Organizational Social Capital and Performance Information use: The Mediating Role of Public Service Motivation

• Author: Michele Tantardini
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X221113366
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

Organizational Social Capital

and Performance Information

use: The Mediating Role of Public

Service Motivation

Michele Tantardini

1

Abstract

This article examines the mediating role of public service motivation (PSM) between organizational

social capital and performance information use. This topic is worth studying since it allows to under-

stand how organizational level factors and individual level traits interact. Using a multiple informant

survey distributed to county managers in Florida, this article f‌inds support that organizationa l social

capital is an important predictor of performance information use, and that this relationship is medi-

ated by the role of PSM. The article concludes with recommendations on how to capitalize on these

internal resources for the effective implementation of performance management reforms and

practices.

Keywords

performance information use, organizational social capital, public service motivation, performance

management, local government

Introduction

The use of performance information represents

an important aspect of performance management.

The supply of performance information through

performance measurement systems and their

incorporation in documents and procedures, per

se, do not guarantee their use in the managerial

decision-making process (Bouckaert and

Halligan 2008). Therefore, understanding which

individual and organizational drivers promote

public managers’use of performance information

(see for example Kroll 2015; Moynihan 2015;

Pandey 2015) is important in order to justify

public organizations’investments in adopting

and implementing such practices. Several drivers

of performance information use have been identi-

f‌ied in the literature: benchmarking (Ammons and

Rivenbark 2008), organizational culture and

information availability (Moynihan and Pandey

2010), learning forums (Moynihan 2008), stake-

holder involvement (Berman and Wang 2000),

and political support (Yang and Hsieh 2007).

Moreover, Kroll (2015) indicates how organiza-

tional variables like measurement system matu-

rity, leadership support, support capacity and

resources, innovative culture, and goal clarity

1

Public Administration, Penn State Harrisburg,

Middletown, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michele Tantardini, Assistant Professor of Public

Administration, Penn State Harrisburg, W-157 Olmsted,

777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA.

Email: mut98@psu.edu

Research Articles

State and Local Government Review

2022, Vol. 54(3) 202-220

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X221113366

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg

are important drivers of performance information

use.

Much of the previous studies have mainly

focused on managerial drivers of performance

information use and not enough research has

focused on sociological ones. By building on

previous theoretical work by Tantardini and

Kroll (2015), which theorizes the mechanism

through which organizational social capital

fosters the use of performance information,

and Tantardini (2016), which empirically tests

and f‌inds that organizational social capital

fosters the use of performance information,

this article employs both organizational social

capital and Public Service Motivation (PSM)

as potential drivers of performance information

use. This research aims to shed light on the fol-

lowing research question: does organizational

social capital foster managerial performance

information use, through the mediating role of

PSM?

Leana and van Buren (1999) def‌ined orga-

nizational social capital “as a resource ref‌lect-

ing the character of social relations within an

organization”(p. 538). Organizational social

capital is a concept comprised of three differ-

ent dimensions: the structural dimension, or

the level of interaction among members of

an organization; the relational dimension, or

the level of trust among members of an orga-

nization; and the cognitive dimension, or the

capacity of an organization to have shared

goals and achieve these goals collectively

(Leana and Van Buren 1999; Nahapiet and

Ghoshal 1998). In general, theories and empir-

ical studies that analyze organizational social

capi tal stat e that po sitive a nd productive interac-

tions and relationships between members of an

organization are fundamental to creating and

sharing knowledge, information, as well as other

types of positive spillover effects (Andrews

2011; Leana and Van Buren 1999; Nahapiet and

Ghoshal 1998; Tuan 2016).

PSM “may be understood as an individu-

al’s predisposition to respond to motives

grounded primarily or uniquely in public

institutions and organizations.”(Perry and

Wise 1990, 368). Researchers have studied

both the antecedents and the outcomes of

PSM. PSM as a needs-based approach to

motivation is a construct made of four under-

lying dimensions (Perry 1996): Attraction to

Public Service (APS), which is a rational

motive that lures individuals to the public

sector as an “opportunity to participate in

the formulation of public policy”(p. 6);

Commitment to Public Values (CPV),

which is the “desire to serve the public inter-

est”(p. 6); Compassion, which is not only a

moral position but also an emotional state,

is def‌ined as “patriotism of benevolence”

(p. 7); and f‌inally Self-Sacrif‌ice (SS), which

is “the willingness to substitute service to

others for tangible personal rewards”(p. 7).

Previous studies have shown that PSM is an

antecedents of performance information use

(see for example Moynihan and Pandey

2010).

The proposed research question is worthy

of further exploration for the following

reasons. First, it proposes that an organiza-

tional level factor like organizational social

capital and an individual trait like PSM are

both important to explain the use of perfor-

mance information in the public sector. In

doing so, it responds to two separate yet inter-

related calls for empirical evidence from the

contributions by Tantardini and Kroll (2015)

and by Tantardini (2016). Second, this study

adds to the literature of “institutional shapers

of individual beliefs and behavior”

(Moynihan and Pandey 2007, 41) as it shows

that an organizational level resource like orga-

nizational social capital is able to inf‌luence

PSM, which, in turn is associated with perfor-

mance information use. Third, this paper

expands the theoretical contribution by

Tantardini and Kroll (2015) which does not

differentiate among types of routine perfor-

mance information. It does so by focusing on

two different types of routine performance

information: purposeful performance informa-

tion use and political performance information

use. Finally, this study is important because it

studies the determinants of performance infor-

mation use at the local level. Considering that

informed decision-making has been associated

with better organizational outcomes (Sun and

Tantardini 203