The present study comprehensively examined how human resources (HR) directors in six U.S. state governments with drastic levels of civil service reform assess their states’ pay-for-performance effectiveness in terms of the performance appraisal justice. It was found that the effectiveness of pay-for-performance is influenced by perceived fairness of performance appraisal. More specifically, this study found that perceived politicization of performance appraisal was negatively and significantly associated with pay-for-performance effectiveness. This study also found that perceived fairness of appraisal criteria was positively and significantly associated with pay-for-performance effectiveness. In addition, this study shows that the effectiveness of pay-for-performance may be affected by some demographic characteristics (e.g., age and gender) and state differences. In particular, drastic levels of civil service reform significantly and positively influenced the effectiveness of pay-for-performance, but insignificantly affected performance appraisal fairness. These results provide scholars and practitioners in the public sector with meaningful strategies for civil service reform.
BattaglioP. R.Jr.CondreyS. E. (2006). Civil service reform: Examining state and local government cases. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 118-138.
2.
BattaglioP. R.Jr.CondreyS. E. (2009). Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 689-707.
3.
BellėN. (2015). Performance-related pay and the crowding-out of motivation in the public sector: A randomized field experiment. Public Administration Review, 75, 230-241.
4.
BernardinH. J.BeattyR. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston, MA: Kent.
5.
BowmanJ. S. (2010). The success of failure: The paradox of performance pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 70-88.
6.
BowmanJ. S.WestJ. P. (2006). Ending civil service protections in Florida government: Experiences in state agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 139-157.
7.
BowmanJ. S.WestJ. P. (2007). Ending civil service protections in Florida government: Experiences in state agencies. In BowmanJ. S.WestJ. P. (Eds.), American public service: Radical reform and the merit system (pp. 123-149). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
8.
BowmanJ. S.WestJ. P.GertzS. C. (2006). Florida’s service first: Radical reform in the sunshine state. In KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (Eds.), Civil service reform in the states: Personnel policy and politics at the subnational level (pp. 145-170). Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
CarnevaleD.HouselS. (2001). Human resource management reform in the states. In CondreyS.RobertM. (Eds.), Radical reform of the civil service (pp. 151-175). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
10.
ChangE.HahnJ. (2006). Does pay-for-performance enhance perceived distributive justice for collectivistic employees?Personnel Review, 35, 397-412.
11.
ChiangF. F. T.BirtchT. (2007). The transferability of management practices: Examining cross-national differences in reward preferences. Human Relations, 60, 1293-1330.
12.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
13.
CondreyS. E.BattaglioP. R.Jr. (2007). A return to spoils? Revisiting radical civil service reform in the United States. Public Administration Review, 67, 425-436.
14.
DeciE. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.
15.
DeckopJ. R.MangelR.CirkaC. C. (1999). Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 420-428.
16.
DessG.RobinsonR. R.Jr. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265-273.
17.
DyerL.TheriaultR. (1976). The determinants of pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 596-604.
18.
ErdoganB. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555-578.
19.
FolgerR.KonovskyM. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
20.
FolgerR.KonovskyM. A.CropanzanoR. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
21.
GabrisG. T.IhrkeD. M. (2000). Improving employee acceptance toward performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The role of leadership credibility. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 41-53.
22.
GabrisG. T.MitchellK. (1985). Merit-based performance appraisal and productivity: Do employees perceive the connection?Public Productivity Review, 9, 311-327.
23.
GreeneW. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
GrintK. (1993). What’s wrong with performance appraisals? A critique and a suggestion. Human Resource Management Journal, 3(3), 61-77.
25.
HaysS. W.ByrdC.WilkinsS. L. (2006). South Carolina’s human resource management system: The model for states with decentralized personnel structures. In KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (Eds.), Civil service reform in the states: Personnel policy and politics at the subnational level (pp. 171-201). Albany: State University of New York Press.
26.
HeslinP. A.VandeWalleD. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37, 1694-1718.
JudgeT. A. (1993). Validity of the dimensions of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire: Implications for research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 46, 331-355.
29.
KacmarK. M.CarlsonD. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scales: A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658.
30.
KelloughJ. E.LuH. (1993). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: Persistence of a problematic procedure. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13(2), 45-64.
31.
KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (2002). Pay for performance in Georgia state government: Employee perspectives on GeorgiaGain after 5 years. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22, 146-166.
32.
KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (2006). Dramatic reform in the public service: At-will employment and the creation of a new public workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 447-466.
33.
KelloughJ. E.SeldenS. C. (1997). Pay-for-performance systems in state government: Perceptions of state agency personnel managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(1), 5-21.
34.
KlingnerD. E. (2006). Societal values and civil service systems in the United States. In KelloughJ. E.NigroL. G. (Eds.), Civil service reform in the states: Personnel policy and politics at the subnational level (pp. 11-32). Albany: State University of New York Press.
35.
KlugerA. N.DeNisiA. (1996). The effect of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
36.
KoonmeeK. (2011). Fairness in the workplace: The relative effects of distributive and procedural justice on incentive satisfaction. The Business Review, 17(2), 160-166.
37.
LathamG. P.MannS. (2006). Advances in the science of performance appraisal: Implications for practice. In HodgkinsonG. P.FordJ. K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 295-337). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
38.
LevyP. E.WilliamsJ. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881-905.
39.
LongeneckerC. O. (1997). Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: Causes and lessons. Career Development International, 2, 212-218.
40.
LongeneckerC. O.SimsH. P.GioiaD. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
41.
McFarlinD. B.SweeneyP. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
42.
MengF.WuJ. (2015). Merit pay fairness, leader-member exchange, and job engagement: Evidence from mainland China. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 47-69.
43.
MeschD. J.RooneyP. M. (2008). Determinants of compensation: A study of pay, performance, and gender differences for fundraising professionals. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 435-463.
44.
MintzbergH. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45.
MontoyaS.GrahamJ. D. (2007). Pay for performance in the U.S. federal civil service. Policy Insight, 1(6), 1-4.
46.
MoynihanD. P. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65, 203-216.
47.
MurphyK. R.ClevelandJ. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
National Research Council. (1991). Pay-for-performance: Evaluating performance appraisal and merit pay. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49.
NigroL.NigroF.KelloughJ. E. (2007). The new public personnel administration (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
50.
OhS. S.LewisG. B. (2009). Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 158-167.
51.
O’ReillyC. A.PfefferJ. (2000). Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
52.
PearceJ. L.PerryJ. L. (1983). Federal merit pay: A longitudinal analysis. Public Administration Review, 43, 315-325.
53.
PerryJ. L. (1992). The merit pay reforms. In IngrahamP. W.RosenbloomD. H. (Eds.), The promise and paradox of civil service reform (pp. 199-215). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
54.
PerryJ. L.EngbersT. A.JunS. Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.
55.
PerryJ. L.PearceL. J. (1985). Civil service reform and the politics of performance appraisal. In RosenbloomD. H. (Ed.), Public personnel policy: The politics of civil service (pp. 146-160). Port Washington, NY: Associate Faculty Press.
56.
PetersB. G. (1995). The public service, the changing state, and governance. In PetersB. G.SavoieD. J. (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 288-320). Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
57.
PichlerS. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51, 709-732.
58.
PynesJ. E. (2009). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59.
RaineyH. G.KelloughJ. E. (2000). Civil service reform and incentives in the public service. In PfiffnerJ. P.BrookD. A. (Eds.), The future of merit: Twenty years after the Civil Service Reform Act (pp. 127-145). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
60.
RubinE. V. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the department of defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143.
61.
RubinE. V.KelloughJ. E. (2012). Does civil service reform affect behavior? Linking alternative personnel systems, perceptions of procedural justice, and complaints. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 121-141.
62.
RynesS. L.GerhartB.ParksL. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.
63.
SchleicherD. J.BullR. A.GreenS. G. (2009). Rater reaction to forced distribution rating system. Journal of Management, 35, 899-927.
64.
TaylorM. S.TracyK. B.RenardM. K.HarrisonJ. K.CarrollS. J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523.
65.
VroomV. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
66.
WaltersJ. (2002). Life after civil service reform: The Texas, Georgia, and Florida experiences. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for The Business of Government.
