Performing contextual activities (i.e., performing beyond the formal tasks to support team members) among employees is essential for start-ups after their initial survival phase. Despite its importance, start-ups cannot apply training and formal education to achieve contextual performance.
Objective
The research aims to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between learning and contextual performance.
Method
A 10-month experiment was conducted by integrating constructive feedback and informal learning into one education-technology (EdTech) start-up. It was founded in 2022 and is continuing to expand. 100 employees (83% of the workforce) completed the open-ended survey which was used since contextual performance could not be standardized. Content Analysis (CA) and Thematic Analysis (TA) were applied to identify behavioral patterns.
Result
There is a clear relationship between learning and contextual performance. A work condition (where employees were repeatedly engaged through constructive feedback, social interactions, peer-to-peer learning, etc.) can help employees achieve contextual performance. This is due to an improvement in skills and knowledge, psychological safety, and level of motivation.
Conclusion
For start-ups which have survived the initial business stage, it is important to recognize the impacts of learning on contextual performance which contributes to continuous business success of start-ups.
TranHMaiTLuuT. The influence of work environment on employees’ innovative work behaviors in Vietnam construction companies. Hum Syst Manag2025; 37: 195–225.
2.
BeierMSaxenaMKraigerK, et al.Workplace learning and the future of work. Ind Organ Psychol2025; 18: 84–109.
3.
BormanWCMotowidloSJ. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Hum Perform1997; 10: 99–109.
4.
GriffinMNealANealM. The contribution of task performance and contextual performance to effectiveness: investigating the role of situational constraints. Appl Psychol Int Rev2000; 49: 517–533.
5.
KoopmansLBernaardsCMHildebrandtVH, et al.Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: a systematic review. J Occup Environ Med2013; 55: 856–866.
6.
Díaz-VilelaLDelgadoRIsla-DíazR, et al.Relationships between contextual and task performance and interrater agreement: are there any?PLoS One2015; 10: e0139898.
7.
BalboniBBortoluzziGPuglieseR, et al.Business model evolution, contextual ambidexterity and the growth performance of high-tech start-ups. J Bus Res2019; 99: 115–124.
8.
BäckAMuhosMVirkkalaP. Innovation in microenterprises in the 21st century: a systematic literature review. Int J Innovat Learn2024; 36: 72–97.
9.
BlankS. Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harv Bus Rev2013; 91: 63–72.
10.
CressyR. Why do most firms die young?Small Bus Econ2006; 26: 103–116.
11.
SamarasingheNSandanayakeTSamarasingheG. A measurement instrument for open innovation value co-creation in ICT start-ups: an emerging economic perspective. Int J Innovat Learn2024; 36: 294–310.
12.
DuangtongPRinthaisongISupantiD. The survival of startups in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic: organization resources and competitive advantage. Total Qual Manag Bus Excel2025; 36: 125–145.
13.
BaeBChoiS. The effect of learning orientation and business model innovation on entrepreneurial performance: focused on South Korean start-up companies. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex2021; 7: 245–261.
14.
JuasrikulSVandenbergP. Thailand’s evolving ecosystem support for technology startups. Asian Development Bank, 2022. Country Report No. 4.
ChaninRPompermaierLSalesA, et al.A systematic mapping study on software startups education. In: ACM International Conference Proceedings Series; Part F137700. ACM, 2018.
17.
BhardwajBKaliaN. Contextual and task performance: role of employee engagement and organizational culture in hospitality industry. Vilakshan-XIMB J Manag2021; 18: 187–201.
18.
ZhenjingGChupraditSYuK, et al.Impact of employees’ workplace environment on employees’ performance: a multi-mediation model. Front Public Health2022; 10: 890400.
19.
HuongPHoangDMinhT, et al.Digital capabilities and SMEs’ performance under technological uncertainty: empirical evidence from an emerging market. Int J Innovat Learn2025; 36: 404–424.
20.
SanteDEatonAViswesvaranC. How contextual performance influences perceptions of personality and leadership potential. J Work Organ Psychol2021; 37: 93–106.
21.
NoeRAClarkeADMKleinHJ. Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2014; 1: 245–275.
22.
MelenchionJKuboEOlivaE, et al.People development in startups. Hum Soc Manag2023; 24: 110–126.
23.
LiSYuM. How does an organisation’s experiential learning affect its process innovation capabilities? The moderated mediating effect of absorption capability and network dependence. Int J Innovat Learn2025; 37: 338–359.
24.
WongBLiKChanT. A survey of smart learning practices: contexts, benefits, and challenges. Int J Innovat Learn2023; 34: 122–142.
25.
GoodmanSSvyantekD. Person–organization fit and contextual performance: do shared values matter. J Vocat Behav1999; 55: 254–275.
26.
AguinisHBurgi-TianJ. Performance management around the world: solving the standardization vs adaptation dilemma. IIM Ranchi J Manag Stud2023; 2: 159–170.
27.
KatemukdaN. Enhancement of national productivity by the source of innovation: a study of ASEAN-developing countries. Int J Innovat Learn2025; 38: 197–211.
28.
ArgyrisC. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harv Bus Rev1991; 69: 99–109.
OmerAAbdularhimM. The criteria of constructive feedback: the feedback that counts. J Health Spec2017; 5: 45–48.
31.
KoutroubasKGalanakisM. Bandura’s social learning theory and its importance in the organizational psychology context. Psychol Res2022; 12: 315–322.
32.
ChiuKChenR. Examining the moderating and intervening effects of communication apprehension on perceived learning. Int J Innovat Learn2024; 35: 137–160.
33.
NwosuHObidikePUgwuJ, et al.Applying social cognitive theory to placement learning in business firms and students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Int J Manag Educ2022; 20: 100602.
34.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006; 3: 77–101.
35.
HsiehHFShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res2005; 15: 1277–1288.
36.
HumbleNMozeliusM. Content analysis or thematic analysis: doctoral students’ perceptions of similarities and differences. Electron J Bus Res Methods2022; 20: 1–14.
37.
FuschPINessLR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep2015; 20(9): 1408–1416.
38.
SaundersBSimJKingstoneT, et al.Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quantity2018; 52(4): 1893–1907.
39.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods2006; 18: 59–82.
40.
ChiaburuDSHarrisonDA. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J Appl Psychol2008; 93: 1082–1103.
41.
CerasoliCPAlligerGMDonsbachJS, et al.Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Bus Psychol2018; 33: 203–230.
42.
LondonMSmitherJW. Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Resour Manag Rev2002; 12: 81–100.
43.
RyanRMDeciEL. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications, 2017.
44.
LockeEALathamGP. Goal setting: a scientific guide to reaching goals. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2019; 28: 307–312.
45.
OrganDWPodsakoffPMMacKenzieSP. Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature, antecedents, and consequences. J Manag2005; 31: 433–445.
46.
RhoadesLEisenbergerR. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol2002; 87: 698–714.
47.
SpreitzerG. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Acad Manag J1996; 39: 483–504.
48.
EdmondsonA. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q1999; 44: 350–383.
49.
AnderloniLHarashehM. Innovative startups and their traditional peers: further evidence using performance and survival analysis. Rev Financ Econ2025; 43: 259–429.
50.
GriffinMANealAParkerSK. A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad Manag J2007; 50: 327–347.
51.
LinMHuynhLYuT. Cultivating authentic leadership and its impact on employees’ psychological ownership and readiness for change relationship in family SMEs. Hum Syst Manag2025; 44: 966–977.
52.
GlosenbergAGielnikMSteffensP. An entrepreneurial roadmap for the future of workplace learning. Ind Organ Psychol2025; 18: 162–166.
53.
FahmiMIqbalMRaharjoK. Uncovering SMEs’ knowledge management capability in innovation adoption and business performance: the moderating role of environmental turbulence. Hum Syst Manag2025; 44: 268–286.
