Chapter 19
Motivating Employees Using Public Service
Wouter Vandenabeele and Nina Mari Van Loon
People are the main assets of public organizations—more even than in privately owned organizations—and their attitudes and skills are significant drivers of organizational outcomes. It therefore pays to attend to the human factor because it is one of the few levers leaders and managers can pull when trying to influence organizational outcomes and generate comparative advantage.
One of the most important aspects of this human factor is motivation. Without motivated personnel, organizations are empty shells, and this is particularly true for public organizations that produce or regulate services. Managers have several reasons to consider motivation. Foremost among them is that motivation is important for high performance (Delery & Shaw, 2001), and with respect to public organizations, it is one of the most important drivers of government effectiveness (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Empirical research demonstrates that motivation matters for performance because motivated employees are committed to achieving the goals of the organization and put in more effort (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Kim, 2005). Another reason is that motivation is important in the staffing process. As power on the labor market gradually shifts from the employer to the employee, addressing motivation in the processes of employer branding, selection, and retention may be crucial to get the best and brightest to join and stay in public service (Vandenabeele, 2013). Finally, motivation serves as a safety net for employee accountability as external controls refocus on (economic) outcomes. Public sector organizations have multiple goals, often contradictory or ambiguous (Chun & Rainey, 2005). With the advent of new public management, accountability systems have shifted from process to outcome accountability (Radin, 2000), leaving safeguarding process values up to the discretion of employees. Motivation to do the right thing for society can make up for such diminished or distorted accountability processes in which only some of the several goals or values that public organizations are supposed to strive for are emphasized. Motivation to contribute to society can aid in keeping a balance between outcome and process values such as equity and quality, regardless of whether they are monitored.
As opposed to general employee motivation, public sector motivation refers to a broad range of aspects that draw employees to work for the public sector, such as job security (Brewer & Selden, 1998). One particular element of this multifaceted motivation, and perhaps the one with greatest motivational potential, is public service motivation. This type of motivation generally refers to “motives and action in the public domain that are intended to do good for others and shape the well-being of society” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008, p. 3). After all, contributing to society is the unique selling point for public and nonprofit service providers, and therefore harnessing and fostering this type of motivation provides, on an organizational basis, a comparative advantage. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) identify public service motivation, together with mission and task motivation, as critical for public agency effectiveness.
We start by describing theoretical assumptions about the concept of public service motivation and its relationship with several antecedents and outcomes, framing public service motivation within existing theoretical perspectives on causes and outcomes of motivation. Next, we review the evidence on the theoretical propositions concerning antecedents and outcomes to assess the merits of public service motivation and claims made in the research. In the final section, we present suggestions about the application of the theory and empirical research.
Theories and Evidence about Public Service Motivation
We begin by addressing the concept of public service motivation, followed by the theoretical mechanisms involved in explaining the causes and outcomes of public service motivation.
The Concept of Public Service Motivation
The concept of public service motivation has deep historical ties. The idea of public officials regarding the public interest is already found in the work of Aristotle and Plato, whereas Confucius found moral standards the best preparation for public life. Throughout history, the idea regularly surfaces (e.g., in the work of philosophers such as Thomas of Aquinas, Rousseau, and John Rawls), and it became a consistent feature in most dominant Western public service systems (Horton, 2008). Numerous concepts related to public service motivation such as altruism, prosocial motivation, and public service ethos have been part of public administration and adjacent disciplines for a long time.
Nevertheless, it was not until Rainey (1982) first mentioned public service motivation and Perry and Wise (1990) formalized its definition and theory that it became a concept in its own right. Following Perry and Wise's definition—“an individual's predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions” (p. 368)—a number of related definitions have been developed (Vandenabeele, 2007), highlighting particular features of the concepts. Despite these, the Perry and Wise definition remains the most widely used.
Perry and Wise (1990) based the concept of public service motivation on the distinction between rational, norm-based, and affective motives for behavior in order to capture the full range of behavioral motives. This was reformulated by Kim and Vandenabeele (2010), who distinguished between instrumental, value-based, and identification with beneficiaries as main drivers of public service motivation. These multiple motivational bases reflect the complexity of human behavior and motivation in particular: people do not do something for one reason but are driven by a complex mix of motives.
The conceptual definition of public service motivation has been translated in an operational definition describing the dimensions based on a survey measure. Considerable attention is given to measurement theory and research in public service motivation research. The basis for this can be traced back to Perry's (1996) measurement scale that distinguished among attraction to politics and policy (the degree to which one sets great store by the political and policymaking process), public interest (the extent to which people value the public interest), and compassion and self-sacrifice (the extent to which people will forgo their own interests to further other people's interests). However, the exact dimensional configuration, and therefore the operational definition, of public service motivation is not fully settled. Although subsequent validation efforts have more or less corroborated this dimensionality, items within dimensions were continuously changed or dropped, and new dimensions were added and others dropped (Coursey & Pandey, 2007). Changes were often made to adapt the measure to the particular research context, but such an approach hampered comparison among various contexts. To this end, Kim et al. (2013) developed a reformulated instrument, tested in twelve countries, in which the dimensions of compassion and self-sacrifice were retained and two new dimensions of attraction to public service and commitment to public values were developed to better capture the behavioral intentions and the normative referents related to public service motivation. All are based on the notion that behavior is based on multiple motives.
Links to Institutional and Motivational Theory
The concept of public service motivation fits well in a logic of appropriateness as distinguished in institutional theory (March & Olsen, 1989): employees do not only act out of self-interest, but instead individuals also behave a certain way because they are supposed to do so in a particular context of an organization, a profession, a clan, a family, or any type of institution. Seeing public service motivation within its context responds to a call for more contextualized and less individual-based types of motivations (Perry, 2000). People thus operate in an environment that they influence but also influences them.
Institutions, being structural value-based interaction patterns, (for a definition, see Peters, 2000) constrain and at the same time enable individuals in their behavior and attitudes (Giddens, 1984). Therefore, despite the fact that it might be dangerous, firefighters enter a building that is threatening to collapse and teachers attend unpaid meetings on evenings when they could have instead prepared classes for the next day or even enjoyed their free time. Firefighters and teachers do it because this is how firefighters and teachers behave and they are expected to do so as well. Institutions get people to toe the line of the particular environment they are in by providing a set of formal and informal rules and norms, having people to forgo their self-interest. At the same time they provide people with a sense of identity and a license to act in a certain way.
That institutions are built around values provides another link with public service motivation (Selznick, 1996). Public institutions aim to realize certain public values through the behavior of its members, and public service motivation as a form of self-regulation plays an important role in guiding this behavior (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). Public service motivation can be seen as the individual identity that reflects the allegiance to these public values and the institutions that have been built around these. However, institutional theory says very little about individual behavior, and therefore it should be supplemented with more individually oriented theories that bridge the gap between the institutional and the individual level to understand how public service motivation actually works.
In response to questions about the sources for public service motivation, theories of socialization and internalization can offer answers (Perry, 2000). Because public service motivation is institutionally grounded, the question is how institutions transmit their logics to their members and firmly embed the importance of public service into self-identity. Perry and Vandenabeele (2008) have identified socialization, internalization, and identification as important sources of public service motivation, as well as culture. The common element in these mechanisms is that they all address value-based identity formation and therefore are particularly suited to address the development of public service motivation. For instance, from a societal or sociological perspective, state structures and religion may foster public service motivation, and from an organizational perspective, leadership can be addressed as important for development of this motivation.
As is the case with the questions on antecedents, answering the question on outcomes of public service motivation in an institutional framework can also be supplemented with theoretical insights that integrate an individual in its context. Various theories have been put forward (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008), and this overview examines the three most promising candidates to explain why public service motivation will lead to particular outcomes. The first candidate in this respect is person-environment fit theory (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson 2005), which comprises various subtheories with a different focus on how an individual fits the environment. Likely candidates with respect to public service motivation are fit with the values of the organization in which one is employed, referred to as person-organization fit, and the actual job one does within that organization or the task one performs, that is, person-job fit. The general assumption is that a high fit between the individual and the environment will create a stronger effect of motivation and hence drive particular outcomes.
As a second explanation for the relationship between public service motivation and outcomes, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004) is a suitable candidate. This theory distinguishes various types of motivation, ranging from controlled to autonomous. Examples of the former are external regulation (motivation to obtain rewards or to avoid punishment) and introjection (the drive has not been fully internalized into the self but it is nevertheless associated with guilt and honor). Examples of the latter are identification (doing something because the individual thinks it is important, integration); multiple aligned identities, which results in some kind a super-identification; and intrinsic motivation, that is, doing something because it is enjoyed and seen as fun. Public service motivation can be seen as an autonomous motivation rather than controlled (Houston, 2011).
Self-determination theory provides an interesting additional perspective for two reasons. First, it takes the environment less into account than the person-environment fit theory does. It explains why public service motivation can result in outcomes regardless of whether the organization or job fits with the institutional values. An individual can be public service motivated because of antecedent experiences in one setting that spill over into another setting. And it can influence behavior in a nonwork or nonpublic setting or environment in which public service motivation was acquired because autonomous types of motivation are more persistent and stronger. Second, the link with the institutional environment mainly lies in the institutional satisfaction of the individual basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2004). The degree to which these needs are satisfied will be positively related to the development of public service motivation. Any public environment that addresses these needs will therefore be likely to create or incentivize public service motivation (Vandenabeele, 2014).
The final supplemental theory to explain the outcomes of public service motivation is goal-setting theory. Its main claim is that people differ in their motivation and performance because they have different goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). Although a large part of the theory is concerned with value-free attributes of goals (challenging and precise goals create more motivation compared to easy and vague ones), some of it also addresses values (goal commitment). Goal commitment is not only influenced by one's self-efficacy but also by an understanding of the importance of the goals in the job and the organization (Wright Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012). This provides a basis to think about public service motivation in terms of public service goals and their attributes.
Research Findings and Evidence
Antecedents and outcomes have been studied globally. The prevalence of public service motivation has been corroborated in different countries from East to West, the public and private sectors, and different domains such as government, education, and health care. Although the concept was originally developed to provide some counterweight against the predominance of self-interested theories of motivation of public administrators in public management, Perry and Wise (1990) wrote that “public service is much more than one's locus of employment” (p. 368) and that the use of public service motivation applies to all “public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). This position has been elaborated when distinguishing between the role of public service motivation in high- and low-publicness public organizations, relating public service motivation to the focus of the job rather than the locus of the job (Houston, 2011). “It is in the public content of institutions in which public service motivation has its origins” (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008, p. 60).
This is illustrated by empirical studies that have placed public service motivation in various environments that were not limited to the civil service or the public sector in a strict sense. Public service motivation has been found widely in public service providers: firefighters, police officers, nurses, social workers, teachers, and even volunteers (Perry, Brudney, Coursey, & Littlepage, 2008; Van Loon, Leisink, & Vandenabeele, 2013; Kim, 2011; Bellé, 2013; Kjeldsen, 2014). Therefore, one can conclude that the concept can be successfully applied outside the narrow confines of civil servants as public administrators, as does Houston, who claims that imposing a narrow sectoral perspective “overlooks a wide range of work activities outside the public sector for which public service motivation is important” (2011, p. 769).
Antecedents
Although the antecedents of public service motivation have been studied to a lesser extent than the outcomes, the empirical research on what causes public service motivation is growing. The main causes fall into the category of institutional antecedents. These can be situated at various levels: micro, mainly direct interactions with other members of the institution; meso, limited to institutions that are too big to involve only personal interaction; or macro, large societal groups where membership interaction is mostly indirect. With regard to microlevel institutions, public service motivation has been related to structural relationships with colleagues and supervisors; the work situation, such as job characteristics and leadership position; and family history and volunteering experiences (Perry, 1997 2000; Perry et al., 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011 2014; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Wright et al., 2012). As for mesolevel institutions, research has demonstrated links with the organization in which one is employed, church membership, educational institutions, and professional associations (Perry, 1997; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). For macrolevel institutions, evidence is provided for a relationship with public sector employment, political affiliation, and country citizenship (Vandenabeele & Van de Walle, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013).
Essential to the institutional theory of public service motivation is that its relationships are not context independent. Concerning the antecedents, it is not just that different institutions cause different types or levels of public service motivation (Perry, 1997). Particular institutional attributes also moderate the influence of similar institutions on the development of public service motivation. For example, the level of satisfaction of basic psychological needs—need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness—moderates the socialization effect of supervisors on public service motivation development (Vandenabeele, 2014).
Apart from these institutional influences, highly personal variables also influence public service motivation. These include gender and age, with women scoring higher on compassion and men scoring higher on the other dimensions and younger people scoring lower than older people (Pandey & Stazyk, 2008), as well as personality type, with public service motivation being correlated to agreeableness (Carpenter, Doverspike, & Miguel, 2012).
Outcomes
The bulk of the research in this area has addressed public service motivation as a possible cause of a broad set of outcome variables. These are mostly individual-level outcomes, which are considered to be beneficial for the organization in which one is employed. These outcomes can be situated throughout the entire human resource value chain. For one, these concern behavior or behavioral intentions. Public service motivation has been positively related to employer attractiveness, in particular public employers, and public sector preference, but also to donating blood and giving to charities (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Houston, 2006).
A large part of the research has been devoted to assessing the influence of public service motivation on individual performance. Since performance in a public sector context is a multidimensional construct (Brewer, 2008), the picture is not clear. Overall studies have found a positive relationship between motivation and performance, although the strength of that relationship varies according to the type of performance. And in fact, the discussion on individual performance in the public sector has long been dominated by the findings of Alonso and Lewis (2001), who found no robust evidence of a positive relationship between public service motivation and performance, despite earlier positive findings (Naff & Crum, 1999). Given the large number of studies that have since demonstrated a positive relationship with outcomes such as perceived general performance or effort (Bright, 2007; Vandenabeele 2009), claims about such a relationship have grown more solid. These results have been supported by further research into types of behavior associated with individual performance, for example, showing that public service motivation relates to higher student final grades (Andersen, Heinesen, & Pedersen, 2014) or whistle-blowing behavior (Brewer & Selden, 1998). An important factor explaining organizational performance, organizational citizenship behavior—behavior that is not a formal requirement but contributes to the mission—has also been found to relate strongly to public service motivation (Kim, 2006). Finally, the link between public service motivation and organizational performance has been clearly established (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Kim, 2005), further corroborating the link between public service motivation and performance.
Studies also concern general attitudes that are considered to be beneficial to the organization or the individual as an employee. These are important as outcomes of public service motivation because they influence human resource processes that generate value for organizations and ultimately the performance of these organizations. One of the most researched outcomes in this respect is job satisfaction. Many researchers, in many settings, have identified the positive relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction (Naff & Crum, 1999; Taylor, 2007; Ritz, 2009). Although it was not one of the initial three theoretical propositions formulated by Perry and Wise (1990), it has been established as one of the key relationships in public service motivation theory. Organizational commitment was not part of the initial model either, but many studies have established that public-service-motivated employees are more likely to be committed to the organization (Naff and Crum 1999; Vandenabeele 2009). Lesser-known concepts such as mission valence (affective outcomes toward an organization's mission) or a positive attitude toward organizational change have been linked to public service motivation as well (Wright et al., 2012; Wright, Christensen, & Isett, 2013).
Institutions have an important role regarding the outcomes of public service motivation. With respect to outcomes, the attributes of an institutional environment determine the strength of the effect public service motivation has on outcomes, meshing well with the concept of person-environment fit theory, that is, with the environment as a moderator of the effect of the individual motivation.1 The mostly complementary fit between the individual's public service motivation and job characteristics has been demonstrated to affect occupational intention, commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Bellé, 2013; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Leisink & Steijn, 2009). The supplementary type of fit between the individual's public service motivation and organizational values also influenced a range of outcomes, such as commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Bright, 2007; Kim, 2012). These abundant findings illustrate that various types of fit play a part and probably interact with one another. This is illustrated by Van Loon et al. (forthcoming) who demonstrated that the interplay between type of organization and type of job influences the degree of job satisfaction. This complex web of interactions also reveals that public service motivation outcomes are not limited to the public sector; various levels of fit, from job to vocation, may play a role.
Despite the abundance of recent research, two caveats remain. First, an important caution is that much of the public service motivation research with respect to antecedents and outcomes has been studied by means of cross-sectional data (only one point of measurement in time), making it difficult to assess the causality. This could mean, for example, that high levels of performance or job satisfaction could be the cause of individual public service motivation rather than the other way around. Also, it could be that an unknown third variable could explain both public service motivation and the outcome variables. Nevertheless, the results of recent studies that use panel data studies or experimental methods (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Bellé, 2013), which are better suited to address issues of causality, point to the directions assumed in theory. Furthermore, the application of qualitative methods (Van Loon et al., 2013) and care in theoretical framing has reduced the threat of drawing invalid conclusions in terms of causality. Although the results should be interpreted carefully, the conclusions in terms of antecedents and outcomes hold.
A second caveat is that although public service motivation has many beneficial outcomes for the organization and the individual, there is also a dark side to it. Public service motivation can cause burnout risk (Van loon et al., forthcoming), increased stress levels (Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, & Varone, 2013), or “resigned satisfaction” (Giauque, Ritz, Varone, & Anderfuhren-Biget, 2012), a state in which employees lower their performance and expectation levels in order to match unmet public service motivation needs (e.g., the need to contribute to society or to help other people). Therefore, public service motivation is not a quick or magical solution. It should be applied consciously and with care in practical situations. It may be an untapped source of power, but when wrongfully applied, things might go utterly wrong.
Implications and Application: Harnessing the Power of Public Service Motivation
Given that public service motivation demonstrates a clear-cut relationship with a range of beneficial outcomes for both the organization and the individual, it is only logical to try to harness this potential. Public service motivation can be seen as one of several human resources that can be applied to drive organizational performance and create or maintain a healthy workforce (Delery & Shaw, 2001). Although its application would be limited to an environment in which public service motivation needs can be fulfilled, not necessarily limiting it to the public sector, public service motivation as an individual characteristic can be considered a source of competitive advantage because it relates to commitment, effort, and performance.
However, because public service motivation is highly contextual, some organizations have more of it with their employees or can make better use of it. Therefore, it should be firmly placed within any value chain of public service delivery, being a link between organizational context and individual characteristics and a source of both employee and organizational outcomes (Vandenabeele et al., 2013).
As a resource of competitive advantage, it is important to identify how and where public service motivation can be influenced or harnessed. Paarlberg, Perry, and Hondeghem (2008) have developed an analytical framework in which many of the attributes of public service motivation can be tied to concrete organizational and human resource (HR) practices. In developing this framework, they identify five levels of analysis: individual HR processes, a meaningful job, a supportive working environment, the organizational mission and strategy, and societal legitimacy.
First, Paarlberg et al. (2008) contend that public service motivation should be embedded in critical HR processes such as recruitment and appraisal but also in formal or informal socialization practices about what is considered appropriate, emphasizing the importance of contributing to society within the organization. For instance, in recruitment, candidates can be interviewed regarding their fit with the organization's public values or emphasize the job's importance for society. This will push public service motivation throughout the HR value chain and enable an HR environment in which public service motivation can grow and be nurtured.
Their second strategy is conveying the meaning of the job through demonstrating its social significance and establishing clear goals in line with individual public service motivation. The social significance of the job can be demonstrated by creating moments of contact between beneficiaries of the services and employees. Strategies of self-persuasion, whereby employees think about the importance of their job for society, can also increase the social significance of the job, albeit it has been shown to have less of an effect than contact with beneficiaries (Bellé, 2013). Following goal-setting theory, it is important to establish goals that are comprehensible but also fit with the public service motives. For instance, decreasing costs for clients may be a goal more in line with public service motivation than decreasing costs to make more profit.
As a third strategy, Paarlberg et al. (2008) claim that organizations should create a supportive working environment. This entails developing self-regulatory work structures—enhancing self-determination by addressing the basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence—and developing cooperative workplace interactions with leaders and coworkers. Incentive systems that align with public service motivation—fair pay but no bonuses or short-term financial incentive like pay for performance—and compensation packages that do not crowd out public service motivation should be part of this supportive environment.
The fourth strategy devised by Paarlberg et al. (2008) is integrating public service in the mission and strategy of the organization. By articulating a vision that reflects commitment to public service, the organization lives up to the promise of public service delivery. Moreover, applying value-based or transformational leadership tactics both serves as an example and propagates public service motivation throughout the organization.
Paarlberg et al.'s (2008) final strategy is the most complex because it involves the organization's external environment rather than its internal operations. Public service motivation stems from many institutional settings throughout society, so it makes sense that in order to enhance and legitimize public service motivation, these various settings should be addressed. Therefore, organizations should partner with other institutions to incorporate attention to public service values into the professional and educational curriculum. Also, meaningful preservice experiences should be provided to outsiders by means of internship or volunteering, possibly in cooperation with other institutions. The final element of this strategy entails advocating the role of public service to the broader society.
These strategies will enable practitioners and managers to incorporate public service motivation in their general HR strategy and enhance performance. However, if the intended performance does not match with the public values on which public service motivation is based (e.g., it aims solely at financial profit), the strategy will prove to be of little effect (Vandenabeele et al., 2013). Thus, the potential force of public service motivation works in two directions. Public service motivation may be an enabler for an organization, but it is equally demanding from the organization. It is therefore up to practitioners to apply public service motivation carefully.
Summary
Public service motivation can be found throughout the world, and its prevalence is not limited to the civil service. Research on public service motivation demonstrates that various institutional antecedents such as religion and education play an important role in its development. Another general finding is that public service motivation is related to many types of outcomes that are beneficial to the organization, such as behavior, behavioral intentions, and attitudes that are considered to be drivers of performance. Not all outcomes of public service motivation, however, are beneficial, and even the beneficial outcomes may be contingent on contextual factors such as the job or organizational environment. When trying to harness the potential force of public service motivation, therefore, it is important to embed it in in a general human resource management strategy, applying some of the practical advice provided in this chapter.