Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037
2024, vol. 15, no. 2(31), pp. 288–304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2024.15.14
Improving Job Performance in the State Sector by Public Service Motivation and Job–Person Fit toward Sustainable Development
Hoa Dinh Nguyen (corresponding author)
Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions,
Ton Duc Thang University, Vietnam
nguyendinhhoa@tdtu.edu.vn<
https://ror.org/01drq0835
Phuong Thanh Thi Do
Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions,
Ton Duc Thang University, Vietnam
https://ror.org/01drq0835
Quyen Thuc Vo Huynh
Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions,
Ton Duc Thang University, Vietnam
https://ror.org/01drq0835
Abstract. Job performance in the state sector is essential for the sustainable development of an economy. However, previous studies on the relationship among public service motivation (PSM), person–job fit (PJF), and job performance have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, this study aims to explore the correlations between PSM, PJF, and job performance, with a particular focus on the state sector. After an extensive literature review, this study utilized quantitative methods to examine the correlation between PSM, PJF, and job performance. The data were analyzed employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), utilizing a sample of 263 participants who work at social insurance agencies, which are the state public organizations that serve employees for social insurance and health insurance. Preliminary results indicate that PSM positively influences both in-role job performance and extra-role job performance within the state sector. Moreover, the results also indicate the mediating role of PJF in the correlation between PSM, in-role job performance and extra-role job performance. The research contributions provide theoretical evidence that PSM is one of the key factors in increasing job performance in the state sector. In addition, the practical implications are discussed to assist managers in improving job performance for the country’s sustainable development.
Keywords: public service motivation, person-job fit, in-role job performance, extra-role job performance
Received: 21/6/2024. Accepted: 24/9/2024
Copyright © 2024 Hoa Dinh Nguyen, Phuong Thanh Thi Dom, Quyen Thuc Vo Huynh. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
1. Introduction
PSM has been described as a motivation to contribute to society, which can motivate employees to actively perform meaningful public services (Nguyen et al., 2023). In the public management field, the PSM has been considered as a key determinant of employee behavior and organizational effectiveness. Many empirical studies have provided the evidence that PSM positively relates to organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job performance (Vandenabeele et al., 2018), extra-role job performance (Gould-Williams et al., 2013) and even as a measure of job performance (Andersen et al., 2014).
Over the years, scholars have investigated the relationship between PSM and employee behaviors. Most studies found the PSM to have a positive impact on in-role job performance. However, the role of PSM as a factor to increase different types of job performance is still being debated. The role of PSM in the relationship with job performance should be investigated in a specific study context and specific type of performance (Van Loon et al., 2015; Wright, 2015). Therefore, the limitation of previous studies is that they just focus on investigating the direct impact of PSM on in-role job performance and do not pay attention to the extra-role job performance, which is a positive behavior that also contributes to public service quality.
Another gap of previous studies is that they have not investigated the indirect relationship between PSM with in-role job performance and extra-role job performance. PSM is directly and strongly related to employee performance unconditionally, but PSM can also be influenced by the person–environment fit (Van Loon et al., 2017). PJF is one type of person–environment fit that can be defined as employee ability, preference and the demand match to job requirements (Sylva et al., 2017). Some previous scholars predict PJF to have an important mediating role between PSM and employee job performance (Bright, 2007; Kim, 2006; Leisink & Steijn, 2009).
Even though previous studies proved that PSM strongly increases positive employee behaviors, some scholars also warn that PSM is not an outstanding factor that generates desired outcomes and they therefore suggest evaluating the role of PSM depending on a particular situation (Vandenabeele et al., 2018). Thus, the investigation of the role of PSM in the direct relationship with employee job performance and the indirect relationship with job performance in one sector, e.g., social insurance agencies in the emerging economy, is necessary to provide more evidence regarding the role of PSM in a different context.
Vietnam is an emerging country in the process of reforming public sector management to increase satisfaction of the public customers. The social insurance agencies are important public sectors that need a reform to serve the employees and enterprises better to improve the quality of life and wellbeing of the citizens. The social insurance agencies have the functions of implementing the policies of social insurance and health insurance and managing the social insurance and health insurance funds. The social insurance agencies are in the process of reforming service quality. Currently, social insurance agencies face challenges when downsizing the workforce while serving more customers, e.g., there are 145,200 social insurance records waiting for processing. This situation needs to push the PSM to increase in-role job performance and extra-role job performance. However, practical studies of the relationship between PSM and in-role job performance and extra-role job performance have not been conducted.
This study will explore the relationship between PSM and in-role job performance and extra-role job performance directly in the social insurance agencies. Additionally, we also test the mediating mechanism of PJF in the relationship between PSM and in-role job performance and extra-role job performance. Through an empirical study, this study aims to have both theoretical and practical implications. By testing the hypotheses on the relationship between PSM, PJF, and job performance, this study provides the implications for managers in the social insurance agencies on how to push PSM to increase the in-role job performance and extra-role job performance to serve public customers effectively.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Study concepts
2.1.1 Public Service Motivation
Public Service Motivation (PSM) is defined as the intrinsic motivation of employees to serve public communities and enhance societal well-being (Van Loon et al., 2017). PSM reflects a commitment to public service, driving behaviors that benefit society. Employees with high PSM are often more satisfied with their jobs, particularly in the public sector, where their values align with organizational goals (Ritz et al., 2021). PSM is an internal motivator that increases job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and support for reform and civic behavior (Pandey et al., 2008; Taylor, 2014). It is understood as a willingness to contribute to the public good without prioritizing self-interest (Vandenabeele et al., 2018).
According to Ritz et al. (2021), PSM involves three main motivational categories: rational motives (e.g., participation in policy-making), norm-based motives (e.g., community service, loyalty, and equality), and affective motives (e.g., benevolence and charity). PSM is activated by values that prioritize societal interests over personal gain, measured through four dimensions: attraction to public policy, commitment to public interests, compassion, and self-sacrifice (Liu & Perry, 2016).
2.1.2 Job Performance
Job performance is a widely used term across various scientific fields, particularly in management science. It refers to the behaviors and outcomes produced by individuals in their jobs, encompassing the products, consequences, and results of their work. This performance is demonstrated through employees’ ability to perform specific tasks using their knowledge, tools, and techniques, which is crucial for performance appraisals that assess task completion and potential for development (Taylor, 2021). Job performance, initially a private sector concept, has become prevalent in the public sector due to new public management reforms. In the public sector, job performance is evaluated through multiple dimensions such as efficiency, effectiveness, rapid feedback, and justice (Brewer & Walker, 2010).
Effectiveness, reflecting the ratio between actual outcomes and desired objectives, is particularly important in public sector evaluations (Taylor, 2021). This study focuses on employee behavior and job outcomes within public organizations, categorizing job performance into in-role and extra-role performance (Van Loon et al., 2017). Employees contribute to organizational goals through task performance and helping colleagues, both of which are crucial in public sector job performance appraisals (Gould-Williams et al., 2015; Van Loon et al., 2017).
2.1.2.1 In-Role Job Performance
In-role job performance refers to how employees fulfill their job responsibilities according to their role and meet required standards (Ritz et al., 2021). It varies based on the job’s nature, with tasks like surgery requiring strict procedure adherence, unlike teaching. In-role performance involves completing duties outlined in the job description (Van Loon et al., 2017; Adil et al., 2019). It can be measured by supervisor ratings, employee perceptions, and goal attainment (Ritz et al., 2021). This study emphasizes how employees perceive their performance in meeting organizational tasks.
2.1.2.2 Extra-Role Job Performance
Extra-role job performance refers to voluntary behaviors where employees help others in the organization without it being part of their job description (Van Loon et al., 2017). These actions are crucial for achieving the organization’s mission, as simply fulfilling assigned tasks is not always enough. For example, an experienced surgeon aiding a new colleague in hospital routines is vital, even if it is not required (Rai et al., 2018). While these contributions improve organizational performance, they often go unrecognized in compensation systems (Mihalca et al., 2023).
2.1.2.3 Person–Job Fit
Person–job fit (PJF) is the alignment between employee skills, abilities, values, and job requirements (Bright, 2021). It focuses on matching individual strengths and job demands, leading to improved performance and success (Zhu et al., 2018). According to vocational personality theory, individuals have different traits, so managers must select those whose characteristics align with job requirements (Kim et al., 2020). PJF is crucial in human resource management, emphasizing recruitment based on job compatibility. Van Loon et al. (2017) argue that PJF is more important than person–organization fit in mediating the relationship between Public Service Motivation (PSM) and in-role job performance, with PJF influencing both in-role and extra-role outcomes.
2.2 Hypotheses
2.2.1 The Relationship Between PSM and Job Performance
Van Loon et al. (2017) demonstrated a positive relationship between Public Service Motivation (PSM) and in-role job performance, as employees with high PSM exert more effort when their goals align with organizational objectives. Ritz (2021) reviewed 26 studies, finding that 15 confirmed the direct impact of PSM on in-role job performance. PSM encourages employees to achieve organizational goals while benefiting society (Vandenabeele et al., 2014). Empirical research consistently shows a positive link between PSM and in-role performance (Im et al., 2016; Van Loon et al., 2017). However, some studies did not establish this connection (Ritz et al., 2021). Recent findings support that employees with high PSM tend to improve in-role job performance in public organizations (Jensen et al., 2019). Based on this evidence, we hypothesize:
H1. PSM positively impacts in-role job performance in the public sector.
PSM is expected to relate to extra-role job performance in public organizations, where employees voluntarily take on tasks beyond their official duties (Ritz et al., 2021). Studies consistently show a positive relationship between PSM and extra-role performance (Gould-Williams et al., 2015). Employees with high PSM often engage in extra-role behaviors, driven by a desire to contribute to society (Van Loon et al., 2017). Recent research supports a strong positive link between PSM and extra-role performance (Gould-Williams et al., 2015; Van Loon et al., 2017). Ritz et al. (2021) also noted that PSM enhances both in-role and extra-role performance. Therefore, we propose:
H2: PSM positively impacts extra-role job performance in the public sector.
2.2.2 The mediating role of person–job fit
Scholars have argued that person–job fit (PJF) plays a mediating role in the relationship between public service motivation (PSM) and employee behaviors (Bellé, 2013; Taylor, 2015). PSM, which can be seen as a need to contribute to society and express oneself, enhances PJF, leading to improved job performance, particularly in-role performance (Bright, 2021). Research has shown that PJF can fully or partially mediate the relationship between PSM and job performance (Gould-Williams et al., 2015). Ritz et al. (2021) discussed that PJF, defined as the alignment between an employee’s abilities and values with job requirements, is crucial in mediating the PSM–job performance link. PSM impacts job performance both directly and indirectly through PJF. However, while PJF is shown to mediate the effect of PSM on in-role performance, it does not mediate the relationship between PSM and extra-role performance (Van Loon et al., 2017). We agree with previous findings that employees whose abilities, values, and attitudes fit their job are more likely to excel in their roles and take on additional tasks. Thus, we propose:
H3: PJF mediates the relationship between PSM and in-role job performance in the public sector.
H4: PJF mediates the relationship between PSM and extra-role job performance in the public sector.
Based on hypotheses that include H1, H2, H2, H3, and H4, we propose the research model as follows (Figure 1):
Figure 1
The Study Framework
3. Methodology
3.1 Survey Respondents
According to Hair et al. (2019), the recommended sample is at least five participants per independent variable, and an ideal ratio is 15 to 20 respondents per independent variable in the research model. Our study model included two independent variables; thus, we selected 263 employees who work in the social insurance agency, which allowed for data analysis by AMOS-SEM. The employees in the study sample work in 11 social insurance agencies with different roles such as insurance inspection, social insurance payment, social insurance collection, and administration office. The social insurance agency has functions to provide social insurance services for enterprises and employees, such as social insurance collection and payment for pension benefits, health insurance, and unemployment insurance. We conducted a pilot study with employees of social insurance agencies to ensure that the items, after being translated by us into Vietnamese, are clear for employees participating in the survey. This helps ensure more accurate responses to the questionnaire. Therefore, we asked the respondents whether there were any items in the questionnaire that they do not fully understand, and how they understand the content of each item listed below. The results showed that we did not need to adjust the wording of the items in the questionnaire.
We selected the sample using a convenience sampling method, ensuring that it was still representative of the overall study population. We chose 11 social insurance agencies, representing more than 17% of provincial-level social insurance agencies, for the survey. At each agency, we distributed 25 questionnaires, totaling 275 questionnaires across 11 social insurance agencies. At each agency, we surveyed over 20% of the employees from all departments, including departments such as human resources, accounting, insurance collection, insurance payment, and inspection. On average, we distributed 3–5 questionnaires per department. We asked the management of the social insurance agencies to assist in distributing the questionnaires to employees in all departments and collecting them within two months. We received 263 valid responses, achieving a response rate of 95.63%, with the number of responses from each department over 15% of the department’s employees.
3.2 Variable Measure
The study included four variable dimensions, each assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The PSM scale had seven observed items: “I think participating in activities to solve the social problem is important”, “I think the equality chance for residents is important”, “It is important that the residents could use the continuous service", “The care for the resident benefit and happiness is important”, “I empathize with others who are facing difficulties“, “I support good plans to improve the lives of the poor, even if they are costly to me“, and „I am willing to sacrifice personal interests if it helps others“. The PSM scale, which has one dimension adapted from Kim et al. (2013) and Wright et al. (2013), had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.855.
JPF scale included five observed items: “The job characteristics that I desire could be found at my current job”, “My job allows me to do everything that I like”, “My job offers me the chance to attain my targets that I think are important”, “If I think about what I want to attain, I think that I chose the right job”, “My job that I am doing is my favorite”. JPF scale, which was adapted from Van Loon et al. (2015), had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.823.
In-role job performance consisted of three observed items: “I always obtain the official requirement on outcomes in my job”, “I devotedly perform my duties to reach the expected outcomes”, and “I always carry out the main duties well”. It had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.839. The extra-role performance consisted of three observed items: “I help my colleagues if they have work”, “I help my new colleagues even if they do not request”, and “I will pause to share information with my colleagues if they need”. The in-role and extra-role job performances were adapted from Meier and O’ Toole (2013), with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.874.
3.3 Common Method Bias and Data Tests
This study employed the Harman method to assess potential bias problems. All study variables were consolidated into a single factor to test the correlation between measured constructs. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) test revealed a variance extracted of 32.45%, falling below the 50% threshold, suggesting the absence of common method bias in the survey data. Prior to data analysis, scale reliability was assessed, ensuring that corrected item-total correlations were below 0.3 and Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.6 (Hair et al., 2019).
To evaluate model fit and validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 24. Acceptable fit criteria included a χ2/df ratio below 3, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) above 0.9, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) exceeding 0.9, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) surpassing 0.9, and the RMSEA test was used to measure the goodness of fit for statistical models with values below 0.08 (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, the CFA was assessed, requiring Composite Reliability (CR) above 0.7 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) exceeding 0.5 (Hair et al., 2019).
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to evaluate model fit, utilizing the same criteria as in CFA: χ2/df ratio below 3, CFI above 0.9, GFI exceeding 0.9, TLI surpassing 0.9, and RMSEA below 0.08. Hypotheses testing considered significance levels at both 0.05 and 0.1 thresholds (Hair et al., 2019).
4. Results
4.1 The Demographic Statistic
The study sample included 108 male respondents, 41.06% of whom were male, and 155 were female respondents representing 58.94% of the sample. In terms of age, 75 respondents belonged to the age group below 30 years old (28.52%), 96 respondents were in the range between 30 and 40 years old (36.50%), and 92 respondents (34.98%) were above 40 years old. The study sample included 214 respondents with bachelor degrees (81.37%), 11 respondents with postgraduate education (4.18%), and 38 respondents with college degrees (14.45%). Regarding the length of service, 60 respondents (22.81%) had been in service for less than five years, 124 respondents (47.15%) had been working between 5 and 10 years, and 79 respondents (30.04%) had spent more than 10 years in service. Thus, the study sample was representative of the population of social insurance agencies as the it involved diverse genders, ages, education levels and working experience with a significant ratio.
4.2 CFA Test
The proposed model, encompassing four variables, underwent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess its validity and model fit. One item, PSM2, was removed due to its factor loading falling below 0.5. Subsequently, all remaining items exhibited factor loadings exceeding 0.5 at a significant level (p<0.01), validating the variables as originally designed in the measurement model (Hair et al., 2019), as shown in Table 1.
The CFA results, presented in Table 1, revealed that the observed normed χ2/df value of 1.211 was less than 3, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.028, below the 0.08 threshold, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.940, and the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.985, surpassing the 0.9 cut-off level (Hair et al., 2019). These findings indicate a good level of model fit for the measurement model.
Furthermore, Table 1 illustrates that all four variables exhibited composite reliability (CR) exceeding the 0.7 threshold, and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was above 0.5. The CR and AVE analyses confirm the absolute validity of the measurement model.
Table 2 demonstrates high discriminant validity among the four constructs. The diagonal elements represent the average variance extracted for each construct, which was greater than the off-diagonal elements (square correlations).
Table 1
CFA Test
|
Observation |
Factor Loading |
CR |
AVE |
Cronbach’s α |
|
Public Service Motivation (PSM) |
||||
|
I think participating in activities to solve the social problem is important. |
.758 |
0.857 |
0.502 |
0.855 |
|
I think the equality chance for residents is important. |
.665 |
|||
|
It is important that the residents could use the continuous service. |
.748 |
|||
|
The care for the resident benefit and happiness is important. |
.715 |
|||
|
I empathize with others who are facing difficulties. |
.604 |
|||
|
I support good plans to improve the lives of the poor, even if they are costly to me. |
.637 |
|||
|
I am willing to sacrifice personal interests if it helps others. |
.614 |
|||
|
Person–Job Fit (PJF) |
||||
|
The job characteristics that I desire could be found at my current job. |
.670 |
0.827 |
0.510 |
0.823 |
|
My job allows me to do everything that I like. |
.787 |
|||
|
My job offers me the chance to attain my targets that I think are important. |
.761 |
|||
|
If I think about what I want to attain, I think that I chose the right job. |
.606 |
|||
|
My job that I am doing is my favourite one. |
.664 |
|||
|
Extra-role Job Performance (ER) |
||||
|
I help my colleagues if they have work. |
.813 |
0.875 |
0.701 |
0.874 |
|
I help my new colleagues even if they do not request. |
.831 |
|||
|
I will pause to share information with my colleagues if they need. |
.863 |
|||
|
In-role Job Performance (IR) |
||||
|
I always obtain the official requirement on outcomes in my job. |
.804 |
0.839 |
0.635 |
0.839 |
|
I devotedly perform my duties to reach the expected outcomes. |
.789 |
|||
|
I always carry out the main duties well. |
.794 |
|||
Note. Cronbach’s α >0.6, Composite Reliability (CR) > 0.7, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) >0.5.
4.3 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 indicates that PSM, PJF, and in-role job performance all exhibited mean values above the neutral level: PSM (M=3.39, SD=1.32), PJF (M=3.69, SD=0.96), and in-role job performance (M=3.64, SD=1.13). However, extra-role job performance had a mean value below the neutral level (M=2.87, SD=1.09). These findings suggest a need for managerial attention, particularly in improving extra-role job performance.
Moreover, correlation coefficient results reveal significant associations between variables: PSM correlated positively with in-role job performance (R=0.48, p<0.001), extra-role job performance (R=0.49, p<0.001), and person–job fit (R=0.34, p<0.05). PJF also exhibited significant correlations with in-role job performance (R=0.41, p<0.05) and extra-role job performance (R=0.31, p<0.05). These results demonstrate strong relationships between independent and dependent variables, supporting subsequent SEM analysis.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistic
|
Variable |
Mean |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
PSM |
3.39 |
1.32 |
0.71* |
||||
|
PJF |
3.69 |
0.96 |
0.34 |
0.71* |
|||
|
In-role job performance |
3.64 |
1.13 |
0.48 |
0.41 |
0.84* |
||
|
Extra-role job performance |
2.87 |
1.09 |
0.49 |
0.31 |
0.44 |
0.80* |
Note. * Diagonal values are the average variance extracted for each construct. Off-diagonal values are the correlation coefficients between constructs. The correlation coefficients between constructs are significant at p < 0.01.
4.4 Structural Model
Figure 2 illustrates that the observed normed χ2/df value of 1.231 was below 3, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.03, less than 0.08, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.939, the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.981, and the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.984, all surpassing the 0.9 cut-off level (Hair et al., 2019). These findings indicate a strong model fit for the structural model. In this study, bootstrap estimation was performed by resampling with a size of N = 1000. The results showed that bias and the standard error of bias between the bootstrap estimation and the optimal estimation used in the validation study did appear, but the level of bias was very small. Specifically, the cumulative CR coefficient was greater than 1.96. Therefore, we can conclude that the estimates in the model are reliable. The R-squared coefficient of the relationship between the independent variables and in-role job performance is 0.64, while the R-squared coefficient of the relationship between the independent variables and extra-role job performance is 0.634. These results indicate that the independent variables significantly explain the variance in the dependent variables.
All H1, H2, H3, and H4 tests yielded significant results at the accepted level. Particularly, H1, which asserts that PSM positively influences in-role job performance in the state sector, is supported (β = 0.242, p < 0.001). H2, proposing that PSM positively affects extra-role job performance in the state sector, also garners support (β = 0.241, p < 0.001). H3 suggests that PJF mediates the positive relationship between PSM and in-role job performance, and H3 receives support (β = 0.034, p < 0.05). Similarly, H4, which assumes that PJF mediates the positive association between PSM and extra-role job performance, is also supported (β = 0.016, p < 0.1). The results indicate that PJF partially mediates the relationship between PSM and both in-role task performance and extra-role task performance. However, the mediating effect is relatively weak compared to the direct impact of PSM on in-role task performance and extra-role task performance. From the direct and indirect effects of PSM on in-role and extra-role task performance, the total impact on in-role task performance can be calculated as 0.276, and the total impact on extra-role task performance as 0.257. These values indicate that PSM has a significant influence on the dependent variables.
Figure 2
The SEM Results
Table 3
Results of Hypotheses Tests
|
Hypothesis |
Hypothesized Path |
Standard coefficient |
Results |
|||||
|
1 |
In-role job performance |
<--- |
PSM |
0.242*** |
Supported |
|||
|
2 |
Extra-role job performance |
<--- |
PSM |
0.241*** |
Supported |
|||
|
3 |
In-role job performance |
<-- |
Person-Job <-- Fit |
PSM |
0.034** |
Supported |
||
|
4 |
Extra-role job performance |
<-- |
Person-Job <-- Fit |
PSM |
0.016* |
Supported |
||
Note. Significance at *** p <0.001, ** p <0.01, * p <0.1.
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1 Discussion
These results demonstrate that PSM directly impacts task performance and extra-task performance. The results also demonstrate that PSM indirectly impacts on task performance and extra-task performance by the mediation role of PJF. This study has both meaningful theoretical contributions and practical contributions.
For the theoretical contribution, most previous studies discovered that PSM positively impacts general job performance (Cheng, 2015; Bellé, 2013). This study proves that PSM not only has a direct impact on task performance and extra-task performance but also provides additional evidence for previous studies that PSM is important in increasing in-role and extra-role job performance. These behaviors are essential in state sectors to enhance service quality and organization performance in the state sector (Van Loon et al., 2017). Some previous studies have not found a positive correlation between PSM and job performance (Ritz et al., 2021). Therefore, research findings on PSM have a direct positive correlation with task performance and extra-task performance in emerging countries, which confirms that PSM is the critical factor impacting expected employee behaviors. These results suggest that when employees are motivated by a commitment to improving the lives of their local community, they are likely to work harder, which in turn increases job performance. Finally, this study demonstrates that Public Service Motivation (PSM) positively influences both task performance and extra-task performance. This effect is mediated by perceived job fit (PJF), revealing an indirect relationship between PSM and performance outcomes (Sylva et al., 2019). This result provides more empirical evidence for the mediating role of PJF in the correlation between PSM and job performance (Van Loon et al., 2017).
This finding also contributes to theory, as Jin et al. (2018) were unable to confirm the mediating role of PJF in the relationship between PSM and job performance. All the study findings prove that PSM is an important concept in public management theory, which researchers could use to study employee behavior in the public sector.
The study contributes to managerial understanding by providing evidence that PSM is a crucial factor in improving job performance within public management. These results are very necessary for public management in emerging countries that do not have a large budget to motivate employees with financial rewards. The results indicate PSM can have a positive correlation with task performance and extra-task performance directly. The results also indicate that PSM can have a positive correlation between task performance and extra-task performance indirectly through the mediation role of PJF. Therefore, managers should recruit employees who want to work in public organizations. The managers should become models to complete the public service duties for employees to learn those behaviors. The managers also communicate to motivate the employee’s services to public customers by applying the following practical implications.
5.2 Practical Implication
Managers should recruit proactive candidates to apply to public organizations because they might possess PSM. These candidates who know that public organizations cannot pay high salaries but still apply might have more PSM than other candidates. Besides, the managers should become models to serve the public customers so that the employees can learn. The managers must also communicate and build situations for employees to practice PSM.
The managers should communicate with employees, pay attention to serving public customers, and remind the employees that career development depends on public customer satisfaction. Employees should make the effort to work for their local community development. The above managerial activities should determine employee behaviors to serve public customers devotedly and responsibly. Employees should bring more benefits to their public customers than they receive from them. Employees are especially willing to give up their own benefits to help poor local people. Managers should hold meetings to discuss how to improve public service to support regional development.
Managers should also encourage employees to provide their opinions on plans for improving public services to support local development. Employees also have the chance to join their colleagues who carry out programs to help the poor local people without benefit return. Managers should give feedback to employees on regional development to inspire them to serve public customers continuously. Managers also need to reward the employees who have the above behaviors to encourage them to raise their PSM.
If the managers recruit candidates who desire to work in public organizations and create an environment for the employees to practice PSM, then the employees will perceive the PJF. The managers in public organizations should increase the PJF because it plays a mediation role between PSM and job performance.
6. Conclusion
The sustainable development of a nation hinges significantly on the performance of its state sector workforce. Hence, this research delves into examining the correlation between PSM, PJF and job performance, with a specific focus on the state sector within a developing country. The study results have attained the research objectives and are consistent with our hypotheses. The study evidence showed that PSM is an important concept in public management theory. The results demonstrate that PSM has a direct positive correlation with in-role and extra-role job performance. At the same time, the study proved that PSM has an indirect positive correlation with task performance and extra-task performance by the mediation role of PJF. The results also provided the public managers with how to improve PSM and PJF in order to increase task performance and extra-task performance. Besides these contributions, this study has limitations that further studies could overcome.
We conducted this study within a specific sector, focusing on social insurance agencies. However, we did not uncover any specific findings related to social insurance agencies. We selected the respondents with convenience sample selection, so the sample is not a generalization. The next research should have larger sample sizes with various public organizations, and the respondents should be selected by the random method to ensure the sample size is more representative. Second, we used PSM with one shortened dimension, so we did not discover different dimensions’ impact on job performance. The next research should test four dimensions of PSM in the correlation with job performance. Moreover, the study did not discover the antecedents of PSM, such as the public organization mission, the transformation leadership and public organization culture. In future studies, we will test the effect of these variables on both the direct correlation with job performance and the indirect correlation through the mediating role of PSM. Finally, we propose that future research should explore whether PJF serves as a moderator rather than a mediator. Additionally, future research should involve affective variables, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, into the research model.
References
Adil, A., Kamal, A., & Shujja, S. (2019). Perceived Authentic Leadership in Relation to In-role and Extra-role Performance: A Job Demands and Resources Perspective. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 29(1).
Andersen, L. B., Heinesen, E., & Pedersen, L. H. (2014). How Does Public Service Motivation Among Teachers Affect Student Performance in Schools?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 651–671.
Bellé, N. (2013). Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 143–153.
Brewer, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2010). The Impact of Red Tape on Governmental Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 233–257.
Bright, L. (2007). Does Person–Organization Fit Mediate the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and the Job Performance of Public Employees?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(4), 361–379.
Bright, L. (2021). Does Person Organization Fit and Person–Job Fit Mediate the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Work Stress among US Federal Employees?. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 37.
Cheng, K. T. (2015). Public Service Motivation and Job Performance in Public Utilities: An Investigation in a Taiwan Sample. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 352–370.
Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Bottomley, P. (2015). Public Service Motivation and Employee Outcomes in the Egyptian Public Sector: Testing the Mediating Effect of Person–Organization Fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 597–622.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.
Im, T., Campbell, J. W., & Jeong, J. (2016). Commitment Intensity in Public Organizations: Performance, Innovation, Leadership, and PSM. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(3), 219–239.
Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., & Holten, A. L. (2019). Explaining a Dark Side: Public Service Motivation, Presenteeism, and Absenteeism. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 487–510.
Jin, M. H., McDonald, B., & Park, J. (2018). Does Public Service Motivation Matter in Public Higher Education? Testing the Theories of Person–Organization Fit and Organizational Commitment Through a Serial Multiple Mediation Model. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 82–97.
Kim, S. (2006). Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722–740.
Kim, S., Vandenabeele, W., Wright, B.E., Andersen, L.B., Cerase, F.P., Christensen, R.K., Desmarais, C., Koumenta, M., Leisink, P., Liu, B. and Palidauskaite, J., (2013). Investigating the Structure and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an International Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 79–102.
Kim, T. Y., Schuh, S. C., & Cai, Y. (2020). Person or Job? Change in Person–Job Fit and its Impact on Employee Work Attitudes over Time. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 287–313.
Leisink, P., & Steijn, B. (2009). Public Service Motivation and Job Performance of Public Sector Employees in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 35–52.
Liu, B., & Perry, J. L. (2016). The Psychological Mechanisms of Public Service Motivation: A Two-Wave Examination. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(1), 4–30.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole Jr, L. J. (2013). I Think (I Am Doing Well), Therefore I Am: Assessing the Validity of Administrators’ Self-Assessments of Performance. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 1–27.
Mihalca, L., Ratiu, L., Helm, C., Brendea, G., & Metz, D. (2023). The relationship of job characteristics with in-role and extra-role performance: the mediating effect of job crafting. Baltic Journal of Management, 19(1).
Nguyen, H. D., Chau, T. N., & Huynh, Q. V. T. (2023). The impact of team support, financial incentives and public sector motivation on employee motivation: an empirical study of the public sector in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, ahead of print. DOI:10.1108/apjba-09-2021-0460
Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Public Service Motivation and Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior in Public Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89–108.
Rai, A., Ghosh, P., Chauhan, R., & Singh, R. (2018). Improving in-role and extra-role performances with rewards and recognition: Does engagement mediate the process?. Management Research Review, 41(8), 902–919.
Ritz, A., Vandenabeele, W., & Vogel, D. (2021). Public Service Motivation and Individual Job Performance. In Managing for Public Service Performance (pp. 254–277).
Sylva, H., Mol, S. T., Den Hartog, D. N., & Dorenbosch, L. (2019). Person–job fit and proactive career behaviour: A dynamic approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 631–645.
Taylor, J. (2014). Public Service Motivation, Relational Job Design, and Job Satisfaction in Local Government. Public Administration, 92(4), 902–918.
Taylor, J. (2021). Public Officials’ Gaming of Performance Measures and Targets: The Nexus between Motivation and Opportunity. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(2), 272–293.
Taylor, J., & Taylor, R. (2015). Does the economy matter? Tough times, good times, and public service motivation. Public Money & Management, 35(5), 333–340.
Vandenabeele, W. (2014). Explaining Public Service Motivation: The Role of Leadership and Basic Needs Satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 153–173.
Vandenabeele, W., Ritz, A., & Neumann, O. (2018). Public Service Motivation: State of the Art and Conceptual Cleanup. In The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 261–278). Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Loon, N. M., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2017). Clarifying the Relationship Between Public Service Motivation and In-role and Extra-role Behaviors: The Relative Contributions of Person–Job and Person–Organization Fit. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(6), 699–713.
Wright, B. E. (2015). The Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 795–805.
Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K., & Pandey, S. K. (2013). Measuring Public Service Motivation: Exploring the Equivalence of Existing Global Measures. International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 197–223.