Civil service promotion (CSP) is a key construct linked to other operations of public human resource management. However, it has received scant attention. This study uses second-order confirmatory factor analysis to test the theoretical perspectives of CSP. It then uses multiple regression to test how individual demographics influence public managers’ and public employees’ perceptions of CSP. The stratified samples were extracted from Taiwan's cabinet-level ministries. The results demonstrated a significant difference in civil service promotion structure between public managers and public employees. The results also indicated that the respondents’ demographics are associated with differences in CSP between public managers and public employees. The findings and implications were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabbieE. (1998). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
2.
BachT. & VeitS. (2018). The Determinants of Promotion to High Public Office in Germany: Partisan Loyalty, Political Craft, or Managerial Competencies?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 254–269.
3.
BeehrT. A. & JuntunenD. I. (1990). Promotions and employees’ perceived mobility channels: The effects of sex, employee group, and initial placement.Human Relations, 43(5), 455–472.
4.
BeehrT. A., NairV. N., GudanowskiD. M. & SuchM. (2004). Perceptions of reasons for promotion of self and others.Human Relations, 57(4), 413–438.
5.
BeehrT. A. & TaberT. D. (1993). Perceived intra-organizational mobility: Reliable versus exceptional performance as means to getting ahead.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 579–594.
6.
BeyerJ. M., StevensJ. M. & TriceH. M. (1980). Predicting how federal managers perceive criteria used for their promotion.Public Administration Review, 40(1), 55–66.
7.
ChoiS. (2012). Demographic Diversity of Managers and Employee Job Satisfaction: Empirical Analysis of the Federal Case.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 275–298.
8.
ChoiS. & RaineyH. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance.Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109–121.
9.
DeHoogR. H. & WhitakerG. P. (1990). Political Conflict or Professional Advancement: Alternative Explanations of City Manager Turnover.Journal of Urban Affairs, 12(4), 361–77.
10.
DelugaR. J. (1998). Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Ratings: The Role of Subordinate-Supervisor Conscientiousness Similarity.Group & Organization Management, 23 (2), 189–216.
11.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
12.
DurantR. F., KramerR., PerryJ. L., MeschD. & PaarlbergL. (2006). Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited.Public Administration Review, 66(4), 505–514.
13.
FaveroN., AndersenS. C., MeierK. J., O'TooleL. J.Jr & WinterS. C. (2018). How Should We Estimate the Performance Effect of Management? Comparing Impacts of Public Managers’ and Frontline Employees’ Perceptions of Management.International Public Management Journal, 21(1), 105–130.
14.
FerrisG. R., BuckleyM. R. & AllenG. M. (1992). Promotion systems in organizations.Human Resource Planning, 15(1), 47–68.
15.
FerrisG. R., FrankD., GalanM. C., ZhouJ., KacmarM. K. & HowardJ. I. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Predictors, stress related implications, and outcomes.Human Relations, 49(2), 233–266.
16.
FornellC. & ChaJ. (1994). Partial Least Squares. In BagozziR. (Ed).Advanced Methods in Marketing Research (pp. 52–78), Cambridge, MA:Basil Blackwell.
17.
FornellC. R. & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.Journal of Market Research, 18(1), 39–50.
18.
FowlerFloyd J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications, Inc.
19.
FrantH. (1993). Rules and governance in the public sector: The case of civil service.American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 990–1007.
20.
GraenG. B. & Uhl-BienM. (1995). The Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective.Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 219–247.
21.
HalabyCharles N. (1978). Bureaucratic Promotion Criteria.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(3), 466–484.
22.
HaysS. W. & KearneyR. C. (2001). Anticipated Changes in Human Resource Management.Public Administration Review, 61(5), 585–597.
23.
IngrahamP. W. (2006). Building Bridges over Troubled Waters: Merit as a Guide.Public Administration Review, 66(4), 486–495.
24.
JohnsrudL. K. (1991). Administrative Promotion: The Power of Gender.The Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 119–149.
25.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd edition. New York, NY:The Guilford Press.
26.
KlingnerD., NalbandianJ. & LlorensJ. J. (2015). Public personnel management (6th ed.). London, England:Routledge.
27.
LovrichN. P., ShafferP. L., HopkinsR. H. & YaleD. A. (1980). Do Public Servants Welcome or Fear Merit Evaluation of Their Performance?Public Administration Review, 40(3), 214–222.
28.
MaL., TangH. & YanB. (2015). Public Employees’ Perceived Promotion Channels in Local China: Merit-Based or Guanxi-Orientated?.Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(3), 283–297.
29.
MengFanrong & WuJiannan (2015). Merit Pay Fairness, Leader-Member Exchange, and Job Engagement: Evidence From Mainland China.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(1), 47–69
30.
NunnallyJC. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
31.
ElizabethannO'Sullivan, RasselGary R. and MaureenBerner (2008). Research Methods for Public Administrators. New York, NY:Pearson Education, Inc.
32.
SabharwalM. (2013). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 399–426.
33.
SongS. (2008). The Study on Relationship between Civil Service Promotion and Organizational Commitment for Civil Servants in Taichung City Government(Thesis). Taichung, Taiwan:Graduate Institute of National Policy and Public Affairs, National Chung Hsing University.
34.
TangT. L. P., CunninghamP. H., FraumanE., IvyM. I. & PerryT. L. (2012). Attitudes and occupational commitment among public personnel: Differences between baby boomers and Gen-Xers.Public Personnel Management, 41(2), 327–360.
35.
TharenouP. (2001). Going Up? Do Traits and Informal Social Processes Predict Advancing in Management?.The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1005–17.
36.
TolbertP. S. & ZuckerL. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935.Administrative science quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.
37.
TummersL. G. & KniesE. (2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector.Public Administration Review, 73(6), 859–868.
38.
WeirM. & GeorgeJ. (1954). Promotion in the Public Service.Australian Journal of Public Administration, 13(4), 229–235.
39.
WilloughbyW. D.1927. Principles of Public Administration: With Special Reference to the National and State Governments of the United States. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins Press.
40.
YeoM., AnanthramS., TeoS. T. & PearsonC. A. (2015). Leader—member exchange and relational quality in a Singapore public sector organization.Public Management Review, 17(10), 1379–1402.
