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

net/publication/329243736

The performance costs of illegitimate tasks: The role of job identity and
flexible role orientation

Article  in  Journal of Vocational Behavior · November 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.012

CITATIONS READS

21 132

2 authors:

Jie Ma Yisheng Peng

Jinan University (Guangzhou, China) George Washington University
20 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

challenge and hindrance job stress View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jie Ma on 11 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The performance costs of illegitimate tasks: The role of job identity

T
and flexible role orientation
⁎
Jie Maa, , Yisheng Pengb
a
School of Management, Lanzhou University, 222 Tianshui S Rd, Lanzhou, Gansu Sheng, China
b
Department of Psychology, 1000 Fulton Ave, 135 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, United States of America

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The present study examined whether illegitimate tasks were negatively related to employee task
Illegitimate tasks performance and proactive work behaviors via employee job identity. Furthermore, this study
Job identity investigated if employee flexible role orientation would moderate the illegitimate task – job
Employee performance identity relationship as well as the indirect effects of illegitimate tasks on task performance and
Proactive work behavior
proactive work behavior via job identity. Multi-sourced data (i.e., self-and supervisor-rating)
Flexible role orientation
were collected from a group of 130 Chinese full-time employees using a time-lagged research
design. Illegitimate tasks and flexible role orientation at time 1 and job identity at time 2 were
measured by employees' self-ratings, while task performance and proactive work behavior at time
3 were rated by direct supervisors. Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling analyses found that
job identify significantly mediated the effects of illegitimate tasks on employee task performance
and proactive work behaviors. Flexible role orientation moderated the negative relationship
between illegitimate tasks and job identity such that the relationship was significant only for
employees with low flexible role orientation. It was further found that the indirect effects of
illegitimate tasks on task performance and proactive work behavior via job identity were sig-
nificant only for employees with low flexible role orientation. This is the first empirical study
testing the threat-to-identity effect and our findings highlight the critical mediating role of job
identity underlying the illegitimate tasks- job performance relationship. Results also suggest that
employee flexible role orientation helps alleviate the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks.
Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Since the last decade, the concept of illegitimate tasks, a newly identified job stressor, has drawn attention from researchers and
practitioners. By definition, a job task becomes illegitimate when it violates the boundary of what can be reasonably and appro-
priately expected from an employee (Semmer, Jacobshagen, Meier, & Elfering, 2007). The concept of illegitimate tasks is char-
acterized by unreasonable tasks and unnecessary tasks (Semmer et al., 2007). Unreasonable tasks are perceived as so incompatible
with one's job role that they should be done by someone else. An example can be an HR staff being asked to deal with a customer
complain that should be handled by customer representatives. Unnecessary tasks are perceived as having no reason to be done so that
performing those tasks is a waste of time and resources (Semmer et al., 2007). An example can be an intern being asked to write a
report that nobody will read. Illegitimate tasks are reported to occur frequently at work (i.e., with an average of 2–3 times per week;
see in Eatough et al., 2016). An earlier interview study even reported that 10% of core tasks (e.g., teaching in the case of teachers)
and almost 65% of auxiliary tasks (e.g., patrolling school campus in the case of teachers) were perceived as “illegitimate” by

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: majie@lzu.edu.cn (J. Ma), Yisheng.Peng@hofstra.edu (Y. Peng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.012
Received 6 February 2018; Received in revised form 16 November 2018; Accepted 25 November 2018
Available online 28 November 2018
0001-8791/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

employees (Jacobshagen, 2006; Semmer, Jacobshagen, & Meier, 2006).

Research conceptualizes illegitimate tasks as an identity-based stressor such that the assignment of these tasks imposes a threat to
employee identity at work (Semmer et al., 2015; Semmer, Tschan, Meier, Facchin, & Jacobshagen, 2010). This threat-to-identity
effect is seen as the explanatory mechanism for why illegitimate tasks can be detrimental to employee wellbeing (Semmer et al.,
2010, 2015; Sonnentag & Lischetzke, 2018). For instance, Eatough et al. (2016) argued that illegitimate tasks would hurt employee
self-esteem by conveying disrespectful information, disrupting one's role enactment, and consequently threatening employee identity
at work.
Surprisingly, though, to date the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks has not been empirically tested. This research gap
not only calls into question the notion that illegitimate tasks are an identity-based stressor but also inhibits a thorough understanding
of which identity is at stake and how the identity intervenes the detrimental effects of illegitimate tasks on employee outcomes
(Eatough et al., 2016; Semmer et al., 2010, 2015; Sonnentag & Lischetzke, 2018). To fill this research gap, the first goal of the present
study is to test the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks explicitly by examining the relationship between illegitimate tasks and
employee job identity. We chose to focus on job identity because the concept of illegitimate tasks rests upon one's job role, the frame
of reference that employees take to evaluate the legitimacy of a given task (Semmer et al., 2010, 2015; Sonnentag & Lischetzke,
2018). Drawing upon identity theory (e.g., Stryker & Burke, 2000), we posit a negative relationship between illegitimate tasks and
employee job identity.
Another issue in the illegitimate tasks literature is that research has paid less attention to the performance cost than the wellbeing
cost. In a very small number of studies examining the effect of illegitimate tasks on employee performance, researchers focused
exclusively on counterproductive work behaviors (Schulte-Braucks, Baethge, Dormann, & Vahle-Hinz, 2018; Semmer et al., 2010;
Zhou, Eatough, & Wald, 2018), making it hard to draw implications for other aspects of job performance. In addition, the identity
theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000) argues that job identity functions as a behavioral regulator that could significantly impact employee
job performance. Seeing this, investigating performance cost of illegitimate tasks can also help to validate the aforementioned threat-
to-identity effect. Finally, the evidence of the performance cost can further prompt employers' attention to the issue of illegitimate
tasks, which directs organizational practices to better manage task assignment. Taken together, the second goal of the current study is
to investigate if illegitimate tasks would compromise employee task performance and proactive work behavior-two critical perfor-
mance outcomes for employee career success and organizational effectiveness-by threatening employee job identity.
Finally, the effect of illegitimate tasks on job identity may vary from employee to employee (Eatough et al., 2016; Schulte-Braucks
et al., 2018). Illegitimate tasks may threaten job identity to a lower extent for employees who are less sensitive to the threatening cues
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Schulte-Braucks et al., 2018) and/or are better able to enact job role effectively (Parker, 2007; Parker,
Williams, & Turner, 2006). Flexible role orientation describes the extent to which employees perceive a wide range of problems, goals
and tasks as part of their job role (Parker, 2007; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). By reflecting the level of “that is not my job”
mentality (Parker, 2000), flexible role orientation might influence the sensitivity of an employee to the threatening cues of illegi-
timate tasks (Parker, 2007). Additionally, by influencing how an employee executes his/her job role, flexible role orientation may
also affect the employee's role enactment in the face of illegitimate tasks. Considering this, the third goal of our study is to investigate
how flexible role orientation would affect the relationship between illegitimate tasks and job identity. We posit that flexible role
orientation would buffer the effect of illegitimate tasks on job identity and consequently mitigate the detrimental impacts of ille-
gitimate tasks on employee task performance and proactive work behavior via job identity.

1. Illegitimate tasks, job identity, and employee job performance

Each job encompasses a set of role expectations for its incumbents. These role expectations constitute the boundary of what can be
reasonably and appropriately expected from an employee (Semmer et al., 2015). Illegitimate tasks-those unreasonable or unnecessary
tasks-are seen as violating the boundary (Semmer et al., 2010). Specifically, the term “illegitimate” reflects an employee's appraisal of
the consistency between a task and one's job role, and is irrelevant to the intrinsic qualities of that task (Eatough et al., 2016; Semmer
et al., 2015). Therefore, a highly prestigious task may appear illegitimate to an employee if the employee sees it as incompatible with
his/her job role (Eatough et al., 2016; Semmer et al., 2010). Earlier research highlights the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate
tasks (Semmer et al., 2010, 2015) and argues that it may account for unfavorable work and personal consequences (Eatough et al.,
2016; Semmer et al., 2015; Sonnentag & Lischetzke, 2018).
Identity in general represents an individual's self-definition or self-meaning (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Identity has various
forms (Ramarajan, 2014), and in work settings, employees usually form their identities according to their work roles (Welbourne &
Paterson, 2017). In the current study, we take interest in job identity because the concept of illegitimate tasks rests upon one's job role
(Semmer et al., 2010). As a typical role-based identity at work, job identity refers to the internalized job role expectations a job
incumbent attaches to his/her self-concept (Burke & Stets, 2009; Welbourne & Paterson, 2017). Put it another way, job identity
reflects an employee's sense of self associated with his/her job role, so that an individual with high job identity inclines to define him/
herself by what he/she does at work (Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006).
The identity theory (McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker & Burke, 2000) as well as the recent theoretical synthesis (Petriglieri,
2011) suggests three primary reasons for why a given situation may threaten one's role identity (e.g., job identity). First, a situation
threatens one's identity by devaluating one's self-regard tied to a certain role (McCall & Simmons, 1978; Sherman et al., 2013). It
happens when a person feels disrespected or offended as the role occupant. Second, one's role identity may be threatened when the
situational demands and one's role expectations are mismatched in the content (Burke, 1991; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-Mcintyre,
2003). Furthermore, one's role identity would be threatened when a situation disrupts or inhibits one's role-enactment (McCall &

2
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Simmons, 1978; Riley & Burke, 1995). That is to say, a person's role identity is at stake when he/she could not play out the role
effectively.
Following the above reasons, we expect a negative relationship between illegitimate tasks and employee job identity. First, the
assignment of illegitimate tasks implicitly conveys disrespectful information that devaluates and offends an employee who bears a
given job role (Semmer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2018). This is in line with the empirical evidence reporting a negative relationship
between illegitimate tasks and employee self-esteem, a sense of self-worth (Eatough et al., 2016; Sonnentag & Lischetzke, 2018).
Furthermore, illegitimate tasks could be out of an employee's job role expectations and thus violate the demand-role consistency
(Semmer et al., 2010). Finally, on top of the assignment of illegitimate tasks, actually doing these illegitimate tasks could disrupt
employees' regular work routines and consume employees' resources. For this reason, illegitimate tasks could hinder employees'
effective enactment of their job roles, threatening their job identity (Semmer et al., 2006; Sonnentag & Lischetzke, 2018).
Findings in previous studies indirectly support our propositions. It has been found that an employees' creativity identity comes
high when the situation expects them to be creative, and it goes down when the situation inhibits creativity (Farmer et al., 2003).
Further, Sargent (2003) found that downward status transition (i.e., cutting one's responsibility/authority) threatens employee job
identity due to a sense of self-devaluation. Based on the theoretical and empirical information, we propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Illegitimate tasks are negatively related to employee job identity.
Identity can significantly affect behaviors. In light of identity theory, role identity functions as the control system that aligns an
individual's behaviors with his/her role expectations (Burke, 1991; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). That is to say, compared to the individual
with weak job identity, an individual with strong job identity could have greater job commitment and feel more motivated to act
consistently with the job role (Burke & Reitzes, 1991). This is also in line with the reasoned action theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)
arguing that job identity encompasses a set of behavioral intentions to execute the job role effectively (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero,
1988; White, Thomas, Johnston, & Hyde, 2008). Thus, existing theoretical frameworks suggest that job identity may play a critical
role in influencing job performance.
The central component of job performance is task performance, that is the extent to which employees effectively perform work
activities prescribed by formal job duties (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Due to its significant impact on employee and organizational
effectiveness, task performance has long been a focal interest in organizational science and practice (Zacher, Heusner, Schmitz,
Zwierzanska, & Frese, 2010). Job identity could promote task performance by aligning employees' behaviors with their job role
expectations. Furthermore, job identity can strengthen employees' work efforts, and consequently contribute to higher levels of task
performance through inspiring employees to carry out their job roles effectively. This proposed positive relationship between job
identity and task performance is in accordance with the empirical evidence reporting a positive effect of role identity on role
behavior/performance. For instance, creative identity (i.e., a specific role identity that an employee views one's job role as being
creative) is positively related to employees' creative performance (e.g., Farmer et al., 2003). Likewise, students' learning identity is
positively related to their learning behaviors (White et al., 2008).
Hypothesis 2a. Job identity is positively related to task performance.
Taken the aforementioned arguments together, we further posit that job identity should mediate the negative relationship be-
tween illegitimate tasks and employee task performance. Job identity functions as a behavioral control system that affects employees'
task performance (Burke, 1991; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). As illegitimate tasks threaten employee job identity, such a system may break
down in the presence of these tasks. In this case, employees will be less inspired and motivated to fulfill their job duties, and their task
performance will be compromised.
Hypothesis 3a. Job identity mediates the relationship between illegitimate tasks and task performance.
Job identity not only prompts employees to carry out their work tasks but also encourages them to work proactively. Proactive
work behavior is a prominent approach to fulfill one's job role. It refers to the self-determined, future-oriented, and persistent action
to deal with job demands (Parker et al., 2006). In general, job identity can increase proactive work behavior by providing employees
with solid reasons to be proactive at work (Wu & Parker, 2012). Specifically, Job identity represents a perceived “oneness” between
oneself and one's job, which reflects autonomous motivation to work (i.e., a sense of volition and self-causation to work) (Deci &
Ryan, 2010; Hatak, Harms, & Fink, 2015). Given this, employees who strongly identify themselves with their jobs incline to exhibit
more proactive work behavior (Burke, 1991; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). This positive effect of job identity on proactive work behavior
might become more obvious in challenging situations with uncertainties and obstacles (Tornau & Frese, 2013). In summary, job
identity could be positively related to proactive work behavior because employees with high job identity tend to approach work
demands proactively (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010).
Hypothesis 2b. Job identity is positively related proactive work behavior.
We further posit that job identity should mediate the relationship between illegitimate tasks and proactive work behavior. By
threatening job identity, illegitimate tasks can psychologically separate one's sense of self from one's job. In this way, employees will
feel less aspired but more reluctant to exhibit proactive work behavior.
Hypothesis 3b. Job identity mediates the relationship between illegitimate tasks and proactive work behavior.

3
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

2. Flexible role orientation as a moderator

Research implies that how employees view and respond to illegitimate tasks could affect the magnitude of the threat-to-identity
effect (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Petriglieri, 2011; Schulte-Braucks et al., 2018). Illegitimate tasks in general threaten employee job
identity by sending identity-threatening cues and disrupting employee role-enactment (Semmer et al., 2010; Sonnentag & Lischetzke,
2018). Even so, illegitimate tasks might be less threatening to employees who are less sensitive to those threatening cues and are able
to sustain role-enactment in the face of the tasks (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Petriglieri, 2011; Schulte-Braucks et al., 2018). Flexible
role orientation is such a variable that affects these two aspects.
By definition, flexible role orientation depicts the extent to which employee construe their job roles broadly (Parker, 2007; Parker
et al., 1997). Employees high in flexible role orientation tend to define their roles so broadly that they take a wide breadth of tasks,
problems and goals as part of their job roles for the benefit of team and organization (Parker et al., 1997). These employees also
incline to execute their roles in a flexible and proactive manner, making their role-enactment highly effective. On the contrary,
employees low in flexible role orientation tend to define their roles so narrowly that they are reluctant to accept tasks beyond their
formal, prescribed job responsibilities (Parker et al., 1997). Aside from this, employees low in flexible role orientation tend to enact
their job roles in a passive way, and fall stagnant when facing emergent, unplanned demands (i.e., illegitimate tasks). The broader
view of one's job role may lead employees high in flexible role orientation report less illegitimate tasks.1 On top of this, flexible role
orientation may also help mitigate the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks.
Flexible role orientation can buffer the illegitimate tasks-job identity relationship by reducing employees' sensitivity to the
identity-threatening cues of illegitimate tasks (Schulte-Braucks et al., 2018). As aforementioned, illegitimate tasks can threaten
employee job identity partly due to the offensive and disrespectful information regarding one's job role (Semmer et al., 2010; Zhou
et al., 2018). The appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) illustrates that because individuals have different levels of sensitivity to
the threatening cues, the threat-to-identity effect varies. Employees low in flexible role orientation work with the “that's not my job”
mentality as defining their roles narrowly within the sphere of prescribed, basic role expectations (Parker, 2007). Such a mentality
serves as the scheme for these employees to interpret the role-related implications of illegitimate tasks. In this way, they should be
more sensitive to the threatening cues of illegitimate tasks that indicate the tasks are “not my job”, which may thus intensify the
threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks. Yet, such a mentality becomes weaker for employees high in flexible role orientation
who define their work roles broadly (Parker, 2007). These employees are less likely to use the “that's not my job” scheme to interpret
the implications of job tasks for their job identities, and thus are less sensitive to the threatening cues of illegitimate tasks. Conse-
quently, the negative effect of illegitimate tasks on job identity becomes weaker for employees high in flexible role orientation.
In addition, constraining and disrupting role-enactment is another reason for why illegitimate tasks threaten employee job
identity (Semmer et al., 2006). Flexible role orientation affects employees' job role enactment. Employees low in flexible role or-
ientation adopt the passive approach of “doing what I am told” (p. 904, Parker et al., 1997). Specifically, they incline to passively
follow the regular routines and deal with formally required tasks. Such a passive approach in role-enactment renders them to be less
effective and adaptive to unexpected tasks (Ng & Feldman, 2015). Thus, as somewhat unexpected, illegitimate tasks could sig-
nificantly compromise job role-enactment, and threaten job identity for employees low in flexible role orientation. In contrast,
employees high in flexible role orientation use an adaptive and proactive approach to enact their job roles (Parker, 2007). When
faced with illegitimate tasks, these employees are able to swiftly adapt to the situation and steer an effective course to sustain their
role-enactment. Therefore, illegitimate tasks are less likely to threaten their job identities. Taken together, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4. The relationship between illegitimate tasks and job identity is weaker for employees high in flexible role orientation
(vs. those low in flexible role orientation).
Building upon the above arguments, we further propose that flexible role orientation would moderate the indirect effects of
illegitimate tasks on task performance and proactive work behavior via job identity. Because flexible role orientation attenuates the
negative effect of illegitimate tasks on employee job identity, the indirect effects would be weaker for employees high in flexible role
orientation and stronger for employees low in flexible role orientation. Our theoretical model is presented in Fig. 1.
Hypothesis 5a-b. The indirect effect of illegitimate tasks on task performance (a) and proactive work behavior (b) via job identity is
weaker for employees high in flexible role orientation (vs. those low in flexible role orientation).

3. Method

3.1. Participants and procedure

We collected the data from two architectural-design consulting firms located in northwestern China. The two firms belong to the
same corporation and have 310 full-time employees in total. Study variables were measured at three times with a two-week time lag
between each phase. Specifically, we measured demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, position rank, job tenure, and job type),
illegitimate tasks and flexible role orientation at time 1, then job identity at time 2. At time 3, task performance and proactive work

1
We thank the anonymous reviewers for bringing this idea into our attention.

4
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

behavior were rated by participants' direct supervisors.

In each phase, the researchers gave participants paper-and-pencil surveys, the instructions for how to fill out the survey, and a
self-seal envelope. In the final phase, the researchers requested participants to forward the envelope to their supervisors. The su-
pervisors then directly returned the completed scale sealed in an envelope to the researchers. A self-generated code was used to match
each participant's self-report and direct supervisor's rating. All participants were informed that their responses were confidential and
only the researchers have access to the dataset. IRB approval from the researchers' affiliated institution was obtained for the data
collection.
With the help of the organizations, we distributed the survey to 305 employees. One hundred and ninety-seven (65%) surveys
were collected back at Time 1. Among these 197 respondents, 171 (87%) returned the survey at time 2. At time 3, 145 (85%) surveys
were collected back from supervisors. One hundred and thirty-nine surveys were matched using the matching code across all 3
phases. Nine surveys were eliminated due to missing data on scales of key variables. The final sample size was 130. To check the
attrition issues, we tested the differences in illegitimate tasks, flexible role orientation, and job identity. No differences were found in
these key variables.
Within the final sample, 63% were female and the average job tenure was 6 years. Three percent of participants were at executive
positions, 15.5% were department level managers, 10% were group managers, and 70% were non-management employees. The
majority of participants hold a 4-year college degree (94%). Fifteen percent of participants were working in project cost/finance/
accounting positions (e.g., accountant, project cost engineer), 48% were architectural designers, 14% were working in marketing
positions, 17% were working in HR/operation positions, and 6% were working in project quality control positions.

3.2. Measures

Illegitimate tasks were measured by the Bern Illegitimate Tasks Scale (BITS; Semmer et al., 2010). The scale has eight items,
with four items assessing unreasonable tasks and four items assessing unnecessary tasks. Sample items were “Do you have work tasks
to take care of, which keep you wondering if should be done by someone else?” (i.e., unreasonable tasks), and “Do you have work
tasks to take care of, which keep you wondering if they have to be done at all?” (i.e., unnecessary tasks). The response choices were
from 1 = never to 5 = frequently. The Cronbach's alpha was.80 and 0.85 for unreasonable tasks and unnecessary tasks, respectively.
The Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.87.
Initially, Semmer et al.'s (2010, 2015) conceptualized and confirmed illegitimate tasks as a one-factor construct with un-
reasonable tasks and unnecessary tasks as two indicators. Such construct framework was adopted by later studies as well (e.g.,
Eatough et al., 2016; Omansky, Eatough, & Fila, 2016). In the current study, the goal is to investigate the overall effect of illegitimate
tasks including both facets (i.e., unnecessary tasks and unreasonable tasks) on employee performance outcomes. As such, we con-
tinued to regard illegitimate tasks as a one-factor construct in the current study and averaged the scores of all eight items to yield an
overall score.
Flexible role orientation was measured by using five items from the scale developed by Parker et al. (2006).2 Employees were
asked to indicate the extent to which various problems reflecting longer-term goals beyond one's immediate technical job would be of
personal concern to them rather than ‘someone else's concern’ (Parker et al., 2006). The items are “Some colleagues in your work area
were not pulling their weight”, “some essential equipment in your area was not being well maintained”, “different people in your area

2
The five items were selected based on the factor loadings reported by Parker et al. (2006). For two items that have the same factor loading, we
dropped one because the item does not fit the working condition of the study sample (i.e., Scrap levels in your area were well above average). The
five items used in the current study yield a common factor model that was in line with the original scale: χ2 = 5.46 (p = .24), CFI = 0.99,
TFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.02.

5
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

were not coordinating their efforts”, “the way some things were done in your group meant unnecessary work”, and “the quality of
output from your area was not as good as it could be”. The response choices ranged from 1 (to no extent-of no concern to me) to 5
(very large extent-most certainly of concern to me). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.90. According to Parker (2007), this scale helps
reduce social desirability and better assess how employees personally define their job roles. A variety of studies have measured
flexible role orientation in this way (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2015; Parker, 2007; Parker et al., 1997).
Job identity was measured by the four-item scale from Sargent (2003). One sample item was “in general, my job is an important
part of my self-image”. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The Cronbach's alpha was 0.84.
Proactive work behavior was rated by participants' direct supervisors using the individual task proactivity and team member
proactivity subscales developed by Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007). We included both aspects because employees in modern or-
ganizations, including the participants in the current study, fulfill their job responsibilities at both individual-and team- level.
Combining both aspects thus can better account for the overall proactive work behavior an employee exhibits at work.3 One sample
item was “this employee improved the way my work unit does things”. Participants' proactive work behavior were rated by their
direct supervisors on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.88.
Task performance was also rated by participants' immediate supervisors by using four items from Williams and Anderson's
(1991) in-role behavior scale. These four items have been used to assess task performance in many studies (e.g., Henderson, Wayne,
Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Odle-Dusseau, Britt, & Greene-Shortridge, 2012). One sample item was: this employee adequately
completes assigned duties. The response choices ranged from (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha was
0.92.
The original scales were in English and translated to Chinese by two doctoral students who major in Industrial-Organizational
psychology and fluent in both English and Chinese using back-translation methods (Brislin, 1970).

3.3. Control variables

Research suggests that employee age and job tenure can influence employees' reactions to job stressors and their job performance
(Lin, Ma, Wang, & Wang, 2015; Sturman, 2003; Warr & Fay, 2001). In addition, Hogg (2001) suggested that job position, particularly
leadership positions, would influence how an employee constructs identity at work. In preliminary analysis, we controlled these
variables to test the hypothesis. But none of them were significant in predicting job identity, task performance or proactive work
behaviors. As suggested by Becker et al. (2016), we removed these control variables out of analysis to reduce the estimation bias and
ease the interpretation of the results.

4. Results

4.1. Test the measurement model

We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to test the overall fit of measurement model using Mplus 7.2. We first tested
the hypothesized five-factor model, then compared it with the alternative four-factor model, three-factor model, two-factor model,
and one-factor model in sequence. The results were presented in Table 1. The hypothesized five-factor model had the best model fit:
χ2 = 535.11 (p < .001), CFI = 0.90, TFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.08. All items significantly loaded in respective latent
factors, with factor loadings ranged from 0.51 to 0.95. The results supported the discriminant validity of the focal variables in the
current study.

4.2. Test the hypothesis

The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. Our data was nested in nature: on average 2 employees were rated by the same
supervisor. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC1) for task performance and proactive work behavior were 0.12 and 0.07
respectively, suggesting that 12% and 7% of variance in task performance and proactive work behavior were explained by clusters.
Thus, the data dependence needs to be addressed (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Accordingly, we tested the hypotheses using Hier-
archical Linear Modeling (HLM) by Mplus 7.2. The maximum likelihood estimation was used. The predictors were centered around
their grand means as suggested by Hofmann and Gavin (1998). The results of HLM are presented in Table 3.
We found that illegitimate tasks negatively predicted employee job identity (γ = −0.18, p = .02), and job identity positively
predicted both task performance (γ = 0.25, p = .04) and proactive work behavior (γ = 0.24, p = .02), supporting Hypothesis 1, 2a
and 2b. We tested the indirect effect illegitimate tasks on proactive work behavior and task performance via job identity by Monte
Carlo resampling approach (Zhang, Zyphur, & Preacher, 2009). The results were summarized in Table 4. With 95%CI of 20,000
repetitions, the indirect effect of illegitimate tasks on task performance via job identity was significant (effect = −0.05,
CI95% = [−0.12, −0.002]4), and the indirect effect of illegitimate tasks on proactive work behavior via job identity was also

3
We conducted a second-order CFA to assess the measurement model for proactive work behavior adopted in the current study. We set proactive
work behavior as the second-order latent factor with individual task proactivity and team member proactivity as the two components. This model
was supported: χ2 = 19.51 (p < .01), CFI = 0.97, TFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.04.

6
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Summary and Comparison of measurement models.
Models χ2/df Δχ2 RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Theorized five factor model 535.11/287 0.08 0.90 0.90 0.08

Alternative four factor modela 710.51/291 157.40⁎⁎ 0.11 0.80 0.74 0.11
Alternative Three Factor Modelb 939.89/294 404.78⁎⁎ 0.12 0.73 0.67 0.13
Alternative two factor modelc 1586.16/298 1051.05⁎⁎ 0.16 0.50 0.45 0.16
Alternative one factor modeld 1978.69/299 1443.58⁎⁎ 0.18 0.34 0.28 0.17

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual. ** p < .01.
a
This model merged task performance and proactive work behavior into one factor.
b
This model merged flexible role orientation and job identity into one factor, and merged task performance and proactive work behaviors into
another factor.
c
This model merged illegitimate tasks, flexible role orientation and job identity into one factor, and merged task performance and proactive work
behavior into another factor.
d
This model merged all the variables into one factor.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations for study variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 33.00 9.10 –

2. Job tenure in month 72.00 99.12 0.77⁎⁎ –
3. Position rank 3.52 0.88 −0.27⁎⁎ −0.30⁎⁎ –
4. Illegitimate tasks 2.00 0.66 0.17 0.09 0.16 (0.87)
5. Flexible role orientation 4.09 0.57 −0.04 −0.02 0.17 −0.19⁎ (0.90)
6. Job identity 3.78 0.51 −0.05 −0.12 −0.11 −0.21⁎ 0.27⁎⁎ (0.84)
7. Proactive work behavior 3.34 0.62 0.21⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ 0.20⁎ −0.01 0.15 0.19⁎ (0.88)
8. Task performance 3.99 0.74 0.05 0.14 −0.04 −0.21⁎ 0.09 0.21⁎⁎ 0.48⁎⁎ (0.92)

Note. N = 130. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. Internal consistency reliabilities are in italics and appear on the diagonal within prentices.
Position rank was coded as 1 = non-management employee, 2 = group manager, 3 = department manager, 4 = executives.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.

Table 3
Results of hierarchical linear modeling.
Job identity Task performance Proactive work behavior

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Constant 3.77 (0.05) 3.77 (0.05) 3.99 (0.06) 3.98 (0.06) 3.34 (0.05) 3.35⁎⁎ (0.05)
Illegitimate tasks −0.18⁎ (0.08) −0.10 (0.07) −0.24⁎ (0.09) −0.19⁎ (0.09) −0.01 (0.07) −0.03 (0.07)
Flexible role orientation 0.21⁎⁎ (0.08)
Interaction product 0.36⁎⁎ (0.11)
Job identity (mediator) 0.25⁎ (0.12) 0.24⁎ (0.11)
Pseudo-R2 0.03 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.007 0.05
ΔPseudo-R2 0.10 0.03 0.04

Note: N = 130. The predictors were grand-mean centered before analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. The coefficient estimates were unstandardized
and the standard error for coefficient was in the parentheses.

significant (effect = −0.04, CI95% = [−0.10, −0.003]), supporting Hypothesis 3a and 3b.
Flexible role orientation was found to positively predict job identity (γ = 0.21, p = .01). Then the interaction term between
illegitimate tasks and flexible role orientation was significant in predicting employee job identity (γ = 0.36, p = .001). We conducted
the simple slope analysis and probed the interaction effect in Fig. 2 by using the online calculator developed by Preacher, Curran, and
Bauer (2006). We set the high level of flexible role orientation as 1SD above the mean, medium level as the mean, and low level as
1SD below the mean. The simple slope analysis revealed that the negative illegitimate tasks – job identity relationship was significant
at the low level of flexible role orientation (simple slope = −0.31, p < .001), but not at the medium level (simple slope = −0.10,
p = .16) or at the high level of flexible role orientation (simple slope = 0.10, p = .35). Hypothesis 4 was supported.
On the basis of significant interaction between illegitimate tasks and flexible role orientation on job identity, we further tested the
indirect effects of illegitimate tasks on task performance and proactive work behavior via job identity at the low, medium and high

4
We used unstandardized coefficients to calculate the indirect effects and confidence intervals.

7
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Results of indirect effect of illegitimate tasks on task performance and proactivity via job identity and conditional indirect effect of flexible role
orientation.
Model Monte Carlo results for indirect effect

Indirect effect 95%LL 95%UL

Average indirect effect

Illegitimate tasks – job identity – task performance −0.05 −0.12 −0.002
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – proactive work behavior −0.04 −0.10 −0.003

Conditional indirect effect

Illegitimate tasks – job identity – task performance (low FRO) −0.08 −0.17 −0.01
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – task performance (medium FRO) −0.03 −0.07 0.01
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – task performance (high FRO) 0.02 −0.03 0.11
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – proactive work behavior (low FRO) −0.07 −0.16 −0.01
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – proactive work behavior (medium FRO) −0.03 −0.09 0.01
Illegitimate tasks – job identity – proactive work behavior (high FRO) 0.02 −0.04 0.08

Note: The indirect effects were calculated by Monte Carlo with 20,000 repetitions.

Fig. 2. The moderating effect of flexible role orientation (FRO) on illegitimate task – job identity relationship.

level of flexible role orientation by Monte Carlo resampling approach. The results were summarized in Table 4. With 95%CI of 20,000
repetitions, we found that the indirect effect of illegitimate tasks on task performance via job identity was only significant at low level
of flexible role orientation (effect = −0.08, CI95% = [−0.17, −0.01]), but not at medium level (effect = −0.03, CI95% = [−0.07,
0.01]) nor at high level of flexible role orientation (effect = 0.02, CI95% = [−0.03, 0.11]). We also found that the indirect effect of
illegitimate tasks on proactive work behaviors via job identity was only significant at the low level of flexible role orientation
(effect = −0.07, CI95% = [−0.16, −0.01]), not at the medium level (effect = −0.03, CI95% = [−0.09, 0.01]) nor at the high level of
flexible role orientation (effect = 0.02, CI95% = [−0.04, 0.08]). Thus, Hypothesis 5a and 5b were supported.

5. Discussion

In a sample of 130 full-time employees with multi-source data and a time-lagged design, the current study found that illegitimate

8
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

tasks were negatively related to employee job identity, and employee job identity was positively related to task performance and
proactive work behavior. On this basis, we found that illegitimate tasks were negatively related to task performance and proactive
work behavior via job identity. Flexible role orientation was found to moderate the negative relationship between illegitimate tasks
and job identity such that the relationship was significant only for employees with low flexible role orientation. Additionally, flexible
role orientation was shown to further moderate the indirect effects of illegitimate tasks on task performance and proactive work
behavior via job identity. Specifically, the significant mediation effects were only found among the employees with low flexible role
orientation.

5.1. Theoretical implications

The current study made several contributions to the literature. First, our study contributes to the illegitimate tasks literature by
empirically supporting the notion that illegitimate tasks are an identity-based stressor. This notion remained at the conceptual level
in previous research (Eatough et al., 2016). Identity at work has various types (Welbourne & Paterson, 2017), and it is important to
specify which identity is at risk in the context of illegitimate tasks. As the first study that empirically tested the threat-to-identity
effect of illegitimate tasks, we found that illegitimate tasks are detrimental to employee job identity which is the self-definition
stemming from one's job role. Given the results, viewing illegitimate tasks as an identity-based stressor and building relevant theories
are justified and warranted.
Second, on the basis of the threat-to-identity effect of illegitimate tasks, the current study advances the illegitimate tasks literature
by demonstrating the performance cost. Though the well-being cost of illegitimate tasks has been well documented (e.g., Eatough
et al., 2016), the performance cost has not been examined thoroughly. The findings fill this research gap by showing that as
threatening employee job identity, illegitimate tasks jeopardized task performance and proactive work behavior. We illustrate that
illegitimate tasks, an identity-based stressor, could compromise employee productivity and proactivity which are crucial for orga-
nizational competitiveness and success. Our findings add to the literature calling for studies to examine a wider range of undesired
effects of illegitimate tasks (e.g., Eatough et al., 2016). The current study also suggests that the threat-to-identity effect not only
endangers wellbeing but also obstructs performance.
In a broader view, highlighting the threat-to-identity as an intervening mechanism underlying the performance cost of illegitimate
tasks is heuristic to job stress literature in general. The job stress literature has tried to differentiate job stressors into various
categories based on particular stress outcomes. For example, some stressors have direct impact on employee task goals (e.g., orga-
nizational constraint, Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988), whereas other job stressors are directly tied to employee sense of self (e.g., dirty
work, Bosmans et al., 2016; illegitimate tasks, Semmer et al., 2010). Considering the findings of the current study, we suggest that
certain job stressors (e.g., illegitimate tasks) have salient self-evaluative implications that directly affect employee job identity
(Tuckey, Searle, Boyd, Winefield, & Winefield, 2015); and more importantly, this threat-to-identity further compromises employee
job performance. In a word, the confirmation of threat-to-identity deepens our understanding about the process through which job
stressors affect employee outcomes. And it may help researchers better theorize the reasons for why certain job stressors place
employee personal and work outcomes in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the significant moderating effect of flexible role orientation on the illegitimate task – job identity relationship offers
valuable insights about how to alleviate the threat-to-identity effect and ultimately protect employee performance. Schulte-Braucks
et al. (2018) have demonstrated that there are individual differences in how employees respond to illegitimate tasks. By reducing
employees' sensitivity to the threatening cues of illegitimate tasks and facilitating their job role enactment, flexible role orientation
was found to reduce the negative impact of illegitimate tasks on job identity and weaken the negative impact of illegitimate tasks on
employee task performance and proactive work behavior via job identity. The findings are in line with the standpoint that identity
threats are in part the product of a person's appraisals of the person-environment transactions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Petriglieri,
2011). And we advance this line of research by showing that flexible role orientation can alter the person-environment transaction in
the context of illegitimate tasks. This knowledge is helpful for developing theories of coping with other role-based identity threats
(Tuckey et al., 2015).

5.2. Practical implications

The present study has several practical implications. First, our study stresses out the importance of protecting employee job
identity. Earlier studies suggest that organizations could promote employees job identity by stimulating positive leader-member
exchange (Brown, 1996) and strengthening organizational justice (Park & Kim, 2006). As such, in situations where illegitimate tasks
are inevitable, both organizations and supervisor should recognize, appreciate and reward employees' inputs.
Second, our study reveals that illegitimate tasks not only compromise employee task performance but also impair proactive work
behavior by threatening employee job identity. As such, in addition to the well-being cost of illegitimate tasks, organizations should
also be cautioned about the risk of performance breakdown and should seek ways to address the problem. For instance, supervisors
should keep their subordinates' legitimate job expectations in mind and avoid assigning tasks that are susceptible to be illegitimate.
Finally, the current study recommends fostering employee flexible role orientation as another way to minimize the threats of
illegitimate tasks. Illegitimate tasks may be inevitable at workplace, especially in work environment characterized by high levels of
uncertainty and dynamics. Fostering employee flexible role orientation could help employees better cope with illegitimate tasks to
reduce the identity threats and maintain their performance. In this regard, Parker (2007) highlighted the malleability of flexible role
orientation. Parker (2000) and Parker et al. (2006) provided a list of facilitators to employee flexible role orientation, including

9
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

transformational leadership, job autonomy, and coworker trust. It should be noted that the mean of flexible role orientation was
relatively high in the current study (M = 4.09, SD = 0.57). Thus, even those employees with low flexible role orientation (−1SD)
reported in the current study were at the moderate level on the actual scale. Thus we caution that flexible role orientation may
mitigate the negative effect of illegitimate tasks on job identity, but not to completely eliminate it until it reaches exceptionally high
levels.

5.3. Limitations and Future Studies

One particular strength of our study was the use of multi-source data from both employees and supervisors (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Another strength was that we employed time-lagged design to establish the temporal precedence
between the predictors, mediators and outcomes. However, we acknowledge some limitations. Firstly, our design does not warrant
casual conclusions. To better investigate the identity-threat effect of illegitimate tasks, experimental studies are needed to replicate
our findings. In addition, the two-week time interval might be relatively short. The optimal time interval to study illegitimate tasks
may deserve some more attention. Future research can examine the long-term effects of illegitimate tasks on different outcome
variables using longer time lags between measurement times.
The current study exclusively focused on job identity as the underlying mechanism linking illegitimate tasks with employee
performance outcomes. There might be other plausible intervening mechanisms as well. Illegitimate tasks have been found to reduce
employee intrinsic work motivation (Omansky et al., 2016) and increase job strain (Semmer et al., 2015). They are the two critical
processes through which job stressors affect employee job performance (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Seeing this, work
motivation and job strain may also mediate the detrimental effects of illegitimate tasks on employee job performance. It will be
interesting to test competing mediation effects to see which mechanism (e.g., identity, work motivation, job strains) play a stronger
role in explaining the effects of illegitimate tasks on performance and other outcomes. It will also be intuitive to test if the identity
process could serve as the precursor for the demotivation and strain effects of illegitimate tasks. Doing these will help to understand
how illegitimate tasks affect employees thoroughly.
Though we suggest that employees high in flexible role orientation are less likely to appraise illegitimate tasks as a threat to their
job identity, we did not explicitly assess employees' appraisals. The broad view of one's job role may render employees high in flexible
role orientation to report less illegitimate tasks than those low in flexible role orientation. However, due to the higher internal
threshold for violating role expectations, employees high in flexible role orientation might be similarly or even more responsive than
those low in flexible role orientation after perceiving a given task as illegitimate. In this way, employees high in flexible role
orientation may perceive illegitimate tasks as not less but rather more threatening to their job identities. We thus recommend future
research to explicitly assess employee appraisals thoroughly and investigate how flexible role orientation affects employees in
evaluating the legitimacy of objective tasks and the identity threats of the tasks perceived as illegitimate.
Finally, the current study only measures supervisor-rated task performance and proactive work behavior. It is possible that a
supervisor may underreport employee task performance or proactive work behavior with reference to a situation where an employee
refuses to do the task perceived as illegitimate. However, the supervisor-rating of task performance is relatively high in general in the
current study (the mean is 3.99 and standard deviation is 0.77 on a 5-point likert scale). And 82.3% of employees got a rating above
3. Thus, supervisors may not underreport employee performance. Additionally, research has supported a high convergence between
supervisor and peer ratings (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988), and between supervisor ratings and objective performance indicators
(Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991). The supervisor-rating used in the current study can reflect a valid sample of employee task
performance and proactive work behavior. Nonetheless, we recommend future studies to collect multiple sources of rating to capture
the employee performance outcomes from multiple aspects.

References

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations
for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167.
Bosmans, K., Mousaid, S., De Cuyper, N., Hardonk, S., Louckx, F., & Vanroelen, C. (2016). Dirty work, dirty worker? Stigmatisation and coping strategies among
domestic workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 54–67.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235–255.
Burke, P., & Stets, J. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836–849.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 239–251.
Charng, H. W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51,
303–317.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Self-determination. John Wiley Sons, Inc.
Eatough, E. M., Meier, L. L., Igic, I., Elfering, A., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2016). You want me to do what? Two daily diary studies of illegitimate tasks and
employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 108–127.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
618–630.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 327–347.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta‐analysis of self‐supervisor, self‐peer, and peer‐supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.
Hatak, I., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2015). Age, job identification, and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 38–53.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment:
A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219.

10
J. Ma, Y. Peng Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (2019) xxx–xxx

Hoffman, C. C., Nathan, B. R., & Holden, L. M. (1991). A comparison of validation criteria: objective versus subjective performance measures and self‐versus supervisor
ratings. Personnel Psychology, 44, 601–618.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623–641.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
Jacobshagen, N. (2006). Illegitimate tasks, illegitimate stressors: testing a new stressor-strain concept (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Switzerland: University of Bern.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3,
211–236.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. F. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent
relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775.
Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double-edged sword: The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors, psy-
chological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 94–111.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.
McCall, G., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interaction. New York: Free Press.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Idiosyncratic deals and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 893–928.
Odle-Dusseau, H. N., Britt, T. W., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Organizational work–family resources as predictors of job performance and attitudes: The process
of work–family conflict and enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 28–40.
Omansky, R., Eatough, E. M., & Fila, M. J. (2016). Illegitimate tasks as an impediment to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation: Moderated mediation effects of
gender and effort-reward imbalance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12.
Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self‐efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49, 447–469.
Park, Y. B., & Kim, M. S. (2006). The influence of organizational justice on job involvement and organizational commitment perceived by nurses. Journal of Korean
Academy of Nursing Administration, 12, 32–40.
Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘That is my job’: How employees' role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60, 403–434.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals' identities. Academy of Management Review, 36, 641–662.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of
identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Ramarajan, L. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 8,
589–659.
Riley, A. L., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Identities and self-verification in the small group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 61–73.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-
capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.
Sargent, L. D. (2003). Effects of a downward status transition on perceptions of career success, role performance and job identification. Australian Journal of Psychology,
55, 114–120.
Schulte-Braucks, J., Baethge, A., Dormann, C., & Vahle-Hinz, T. (2018). Get even and feel good? Moderating effects of justice sensitivity and counterproductive work
behavior on the relationship between illegitimate tasks and self-esteem. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (Advanced Online publication).
Semmer, N., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L., & Elfering, A. (2007). Occupational stress research: The “stress-as-offense-to-self” perspective. In J. Houdmont, & S. McIntyre
(Vol. Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice. Vol. 2. Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on
research, education and practice (pp. 43–60). Castelo da Maia, Portugal: ISMAI Publishing.
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., & Meier, L. L. (2006). Arbeit und (mangelnde) Wertschätzung [work and (lack of) appreciation]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 8, 87–95.
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Beehr, T. A., Kälin, W., & Tschan, F. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work and Stress, 29,
32–56.
Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Meier, L. L., Facchin, S., & Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology. An
International Review, 59, 70–96.
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., ... Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the
narrative: how self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 591–618.
Sonnentag, S., & Lischetzke, T. (2018). Illegitimate tasks reach into afterwork hours: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 248–261.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior. In W. Ickes, & E. S. Knowles (Eds.). Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199–
218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/
performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29, 609–640.
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their
incremental validities. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 62, 44–96.
Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R. (2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of work stress.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 131–147.
Warr, P., & Fay, D. (2001). Age and personal initiative at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 343–353.
Welbourne, T. M., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Advancing a richer view of identity at work: The role-based identity scale. Personnel Psychology, 70, 315–356.
White, K. M., Thomas, I., Johnston, K. L., & Hyde, M. K. (2008). Predicting attendance at peer-assisted study sessions for statistics: Role identity and the theory of
planned behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 473–492.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617.
Wu, C., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Proactivity. In K. S. Cameron, G. M. Spreitzer, K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship (pp. 84–96). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity,
and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 374–386.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research
Methods, 12, 695–719.
Zhou, Z. E., Eatough, E. M., & Wald, D. R. (2018). Feeling insulted? Examining end-of-work anger as a mediator in the relationship between daily illegitimate tasks and
next-day CWB. Journal of Organizational Behavior (Advanced Online Publication).

11

View publication stats