JPART

15:245
261

Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance in Government Organizations
Sangmook Kim
Seoul National University of Technology
ABSTRACT
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:10.1093/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.

246 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Figure 1
Theoretical Model of Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance

them to organizational-level performance. Then I will empirically

test the hypothesized
relationships.
First of all, this research reviews recent efforts on individuallevel factors, which
seem to be important to predict organizational performance.
Second, I explore the theoretical model predicting organizational performance with
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 organizational performance: job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, public service motivation, and organizational
citizenship behavior.
Public employees with high levels in these factors will be more
willing to work toward
organizational goals and objectives and give their services
wholeheartedly to the organization and to the public, hence promoting organizational
performance. Thus public organizations that have employees with high levels in these factors will
achieve better

performance.
It should be noted that the nature of the causal direction is
debatable. Organizational
performance could lead to satisfaction and commitment, in that
public employees in higherperforming organizations become more satisfied, committed, and
motivated than those in
organizations with poor performance. In this study, only the simple
relationship between the
two will be investigated.
Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional

state, resulting from the
appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke 1976, 1304). Job
satisfaction is an
affective or emotional response toward various facets of ones job.
Most scholars recognize
that job satisfaction is a global concept that also comprises various
facets (Judge et al.
2001a).
The topic of job satisfaction is important because of its
implications for job-related
variables. Job satisfaction is positively correlated with motivation,
job involvement,

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 247

organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, life

satisfaction, mental
health, and job performance. It is negatively related to absenteeism,
turnover, and perceived stress (Judge et al. 2001a; Kreitner and Kinicki 2001, 3334;
Spector 1997).
However, the relationship between job satisfaction and
performance is controversial.
In a meta-analysis, accumulating results from seventy-four studies with
a total subject pool
of 12,192, there was only a small positive relationship between
satisfaction and performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985). But researchers have
identified several key
reasons that this result is misleading and understates the true
relationship between satisfaction and performance (Judge et al. 2001b). A new meta-analysis was
conducted on 312
samples with a combined pool of 54,417 and found that the mean true
correlation between
overall job satisfaction and job performance was estimated to be 0.30
(Judge et al. 2001b).
Using the data collected from 298 schools and 13,808 teachers, Ostroff
(1992) supported
the positive relationships between employee satisfaction and
organizational performance.
Using a sample from public and private workers in the United Arab
Emirates, Yousef
(1998) found that the more the employees are satisfied with the security
of their jobs, the
better their performance in their jobs. Thus it is possible to assume that
organizational
performance will be improved by increasing public employees job
satisfaction.
Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment may be defined as the relative strength of

an individuals
identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization.
Commitment represents

something beyond mere passive loyalty to an organization. It involves

an active relationship with the organization, such that individuals are willing to give
something of
themselves in order to contribute to the organizations well being.
Hence, commitment 1
could be inferred not only from the expressions of an individuals
beliefs and opinions but
also from his or her actions (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). It can
be characterized by
at least three factors: (a) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the
organizations goals and
values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization; and (c)
a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Porter et al.
1974, 604).
Two views of organizational commitment dominate the literature:
the attitudinal
approach and the behavioral approach. The attitudinal approach sees
commitment as an
attitude re ecting 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 attachment not to an organization but to
their own actions
(Liou and Nyhan 1994; Robertson and Tang 1995).
Angle and Perry (1981) identified two subscales: value
commitment, which re ected
a commitment to support organizational goals, and commitment to stay,
which re ected
a desire to retain organizational membership. Meyer and Allen (1984)
used the terms
affective commitment and continuance commitment to measure the
attitudinal and behavioral 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.
Some scholars have attached different labels to the same entity, such as sense of mission,
character,
1

distinctive competence, essence, reputation, and strong culture. For a useful review of the
muddy
conceptual waters surrounding the concept of organizational commitment, see DiIulio (1994).

248 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Affective commitment refers to the employees 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
re ects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. OReilly
and Chatman (1986) also
developed a scale to measure three definitions of commitment,
including compliance,
identification, and internalization commitment. Balfour and
Wechsler (1996) distinguished
the three dimensions of organizational commitment as affiliation,
identification, and
exchange commitment. However, empirical studies have not yet
shown significant support
for using a three-dimensional definition of organizational
commitment (Allen and Meyer
1990; Balfour and Wechsler 1990).
Research has found that highly committed employees may
perform better than 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
continuance or normative commitment. Researchers express 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
correlated positively,
while continuance commitment correlated negatively, with the
performance of 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 performance ratings (Angle and Lawson 1994; Shore
and Wayne 1993).
The empirical results support the importance of affective
commitment in the public
organization (Liou and Nyhan 1994; Romzek 1989, 1990). Public
employees commitment
is primarily based on their emotional attachment to, identification
with, and involvement in
their public organizations. Thus, I can assume that only affective
commitment will affect
organizational performance.
Public Service Motivation

Perry and Wise defined public service motivation as an

individuals predisposition to
respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public
institutions and organizations (1990, 368). They identified three bases of public
service motivation: rational,
norm based, and affective. Rational motives are grounded in
individual utility maximization, norm-based motives are grounded in a desire to pursue
the common good and
further the public interest, and affective motives are grounded in
human emotion. Various
rational, norm-based, and affective motives appear to be primarily
or exclusively
associated with public service. Rational motives are participation
in 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 are commitment to a program from a genuine
conviction about its social
importance and patriotism of benevolence. A recent study reveals
that all three types of
motives are important to public sector employees (Brewer, Selden,
and Facer 2000).
Perry and Wise (1990) formulated three propositions: First,
the greater an individuals
public sector motivation, the more likely it is that the individual

will seek membership in a

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 249

public organization. Second, in public organizations, public sector

motivation is positively
related to performance. Third, public organizations that attract members
with high levels of
public sector motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian
incentives to manage
individual performance effectively. Perry (1996) developed a survey
instrument to
measure six hypothesized dimensions of public service motivation:
attraction to 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 others and performing work that is worthwhile to
society. Crewson (1997)
found that public sector employees rate a feeling of accomplishment
and performing work
helpful to society and to others as more important job characteristics
than do private sector
employees. Naff and Crum (1999) found a significant relationship
between public service
motivation and federal employees job satisfaction, performance,
intention to remain in the
government, and support for the governments reinvention efforts.
Houston (2000) showed
that public service motivation does exist and that public employees are
more likely to place
a higher value on the intrinsic reward of work that is important and
provides a feeling of
accomplishment. In testing a comprehensive model, public service
motivation is a modestly
important predictor of organizational performance (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 and
performance are clearly
not yet robust (Alonso and Lewis 2001). It is meaningful to examine the
relationship

between public service motivation and organizational performance.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as individual

behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in
the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the
organization (Organ
1988, 4). Organizational citizenship behaviors include working beyond
required job duties
(such as assisting others with their tasks), promoting a positive work
environment,
avoiding unnecessary con icts, being involved in organizational
activities, and performing
tasks beyond normal role requirements. The practical importance of
organizational citizenship behavior is that such behaviors improve efficiency and
effectiveness in both public
and private organizations.
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) used sixteen items for measuring
citizenship behavior,
which consists of two fairly interpretable and distinct factorsaltruism
and generalized
compliance. Altruism is defined as helping coworkers personally, such
as assisting a
coworker to lift a heavy load. Generalized compliance is impersonal
helpful behavior, such
as being on time and not wasting time on the job.
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.
Sportsmanship indicates that people do not complain and have positive
attitudes. Courtesy
means that they treat others with respect.
It has been argued that organizational citizenship behaviors
facilitate organizational
performance by lubricating the social machinery of organizations
(Smith, Organ, and Near

250 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

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,
Turnley, 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 restaurant chain, Koys (2001) showed that
organizational citizenship behavior in uences profitability. Thus I can assume that
there is a positive
relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
organizational performance.
Organizational Performance

Organizational performance is hard to measure in the public sector.

Brewer and Selden
(2000, 689) propose a measure of organizational performance
based on the perceptions of
the organizations members. Traditionally, objective data have been
preferred for evaluating performance. Objective data have been believed to be less
biased but are not always
available, especially in the public sector. When objective
performance data are not
available, subjective (i.e., perceptual) performance measures may
be a reasonable alternative (Allen and Helms 2002; Delaney and Huselid 1996; Dess
and Robinson 1984;
Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, McIlwain, and Fottler
2001; Schmid 2002;
Venkatraman and Ramanujam 1987). Although there is always
some doubt cast upon selfreported and perceptual measures of performance, there is evidence
of a high correlation
between perceptual and objective measures at the organizational
level. Dess and Robinson
(1984) found a strong positive correlation between perceptual data

and financial performance measures. Other studies have also found measures of
perceived organizational
performance correlated positively to objective measures of
organizational performance
(Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, McIlwain, and Fottler
2001; Powell 1992;
Venkatraman and 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 researchers rely on a single indicator, there
seems to be a general
agreement that multiple internal (preferred by internal participants)
and external (preferred
by clients and citizens) criteria are needed for a more
comprehensive evaluation of
organizations (Cameron 1986; Connolly, Conlon, and Deutsch
1980).
Previous research 2
has tended to focus on narrow, efficiency-related measures of
performance and 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 organizational performance refers to whether
the agency does well in
discharging the administrative and operational functions pursuant
to the mission and
Epstein (1992) suggested that, for measuring the performance of a public service
organization, we need to look not
2

only inward to its own operations but also outward to the public. A comprehensive picture of the
performance of
a public service organization can be used to achieve external (or public) accountability as well as
internal (or
management) accountability for public service performance. Boschken (1992) developed
constituency-grounded
measures of performance in which constituencies and performances are classified into organizationcentered and social
programcentered categories. Wolf (1997) also used both outcome-oriented criteria and operationoriented criteria for
evaluating performance. Multiple internal and external criteria are needed for a more
comprehensive evaluation of
organizational performance (Jobson and Schneck 1982).

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 251
Table 1
Background of Respondents and Population
Demographic Variables Characteristics Respondents (%)
(%) a
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
Educational Background High school diploma or under 17.0 34.8
Junior college diploma (2 yrs) 15.8 19.5
Undergraduate degree (4 yrs) 52.7 40.0
Graduate degree or more 14.5 5.7
Length of Service 010 yrs 35.2 45.0
1020 yrs 41.9 29.9
20 yrs 22.8 25.1
Hierarchical Rank
Grade 4 or higher 3.8 2.9 b
Grade 5 15.1 7.8
Grade 6 27.1 22.7
Grade 7 28.4 30.4
Grade 8 or lower 25.5 36.2

Population

Not e : T he nu mbe r of re s pon de nt s i s 1 ,7 39 a nd t ha t of t he po pul a t i on i s 27 5, 046. T he pop ul at i on is ba se d o n t

he publ i c e mpl oye e c e ns us t ha t i s
c ondu c te d e v er y fiv e y e ar s (M i ni st ry o f Go ve rnme nt A dmi ni st ra t i on a nd H ome A ffa i rs 1998) .
a N o a nsw e r i s e xc l ud e d.
b G ra de 1 i s t he h ig he st l e ve l in th e K ore a n c i vi l se rv i ce .

whether the agency actually produces the actions and outputs pursuant
to the mission or the
institutional mandate. The agencys internal management and operation
have 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-related values:
efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. Organizational performance is
assumed to be
affected by individual-level variables.
DATA AND METHODS

The model and hypotheses are tested using data from the 2001 survey of
Park et al. (2001).
The participants2,000 permanent full-time public employees in nine
central government

agencies, five provincial government agencies, and twenty-six lowerlevel local government agencies in the Republic of Koreawere given surveys to
complete during regular
working hours in 2001; 1,739 completed surveys were returned,
yielding a response rate of
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 distribution of respondents sex, age, educational
background, length of
service, and hierarchical rank, compared with these data for the whole
civil service.
The appendix describes how the independent and dependent
variables are operationalized and reports means and standard deviations for each survey
item. Respondents
were asked to respond to items on a five-point scale, representing strong
disagreement (1)

252 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Table 2
The Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Administrativ
e Values
Efficiency Effectiveness Fairness
Organizational Focus Internal Internal Efficiency Internal Effectiveness Internal
Fairness
External External Efficiency External Effectiveness
External Fairness
Sour c e : Bre w e r a nd S el d en (2000 , 68 9).

to strong agreement (5). Thus a 3 represented indifference, that

is, neither agreement nor
disagreement.
Twelve questions were used to measure the dependent
variable, perceived organizational performance (a 5 0.8735). These items provide a broad
assessment of perceived organizational performance by tapping each dimension of
the concept shown in
table 2.
I operationalize job satisfaction with Masons (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,
overall job satisfaction, and company satisfaction (a 5 0.7787). I
use the average value of
all ten items to capture the degree of job satisfaction.
Affective commitment is evaluated by the three items with
the highest factor loading
of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Meyer,
Allen, and Smith 1993). The
scale reliability coefficient was 0.7806. For public 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 (a 5 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
represent altruism, as in this
study, and nine items represent generalized compliance. But the
other items in the category
of generalized compliance, except two, are excluded, since some
are not applicable in the
context of Korean government and some are overlapped. The scale
reliability coefficient
was 0.7931.
Demographic characteristics may in uence organizational
performance. To reduce
the possibility of spurious statistical in uence, I also measured
demographic control
variables: gender, age, educational background, length of service,
and hierarchical rank.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The organizational performance of government organizations in

Korea was measured with
twelve items of six dimensions, as in the appendix. The mean
scores for internal factors are
lower than those for external ones. The average values of the two
questions in each
category are 3.20 in internal efficiency, 3.45 in internal
effectiveness, and 3.00 in internal
fairness and 3.48 in external efficiency, 3.67 in external
effectiveness, and 3.70 in external
I performed confirmatory factor analysis to see whether these five questions could be
collapsed into a single index.
3

Only one factor had an eigenvalue (2.506) higher than one and explained 50.1 percent of the
variance. The factor
loadings on the five questions were from 0.585 to 0.775.

Kim
Individual-Level
Factors
Organizational Performance 253

and

Table 3
Predicting Organizational Performance
Model 1 (b) Model 2
(b)
Control Variables
Gender 0.098** 0.080**
Age
0.045 0.013
Education 0.008 0.020
Length of service 0.161*** 0.073*
Hierarchical rank 0.030 0.100***
Individual-Level Variables
Job satisfaction
Affective commitment
Public service motivation
Organizational citizenship behavior
Change in R
0.052 0.318 2
F Change 15.276*** 174.383***
R
0.052 0.370 2
F Value 15.276*** 90.234***
N
1,392 1,392

0.360***
0.103***
0.073**
0.198***

Not e : Ca t e go ri es for g en de r a re c ode d a s f ol l ows : 0 5 ma l e a nd 1 5 fe ma le .

*p , .05 ; * *p , . 01; ** *p , . 001 .

fairness. The lowest means of all are for the two internal fairness items.
That the responses
about internal matters are lower or less favorable than the responses
about external matters
suggests that Korean public employees, like the American federal
employees in the Brewer
and Selden (2000) study, perceive that the external factors, such as
customers, receive
better attention and treatment than internal factors, such as fairness.
This in turn suggests
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 individuallevel factors
were confirmed. I found a positive correlation between job satisfaction
and affective
commitment (r 5 0.629, p , .01), as well as between public service
motivation and job
satisfaction (r 5 0.459, p , .01) and between organizational citizenship

behavior and job

satisfaction (r 5 0.380, p , .01). Public service motivation and affective
commitment
were significantly correlated (r 5 0.479, p , .01). Organizational
citizenship behavior is
also positively correlated with public service motivation (r 5 0.555, p , .
01) and similarly
with affective commitment (r 5 0.399, p , .01).
The statistical method employed is hierarchical regression, which
resembles stepwise
regression, except that independent variables are evaluated in a
sequence theoretically
predetermined by the researcher on theoretical grounds, rather than in
order of 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 procedure provides a
unique partitioning
of the total variance accounted for in a dependent variable by a set of
predictors. Any
significant change in R resulting from the final step is due to unique
contribution because 2
confounding or spurious in uences have been removed.

254 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Table 3 reports the results of hierarchical regression analysis.

The initial equation 4
regressed organizational performance on the five control variables.
The demographic 5
characteristics resulted in a highly significant (p , .001) 5.2 percent
change in R
for 2
organizational performance. However, gender and the length of
service accounted for the
change. In Model 2, the addition of the four individual-level
variables resulted in a highly
significant (p , .001) change of 31.8 percent in R
for
organizational performance. 2
Thus the individual-level variables had the significant relationships
to organizational
performance.
I examined the standardized coefficients in order to estimate
the relative importance of
each individual-level variable that affectsorganizational
performance. All four variables have
statistically significant effects on organizational performance. The
most in uential variable is
job satisfaction (b 5 0.360), and the next is organizational
citizenship behavior (b 5 0.198).
The findings also indicate that affective commitment (b 5 0.103)
and public service
motivation (b 5 0.073) contribute to organizational performance.
Thus job satisfaction is
a powerful predictor of organizational performance in government
organizations.
This study clarifies the effect of individual-level factors on
organizational performance. Job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service
motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior in uence organizational
performance. The present results
can be compared with previous research findings.
This study confirms that organizational performance will be
improved by increasing
public employees job satisfaction. Thus it supports the findings of
Ostroff (1992), Yousef
(1998), and Judge et al. (2001b). It also demonstrates that affective
commitment is related

to organizational performance. Thus it supports the research

findings of Meyer et al. (1989)
and Somers and Birnbaum (2000). The present result indicates that
public service motivation will affect organizational performance; thus the findings of
Naff and Crum (1999)
and Brewer and Selden (2000) are confirmed. Also verified is
Rainey and Steinbauers
(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 important cause of good
organizational performance. Government agencies can be more successful when they
value their employees
and they view people not as a cost but as an asset. Government
leaders are urged to have
a better understanding of the importance of public employees in
organizations. This result
also supports the 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 harder and 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
There were no problems of multicollinearity among variables specified in the model.
4

I included only respondents who answered all relevant survey questions.

5

Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) uncovered the seven people-centered practices in successful
companies: job security,
6

careful hiring, self-managed teams and decentralization, generous pay for performance, extensive
training, reduction
of status differences, and sharing information.

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 255

These findings are also meaningful in the Korean context. Over

the five-year period
from 1997 to 2002 the Korean government introduced major reforms to
create a small and
efficient but better serving government. The first stage of the Korean
reforms concentrated on reducing the size of the public sector and streamlining the
bureaucracy
through downsizing and privatization initiatives. In the relatively short
space of just four
years since 1998, a reduction of 20 percent of the total public sector
employment at the end
of 1997 was achieved. The government evaluated that this is a truly
remarkable
achievement, especially considering the low labor market mobility and
transferability
among jobs in Korea, as well as the employment culture that regards
public sector jobs as
practically lifelong tenured (Ministry of Planning and Budget 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 certain age were dismissed regardless of their competence or
performance. This practice
seems to negatively affect public employees attitude and 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 that promote positive employee attitudes.
CONCLUSION

Brewer and Selden (2000) broadened the concept of organizational

performance to include
internal and external dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, and
fairness; and they tested
common elements of existing theoretical frameworks empirically in the
public sector. Follow-

ing their research, this study elaborates the relationship between

individual-level factors and
organizational performance and tests it empirically in the government
agencies of Korea.
The present study shows the same trend in organizational
performance as the findings
of Brewer and Selden (2000): perceived internal efficiency and fairness
are lower than the
other dimensions of organizational performance in both the United
States and Korea. Thus
I can say that, like the U.S. respondents, the Korean public employees
perceived lower
levels of internal fairness and efficiency than of external dimensions of
performance. Since
public employees are most critical and central for implementing public
policies and
delivering public service, and since the agencys operations have
contributed substantially
to the achievement of its mission and goals (Rainey and Steinbauer
1999), this suggests the
need for more attention to this lower level of perceived fairness and
efficiency.
I verified that the individual-level factors are important predictors
of organizational
performance. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) hypothesized that the
several forms of
motivation play a significant role in determining agency effectiveness.
Brewer and Selden
(2000) showed that their particular individual-level variablessuch as
the structure of
task/work, task motivation, public service motivation, and individual
performance
were modestly important predictors 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 important to predicting organizational performance in the
public sector.
This study has several limitations. First, the results from this study

cannot fully address the causality issue. Although the individual-level variables were
treated as predictors

256 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

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 organizational performance is widely acknowledged, the measurement of
organizational performance is one of the most difficult issues in the public sector. There
is a need for researchers
to compare employee perceptions of an organizations performance
with objective data in
order to 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 organizational
performance.
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
organizational performance in both the United States and Korea. It
also has a number of
practical implications. It is clear that managers need to treat public
employees with respect
and with fair and equitable manners and that they need to use their
employees knowledge
and skills in looking for ways to become more efficient. Managers
should also know how to
better manage and promote employees satisfaction and attitudes,
such as job satisfaction,
affective commitment, public service motivation, and
organizational citizenship behavior,
in order to improve organizational performance. Future research
should continue to

explicate the relationship

organizational performance.

of

individual-level

APPENDIX
SURVEY ITEMS AND STATISTICS
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Dependent Variable

FOR

factors

DEPENDENT

to

AND

Organizational Performance (Alpha 5 0.8735)

(Internal efficiency) My organization has made good use of my

knowledge and skills in
looking for ways to become more efficient. (mean 5 3.11, std 5
0.89)
(Internal efficiency) My organization is trying to reduce cost in
managing organization
and performing works. (mean 5 3.28, std 5 0.86)
(Internal effectiveness) In the past two years, the productivity of my
work unit has
improved. (mean 5 3.37, std 5 0.80)
(Internal effectiveness) Overall, the quality of work performed by
my current coworkers
in my immediate work group is high. (mean 5 3.52, std 5 0.79)
(Internal fairness) My organization provides fair and equitable
treatment for
employees and applicants in all aspects of personnel management
without regard to their
political affiliation, sex, hometown, marital status, age, or
handicapping condition.
(mean 5 2.98, std 5 1.03)
(Internal fairness) In general, all are treated with respect in my
organization, with no
regard to status and grade. (mean 5 3.02, std 5 0.96)

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 257

(External efficiency) My organization has conducted business relations

with outside
customers very promptly. (mean 5 3.39, std 5 0.84)
(External efficiency) It is rare to make big mistakes in my organization
when conducting
work. (mean 5 3.57, std 5 0.78)
(External effectiveness) The work performed by my work unit provides
the public
a worthwhile return on their tax dollars. (mean 5 3.74, std 5 0.83)
(External effectiveness) The occurrence of goal attainment is very high in
my
organization. (mean 5 3.59, std 5 0.75)
(External fairness) My organization provides fair and equitable services
to the public,
with no considering of their individual backgrounds. (mean 5 3.83, std 5
0.81)
(External fairness) The customer satisfaction toward my organization is
very high.
(mean 5 3.56, std 5 0.78)
Independent Variables
Job Satisfaction (Alpha 5 0.7787)

My job provides a chance to do challenging and interesting work. (mean

5 2.87,
std 5 0.94)
My superior gives me the information I need to do a good job. (mean 5
3.25, std 5 0.91)
My pay compares fairly with the pay of people doing similar work in this
organization.
(mean 5 3.17, std 5 1.03)
Most employees give their best effort in doing their jobs. (mean 5 3.70,
std 5 0.83)
My pay compares fairly with the pay of people doing similar work in
other organizations.
(mean 5 1.99, std 5 0.86)
My supervisor shows me respect as an individual. (mean 5 3.50, std 5
0.93)
I have a clear understanding of how my performance is judged. (mean 5
2.94,
std 5 0.96)
My organization takes employee interests/concerns into account in
making important
decisions. (mean 5 3.01, std 5 0.91)

I feel good about my jobthe kind of work I do. (mean 5 3.16, std 5
0.91)
Overall, my organization is a good place to work. (mean 5 3.26, std 5
0.92)
Affective Commitment (Alpha 5 0.7806)

I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (mean 5 3.52, std 5

0.88)
My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. (mean 5
3.18, std 5 0.92)
I feel like part of the family in my organization. (mean 5 2.96, std 5 0.92)

258 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Public Service Motivation (Alpha 5 0.7479)

The work I do as a civil servant on my job is very important to me.

(mean 5 3.48,
std 5 0.84)
I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I
will be ridiculed.
(mean 5 3.40, std 5 0.83)
Making a difference in society means more to me than personal
achievements.
(mean 5 3.45, std 5 0.84)
I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society.
(mean 5 3.34,
std 5 0.87)
I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are
on one another.
(mean 5 3.53, std 5 0.79)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Alpha 5 0.7931)

I assist my supervisor with his or her work. (mean 5 3.76, std 5

0.67)
I make innovative suggestions to improve my department. (mean 5
3.04, std 5 0.81)
I volunteer for things that are not required. (mean 5 3.17, std 5
0.81)
I orient new people even though it is not required. (mean 5 3.68, std
5 0.74)
I help others who have been absent. (mean 5 3.42, std 5 0.76)
I attend functions that are not required but that help organization
image. (mean 5 3.69,
std 5 0.71)
I help others who have heavy workloads. (mean 5 3.58, std 5 0.69)
I do not spend time in idle conversation. (mean 5 3.42, std 5 0.80)
I do not take extra breaks. (mean 5 3.55, std 5 0.78)
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology 63:118.
Allen, R. S., and M. M. Helms. 2002. Employee perceptions of the relationship
between strategy, rewards
and organizational performance. Journal of Business Strategies 19:11539.
Alonso, P., and G. Lewis. 2001. Public service motivation and job performance:
Evidence fromthe federal

sector. American Review of Public Administration 31:36380.

Angle, H. L., and M. B. Lawson. 1994. Organizational commitment and employees
performance ratings:
Both type of commitment and type of performance count. Psychological
Reports 75:153951.
Angle, H. L., and J. L. Perry. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 26:113.
Au, C. 1996. Rethinking organizational effectiveness: Theoretical and
methodological issues in the study
of organizational effectiveness for social welfare organizations.
Administration in Social Work
20:121.

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 259
Balfour, D. L., and B. Wechsler. 1990. Organizational commitment: A reconceptualization
and empirical
test of publicprivate differences. Review of Public Personnel Administration
10:2340.
. 1996. Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public
organizations. Public
Productivity and Management Review 19:25677.
Bolino, M. C., W. H. Turnley, and J. M. Bloodgood. 2002. Citizenship behavior and the
creation of social
capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review 27 (4): 50522.
Boschken, H. L. 1992. Analyzing performance skewness in public agencies: The case of
urban mass
transit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2:26588.
Brewer, G. A., and S. C. Selden. 2000. Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting
organizational
performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 10 (4):
685711.
Brewer, G. A., S. C. Selden, and R. L. Facer II. 2000. Individual conceptions of public
service motivation.
Public Administration Review 60 (3): 25464.
Cameron, K. S. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and con ict in conceptions of
organizational
effectiveness. Management Science 32:53953.
Chiu, W. C. K., and C. W. Ng. 1999. Women-friendly HRM and organizational
commitment: A study
among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupational
and
Organizational Psychology 72:485502.
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral
science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connolly, T., E. J. Conlon, and S. J. Deutsch. 1980. Organizational effectiveness: A
multiple-constituency
approach. Academy of Management Review 5:21117.
Crewson, P. E. 1997. Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence
and effect.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:499518.
Delaney, J. T., and M. A. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resource management
practices on
perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal
39:94969.
Dess, G., and R. Robinson. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective
measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business units.
Strategic
Management Journal 5:26573.
DiIulio, J. D., Jr. 1994. Principled agents: The cultural bases of behavior in a federal
government
bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4:277318.
Dollinger, M. J., and P. A. Golden. 1992. Interorganizational and collective strategies in

small firms:
Environmental effects and performance. Journal of Management 18:695715.
Epstein, P. D. 1992. Measuring the performance of public services. In Public productivity
handbook, ed.
M. Holzer, 16193. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Forbes, D. P. 1998. Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit
organization
effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27:183
202.
Houston, D. J. 2000. Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public
Administration
Research and Theory 10:71327.
Iaffaldano, M. T., and P. M. Muchinsky. 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 97 (2): 25173.
Jobson, J. D., and R. Schneck. 1982. Constituent views of organizational effectiveness:
Evidence from
police organizations. Academy of Management Journal 25:2546.
Judge, T. A., S. Parker, A. E. Colbert, D. Heller, and R. Ilies. 2001a. Job satisfaction: A
cross-cultural
review. In Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Vol. 2, ed.
N. Anderson, D.
S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran, 2552. London: Sage.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001b. The job satisfactionjob
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin
127 (3):
376407.
Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,
and turnover
on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology 54 (1):
10114.
Kreitner, R., and A. Kinicki. 2001. Organizational behavior. 5th ed. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.

260 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Larson, E. W., and C. V. Fukami. 1984. Relationships between worker behavior and
commitment to the
organization and union. Academy of Management Proceedings 34:22226.
Liou, K., and R. C. Nyhan. 1994. Dimensions of organizational commitment in the
public sector: An
empirical assessment. Public Administration Quarterly 18:99118.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In Handbook of
industrial and organizational
psychology, ed. M. D. Dunnette, 12971343. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mason, E. S. 1995. Gender differences in job satisfaction. Journal of Social
Psychology 135:14347.
McCracken, M. J., T. F. McIlwain, and M. D. Fottler. 2001. Measuring
organizational performance in the
hospital industry: An exploratory comparison of objective and subjective
methods. Health Services
Management Research 14:21119.
Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1984. Testing the side-bet theory of organizational
commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:372
78.
. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource
Management Review 1 (1): 6189.
Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen, and C. A. Smith. 1993. Commitment to organizations and
occupations:
Extension and rest of a three component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology
78:53851.
Meyer, J. P., S. V. Paunonen, I. R. Gellatly, and R. D. Goffin. 1989. Organizational
commitment and job
performance: Its the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology
74 (1): 15256.
Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. 1998. Public employee
statistics. Seoul,
Korea: Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.
Ministry of Planning and Budget. 2003. How Korea reformed the public sector.
Seoul, Korea:
Ministry of Planning and Budget.
Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. Dubin. 1974. Unit performance, situational
factors, and employee
attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance
12:23148.
Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, and L. W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of
organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (2): 22447.
Naff, K. C., and J. Crum. 1999. Working for America: Does public service
motivation make a difference?
Review of Public Personnel Administration 19:516.
OReilly, C. A., and J. A. Chatman. 1986. Organization commitment and
psychological attachment: The

effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology 71:49299.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Ostroff, C. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance:
An organizational
level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (6): 96374.
Park, C., J. Kang, K. Kwon, and S. Kim. 2001. A study on the potential productivity
of female public
servants in Korea. Korean Policy Studies Review 10 (3): 199224.
Perry, J. L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct
reliability and validity.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (1): 522.
Perry, J. L., and L. R. Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service.
PublicAdministration Review
50 (3): 36773.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first.
Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., and J. F. Veiga. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success.
Academy of Management
Executive 13 (2): 3747.
Podanskoff, P. M., and S. B. Mackenzie. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research.
Human Performance
10:13351.
Popovich, M. G. 1998. Creating high-performance government organizations. San
Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance 261
Porter, L. W., R. M. Steers, R. T. Mowday, and P. V. Boulian. 1974. Organizational
commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology 59:6039.
Powell, T. C. 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal
13:11934.
Rainey, H. G. 1982. Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of
the service
ethic. American Review of Public Administration 16:288302.
Rainey, H. G., and P. Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a
theory of effective
government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9
(1): 132.
Robertson, P. J., and S. Tang. 1995. The role of commitment in collective action:
Comparing the
organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives. Public Administration
Review 55:6780.
Romzek, B. S. 1989. Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of
Management Journal
32:64961.
. 1990. Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public
Administration Review
50:37482.
Schmid, H. 2002. Relationships between organizational properties and organizational
effectiveness in
three types of nonprofit human service organizations. Public Personnel
Management 31:37795.
Shore, L. M., and S. J. Wayne. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of
affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support.
Journal of
Applied Psychology 78:77480.
Smith, C. A., D. W. Organ, and J. P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4): 65363.
Somers, M., and D. Birnbaum. 2000. Exploring the relationship between commitment
profiles and work
attitudes, employee withdrawal, and job performance. Public Personnel
Management 29 (3):
35365.
Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Venkatraman, N., and V. Ramanujam. 1987. Measurement of business economic
performance: An
examination of method convergence. Journal of Management 13:10922.
Wittmer, D. 1991. Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among
government, hybrid
sector, and business managers. Public Productivity and Management Review
14:36983.
Wolf, P. J. 1997. Why must we reinvent the federal government? Putting historical
developmental claims

to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:35388.

Yousef, D. A. 1998. Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational
commitment and job
performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower 19
(3): 18494.

Copyright of Journal of Public Administration Research &

Theory is the property of Oxford University Press /
UK and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.