The purpose of this study is to examine the differing effects of pay for performance on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Using data from the Korean Labor and Income Panel Study, this research found that pay for performance has a positive relationship with job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the private sector, a negative relationship with job satisfaction in the public sector, and a negative relationship with organizational commitment in the nonprofit sector.
Points for practitioners
When organizations in the public and nonprofit sectors begin adopting policies to increase extrinsic motivation, managers and scholars should carefully consider the negative effects of monetary incentives on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The public sector emphasizes public values and public interests, which explains the significant effect of pay for performance on job satisfaction; meanwhile, the fact that the nonprofit sector focuses on organizational missions and goals, stakeholders, and employee motivation explains the positive effect of pay for performance on organizational commitment.
AghoAMuellerC,PriceJ (1993) Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations46(8): 1007–1027.
2.
BaeKYangG (2017) The effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A panel study conducted on South Korea’s public institutions. Public Personnel Management46(1): 25–40.
3.
BaeKLeeD,SohnH (2019) How to increase participation in telework programs in US federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive leadership, and diversity management. Public Personnel Management48(4): 565–583.
4.
BakanIBüyükbeşeT,ErşahanB (2011) An investigation of organizational commitment and education level among employees. International Journal of Emerging Sciences1(3): 231–245.
5.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
BanduraA (1997) The anatomy of stages of change. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP12(1): 8–10.
7.
BanduraALockeE (2003) Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology88(1): 87–89.
8.
BelléN (2015) Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: A randomized field experiment. Public Administration Review75(2): 230–241.
9.
BelléNCantarelliP (2015) Monetary incentives, motivation, and job effort in the public sector: An experimental study with Italian government executives. Review of Public Personnel Administration35(2): 99–123.
10.
Ben-NerARenT (2015) Comparing workplace organization design based on form of ownership: Nonprofit, for-profit, and local government. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly44(2): 340–359.
11.
BowmanJ (2010) The success of failure: The paradox of performance pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration30(1): 70–88.
12.
BozemanDPerreweP (2001) The effect of item content overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire—Turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology86(1): 161–173.
13.
BrinkerhoffDWetterbergA (2013) Performance-based public management reforms: Experience and emerging lessons from service delivery improvement in Indonesia. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(3): 433–457.
14.
BrownSSessionsJ (2003) Earnings, education, and fixed-term contracts. Scottish Journal of Political Economy50(4): 492–506.
15.
BrysonAForthJ,StokesL (2017) How much performance pay is there in the public sector and what are its effects?Human Resource Management Journal27(4): 581–597.
16.
BurgessSPropperCRattoMet al. (2017) Incentives in the public sector: Evidence from a government agency. The Economic Journal127(605): F117–F141.
17.
CantarelliPBelardinelliP,BelleN (2016) A meta-analysis of job satisfaction correlates in the public administration literature. Review of Public Personnel Administration36(2): 115–144.
18.
CarpenterJMyersC (2010) Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics94(11): 911–920.
19.
CerasoliCNicklinJ,FordM (2014) Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin140(4): 980.
20.
ChenhallR (2003) Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting Organizations and Society28(2): 127–168.
21.
DartR (2004) Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly33(3): 290–310.
22.
DeciERyanR (2002) Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Print.
23.
DeckopJCirkaC (2000) The risk and reward of a double-edged sword: Effects of a merit pay program on intrinsic motivation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(3): 400–418.
24.
De CoomanRDe GieterSPepermansRet al. (2009) A cross-sector comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(2): 296–317.
25.
EijkenaarFEmmertMScheppachMet al. (2013) Effects of pay for performance in health care: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy110(2–3): 115–130.
26.
EllicksonM (2002) Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees. Public Personnel Management31(3): 343–358.
27.
FehrEGächterS (1998) Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of homo reciprocans. European Economic Review42(3): 845–859.
28.
FernandezS (2008) Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review32(2): 175–205.
29.
ForestV (2008) Performance-related pay and work motivation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives for the French civil service. International Review of Administrative Sciences74(2): 325–339.
30.
FrancoisP (2000) “Public service motivation” as an argument for government provision. Journal of Public Economics78(3): 275–299.
31.
FreyB (1997) Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
32.
FreyB (1999) Economics as a Science of Human Behavior. Toward a New Social Science Paradigm. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
FreyBGoetteL (1999) Does Pay Motivate Volunteers? (Vol. 7). Zurich: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
34.
FreyBJegenR (2001) Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys15(5): 589–611.
35.
FreyBHombergF,OsterlohM (2013) Organizational control systems and pay-for-performance in the public service. Organization Studies34(7): 949–972.
36.
GarbersYKonradtU (2014) The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology87(1): 102–137.
37.
GeorgeJ (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal35(1): 191–202.
38.
GreenCHeywoodJ (2008) Does performance pay increase job satisfaction?Economica75(300): 710–728.
39.
JanssenOVan YperenN (2004) Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader–member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal47(3): 368–384.
40.
JensenMMurphyK (1990) Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy98(2): 225–264.
41.
JungKMoonM (2007) Do age, gender, and sector affect job satisfaction? Results from the Korean Labor and Income Panel data. Review of Public Personnel Administration27(2): 125–146.
42.
LaffontJMartimortD (2009) The Theory of Incentives: The Principal–Agent Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
LanfranchiJNarcyM,LarguemM (2010) Shedding new light on intrinsic motivation to work: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Kyklos63(1): 75–93.
44.
LavyV (2007) Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. Future of Children17(1): 87–109.
45.
LazearE (2000) Performance pay and productivity. The American Economic Review90(5): 1346–1361.
46.
LepperMGreeneD (2015) The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
47.
LindenbergS (2001) Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos54(1–2): 317–343.
48.
LockeE (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: DunnetteMD (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 1297–1349.
49.
LockeE (1997) The motivation to work: What we know. In: MaehrMPintrichP (eds) Advances in Motivation and Achievement (vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 375–412.
50.
LockeELatham G (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist57(9): 705–717.
51.
LockeELathamG (2004) What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review29(3): 388–403.
52.
MeyerJAllenN,SmithC (1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology78(4): 538–551.
53.
MeyerJStanleyDHerscovitchLet al. (2002) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior61(1): 20–52.
54.
MorrisJShermanJ (1981) Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal24(3): 512–526.
55.
MowdayRSteersR,PorterL (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior14(2): 224–247.
56.
MowdayRPorterL,SteersR (1982) Employee–Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
57.
MoynihanD (2008) The normative model in decline? Public service motivation in the age of governance. In: PerryJLHondeghemA (eds) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 247–267.
58.
MoynihanDPandeyS (2007) The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review67(1): 40–53.
59.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2005) Performance-Related Pay Policies for Government Employees. Paris: OECD Publishing.
60.
PandeySStazyk (2008) Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In: PerryJLHondeghemA (eds) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–117.
61.
PerryJ (2000) Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2): 471–488.
62.
PerryJMeschD,PaarlbergL (2006) Motivating employees in a new governance era: The performance paradigm revisited. Public Administration Review66(4): 505–514.
63.
PerryJEngbersT,JunS (2009) Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review69(1): 39–51.
64.
RaineyD (2010) Sustainable Business Development: Inventing the Future Through Strategy, Innovation, and Leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
RaineyHBozemanB (2000) Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2): 447–470.
66.
RyanRDeciE (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology25(1): 54–67.
67.
RynesSLGerhartB,ParksL (2005) Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology56: 571–600.
68.
ShawJGuptaN (2015) Let the evidence speak again! Financial incentives are more effective than we thought. Human Resource Management Journal25(3): 281–293.
69.
ShererMMadduxJMercandanteBet al. (1982) The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports51(2): 663–671.
70.
StajkovicALuthansF (2003) Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology56(1): 155–194.
71.
StazykE (2013) Crowding out public service motivation? Comparing theoretical expectations with empirical findings on the influence of performance-related pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration33(3): 252–274.
72.
SwissJ (2005) A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public Administration Review65(5): 592–602.
73.
TheuvsenL (2004) Doing better while doing good: Motivational aspects of pay-for-performance effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations15(2): 117–136.
74.
VancouverJDayD (2005) Industrial and organization research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology54(2): 155–185.
75.
VandenabeeleWHondeghemA (2005) Values and motivation in public administration: Public service motivation in an international comparative perspective. Joint EGPA–ASPA Conference: Ethics and Integrity of Governance—The First Transatlantic Dialogue, Leuven, Belgium.
76.
VermeerenB (2017) Influencing public sector performance: Studying the impact of ability-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing human resources practices on various performance outcomes in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(4): 717–737.
77.
VerquerMBeehrT,WagnerS (2003) A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit research and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior63(3): 473–489.
78.
Vroom VH (1964) Work and Motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.
79.
WeibelARostK,OsterlohM (2010) Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(2): 387–412.
80.
WiersmaU (1992) The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology65(2): 101–114.
81.
WooldridgeJ (2012) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
82.
World at Work and Vivient Consulting (2016) Incentive Pay Practices: Nonprofit/Government Organizations. Report.Scottsdale, AZ:World at Work and Vivient Consulting.
83.
WrightBDavisB (2002) Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment. American Review of Public Administration33(1): 70–90.
84.
WrightBKimS (2004) Participation’s influence on job satisfaction: The importance of job characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration24(1): 18–40.
85.
ZhaoHSeibertS,HillsG (2005) The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology90(6): 1265–1272.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
