Review and Prospect of Employee Contextual Performance Research

. With the advent of the knowledge-based economy, market competition has become increasingly fierce and employees' job roles have become increasingly blurred, so employee contextual performance plays an increasingly important role. The strength of contextual performance is a key factor affecting whether employees and organizations can achieve sustainable development, and how to maximize employee contextual performance is one of the important issues of concern to both theoretical and corporate communities. In this paper, we review existing contextual performance research, sort out the concepts and dimensions of contextual performance, antecedent variables, and outcome variables, and propose future research directions for contextual performance in response to the shortcomings of existing contextual performance. It provides insights for subsequent scholars' research on contextual performance and the contextual performance management of corporate employees.


Introduction
With the advent of the era of knowledge economy, the external environment is evolving rapidly. Facing the rapidly changing market environment in the era of mobile Internet, the enterprise management system is becoming more and more complex. The definition of job roles is not as clear as it used to be. Therefore, organizations increasingly rely on their employees to fill the gap between clear job requirements and the urgent behavior required by the organization to remain competitive [1]. In the enterprise management ecosystem, employees' work tasks are becoming increasingly blurred, and collaborative interaction is becoming more and more important. The research on employees' spontaneous behavior beneficial to the organization, that is, contextual performance, is particularly important [2]. Performance theory research shows that performance is a multidimensional concept including task performance and contextual performance. contextual performance, also known as non-task performance, refers to the voluntary implementation of organizational citizenship behavior, pro-organizational behavior and performance behavior unrelated to specific tasks for the purpose of maintaining and supporting organizational goals [3]. Although contextual performance is different from task performance, which has a direct and clear measurement of results for the organization, contextual performance can help improve task performance. It is not only conducive to internal communication and the establishment of harmonious interpersonal relationships, but also indirectly promote the improvement of overall work efficiency, but also improve the responsiveness and adaptability of the organization, which has a far-reaching impact on the long-term development of the organization [4]. The proposal of contextual performance provides a new perspective for performance appraisal, which shows that it is difficult for managers to evaluate the full contribution of employees only from the task dimension of job performance. In view of this, more and more organizations incorporate employee contextual performance into performance appraisal, and contextual performance appraisal came into being [5].
In the previous research on the performance of the new generation of employees, the previous performance research is mostly limited to reflecting the task performance of employees. With the deepening of the research, scholars put more emphasis on the surrounding behaviors such as close cooperation between employees and colleagues and active help to surrounding colleagues. In the enterprise complex management system that emphasizes teamwork, a positive organizational atmosphere can promote the interaction and communication between employees of different generations, so as to better embed into the organizational network and produce synergy [2]. Therefore, contextual performance can be said to be the organic guarantee and support of task performance. Complex environmental factors pose higher challenges to organizational development than ever before, and the strength of employee performance has become the internal driving force for the organization to move forward [6]. In view of the fact that more and more enterprises begin to pay attention to employee contextual performance, and that contextual performance, like task performance, is of far-reaching and important significance to the development of enterprises, more and more scholars begin to explore the theoretical research of contextual performance.
On the basis of literature review, this paper combs the concept, dimension and measurement of contextual performance in the existing research, as well as the antecedent variables and their action mechanism and strengthening conditions of relationship performance, and the result variables and action mechanism of relationship performance, so as to sort out the relevant research into a more complete research structure model. On this basis, this paper also puts forward the shortcomings and future development direction of contextual performance research.

Concept of contextual performance
A large number of scholars focus on contextual performance, and different scholars describe its connotation differently. Borman formally put forward the concept of relationship performance on the basis of previous studies on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and prosocial organizational behavior (POB) [3]. They divide employees' personal performance into two dimensions: task performance and relationship performance. Task performance refers to the work output that is directly related to the work and can be directly measured by indicators. It is directly related to employees' personal ability and job proficiency. Contextual performance refers to the behavior output that is beneficial to the organization and others outside their own work, including maintaining a good relationship with others, having good interpersonal communication skills, voluntarily helping others complete work tasks and other activities that are not direct production and service activities. In the follow-up study, Van Scotter and Motowidlo believed that contextual performance is a spontaneous behavior, which goes beyond the behaviors and activities specified in their own work [7]. Organ (1997) [8] analyzed from multiple perspectives and believed that contextual performance has the following characteristics: First, social and psychological behaviors that can provide certain support for task performance. Second, it cannot be directly measured and will not receive the formal remuneration of the organization. Third, activities outside the work norms that are important to organizations and individuals. Coleman and Borman believe that contextual relationship performance is a behavior that can not directly support organizational production activities, but can effectively improve the internal atmosphere of the organization [9].
Chinese scholars started their research on contextual performance a little late, but scholars also showed strong interest in contextual performance and carried out a lot of research on it. Shen Zhengrong and Wang Erping defined employee contextual performance as that although it is not directly related to the production and service activities of the enterprise, it can increase organizational benefits by providing an environment conducive to improving task performance, such as promoting the communication efficiency within the organization [10]. Xia Fubin and Lu Ping (2010) [11] believe that contextual performance should have the following characteristics. First, relationship performance is a voluntary behavior beyond their own work, and even if they do not do it, they will not be punished. Second, relationship performance has certain stability and will not change with the change of external environment. Third, it can not be directly measured and can not get the formal return of the enterprise. Fourth, it has a certain promoting effect on enterprise performance, but it is not direct. Behavior output that is beneficial to the organization and others outside their own work, including maintaining a good relationship with others, having good interpersonal communication skills, volunteering to help others complete work tasks and other activities that are not direct production and service activities.
It is a kind of spontaneous behavior, which goes beyond the behaviors and activities specified in the job.

Organ 1997
Employees voluntarily implement the behavior of providing social and psychological support to improve task performance. This behavior is not recognized by the organization's formal compensation system, but it is of great significance to the organization.

Coleman & Borman 2000
It is a kind of behavior that can not directly support the organization's production activities, but can effectively improve the internal atmosphere of the organization. Although it has been agreed that contextual performance is a part of job performance, there is no unified definition of contextual performance so far. Scholars define it from their own research and perspective. Among them, the concept of contextual performance defined by Borman and Motowidlo or Van Scotter and Motowidlo is widely used.

Dimension of contextual performance
Since the proposal of contextual performance, scholars at home and abroad have done a lot of research on the division of contextual performance dimensions. Scholars have different research objects and proposed different structures. They are supported by empirical data from two dimensions to five dimensions. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) [12] proposed a five-dimensional structure model of contextual performance based on the summary of organizational citizenship behavior and prosocial behavior: (1) Take the initiative to undertake additional work tasks; (2) Good working enthusiasm; (3) Take the initiative to help others; (4) Comply with rules and regulations; (5) Consistent with organizational objectives. Based on the above research, Van Scotter and Motowidlo summarized their five-dimensional structure into two aspects: interpersonal promotion and work dedication [7]. Among them, interpersonal promotion refers to cooperation, inclusive behavior and helping behavior. Job dedication refers to the behavior of being diligent, self disciplined, proactive, working hard outside normal working hours and abiding by rules and regulations. Coleman and Borman (2000) [9] explored the structural dimensions of contextual performance on the basis of previous studies, and proposed three dimensions of contextual performance: (1)Interpersonal citizenship performance conducive to individuals, including helping others, cooperation, social participation, interpersonal promotion, altruism and civility; (2) Organizational citizenship performance conducive to the organization, including abiding by regulations, supporting organizational objectives, actively adapting to organizational values and policies, staying in the organization in difficult times, being willing to represent the organization, loyalty, obedience, sportsmanship, civic morality and sense of responsibility; (3) Responsibility performance conducive to the completion of the task, including sustained enthusiasm and additional efforts for the task, voluntary assumption of the informal part of the work, suggestions on organizational reform, initiative and taking additional responsibilities. According to the research results of Coleman and Borman, Chinese scholars Xia Fubin and Lu Ping discussed the structural dimension of China's enterprise employee contextual performance based on the Chinese cultural background [11]. The result of factor analysis shows that under the Chinese cultural background, enterprise employee contextual performance is also a three-dimensional structure, including interpersonal contextual performance, work contextual performance and organizational contextual performance. This three-dimensional structure is similar to the threedimensional structure division of Coleman and Borman. However, because China's culture is different from western culture, China is influenced by the traditional culture of "benevolence", "propriety", "golden mean" and other ideas, and employees' behavior pays more attention to interpersonal harmony, avoiding conflict and avoiding "being in the limelight". Therefore, the meaning of the two three-dimensional structures is different. To sum up, scholars have different methods to divide the dimensions of contextual performance according to their research purposes. Among them, the most widely used is the two-dimensional structure model of Van Scotter and Motowidlo, and the most comprehensive is the three-dimensional structure model of Coleman and Borman. Xia Fubin and Lu Ping's dimension division of contextual performance is more suitable for the research of enterprise employee contextual performance under the background of Chinese culture.

Measurement of contextual performance
Based on scholars' different classification methods of contextual performance dimensions, scholars have also developed a measurement scale of contextual performance accordingly. The contextual performance scale developed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo includes two sub scales: interpersonal promotion and work dedication [7]. Interpersonal promotion includes 7 items and work dedication includes 8 items. The items include "the colleague can exceed the requirements of work tasks and voluntarily solve problems for others". The employee contextual performance scale developed by Xia Fubin and Lu Ping uses five point Likert to measure, including three sub scales of interpersonal contextual performance, work contextual performance and organizational contextual performance, with a total of 13 items, including "helping colleagues deal with difficult problems in life" and "taking a positive attitude towards the organization" [11]. In its survey, The reliability coefficient of Cronbach's α is 0.84. Koopmans et al. adapted the contextual performance scale, which contains 8 items, such as "after the old task is completed, I start a new task myself" [13].
Among them, the scale developed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo is the most widely used by scholars at home and abroad to measure contextual performance. The scale has good reliability and validity and is the most widely used scale to measure contextual performance.

Personal characteristic factors
Lang et al. combined the comprehensive perspective of implicit motivation and explicit characteristics, based on the channel hypothesis, that is, implicit tendency can be expressed in many ways, and explicit tendency shapes (or Guides) the expression of implicit tendency in behavior, and discussed the role of implicit motivation on employee task performance and contextual performance [14]. The results show that extroversion transmits the impact of implicit relationship needs on task and contextual performance, and explicit achievement motivation transmits the impact of implicit achievement motivation on task and contextual performance. It can be seen that implicit motivation opportunity has an impact on task and contextual performance. Its mechanism is that explicit characteristics (typical and stable behavior tendency that people are aware of) can be used as the behavior channel of people's implicit motivation (subconscious desire), so as to make explicit characteristics interact with implicit motivation and predict task and work environment performance. Yousaf et al. also discussed the impact of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on employees' task and contextual performance [15]. Extrinsic motivation has a positive effect on task performance and contextual performance, emotional commitment plays an intermediary role, and intrinsic motivation only has a positive effect on task performance. Chinese scholar Li Wei also studied the mechanism and strengthening conditions of intrinsic motivation on contextual performance, in which work input plays a complete intermediary role and core self-evaluation plays a positive regulatory role [16]. Tu Xingyong et al. constructed and tested a mediated regulatory effect model based on motivation information processing theory and symbolic interaction theory, and discussed the impact of prosocial motivation and helping behavior on contextual performance and its internal mechanism [6]. Cognitive trust plays a regulatory role in prosocial motivation and relationship performance. Delgado-Rodrí Guez et al. studied the relationship between personality, self-efficacy, impression management and contextual performance [17]. Responsibility, extraversion, agreeableness and selfefficacy can positively predict contextual performance, while impression management has no significant impact on contextual performance.
In addition to personality and motivation, Aryani and Widodo also discussed the impact of employability on employee contextual performance. Employability refers to an individual's ability to maintain and develop ability and qualification. Employability has a significant impact on contextual performance, in which organizational commitment plays an intermediary role [18]. At the same time, Chinese scholars Wang Liping et al. studied the interaction between emotional labor and contextual performance of researchers in scientific research teams, and demonstrated the regulatory role of psychological liberation [19]. The results showed that researchers restrained their negative emotions, expressed their positive emotions, dealt with other people's negative emotions, and had significant positive effects on interpersonal promotion and work dedication; This positive effect increases when experiencing a high level of psychological relief. Some scholars have also studied which personality characteristics will negatively affect relationship performance. Palenzuela et al. have shown that there is a significant negative impact between job burnout and contextual performance [20]. Hosie et al. took managers as the research object to explore the impact of well-being and job satisfaction on managers' contextual performance and task performance [21]. The results show that managers with job well-being can achieve higher task performance and contextual performance. Their research conclusions support the "happiness efficient work" theory and believe that when employees feel happy at work, they are more likely to produce high performance.

Job and organizational characteristic factors
Human behavior is affected by the environment. Therefore, it is obvious that work and organizational characteristics will also affect employee contextual performance. Hazrat et al. discussed the impact of organizational justice on employee contextual performance, in which emotional intelligence plays a complete intermediary role, and the study believes that organizational justice is the best factor to predict contextual performance [22]. The research conclusion provides a theoretical basis for the implementation of fair human resource management measures and the recruitment of employees with high emotional intelligence. In addition, it is also perceived at the organizational level that the organization's support for the use of advantages can improve employees' well-being (in the study, it is a work input variable), and then improve employees' relationship performance. Age plays a regulatory role. Young employees will have higher well-being and higher contextual performance after perceiving the organization's support for the use of their own advantages [23]. Tufail et al. studied the impact of internal rewards on employee performance, and believed that internal rewards such as job characteristics will stimulate employees' enthusiasm [24]. Work activities or contents full of fun and satisfaction will not only motivate employees, but also increase the opportunity to use the learned skills, so as to improve task performance and contextual performance. Among them, the job characteristic model includes five factors: task identification, task importance, skill diversity, autonomy and feedback. The incentive potential of job characteristics is linked to performance, which indirectly shows the relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance. Demerouti et al. studied the impact of job crafting on employees' out of role behavior [1]. The research results show that job crafting can improve employees' work input and positive attitude, and then promote the generation of employees' out of role behavior, that is, improve employees' contextual performance. Ingusci et al. found that seeking challenges plays a complete intermediary role between workload and contextual performance [25]. At the same time, personal adaptability regulates the relationship between workload and challenging work needs, and organizational career development regulates the relationship between challenging work needs and relationship performance. Chinese scholar Ma Zhanjie based on the theory of stress adaptation, and the research results show that job insecurity has an inverted U-shaped impact on employee contextual performance and task performance, that is, a medium degree of job insecurity can be used as a "positive atmosphere" to improve employee performance. Job involvement plays an intermediary role between job insecurity atmosphere and employee contextual performance and task performance. Political self-efficacy regulates the relationship between job insecurity atmosphere and contextual performance [26].
In an organization, the behavior and style of leaders will also affect the contextual performance of employees. Some studies have shown that transformational leadership has a significant positive impact on followers' emotional organizational commitment and contextual performance; There is also a positive correlation between emotional organizational commitment and followers' contextual performance [27]. It can be seen that transformational leaders promote the commitment of their followers through their convincing vision and moral guidance, and encourage them to make more efforts to involve them in additional role behaviors; Individuals who are firmly committed to achieving organizational goals will surpass vested interests and show more contextual performance. In addition, emotional leadership and charismatic leadership also have a positive impact on employee contextual performance [28,29].

Interaction factors between people and work/organization
In addition to employees' personal characteristics, work and organizational characteristics will affect employees' contextual performance, the interaction between employees and their work and organization will also affect employees' contextual performance. Han et al. used a longitudinal survey to explore the mechanism of human job matching and human organization matching on employee contextual performance [30]. The results show that person job matching indirectly improves employees' contextual performance by improving their sense of psychological belonging, while the relationship between person organization matching and employees' sense of psychological belonging is not significant, which may be because employee person organization matching is more difficult to develop than person job matching. The research results of Chinese scholar Zhao Hongmei show that people -organization fit has a significant positive impact on employee contextual performance, and verify the intermediary role of organizational citizenship behavior [31]. The research shows that organizations should strengthen employees' recognition of organizational values, and individuals should also strengthen their in-depth understanding of organizational values in job selection, and seek institutions with high fit with themselves, which will help to improve personal contextual performance. In addition, in the interaction with leaders, Peng Jian and Wang Xiao investigated the impact of leader follower's follow prototype consistency on job performance and the mediating effect of job engagement based on role theory [32]. Specifically, (1) the more consistent the leader follower prototypes are, the higher the relationship performance is. However, the above conclusions do not apply to task performance. (2) In the case of consistency, compared with the "low − low" consistency, task performance and contextual performance are higher when both sides follow the "high − high" consistency of the prototype. (3) In the case of inconsistency, task performance and contextual performance are relatively higher when "leader's follow prototype is low − follower's follow prototype is high" than "leader's follow prototype is high − follower's follow prototype is low". The research results of Xu Qian et al. show that leader and member exchange and its four dimensions (emotion, loyalty, contribution and professional respect) positively affect job embeddedness and contextual performance. Job embeddedness has a positive impact on contextual performance. So, job embeddedness plays a complete mediating role between emotion and relationship performance, a partial mediating role between loyalty and contextual performance, and no mediating role between contribution, professional respect and contextual performance [33].

Research on the outcome variables of contextual performance
Most scholars have discussed the antecedent variables of employee contextual performance, but some scholars have also studied the outcome variables of contextual performance assessment to study their impact on employees' behavior.
Zhao Shusong and Liao Jianqiao explored how contextual performance appraisal affects employees' knowledge sharing behavior through structural equation analysis based on social exchange theory, motivation theory and psychological contract theory [5]. It is found that rule obedience, collective emotion and responsibility play a partial intermediary role in the process of contextual performance appraisal (job dedication) affecting employees' knowledge sharing behavior; The interpersonal promotion dimension has no significant impact on employees' knowledge sharing behavior. In addition, Liu Xuemei and Zhao Xiuwen studied the impact of contextual performance on turnover intention by collecting research data from different types of enterprises [34]. The results show that contextual performance can not only reduce employees' turnover intention, but also realize the relationship between them through the complete intermediary role of team trust, which enlightens managers to establish and improve the contextual performance management system in line with the actual situation of enterprises.

Research conclusion and discussion
To sum up, since the proposal of contextual performance, scholars have conducted extensive discussion on it, mainly focusing on the antecedent variables of contextual performance. According to the research of scholars, the antecedent variables of contextual performance can be divided into personal characteristic factors, work and organization characteristic factors, and people with work / GAGBM 2022 Volume 27 (2022) 168 organization interaction factors. Relatively speaking, scholars have less research on the outcome variables of contextual performance, but some scholars have found that contextual performance will have an impact on employees' knowledge sharing behavior and turnover intention.
By summarizing the relevant research on contextual performance, we can not only understand the existing research progress of contextual performance research and find the future research direction, but also provide enlightenment for the contextual performance management in our organization management, help enterprises and employees take scientific and effective measures to improve contextual performance and promote a good organizational atmosphere and interpersonal relationship. This paper combs the previous research into the following research models, as shown in Figure 1.   Fig. 1 Research status

Conclusions
The proposal of contextual performance deepens people's understanding of job performance and promotes the development of job performance research and management practice. Although scholars have done a lot of research on contextual performance, the research on contextual performance is still worthy of further research in some aspects. Future scholars can carry out research from the following aspects.

Exploring the concept of contextual performance
Future research should explore the concept of contextual performance and determine a clear and unified concept of relationship performance. Most scholars focus on voluntary behavior in the research of contextual performance. Therefore, there is a question here: Should contextual performance include employees' involuntary behaviors that are conducive to maintaining and improving the social and psychological environment supporting task performance, such as forced participation in organizational training? If this hypothesis is true, can the structure of contextual performance be divided into two dimensions: voluntary contextual performance and involuntary contextual performance? These need to be confirmed by follow-up research. In addition, the research on contextual performance does not involve moral issues. In fact, many of the ethical behaviors of employees, such as supervising others' theft in the organization and offering bribes on behalf of the organization, are in line with the concept of contextual performance [11]. Therefore, whether the contextual performance structure should include employee moral contextual performance is also a direction worthy of in-depth research.

Considering cultural differences
We should combine the domestic reality, deeply consider the influence of cultural differences, and determine the content structure of contextual performance under the Chinese cultural background. According to previous research conclusions, whether it is five-dimensional structure, twodimensional structure or three-dimensional model, the content composition of contextual performance can be summarized into three aspects: benefit to others, benefit to organization and benefit to work [10]. It can form a good organizational atmosphere and play a positive role in promoting organizational performance, but the situation seems to be different in China's organizations. In the performance evaluation of many organizations, those who are evaluated as excellent are often not the employees with the best working ability and performance, but those with mediocre performance but good interpersonal relationship; When making the assessment, the assessor usually evaluates the personnel in his "circle" high, while the personnel outside the "circle" low. The existence of these phenomena obviously reflects the characteristics of Chinese culture. The current performance evaluation in Chinese organizations is vulnerable to factors such as feelings and interpersonal relationships, and contextual performance is often given greater weight. It can be seen that the western research results can not be directly applied to domestic organizations. Starting from China's national conditions and taking into account the cultural characteristics of domestic enterprises, we should study the composition of contextual performance under the background of Chinese culture.

Exploring evaluation methods of contextual performance
In addition, future research needs to continue to explore the evaluation methods of contextual performance. So far, organizations mainly use self-report, colleague or superior evaluation to evaluate contextual performance, and contextual performance is a voluntary work behavior, which mainly depends on employees' individual motivation and attitude, and can be shown only when individuals have freedom of choice. When contextual performance is used as a component to evaluate individual performance and affects individual compensation, promotion and other decisions, individual performance behavior may be induced and is no longer a voluntary behavior. Does this really reflect contextual performance? If the evaluation method is also adopted for contextual performance, what is the difference between it and task performance? Therefore, whether contextual performance can be obtained by job analysis and performance evaluation remains to be further studied.