Performance-Based Human Resource Management and Federal Employee’s Motivation: Moderating Roles of Goal-Clarifying Intervention, Appraisal Fairness, and Feedback Satisfaction

• Date: 01 September 2019
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17721300
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17721300

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2019, Vol. 39(3) 323 –348

© The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17721300

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Performance-Based Human

Resource Management

and Federal Employee’s

Motivation: Moderating

Roles of Goal-Clarifying

Intervention, Appraisal

Fairness, and Feedback

Satisfaction

Hyung-Woo Lee1

Abstract

Although performance-based human resource management (PHRM) is commonly

accepted as a norm in public organizations, many have questioned its motivational

effect. Scholars have claimed that the effectiveness of PHRM depends on a

number of contingencies and that managers need to consider these contingencies

when implementing it. However, little research has provided empirical evidence

for such assertions. In this context, this study examines how the qualities of the

implementation process moderate the effect of PHRM on intrinsic motivation

and work effort. Analyzing the data from the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint

Survey (FEVS), this study found that the motivational effect was greater for those

who perceive performance appraisal as fair and are satisfied with post-assessment

feedback. It was somewhat counterintuitive to find that the motivational effect was

lessened when managers take active roles to communicate the goals and priorities

of the organization and constantly review their employees’ progress toward meeting

those goals. These results provide the workable leverages for enhancing employee

motivation through PHRM. In addition, the main effect of PHRM on work effort was

found to be negatively significant, while its effect on intrinsic motivation was positively

significant. These unexpected findings account for the multifaceted effects of PHRM.

1Hannam University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:

Hyung-Woo Lee, Hannam University, 70 Hannam-ro, Daeduk-gu, Daejeon 34430, Republic of Korea.

Email: hwleetrojan@gmail.com

721300ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17721300Review of Public Personnel AdministrationLee

research-article2017

324 Review of Public Personnel Administration 39(3)

Keywords

performance management, appraisal, goal clarity, feedback, intrinsic motivation

Introduction

As the principles of “reinventing government (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992)” became the

ethos of public service, the concept of performance has become a centerpiece for both

scholars and practitioners of public administration. Accordingly, human resource man-

agement decisions—such as pay raise, promotion, awards, and so on—in today’s pub-

lic organizations tend to depend on how well employees perform their tasks.

Admittedly, the imperative that the decisions regarding hiring and promotion in public

organizations should be made based on the candidates’ ability and competence is not

new and has been the norm for more than a century since the Pendleton Act of 1883.

However, this New Public Management movement is distinctive, in that it puts greater

emphasis on the use of concrete indicators in regard to the “output” of public employ-

ees than subjective judgments on their attitudes and/or competences. Indeed, as

Moynihan and Pandey (2010) put it, the recent performance-oriented reform

“displace[d] the traditional modes of decision making and heuristics” (p. 4). This trend

toward performance-based human resource management (hereafter referred to as

PHRM) is pervasive throughout the world. According to Perry, Engbers, and Jun

(2009), one third of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) nations, including the United States, currently implement PHRM policies.

However, the criticism against it has long persisted as well, mainly with regard to

performance pay in particular (see Perry et al., 2009, for a review). Dissenters of the

policies often criticized that it has not increased worker motivation or performance.

Some have even declared that performance pay is a “failure” (Bowman, 2010). One of

the most frequently cited reasons for the failure is the mismatch between the unique

need priority of public employees (i.e., mostly intrinsically motivated) and the focus

of PHRM on the use of extrinsic rewards (e.g., Langbein, 2010; Weibel, Rost, &

Osterloh, 2010). In this vein, Perry et al. (2009) proposed that public managers shift

their managerial focus from performance management to promoting public service

motivation (PSM). They stated, “Don’t despair. PSM theory and self-determination

theory may be more applicable levers for improving performance in public agencies

than approaches applying expectancy and reinforcement theory” (p. 46).

Possibly guided by this line of thought, scholars have paid relatively less attention

to strengthening the motivational effectiveness of the current PHRM policies.

However, the value of research on this topic cannot be discounted for the following

reasons: First, the extent to which public employees are motivated by intrinsic factors

(i.e., PSM) varies by individuals. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that all public

employees are intrinsically motivated. Even if we assumed it to be so, it is premature

to conclude that the intrinsic motivation of public employees with a strong PSM will

be hampered by provisions of extrinsic rewards because the argument for the crowd-

ing-out effect (Frey & Jegen, 2001) has not been unequivocally supported by