Job Performance Model Based on Employees’ Dynamic Capabilities (EDC)

: This article concerns the newly developed construct—EDC (Employees’ Dynamic Capabilities)—and the mechanism of its inﬂuence on the job performance of contemporary employees aiming to contribute to the sustainable development of organizations. EDC seems to be especially important in a modern, dynamically changing work environment, in which obtaining sustainability is not possible without dynamic capabilities, and EDC should be included as the element of organizational dynamic capabilities. The paper aims to deﬁne and characterize EDC and then develop a mediation model of EDC inﬂuence on job performance, introducing the person–job ﬁt, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment as potential mediators related to sustainable development. The model is empirically veriﬁed based on the sample of 550 employees from Poland and USA (research carried out in December 2018) using factors analysis for veriﬁcation of EDC as a new construct and then regression analysis with mediators for the veriﬁcation of the proposed model. The results conﬁrmed the role of person–job ﬁt, work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement as mediators of the analyzed relation, underlining the mechanism of the EDC inﬂuence on job performance. The empirical research conﬁrms that EDC inﬂuences job performance in a way that is crucial for achieving sustainable development of organizations.


Introduction
The concept of Dynamic Capabilities (DC), as meta-capabilities, is gaining interest not only in theory but also in practice of management. Despite the interpretation ambiguity, as well as lack of consistent theoretical foundations [1] many authors consider it to be the necessary condition to gain a lasting competitive advantage [2,3]. Competitive advantage is nowadays identified with the sustainable development of organizations [4]. That is why the concept of DC is potentially one of the key organizational characteristics contributing to the achievement of corporate sustainability.
The theoretical basis for DC was given by Teece [5] (p. 516), who outlined "the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environment". Eisenhardt and Martin [6] (p. 1107) underlined that DC can be also understood as "the firm's processes that use resources-specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release resources-to match and even create market change". The definitions quoted above demonstrate the dual nature of DC. In a stable environment, DC resemble traditional routines, which can be characterized as "complex detailed, analytical processes based on existing knowledge and linear logic of action for predictable results" [7] (p. 49). In the current turbulent environment, DC is rather taking the form of "simple, empirical, unstable, difficult-to-predict processes based on quickly created knowledge to adapt to the environment" [7] (p. 49). Hence, it can be concluded that the However, not only the adaptability of employees is important from the point of view of the efficient functioning of the organization as a whole. As stated before, adapting to new and dynamically changing conditions requires solving unfamiliar problems. According to Pulakos and colleagues [11] (p. 613) this aspect of performance "requires the individual to bring complex matters or situations to their desired end or develop creative solutions to novel, difficult problems". Solving problems, which can be characterized as unstructured, complex, atypical or even ill-defined gained importance, is considered as the basis of the everyday work of modern employees since the turn of the century [34].
Moreover, readiness for continuous learning is essential for modern employees. Neal and Hesketh [35] underline that employees are forced to learn new ways of performing their jobs mainly due to technological innovation occurring more frequently than ever [11]. There is an apparent need for continuous improvement of knowledge and skills needed for approaching such technological innovations and, among other things, the ability to quickly and efficiently learn new methods of performing tasks and adjusting to changed processes and procedures seems to be of the highest importance [11]. That is one of the reasons why the concept of work-based learning emerged in the last decade (discussed by, e.g., [36]), further underlining the need for including continuous learning and personal development as a part of the job description of modern employees.
Therefore, it can be assumed that EDC is a multidimensional notion. Based on the above-mentioned considerations (including points of view of, e.g., [11,[28][29][30]36], four dimensions of EDC are adopted in this study: • The ability to be sensitive to changes in the environment (the ability to see changes and recognize opportunities and risks potentially affecting the performance of work at the workplace); • the ability to adapt to changes in the environment (the ability to undertake preventive actions, preventing the occurrence of problems in the workplace); • the ability to proactively solve problems arising in the workplace (if they occur), and include innovations in the workplace; • the ability for continuous personal development and learning.
Since EDC is a new concept, it should be not only clearly structured but also distinguished from all other notions (and should also satisfy the methodological rigor of theoretical validation of a new construct [37]) concerning the need of employees to adapt to dynamic changes in the environment appearing in the literature from the turn of the century. Most importantly, the concept of EDC should be distinguished from the concept of "adaptive performance". Since the consensual definition of adaptive performance has not yet emerged [31], the comparison should be focused on characteristics of it, which include the ability to transfer training/learning from one task to another [38], coping and emotional adjustment [39] and showing cultural adaptability [11]. Pulakos and colleagues [11] define six dimensions of adaptive performance: Solving problems creatively, dealing with uncertain and unpredictable situations, learning work tasks, technologies and procedures, demonstrating interpersonal adaptability, demonstrating cultural adaptability, demonstrating physically oriented adaptability. Based on those, it can be concluded that EDC is a different concept than adaptive performance, mainly because it is much broader than just adaptability, which is the main component of adaptive performance. Many authors underline that especially proactive behavior is a dimension that is not included in the concept of adaptive performance [40,41] and lack of it seems to be a main weak aspect of the concept. Due to the need for a concept that would allow for the comprehensive analysis of various, different capabilities concerning dynamic changes in the environment (elaborated above), the existing concept of adaptive performance is simply too narrow and insufficient. Therefore, it furthermore confirms the need for the development of the EDC concept.

Employees' Dynamic Capabilities and Job Performance
EDC seem to have an important influence on job performance, especially nowadays when employees are facing a dynamic and rapidly changing environment and they are supposed to perform Sustainability 2020, 12, 2250 5 of 25 their tasks efficiently in such circumstances. Moreover, the issue of the job performance of employees is a crucial factor determining the performance of the entire organization [42]. As stated by Sonnetag and Frese [40] (p. 4), "organizations need highly performing individuals in order to meet their goals . . . and finally to achieve competitive advantage".
Job performance as a construct can be defined in different ways [43]. Job performance, in general, refers to the property of the behavior of employees [28,30] and is understood as the expected organizational value of what people do [28]. Moreover, job performance concerns both behavioral and outcome aspects [30,44]. Therefore, job performance according to Motowidlo and Kell [28] (p. 93) is tied "to an individual's behavior rather than to the results of that behavior". In this paper, job performance is considered as the combination of five aspects: Task proficiency, task meticulousness, work discipline, work improvement, and readiness for innovation [45][46][47]. It includes both behavior and results of behavior. This largely corresponds to the classic approach of Rich [48], who defines job performance as the aggregated value created for the organization by the set of behaviors of employees, who directly and indirectly contribute to the fulfillment of organizational goals, fulfilling expectations as well as attaining job targets that were set by their organizations [43,[48][49][50]. The task performance is underlined in such an approach. It is understood as the proficiency with which employees perform the activities recognized as part of their jobs [49] and defined as all activities that are directly connected to the implementation of core job tasks. Therefore, it remains in line with [42], who claim that job performance can be understood as the effectiveness of the activities of employees that contribute to the realization of organizational goals.
The development of job performance models illustrating the impact of selected factors is known in the literature on the subject [51,52]. However, it is becoming more and more important for the contemporary job performance models to include EDC. The results available in the literature show that there is a clear relation between all dimensions of EDC and job performance. The first two dimensions, which are taken from adaptive performance (sensitivity to changes and adaptation to changes), have the most heavily documented relation with job performance [41,53]. Teece [3] (p.17) underlined that "managers of organizations need to attend to, monitor, and respond to contingencies in their environments for adaptive performance to be beneficial" and sensitivity to changes together with the ability to adapt to them are key factors influencing job performance. However, there are a lot of studies concerning the relation of proactive personality and job performance [54]. However, Fuller and colleagues [54] underline that the relation between proactivity and job performance is not as simple as previously assumed. Their research suggests that proactivity alone may not be as strong a trait as reported and other traits should coexist to significantly influence job performance. In addition to this, Sonnentag and Frese [30] also consider continuous learning. They state, "current changes in the nature of work such as the focus on continuous learning and proactivity . . . have an impact on the performance concept" [30] (p. 3). This further confirms the need for a complex approach to the analysis of EDC that creates an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of all of its proposed dimensions.
Considering the above, it is possible to make a general hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). EDC has a positive influence on job performance.
It is obvious that the study of the impact of EDC and job performance should be embedded in the theory of management considering the impact of other factors related to both EDC and job performance. In particular, the assumptions of the classical theory of Hackman and Oldham [13] are connected to personal and work outcomes, i.e., internal motivation, work satisfaction, work performance, absenteeism and turnover. According to the literature [13,48] the following job-related attitudes and characteristics should be included:

•
Person-job fit (P-J fit)-understood as a match between individual knowledge, skills and abilities and the job requirements [55,56]. It is usually presented as the compatibility between the employee Sustainability 2020, 12, 2250 6 of 25 and the tasks (together with their characteristics) that are expected to be accomplished in exchange for employment [57,58]. • Work motivation (internal work motivation)-traditionally conceptualized as the degree to which the employee is self-motivated to perform effectively on the job position [13], • Job satisfaction-defined as "the degree to which the employee is satisfied and happy with the job" [13], or in other words understood as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience" [48,59].

•
Work engagement-understood as the ability of employees to willingly craft themselves to their work roles. They should "employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances" [14] (p. 694). Engagement is defined as a state of mind related to work, which is described as positive and fulfilling, and the engaged employee is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption [60,61]. Moreover, work engagement is usually understood as the opposite of job burnout [60].

•
Organizational commitment-defined as the connection between employee and a way of performing tasks, which is considered as valid and relevant to the organization [62], and also described as "a strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" [63,64]. Organizational commitment is associated with the intention of staying in the organization and loyalty to the goals it pursues [16].
However, it is important to assume that, in order to contribute to the presented field of study and fulfill the indicated research gap, there is a need to identify what the sequence of those notions is, assuming their role as a part of the path model indicating the mechanism influencing job performance. Hence, even though there is a wide variety of research concerning their relation with job performance, there is still a need to indicate their coherent influence on it.
In the case of P-J fit, the potential rise of job performance is connected to both recruitment and selection, as well as further everyday task performance. Therefore, on the one hand, accurate and realistic job information during recruitment and selection, which directly translates to higher P-J fit, is associated with, e.g., work performance [65,66]. On the other hand, P-J fit influences work-related outcomes, including not only work performance but also, according to Borman and Motowidlo [49], task performance (as a part of the overall performance), which is highly dependent on "skill-based job proficiency". While considering the empirical research performed by Kristof-Brown and colleagues [67], P-J fit has a modest relation with overall performance. Lauver and Kristof-Brown [68] suggested that the perceived P-J fit should be relevant to task performance. The perceived P-J fit positively predicts task performance [69] and job performance [70]. Moreover, according to Kristof-Brown and colleagues [67] (p. 309), it turns out that "conceptualization of fit acted as a moderator for job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to quit and overall performance".
In the case of work motivation, its relation with job performance was already established in 1974 by Hackman and Oldham [13]. They proved that motivating potential score (connected to skill variety, tasks identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback) influences personal and work outcomes, including job performance. Their findings seem to still be true, even though the world has changed a lot since 1974. Campbell [50] and his associates [71] established that there are three direct determinants of job performance: Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill and motivation. It seems that employees should be motivated in order to involve them in performing their job efficiently and it should be underlined that the main purpose is to improve performance that creates the possibility for the organization's success [72]. Therefore, work motivation is sometimes a moderator or mediator in job performance models [73,74].
In the case of job satisfaction, its relation with job performance was not so unambiguously known from the point of its appearance in the literature. The conclusion stating that satisfied employees are more productive was already known in the 1970s [75]. However, it was not so clear that job satisfaction also influences job performance [75]. Moreover, sometimes the opposite view is seen, e.g., stating that an "employee's job performance affects his or her job satisfaction" [75] (p. 138).
There is a serious debate in the literature concerning whether satisfaction influences performance or performance influences satisfaction [76]. There are several meta-analyses on the subject of the relation between job satisfaction and job performance confirming the existence of correlation between those notions [48,77] and single empirical researches confirming that job satisfaction has a positive relation with job performance [47,48,75,78]. Wright and colleagues [79] state that job satisfaction can even be considered as a predictor of job performance. Moreover, modern models of relation between job satisfaction and job performance consider the ambiguous nature of this relation and there is an apparent need to consider it in the light of other characteristics. As stated by Ali and colleagues ( [80], p. 273), "a satisfied employee is motivated to exert effort for achieving an optimal level of performance in an organization", which suggests a connection with work motivation. In some other models, employees' positive well-being is considered as the moderator of the relation between job satisfaction and job performance [79,81]. Therefore, seeking to include job satisfaction in a broader model seems to be highly justified.
In the case of work engagement, its relation to job performance seems to be quite clear. It is one of the key predictors of the job performance of employees according to, e.g., [15,48,82]. Work engagement is positively related to self-efficacy [82]. As stated by Barbras [83] (p. 106), "when people are engaged, they stay focused on their tasks and work hard to accomplish the goals. They fully inhabit their job roles, instead of just doing their work. Engaged employees are very present in doing their work". Kahn [14] underlined that engagement leads to individual outcomes (i.e., quality of people's work and their own experiences of doing that work). Therefore, work engagement is the main factor of the optimal functioning and favorable performance of employees [15] and engagement seems to improve personal performance [82] and also task performance [84]. Moreover, the relation between work engagement and job performance is especially important because it seems to be a prerequisite for translating individual performance to overall organizational performance and enables the possibility of obtaining better business results from higher work engagement [85]. However, there are also views in the literature suggesting that engaged employees gain more job satisfaction and higher commitment to the organizations and through those relations, their job performance is even higher [86]. Therefore, work engagement should be included in job performance models with other factors.
In the case of organizational commitment, the relation with job performance is almost always considered in combination with other factors [87]. It is widely believed that "employees who are more satisfied and committed to their jobs are more likely to invest time and energy into their jobs and set higher performance standards, resulting in higher performance" [69]. Even according to the most commonly known model, the Model of Organizational Commitment by Allen and Mayer [16], organizational commitment influences not only the on-the-job behavior (including job performance) but also, e.g., turnover of organization. Cable and DeRue [88] underline several known studies, which have documented the positive relation between job fit, job satisfaction and occupational commitment, once again underlining the combination of characteristics analyzed together. Such a view is also presented in the paper of Kristof-Brown and colleagues [67]. Besides that, the positive relations between job satisfaction, occupational commitment and task performance can be found in various different studies [69,89].
Therefore, based on all the views presented above, which extensively underline the need of a complex analysis of the discussed notions, it is possible to formulate the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2a (H2a). Person-job fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment have a positive influence on job performance.
At the same time, it can be assumed that the above-mentioned notions are also somehow related to EDC. Due to the fact that EDC is a new concept and all of its dimensions concern aspects that emerged recently, the literature is relatively poor and empirical research supporting them are rather rare. Therefore, the analysis of the relation between EDC and all other discussed notions is one of the steps that are needed to fulfil the identified research gap. However, there are some views in the literature that allow us to assume that the relations occur. P-J fit should occur in a state of equilibrium. However, it may cause employees to become too confident and comfortable on their position, impairing their ability to be sensitive and to proactively adapt to changes, and leaving them without the need for continuous personal development [58,90]. Only after experiencing a "destabilizing shock" will the P-J fit change into a state of disequilibrium [91,92]. Employees, trying to achieve a certain level of P-J fit again, need their abilities to proactively adapt to changes [58]. As stated by Chilton and colleagues [58] (p. 193) "a certain amount of P-J misfit may lead to personal growth and learning, but too much misfit may be determinant to individual performance". Therefore, it seems that EDCs are crucial for obtaining the higher P-J fit, especially in a dynamically changing environment, where the achievement of a P-J fit equilibrium needs continuous work [58].
Moreover, there is a clear need for work motivation in order to implement such continuous work. It seems that such motivation may also be influenced by EDC. However, as stated by Niessen and colleagues [93], there is a need for research on that subject, as it has not yet been investigated. They hypothesize after Kanfer and Ackerman [94] that lack of EDC at the minimal needed level (especially in the dimension of problem-solving and adaptability) may cause a decrease of motivation among employees. It is a common view in the literature that adaptability is one of the key factors for an employee's success and, because of that, a prerequisite for their work motivation [95,96]. Hence, it seems that there is the possibility of the influence of EDC on work motivation.
Cullen and colleagues [32] underline that there is also a positive relation between adaptability and job satisfaction, assuming that there is also a negative one between change-related uncertainty and job satisfaction. However, perceived organizational support has a mediating role in both relations. The results of various empirical studies demonstrate that any changes (especially dynamic ones) have negative effects on job satisfaction and this effect should be mitigated by the increase of the competences of employees connected to EDC [97]. However, according to Svensen [98], job satisfaction will decrease only if previous experiences with changes were not good, which further underlines the need for developing EDC. Therefore, it can be assumed that the higher the level of EDC among employees, the higher the chances that job satisfaction will not decrease due to change-related uncertainties, but rather increase due to higher adaptability.
The role of EDC in shaping work engagement seems to be indisputable. The main reason emerges from the definition of work engagement itself. As underlined by Macey and colleagues [99], engaged employees behavior is generally more persistent and, because of that, they respond proactively to any changes, including emerging threats and challenges. Their ability to adapt to changes and to be proactive in reacting to them seems to be apparent in the literature [83,99,100]. Moreover, Sonnentag [101] and Shaufeli and Bakker [60] underline that engaged employees are not only more proactive and act with higher adaptability, but also tend to show more initiative and to learn. Czarnecka [102] also confirms that strongly engaged employees look for new and innovative methods of work, care for their development, improvement and acquisition of knowledge and quickly adapt to changes. There is also empirical research available confirming those relations, e.g., Selanova and colleagues [103] confirmed that work engagement has a mediating role for the relation between resources available in the organization (i.e., performance feedback, task variety, job control) and proactive behavior.
Moreover, as often stated in the literature, employees usually try to make sense of changes occurring in the environment and determine how those changes will affect their job and also everyday life [32,104]. The better suited they are to making sense of the changes, the more committed they are to the organization. Organizational commitment seems to be highly dependent on their positive feelings towards the organization (especially in the dimension of affective commitment), which are built by their ability to identify changes and adapt to them (continuously developing themselves to do so) instead of feel threatened by them [105,106], especially in a dynamically changing environment. Therefore, organizational commitment as an "intense emotional attachment to an organization" [105] (p. 155) will be influenced by all aspects potentially destructive for this attachment-lack of EDC seems to be one of them.
Therefore, based on all the above, it is possible to formulate the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2b (H2b). EDC has a positive influence on person-job fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment.
In the context of the relations described above, it seems that there is a need to analyze the impact of EDC on job performance, while analyzing the mediating role of P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment. It will allow to verify and more comprehensively explain the mechanism of EDC influence on job performance. Therefore, a hypothetical model of EDC impact on job performance will be assumed, considering the mediating role of specified notions, which are clearly connected to each other and there is a strong inclination in the literature towards their joint analysis [107,108]. Therefore, in the light of the above, the main hypothesis should be formulated as: Hypothesis 3 (H3). EDC positively influence the job performance of employees through intermediary variables, i.e., P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment.
The diagram illustrating the adopted research hypotheses is presented in Figure 1. role of specified notions, which are clearly connected to each other and there is a strong inclination in the literature towards their joint analysis [107,108]. Therefore, in the light of the above, the main hypothesis should be formulated as: Hypothesis 3. EDC positively influence the job performance of employees through intermediary variables, i.e. P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment.
The diagram illustrating the adopted research hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.

Empirical Research Methodology and Results
The survey was conducted in order to verify the proposed hypotheses and identify the level of EDC, P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment and job performance among employees working in organizations in two business contexts. The main survey was preceded by the pilot survey conducted in November 2018 among the group of 50 employees from various organizations in order to explain the issues concerning the ambiguity of several questions and respondents' ability to understand what they are asked for. According to obtained results, some questions were rewritten in order to obtain a more informed response from the respondents participating in the main survey. The main survey was conducted in December 2018 among employees from organizations located in Poland and the USA, which was the only condition limiting the sample (employees were surveyed regardless of their age, tenure, job position, etc.), using the online survey service SurveyMonkey.
The research sample covers the employees working in organizations operating in Poland and the USA. The decision to include two different countries in the research sample was motivated by the need to obtain data from employees with varying attitudes towards their organizations. Poland and the USA differ from each other not only in case of the level of economic development, but more importantly (from the perspective of this research) in the case of cultural dimensions affecting the employees and their attitudes toward organization, in which they work (employees from Poland are considered by Hofstede to have much larger power distance than the USA, to be much less uncertainty-tolerant than the USA and to be much more restrained than the USA-in all those three dimensions of culture those countries represent different groups). Therefore, including Poland and

Empirical Research Methodology and Results
The survey was conducted in order to verify the proposed hypotheses and identify the level of EDC, P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment and job performance among employees working in organizations in two business contexts. The main survey was preceded by the pilot survey conducted in November 2018 among the group of 50 employees from various organizations in order to explain the issues concerning the ambiguity of several questions and respondents' ability to understand what they are asked for. According to obtained results, some questions were rewritten in order to obtain a more informed response from the respondents participating in the main survey. The main survey was conducted in December 2018 among employees from organizations located in Poland and the USA, which was the only condition limiting the sample (employees were surveyed regardless of their age, tenure, job position, etc.), using the online survey service SurveyMonkey.
The research sample covers the employees working in organizations operating in Poland and the USA. The decision to include two different countries in the research sample was motivated by the need to obtain data from employees with varying attitudes towards their organizations. Poland and the USA differ from each other not only in case of the level of economic development, but more importantly (from the perspective of this research) in the case of cultural dimensions affecting the employees and their attitudes toward organization, in which they work (employees from Poland are considered by Hofstede to have much larger power distance than the USA, to be much less uncertainty-tolerant than the USA and to be much more restrained than the USA-in all those three dimensions of culture those countries represent different groups). Therefore, including Poland and the USA allowed us to obtain data from various groups of employees, enabling more reliable analysis of notions directly connected to employees' attitudes and qualities. There were 550 valid responses collected (including 303 from Poland and 247 from the USA). The sample cannot be considered as representative, since the population of employees in those two countries is finite but very large and the method of including employees in the sample did not support its representativeness. However, it is sufficiently diversified (considering the diversity of employees' characteristics and the organization's characteristics as well) to be a basis for overall conclusions concerning the given topic. Sample characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2; they clearly show that the sample covers a diverse group of employees from a diverse group of organizations.

Variables Overview
To verify the proposed hypothesis and develop a sequential mediation model, the following variables were identified (items building each of them are given in Table 3): Employee dynamic capability, which was measured based on four previously defined dimensions based on a five point Likert scale: Sensitivity to changes in the environment, ability to adapt to changes in the environment, ability to solve problems in the workplace (including innovation in the workplace), as well as the ability of continuous personal development.
Person-job fit was measured based on the results of researches of [12,55]. The scale contains 3 items, which are assessed based on a five point Likert scale.
Work motivation was measured based on the concept of [13]. The scale contains two items, which are assessed based on a five point Likert scale.
Job satisfaction was assessed at the global level, based on the overall evaluation of employees' satisfaction with their job without referencing any specific facets [89]. It was measured based on the revised version of the Job Diagnostic Survey [109] and concerning the overall level of satisfaction and overall feeling towards the job. The scale contains three items, which are assessed based on a five point Likert scale.

EDC
Change sensitivity-item 1: I quickly notice and successfully recognize in the environment (both inside and outside of the organization) opportunities and threats (including early warning signals) that can affect the work I do Change adaptation-item 1: I adapt effectively to the opportunities and threats appearing in the environment (both inside and outside the organization). I undertake preventive actions that will enable me to carry out the tasks entrusted to me despite changes in the environment Change sensitivity-item 2: I quickly notice and successfully recognize problems appearing at the workplace Problem solving and innovative approach-item 1: I quickly solve problems appearing, I do it on my own or seek support (within the scope of knowledge and information) that allow me to perform assigned tasks Problem solving and innovative approach-item 2: I generate innovative ideas and original solutions to problems Work engagement was measured based on the assumption that "engaged employees have a sense of energetic and effective connection with their work activities and they see themselves as able to deal well with the demands of their job" [60] (p. 4). The scale contains one item, which is assessed based on a five point Likert scale.
Organizational commitment was measured based on the Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment [16]. The scale contains two items, which are assessed based on a five point Likert scale.
Job performance, which was measured based on four aspects: Task proficiency, task meticulousness, work discipline and work improvement and readiness for innovation [46,110]. The scale contains nine items, which are based on a five point Likert scale.
The study was based on the five point Likert scale due to several reasons. First of all, an odd-numbered scale was chosen to not force the respondent to have a definite opinion, which reduces the chance for response bias in social sciences studies [111]. Second of all, five point scales are known to be characterized by higher scale reliability than three points [112]. There is a debate in the literature whether seven point scales are even better or show a decline in reliability. However, it was assumed that, since most of the already verified scales are based on five points, it will be assumed for all variables within the study.

EDC: Scale Validity Testing
According to Gerbing and Anderson [113], the purpose of the measurement is to provide an empirical estimation of the theoretical construct. Due to the fact that EDC is a new construct developed in this paper, variable validation (theoretical and face validation) and construct validation were performed. The construct of EDC was theoretically validated in Section 2. Because of the fact that the use of a single measure for a construct is not treated as the reliable measurement methods in management sciences [37,114], the multiple item scale was proposed (see Table 4). The construct was developed based on six items, applying a manual item sorting technique. Then, in order to fulfill the variable validation, the theoretical validation was amended by face validation to check whether the measure is understood by the respondent as intended by the researcher. The face validation was based on the pilot research performed among expert judges (50 managers from organizations operating in the USA), who assessed the items of the measurement scale as appropriate for the purpose of the test and used the construct (which constitutes the aim of such a validation according to [114]). Next, construct validation was performed, which is aimed at evaluating measurement errors [115,116], and if needed includes scale correction [117]. Construct validation was based on factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) in order to determine the validity of the construct. The result of the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin test of sample adequacy was statistically significant (KMO(15) = 0.902, p < 0.001). Based on that, exploratory factor analysis was performed revealing only one factor built by all six items. Then, the results were verified using confirmatory factor analysis and the conclusions are presented in Table 4.

All Scales Validity Testing
The other scales were tested for completeness, roundedness and reliability using Cronbach's α analysis and factor analysis (they were all based on the measurement scales already developed and validated by other authors; hence, such an analysis was presumed to be enough). The results are presented in Table 5 and based on them it can be stated that all proposed scales can be used for further analysis and development of the model.

Empirical Research Results-Model Development
The model was developed based on sequential mediation analysis. It is important to note that path analysis (part of structural equation modeling), has "provided researchers with powerful analytic tools by which to test simultaneously nomological frameworks specified a priori" [117]. Since this analytic technique "enables to specify the proposed network among factors and then test the adequacy of the proposed network to explain relations among data collected" [117], it simultaneously can be used in the process of nomological validation of EDC construct, which is aimed at the analysis of the behavior of constructs and measures in forms of testing formal hypotheses derived from the nomological network [118].
According to Saks [85], three conditions must be met to establish mediation. First, the independent variables must be related to the mediator. Second, the mediator must be related to the dependent variables. Third, significant relations between the independent variables and dependent variables will be reduced (partial mediation) or no longer be significant (full mediation) when controlling for the mediator.
First of all, the r-Pearson correlation analysis was performed in order to initially verify the first two conditions and initially verify Hypotheses H1, H2a and H2b. The obtained results, which are presented in Table 6, clearly show that there is a statistically significant and high correlation between all analyzed variables. It allows to one assume that Hypotheses H1, H2a and H2b will be accepted. As the correlation analysis itself does not allow one to form a conclusion on a cause-effect relation between variables, additional statistical analysis is needed to accept the indicated hypotheses. However, such a conclusion still enables the next step and verifies the mediating model of job performance. In order to verify whether job performance is indeed a dependent (output) variable, three groups of sequential mediation models were built. The first group contained models, in which job performance was treated as independent (input) variable. The second group contained models, in which it was treated as a mediator variable. The third group contained models, in which it was treated as a dependent (output) variable. As indicated in Table 7, the only models which were statistically significant and did not contain total effect error (which confirms that the model is incorrect) were those in which job performance was a dependent (output) variable. Therefore, further analysis was not needed as this initial step already confirmed what was assumed based on the literature review. After such a verification, it was necessary to determine which of the factors (assumed as those that have an influence on job performance) are independent variables in the final model and which should be tested as mediators. In order to do that, sequential mediation models were built for each of the variables as an independent one, using job performance as the dependent variable (which was confirmed in the step above) and the rest of them as mediators. A variable for which the model is statistically significant and the total effect is the highest should be included in the final model as a dependent variable. The results of the analysis are included in Table 8. In the case of work engagement and organizational commitment, it was impossible to build a statistically significant model since both variables do not have a statistically significant direct effect on job performance. Hence, based on four statistically significant models obtained for EDC, person-job fit, work motivation and job satisfaction, it can be concluded that the total effect is the highest in the case of EDC. Moreover, the highest BootULCI for total effect was also achieved for the model, in which EDC was used as an independent variable, which furthermore confirms that it should be an independent variable in the final model. Therefore, after establishing that job performance is a dependent variable and EDC is an independent variable in the model, the initial steps allow for the analysis of mediation in the model. As shown in Figure 2, there is a need to establish how many statistically significant mediators will be included in the model and what will be their sequence. Therefore, after establishing that job performance is a dependent variable and EDC is an independent variable in the model, the initial steps allow for the analysis of mediation in the model. As shown in Figure 2, there is a need to establish how many statistically significant mediators will be included in the model and what will be their sequence. As a first step, it was necessary to determine which of the remaining variable will be the mediator that influences the relation between EDC and job performance the most. The one for which the indirect effect was the highest should be chosen. The results of the mediation analysis are included in Table 9. They indicate that P-J fit is the variable with the highest indirect effect in the model (and the only variable for which the indirect effect is higher than a direct one showing that it is indeed a significant mediator). Thus, it should be used as the first mediator in the model. Moreover, work engagement and organizational commitment are indicated as nearly insignificant mediators in the model (BootLLCI is almost below 0 in both cases). Hence, it should be further verified whether they have a significant role in the final sequential mediation model. However, it can be assumed at this point that they might not have a place in it.  As a first step, it was necessary to determine which of the remaining variable will be the mediator that influences the relation between EDC and job performance the most. The one for which the indirect effect was the highest should be chosen. The results of the mediation analysis are included in Table 9. They indicate that P-J fit is the variable with the highest indirect effect in the model (and the only variable for which the indirect effect is higher than a direct one showing that it is indeed a significant mediator). Thus, it should be used as the first mediator in the model. Moreover, work engagement and organizational commitment are indicated as nearly insignificant mediators in the model (BootLLCI is almost below 0 in both cases). Hence, it should be further verified whether they have a significant role in the final sequential mediation model. However, it can be assumed at this point that they might not have a place in it. Finally, after establishing the place of three out of seven variables in the model, a sequential mediation analysis was performed in order to determine its final shape. In order to determine which variables statistically significantly mediate the already established relation, each of them was included separately in the model as the second mediator. As the results presented in Table 10, work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement are statistically significant variables in the model. The total effect of the model obtained for work motivation and job satisfaction is almost the same (0.480 for motivation and 0.479 for satisfaction-the 0.001 difference should be neglected as it is within the margin of error). The total effect value in the case of work engagement is also not much smaller (the difference of 0.01 is still within the margin of error). That is the basis for assuming that all three of those variables should be included in the sequential mediation model in the second place. However, it will be furthermore verified in the next step. Moreover, organizational commitment once again proved to be an insignificant mediator in the model (p > 0.001 and 0 is included between the values of BootLLCI and BootULCI) and it was further verified that it should not be included. As the final step, it was necessary to verify whether work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement should indeed be included in the model as the second mediator or maybe it should be a four-mediators' sequential model. In order to do that, two models were built to compare the results.
Based on the results given in Table 11, it can be concluded that work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement cannot build a fully sequential model. In such cases, all three variables are insignificant elements of the sequential mediation model (p > 0.001) and moreover job satisfaction and work engagement are even insignificant mediators (p > 0.001 and 0 is included between the values of BootLLCI and BootULCI in both cases). Therefore, based on that verification it can be finally confirmed that all three variables should be included in the model as the second mediator, after P-J fit. Therefore, the final model is presented in Figure 3, showing the sequence of mediators between EDC and job performance. The obtained results allow not only for the acceptance of Hypotheses H1, H2a and H2b (confirming the cause-effect relation between variables), but also for the acceptance of Hypothesis H3. values of BootLLCI and BootULCI in both cases). Therefore, based on that verification it can be finally confirmed that all three variables should be included in the model as the second mediator, after P-J fit. Therefore, the final model is presented in Figure 3, showing the sequence of mediators between EDC and job performance. The obtained results allow not only for the acceptance of Hypotheses H1, H2a and H2b (confirming the cause-effect relation between variables), but also for the acceptance of Hypothesis H3.   In order to verify the results obtained from the step-by-step analysis made using SPSS Statistics, SPSS AMOS was used to perform the path-analysis for the established model. The obtained model was well-fitted and statistically significant (Chi2 (4) = 23.221, p < 0.005; TLI = 0.992; CFI = 0.899; RMSEA = 0.087). Hence, it confirms the validity of obtained results, which were presented in detail in this chapter.

Discussion
Most importantly, the EDC notion was verified to be a valid construct. The obtained results allowed for validation of the variable and construct and nomological validation of the EDC notion (incorporating a methodological rigor described by [37]). Variable validation was performed based on theoretical research and pilot study among competent judges. Construct validity was performed based on the factor analysis, which showed that all proposed dimensions (sensitivity to changes in the environment, ability to adapt to changes in the environment, ability to solve problems in the workplace, including innovation in the workplace, as well as the ability of continuous personal development) were building one factor (exploratory factor analysis) and that all proposed items were statistically significant elements of the final construct (and they explained more than 60% of its variability) (confirmatory factor analysis). It allowed for the final step of analysis of this notion-the nomological validation-which was done based on the verification of the job performance model based on EDC.
The obtained results clearly confirmed the views underlined in the literature [30,57,61,85,107,108], stating that all described variables should be jointly analyzed, as they are strongly related to each other. They also confirm the initial conclusions made, e.g., by Gross-Gołacka and colleagues [10], showing that the intellectual capital of employees improves corporate sustainability not by itself, but by using EDC to improve job performance. It remains also in line with Nunhes and colleagues [119], who underlined the need for rethinking the "way of doing business" to develop corporate sustainability and the mechanism of employees' roles in this development should be especially underlined as they are the most important resource in contemporary organizations [9]. The correlation analysis allowed the conclusion that those relations are positive, strong and statistically significant. Therefore, it not only confirmed the existence of a relation already recognized in the literature (e.g., those found in a classical job performance model), but most importantly, it allowed empirical verification of the existence of relations that have not yet been studied and were just assumed based on the literature. It concerns mainly those connected to EDC-a new construct, for which the first verification of relations with P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment and job performance was extremely important.
The presented and verified mediation model shows that P-J fit plays the most important role in mediating the relation between EDC and job performance. It remains consistent with views found in the literature [58], based on which it might have been assumed that P-J fit would be a bridge between EDC and other notions and the EDC influence on P-J fit allows it to be a stronger determinant for work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement (and through them-job performance). Such a view can be based on the fact that P-J fit influence on them is known in the literature e.g., in the work of Warr and Inceoglu [120], who state that "person-job fit is important for worker well-being, by predicting and finding distinct patterns for job satisfaction and job engagement". Therefore, the obtained research shows that EDC is based on those relations. Work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement were included in the same place in the model, having similar mediating strength. This once again remains consistent with the literature, in which those notions are often verified as strongly related to each other. Rich [48] (p. 628) "found statistically significant indirect relationships through engagement between each of the antecedents and each of the outcomes, and these relationships emerge in models that also include job involvement, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation as mediators". Job satisfaction is also treated as the key driver of work engagement by Garg and colleagues [108]. Organizational commitment was the only notion excluded from the model and it seems legible because of its unique character. It is a notion highly dependent on others included in the model. Intense emotional attachment to an organization understood as a main symptom of organizational commitment [105] can be obtained only among motivated, satisfied and engaged employees, who are fitted for their job position and ready to implement their tasks in a dynamically changing environment. It should be underlined that this does not mean that organizational commitment is not significantly related to EDC or job performance-correlation analysis shows that it is related to both EDC and job performance. However, the final results verified that it is not a statistically significant mediator of the analyzed relations and its mediating strength is not sufficient (due to reasons stated above) to include it in the model.
It is also worth noting that the research intentionally did not include any other personal antecedents of job performance, even though the personal characteristics of employees are significant determinants of their functioning in organizations. However, as the main aim was to verify the role of EDC in building job performance, those antecedents were not crucial. Moreover, the antecedents were chosen from the point of view of sustainable development of the organization, and personal characteristics are less important from the point of view of ensuring sustainability through job performance induced by EDC.
The obtained model confirmed the view of Fuller and colleagues [54], who claimed that the relation between proactivity and job performance is not as simple as previously assumed and it needs further and more comprehensive analysis. The role of P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement in strengthening the influence of EDC on job performance was confirmed and can be treated as a first step in the detailed description of the mechanism behind the role of EDC in shaping job performance.

Conclusions
The research gap was filled by the performed literature analysis complemented with empirical research. The new construct of EDC was introduced, defined and structured with four dimensions: Sensitivity to changes in the environment, the ability to adapt to changes in the environment, the ability to solve problems in the workplace (including innovation in the workplace) and the ability of continuous personal development together with its measurement scale. The construct was validated using variable validation (theoretical validation based on the literature review, and face validation based on pilot research with competent judges confirming the correctness of the scale), construct validation (verified using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, confirming that the coherent construct was obtained) and nomological validation. The nomological validation was based on the process of developing and empirically verifying the model of job performance based on EDC. Therefore, the hypothetical model of the relation between EDC and job performance was introduced, together with five notions presumed to be mediators of this relation: P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment. Based on that, an empirically verified model of job performance based on EDC was proposed, including P-J fit as the first mediator and work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement as the second group of mediators. Hence, the analysis allowed us to define and place EDC as the element of DC of organization as a whole and identify the mechanism of its influence on job performance, which shows that EDC indeed can be a prerequisite for enabling the sustainable development of an organization through employees, who are considered to be an important resource connected with corporate sustainability.
Therefore, the aim of the article (to identify, define and verify EDC as a synthetic construct, then examine the impact of EDC on job performance and, based on that, propose an EDC-based model of job performance fulfilling all the steps of construct validation) was successfully fulfilled, showing that the mechanism of EDC shapes the sustainable development of the organization. The presented study offers a substantial contribution to the theory's development in the field of organizational DC, placing EDC as a new and important element of those capabilities and underlining that EDC may allow to link dynamic capabilities of organization with its sustainable development. Therefore, such a contribution remains especially important from the perspective of contemporary organizational theory, building the theoretical foundations, which explain the need for broader analysis of organizational DC-directed at the specific role of employees in contemporary organizations.
The discussed issues also have practical implications. That is mainly because the proposed model of job performance based on EDC shows the mechanism that can be used for boosting job performance of employees, underlining the role of P-J fit, work motivation, job satisfaction and work engagement-employees' characteristics which can be successfully influenced by modern HRM solutions but till now are rarely connected with enabling organizational sustainable development. Hence, it seems that the obtained results confirm the validity of the undertaken topic of study. Moreover, the developed model seems to be of great practical importance. It means that when shaping HRM solutions, especially recruitment and selection, particular attention should be paid to the EDCs, because they determine-especially in the conditions of a dynamically changing environment-the P-J fit of employees and then their job satisfaction, work motivation and work engagement, in order to finally affect their job performance. In this way they affect the sustainable development not only of employees but also of the organization as a whole. Therefore, managers in contemporary organizations should consider not only the competences currently held by job candidates or employees, but also (and perhaps above all) their adaptation skills or competences related to creative problem solving.
However, the presented empirical study has some limitations. First of all, there could be other notions influencing the discussed relations, which have been omitted by the proposed EDC-based model of job performance. The proposed set of variables included in the model was chosen based on the literature review and the existence of internal relations between them, which allowed for the development of the coherent model. However, the next steps should allow for the verification of the possibility to include other notions, which are also related to job performance. Therefore, the performed analysis points to the future directions of research, aiming at further development of the model and inclusion of other notions arising as important for modern employees striving to contribute to the sustainable development of their organizations, but not yet tackled in the literature.