collection was consolidated. In addition, the search in the chosen databases was based on the titles, abstracts and keywords of the articles, using the string: (“job performance” OR “individual performance” OR “work performance” OR “individual job performance”), the same used by Fogaça et al. (2018). Initially, our aim was to cover the widest range of articles on the subject of individual performance at work.

From this definition, we moved on to the third stage of the protocol, which covers the inclusion criteria. Articles published in English-language journals were chosen. Thus, working papers and other types of content and languages were not selected. In order to restrict the initial number of articles to those most pertinent to the construct analyzed, we selected the areas of Business and Management, Social Sciences and Psychology. As a result, the initial sample consisted of 10,639 articles, 5,635 from Scopus and 5,004 from Web of Science. Of this sample, we excluded 2,775 duplicates, leaving 7,864 articles.

In its fourth stage, the protocol points out the need to assess the quality of the articles selected. Based on the precept of analyzing high-impact literature, only journals with a Journal Citation Report (JCR) index above 8.00 were selected. Thus, we kept the Top 25 journals with the highest impact factor, in order to preserve the quality of the articles analyzed and the operability of the study according to the bibliometric analysis techniques adopted (Aguinis et al., 2023; Fogaça et al., 2018). As a result, we excluded 7,308 articles from the JCR analysis, leaving 556 articles.

In addition, we opted for more careful quality filters, in which we analyzed the title, abstract and keywords. This made it possible to verify the pertinence of the articles to the individual performance at work construct. Articles that dealt with the variable in a superficial or generalist way, with no real contribution to the scientific field, as well as articles with an emphasis on group, team or organizational performance, or which did not include individual performance as an analyzed characteristic, were removed. Thus, we excluded a total of 372 articles from this analysis, leaving 184 articles, which were sent for full reading.

In the full reading of the articles, those articles whose full papers were not available were removed. In addition, we decided to remove: (a) empirical articles that did not collect data on the variable of individual performance at work; (b) review articles that did not present evidence on the individual performance at work variable; (c) articles that did not make any contribution to the objective of this study; and (d) articles that were not made available for full access without charging fees, apart from those already included for institutional access. Therefore, 25 articles were excluded due to non-alignment and 14 articles due to lack of access, resulting in a final sample of 145 articles.

Furthermore, the fifth stage involves data extraction, where we returned to the Scopus and Web of Science databases to access the final sample selected for the final stage, in which data analysis is consolidated. Bibliometric analyses were thus carried out in order to identify the main trends and future paths of the individual performance at work variable, as well as its possible conceptual changes and the current state of the art. Figure 1 illustrates the systematic review protocol chosen.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

In terms of the bibliometric analyses used, we analyzed the final sample of articles using the Bibliometrix package in the R language, as well as the VosViewer software. Based on these analyses, our aim is to deepen the evolution of the scientific field of high-impact literature on individual performance at work, while also providing support for the development of a future research agenda.

The Bibliometrix package enables the use of the R language for complete analysis of certain areas of scientific knowledge, through a set of bibliometric analyses (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). The VosViewer software, on the other hand, provides relational analysis of constructs in the literature, acting as a frequently used analysis technique, due to the graphic display and definition of clusters of predominant themes in the scientific field (van Eck & Waltman, 2017).

During the data analysis stage, the articles that made up the final sample were fully read. In this way, we complemented the other bibliometric analyses with conceptual analyses, method analyses and other contributions from each article, in order to develop a comprehensive research agenda, as well as to identify other trends and possible changes in the individual performance at work construct, according to the sample analyzed.

Based on the reading of the articles and with a view to systematically analyzing the articles that make up the corpus of this literature review, we extracted and tabulated data from each of these papers on: how the individual performance variable was treated (e.g., if it was a criterion variable, predictor, mediator or moderator); other constructs related to individual performance; the concept of individual performance used; the main characteristics of the method applied; and the main results found. The analysis of this data will form part of the results of this work.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, we reviewed a total of 145 articles published from 2016 to 2023. The analysis of these eight years made it possible to see how this field of study has developed since the systematic review carried out by Fogaça et al. (2018). Figure 2 shows the distribution of the publication of the 145 articles reviewed over the years. It shows that there was an increase in articles in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. In 2023, although the number of articles only published up to October was taken into account, the number of articles was very close to 18, the average number of publications per year.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Regarding the journals with the greatest prominence in scientific production in the field, the Journal of Applied Psychology (33 articles), the Journal of Business Research (27 articles), the Journal of Vocational Behavior (20 articles) and the Journal of Management (14 articles) stand out. These journals composed around 65% of the final sample of articles included in this study, demonstrating the great relevance and impact of journals in the areas of applied psychology, business and management on the individual performance at work construct over the last few years. The other journals that published the most are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1Top Publishing Journals

View Fullscreen

When it comes to the most influential authors in the scientific field, we did not identify any authors with a high number of publications in the sample analyzed, either individually or together. This demonstrates the great diversity and popularity of the individual performance construct, without a high concentration in single research groups.

As for the articles with the highest number of citations, the article by Allan et al. (2019) stands out with 216 citations. This study involves a meta-analysis on the impacts of meaningful work, demonstrating its prediction of engagement, commitment, satisfaction and, consequently, performance, citizenship and talent retention (Allan et al., 2019). Next, the article by LePine et al. (2016), with 212 citations, seeks to understand the influence of charismatic leaders on the performance of their subordinates. The article by Baranik et al. (2017), with 164 citations, analyzes the effects of cognitive rumination on performance, while McCarthy et al. (2016) (157 citations) delves into the effects of emotional exhaustion and anxiety on individual performance. In turn, Ozcelik and Barsade (2018), with 151 citations, explore the connection between loneliness in the workplace and performance. Table 2 shows the most cited articles and their respective publication sources.

TABLE 2Most Cited Articles

View Fullscreen

Of the 145 articles reviewed, 129 are empirical; 11 are meta-analysis; 2 are systematic reviews; 2 are theoretical articles and 1 is a theoretical article with meta-analysis. Of the 145 articles reviewed, the individual performance at work construct is the central theme in 31 (21.38%) studies, of which 28 are empirical, 3 are meta-analyses and 1 is a theoretical study.

As for the construct definition, we found that most of the 145 studies reviewed (73.10%, 106 articles) did not specify the concept of performance they adopted. This brings us back to what Campbell observed in 1990: the fact that performance was often treated in studies as if it were 'one thing', with the measurement method as the only differentiating parameter (Campbell, 1990).

Only 39 articles reviewed in our study (26.89% of the total) explain the concept of performance used. Among these, the perspective centered on task performance predominated, present in 25 papers (64.10% of the studies that explained the concept of performance used). Of these, task performance was the focus in 15 (38.46% of the studies that explain the concept of performance used) and was found associated with other dimensions (such as contextual performance and counterproductive behavior at work) in another 10 studies (25.64% of the studies that explain the concept of performance used). Only 1 study also investigated the dimension of adaptive performance, this being a study developed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ni et al., 2022).

One of the questions that motivated this review was whether the studies published during and after the COVID-19 pandemic raised any questions about the theory of individual performance at work. According to the findings of our study, there was no such problematization.

We found only 9 studies that investigated possible effects of the pandemic on work performance: Chaker et al. (2021) discuss the effects of social isolation, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the performance of salespeople, while Shockley et al. (2021) analyze the relationship between communication, daily work performance and burnout among employees who have switched to full-time remote work due to COVID-19. Venkatesh et al. (2021) investigate whether the significant change in the work context, with many employees now working remotely, constitutes a weakening of the situational force that can alter the relationship of conscientiousness with job strain, job satisfaction and job performance.

Other studies reviewed that investigated possible effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on work performance include: Nguyen et al. (2022), who investigate the impact of role conflict, job insecurity and cynicism on knowledge hiding behavior and the impact of knowledge hiding on work performance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; Gilli et al. (2022), which examine the relationship between satisfaction and individual and team performance in global virtual teams, most relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic; and Ni et al. (2022), investigating the relationship between helping coworkers, gratitude and employee performance in the COVID-19 crisis.

As for Xie et al. (2022), the authors examine the influence of individual and organizational mindfulness on employee outcomes in terms of preventive behaviors, emotional exhaustion and work performance in the context of COVID-19. Yang et al. (2022) analyze why and how commitment to work helps migrant workers cope with the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and Liu et al. (2023) examine the trajectories of work performance before, during and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, one study posits the need to rethink the relationship between performance and its antecedents considering the new normal introduced by COVID-19 and the growing role of hybrid work (Boccoli et al., 2023).

As shown previously, the majority of the sample of articles reviewed were theoretical-empirical. Analyzing how the individual performance at work variable was dealt with in the 129 empirical studies reviewed, we found that it was a criterion variable in 122 articles (94.57%); a predictor variable in 5 (3.87%); and a mediating variable in 2 (1.55%). Thus, our study confirms individual performance at work as a variable that responds to the influence of others and is multidetermined, reiterating the findings of the systematic review by Fogaça et al. (2018).

In the 122 articles in which individual performance at work was a criterion variable, the research was based on the influence of constructs such as job satisfaction, motivation, organizational citizenship behavior, engagement at work, stressors at work, emotional exhaustion and leadership. With regard to the latter, research looks at the characteristics of transformational leadership, servant leadership, charismatic leadership and leader-member exchange theory (LMX).

In the studies in which individual performance at work was considered a mediator (2 articles), the other related variables we found were: adaptability to work, flexible working hours, career development, turnover intention and team performance. In the case of the articles in which the variable appeared as a predictor (5 articles), the following constructs were also investigated: promotion, conscientiousness, proactive personality, identification with work, transformational leadership, job satisfaction, ostracism, turnover intention, occupational and organizational commitment, citizenship behavior, psychological entitlement, power and burnout.

When it comes to the nature of the research, most of the studies were quantitative (96.90%, 125 articles) and 4 were mixed. The most commonly used time frame was cross-sectional, present in 110 articles (85.27%). In addition, 18 articles (13.95%) were longitudinal studies and 1 article was mixed, as it carried out a longitudinal study and three cross-sectional studies (Alessandri et al., 2021). As for sample size, most of the theoretical-empirical articles reviewed used a sample of 101 to 500 participants (60.46%, 78 articles), followed by samples of 501 to 1000 (19.37%, 25 articles), more than 1000 (13.17%, 17 articles) and up to 100 participants (6.97%, 9 articles).

Analyzing the countries in which the research was applied, we found the United States with 43 articles (33.3%); China with 23 articles (17.8%); South Korea with 7 articles; India with 6 articles; the Netherlands, Taiwan and Pakistan with 5 articles each; and other countries accounting for the remaining 38% of the studies reviewed, each with less than 5 articles. As for the sector in which the empirical data was collected, we found a large predominance of the private sector, with 87 articles (67.4%); the public sector had 13 articles (10.1%); 6 studies had data collected in both sectors; and 23 of the articles did not inform in which sector the data was collected.

Searching by the branch of business that characterizes the empirical data, we found the following descending order: industry (14 articles); education (13 articles); information technology, hospitality and sales (6 articles each); retail (5 articles); military and services (4 articles each); health, consulting, telecommunications and police (3 articles each). In total, 9% of the articles dealt with other branches of business, different from these; 34 articles (26%) were applied to more than one organization, from different branches, such as finance, sales, retail, services and industry; and 13 articles (10.1%) did not specify the branch of activity of the organizations where the data was collected.

Concerning the main performance measurement instruments used by the theoretical-empirical articles, the Williams and Anderson scale from 1991, aimed at measuring task performance, was predominant, being found in 28 articles (21.7%). It is interesting to note that Fogaça et al. (2018) also found this measure to be the most used among the studies that applied existing instruments in the literature - in that review, 5.4% of the empirical studies applied this same scale.

Other instruments found in the articles were those by Farh & Cheng (1997) in 4% of the articles; Goodman & Svyantec (1999) in 3%; Van Scotter & Motowidlo (1996) in 3%; and Welbourne et al. (1998) in 2%. The other studies used a variety of scales found in the literature, predominantly focused on task performance, or: performance measurement criteria specific to the companies where the data was collected (e.g., sales targets, productivity, supervisor evaluation)—15.5% of the articles; specific criteria, without prior scientific validation (6%); the study developed its own instrument and tested the validity evidence (3%).

It is worth mentioning that some studies used combinations of scales. Furthermore, the predominant types of scale were hetero-evaluation (58.2%), mostly using supervisor assessments, followed by self-evaluation (28.7%). Few articles used combinations of both forms (10%) or did not specify (3.1%).

When it comes to the data collection technique used by theoretical-empirical studies, the vast majority carried out surveys (83.9%). Other types of techniques we identified were secondary data collection (13.9%), experiments (3.1%), interviews (1.6%), non-participant observation (0.8%) and the development of an AI model (0.8%). A total of 17% of the studies used these techniques together. This means that 79.8% of the articles collected primary data, 3.1% secondary data and 17.1% a combination of both.

Finally, we investigated the main data analysis methods used in the articles reviewed. Some articles used more than one method, so they were counted more than once in the analysis. Among the 129 empirical articles reviewed, 44 analyzed the data using regression techniques (30%), 37 used multilevel analysis (25%), 28 used structural equation modeling (19%), 13 used confirmatory factor analysis (9%) and 8 used path analysis (5%). Other less frequent techniques appeared in another 18 articles, such as Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA; 3 articles), ANOVA (2 articles), Latent Growth Model (LGM; 3 articles), Machine Learning (ML; 1 article), among others.

As in Fogaça et al. (2018), the main data analysis methods were also regressions, multilevel analysis and structural equation modeling, although there was a reduction in the number of articles using regression techniques (from 51% to 30%) and an increase in the number of articles using multilevel analysis (from 16% to 25%). In addition, we found some techniques that were not included in the review by Fogaça et al. (2018), such as fsQCA, LGM, ML, and others.

Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis

In order to analyze the main connections between the articles in the final corpus of this study, we developed a keyword co-occurrence analysis using the VosViewer software. Illustrated in Figure 3, this analysis allows for the delineation of thematic clusters that identify the predominant discussions in the literature, as well as their most influential trends.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The first cluster, in red, deals with the influence of individual aspects, such as personality, innovative behaviors and self-efficacy, and the support received from the organization, on performance in adverse organizational scenarios. In this sense, studies show that individual orientations towards innovation (Ritala et al., 2021) and self-efficacy behaviors, combined with support from leaders, favor employee performance and engagement in times of greater obstacle or insecurity at work (Calderwood & Gabriel, 2017; Lin et al., 2018). The assignment of personalities in compatible environments is highlighted as an essential factor for employee satisfaction and good performance of the tasks required, especially when the profile is not easily adaptable (Abrahams et al., 2023; Dalal et al., 2020; Frieder et al., 2018). In relation to these findings, professional profiles with openness to training, together with the support of supervisors to carry it out, promote increases in performance and employability (Bozionelos et al., 2020). Since it is positively linked to performance, and can reduce other factors such as ambivalence, that is, when there is a high level of organizational support and peer support, LMX ambivalence does not negatively influence employee performance (Lee et al., 2019).

Cluster 2, in green, specifically addresses the influence of aspects related to emotional factors on individual performance. Thus, anxiety and emotional exhaustion caused by the workplace and its relational demands can be offset by social support (McCarthy et al., 2016). Although mostly associated with negative effects on performance, some studies have found positive effects of anxiety when situational, unlike cases of emotional exhaustion and generalized stress in the individual, which lead to performance losses (Cheng & McCarthy, 2018). Self-regulation mechanisms are commonly present in situations of this nature, but do not necessarily last in the face of continued or very high levels of stress (Byron et al., 2018). In parallel, factors external to work can also generate anxiety, such as aspects related to the political and social scenario (e.g., cases of terrorism), which harm the general well-being of the workplace, requiring higher levels of self-regulation and coping to preserve performance (De Clercq et al., 2017; Raja et al., 2020).

Cluster 3, in dark blue, covers work characteristics and organizational climate. In particular, it portrays the influence of team composition and external hiring on the performance of managers and employees (DeOrtentiis et al., 2018), as well as the relationship between work characteristics and involvement in informal/practical learning with individual performance (Wolfson et al., 2018, 2019). Climate has a direct influence on performance, being affected by interpersonal relationships of envy (De Clercq et al., 2018), peer and leadership support (Kim et al., 2021), ethics (Mulki & Lassk, 2019), satisfaction and trust (Prentice et al., 2019; Rudolph et al., 2017; Xie & Li, 2021).

On the other hand, cluster 4, in yellow, deals with the influence of variables that cut across the organization on performance. In this context, citizenship and performance are negatively impacted by situations of external instability and job insecurity (such as terrorism and pandemics) (Raja et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2022), or by internal conditions, such as a shortage or excess of supervisors, even among employees with high commitment and emotional well-being (McLarty et al., 2019, 2021). In line with this, organizational and team identification acts as a predictor of citizenship (Ng et al., 2022), as well as promoting individual performance gains (Alessandri et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023; Rapp & Mathieu, 2019).

Cluster 5, in purple, deals specifically with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees. In particular, studies show that overwork and meeting demands, necessary adaptations to remote work and social isolation have acted as influential factors in cases of burnout and significant drops in performance (Prentice & Thaichon, 2019; Shockley et al., 2021; Spilker & Breaugh, 2021). The pandemic has also reduced employees' situational strength indices, aggravating the risks of dissatisfaction and burnout, even in employees with high organizational self-awareness (Venkatesh et al., 2021). In the case of teleworking, good levels of communication between teams and leaders positively affected performance and satisfaction (Gilli et al., 2022), but permanent connectivity and constant interruptions had negative effects (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2021).

Cluster 6, represented by the light blue color, has interpersonal relationships and job satisfaction as its axes. The articles state that the exchange of information is positively linked to work performance (Chen et al., 2023). Therefore, job crafting is an informal process in which workers shape their own work with a view to aligning it more closely with their interests and values. Thus, job crafting has positive effects on four dimensions: work proficiency, citizen behavior at work, job satisfaction and affective commitment (Dierdorff & Jensen, 2018). Satisfaction was also very present, showing an influence on performance, with an emphasis on constructs that can increase or decrease the degree of satisfaction, such as: communication, technical knowledge, conflict, member motivation, rewards and role clarity (Gilli et al., 2022).

The orange-colored cluster 7 highlights the leadership construct. The studies show that some leadership styles predict performance, one of which is transformational leadership, showing evidence of being a mediator in role conflict and knowledge hiding behavior (Nguyen et al., 2022). Furthermore, authoritarian, supportive, servant and supportive leadership were other styles addressed by the articles (Patzelt et al., 2021; Rofcanin et al., 2021; Schaubroeck et al., 2017), with the first (authoritarian leadership) having a negative indirect relationship (Schaubroeck et al., 2017). It is worth highlighting the relevance of leadership dynamics for the work performance variable, since it is present in 4 of the 10 clusters analyzed here—in cluster 4 (leader-member exchange [LMX]), cluster 7 (leadership), cluster 8 (servant leadership) and cluster 9 (transformational leadership).

Cluster 8, identified by the color brown, presents constructs referring to helping behaviors, organizational citizenship, exchange between members and pro-social motivation, as well as servant leadership and role ambiguity. In the studies reviewed, organizational citizenship behavior was treated as a dimension of performance (e.g., Gullifor 2023; McLarty 2021, 2019), with some of its predictors being employee engagement (Boccoli et al., 2023), organizational identification and self-esteem based on the organization (Ng et al., 2022). Empirical results suggest predictive relationships between servant leadership and work performance (Rofcanin et al., 2021; Stollberger et al., 2019). As for pro-social behaviors, one of the studies shows that individual helpfulness is not related to work performance, in contrast to team reflexivity, which provides a process for continuing to improve individual and team performance (Fu et al., 2020). On the other hand, the role ambiguity construct was negatively related to work performance (van de Brake et al., 2020).

In pink, cluster 9 is related to learning orientation, motivation and the sales sector. Learning is discussed in the context of leadership, as evidence has been found that it is necessary for management to promote access to information in order to understand organizational objectives and thus achieve good performance at work (Dennerlein & Kirkman, 2023). Empirical results suggest that transformational leadership is an important predictor of work performance (Frieder et al., 2018; López-Cabarcos et al., 2022). Besides, the cluster discusses motivation in the sales sector, and it was found that intrinsic motivation is more related to performance than extrinsic sources such as reward and recognition. Another finding is that for younger generations, for example, generation X or millennials, who have become the largest generation in the US workforce, intrinsic motivation such as autonomy and competence are more important for job performance (Good et al., 2022).

The final cluster, represented by the light orange color, deals with absenteeism and aspects related to perceptions, affections and social behavior related to performance. A study found that employees' participation in multiple teams is associated with the perception of ambiguity in their role, which in turn is linked to lower performance and higher absenteeism (van de Brake et al., 2020). In their work, Woolum et al. (2017) identified that witnessed morning rudeness leads to greater perceptions of workplace rudeness throughout the day and that these perceptions predict lower task performance and goal progress, greater avoidance of social interaction and psychological problems.

RESEARCH AGENDA

Initially, it is worth highlighting that, as a research agenda, we have identified an opportunity for new reflections on the theoretical definition of individual performance at work. We believe that the definition of this construct as what people do that contributes to the organization's objectives (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015), as the individual's behavior related to their tasks and responsibilities (Coelho Junior et al., 2017) and that are relevant to organizational goals (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002) is still valid nowadays, but may have acquired new nuances.

Although there is a large volume of publications in this field of knowledge, the analyzed studies reveal a lack of conceptual depth and theoretical exploration of individual performance at work. This construct is predominantly used in empirical studies, without a clear conceptualization or definition of theoretical frameworks to support its discussions. When employed, classical concepts are maintained; however, future debates may address the new challenges of organizational reality in a post-pandemic context and the technological advancements and their impacts on individual performance at work in various social contexts.

The main reason is that, since the COVID-19 pandemic, which marked the beginning of the 2020s, teleworking has been considerably adopted, in different sectors and occupations, and to varying degrees. In this context, we suggest that future studies explore what meaning the contextual dimension of performance acquires in teleworking. For example, how can an individual who works entirely remotely behave in a way that is socially and psychologically supportive of the organizational environment? What is the organizational environment for this teleworker—is it their work team the time on virtual meetings, the message exchanges with their boss, etc.? And how does this relationship work for hybrid workers? How does working remotely and face-to-face interfere with the individual’s relationship with their work environment and affect their performance?

Moreover, we suggest for future research that teleworking could become a constitutive dimension of the individual performance construct itself, and no longer just correspond to a type of work. Teleworking influences the entire working dynamics of those who experience it, and can be present, to varying degrees, in the daily working lives of different workers. It is therefore worth investigating how this possible new dimension of the construct will relate to its other dimensions, already established in the literature, such as task execution, contextual performance and adaptive performance.

Consistent with these possible new nuances of the individual performance at work construct in contemporary times, we identified the opportunity and need for new measures of this variable to be developed and tested in different contexts. Our findings in this literature review study suggest that work performance is predominantly measured as task performance. However, we question whether this form of measurement encompasses the complexity and multidimensionality of the construct. Thus, we identify the opportunity to develop new instruments that can contribute to measuring individual performance, considering changes in the world of work since the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the increased adoption of teleworking and its effects on individuals.

Another question that, in general, has gained more strength since the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and has an impact on the work performance construct refers to workers’ health. Along these lines, we have identified the healthy performance of individuals at work as an important issue to be better developed.

Another front that deserves further exploration in forthcoming studies is the multilevel perspective on work performance. It is important to identify the factors that contribute to an improvement or worsening of individual performance, whether they are related to the individual themselves, their group/team or the organization. This can contribute to improving the working conditions experienced by individuals, to (re)designing work, to reflecting on the effectiveness of the training actions in which organizations invest, to encouraging a culture of collaborative learning in work environments, among other predictive variables of individual performance over which organizations have greater or lesser management capacity.

Thus, from the multilevel perspective of performance management, considering the top-down and bottom-up processes, we suggest the following questions for future research: what are the meso and macro-level variables (groups/teams and organizations, respectively) that influence individual performance at work and how can they be managed? What are the elements at the individual level that most influence performance at work? How can these elements be strengthened? How does individual performance relate to group/team performance and organizational performance? How should these processes be observed and measured? With what time frames? How should individual performance be dealt with in contexts or work designs where results and deliverables are clearly the result of interactive teamwork? In such cases, how should studies deal with the individual level? And how should managers/leaders do it in the practice of organizations?

Lastly, an important point to note in future research concerns the method. We identified a large predominance of quantitative and cross-sectional studies on the construct of individual performance at work. In view of this, we asked what contributions qualitative and mixed-method research could make to the development of knowledge about this construct. We suggest that longitudinal and mixed-method studies can better capture individual performance as a multidetermined, multilevel and dynamic process.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic literature review on the construct of individual work performance. Considering the period from 2016 to 2023, we identified the main trends in the scientific field, as well as its structure in terms of predominant themes, methodological and theoretical aspects. Thus, this literature review contributes to the systematic evaluation of the production of knowledge on performance based on reviews that have common foundations and are published periodically. Based on these findings, we defined an agenda for future research, providing advances in the development of this variable.

It is worth highlighting the existence of limitations to this study, in particular the limitation of articles published in English-language journals in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, as well as those indexed in journals with a high impact factor. Despite focusing on high-impact literature and the quality of the performance construct, it should be emphasized that the results presented here refer to the delimited sample. Research exploring the variable of interest in other contexts is therefore pertinent and necessary, such as studies in languages other than English and those published in journals with a lower Journal Citation Report (JCR). This would provide a more comprehensive, inclusive, and complete perspective of the field.

In spite of these limitations, we reinforce the contributions of this work in terms of mapping the high-impact literature. Through our findings, several new research itineraries can be defined, providing constant improvement of this highly relevant construct. Based on the results, we identified relevant discussion points in the high-impact literature on individual work performance, particularly regarding theoretical aspects and the need for greater scientific depth in this field. Furthermore, the importance of future investigations addressing the impacts of contemporary events on this construct is highlighted. In this regard, we developed a future research agenda, providing a foundation for new studies, and constituting a valuable contribution for both researchers and practitioners in the field.

Additionally, the synthesis and analysis of the main points discussed in the prominent literature represent a significant contribution to market professionals and managers, offering more robust support for decision-making processes and team management in challenging contexts. We hope that the contributions presented in this study enhance the advancement of the scientific field, as well as for the theoretical and empirical refinement of future studies on this topic. This portrait of the scientific literature is expected to encourage new researchers and managers to deepen their understanding of individual performance at work and its impact not only on people management but also on the organizational reality as a whole.