International Journal of Public Sector Management

Performance management and job-goal alignment: a conditional process model of turnover intention in
the public sector
Alexander Kalgin, Dmitry Podolskiy, Daria Parfenteva, Jesse W. Campbell,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alexander Kalgin, Dmitry Podolskiy, Daria Parfenteva, Jesse W. Campbell, "Performance management and job-goal
alignment: a conditional process model of turnover intention in the public sector", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2016-0069
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2016-0069
Downloaded on: 28 November 2017, At: 13:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:122143 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Performance management and job-goal alignment: A conditional process

model of turnover intention in the public sector

Purpose: The use of performance management (PM) tools is a defining characteristic of

public sector management. However, while research on PM is extensive, comparatively
little focuses on how the practice shapes the attitudes and behavior of employees. This
article addresses this question and develops a conditional process model that links PM to
turnover intention. The model predicts that the PM-turnover relationship is mediated by
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

job satisfaction and moderated by job-goal alignment.

Design and methodology: We use a unique dataset drawn from the Russian public
sector to test the model empirically. Conditional process modeling is used to test for
moderated mediation. The effects are further explored using bootstrapped bias-corrected
confidence intervals.

Findings: The analysis suggests that PM has an indirect effect on turnover intention via
job satisfaction in the average case. However, the indirect effect is stronger for
employees who perceive that their work contributes directly to organizational goals. In
contrast, for employees whose work lacks organizational goal alignment, PM has no
significant effect.

Originality: Despite being an instrument to manage organizational (including human)

resources, few studies have linked PM to employee-level outcomes. By doing so, this
study implies promising research paths that can help generate a more complete picture of
how PM shapes organizational processes in the public sector.

Keywords: performance management, goal alignment, line of sight, satisfaction,

turnover intention, moderated mediation
 Introduction

An emphasis on measuring performance and output-based decision-making have become

defining features of the public management discourse (Hood 1995; Moynihan 2008).

While performance management (PM) is conceptualized and implemented in a variety of

ways (Radnor and Barnes 2007), at its core the practice involves a continuous feedback

cycle of strategic goal setting, data collection, and process adjustment (Moynihan 2008;
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Walker, Damanpour, and Devece 2011). There is ongoing debate about the

appropriateness of PM in the public sector (Behn 2002; Hvidman and Andersen 2013),

and moreover the adoption of the practice can be driven by a need for legitimacy as

much as an instrumental concern for effectiveness (Lawton, McKevitt, and Miller 2000;

McKevitt and Lawton 1996), however, recent work suggests that PM positively impacts

the performance of public sector organizations (Gerrish 2016). At the same time, while

scholars have approached the topic in different ways, understanding the impact of PM on

frontline employees has received comparatively little attention. Human resources are a

foundation of organizational performance (Kim 2005; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999), and

management behavior and higher-level organization policy can impact employees in

different ways. Leaders play an important role in determining organizational culture

(Campbell 2017; Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright 2011), with policy set at the upper

echelons permeating down the hierarchy and across organizational networks, and

employee-level outcomes are not independent of the actions managers take to cope with

performance challenges (Campbell 2015; Stazyk, Pandey, and Wright 2011). Given the

centrality of the PM paradigm to contemporary public organizations, better

 understanding the link between PM and employee-level outcomes may yield non-trivial

performance dividends in this context.

The ability to attract and retain high-quality employees (as well as eliminate weak

performers) is intimately related to organizational performance (March and Simon 1958;

Meier and Hicklin 2007). Considering this, this study focuses on the relationships

between PM, job satisfaction, and turnover intention for public sector employees. We
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

propose two mechanisms through which PM may influence the outcomes of interest.

First, we argue that PM both clarifies and contextualizes organizational goals, potentially

heightening the significance that frontline employees attach to their work. These factors

have been linked to job satisfaction and turnover intention in the public sector literature

(Callier 2016; Jung 2013; Jung 2014; Kim and Fernandez 2017). Second, we suggest that

PM can reduce the need for (and legitimacy of) centralized control, thereby enhancing

vertical accountability and the autonomy that employees experience in the decision

making process. As such, employee evaluations of their workplace should be positively

related to PM, and we therefore hypothesize that PM will lead to higher levels of job

satisfaction and, ultimately, reduced turnover intention among frontline staff.

Second, we explore the potential of job design to shape how PM affects satisfaction. In

the public sector, intrinsic job rewards derive partially from the direct contribution that

employees make to socially relevant goals (Perry and Wise 1990; Scott and Pandey

2005; van Loon et al. 2016; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey 2012), and an inability to

understand how one’s work contributes to the organization’s mission may damage

motivation (Wright and Davis 2003). We therefore argue that the strength of the link
 between PM and job satisfaction is contingent on the ability of employees to understand

the contribution of their work to the organization’s mission, thereby heightening their

sense of individual job significance.

This study is organized as follows. First, a review of the literature relevant to links

between PM, job satisfaction, and turnover intention is presented. Here we also introduce

the concept of job-goal alignment and discuss its relevance to the model. We next
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

describe the data, measures, and the methodology used to test the theoretical model. Our

empirical analysis relies on survey data gathered from Russian public sector employees

working in different regions of the country. Over the past 10 years, PM has become

pervasive throughout Russian government, however, its implementation has been uneven

(Klimenko 2015). This regional variation furnishes an appropriate venue in which to test

our performance management-based model of turnover intention. We present our results

and discuss their relevance to the broader public management literature, emphasizing

their practical implications for understanding PM practices in the public sector. This

study addresses a gap in the PM literature by answering calls to think more deeply about

the implications of management practice and behavior for frontline employees (Pandey

and Wright 2006; Stazyk, Pandey, and Wright 2011).

Literature review

Performance management in the public sector: An overview

Globally, PM has become a widespread practice in public sector organizations (Gerrish

2016). As a practice, PM requires the setting of explicit performance targets, a

continuous collection of data relevant to these targets, and finally the concerted usage of
 this data to fine-tune organizational processes (Moynihan 2008). Radnor and Barnes

(2007, pg. 393) characterize the practice as “action, based on performance measures and

reporting, which results in improvements in behavior, motivation and processes and

promotes innovation.” In this framework, performance information is the basis upon

which managers act to coordinate the achievement of goals (Walker et al. 2010). Like

most management instruments, the implementation of PM is connected to the necessity

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

for control under conditions of information asymmetry and non-aligned preferences, and,

in addition to providing an evaluative framework for action, PM systems often include

various goal-oriented incentives (Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright 2012).

Justifications for the use of PM in the public sector are not limited to improving

performance and include enhancing accountability and transparency, addressing

ambiguous goals, and securing stakeholder legitimacy (Behn 2003; Boyne et al. 2002;

Moynihan and Pandey 2010). Research has found that the use of PM can produce

positive effects, including building on management innovation to enhance performance

(Walker et al. 2010). At the same time, the practice has been linked to adverse behavioral

consequences under non-ideal conditions or when systems are poorly designed. Because

public organizations lack a single ‘bottom line’ against which to measure performance,

are accountable to multiple stakeholder groups whose interests sometimes diverge, and

often focus on remote social outcomes that cannot easily be measured, PM can in some

cases displace legitimate goals and encourage cheating (Bohte and Meier 2000). As such,

the potential costs of poorly designed systems should not be ignored (Smith 1995), and

therefore it is important to understand the factors that determine the effectiveness of

various performance regimes.

 Performance management, job satisfaction, and turnover intention

While new technologies have come to play an increasingly important role in the public

sector, human resources remain a core performance variable (Kim 2005; Rainey and

Steinbauer 1999). Studies suggest that the control and communication strategies adopted

at the upper echelons of an organization have attitudinal and behavioral consequences

that propagate throughout the workforce (Campbell and Im 2015; Stazyk et al. 2011).
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

While its adoption can be driven by different needs (Behn 2003), as a managerial

practice PM aims to develop and rationalize organizational resources, including the

human kind. In this sense, PM is an instrument “designed to get the people within a

public agency—and their essential collaborators—to achieve specific public purposes”

(Behn 2002, pg. 20). This link between PM and the marshaling of human resources

suggests that the practice may help shape how employees view their organization and

their place in it.

Grounded in an overall appraisal of the difference between expectations and the realities

of organizational experience (Wright and Kim 2004; Yang and Kassekert 2010), job

satisfaction is a key factor in organizational behavior. Defined as an “affective or

emotional response toward various facets of one’s job,” job satisfaction is positively

correlated with numerous employee outcomes relevant to public organizations

(Cantarelli, Belardinelli, and Belle 2016; Kim 2005, pg. 246). Among these, the

construct is consistently linked to turnover intention (Campbell and Im 2015; Lambert,

Hogan, and Barton 2001). Turnover intention is a decision process composed of several

stages that culminates in an employee voluntarily leaving their organization (Porter &

Steers, 1973) and is closely associated with organizational performance. Because job
 satisfaction is a potent predictor of turnover intention (Moynihan and Pandey 2007),

significant antecedents of job satisfaction should generally have an indirect relationship

with the turnover intention.

PM may be linked to job satisfaction in various ways. First, a key function of PM is the

defining of organizational goals in such a way that they are both clear and amenable to

measurement (Walker et al. 2010). Public organizations, based on the nature of their
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

objectives and lack of hard performance standards, have long been thought to suffer from

ambiguous goals (Rainey and Jung 2010), a problem which PM is specifically employed

to address. Many public employees are not indifferent to the social contribution of their

organization (Perry and Wise 1990), and clear organizational goals are linked to

strengthened mission valence and job satisfaction (Wright and Pandey 2011). As such,

the goal-orientation of PM should have a positive impact on job satisfaction. More

directly, PM can improve organizational performance (Gerrish 2016; Walker et al. 2010),

which may make it a driver of job satisfaction in the public sector (Cantarelli et al.

2016).

In addition to the psychological value of clear goals, PM may also influence employee

job perceptions through its impact on the structural and control characteristics of the

organization. For instance, Walker et al. (2010) suggest that increasing discretion is a

core component of PM initiatives, and others have shown that centralization is linked to

organizational goal ambiguity (Stazyk and Goerdel 2011; Stazyk et al. 2011).

Alternatively, formal performance targets and indicators provide employees with an

independent framework against which to evaluate possible actions, thereby increasing

 the job autonomy they experience (Campbell, Lee, and Im 2016). In this vein, Jung

(2013) argues that ambiguous goals are related to reduced job satisfaction by

undermining the potential for self-regulation. Through setting performance targets and

quantitative performance indicators, PM provides employees with a clearer view of the

organization’s priorities. In this way, by making organizational goals more salient, PM

can drive organizational identification (Campbell 2015), which is associated with both
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

job satisfaction and turnover intention (Van Dick et al. 2004). Wright and Davis (2003,

pg. 76) demonstrate that clarity in the "direction, purpose, and performance measures of

the organization" are associated with higher levels of employee feedback, job-goal

specificity, and human resource development, each of which drives job satisfaction in the

public sector.

These characteristics of PM suggest that the practice will positively influence job

satisfaction, and, through this positive influence, negatively affect employee turnover

intention.

Hypothesis 1: Performance management has an indirect, negative influence on

turnover intention based on a direct, positive influence on job satisfaction. Stated

differently, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between performance

management and turnover intention.

Employee job-goal alignment

By sharpening an employee’s understanding of their organization’s mission, PM should

also strengthen satisfaction with and commitment to the organization. At the same time,
 however, the extent to which a given employee understands how their own work

contributes to their organization’s goals may condition the impact of PM on job

satisfaction. While employees can be inspired by the mission of the organization and

adjust their work effort accordingly (Paarlberg and Perry 2007), if individual-level job

conditions do not allow employees to make a connection between their own work and

valued organization-level goals, their work motivation can be frustrated (Scott and
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Pandey 2005; Wright and Davis 2003). In this sense, while attractive and clear

organizational goals are in themselves linked with motivation (van Loon et al. 2016),

these alone may not be sufficient to produce highly motivated employees (Wright,

Moynihan, and Pandey 2012).

Organizations can increase individual-organizational goal alignment through the careful

design of employee performance appraisal and feedback (Ayers 2015). Employees with a

strong understanding of how their own work contributes to the organization's mission

may have lower levels of role ambiguity (Campbell 2016), and having one's work

contextualized within an organization's strategic plan fosters job satisfaction (Kim 2002).

Pfeffer (1998) noted that the degree to which the components of an organization's

performance policies complement each other is an important component of performance,

and Gruman and Saks (2011) argue that organizations can expect the best outcomes

when PM fosters a sense of employee engagement. In this sense, we expect that the

strength of the relationship between PM and job satisfaction is contingent on the extent

to which employees also understand their individual contribution to the organization's

mission.
 Hypothesis 2: Employee job-goal alignment positively moderates the relationship

between PM and job satisfaction, and, consequently, the indirect relationship

between performance management and turnover intention is conditioned by job-

goal alignment.

Figure 1 presents the conditional process model (Hayes 2013) developed in the

preceding paragraphs. In the next section, we describe the data and methodology we use
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

to test the model.

Figure 1: A performance management-based conditional process model of turnover

intention

Data and methods

Dataset

To examine how PM shapes the perception of public employees, survey data was

collected from federal and regional-level government organizations in the Russian

Federation. To test our hypotheses, we developed a set of questions measured on a 5-

point Likert-type scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). As the

survey items were initially written in English, 2 bilingual individuals translated the

questions into Russian, following which the research team made small adjustments to
 make the questions clearer and more natural sounding to native Russian speakers, as well

as to eliminate any ambiguous words (Podsakoff et al. 2012).

Initially, the survey was sent by email to alumni of a Russian research university known

to be working in government. A total of 65 surveys were sent out, and a modest 37

responses were returned. To increase the number of responses, the survey was

administered a second time to a group of civil servants attending a professional training

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

program in November 2015. This group was composed primarily of professionals also

working in federal and regional government organizations from the 28 regions of the

Russian Federation. An additional 87 responses were obtained in the second wave of the

survey, resulting in a total sample of 124 usable surveys. Before answering the survey,

recipients were informed that participation was voluntary and informed that their

responses would remain confidential.

T-tests indicate that survey waves 1 and 2 have no statistically significant differences in

terms of sex, age, education, or experience; however, wave 2 respondents are somewhat

(p = .03) more likely to be in management positions (about 71% for wave 2 vs. 51% for

wave 1). Survey wave and all demographic factors, including whether the respondent is

in a managerial position, are included in the multivariate statistical analyses below.

The implementation of performance management in the Russian context

The implementation of PM in Russia began in 2004 at the level of federal ministries and

gradually spread to the regional and, later, municipal levels of government (Klimenko

2015). We focus on the organizational level because it best reflects the way PM has been

introduced into the Russian public sector, initially targeting administrative and budgetary
 reform. Performance indicators were introduced at the level of sub-departments and

divisions, however, individual performance appraisals have only been implemented in a

few regions as pilot projects. One of the main instruments of PM in Russia is a system of

annual performance plans linking organizational budgets to a set of performance

indicators (Kalgin 2015; Kalgin 2016). These plans are designed in a bottom-up fashion

by government bodies and include a set of goals and performance targets. The
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

implementation of this initiative was driven by the central government, but the regional

administrators had discretion over the content of the plans. Departments were given the

discretion to choose aims, objectives, and appropriate indicators. Consequently, a

distinctive feature of PM practice in the Russian public sector is its organizational and

regional diversity. Performance plans had a unified structure, but their content varied

across organizations. The extent to which performance indicators are linked to

managerial practices also varies. By 2013 the formal practice of compiling annual

performance reports ceased, but in many organizations, it was replaced by a new wave of

PM efforts (Romanov et al. 2015).

Moynihan and Pandey (2010, pg. 849) write that understanding the purposes for and

conditions under which managers incorporate performance information into decision-

making routines is “perhaps the most pressing challenge” for scholars of PM. This

question is highly relevant to the Russian public sector context as well. Kalgin (2012)

notes that a prominent feature of PM in the public sector in Russia is that performance

data often remains un- or under-utilized. In many organizations, large amounts of

performance data are collected but not used to improve decision-making, while other

organizations are much more proactive. For the present study, this diversity creates
 favorable conditions for analyzing the influence of PM practices at the organizational

level.

Measurements

Turnover intention is a multi-stage decision process that can result in an employee

voluntarily leaving their organization (Porter & Steers, 1973). While there is conflicting

evidence about the extent to which turnover intention is a reliable proxy for actual
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

turnover (Cho & Lewis, 2012; Jung, 2010), others have suggested that the study of

turnover intention is itself a valuable goal (Jung, 2014). We measure turnover intention

using three questions (alpha = .74) that have been used previously in the public-sector

literature (Campbell and Im 2015). The questions are "I often think about quitting my

current job," "I will probably look for a new job after one or two years," and "I want to

keep this position until retirement" (reversed).

Job satisfaction is a multi-dimensional construct that taps a general perception about the

quality of exchange (based on previous expectations) between the individual and their

place of employment (Pitts, Marvel, and Fernandez 2011; Moynihan and Pandey 2007).

There is an ongoing debate in the empirical management literature about whether job

satisfaction should be treated as a global phenomenon or as an index of satisfaction with

various job characteristics (Faragher, Cass, and Cooper 2005). Empirical research

suggests that single item measures aimed at capturing global job satisfaction can

overestimate the phenomenon, while multi-item scales provide a more realistic estimate

(Oshagbemi 1999). As such, we chose to measure job satisfaction directly with three

items: “I am satisfied with my work,” “…with my compensation,” and “…with my

 organization.” The alpha value for the 3-item index was slightly below the conventional

.70 level at .67. However, the items have a high level of face validity as measures of job

satisfaction and the scale has a strong negative correlation with turnover intention (see

table 1 below), which demonstrates convergent validity.

Performance management is a continuous process of resource adjustment based on

formally gathered performance data with the goal of better achieving performance goals
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

(Moynihan 2008). The concept has been measured in different ways in the quantitative

public administration literature. Walker et al. (2010, pg. 383) ask respondents to rate the

extent to which the mission and objectives of the organization are known throughout the

organization, whether performance targets are clearly articulated, the extent to which

these are used for “corrective action,” and finally the degree to which decision-making

authority is devolved. Campbell (2015) similarly asks the extent to which goals are clear

and prioritized, are amenable to objective measurement, and whether goals and work

processes are regularly reviewed. In this study, 3 items were developed that track closely

to these existing scales and capture the three core elements of PM as defined in the

literature. The 3 questions (alpha = .80) are "This organization has clearly defined

performance targets," "Performance data is consistently collected about my

organization," and "In this organization, performance data is used to improve work

processes." As with previous scales, our inventory has not been formally validated.

However, a degree of face validity as measurements for core PM techniques suggest that

some confidence can be had in their suitability for the purposes of this study. Moreover,

given the organization-level orientation of PM reforms in Russia, our measures are

consistent with the realities of the context of the study.

 Employees who feel that they cannot contribute to their organization's mission, no matter

the value they attribute to it, will experience frustrated motivation (Scott and Pandey

2005). As the construct is fundamentally subjective, we define employee job-goal

alignment as an individual’s perception that their own work is connected and contributes

to the goals of the organization. We measure the construct with a single item, "I

understand how my work contributes to my organization’s goals," which captures this

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

core meaning.

In our multivariate model, we control for employee factors that may influence the

dependent and mediating variables. These include sex, education, age, government

experience, organizational tenure, and whether the individual is in a managerial position.

We also include a dummy variable for the wave in which the data was collected.

We note here that we employed several procedural methods to reduce the possibility of

common method variance (CMV) in our data (Podsakoff et al. 2012). These steps

included ensuring question wording was unambiguous, and that the independent,

mediating, and dependent variable were all appropriately separated in the questionnaire.

We also conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to determine whether the data

fit the underlying structure implied by our model. Among competing models, only the 3-

factor PM, job satisfaction, and turnover intention model met all conventional model fit

cutoff points (RMSEA: .074; CFI: .952; TLI: .929; SRMR: .054) (Sharma, Mukherjee,

Kumar, & Dillon, 2005), with the 1 and 2-factor models performing significantly worse.

This suggests that the items are acceptable indicators of their latent concepts and

sufficiently distinct. Despite these precautions and post hoc tests, however, the use of
 cross-sectional, single-source data should be considered a limitation of this study

(Jakobsen and Jensen 2015).

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for the sample. PM and

job satisfaction have mean values above their scale midpoints, while turnover intention

and job-goal alignment have means below their midpoints. Job-goal alignment has the
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

largest standard deviation among the key variables, which suggests that this variable

captures a wide variety of perceptions about how successfully organization goals are

decomposed into individual job roles. In terms of correlations, both job satisfaction and

PM are related to turnover intention at statistically significant levels, and PM is also

positively correlated with job satisfaction. Job-goal alignment, on the other hand, is

correlated neither with turnover intention nor job satisfaction. No control variables are

related to turnover intention, but government experience is associated with higher levels

of job satisfaction. Wave 2 respondents perceive higher levels of PM, are more satisfied

with their jobs, and report less job goal alignment then wave 1 respondents, relationships

that are similar for the multivariate analyses below. While the underlying causes of these

specific correlations are unclear, they do again reinforce the importance of controlling

for survey wave in the multivariate analysis.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Turnover intention
2 Performance management (PM) -.207*
3 Job satisfaction -.480*** .406***
4 Job-goal alignment (JGA) -.019 .064 -.144
5 Female -.112 .147 .115 -.007
6 Age -.161+ .142 .181+ .035 -.021
7 Education .029 -.053 -.085 -.098 -.067 .055
8 Govt. experience -.173+ .041 .335*** -.152 -.085 .540*** .149
9 Org. tenure -.073 .046 .161+ -.004 .054 .457*** .129 .431***
10 Management position level -.067 .086 .168+ -.145 -.193* .222* .140 .295** .244**
11 Survey wave .050 .209* .335*** -.338*** -.005 -.041 -.038 .169+ .012 .249**
Mean 2.70 3.73 3.35 2.57 0.53 3.19 3.36 9.00 6.08 0.65 0.70
SD 0.57 0.93 0.88 1.29 0.50 0.53 0.61 7.69 6.16 0.48 0.46
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Min / Max 1 / 3.67 1/5 1/5 1/5 0/1 2/6 3/5 1 / 43 0 / 37 0/1 0/1
Note: + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Table 2 presents regression results. Contemporary mediation analysis dispenses with the

first step of the classical Baron and Kenny (1986) process whereby a direct relationship

between the independent and dependent variable is established in the absence of the

mediation mechanism, primarily as indirect effects can be present even when a direct,

unmediated effect is non-significant (Aguinis, Edwards, and Bradley 2016; Rucker et al.

2011). Accordingly, model 1 tests for a relationship between PM and job satisfaction,

and also whether this relationship is moderated by job-goal alignment. Model 2 tests for

a relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention. If significant, these 3

statistics establish the logical basis for moderated mediation, for which a formal test

based on the bootstrapping method described in the methodological literature can be

performed (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007; Hayes 2013).

Before discussing the quantities of interest, several things can be noted about the models.

First, to reduce the high levels of multicollinearity associated with multiplicative terms,

both PM and job-goal alignment were centered prior to creating the interaction term

(Aiken and West 1991). Consequently, both models have a low variance inflation factor
 (< 1.4 for both models). Additionally, both models are homoscedastic. F-statistics for

both models are significant (p < .001), and adjusted R-square values indicate that the

independent variables explain about 30% of the variation in job satisfaction and about

22% in turnover intention in our sample. Together, these statistics suggest that both

models are reasonable specified.

Table 2: Regression results

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Model 1: Job satisfaction Model 2: Turnover intention

Beta Coef. Std. Err. Beta Coef. Std. Err.
Performance management (PM) .384*** .359 (.080) -.001 -.001 (.061)
Job-goal alignment (JGA) -.076 -.055 (.062) -.028 -.013 (.043)
PM x JGA .182* .142 (.064) .058 .030 (.045)
Job satisfaction -.547*** -.358 (.069)
Female .088 .154 (.145) -.061 -.070 (.101)

Age -.021 -.036 (.172) -.055 -.061 (.119)

Education -.127 -.188 (.121) -.016 -.016 (.085)
Govt. experience .298** .037 (.013) -.020 -.002 (.009)
Org. tenure .027 .004 (.013) .062 .006 (.009)
Management position level .029 .053 (.161) -.044 -.052 (.112)
Survey wave .192* .390 (.185) .243* .323 (.131)

R-squared .363 .294

Adj. R-squared .301 .217
F-statistic 5.814*** 3.818***
N 113 113
Note: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Model 1 shows that PM is positively related to job satisfaction (p < .001). The interaction

between PM and job-goal alignment is also significant (p < .05). In model 2, job

satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intention (p < .001). As stated above, these

statistics form the logical conditions for moderated mediation.

 The bootstrap method is a non-parametric approach that dispenses with many of the

assumptions of so-called “normal theory methods” for testing (moderated) mediation and

takes into account the non-normality of (conditional) indirect effects (Preacher et al.

2007, pg. 187). To estimate the conditional indirect effect using the bootstrap method,

the coefficient of the indirect effect is estimated at different values of the moderating

variable. To make these estimations, we estimate models 1 and 2 simultaneously using

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Stata 13’s sem command and test for significance using the bootstrap command. The

mediation coefficient is significant at different levels of the moderating variable if the

bias corrected confidence intervals do not contain zero. We draw on the advice of the

Statistical Consulting Group at the University of California, Los Angeles to implement

the method in Stata (UCLA 2017).

Table 3 displays observed coefficients and bias corrected confidence intervals for the

conditional indirect effect estimated at low, moderate, and high levels of job-goal

alignment based on 1,000 bootstrap resamplings (Preacher et al. 2007; Hayes 2013). As

the results in table 2 suggest, the magnitude of the indirect effect of PM on turnover

intention becomes stronger as job-goal alignment increases. However, the indirect effect

is not significant at low (-1 SD) levels of the moderator variable, as the upper bound of

the bias-corrected confidence interval exceeds 0. For both moderate (mean) and high (+1

SD) values of job-goal alignment, the upper bounds of the confidence intervals are

comfortably below zero, suggesting that the indirect effect is significant at p < .05 in

these cases.

Table 3: Conditional indirect effect of performance management on turnover intention

 Indirect effect of PM on turnover 95% Bias-corrected Confidence
Job-goal alignment at: Bootstrap Std. Error
intention (observed coefficient) Interval [Low / High]

Low (mean - 1 SD) -.108 (.055) [-.226 / .002]

Mean -.220 (.050) [-.335 / -.134]

High (mean + 1 SD) -.332 (.079) [-.504 / -.193]

Note: Coefficients for the indirect effect, standard errors, and confidence intervals produced based on 1,000 bootstrap resamplings.
Mediating variable is job satisfaction. SD = standard deviation and PM = performance management.

Discussion and conclusion

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

This study tested a PM-based conditional process model of turnover intention relevant to

public organizations. The results of mediation analysis suggest that job satisfaction

functions as a path linking PM to turnover intention. This mediation effect was also

found to be stronger for employees who also experience higher levels of job-goal

alignment. These results suggest that, whatever the performance gains to be had by

implementing performance-oriented reforms, such reforms may also have (positive)

implications for frontline workers. The moderating effect of job-goal alignment,

however, suggests that how PM systems are designed matters, a finding that is largely

consistent with work on PM in the public sector (Bohte and Meier 2000; Gerrish 2016)

Before discussing the results further, the significant limitations of this study should be

noted. First, our analysis uses a relatively small convenience sample, and as such the

representativeness of the data cannot be satisfactorily determined. Relatedly, the survey

wave variable was significant in the principle analysis. While t-tests demonstrate that the

2 sub-samples are statistically indistinguishable for all demographic characteristics

except managerial level and moreover the variable was controlled for in the analysis, this

significance remains puzzling. It is therefore recommended that future research replicates

the results using a probability-based sample. Second, while moderated mediation

 analysis is meant to test causal relationships, the cross-sectional nature of the data

precludes this (Aguinis et al. 2016). This limitation can be addressed in future work by

introducing a time component into the research design, an approach that would also help

reduce the related problem of CMV. Finally, while the scales used in this study track

closely to the dimensions of the concepts they are intended to measure and have a

reasonable degree of face validity, none of them has been formally validated.
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Additionally, while job satisfaction and turnover intention are inseparable from

perception and therefore appropriately measured at the individual level (George and

Pandey 2017), we also relied on perception to measure performance management

implementation. While this approach is common in the public management literature

(Campbell 2015; Walker et al. 2015), it is susceptible to CMV (Meier and O’Toole

2013) and moreover raises the question of whether the results could be replicated using

an objective measure of PM – a significant question given the centrality PM to the

contribution of this study. In the ideal case, a mix of objective and subjective measures

(based on reports from multiple informants at multiple times) is recommended

(Andrews, Boyne, and Walker 2006), and future research should strive for high-quality

measurements, particularly for important variables.

Management strategy has implications for the motivation, performance, and well-being

of staff at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. The results of our study suggest that

a rationalized, goal oriented, and data-driven approach to managing public organizations

can produce psychological and behavioral dividends among the workforce. Although it is

advantageous to eliminate poor performers, both job satisfaction and turnover intention

are employee-level indicators of organizational health (Jung 2014), and establishing a

 link between PM and these outcomes is meaningful. The clarification of goals and

rationalization of performance metrics may provide employees both with a better sense

of the raison d'être of their organization as well as a formalized evaluative framework

that fosters workplace autonomy, and PM may drive satisfaction through the

rationalization of the organization as such. In other words, PM may enhance the

accountability of the upper echelons of the organization, reducing the arbitrariness of

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

policy and personnel decisions. In this sense, as rationalized decision-making processes

permeate the organization, improved inter-strata relationships may result based on the

legitimization of managerial behavior. While the present study has established a basic

connection, future work on employee-level outcomes of PM should test not only the

theoretical mechanisms proposed in the present study, but additional paths by which PM

may influence employee attitudes.

This study has explored one such mechanism in the form of job-goal alignment. Many

public employees care about their personal capacity to contribute to their organization's

mission (Campbell 2017; van Loon et al. 2016). Without this link, the psychological

impact of PM on employees may lack potency. Wright and Davis (2003) suggest that a

significant source of dissatisfaction in the public workforce is the misalignment of goals

and means, with employee motivation frustrated as malformed organizational processes

and rules sever the link between work and perceived mission contribution. In this way,

employees are robbed of the opportunity to satisfy higher order, altruistic needs.

Similarly, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) point out that both creating an attractive mission

as well as a supportive organizational culture are important for motivation and

performance. In the present study, we argued that job-goal alignment fulfills this role, a
 contention that the results of the analysis are consistent with. In this sense, just as the

performance impact of PM rests on various contextual factors (Gerrish 2016), this study

suggests that its employee-level impact is also conditional. However, more theoretical

and empirical work is needed to fully articulate what these conditions are in practice.

Our results suggest that job-goal alignment is a force multiplier that shapes the impact of

PM on employee attitudes. However, numerous studies have focused on negative

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

multipliers, or aspects of the performance orientation of public organizations that

damage motivation or reduce the occurrence of valued employee behaviors. For instance,

Campbell, Lee, and Im (2016) demonstrate that performance-based rewards may

discourage employees from engaging in altruistic behavior, undermining the positive

interpersonal dynamics that contribute to performance. Becker et al. (2011) describe how

the implementation of performance reviews in non-profits can increase turnover,

especially in the short term and among more senior employees.1 Likewise, Campbell, Im,

and Jeong (2014) show that a strong emphasis on efficiency and performance can

increase employee turnover intention. Alternatively, in contrast to the formal and

decentralized practices of PM, managers may implement more centralized decision-

making processes in the face of ambiguous goals, a strategy that can undermine

employee commitment by increasing role goal ambiguity (Stazyk and Goerdel 2011;

Stazyk et al. 2011). These examples are by no means exhaustive, and the body of

theoretical and empirical literature on PM in the public sector continues to grow.

1
We thank one of the reviewers of the initial version of this manuscript for suggesting
this citation.
 However, given the near inevitability of further performance-oriented reforms in the

public sector (Moynihan 2008), better understanding how competing contextual factors

may subtly (or grossly) shape the effects PM is an important goal. This study's focus on

the contextual influence of job-goal alignment contributes to this agenda.

Finally, turning to the implementation of PM in the Russian context and the relevance of

our results here, we note two things. First, as in some other countries, the implementation
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

of PM at the regional level within the Russian context was initially driven by the central

government, however, with significant autonomy granted to regional and sub-national

bodies to determine the character of their PM systems (Kalgin 2012; Klimenko 2015).

Over time, however, in many areas the practice became a formality, allowing regional

governments to put together a loose statement of their short-term plans without a formal

commitment to measurable targets. This process was worsened by the lack of provisions

for the monitoring of achievement of the stated targets or sanctions for

underperformance. Without central enforcement, the practice of compiling performance

plans became fragmented and ceased in many regional governments. In contrast, several

public organizations in Russia have maintained PM initiatives even though the external

pressure to do so has dissipated (Kalgin 2015). This historical fact suggests an alternative

interpretation of our main result in the sense that our measurement of PM may capture a

general reform or modernization orientation in a given organization that is attractive to

employees. Unfortunately, our dataset provides no way to control for this.

At the same time, the items used to measure PM in this study are precise and are not

dissimilar with those used in studies focusing on the English (Walker et al. 2010) or

Korean (Campbell 2015) context, a fact which allows for some confidence in the
 generalizability of our results. Second, a context-specific implication of our results is that

further research in the Russian context should focus on a better triangulation of the

factors that affect the resilience of PM reforms, particularly as such reforms may have

beneficial effects. More genreally, most empirical work on PM in the public sector has

focused on Western countries, however, some have suggested that performance-oriented

reforms are highly sensitive to institutional context (Ho and Im 2015). A better
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

understanding of the Russian context may serve as a meaningful contribution to this

stream of research.

PM systems may not be a universal panacea for public organizations. Nevertheless, if

their careful implementation can produce both organization-level performance

increments as well as psychological benefits for the workforce, both practitioners and

scholars should be wary of abandoning the PM effort despite the very real challenges it

faces. This study found that PM is related to job satisfaction and turnover intention. We

also show that this relationship can be shaped by the job-goal alignment of individual

employees, a finding consistent with suggestions in the literature that the effects of PM

are context dependent. While this study represents a small step, a concerted effort by

researchers to uncover and integrate the different contextual factors that influence PM in

the public sector is necessary before its potential as an instrument of organization

effectiveness can be fully realized.

References

Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2016). Improving Our Understanding of
Moderation and Mediation in Strategic Management Research. Organizational
Research Methods, 1–21.
 Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Centralization,
Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57–80.

Ayers, R. S. (2015). Aligning Individual and Organizational Performance: Goal

Alignment in Federal Government Agency Performance Appraisal Programs. Public
Personnel Management, 44(2), 1–24.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in

Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Becker, K., Antuar, N., & Everett, C. (2011). Implementing an employee performance
management system in a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 21(3), 255–271.

Behn, R. D. (2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: or why isn't

everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon? Public Performance
& Management Review, 26(1), 5–25.

Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different

measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.

Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Goal Displacement: Assessing the Motivation for
Organizational Cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173–182.

Boyne, G., Gould Williams, J., Law, J., & Walker, R. (2002). Plans, performance
information and accountability: the case of best value. Public Administration, 80(4),
691–710.

Campbell, J. W. (2015). Identification and Performance Management: An Assessment of

Change-Oriented Behavior in Public Organizations. Public Personnel Management,
44(1), 46–69.

Campbell, J. W. (2016). A Collaboration-Based Model of Work Motivation and Role

Ambiguity in Public Organizations. Public Performance & Management Review,
39(3), 655–675.

Campbell, J. W. (2017). Felt Responsibility for Change in Public Organizations: General

and Sector-Specific Paths. Public Management Review, doi:
10.1080/14719037.2017.1302245.
 Campbell, J. W., & Im, T. (2015). Identification and Trust in Public Organizations: A
communicative approach. Public Management Review, 17(8), 1065–1084.

Campbell, J. W., & Im, T. (2015). PSM and Turnover Intention in Public Organizations:
Does Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior Play a Role? Review of
Public Personnel Administration.

Campbell, J. W., Im, T., & Jeong, J. (2014). Internal Efficiency and Turnover Intention:
Evidence From Local Government in South Korea. Public Personnel Management,
43(2), 259–282.

Campbell, J. W., Lee, H., & Im, T. (2016). At the Expense of others: Altruistic helping
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

behaviour, performance management and transformational leadership. Public

Management Review, 18(6), 795–818.

Cantarelli, P., Belardinelli, P., & Belle, N. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Job Satisfaction
Correlates in the Public Administration Literature. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(2), 115–144.

Cho, Y. J., & Lewis, G. B. (2012). Turnover Intention and Turnover Behavior:
Implications for Retaining Federal Employees. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 32(1), 4–23.

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job
satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
62(2), 105–112.

Gerrish, E. (2016). The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public

Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.

George, B. & Pandey, S.K., We Know the Yin—But Where Is the Yang? Toward a
Balanced Approach on Common Source Bias in Public Administration Scholarship.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, doi: 0734371X17698189.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee

engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123–136.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Ho, A. T.-K., & Im, T. (2015). Challenges in Building Effective and Competitive
Government in Developing Countries An Institutional Logics Perspective. The
American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 263–280.

Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2), 93–109.
 Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Impact of Performance Management in Public
and Private Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
24(1), 35–58.

Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common Method Bias in Public Management
Studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.

Jung, C. S. (2010). Predicting Organizational Actual Turnover Rates in the U.S. Federal
Government. International Public Management Journal, 13(3), 297–317.

Jung, C. S. (2013). Organizational Goal Ambiguity and Job Satisfaction in the Public
Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut020

Jung, C. S. (2014). Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits
of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 24(1), 209–234.

Kalgin, A. (2012). "Performance management at the regional level: control and

efficiency." Public Administration Issues, (3), 35-60.

Kalgin, A., 2015. Implementation of performance management in regional government

in Russia. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Available at:
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5718.

Kalgin, A. (2015). Implementation of performance management in regional government

in Russia: Evidence of data manipulation. Public Management Review, 1–29.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.965271

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.

Kim, S. (2005). Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in

Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
15(2), 245–261.

Klimenko, A.V. (2015), 'Performance management / Budgeting in Russia', in Juraj

Nemec and Michiel S. de Vries (eds.), Implementation of New Public Management
Tools: Experiences from transition and emerging countries (Brusel: Bruylant).

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on
turnover intent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of
workers. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233–250.

Lawton, A., McKevitt, D., & Millar, M. (2000). Developments: Coping with Ambiguity:
Reconciling External Legitimacy and Organizational Implementation in Performance
Measurement. Public Money & Management, 20(3), 13–20.
 March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley.

McKevitt, D., & Lawton, A. (1996). The manager, the citizen, the politician and
performance measures. Public Money & Management, 16(3), 49–54.

Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective Organizational Performance and

Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–456.

Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2007). Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance:
Testing a Hypothesis from Classical Public Administration. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 573–590.
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing

information and reform. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The Ties that Bind: Social Networks, Person-
Organization Value Fit, and Turnover Intention. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(2), 205–227.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The Big Question for Performance
Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information? Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.

Moynihan, D. P., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Setting the Table: How
Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 143–164.

Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Performance Management, Managerial Authority, and Public

Service Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2),
431–458.

Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item
measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), 388–403.

Paarlberg, L. E., & Perry, J. L. (2007). Values Management: Aligning Employee Values
and Organization Goals. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 387–
408.

Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2006). Connecting the Dots in Public Management:
Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager's
Role Ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 511–
532.

Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public
Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
 Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard
Business Press.

Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention
among US federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 751–760.

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(5), 879.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. & Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

psychology, 63, 539–569.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
41(2), 185–227.

Radnor, Z. J., & Barnes, D. (2007). Historical analysis of performance measurement and
management in operations management. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 56(5/6), 384–396.

Rainey, H. G., & Jung, C. S. (2010). Extending goal ambiguity research in government:
From organizational goal ambiguity to programme goal ambiguity. Public
Management and Performance: Research Directions, 34–59.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a

theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32.

Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation Analysis
in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371.

Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red Tape and Public Service Motivation: Findings
from a National Survey of Managers in State Health and Human Services Agencies.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155–180.

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(7), 935–943.

Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the

public sector. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 18(2-3), 277–310.
 Stazyk, E. C., & Goerdel, H. T. (2011). The Benefits of Bureaucracy: Public Managers'
Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity, and Organizational Effectiveness.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 645–672.

Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Understanding Affective

Organizational Commitment: The Importance of Institutional Context. The American
Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603–624.

UCLA, How Can I Do Moderated Mediation In Stata? UCLA Institute for Digital
Research and Education. Available at: http://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/faq/how-can-i-
do-moderated-mediation-in-stata/ [Accessed April 21, 2017].
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 13:48 28 November 2017 (PT)

Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., et al.
(2004). Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with
Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction*. British Journal of Management,
15(4), 351–360.

van Loon, N., Kjeldsen, A. M., Andersen, L. B., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P.
(2016). Only When the Societal Impact Potential Is High? A Panel Study of the
Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and Perceived Performance. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 1–28.

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(2), 367–386.

Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job Satisfaction In The Public Sector: The Role of
the Work Environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70–90.

Wright, B. E., & Kim, S. (2004). Participation’s Influence on Job Satisfaction The
Importance of Job Characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(1),
18–40.

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(2), 206–215.

Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). Linking Management Reform with Employee Job
Satisfaction: Evidence from Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 20(2), 413–436.

Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). How Do Perceived Political Environment and
Administrative Reform Affect Employee Commitment? Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 335–360.