Pay-for-Performance and Other Practices: Alternative Paths for Human Resource Management Effectiveness in Public Social Care Organizations

• Date: 01 March 2021
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: Sabrina Gigli,Federica Bandini,Laura Mariani
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19863841
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19863841

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2021, Vol. 41(1) 78 –104

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19863841

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Pay-for-Performance and

Other Practices: Alternative

Paths for Human Resource

Management Effectiveness

in Public Social Care

Organizations

Laura Mariani1, Sabrina Gigli2,

and Federica Bandini2

Abstract

Pay-for-performance has been widely adopted in the public sector to improve

effectiveness and efficiency in service provision, which in turn positively affects

employees’ satisfaction and commitment. Despite the presence of these initiatives in

nearly every reform effort, limited concrete evidence of success has been highlighted.

Through a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis on 17 social care organizations

in Italy, the aim of this work is to contribute to the debate on human resources

management practices in the public sector. Results suggest that pay-for-performance

is effective when supported by other empowering practices. Furthermore, alternative

combinations can produce the same positive effect on satisfaction and commitment.

Keywords

pay-for-performance, employees’ satisfaction and commitment, qualitative comparative

analysis, configurational approach

Introduction

Research on the relationship between human resource management (HRM) and

employees’ satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and motivation is gaining growing

attention in the field of public management and public administration (Gould-Williams,

1University of Bergamo, Italy

2University of Bologna, Italy

Corresponding Author:

Laura Mariani, University of Bergamo, Via Dei Caniana, 2, 24127, Bergamo, Italy.

Email: laura.mariani@unibg.it

863841ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X19863841Review of Public Personnel AdministrationMariani et al.

research-article2019

Mariani et al. 79

2003; Mostafa, Gould-Williams, & Bottomley, 2015). In particular, in the light of

robust evidence that relates HRM effectiveness to the improvement of organizational

outcomes (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006), the assessment of employees’ reac-

tions to human resource (HR) practices is perceived as crucial (Paauwe, Wright, &

Guest, 2013). More recently, such activities have been referred to as high-performance

HRM practices: sets of coherent and interrelated HR practices designed to promote

both organizational and employees’ performance (Huselid, 1995; Kehoe & Wright,

2013; Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, & Gould-Williams, 2011). Among these practices,

pay-for-performance (PFP) initiatives have often been included in public sector reforms

in the last 20 years, with the aim to increase productivity by reconsidering and redesign-

ing the overall compensation system of public bureaucracies (Katula & Perry, 2003). In

particular, the expectation is that, if employees are provided the chance to gain addi-

tional benefits, this would increase their perception of being part of a work environment

that is supportive. Consequently, employees would respond accordingly, behaving in

such a way that would benefit their organization in a positive way (Rhoades, Eisenberger,

& Armeli, 2001). With reference to health care organizations, specifically publicly

operated health care organizations, the limited flexibility with regard to pay issues that

previously characterized the sector has been progressively overtaken. More recently,

HRM trends seem to indicate a process of change toward models of performance-based

compensation, aimed at accelerating improvements in the quality of care. In particular,

many providers have started to offer financial incentives to caregivers based on their

performance on clinical measures (Petersen, Woodard, Urech, Daw, & Sookanan, 2006;

Rondeau & Wagar, 2001).

Despite the presence of such initiatives in nearly every reform effort, PFP initia-

tives have limited concrete confirmation of success (Ingraham, 1993a, 1993b; Perry,

1986; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004; Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2009). In health care man-

agement research, in particular, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of

paying for quality and some authors highlight the potential risks from introducing PFP

in health care, including the increase in dysfunctional competitive behavior among

employees (Rondeau & Wagar, 2001). Furthermore, recent literature on leadership in

the public sector tends to highlight how PFP is based on a transactional leadership

assumption of rewards and punishment, which is not particularly coherent with the

expectations of public sector employees engaged in care services provision, whose

motivations are rather intrinsic and social value-driven (Hargis, Watt, & Piotrowski,

2011; Jacobsen & Andersen, 2017). Compared to other public services, in fact, their

effectiveness is primarily affected by the interaction between the employee and the

user who co-produces the service (Normann, 1991; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,

1985).

However, while the role of HRM within the health care sector has attracted much

research interest (i.e., Bartram & Dowling, 2013; Bartram, Stanton, Leggat, Casimir,

& Fraser, 2007), HRM issues in other sub-sectors of care—elderly and disability care

in particular—have yet to gain sufficient research attention (Cooke & Bartram, 2015)

despite their peculiarities. In particular, compared to health care processes where the

role of technology and clinical practice is prominent, the delivery of other care