UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MODENA E REGGIO EMILIA
PhD in LAVORO, SVILUPPO E INNOVAZIONE
31st Cycle
Public Service Motivation: a new instrument for the public sector?
Candidate FRANCESCA AMENDOLA Tutor: Prof. TINDARA ADDABBO
Coordinator of the Doctoral Course Prof.: TINDARA ADDABBO
2 La Public Service Motivation: un nuovo strumento per il settore pubblico?
Saggio 1
La Public Service Motivation: lezioni dalla letteratura
La Public Service Motivation (PSM) viene inizialmente definita come “an individual predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions or organizations” (Perry
& Wise, 1990). A partire dagli anni’90 la ricerca relativa alla PSM invade il campo della pubblica amministrazione, diventando una pietra miliare degli studi dedicati ai public servants. Nonostante il numero elevato di rassegne della letteratura, ad oggi manca una catalogazione completa del vasto numero di articoli dedicati al costrutto. La letteratura sarà riorganizzata utilizzando tre criteri: 1) la relazione con altre variabili, 2) il tipo di campione utilizzato; 3) la collocazione geografica degli studi. Nello specifico, questi tre criteri saranno parzialmente "incrociati" al fine di individuare alcune best practice nella ricerca dedicata alla PSM.
Saggio 2
La Public Service Motivation come costrutto "misto". Definizione e misurazione: un focus sui paesi europei
In letteratura la PSM è stata analizzata partendo dal presupposto che i public servants siano spinti da una motivazione cosiddetta “others-oriented”, piuttosto che “self-oriented”, sottolineando, dunque, principalmente la dimensione “altruistica” del concetto. Tuttavia alcuni autori hanno sottolineato la necessità di ridefinire il concetto di PSM (Ritz, 2011; Coursey e Pandey, 2007) al fine di dare maggiore attenzione al comportamento “self-oriented” degli individui, assumendo che i comportamenti umani siano sempre basati su motivazioni miste. Utilizzando un modello di equazioni strutturali, si identificano alcuni indicatori (interesse per il benessere altrui, importanza per aiutare le persone, importanza data alla ricchezza ecc.) che catturino sia gli “others-oriented motives” che i “self-oriented”, dimostrando che entrambe le dimensioni sono alla base della PSM che può dunque essere definita come un costrutto “misto”.
Saggio 3
Gli antecedenti della Public Service Motivation: un test sui paesi europei
La teoria della pubblica amministrazione è stata per lungo tempo interessata a comprendere il
"carattere distintivo dei motivi associati alle istituzioni pubbliche" (Perry, 1997), dunque l'identificazione degli antecedenti della PSM ha riscosso grande interesse nel campo. Nello specifico, la maggior parte degli studi dedicati all'analisi del PSM include le caratteristiche socio-
demografiche come variabili di controllo (Alonso e Lewis, 2001; Brewer, 2008; Gabris e Simo, 1995; Houston, 2000), mentre solo alcuni autori utilizzano le caratteristiche demografiche come antecedenti del costrutto (Bright, 2007; Camilleri, 2007; DeHart - Davis et al., 2006). Inoltre, la maggior parte degli studi si concentra sullo scenario statunitense mentre quello europeo è ancora inesplorato. Lo scopo di questo lavoro è testare gli antecedenti maggiormente utilizzati in letteratura nello scenario europeo. Utilizzando un modello MIMIC (Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes) è possibile stimare la PSM come un costrutto latente e, allo stesso tempo, identificarne le variabili esogene (antecedenti) che la determinano.
4
Public Service Motivation: a new instrument for the public sector?
Essay 1
The Public Service Motivation: lessons from the literature
Public Service Motivation (PSM) research began in the 1990s mainly within the field of public administration, but in the last two decades it became much more multidisciplinary and its trajectory increased. Since then many definitions and measurement scales were created, making progressively the PSM a cornerstone of the public administration research. Even if there are several literature reviews about PSM, is still missing a cataloguing that underlines the location of the studies and the samples used. Therefore the literature is going to be reorganized using three criteria: 1) the relationship with other variables, 2) the type of sample used; 3) the geographical location of the studies. Specifically, those three criteria are going to be partially "crossed" in order to individuate some best practices in the PSM research. Finally, further lines of research are shown.
Essay 2
Public Service Motivation as a “mixed” construct. Definition and Measurement: an application to European Countries
In the literature the PSM construct has been mainly analyzed focusing on the others-oriented motives of the individuals rather than on self-serving ones, so the construct has been analyzed from a specific point of view. Nevertheless, some authors underlined the need of redefining the PSM dimensions (Ritz, 2011; Coursey & Pandey, 2007), in order to give more attention to the self- oriented behaviour of individuals, assuming that individuals’ behaviours are always based on mixed motives. The objective of the research is to re-think the PSM as a “mixed” construct, restoring its self-oriented dimension. We use the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for the analysis of the construct that allows us to identify some indicators (interest in other’s wellbeing, importance to help people, importance given to richness etc.) that capture both the others-oriented and the self-oriented behaviours of individuals. The main objective of this work is to demonstrate that the two dimensions are both effective on the individuals’ PSM, so that it can easily be defined as a “mixed”
construct based on mixed motives.
Essay 3
Public Service Motivation antecedents: testing the European countries
The public administration theory has been for a long time interested in understanding the
“distinctive character of motives associated with public institutions” (Perry, 1997), so the
identification of the PSM and work motivation antecedents, in general, is considered a central issue in the public administration sector. Specifically most of the studies dedicated to the analysis of the PSM normally include socio-demographic characteristics as control variables (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Brewer, 2008; Gabris & Simo, 1995; Houston, 2000), while only a few studies treat demographic characteristics as antecedents of the construct (Bright, 2007; Camilleri, 2007; DeHart – Davis et al., 2006). Moreover, most of the studies focus on the US scenario while the European one is less explored. The aim of this work is to test the most important PSM antecedents within the European scenario, using a MIMIC model (Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes) that allows us the estimation of the PSM as a latent construct and, at the same time, the identification of exogenous cause variables (antecedents) that determine PSM expressed as a latent variable.
6 Essay 1
The Public Service Motivation: lessons from the literature
Keywords: Public Service Motivation; Organizational behaviour; Motivation; Public sector.
Abstract: Public Service Motivation (PSM) has been defined as a “general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or humankind” (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Public Service Motivation research began in the 1990s mainly within the field of public administration, but, in the last two decades, it became much more multidisciplinary and its trajectory increased. Even if there are several literature reviews about the construct, is still missing a cataloguing that takes into account some specific factors, such as the location of the studies and the type of samples used. Therefore, the objective of this work is to reorganize the literature using three criteria: 1) the relation of PSM with other variables, 2) the type of sample used by the scholars; 3) the geographical location of the studies. Those three criteria are going to be partially "crossed" in order to individuate some best practices in the PSM research. Finally, further lines of research are shown.
1- Introduction
Public Service Motivation (PSM) research began in the 1990s mainly within the field of public administration, but in the last two decades it became much more multidisciplinary and international.
Since its initial formulation in 1990 many definitions and measurement scales were created, making progressively PSM a cornerstone of the public administration research.
The PSM construct was firstly created in the attempt to solve the US public administration crisis of the 1990s, specifically the difficulties about the rewards based on the performance of US public servants (Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione – SDA Bocconi School of management, 2010). In spite of the fact that the research was firstly developed looking at the US public administration, it reached Europe quite quickly. In this case, the scholars had to face a different framework and different practices in the public sector and to understand how to use the PSM construct in different kinds of public organizations. Apparently one of the most common problems about the public sector in Europe is the lack of appropriate motivational leverages for the public servants. In some countries, for instance, in Italy, there is still a strong focus on some organizational practices, like monetary incentives, while some others, like motivational leverages, are still overlooked.
One of the strengths of the PSM construct is its dynamic nature that allows scholars to use it as an instrument to explain and analyze different topics. In fact, there is a large amount of essays that deals with the relationship between PSM and other organizational variables, refining, even more, the full spectrum of the construct. Moreover, PSM could also become an important keystone for the Human Resources Management practices, especially in the public sector. That is why Public Service Motivation could be a great opportunity to reorganize and recalibrate the approach to the public servants' job policies (Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione – SDA Bocconi School of management, 2010). On the other hand, PSM still has quite a low impact on administrative practices, so there is the need to understand if it could gain more importance and if it could be further developed (Bozeman & Su, 2015).
The large amount of works published about PSM, especially in the last decade, shows the great interest in the construct within different research areas and countries. Even if there are several literature reviews about PSM (Brewer 2008; Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008;
Perry et.al, 2010; Wright & Grant, 2010; Bellé & Cantarelli, 2012; Perry, 2012, 2014; Perry &
Vandenabeele, 2015; Ritz et al., 2016), is still missing a cataloguing that underlines two important factors: the location of the studies and the samples used.
In order to reorganize the PSM literature shedding light on those aspects, we use three criteria: 1) the relationship of the construct with other variables, 2) the type of sample used; 3) the geographical location of the studies.
8 The first criterion has the objective to investigate the relationship between PSM and other variables.
In particular, we aim to classify its role as a variable that explains some of the most important topics in the organizational sciences. The second one focuses mainly on the type of occupation and on the job sector (public, private and no-profit) of the individuals composing the sample, in order to understand where the research lead in the last years and which job categories have been more investigated. The objective is to identify new paths for the PSM research. The last criterion has the objective to individuate the countries where PSM has been more investigated and to possibly extend the range of the studies. Specifically, those three criteria are going to be partially "crossed" in order to individuate some best practices in the PSM research. Finally, further lines of research are shown.
2- Methodological approach
The PSM construct was introduced in the public administration research in the 1990s, and progressively invaded different fields of research like organizational behaviour, economics, sociology. The PSM research developed constantly in the first part of the 1990s, mainly focusing on the definition and the validation of the construct. The great number of articles were produced in the last decade when, as shown in Figure 1, there has been an exponential increase in the number of publications dedicated to PSM
Figure 1: Number of publications on Public Service Motivation per year
Source: Ritz, Brewer and Neumann (2016)
One of the reasons of the huge development of the PSM research is that the construct started to be
used to explain other organizational variables, expanding the research field. In fact, PSM has been modeled in different ways and used as a "side concept" to explain other variables (Ritz et al., 2016), such as job satisfaction, performance, and leadership. Despite some systematic research overviews over the years (Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Perry et al., 2010; Wright &
Grant, 2010; Perry & Vandenabeele 2015, Van der Wal, 2015; Ritz et al., 2016) is still missing a review that takes into account this new utilization of PSM and its “side role”. Moreover, in the last two decades, the PSM research became much more international and it reached Europe and Asia, moving from the US to other countries and enhancing its validity. Those characteristics of the PSM research have been taken into account in the choice of the type of classification criteria.
Following the methodological approach used by Ritz, Brewer and Neumann (2016), we selected and collected the literature from the journals that dealt the most with PSM. Specifically we focused on the journals with more than 10 articles on PSM: Public Administration Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Review of Public Personnel Administration, International Public Management Journal, American Review of Public Administration, Public Administration, and Public Personnel Management.
The literature will be organized using three criteria: 1) the relationship between PSM and other variables; 2) the type of sample chosen by the authors, 3) the geographical location of the studies.
The objective of the first criterion is to classify the role of PSM as an explanatory variable that for some of the most important topics in the organizational literature in order to understand which direction should be taken in the future and if it could be a useful instrument for the organizational studies.
The second criterion focuses mainly on the type of occupation and on the job sector of the individuals composing the samples (public, private and non-profit) in order to understand where the research lead in the last years, which job categories have been more analyzed and why. The objective is to identify new suitable paths or sectors in which PSM could be used.
The geographical location of the PSM research is an important criterion to identify the approaches that have been chosen in different administrative and research contests in order to individuate some best practices on the international scenario. Analyzing the literature using a geographical criterion also allows to identify both the future backgrounds for the PSM research and the potential new scenarios that could be taken into account. In fact, from different frameworks can emerge different problems linked to the PSM construct and to the public sector in general.
Specifically the criteria listed below are going to be "crossed" in order to detect some best practices in the PSM research. In the final part of the article, new lines of research will be drawn.
10 3- The PSM research evolution
3.1- Origins and evolution of the construct
The origins of Public Service Motivation date back to 1982. Hal G. Rainey studied the reward preferences of middle managers from four organizations, both in the private and public sector. The main objective of the study was to find out if there were any differences between private and public servants and the results showed that the middle managers in the public sector were much more interested in public service and in helping others than in monetary rewards. Even if the PSM construct was not already formally defined, Rainey was the first author who proposed the idea of a type of motivation almost totally imputable to the public sector. Basically, he put forward the idea that the motivational levers in the public and the private sector might be different, mainly because of the greater interest of public servants in guaranteeing others' wellness.
The starting point was that public service indicates much more than the type of job, it also indicates a sort of intrinsic individual inclination. As Elmer Staas, Comptroller General of the United States declared in 1966, the motivation within the public sector could not simply be defined as the motivation of public servants. More precisely the public service could be defined as a “concept, an attitude, a sense of duty” and even a sense of public morality. This idea and the changes that the public sector was facing in the US brought to a new line of research very interested in the motivation of public servants and in the differences between public and private employees’
motivation.
In 1990 Perry and Wise defined the Public Service Motivation as a new construct; specifically as
“an individual predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institution or organizations". In this new approach, motives are seen as psychological needs that individuals feel some compulsion to eliminate (Perry & Wise, 1990).
Perry and Wise main objective was to understand if it was possible to identify specific motives that could primarily or exclusively be associated with public service. The original formulation of the construct is based on three dimensions: affective, norm-based and rational. The first dimension is linked to altruism and based on a strong interest in helping others and guarantee their wellness. The norm-based dimension could be defined in-between the other two. It is basically a "desire to serve the public interest" which is said to be linked to altruism even if is based on a personal opinion about the public sphere. The last dimension is based on an egoistic attitude and is linked to the individual necessity to participate in the definition of public policies. In fact “participation in the process of policy formulation can be exciting, dramatic, and reinforcing of an individual's image of self importance” (Perry & Wise, 1990). So the rational dimension is based on the need of participating in the public policies formulation with the purpose of reinforcing an individual’s image of self importance. Therefore the attachment to the public service could be due to a necessity
of self satisfaction.
In the authors' initial formulation of the construct, PSM is based both on the altruistic and on the egoistic dimension, so it is characterized by “mixed” motives (Ritz et al., 2016). Despite this double nature, the PSM research progressively focused only on the altruistic dimension (Table 1) overlooking the egoistic one and losing the "mixed" nature of the construct (see Essay 2).
Table 1: The evolution of PSM definition
Definition Author Year Journal
“an individual predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institution or organizations”.
Perry
Wise 1990 Public Administration Review
“motivational force that induces individuals to perform meaningful public service (i.e. public,
community, and social service)”
Brewer
Selden 1998 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
“general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or humankind”
Rainey Steinbauer
1999
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
"the beliefs, values, and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate"
Vandenabeele 2007 Public Management Review
During the last decade, Public Service Motivation has been based not only on a sense of altruism (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999) but also on patriotism (Vandenabeele, 2007). In particular, it has been defined as “strong motives to perform meaningful, public, community and social service” (Brewer
& Selden, 1998). In this case, the authors try to link PSM to prosocial behaviour, with the aim of creating a solid base for the development of the construct. From their perspective, PSM has not been uniformly developed because of the dual meaning of the term public service that could indicate both “the act of doing something valuable or worthwhile for society, and it refers to the public-sector labour force” (Brewer & Selden, 1998). The authors support their thesis proving that the civil servants who denounce immoral behaviours in the public administration (whistleblowers), act according to the PSM construct defending the common interest. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) define PSM as “general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or humankind”, supporting again the altruistic dimension of the construct. A similar approach is used by Vandenabeele (2007) who defines PSM as “the beliefs, values, and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger
12 political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate". In this case, his objective is to create a definition that should “not only cover PSM in the narrow sense but also other types of value-laden behavioral determinants such as ethics and roles" (Vandenabeele, 2007).
The PSM definition has been re-arranged over the years, probably because of its double nature. In addition, there is another factor that created difficulties in its definition and it is already put forward in Perry and Wise work. In fact, they defined PSM as an individual predisposition that grounded primarily or uniquely but not only in the public sector. So, basically they underlined that PSM is not only linked to the public sector, is not simply the motivation of public servants, but is an “intrinsic type of motivation based on the need of guarantee the wellness of society generally speaking that makes PSM a type of motivation that is grounded in all job sectors”. In fact, even if it has been studied mainly in the public sector, it rapidly invaded the private sector and the non-profit (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000, 2006; Wright & Christensen, 2010).
At the beginning of the research, the authors mainly focused on validating the PSM construct and to understand if the new construction could contribute to the studies about motivational leverage in the public sector. Actually, at the first stage, the construct was defined "more empty than full" (Gabris
& Simo, 1995), stating that, even if it surely exists a motivation in the public service, it was difficult to isolate.
The multifaceted nature of PSM made it difficult to reach a unique definition and to locate it into some specific limits. In the last decade, PSM has been mainly linked to an altruistic approach to life in general, a specific feeling and need of help others and a tendency to see the public sector as a sort of instrument to satisfy the common good. This approach is odd reductive. Public Service Motivation is much more than an interest in others’ wellbeing; it is linked to the propensity for an overall political and social interest generally grounded in government jobs.
Briefly, the PSM literature in the last years overlooked two important aspects of the construct: it does not concern exclusively the public sector and it is not exclusively linked to altruism.
Public Service Motivation can be defined as an individual inclination and need to give something back to other people in general so it can concern different professions. Moreover, since it is defined as a need, it is not only focused on others’ wellness but also on “self-wellness”. Those two dimensions have not been really taken into account in the last decade, especially because scholars started to focus on the relationship between PSM and other variables instead of further exploring its definition. In our opinion in the PSM research, there is still the need to refine and improve the PSM construct in order to embrace its “dual” nature (see Essay 2).
3.2- The evolution in the analysis of PSM
Besides the differences in the PSM definitions, in the literature, there have been used different
instruments to test and validate the construct. The large amount of articles produced in the last years use different types of analysis, even if there is a focus on some specific statistical techniques.
Obviously, the choice of the type of analysis is strongly linked to the objective of the research and obviously it has to be taken into account the chronological production of the articles.
PSM measurement and analysis in the first ten years of the research has been mainly based on Perry’s questionnaire elaborated in 1996. He associated six dimensions with the construct and developed a Likert-issue for each of them. Specifically, he distinguished: attraction to policy- making, commitment to public interest, social justice, civic duty, compassion, and self-sacrifice.
Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) he tried to fill the gap between theoretical and empirical research through survey data from 376 respondents. The empirical pre-tests and tests on students in a Master of Public Administration in the US suggested to drop the two dimensions of social justice and civic duty, mainly because the respondents did not really distinguish between those two dimensions and the commitment to the public interest (Bellè & Cantarelli, 2010). Basically, four dimensions were confirmed as indicators of PSM: attraction to public policy making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice.
Since then other scholars tried to improve Perry’s scale, changing and adding some items also depending on the contest of the analysis. For example, Coursey and Pandey (2007) modified the scale eliminating the self-sacrifice dimension and 10 items selected from Perry’s measurement scale. In 2008 Perry, Brudney, Coursey, and Littlepage tested again a short version of Perry's scale, using 4 dimensions and 24 items. Specifically, they investigated the PSM antecedents, stating that PSM derives "from exposure to a variety of experiences, some associated with childhood, some associated with religion, and some associated with professional life" (Perry, 1997). The survey was developed in several stages using measures for religiosity, voluntarism, motivations for volunteering, and family influences. The sample was made by "morally committed individuals who do important service for others but who, for the most part, were not professional public administrators” (Perry et al., 2008).
Looking at the evolution of the analysis used for measuring PSM it can noticed that since 2000 the scholars started to use secondary data instead of surveys and different types of analysis such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Houston, 2000, Vandenabeele, 2008, Kim, 2009), and Structural Equation Models (Perry et al., 2008) reinforcing the PSM construct validity. In the meantime, PSM started to be used as an antecedent and an explanatory variable for some organizational themes, such as job satisfaction and job performance (Bright, 2007; Andersen et al., 2014; Vandenabeele, 2009). Even if PSM entered the research as a type of motivation mainly attached to the public sector characteristics it soon became a new instrument to interpret and understand other issues. In this case, the type of analysis differentiated a little bit from the previous ones (Table 2), even if there are
14 similar trends.
Table 2: PSM type of analysis
Regressions Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Structural Equation
Models (SEM) Other
PSM as a single variable
Crewson/1997;
Perry/1996;
Houston/2000;
Houston/2006; DeHart- Davis, Marlowe, Pandey/2006;
Moynihan,
Pandey/2007; Wright, Christensen/2010;
Houston/2011; Bright, 2016
Crewson/1997; Coursey, Pandey/2007;
Vandenabeele/2008;
Kim/2009(2); Giauque,
Ritz, Varone,
Waldner/2011; Kim, Vandenabeele, Wright,
Andersen, Cerase,
Christensen, Desmarais, Koumenta, Leisink, Liu, Palidauskaite,Pedersen, Perry,Ritz, Taylor, De Vivo,
/2011; Word,
Carpenter/2013;
Ward/2014; Battaglio, French/2016
Perry, Brudney, Coursey, Littlepage/2008;
Anderfuhren-Biget, Varone, Giauque, Ritz/2010; Bright/2011;
Word, Carpenter/2013
Gabris, Simo/1995;
Brewer, Selden, Facer/2000;
Georgellis, Iossa, Tabvuma/2011;
Pedersen/2015
PSM and other variables
Alonso, Lewis/ 2001;
Vandenabeele/2009;
Naff, Crum/1999; Fazzi, Zamaro/2016; Taylor, 2008
Andersen, Heinesen, Pedersen/2014; Bellè/2013;
Wright, Moynihan, Pandey /2012; Ritz/2009
Camilleri, Van der Heijden/2007; Bright/2007;
Wright, Moynihan, Pandey, /2012
Bellè/2012
In the PSM research the scholars mainly used three types of analysis: regression, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Models (SEM). The regression and the CFA have been used especially for the analysis of the construct as a single variable, so they can be seen as instruments that simply try to explain the concept. The SEM has been most used to test the relationship between PSM and other organizational variables probably because is particularly suitable for the study of latent variables (Palma & Sepe, 2017).
4- Reorganizing the literature
As already mentioned, the Public Service Motivation construct in the last decade interested an increasing amount of authors, from different fields of research and different countries.
Looking at the research, in the last years, there has been an increasing interest in PSM in two directions. First of all the scholars focused much more on the use of PSM as an instrument to explain other variables and second the research moved from the US public and private sectors to the international scenario, not only Europe but also Asia, mainly in China and South Korea.
Even if there are several literature reviews about PSM (Brewer, 2008; Pandey & Stazyk, 2008;
Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Perry et.al, 2010; Wright & Grant, 2010; Bellé & Cantarelli, 2012;
Perry 2012, 2014; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2015; Ritz et al., 2016), there is not yet a specific focus on those two latest changes in the PSM research.
The aim of the article is to reorganize the literature using three criteria: 1) the relationship with other variables, 2) the type of sample used and 3) the geographical location of the studies.
The first criterion is going to investigate the relationship of PSM with other variables in order to understand which variables have been explained or generally linked to PSM and how. In particular, we try is to classify the PSM role as a variable that explains some of the most important issues in the organizational literature. The second criterion focuses mainly on the type of occupation and on the job sector (public, private and no-profit) of individuals composing the samples in order to understand which job categories have been more explored and why.
The third criterion aims to reorder the PSM research internationally and to individuate the countries that have been more interesting for scholars. This criterion allows to identify some differences between countries and explores some future lines of research for the PSM in an international scenario.
1- PSM and other variables
The PSM literature is divided in two lines of research. The first one is based on the analysis of the Public Service Motivation as a single variable while the second one relates it to other variables such as job satisfaction or performance (Camilleri & Van der Heijden, 2007; Taylor, 2008; Ritz, 2009;
Crewson, 1997; Wright & Pandey, 2008; Andersen & Kjeldsen, 2013; Naff & Crum, 1999), job performance (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Bright, 2007; Vandenabeele, 2009; Bellè, 2013; Andersen et al., 2014) and leadership (Fazzi & Zamaro, 2016; Wright et al., 2012). A small part of the research also focused on professionalism (Andersen, 2009; Andersen & Pedersen, 2012) and red tape (Scott
& Pandey, 2005).
As shown in Table 3, PSM has been related to different organizational variables, mostly as an antecedent. There are two main trends:
1- a strong focus on job satisfaction and organizational commitment;
2- a widespread use of the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) as a type of analysis;
Table 3: the PSM and other variables
Job Satisfaction/Commitment Job performance Leadership Others Camilleri, Van der
Heijden/2007;
Taylor/2008;
Ritz/2009;
Crewson/1997;
Wright, Pandey/2008;
Andersen, Kjeldsen/2013;
Naff, Crum/1999;
Li, Wang/2016;
Pupion Pyun, Yun, Dorbaire, Huron, Park, Guo /2017
Alonso, Lewis/2001;
Bright/2007;
Vandenabeele/2009;
Bellè/2013;
Andersen, Heinesen, Pedersen/2014
Bellè/2013;
Fazzi, Zamaro/2016;
Wright, Moynihan, Pandey /2012; Bottomley, Sayed Mostafa, Gould-Williams Leon-Cazares/2016;
Scott, Pandey/2005;
Andersen, Pedersen/2012;
Steijn/2008;
Brewer, Selden/1998;
Andersen/2009
16 The focus on some specific organisational topics is probably due to two factors. First of all, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are often juxtaposed in the organizational literature so we decided to put the two variables in a single categorization. Secondly, those two concepts are often linked to motivation, so authors used PSM to identify the causes of the two variables. Job satisfaction has been defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976) while organizational commitment is defined as “an attachment to the organisation, characterized by an intention to remain in it; an identification with the values and goals of the organisation; and a willingness to exert extra effort on its behalf” (Porter et al. 1974). Basically, the two concepts are almost sequential and strongly linked, so most of the studies dedicated to the job satisfaction/PSM relationship normally also involved organizational commitment.
The use of SEMs is probably due to the specific nature of the variables. The Structural Equation Modeling, in fact, is particularly suitable for the estimation of latent variables and the evaluation of the relationship among the latent variables that “establish the dimensions of the construct” (Palma
& Sepe, 2017). Most of the studies found a positive relation among PSM and the other variables like job satisfaction, job performance (Camilleri & Van der Heijden, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999) and organizational commitment (Ritz, 2009).
2- PSM: type of sample
The second classification criterion has been chosen especially because in the literature there is a general tendency to focus on the same job categories, so it is important to identify the sectors which have been more explored in order to find new lines of research.
Actually, the literature focused on some specific professions that have been grouped in macro areas referring to the type of job sector and tasks (Table 4).
Publi c
Table 4: Type of sample (PSM as a single variable + PSM and other variables)
Administration/policy making
Health and human
services Education Others
Vandenabeele/2008;
Perry/1996*; Kim/2009;
Giauque, Ritz, Varone, Waldner/2011; Brewer, Selden/1998; Camilleri, Van der Heijden/2007; Alonso,
Lewis/ 2001;
Bright/2007***; Naff, Crum/1999; Anderfuhren- Biget, Varone, Giauque, Ritz/2010; Battaglio, French/2016; Brewer, Selden, Facer/2000*;
Bright/2011*;
Houston/2011; Kim, Vandenabeele et. al./ 2013;
Wright, Pandey,
Moynihan/2012;
Vandenabeele/2009;
Dahmani/2016;
Coursey, Pandey/2007;
Moynihan, Pandey/2007;
Bright/2007;
Bright/2011*;
Bellè, Cantarelli /2012; Bellè/2013;
Georgellis, Iossa, Tabvuma /2011*;
Scott, Pandey/2005;
DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, Pandey/2006;
Perry/1996*;
Vandenabeele/2008 Pedersen/2015, Andersen,
Heinesen, Holm Pedersen/2014;Bre wer, Selden, Facer/2000*;
Bright, 2016;
Georgellis, Iossa, Tabvuma/2011*;
Einolf/2016, Pupion, Pyun, Yun, Dorbaire, Huron, Park, Guo /2017;
Li, Wang/2016;
Palma, Sepe/2017;
Non profit Word, Carpenter/2013;
Houston/2000;
Andersen, Pedersen/2012*;
Andersen/2009;
Andersen, Pedersen/2012*;
Crewson/1997;
Public Private
Wright, Christensen/2010;
Andersen, Pedersen/2012*
Public Non profit Fazzi,
Zamaro/2016; Ward/2014;
Public Private Non profit
Gabris, Simo/1995;
Houston/2006;
Perry, Brudney, Coursey, Littlepage/2008**;
*The study involves both the categories indicated.
** The sample consists of winners of the Daily Point of Light Award and the President's Community Volunteer Award, so it is composed of individuals, families, and organizations an probably involves all the sectors considered.
***The sample involved workers form a public health care agency, a city government, and a county jurisdiction.
Looking at Table 4 it can be noticed that the majority of PSM research production is dedicated to the administrative area of the public sector.
In fact, the most investigated job categories are:
1- Administrative public servants of all levels;
2- Workers in health and human services;
3- Employees in the educational sector.
18 The first categorization of the sample includes administrative and policy-making public servants of all levels, without any specification about the function or the role of the individuals composing the samples. In this case the large part of the studies is dedicated to the public sector, specifically to federal ministries and agencies (Vandenabeele, 2008) but particularly to municipal and local institutions (Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2010; Bright, 2011; Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010; Battaglio &
French, 2016). This tendency is probably due to the greater ease of gathering data at the local level.
In fact, most of the essays dedicated to the federal level use secondary data, mainly from the General Social Survey (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Houston, 2006), which is based on issues relating to government and politics in the US. In this categorization, there is only a small part of research dedicated to the comparison between public and private sector (Houston, 2000) and to the nonprofit sector (Word & Carpenter, 2013). The interest in the nonprofit sector, especially compared both with the public and the private sectors (Gabris & Simo,1995; Houston, 2006; Perry et al., 2008), can be attributed to the necessity of defining and validating the PSM construct as a new type of motivation instead that simply as a motivation in the public sector.
The second categorization proposed includes health and human services employees.
Also in this case, there is a predominance of studies dedicated to the public sector so there is a low level of comparison with the private and nonprofit sectors. The majority of the studies in this category are dedicated to workers of health and human services agencies (Coursey & Pandey, 2007; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006) with a single author who dedicated the research to nurses (Bellè, 2012-,2013).
The third category is dedicated to the educational sector and again there is a predominance of the public sector. Most of the works are dedicated to two specific categories: students and teachers or professors. The utilization of students as a sample is based on the idea of understanding if the individual level of PSM influences the choice of working in the public sector. In this case, most of the scholars focus on students of Public Administration (Brewer et al., 2000; Bright, 2016; Einolf, 2016). A small portion of the studies is also dedicated to professors (Pupion et.al, 2017) and teachers (Li & Wang, 2016; Palma & Sepe, 2017). If the choice of the students is based on the necessity of understanding if PSM can influence the choice of a specific type of job sector, the utilization of teachers as a sample is linked to the idea that teaching is a profession that helps to express easily the intrinsic interest of individuals in contributing to society. Moreover “intensive contact between teachers and students, coupled with many possibilities for employees to contribute to society, often results in them going ‘above and beyond’ the call of duty” (Palma & Sepe, 2017).
The remaining part of the selected literature is dedicated to other job categories, even if not exclusively. Some scholars focused on engineers (Crewson, 1997) or lawyers (Wright &
Christensen, 2010), but, as already said, the most of the PSM research focused on the three categories listed previously. In the categorization there is also a small part of articles that cross two or more job categories, generally with the objective of creating a comparison (Perry, 1996; Brewer, Selden & Facer, 2000; Andersen & Pedersen, 2012; Bright, 2011).
The focus of the PSM research on some job categories, such as teachers, can be due to the easy access to their contacts in order to administer a questionnaire. Obviously, the categories of students and teachers are also useful to "test" the PSM construct, especially because of the specific connection they have.
3- Geographical criterion: PSM in the world
As already mentioned above, the PSM research spread internationally since the 1990s, even if it focused on Europe from 2000 on. Most of the scholars initially focused on the US public sector, analyzing PSM as a single concept. This approach is due to the necessity of validating the construct and understand if it could create a new line of research in the public administration field.
The third criterion used to classify the PSM literature is the geographical one. The choice to use this criterion is based on two factors: first, there is a strong geographical division in the research, second this approach has been overlooked until now in the literature reviews.
The PSM research focuses on two main areas: USA and Europe, even if there is a growing literature about Asia, mainly Korea and China. One of the first things to notice is that there is a strong difference in the handling of the research in Europe and USA.
Looking at Table 5 it can be noticed that the research in the US mainly focuses on PSM as a single variable, while European data are used to explain other organizational variables.
20 Table 5: Geographical distribution of the PSM research
PSM PSM+ other variables
USA
Perry, Wise/1990;
Brewer, Selden/1998;
Rainey, Steinbauer/1999;
Vandenabeele/2007;
Gabris, Simo/1995;
Crewson/1997;
Perry/1996; Houston/2000; Brewer, Selden, Facer/2000; Houston/2006;
DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, Pandey/2006;
Coursey, Pandey/2007; Moynihan,
Pandey/2007; Wright,
Christensen/2010; Bright/2011;
Houston/2011;**
Kim et al./2013*; Word, Carpenter/2013; Ward/2014;
Bright/2016; Battaglio, French/2016; Einolf/2016; Perry, Brudney, Coursey, Littlepage/2008
Alonso, Lewis/2001; Bright/2007;
Naff, Crum/1999; Wright, Pandey, Moynihan/2012; Wright, Pandey/2008;
Scott, Pandey/2005; Brewer, Selden/1998
Europe
Vandenabeele/2008; Anderfuhren- Biget, Varone, Giauque, Ritz/2010;
Giauque, Ritz, Varone, Waldner/2011;
Houston/2011;** Georgellis, Iossa, Tabvuma/2011; Kim et al./2013*;
Pedersen/2015; Breitshol, Ruhle/2016
Camilleri, Van der Heijden/2007;
Andersen, Heinesen, Pedersen/2014;
Vandenabeele/2009; Bellè/2012;
Bellè/2013; Fazzi, Zamaro/2016;
Ritz/2009; Andersen, Kjeldsen/2013;
Pupion, Pyun, Yun, Dorbaire, Huron, Park, Guo /2017;;*** Andersen, Pedersen/2012; Steijn/2008;
Andersen/2009
Other countries
Kim/2009; Houston/2011;** Kim et al./2013*; Dahmani/2016
Li, Wang/2016; Bottomley, Sayed Mostafa, Gould-Williams Leon- Cazares/2016; Taylor/2008; Pupion et.al /2017***
*This specific research has been carried out in Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, France, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, United States.
**This research has been carried out in North American and Western Europe.
***This research has been carried out in France, South Korea, China.
The PSM research in the US mainly focuses on the study of the construct as a single variable. This tendency can depend on different factors. It surely influenced the research the fact that PSM was born within the US public service so it naturally developed faster in that country. Another factor that should be taken into account is that in the US there is a stronger interest in public administration research with respect to Europe. Moreover, we have to consider the chronological factor. In fact, most of the literature in the US dates back in the 1990s, so probably when it spread in Europe the research dedicated to the construct validation was almost saturated. This probably influenced the choice of European researchers that tried to create a new utilization of the concept.
European research can be divided into two lines: a small part dedicated to test the
generalizability of PSM outside the US (Vandenabeele, 2008; Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2010; Giauque et al., 2011; Houston, 2011) and a bigger part dedicated to explore the relationship between PSM and other variables (Camilleri & Van der Heijden, 2007;
Andersen et al., 2014; Vandenabeele, 2009; Bellè, 2012; Fazzi & Zamaro, 2016; Ritz, 2009). Looking at Table 6 is easy to notice that the large part of the research in Europe focuses on PSM as an “explanatory” variable for different issues. The most explored concepts are job satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment, and leadership. As already mentioned above, the European research probably filled the blank spaces of the US PSM research and it progressively developed a growing interest in those topics.
The geographical distribution of the research in Europe is quite heterogeneous as far as the main focus is concerned. The research focused on the generalizability of PSM has been carried out only in Belgium (Vandenabeele, 2008), Switzerland Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2010), Denmark (Pedersen, 2015) and Germany (Breitshol & Ruhle, 2016).
Whereas the research dedicated to explore the relationship between PSM and other variables mainly focuses on Italy (Bellè, 2012, 2013), Denmark (Andersen, 2009;
Andersen & Pedersen, 2012; Andersen et al., 2014; Andersen & Kjeldsen, 2013), Malta (Camilleri & Van der Heijden, 2007) and Switzerland (Ritz, 2009).
This distribution is totally due to the origin and interests of the authors who carried out the research. In fact, all the articles dedicated to specific countries are written by the same authors and probably the construct is still considered as a "niche" issue.
Another important factor that emerged from the categorization is a growing production of the PSM literature outside both Europe and US. Specifically, there is a new line of research that compares PSM in different countries both as a single variable and as exploratory one (Houston, 2011; Kim et al., 2013; Vandenabeele & Wright et al. 2012;
Pupion et.al., , 2017). At the same time, new countries entered the research, like Korea (Kim, 2009), China (Li & Wang, 2016), Mexico (Bottomley et al., 2016), Australia (Taylor, 2008). In this case, the research focuses on the relationship between PSM and other variables.
The growing production in the PSM literature and its spread in so many countries indicates the strong interest of the authors in this new construct. PSM has a high potential in enhancing the functioning of public and private personnel policies and in individuating and develop new Human Resources Management instruments and practices.
22 5- Conclusions
PSM: teachings from the research and suggestions for the future
The PSM construct was introduced in the public administration research in the 1990s.
Until then it has followed an increasing trend both with respect to the quantity of articles published and the extent of the research. At the beginning, the research mainly focused on the validation and measurement of the construct (Perry, 1996; Gabris &
Simo, 1995), in order to understand if it could have a future development. Nowadays we can say that PSM has its own room in the public administration research and it is also spreading beyond the borders.
In the last decade the PSM research presented some specific characteristics:
1. It shifted from North America to Europe and to other countries;
2. It focuses the most on the public administration field;
3. It has been mainly based on the public sector employees.
Those characteristics of the research can lead to changes in future studies, mainly helping scholars to individuate the weaknesses of the construct.
Moreover, the strong link between motivation and job satisfaction or job performance made PSM a perfect instrument to contribute to the Human Resources Management practices. Actually, most of the study recommend integrating the PSM construct in the selection processes in order to hire workers with a high level of PSM for a job that contributes to the wellness of society (Andersen & Kjeldsen, 2013). There is also a small part of the research that suggests to create new practices to increase the employees' PSM level, for example including them in important decisions (Giauque et al., 2013). But did the researchers manage to make it practical? What are the results nowadays? Using the categorization proposed above some gaps in PSM are underlined:
1- Low systematization of the research about the relationship between PSM and other variables;
2- Low differentiation in the types of sample and the job categories explored; 3- Low geographical concentration of the research in Europe;
4- Lack of translation of the research into practice.
With respect to the first categorization, the relationship between PSM and other variables, the literature still needs some sort of systematization. The large amount of articles produced especially from 2008 (Ritz et al., 2016) did not manage yet to create a specific path of research for PSM as an antecedent of other organizational variables.
Also, the researchers should try to provide a more shared evidence of a cause-and-effect
relationship between PSM and other variables (Ritz et al., 2016). In this case, it could be useful to extend the research about the antecedents of PSM (a task that we try to accomplish in Essay 3 with reference to a set of European countries) and especially the influence of society on the construct (Rainey et al., 2016). The general feeling is a random utilization of PSM without a shared objective in the literature. Also, there is a strong utilization of a similar types of analysis, but it can probably be attributed to the specific nature of the concept. The strong focus of the scholars on some specific issues like job satisfaction and job performance should be funnelled to draw some specific conclusion for the research, especially in order to identify some practical utilization of PSM. Furthermore, there is still an extreme focus with respect to the type of job categories analyzed. This tendency probably depends on the fact that some categories are easier to reach, so it is easier to gather data. Though it could be necessary to explore new job categories in order to identify the limit of the PSM construct in terms of validation, it is necessary to understand if there is a type of job or a specific sector in which PSM could really influence the performance of the individuals. Some scholars focused on the category of teachers stating that the connection created between them and students is really closed to the interest in others’ wellbeing of the PSM construct (Palma & Sepe, 2017). Could the opposite situation be also possible? Is there any job category that could represent more than others the rational dimension theorized by Perry and Wise in 1990? Does PSM have a "dark side" that could be taken into account? (Ritz et al., 2016).
In the great part of the research PSM has been presented as an altruistic construct, but, since its formulation, its self-interest dimension was brought out (Perry & Wise, 1990) even if lately has almost totally been neglected. Further research should focus more on this "dark side", going back to the original construction of the concept. The strong connection between PSM and a moral sense of duty could not be able to catch all the shades of the individuals' motivation. A strong moral identity can also lead to act immorally in a turbulent work environment (Sachdeva et al., 2009) so the relationship between PSM and immoral outcomes should be better investigated (Ritz et al., 2016).
According to Perry and Wise (1990), PSM also has a rational dimension which is mainly based on self-interest. So focusing only on the altruistic side of the construct is reductive. Someone who is performing a public-service-motivated act can be also satisfying a personal need of participating in the creation of wellness for society, which suggests mixed motives (Ritz et al., 2016). So is about time that the research focuses also on the egoistic dimension of PSM, adapting and adjusting the PSM definition and
24 bringing it back to its origins.
The geographical distribution of the research needs to be deepen. Even if in the last decade Europe seems to have replaced the US, there is still too much dispersion in the studies. In some countries, there is a large amount of research about PSM while some others have been totally overlooked. The individual level of PSM depends on the work environment and on the organization of the public sector in different countries, so there is a strong need to deepen the analysis of the European scenario. Moreover, until now, there has been a low level of comparison between different countries
(Houston, 2011; Kim et al., 2013). The international dimension of PSM should be more explored, focusing more on comparative studies. A more dislocated research could help to understand if there is a specific type of work environment in which individual level of PSM is higher. Moreover, when studying the impact of the construct on other variables, there is the need of deepening the characteristics of the sector taken into account in the specific country. Obviously, the US public sector is not the same as the French one, so a more detailed description of the reference scenario could really be useful.
Finally, the research should try to improve the outputs. The malleability of the PSM concept can make it a good instrument for Human Resource Management, especially in the public sector.
One of the first practical application of PSM has been to use it in the selection processes. The idea is that hiring people that already have a high level of PSM can consequentially be positive for the organization. But, according to Perry (2017), even if there are lots of articles dedicated to the insertion of PSM in the selection processes, only 26 of those studies discuss it in detail.
The recruitment process in the public service should be more based on PSM, mainly because selecting people who already believe in the ethical o public service would not also have more benefits for the organization, but could also solve some problems like principal-agent relation (Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2014). Actually, most of the public sector recruitment processes are based, especially in Europe, on a notional approach, without taking into account the intrinsic characteristics and skills of the individuals.
Even if it could be difficult, a suitable instrument to "test" PSM before hiring can lead to a new era for the public sector. Generally speaking, at this point, PSM has created a specific path of research and, even if it stays in the public administration field, it is starting to enter also other fields like psychology (Li & Wang, 2016) so it is necessary to keep the research updated.
In conclusion, the research should:
1- Reorder the relationship between PSM and other variables;
Looking at the huge growth of PSM research in the last decade, it could be useful to monitor further developments especially with regard to the use of the construct as an explanatory variable. In our work, we tried to reorganize the literature taking into account this aspect, but further research could develop a more structured methodology.
2- Increase the comparative approach;
Given the huge amount of studies about PSM it is fundamental to have a comparative approach in the research. We tried to take into account the differences between countries in the development of PSM using the geographical criteria. Moreover we keep the comparative approach in Essays 2 and 3 dedicated to a comparison between European countries.
3- Enhance the job categories taken into account;
The job sector and the type of occupation have always been treated as a central issue in the study of PSM, so further research should develop this aspect especially, again, in a comparative perspective. We made a first attempt in this sense in Essay 3 where we analyze PSM antecedents taking into account individuals’ occupation.
4- Reinforce the practical application of PSM;
Most of the studies dedicated to PSM until now have the objective of redefining the construct definition or improve its measurement. Nevertheless, PSM could be an important practical instrument for Human Resources Management (HRM) practices, for example in the selection process, both for the public and private sector. In conclusion, even if PSM research is still increasing it should try to change its direction in order to find new and practical applications for the construct.
26 References
Alonso, P. & Lewis, G.B. (2001). Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector. The American Review of Public Administration. 31 (4), 363-380.
Anderfuhren-Biget, S., Varone, F., Giauque, D., & Ritz, A. (2010). Motivating Employees of the Public Sector: Does Public Service Motivation Matter?. International Public Management Journal, 13, 213 - 246.
Andersen, L.B. (2009). What determines the behavior and performance of health professionals?
Public service motivation, professional norms and/or economic incentives. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 75 (1), 79-97.
Andersen, L.B. & Pedersen, L.H. (2012). Public Service Motivation and Professionalism.
International Journal of Public Administration, 35 (1), 46-57.
Andersen, LB. & Kjeldsen, A.M. (2013). Public Service Motivation, User Orientation, and Job Satisfaction: A Question of Employment Sector?. International Public Management Journal, 16 (2), 252-274.
Andersen, L.B., Heinesen, L. & Pedersen, L. (2014). How Does Public Service Motivation Among Teachers Affect Student Performance in Schools?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 651-671.
Battaglio Jr, R.P. & French, E. (2016). Public Service Motivation, Public Management Reform, and Organizational Socialization: Testing the Effects of Employment At-Will and Agency on PSM Among Municipal Employees. Public Personnel Management, 45(2), 123–147.
Battaglio Jr, R.P. &, Salih, G. (2017). Exploring the structure and meaning of public service motivation in the Turkish public sector: a test of the mediating effects of job characteristics. Public Management Review, 19 (8), 1066-1084.
Bellè, N. & Cantarelli, P. (2010). Public Service Motivation: The State of the Art, “Reforming the Public Sector: How to make the Difference?”, Rome Italy, December 2-3.
Bellé, N.& Cantarelli, P. (2012). Public Service Motivation: The State of the Art, in G. Tria and G.
Valotti (eds.), Reforming the Public Sector: How to Achieve Better Transparency, Service, and Leadership. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp 96–125.
Bellè, N. (2012). Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Public Administration Review, 73 (1), 143-153.
Bellè, N. (2013). Leading to Make a Difference: A Field Experiment on the Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24 (1), 109–136.
Bottomley, P., Sayed Mostafa, A. M., Gould‐Williams, J.S. & León‐Cázares, F. (2016). The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behaviours: The Contingent Role of Public Service Motivation. British Journal of Management, 27 (2).
Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public Service Motivation Concepts and Theory: A Critique. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 700–710.
