JCM, VIE and Engagement in Predicting Federal Workers

1
JCM, VIE and Engagement in Predicting Federal
Workers Performance Tom Mitchell, University of
Baltimore (tmitchell_at_ubalt.edu) J. Peter Leeds,
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board Kristi
Grimes, University of Baltimore
METHOD
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 (N17,792). VIE was a stronger
predictor of performance and awards than JCM.
Engagement fully mediated the relationship
between JCM and performance.

• 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), a
  .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 scoremore engaged) M 3.82 (.27), a
  .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

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 Lawlers 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 gt P)
• Performance leads to valued outcomes and
  rewards, i.e. Valences (P gtV)
• 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)

Figure 1. Model 1 Standardized Coefficients for
the Full Model (p lt .01)
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)
Performance (PR MA)
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
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

Indirect Effect Post Mediator .21
Figure 2 Model 2 SEM Mediation for JCM,
Engagement, and Job Performance (p lt.01)
REFERENCES
Bakker, A. (2011). An evidence-based model of
work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. 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), 27-40.
Fried, Y. Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of
the job characteristics model A review and
meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 40(2),
287-322. Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R. (1975).
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. 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),
1332-1356. 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), 740-761. 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), 653-663. Van Eerde, W., Thierry, H.
(1996). Vroom's expectancy models and
work-related criteria A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575-586. Vroom, V.
(1964). Work and motivation. New York Jon Wiley
Sons, Inc.
Table 1 Table 1          
Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes
MEASURE 1 1 2 3 4 5
1. MPL (JCM) .74 .74        
2. MFS (VIE) .636 .636 .97      
3. ES (Engagement) .683 .683 .708 .94    
4. MA (Merit Awards) .059 .059 .084 .080 -  
5. PR (Perf Rating) .129 .129 .222 .153 .338 -
P lt .01 (2-tailed). Correlations Ns range from
17,792 and 38,642. Coefficient Alphas are in the
diagonals.
29th Annual Conference of The Society for
Industrial Organizational Psychology, Honolulu,
Hawaii (Oahu), May 2014