Does Person-Organization Fit Mediate the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and the Job Performance of Public Employees?

http://rop.sagepub.com/Administration

Review of Public Personnel

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X07307149

2007 27: 361Review of Public Personnel AdministrationLeonard Bright

Service Motivation and the Job Performance of Public Employees?Does Person-Organization Fit Mediate the Relationship Between Public

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Administration

Section on Personnel Administration and Labor Relations of the American Society for Public

can be found at:Review of Public Personnel AdministrationAdditional services and information for

http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rop.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361.refs.htmlCitations:

at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on April 13, 2014rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on April 13, 2014rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rop.sagepub.com/


http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361



http://www.aspaonline.org/spalr



http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://rop.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://rop.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://rop.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361.refs.html

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361.refs.html





What is This?

- Nov 9, 2007Version of Record >>

at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on April 13, 2014rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on April 13, 2014rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361.full.pdf

http://rop.sagepub.com/content/27/4/361.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





361

Review of Public PersonnelAdministration

Volume 27 Number 4December 2007 361-379© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0734371X07307149http://roppa.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Does Person-Organization Fit Mediate the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and the Job Performance of Public Employees?Leonard BrightUniversity of Louisville

Public service motivation (PSM) is argued to be a meaningful predictor of the perfor-mance of employees in public organizations. Many scholars predict that as the level ofPSM increases, the performance of public employees will also increase. Unfortunately,existing research has yet to fully support this hypothesis. Two published studies thattested this hypothesis have come to different conclusions. This study investigatedwhether Person–Organization Fit (P–O Fit) mediates the relationship between PSM andthe self-reported performance of public employees, using structural equation modeling.Using a sample of 205 public employees randomly drawn from three public organiza-tions, this study found that PSM had no significant direct impact on the performance ofpublic employees, when P–O Fit was taken into account. The implications of this studyand areas of future research are discussed.

Keywords: performance; person–organization fit; public service motivation

Interest in public service motivation (PSM) has grown significantly in recent yearsamong practitioners and scholars alike. Many desire to use the concept of PSM to

improve the selection, retention, and performance of public employees. Perry andWise (1990) proposed that a connection exists between PSM and the performance ofpublic employees. Two empirical studies have investigated the relationship betweenPSM and the performance of public employees; however, these studies came toopposite conclusions. It is my belief that Person–Organization Fit (P–O Fit) is themissing link that may explain these inconsistent findings. Consequently, the purposeof this article is to investigate the degree to which P–O Fit mediates the relationshipbetween PSM and the performance of public employees. This article begins byreviewing the literature on PSM and P–O fit. Next, the hypotheses in the current studyare presented. An explanation of the strategies used to test the hypotheses follow this

Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to Leonard Bright, University of Louisville, School of Urbanand Public Affairs, 426 West Bloom Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40208; e-mail: [email protected].

at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on April 13, 2014rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from



362 Review of Public Personnel Administration

discussion. Finally, this article concludes with a discussion of the findings and theirimplications for the field of public administration.

PSM

Over the years, PSM has been characterized in many different ways, such as aservice ethic, calling, and/or altruistic intentions that motivate individuals to serve thepublic interest. It is traditionally believed that having an interest in serving the publicleads some individuals into public service careers and away from monetary incentives(Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990). Unfortunately, many scholarshave only indirectly examined the influences of PSM on the behavior of individuals.One reason is that there was no acceptable way of operationalizing and measuringPSM. In place of a more direct approach, many scholars operationalized PSM usingvarious indirect proxies, such as employment sector, job preferences, organizationcommitment, and job satisfaction (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000). However, theseindirect approaches failed to separate PSM from other distinct concepts and outcomes.Thus, to advance research on PSM, the field needed a more valid way of measuringPSM in individuals.

One of the most important breakthroughs on PSM was the pioneering work ofPerry and Wise (1990) and Perry (1996). These scholars provided a conceptually sounddefinition of PSM, as well as a tool that could be used to measure the concept apartfrom other concepts such as job satisfaction, work preferences, and employmentsector. These scholars defined PSM as an individual’s predisposition to respond tomotives that are grounded uniquely in public organizations and institutions. Theyhypothesized that PSM is related to a range of attitudes and behaviors of publicemployees. Building on this framework, Perry (1996) went on to develop the onlyknown measurement scale that empirically measures PSM in individuals. How havescholars used these theoretical and methodological advances to improve our knowledgeof the influences of PSM on important organizational outcomes?

There is evidence that PSM is connected to public employees’ work preferences,job satisfaction, perceptions of red tape, whistle-blowing activities, and tenure in publicorganizations. For example, three studies have found strong connections between PSMand the monetary and nonmonetary work preferences of public employees (Brewer,Selden, & Facer, 2000; Bright, 2005, in press). In these studies, public employeeswith high levels of PSM were less interested in monetary opportunities and moreinterested in nonmonetary opportunities. Also, PSM has been linked to the job satis-faction and turnover intentions of public employees. Naff and Crum (1999) foundthat individuals with high levels of PSM were more satisfied and less likely to leavepublic organizations when compared with their counterparts with lower levels ofPSM. In a more recent study, Scott and Pandey (2005) determined that PSM is linkedto employees’ perception of red tape. These scholars found that public managers who




reported having high levels of PSM were more tolerant of bureaucratic regulations (redtape) than were their counterparts. There is also evidence that PSM is connected tothe tendency of public employees to report wrongdoing (Brewer & Selden, 1998). Last,scholars also found that PSM is negatively related to organizational tenure (Moynihan& Pandey, 2007). They found that the longer employees worked in public organizations,the lower their level of PSM was.

The Performance Question

Is there evidence that PSM influences the job performance of public employees?According to Perry and Wise (1990), “In public organizations, PSM is positivelyrelated to individual performance” (p. 370). Unfortunately, even though Frank andLewis (2004) found that most government employees rate their work effort highly,the literature differs on the connection that PSM has to these ratings. For example,Naff and Crum (1999) found that public employees with high levels of PSM reportedreceiving higher performance ratings than their counterparts did. However, in a morerecent study, Alonso and Lewis (2001) found contradictory results using preexistingdata from two large data samples of federal employees. These scholars found thatalthough PSM was positively related to performance appraisals in one sample ofemployees, no relationship was found in the other sample. They also determined thatPSM was negatively related to the grade level of federal employees. Taken together,the results of these studies offer no firm conclusion about the direct influences ofPSM on the performance of public employees. If PSM does influence the performanceof public employees, as Perry and Wise (1990) and others have argued, why havescholars failed to find consistent support for this connection?

P–O Fit

One area of research that may provide an explanation for the mixed findings inthe public administration literature with regard to the relationship between PSM andthe performance of public employees is P–O Fit. P–O fit is one of the most popularareas of research in the general management and organizational behavior fields. Thisdomain of research captures the congruence between the characteristics of individuals(i.e., goals, skills, and values) and the characteristics of organizations (i.e., goals, values,resources, and culture). Congruence between individuals and organizations is achievedin two ways: supplementary or complementary. Supplementary congruence is achievedwhen the characteristics of individuals and organizations are similar to each other,whereas complementary congruence is achieved when the characteristics of individ-uals and organizations add something that is missing to make each other whole(Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). For example, from a supplementarystandpoint, congruence is achieved when organizations attract individuals who have

Bright / Person–Organization Fit and Job Performance 363




similar goals and values to their own. On the other hand, complementary congruenceis achieved when the salient unmet needs of individuals are satisfied by the resourcesand tasks that are provided by organizations. In either case, the literature proves thatP–O Fit has positive benefits on a range of employee attitudes and behaviors (Bretz &Judge, 1994; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Vancouver& Schmitt, 1991). Thus, as the congruence between individuals and organizationsincreases, employees become more satisfied, committed, and productive.

Study Hypotheses

Moreover, after a review of the P–O fit literature, it is my belief that the mixedfindings regarding the relationship between PSM and the performance of publicemployees are due to the failure of scholars to consider the congruence betweenindividuals and public organizations. Although PSM may influence the performanceof public employees, these influences are mediated by employees’ compatibilitywith their organization. In other words, PSM influences the performance of publicemployees by increasing the congruence between individuals and public organiza-tions. Employees with high levels of PSM will perform the best in public-sectorwork environments that fulfill their salient needs and support their abilities andskills. Even more, the positive connection between PSM and P–O Fit is supportedby prominent PSM scholars. For example, according to Perry and Wise (1990), “Thegreater an individual’s public service motivation, the more likely the individual willseek membership in a public organization” (p. 370). This suggests that individualsare attracted to organizational settings that are the most compatible with their charac-teristics. Using this line of reasoning, it can be argued that individuals with high levelsof PSM are attracted to public organizations because these organizations contain jobtasks and working conditions that support their public service motives. Subsequently,the P–O fit literature strongly suggests that individuals who are compatible with thecharacteristics of their organization will have higher performance than individualswho are less compatible. It is this line of reasoning that leads some to conclude thatPSM is directly connected to the performance of public employees.

Nevertheless, although there is theoretical evidence to suggest that PSM is positivelyrelated to the compatibility of individuals in public organizations, we cannot assumethat public employees with high levels of PSM will be compatible with all types ofpublic organizations. There are many kinds of public organizations that differ on factorssuch as their missions, goals, culture, resources, and job tasks. For example, the goalsand mission of the Department of Defense are very different from the goals and missionof the Department of Education. Similarly, public employees with high levels ofPSM can be different as well. This is supported by Brewer et al.’s (2000) discoveryof four unique clusters of individuals with high levels of PSM, each with its owndistinctive characteristics and needs. It is possible for employees to have high levels





of PSM with humanitarian leanings and be incompatible in public organizations withmilitarian (war-centered) missions and goals. Even Perry and Wise (1990) are open topossible mismatches between public organizations and individuals with high levelsof PSM. As Perry and Wise (1990) stated,

If individuals are drawn to public organizations because of the expectations they haveabout the rewards of public service but those expectations go unfulfilled, they are likelyeither to revise their preferences and objectives or seek membership in organizationscompatible with their interest. (p. 370)

Consequently, PSM is associated with performance insomuch as it positively enhancesthe compatibility of public employees in their organization. If this is the case, PSMis only indirectly associated with the job performance of public employees throughP–O fit. As a result, the following three hypotheses were tested in the current study:

Hypothesis 1: PSM will be positively related to P–O Fit. As the level of PSM in individualsincreases, individuals’ compatibility with public organizations will also increase.

Hypothesis 2: P–O Fit will be positively related to the job performance of public employees.As the compatibility between employees and their organization increases, individuals’ jobperformance will also increase.

Hypothesis 3: PSM will have no significant direct relationship to job performance when P–OFit is taken into account. P–O Fit will completely mediate the relationship between PSMand the job performance of public employees.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and five public employees (N = 205) took part in the current study. Theparticipants were randomly selected from a public health care agency, a city government,and a county jurisdiction located in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, and Oregon. Theseorganizations were chosen for the purpose of creating a diverse sample of participantswho represented a broad range of public sector occupations and localities. The respon-dents were mailed a survey to their office addresses with a self-addressed stampedreturn envelope to the author of the current study. The participants were given 2 weeksto complete the survey. Nearly 35% of the surveys distributed were returned. Therespondents represented a diverse mix of public sector occupations, some of whichincluded medical doctors, building inspectors, community health workers, registerednurses, police officers, management analysts, caseworkers, secretaries, social workers,district attorneys, librarians, maintenance workers, detectives, animal control workers,and engineers. As shown in Table 1, the respondents were also demographically diversein terms of their age, ethnicity, gender,1 and educational attainment.





PSM

PSM was measured using Perry’s (1996) 24-item revised scale. The respondentswere asked to rate their agreement with 24 questions about their interest in publicpolicy making, public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice from 1 (highly disagree)to 7 (highly agree). The responses were summed by each of the four categoriesdeveloped by Perry (1996).2 The summed categories were used as four observedindicators of PSM. The fit indices suggest that this scale has a good fit to the data(Normed Fit Index [NFI] = .958, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .967).3

P–O Fit

P–O fit was collected using direct measures rather than indirect measures. Directstrategies assess fit by directly asking the respondents for their perceptions of theirfit in their organization. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, assess fit by comparingseparate assessments of the respondents’ characteristics and the characteristics oftheir organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Empirical research has shown thatdirect measures are stronger and better predictors of employee outcomes than indirect


Table 1Description of the Respondent Sample (N == 205)

Frequency Percentage

Age average = 45Years in public sector average = 13Education level

Did not complete high school 1 .5High school diploma/General 15 7.3

Equivalency DiplomaSome college 47 22.9Associate degree/Technical certificate 37 18.0Bachelor’s degree 55 26.8Master’s degree or higher 45 22.0

GenderMale 77 37.6Female 127 62.0

Race/EthnicityAfrican American/Black 14 6.8Hispanic/Latino 5 2.4White/Caucasian 171 83.4Asian/Pacific 5 2.4Native American/Eskimo or Aleut 2 1.0Multiracial 2 1.0None of the above 0 0




measures (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Subsequently,in the current study, the participants were asked to indicate their agreement with thefollowing four statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): (a) Myvalues and goals are similar to the values and goals of my organization, (b) I am notvery comfortable within the culture of my organization (reverse scored), (c) I feel astrong sense of belonging to my organization, and (d) What this organization standsfor is very important to me (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). The responses to thesequestions were used as four observed indicators of P–O Fit. Fit indices suggest thatthis scale has a good fit to the data (NFI = .996; CFI = .999).

Job Performance

One question was used to measure the job performance of the respondents. Therespondents were asked the following question using a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excel-lent): What rating did you receive from your supervisor on your most recent perfor-mance appraisal on your current job this year? Although self-reported data is the mostwidely used measure of productivity (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Patchen, Pelz, &Allen, 1965), some may argue that a better way to collect performance data is from thephysical records of organizations that are matched to the respondent. Unfortunately,this would require the researchers to uncover the identities of the research participants.This strategy was not followed in the current study because the respondents weregranted complete anonymity. Given the nature of the questions that were asked in thesurvey, there was a strong likelihood that many of the respondents would have chosennot to take part in the study without anonymity.

Control Variables

Several control variables for performance were used in the current study: minoritystatus, age, gender, education level, and years of public sector experience. The minor-ity status of the participants was collected using the following multiple-choice question:How would you describe your racial or ethnic group? Minority participants werecoded as 0, whereas nonminority participants were coded as 1. The age of the respon-dents was measured using the following open-ended survey question: What yearwere you born? The year of birth was subsequently transformed into the approximateage by subtracting the year of birth from the year of this study, 2006. The gender ofthe participants was collected from the following multiple-choice survey question:What is your gender? Females were coded as 1 and males coded as 0. The level ofeducation of the participants was collected from the following multiple-choice surveyquestion: What is the highest level of education you have completed? These responseswere coded from 1 (did not complete high school) to 6 (master’s degree or higher).The years of public sector experience was collected from the following open-ended





survey question: How many years of experience do you have working in the publicsector?

Analysis Procedures

In addition to the data collection process, the data were analyzed in two stages. First,the data were examined to ensure that the assumptions of normality were upheld. Forexample, Curran, West, and Finch (1996) suggested that skewness ranges should be fewer than 2, and kurtosis ranges fewer than 7. All the variables used in the cur-rent study fell between these suggested ranges. Second, the data were analyzed usingstructuring equation modeling4 using AMOS.5 Figure 1 displays the conceptualmodel that was tested in the current study.6 This model will explore the relationshipsamong PSM, P–O Fit, and job performance, while taking into account the controlvariables. This model hypothesizes three relationships among these variables: (a)PSM will be positively related to fit, (b) fit will be positively related to performance,and (c) PSM will not have a significant relationship on performance. The results ofthe current study are displayed in Figure 2 and are discussed later. Statistical signif-icance was set at .05, two-tailed. All regression weights are standardized maximumlikelihood estimates.


Table 2Description of Study and Control Variables

Variable Name Variable Label N Mean

Public service motivation PSMPublic policy making POL 202 3.69Public interest INT 201 5.21Compassion COM 199 5.00Self-sacrifice SAC 199 4.96

Person–organization fit FITF1 F1 201 4.89F2 F2 202 5.11F3 F3 202 4.80F4 F4 200 5.75

Job performance PERFORM 179 3.98Control variables

Public sector experience TENURE 183 13.37Minority status RACE 199 .86Age AGE 196 45.04Education level EDU 200 4.33Gender GENDER 204 .62

Note: F1 = My values and goals are very similar to the values and goals of my organization; F2 = I amnot very comfortable within the culture of my organization; F3 = I feel a strong sense of “belonging” tomy organization; F4 = What this organization stands for is important to me.




Study Findings

Description of the Sample

The current study collected descriptive information regarding the respondents’organizational compatibility, PSM, and performance ratings. For example, when askeda series of questions about their compatibility with their organization, most of therespondents suggested that they were somewhat congruent with their organization.As shown in Table 3, 28% of the respondents agreed that their values and goals were


Note: SAC = self-sacrifice; COM = compassion; INT = public interest; POL = public policy making; PSM =public service motivation; FIT = person–organization fit; F1 = My values and goals are very similar tothe values and goals of my organization; F2 = I am not very comfortable within the culture of my organi-zation; F3 = I feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization; F4 = What this organization standsfor is important to me; PERFORM = job performance; e1 through e10 are error terms for their respectivevariable.

PERFORMPSM

POLe4

INTe3

COMe2

SACe1

FIT

F4

e8

F3

e7

F2

e6

F1

e5

e10

e9

Control Variables:Age

GenderEducation

TenureRace

Figure 1Conceptual Model




very similar to the values and goals of their organization. When asked if they agreedthat their organization stood for something important, 32% of the respondents agreed.Second, the study collected information regarding participants’ public service motivesusing Perry’s (1996) 24-item measurement scale. To maintain parsimony, the partic-ipants’ responses to the each of the survey items are not reviewed.

However, Table 4 provides the mean responses for each of the four subcategoriesdeveloped by Perry (1996): public policy making, public interest, compassion, andself-sacrifice. The current study reveals that the respondents had a moderately high


Table 3Responses to Person–Organization Fit


F1: My values and goals are very similar to the values and goals of my organization.Strongly disagree 7 3.5Disagree 10 5.0Somewhat disagree 19 9.5Neither 31 15.4Somewhat agree 54 26.9Agree 56 27.9Strongly agree 24 11.9

F2: I am not very comfortable within the culture of my organization. Strongly disagree 56 27.3Disagree 45 22.0Somewhat disagree 29 14.1Neither 39 19.0Somewhat agree 14 6.8Agree 9 4.4Strongly agree 10 4.9

F3: I feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization. Strongly disagree 11 5.4Disagree 16 7.8Somewhat disagree 15 7.3Neither 31 15.1Somewhat agree 51 24.9Agree 44 21.5Strongly agree 34 16.6

F4: What this organization stands for is important to me.Strongly disagree 4 2.0Disagree 3 1.5Somewhat disagree 5 2.5Neither 20 10.0Somewhat agree 33 16.5Agree 65 32.5Strongly agree 70 35.0




level of PSM. For example, the majority of the respondents somewhat agreed withquestions about the importance of self-sacrifice, compassion, and the public interest.However, the respondents were clearly less interested in the public policy–makingsubcategory of PSM. The majority of the respondents had little interest in the publicpolicy–making category of PSM.

Last, as shown in Table 5, the performance of the participants was high. Nearlyone half of the respondents suggested that they had received an excellent rating fromtheir supervisors on their most recent performance appraisal. However, as shown inTable 6, none of the control variables included in the current study was significantly


Table 4Responses to Perry’s (1996) Public Service Motivation Scale


SAC: Self-sacrificeStrongly disagree 0 0Disagree 1 .5Somewhat disagree 8 3.9Neither 47 22.9Somewhat agree 89 43.4Agree 49 23.9Strongly agree 5 2.4

COM: CompassionStrongly disagree 0 0Disagree 0 0Somewhat disagree 3 1.5Neither 42 20.5Somewhat agree 108 52.7Agree 43 21.0Strongly agree 3 1.5

INT: Public interestStrongly disagree 0 0Disagree 2 1.0Somewhat disagree 8 3.9Neither 34 16.6Somewhat agree 72 35.1Agree 70 34.1Strongly agree 15 7.3

POL: Public policy makingStrongly disagree 10 4.9Disagree 23 11.2Somewhat disagree 49 23.9Neither 70 34.1Somewhat agree 38 18.5Agree 10 4.9Strongly agree 2 1.0




related to the performance ratings of the respondents, even though minority statusapproached significance.7

Hypothesis Testing

Besides exploring the respondents’ answers to specific survey questions, the currentstudy also tested three hypotheses about the relationship that PSM and P–O Fit hadto the performance of the respondents. The results of this analysis are displayed inTable 7 and Figure 2. These results are the focus of the discussion that follows. Thefirst hypothesis of the current study centered on the relationship between PSM andP–O Fit. It was hypothesized that a positive relationship would be found betweenPSM and the compatibility between the respondents and their organization. Thishypothesis was strongly supported. PSM was positively related to P–O Fit. Therespondents with high levels of PSM reported that they were significantly more congru-ent with their organization than were their counterparts with lower levels of PSM.However, it is important to note that although the relationship between PSM andP–O Fit was high, this relationship was not perfect. This is an indication that PSMis not the only variable that influences the fit of employees in public organizations.


Table 5Performance Ratings Responses


PERFORM: What rating did you receive from your supervisor on your most recent performance appraisal on your job this year?

Poor 1 .5Fair 5 2.4Good 33 16.1Excellent 96 46.8Superior 44 21.5

Note: PERFORM = job performance.

Table 6Control Variables Estimates by Model Paths

Model Paths β p

PERFORM TENURE .029 .685PERFORM RACE .127 .070PERFORM AGE –.085 .155PERFORM EDU .110 .113PERFORM GENDER .013 .829

Note: PERFORM = job performance; TENURE = public sector experience; RACE = minority status;EDU = education.




The second hypothesis advanced in the current study centered on the relationshipbetween P–O Fit and job performance. It was proposed that as the compatibility betweenemployees and their organization increases, employee job performance will alsoincrease. This hypothesis was strongly supported by the findings of the current study.The respondents who reported being highly congruent with their organization alsoreported receiving significantly higher performance ratings from their managers thandid their counterparts with lower congruence with their organization. Also, similar tothe findings for PSM, the relationship between P–O Fit and performance was not perfect.As a result, other factors exist that influence the performance of public employees.

The third hypothesis of the current study centered on the degree to which P–O Fitmediated the relationship between PSM and job performance. It was hypothesizedthat the influence of PSM on job performance would be completely mediated byP–O Fit. This hypothesis was supported by the findings of the current study. PSMhad no significant direct influence on the job performance of the respondents whenthe congruence of these individuals was taken into account.

Discussion

One of the most important findings of the current study centers on the relationshipbetween PSM and the performance of public employees. The current study suggests


Table 7Study Variables Estimates by Model Paths (NFI == .879,

CFI == .919, RMSEA == .088)

Model Paths β p

FIT PSM .404 .002POL PSM .319 –INT PSM .808 ***COM PSM .616 ***INT PSM .764 ***F4 FIT .742 –F3 FIT .827 ***F2 FIT .520 ***F1 FIT .716 ***PERFORM FIT .377 ***PERFORM PSM .043 .634

Note: NFI = Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error ofapproximation; FIT = person–organization fit; POL = public policy making; COM = compassion; INT =public interest; F4 = What this organization stands for is important to me.; F3 = I feel a strong sense of“belonging” to my organization.; F2 = I am not very comfortable within the culture of my organization;F1 = My values and goals are very similar to the values and goals of my organization; PERFORM = jobperformance; PSM = public service motivation.***p is significant at .000 level.




that PSM has no direct significant influence on the job performance of publicemployees. The factor that best explained the job performance of public employeeswas P–O Fit. As the congruence between the respondents and their organizationincreased, their job performance also increased. Although this finding differs with onestudy in the public administration literature (Naff & Crum, 1999), it is consistent withexisting research in the general management literature (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).It suggests that public managers should be strategic in their recruitment of the bestand brightest individuals into government employment. This highlights the need for


PSM

POL.32

INT.81

COM .62

SAC.76

e2

e3

e4

e1

FIT

F4F3F2F1

e6 e7 e8e5

.74.83.52.72

PERFORM e9

e10

.04

.40 .38

Figure 2Statistical Model (NFI == .879, CFI == .919, RMSEA == .088)

Note: NFI = Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean square error ofapproximation; SAC = self-sacrifice; COM = compassion; INT = public interest; POL = public policymaking; PSM = public service motivation; FIT = person–organization fit; F1 = My values and goals arevery similar to the values and goals of my organization; F2 = I am not very comfortable within the cul-ture of my organization; F3 = I feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization; F4 = What thisorganization stands for is important to me; PERFORM = job performance; e1 through e10 are error termsfor their respective variable.




the careful selection of individuals who are compatible with public organizations, asthese individuals have the potential to be significantly more productive than individ-uals who are not. However, as noted, P–O Fit is not the only predictor of performance.The degree to which P–O Fit is the most important predictor of the performance ofpublic employees has not been established in the current study.

Second, although PSM was not a significant direct predictor of the performanceof public employees, it does meaningfully contribute to the compatibility betweenindividuals and public organizations. This finding lends support to the view that indi-viduals with high levels of PSM are attracted to public organizations because theyare more compatible with the goals, missions, and work environment of these organi-zations. This suggests that public managers should design recruitment strategies thatattract the best and brightest individuals who are predisposed to public service motives.These motives will improve the chance that newly recruited public employees willinternalize the goals and values of the public sector. However, similar to the findingsfor P–O Fit, the current study also suggests that other factors may significantly contributeto the fit between public employees and public organizations. Unfortunately, the currentstudy does not settle the question of whether PSM is the most important predictor offit in public organizations.

Subsequently, although PSM and P–O Fit are related, they are separate anddistinct concepts. We cannot assume that individuals with high levels of PSM willhave high levels of fit and performance in every public organization. It is quite possiblefor an individual to have high levels of PSM and be incompatible in a particular publicorganization. Public organizations deal with some of the most complex and difficultproblems that exist in society. They often address these problems in an environmentthat is hostile and unforgiving. This situation can be frustrating and exhausting formany employees who internalize public service motives but recognize their limitedability to solve these problems in a meaningful way. Even though existing researchrevealed that public managers with high levels of PSM are more tolerant of red tape(Scott & Pandey, 2005), prolonged experience in a bureaucratic maze can deflategood intentions.

Furthermore, the detrimental influences that prolonged exposure to harsh publicsector settings can have on public employees with high levels of PSM was capturedby Moynihan and Pandey (2007). As discussed earlier, these scholars found PSM tobe negatively related to tenure in public sector organizations. The current study suggeststhat the influences of tenure in public sector settings are mediated by employees’perceived level of fit. That is, the compatibility that public employees with high levelsof PSM perceive to have with public organizations may decrease the longer they areexposed to harsh working conditions. This illustrates the importance that P–O Fithas to the performance of public employees and highlights the need for public orga-nizations to foster working conditions that support desired public service motives(Bright, in press).





Conclusion

The job performance of employees is a critical issue in the field of public admin-istration. Understandably, many managers and scholars are very interested in Perryand Wise’s (1990) hypothesis of PSM’s relationship to the performance of publicemployees. Unfortunately, two previous empirical studies that tested this hypothesiscame to different conclusions. The purpose of the current study was to investigatewhether the P–O Fit mediated the relationship between PSM and the performance ofpublic employees. The current study also sought to examine the importance that PSMhas to the performance and congruence of public employees in public organizations.The findings of the current study were fairly consistent with the study’s statedhypothesis and existing research. PSM was found to have no statistically significantdirect influence on the job performance of public employees when compared to P–O Fit.However, the current study did indicate that PSM is an important contributor to P–OFit in public organizations and subsequently an important indirect contributor to theperformance of employees. Given this finding, future research on the job performanceof public employees should consider the compatibility between public employeesand public organizations. It is my belief that the failure to take into account compati-bility issues contributed to the mixed results of Naff and Crum (1999) and Alonso andLewis (2001).

Nevertheless, the results of the current study must be taken cautiously. Futureresearch should seek to utilize larger populations and varying settings to better deter-mine whether these findings are anomalous or representative. For example, futurestudies should use a research design that adds more clarity to the causal connectionsamong the study variables. This study only tested the relationship between PSM, P–OFit, and performance, and not their causal connections. Although relationships arecentral conditions of causality, they alone are not enough to prove causality. In addition,the design of the current study does not provide clear information regarding the accu-rate directions of the relationship among the study variables. It assumed that PSMand P–O Fit were the influencers of performance. However, it is very possible that theperformance rating employees receive from their managers influences employees’perceptions of fit and PSM level. As a result, at the very most, the findings of thecurrent study “suggest” that a causal relationship exists between P–O Fit and the per-formance of public employees, while acknowledging the possibility of the bidirec-tionality of this relationship. The same can be stated for the relationship between PSMand P–O Fit.

Second, future studies could investigate the degree to which PSM varies in differ-ent organizational settings. The current study took a generalized approach to investigat-ing the connections among PSM, P–O Fit, and performance. The research participantswere drawn from three largely different local government organizations and representeda mix of public administration professionals. However, the diversity of the organizations





and participants involved in the current study could have disguised the differentialinfluences of PSM in different settings. For example, the connection between PSMand P–O Fit could be higher among health workers when compared to local governmentworkers. As a result, similar to the suggestion proposed by Bright (2005), futureresearch should explore the extent to which PSM is evenly distributed between differenttypes of public organizations and between subunits within organizations. There is reasonto believe that PSM has different influences on important outcomes in organizationsthat have differing job characteristics.

Third, future studies should utilize other approaches in measuring the performanceof public employees. A weakness of the current study centers on the self-reportedperformance measurements. It is likely that the self-reported performance ratingsbased on the performance appraisals of the participants influenced the results of thecurrent study.8 There is a plethora of studies that have highlighted the problems withperformance appraisals in public organizations. For example, researchers can neverbe certain regarding the nature of performance that job appraisals are assessing. Areappraisals judging the tangle features of performance or the relationships betweenemployees and their supervisors? Thus, it is important that scholars clearly definethe specific types of performance that are mostly likely influenced by PSM and useindicators that are logical representations. In addition, it was also clear that some ofthe respondents had not received performance ratings from their supervisors and werenot able to provide performance information. Other respondents could have had troubleaccurately and consistently translating the performance appraisal categories used bytheir current organization to the rating categories used in the current study. So, althoughself-reported ratings are widely used in research, we must not ignore its problems.There is a need to find better measures of performance that are agreeable, feasible,and protective of the anonymity of the respondents.

Fourth, more research is needed to determine the primacy of PSM and P–O Fit onimportant organizational outcomes. Although the current study has found positiverelationships among P–O Fit, PSM, and performance, it does not prove that theseconnections are the most important when compared to other variables. For example,given the less-than-perfect relationship between P–O Fit and performance, it is clearthat other factors influenced the performance of public employees. Similarly, it isclear that PSM is not the only factor that influences the fit between public employeesand public organizations. Hence, future studies should address whether P–O Fit isthe most important factor on the performance of public employees, and whether PSMis the most important factor on the fit between public employees and public organiza-tions, when compared to other variables. Answering these questions will help establishthe extent to which PSM and P–O Fit are requirements for organizational outcomes,such as performance, job satisfaction, and commitment. Nonetheless, the current studyconfirmed the importance of compatibility to the job performance of public employeesand highlighted the contributions that PSM makes to these critical management issues.





Notes

1. The male participants in the current study were undersampled, skewing the gender variable towardthe female participants. Although the skewness range for gender is within acceptable margins, the gener-alizability of the current study to male government employees may be lessened.

2. As developed by Perry (1996), three survey questions were summed for the public policy–makingsubcategory, five survey questions were summed for the public interest subcategory, eight survey questionswere summed for the compassion subcategory, and eight survey questions were summed for the self-sacrificecategory.

3. Values for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Normed Fit Index (NFI) represent the comparisonbetween the hypothesized model and the independence model. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 being anindication of perfect fit to the data and excellent validity. Root square mean error of approximation(RMSEA) tests this discrepancy between the population matrix and the hypothesized model. Values greaterthan .10 represent poor fit.

4. See Hoyle (1995) for an introduction to structural equation modeling.5. AMOS is a statistical program used to conduct structural equation modeling.6. The conceptual model explains the relationships among the concepts that have been hypothesized in

the current study. The statistical model displays the final results of the analysis. Figures 1 and 2 representthese models, respectively.

7. Given the nonsignificant findings found between the control variables and performance, the controlvariables were removed from the analysis to preserve parsimony. Ultimately, the finding for the control variablesis consistent with the P–O fit hypothesis. That is, the nonsignificant finding for the control variable appearsto be due to the mediating influence of P–O Fit.

8. In addition, varying rating scales, appraisal frequency, and appraisal instruments may have influencedthe results of the current study.

References

Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federalsector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32-54.

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of thepublic service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 8, 413-440.

Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, L. F. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation.Public Administration Review, 60, 254-264.

Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are they, where arethey, and what do they want? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25, 138-154.

Bright, L. (in press). Why do public employees desire intrinsic non-monetary workplace opportunities?Public Personnel Management.

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology.In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130).Chicago: Rand McNally.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and influence.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499-518.

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and spec-ification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.

Frank, S., & Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees: Working or hardly working? American Reviewof Public Administration, 34, 36-51.





Houston, D. J. (2000). Public service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 4, 713-727.

Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement,and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit atwork: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit.Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation.Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementaryversus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268-277.

Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 5-15.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J., (1986). Organization commitment and psychological attachment: Theinfluences of compliance, identification, internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 492-499.

Patchen, M., Pelz, D. C., & Allen, C. W. (1965). Some questionnaire measures of employee motivationand morale: A report on their reliability and validity. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 5-22.

Perry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational basis of public service. Public Administration Review,50, 367-373.

Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national surveyof managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration,25, 155-180.

Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit:Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 333-352.

Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.

Leonard Bright is an assistant professor at the University of Louisville. His research focuses on public andnonprofit leadership and management, and he has published in Review of Public Personnel Administration,American Review of Public Administration, Public Personnel Management, and Journal of Public AffairsEducation.


Documents

Does Person-Organization Fit Mediate the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and the Job Performance of Public Employees?