Behavioral Drivers of Employee Performance in Public-Sector

 

Performance improvement in public-sector organizations is a daunting challenge for the governments and public managers alike. Several strategies and techniques have been used. However, comprehensive literature on improving organizational performance through employees’ performance in public sector is rather scant. U.S. personnel department defined performance management as “the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals.” (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2020). However, most literature on performance management system is concerned with measurement models or strategic management models rather than with behavior-oriented models.

Moreover, there is no ambiguity about the broad horizon of performance management system in the public sector. Bouckaert and Halligan (2008) classified performance systems in public sector into three major domains: macro-, meso-, and micro-level domains. Macro-level performance of government deals with country wide or supranational aspects of performance. Meso-level deals with intraorganizational-level performance. Micro level is concerned with performance of individuals in the public-sector organizations. However, managing performance at micro level, particularly at public employee and organization level, is a least explored arena in public-sector research (Dooren et al., 2015; Pulakos et al., 2019).

Significantly, performance management within a public-sector organization is one of the most important functions with which inefficiencies of employees and systems can be reduced to improve the overall effectiveness of the organization. In fact, not only does the effective management of performance may lead to minimal wastage of resources and increase the overall efficiency of the organization, it may also result in better outcomes in terms of citizen satisfaction with the government (Ma, 2017).

However, managing and improving the performance of a public-sector organization via its employees is a formidable challenge. Several studies have examined performance measurement (e.g., Arnaboldi & Azzone, 2010; Brignall & Modell, 2000; Micheli & Neely, 2010) and outcome-based performance management within the public sector (Borgonovi et al., 2017; Heinrich, 2002) with the goal to improve organizational performance by setting standard and predetermined performance indicators for evaluating employees’ performance. Interestingly though, few research studies have tried to address the effect of internal management on improving individual and organizational performance at micro level and the role of employee behavior as a determinant and regulator of performance. This study focuses on empirical studies that connect aspects of administrator behaviors toward performance such as leadership, management, and HR practices; and how these can act as drivers of performance at organizational level.

Performance management has been an important topic in public administration literature for the last three decades (Osborne, 2016) and improving the performance management system is still one of the most important tasks in a public-sector organization (Arnaboldi et al., 2015). To unravel the intricacies of performance management, research has been conducted in several national contexts (Goh et al., 2015; Ohemeng et al., 2018; Rimkutė et al., 2015). Recent studies focused on gaining an understanding of the issues surrounding the implementation, design, and use of performance management in different types of public organizations and the impact of performance on stakeholders. Although several studies have highlighted the need for organizations to “buy in” performance management and measurement systems if they are to be successful, relatively little literature is available that views performance from the perspective of behaviors of public administrators (BPAs).

However, there is little literature that investigates the internal management practice related with human side of performance, that is, employee and management behavior, leadership behavior, and Human Resource Management (HRM) practices that are helpful for driving individual performance. Therefore, this study attempts to fill in the main lacuna in the literature by investigating the drivers of performance that have to do with behavioral aspect of public administrators and identify what needs to be focused in future research agenda. In other words, this study has looked at determinants of performance in public-sector organizations from the behavioral perspective.

Effective performance management is not only dependent on technical aspects such as the tools used to gather, measure, and analyze performance data, and a routinized design of performance evaluation. Merely measuring performance on a quarterly or monthly basis and using the information to aid in decision-making by public-sector managers may not be enough. A more dynamic and novel approach is required to cast a real impact on improving both employee and organizational performance in public sector. This could be achieved via an employee’s daily interaction with organizational behavior (OB) and management tools. http://Gao (2015) stated that better management of performance required a more dynamic view that goes beyond simple direct methods of task performance measurement and resultant performance evaluation tools toward the more “human side” of performance management methods.

Leadership and Performance

Various studies have shown that leadership plays an important role in improving the performance of an organization by finding a positive link between leadership factors and job outcomes such as the “citizenship behavior,” “job performance,” and “creativity.” Leadership motivates individual employees by fulfilling their nonmaterial and psychological needs (Bouckenooghe et al., 2014; Burke et al., 2007; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2014; Zhu et al., 2013). Improving the performance of a public-sector organization can be achieved at the least cost by developing and providing the needed leadership. Therefore, research needs to focus on aspects of administrative leadership which are known to motivate followers/employers to perform their job that in turn drives organizational performance

Leadership change in public organization, both through leadership development and change in incumbency, affects the performance outcomes at employee and organization level, though internal or external constraints may cause hindrance in effects of leadership to influence employee performance (Boyne & Dahya, 2002; Seidle et al., 2016). Petrovsky et al. (2014) explain the reason of leadership success in some organizations. The study identified leaders’ previous experience and competency among the few factors responsible for differences in performance accompanying leadership change. These factors are brought by the new leaders or better-trained leaders to bear on the situations in need of change through improved performance. New or improved leadership is justified in the eyes of both leaders and followers by a need for improvement in performance.

Some literature suggests that the style of leadership does not only influence the behavior of public-sector employees but also has the potential to boost the capacity of management as well. For example, Andrews and Boyne (2010) showed that leadership has the potential to influence financial, technological, and HR capacity in organizations if it provides the direction and support needed to accomplish the missing skills. However, literature is yet inconclusive in showing what kind of leadership style and attributes work best to generally improve capacity building in public organizations, or what other factors in an organization’s context (such as organizational politics and culture) influence capacity building.

 

Similarly, Fernandez et al (2010) found that “integrative leadership” (which is based on the five leader orientations, namely: task orientation; relationship orientation; change orientation; diversity orientation; and integrity orientation), had a positive effect on the performance of employees in federal-level organizations. However, this impact was weak, which suggests that other factors may also be intervening between leadership and performance relationship. This latter suggestion is reinforced by the findings of Bellé (2013) showing that good leadership alone was not enough to improve performance; other factors such as job design may also be needed by good leadership to improve performance.

Overall, literature suggests that leadership has important role to play in driving employee and organizational performance in the public sector. Thus, public organizations should focus on developing transformational, ethical, and empowering leadership styles and a contingency approach toward leadership for boosting performance of public-sector employees and organizations. Research needs to focus on the processes that may lead various forms of leadership to performance in varied and dynamic environment of contemporary public sector.

Management Behavior and Performance

Performance management in public-sector organization is not about just developing sophisticated measurement tools, gathering performance data, and then decision-making by both executives and politicians based on performance data analysis. Performance can be managed more directly and on a more regular basis by managing the behavior of employees. Moynihan and Pandey (2005) stated that a modern administrative state carefully nurtures a healthy relationship between management and employee performance. Research studies have attempted to find the relationship between the management of public employees’ behavior and their subsequent performance. Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2016) stated that there is a link between the performance of a public-sector organization and the degree to which its managers are willing to psychologically empower employees and encourage them to innovate and to take risks. The study also concluded that the degree of success or failure of the organization in turn affects the predilection of managers toward empowerment and decentralization.

 

HRM Practices and Performance

HRM practices are known to influence employees’ behavior in public organizations (Paré & Tremblay, 2007). For instance, HRM practices aimed at building high involvement and commitment of employee shape the development of psychological links between administrative behavior and organizational mission and goals (Arthur, 1994).

                                                        Source : SAGE Journals 

References

Allen, M., Ericksen, J., Collins, C. (2013). Human resource management, employee exchange relationships, and performance in small businesses. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 153–173.

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 443–454

Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G. (2010). Constructing performance measurement in the public sector. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(4), 266–282.

Goh, S., Elliott, C., Richards, G. (2015). Performance management in Canadian public organizations: Findings of a multi-case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(2), 157–174

Hassan, S., Hatmaker, D. (2014). Leadership and performance of public employees: Effects of the quality and characteristics of manager-employee relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1127–1155

Kroll, A. (2015). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486

Paarlberg, L., Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710–718