Managing Expectations to Create High Performance Government

Abstract

Enhanced performance has been the focus of public administration and management research for years. High performance organizations have characteristics that differentiate them from others; they also utilize high performance work practices (HPWPs). A core HPWP is performance management, which seeks to align individual performance with organizational outcomes. We posit that performance management can enable high performance through managing employee expectations. Drawing on a study undertaken in the Australian Public Service, we demonstrate how using an expectancy theory lens helps explain how performance management can support high performance. We suggest that all three elements of expectancy theory—valance, expectancy, and instrumentality—need to be in place to support the creation of goal and role clarity, critical components of high performance. This offers practitioners a way of structuring effective conversations and scholars the opportunity to consider the theoretical implications of linking expectancy theories, performance management, and high performance.

Keywords

performance management high performance managing expectations public sector qualitative research expectancy theory

Introduction

Enhancement of government performance has been the focus of public administration and management research, policy, and reform for many years (Cho & Lee, 2012; de Waal, 2010, 2012). Recent literature has focused on developing “high performing organizations” (HPOs) to support the productive capacity of public sector organizations to deliver on desired outcomes (Blackman, Buick, O’Donnell, O’Flynn, & West, 2012; McBride, 2008; Pickering, 2008; Price, Mores, & Elliotte, 2011). What distinguishes HPOs from other organizations is their implementation of high performance work practices (HPWPs) in an integrated and complementary way to develop the competencies and characteristics necessary to support an organization’s strategy (Blackman et al., 2012; Gephart & Van Buren, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Kehoe & Wright, 2013). One of the core HPWPs is employee performance management, which can facilitate high organizational performance through shaping and enabling the behavior, skills, motivation, and performance of individual employees in ways that improve their job performance (Huselid, 1995). In this article, we focus specifically on how employee performance management can enable high performance through managing employee expectations. We argue that high performance in public sector organizations will only develop when employees have a clear understanding about both their role requirements and how their roles align with organizational goals.

Initially, we consider the theoretical role of managing expectations in developing behavior and achieving high performance outcomes. We then draw upon a qualitative study undertaken in the Australian Public Service (APS) to demonstrate how employee performance management supports or impedes the management of valence, expectancy, and instrumentality to enable (or not) high performance. We demonstrate that to achieve high performance public sector organizations need a clear, shared understandings of the value of high performance (valence), transparent and consistently applied performance ratings and developmental support (expectancy), and achievable performance-based (nonfinancial) rewards (instrumentality). Finally, we offer some suggestions as to how expectancy theory can be used to operationalize performance management to create high performance.

Performance Management and Managing Expectations

Performance management is a process which seeks to enable the establishment of a shared understanding between employees, supervisors, and often peers, about what is to be achieved and how it is to be achieved (Armstrong & Murlis, 2004; Cho & Lee, 2012). Done well, employee performance management is an approach to managing people, which can increase the probability of organizational success (Hughes, 2003; Huselid, 1995) through aligning individual performance with desired organizational outcomes. This highlights the importance of establishing a common understanding of performance expectations regarding the tasks to be completed, the behaviors required to undertake these tasks effectively, and the alignment with desired organizational outcomes. Previous research has shown that clarity and alignment of both organizational goals and individual roles feature as a core part of developing high performance within organizations (Blackman, Buick, O’Donnell, O’Flynn, & West, 2013, 2016). Consequently, effective performance management is a critical element in attaining high performance because it provides a framework for the development of expectations regarding what high performance is and what will happen if it is achieved.

Expectations are beliefs held by an individual concerning the likely outcome resulting from a particular trigger or event; they serve as a way of seeing the world (Hubbard & Purcell, 2001). Thus, the basis of expectancy theory is that people will be motivated to work because they believe that, by doing so, they will gain something that they desire (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007; Vroom, 1964). Expectancy theory contends that the outcome achieved will emerge from conscious decision making by an employee as to whether specific aspirations, in this case achieving high performance, are advantageous based upon probable outcomes (Vroom, 1964; Wahba & House, 1974). Although there are concerns regarding both the accuracy of the model and the way that expectancy works (Connolly, 1976; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Wahba & House, 1974), there is widespread acceptance that a relationship exists between expectations and behavior (Cho & Lee, 2012; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Although more usually linked with predicting the likely outcomes of particular extrinsic reward schemes (Miller & Grush, 1988; Oliver, 1974), expectancy theory has also been used to look at intrinsic value and reward structures (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Liao, Liu, & Pi, 2011) and organizational outcomes more broadly (Renko, 2012). This broader application of expectancy theory led us to explore whether achieving high performance would be affected by the recognition, and apparent value, of it to employees.

The attainment of high performance requires the clarification of employee expectations. Schmidt and Dolls (2009) argued that where goals are poorly defined this leads to the development of multiple goals which can cause employees to become confused and/or lose focus. Moreover, Kerr (1995) demonstrated that it was unrealistic to expect certain behavior from an individual when an alternative behavior is clearly favored by the organization or where the individual does not know what the desired behavior actually looks like. It is too simplistic to state that the only behavior that will develop is that which is rewarded (Neely & Najjar, 2006), but it is unlikely that employee high performance will emerge unless it is articulated and modeled throughout the organization (Cho & Lee, 2012).

In expectancy theory, there are three elements that must all work together to create motivation: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy (Vroom, 1964). Valence is the perceived value or preference that an individual allocates to a given outcome (Brandi & Kemelgor, 2015; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964), such as high performance. For high performance to emerge, individuals would need to have an affective orientation to developing high performance and actively seek to attain it. Something about seeking high performance must be personally advantageous to the individual, not just something desirable for the organization. In this way, performance management is about developing processes to create alignment and congruence.

Instrumentality is the belief that if performance expectations are met, then the expected reward will be forthcoming (Brandi & Kemelgor, 2015; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964). Several scholars position instrumentality as being about trust between managers and employees and transparency in terms of who decides the outcomes of performance management procedures (Vroom, 1964; Yoon Jik & Poister, 2014). Another view of instrumentality is that it is about the transparency, fairness, and clarity of the “rules of the game.” For example, in relation to performance management this might be about how ratings are established and determined (i.e., the standard of performance required to receive each rating). This underpins the extent to which these are understood, shared between employees and managers, and become the basis for an individual’s preparedness to act in particular ways (Ha & Sung, 2011; Mayer & Davis, 1999). Thus, instrumentality becomes not only the process supporting the capacity of performance management to achieve the desired outcome, but also a way to demonstrate that it can be trusted to do so transparently and equitably. This means that for high performance to occur, and an HPO to emerge, employees would need to perceive that employee performance management systems have been both well designed and fairly implemented.

Expectancy occurs when an individual believes that if they expend the effort they can achieve the requisite performance level needed to gain desired rewards (Lunenburg, 2011; Oliver, 1974; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964). This means that for an HPO to emerge, individuals and managers must establish realistic and achievable goals oriented toward a shared understanding of what constitutes high performance in that setting.

In summary, using expectancy theory as a lens, we suggest that the ability of performance management systems to support the attainment of high performance requires a clear articulation regarding what high performance looks like. Moreover, employees must also value the attainment of high performance, believe it is achievable and trust that those responsible for implementing performance management will manage the process fairly. Reflecting these ideas, we pose the following research question:

Research Question 1: Can using expectancy theory to manage expectations improve the operationalization of employee performance management and increase the possibility of creating high performance?

Method

We undertook an inductive and exploratory qualitative study to explore the research question. In such studies, researchers focus on gathering evidence, identifying patterns, making judgments, and developing theories or models to explain what they see (Mishler, 1990; Silverman, 2013). The rigor of interpretive qualitative research is determined by different tests than positivist quantitative research (Guba, 1981), with strong attention to ensuring that informants are well chosen and that data collection and analysis processes are transparent (see Stenbacka, 2001).

Our context is the APS because of its aspiration to create a high-performing public service (Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration [AGRAGA], 2010) and the broad recognition and acceptance of its ongoing problems with managing performance (see Australian Public Service Commission [APSC], 2012b, 2013). The APS supports the Australian Federal Government (also called the Commonwealth Government) which shares powers of legislature with six individual states and two territories. At the time of our data collection, which began in August 2012, the APS was made up of 101 organizations: 23 large (more than 1,000 employees), 31 medium (251-1,000 employees), and 47 small (20-250 employees). These organizations employed 168,580 people of whom 154,307 were permanent, 109,472 were employed at the operational level, 42,049 were employed at the middle management level, and 2,786 were employed at the senior management level (see APSC, 2012a, 2012b).

To explore whether performance management can enable high performance through managing employee expectations, we examined the key phenomena in situ to develop an understanding of critical contextual factors, social processes, and dynamics (Stake, 2008; Yin, 2014). A collective case study approach was adopted (n = 7 organizations) to explore these phenomena in diverse settings and allow for cross-case analysis (Agranoff & Radin, 1991; Darke, Shanks, & Broadbent, 1998). This approach also allowed us to develop robust qualitative data that address Guba’s (1981) and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for creating trustworthy and reliable qualitative data. The number and range of case studies with a large number of interviewees enabled us to fulfill the credibility criterion. Through using the same questions, and similar findings emerging across each of the seven case study organizations, dependability was ensured due to the findings being replicated in similar contexts. The similar findings across all seven case study organizations suggest that transferability across public sector organizations is achievable, particularly since the organizations were relatively diverse in terms of their scale and scope (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Case Studies Used in This Study.

Organization code	Organization size	Organization type	Number of employees
A	Large	Policy	3,000-5,000
B	Large	Policy	3,000-5,000
C	Large	Policy development, program delivery	5,000-7,000
D	Large	Policy development, program delivery	8,000-10,000
E	Medium	Policy	500-1,000
F	Medium	Regulatory and service delivery	500-1,000
G	Small	Regulatory	<100

To select our case study organizations, we used both purposive and convenience principles (Stenbacka, 2001). The purposive approach involved identifying potential case studies through undertaking a quantitative analysis of the organizations’ performance management effectiveness via the APS State of the Service Report (SOSR).¹ We determined effectiveness by comparing data from the annual Employee and Agency surveys. Findings from the Agency survey allowed for the identification of performance management measures and mechanisms in place. The Employee survey indicated individuals’ perceptions of the implementation of those measures and mechanisms within their organization. Levels of performance management effectiveness were calculated by comparing the results of the two surveys. A high level of effectiveness was determined when a coherent process was in place and employees considered it to be effective. A low level of effectiveness was determined when employees assessed the performance management system as being unhelpful. The convenience approach involved APS organizations that volunteered to participate as a case in the study. In combination, we recruited seven organizations (see Table 1).

Data Collection Methods

In case study research, multiple sources of evidence are collected and data created to gain a deeper understanding of the studied phenomenon (Yin, 2014). This study utilized the qualitative methods of semistructured individual and group interviews, which were complemented by the analysis of documentary and secondary data.

Documentary analysis and secondary data

Analysis of internal documentation, such as performance management documentation, evaluation reports, and other related documents, enabled a clear understanding of each organization’s performance management system within its context. Public documentation such as government publications and annual reports were obtained from organizational websites enabling an understanding of performance management in public service organizations more widely. Secondary data were analyzed through using SOSR data (n = 87, 214; APSC, 2012b). In the 2012 SOSR, a number of questions addressed performance management issues and the project team had access to the raw data collected by the APSC.

Semistructured individual interviews

Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 90 interviewees from across the seven organizations between August and November 2012. More information on interviewees is provided below.

Semistructured group interviews

Twenty-two group interviews were conducted with 136 participants. A recruitment strategy aimed at having 10 participants per group, allowing for nonattendance, meant that each group had six to eight participants. More information on interviewees is provided below.

Semistructured interviews were used to ensure consistency across interviews and adherence to the areas of interest but allow for sufficient flexibility for the interviewee to respond (Bryman, 2004). During the individual and group interviews, interviewees were asked a series of questions designed to establish the factors that they thought enabled or impeded the ability of performance management to enable high performance (see Appendix). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and entered into NVivo.

Interviewee Selection

Interviewees were selected from subgroups of interest across the case organizations: senior managers, middle managers, and operational employees in national, state, and regional locations. Although interviewees came from across Australia, there was a concentration in the national capital where the organizational headquarters were based. Selecting interviewees from these subgroups facilitated comparisons across groups, enabling analysis of variations and commonalities (Patton, 1990). In carefully selecting informants from different subgroups of interest, and using nonforcing interview approaches where these informants could speak according to their own knowledge structure, we ensured that our data collection methods were rigorous (Stenbacka, 2001) and credible (Guba, 1981).

Overall, 226 interviewees contributed to our study (see Table 2). Senior managers (SM) are those employed at the Senior Executive Service (SES) Band 1² and SES Band 2³ and who are responsible for the strategic management of APS Departments and the overall management of a branch or division. Middle managers (MM) are those employed at the Executive Level 1 and 2, who are generally responsible for managing teams of between 1 and 20 people and who continue to work on specialist work. Operational level (OL) staff are those employed at the APS 1 to 6 levels, who undertake the daily task-focused work and typically do not manage staff. In the findings, interviewees are identified by their level and their Agency, that is, OL A is operational level, Agency A and MM C is middle manager, Agency C.

Table 2.

Overall Interviewee Sample.

Phase/level	Operational level	Middle manager	Senior manager	Total
Semistructured interviews Individual (79)^a Pair (4)^a	0	48	42	90
Semistructured group interviews (25)^a	71	65	0	136
Total interviewees	71	113	42	226

Individual, paired, and group interviews equated to 108 sources in our data set.

Data Analysis

One strategy to establish rigor and credibility in qualitative research is through processes of transparency (Stenbacka, 2001); as such, Table 3 outlines our approach to data analysis.

Table 3.

Phases of Data Analysis.

Phase	Description	Involvement
Phase 1: During data collection	After each block of interviews, the researchers involved in each case study reflected on the key emergent themes and issues, focusing on areas of similarity and differences across participants and any surprising findings.	Two researchers involved in each case study.
Phase 2: Individual case study reports	Once the data were collected and interviews transcribed for each case study, an individual report was written by the two lead researchers. These reports emerged from manual coding of each case study transcript and comprised the key themes evident in each case study, including definitions of high performance, areas of effective practice, areas that required improvement, and suggestions for change put forth by participants.	Two researchers involved in each case study, with proof reading and discussion by other project team members. All team members met on a monthly basis to discuss emergent themes and areas of commonality and differences across the case studies. It was established that similar themes were evident across all case studies, with few areas of divergence.
Phase 3: In-depth coding of whole data set	All transcripts were loaded into NVivo and coded inductively. This involved the researcher coding each transcript line by line according to the issues participants identified. These codes were then categorized into smaller clusters of similar codes to depict key themes.	All coding was undertaken by one researcher, who revised and recoded as coding progressed and key emergent themes were identified. This enabled coding consistency and reliability.
Phase 4: Research group discussions	Once the coding was complete, all project team members met for a two-day workshop focusing on data analysis and confirming key themes. Discussions revolved around the NVivo file, which was projected onto a screen. The team worked through each key theme (i.e., codes with dozens of references), confirmed the high degree of consistency and similarity across all case studies, and held robust discussions regarding the key ideas. Key ideas were mapped on butcher’s paper and confirmed by team members. From this, the key factors that affected high performance were identified.	All project team members over a two-day workshop.

Significantly, the qualitative research was focused on the factors enabling or detracting from the attainment of high performance, including the specific HPWP of performance management and what action would be required to support the achievement of HPO status. We were specifically interested in whether the management of expectations, via performance management, increased the possibility of achieving high performance. We assumed, via our case study selection process, that these organizations would deliver different results relating to performance management efficacy.⁴ However, our analysis indicated no identifiable difference between case study organizations’ responses relating to the potential outcomes of performance management. Instead, we found that within each organization there were a range of practices (poor to exemplary) and this pattern existed across the seven cases. Where differences in the data were evident, this was primarily due to hierarchical level (senior manager, middle manager, operational employee) rather than the scale or scope of the organization. Consequently, aggregated data were used for the analysis linking performance management and high performance, with interviewees identifiable by their hierarchical level. The linkages were established primarily through identifying overlaps and relationships within the open coding, in particular where interviewees suggested performance management would lead to high performance.

Initially, we sought to identify and explore how performance management could enable high performance. From our data, eight key themes emerged (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Frequency of Coding for Key Themes.

Theme	Sources^a	References
The importance of, and issues with, middle management	98	843
Learning and development	93	707
Goal and role clarity	90	370
Ongoing feedback and conversations	83	292
Managing expectations	74	183
Shared understanding of high performance	68	365
Meaningful rewards and recognition	63	227
Performance ratings	61	134

From the total 108 sources utilized in this study.

Six of the eight themes in Table 4 related directly with the interview questions (i.e., asking what high performance is), performance management (i.e., goal and role clarity, rewards and recognition, learning and development), and/or its implementation (i.e., the importance of middle managers). However, the theme “managing expectations” was the most commonly cited theme that was indirectly related to performance management. It was a theme that was raised in the majority of interviews and seen as being critical for high performance. Expectations were seen as important in developing a shared understanding of high performance, setting the standards to aspire toward, and explaining how to achieve those standards. However, though seen as important to high performance, it was also apparent that effective expectation management was lacking in every case study organization. Based on this finding, we deployed expectancy theory as a lens for analyzing the data and integrating the key themes into a coherent narrative. We were interested in where the different elements of valence, expectancy, and instrumentality could be seen to be influencing the way that performance management was implemented. In particular, whether there were possible implications for the development of high performance. We will now present each in turn.

Findings

Valence

Understanding valence, the perceived value or preference that an individual allocates to a given outcome, helps us to explain the importance of establishing a shared understanding of what high performance will look like. A widely held⁵ view among middle managers and operational staff was that receiving recognition and undertaking meaningful work were what they valued most. High performance was more likely when employees felt as though they were appreciated and making a difference:

Every fortnight our branch manager stands up and says “this is what we’ve been working on, we’ve achieved really good things in this area, so I just want to congratulate this person, this person and this person” . . . So if we’re getting that feedback, we’re doing a good job. I’m not getting promoted, but I’m doing a good job, I’m making a difference. (MM A)

This finding contrasted significantly with the lack of value placed on financial rewards, with only five interviewees expressing a preference for financial rewards. The perceived value of making a difference and being recognized, rather than financial rewards, was profound, as ongoing budget cuts in these organizations meant there was an absence of financial rewards available: “It’s a tight fiscal environment [so] that’s just how we have to operate” (MM A). In such a resource constrained environment, organizations may not have the means to provide additional financial rewards to staff, but this was not a huge concern for employees. Instead, employees placed greater value on, and were driven by, the opportunity to make a difference. These findings correspond with key arguments in the public service motivation literature which highlights that public servants are “driven by other-regarding motives, not only by self-concern and self-interest” (Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010, p. 687) and are motivated when they place value on the organizational mission and therefore, feel as though they are making a difference to society (Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008).

Our findings emphasize the importance of goal and role clarity as mechanisms for aligning performance with broader goals. Interviewees stressed the importance on knowing what they were working toward and why it was important:

For me, what contributes to that high performing team is very much having a clear vision of where you’re going, what you’re trying to achieve, you have people understanding what their role is and getting that feedback along the way. (MM A)

Employees from self-described high-performing areas⁶ portrayed their team as “work[ing] really well; we know where we’re going, we know what we’re doing, we know how we’re going to get there” (OL F). In these teams, there were clear notions regarding what they were supposed to do and they had clear key performance indicators that were to be achieved within designated timeframes. This shared understanding mattered: “When you talk about high performance, it’s everyone being on the same page driving towards common goals [and] driving towards common outcomes” (MM D). For these teams, this understanding elicited a sense of camaraderie and a willingness to help one another and work together to achieve goals and high performance.

In self-described high-performing teams, there was a strong emphasis on ensuring employees were clear about their role and expectations about standards of performance and behavior from the time they commenced employment. Our data showed that where a sense of role clarity had been achieved, clear goals were evident and communicated at all levels, enabling employees to be given “clear information about what is their job. Where does their job fit within the mission of the organization? What are the Australian Government’s expectations?” (MM D). It also led to groups knowing “what they’re here to do, and how that fits into how their work fits into the work of [organization]” (MM F). This emphasizes the importance of higher level goals being clearly and consistently articulated throughout the organization:

I’ve seen [alignment] happen, and it’s just like fantastic, absolutely fantastic to work in an organization . . . [where] everybody . . . thrives from top to bottom, because they understand where they’re going, they all have the same vision [and] they value each other’s participation. (MM C)

Importantly, it also enabled employees’ understanding regarding why their work mattered and, therefore, why attaining high performance was important. When employees’ performance was aligned with broader goals, they understood their contribution to the bigger picture and thus attached high value to its achievement.

In our study, it was clear that alignment relied on communication of connections between high-level goals and employee goals and this was a very important activity for managers across organizations: “If your area is [correspondence] processing or something then you’ve got to sometimes, if you’re more junior, have that drawn out for you” (SM B). The role of managers in making these connections is critical. Examples were provided where this occurred, with senior managers explaining the higher level goals to employees, or even why the organization existed:

In developing things like [performance agreements], we’ve always got the departmental plan and synthesized that down into a cluster plan, synthesized that down into a group plan, synthesized that down to a branch, and then that flows into your [performance agreement]. So everything that you do is always connected somewhere . . . it’s extremely effective because it gives people purpose. (MM A)

Our findings highlight the importance of managers and employees discussing their perception of, and agreeing on, what constitutes high performance in a particular role. This discussion can form the basis of a shared understanding of the desired outcome and, in turn, the attainment of this outcome (high performance) being attractive to the individual. This will not occur exclusively through performance management conversations, but can enable the development of a shared understanding. By ensuring that organizational goals are clearly articulated, goal clarity establishes the value of an employee’s role to the organization which, according to the interviewees in our study, engages them and offers reasons to strive for high performance. To develop high performance, employees need to perceive valence for doing their role well. If they know why their role matters, or see some potential advantage in changing behavior, they are more likely to be motivated to achieve high performance. However, evidence of shared understandings regarding what constituted high performance was patchy. Across every case study organization, it was recognized that there was no formal discussion or articulation of what high performance was at the organizational level. This consequently impeded employees’ ability to grasp what constituted high performance and, therefore, the standard to work toward. In some exceptional examples, self-described high-performing teams did hold such conversations and generated a shared, contextually based, understanding of high performance which created higher levels of valence.

Expectancy

Many⁷ middle managers and the majority⁸ of operational staff in our study did not believe that working harder would lead to the achievement of the performance necessary to receive a high performance rating. This was primarily due to employees being unclear about what their immediate and senior managers considered to be high performance and the standard to work toward, thus creating uncertainty. Across all case study organizations, there was widespread agreement that the standard of performance and behavior required for their performance rating was not clearly understood or explained: “The ratings system as well has been a bit of an issue. I guess staff have a concern that it hasn’t been well enough explained what developmental is, what fully effective is, and things like that” (OL C). The lack of consistency in defining high performance and overarching guidelines regarding the level of performance required for achieving different ratings meant that the allocation of ratings was often seen as arbitrary and inconsistent. This was due to ratings being determined by the varying perceptions of individual managers rather than clear criteria based upon agreed outcomes: “The ratings are all subjective . . . I’ve had different ratings throughout time even though I’ve done nothing different, it’s just because [of] people’s views” (SM A). This meant that, in some instances, ratings were determined by the strength of interpersonal relationships between managers and employees: “That’s one of the main problems . . . I mean there’ll be some managers that just give everyone outstanding, ‘cause they go and have a beer together . . . ‘cause they just don’t want to have conflict” (OL A). Evidence of such inconsistency across raters support findings that individual differences across raters, such as their level of public service motivation, affect the weighting they attach to certain behaviors and their level of leniency in the provision of performance ratings (Christensen et al., 2013).

Another expectancy issue identified by participants related to employee development. In most of the case study organizations, budgetary pressures meant that there were insufficient resources or time to address identified developmental needs. This meant that despite employees and/or supervisors recommending development activities during the performance management process, these were rarely undertaken:

. . . where [performance management] falls down is that . . . there’s little that actually comes out of it. You put together a training plan and budget cuts come in and say, “OK, well now we’ve got to renegotiate, and yes, we’re supposed to come up with innovative and effective ideas, but there’s only so many online courses you can do, there’s only free online courses you can do.” (MM D)

In some case study organizations, this led to a reliance on on-the-job training which, if not managed effectively, did not help employees develop the capabilities necessary for high performance:

Budgets are so tight that priorities are determined and quite often the lower priority is training . . . So what’s happening is people learn on the job and they might have been taught incorrectly or shown to do it some way which is no fault of their own then they then on-train it [to others]. (OL A)

Interviewees suggested that lack of development opportunities impeded the ability of employees to achieve the level of performance required, particularly when it was recognized that they needed to develop certain skills to be able to meet performance expectations. It also had negative impacts over the medium and long-term as it impeded the likelihood of employees engaging in future conversations regarding required development because they assumed it was futile. These findings indicate that expectancy was not being well managed.

In our study, there was evidence of effective expectancy management in those areas that self-described as high performing. In these areas, managers and employees actively discussed their expectations, creating a shared understanding of both high performance and how to achieve it. In self-described high-performing areas, development was undertaken on a regular basis, with managers and employees adopting cost-effective developmental approaches. These approaches included the utilization of peer coaching for developing both technical and managerial skills:

. . . If I had a really strong performing [employee] and an [employee at the same level] that wasn’t up there, I would encourage a buddy system . . . for the lower performing [employee] to learn off the high performing [employee] to compare, “oh so she’s doing it this way, well maybe I just need to put in a little bit more here or a little bit more there,” so that kind of gives me a little bit more freedom to do my own work . . . [and enables] that [employee] that’s doing really well to start developing some supervisory skills for later when they step up into [the next] level. (MM A)

These approaches also included mentoring and coaching from middle and senior managers who met with employees on a regular basis to discuss role or career matters, solve problems, and work toward goals. Another development opportunity provided to employees in these areas was the experience of “shadowing” a middle or senior manager, which included

taking [employees] to . . . management meetings, or meetings I’d have with other stakeholders, so that they can see what they are doing, and the effect that it has with other business partners. And that, just understanding [regarding] how their role strategically fits within the department. (MM D)

Some interviewees reported having postmeeting debriefs with the middle or senior manager regarding their thoughts about the meeting and actions to undertake, thus enhancing their learning experience. However, the extent to which coaching, mentoring, and shadowing were undertaken was inconsistent within organizations. It was mostly reliant on either the ability of individuals to actively seek out and secure such arrangements or the extent to which managers had the propensity and/or ability to actively manage their employees and nurture their development. This was problematic because some interviewees described it as “pot luck if you get a good manager or a bad manager” (OL F), with a lack of investment in systematically developing managerial capabilities across most case study organizations. This led to inconsistencies in the extent to which managers were able to recognize and actively manage expectancy through developing employee capabilities.

Instrumentality

From the findings, we identified three aspects of instrumentality that help explain when performance management did not lead to high performance. First, in every case study organization there was a perceived disconnect between employees meeting performance expectations and reward attainment. This was primarily due to employees’ perceptions that moderation of performance ratings was commonplace in their organizations. Employees indicated that often their manager would determine that they had exceeded performance expectations, resulting in an initial rating of “exceeds expectations” or “outstanding.” However, this initial rating would then be adjusted (either by more senior staff or in multisupervisor meetings), resulting in most employees receiving a “satisfactory” rating. Despite senior managers claiming moderation did not occur, employees believed it to be extant, claiming there was no point in trying to achieve a higher rating as it would be overturned later:

There is this rule, unwritten or otherwise . . . that you are assessed against this bell curve, and so [at] . . . why tell me I am fantastic . . . and you’re exceeding my expectations? You’re telling me one thing, numbering me differently, and then the justification is, “oh well you see we have this bell curve, and most people have to sit at the number three” . . . That is not a way to get a high performing public service. (MM E)

These issues meant that there was little apparent incentive to actively pursue higher levels of performance because it was unlikely to be recognized or rewarded.

Second, the perception of moderation led to the view across every case study organization that only one or two performance assessment ratings (out of four or five) were utilized and the lack of clarity about what good performance would look like exacerbated that. It was considered that achieving high performance ratings (form of reward) were unattainable:

When I started here, I was told one is, “you’re on the way out,” two is “you’re going OK, but we’ve got to fix some stuff,” three is “you’re doing a good job,” four is “you’re probably getting ready for promotion” and five is “you are the second coming of Christ and you’re seriously misplaced in the public service” and that no one got a five. (MM E)

Because the high ratings were considered to be unattainable and stigma was attached to the provision of lower ratings, “If we rate somebody who’s developmental they’re feeling that they’re actually not doing their job well” (OL C), the tendency was to focus on the middle rating as it was seen as “safe”; they implied that neither high nor low performance was occurring: “I think that’s why the ‘good-good’ (satisfactory rating) is so common, because it’s the middle ground” (OL A).

Third, in all case study organizations, few, if any, perceived rewards were attached to performance management or the attainment of high performance. In every organization, employees would receive a pay point increment upon being awarded a “fully effective” or “satisfactory” performance rating. However, this was seen as an entitlement rather than a reward: “The reality is that my staff see [the pay point increment] as an entitlement and that a fully effective rating is a given” (MM C). It was not seen as necessary to deliver high performance to attain the increment and, consequently, performance management failed to change behavior in a positive way. In fact, it was suggested that the lack of performance-based rewards could, in fact, impede the motivation and morale of higher performers:

I think the public service has a wrong view of reward mechanisms. I think that there should be some type of performance-based—and it doesn’t have to be necessarily paid—but some type of scheme that rewards high performing public servants, because if we’re all banded at a particular level [there’s no differentiation]. So I’m an EL1, I could do the bare minimum [yet] still get paid the same as somebody who’s performing excellently . . . or above and beyond their classification. (MM D)

This lack of any coherent relationship between reward, recognition, and performance across all the case study organizations meant that the importance of managing instrumentality was not recognized, thus impeding the attainment of high performance:

I don’t think the current framework is designed to support that sort of high performance culture. I think there’s an expectation of high performance but the system doesn’t give you any opportunity for rewards or incentives for your really high performers. I think that creates a bit of a cycle of apathy with some of them. (MM B)

What emerges for all three elements of expectancy theory—valence, expectancy, and instrumentality—was that they are all dependent upon clearly articulated, shared understandings of high performance being in place and that there is trust in the system of implementation.

Discussion and Implications

This article posed the following question: Can using expectancy theory to manage expectations improve the operationalization of employee performance management and increase the possibility of creating high performance? Our findings indicate that adopting an expectancy theory lens could enable more effective management of expectations, which in turn could improve goal and role clarity. In this discussion, we develop these ideas further to demonstrate that using expectancy to frame performance management implementation can help public managers in two ways. First, the increased levels of trust created using this approach will enable supervisors to work more closely with their teams (Cho & Lee, 2012), both in general and during times of change. Second, the approach will support the attainment of outcomes within their organizations through the increased clarity that comes from establishing the valence of high performance which can help an employee establish both goal and role clarity. Effective performance management enables clarification about the organizational goals (goal clarity) and what high performance then means for both the organization and individual employees (role clarity; Blackman et al., 2016). Done well, an employee will understand the contextual imperatives framing the policy or service delivery they are contributing to, know what high performance will look like at the organizational, group, and individual level for the desired outputs and outcomes (Blackman et al., 2013; Jung, 2014; Sawyer, 1992) and, most importantly, consider this to be a desirable personal goal. We also suggest that undertaking effective conversations around expectancy will enable alignment between employee and organizational goals and clarify how employees can achieve their goals and desired performance standards. This occurs for both current and, if necessary, future performance through undertaking developmental activities. This incorporates employees’ understanding of how their performance aligns with organizational and group goal achievements, and what will be recognized as high performance for them as an individual (Blackman et al., 2013, 2016; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1974; Lyons, 1971). The third element, instrumentality, then enhances the likelihood of an individual striving to deliver high performance because they can see clearly both how it can be achieved and why it will deliver added value for them personally (due to being rewarded appropriately). Moreover, instrumentality helps managers to understand why actively managing performance management systems and processes is so important; if they entail positive experiences, are managed transparently, and generate value for both the organization and individual, they are more likely to lead to enhanced performance.

Thus, a major contribution of this article is the finding that through actively managing all three elements of expectancy, it is possible for public sector managers to manage the expectations of employees in a more proactive way. We suggest that by clearly articulating expectations of employees through the expectancy theory lens and then managing those individual expectations, public sector organizations can support both the articulation and attainment of high performance. Moreover, these findings can inform the ongoing change management agendas that governments are engaged in across the world, and perhaps increase their likelihood of success (APSC, 2014; Cabinet Office, 2017).

Second, leading on from the ideas above, understanding the potential of expectancy theory to frame expectations and, consequently, outcomes helps both human resources (HR) practitioners and line managers decide how best to develop and implement performance management systems. In almost all performance management literature, both scholars (see, for example, Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011) and practitioners (e.g., APSC, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016; State Services Authority, 2012) stress the importance of performance conversations. These conversations are offered up as the core communication tool creating the links between the organization (as represented by the manager) and the individual. However, our findings show that many conversations were focused on the performance management process as a compliance mechanism. We suggest that expectancy theory offers a way to consider how to create and undertake performance conversations more effectively. Regarding conversations around valence, managers and employees would need to discuss and agree upon what high performance means for their role and how it aligns with the organizational mission. This would help establish the value of high performance to the individual and thus motivate them to attain it. These conversations would also focus on determining what rewards are considered to be meaningful for the individual in a way that motivates them to achieve high performance. More effective practice would include conservations regarding what enhanced work opportunities would be most meaningful and intrinsically rewarding for individuals. This increased level of ownership will, we argue, reduce the anxiety frequently found around public sector performance management (Blackman, West, O’Flynn, Buick, & O’Donnell, 2015; O’Donnell & O’Brien, 2000), thereby improving potential outcomes.

Regarding conversations around expectancy, managers and employees would need to discuss what is needed to achieve high performance, with particular emphasis on what development is required. Although most performance management conversations do include learning and development, thinking about it in terms of the expectation of future achievements would help focus the individual and the manager on the specific support required to enable high performance. Finally, conversations around instrumentality should focus on establishing the employee’s trust that once they achieve the goals set, they will attain the meaningful rewards previously discussed during the valence conversation. These conversations, specifically focused on establishing valence, expectancy, and instrumentality, should then act as a clear framework that manages employee expectations through performance management. Framing performance conversations in this way enables insights into how they can be constructed to enable goal and role clarity and helps managers and employees to see the value of performance management. It also provides an explanation of why performance conversations need to be an ongoing part of managing an individual, ensuring continuing feedback linked to the high performance expectations established.

Conclusion

In this article, we set out to consider whether the active management of employee expectations could be conducive to the development of high-performing public sector organizations. Although the link between the management of expectations and performance management is clear in the organizational behavior and human resources management literatures, this relationship has not been overtly discussed in the literature on HPOs in general, or public sector organizations more specifically.

Overall, we propose that the effective management of expectations is an important element of developing high performance. Our data demonstrated that the case study organizations would have had more opportunity for success if they had had a shared conceptualization of high performance which they could then integrate into practice and use to frame employee expectations. We suggest that applying an expectancy lens, which uses the three elements of valence, expectancy, and instrumentality, offers two opportunities: first, to operationalize the creation of the role and goal clarity required for a shared view of high performance and, second, to implement a more effective performance management system.

This article has made a qualitative link between expectancy theory, employee performance management, and the attainment of high performance; however, there are limitations that need to be acknowledged. We focus on one level of government within one country, which may shape the findings. And, though this was a comprehensive study across several organizations, it is based on an exploratory, interpretive research design, the results of which are not generalizable. Consequently, we call for future research in three areas. The first, a theoretical development, is to test these links in a range of contexts to develop a more robust model. The second is to undertake a quantitative study that tests and extends the ideas presented in this article. The third, a practical development, is to create management development programs using this framework and to undertake rigorous evaluation of the outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix: Alignment of Interview Questions with Expectancy Theory

Original semistructured interview question	Alignment with expectancy theory
1. What is your role within your agency and what experience do you have with performance management, both within your current agency and the APS generally?	N/A—this was an introductory question aimed at obtaining an understanding of the interviewees’ knowledge of, and experience with, performance management.
2. What does high performance mean to you?	This question enabled operationalization of expectancy through determining the extent to which a shared understanding of high performance was evident within teams, groups, and organizations. This question enabled operationalization of valence through leading to questions regarding the value that interviewees placed on high performance.
3. Where have you seen high performance in your organization?	Question 3 was a follow-up question from Question 2 that enabled the research team to establish the likelihood of interviewees seeing high performance and whether this affected the extent to which they valued high performance (valence). It also enabled interviewees to identify if they have worked in high-performing teams.
4. How does performance management operate in your agency?	This question enabled operationalization of expectancy through determining the extent to which managers and employees developed a shared understanding of the performance standards required to achieve desired performance ratings and what developmental activities need to be undertaken to achieve required performance standards. This question enabled operationalization of instrumentality through leading to questions regarding the extent to which the performance review process is perceived to align with conversations around the performance standards required to achieve desired performance ratings. This question enabled operationalization of valence through determining whether performance management enabled employee understanding about how their role aligns with the organizational goals.
5. What is, and is not, working well with respect to high performance management in your agency?	Questions 4 and 5 enabled operationalization of expectancy through determining the extent to which shared understandings were evident, realistic performance goals were established, organizations focused on developing employees, and interviewees thought that if they worked hard, the requisite level of performance could be forthcoming.
6. Outline which factors have enabled or detracted from the successful implementation of performance management?	These questions enabled operationalization of instrumentality through understanding the extent to which performance management and rewards management are integrated with one another and enable high performance. These questions enabled operationalization of valence through understanding the role that performance management plays in enabling alignment, enhancing employees’ understanding what high performance is in a given context and the other factors that employees value.
7. What changes would you make if you could in order to better support the attainment of high performance in your agency?	This question sought interviewees’ perspectives regarding what needs to be improved to enable expectancy, instrumentality, and valence to be achieved.

Note. APS = Australian Public Service.

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, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received financial support from the Australian Public Service Commission for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Deborah A. Blackman is a professor of Public Sector Management Strategy at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. Her academic background is in human resource management and development, change management, organizational behavior, and knowledge transfer.

Fiona Buick is a lecturer at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. Her academic background is in human resource management, change management, organizational culture, and joined-up government. She has also worked as a human resources (HR) practitioner in the public sector.

Janine O’Flynn is a professor of Public Management at the University of Melbourne. She is an editor of Australian Journal of Public Administration and sits on the boards of Public Administration Review, Public Administration, Teaching Public Administration, Canadian Public Administration, and Journal of Management & Organization.

Michael O’Donnell is a professor of Human Resource Management at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. He has published widely on HR policies and practices in the Australian Public Service. He coauthored Unions and Globalisation: Governments, Management, and the State at Work.

Damian West has extensive policy and program delivery experience in the public sector. He has led the development of sector wide workforce strategies and implemented significant policy reforms. He has a deep understanding of public sector administration and human resource development.

References

Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. (2010). Ahead of the game: Blueprint for the reform of Australian Government Administration. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/aga_reform/aga_reform_blueprint/

Agranoff

Radin

B. A.

(1991). The comparative case study approach in public administration. In Perry

(Ed.), Research in public administration ( Vol. 1, pp. 203-231). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Armstrong

Murlis

(2004). Reward management: A handbook of remuneration strategy and practice (5th ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2006). Sharpening the focus: Managing Performance in the APS. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/51009/sharpeningfocus.pdf

Australian Public Service Commission. (2012a). APS at a glance—All staff (APSC statistical bulletin 2011-2012). Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/aps-statistical-bulletin/2011-12/main

Australian Public Service Commission. (2012b). State of the service report: State of the service series 2011-12. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-the-service/new-sosr

Australian Public Service Commission. (2013). Capability reviews—Status and findings (State of the service report: State of the service series 2012-13). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-the-service/sosr-2012-13

Australian Public Service Commission. (2014). Transformational change is needed to meet the productivity imperative (State of the service report: State of the service series 2013-14). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-the-service/state-of-the-service-2013-14/sosr-2013-14/chapter-1/transformational-change-is-needed-to-meet-the-productivity-imperitive

Blackman

Buick

O’Donnell

O’Flynn

West

(2012). Developing high performance: Performance management in the Australian Public Service (Crawford School Research Paper No. 012-09). Canberra, Australia: Australia National University.

10.

Blackman

Buick

O’Donnell

O’Flynn

West

(2013, May). Strengthening the performance framework: Towards a high performing Australian Public Service (Australia and New Zealand School of Government Institute for Governance (ANZSIG) working paper). Canberra, Australia: ANZSIG.

11.

Blackman

Buick

O’Donnell

O’Flynn

West

(2016). Performance management as a strategic tool for change. In Blackman

O’Donnell

Teo

(Eds.), Human capital management research: Influencing practice and process (pp. 149-162). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

12.

Blackman

West

O’Flynn

Buick

O’Donnell

. (2015). Performance management: Creating high performance, not high anxiety. In Wanna

Lee

Yates

(Eds.), Managing under austerity, delivering under pressure (pp. 79-102). Acton: Australian National University Press. Retrieved from http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p328101/pdf/ch052.pdf

13.

Brandi

Kemelgor

(2015). An expectancy theory model of initial public offerings profile. American Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8, 44-70.

14.

Bryman

(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

15.

Cabinet Office. (2017). Policy paper: Government transformation strategy. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-transformation-strategy-2017-to-2020/government-transformation-strategy

16.

Cho

Y. J.

Lee

J. W.

(2012). Performance management and trust in supervisors. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 236-259.

17.

Christensen

R. K.

Whiting

S. W.

Rho

Stritch

J. M.

Park

(2013). Public service motivation, task, and non-task behavior: A performance appraisal experiment with Korean MPA and MBA students. International Public Management Journal, 16, 28-52.

18.

Connolly

(1976). Some conceptual and methodological issues in expectancy models of work performance motivation. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 37-47.

19.

Darke

Shanks

Broadbent

(1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8, 273-289.

20.

de Waal

A. A

. (2010). Achieving high performance in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 34, 81-103.

21.

de Waal

A. A

. (2012). Characteristics of high performance organisations. Journal of Management Research, 4(4), 39-70.

22.

Gephart

M. A.

Van Buren

M. E.

(1996). Building synergy: The power of high performance work systems. Training & Development, 50(10), 21-36.

23.

Guba

E. G.

(1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29, 75-91.

24.

B. W.

Sung

Y. K.

(2011). Teacher reactions to the performance-based bonus program: How the expectancy theory works in the South Korean school culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 129-141.

25.

Hellriegel

Slocum

J. W.

(2007). Organizational behavior. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.

26.

Hubbard

Purcell

(2001). Managing employee expectations during acquisitions. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(2), 17-33.

27.

Hughes

(2003). Public management and administration: An introduction (3rd ed.). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Huselid

M. A.

(1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.

29.

Ivancevich

J. M.

Donnelly

J. H.

Jr. (1974). A study of role clarity and need for clarity for three occupational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 28-36.

30.

Jung

C. S.

(2014). Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 209-234.

31.

Kehoe

R. R.

Wright

P. M.

(2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39, 366-391.

32.

Kerr

(1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7-14.

33.

Krueger

N. F.

Reilly

M. D.

Carsrud

A. L

. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (5-6), 411-432.

34.

Liao

Liu

(2011). Modeling motivations for blogging: An expectancy theory analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 251-264.

35.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

36.

Lunenburg

F. C.

(2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6.

37.

Lyons

T. F.

(1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99-110.

38.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.

39.

McBride

(2008). Strategic management model for public organizations: Looking for effective, efficient, transparent, ethical, and accountable organizations. Syracuse, NY: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

40.

Miller

L. E.

Grush

J. E.

(1988). Improving predictions in expectancy theory research: Effects of personality, expectancies, and norms. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 107-122.

41.

Mishler

(1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415-443.

42.

Neely

Najjar

M. A.

(2006). Management learning not management control: The true role of performance measurement. California Management Review, 48, 101-114.

43.

O’Donnell

O’Brien

(2000). Performance based pay in the Australian Public Service: Employee perspectives. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 20-34.

44.

Oliver

R. L.

(1974). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 243-253.

45.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11, 89-108.

46.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

47.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70, 681-690.

48.

Pickering

J. W.

(2008). Building high-performance organizations. In Newell

Reeher

Ronayne

(Eds.), The trusted leader: Building the relationships that make government work (pp. 127-155). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

49.

Price

Elliotte

H. M.

(2011). Building high performance government through lean six sigma. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

50.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). A positive conversation: Performance management in the Public Sector. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com.au/publications/performance-management-apr16.html

51.

Pulakos

E. D.

O’Leary

R. S.

(2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 146-164.

52.

Renko

(2012). Expectancy theory and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39, 667-684.

53.

Sawyer

J. E.

(1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130-142.

54.

Schmidt

A. M.

Dolls

C. M.

(2009). Something’s got to give: The effects of dual-goal difficulty, goal progress, and expectancies on resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 678-691.

55.

Silverman

(2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

Stake

R. E.

(2008). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

State Services Authority. (2012). Talking performance (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: State Government of Victoria. Retrieved from http://vpsc.vic.gov.au/resources/talking-performance/

58.

Stenbacka

(2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, 551-556.

59.

Van Eerde

Thierry

. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575-586.

60.

Vroom

V. G.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.

61.

Wahba

M. A.

House

R. J.

(1974). Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical and methodological issues. Human Relations, 27, 121-147.

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

63.

Yoon Jik

Poister

T. H

. (2014). Managerial practices, trust in leadership, and performance: Case of the Georgia department of transportation. Public Personnel Management, 42, 179-196.