JPART 15:245–261

Individual-Level Factors and Organizational

Performance in Government Organizations
Sangmook Kim
Seoul National University of Technology

ABSTRACT

In this journal, Rainey and Steinbauer proposed a theory of effective government

organizations, and Brewer and Selden conducted an empirical study with data from the
1996 Merit Principles Survey that confirmed most hypothesized relationships in the
theoretical model of organizational performance. Following these studies, this study focuses
only on the individual-level factors, such as job satisfaction, affective commitment, public
service motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior. It empirically tests the effects of
these variables on organizational performance in the public sector of Korea. When the survey
data of 1,739 public employees in government agencies were analyzed, the hypothesized
relationships in the proposed model were confirmed. I discuss the survey results in light of
previous studies, especially those of Brewer and Selden.

In this journal, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) proposed a theory of effective government
organizations, urging that this theory be tested empirically; Brewer and Selden (2000)
conducted an empirical study with data from the 1996 Merit Principles Survey and con-
firmed most hypothesized relationships in the theoretical model of organizational per-
formance. In those studies, both individual-level and organization-level factors are involved
in the theoretical models; thus each level was not fully examined, and some important factors
remain to be considered.
Brewer and Selden (2000) inspire me to pursue further evidence about whether the
individual attitudes and behaviors of public employees may affect government per-
formance. Popovich defined high-performance organizations as ‘‘groups of employees
who produce desired goods or services at higher quality with the same or fewer resources’’
(1998, 11). Good public employees may be imagined to have such characteristics as high
satisfaction with their jobs, high commitment to the organization, high motivation to serve
the public, and strong intentions to work for the organization willingly and devotedly. I
assume that public employees with these characteristics will contribute to organizational
performance and thus that individual-level factors will positively affect organizational
performance. I will discuss the individual-level factors and develop the model that relates

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the useful suggestions and comments provided through the review
process. Address correspondence to the author at smook@snut.ac.kr.

doi:10.1093/jopart/mui013
Advance Access publication on December 16, 2004
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, no. 2
ª 2005 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.; all rights reserved.
246 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

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

them to organizational-level performance. Then I will empirically test the hypothesized

relationships.
First of all, this research reviews recent efforts on individual-level factors, which
seem to be important to predict organizational performance. Second, I explore the theo-
retical model predicting organizational performance with individual-level variables. Third,
I operationalize and test the model with data from the survey conducted by Park, Kang,
Kwon, and Kim (2001) in the Republic of Korea.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework for this study. I identify four individual-level
factors that may positively affect organizational performance: job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, public service motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Public employees with high levels in these factors will be more willing to work toward
organizational goals and objectives and give their services wholeheartedly to the organi-
zation and to the public, hence promoting organizational performance. Thus public orga-
nizations that have employees with high levels in these factors will achieve better
performance.
It should be noted that the nature of the causal direction is debatable. Organizational
performance could lead to satisfaction and commitment, in that public employees in higher-
performing organizations become more satisfied, committed, and motivated than those in
organizations with poor performance. In this study, only the simple relationship between the
two will be investigated.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as ‘‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state, resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’’ (Locke 1976, 1304). Job satisfaction is an
affective or emotional response toward various facets of one’s job. Most scholars recognize
that job satisfaction is a global concept that also comprises various facets (Judge et al.
2001a).
The topic of job satisfaction is important because of its implications for job-related
variables. Job satisfaction is positively correlated with motivation, job involvement,
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 247

organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, mental

health, and job performance. It is negatively related to absenteeism, turnover, and per-
ceived stress (Judge et al. 2001a; Kreitner and Kinicki 2001, 33–34; Spector 1997).
However, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is controversial.
In a meta-analysis, accumulating results from seventy-four studies with a total subject pool
of 12,192, there was only a small positive relationship between satisfaction and per-
formance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985). But researchers have identified several key
reasons that this result is misleading and understates the true relationship between satis-
faction and performance (Judge et al. 2001b). A new meta-analysis was conducted on 312
samples with a combined pool of 54,417 and found that the mean true correlation between
overall job satisfaction and job performance was estimated to be 0.30 (Judge et al. 2001b).
Using the data collected from 298 schools and 13,808 teachers, Ostroff (1992) supported
the positive relationships between employee satisfaction and organizational performance.
Using a sample from public and private workers in the United Arab Emirates, Yousef
(1998) found that the more the employees are satisfied with the security of their jobs, the
better their performance in their jobs. Thus it is possible to assume that organizational
performance will be improved by increasing public employees’ job satisfaction.

Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment may be defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization. Commitment represents
something beyond mere passive loyalty to an organization. It involves an active rela-
tionship with the organization, such that individuals are willing to give something of
themselves in order to contribute to the organization’s well being.1 Hence, commitment
could be inferred not only from the expressions of an individual’s beliefs and opinions but
also from his or her actions (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). It can be characterized by
at least three factors: (a) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the organization’s goals and
values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c)
a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Porter et al. 1974, 604).
Two views of organizational commitment dominate the literature: the attitudinal
approach and the behavioral approach. The attitudinal approach sees commitment as an
attitude reflecting the nature and quality of the linkage between an employee and an
organization. The behavioral approach is concerned mainly with the process by which
individuals develop a sense of attachment not to an organization but to their own actions
(Liou and Nyhan 1994; Robertson and Tang 1995).
Angle and Perry (1981) identified two subscales: value commitment, which reflected
a commitment to support organizational goals, and commitment to stay, which reflected
a desire to retain organizational membership. Meyer and Allen (1984) used the terms
affective commitment and continuance commitment to measure the attitudinal and behav-
ioral views of commitment, respectively.
According to Meyer and Allen (1991), the three components of organizational
commitment can be identified as affective, continuance, and normative commitments.

1 Some scholars have attached different labels to the same entity, such as ‘‘sense of mission,’’ ‘‘character,’’
‘‘distinctive competence,’’ ‘‘essence,’’ ‘‘reputation,’’ and ‘‘strong culture.’’ For a useful review of the muddy
conceptual waters surrounding the concept of organizational commitment, see DiIulio (1994).
248 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification

with, and involvement in the organization. Continuance commitment refers to an
awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Normative commitment
reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) also
developed a scale to measure three definitions of commitment, including compliance,
identification, and internalization commitment. Balfour and Wechsler (1996) distinguished
the three dimensions of organizational commitment as affiliation, identification, and
exchange commitment. However, empirical studies have not yet shown significant support
for using a three-dimensional definition of organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer
1990; Balfour and Wechsler 1990).
Research has found that highly committed employees may perform better than less
committed ones (Mowday, Porter, and Dubin 1974). Higher levels of organizational
commitment are linked to higher levels of job performance (Larson and Fukami 1984).
However, affective commitment is more important to organizational performance than
continuance or normative commitment. Researchers express less confidence in the concept
of normative commitment and question the clarity of the concept (Allen and Meyer 1990;
Chiu and Ng 1999; Liou and Nyhan 1994). Affective commitment correlated positively,
while continuance commitment correlated negatively, with the performance of lower-level
managers in a large food service company (Meyer et al. 1989). Somers and Birnbaum
(2000) confirmed the same result, that only affective commitment is associated with
desirable outcomes, when analyzing the data from professional employees of a medical
center. Evidence suggests that employees with high levels of continuance commitment
have lower performance ratings (Angle and Lawson 1994; Shore and Wayne 1993).
The empirical results support the importance of affective commitment in the public
organization (Liou and Nyhan 1994; Romzek 1989, 1990). Public employees’ commitment
is primarily based on their emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in
their public organizations. Thus, I can assume that only affective commitment will affect
organizational performance.

Public Service Motivation

Perry and Wise defined public service motivation as ‘‘an individual’s predisposition to
respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and orga-
nizations’’ (1990, 368). They identified three bases of public service motivation: rational,
norm based, and affective. Rational motives are grounded in individual utility max-
imization, norm-based motives are grounded in a desire to pursue the common good and
further the public interest, and affective motives are grounded in human emotion. Various
rational, norm-based, and affective motives appear to be primarily or exclusively
associated with public service. Rational motives are participation in the process of policy
formulation, commitment to a public program because of personal identification, and
advocacy for a special or private interest. Norm-based motives are a desire to serve the
public interest, loyalty to duty and to the government as a whole, and social equity.
Affective motives are commitment to a program from a genuine conviction about its social
importance and patriotism of benevolence. A recent study reveals that all three types of
motives are important to public sector employees (Brewer, Selden, and Facer 2000).
Perry and Wise (1990) formulated three propositions: First, the greater an individual’s
public sector motivation, the more likely it is that the individual will seek membership in a
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 249

public organization. Second, in public organizations, public sector motivation is positively

related to performance. Third, public organizations that attract members with high levels of
public sector motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to manage
individual performance effectively. Perry (1996) developed a survey instrument to
measure six hypothesized dimensions of public service motivation: attraction to policy
making, compassion, self-sacrifice, commitment to the public interest, social justice, and
civic duty.
According to Rainey (1982) and Wittmer (1991), public employees place a higher
value on helping others and performing work that is worthwhile to society. Crewson (1997)
found that public sector employees rate a feeling of accomplishment and performing work
helpful to society and to others as more important job characteristics than do private sector
employees. Naff and Crum (1999) found a significant relationship between public service
motivation and federal employees’ job satisfaction, performance, intention to remain in the
government, and support for the government’s reinvention efforts. Houston (2000) showed
that public service motivation does exist and that public employees are more likely to place
a higher value on the intrinsic reward of work that is important and provides a feeling of
accomplishment. In testing a comprehensive model, public service motivation is a modestly
important predictor of organizational performance (Brewer and Selden 2000). Therefore, I
can expect that public service motivation will be positively related with organizational
performance. But the links between public service motivation and performance are clearly
not yet robust (Alonso and Lewis 2001). It is meaningful to examine the relationship
between public service motivation and organizational performance.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as ‘‘individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in
the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization’’ (Organ
1988, 4). Organizational citizenship behaviors include working beyond required job duties
(such as assisting others with their tasks), promoting a positive work environment,
avoiding unnecessary conflicts, being involved in organizational activities, and performing
tasks beyond normal role requirements. The practical importance of organizational citi-
zenship behavior is that such behaviors improve efficiency and effectiveness in both public
and private organizations.
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) used sixteen items for measuring citizenship behavior,
which consists of two fairly interpretable and distinct factors—altruism and generalized
compliance. Altruism is defined as helping coworkers personally, such as assisting a
coworker to lift a heavy load. Generalized compliance is impersonal helpful behavior, such
as being on time and not wasting time on the job.
Organ (1988) proposed five categories of organizational citizenship behavior.
Conscientiousness means that employees carry out in-role behaviors well beyond the
minimum required levels. Altruism implies that they give help to others. Civic virtue
suggests that employees responsibly participate in the political life of the organization.
Sportsmanship indicates that people do not complain and have positive attitudes. Courtesy
means that they treat others with respect.
It has been argued that organizational citizenship behaviors facilitate organizational
performance by lubricating the social machinery of organizations (Smith, Organ, and Near
250 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

1983, 654). However, in contrast to the numerous studies exploring the antecedents of
organizational citizenship behavior, in relatively few studies have scholars investigated
the relationship between citizenship behavior and organizational performance (Bolino,
Turnley, and Bloodgood 2002, 505). Podanskoff and Mackenzie (1997) also insisted that
organizational citizenship behavior is linked to organizational performance. In a study
conducted in a regional restaurant chain, Koys (2001) showed that organizational citi-
zenship behavior influences profitability. Thus I can assume that there is a positive
relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational performance.

Organizational Performance
Organizational performance is hard to measure in the public sector. Brewer and Selden
(2000, 689) propose a measure of organizational performance based on the perceptions of
the organization’s members. Traditionally, objective data have been preferred for evalu-
ating performance. Objective data have been believed to be less biased but are not always
available, especially in the public sector. When objective performance data are not
available, subjective (i.e., perceptual) performance measures may be a reasonable alter-
native (Allen and Helms 2002; Delaney and Huselid 1996; Dess and Robinson 1984;
Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, McIlwain, and Fottler 2001; Schmid 2002;
Venkatraman and Ramanujam 1987). Although there is always some doubt cast upon self-
reported and perceptual measures of performance, there is evidence of a high correlation
between perceptual and objective measures at the organizational level. Dess and Robinson
(1984) found a strong positive correlation between perceptual data and financial per-
formance measures. Other studies have also found measures of perceived organizational
performance correlated positively to objective measures of organizational performance
(Dollinger and Golden 1992; McCracken, McIlwain, and Fottler 2001; Powell 1992;
Venkatraman and Ramanujam 1987).
There is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes a valid set of organizational
performance and organizational effectiveness criteria (Au 1996; Forbes 1998; Ostroff
1992). Although many researchers rely on a single indicator, there seems to be a general
agreement that multiple internal (preferred by internal participants) and external (preferred
by clients and citizens) criteria are needed for a more comprehensive evaluation of
organizations (Cameron 1986; Connolly, Conlon, and Deutsch 1980).2 Previous research
has tended to focus on narrow, efficiency-related measures of performance and to neglect
other values such as equity and fairness. Such narrow measures of performance can
produce misleading conclusions about organizational effectiveness (Brewer and Selden
2000, 688).
The concept of organizational performance refers to whether the agency does well in
discharging the administrative and operational functions pursuant to the mission and

2 Epstein (1992) suggested that, for measuring the performance of a public service organization, we need to look not
only inward to its own operations but also outward to the public. A comprehensive picture of the performance of
a public service organization can be used to achieve external (or public) accountability as well as internal (or
management) accountability for public service performance. Boschken (1992) developed constituency-grounded
measures of performance in which constituencies and performances are classified into organization-centered and social
program–centered categories. Wolf (1997) also used both outcome-oriented criteria and operation-oriented criteria for
evaluating performance. Multiple internal and external criteria are needed for a more comprehensive evaluation of
organizational performance (Jobson and Schneck 1982).
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 251

Table 1
Background of Respondents and Population
Demographic Variables Characteristics Respondents (%)a Population (%)
Sex Male 69.9 78.9
Female 30.1 21.5
Age 20s 5.9 14.8
30s 44.0 41.1
40s 43.3 29.9
50s or older 6.8 14.2
Educational Background High school diploma or under 17.0 34.8
Junior college diploma (2 yrs) 15.8 19.5
Undergraduate degree (4 yrs) 52.7 40.0
Graduate degree or more 14.5 5.7
Length of Service 0–10 yrs 35.2 45.0
10–20 yrs 41.9 29.9
20þ yrs 22.8 25.1
Hierarchical Rankb Grade 4 or higher 3.8 2.9
Grade 5 15.1 7.8
Grade 6 27.1 22.7
Grade 7 28.4 30.4
Grade 8 or lower 25.5 36.2
Note: The number of respondents is 1,739 and that of the population is 275,046. The population is based on the public employee census that is
conducted every five years (Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs 1998).
a
No answer is excluded.
b
Grade 1 is the highest level in the Korean civil service.

whether the agency actually produces the actions and outputs pursuant to the mission or the
institutional mandate. The agency’s internal management and operation have contributed
substantially to the achievement of these goals (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999). The
dimensions of organizational performance in the public sector are divided into internal
and external performance, and each specifies the following performance-related values:
efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. Organizational performance is assumed to be
affected by individual-level variables.

DATA AND METHODS

The model and hypotheses are tested using data from the 2001 survey of Park et al. (2001).
The participants—2,000 permanent full-time public employees in nine central government
agencies, five provincial government agencies, and twenty-six lower-level local govern-
ment agencies in the Republic of Korea—were given surveys to complete during regular
working hours in 2001; 1,739 completed surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of
87.0 percent.
I included in the survey public employees from central government (29.1 percent),
provincial governments (41.0 percent), and lower-level local governments (29.9 percent).
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents’ sex, age, educational background, length of
service, and hierarchical rank, compared with these data for the whole civil service.
The appendix describes how the independent and dependent variables are opera-
tionalized and reports means and standard deviations for each survey item. Respondents
were asked to respond to items on a five-point scale, representing strong disagreement (1)
252 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Table 2
The Dimensions of Organizational Performance
Administrative Values
Efficiency Effectiveness Fairness
Organizational Focus Internal Internal Efficiency Internal Effectiveness Internal Fairness
External External Efficiency External Effectiveness External Fairness
Source: Brewer and Selden (2000, 689).

to strong agreement (5). Thus a ‘‘3’’ represented indifference, that is, neither agreement nor
disagreement.
Twelve questions were used to measure the dependent variable, perceived orga-
nizational performance (a 5 0.8735). These items provide a broad assessment of per-
ceived organizational performance by tapping each dimension of the concept shown in
table 2.
I operationalize job satisfaction with Mason’s (1995) ten-item index that includes
the following facets: job interest, feedback from agents, comparable worth and pay,
coworkers, external equity and pay, supervision, performance evaluation, fair treatment,
overall job satisfaction, and company satisfaction (a 5 0.7787). I use the average value of
all ten items to capture the degree of job satisfaction.
Affective commitment is evaluated by the three items with the highest factor loading
of the ‘‘Organizational Commitment Questionnaire’’ (Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993). The
scale reliability coefficient was 0.7806. For public service motivation I use five items that
are very similar to those used in the studies of Alonso and Lewis (2001), Brewer and
Selden (2000), and Naff and Crum (1999): two self-sacrifice questions, plus one each for
public interest, compassion, and social justice (a 5 0.7479).3
I measure organizational citizenship behavior with seven items of altruism and two
items of generalized compliance from the index of Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). The
original index consists of sixteen items in which seven items represent altruism, as in this
study, and nine items represent generalized compliance. But the other items in the category
of generalized compliance, except two, are excluded, since some are not applicable in the
context of Korean government and some are overlapped. The scale reliability coefficient
was 0.7931.
Demographic characteristics may influence organizational performance. To reduce
the possibility of spurious statistical influence, I also measured demographic control
variables: gender, age, educational background, length of service, and hierarchical rank.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The organizational performance of government organizations in Korea was measured with
twelve items of six dimensions, as in the appendix. The mean scores for internal factors are
lower than those for external ones. The average values of the two questions in each
category are 3.20 in internal efficiency, 3.45 in internal effectiveness, and 3.00 in internal
fairness and 3.48 in external efficiency, 3.67 in external effectiveness, and 3.70 in external

3 I performed confirmatory factor analysis to see whether these five questions could be collapsed into a single index.
Only one factor had an eigenvalue (2.506) higher than one and explained 50.1 percent of the variance. The factor
loadings on the five questions were from 0.585 to 0.775.
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 253

Table 3
Predicting Organizational Performance
Model 1 (b) Model 2 (b)
Control Variables
Gender
0.098**
0.080**
Age 0.045 0.013
Education
0.008
0.020
Length of service 0.161*** 0.073*
Hierarchical rank 0.030 0.100***
Individual-Level Variables
Job satisfaction 0.360***
Affective commitment 0.103***
Public service motivation 0.073**
Organizational citizenship behavior 0.198***
Change in R2 0.052 0.318
F Change 15.276*** 174.383***
R2 0.052 0.370
F Value 15.276*** 90.234***
N 1,392 1,392
Note: Categories for gender are coded as follows: 0 5 male and 1 5 female.
*p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

fairness. The lowest means of all are for the two internal fairness items. That the responses
about internal matters are lower or less favorable than the responses about external matters
suggests that Korean public employees, like the American federal employees in the Brewer
and Selden (2000) study, perceive that the external factors, such as ‘‘customers,’’ receive
better attention and treatment than internal factors, such as fairness. This in turn suggests
the importance of improving public personnel management practices related to internal
fairness and efficiency.
Using correlational analyses I examined the relationship between independent
variables. As predicted, the significant correlations between individual-level factors
were confirmed. I found a positive correlation between job satisfaction and affective
commitment (r 5 0.629, p , .01), as well as between public service motivation and job
satisfaction (r 5 0.459, p , .01) and between organizational citizenship behavior and job
satisfaction (r 5 0.380, p , .01). Public service motivation and affective commitment
were significantly correlated (r 5 0.479, p , .01). Organizational citizenship behavior is
also positively correlated with public service motivation (r 5 0.555, p , .01) and similarly
with affective commitment (r 5 0.399, p , .01).
The statistical method employed is hierarchical regression, which resembles stepwise
regression, except that independent variables are evaluated in a sequence theoretically
predetermined by the researcher on theoretical grounds, rather than in order of magnitude
of correlation. As shown in table 3, I entered the five control variables in Model 1 and
added the four individual-level variables as independent variables in Model 2. As
recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983), this procedure provides a unique partitioning
of the total variance accounted for in a dependent variable by a set of predictors. Any
significant change in R2 resulting from the final step is due to unique contribution because
confounding or spurious influences have been removed.
254 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Table 3 reports the results of hierarchical regression analysis.4 The initial equation
regressed organizational performance on the five control variables.5 The demographic
characteristics resulted in a highly significant (p , .001) 5.2 percent change in R2 for
organizational performance. However, gender and the length of service accounted for the
change. In Model 2, the addition of the four individual-level variables resulted in a highly
significant (p , .001) change of 31.8 percent in R2 for organizational performance.
Thus the individual-level variables had the significant relationships to organizational
performance.
I examined the standardized coefficients in order to estimate the relative importance of
each individual-level variable that affects organizational performance. All four variables have
statistically significant effects on organizational performance. The most influential variable is
job satisfaction (b 5 0.360), and the next is organizational citizenship behavior (b 5 0.198).
The findings also indicate that affective commitment (b 5 0.103) and public service
motivation (b 5 0.073) contribute to organizational performance. Thus job satisfaction is
a powerful predictor of organizational performance in government organizations.
This study clarifies the effect of individual-level factors on organizational per-
formance. Job satisfaction, affective commitment, public service motivation, and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior influence organizational performance. The present results
can be compared with previous research findings.
This study confirms that organizational performance will be improved by increasing
public employees’ job satisfaction. Thus it supports the findings of Ostroff (1992), Yousef
(1998), and Judge et al. (2001b). It also demonstrates that affective commitment is related
to organizational performance. Thus it supports the research findings of Meyer et al. (1989)
and Somers and Birnbaum (2000). The present result indicates that public service moti-
vation will affect organizational performance; thus the findings of Naff and Crum (1999)
and Brewer and Selden (2000) are confirmed. Also verified is Rainey and Steinbauer’s
(1999) proposition that effective government agencies have high levels of public service
motivation. Finally, it shows that there is a positive relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational performance. Therefore it supports the earlier
studies of Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), Podanskoff and Mackenzie (1997), and Koys
(2001).
The result means that people are the important cause of good organizational per-
formance. Government agencies can be more successful when they value their employees
and they view people not as a cost but as an asset. Government leaders are urged to have
a better understanding of the importance of public employees in organizations. This result
also supports the perspective of people-centered management (Pfeffer and Veiga 1999).
Pfeffer (1998) states that people-oriented practices increase employee satisfaction and
commitment, and hence people work harder and improve business performance results.
The public sector also needs to provide people-centered practices for promoting public
employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, public service motivation, and
organizational citizenship behaviors.6

4 There were no problems of multicollinearity among variables specified in the model.

5 I included only respondents who answered all relevant survey questions.
6 Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) uncovered the seven people-centered practices in successful companies: job security,
careful hiring, self-managed teams and decentralization, generous pay for performance, extensive training, reduction
of status differences, and sharing information.
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 255

These findings are also meaningful in the Korean context. Over the five-year period
from 1997 to 2002 the Korean government introduced major reforms to create ‘‘a small and
efficient but better serving government.’’ The first stage of the Korean reforms con-
centrated on reducing the size of the public sector and streamlining the bureaucracy
through downsizing and privatization initiatives. In the relatively short space of just four
years since 1998, a reduction of 20 percent of the total public sector employment at the end
of 1997 was achieved. The government evaluated that this is a truly remarkable
achievement, especially considering the low labor market mobility and transferability
among jobs in Korea, as well as the employment culture that regards public sector jobs as
practically lifelong tenured (Ministry of Planning and Budget 2003, 55–56). However, it is
very doubtful whether this kind of reform raises government performance, since the
reduction goal was given to each organization and the public employees older than
a certain age were dismissed regardless of their competence or performance. This practice
seems to negatively affect public employees’ attitude and government performance. The
more effective way to enhance government competitiveness is to see the public employee
as a source of strategic advantage, not just as a cost to be minimized, and to provide
incentives and practices that promote positive employee attitudes.

CONCLUSION
Brewer and Selden (2000) broadened the concept of organizational performance to include
internal and external dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness; and they tested
common elements of existing theoretical frameworks empirically in the public sector. Follow-
ing their research, this study elaborates the relationship between individual-level factors and
organizational performance and tests it empirically in the government agencies of Korea.
The present study shows the same trend in organizational performance as the findings
of Brewer and Selden (2000): perceived internal efficiency and fairness are lower than the
other dimensions of organizational performance in both the United States and Korea. Thus
I can say that, like the U.S. respondents, the Korean public employees perceived lower
levels of internal fairness and efficiency than of external dimensions of performance. Since
public employees are most critical and central for implementing public policies and
delivering public service, and since the agency’s operations have contributed substantially
to the achievement of its mission and goals (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999), this suggests the
need for more attention to this lower level of perceived fairness and efficiency.
I verified that the individual-level factors are important predictors of organizational
performance. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) hypothesized that the several forms of
motivation play a significant role in determining agency effectiveness. Brewer and Selden
(2000) showed that their particular individual-level variables—such as the structure of
task/work, task motivation, public service motivation, and individual performance—
were modestly important predictors of organizational performance. I found that public
employees reporting higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior, and to a lesser extent higher levels of organizational commitment and public
service motivation, report higher levels of organizational performance. The specific
variables are different, but both studies have empirically verified that individual-level
factors are important to predicting organizational performance in the public sector.
This study has several limitations. First, the results from this study cannot fully ad-
dress the causality issue. Although the individual-level variables were treated as predictors
256 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

of organizational performance, the performance indexes could also have been used as
predictors of individual-level factors. Future research is needed that uses longitudinal
designs and time-lagged correlations to more adequately address causality. Second, this
study relied on subjective performance measures. Although the importance of organiza-
tional performance is widely acknowledged, the measurement of organizational perfor-
mance is one of the most difficult issues in the public sector. There is a need for researchers
to compare employee perceptions of an organization’s performance with objective data in
order to determine whether, and to what degree, subjective measures of performance are
valid measures of objective performance in the public sector. Third, I used only four
individual-level variables to predict organizational performance. Thus, future research
should look for additional factors that affect organizational performance.
The contributions of the present study are that it clarifies the effects of
individual-level factors previously identified and discussed as important determinants
of organizational performance and shows the same trend in the perceptual measure of
organizational performance in both the United States and Korea. It also has a number of
practical implications. It is clear that managers need to treat public employees with respect
and with fair and equitable manners and that they need to use their employees’ knowledge
and skills in looking for ways to become more efficient. Managers should also know how to
better manage and promote employees’ satisfaction and attitudes, such as job satisfaction,
affective commitment, public service motivation, and organizational citizenship behavior,
in order to improve organizational performance. Future research should continue to
explicate the relationship of individual-level factors to organizational performance.

APPENDIX
SURVEY ITEMS AND STATISTICS FOR DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Dependent Variable
Organizational Performance (Alpha 5 0.8735)

 (Internal efficiency) My organization has made good use of my knowledge and skills in
looking for ways to become more efficient. (mean 5 3.11, std 5 0.89)

 (Internal efficiency) My organization is trying to reduce cost in managing organization

and performing works. (mean 5 3.28, std 5 0.86)

 (Internal effectiveness) In the past two years, the productivity of my work unit has
improved. (mean 5 3.37, std 5 0.80)

 (Internal effectiveness) Overall, the quality of work performed by my current coworkers

in my immediate work group is high. (mean 5 3.52, std 5 0.79)

 (Internal fairness) My organization provides fair and equitable treatment for

employees and applicants in all aspects of personnel management without regard to their
political affiliation, sex, hometown, marital status, age, or handicapping condition.
(mean 5 2.98, std 5 1.03)

 (Internal fairness) In general, all are treated with respect in my organization, with no
regard to status and grade. (mean 5 3.02, std 5 0.96)
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 257

 (External efficiency) My organization has conducted business relations with outside

customers very promptly. (mean 5 3.39, std 5 0.84)

 (External efficiency) It is rare to make big mistakes in my organization when conducting

work. (mean 5 3.57, std 5 0.78)

 (External effectiveness) The work performed by my work unit provides the public
a worthwhile return on their tax dollars. (mean 5 3.74, std 5 0.83)

 (External effectiveness) The occurrence of goal attainment is very high in my

organization. (mean 5 3.59, std 5 0.75)

 (External fairness) My organization provides fair and equitable services to the public,
with no considering of their individual backgrounds. (mean 5 3.83, std 5 0.81)

 (External fairness) The customer satisfaction toward my organization is very high.

(mean 5 3.56, std 5 0.78)

Independent Variables
Job Satisfaction (Alpha 5 0.7787)

 My job provides a chance to do challenging and interesting work. (mean 5 2.87,

std 5 0.94)

 My superior gives me the information I need to do a good job. (mean 5 3.25, std 5 0.91)

 My pay compares fairly with the pay of people doing similar work in this organization.
(mean 5 3.17, std 5 1.03)

 Most employees give their best effort in doing their jobs. (mean 5 3.70, std 5 0.83)

 My pay compares fairly with the pay of people doing similar work in other organizations.
(mean 5 1.99, std 5 0.86)

 My supervisor shows me respect as an individual. (mean 5 3.50, std 5 0.93)

 I have a clear understanding of how my performance is judged. (mean 5 2.94,

std 5 0.96)

 My organization takes employee interests/concerns into account in making important

decisions. (mean 5 3.01, std 5 0.91)

 I feel good about my job—the kind of work I do. (mean 5 3.16, std 5 0.91)

 Overall, my organization is a good place to work. (mean 5 3.26, std 5 0.92)

Affective Commitment (Alpha 5 0.7806)

 I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (mean 5 3.52, std 5 0.88)

 My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. (mean 5 3.18, std 5 0.92)

 I feel like part of the family in my organization. (mean 5 2.96, std 5 0.92)
258 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Public Service Motivation (Alpha 5 0.7479)

 The work I do as a civil servant on my job is very important to me. (mean 5 3.48,
std 5 0.84)

 I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed.
(mean 5 3.40, std 5 0.83)

 Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements.

(mean 5 3.45, std 5 0.84)

 I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society. (mean 5 3.34,
std 5 0.87)

 I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another.
(mean 5 3.53, std 5 0.79)

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Alpha 5 0.7931)

 I assist my supervisor with his or her work. (mean 5 3.76, std 5 0.67)

 I make innovative suggestions to improve my department. (mean 5 3.04, std 5 0.81)

 I volunteer for things that are not required. (mean 5 3.17, std 5 0.81)

 I orient new people even though it is not required. (mean 5 3.68, std 5 0.74)

 I help others who have been absent. (mean 5 3.42, std 5 0.76)

 I attend functions that are not required but that help organization image. (mean 5 3.69,
std 5 0.71)

 I help others who have heavy workloads. (mean 5 3.58, std 5 0.69)

 I do not spend time in idle conversation. (mean 5 3.42, std 5 0.80)

 I do not take extra breaks. (mean 5 3.55, std 5 0.78)

REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63:1–18.
Allen, R. S., and M. M. Helms. 2002. Employee perceptions of the relationship between strategy, rewards
and organizational performance. Journal of Business Strategies 19:115–39.
Alonso, P., and G. Lewis. 2001. Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal
sector. American Review of Public Administration 31:363–80.
Angle, H. L., and M. B. Lawson. 1994. Organizational commitment and employees’ performance ratings:
Both type of commitment and type of performance count. Psychological Reports 75:1539–51.
Angle, H. L., and J. L. Perry. 1981. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 26:1–13.
Au, C. 1996. Rethinking organizational effectiveness: Theoretical and methodological issues in the study
of organizational effectiveness for social welfare organizations. Administration in Social Work
20:1–21.
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 259

Balfour, D. L., and B. Wechsler. 1990. Organizational commitment: A reconceptualization and empirical
test of public–private differences. Review of Public Personnel Administration 10:23–40.
———. 1996. Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public
Productivity and Management Review 19:256–77.
Bolino, M. C., W. H. Turnley, and J. M. Bloodgood. 2002. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social
capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review 27 (4): 505–22.
Boschken, H. L. 1992. Analyzing performance skewness in public agencies: The case of urban mass
transit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2:265–88.
Brewer, G. A., and S. C. Selden. 2000. Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational
performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (4):
685–711.
Brewer, G. A., S. C. Selden, and R. L. Facer II. 2000. Individual conceptions of public service motivation.
Public Administration Review 60 (3): 254–64.
Cameron, K. S. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational
effectiveness. Management Science 32:539–53.
Chiu, W. C. K., and C. W. Ng. 1999. Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: A study
among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 72:485–502.
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connolly, T., E. J. Conlon, and S. J. Deutsch. 1980. Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency
approach. Academy of Management Review 5:211–17.
Crewson, P. E. 1997. Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:499–518.
Delaney, J. T., and M. A. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 39:949–69.
Dess, G., and R. Robinson. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective
measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business units. Strategic
Management Journal 5:265–73.
DiIulio, J. D., Jr. 1994. Principled agents: The cultural bases of behavior in a federal government
bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4:277–318.
Dollinger, M. J., and P. A. Golden. 1992. Interorganizational and collective strategies in small firms:
Environmental effects and performance. Journal of Management 18:695–715.
Epstein, P. D. 1992. Measuring the performance of public services. In Public productivity handbook, ed.
M. Holzer, 161–93. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Forbes, D. P. 1998. Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization
effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27:183–202.
Houston, D. J. 2000. Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 10:713–27.
Iaffaldano, M. T., and P. M. Muchinsky. 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 97 (2): 251–73.
Jobson, J. D., and R. Schneck. 1982. Constituent views of organizational effectiveness: Evidence from
police organizations. Academy of Management Journal 25:25–46.
Judge, T. A., S. Parker, A. E. Colbert, D. Heller, and R. Ilies. 2001a. Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural
review. In Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Vol. 2, ed. N. Anderson, D.
S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran, 25–52. London: Sage.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001b. The job satisfaction–job per-
formance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin 127 (3):
376–407.
Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover
on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology 54 (1):
101–14.
Kreitner, R., and A. Kinicki. 2001. Organizational behavior. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
260 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Larson, E. W., and C. V. Fukami. 1984. Relationships between worker behavior and commitment to the
organization and union. Academy of Management Proceedings 34:222–26.
Liou, K., and R. C. Nyhan. 1994. Dimensions of organizational commitment in the public sector: An
empirical assessment. Public Administration Quarterly 18:99–118.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, ed. M. D. Dunnette, 1297–1343. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mason, E. S. 1995. Gender differences in job satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology 135:143–47.
McCracken, M. J., T. F. McIlwain, and M. D. Fottler. 2001. Measuring organizational performance in the
hospital industry: An exploratory comparison of objective and subjective methods. Health Services
Management Research 14:211–19.
Meyer, J. P., and N. J. Allen. 1984. Testing the ‘‘side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:372–78.
———. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review 1 (1): 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen, and C. A. Smith. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and rest of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology
78:538–51.
Meyer, J. P., S. V. Paunonen, I. R. Gellatly, and R. D. Goffin. 1989. Organizational commitment and job
performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology
74 (1): 152–56.
Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. 1998. Public employee statistics. Seoul,
Korea: Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.
Ministry of Planning and Budget. 2003. How Korea reformed the public sector. Seoul, Korea:
Ministry of Planning and Budget.
Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. Dubin. 1974. Unit performance, situational factors, and employee
attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
12:231–48.
Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, and L. W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (2): 224–47.
Naff, K. C., and J. Crum. 1999. Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference?
Review of Public Personnel Administration 19:5–16.
O’Reilly, C. A., and J. A. Chatman. 1986. Organization commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology 71:492–99.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Ostroff, C. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational
level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (6): 963–74.
Park, C., J. Kang, K. Kwon, and S. Kim. 2001. A study on the potential productivity of female public
servants in Korea. Korean Policy Studies Review 10 (3): 199–224.
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., and L. R. Wise. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review
50 (3): 367–73.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., and J. F. Veiga. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management
Executive 13 (2): 37–47.
Podanskoff, P. M., and S. B. Mackenzie. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance
10:133–51.
Popovich, M. G. 1998. Creating high-performance government organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
 Kim Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance 261

Porter, L. W., R. M. Steers, R. T. Mowday, and P. V. Boulian. 1974. Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:603–9.
Powell, T. C. 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal
13:119–34.
Rainey, H. G. 1982. Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service
ethic. American Review of Public Administration 16:288–302.
Rainey, H. G., and P. Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective
government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9 (1): 1–32.
Robertson, P. J., and S. Tang. 1995. The role of commitment in collective action: Comparing the
organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives. Public Administration Review 55:67–80.
Romzek, B. S. 1989. Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Management Journal
32:649–61.
———. 1990. Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public Administration Review
50:374–82.
Schmid, H. 2002. Relationships between organizational properties and organizational effectiveness in
three types of nonprofit human service organizations. Public Personnel Management 31:377–95.
Shore, L. M., and S. J. Wayne. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology 78:774–80.
Smith, C. A., D. W. Organ, and J. P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4): 653–63.
Somers, M., and D. Birnbaum. 2000. Exploring the relationship between commitment profiles and work
attitudes, employee withdrawal, and job performance. Public Personnel Management 29 (3):
353–65.
Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Venkatraman, N., and V. Ramanujam. 1987. Measurement of business economic performance: An
examination of method convergence. Journal of Management 13:109–22.
Wittmer, D. 1991. Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid
sector, and business managers. Public Productivity and Management Review 14:369–83.
Wolf, P. J. 1997. Why must we reinvent the federal government? Putting historical developmental claims
to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:353–88.
Yousef, D. A. 1998. Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job
performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower 19 (3): 184–94.