549473

research-article2014

PPMXXX10.1177/0091026014549473Public Personnel ManagementCampbell

Article

Identification and
Performance Management:
An Assessment of
Change-Oriented Behavior in
Public Organizations

Public Personnel Management

2015, Vol. 44(1) 4669
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026014549473
ppm.sagepub.com

Jesse W. Campbell1

Abstract
This study develops a theoretical framework linking performance management (PM) to
change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, an extra-role employee activity
aimed at improving organizational functioning by introducing micro-level change. The
role of organizational identification as a mediating mechanism linking PM to changeoriented behavior is also explored. Using survey data gathered from employees of
central government ministries in South Korea, structural equation modeling and biascorrected bootstrap confidence intervals are used to test a number of empirical
hypotheses related to the constructs mentioned above. The results of the analysis
suggest that PM has a positive effect on change-oriented behavior, but that its effect is
primarily due to its positive relationship with identification. Following a presentation
of the results of the analysis, the theoretical and practical implications of this study
are discussed.
Keywords
performance management, change-oriented citizenship behavior, organizational
identification, organizational performance

Introduction
The drive for performance in public organizations has led to the adoption of a wide range
of innovations intended to contribute to this goal (Walker, Damanpour, & Devece, 2011).
1Higher

School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Corresponding Author:
Jesse W. Campbell, Faculty of Public Administration, Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya
Street, Moscow, Russia.
Email: jessewcampbell@gmail.com

Campbell

47

In particular, the promise of the use of performance information to improve organizational performance has been central to the public reform agenda of the past decades
(Behn, 2002; Boyne, 2010; Moynihan & Pandey, 2005). Performance management
(PM) techniques are used in various ways. As a managerial practice, PM entails the utilization of performance information in the process of strategic decision making to
improve organizational performance (Moynihan, 2008). At the employee level, PM
involves defining goals, setting performance targets, and appropriately incentivizing
workers to meet them. The promise of PM is grounded in the idea that clear, measurable
goals, coupled with reward accountability, will encourage employees to act in the interests of the organization of their own volition, thereby making less efficient systems of
organizational control unnecessary (Eisenhardt, 1989; G. Lee & Jimenez, 2011).
However, while scholars have begun to address the link between PM and public organizational performance (see Poister, Pasha, & Edwards, 2013, for a recent summary), less
research has focused on the question of its micro, employee-level effects. Given the
scope of PM reforms in public organizations, understanding how PM impacts the attitudes and behaviors of frontline employees can be viewed as a significant research goal.
This study aims to address two questions. First, to what extent is PM related to the
intentions of frontline employees to engage in organizationally beneficial changeoriented behavior? The concept of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (CO-OCB), a construct with roots in private sector organizational behavior studies
(Bettencourt, 2004; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) and recently introduced to the public
administration literature by Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri (2012), captures the extent to
which employees are willing to challenge existing practices to introduce functional
change into their organizations, thereby improving work outcomes. While PMs focus
on results makes the construct an intuitive fit with change-oriented behavior, this study
aims to establish this link empirically. Second, based partly on principalagent theory,
a central mechanism through which results-based management improves individual
performance is the harmonization of individual and organizational goals (Eisenhardt,
1989). Based on this and other reasons, this study also focuses on the potential mediating role of organizational identification (OI) in the relationship between PM and
CO-OCB. Employees who identify strongly with their organizations consider the values, goals, and fate of the organization to be their own, thereby encouraging them to
act in the interests of the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). While OI has cemented
itself as a foundational construct in organizational behavior studies (Albert, Ashforth,
& Dutton, 2000; Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008), public administration scholars
have said little about what role OI may play in public organizations. This study thus
explores the potential links between PM, CO-OCB, and OI, and tries to unpack the
relevance of these relationships for public organizations.
This study is organized as follows. Following a review of the relevant literature,
this study uses survey data gathered from South Korean central government organizations and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test empirical hypotheses regarding
the relationships between PM, CO-OCB, and OI. Over the past decades, South Korea
has embraced performance-oriented reforms throughout the public sector in an attempt
to overcome traditional characteristics of public organizations perceived to hinder

48

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

change and performance (Im, Campbell, & Cha, 2013; P. S. Kim & Hong, 2013). As
such, the Korean public sector is a particularly relevant venue in which to test hypotheses about this studys constructs of interest. After a presentation of the findings, the
strengths and weaknesses of analysis are discussed, and theoretical and practical
implications, as well as questions for future studies, are presented.

Literature and Hypotheses

Change-Oriented Citizenship Behavior in Public Organizations
Scholars have long recognized that employee performance is not limited to the effective execution of tasks for which they are formally responsible. Rather, it is necessary
also for employees to both adhere to the informal norms of their organization and act
in its best interests even when these actions fall outside of their formal job requirements (Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Building on this idea, Dennis Organ and
colleagues (Organ, 1988, 1997; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) established the concept
of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a category of organizational behavior
that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization
(Organ, 1988, p. 4). Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri (2012) argue that the relevance OCB for
public organizations lies in its potential to positively impact public service outcomes
through weakening the dysfunctions associated with public bureaucracies and more
broadly by enhancing the overall ethos of the civil service. A lack of OCB, however,
may have significant negative effects, including declining trust in public servants and
greater dissatisfaction with government. Moreover, incorporating OCB theory at a
fundamental level in public administration scholarship may also serve to extend the
New Public Management (NPM) framework by balancing market rhetoric with a people-oriented view of government performance, something which NPM has tended to
ignore (Taylor, 2013; Vigoda & Golembiewski, 2001; Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2012).
While several dimensions of OCB have been proposed (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), many scholars follow Williams and Anderson
(1991) by classifying OCBs into behaviors that benefit the organization as such and
behaviors that aim to benefit other organizational members. On the other hand, while
these behaviors have been shown to be connected to organizational performance (S.
Kim, 2005; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997), nevertheless purely affiliative types of
OCB may not be sufficient to overcome all the challenges faced by public organizations, and may even harm organizational performance in some instances. For example,
Choi (2007) argues that under certain circumstances, purely supportive types of OCB
may work to reinforce nonideal processes and group behaviors, and moreover may
actually harm organizational performance in the event that jobs are ill designed or
work processes faulty. In line with this notion, Straw and Boettgre (1990, p. 536,
quoted in Choi, 2007) suggest that a worker who goes beyond the call of duty to
accomplish a misconceived job may actually be more dangerous to an organization
than a more mundane performer. Public organizations are not immune from these

Campbell

49

maladies, and thus behaviors that attempt to isolate and improve faulty processes
should be understood as highly valuable to public service performance.
Building on the work of Morrison and Phelps (1999) and focusing on the retail sector, Bettencourt (2004) addresses this conceptual gap in the OCB literature with the
concept of CO-OCB, defining it as constructive, extra-role efforts by individual retail
boundary-spanning employees to identify and implement organizationally functional
changes with respect to work methods, policies, and procedures within the context of
their jobs, stores, or organizations (p. 165). Unlike traditionally understood OCB,
employees who engage in CO-OCB do not simply cooperate with other organizational
members or directly support the organizations mission through adherence to organizational norms. Rather, in the pursuit of functional change, CO-OCB may upset the
status quo in regard to work processes and even disrupt established interpersonal relationships. Such behavior thus entails an element of risk for employees while potentially being fundamentally related to overall organizational performance over time.
Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri (2012) propose that facilitating change-oriented behavior
is a growing challenge for public organizations, and that through cultivating an environment wherein employees perform beyond expectations and pursue positive change
can help organizations reinvent themselves and ultimately produce more satisfied citizens through enhanced service provision. The next section explores the potential relationship between PM and CO-OCB.

Performance Management and Change-Oriented Citizenship Behavior

PM in the public sector has been used to describe a broad array of practices and generally encompasses any goal-oriented management process utilizing performance information for performance improvement whether at the organizational or employee level
(Behn, 2002; Poister, 2003; Pollitt, 2001). At the organizational level, the setting of
clear goals amenable to relatively objective measurement can potentially enhance
decision making and performance (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). At the individual level, PM refers to any efforts to improve the performance of individual
employees through personal performance plans, performance appraisals, and the usual
collection of carrots and sticks (Behn, 2002, p. 20). Both of these dimensions of PM
have been connected with organizational performance (Cho & Lee, 2012; Poister
et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2011), as well as positive employee dispositions, such as
reduced turnover intention (G. Lee & Jimenez, 2011).
The role of PM in fostering organizational performance is understood to lie in its
facilitation of continuous process refactoring in the service of improved outputs
(Moynihan, 2008). For frontline employees, the goal-oriented characteristics of PM
make it an intuitive fit with CO-OCB. Clear and specific goals may act as standards
against which individuals can measure their own performance and contextualize their
work efforts (Buchanan, 1974; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012), and the articulation
of a clear organizational vision can lead to intellectual stimulation among employees and
inspire creative actions (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Goal setting research has consistently argued that clearly defined goals motivate employees to draw not only on their

50

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

preexisting skills in service of attaining them but also, in cases where such skills are not
entirely matched to the task, to draw from a wider repertoire of skills and apply them in
innovative ways to make progress (Locke & Latham, 2002; Wood & Locke, 1990). This
insight is consistent across the creativity literature, where the design of clear and challenging goals by leaders has been shown to be related to employee initiatives to develop
innovative ways of approaching their work (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings,
1996). Goal specificity may moreover impact employee intentions to engage in changeoriented behavior by focusing attention on salient tasks, providing a context for feedback, as well as motivating strategies to reach organizational goals (Taylor & Beh, 2013).
Moreover, behavior that essentially challenges organizational processes and attempts to
improve them may be contextualized by PM systems and benefit from the same processes of individual evaluation that scholars have identified as drivers of the relationship
between results-based goals and formal job performance.
One of the mechanisms by which PM is argued to enhance organizational performance is through the de-emphasis of procedures and processes in favor of results
(Hood, 1991). This shift of emphasis is meant to extend to employees more autonomy in determining the best way to accomplish a task by basing performance criteria on the effective achievement of objectives rather than adherence to established
processes. Given this, PM may also open a space for employees to engage in
CO-OCB, empowering them to refactor work processes with the confidence that
they will be judged by their output rather than how well they have followed the
rules. To the extent that creative, extra-role behavior entails a level of risk for
employees (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), an established PM system may moreover
serve as a framework against which to justify CO-OCB if such behavior produces
negative results, allowing employees to contextualize their change-oriented activities within the horizon of organizational goals. PM may thus serve as a source of
authority and empowerment for employees which enables them to pursue proactive, extra-role actions to improve organizational processes. As such, PM may be a
significant antecedent of CO-OCB.
Finally, at the individual level, PM utilizes extrinsic incentives to align the goals of
the individual with those of the organization (Eisenhardt, 1989), and may thereby
provide a second and independent motivation for engaging in CO-OCB to the extent
that doing so will be beneficial directly to the employee in the pursuit of maximizing
their organizational rewards through higher performance. From the perspective of the
individual employee, such local changes may have direct and potentially immediate
benefits in allowing them to more efficiently reach their own goals and thereby secure
better performance assessments. In other words, PM at the individual level and particularly performance-based rewards may link the improvement of local processes
with a higher probability of attaining organizational rewards. As such, CO-OCB may
be pursued by individual employees based not on any intrinsic motivation, but rather
by the motivation to maximize individual utility. In line with this conjecture, VigodaGadot and Beeri (2012) find that transactional leadership, which is distinct from PM
at the individual level but partially captures its exchange-based dimension, was positively related to CO-OCB.

Campbell

51

Given this close fit between the principles of PM and the characteristics CO-OCB,
it is expected that both PM at the organization and individual level will have a positive
impact on employee intentions to engage in change-oriented behaviors.
Hypothesis 1: PM at the organization level is positively related to CO-OCB.
Hypothesis 2: PM at the individual level is positively related to CO-OCB.

The Role of Organizational Identification

Citizenship behaviors, including CO-OCB, are characterized as extra-role in the sense
that they are neither formalized in employee job descriptions nor directly rewarded.
Given this, if it is assumed that employees are rational utility seekers, OCB represents a
puzzle from a motivational perspective. The theory of OI provides a solution to this
puzzle. Applying social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to the organization,
the theory of OI (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt,
1998) proposes that employee identity can become woven into organizational membership (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg & Terry, 2000), with high levels of identification
leading to a sense of oneness with the organization (Van Knippenberg, 2000). Like
many concepts in organization science, OI overlaps to an extent with other established
concepts such as affective organizational commitment (AOC; Meyer & Allen, 1991).
However, OI is distinguished by its emphasis on a psychological merging of self and
organization such that the distinction between individual utility and organizational success is blurred (Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006, p. 572; this study demonstrates well
both the theoretical and empirical distinctiveness of OI and AOC). In this sense, high
levels of OI are associated with a perceived coincidence of organizational and individual
interests, with the successes (and failures) of the organization embraced by the employee
as their own. OI theory thus reintroduces a rational motivational basis to the study of
OCB, addressing its apparently altruistic character by proposing that extra-role actions
that benefit the organization also advance the self-interests of highly identified employees who pursue them. This theoretical link between OI and OCB has been thoroughly
established in the empirical literature (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Riketta,
2005; Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006).
Due to these characteristics of OI as well as existing research linking the construct
to OCB, there is a compelling case to be made that OI may also be an important antecedent of CO-OCB. CO-OCB contributes to the functioning of the organization, and as
such highly identified employees should be motivated to pursue it based on a blurring
of the boundaries of personal and organizational success. Moreover, OI has been linked
in the private sector literature with creative behavior (Carmeli, Cohen-Meitar, & Elizur,
2007; Cohen-Meitar, Carmeli, & Waldman, 2009), a concept with relevance for
employees engaging in change-oriented initiatives. However, a number of theoretical
obstacles should be overcome before the link between identification and OCB can be
extended to CO-OCB. For instance, Bouchikhi and Kimberly (2003) suggest that high
levels of commitment to existing organizational identity can be a source of organizational inertia and even resistance to change. Organizational identity sets boundaries on

52

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

change processes to the extent that employees are unwilling to undergo the work and
sacrifice necessary to bring about constructive organizational transformation. Second,
OI may manifest itself as a form of automatic trust in other members of the organization, as well as organizational processes (Dukerich, Kramer, & Parks, 1998). Dukerich
et al. (1998) suggest that over identification, where this type of trust may cause a
problem, can lead to lower levels of organizational learning and adaptation and an
inability to question work processes or even objectively assess the ethical behavior of
the organization. Finally, Blader and Tyler (2009) point out that OI is related to a high
level of affinity and identification with coworkers. As CO-OCB can disrupt these relationships, OI may be related to reduced rather than enhanced intentions to engage
change-oriented initiatives.
These challenges can be met in a number of ways. First, it is plausible that employees relate not to micro-level processes as the primary content of organizational identity, but rather to organizational ideas grounded in the organizations mission and
macro-level performance, as well as its external prestige (Dutton et al., 1994). In this
case, resistance to change on the part of highly identified employees may relate more
to large-scale changes rather than to the type of micro-level innovations that typify
CO-OCB. Moreover, the type of over-identification thought to undermine the questioning of authority and organizational processes should be the edge case rather than
the norm, and thus be operative only in the extreme. Second, the level of risk involved
in pursuing CO-OCB implies the relevance of organizational trust, a construct closely
linked to OI (Campbell & Im, 2014; Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo, 2008;
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). As such, the same trust that may undermine
the necessary critical evaluations of extant organizational processes may also be a
necessary condition for employees to address them through CO-OCB. Moreover,
while identification with coworkers may encourage conflict avoidance, on the other
hand, it is possible that highly identified employees will anticipate more readily the
understanding of their coworkers if their behavior is perceived to be disruptive, particularly to the extent that the behavior is undertaken in the name of the organization.
In line with this, Cohen-Meitar et al. (2009) demonstrate that a sense of positive regard
and mutuality as well as enhanced organization-based self esteem partially mediate the
relationship between identification and creativity. These arguments as well as the
established links between OI and constructs relevant to CO-OCB suggest that OI may
be an important antecedent to CO-OCB.
Hypothesis 3: OI is positively related to CO-OCB.
While both PM and OI may drive CO-OCB in public organizations, PM may also
shape identification, with the latter thus playing a potentially mediating role. First, the
SIT-based theory of identification predicts that individuals will be likely to identify
with organizations that are perceived to have an attractive organizational identity that
is both distinct and prestigious (Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007; Dutton et al., 1994).
Given that PM focuses on the articulation of clear, measurable organizational goals as
well as the harmonization of these goals at the individual level, PM techniques may

Campbell

53

also foster OI. Moreover, the promulgation and operationalization of mission statements into measurable objectives may help bring the importance of the organization
into sharper relief for employees. This idea is in line with the theory of organizational
identity proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985), who argued that leaders play an
important role in determining organizational identity insofar as they articulate the distinctive, central, and enduring characteristics of the organization as a whole. By bringing greater definition to organizational identity through goal setting, measurement,
and prioritization, PM techniques may thus help to provide the content upon which
employee identification can be based. The same process may also function at an individual level, and particularly insofar as individual objectives are tied to organizational
goals. In this way, individual level PM can help provide context for employees, potentially enhancing the meaning of their work.
Second, as a cognitive and affective condition, OI is characterized as the melding
of self and organization such that the goals of the organization and the individual
become indistinguishable (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Relevant to this characterization
is the goal of PM to actively harmonize the goals of the individual with the wider
organization in an attempt to shape employee motivation. PM is based in part on
agency theory, which assumes that the goals of the individual and their organization
diverge and that they can be brought into alignment through the careful design of
incentives (Eisenhardt, 1989). While the implementation of pay for performance in
public sector organizations is not without theoretical or practical difficulties (Perry,
Engbers, & Jun, 2009; Stazyk, 2013), nevertheless, this intended goal of PM is relevant to the formation of OI. In this sense, by providing appropriate incentives for
individuals to accept the goals of the organization as their own, PM may provide a
rational basis for employee identification. It is thus possible that an emphasis on results
rather than processes in public organizations may drive OI by making organizational
identity more salient and incentivizing its embrace.
Hypothesis 4: PM at the organization level is positively related to OI, and, through
this relationship, has a positive, indirect relationship with CO-OCB.
Hypothesis 5: PM at the individual level is positively related to OI, and, through
this relationship, has a positive, indirect relationship with CO-OCB.
Based on the hypotheses, Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework of this study.

Data and Method

Data Set
To test the above hypotheses, a custom survey instrument was designed and administered to civil servants working in ministry headquarters of the central government of
South Korea. Korea has a total of 17 central government ministries, and the sampling
frame was constructed at the ministerial level, with a quota of 30 responses set for each
head office based on an estimated population size of about 70,000 employees obtained

54

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

Organization
level PM

Organizational
identif i cation

Changeoriented OCB

Individual level
PM

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

Note. PM = Performance management; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

from the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. All ministries except for the
Ministry of Defense participated in the survey, resulting in a sample size of 480 observations. The survey was administered over a 3-week period in June 2013. A professional survey company based in South Korea with experience surveying government
employees administered the questionnaires through face-to-face interviews during
working hours. To facilitate sample representativeness, particularly with regard to
civil service grade, the survey company was instructed to randomly select a roughly
equal number of employees for interviews from low and high service grades (Grades
9 through 6, and 5 through 1, respectively). Participation was entirely voluntary.
Interviews were conducted according to best practices including ensuring participants
of their anonymity and that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
The demographic characteristics of the sample were compared with 2012 population characteristics. Sample parameters for female respondents were largely in proportion to the population (roughly 36% of central government employees are female,
while about 31.9% of survey respondents are female). High-level civil servants make
up 47.6% of the sample, which compares with an estimated population parameter of
about 37%. Roughly 23% of respondents claimed to have a graduate degree. Average
organizational tenure was 12.2 years, while the average age of respondents was 39.
These statistics suggest that the sample is broadly representative of the demographic
characteristics of the population.

Campbell

55

The Korean Context

While the hypotheses tested in this study are derived from theoretical considerations,
nevertheless, a few words about the Korean administrative context are relevant here.
First, beginning in the late 1990s, substantial reforms began to be implemented widely
across the Korean public sector, including reforms related broadly and specifically to
the performance of public organizations. Following the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC)
of 1997, perceived dysfunctions of the Korean government began to receive sharp
criticism from both the public and scholars. In particular, high levels of formalism, red
tape, unquestioning obedience to authority, and a general lack of concern for results
were all singled out as problems impeding the functioning of public organizations
(Park & Joo, 2010). To combat these problems, over the coming years the government
began to introduce sweeping reforms, including the creation of the Senior Civil Service
and open position system, as well as enhanced performance evaluations and meritbased pay for all public employees. American and other Western tools and programs
were benchmarked, including the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
and the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and managerial tools such as
balance scorecard (BSC), and management by objectives (MBO) were widely adopted
by public organizations (P. S. Kim & Hong, 2013). Generally, this reform program has
placed performance at the center of public organizational life in Korea, with PM
becoming the primary mechanism relied upon to achieve it.
Several comments are also relevant about the production of CO-OCB in Korean
public organizations. From the positive side, at the macro level, it is widely acknowledged that the Korean bureaucracy was instrumental in driving the countrys rapid
development (Chibber, 2002; Minns, 2001), and it continues to play an important role
today in terms of the policymaking and agenda shaping (Park & Joo, 2010). Koreas
remarkable development would not have been possible had the national bureaucracy
not only been incredibly competent but also flexible in the face of setbacks and able to
embrace process and policy innovation when the need presented itself. Nevertheless,
there are significant cultural aspects of Korean public organizations that may militate
against CO-OCB on the part of employees. For one, Korea has faced several challenges in the implementation of its NPM reforms, particularly as they relate to the
extension of discretion to civil servants (Im, 2013; P. S. Kim & Hong, 2013). Unlike
in the Weberian model, where authority is vested structurally within the formal organizational position rather than in the unique individual, in Korean public organizations, it is more difficult to separate the individual from their organizational role. The
fusion of public and private life is generally understood to be a consequence of the
countrys Confucian culture, which has traditionally amalgamated the concepts of
publicness and ethics into a single construct (Frederickson, 2002; Im et al., 2013).
This outlook can lead to a strong need to save face, particularly through avoiding
exposure to the risks inherent in extra-role, discretionary behavior. Perhaps due to this,
while numerous reforms have been implemented to extend Korean civil servants
greater autonomy and discretion in their everyday tasks, it has been suggested that,
paradoxically, organizations with high levels of discretion can become more rigid and

56

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

burdened with procedural rules (i.e., red tape) as administrators more tenuously cling
to formal processes to shield themselves from the potentially negative consequences
of discretion (Im, 2013). More generally, Hofstede (1983) finds that Confucian societies such as Korea have more risk adverse cultures, which also may affect intentions to
engage in risky extra-role behavior. At the same time, however, based on this very
same Confucian culture, which fuses the public individual with their private ethical
character, the problem of discretion in the civil service is less vexing in the Korean
context.

Measurements
Bettencourt (2004) and Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri (2012) measure CO-OCB using a
scale originally developed by Morrison and Phelps (1999), who proposed a 10-item
measurement based on prototypical change-oriented organizational behaviors collected from interviews. Due to restrictions on survey length, a subset of these questions were used to measure CO-OCB. The four questions used were as follows:
I try to change work processes in order to increase efficiency.
I try to make suggestions in order to improve the operations of the organization.
I try to fix unnecessary or faulty procedures.
I try to introduce new processes in order to increase organizational effectiveness.

Like other variables, CO-OCB was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale,
with 1 representing strong disagreement with the statement and 5 representing strong
agreement. Cronbachs alpha for the scale was a reliable .86.
PM is a complex concept that incorporates elements of internal and external communication, financial management, decentralization, and other processes. This study
focuses on three dimensions of PM that are important internal processes of the technique as a management approach and are therefore the most relevant to this study. PM
at the organization level is conceptualized as involving the promulgation of prioritized
organizational goals, and the subsequent use of performance information to review
organizational processes and measure progress toward goal attainment (Walker et al.,
2011). Three items were used to capture the priority setting, progress measurement,
and review processes central to PM. The three items were as follows:
Our departments goals are clearly prioritized.
The achievements of our department over the past year can be measured objectively.
In our department, goals and work processes have been well reviewed.

Campbell

57

While some studies have measured PM at the organization level by enumerating

specific practices (Hvidman & Andersen, 2014; Nielsen, 2014), these items capture
instead general processes of PM, and are therefore flexible enough to cover the diverse
PM techniques used in Korean government ministries. These questions also make few
assumptions about the existence of detailed knowledge of PM frameworks, which
makes them appropriate for frontline staff as well as higher-level public managers.
The three items were found to be internally consistent, with a Cronbachs alpha of .82.
Finally, the core of PM at the individual level fundamentally involves two techniques: the setting of and emphasis on performance objectives for individual employees, and the close coupling of achievement of those objectives to incentives. To capture
these two dimensions, the following five items were used:
In our department, I am responsible for achieving results.
In our department, job performance is important.
In our department, rewards are given based on employee results.
In our department, promotion depends on employee results.
In our department, pay depends on employee results.

These items are similar to other measurements of individual level PM used in the
literature (e.g., by Cho & Lee, 2012) and are distinguished from more broadly meritoriented scales such as perception of organizational politics (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997)
by their specific focus on results rather than organizational policy and favoritism. The
five items were internally consistent, with a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of .82.
OI was measured using five items based on Mael and Ashforths (1992) popular
scale, along with one additional item created specifically for this study. The items are
meant to capture the perceived identity of organizational and individual interests.
When somebody criticizes my department, I feel bad.
I am very interested in what others think of this department.
My departments successes are my successes.
When someone praises our department, it is as if they are praising me.
Working in my department helps me understand who I am.

The five items were found to have a sufficient level of internal consistency, with a
Cronbachs alpha coefficient of .84.
To test the hypotheses of this study, the influence of a number of demographic variables on OI and CO-OCB are controlled for, including civil service grade, organizational

58

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

tenure, education level, and gender. The Korean civil service runs from Grade 9 (the
lowest, entry level grade) to Grade 1. Respondents were asked to indicate their job grade,
which is thus measured on a 9-point scale. Education is measured by a discrete variable
with four levels ranging from less than college to graduate school. Sex is captured
by a dummy variable with 1 representing female respondents.

Common Method Variance

As this study is based on survey data, there is a danger that responses suffer from
common method variance (CMV), a type of measurement error that can produce a
confounding influence on the results of the analysis and thereby lead to unjustified
conclusions (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While best practices in terms of survey design
and administration can help minimize CMV in survey data, a number of post hoc
tests can also be employed to assess the seriousness of CMV. First, Harmons singlefactor test was performed and an unrotated principal components analysis uncovered
four distinct factors in the data, with the first factor accounting for roughly 36% of
the variance between all items. This statistic is well below the suggested cutoff point
of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003), suggesting that CMV does not unduly bias the data.
However, both as a test for CMV as well as a technique for determining the factor
structure of data, this approach is limited (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003; Podsakoff
et al., 2003). As such, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test how well
a single latent factor accounted for the variance among observed variables. This test
also indicated that a single-factor model was a poor fit for the data (see Tables 2 and
3). Based on this additional evidence, a reasonable level of confidence is possible
concerning the integrity of the data such that no additional measures were necessary
to control for CMV.

Analysis Results
Summary Statistics and Measurement Model
Table 1 shows summary statistics and zero-order correlations between the variables
used in this study. The table shows that all variables are correlated in the expected
direction at p < .001, with OI having a particularly strong relationship with CO-OCB
(0.53). Given prior research on the relationship between OI and a range of extra-role
behavior, this result is perhaps not surprising. For the main variables of interest, all
mean values are above the scale midpoint.
CFA was used to determine whether the proposed four-factor solution was appropriate for the data. To assess this, a number of goodness of fit indices were used
(Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005). These were the chi-square test, the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), the Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). The relevant values against which goodness of fit can be evaluated for each
of these indices are summarized in Table 2.

59

Campbell
Table 1. Mean Values and Zero-Order Correlations.
M

SD

1.Change3.73 0.60
oriented OCB
2.Organization
3.48 0.67 .36***
level PM
3.Individual level 3.26 0.57 .31***
PM
4.Organizational 3.76 0.62 .53***
identification
5.Civil service
5.68 1.15 .25***
grade
6.Tenure
11.96 7.90 .30***
7.Education
3.17 0.54 .26***
8.Sex (Female
0.32 0.47 .15**
= 1)

.43***
.37***
.03

.35***

.12** .20***

.21***
.07
.29*** .32***

.11*
.07
.15** .37*** .11*

.03
.12** .11*
.27*** .22*** .13

Note. Coefficients are standardized. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; PM = performance

management.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2. Acceptance Thresholds of Fit Indices.

Fit index
Acceptable
value

CFI

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA

p > .05

>.90

>.90

<.08

<.08

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NNFI = Nonnormed Fit Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Table 3 displays the results of the CFAs performed using Stata 12.1. The bottom
row of statistics in the table shows the goodness of fit indices for a single-factor model.
As mentioned, the results indicate that the single-factor solution is not a good fit for
the data. The remaining rows show fit statistics for a variety of alternative models. A
two-factor solution treats individual and organization level PM as a single factor and
OI and CO-OCB as a single factor. Fit statistics show that this model falls well below
the criteria for good model fit. The second and third rows of the table, labeled 3 Factors
A and 3 Factors B, equate OI and change-oriented OCB as a single factor and organization and individual level PM as a single factor, respectively. Again, goodness of fit
indices indicate that both of these solutions are a poor fit with the data.
The top row of statistics in the table, labeled 4 Factors, presents goodness of fit
indices for the proposed four-factor model. All indices except for the chi-square test
indicate that a four-factor solution fits the data well. (The statistically significant chisquare should not be a serious cause for concern, however, as this statistic is highly
conservative as well as sensitive to sample size, and therefore is used as the basis of

60

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

Table 3. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

4 Factors
3 Factors A
3 Factors B
2 Factors
1 Factor

df

CFI

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA

Delta 2

326.35
660.83
779.28
1,113.22
1,696.05

113
116
116
118
119

.94
.86
.83
.74
.58

.93
.83
.79
.70
.52

.05
.07
.07
.08
.12

.06
.10
.11
.13
.17

334.48***
452.92***
786.87***
1,369.70***

Note. All chi-square values statistically significant at p < .05; Delta 2 shows the difference between
the 2 of the various measurement models and the proposed four-factor model. 3 Factors A: Equating
organizational identification and change-oriented OCB. 3 Factors B: Equating Organization and individual
level performance management. 2 Factors: Equating the two PM variables, and OI and CO-OCB. CFI =
Comparative Fit Index; NNFI = Nonnormed Fit Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual;
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

model rejection only in special circumstances; Bentler & Bonett, 1980.) Significant
delta chi-square values also indicate that the proposed four-factor model is the superior measurement model.

Structural Model
Scholars have recommended the use of SEM with bootstrapping for testing mediation
effects involving latent variables. This technique generally outperforms independent
linear models in the detection of mediation through explicitly modeling measurement
error as well as correcting for the nonnormally distributed product term of the mediated path (Cheung & Lau, 2008; Iacobucci, Saldanha, & Deng, 2007). To test the
hypotheses of this study, a structural equation model corresponding to the above analytic model (Figure 1) and including the demographic control variables was estimated
using Stata 12.1. Like the measurement model, the structural model showed an acceptable level of fit with the data (CFI = .94; NNFI = .93; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .05).
Table 4 shows the coefficients of the structural model. Before discussing the results
relevant to the hypotheses of this study, it is noted that a number of demographic control variables show statistically significant relationships with both CO-OCB and OI.
First, organizational tenure was positively related to both identification and CO-OCB
at statistically significant levels (.21, p < .001 and .11, p < .05, respectively). This
result confirms the importance of tenure as a factor in explaining both identification
and readiness for change (Hameed, Roques, & Ali Arain, 2013). Education had the
strongest relationship with CO-OCB among the demographic variables, with a positive path coefficient of .15, p < .001, however, this variable showed no relationship
with identification. While the relationship between education and change-oriented
behavior is intuitive, further studies might explore this effect in greater depth.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that organization and individual level PM would be
positively associated with CO-OCB, respectively. The results of the SEM show that
organization level PM has a standardized regression coefficient of .12 (p = .047),

61

Campbell
Table 4. Results of Structural Equation Modeling.

Organizational identification
Organization level PM
Individual level PM
Civil service grade
Tenure
Education
Sex (Female = 1)
R2

Organizational
identification

Change-oriented
OCB

Coefficient (SE)

Coefficient (SE)

.27 (.06)***
.25 (.06)***
.10 (.05)*
.21 (.05)***
.04 (.05)
.02 (.05)
.33

.42 (.05)***
.12 (.06)*
.11 (.06)
.05 (.05)
.11 (.05)*
.15 (.04)***
.04 (.04)
.44

Note. n = 456. Covariance between organization and individual level PM .53 (p < .001). Coefficients are
standardized. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; PM = Performance management.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

which provides some support for Hypothesis 1. The coefficient for individual level
PM is similar at .11 with a p value equal to .065. As such, the significance of the coefficient for the direct effect of individual level PM fails to meet the conventional level
of p < .05. A further analysis utilizing bootstrap resampling presented below presents
a clearer picture of these results. The two exogenous latent variables were found to
have a common variance of .53 (p < .001).
Hypothesis 3 proposed that OI would be positively associated with CO-OCB, and the
relatively strong coefficient .42 (p < .001) provides support for this hypothesis. This result
is significant as it suggests that the strong link shown by existing studies between OI and
OCB can be extended to the relationship between identification and CO-OCB. The implications of this finding for public management are discussed in the next section.
Finally, Hypotheses 4 and 5 proposed that organization and individual level PM
would have a positive, indirect relationship with CO-OCB based on a positive relationship with OI. Table 4 shows that both PM variables are positively associated with
identification at significant levels (.27 and .25 for organization and individual level
PM respectively, p < .001). These positive coefficients as well as the magnitude of the
relationship between OI and CO-OCB suggests that a mediated relationship may exist.
To test the robustness of the respective indirect effects, significance tests and biascorrected confidence intervals were produced via a bootstrap analysis consisting of
1,000 iterations (with replacement). The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.
Unlink in the structural model, which used conventional standard errors, Table 5
shows that the direct effects of both organization and individual level PM are not
related to CO-OCB at statistically significant levels. However, in both cases, the indirect and total effect is significant, with the lower bounds of the bias-corrected confidence intervals above zero. These statistics suggest that Hypotheses 1 and 2 should be
rejected, while Hypotheses 5 and 6 should be accepted. In other words, the

62

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

Table 5. Bootstrap Analysis of the Effects of Independent Variables.

Change-oriented OCB
BC 95% CI

Organization level PM
Direct effect
Indirect effect via OI
Total effect
Individual level PM
Direct effect
Indirect effect via OI
Total effect

Coefficient

SE

Lower

Upper

.12
.12
.24

.07
.04
.08

.00
.04
.08

.27
.20
.40

.081
.004
.004

.11
.11
.21

.06
.04
.08

.02
.04
.05

.22
.19
.36

.088
.005
.007

Note. BC 95% CI = 1,000 bootstrap sample-based bias-corrected confidence intervals. PM = Performance

management.

relationship between CO-OCB and PM at both the organization and individual level
should be understood primarily as indirect effects based on their relationship with OI.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study sought to test a number of empirical hypotheses derived from a review of
literature related to CO-OCB, PM, and OI. Over the past decades, public sector organizations the world over have been subject to an ongoing reform process designed to
enhance competitiveness and responsiveness to constituents (Pollitt & Bouckaert,
2011). While these reforms have brought significant changes to the ways in which
public services are distributed, produced, and conceived, they have also altered the
culture and identity of public organizations (Bourgault & Van Dorpe, 2013; Horton,
2006). Given how widespread these reforms have been, it is useful for scholars to
examine carefully and empirically the resultant effects, not only for public organizations but also for the individuals who make their careers within them.
Before discussing the contribution this study makes to this effort, some limitations
should be noted. First, as already mentioned, while post hoc tests suggest that CMV is
not a serious problem with the data, scholars have pointed out that additional sources,
such as supervisor ratings, should be used when attempting to measure behavioral
propensities (Scullen, Mount, & Goff, 2000). While the use of multiple sources is
itself not without limitations and dangers (Podsakoff et al., 2003), this technique may
be used as a validation of this studys findings in future research. Second, in addition
to being collected from a single source, the data used in this study were also collected
at a single point in time. Consequently, the proposed causal relationships derived from
the literature review cannot be demonstrated statistically, but remain at a hypothetical

Campbell

63

level. Together, these limitations highlight the need for a sophisticated research design
with data collected from multiple sources on multiple occasions.
Despite these limitations, this study has a number of implications. First, the results
suggest that public managers may facilitate change performance through enhancing
how employees perceive organizational identity. Second, on a practical level, PM
techniques may represent a useful tool set by which to accomplish this. As a species of
results-based control (Eisenhardt, 1985), PM essentially shifts some of the risk of
organizational performance from the principal to the agent, thereby facilitating an
alignment of the individuals interests with those of the organization. Enhancing the
entrepreneurial character of public organizations has long been linked to encouraging
a culture of risk (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). This study suggests that risk-sharing
techniques such as PM may drive change-oriented behavior primarily through their
effect of OI, a hypotheses that merits further empirical study.
Second, there is no shortage of studies that detail the subtle difficulties related to a
successful implementation of PM in the public sector, and consequently that the link
between PM and organizational performance is less than straightforward (Boyne,
2010; Jones & Kettl, 2003; Moynihan, 2008; Perry et al., 2009; Stazyk, 2013). This
study contributes to this literature by its implication that scholars wishing to fully
grasp the consequences of PM techniques at the individual level may need to broaden
the scope of behaviors deemed relevant to the concept. Fundamentally, PM systems
are designed to increase formally defined performance, both at the organization and
individual level. However, the shift of focus from procedures to results may also
engender creative, extra-role behaviors, a notion implied by the literature but not thoroughly tested. This study suggests that this hypothesis deserves further study.
This study also has implications for OI scholarship, particularly as it relates to public organizations. In past studies, the identification construct has consistently been
found to have a strong relationship with affiliative types of OCB (Dukerich et al.,
2002; Riketta, 2005; Van Dick et al., 2006), and the findings of this study represent an
extension of this earlier theory to a new domain of behavior relevant to public organizations (Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2012). This finding is significant due to the theoretical obstacles involved in extending OI theory specifically to change-oriented extra-role
behavior (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003; Dukerich et al., 1998; Jetten, OBrien, &
Trindall, 2002). In extending the theory of OI to take into account the distinct characteristics of public organizational life, however, the willingness of strongly identified
employees to accept the risk associated with change-oriented behavior to contribute to
a greater goal potentially links the construct to public service motivation (PSM), an
important motivational concept in the public administration literature which emphasizes self-sacrifice (Perry, 1996). At the same time, OIs focus on the specific organization distinguishes it from PSM, which is associated with a connection to the public
good more broadly understood (Perry & Wise, 1990). Given this, understanding how
these two important constructs are linked represents another potentially fruitful path
for future scholarship.
Finally, a few remarks about how this studys results are related to the Korean context
are also necessary, as they impact the generalizability of the results. One of the major

64

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

motivations for the introduction of PM reforms to public sector organizations in Korea

has been a sense that traditional organizational culture discouraged the type of risk taking necessary for enhanced organizational performance (Park & Joo, 2010). Based partly
on principalagent theory, however, PM makes significant assumptions about individual
motivation, and these roots have led some scholars to question the appropriateness of
PM for the collectively-oriented Korean context (Im, 2013; Im et al., 2013; C. K. Lee &
Moon, 2012). This study suggests that, at least in terms of encouraging change-oriented
behavior, PM appears to be having a positive effect. One interpretation of this relationship is that PM, in raising the salience of organizational goals, provides a counter-point
to the focus on the personal dimension of organizational life that has traditionally dominated Korean bureaucracy. At the same time, some scholars have suggested that resultsbased managerial practices can harm affiliative types of OCB (Deckop, Mangel, &
Cirka, 1999), and this study remains silent on the question of whether PM is also associated with weakened intentions to make group rather than organizationally-oriented sacrifices. This suggests that a more complete understanding of the relationship between
PM and change-oriented behavior requires both testing in diverse organizational contexts, as well as the incorporation of a more diverse range of behavioral outcomes.
Scholars and practitioners across the world have been drawn to the promise of PM
to enhance public sector organizational performance to the extent that we are in the
midst of an era of government by performance management (Moynihan & Pandey,
2005, p. 422). In practice, however, the results of reform initiatives have been decidedly mixed. By focusing on the micro-level mechanisms linking PM to enhanced organizational functioning, public administration scholars can help uncover valuable tools
that can be used to overcome the bureaucratic characteristics that stifle organizational
effectiveness in the public sector.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was partially funded by a grant from the Korea
Research Foundation (NRF-2011-330-B00195 [I00035]).

References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in
social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,
317-334.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification:
Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25,
13-17.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 7, 263-295.

Campbell

65

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of
vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54.
Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isnt
everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon? Public Performance and
Management Review, 26, 5-25.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and
moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80, 165-180.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model:
Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.
Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. (2003). Escaping the identity trap. Image. Retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/escaping-the-identity-trap/
Bourgault, J., & Van Dorpe, K. (2013). Managerial reforms, public service bargains and top
civil servant identity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 49-70.
Boyne, G. A. (2010). Performance management: Does it work? In R. M. Walker, G. A. Boyne,
& G. A. Brewer (Eds.), Public management and performance (pp. 207-226). Cambridge,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public
Administration Review, 58, 109118.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Campbell, J. W., & Im, T. (2014). Identification and trust in public organizations: A communicative approach. Public Management Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14
719037.2014.881531
Carmeli, A., Cohen-Meitar, R., & Elizur, D. (2007). The role of job challenge and organizational identification in enhancing creative behavior among employees in the workplace.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 7590.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of
Management Studies, 44, 972-992.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods,
11, 296-325.
Chibber, V. (2002). Bureaucratic rationality and the developmental state. American Journal of
Sociology, 107, 951-989.
Cho, Y. J., & Lee, J. W. (2012). Performance management and trust in supervisors. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 32, 236-259.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 467-484.

66

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 361-375.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis
practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147-168.
Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Research notes. Getting more than you
pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 420-428.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507-533.
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. M. (1998). The dark side of organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations (pp. 245-256). London, England: SAGE.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management
Science, 31, 134-149.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 57-74.
Frederickson, H. G. (2002). Confucius and the moral basis of bureaucracy. Administration &
Society, 33, 610-628.
Hameed, I., Roques, O., & Ali Arain, G. (2013). Nonlinear moderating effect of tenure on organizational identification (OID) and the subsequent role of OID in fostering readiness for
change. Group & Organization Management, 38, 101-127.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14, 75-89.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
Horton, S. (2006). New public management: Its impact on public servants identity: An introduction to this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19,
533-542.
Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and
private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 35-58.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
17, 139-153.
Im, T. (2013). Bureaucracy in three different worlds: The assumptions of failed public sector
reforms in Korea. Public Organization Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/
s11115-013-0246-7
Im, T., Campbell, J. W., & Cha, S. (2013). Revisiting Confucian bureaucracy: Roots of the
Korean governments culture and competitiveness. Public Administration and Development,
33, 286-296.
Jetten, J., OBrien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to organizational restructure as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 281-297.

Campbell

67

Jones, L. R., & Kettl, D. F. (2003). Assessing public management reform in an international
context. International Public Management Review, 4(1), 1-19.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale
(POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Kim, P. S., & Hong, K. P. (2013). Major constraints and possible solutions for performance
management in Korea. Public Management Review, 15, 1137-1153. doi:10.1080/147190
37.2013.818844
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-261.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
36-51.
Lee, C. K., & Moon, M. J. (2012). Performance management reforms in South Korea. In E.
M. Berman, M. J. Moon, & H. Choi (Eds.), Public administration in East Asia: Mainland
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (pp. 427-449). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (Taylor
and Francis).
Lee, G., & Jimenez, B. S. (2011). Does performance management affect job turnover intention
in the federal government? The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 168-184.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103-123.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Minns, J. (2001). Of miracles and models: The rise and decline of the developmental state in
South Korea. Third World Quarterly, 22, 1025-1043.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information
and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
15(3), 421-439.
Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Performance management, managerial authority, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 431-458.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. New
York, NY: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97.
Park, C. O., & Joo, J. (2010). Control over the Korean bureaucracy: A review of the NPM
civil service reforms under the Roh Moo-Hyun government. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 30, 189-210.

68

Public Personnel Management 44(1)

Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability

and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
Perry, J. L., Engbers, T. A., & Jun, S. Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay,
empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration
Review, 50, 367-373.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human
Performance, 10, 133-151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Poister, T. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Edwards, L. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to
better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry. Public Administration
Review, 73, 625-636.
Pollitt, C. (2001). Clarifying convergence. Striking similarities and durable differences in public
management reform. Public Management Review, 3, 471-492.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysisnew public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D.
A. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: Insights from the group value
model. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1377-1400.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 358-384.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956-970.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal
of Business Research, 58, 935-943.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Stazyk, E. C. (2013). Crowding out public service motivation? Comparing theoretical expectations with empirical findings on the influence of performance-related pay. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 33, 252-274.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Campbell

69

Taylor, J. (2013). Goal setting in the Australian public service: Effects on psychological
empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior. Public Administration Review, 73,
453-464.
Taylor, J., & Beh, L. (2013). The impact of pay-for-performance schemes on the performance
of Australian and Malaysian government employees. Public Management Review, 15,
1090-1115.
Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile:
Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283-301.
Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective.
Applied Psychology, 49, 357-371.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational
commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27, 571-584.
Vigoda, E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (2001). Citizenship behavior and the spirit of new managerialism: A theoretical framework and challenge for governance. The American Review of
Public Administration, 31, 273-295.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Beeri, I. (2012). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior
in public administration: The power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 573-596.
Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 21, 367-386.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1990). Goal-setting and strategy effects on complex tasks.
Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical
Reviews, 12, 73-109.
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational
leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review,
72, 206-215.

Author Biography
Jesse W. Campbell is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Public Administration at the
Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia. His current research focuses on topics relevant
to the performance of public organizations including motivation, leadership, innovation, and
performance management. In addition to these topics, a second stream of research explores
broader issues uniquely relevant to the East Asian administrative context.

Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. 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.