JCM, VIE and Engagement in Predicting Federal Workers’ Performance Tom Mitchell, University of Baltimore J. Peter Leeds, U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board Kristi Grimes, University of Baltimore ABSTRACT We compared the relative effectiveness of scores derived from the JCM (Job Characteristics Model) and VIE (Expectancy) theories as predictors of performance ratings and merit awards and the mediating role of employee engagement in federal employees (N=17,792). VIE was a stronger predictor of performance and awards than JCM. Engagement fully mediated the relationship between JCM and performance. INTRODUCTION The federal government is under increasing pressure to reduce spending and increase efficiency. Increasing employee engagement may help to address these challenges. In the public sector, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board found that employee engagement enhanced organizational effectiveness (Nierle et al. 2008). The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) (Hackman & Oldham 1975) and VIE Expectancy (Vroom 1964) theories have found wide support in both the private and public sectors (Fried & Ferris 1987; Lindner 1998; Van Eerde & Thierry 1996). A meta-analysis found that the JCM job characteristics explained substantial variance in satisfaction, performance, and organizational commitment (Humphrey et al. 2007). We found no research comparing JCM and VIE theories directly using objective performance outcomes. Therefore, we compared the JCM with VIE (Porter & Lawler’s 1968 revision) to determine how well each predicted performance ratings (PR) and merit awards (MA) were received. We also tested the role of employee engagement as a performance mediator for both JCM and VIE theory constructs. JCM (The Job Characteristics Model) (Hackman and Oldham 1975) Jobs with Motivational Potential (MPL) have five characteristics: Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, Feedback Focus is on intrinsic motivation Job characteristics are related to satisfaction, performance, and commitment VIE (Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy) (Vroom 1964) Workers are motivated when they believe their efforts lead to performance (E > P) Performance leads to valued outcomes and rewards, i.e. Valences (P >V) Outcomes can be internal (e.g. meaningfulness of work), external (pay), or both Private sector workers value rewarding work and find it interesting and motivating Engagement Highly motivated performance on discretionary and non-discretionary behaviors (Bakker 2011) Organizational citizenship behaviors are an example of discretionary (Smith, Organ, & Near 1983) Motivated by more than external rewards (Bakker 2011) Evidence as a mediator for organizational antecedents and outcomes Fully mediates (Biswas & Bhatnagar 2013) Does not mediate (Putter 2010) METHOD RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Participants N = 42,020 federal employees (58% response rate) completed the 310-item 2010 Merit Principles Survey (Leeds et al. 2013) with 5-point Likert scaling. Of these, 17,792 performance appraisal ratings and merit awards data were available for analysis. Predictors  MPL (JCM-Motivation Potential Level) (Leeds et al. 2013) Range1-125 with M = 3.89 (.25), α =.74). Five items [(Skill Variety + Task Id + Task Sig) ÷ 3] × Autonomy × Feedback.  MSF (VIE-Motivation Force Score) (Leeds et al. 2013) one score incorporates E, P, & V. Outcome Measures  ES (Engagement Score) (Nierle et al. 2008) 16 items (Hi score=more engaged) M = 3.82 (.27), α =.94  PR (Performance Rating) Annual rating (5-point, unacceptable to outstanding) M = 4.02 (.78), N = 20,672.  MA (Merit Awards) Number of monetary merit awards M = 0.88 (.55), N = 38,212 Hypotheses For outcome variables Performance Ratings (PR) and Merit Awards (MA) we predicted:  Positive correlations with MPL (H1), MFS (H2), and ES (H3)(supported)  Unique contributions for MPL, MFS, and ES (H4)(partial support)  Partial mediation of ES for MPL (H5a) and MFS (H5b)(a-supported; b-not supported) REFERENCES ** P <.01 (2-tailed). Correlations Ns range from 17,792 and 38,642. Coefficient Alphas are in the diagonals. JCM Engagement Direct Effect Post Mediator =.02 (NS).25*.85* Direct Effect Pre Mediator =.23* Indirect Effect Post Mediator =.21* Performance (PR & MA) Figure 2: Model 2: SEM Mediation for JCM, Engagement, and Job Performance (*p <.01) Table 1 Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes MEASURE MPL (JCM) MFS (VIE).636 ** ES (Engagement). 683 **.708 ** MA (Merit Awards).059 **.084 **.080 ** - 5. PR (Perf Rating).129 **.222 **.153 **.338 ** - Findings As predicted (Hypotheses 1 – 3) MPL, MFS, and ES were positively related to performance (PR) and merit awards (MA) with stronger relations for appraisals than for awards (Table 1). The small correlations may be due to the difficulty in conducting performance appraisals in the federal civil service (Oh & Lewis 2013) and range restriction. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Only VIE and Engagement contributed to total performance effects (PR + MA) (Figure 1). Employees who value workplace rewards and believe these rewards are contingent upon performance perform better. Job characteristics and engagement play only a secondary role. Engagement mediated the relation between JCM and performance (H5a) but not for the VIE-performance relationship (H5b). That engagement was a mediator only for JCM seems reasonable given that workers should be more engaged when jobs are intrinsically motivating. Limitations  Findings may only generalize to the public sector workforce  MPL (JCM) construct was only an approximation to the Job Diagnostics Survey (JDS)  VIE measure (MFS) may not be comparable to measures used in other studies  ES is only one of many such measures used to assess engagement  Because we could not establish temporal precedence there may be reciprocal causality Contributions  First study to compare JCM and VIE directly using objective performance outcomes in a large sample  VIE (MFS) construct incorporates the concept of individual differences in Valence  Additional support found for the important role of employee engagement  Effective job design can enhance employee engagement Figure 1. Model 1: Standardized Coefficients for the Full Model (*p <.01) Bakker, A. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: Role of perceived organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38(1), Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 40(2), Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary of theoretical extensions of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), Leeds, J. P.,Osowski, J., & Roth, S. (2013). U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards. Washington DC. Lindner, J.R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension, 36(3). Nierle, D., Ford, J.M. & Shugrue, L. (2008). U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. The power of federal employee engagement. Washington, DC. Oh, S.S., & Lewis, G.B. (2013). Performance ratings and career advancement in the US federal civil service. Public Management Review, 15(5), Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial and attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, a division of Richard D. Irwin. Putter, L. (2010). Organizational Climate and Performance ‘The relation between organizational climate and performance and an investigation of the antecedents of organizational climate’ (Masters thesis). Delft University of Technology. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc. 29 th Annual Conference of The Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, Hawai`i (Oahu), May 2014