Week 4 - Assignment: Evaluate a Case in Public Personnel Management and Week 5 - Assignment: Recommend an Employee-Friendly Policy

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017704440

Public Personnel Management 2017, Vol. 46(2) 91 –117

© The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091026017704440

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Shedding New Light on Strategic Human Resource Management: The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices and Human Resources on the Perception of Federal Agency Mission Accomplishment

Seunghoo Lim1, Tae Kyu Wang2, and Soo-Young Lee3

Abstract We assess the resource-based view in the study of strategic human resource management in public agencies. We mainly examine the impact of both human resource management (HRM) practices and actual human resources on the perception of federal agency mission accomplishment. We show that all types of goal- aligned and performance-based HRM practices (including rewards, training, appraisal, and recruitment) positively affect perceived agency mission accomplishment. In addition, certain types of human resources (including the percentage of career senior executive service members and organizational size) contribute to perceived agency mission accomplishment although others (including the percentage of professionals and noncareer senior executive service members) make negative contributions. Strategic knowledge, regarding an organization’s valuable, rare, inimitable, and nontradable resources—in both HRM practices and human resources—can help improve perceived federal agency mission accomplishment.

1International University of Japan, Minamiuonuma, Japan 2Catholic Kwandong University, Korea 3Seoul National University, Korea

Corresponding Author: Soo-Young Lee, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanakro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea. Email: [email protected]

704440PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017704440Public Personnel ManagementLim et al. research-article2017

92 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Keywords strategic human resource management (SHRM), resource-based view (RBV), federal agency mission accomplishment

Introduction

Public service agencies have attempted to respond to challenges posed in the informa- tion age by aggregating professional workers with knowledge and expertise. Thus, the U.S. federal agencies have tried to introduce a variety of governmental reform policies including human resources reform policies; however, it is not easy to conclude that these reforms achieved their purpose in terms of the citizens’ expectations about high performance in government. In these circumstances, one possible alternative is to strengthen strategic human resource management (SHRM), which helps public agen- cies maintain their competitive advantage by emphasizing human capital and enhanc- ing organizational performance. The SHRM model differs significantly from the traditional model, which is more likely to neglect human resources embedded in pub- lic agencies and focus on specific personnel administration practices without consider- ing strategic interests (Daley, 2002). The shift to SHRM has been accelerated in public agencies to exploit sustained competitive advantages and to enhance performance through the contribution of both valuable, rare, inimitable, and nontradable (VRIN) human resources and goal-aligned and performance-based human resources manage- ment (HRM) practices.

An extensive body of literature in the public sector has investigated public person- nel management issues in SHRM perspectives. For example, Mesch, Perry, and Wise (1995) compared the influences of bureaucratic HRM and SHRM on federal employ- ees’ job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Daley, Vasu, and Weinstein (2002) analyzed the perception of North Carolina county public officers on SHRM. In a similar vein, Daley and Vasu (2005) investigated the impacts of SHRM practices on the county’s social welfare reform performance in North Carolina. In addition, Kim (2010) examined the relationship between SHRM practices and perceived organiza- tional performance using data from public servants in Georgia and Illinois. Recently, Jacobson and Sowa (2015) studied the degree to which municipal governments have implemented SHRM practices in Colorado and North Carolina.

However, most previous studies have addressed SHRM issues in state or local gov- ernments, not in the federal government. In addition, the relationship between imple- menting a strategic HRM and organizational performance in the federal agencies has not been systematically and empirically studied. Therefore, we intend to investigate the relationship between SHRM and organizational performance in the federal govern- ment. In addition, this study aims to answer the following research question in that almost all previous studies in the public sector have concentrated on perceptions of SHRM practices rather than the actual human resources1:

Research Question 1: What kinds of differential impacts do distinct HRM prac- tices (e.g., individual perceptions of reward, training, appraisal, and recruitment)

Lim et al. 93

and actual human resources (e.g., the percentage of professionals, the percentage of career senior executive service [SES], the percentage of noncareer SES, and the total number of employees) have on the perceived mission accomplishment of the federal agencies?

We believe that this research can contribute to the field of SHRM by providing infor- mation about which types of human resources have differential effects on a federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

SHRM

For decades, a serious human resource deficit has challenged the U.S. federal govern- ment. Scholars lament that high-quality employees leave because of inadequate pro- motion opportunities, because they are not provided with the tools necessary for their job, and because compensation is inadequate (Lewis, 1991; Light, 2008). In addition, the federal government has failed not only to retain seasoned employees but also to recruit talented new personnel (Lewis & Cho, 2011). According to Lewis and Cho (2011), the public service workforce has been challenged by aging and retirement. Failure to retain the current workforce and recruit new talent in the federal government has become a serious challenge for federal government HRM.

So far, little attention has been given to how to obtain human resources from outside the government and how to retain them systematically and strategically inside the gov- ernment. In particular, despite the importance of HRM in the knowledge-intensive pub- lic sector, the traditional functions of HRM practices are typically understood in fragmented perspectives rather than in an integrated view that focuses on attaining over- all optimization of each function. Thus, SHRM acts as an alternative to overcome these problems and limitations by building human resources that lead organizations to achieve goals and retain their competitive advantage (Pynes, 2013) because SHRM views an organization’s personnel as a resource that drives organizational performance.

The Significance of SHRM in the Public Sector

SHRM aims to align HRM practices with an organization’s strategy and ultimately with organizational development goals beyond the mere operation of these functions (Pynes, 2013). Therefore, SHRM links HRM and strategic management to better coor- dinate and harmonize HRM practices through multiple human resource planning pro- cesses that aim to efficiently achieve organizational strategies and goals (Anthony, Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2009; Burack, Burack, Miller, & Morgan, 1994; Wright & McMahan, 1992).

There are four important differences between SHRM and traditional HRM or per- sonnel management (see Table 1).2 First, the analytical focus is different. Traditional HRM mainly focuses on individuals’ psychological or motivational characteristics, such as studying how individual changes in job satisfaction and organizational citizen- ship behavior affect organizational performance. Building on this notion, SHRM hones

94 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

in on how linkages between HRM practices and organizational strategies affect organi- zational performance. Second, the scope of analysis is different. Traditional HRM has separate perspectives that aim to enhance the local optimization of each HRM practice without considering other functions. In contrast to this microscopic view, SHRM attempts to achieve more global or comprehensive optimization through vertical and horizontal integration of HRM practices with a macro perspective. Third, the span of time is different. Traditional HRM focuses on short-term problem-solving processes, whereas SHRM attempts to establish organizational strategies and to foster human capital from a long-term perspective. Thus, members of an organization are regarded as its “human capital,” which is a more useful concept than “human resource” because human capital views members of organizations as “assets” rather than “resources.” A perspective that considers personnel as assets naturally recognizes that it is important to invest in and develop these assets. Recruiting competent personnel to the proper posi- tions, investing in resources to sustain them, and developing human resources through appropriate training and incentivization indicates that human resources are not merely the object of cost cutting but are instead a strategic asset whose value can be enhanced. When an organization determines its strategic goals or priorities, human resources should be considered important at higher levels such as the departmental or organiza- tional levels. Fourth, the functions and roles of HRM are different. Traditionally, HRM practices and activities are understood to have no relation to achieving organizational goals and strategies or to have only subordinate, functional, or instrumental roles in contributing to achieving organizational goals. By contrast, SHRM actively intervenes in strategy building and execution and aims to systematically develop and enhance human resources. SHRM also empowers rather than controls organizational members and intends to maximize their autonomy through its activities.

Table 1. A Comparison of Traditional HRM and SHRM.

Traditional HRM Strategic HRM

Focus of analysis

Individuals’ psychological or motivational aspects

Effects of the linkage between HRM practices and organizational strategies on organizational performance

Scope of analysis

Micro and fragmented view (pursuing local optimization of

individual HRM practices)

Macro and comprehensive view (pursuing global optimization through

vertical and horizontal integration of HRM practices)

Span of time Short-term problem-solving processes

Long-term development of human capital

Functions and roles of HRM

No relations with organizational goals and strategies

Control mechanism

Strong relations with the establishment of organizational goals and strategies

Incentives for empowerment and autonomy

Note. HRM = human resource management; SHRM = strategic human resource management.

Lim et al. 95

The SHRM characteristic most developed in the private sector involves harmonizing organizational strategy with best HRM practices and policies to improve the organiza- tion’s efficiency and productivity (Mello, 2011). Thus, SHRM should be considered important in both the public and private sectors. However, the public sector has certain distinct features that should lead it to adopt SHRM with care. Public organizations are less exposed to market competition, have higher legal and official constraints, and are subject to political influences (Rainey, Backoff, & Levine, 1976). They are also under distinct social controls that involve ownership, financing, and other political and eco- nomic factors (Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wamsley & Zald, 1973). Moreover, the public sector tends to have more ambiguous, complicated, and multidimensional goals than the private sector (Chun & Rainey, 2005). The performance (or budgetary) office and the human resources office in the public sector do not coordinate to align employee performance with organizational goals for enhancing organizational performance (Ayers, 2013, 2015; Ban & Gossett, 2010). Given that the focus and locus in strategic planning have been conceived in various manners, a one-size-fits-all approach to how public agencies develop and implement substantive strategic management practices does not work (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010; Poister & Streib, 2005).

Nevertheless, SHRM is now emphasized in the public sector for the following reasons (Jacobson & Sowa, 2015; Klingner, 1993; Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010): There is a contemporary public management movement that focuses on increasing responsibility and efficiency; public agencies have greater legal obliga- tions regarding issues such as safety management in the workplace, affirmative action, and due process; the public sector labor force is increasingly diverse; and alternative instruments have emerged for the provision of public services. Furthermore, a growing recognition of the importance of human resources, the transition from position management to task management, innovation, cost control, organizational members’ participation, and the diversity of human resource have been emphasized in the public sector.

In the history of HRM or personnel administration, the HRM paradigm has been transformed from traditional HRM to SHRM in both the public and private sectors. Thus, HRM is used strategically more often in the public sector, and innovative HRM change is increasing in many fields (Hays & Kearney, 2001). Reports from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (U.S. OPM, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2005) and the U.S. General Accounting Office (2002) show that the strategic aspects of HRM policies were already being strengthened in the public sector in the 1990s and 2000s (Cascio, 2015; Dessler, 2014); accordingly, those in charge of HRM became aware of the fact that HRM may affect their organizational performance and that SHRM is closely linked to reinforcing human capital. These transitions resulted from the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which forced the federal government to integrate HR planning into organizational strategic planning processes (Tompkins, 2002). It was emphasized again in 2001, when Strategic Management of Human Capital, which focused on improving the management and performance of the federal government, was chosen as part of the Bush Administration agenda (Executive Office of the President of the U.S., 2001).

96 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

SHRM and the Resource-Based View (RBV)

Traditional studies on HRM have typically addressed individual HRM practices (including recruitment, education, training, evaluation, and compensation) separately from a micro perspective, without providing the theoretical framework for each func- tion (Mahoney & Deckop, 1986). This lack of theoretical foundation limits organiza- tions’ strategic use of human resources. However, SHRM is a macro-perspective approach that attempts to comprehend the various activities and practices of HRM and even to integrate them. For these purposes, SHRM scholars rely on various organiza- tional theories to overcome the limitations of traditional HRM and to develop more advanced and sophisticated approaches (Wright & McMahan, 1992).

Among the various theoretical perspectives, the RBV has received increasing atten- tion and has been helpful in elucidating and developing SHRM (Barney, 1991; Boxall, 1996; Delery & Doty, 1996, Wernerfelt, 1984; Wright & McMahan, 1992). One advantage of the RBV is that it searches for methods to develop human resources as the basis of an organization’s competitive advantage, which allows the analysis to focus on aspects inside organizations. Thus, the RBV posits that an organization’s resources and capabilities are determined not only by its external environment but also by its strategic internal decisions and that organizations obtain competitive advantage by deploying or acquiring resources (Mello, 2011).

Since Penrose (1959), RBV theorists have emphasized the scarcity and uniqueness of resources as a critical determinant of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991, 2010; Newbert, 2007). Wernerfelt (1984) used the term “resource-based view of the firm” for the first time, and this concept was developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Conner, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). Barney (1991) stressed securing VRIN resources and capabilities, that is, increasing an organization’s positive resources that are valuable, unique, or rare, largely inimitable by current and future potential competitors, and nonsubstitutable with other resources that competing organizations own. Thus, VRIN resources or capa- bilities are different from resources that other organizations are able to obtain and are not easily imitated by or transferrable to competitors for the following reasons.

First, because scarcity itself makes it difficult for other organizations to seek the resource in question, a perfectly competitive market is unlikely to form for this resource. In addition, unique historical conditions, ambiguous causality, and social complexity make organizational phenomena—including human behaviors, interper- sonal relationships, and organizational cultures—difficult to control or manage, creat- ing the uniqueness of an organization’s resources that are not easily imitable (Barney & Clark, 2007). As there is no scarce and unique resource with equivalent strategic value, these resources are nonsubstitutable (Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994) and become fundamental resources and core capabilities of the organization (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990). Furthermore, valuable resources offer the opportunity to build and implement strategies that help organizations improve their organizational efficiency or effectiveness.

Competitive advantage and sustained competitive advantage are core concepts for understanding the RBV. Organizations are said to have achieved “competitive

Lim et al. 97

advantage” when they have implemented a value-creating strategy that current and future competitors cannot use (Barney, 2010). When other organizations cannot ben- efit from such a strategy, the organization using the strategy has a “sustained competi- tive advantage.” This perspective is distinguished from that of traditional studies, which argued that the friendliness of the environment determines an organization’s success and focused on whether the external environment an organization faces con- sists of opportunities or threats (Bain, 1956; Caves & Porter, 1977; Stigler, 1968). However, increasing competition and rapidly changing technologies make it difficult for organizations to understand and predict the environment in which they are situated. Furthermore, despite the premise that organizations in similar environments should achieve parallel outcomes, traditional studies cannot explain many real cases of orga- nizations that experience continuous success. Thus, the RBV shifts the focus from the outside to the inside of organizations in seeking the source of competitive advantage.

Traditionally, under the RBV, a firm’s typical resources such as the natural resources, technology, and financial resources have been thought to determine the organization’s competitive advantage, but these resources are easily imitable, transfer- rable, and substitutable by competitors, which severely limits their value (Barney, 1991, 2010; Newbert, 2007). In contrast, SHRM implies that human resources can be the organization’s competitive advantage with VRIN characteristics (Daley & Vasu, 2005). In other words, human resources can be the pivotal source for enhancing an organization’s performance, particularly in the public sector (Daley, 2002; Daley et al., 2002; Mesch et al., 1995; Perry, 1993; Perry & Mesch, 1997; Perry & Miller, 1991). Wright and McMahan (1992) detailed the process by which human resources lead to organizations’ sustained competitive advantages as follows. First, human resources actively add distinctive values to their organizations, and each organization expects human resources to make different contributions. Second, because talented individuals are scarce, an organization develops management practices such as recruiting pro- grams, compensation, and inducement plans to secure those competent individuals. Third, an organization’s unique human resources are impossible for competitors to imitate. Human resources can be the source of competitive advantage because of their unique relationships with policies, traditions, and culture inside of organizations; it is difficult to comprehend the exact causes of competitive advantage, as competitive advantage is difficult to imitate because of social complexity. Fourth, if an organiza- tion once secures a valuable human resource, it may sustain competitive advantage by adopting new technologies even if competitors also hire talented people. Based on competitive advantage, SHRM focuses on the planning function of human resources, pursues strategic changes to counter organizations’ environments, and emphasizes aligning human resources with an organization’s circumstances or strategies. As men- tioned above, this study intends to divide human resources into two categories: SHRM practices (e.g., rewards, training, appraisal, and recruitment) and actual human resources (e.g., the number of total employees and the number of SES).

As mentioned above, Daley and Vasu (2005) investigated the impact of SHRM practices such as career development, training, job security, participation, merit pay, and result-based evaluation on social welfare reform performance in North Carolina

98 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

counties. In that study, they provided a general hypothesis that “each practice does indeed matter and individually (and collectively) contributes to organizational suc- cess” (Daley & Vasu, 2005, p. 159).3 In addition, Kim (2010) showed there were posi- tive relationships between SHRM practices such as training and merit rewards and public employees’ perceived performance in Georgia and Illinois. Based on the per- spective of the RBV and the results of previous research, we assumed that goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices are positively associated with the perception of mission accomplishment by federal employees.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between reward practices aligned with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between training practices aligned with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between appraisal practices aligned with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between recruitment practices aligned with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

Based on the RBV, it is logical that more resources help a public agency accomplish its missions. There are various types of resources in a public organization. Public man- agement scholars have devised several classifications of organizational resources, such as organizational structure and financial, human, and technological resources (Bozeman & Straussman, 1990; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Recently, Lee and Whitford (2013) developed a more sophisticated framework that takes a holistic view on public agen- cies’ core organizational resources. These authors offered six types of organizational resources: administrative, human, financial, physical, political, and reputation resources. In line with Lee and Whitford (2013), we focus on four types of actual human resources: professionals, career SES, noncareer SES, and the total number of employees.

First, an agency’s level of professionalization is a crucial human resource. Scholars argue that agency performance can be enhanced by professionalization because pro- fessionals provide important expertise and knowledge (Lee & Whitford, 2013; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999; Stillman, 1999). Based on their professional and ethical stan- dards, professionals offer policy knowledge and can help an agency respond to com- plex social issues and problems. Furthermore, as indirect public service delivery through grants and contracts becomes more and more common, contract and network management scholars emphasize the importance of a professional workforce with policy expertise (Brown & Potoski, 2003; Heinrich, Lynn, & Milward, 2010; Kettl, 1988; Milward & Provan, 2003). Therefore, we assume that having professionals helps an agency accomplish its mission.

The second actual human resource is the SES members in an organization.4 SES consists of two types of members: career and noncareer members. Career SES mem- bers are bureaucrats who lead and manage complex organizations for public service delivery and act as the interface between political appointees in the top management in public agencies and the career civil servants who actually deliver public services

Lim et al. 99

and goods (Sanders, 1994). With a great deal of authority and seasoned knowledge, career SESs are deeply involved in the internal management and policy implementa- tion of their agencies (Colby & Ingraham, 1981; Dolan, 2000; Rourke, 1984). However, noncareer SESs are often politically appointed. They tend to be generalists and play a political role in successfully implementing policies (Lee & Whitford, 2013; Maranto, 1998). Although noncareer SESs may allow their agencies to enjoy more political sup- port in implementing policies, public agencies often perform better when they are uninterrupted by external political influence (Lee & Whitford, 2013). Consequently, we assume that there is a positive relationship between career SESs and mission accomplishment. We also hypothesize that noncareer SESs are positively associated with mission accomplishment for purposes of consistency.

The final human resource at the organizational level is the number of total employ- ees. A number of scholars maintained that agencies with a large number of employees have better capabilities to solve problems (Hill, 1982; Jackson, 1992) because they can obtain or remember more information about tasks, more critical judgments for fixing errors, and more promising solution strategies (Harrison, 1975; Shaw, 1981). These capacities may help explain the higher quality decisions reported in groups with a large number of employees (Cummings, Huber, & Arendt, 1974). Enhanced capabili- ties for problem solving offer competitive advantages for an organization that lead to better performance. Based on these arguments, we posit that a large number of employ- ees may help an agency achieve its mission.

Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between an agency’s professional- ization level and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between the proportion of career SESs in an agency and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between the proportion of noncareer SESs in an agency and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between an agency’s total number of employees and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

Model Specification

Data Description

This study employs multiple data sources to cover both organizational- and individual- level aspects related to SHRM. At the individual level, this study uses the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), which is conducted by the U.S. (OPM). The FEVS (formerly the Federal Human Capital Survey) is an annual survey that captures employees’ perceptions of how HRM systems are functioning in the federal govern- ment and which evaluates the progress of SHRM (U.S. OPM, 2010). Thus, a wide range of management features in the federal government can be drawn from the FEVS. Furthermore, the FEVS provides leaders with valuable information to improve agency performance (U.S. OPM, 2012).

100 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

The 2010 FEVS was administered via both the Internet and paper. It was presented to full-time, permanent employees not only in the major agencies but also in small and independent agencies. The FEVS represents more than 95% of the entire executive branch’s workforce, including the cabinet and small/independent agencies, with 504,609 employees receiving the survey and 263,475 responding, yielding a response rate of 52%.

In addition, this study includes organizational aspects of federal agencies, such as professionalization level, two types of SESs, organizational age and size, and regulatory status. We employ data drawn from FedScope to illustrate the impact of human resources in terms of professionalization level, senior career services, and organizational size. FedScope, an online HRM database of the U.S. federal government, provides substantial information on topics such as employment, employment trends, diversity, occupational categories, and types of appointment.5 Organizational age and regulatory status were drawn from the U.S. Government Manual and the Federal Regulatory Directory, respec- tively. The final samples for this study include 187,900 federal employees covering 32 federal agencies,6 after eliminating cases with missing data.

Variable Measurement

The main variables at the individual level are measured using 5-point ordinal-scaled questions (see the appendix). The dependent variable for mission accomplishment was measured by a single question: “My agency is successful at accomplishing its mis- sion.” The concept of performance often has multiple understandings. According to Rainey and Steinbauer (1999), performance can be defined in various ways, such as whether the agency performs its mission as it is supposed to, whether organizational members of the agency work hard and well, whether the actions and procedures of the agency and its members are well suited to attaining its mission, and whether the agency actually achieves its mission. In fact, Nicholson-Crotty, Nicholson-Crotty, and Fernandez (2016) used the same single item to measure mission accomplishment as performance. In addition, Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2013) included the same item as one of their two performance measures.

Concerning the four independent variables at the individual level, SHRM practices,7 excluding recruitment, are captured by several questions. Reward practice is measured by two questions on promotions and pay raises (Cronbach’s α = .75). Training practice consists of two questions that assess training needs and satisfaction with training (Cronbach’s α = .81). Appraisal practice is captured by two questions regarding overall performance appraisal systems (Cronbach’s α = .81). Finally, recruitment practice is measured by a single question on the ability to recruit the right people.

On the side of human resources at the organizational level, this study focuses on the level of professionalization and two types of SES. A federal agency’s level of profes- sionalization is measured by the proportion of professional staff to its total number of employees. Professionalization level measure is consistent with policy problem com- plexity in the current literature (Chun & Rainey, 2005). Both types of SES are captured by the proportion of career and noncareer SESs over the total number of employees

Lim et al. 101

(Lee & Whitford, 2013). Organizational size is measured by the logarithm of the total number of employees of the 32 federal agencies.

To more precisely test the relationship between SHRM and perceptions of mission accomplishment in government, we included control variables at both the organiza- tional and individual levels. At the organizational level, we employed the organiza- tional age and the regulatory status of the federal agencies because these factors can represent the nature of the tasks of the agency, which is significant for that agency’s performance (Chun & Rainey, 2005). With regard to the individual-level control vari- ables, we included transformative leadership (van Wart, 2013) and goal clarity (Ko & Hur, 2014; Whitford, Lee, Yun, & Jung, 2010). Furthermore, job and individual char- acteristics including the workplace (headquarters or field offices), supervisory status, gender, minority, age group, pay category, and years of service were considered (Pitts, 2009). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for all the variables used in this study.

In Table 3, the correlation matrix shows that there are statistically significant rela- tionships among the variables. In terms of mission accomplishment, four independent variables showed statistically positive relationships. Among the control variables, minority, noncareer SES, and regulatory status had statistically significant and nega- tive relationships with mission accomplishment, whereas other variables were posi- tively related. In particular, transformative leadership showed moderate relationships with mission accomplishment (r = .67), reward (r = .69), training (r = .65), appraisal (r = .057), and recruitment (r = .55). In addition, organizational size was negatively related with the percentage of career SESs (r = −.64) and noncareer SESs (r = −.63).

Model Estimation and Results

Prior to testing the hypotheses, common source bias should be addressed. Common source bias typically occurs when a study relies on a single survey (Favero & Bullock, 2015). However, our study collected data from multiple sources such as the FEVS 2010, FedScope for human resource characteristics at the organizational level, the U.S. Government Manual for organizational age, and agencies’ regulatory status from the Federal Regulatory Directory. Thus, common source bias was not a concern in this study.

To estimate the effects of SHRM, we employed a stereotype logistic regression (SLR) model, which accounts for a dependent variable with ordered values (Anderson, 1984). The dependent variable in this study—perceived mission accomplishment—is a single survey item, measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree). We adopted the SLR model for the following three reasons (Whitford et al., 2010): (a) to assess respon- dents’ distinguishability in the nonmonotonic order of the Likert-type categories; (b) to address the violated parallel regression assumption, which was found using a Brant test; and (c) to allow for nonlinear relationships. Our model tested the eight hypotheses listed above together, including control variables at the individual and agency levels. The results of the SLR model are shown in Table 4. The model fits the data well, Wald χ2(19) = 24,013.50, p < .01. We find evidence of ordinality inherent in the mission accomplishment score variable from 1 through 5, as φ2 = .816 (p < .01), φ3 = .681 (p <

102 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

.01), and φ4 = .400 (p < .01), where φ5 = 0 as mission accomplishment and 5 is the reference category and φ1 = 1 for identification (Long & Freese, 2006).

Our results show that all four goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices positively affect mission accomplishment and are statistically significant: Reward (p < .01), Training (p < .01), Appraisal (p < .01), and Recruitment (p < .01). The SLR model shows positive relationships between the proportion of career SES and mission accomplishment (p < .01) and between organizational size (measured by the number of total employees) and mission accomplishment (p < .01), and negative relationships between the professional level and mission accomplishment (p < .01) and between the proportion of noncareer SES and mission accomplishment (p < .01).

Given that the coefficients of an SLR model cannot directly indicate the effects of a one-unit change in the independent variables (Long & Freese, 2006), Table 5 represents the marginal effects for each type of the four goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices and the four human resources. The effects for all eight are close to zero for the strongly disagree response. Of the four HRM practices, the marginal effects of

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Variable N M SD Minimum Maximum

Mission accomplishment (DV) 187,900 3.98 0.86 1 5 Rewarda 187,900 5.99 2.10 2 10 Trainingb 187,900 6.90 2.03 2 10 Appraisalc 187,900 7.43 2.12 2 10 Recruitment 187,900 3.27 1.11 1 5 Transformational leadershipd 187,900 13.82 3.81 4 20 Goal clarity 187,900 4.14 0.83 1 5 Workplace (headquarters = 1) 187,900 0.41 0.49 0 1 Supervisory status (supervisory = 1) 187,900 0.32 0.46 0 1 Gender (male = 1) 187,900 0.54 0.50 0 1 Minority (minority = 1) 187,900 0.32 0.47 0 1 Age group 187,900 3.40 1.03 1 5 Pay category 187,900 2.58 0.71 1 4 Years of service 187,900 4.41 1.47 1 6 % of professionals 187,900 28.03 15.41 3.95 69.98 % of career SES 187,900 0.59 0.70 0 5.06 % of noncareer SES 187,900 0.05 0.06 0 .59 Organizational age 187,900 2.17 1.08 1 4 Organizational size (log) 187,900 11.37 1.52 6.89 13.55 Regulatory agency 187,900 0.92 0.27 0 1

Note. DV = dependent variable; SES = senior executive service. aCronbach’s α = .75. bCronbach’s α = .81. cCronbach’s α = .81. dCronbach’s α = .86.

103

T a b

le 3

. C

o rr

el at

io n

M at

ri x.

M A

R E

T R

A P

R C

T F

G C

H E

SU G

E M

I A

G PA

Y S

PR C

S N

S O

S O

A

R E

.5 4*

*

T R

.5 1*

* .5

5* *

A

P .4

5* *

.5 4*

* .5

2* *

R

C .5

0* *

.5 4*

* .4

6* *

.3 7*

*

T F

.6 7*

* .6

9* *

.6 5*

* .5

7* *

.5 5*

*

G C

.4 8*

* .3

8* *

.4 1*

* .3

8* *

.3 3*

* .5

0* *

H

E .0

3* *

.0 7*

* 0

.0 3*

* .0

5* *

.0 4*

* .0

2* *

SU

.1 4*

* .1

6* *

.0 9*

* .0

4* *

.0 4*

* .1

4* *

.1 2*

* −

.0 3*

*

G E

.0 1*

* .0

4* *

.0 2*

* −

.0 1*

* 0

.0 3*

* −

.0 4*

* −

.0 6*

* .1

3* *

M

I −

.0 6*

* −

.0 1*

* 0

.0 0*

* .0

2* *

− .0

2* *

.0 3*

* .0

6* *

− .0

8* *

− .1

5* *

A

G .0

4* *

0 −

.0 1*

* −

.0 2*

* −

.0 1*

* .0

1* *

.0 2*

* −

.0 2*

* .1

5* *

.0 7*

* −

.0 7*

*

PA .0

9* *

.1 3*

* .0

5* *

.0 1*

* .0

5* *

.0 8*

* .0

6* *

.1 2*

* .2

7* *

.0 7*

* −

.1 1*

* .1

1* *

Y

S .0

2* *

− .0

4* *

− .0

1* *

− .0

3* *

− .0

5* *

− .0

3* *

.0 2*

* −

.1 1*

* .2

0* *

0 −

.0 7*

* .4

5* *

.1 2*

*

PR .0

1* *

.0 4*

* .0

3* *

0 .0

3* *

.0 4*

* 0

.0 4*

* −

.1 1*

* −

.0 3*

* .0

1* *

− .0

2* *

.0 6*

* .0

2* *

C

S .0

4* *

.0 3*

* .0

4* *

.0 2*

* .0

3* *

.0 4*

* .0

1* *

.0 1*

* −

.1 2*

* −

.0 1*

* −

.0 1*

* −

.0 1*

* .1

3* *

.0 2*

* .5

5* *

N

S −

.0 4*

* −

.0 2*

* −

.0 6*

* −

.0 1*

* −

.0 2*

* −

.0 5*

* −

.0 3*

* .0

5* *

− .1

0* *

− .0

8* *

.0 4*

* 0

.0 5*

* .0

1* *

.2 3*

* .4

3* *

O

S .0

4* *

.0 1*

* .0

3* *

− .0

1* *

− .0

1* *

.0 4*

* .0

2* *

− .0

3* *

.1 6*

* .1

0* *

− .0

5* *

.0 4*

* −

.0 9*

* −

.0 3*

* −

.3 4*

* −

.6 4*

* −

.6 3*

*

O A

.0 0*

* −

.0 1*

* 0

.0 1*

* −

.0 1*

* 0

0 −

.0 7*

* .0

5* *

.0 3*

* −

.0 9*

* 0

− .0

9* *

.0 9*

* −

.1 9*

* −

.2 3*

* −

.2 0*

* .1

7* *

R

G −

.0 2*

* −

.0 3*

* −

.0 5*

* −

.0 4*

* −

.0 2*

* −

.0 4*

* −

.0 1*

* .0

5* *

.0 5*

* 0

0 .0

1* *

− .0

4* *

− .0

3* *

− .2

5* *

− .3

9* *

.0 4*

* .4

3* *

.1 4*

*

N ot

e. M

A =

m is

si o n

ac co

m pl

is hm

en t; R

E =

r ew

ar d;

T R

= t

ra in

in g;

A P

= a

pp ra

is al

; R C

= r

ec ru

it m

en t; T

F =

t ra

ns fo

rm at

iv e

le ad

er sh

ip ; G

C =

g o al

c la

ri ty

; H E

= h

ea dq

ua rt

er ; S

U =

su

pe rv

is o ry

s ta

tu s;

G E

= g

en de

r; M

I =

m in

o ri

ty ; A

G =

a ge

g ro

up ; P

A =

p ay

c at

eg o ry

; Y S

= y

ea rs

o f se

rv ic

e; P

R =

p ro

fe ss

io na

ls ; S

ES =

s en

io r

ex ec

ut iv

e se

rv ic

e; C

S =

c ar

ee r

SE S;

N S

=

no nc

ar ee

r SE

S; O

S o rg

an iz

at io

na l s

iz e;

O A

= o

rg an

iz at

io na

l a ge

; R G

= r

eg ul

at o ry

s ta

tu s.

** p

< .0

5.

104 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

recruitment are slightly greater than those for reward, training, and appraisal, which indicates that recruitment has a greater impact on perceived mission accomplishment than the other practices. Of the four human resources, the marginal effects of noncareer SESs, even when negative, are greater than those for professionals, career SESs, and the organizational size, which indicates that noncareer SESs have a stronger impact on mission accomplishment than the other resources. As Lee and Whitford (2013) pointed out, noncareer SESs may allow their agencies to enjoy more political support than other resources, but interruption by external political influence may not be of great help. In addition, the effects of professionals and noncareer SESs on mission accomplishment are negative only for the strongly agree category. Holding all other variables constant, the odds of a more positive perception of mission accomplishment increased for the

Table 4. Stereotype Logistic Regression Model for Mission Accomplishment.

Variables Coefficient Robust SE

Reward 0.117*** .009 Training 0.186*** .009 Appraisal 0.039*** .008 Recruitment 0.608*** .015 Transformational leadership 0.728*** .007 Goal clarity 1.684*** .021 Workplace (headquarters = 1) 0.011 .024 Supervisory status (supervisory = 1) 0.181*** .028 Gender (male = 1) −0.094*** .024 Minority (minority = 1) −0.593*** .026 Age group −0.042*** .013 Pay category 0.069*** .018 Years of service 0.023** .009 % of professionals −0.016*** .000 % of career SES 0.733*** .026 % of noncareer SES −2.159*** .297 Organizational size (log) 0.286*** .013 Organizational age −0.042*** .011 Regulatory agency −0.024 .060 φ1 1 — φ2 .816*** .004 φ3 .681*** .003 φ4 .400*** .002 φ5 0 — Log pseudolikelihood −165,212.58 Wald χ2(df) 24,013.50 (19)*** N 187,900

Note. SES = senior executive service. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Lim et al. 105

cases with the positive statistically significant predictors of perceived mission accom- plishment (i.e., reward, training, appraisal, recruitment, career SESs, and organizational size) and decreased for the cases with the negative statistically significant predictors of perceived mission accomplishment (i.e., professionals and noncareer SESs; see Table 6). That is, controlling for all other variables constant, the odds of strongly agree versus strongly disagree increased by a factor of 1.124, 1.205, 1.041, 1.838, 2.160, and 1.369 for a one-unit increase in Reward, Training, Appraisal, Recruitment, the proportion of career SESs, and organizational size, respectively, and decreased by a factor of .984 and .158 for a one-unit increase in the professional level and the proportion of noncareer SESs, respectively.

To show how perceptions of mission accomplishment change in a nonlinear pat- tern with respect to each independent variable, we graphed the estimated effects of all eight goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices and human resources on the five response categories of the mission accomplishment variable (see Figures 1 and 2). The curves represent the changes in the probabilities of the average respon- dent’s answers—strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree—as each measurement of human resource practice and human

Table 5. Marginal Effects.

Variables Strongly agree Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Reward .007 −.002 −.004 −.001 .000 Training .011 −.003 −.006 −.001 .000 Appraisal .002 −.001 −.001 .000 .000 Recruitment .036 −.010 −.020 −.004 .001 Transformational leadership .043 −.012 −.024 −.005 .001 Goal clarity .099 −.029 −.056 −.012 .002 Workplace (headquarters = 1) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 Supervisory status

(supervisory = 1) .011 −.003 −.006 −.001 .000

Gender (male = 1) −.006 .002 .003 .001 .000 Minority (minority = 1) −.034 .008 .020 .004 .001 Age group −.002 .001 .001 .000 .000 Pay category .004 −.001 −.002 .000 .000 Years of service .001 .000 −.001 .000 .000 % of professionals −.001 .000 .001 .000 .000 % of career SES .043 −.012 −.025 −.005 .001 % of noncareer SES −.126 .037 .072 .015 .002 Organizational size (log) .017 −.005 −.010 −.002 .000 Organizational age −.002 .001 .001 .000 .000 Regulatory agency −.001 .000 .001 .000 .000

Note. The marginal effects are measured only at the means of the independent variables. SES = senior executive service.

106 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

resource proceeds from its minimum to maximum in specific increments, given that all other variables are at their average. The probabilities assessing mission accom- plishment for disagree and strongly disagree are below .01. For the cases of the posi- tive statistically significant predictors of perceived mission accomplishment (i.e., reward, training, appraisal, recruitment, career SES, and organizational size), we note from the graphical patterns that the estimated probabilities for strongly agree increases as the measured level of each predictor increases, but those for neither agree nor disagree and agree decrease (see a, b, c, and d in Figure 1 and b and d in Figure 2). Compared with these predictors, the respondents shifted from strongly agree to neither agree nor disagree for the cases of the negative statistically signifi- cant predictors of perceived mission accomplishment (i.e., professionals and nonca- reer SESs; see a and c in Figure 2).

Conclusion

In this analysis, we assessed the RBV for studying SHRM in public agencies. We mainly examined the impact of HRM practices and actual human resources on the perception of federal agency mission accomplishment where we considered both HRM practices and actual human resources to be organizational resources in the broad sense. Our results showed that all types of goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices (including reward, training, appraisal, and recruitment) have positive impacts on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. In addition, certain types of actual human resources (such as the percentage of career SESs and the organizational size) contribute to accomplishing an agency’s mission; however, other types (such as the

Table 6. Odds Ratios for the Four Goal-Aligned and Performance-Based HRM Practices and the Four Human Resources Variables Across the Four Comparisons for Perceived Mission Accomplishment.

Category comparisons for perceived mission accomplishment

Strongly agree vs. strongly disagree

Strongly agree vs. disagree

Strongly agree vs. neither agree nor disagree

Strongly agree vs.

agree

Variables OR OR OR OR

Reward 1.124 1.100 1.083 1.048 Training 1.205 1.164 1.135 1.077 Appraisal 1.041 1.033 1.027 1.016 Recruitment 1.838 1.644 1.515 1.276 % of professionals 0.984 0.986 0.989 0.993 % of career SES 2.160 1.876 1.691 1.362 % of noncareer SES 0.158 0.222 0.285 0.478 Organizational size (log) 1.369 1.293 1.239 1.134

Note. OR = odds ratio; SES = senior executive service.

107

F ig

u re

1 .

H R

M p

ra ct

ic es

a nd

t he

p er

ce iv

ed li

ke lih

o o d

o f m

is si

o n

ac co

m pl

is hm

en t.

N ot

e.

= Pr

o ba

bi lit

y o f S

tr o ng

ly A

gr ee

; =

Pr o ba

bi lit

y o f A

gr ee

; =

Pr o ba

bi lit

y o f N

ei th

er A

gr ee

n o r

D is

ag re

e;

= Pr

o ba

bi lit

y o f D

is ag

re e;

=

Pr o ba

bi lit

y o f St

ro ng

ly D

is ag

re e.

B y

th e

la w

o f to

ta l p

ro ba

bi lit

y, t

he c

ur ve

s re

pr es

en ti ng

t he

p re

di ct

ed p

ro ba

bi lit

ie s

m us

t eq

ua l 1

.

108

F ig

u re

2 .

H um

an r

es o ur

ce s

an d

th e

pe rc

ei ve

d lik

el ih

o o d

o f m

is si

o n

ac co

m pl

is hm

en t.

N ot

e.

= Pr

o ba

bi lit

y o f S

tr o ng

ly A

gr ee

; =

Pr o ba

bi lit

y o f A

gr ee

; =

Pr o ba

bi lit

y o f N

ei th

er A

gr ee

n o r

D is

ag re

e;

= Pr

o ba

bi lit

y o f D

is ag

re e;

=

P ro

ba bi

lit y

o f St

ro ng

ly D

is ag

re e.

B y

th e

la w

o f to

ta l p

ro ba

bi lit

y, t

he c

ur ve

s re

pr es

en ti ng

p re

di ct

ed p

ro ba

bi lit

ie s

m us

t eq

ua l 1

. S ES

= s

en io

r ex

ec ut

iv e

se rv

ic e.

Lim et al. 109

percentage of professionals and noncareer SESs) make negative contributions to an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

As expected, all HRM practices and human resources examined in this study have statistically significant effects on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment, but the directions of their influences are somewhat different. Specifically, all HRM prac- tices and actual human resources except for noncareer SESs and professionals posi- tively affect the dependent variable. The SES is a corps of federal managers who serve in management positions between Senate-confirmed political appointees and the traditional civil service, consisting of a mixture of career managers and political appointees (Lewis, 2007). The SES aims at improving the quality of individual com- petence and agency performance by allowing experienced senior managers in gov- ernment to be more flexible and mobile within and among agencies (Stillman, 2004), by providing them with separate rewards and punishment systems for achievements, and by providing them with enhanced chances for personal development and profes- sional certification (Perry & Miller, 1991). The SES’s considerable knowledge, expe- rience, ability, and skill can lead to sustainable competitive advantage and better performance. Nonetheless, contrary to our expectations, the percentage of noncareer SESs has a negative impact on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. One possible explanation for this result is that even when noncareer SESs have sufficient experience and expertise, agencies with politically appointed SES members often experience greater turnover, and this higher turnover can lead to ambiguous agency goals, leadership vacuums, difficulties committing to reform, and poorer performance (Heclo, 1977; Lewis, 2007). Therefore, if noncareer SES members are appointed to certain government agencies, the length of their terms should be long enough to avoid such turnover. In addition to turnover, the negative effect of noncareer SESs may reflect overseers who are put into place to actually prevent success. In the case of professionalization, which was measured by the proportion of professional staff to each federal agency’s total number of employees, the negative relationship between the professionals and the agency’s managerial effectiveness may result from the pos- sibility that professional accountability cannot be fully demonstrated due to bureau- cratic accountability even if professionals have autonomy, intellectual authority, and independence, as we have learned from the space shuttle Challenger disaster. Another possibility is that the complexity of wicked policy problems that public agencies should address is much higher than expected and requires more professional compe- tency and skills than expected.

We intended to investigate the differential effects of a variety of human resources on the perceived mission accomplishment and expected that both the SHRM practices and actual human resources would have positive impacts on perceived mission accomplish- ment, based on the RBV. However, unlike the RBV, the results showed that some human resource variables such as the percentage of professionals and noncareer SESs are not contributive factors to mission accomplishment, whereas others have positive impacts. We believe that this finding suggests two practical implications. First, various human resources variables may have relatively differential effects on perceived mission accom- plishment and SHRM practices have more positive impacts on perceived mission

110 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

accomplishment than actual human resources. In particular, public organizations need to advance further their current performance-related practices like reward and appraisal as well as personnel practices such as recruitment and training. It would imply that the mat- ter is not about how to acquire resources, but about how to use them. Second, the finding on noncareer SESs may refute general belief that political support is a critical resource that enhances the performance of public organizations. Rather, it indicates that interven- tions by political appointees hinder public agencies from accomplishing their mission. Future studies need to investigate the reasons and find the answers to the question why and how political support would be a threat to the performance.

Finally, we would like to note the limitation of this study. We used the 2010 FEVS data for the analysis. As you may guess, this data set is a kind of secondary data that are not customized for our study. Therefore, we want to be clear that our measures may not be perfect even though we conducted factor analysis and reliabil- ity check. In addition, we note that the external recession forces that may affect public agencies’ performance during 2007-2010 cannot be controlled in this study even if they are overlapped with the time of the 2010 FEVS as we do not use the time series or panel data.

Appendix

Measurement for All Variables.

Dependent variable Mission accomplishment My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission. Independent variables Reward Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.

Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.

Training My training needs are assessed. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your

present job? Recruitment My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. Appraisal My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my

performance. In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood

what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (e.g., Fully Successful, Outstanding).

Professionals (%) The percentage of professional staff over the total number of employees of an agency.

Career SES (%) The percentage of career SES members over the total number of employees of an agency.

Noncareer SES (%) The percentage of noncareer SES members over the total number of employees of an agency.

Total employees The logarithm of the total employees of an agency.

(continued)

Lim et al. 111

Control variables Transformational

leadership I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of

doing things. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with

respect to work processes. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of

motivation and commitment in the workforce. My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty

and integrity. Goal clarity I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and

priorities. Workplace Where do you work?

0 = field 1 = headquarters

Supervisory status What is your supervisory status? 0 = nonsupervisor/team leader 1 = supervisor and manager/executive

Gender Are you: 0 = female 1 = male

Minority Are you: 0 = nonminority 1 = minority

Age group What is your age group? 1 = 29 and younger 2 = 30-39 3 = 40-49 4 = 50-59 5 = 60 or older

Pay category What is your pay category/grade? 1 = Federal wage system 2 = GS 1-12 3 = GS 13-15 4 = SES/SL/ST/Other

Years of service How long have you been with your current agency (e.g., Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency)?

1 = less than 1 year 2 = 1 to 3 years 3 = 4 to 5 years 4 = 6 to 10 years 5 = 11 to 20 years 6 = more than 20 years

Regulatory status 0 = nonregulatory agency, 1 = regulatory agency Organizational age 1 = 1 to 49 years, 2 = 51 to 99 years,

3 = 100 to 149 years, 4 = more than 150 years

Note. SES = senior executive service; GS = general schedule; SL = senior level; ST = scientific and technical.

Appendix (continued)

112 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5A8010552).

Notes

1. Grant (1991) regarded human resources as intangible resources; however, we would like to take a step forward to divide human resources into human resource management (HRM) practices and actual human resources. In addition, we think that HRM practices, which are related to the organizational culture, may be much less observable than the actual human resources.

2. This paragraph is based on articles such as Daley (2002); Klingner, Nalbandian, and Llorens (2010); Mello (2011); and Pynes (2013).

3. One may note that there is a variety of training programs and some of them (e.g., training for ethical issues and moral behaviors) may not be directly related to an organization’s mission. This may make sense, but we think that programs related to ethical issues or moral behaviors may have indirect effects on public employees’ perceptions and behaviors, which may result in better mission accomplishment.

4. Law (5 U.S.C. 3133) requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to allocate spaces to agency heads on a biennial cycle. Therefore, this may cause limited variation in number of senior executive service members (SESs). However, we used the concept of currently employed SESs, rather than the quota concept. In addition, we used the percent- age of career SESs and the percentage of noncareer SESs in the total number of full-time employees to mitigate the limited variation problem.

5. See http://www.fedscope.opm.gov 6. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department

of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency for International Development, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Communication Commission, Federal Trade Commission, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives Records Administration, National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Court Service and Offender Supervision Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission.

7. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for these seven survey items and confirmed that four strategic human resource management (SHRM) practices variables have validity.

Lim et al. 113

References

Anderson, J. A. (1984). Regression and ordered categorical models. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society, 46, 1-30.

Anthony, W. P., Kacmar, K. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2009). Human resource management: A strategic approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Ayers, R. S. (2013). Building goal alignment in federal agencies’ performance appraisal pro- grams. Public Personnel Management, 42, 495-520.

Ayers, R. S. (2015). Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in fed- eral government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management, 44, 169-191.

Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences in manufac- turing industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ban, C., & Gossett, C. W. (2010). The changing roles of the human resource office. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (pp. 5-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Barney, J. B. (2010). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competi- tive advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm. Human Resource Management Journal, 6, 59-75.

Bozeman, B., & Straussman, J. D. (1990). Public management strategies: Guidelines for mana- gerial effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 275-297.

Burack, E. H., Burack, M. D., Miller, D. M., & Morgan, K. (1994). New paradigm approaches in strategic human resource management. Group & Organization Management, 19, 141-159.

Cascio, W. (2015). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural deci- sions and contrived deterrence to new competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 241-261.

Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1-30.

Colby, P. W., & Ingraham, P. W. (1981). Civil service reform: The views of the senior executive service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1, 75-89.

Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121-154.

Cummings, L. L., Huber, G. P., & Arendt, E. (1974.). Effects of team size and spatial arrange- ments on group decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 460-475.

Daley, D. M. (2002). Strategic human resource management: People and performance man- agement in the public sector. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

114 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Daley, D. M., & Vasu, M. L. (2005). Supervisory perceptions of the impact of public sector personnel practices on the achievement of multiple goals: Putting the strategic into human resource management. The American Review of Public Administration, 35, 157-167.

Daley, D. M., Vasu, M. L., & Weinstein, M. B. (2002). Strategic human resource management: Perceptions among North Carolina county social service professionals. Public Personnel Management, 31, 359-375.

Delery, J., & Doty, H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.

Dessler, G. (2014). Human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dolan, J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureau-

cracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-530. Executive Office of the President of the U.S. (2001). The President’s management agenda.

Washington, DC: Author. Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly

responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 285-308.

Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73, 490-506.

Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114-135.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79-91.

Harrison, E. F. (1975.). The managerial decision-making process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Hays, S. W., & Kearney, R. C. (2001). Anticipated changes in human resource management:

Views from the field. Public Administration Review, 61, 585-597. Heclo, H. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution. Heinrich, C. J., Lynn, L. E., & Milward, H. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate

and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Suppl. 1), i3-i19.

Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in stra- tegic management (pp. 345-382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jacobson, W. S., & Sowa, J. E. (2015). Strategic human capital management in municipal gov- ernment: An assessment of implementation practices. Public Personnel Management, 44, 317-339.

Kettl, D. F. (1988). Government by Proxy: (Mis?)managing federal programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Kim, J. (2010). Strategic human resource practices: Introducing alternatives for organiza- tional performance improvement in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 70, 38-49.

Klingner, D. E. (1993). Reinventing public personnel administration as strategic human resource management. Public Personnel Management, 22, 565-578.

Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2010). Public personnel management: Contexts and strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lim et al. 115

Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and manage- rial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74, 176-187.

Lee, S. Y., & Whitford, A. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 687-712.

Lewis, D. E. (2007). Testing pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureau- crats? The Journal of Politics, 69, 1073-1088.

Lewis, G. B. (1991). Turnover and the quiet crisis in the federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 51, 145-155.

Lewis, G. B., & Cho, Y. J. (2011). The aging of the state government workforce: Trends and implications. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 48-60.

Light, P. C. (2008). A government ill executed: The depletion of the federal service. Public Administration Review, 68, 413-419.

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Mahoney, T. A., & Deckop, J. R. (1986). Evolution of concept and practice in personnel admin- istration/human resource management (PA/HRM). Journal of Management, 12, 223-241.

Maranto, R. (1998). Thinking the unthinkable in public administration: A case for spoils in the federal bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 29, 623-642.

Mello, J. A. (2011). Strategic human resource management. Mason, OH: South Western. Mesch, D. J., Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1995). Bureaucratic and strategic human resource

management: An empirical comparison in the federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 385-402.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2003). Managing the hollow state collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5, 1-18.

Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assess- ment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121-146.

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Fernandez, S. (2016). Performance and manage- ment in the public sector: Testing a model of relative risk aversion. Public Administration Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/puar.12619

Penrose, E. (1959). Theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: John Wiley. Perry, J. L. (1993). Strategic human resource management. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 13(4), 59-71. Perry, J. L., & Mesch, D. J. (1997). Strategic human resource management. In C. Ban & N.

Riccucci (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (pp. 21-34). New York, NY: Longman.

Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (1991). The senior executive service: Is it improving managerial performance? Public Administration Review, 51, 554-563.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.

Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338.

Poister, T. H., Pitts, D. W., & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: A review, synthesis, and future directions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 522-545.

116 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65, 45-56.

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organiza- tions. Public Administration Review, 36, 233-246.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1-32.

Rourke, F. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Sanders, R. P. (1994). Reinventing the senior executive service. In P. Ingraham & B. Romzek

(Eds.), New paradigms for government (pp. 215-238). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shaw, M. E. (1981.). Group dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Stigler, G. J. (1968). The organization of industry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago

Press. Stillman, R. J. (1999). Preface to public administration: A search for themes and direction.

Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press. Stillman, R. J. (2004). The American bureaucracy: The core of modern government. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Tompkins, J. (2002). Strategic human resources management in government: Unresolved

issues. Public Personnel Management, 31, 95-110. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). A model of strategic human capital management.

Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1998). Strategic human resource management: Report

of roundtable discussion. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1999a). Strategic human resource management:

Discussion of key terms and concepts. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1999b). Strategic human resource management:

Aligning with the mission. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2005). Human capital standards. Washington, DC:

Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2010). A new day for the civic service: Federal

employee viewpoint survey 2010. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). 2012 federal employee viewpoint survey results:

Employees influencing change. Washington, DC: Author. van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of lead-

ers. Public Administration Review, 73, 553-565. Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public

Administration Review, 33, 62-73. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5,

171-180. Whitford, A. B., Lee, S.-Y., Yun, T., & Jung, C. S. (2010). Collaborative behavior and the per-

formance of government agencies. International Public Management Journal, 13, 321-349. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource

management. Journal of Management, 18, 295-320. Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained

competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 301-326.

Lim et al. 117

Author Biographies

Seunghoo Lim is an assistant professor in the Public Management and Policy Analysis Program at the International University of Japan. His specializations are policy process and analysis. His research has appeared or is forthcoming in refereed journals, including Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (JPART), VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, and Public Administration & Development.

Tae Kyu Wang is a research professor in Department of Social Welfare and research fellow for Institute for Healthcare and Life Science at Catholic Kwandong University. He received his PhD in public administration from Florida State University. His research interests include pub- lic and nonprofit management, performance management, and organizational theory and behavior.

Soo-Young Lee is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public Administration and research fellow of Korea Institute of Public Affairs at Seoul National University. Among his main research interests are public personnel administration, organization theory, and organiza- tional behavior. His recent research can be found in journals such as JPART and Administration & Society.

Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.