2015_Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations.pdf

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.
Public Management Research Association
Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations
Author(s): Sangmook Kim
Source: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr.,
2005), pp. 245-261
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3525699 .
Accessed: 05/02/2015 10:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc., Oxford University Press, Public Management
Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:02:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JPART
15:245-261
Individual-LevelFactors and Organizational
Performance in Government Organizations
Sangmook Kim
Seoul NationalUniversity
of Technology
ABSTRACT
In this journal,Raineyand Steinbauer
proposeda theoryof effectivegovernment
organizations,
andBrewer
andSeldenconducted
an empirical
studywithdatafromthe
1996 MeritPrinciples
Surveythat confirmed
most hypothesized
relationships
in the
theoretical
modeloforganizational
performance.
Following
thesestudies,
thisstudy
focuses
onlyon the individual-level
factors,
suchas jobsatisfaction,
affective
commitment,
public
service
motivation,
andorganizational
citizenship
behavior.
Itempirically
teststheeffectsof
thesevariables
onorganizational
performance
inthepublic
sector
ofKorea.
When
thesurvey
dataof 1,739public
employeesingovernment
agencies
wereanalyzed,
thehypothesized
relationships
intheproposed
modelwereconfirmed.
Idiscuss
thesurvey
results
inlight
of
previous
studies,
especially
thoseof Brewer
andSelden.
In this journal, Rainey and Steinbauer(1999) proposed a theory of effective government
organizations, urging that this theory be tested empirically; Brewer and Selden (2000)
conducted an empirical study with data from the 1996 Merit Principles Survey and con-
firmed most hypothesized relationships in the theoretical model of organizational per-
formance.Inthose studies,bothindividual-level andorganization-levelfactorsareinvolved
inthetheoreticalmodels;thuseachlevel was notfully examined,andsome importantfactors
remainto be considered.
Brewer and Selden (2000) inspire me to pursue furtherevidence about whether the
individual attitudes and behaviors of public employees may affect government per-
formance. Popovich defined high-performance organizations as "groups of employees
who producedesiredgoods or services athigher qualitywith the same or fewer resources"
(1998, 11). Good public employees may be imagined to have such characteristicsas high
satisfactionwith theirjobs, high commitmentto the organization,high motivation to serve
the public, and strong intentions to work for the organization willingly and devotedly. I
assume that public employees with these characteristicswill contributeto organizational
performance and thus that individual-level factors will positively affect organizational
performance.I will discuss the individual-level factors and develop the model thatrelates
I would like to thankthe anonymousreviewersforthe useful suggestionsandcommentsprovidedthroughthe review
process.Addresscorrespondence
to the authorat smook@snut.ac.kr.
doi:l 0.1093/jopart/mui013
AdvanceAccess publicationon December 16, 2004
Journalof PublicAdministrationResearchand Theory,Vol. 15, no. 2
? 2005 Journalof PublicAdministrationResearchand Theory,Inc.;all rightsreserved.

246 Journalof PublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory
Figure 1
Theoretical
Modelof Individual-Level
Factors
andOrganizational
Performance
-- Job Satisfaction
Organizational
Commitment
Organizational
Performance
PublicServiceMotivation
~- Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior
them to organizational-level performance. Then I will empirically test the hypothesized
relationships.
First of all, this research reviews recent efforts on individual-level factors, which
seem to be importantto predict organizational performance. Second, I explore the theo-
reticalmodel predictingorganizationalperformancewith individual-level variables.Third,
I operationalize and test the model with data from the survey conducted by Park,Kang,
Kwon, and Kim (2001) in the Republic of Korea.
MODEL
DEVELOPMENT
Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework for this study. I identify four individual-level
factors that may positively affect organizationalperformance:job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, public service motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Public employees with high levels in these factors will be more willing to work toward
organizationalgoals and objectives and give their services wholeheartedly to the organi-
zation and to the public, hence promoting organizationalperformance. Thus public orga-
nizations that have employees with high levels in these factors will achieve better
performance.
It should be noted thatthe natureof the causal direction is debatable. Organizational
performancecould leadto satisfactionandcommitment,in thatpublic employees in higher-
performingorganizationsbecome more satisfied, committed, and motivated than those in
organizationswithpoorperformance.Inthis study,only the simple relationshipbetween the
two will be investigated.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as "a pleasurableorpositive emotional state, resulting from the
appraisal of one's job or job experiences" (Locke 1976, 1304). Job satisfaction is an
affective oremotional responsetowardvariousfacets of one's job. Most scholarsrecognize
thatjob satisfaction is a global concept that also comprises various facets (Judge et al.
2001a).
The topic of job satisfaction is importantbecause of its implications for job-related
variables. Job satisfaction is positively correlated with motivation, job involvement,

Kim Individual-Level
FactorsandOrganizational
Performance
organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, mental
health, and job performance. It is negatively related to absenteeism, turnover, and per-
ceived stress (Judge et al. 2001a; Kreitnerand Kinicki 2001, 33-34; Spector 1997).
However, the relationshipbetween job satisfaction andperformanceis controversial.
Ina meta-analysis, accumulatingresultsfrom seventy-four studieswith a total subjectpool
of 12,192, there was only a small positive relationship between satisfaction and per-
formance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985). But researchershave identified several key
reasons that this result is misleading and understatesthe true relationshipbetween satis-
faction andperformance(Judgeet al. 2001b). A new meta-analysis was conductedon 312
samples with a combined pool of 54,417 and found thatthe mean truecorrelationbetween
overalljob satisfaction andjob performancewas estimatedto be 0.30 (Judgeet al. 2001b).
Using the data collected from 298 schools and 13,808 teachers, Ostroff (1992) supported
the positive relationshipsbetween employee satisfaction and organizationalperformance.
Using a sample from public and private workers in the United Arab Emirates, Yousef
(1998) found thatthe more the employees are satisfied with the security of theirjobs, the
better their performance in their jobs. Thus it is possible to assume that organizational
performancewill be improved by increasing public employees' job satisfaction.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment may be defined as the relative strength of an individual's
identificationwith, and involvement in, a particularorganization.Commitmentrepresents
something beyond mere passive loyalty to an organization. It involves an active rela-
tionship with the organization, such that individuals are willing to give something of
themselves in orderto contributeto the organization's well being.' Hence, commitment
could be inferrednot only fromthe expressions of an individual's beliefs andopinions but
also from his or her actions (Mowday, Steers, and Porter1979). It can be characterizedby
at least three factors:(a) a strongbelief in, and acceptance of, the organization's goals and
values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization;and (c)
a strong desire to maintainmembership in the organization (Porteret al. 1974, 604).
Two views of organizational commitment dominate the literature:the attitudinal
approachand the behavioral approach.The attitudinalapproachsees commitment as an
attitude reflecting the nature and quality of the linkage between an employee and an
organization. The behavioral approach is concerned mainly with the process by which
individuals develop a sense of attachmentnot to an organizationbut to their own actions
(Liou and Nyhan 1994; Robertson and Tang 1995).
Angle and Perry(1981) identifiedtwo subscales: value commitment, which reflected
a commitment to supportorganizational goals, and commitment to stay, which reflected
a desire to retain organizational membership. Meyer and Allen (1984) used the terms
affective commitmentand continuance commitmentto measure the attitudinaland behav-
ioral views of commitment, respectively.
According to Meyer and Allen (1991), the three components of organizational
commitment can be identified as affective, continuance, and normative commitments.
I Some scholarshave attacheddifferentlabels to the sameentity,such as "sense of mission," "character,"
"distinctivecompetence,""essence," "reputation,"and "strongculture."Fora useful review of the muddy
conceptualwaterssurrounding
the conceptof organizationalcommitment,see DiIulio (1994).
247

ResearchandTheory
Affective commitment refers to the employee's emotional attachment to, identification
with, and involvement in the organization. Continuance commitment refers to an
awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Normative commitment
reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. O'Reilly andChatman(1986) also
developed a scale to measure three definitions of commitment, including compliance,
identification,andinteralization commitment.BalfourandWechsler (1996) distinguished
the three dimensions of organizational commitment as affiliation, identification, and
exchange commitment. However, empirical studies have not yet shown significantsupport
for using a three-dimensional definition of organizationalcommitment (Allen and Meyer
1990; Balfour and Wechsler 1990).
Research has found that highly committed employees may perform betterthan less
committed ones (Mowday, Porter, and Dubin 1974). Higher levels of organizational
commitment are linked to higher levels of job performance (Larson and Fukami 1984).
However, affective commitment is more important to organizational performance than
continuanceornormativecommitment. Researchersexpress less confidence in the concept
of normative commitment and question the clarity of the concept (Allen and Meyer 1990;
Chiu and Ng 1999; Liou and Nyhan 1994). Affective commitment correlatedpositively,
while continuancecommitment correlatednegatively, with the performanceof lower-level
managers in a large food service company (Meyer et al. 1989). Somers and Birnbaum
(2000) confirmed the same result, that only affective commitment is associated with
desirable outcomes, when analyzing the data from professional employees of a medical
center. Evidence suggests that employees with high levels of continuance commitment
have lower performanceratings (Angle and Lawson 1994; Shore and Wayne 1993).
The empirical results supportthe importance of affective commitment in the public
organization(Liou andNyhan 1994; Romzek 1989, 1990). Public employees' commitment
is primarilybased on theiremotional attachmentto, identificationwith, andinvolvement in
their public organizations. Thus, I can assume that only affective commitment will affect
organizationalperformance.
Public Service Motivation
Perry and Wise defined public service motivation as "an individual's predisposition to
respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and orga-
nizations" (1990, 368). They identified three bases of public service motivation: rational,
norm based, and affective. Rational motives are grounded in individual utility max-
imization, norm-basedmotives are grounded in a desire to pursue the common good and
furtherthe public interest,and affective motives aregroundedin humanemotion. Various
rational, norm-based, and affective motives appear to be primarily or exclusively
associated with public service. Rational motives are participationin the process of policy
formulation, commitment to a public program because of personal identification, and
advocacy for a special or private interest. Norm-based motives are a desire to serve the
public interest, loyalty to duty and to the government as a whole, and social equity.
Affective motives arecommitmentto a programfroma genuine conviction aboutits social
importance and patriotism of benevolence. A recent study reveals that all three types of
motives are importantto public sector employees (Brewer, Selden, and Facer 2000).
PerryandWise (1990) formulatedthreepropositions:First,the greateran individual's
public sector motivation, the more likely it is thatthe individualwill seek membershipin a

Performance
public organization. Second, in public organizations,public sectormotivation is positively
relatedto performance.Third,public organizationsthatattractmemberswith high levels of
public sector motivation arelikely to be less dependenton utilitarianincentives to manage
individual performance effectively. Perry (1996) developed a survey instrument to
measure six hypothesized dimensions of public service motivation: attractionto policy
making, compassion, self-sacrifice, commitment to the public interest, social justice, and
civic duty.
According to Rainey (1982) and Wittmer (1991), public employees place a higher
value on helping othersandperformingworkthatis worthwhileto society. Crewson(1997)
found thatpublic sector employees ratea feeling of accomplishment andperformingwork
helpful to society andto othersas more importantjob characteristicsthando privatesector
employees. Naff and Crum(1999) found a significant relationshipbetween public service
motivation andfederalemployees' job satisfaction,performance,intentionto remainin the
government,andsupportforthe government's reinventionefforts. Houston (2000) showed
thatpublic service motivation does exist andthatpublic employees aremore likely to place
a higher value on the intrinsic rewardof work that is importantand provides a feeling of
accomplishment.Intesting a comprehensivemodel, public service motivationis amodestly
importantpredictorof organizationalperformance(Brewer and Selden 2000). Therefore,I
can expect that public service motivation will be positively related with organizational
performance.But the links between public service motivation andperformanceareclearly
not yet robust (Alonso and Lewis 2001). It is meaningful to examine the relationship
between public service motivation and organizationalperformance.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as "individual behavior that is
discretionary,not directlyorexplicitly recognized by the formalrewardsystem, andthatin
the aggregatepromotesthe efficient andeffective functioning of the organization"(Organ
1988, 4). Organizationalcitizenship behaviors include workingbeyond requiredjob duties
(such as assisting others with their tasks), promoting a positive work environment,
avoiding unnecessaryconflicts, being involved in organizationalactivities, andperforming
tasks beyond normal role requirements.The practical importance of organizational citi-
zenship behavioris thatsuchbehaviors improveefficiency andeffectiveness in bothpublic
and private organizations.
Smith,Organ,andNear (1983) used sixteen items formeasuringcitizenship behavior,
which consists of two fairly interpretableand distinct factors-altruism and generalized
compliance. Altruism is defined as helping coworkers personally, such as assisting a
coworkerto lift a heavy load. Generalizedcompliance is impersonalhelpful behavior,such
as being on time andnot wasting time on thejob.
Organ (1988) proposed five categories of organizational citizenship behavior.
Conscientiousness means that employees carry out in-role behaviors well beyond the
minimum required levels. Altruism implies that they give help to others. Civic virtue
suggests that employees responsibly participate in the political life of the organization.
Sportsmanshipindicates thatpeople do not complain andhave positive attitudes.Courtesy
means that they treat others with respect.
It has been arguedthat organizationalcitizenship behaviors facilitate organizational
performanceby lubricatingthe social machineryof organizations(Smith, Organ,andNear
249

ResearchandTheory
1983, 654). However, in contrast to the numerous studies exploring the antecedents of
organizational citizenship behavior, in relatively few studies have scholars investigated
the relationship between citizenship behavior and organizational performance (Bolino,
Tumley, and Bloodgood 2002, 505). Podanskoff and Mackenzie (1997) also insisted that
organizational citizenship behavior is linked to organizational performance. In a study
conducted in a regional restaurantchain, Koys (2001) showed that organizational citi-
zenship behavior influences profitability. Thus I can assume that there is a positive
relationshipbetween organizationalcitizenship behavior and organizationalperformance.
Organizational Performance
Organizationalperformance is hard to measure in the public sector. Brewer and Selden
(2000, 689) propose a measure of organizationalperformancebased on the perceptions of
the organization's members. Traditionally, objective data have been preferredfor evalu-
ating performance.Objective datahave been believed to be less biased but arenot always
available, especially in the public sector. When objective performance data are not
available, subjective (i.e., perceptual) performance measures may be a reasonable alter-
native (Allen and Helms 2002; Delaney and Huselid 1996; Dess and Robinson 1984;
Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, McIlwain, and Fottler 2001; Schmid 2002;
VenkatramanandRamanujam1987). Although there is always some doubtcast upon self-
reportedand perceptualmeasures of performance,there is evidence of a high correlation
between perceptualand objective measures at the organizationallevel. Dess and Robinson
(1984) found a strong positive correlation between perceptual data and financial per-
formance measures. Other studies have also found measures of perceived organizational
performance correlated positively to objective measures of organizational performance
(Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, Mcllwain, and Fottler 2001; Powell 1992;
Venkatramanand Ramanujam 1987).
There is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes a valid set of organizational
performance and organizational effectiveness criteria (Au 1996;.Forbes 1998; Ostroff
1992). Although many researchersrely on a single indicator,there seems to be a general
agreementthatmultiple internal(preferredby internalparticipants)andexternal(preferred
by clients and citizens) criteria are needed for a more comprehensive evaluation of
organizations (Cameron 1986; Connolly, Conlon, and Deutsch 1980).2 Previous research
has tended to focus on narrow,efficiency-related measures of performanceand to neglect
other values such as equity and fairness. Such narrow measures of performance can
produce misleading conclusions about organizational effectiveness (Brewer and Selden
2000, 688).
The concept of organizationalperformancerefersto whetherthe agency does well in
discharging the administrative and operational functions pursuant to the mission and
2 Epstein(1992) suggestedthat,formeasuringtheperformance
of apublicserviceorganization,
we needto looknot
only inwardto its own operationsbutalso outwardto the public.A comprehensivepictureof the performanceof
a public serviceorganizationcan be used to achieve external(or public)accountabilityas well as internal(or
management)accountabilityforpublic serviceperformance.Boschken(1992) developedconstituency-grounded
measuresof performance
inwhichconstituenciesandperformances
areclassifiedintoorganization-centered
andsocial
program-centered
categories.Wolf (1997) also usedbothoutcome-oriented
criteriaandoperation-oriented
criteriafor
evaluatingperformance.Multipleinternalandexternalcriteriaareneededfora morecomprehensiveevaluationof
organizationalperformance(JobsonandSchneck 1982).

Table1
Background
of Respondents
andPopulation
DemographicVariables Characteristics Respondents(%)a Population(%)
Sex Male 69.9 78.9
Female 30.1 21.5
Age 20s 5.9 14.8
30s 44.0 41.1
40s 43.3 29.9
50s or older 6.8 14.2
EducationalBackground High school diplomaor under 17.0 34.8
Juniorcollege diploma(2 yrs) 15.8 19.5
Undergraduate
degree(4 yrs) 52.7 40.0
Graduatedegreeor more 14.5 5.7
Lengthof Service -10 yrs 35.2 45.0
10-20 yrs 41.9 29.9
20+ yrs 22.8 25.1
HierarchicalRankb Grade4 or higher 3.8 2.9
Grade5 15.1 7.8
Grade6 27.1 22.7
Grade7 28.4 30.4
Grade8 or lower 25.5 36.2
Note. The number of respondents is 1,739 and that of the population is 275,046. The population is based on the public employee census that is
conducted every five years (Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs 1998).
aNo answer is excluded.
bGrade 1 is the highest level in the Korean civil service.
whetherthe agency actuallyproducesthe actions andoutputspursuantto the mission orthe
institutionalmandate. The agency's internalmanagement and operationhave contributed
substantially to the achievement of these goals (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999). The
dimensions of organizational performance in the public sector are divided into internal
and external performance, and each specifies the following performance-relatedvalues:
efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. Organizational performance is assumed to be
affected by individual-level variables.
DATAANDMETHODS
The model andhypotheses aretested using datafromthe 2001 survey of Parket al. (2001).
The participants-2,000 permanentfull-time public employees in nine centralgovernment
agencies, five provincial government agencies, and twenty-six lower-level local govern-
ment agencies in the Republic of Korea-were given surveys to complete duringregular
workinghoursin 2001; 1,739 completed surveys were returned,yielding a responserateof
87.0 percent.
I included in the survey public employees from central government (29.1 percent),
provincial governments (41.0 percent), and lower-level local governments (29.9 percent).
Table 1 shows the distributionof respondents' sex, age, educationalbackground,length of
service, and hierarchicalrank,comparedwith these data for the whole civil service.
The appendix describes how the independent and dependent variables are opera-
tionalized and reportsmeans and standarddeviations for each survey item. Respondents
were asked to respondto items on a five-point scale, representingstrongdisagreement(1)

ResearchandTheory
Table2
TheDimensions
of Organizational
Performance
AdministrativeValues
Efficiency Effectiveness Fairness
Organizational
Focus Internal InternalEfficiency InternalEffectiveness InternalFairness
External ExternalEfficiency ExternalEffectiveness ExternalFairness
Source: Brewer and Selden (2000, 689).
to strongagreement(5). Thusa "3" representedindifference, thatis, neitheragreementnor
disagreement.
Twelve questions were used to measure the dependent variable, perceived orga-
nizational performance (ot = 0.8735). These items provide a broad assessment of per-
ceived organizational performance by tapping each dimension of the concept shown in
table 2.
I operationalize job satisfaction with Mason's (1995) ten-item index that includes
the following facets: job interest, feedback from agents, comparable worth and pay,
coworkers, external equity and pay, supervision, performance evaluation, fair treatment,
overalljob satisfaction, and company satisfaction (ol = 0.7787). I use the averagevalue of
all ten items to capturethe degree of job satisfaction.
Affective commitment is evaluatedby the three items with the highest factor loading
of the "OrganizationalCommitmentQuestionnaire"(Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993). The
scale reliability coefficient was 0.7806. Forpublic service motivation I use five items that
are very similar to those used in the studies of Alonso and Lewis (2001), Brewer and
Selden (2000), and Naff and Crum(1999): two self-sacrifice questions, plus one each for
public interest, compassion, and social justice (ot = 0.7479).3
I measure organizational citizenship behavior with seven items of altruism and two
items of generalized compliance from the index of Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). The
original index consists of sixteen items in which seven items representaltruism,as in this
study, andnine items representgeneralized compliance. Butthe otheritems in the category
of generalized compliance, except two, are excluded, since some arenot applicable in the
context of Korean government and some are overlapped. The scale reliability coefficient
was 0.7931.
Demographic characteristics may influence organizational performance. To reduce
the possibility of spurious statistical influence, I also measured demographic control
variables: gender, age, educational background,length of service, and hierarchicalrank.
FINDINGS
ANDDISCUSSION
The organizationalperformanceof governmentorganizationsin Koreawas measuredwith
twelve items of six dimensions, as in the appendix.The mean scores for internalfactorsare
lower than those for external ones. The average values of the two questions in each
category are 3.20 in internalefficiency, 3.45 in internaleffectiveness, and 3.00 in internal
fairness and 3.48 in externalefficiency, 3.67 in externaleffectiveness, and 3.70 in external
3 I performedconfirmatory
factoranalysisto see whetherthesefive questionscouldbe collapsedintoa single index.
Only one factorhad an eigenvalue(2.506) higherthanone andexplained50.1 percentof the variance.The factor
loadingson the five questionswere from0.585 to 0.775.

Performance
Table3
Predicting
Organizational
Performance
Model 1 (3) Model 2 (3)
ControlVariables
Gender -0.098** -0.080**
Age 0.045 0.013
Education -0.008 -0.020
Lengthof service 0.161*** 0.073*
Hierarchicalrank 0.030 0.100***
Individual-LevelVariables
Jobsatisfaction 0.360***
Affective commitment 0.103***
Publicservicemotivation 0.073**
Organizationalcitizenshipbehavior 0.198***
Changein R2 0.052 0.318
F Change 15.276*** 174.383***
R2 0.052 0.370
F Value 15.276*** 90.234***
N 1,392 1,392
Note. Categories for gender are coded as follows: 0 = male and 1 = female.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
fairness. The lowest means of all areforthe two internalfairnessitems. Thatthe responses
aboutinternalmattersarelower or less favorablethanthe responses aboutexternalmatters
suggests thatKoreanpublic employees, like the Americanfederalemployees in the Brewer
and Selden (2000) study, perceive thatthe external factors, such as "customers," receive
better attentionand treatmentthan internalfactors, such as fairness. This in turnsuggests
the importance of improving public personnel management practices related to internal
fairness and efficiency.
Using correlational analyses I examined the relationship between independent
variables. As predicted, the significant correlations between individual-level factors
were confirmed. I found a positive correlation between job satisfaction and affective
commitment (r = 0.629, p < .01), as well as between public service motivation andjob
satisfaction (r = 0.459, p < .01) and between organizationalcitizenship behavior andjob
satisfaction (r = 0.380, p < .01). Public service motivation and affective commitment
were significantly correlated(r = 0.479, p < .01). Organizationalcitizenship behavior is
also positively correlatedwith public service motivation (r = 0.555,p < .01) andsimilarly
with affective commitment (r = 0.399, p < .01).
The statisticalmethod employed is hierarchicalregression, which resembles stepwise
regression, except that independent variables are evaluated in a sequence theoretically
predeterminedby the researcheron theoretical grounds,ratherthan in orderof magnitude
of correlation. As shown in table 3, I entered the five control variables in Model 1 and
added the four individual-level variables as independent variables in Model 2. As
recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983), this procedureprovides a unique partitioning
of the total variance accounted for in a dependent variable by a set of predictors. Any
significant change in R2resulting from the final step is due to unique contributionbecause
confounding or spurious influences have been removed.
253

ResearchandTheory
Table 3 reports the results of hierarchical regression analysis.4 The initial equation
regressed organizational performance on the five control variables.5 The demographic
characteristics resulted in a highly significant (p < .001) 5.2 percent change in R2 for
organizationalperformance.However, gender and the length of service accounted for the
change. In Model 2, the additionof the four individual-level variablesresulted in a highly
significant (p < .001) change of 31.8 percent in R2 for organizational performance.
Thus the individual-level variables had the significant relationships to organizational
performance.
I examinedthe standardizedcoefficients in orderto estimatethe relativeimportanceof
eachindividual-levelvariablethataffectsorganizationalperformance.All fourvariableshave
statisticallysignificanteffects on organizationalperformance.Themost influentialvariableis
job satisfaction(3 = 0.360), andthenext is organizationalcitizenshipbehavior(p 0.198).
The findings also indicate that affective commitment (p = 0.103) and public service
motivation (13= 0.073) contributeto organizationalperformance.Thusjob satisfaction is
a powerfulpredictorof organizationalperformancein governmentorganizations.
This study clarifies the effect of individual-level factors on organizational per-
formance. Job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service motivation, and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior influence organizationalperformance. The present results
can be comparedwith previous researchfindings.
This study confirmsthat organizationalperformancewill be improved by increasing
public employees' job satisfaction. Thus it supportsthe findings of Ostroff(1992), Yousef
(1998), and Judge et al. (2001b). It also demonstratesthataffective commitment is related
to organizationalperformance.Thus it supportsthe researchfindingsof Meyer et al. (1989)
and Somers and Bimbaum (2000). The present result indicates that public service moti-
vation will affect organizationalperformance;thus the findings of Naff and Crum(1999)
and Brewer and Selden (2000) are confirmed. Also verified is Rainey and Steinbauer's
(1999) proposition that effective government agencies have high levels of public service
motivation. Finally, it shows that there is a positive relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational performance. Therefore it supports the earlier
studies of Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), Podanskoff and Mackenzie (1997), and Koys
(2001).
The result means that people are the importantcause of good organizational per-
formance. Governmentagencies can be more successful when they value their employees
and they view people not as a cost but as an asset. Governmentleaders are urged to have
a betterunderstandingof the importanceof public employees in organizations.This result
also supportsthe perspective of people-centered management (Pfeffer and Veiga 1999).
Pfeffer (1998) states that people-oriented practices increase employee satisfaction and
commitment, and hence people work harderand improve business performance results.
The public sector also needs to provide people-centered practices for promoting public
employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, public service motivation, and
organizational citizenship behaviors.6
4 Therewere no problemsof multicollinearityamongvariablesspecifiedin the model.
5 I includedonly respondentswho answeredall relevantsurveyquestions.
6 PfefferandVeiga (1999) uncoveredthe seven people-centeredpracticesin successful companies:job security,
carefulhiring,self-managedteamsanddecentralization,
generouspay forperformance,extensivetraining,reduction
of statusdifferences,andsharinginformation.

Factorsand Organizational
Performance
These findings are also meaningful in the Korean context. Over the five-year period
from 1997 to 2002 the Koreangovernmentintroducedmajorreformsto create "a small and
efficient but better serving government." The first stage of the Korean reforms con-
centrated on reducing the size of the public sector and streamlining the bureaucracy
throughdownsizing and privatizationinitiatives. In the relatively short space of just four
years since 1998, a reductionof 20 percentof the totalpublic sectoremployment atthe end
of 1997 was achieved. The government evaluated that this is a truly remarkable
achievement, especially considering the low labor market mobility and transferability
amongjobs in Korea, as well as the employment culturethatregardspublic sectorjobs as
practicallylifelong tenured(Ministryof PlanningandBudget 2003, 55-56). However, it is
very doubtful whether this kind of reform raises government performance, since the
reduction goal was given to each organization and the public employees older than
a certainage were dismissed regardlessof theircompetence orperformance.This practice
seems to negatively affect public employees' attitudeand government performance.The
more effective way to enhance government competitiveness is to see the public employee
as a source of strategic advantage, not just as a cost to be minimized, and to provide
incentives and practices thatpromote positive employee attitudes.
CONCLUSION
Brewerand Selden (2000) broadenedthe concept of organizationalperformanceto include
internaland externaldimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness;and they tested
commonelementsof existingtheoreticalframeworksempiricallyin thepublicsector.Follow-
ing theirresearch,this studyelaboratesthe relationshipbetween individual-levelfactorsand
organizational
performanceandtests it empiricallyin the governmentagenciesof Korea.
The presentstudy shows the same trendin organizationalperformanceas the findings
of Brewer and Selden (2000): perceived internalefficiency and fairnessare lower thanthe
otherdimensions of organizationalperformancein both the United StatesandKorea.Thus
I can say that, like the U.S. respondents, the Korean public employees perceived lower
levels of internalfairnessandefficiency thanof externaldimensions of performance.Since
public employees are most critical and central for implementing public policies and
delivering public service, and since the agency's operationshave contributedsubstantially
to the achievement of its mission andgoals (Rainey and Steinbauer1999), this suggests the
need for more attentionto this lower level of perceived fairness and efficiency.
I verified that the individual-level factors are importantpredictorsof organizational
performance. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) hypothesized that the several forms of
motivation play a significant role in determiningagency effectiveness. Brewer and Selden
(2000) showed that their particularindividual-level variables-such as the structureof
task/work, task motivation, public service motivation, and individual performance-
were modestly importantpredictors of organizational performance. I found that public
employees reporting higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior, and to a lesser extent higher levels of organizational commitment and public
service motivation, report higher levels of organizational performance. The specific
variables are different, but both studies have empirically verified that individual-level
factors are importantto predicting organizationalperformancein the public sector.
This study has several limitations. First, the results from this study cannot fully ad-
dressthe causality issue. Although the individual-level variableswere treatedas predictors
255

ResearchandTheory
of organizational performance, the performance indexes could also have been used as
predictors of individual-level factors. Future research is needed that uses longitudinal
designs and time-lagged correlations to more adequately address causality. Second, this
study relied on subjective performance measures. Although the importance of organiza-
tional performance is widely acknowledged, the measurement of organizational perfor-
mance is one of the most difficult issues in the public sector. Thereis a need forresearchers
to compareemployee perceptions of an organization's performancewith objective datain
orderto determine whether, and to what degree, subjective measures of performance are
valid measures of objective performance in the public sector. Third, I used only four
individual-level variables to predict organizational performance. Thus, future research
should look for additional factors that affect organizationalperformance.
The contributions of the present study are that it clarifies the effects of
individual-level factors previously identified and discussed as important determinants
of organizational performance and shows the same trend in the perceptual measure of
organizationalperformance in both the United States and Korea. It also has a numberof
practicalimplications. It is clearthatmanagersneed to treatpublic employees with respect
andwith fairandequitable mannersandthatthey need to use their employees' knowledge
andskills in looking forways to become more efficient. Managersshould also know how to
bettermanage and promote employees' satisfaction and attitudes,such asjob satisfaction,
affective commitment, public service motivation, and organizationalcitizenship behavior,
in order to improve organizational performance. Future research should continue to
explicate the relationship of individual-level factors to organizationalperformance.
APPENDIX
SURVEY
ITEMS
ANDSTATISTICS
FORDEPENDENT
ANDINDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
Dependent Variable
OrganizationalPerformance (Alpha= 0.8735)
* (Internalefficiency) My organizationhas made good use of my knowledge andskills in
lookingforwaystobecomemoreefficient.(mean= 3.11,std= 0.89)
* (Interal efficiency) My organizationis tryingto reduce cost in managingorganization
andperformingworks. (mean = 3.28, std = 0.86)
* (Internaleffectiveness) In the past two years, the productivityof my work unit has
improved.(mean = 3.37, std = 0.80)
* (Interal effectiveness) Overall,the qualityof workperformedby my currentcoworkers
in my immediatework group is high. (mean = 3.52, std = 0.79)
* (Interal fairness)My organizationprovides fair and equitabletreatmentfor
employees andapplicantsin all aspectsof personnelmanagementwithoutregardto their
political affiliation,sex, hometown, maritalstatus,age, or handicappingcondition.
(mean = 2.98, std = 1.03)
* (Internalfairness) In general, all aretreatedwith respect in my organization,with no
regardto statusand grade.(mean = 3.02, std = 0.96)

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance
* (Externalefficiency) My organizationhas conductedbusiness relationswith outside
customersvery promptly.(mean = 3.39, std = 0.84)
* (Externalefficiency) It is rareto makebig mistakesin my organizationwhen conducting
work. (mean = 3.57, std = 0.78)
* (Externaleffectiveness) The work performedby my work unit provides the public
a worthwhilereturnon theirtax dollars. (mean = 3.74, std = 0.83)
* (Externaleffectiveness) The occurrenceof goal attainmentis very high in my
organization.(mean = 3.59, std = 0.75)
* (Externalfairness)My organizationprovides fair and equitableservices to the public,
with no consideringof their individualbackgrounds.(mean = 3.83, std = 0.81)
* (Externalfairness)The customersatisfactiontowardmy organizationis very high.
(mean = 3.56, std = 0.78)
Independent Variables
Job Satisfaction (Alpha = 0.7787)
* My job provides a chance to do challenging and interestingwork. (mean = 2.87,
std = 0.94)
* My superiorgives me the informationI need to do a goodjob. (mean = 3.25, std = 0.91)
* My pay comparesfairly with the pay of people doing similarwork in this organization.
(mean = 3.17, std = 1.03)
* Most employees give theirbest effort in doing theirjobs. (mean = 3.70, std = 0.83)
* My pay comparesfairlywith thepay of people doing similarworkin otherorganizations.
(mean = 1.99, std = 0.86)
* My supervisorshows me respect as an individual.(mean = 3.50, std = 0.93)
* I have a clear understandingof how my performanceis judged. (mean = 2.94,
std = 0.96)
* My organizationtakes employee interests/concernsinto account in making important
decisions. (mean = 3.01, std = 0.91)
* I feel good aboutmy job-the kind of work I do. (mean = 3.16, std = 0.91)
* Overall, my organizationis a good place to work. (mean = 3.26, std = 0.92)
Affective Commitment (Alpha = 0.7806)
* I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.(mean = 3.52, std = 0.88)
* My organizationhas a greatdeal of personalmeaningforme. (mean = 3.18, std = 0.92)
* I feel like partof the family in my organization.(mean = 2.96, std = 0.92)
257

258 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Public Service Motivation (Alpha = 0.7479)
* The work I do as a civil servanton my job is very importantto me. (mean = 3.48,
std = 0.84)
* I am not afraidto go to bat for the rights of otherseven if it means I will be ridiculed.
(mean = 3.40, std = 0.83)
* Making a difference in society means more to me thanpersonalachievements.
(mean = 3.45, std = 0.84)
* I am preparedto make enormoussacrifices for the good of society. (mean = 3.34,
std = 0.87)
* I am often remindedby daily events abouthow dependentwe are on one another.
(mean = 3.53, std = 0.79)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Alpha = 0.7931)
* I assist my supervisorwith his or her work. (mean = 3.76, std = 0.67)
* I make innovative suggestions to improve my department.(mean = 3.04, std = 0.81)
* I volunteerfor things that are not required.(mean = 3.17, std = 0.81)
* I orientnew people even though it is not required.(mean = 3.68, std = 0.74)
* I help otherswho have been absent. (mean = 3.42, std = 0.76)
* I attendfunctionsthatarenot requiredbut thathelp organizationimage. (mean = 3.69,
std = 0.71)
* I help otherswho have heavy workloads.(mean = 3.58, std = 0.69)
* I do not spend time in idle conversation.(mean = 3.42, std = 0.80)
* I do not take extrabreaks.(mean = 3.55, std = 0.78)
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., andJ. P. Meyer. 1990. The measurementandantecedentsof affective, continuanceand
normativecommitmentto the organization.Journalof OccupationalPsychology63:1-18.
Allen, R. S., andM. M. Helms.2002. Employeeperceptionsof therelationship
betweenstrategy,rewards
andorganizationalperformance.
Journalof BusinessStrategies 19:115-39.
Alonso,P., andG.Lewis.2001. Publicservicemotivationandjob performance:
Evidencefromthefederal
sector.AmericanReviewof PublicAdministration
31:363-80.
Angle, H. L., andM. B. Lawson.1994.Organizational
commitmentandemployees'performance
ratings:
Both type of commitmentandtype of performancecount.Psychological Reports75:1539-51.
Angle, H. L., andJ. L. Perry.1981. An empiricalassessmentof organizationalcommitmentand
organizationaleffectiveness.Administrative
Science Quarterly26:1-13.
Au, C. 1996.Rethinkingorganizational
effectiveness:Theoreticalandmethodologicalissues inthe study
of organizationaleffectiveness for social welfareorganizations.Administration
in Social Work
20:1-21.

Balfour,D. L., andB. Wechsler.1990.Organizational
commitment:A reconceptualization
andempirical
test of public-privatedifferences.Reviewof Public PersonnelAdministration10:23-40.
.1996. Organizational
commitment:Antecedentsandoutcomesin publicorganizations.Public
ProductivityandManagementReview 19:256-77.
Bolino,M. C., W. H. Turley, andJ.M. Bloodgood.2002. Citizenshipbehaviorandthecreationof social
capitalin organizations.Academyof ManagementReview27 (4): 505-22.
Boschken,H. L. 1992. Analyzingperformanceskewnessin publicagencies:The case of urbanmass
transit.Journalof Public Administration
Researchand Theory2:265-88.
Brewer,G. A., and S. C. Selden.2000. Why elephantsgallop:Assessing andpredictingorganizational
performancein federalagencies.Journalof Public Administration
Researchand Theory10 (4):
685-711.
Brewer,G.A., S. C. Selden,andR. L.FacerII.2000. Individualconceptionsof publicservicemotivation.
Public Administration
Review60 (3): 254-64.
Cameron,K. S. 1986.Effectivenessas paradox:Consensusandconflictin conceptionsof organizational
effectiveness. ManagementScience 32:539-53.
Chiu,W. C. K., andC. W. Ng. 1999. Women-friendlyHRMandorganizationalcommitment:A study
amongwomen andmen of organizationsin Hong Kong.Journalof Occupationaland
OrganizationalPsychology 72:485-502.
Cohen,J., andP. Cohen. 1983.Appliedmultipleregression/correlationanalysisfor the behavioral
science. Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Connolly,T., E.J.Conlon,andS. J.Deutsch.1980.Organizational
effectiveness:A multiple-constituency
approach.Academyof ManagementReview5:211-17.
Crewson,P. E. 1997. Public-servicemotivation:Buildingempiricalevidence of incidenceandeffect.
Journalof Public Administration
Delaney, J. T., andM. A. Huselid. 1996. The impactof humanresourcemanagementpracticeson
perceptionsof organizationalperformance.
Academyof ManagementJournal39:949-69.
Dess, G., andR. Robinson.1984. Measuringorganizationalperformancein the absenceof objective
measures:The case of the privatelyheld firmandconglomeratebusinessunits.Strategic
ManagementJournal5:265-73.
Dilulio, J. D., Jr. 1994. Principledagents:The culturalbases of behaviorin a federalgovernment
bureaucracy.
Journalof PublicAdministration
Dollinger,M. J., andP. A. Golden. 1992. Interorganizational
andcollective strategiesin smallfirms:
Environmental
effects andperformance.
Journalof Management18:695-715.
Epstein,P. D. 1992.Measuringtheperformanceof publicservices.InPublicproductivityhandbook,ed.
M. Holzer, 161-93. New York:MarcelDekker.
Forbes,D. P. 1998. Measuringthe unmeasurable:
Empiricalstudiesof nonprofitorganization
effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofitand Voluntary
SectorQuarterly27:183-202.
Houston,D. J. 2000. Public-servicemotivation:A multivariatetest.Journalof PublicAdministration
Iaffaldano,M. T., andP. M. Muchinsky.1985. Jobsatisfactionandjob performance:
A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin97 (2): 251-73.
Jobson,J. D., andR. Schneck. 1982. Constituentviews of organizationaleffectiveness:Evidencefrom
police organizations.Academyof ManagementJournal25:25-46.
Judge,T. A., S. Parker,A. E. Colbert,D. Heller,andR. Ilies. 2001a. Jobsatisfaction:A cross-cultural
review.InHandbookof industrial,workandorganizationalpsychology,Vol. 2, ed.N. Anderson,D.
S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil,andC. Viswesvaran,25-52. London:Sage.
Judge,T. A., C. J. Thoresen,J. E. Bono, andG. K. Patton.2001b. Thejob satisfaction-jobper-
formancerelationship:A qualitativeandquantitativereview. PsychologicalBulletin 127 (3):
376-407.
Koys, D. J.2001. The effects of employee satisfaction,organizationalcitizenshipbehavior,andturnover
on organizationaleffectiveness:A unit-level, longitudinalstudy.PersonnelPsychology54 (1):
101-14.
Kreitner,R., andA. Kinicki.2001. Organizationalbehavior.5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
259

260 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Larson,E. W., andC. V. Fukami.1984.Relationshipsbetweenworkerbehaviorandcommitmentto the
organizationandunion.Academyof ManagementProceedings34:222-26.
Liou, K., andR. C. Nyhan. 1994. Dimensionsof organizationalcommitmentin the public sector:An
empiricalassessment.Public Administration
Quarterly18:99-118.
Locke,E. A. 1976.Thenatureandcauseofjob satisfaction.InHandbookof industrialandorganizational
psychology,ed. M. D. Dunnette,1297-1343. Chicago:RandMcNally.
Mason,E. S. 1995. Genderdifferencesinjob satisfaction.Journalof Social Psychology 135:143-47.
McCracken,M. J.,T. F. McIlwain,andM. D. Fottler.2001. Measuringorganizational
performance
in the
hospitalindustry:An exploratorycomparisonof objectiveandsubjectivemethods.HealthServices
ManagementResearch 14:211-19.
Meyer,J. P., andN. J. Allen. 1984. Testingthe "side-bettheory"of organizationalcommitment:
Some methodologicalconsiderations.Journalof AppliedPsychology69:372-78.
.1991. A three-componentconceptualizationof organizationalcommitment.HumanResource
ManagementReview 1 (1): 61-89.
Meyer,J. P., N. J. Allen, andC. A. Smith. 1993. Commitmentto organizationsandoccupations:
Extensionandrestof a threecomponentconceptualization.
Journalof AppliedPsychology
78:538-51.
Meyer,J. P., S. V. Paunonen,I. R. Gellatly,andR. D. Goffin. 1989.Organizational
commitmentandjob
performance:It's the natureof the commitmentthatcounts.Journalof AppliedPsychology
74 (1): 152-56.
Ministryof GovernmentAdministration
andHome Affairs. 1998. Public employeestatistics. Seoul,
Korea:Ministryof GovernmentAdministration
andHome Affairs.
Ministryof PlanningandBudget.2003. How Koreareformedthepublic sector. Seoul, Korea:
Ministryof PlanningandBudget.
Mowday,R. T., L. W. Porter,andR. Dubin. 1974. Unit performance,situationalfactors,andemployee
attitudesin spatiallyseparatedworkunits. OrganizationalBehaviorand HumanPerformance
12:231-48.
Mowday,R. T., R. M. Steers,andL. W. Porter.1979. The measurementof organizationalcommitment.
Journalof VocationalBehavior 14 (2): 224-47.
Naff, K. C., andJ.Crum.1999.WorkingforAmerica:Does publicservicemotivationmakea difference?
Reviewof Public PersonnelAdministration19:5-16.
O'Reilly, C. A., andJ.A. Chatman.1986.Organizationcommitmentandpsychologicalattachment:
The
effects of compliance,identification,andinteralization on prosocialbehavior.Journalof Applied
Psychology 71:492-99.
Organ,D. W. 1988. Organizationalcitizenshipbehavior:Thegood soldier syndrome.Lexington,MA:
LexingtonBooks.
Ostroff,C. 1992. The relationshipbetween satisfaction,attitudes,andperformance:An organizational
level analysis.Journalof AppliedPsychology77 (6): 963-74.
Park,C., J. Kang,K. Kwon, andS. Kim. 2001. A studyon the potentialproductivityof female public
servantsin Korea.KoreanPolicy StudiesReview 10 (3): 199-224.
Perry,J.L. 1996.Measuringpublicservicemotivation:Anassessmentof constructreliabilityandvalidity.
Journalof Public Administration
Researchand Theory6 (1): 5-22.
Perry,J.L., andL. R.Wise. 1990.Themotivationalbasesof publicservice.PublicAdministration
Review
50 (3): 367-73.
Pfeffer,J. 1998. Thehumanequation:Buildingprofitsbyputtingpeoplefirst. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer,J.,andJ.F. Veiga. 1999.Puttingpeoplefirstfororganizational
success.Academyof Management
Executive 13 (2): 37-47.
Podanskoff,P. M., andS. B. Mackenzie. 1997. Impactof organizationalcitizenshipbehavioron
organizationalperformance:A review andsuggestionsfor futureresearch.HumanPerformance
10:133-51.
Popovich,M. G. 1998. Creatinghigh-performance
governmentorganizations.San Francisco,CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Porter,L. W., R. M. Steers,R. T. Mowday,andP. V. Boulian. 1974. Organizational
commitment,job
satisfaction,andturnoveramongpsychiatrictechnicians.JournalofAppliedPsychology59:603-9.
Powell, T. C. 1992. Organizational
alignmentas competitiveadvantage.StrategicManagementJournal
13:119-34.
Rainey,H. G. 1982. Rewardpreferencesamongpublicandprivatemanagers:In searchof the service
ethic.AmericanReviewof Public Administration16:288-302.
Rainey,H.G.,andP. Steinbauer.1999.Gallopingelephants:Developingelementsof a theoryof effective
governmentorganizations.Journalof PublicAdministration
Researchand Theory9 (1): 1-32.
Robertson,P. J., and S. Tang. 1995. The role of commitmentin collective action:Comparingthe
organizationalbehaviorandrationalchoice perspectives.PublicAdministration
Review55:67-80.
Romzek,B. S. 1989.Personalconsequencesof employeecommitment.Academyof Management
Journal
32:649-61.
.1990. Employeeinvestmentandcommitment:Theties thatbind.PublicAdministration
Review
50:374-82.
Schmid,H. 2002. Relationshipsbetweenorganizationalpropertiesandorganizationaleffectiveness in
threetypes of nonprofithumanservice organizations.Public PersonnelManagement31:377-95.
Shore,L. M., andS. J. Wayne. 1993. Commitmentandemployeebehavior:Comparisonof affective
commitmentandcontinuancecommitmentwith perceivedorganizationalsupport.Journalof
AppliedPsychology 78:774-80.
Smith,C. A., D. W. Organ,andJ. P. Near. 1983. Organizational
citizenshipbehavior:Its natureand
antecedents.Journalof AppliedPsychology68 (4): 653-63.
Somers,M., andD. Birbaum. 2000. Exploringtherelationshipbetweencommitmentprofilesandwork
attitudes,employee withdrawal,andjob performance.Public PersonnelManagement29 (3):
353-65.
Spector,P. E. 1997.Job satisfaction.ThousandsOaks,CA: Sage.
Venkatraman,
N., andV. Ramanujam.1987. Measurementof businesseconomicperformance:An
examinationof methodconvergence.Journalof Management13:109-22.
Wittmer,D. 1991. Servingthepeopleorservingforpay:Rewardpreferencesamonggovernment,hybrid
sector,andbusinessmanagers.Public Productivityand ManagementReview 14:369-83.
Wolf, P. J. 1997.Whymustwe reinventthefederalgovernment?Puttinghistoricaldevelopmentalclaims
to the test.Journalof Public Administration
Yousef, D. A. 1998. Satisfactionwithjob securityas a predictorof organizationalcommitmentandjob
performancein a multicultural
environment.InternationalJournalof Manpower19 (3): 184-94.
261

2015_Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2015_Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations.pdf

Similar to 2015_Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2015_Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations.pdf