Purpose
Addressing low performers has been an important issue for government. The purpose of this paper is to examine what practices of performance management are effective in reducing the proportion of low performers in the US federal government.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conducted the binary logit regression analysis and multinomial regression analysis.
Findings
Analyzing the Merit Principle Survey 2016, the authors found that the dismissal of low performing employees and the formal performance improvement plan (PIP) is the most effective in reducing the proportion of low performers. To the contrary, the within-grade-increase did not have a significant influence on the proportion of low performers. Moreover, using the performance appraisal for the purpose of reassigning employees to the position that better match employees’ talent increased the number of low performers in work units.
Research limitations/implications
Research limitations are as follows. First, the performance measure for this study was the percentage of employees rated as unsuccessful. Second, the pseudo-R2 indicated that the proposed model explained only the small, albeit significant, portion of the total variance in employee performance. Lastly, this study used a cross-sectional research design that may impede the validity of inference of causalities.
Practical implications
According to a recent news article (Rein, 2018), Trump signed an executive order that limits the stable benefits associated with government employment such as, limiting pay associated with union work and negotiating more stringent union contracts. These measures are largely aimed at eliminating low performing employees rather than attempting to improve their performances through carefully designed training programs. Although removing low performers may be an option, the results indicate that providing assistance in order to develop employee knowledge and skills through the PIP have a comparable impact on reducing low performers.
Originality/value
These findings imply that the use of performance evaluation for developmental or sanctioning purpose is more effective than reassignment or incentive purpose.
