The Senior Executive Service (SES) represents an attempt to alter the incentive structure for govern ment executives, primarily by introducing new financial incentives to motivate performance, im prove performance appraisal, and make retention, promotion, and pay truly contingent on the results of appraisals. Our findings indicate that the reform did address sources of some dissatisfaction, but that the impact of SES to date has been, if anything, to make matters worse. SESers do not perceive improvement in the areas that SES was designed to address.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Buchanan, B. (1981). "The Senior Executive Service: How We Can Tell If It Works" Public Administration Review41 (May/June): 349-58.
2.
Colby, P., and P. Ingrahm (1981). "Civil Service Reform: The Views of the Senior Executive Service." Review of Public Personnel Administration . (Fall): 75-89.
3.
Greene, C. (1972). "The Satisfaction-Performance Controversy." Business Horizons15 (October): 31-41.
4.
Hackman, J. et al. (1975). "A New Strategy for Job Enrichments." California Management Review17: 57-71.
5.
Herzberg, F. (1968). "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? " Harvard Business Review46 (January/February): 53-62.
6.
Lanouette, W. (1981). "SES — From Civil Service Showpiece to Incipient Failure in Two Years." National Journal13 (July): 1296-99.
7.
Lawler, E. (1966). "The Mythology of Management Compensation." California Management Review9: 11-22.
8.
Lawler, E. (1979). "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay." Civil Service Journal18 (April/June): 14-18.
9.
Livingston, H. and R. Wilkie (1981). "Motivation and Performance Among Civil Service Managers." Public Administration31 (Summer): 151-170.
10.
Locke, E. (1970). "What Is Job Satisfaction?" Organization Behavior and Human Performance. 5 (April): 484-500.
11.
Lynn, N.B., and R.E. Vaden (1979). "Bureaucratic Response to Civil Service Reform ." Public Administration Review39 (July/August): 333-43.
12.
Meyer, H. (1975). "The Pay for Performance Dilemma." Organizational Dynamics3 (Winter): 39-50.
13.
Mitchell, R. (1974). "Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction, Occupational Preference and Effort: A Theoretical, Methodological, and Empirical Appraisal ," Psychological Bulletin,81 (December): 1053-1077.
14.
Public Administration Times (1981a). "Merit Board Surveys Senior Executives Service." 4 (April 15): 3.
15.
Public Administration Times (1981b). "Survey of Top Executives Shows SES Discontent." 4 (July 1): 3,11.
16.
Rainey, H. (1978). "The Political Environment and Incentives in Government Organizations" A paper prepared for delivery at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, Illinois. (April)
17.
Rousseau, D. (1978). "Characteristics of Departments, Positions, and Individuals: Contexts for Attitudes and Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly23 (December): 521-40.
18.
U. S. Civil Service Commission (1977). Executive Personnel in the Federal Service. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office (November).
19.
U. S. General Accounting Office (1981). Action Needed to Enhance the Credibility of Senior Executive Service Performance A ward Programs. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office (September).
20.
U. S. Office of Personnel Management (1980 ). Federal Employee Attitudes Phase I: Baseline Survey 1979 Government-Wide Report. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office (March).
21.
U. S. Office of Personnel Management (1981 a). Senior Executive Service and Middle-Manager's Job Profiles . Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office (March).
22.
U. S. Office of Personnel Management (1981 b). Federal Employee Attitudes Phase 2: Follow-up Survey 1980 — Preliminary Report. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office (August 13).
