Managing Expectations to Create High Performance Government

• Author: Damian West,Fiona Buick,Deborah A. Blackman,Michael O’Donnell,Janine O’Flynn
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17701544
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Date: 01 June 2019

701544ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17701544Review of Public Personnel AdministrationBlackman et al.
research-article2017
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2019, Vol. 39(2) 185 –208
Managing Expectations to
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Create High Performance
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17701544
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17701544
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Government
Deborah A. Blackman1, Fiona Buick1, Janine O’Flynn2,
Michael O’Donnell1, and Damian West3
Abstract
Enhanced performance has been the focus of public administration and management
research for years. High performance organizations have characteristics that differentiate
them from others; they also utilize high performance work practices (HPWPs). A core
HPWP is performance management, which seeks to align individual performance with
organizational outcomes. We posit that performance management can enable high
performance through managing employee expectations. Drawing on a study undertaken
in the Australian Public Service, we demonstrate how using an expectancy theory lens
helps explain how performance management can support high performance. We suggest
that all three elements of expectancy theory—valance, expectancy, and instrumentality—
need to be in place to support the creation of goal and role clarity, critical components of
high performance. This offers practitioners a way of structuring effective conversations
and scholars the opportunity to consider the theoretical implications of linking expectancy
theories, performance management, and high performance.
Keywords
performance management, high performance, managing expectations, public sector,
qualitative research, expectancy theory
Introduction
Enhancement of government performance has been the focus of public administra-
tion and management research, policy, and reform for many years (Cho & Lee,
1University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia
2The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Victorian Public Service Commission, Melbourne, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Fiona Buick, School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra P.O. Box 7916, Canberra BC
2610, Australia.
Email: f.buick@adfa.edu.au

---

186
Review of Public Personnel Administration 39(2)
2012; de Waal, 2010, 2012). Recent literature has focused on developing “high
performing organizations” (HPOs) to support the productive capacity of public sec-
tor organizations to deliver on desired outcomes (Blackman, Buick, O’Donnell,
O’Flynn, & West, 2012; McBride, 2008; Pickering, 2008; Price, Mores, & Elliotte,
2011). What distinguishes HPOs from other organizations is their implementation
of high performance work practices (HPWPs) in an integrated and complementary
way to develop the competencies and characteristics necessary to support an orga-
nization’s strategy (Blackman et al., 2012; Gephart & Van Buren, 1996; Huselid,
1995; Kehoe & Wright, 2013). One of the core HPWPs is employee performance
management, which can facilitate high organizational performance through shap-
ing and enabling the behavior, skills, motivation, and performance of individual
employees in ways that improve their job performance (Huselid, 1995). In this
article, we focus specifically on how employee performance management can
enable high performance through managing employee expectations. We argue that
high performance in public sector organizations will only develop when employees
have a clear understanding about both their role requirements and how their roles
align with organizational goals.
Initially, we consider the theoretical role of managing expectations in developing
behavior and achieving high performance outcomes. We then draw upon a qualitative
study undertaken in the Australian Public Service (APS) to demonstrate how employee
performance management supports or impedes the management of valence, expec-
tancy, and instrumentality to enable (or not) high performance. We demonstrate that to
achieve high performance public sector organizations need a clear, shared understand-
ings of the value of high performance (valence), transparent and consistently applied
performance ratings and developmental support (expectancy), and achievable perfor-
mance-based (nonfinancial) rewards (instrumentality). Finally, we offer some sugges-
tions as to how expectancy theory can be used to operationalize performance
management to create high performance.
Performance Management and Managing Expectations
Performance management is a process which seeks to enable the establishment of a
shared understanding between employees, supervisors, and often peers, about what is
to be achieved and how it is to be achieved (Armstrong & Murlis, 2004; Cho & Lee,
2012). Done well, employee performance management is an approach to managing
people, which can increase the probability of organizational success (Hughes, 2003;
Huselid, 1995) through aligning individual performance with desired organizational
outcomes. This highlights the importance of establishing a common understanding of
performance expectations regarding the tasks to be completed, the behaviors required
to undertake these tasks effectively, and the alignment with desired organizational
outcomes. Previous research has shown that clarity and alignment of both organiza-
tional goals and individual roles feature as a core part of developing high performance
within organizations (Blackman, Buick, O’Donnell, O’Flynn, & West, 2013, 2016).
Consequently, effective performance management is a critical element in attaining

---

Blackman et al.
187
high performance because it provides a framework for the development of expecta-
tions regarding what high performance is and what will happen if it is achieved.
Expectations are beliefs held by an individual concerning the likely outcome result-
ing from a particular trigger or event; they serve as a way of seeing the world (Hubbard
& Purcell, 2001). Thus, the basis of expectancy theory is that people will be motivated
to work because they believe that, by doing so, they will gain something that they
desire (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007; Vroom, 1964). Expectancy theory contends that
the outcome achieved will emerge from conscious decision making by an employee as
to whether specific aspirations, in this case achieving high performance, are advanta-
geous based upon probable outcomes (Vroom, 1964; Wahba & House, 1974). Although
there are concerns regarding both the accuracy of the model and the way that expec-
tancy works (Connolly, 1976; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Wahba & House, 1974),
there is widespread acceptance that a relationship exists between expectations and
behavior (Cho & Lee, 2012; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Although more usually
linked with predicting the likely outcomes of particular extrinsic reward schemes
(Miller & Grush, 1988; Oliver, 1974), expectancy theory has also been used to look at
intrinsic value and reward structures (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Liao, Liu, &
Pi, 2011) and organizational outcomes more broadly (Renko, 2012). This broader
application of expectancy theory led us to explore whether achieving high perfor-
mance would be affected by the recognition, and apparent value, of it to employees.
The attainment of high performance requires the clarification of employee expecta-
tions. Schmidt and Dolls (2009) argued that where goals are poorly defined this leads
to the development of multiple goals which can cause employees to become confused
and/or lose focus. Moreover, Kerr (1995) demonstrated that it was unrealistic to expect
certain behavior from an individual when an alternative behavior is clearly favored by
the organization or where the individual does not know what the desired behavior
actually looks like. It is too simplistic to state that the only behavior that will develop
is that which is rewarded (Neely & Najjar, 2006), but it is unlikely that employee high
performance will emerge unless it is articulated and modeled throughout the organiza-
tion (Cho & Lee, 2012).
In expectancy theory, there are three elements that must all work together to create
motivation: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy (Vroom, 1964). Valence is the
perceived value or preference that an individual allocates to a given outcome (Brandi
& Kemelgor, 2015; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964), such as high perfor-
mance. For high performance to emerge, individuals would need to have an affective
orientation to developing high performance and actively seek to attain it. Something
about seeking high performance must be personally advantageous to the individual,
not just something desirable for the organization. In this way, performance manage-
ment is about developing processes to create alignment and congruence.
Instrumentality is the belief that if performance expectations are met, then the
expected reward will be forthcoming (Brandi & Kemelgor, 2015; Van Eerde & Thierry,
1996; Vroom, 1964). Several scholars position instrumentality as being about trust
between managers and employees and transparency in terms of who decides the out-
comes of performance management procedures (Vroom, 1964; Yoon Jik & Poister,

---

188
Review of Public Personnel Administration 39(2)
2014). Another view of instrumentality is that it is about the transparency, fairness, and
clarity of the “rules of the game.” For example, in relation to performance manage-
ment this might be about how ratings are established and determined...