Employee Motivation and Performance Management in the Public Sector

Discussions and research on employee motivation and performance management often tend to focus more on the private sector and less on the public sector. For example, in a literature review conducted by Perry et al. (2006), the number of articles focused on employee motivation in government workplaces was significantly fewer than those focusing on the private sector. Further, Christensen et al. (2017) add that scholarly work on employee motivation in the public sector often fails to inform leadership and management. However, a vital outcome of the literature review was that the current motivational strategies in the private sector are not necessarily as effective as when they are utilized in the private sector. This is a severe problem because the government is a crucial employer serving the public interests. As a result, there is a need to understand the aspects of motivation in the private sector that have an influential impact on employee motivation in the public sector since the two environments seem to pose different challenges and expectations on employees.

Employee Motivation in Private Sector

            The traditional performance paradigms, often utilized in the private sector, consists of four core elements. These include employee incentives, employee participation, job design, and goal setting (Perry et al., 2006). These elements are motivated by several theories that have been applied historically to enhance employee motivation management. Unfortunately, while these elements are a mainstay in the private sector, they have been borrowed into the private sector, showing significant deficiencies in addressing motivational issues.

            The theoretical propositions of the reinforcement theory underpin the utilization of financial incentives as a motivation factor. The theory’s core elements include behavior and performance. It assumes that when an employee is paid more (through salaries and benefits), they are more likely to enhance their performance. The theory’s premise is that employee behavior can be modified by offering financial incentives (Perry et al., 2006). In the private sector, financial incentives are given to individuals or as a group reward, including gainsharing and profit-sharing. Research has shown that financial incentives correlate with performance, but only to a certain extent (Cainarca et al., 2019). Thus, where economic incentives cannot enhance motivation, other elements are considered.

            Among them is employee participation. Employee participation refers to the level of joint decision-making processes between employees and the management or leadership (Christensen et al., 2017). While employee participation is increasingly being adopted in the private sector, concerns emerge because the approach increases employee attachment to the organization without necessarily realizing an enhanced performance. Therefore, another critical element used to improve motivation in traditional performance management models and theories is job design.

            Job design lies in the two-factor theory of motivation. The two factors in the approach include hygiene and motivation factors. In this theory, there are satisfiers within and without workplaces that enhance employee motivation and personal growth. These satisfiers may or may not involve employee participation and financial incentives. These satisfiers fall with the domains of hygiene and motivation factors. An example of a job design that enhances motivation includes jobs that afford a sense of challenge.

            The last element is goal setting. Goal setting is motivated by the goal-setting theory, which assumes that conscious and explicitly specified goals positively affect the actions undertaken by the employee. According to Perry et al. (2006), goal-setting is the single-most researched theory in employee motivation management. The authors conclude that specific goals that are challenging can help improve employee motivation and subsequent performance.

            Combined, the four elements form the basis on which employee motivation is managed in the private sector. However, the efficacy of these elements (including the theories that drive them) within the public sector remains debatable. Christensen et al. (2017) argue that the public sector has borrowed the traditional systems, models, and theories applied in motivating employees in the private sector without significant modifications to meet the challenges and expectations specific to the public sector.

Emerging Deficiencies as a Result of the Borrowing

            Several research outcomes suggest the failure of importing strategies from the private sector without critical modifications. For instance, recent research by Moynihan et al. (2015) indicates the loss of traditional incentives in motivating employees in the American Department of Veteran Affairs. In a different study, Shaw et al. (2015) found that pressure to admit patients to emergency rooms within four hours of arrival to improve efficiency has resulted in ambulances delaying patient arrival time to meet the set performance targets. In Italy, Micali (2009) established that performance management strategies implemented in the 1990s have led to public health employees receiving bonuses based on seniority instead of performance.

            In these three examples, the traditional elements of financial incentives and goal setting play a key role. In the Britain example, there were clear goals that should have enhanced employee performance. Instead, the set goals seem to have reduced the level of performance of those handling ambulances. In the American example, the financial incentives provided for employees appear not to affect em...