Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations

By Sangmook Kim. 2004

660 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this journal, Rainey and Steinbauer proposed a theory of effective government organizations, and Brewer and Selden conducted an empirical study with data from the 1996 Merit Principles Survey that confirmed most hypothesized relationships in the theoretical model of organizational performance. Following these studies, this study focuses only on the individual-level factors, such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior. It empirically tests the effects of these variables on organizational performance in the public sector of Korea. When the survey data of 1,739 public employees in government agencies were analyzed, the hypothesized relationships in the proposed model were confirmed. I discuss the survey results in light of previous studies, especially those of Brewer and Selden. 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 confirmed most hypothesized relationships in the theoretical model of organizational performance. In those studies, both individual-level and organization-level factors are involved in the theoretical models; thus each level was not fully examined, and some important factors remain to be considered. Brewer and Selden (2000) inspire me to pursue further evidence about whether the individual attitudes and behaviors of public employees may affect government performance. Popovich defined high-performance organizations as "groups of employees who produce desired goods or services at higher quality with the same or fewer resources" (1998, 11). Good public employees may be imagined to have such characteristics as high satisfaction with their jobs, high commitment to 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 characteristics will contribute to organizational performance and thus that individual-level factors will positively affect organizational performance. I will discuss the individual-level factors and develop the model that relates I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the useful suggestions and comments provided through the review process. Address correspondence to the author at smook@snut.ac.kr. doi:l 0.1 093/jopart/mui013 Advance Access publication on December 16, 2004 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, no. 2 ? 2005 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.; all rights reserved. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.186 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:20:00 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 246 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Figure 1 Theoretical Model of Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/801523ac94398b8cd961c83428fbe05735350a9c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

Testing the mediation effect of person–organization fit on the relationship between high performance HR practices and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector (2014, background): “In this study, the focus is on two outcomes – job satisfaction and OCBs – that have been shown to have a significant influence on both employee and organizational performance (Kim 2005; Vilela et al. 2008).”
Public Service Motivation and the Assumption of Person—Organization Fit (2008, methodology): “Previous studies, for example, have either looked at the effects of public service motivation without explicating the process that produces such effects (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Kim, 2005 )1 or produced inconsistent findings”
Leadership and Public Service Motivation in U.S. Federal Agencies (2008, background): “…that ‘‘there is evidence of a high correlation between perceptual and objective measures at the organizational level’’ and found that ‘‘measures of perceived organizational performance were correlated positively to objective measures of organizational performance’’ (e.g., see Kim 2005, 250).”
HRM Practices, Intrinsic Motivators, and Organizational Performance in the Public Sector (2013, methodology): “Therefore, indices of dispersion were controlled (standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness) and thresholds were not met according to Kline’s (2005) cutoff criteria.”
The Dimensions of Public Service Motivation and Sector Work Preferences (2012, background): “Others have found PSM to be correlated with job satisfaction (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Naff & Crum, 1999), organizational commitment (Crewson, 1997), the likelihood of whistle blowing (Brewer & Selden, 1998), and both individual and organizational performance (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Frank & Lewis, 200”
When Does Public Service Motivation Fuel the Job Satisfaction Fire? The Joint Moderation of Person–Organization Fit and Needs–Supplies Fit (2015, background): “2008), job performance (Alonso and Lewis 2001; Frank and Lewis 2004; Leisink and Steijn 2009), and organization performance (Brewer et al. 2000; Kim 2005; Ritz 2009).”
Public Service Motivation, User Orientation, and Job Satisfaction: A Question of Employment Sector? (2013, background): “So which jobs allow an individual to succeed in contributing to society? The literature assumes that PSM is primarily associated with job satisfaction in the public sector (e.g., Bright 2008; Kim 2005; Steijn 2008; Taylor 2008), but this is not necessarily true.”
Sense of community, sense of community responsibility, organizational commitment and identification, and public service motivation: a simultaneous test of affective states on employee well-being and engagement in a public service work context (2020, methodology): “Similarly, Kim (2012) found evidence that the role of PSM in predicting”
Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry's Measurement Instrument (2008, background): “As an independent variable, PSM has been linked to performance, on both the individual level (Naff and Crum 1999 ; Alonso and Lewis 2001 ) and organizational level (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999 ; Kim 2005 ).”
Public sector motivation ad fonts : Personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest (2017, background): “The Public Administration literature acknowledges the importance of individual characteristics for several organizational processes and outcomes (see, e.g., Esteve et al., 2013; Kim, 2005; Lipsky, 1980).”
Does Leadership Style Make a Difference? Linking HRM, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance (2014, background): “…on the public sector, a number of studies have explored the relationship between HRM (Element 1) and HRM outcomes (Element 2; for example, Gould-Williams, 2004; Steijn, 2004) and between HRM outcomes (Element 2) and organizational performance (Element 3; for example, Kim, 2005; Ostroff, 1992).”
Crowding out intrinsic motivation in the public sector (2011, background): “Other studies supporting the presence of intrinsic motivation among public sector employees include Lyons, Duxbury, and Higgins (2006), Dilulio (1994), Kim (2005), Houston (2000, 2006), and Feeney (2008).”
Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands (2009, background): “An interesting study of organizational performance was carried out by Kim (2005).”