Limited research has been conducted to explore the mechanisms through which employee involvement affects organizational performance. This article furthers the research on the mechanisms by testing a new causal model based on the theoretical framework of high-involvement work systems. Based on data collected from a sample of civil servants in China, we used structural equation modeling to find that the direct effect of involvement practices on organizational performance is positive and statistically significant. However, the indirect path mediated by job satisfaction and organizational commitment are not statistically significant. In addition, we found that public service motivation exerts a positive and direct effect on organizational performance. PSM is more prominent than job commitment or satisfaction in motivating public employees to work towards organizational goals and to work harder.
Points for practitioners
Public managers should pay more attention to involving employees in management, which will not only improve organizational performance but also increase employees’ job satisfaction and affective commitment. Involvement can take a variety of forms such as sharing information with subordinates, providing performance evaluation feedback, and involving employees in decision-making.
AlonsoPLewisGB (2001) Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration31: 363–380.
2.
BlauPM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
3.
BowenDEOstroffC (2004) Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review29(2): 203–221.
4.
BoxallPMackyK (2009) Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal19(1): 3–23.
5.
BoxallPMackyK (2014) High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being. Work, Employment & Society28(6): 963–984.
6.
BrewerGASeldenSC (2000) Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(4): 685–712.
7.
ButtsMMVandenbergRJDeJoyDMSchafferBSWilsonMG (2009) Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: Investigating the role of empowerment and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology14(2): 122–136.
8.
CamilleriEVan Der HeijdenBIJM (2007) Organizational commitment, public service motivation, and performance within the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review31(2): 241–274.
9.
ChristensenRKWrightBE (2011) The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person–organization fit and person–job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(4): 723–743.
10.
EisenbergerRArmeliSRexwinkelBLynchPDRhoadesL (2001) Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology86(1): 42–51.
11.
FarrellAM (2010) Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research63(3): 324–327.
12.
FernandezSMoldogazievT (2011) Empowering public sector employees to improve performance: Does it work?American Review of Public Administration41(1): 23–47.
13.
FernandezSMoldogazievT (2013) Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review73(3): 490–506.
14.
GittellJHSeidnerRWimbushJ (2010) A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organization Science21(2): 490–506.
15.
GuthrieJP (2001) High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal44(1): 180–190.
16.
GuthrieJPFloodPCLiuWMacCurtainS (2009) High performance work systems in Ireland: Human resource and organizational outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management20(1): 112–125.
17.
JaramilloFMulkiJPMarshallGW (2005) A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research. Journal of Business Research58: 705–714.
18.
Je’ McCrackenMMcIlwainTFFottlerMD (2001) Measuring organizational performance in the hospital industry: An exploratory comparison of objective and subjective methods. Health Services Management Research14: 211–219.
19.
JudgeTAThoresenCJBonoJEPattonGK (2001) The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin127: 376–407.
20.
KimS (2005) Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(2): 245–261.
21.
KimTHendersonACEomTH (2015) At the front line: Examining the effects of perceived job significance, employee commitment, and job involvement on public service motivation. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(4): 713–733.
22.
LawlerEEI (1992) The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-involvement Organization, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
LeeHCayerNJLanGZ (2006) Changing federal government employee attitudes since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Review of Public Personnel Administration26(1): 21–51.
24.
LeisinkPSteijnB (2009) Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences75: 35–52.
25.
LepakDPSnellSA (1999) The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review24(1): 31–48.
26.
LiuB-CTangTL-P (2011) Does the love of money moderate the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction? The case of Chinese professionals in the public sector. Public Administration Review71(5): 718–727.
27.
LiuBTangNZhuX (2008) Public service motivation and job satisfaction in China: An investigation of generalisability and instrumentality. International Journal of Manpower29: 684–699.
28.
MessersmithJGPatelPCLepakDPGould-WilliamsJS (2011) Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology96(6): 1105–1118.
29.
MeyerJPAllenNJ (1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review1(1): 61–89.
30.
MeyerJPAllenNJSmithCA (1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology78(4): 538–551.
31.
MillerKIMongePR (1986) Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal29(4): 727–753.
32.
MossholderKWKemeryERBennettNWesolowskiMA (1998) Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management24(4): 533–552.
33.
MoynihanDPPandeySK (2007) Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society39: 803–832.
34.
NaffKCCrumJ (1999) Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference?Review of Public Personnel Administration19: 5–16.
35.
NielsenJFPedersenCP (2003) The consequences and limits of empowerment in financial services. Scandinavian Journal of Management19(1): 63–83.
36.
OstroffC (1992) The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology77(6): 963–974.
37.
ParkSMRaineyHG (2007) Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration27(3): 197–226.
38.
PerryJL (1996) Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory6(1): 5–22.
39.
PerryJLWiseLR (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review50: 367–373.
40.
RikettaM (2002) Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior23(3): 257–266.
41.
RiordanCMVandenbergRJRichardsonHA (2005) Employee involvement climate and organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management44(4): 471–488.
42.
RitzA (2009) Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal government. International Review of Administrative Sciences75(1): 53–78.
43.
SomersMJ (2009) The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior74: 75–81.
44.
TaylorJ (2008) Organizational influences, public service motivation and work outcomes: An Australian study. International Public Management Journal11: 67–88.
45.
VandenabeeleW (2009) The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: More robust evidence of the PSM–performance relationship. International Review of Administrative Sciences75: 11–34.
46.
VandenbergRJRichardsonHAEastmanLJ (1999) The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group & Organization Management24(3): 300–339.
47.
WangWYangX (2015) Does informal participation increase job satisfaction in public organizations? A study on civil servants in Beijing, China. Public Personnel Management44(3): 356–374.
