Organizational leniency: examining the consequences of ignoring performance problems in public organizations

Indulgencia organizacional: examinando las consecuencias de ignorar los problemas de desempeño en organizaciones públicas

Abstract

Organizational leniency, defined as management’s systematic failure to address performance problems (such as low productivity, poor quality of work, absenteeism, etc.), is often a reality in public organizations. We posit that the negative consequences of organizational leniency may extend beyond the lost productivity of a few poor-performing employees. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which perceived organizational leniency may adversely affect the organizational climate and job satisfaction of public employees at large. We propose that the negative effect of organizational leniency is mediated by both perceived recognition received and employee-organization value congruence, forming a parallel mediation model. In other words, perceived organizational leniency may make public employees feel that their efforts are inadequately recognized and also diminishes how much they feel their values align with organizational practices. To test our hypotheses, we surveyed 256 government employees from various public organizations in Brazil. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression with ordinary least squares and mediation tests. Consistent with our predictions, we found that perceived organizational leniency is negatively related to job satisfaction, with both perceived recognition and value congruence mediating this effect.

Keywords:
performance management; job satisfaction; job rewards; value congruence; inequity

Resumo

A leniência organizacional, definida como a falha sistemática da gestão em lidar com problemas de desempenho (como baixa produtividade, baixa qualidade de trabalho, absenteísmo, etc.), é frequentemente uma realidade em organizações públicas. Propomos que as consequências negativas da leniência organizacional podem ir além da perda de produtividade de alguns funcionários com baixo desempenho. Especificamente, investigamos em que medida a percepção de leniência organizacional pode afetar negativamente o clima organizacional e a satisfação no trabalho dos servidores públicos em geral. Propomos que o efeito negativo da leniência organizacional é mediado tanto pela percepção de reconhecimento recebido quanto pela congruência de valor entre os servidores e a organização, formando um modelo de mediação paralela. Em outras palavras, a percepção de leniência organizacional pode fazer com que os funcionários públicos sintam que seus esforços não são adequadamente reconhecidos e, ao mesmo tempo, diminui a percepção de alinhamento entre seus valores e as práticas da organização. Para testar nossas hipóteses, realizamos uma pesquisa com 256 funcionários do governo de várias organizações públicas no Brasil. Os dados foram analisados utilizando regressão linear múltipla com mínimos quadrados ordinários e testes de mediação. Consistente com nossas previsões, encontramos que a percepção de leniência organizacional está negativamente relacionada à satisfação no trabalho em nossa amostra, e tanto o reconhecimento percebido quanto a congruência de valor mediam esse efeito.

Palavras-chave:
gestão de desempenho; satisfação no trabalho; recompensas no trabalho; congruência de valor; inequidade

Resumen

La indulgencia organizacional, definida como la falla sistemática de la administración al abordar problemas de desempeño (como baja productividad, mala calidad del trabajo, ausentismo, etc.), es a menudo una realidad en las organizaciones públicas. Sostenemos que las consecuencias negativas de la indulgencia organizacional pueden ir más allá de la pérdida de productividad de unos pocos empleados públicos con bajo desempeño. Específicamente, investigamos en qué medida la indulgencia organizacional percibida podría afectar negativamente el clima organizacional y la satisfacción laboral de los empleados públicos en general. Proponemos que el efecto negativo de la indulgencia organizacional está mediado tanto por el reconocimiento percibido como por la congruencia de valores entre funcionarios y organización, formando un modelo de mediación paralelo. En otras palabras, la indulgencia organizacional percibida puede hacer que los empleados públicos sientan que sus esfuerzos no son reconocidos adecuadamente y también reduce la sensación de alineación de sus valores con las prácticas organizacionales. Para probar nuestras hipótesis, encuestamos a 256 empleados gubernamentales de diversas organizaciones públicas en Brasil. Los datos fueron analizados mediante regresión lineal múltiple con mínimos cuadrados ordinarios y pruebas de mediación. Consistente con nuestras predicciones, encontramos que la indulgencia organizacional percibida está negativamente relacionada con la satisfacción laboral en nuestra muestra, y tanto el reconocimiento percibido como la congruencia de valores median este efecto.

Palabras clave:
gestión del desempeño; satisfacción laboral; recompensas laborales; congruencia de valores; inequidad

1. INTRODUCTION

Managing employee performance is a critical issue for all organizations. A recent study of nearly 160 countries suggests that not only are 62% of all employees not engaged in their jobs, but also 15% of all employees are actively disengaged, acting out in ways that undermine the accomplishments of their coworkers and spread negativity in the workplaces (Gallup, 2024). Low employee engagement is estimated to cost the global economy $8.9 tillion (USD) - 9% of the global GDP - each year in lost productivity (Gallup, 2024). Thus, it is no surprise that dealing with unproductive employee behaviors and poor performance continues to be a fundamental managerial challenge, even in the public sector (Ander & Swift, 2014; Brehm & Gates, 1999; Daley, 2008; Guffey & Helms, 2001). Although exact estimates of the prevalence or costs of poor employee performance in government are difficult to produce, surveys of government employees reveal a worrying pattern.

For instance, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2020) indicate that the survey item “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve” receives one of the lowest levels of agreement (42%) among all survey items. Moreover, according to this survey, most federal employees note that poor performers in their work unit “remain in the work unit and continue to underperform.” Results from the 2016 United States Merit System Protection survey reinforce this claim, with over 60% of U.S. federal employees reporting they have at least one poor-performing coworker in their work unit, and over 30% reporting that the performance of at least one coworker is so low that they should be removed from the job (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2019).

This pattern is also observed in Brazil (Lotta, 2002; Odelius & Santos, 2007). For instance, a recent OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2022, p. 31) report asserts that in the federal government “[…] formalized performance assessment is mandatory for most government employees in Brazil. However, with an average grade of 98/100 […] they are not generally seen to reward high performance, nor address under-performance”. They conclude that Brazil’s public managers may lack effective tools to address underperformance and point to a challenge or reluctance in assigning poor performance evaluations. These findings suggest that public organizations may be failing to systematically address unproductive employee behavior, a phenomenon we refer to as organizational leniency.

Although organizational leniency appears to be a relevant problem in the public sector, our understanding of its potential consequences is still very limited. While it is quite evident that the persistence of unproductive behavior in the workplace leads to lower productivity among employees exhibiting the dysfunctional behavior, in this study, we investigate a less obvious phenomenon: how the perception of organizational leniency can adversely affect the overall organizational climate, diminishing the job satisfaction of public employees more broadly. We examine two mediating mechanisms explaining this effect: lower perceptions of recognition received (Niehoff et al., 1998; O’Reilly III & Puffer, 1989; Treviño, 1992) and lower feelings of employee-organization value congruence (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2015; Edwards & Cable, 2009). To examine these effects, we surveyed 256 active government employees from various public organizations in Brazil - a country that still struggles to implement effective performance management practices in government (OECD, 2010).

Our study contributes to public administration theory and practice in three major ways. First, we examine the effects of an organizational dysfunction that, despite its apparently high prevalence in the public sector (see U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2020), has not received due attention in previous research. Second, we show that organizational leniency can not only increase feelings of inequity (Treviño, 1992) but also reduce perceptions of employee-organization value congruence (Wright & Pandey, 2008). Together, these two variables can decrease the job satisfaction of public employees, which is linked to work motivation, organizational commitment, turnover, and individual performance (e.g., Chordiya et al., 2017; Judge, 1993; Judge et al., 2001). Our results may help explain the lower level of overall job satisfaction among government employees (Borges, 2013; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000) and why, in some circumstances, it can coexist with high pay and excellent benefits (Leavitt, 1996). Third, our results have a clear practical implication: Public managers should be aware of the larger social effects that can occur when failing to address performance problems. Although the costs of dealing with poor performance are usually high for public managers (Daley, 2008), they should consider how ignoring the unproductive behavior of the few may unintentionally harm the job satisfaction - and possibly the performance - of the many.

2. THE CHALLENGES OF DEALING WITH POOR PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Addressing performance problems is an essential, albeit challenging, managerial function (Daley, 2008; Yukl, 2013). It may lead to confrontations, increase the risk of involving managers in litigation (Goodhew et al., 2008), and, perhaps more importantly, can be an emotionally exhausting process for both managers and employees (Daley, 2008). Given that disciplinary sanctions are often perceived as ineffective and best avoided (Brehm & Gates, 1999; Butterfield et al., 2005), managers are frequently reluctant to address poor-performing employees, potentially fostering a culture of “chronic niceness” in organizations (Goodhew et al., 2008).

The challenges of addressing poor performance and other deviant employee behaviors have been explored in previous public administration research (Brehm & Gates, 1999; Daley, 2008; Guffey & Helms, 2001; King & Wilcox, 2003; Selden, 2006). A recurring theme in this literature is the evidentiary and administrative burden placed on public managers to implement formal disciplinary actions (Ban, 1995; Daley, 2008; Franklin & Pagan, 2006; York, 2018). Lengthy and intricate grievance and appeal systems, typical in the public sector, can render disciplining employees a daunting and frustrating task for managers (Daley, 2008; Franklin & Pagan, 2006; York, 2018). Consequently, in many instances, public managers lean towards utilizing alternative (off-the-records) sanctions or simply overlooking an employee’s performance problems (Franklin & Pagan, 2006).

This phenomenon is also observed in Brazil, where the present study has been conducted. Performance management practices in the Brazilian public service are outdated and formalistic (OECD, 2010). According to Neiva (2020), Brazilian public organizations have weak performance management cultures. For instance, Lotta (2002) shows that performance reviews usually do not reflect the actual performance of public employees: managers are lenient and the scores of all employees tend to be extremely high. Moreover, Brazilian public servants have a remarkably high level of job security (Odelius & Santos, 2007).

According to Odelius and Santos (2007, p. 22), as a result of the administrative burden faced by Brazilian public managers to deal with performance problems, they have “[…] a sense of powerlessness in the face of the high job security of subordinates”. The authors also conclude that “[Brazilian public] managers are unprepared to conduct performance appraisal of subordinates [...] they are reluctant to manage people and prefer to avoid conflict than to give feedback” (Odelius & Santos, 2007, p. 22). A study conducted by OECD (2022, p. 32) asserts that:

Interviews with a variety of Brazilian stakeholders indicated that many managers are reluctant to give staff lower grades because of a perception that such grades are a penalty. This prevents managers from giving fair and honest feedback to their teams and skews the incentives for personal and career development. It also acts as a considerable barrier to identifying and supporting high-performers across the public employment system.

In line with these studies, recent research discusses the challenges for improving performance management in public administration within the Brazilian and South American contexts (e.g., Durán & Vilhena, 2024; Vilhena & Martins, 2022). Some studies conducted in the context of the Brazilian public sector analyze strategies that can be used to improve public employee performance (Coelho et al., 2017) as well as examine the challenges of implementing performance management systems (Abbad et al., 1996).

While disciplinary actions are sometimes used with the intent of rehabilitating an employee who displays undesirable work behavior (Daley, 2008), their effectiveness has been questioned (Brehm & Gates, 1999), particularly if compared to the use of rewards or other motivational strategies (see Treviño & Weaver, 2010). A recent survey of U.S. government employees found that supervisors typically report attempting 10 or more strategies to address an employee’s poor performance and generally do not find those strategies to be very effective (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2019). However, even if such actions are not very effective in improving the performance of poor-performing employees, they can still send important signals to other employees that performance on the job is important (Atwater et al., 2001; Liden et al., 1999; Niehoff et al., 1998; Treviño, 1992).

3. ORGANIZATIONAL LENIENCY AND JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction has been defined as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300) and has been strongly associated with important employee outcomes including organizational citizenship behavior, work performance, and intention/decision to leave the organization (Cantarelli et al., 2016; Grissom et al., 2016; Judge, 1993; Nyberg, 2010; Pitts et al., 2011). In this study, we focus on the job satisfaction of employees who observe their coworkers’ unproductive behavior being ignored by the organization. To explain why perceived organizational leniency can be negatively related to job satisfaction, we concentrate on two psychological mechanisms: perceived recognition received (Skarlicki et al., 2015) and employee-organization value congruence (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Boxx et al., 1991; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006).

4. HOW ORGANIZATIONAL LENIENCY MAY LOWER JOB SATISFACTION BY LOWERING PERCEPTIONS OF RECOGNITION RECEIVED

Employee perceptions of reward adequacy (often referred to as distributive justice) are not just influenced by objective assessments of the rewards and recognition they receive, they are also influenced by social comparisons. When employees perceive that their peers get similar rewards for less effort, they are more likely to feel under-rewarded and unfairly treated (Adams, 1963; Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2015; Felps et al., 2006; van den Bos et al., 1997). These negative feelings are likely strengthened if one has to work harder to compensate for the low productivity of a poor-performing colleague (Felps et al., 2006).

Although feelings of reward inadequacy and inequity can be addressed by doing more to reward high performers (Adams, 1963), such an approach may be especially difficult in public sector organizations given the standardization of pay and the constraints on the use of performance-based incentives (Boyne et al., 1999; Moynihan et al., 2014; Miller & Whitford, 2006; Weibel et al., 2009). Perhaps as a result, less than 40% of federal employees in the United States feel that “differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way” or that promotions “are based on merit” in their work units (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2020) and research has found that public employees report lower levels of distributive justice than private-sector employees (Kurland & Egan, 1999).

When employees see poor performance ignored, they may feel they are not rewarded in a just manner. That is, they may feel that the rewards they receive are disproportionate to the efforts they invest into their work. While they work hard and perform well, other employees put in less work and receive similar rewards. As a result, the rewards and recognition received seem less meaningful. Research shows that when feelings of reward inequity persist, employees are likely to experience lower job satisfaction (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2006; Skarlicki et al., 2015) even in public sector organizations (Cho & Sai, 2013; Choi, 2011; Rubin, 2009). Similarly, research has found that public employees who feel that their organization fails to deal with poor-performing coworkers also report higher levels of turnover intention and lower levels trust in their organization’s leaders (Rubin, 2009).

Drawing on this past research, we hypothesize:

• Hypothesis 1: perceived organizational leniency will be associated with lower assessment of recognition received.

• Hypothesis 2: perceived organizational leniency will be indirectly and negatively associated with job satisfaction through its association with lower assessment of recognition received.

5. HOW ORGANIZATIONAL LENIENCY MAY LOWER JOB SATISFACTION BY LOWERING EMPLOYEE-ORGANIZATION VALUE CONGRUENCE

A second way by which organizational leniency may lower the job satisfaction of better-performing employees is through its effect on employee perceptions of person-organization value congruence (Boxx et al., 1991; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Smith, 2016; Wright & Pandey, 2008). Person-organization value congruence (or person-organization fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) can be defined as the perceived level of agreement between one’s values and those of the organization (Edwards & Cable, 2009) and has been consistently found to be associated with increased employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment as well as lower turnover intentions (Verquer et al., 2003).

Research suggests that value congruence can affect employee job satisfaction in several key ways. Perhaps most commonly, value congruence has been found to increase job satisfaction by better satisfying employee psychological needs including their desire to “serve society” and “make the world a better place” (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Similarly, organizational values are reflected in the identities of the employees who work there and value incongruence can trigger feelings of cognitive dissonance and dissatisfaction (Ashforth et al., 2008; Dutton et al., 1994). Drawing heavily on these arguments, value congruence’s influence on job satisfaction has been both expected (Perry & Wise, 1990) and confirmed in government organizations (Kim, 2012; Liu et al., 2015; Wright & Pandey, 2008, 2011).

Research shows that managers’ words and actions are the most important source of information for employees to form impressions about their organizations (Meglino et al., 1989). When managers repeatedly fail to hold some employees accountable for their deviant behavior and poor performance, it may signal to the other employees that the organization is not seriously committed to achieving its mission, nor to the values of efficiency, performance, and public service. In this case, employees can develop a negative image of their organizations (Dutton et al., 1994; Rho et al., 2015), which harms their feelings of value congruence with the organization, also known as organizational identification (Ashforth et al., 2008; Dutton et al., 1994). This occurs because employees experience a reduced affective connection to an organization they perceive negatively (Dukerich et al., 2002; Rho et al., 2015). A negative perception of the organization reduces employees’ pride of membership, thereby lowering organizational identification (De Roeck et al., 2016).

Drawing on this past research, we hypothesize:

• Hypothesis 3: perceived organizational leniency will be associated with lower assessments of employee-organization value congruence.

• Hypothesis 4: perceived organizational leniency will have an indirect and negative effect on job satisfaction through its effect on employee-organization value congruence.

6. METHODS

6.1 Sample and procedures

We sought to recruit a diverse sample of employees working for public organizations at different levels of government in Brazil. To that end, we shared the link to the survey in online groups (forums) whose members are public employees. These groups are used by public employees mainly to discuss issues related to their jobs and careers. For instance, one of the groups where we shared the link is called “Servidores Públicos Federais”¹ (Federal Public Servants), which has about 16 thousand members from all regions of the country. One of the authors was a public employee at the time the data were collected and had access to these groups. The participants were also asked to share the research with their fellow public service colleagues. The data were collected in the first half of 2019.

In total, 256 public employees completed the survey. They were 48% female, with an average age of 43.11 (sd = 9.87), and 99% of them had at least a college degree. On average, they have worked for their current organizations for 12.58 years (sd = 8.89) and have 17.40 years (sd = 9.46) of work experience as public employees. They work for the federal (68%), local (24%), and state (8%) governments. Although we did not use statistical sampling, we believe some key characteristics of our sample are comparable to the characteristics of public employees in Brazil. Official census data show that 58% of Brazilian public employees are female, have an average age of 46 years, and, like our sample, the largest professional area is education (49% of all public employees)². On the first page of the questionnaire, the participants were informed about the study’s purpose, that their participation was voluntary and anonymous, and that the data would be analyzed only in aggregate. The participants provided their informed consent online before being directed to the survey.

6.2 Measures

Perceived Organizational Leniency. To measure perceived organizational leniency, we asked participants the following question: “According to your perception, how often does each of the following employee behaviors are ignored by your organization when they occur?” We provided participants with a list of seven behaviors (low productivity, poor quality of work, lack of initiative, lateness, missing deadlines, misuse of resources, and absenteeism) which they rated on a 5-points scale ranging from 1 (my organization never ignores) to 5 (my organization always ignore). These behaviors fall in the “production deviance” category of Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of deviant workplace behaviors. The seven items were averaged. This scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with the same three items used by Wright and Pandey (2008): “In general, I like working here,” “In general, I don’t like my job,” and “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” These items were rated using a 5-points scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The three items were averaged (Cronbach’s Alpha = .81).

Mediator variables. Employee-organization value congruence was measured with the three items used by Moynihan and Pandey (2008): “If the values of this organization were different, I would not be as attached to this organization,” “The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for, its values,” “What this organization stands for is important to me.” These items were rated using a 5-points scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The three items were averaged (Cronbach’s Alpha = .83). To measure the perceived recognition received we gave the following instruction to participants: “Think about rewards and recognition as an employee’s monetary and non-monetary gains and complete the sentence below: I believe the rewards and recognition I receive from my organization nowadays are:” 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (slightly low), 4 (neither high nor low), 5 (slightly high), 6 (high), 7 (very high).

Control variables. We controlled for demographic and professional characteristics like age, gender, educational level, and organizational tenure. Additionally, we created dummy variables for the three most common professional areas reported by participants (education, defense, and finance). We also created a dummy variable for participants of the remaining areas. The education area served as the baseline in the regression analysis. Finally, we controlled for public service motivation (PSM) since this is a key predictor of both value congruence and job satisfaction (e.g., Wright & Pandey, 2008). We measured PSM with a previously published 3-item scale (Bashir et al., 2022; Tavares et al., 2021): “Making a difference in society means more to me than my personal achievements,” “I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society,” and “I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others, even if it means that I will be ridiculed” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .66). According to Hair et al. (2006), Alpha values between .60 and .70 are acceptable for scales with few items.

7. RESULTS

First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model’s goodness-of-fit indexes. CFA is a statistical technique used to test whether the data fit a hypothesized measurement model, by assessing how well the observed variables represent the underlying latent constructs. A model composed of four correlated latent factors (organizational leniency, job satisfaction, value congruence, and PSM) revealed adequate goodness-of-fit indexes (Kline, 2015): χ2(98) = 227.86, p < 0.001, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .05, CFI = .93, and TLI = .91. A three-factor model (PSM and value congruence combined) showed a significantly worse fit (χ2(101) = 314.03, p < 0.001, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .07, CFI = .88, TLI = .85; Δ χ2(3) = 86.17, p < 0.001). A two-factor model (PSM, value congruence, and job satisfaction combined) also showed a significantly worse fit, compared to the three-factor model (χ2(103) = 477.10, p < 0.001, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .08, CFI = .77, TLI = .75; Δ χ2(2) = 163.07, p < 0.001). Finally, a model in which all items load in a single factor showed an extremely poor fit, which was significantly worse than the goodness-of-fit of the two-factor model (χ2(104) = 924.13, p < 0.001, RMSEA = .17, SRMR = .15, CFI = .53, and TLI = .46; Δ χ2(1) = 447.03, p < 0.001). These results support the internal consistency of each factor, as well as their discriminant validity.

Since we used a cross-sectional design, common method variance could have affected our results (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We tested for common method bias using two methods. Harman’s single factor test revealed that a single latent factor explains only 30% of the covariance of the scale items, which is below the 50% threshold. Additionally, we examined the existence of an unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) (Richardson et al., 2009). Following the procedures outlined by Richardson et al. (2009), we found that the inclusion of the ULMC did not improve the goodness-of-fit of our measurement model (Chi2 = 0.88, p > .05). Both tests indicate that common method bias did not affect our results.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables in the study.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

	Mean	sd	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Organizational leniency	2.42	0.90
2. Recognition received	3.42	1.50	-.21***
3. Value congruence	3.7	1.10	-.25***	.32***
4. Job satisfaction	4.05	1.00	-.25***	.27***	.43***
5. PSM	3.69	0.85	-.13*	.08	.26***	.25***
6. Tenure	12.58	8.89	-.02	-.03	.08	.12	.18**
7. Age	43.11	9.87	-.20**	-.04	.05	.21***	.09	.47***
8. Education level	3.03	0.89	.20**	-.04	-.02	-.02	.04	.06	.11
9. Gender	1.47	0.50	-.15*	-.09	.09	.14*	-.02	-.17**	.08	.10
10. Area: Finance	0.19	0.39	.09	.07	-.13*	-.08	-.19**	.08	.06	.22***	-.10
11. Area: Defense	0.27	0.44	.01	.09	.19**	-.07	.19**	.05	-.36***	-.20***	-.32***	-.30***
12. Area: Education	0.41	0.81	-.16**	-.13*	-.05	.06	-.02	-.08	.16**	-.07	.18**	-.25***	-.31***
13. Area: Other	0.17	0.37	.08	-.05	-.03	.08	.00	.09	.07	.05	.00	-.20***	-.25***	-.21***

• Notes: N = 256. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001. Education level: 0 = elementary school; 1 = high school; 2 = college; 3 = post-graduation; 4 = master’s degree; 5 = Ph.D. Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

We used OLS regression, which is a statistical method used to estimate the relationships between a dependent variable and one or more explanatory variables, to test the hypotheses. For the parallel mediation tests, we followed the procedures outlined by Hayes (2018), using bootstrapped standard errors (5,000 replications). To assess potential multicollinearity concerns, we calculated the variance inflation factors (VIF) for each of the regression equations and the maximum VIF across the models was only 1.98. Table 2 shows that perceived organizational leniency is negatively associated with perceived recognition received (b = -0.41, SE = 0.11, p < .001; Model 3), providing support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 2
Regression results: effects on perceived recognition received and value congruence

	Dependent Variables
	Perceived Recognition Received			Employee-Organization Value Congruence
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Organizational leniency			-0.41***			-0.22**
			(0.11)			(0.07)
PSM		0.18	0.13		0.29***	0.25***
		(0.12)	(0.11)		(0.07)	(0.07)
Organizational Tenure	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Age	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.00
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Educational level	-0.07	-0.09	0.01	0.01	-0.02	0.03
	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)
Gender	-0.13	-0.13	-0.27	0.25*	0.25*	0.18
	(0.20)	(0.19)	(0.21)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)
Area: Finance	0.48	0.55	0.56*	-0.18	-0.07	-0.06
	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.28)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)
Area: Defense	0.47	0.40	0.37	0.44*	0.34	0.32
	(0.30)	(0.30)	(0.28)	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.18)
Area: Other	0.04	0.05	0.13	-0.06	-0.03	0.00
	(0.31)	(0.31)	(0.29)	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.18)
Constant	3.49	2.98	4.44	2.89	2.08	2.87
Adjusted R2	.00	.01	.06	.04	.09	.13
ΔR2	-	.01	.05***	-	.05***	.04***

• Notes: N = 256. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001. Education level: 0 = elementary school; 1 = high school; 2 = college; 3 = post-graduation; 4 = master’s degree; 5 = Ph.D. Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that organizational leniency would be related to lower employee-organization value congruence. In line with that prediction, the effect of organizational leniency is negative and significant (b = -0.22, SE = 0.07, p < .01; Model 6). While previous public management studies have highlighted the importance PSM plays in enhancing value congruence, our results suggest that organizational leniency explains almost as much variation in value congruence as PSM does (ΔR ² = 0.05 and 0.04 respectively).

Table 3
Regression results: effects on job satisfaction

	Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Organizational leniency			-0.20**	-0.08
			(0.07)	(0.06)
Recognition received				0.11**
				(0.04)
Value congruence				0.34***
				(0.06)
PSM		0.29***	0.26***	0.16*
		(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)
Organizational Tenure	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Age	0.02*	0.02*	0.01	0.01
	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)
Educational level	-0.05	-0.08	-0.04	-0.04
	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.06)
Gender	0.26*	0.25*	0.22	0.16
	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.11)
Area: Finance	-0.14	-0.03	-0.02	-0.07
	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.16)
Area: Defense	-0.05	-0.05	-0.07	-0.22
	(0.19)	(0.19)	(0.18)	(0.17)
Area: Other	0.18	0.21	0.25	0.23
	(0.19)	(0.19)	(0.18)	(0.17)
Constant	2.88	2.08	2.82	1.34
Adjusted R2	.05	.10	.13	.27
ΔR2	-	.05***	.03**	.14***

• Notes: N = 256. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001. Education level: 0 = elementary school; 1 = high school; 2 = college; 3 = post-graduation; 4 = master’s degree; 5 = Ph.D. Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 3 shows that organizational leniency is also related to lower job satisfaction (b = -0.20, SE = 0.07, p < .01, Model 3). The indirect effect of organizational leniency on job satisfaction through perceived recognition received is negative and significant (b = -0.04, SE = 0.02, p < .05; 95% CI [-0.086, -0.008]), which provides support for Hypothesis 2. The indirect effect of organizational leniency through value congruence is also significant (b = -0.07, SE = 0.02, p < .01; 95% CI [-0.126, -0.019]), providing support for Hypothesis 4. Figure 1 summarizes these results. The non-significant effect of organizational leniency on job satisfaction after the inclusion the mediators in the model (Model 4, Table 3) suggests full mediation.

Figure 1
Summary of regression results

8. DISCUSSION

In this study, we examined if - and why - perceived organizational leniency can ultimately lower employee job satisfaction. We hypothesized that two psychological mechanisms that can help explain this effect are perceived recognition received (Adams, 1963; Skarlicki et al., 2015) and employee-organization value congruence (Boxx et al., 1991; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Providing support for our hypotheses, we found that public employees who perceive that their organizations frequently ignore unproductive employee behavior are generally less satisfied with their jobs and that this effect is driven by both a lower perception of recognition received and a lower level of value congruence with the organization.

Based on these findings, we believe that public organizations may be losing not only the contributions of unproductive employees but also the contributions of potentially high-performing employees due to their negative attitudinal responses to this managerial failure. This is consistent with past research that highlights that few “bad apples” on a team can spoil the whole barrel (Felps et al., 2006). Public organizations are facing great staffing challenges, especially related to their capacity to attract and retain good employees (Lavigna & Hays, 2004; Lewis & Cho, 2011). Given that a key predictor of employee intention/decision to leave the organization is job satisfaction (Grissom et al., 2016; Judge, 1993; Nyberg, 2010; Pitts et al., 2011), our results suggest organizational leniency can also harm public organizations’ ability to retain good workers in their ranks.

We believe our study contributes to the public administration literature in some important ways. First, public management research has done a lot to identify the importance of both employee-organization value congruence and perceived recognition received for employee job satisfaction (e.g., Cantarelli et al., 2016) but has done very little to talk about what can be done (or avoided) to influence them from a managerial perspective. Much of the existing public management research on employee perceptions of value congruence and rewards has focused on the importance of PSM (e.g., Bright, 2007; Kim, 2012; Wright & Pandey, 2008). While the role of employee PSM may be important, it is a characteristic of the employee and managerial implications are limited to hiring and retaining high PSM employees. Our study attempts to extend our understating by identifying managerial practices and characteristics of the work environment that can employee perceptions of value congruence and recognition.

Second, previous behavioral research on the effects of management’s failure to address poor performance has concentrated on psychological mechanisms like perceptions of justice and inequity (Treviño, 1992). By focusing on the public sector context and considering the values-based nature of public service work (Andersen et al., 2013), we extend this literature by showing that organizational leniency can also affect feelings of employee-organization value congruence. Our results may also help explain the lower level of job satisfaction among government employees (Rainey & Bozeman, 2000) and why, in some circumstances, it can coexist with high pay and excellent benefits (Leavitt, 1996).

We emphasize that our study, adopting a hypothetical-deductive approach, primarily aims to test the hypothesis that perceived organizational leniency among public servants may be associated with lower levels of job satisfaction. In other words, our primary goal is not to determine how often organizational leniency occurs or whether it lowers job satisfaction across different spheres and sectors of public administration. Instead, we aim to identify whether, when leniency does occur, it can be associated with lower job satisfaction, given the theoretical reasons supporting this correlation. Our results provide evidence that this correlation does indeed exist within the sample of public servants studied.

Based on the results discussed above, we believe this study has an important practical implication. Public managers must be more aware of the social effects of ignoring unproductive employee behavior and poor performance. We recognize, however, that dealing with poor performance is one of the most challenging supervisory tasks (Daley, 2008). Therefore, offering training to public managers on how to implement effective performance management programs in their organizations and how to deal with performance problems is an indispensable strategy to prepare them to perform this task successfully (Ayers, 2015; Daley, 2008; Franklin & Pagan, 2006).

Finally, it is important to highlight that resorting to punishment is not the only way an organization can deal with unproductive behavior and show employees it cares about performance. Although it can be used as a legitimate last resort, more often than not punishment fails to promote the intended behavioral changes (Treviño & Weaver, 2010). An organization can communicate its attention to performance in several ways: Through its leaders’ daily messages, its human resource management practices (like performance assessments, promotions, and training), or even by informally recognizing those who perform at higher levels. Moreover, some performance management practices (like goal setting and frequent performance feedback), results-based management, and a performance-oriented organizational culture can prevent employees from displaying unproductive behavior in the first place (Condrey, 2005).

For instance, building on the practices observed in the UK Civil Service, organizations can adopt a more structured performance management approach to address unproductive behavior. For instance, the UK’s performance management model emphasizes the importance of clear performance metrics linked to strategic departmental goals, continuous feedback, and the differentiation of performance levels (Woortmann, 2020). By implementing frequent one-on-one coaching sessions and incorporating both qualitative and quantitative assessments, such as the use of 360-degree feedback and the People Survey, the UK Civil Service has managed to foster greater engagement and accountability. Organizations can follow a similar path by establishing robust systems for ongoing performance dialogue, ensuring that both unproductive and high-performing behaviors are addressed in a timely and constructive manner. These measures not only signal attention to individual performance but also create a results-oriented culture that is preventive in nature.

9. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although the observed associations are in line with our theoretical predictions, we cannot claim they are causal. As in any cross-sectional survey study, our results could have been influenced by common method variance or reverse causality (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2003) even after performing analyses (confirmatory factor analyses and VIF scores) that help limit the likelihood these problems occurred. Future research can use experimental designs or longitudinal studies to better examine the causal effects of organizational leniency

Although we sought to recruit a diverse sample of public employees working for distinct public organizations, we recognize that the data collection process did not produce a representative sample. Moreover, this study included only public employees from Brazil. Since cultural factors may affect the incidence of unproductive employee behavior, how managers respond to them, and how employees perceive and react to such managerial responses, we believe it is important that future studies test our hypotheses in different countries.

Given that this is the first study to specifically analyze the potential sociopsychological impacts of organizational leniency in the public service, we believe that our evidence, while not fully generalizable, is valuable for initiating a discussion on the topic. Future research should build on this by investigating the conditions under which organizational leniency is more likely to emerge, exploring potential moderating factors that may influence its relationship with job satisfaction such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and sectoral differences. Additionally, studies with larger and more diverse samples across different levels of government and administrative sectors would help to further validate and expand upon our findings, providing a deeper understanding of how this phenomenon operates in various contexts.

We recognize that new work arrangements, particularly teleworking, are likely to shift the dynamics of the phenomenon addressed in this article. Specifically, we believe that in the telework model, there may be less perception of organizational leniency, as employees will likely have less visibility into their colleagues’ performance and how management addresses unproductive behaviors. In other words, from a social psychology perspective, organizational leniency may pose fewer issues for the organization under telework conditions. Future research could explore how the telework model alters the effects proposed in this article.

Finally, we believe that future research may add to our study by conducting a more detailed analysis of how specific actions targeted at addressing unproductive employee behavior may affect public employees’ perceptions, attitudes, and behavior differently. That is, it would be helpful to investigate which managerial strategies for dealing with unproductive employee behavior can be most successful in producing the highest level of positive attitudes and performance for all organizational members.

10. CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that when public employees perceive that their organizations frequently ignore unproductive behavior, their job satisfaction suffers. This negative effect seems to be explained by two main psychological mechanisms: lower perception of recognition received and lower employee-organization value congruence. This study extends our understanding of managerial practices that might influence these variables. Given that job satisfaction is an important predictor of work motivation, organizational commitment, turnover, and individual performance (e.g., Chordiya et al., 2017; Judge, 1993; Judge et al., 2001), our findings indicate that when organizations fail to address unproductive employee behavior in systematic ways, they may be losing not only the contributions of poor-performing employees but also the contributions of other employees who observe poor performers being ignored. This study highlights the importance of public organizations committing to effective performance management practices to maintain a high level of employee morale and productivity.

REFERENCES

• Abbad, G. D. S., Lima, G. B. D. C., & Veiga, M. R. M. D. (1996). Implantação de um sistema de avaliação de desempenho: Métodos e estratégias. Revista de Administração, 31(3), 38-52.
• Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
• Ander, S., & Swift, A. (2014, December 16). U.S. Federal Employees less engaged than the rest. Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/180206/federal-employees-less-engaged-rest.aspx
  » https://news.gallup.com/poll/180206/federal-employees-less-engaged-rest.aspx
• Andersen, L. B., Jørgensen, T. B., Kjeldsen, A. M., Pedersen, L. H., & Vrangbæk, K. (2013). Public values and public service motivation: conceptual and empirical relationships. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012440031
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012440031
• Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059
• Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and observer reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.67
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.67
• Ayers, R. S. (2015). Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in federal government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015575178
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015575178
• Borges, R. (2013). Are public officials really less satisfied than private sector workers? A comparative study in Brazil. Revista de Administração Pública, 47(6), 1477-1496. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122013000600007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122013000600007
• Ban, C. (1995). How do public managers manage: bureaucratic constraints, organizational culture, and potential for reform Jossey-Bass.
• Bashir, M., Wright, B. E., & Hassan, S. (2022). The interactive influence of public service motivation, perceived reward equity and prosocial impact on employee engagement: a panel study in Pakistan. Public Management Review, 25(7), 1213-1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2013069
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2013069
• Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609102000207
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609102000207
• Boyne, G., Poole, M., & Jenkins, G. (1999). Human resource management in the public and private sectors: An empirical comparison. Public Administration, 77(2), 407-420.
• Breaugh, J., Ritz, A., & Alfes, K. (2018). Work motivation and public service motivation: disentangling varieties of motivation and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 20(10), 1423-1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1400580
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1400580
• Brehm, J. O., & Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: bureaucratic response to a democratic public University of Michigan Press.
• Bright, L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(4), 361-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X07307149
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X07307149
• Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., Wade, K. J., & Ball, G. A. (2005). Organizational punishment from the manager’s perspective: an exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 363-382.
• Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
• Cantarelli, P., Belardinelli, P., & Belle, N. (2016). A meta-analysis of job satisfaction correlates in the public administration literature. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(2), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15578534
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15578534
• Cho, Y. J., & Sai, N. (2013). Does organizational justice matter in the federal workplace? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458126
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458126
• Choi, D. L. (2004). Public service motivation and ethical conduct. International Review of Public Administration, 8(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2004.10805032
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2004.10805032
• Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction: a cross‐national comparative study. Public Administration, 95(1), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306
• Coelho, F. A., Rodrigues, D. A., Fogaça, N., Teixeira, J. A., & Richter, L. D. D. (2017). Empirical relationships between support to informal learning, professional competences and human performance in a Brazilian public organisation. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 90-108.
• Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
  » https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
• Condrey, S. E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of human resources management in government John Wiley & Sons.
• Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace Oxford University Press.
• Daley, D. M. (2008). The burden of dealing with poor performers: Wear and tear on supervisory organizational engagement. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X07311253
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X07311253
• De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1141-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216
• Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507-533. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094849
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3094849
• Durán, F. J. S., & de Vilhena, R. M. P. (2024). Once reglas para el cambio: Gestión de personas en el estado como problema cultural en américa latina. Revista Chilena de la Administración del Estado, 11, 9-42. https://doi.org/10.57211/revista.v11i11.182
  » https://doi.org/10.57211/revista.v11i11.182
• Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
• Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654-677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
• Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9
• Franklin, A. L., & Pagan, J. F. (2006). Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X05277335
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X05277335
• Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace (Report). https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx
  » https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx
• Goodhew, G. W., Cammock, P. A., & Hamilton, R. T. (2008). The management of poor performance by front-line managers. Journal of Management Development, 27(9), 951-962. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810901291
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810901291
• Grissom, J. A., Viano, S. L., & Selin, J. L. (2016). Understanding employee turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12435
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12435
• Guffey, C. J., & Helms, M H. (2001). Effective employee discipline: a case of the Internal Revenue Service. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000110
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000110
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis(6a ed.). Pearson.
• Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003
• Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906
• Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 395-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.395
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.395
• Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
• Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
• Kearney, R. C., & Hays, S. W. (Eds.). (1983). Public personnel administration: problems and prospects Prentice-Hall.
• Kim, S. (2012). Does person‐organization fit matter in the public‐sector? Testing the mediating effect of person‐organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 830-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02572.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02572.x
• King, K. N., & Wilcox, D. E. (2003). Employee-proposed discipline: how well is it working?Public Personnel Management, 32(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600303200202
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600303200202
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling Guilford publications.
• Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
• Kurland, N. B., & Egan, T. D. (1999). Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcomes, and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 437-458. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024417
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024417
• Lavigna, R. J., & Hays, S. W. (2004). Recruitment and Selection of Public Workers: An International Compendium of Modern Trends and Practices. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600403300301
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600403300301
• Leavitt, W. M. (1996). High pay and low morale - Can high pay, excellent benefits, job security, and low job satisfaction coexist in a public agency? Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 333-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609602500306
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609602500306
• Lewis, G. B., & Cho, Y. J. (2011). The aging of the state government workforce: trends and implications. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009359308
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009359308
• Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Judge, T. A., Sparrowe, R. T., Kraimer, M. L., & Franz, T. M. (1999). Management of poor performance: A comparison of manager, group member, and group disciplinary decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 835-850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.835
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.835
• Liu, B., Tang, T. L.-P., & Kang, K. (2015). When does public service motivation fuel the job satisfaction fire? The joint moderation of person-organization fit and needs - supplies fit. Public Management Review, 17(6), 876-900. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.867068
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.867068
• Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1347). Rand McNally.
• Lotta, G. S. (2002). Avaliação de desempenho na área pública: perpectivas e propostas frente a dois casos práticos. RAE Eletrônica, 1(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482002000200012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482002000200012
• Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.424
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.424
• Miller, G. J., & Whitford, A. B. (2006). The principal’s moral hazard: Constraints on the use of incentives in hierarchy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul004
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul004
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 205-227.
• Moynihan, D. P., Sanjay K. Pandey, & Bradley E. Wright. (2014). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Empirical evidence of its effects. In Y. K Dwivedi, M. Shareef, S. K. Pandey, & V. Kumar(Eds.), Public administration reformation: market demand from public organizations (pp. 87-104). Routledge.
• Neiva, E. R. (2020). Gestão e avaliação de desempenho no setor público: aspectos críticos e discussão sobre práticas correntes (Cadernos da Reforma Administrativa, n. 6). Fórum Nacional Permanente de Carreiras Tipicas do Estado. https://fonacate.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Cadernos-Reforma-Administrativa-N.-6.pdf
  » https://fonacate.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Cadernos-Reforma-Administrativa-N.-6.pdf
• Niehoff, B. P., Paul, R. J., & Bunch, J. F. S. (1998). The social effects of punishment events: The influence of violator past performance record and severity of the punishment on observers’ justice perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6), 589-602. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1998110)19:6<589::AID-JOB862>3.0.CO;2-N
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1998110)19:6<589::AID-JOB862>3.0.CO;2-N
• Nyberg, A. (2010). Retaining your high performers: Moderators of the performance-job satisfaction-voluntary turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018869
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018869
• O’Reillys III, C. A., & Puffer, S. M. (1989). The impact of rewards and punishments in a social context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989.tb00476.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989.tb00476.x
• Odelius, C. C., & Santos, P. D. (2007). Avaliação de desempenho individual na administração pública federal: aspectos intervenientes no processo e nos resultados. Revista Economia e Gestão, 7(15), 10-30. https://periodicos.pucminas.br/index.php/economia-egestao/article/download/7/13
  » https://periodicos.pucminas.br/index.php/economia-egestao/article/download/7/13
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). OECD Reviews of Human Resource Management in Government: Brazil 2010 https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264082229-en
  » https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264082229-en
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2022). OECD public service leadership and capability review of Brazil https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en
  » https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en
• Perry, J. L. & Wise, L. R. (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.
• Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among US federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 751-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02414.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02414.x
• Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.002
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447-470. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024276
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024276
• Rho, E., Yun, T., & Lee, K. (2015). Does organizational image matter? Image, identification, and employee behaviors in public and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 421-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12338
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12338
• Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post HOC statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
• Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/256693
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/256693
• Rubin, E. V. (2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum035
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum035
• Selden, S. C. (2006). The impact of discipline on the use and rapidity of dismissal in state governments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(4), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X06293145
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X06293145
• Skarlicki, D. P., O’Reilly, J., & Kulik, C. T. (2015). The Third-Party Perspective of (In)justice. In R. Cropanzano, & M. L. Ambrose(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 235-255). Oxford University Press.
• Smith, J. (2016). The motivational effects of mission matching: A lab‐experimental test of a moderated mediation model. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 626-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12514
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12514
• Tavares, G. M., Lima, F. V., & Michener, G. (2021). To blow the whistle in Brazil: the impact of gender and public service motivation. Regulation & Governance, 18(1), 226-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12418
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12418
• Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: a justice perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 647-676. https://doi.org/10.2307/258803
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/258803
• Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical behavior: Observers’ cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, 18(4), 751-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800409
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800409
• Treviño, L. K., & Gary R. W. (2010). Advances in research on punishment organizations: Descriptive and normative perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: managing the psychology of morality(pp. 177-204). Routledge.
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2019, June 18). Remedying Unacceptable Employee Performance in the Federal Civil Service https://www.mspb.gov/studies/researchbriefs/Remedying_Unacceptable_Employee_Performance_in_the_Federal_Civil_Service_1627610.pdf
  » https://www.mspb.gov/studies/researchbriefs/Remedying_Unacceptable_Employee_Performance_in_the_Federal_Civil_Service_1627610.pdf
• U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2020). Governmentwide Management Report https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/2020/2020-governmentwide-management-report.pdf
  » https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/2020/2020-governmentwide-management-report.pdf
• van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1034-1046. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.5.1034
  » https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.5.1034
• Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00036-2
• Vilhena, R., & Martins, H. (2022). Percepções sobre gestão do desempenho no setor público. Revista do Serviço Público, 73(a), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v73.ia.6864
  » https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v73.ia.6864
• Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2009). Pay for performance in the public sector - Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387-412.
• Woortmann, M. (2020). A gestão do desempenho no serviço público britânico Instituto Publix.
• Wright, B. E., & Christensen, R. K. (2010). Public service motivation: a test of the job attraction-selection-attrition model. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967491003752012
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10967491003752012
• Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K., & Sanjay K. Pandey. (2013). Measuring public service motivation: Exploring the equivalence of existing global measures. International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.817242
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.817242
• Wright, B. E., Hassan, S., & Park, J. (2016). Does a public service ethic encourage ethical behaviour? Public service motivation, ethical leadership and the willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration, 94(3), 647-663. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12248
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12248
• Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person - Organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708320187
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708320187
• Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence: when does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710386303
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710386303
• York, J. W. (2018, July 26). Strengthening the federal workforce through increased accountability (Report, n. 3325). Heritage Foundation Backgrounder. https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/BG3325.pdf
  » https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/BG3325.pdf
• Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in Organizations Prentice Hall.

• 1
  Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/272813063646003/
• 2
  Official census data retrieved from https://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasestado/

• DATA AVAILABILITY
  The entire dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.

• PEER REVIEW REPORT
  the peer review report is available at thisURLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14018245

• 5
  [Original version]

Editor-in-chief:

• Editor-in-chief
  Alketa Peci (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0488-1744

Associate editor:

• Associate editor
  Mauricio Ivan Dussauge Laguna (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Ciudad de México / CDMX - Mexico) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-1879

Reviewers:

• Reviewers
  The two reviewers did not authorize the disclosure of their identities.

Data availability

The entire dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Jan 2025
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  18 Mar 2024
• Accepted
  24 Oct 2024