management unit 4 discussion

Read the

“Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation: Who Are They, Where Are They, and What do They Want?”

The goal of this study was to describe public employees with high levels of public service motivation. 

What were the findings? 

Why are you attracted to public service? 

Are your reasons rational, normative, or affective?

<<

p

>p

>

14

0

R

EVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL AD

M

INISTRATION / June

2

00

5

140

REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / June 2005

Brigh

t

/ PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WITH SERVICE MOTIVATION 139

REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / June 2005

Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation

Who Are They, Where Are They, and What do They Want?

LEONARD BRIGHT

University of South Alabama

Morethanadecadeago,PerryandWisepopularizedtheconceptofpublicservice motivation.Yettoday,stilllittleisknownaboutpublicemployeeswithhighlevels of public service motivation. This study sought to fill this gap in the literature by investigating the relationship that exists between public service motivation and thepersonalcharacteristics,managementlevel,andmonetarypreferencesofpublic employees. The findings reveal that public service motivation is significantly related to the gender, education level, management level, and monetary preferences of public employees. The implications of this study and areas of future research are discussed.

Keywords:

employee motivation; public service motivation; organizational behavior; public administration; work preferences; public employees

M

orethanadecadeago,PerryandWise(19

90

)proposedatheoryofpublic service motivation. This theory contends that some individuals are highly attracted to and motivated by public service work. This attractiveness is argued to be influenced by several motives, which can be organized into rational,normative,andaffectivecategories.Thistheoryisimportantbecause itprovidesoneofthefirsttheoreticalframeworksthatexplainwhysomeindividualsworkinthepublicsector.Althoughthistheoryhasreceivedsomecriticisms from scholars (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Gabris & Simo, 1995), few direct tests of this theory have been conducted. Little is known about public employeeswithhighlevelsofpublicservicemotivation,suchastheirpersonal characteristics, location in public organizations, and work preferences. There is a need for research that fills this gap in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship that exists between public employees’ level of public service motivation and their per-

Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol.

25

, No. 2 June 2005

13

8

–

15

4

DOI: 10.11

7

7

/0734371X04

27

2360

© 2005 Sage Publications

138

sonal characteristics, management level, and work preferences. The goal of this study is to provide scholars and practitioners with information that can be used to develop reward strategies in public organizations in a manner that takes into account the diversity and complexity of the public sector workforce. Toachievethisgoal, thisarticleisorganizedintofiveparts. First, the research on public service motivation is reviewed. Second, the research hypotheses that are tested in this study are introduced. Third, the research methodology that was used to test the hypotheses posed in this study is presented. Fourth, the findings of the study are discussed. Finally, a discussion of the implications of this study and areas of future research is presented.

PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION

Perry and Wise (1990) coined the term public service motivation to characterizetheattractionthatsomeindividualshavetopublicserviceworkand public organizations.

Public service motivation

, according to Perry and Wise, is an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded uniquely in public organizations and institutions. According to the authors, the reasons why individuals are attracted to public organizations and public service careers can be organized into three distinct categories: rational, normative, and affective. For example, from a rational basis, individuals can be attracted to public organization because of self-interest, such as advocating for public policies that promote a specific private interest. From a normative perspective, individuals can be attracted to public organizations for ethical reasons, such as maintaining social equity. From an affective point of view, individuals can be attracted to the public sector because of emotional attachments, such as a conviction about the importance of a program or service. Seeking to build on his initial work on public service motivation, Perry (1996) developed the only known measurement scale that empirically assesses the level of attraction that individuals have to public service work. Prior to the development of the public service motivation scale, scholars used various indirect methods of assessing the attraction public employees have to public service work, such as job satisfaction and work preferences (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000).

One important point about employee motivation in the public sector is that individuals work in the public sector for a wide variety of reasons. The reasons that lead one individual to choose public sector employment may not be the reasons that lead another individual to work in the public sector. On this note, one can speculate that the career choices of individuals are

Bright / PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WITH SERVICE MOTIVATION 139

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University – Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University – Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016

related to their salient internal needs and motives. For example, the desire for public service work could stimulate and satisfy a variety of different needs within individuals (Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990). Similarly, an attraction to public service may satisfy several motives, such as a desire for the public interest, social justice, civic duty, and selfsacrifice (Perry & Wise, 1990). Other needs that an attraction to public service could satisfy include the psychological needs of interpersonal interaction, stimulation, self-determination, and growth (Alderfer, 1972; DeCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Goldstein, 1

93

9/1995; Hackman & Oldham, 19

80

; Maslow, 1943; White, 1959).

Public Service Motivation and Its Supporters and Critics

Building on Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoretical framework and Perry’s (1996) measurement scale, a few scholars have explored public service motivation with an organizational framework in mind. For example, Perry (1997) used his newly developed measurement scale to investigate the antecedentsofpublicservicemotivation.Hefoundpublicservicemotivationto be positively related to education level and age and negatively related to income level. Naff and Crum (1998) found that federal employees with high levels of public service motivation had higher levels of job satisfaction, more positive performance appraisals, and fewer intentions to leave the government than did employees with lower levels of public service motivation. Alonso and Lewis (2001), however, found less conclusive results regarding the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees. They concluded that public service motivation is weakly associated with the performance of federal employees and may decrease their performance. More recently, Brewer et al. (2000) investigated whether the motives of public service motivation varied in different combinations from one individual to another. They found four distinct clusters of public employees with high levels of public service motivation, which they labeled Samaritans, communitarians, patriots, and humanitarians.

Although there is some interesting evidence that substantiates Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoretical work on public service motivation (Brewer et al., 2000; Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Naff & Crum, 1998; Perry, 1996), Gabris and Simo (1995) have challenged the utility of the concept and have argued that public service motivation is not evenly distributed in public organizations. According to these scholars, individuals who would most likely be infused with altruistic motives for public service work are those working at the highest levels in public organizations. These scholars further point out that most public employees, particularly those working at the lowerlevelsofthepublicorganization,arenotworkingbecauseofanattraction to public service work but because of the necessity to survive. Based on these arguments, Gabris and Simo have called for an abandonment of the whole concept of public service motivation. There are two kinds of responses to this call. First, some scholars have acknowledged that not all public employees should be expected to possess high levels of public service motivation or be highly attracted to public service work (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Perry & Wise, 1990). Second, some scholars point out that because public organizations provide opportunities to perform public service work, individuals with high levels of public service motivation would be highly attracted to public organizations (Perry & Porter, 19

82

).

QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

The interesting and lively debate that has centered on Perry and Wise’s (1990) theory of public service motivation highlights the need for future research to answer at least three major questions. The first question that can be raised from the discussions of public service motivation is whether significant relationships exist between public service motivation and the education level, age, gender, and minority status of public employees. Little empirical research is available that describes public employees who are highly motivated by public service work. A small number of studies have been identified that can help provide some answers to this question. For example, Blank (1985) found that non-Whites and women were more likelytochoosepublicsectorcareersthantheircounterparts.Morerecently, Perry (1997) found that individuals with higher levels of public service motivationtendedtobeolderandhavehigherlevelsofeducationthantheir counterparts.Inlightofthesestudies,Idevelopedthefollowinghypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Public employees with high levels of public service motivation willbeolder,female,andminoritiesandhavehigherlevelsofeducationthan will employees with lower levels of public service motivation.

A second question that has surfaced from the discussions of public service motivation is its distribution within public organizations. Do employees who work at the lower levels of public organizations have significantly different levels of public service motivation than those who work at the upper levels of public organizations? It is idealistic to believe that the public sector is completely composed of employees who are imbued with an ethic of public service. A more likely perspective is one that acknowledges that the public sector comprises a diverse set of individuals who are working in the public sector for many different reasons, some for intrinsic reasons and others for extrinsic tangible reasons. However, no research has been uncovered that empirically indicates where individuals with high levels of public service motivation are distributed within various levels of public organizations.GabrisandSimo(1995) hypothesizedthatthepublicemployeeswho will have high levels of public service motivation are those working at the highest levels within public organizations. One factor that can be used to test this hypothesis is the management level of public employees. If Gabris and Simo are correct, significant positive differences should be found between public employees’ level of public service motivation and their management level. This leads to a second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Managers will have significantly higher levels of public service motivation than will nonmanagers, while taking into consideration other competing explanations.

A third question that has surfaced in the discussions on public service motivation centers on the relationship between the work preferences of public employees and their level of public service motivation. Do public employeeswhohavehighlevelsofpublicservicemotivationdesiredifferent kinds of work opportunities than employees with lower levels of public service motivation do? Research has established that public employees highly value the intrinsic aspects of public sector work (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1997; Jurkiewicz, Massey, & Brown, 1998; Karl & Sutton, 1998; Khojasteh, 1993; Kilpatrick, Cummings, & Jennings, 1964; Newstrom, Rief, & Monczka, 19

76

; Vinzant, 1998; Wittmer, 1991). However, no research has established whether their level of public service motivation influences the reward preferencesofpublicemployees.PerryandWise(1990)indirectlyhypothesized that individuals with high levels of public service motivation would be less attracted to monetary incentives. Hence, if this is correct, then individuals with high levels of public service motivation should desire monetary rewards significantly less than employees with lower levels of public service motivation. Restated, this forms a third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A significant negative relationship will be found between the level of public service motivation of public employees and their preferences

for monetary incentives, while taking into consideration other competing explanations.

RESEARCH METHOD

To testthethreehypothesessummarizedabove, publicemployeesfrom a large county government in the state of Oregon were randomly selected as potential respondents for this study.1 The potential respondents were sent e-mail messages from the jurisdiction’s senior management team and the principal investigator that informed them of the study and encouraged their participation. They were then mailed a job survey through the jurisdiction’s interoffice mail system and given 2 weeks to complete the survey. Included in the job survey package were instructions for how to return the survey to the principal investigator. A total of 349 usable surveys were collected. The respondents of the survey represented 12 major departments in the jurisdiction and a diverse mix of public sector occupations (e.g., building inspectors, community health workers, sheriffs, caseworkers, secretaries, district attorneys, librarians, maintenance workers, detectives, juvenile counselors, and probation officers).

As shown in Table 1, the survey collected several types of information from the respondents: personal characteristics, management level, level of public service motivation, and monetary preferences. The personal characteristics of the respondents were collected using several single-item survey questions and a multi-item measurement scale. For example, the gender of the respondents was collected with the following survey question: What is your gender?

Female

respondents were coded as 1, and male respondents were coded as 0. The age of the respondents was collected with the following open-ended survey question: What year were you born? The year of birth was subsequently transformed into respondents’ approximate ages by subtracting the year of birth from the year of this study (2003). The minority status of the respondents was collected with the following multiplechoice question: How would you describe your racial or ethnic group?

White and Caucasian

respondents were classified as nonminorities, and all other respondents were classified as minorities. Minority respondents were coded as 0, and nonminority respondents werecoded as 1. Thelevel of education of the respondents was collected with the following multiple-choice surveyquestion:Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationyouhavecompleted? The response categories ranged from 1 = did not complete high school to 6 = master’s degree or higher.

Table 1. Description of Survey Sample (N = 349)

Did not complete high school

0

African American and Black

5

1.4

Frequency	Percentage
Management level Nonmanagers	271	77.7
Managers and supervisors	77	22.1
					Education level		0
High school diploma or GED	15	4.3
Some college	82	23.5
Associate degree or technical certificate	48	13.8
Bachelor’s degree	127	36.4
Master’s degree or higher	76	21.8
Gender Male	1 24	35.5
Female	222	63.6
Age 23 to 34	90	25.8
35 to 44	75	21.5
45 to 51	93	26.6
52 to 77	80	22.9
Years of public sector experience 0 to 5	81	23.2
6 to 11	92	26.4
12 to 20	86	24.6
21 to 36	87	24.9
					Minority status		5		1.4
Hispanic and Latino	25	7.2
White and Caucasian	299	85.7
Asian and Pacific	8	2.3
Native American and Eskimo or Aleut	2	0.6
None of the above
Salary level $0 to $19,999	18	5.2
$20,000 to $39,000	140	40.5
$40,000 to $59,000	130	37.6
$60,000 to $69,000	24	6.9
$70,000 to $99,000	27	7.8
$100,000 and above	7	2.0

Note: The sample description figures are approximations and represent those respondents who responded to the particular survey question.

Second, the management level of the respondents was collected with the following survey question: Are you a department director, manager, or supervisor? Managers were coded as 1, and nonmanagers were coded as 0. Third, the respondents’ level of public service motivation was collected using Perry’s (1996) 24-item public service motivation scale. This scale was designed to measure the attraction that individuals have to public service work. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each survey item using a 7-point Likert-type scale, which ranged from 1 = highly disagree to 7 = highly agree. Respondents received a summed score of their responses. High scores represented higher levels of public service motivation, and lower scores represented low levels of public service motivation. Finally, preferences for monetary incentives were collected using two questions that asked the respondents to rate the desirability of receiving a higher salary and remaining at their current salary level on a scale from 1 = highly undesirable to 7 = highly desirable. The respondents’ scores were reverse scored where appropriate and summed.

In addition to the data collection process, the condition of the data was analyzed. Given that some cases contained missing data, the pattern of missing data in the data set was examined and determined to be what Little and Rubin (1987) labeled missing at random. Subsequently, missing values onanygivenvariablewerereplacedwiththemeanofthatvariable. Thedata were also reviewed to ensure that the assumptions of multivariate normality wereupheld.2Basedontherecommendationsofseveralscholars(C.Cohen & P. Cohen, 1983; J. Cohen, 1988; Little & Rubin, 1987; S. G. West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), the data were found to be in good condition. In addition, the data were analyzed using two hierarchical regression models. The first regression model tested the relationship between public service motivation and the personal characteristics (e.g., education level, age, gender, and minority status) and management level of the respondents in two steps. The second regression model tested the relationship between monetary preferences and the personal characteristics, management level, and public service motivation of the respondents in three steps.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Personal Characteristics and Public Service Motivation

Hypothesis 1: Public employees with high levels of public service motivation willbeolder,female,andminoritiesandhavehigherlevelsofeducationthan will employees with lower levels of public service motivation.

The first question this study investigated centered on the relationship that exists between public service motivation and the personal characteristics of public employees. It was hypothesized that public employees with high levels of public service motivation will be older, female, minorities, and more highly educated than those employees with lower levels of public service motivation. This hypothesis received mixed support. As shown in Table 2, significant positive relationships were found between public service motivation and the education level and gender of the respondents. In other words, respondents with high levels of public service motivation were significantly more likely to have higher levels of education and were more likely to be female than those with lower levels of public service motivation. This finding can be viewed from two major perspectives. The relationship between education level and public service motivation can be explained from a professionalization perspective. It is not unreasonable to expect that education facilitates distinct expectations and certain levels of awareness within individuals. This higher level of awareness that education facilitates mayleadindividualstorecognizethevaluethatpublicservicehastosociety.

Additionally,therelationshipbetweengenderandpublicservicemotivation seems to support a gender socialization perspective. This perspective highlights the differing socialization experiences that male and female individuals undergo in our society. We are all influenced by the role expectations that society assigns to us based on our gender. Males are generally expected and allowed to be competitive, aggressive, and dominant, whereas females are expected to assume supportive caretaking roles. Although these role expectations are gradually changing and evolving, they are still present and strongly rooted in many domains. The results of this study suggest that differing societal expectations about gender may be related to the attraction thatindividualshavetopublicservicework.Publicserviceoccupations represent those work roles in governmental bodies that are largely associated with the act of providing direct services and benefits to society. One can argue that many public service occupations are more congruent with the assumptions of support and caretaking rather than the assumptions of dominance and aggression. If this is the case, one can speculate that male individuals who conform to masculine role expectations would be more attracted to those public service occupations that are associated with dominance and aggression than those occupations that are associated with the assumptions of support and caretaking. This would be consistent with the stereotype that females are more service oriented than their male counterparts.

Table 2. Summary Of Hierarchical Analysis for Education Level, Age, Gender, and Minority Status Predicting Public Service Motivation (N = 349)

Variable

R
2
R
2
t
p

Education level

Minority status

Education level

Age

Gender

.156

Minority status

	Step 1	.044
	.156	2.920	.004**
				Age	.012	0.220	.826
				Gender	.138	2.584	.010*
–.080	–1.501	.134
	Step 2	.026**
.125	2.338	.020*
–.030	–0.556	.578
2.946	.003**
–.094	–1.785	.075
		Management level	.171	3.071	.002**

*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

In light of the conclusions presented above, three clarifying and qualifying points are in order. First, the finding of this study does not indicate that maleindividualsarenotattractedto publicservicework. Itmerelyindicates that male individuals are generally less attracted to public service work than are female individuals. Second, this study does not question the fact that male individuals work in public service occupations. What can be questioned is whether males are working in public service occupations for different reasons than their female counterparts. Finally, the male participants in this study were undersampled, thus skewing the gender variable toward the female participants. This limitation leaves open the question of whether the conclusions of this study regarding gender are representative of the sample population. On this note, I argue that the participation of the study participants was not influenced by their level of public service motivation. If public service motivation were the distinguishing factor in the participation of the survey respondents, I believe that it is much more likely that few to no differences would have been found between the male and female public employees. Additionally, quality measures were taken to ensure that the skewness of the gender variable was within normal acceptable ranges (see Note 2).

Management Level and Public Service Motivation

Hypothesis 2: Managers will have significantly higher levels of public service motivation than will nonmanagers, while taking into consideration other competing explanations.

The second question this study investigated centered on the relationship between the management level of public employees and their level of public service motivation. It was hypothesized that managers will have significantly higher levels of public service motivation than nonmanagers, while controlling for various competing explanations. As shown in Table 2, the findings of this study support this hypothesis. A significant positive relationship was found between the management level of the respondents and their level of public service motivation, while controlling for their age, education level, gender, and minority status. Management level was also found to be a stronger predictor of public service motivation than the personal characteristics of the respondents. These findings provide some support to Gabris and Simo’s (1995) contention that employees with high levels of public service motivation are working at the top levels of public organizations.Itisimportanttonotethatthisfindingdoesnotprovethatemployees working in lower areas of public organizations are not attracted to public service work. Instead, the findings indicate that nonmanagers have significantly lower levels of public service motivation than those working in managerial positions.

This result can be explained from two different perspectives. From one perspective, managers may have high levels of public service motivation becausetheirtangibleneedsaresatisfiedbytheirgreaterlevelsofsalary.This perspective is based on Maslowian principles, which argue that the higher levelpsychicneedsofindividualscannotbesatisfiedunlesslowerlevelphysiological needs are first met (Maslow, 1943). Following this logic, it may be the case that public service motivation may be a psychic need within individuals that cannot be satisfied unless their lower level material needs are met. Another explanation for the differences that have been found between managersandnonmanagersisorganizationalsocialization.Managerscould have higher levels of public service motivation because they are socialized throughtheiryearsofpublicsectorexperiencetohighlyvaluepublicservice work (Schein, 1968; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The socialization mechanisms that are present in public organizations may weed out employees who are less attracted to public service work, while inculcating a value for public service work into those who remain for years.

Public Service Motivation and Monetary Reward Preferences

Hypothesis 3: A significant negative relationship will be found between the level of public service motivation of public employees and their preferences Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Analysis for Education Level, Age, Gender, Minority Status, Management Level, and Public Service Motivation

Predicting Monetary Preferences (N = 349)

Variable
R
2
R
2
t
p

Step 1

Education level

Age

Gender

Minority status

Step 2

Education level

Age

Gender

Minority status

Management level

Education level

Age

Gender

Minority status

Management level

.000**

.000**

.032
–.075	–1.399	.163
–.138	–2.580	.010**
–.010	–0.186	.853
–.065	–1.226	.221
.067**
–.026	–0.488	.626
–.070	–1.311	.191
–.040	–0.764	.445
–.042	–0.817	.415
–.278	–5.069			.000**
Step 3	.044**
.001	0.028	.978
–.077	–1.468	.143
–.006	–0.116	.908
–.063	–1.233	.218
–.241	–4.436
Public service motivation	–.217	–4.183

*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. for monetary incentives, while taking into consideration other competing explanations.

The third general question this study investigated centered on the relationship that exists between public service motivation and the work preferences of public employees. It was hypothesized that public service motivation would be negatively related to public employees’ preferences for monetaryincentives,whilecontrollingforvariouscompetingexplanations. The findings of this study strongly support this hypothesis. As shown in Table 3, a significant negative relationship was found between public service motivation and the respondents’ preferences for monetary rewards, while controlling for the effects of education level, age, gender, minority status, and management level of the respondents. The greater the level of public service motivation exhibited by the respondents, the significantly less they desired monetary rewards. This finding supports Perry and Wise’s (1990) assumptions regarding the reward preferences of employees with high levels of public service motivation. Also, this finding seems to support the suggestion that organizations that attract (or create) individuals with high levels of public service motivation would have to rely less on tangible monetary incentives as a means of motivating these employees (Perry & Wise, 1990). However, this support is not without its qualifications. For example, although public service motivation is significantly related to the monetary preferences of public employees, it is not the strongest predictor in comparison to management level. As shown in Table 3, management level has a greater effect size on and accounts for more variance in monetary preferences than public service motivation.

CONCLUSION

The goal of this study was to describe public employees with high levels of public service motivation in terms of their personal characteristics, management level, and monetary preferences. The results revealed that employees with high levels of public service motivation were significantly more likely to be female, to be managers, and to have greater levels of education than were public employees with lower levels of public service motivation. In addition, in support of Perry and Wise’s (1990) hypothesis, this study revealed that public employees with high levels of public service motivation significantly desired monetary incentives significantly less than those with lower levels of public service motivation. Although these findings support Gabris and Simo’s (1995) hypothesis regarding the distribution of public service motivation in public organizations, the authors’ call to abandon the theory of public service motivation is premature. At the very least, this study confirms that Perry and Wise’s theory of public service motivation deserves more investigation.

To make the notion of public service motivation meaningful, we need moreinformation. This study has demonstrated thatpublicservicemotivation is not a whole cloth but varies by gender, age, and level of managerial responsibility and is related to monetary preferences. Yet there are two major limitations of this study. First, the male population of this study was undersampled, which in turn can lead to arguments that the participants of thisstudyarenotrepresentativeofthesamplepopulation.Althoughthereis little evidence to substantiate this claim, more research is needed to establish the degree to which gender has a relationship with the desire that public employees have for public service work. A second limitation of this study is the lack of strong evidence of causality. In other words, this study does not prove that public service motivation causes the career choices of individuals or their monetary preferences. As previously noted, one can speculate that public service motivation could be influenced by the career selections of individuals as well as their salary level. Future research should focus on creating research designs that shed more light on the causal influences of public service motivation.

In addition, there are distinct areas of future research. For example, research is needed that examines the degree to which public service motivationisauniquelypublicsectorphenomenon.Onecouldconsiderthatpublic service motivation may not be limited to public employees but is also evenly distributed among highly motivated employees in private and nonprofit organizations. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore whether public service motivation is evenly distributed among different types of public organizations as well as among subunits within organizations. For example, there is no research that determines the extent to which public service motivation varies from one working unit to another as a result of unique job characteristics. Based on Brewer et al.’s (2000) discovery of unique clusters of public service motives and Vinzant’s (1998) work with social service employees, there is reason to believe that public service motivation may vary as a result of the characteristics of a given organizational unit.

More research on public service motivation will help scholars and practitioners better understand, describe, and locate individuals who may have high levels of public service motivation in public organizations. It is these employees whom public organizations have done the least to motivate in recent years, even though the public sector is naturally equipped with intrinsic opportunities that employees with high levels of public service motivation find desirable. Far too often, public organizations have failed to cultivate the intrinsic opportunities of the public sector in favor of heavy reliance on monetary incentives and other tangible rewards, such as pay for performance, merit systems, and gain sharing as a means of motivating public employees (Duke, 1989; Eisenberg & Ingraham, 1993; E. K. Kellough & Selden, 1997; J. E. Kellough & Lu, 1993; J. West, 2002). These broad-brush strategies are based on a limited view of the values and desires of public employees. Furthermore, they run the risk of motivating one part of the public sector while demotivating another part. Effective strategies of motivating public employees must take into account the diversity and complexity of the public sector workforce and offer opportunities that motivate those who are interested in tangible rewards but particularly those who are interested in opportunities that public service work and public organizations naturally provide.

NOTES

1.Alistofapproximately 1,600employeeswasprovidedto theauthor fromthejurisdiction, from which 980 employees were randomly selected as potential participants in this study. Of the surveys distributed, 10 surveys were returned because employees no longer worked for the jurisdiction, which produced a response rate of approximately 36%. In 2003, the following are the approximate demographic characteristics of the jurisdiction in termsofgenderandrace:46%female,53%male,84%White,2%Black,9%Hispanic,3% Asian, and .05% Native American.

2. Multivariate normality refers to the degree to which the data deviate from a normal bell-curve distribution. Violation of this assumption can decrease the standard errors, whichsubsequentlydecreasesthechancethatsignificancewillbefoundintheanalysis.One method of determining the multivariate normality of the data is to review the skewness and kurtosis ranges of the data set. Skewness ranges represent the tilt of the data, whereas the kurtosis ranges represent the peakness of the data. S. G. West et al. (1995) suggested that skewness ranges should be less than two and kurtosis ranges less than seven. All of the study variables used in this study fell between these suggested ranges, with the exception of the kurtosis of the race variable.

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.

Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. The American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363380.

Blank, R. (1985). An analysis of workers’ choice between employment in the public and private sectors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 11-19.

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidenceofthepublicserviceethic.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,8, 413-439.

Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, L. F. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 254-264.

Cohen, C., & Cohen, P. (1983). Appliedmultipleregression/correlationanalysisforthebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499-518.

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.

Deci,E.L.,& Ryan,R.M.(2002).Handbookofself-determinationresearch.New York:University of Rochester Press.

Duke, L. (1989). Greenville, South Carolina and Alexandria, Virginia: Problems and success using private sector techniques to motivate personnel in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 18, 440-456.

Eisenberg, E. F., & Ingraham, P. W. (1993). Analyzing the comparative pay for performance experience: Are there common lessons? Public Productivity and Management Review, 17, 117-128.

Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24, 33-51.

Goldstein, K. (1995). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man. New York: Zone Books.

Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1939)

Houston, D. J. (2000). Public service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 713-727.

Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37.

Jurkiewicz, C., & Massey, T. K. (1997). What motivates municipal employees: A comparison study of supervisory vs. non-supervisory personnel. Public Personnel Management, 26, 367-377.

Jurkiewicz, C., Massey, T. K., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Motivation in public and private organizations. Public Productivity and Management, 21, 230-251.

Karl,K.A.,&Sutton,C.L.(1998).Jobvaluesintoday’sworkforce:Acomparisonofpublic sector employees. Public Personnel Management, 27, 515-527.

Kellough, E. K., & Selden, S. L. (1997). Pay for performance systems in state government: Perceptions of state agency personnel managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, 5-21.

Kellough, J. E., & Lu, H. (1993). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector: Persistence of problematic procedure. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13, 45-64.

Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private and public sector managers. Public Personnel Management, 22, 391-402.

Kilpatrick, F. D., Cummings, M. C., & Jennings, M. K. (1964). The image of the federal service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Little, R. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1998). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.

Newstrom, J. W., Rief, J. W., & Monczka, R. M. (1976). Motivating the public employee: Fact vs. fiction. Public Personnel Management, 5, 67-72.

Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 5-22.

Perry, J. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 181-197.

Perry,J.,&Porter,L.W.(1982).Factorsaffectingthecontextformotivationinpublicorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 7, 89-98.

Perry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational basis of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-6.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Vinzant, J. C. (1998). Where values collide: Motivation and role conflict in child and adult protective services. American Review of Public Administration, 28, 347-366.

West, J. (Ed.). (2002). Civil service reform in Georgia [Symposium issue]. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(2).

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problem and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 369-383.

LEONARDBRIGHT

is an assistant professor in the department of political science and criminaljusticeat theUniversityofSouthAlabama.Hisresearchinterest isinemployeemotivationin the public sector.

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University – Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University – Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University – Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016