Toward Understanding Task, Mission and Public Service Motivation: A Conceptual and Empirical Synthesis of Goal Theory and
Public Service Motivation
Bradley E Wright Department of Political Science University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 email@example.com 704.687.4530
Paper prepared for presentation at the 7th National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 9-11, 2003.
Abstract This study advances our understanding of employee work motivation and performance in the public sector by reinterpreting the existing literature regarding public service motivation within the psychological conceptual framework of goal theory. An empirical test of this new framework suggests that goal theory can provide a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the independent contributions of task, mission and public service on employee work motivation and performance in the public sector. The importance of the organization’s mission and the degree of employee public service motivation increases employee work motivation in the public sector by making the job more important. In addition, after controlling for the effect of these intrinsic rewards provided by the job and organization, performance related extrinsic rewards were not found to contribute to employee work motivation.
Toward Understanding Task, Mission and Public Service Motivation: A Conceptual and Empirical Synthesis of Goal Theory and Public Service Motivation
Introduction It has been commonly assumed that public sector organizations are more likely to employ individuals whose values and needs are consistent with the public service mission of the organization (Baldwin, 1984; Crewson, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990; Perry, 1996, 1997). Charged with promoting general social welfare, as well as the protection of the society and every individual in it, public organizations often have missions with broader scope and more profound impact than typically found in the private sector (Baldwin, 1984). The composition of the public workforce has been expected to reflect the nature of the work in the public sector by attracting employees who desire greater opportunities to fulfill higherorder needs and altruistic motives by performing public service. It is these individual characteristics that are often touted as the key to motivating behavior because “understanding the values and reward preferences of public managers is essential in structuring organizational environments and incentive systems to satisfy those preferences” (Wittmer, 1991, p. 369). In fact, it is believed that the importance public employees place on the opportunities thought to be more readily available in the public sector, such as performing altruistic acts or receiving intrinsic rewards, compensates for the low levels of extrinsic rewards associated with the public sector and explains why no differences have been
has not always been consistent.1964. 1998) or helping (Gabris & Simo. 1997. while others have found that even if public employees do value monetary rewards less than private employees. Houston.. 1975.. Rawls et al. 1979. Posner & Schmidt. 1983. Wittmer. Evidence also has been found to suggest that public employees do not value opportunities to benefit society (Jurkeiwicz. however.. Empirical support for these differences. Schuster. 1991) and a higher value on helping others or public service (Buchanan. such financial incentives still are highly valued (Newstrom. Jurkiewicz et al. Wittmer. 1987. Maidani.. Gabris & Simo. 1984. 1993. Public sector employees have been found to place a lower value on financial rewards (Cacioppe & Mock. Studies have provided some empirical support for the assertion that employee reward preferences coincide with the function served by the sector in which they are employed. 1998. 1991. 2000. 1974). Rainey.. 1964. 1991) than their private sector counterparts. few studies have tested whether such differences have a significant impact on employee work motivation or performance. Khojasteh.found between public and private employee work motivation (Baldwin. Lawler. Emmert & Taher. 1984. Rainey. 1975. 1983). 1982. Kilpatrick et al. 1984. Kilpatrick et al. 1992. Houston. 1991). Several studies have failed to find differences in preference for monetary rewards (Crewson. Those studies that have attempted to link differences in public
. however. 1995. 1995) any more than those in the private sector. 1982. Cacioppe & Mock. Crewson. 1997. Newstrom et al. 1982. 1971. Massey & Brown. Even if sector differences do exist. 2000. Rainey. Wittmer. 1976. Rainey. 1976. Reif & Monczka.
1982. 1991). This study will contribute to the literature regarding public sector employee performance in two important ways. 1988. Perry & Rainey. One model. Second. while Naff and Crum (1999) found that employees with high public service values were less likely to leave government employment and more likely to receive better performance evaluations. Although Rainey (1982) found no relationship between the importance employees place on public service and their job involvement. Perhaps even more unfortunate is that the empirical research on sector differences lack strong theory (Perry & Porter. 1973. Wright. based on goal theory of motivation. in the public administration literature. Baldwin. for example. Similarly. First. Crewson (1997) found that federal employees who prefer service over economic rewards were more committed to the organization. this research tests two competing models explaining public service motivation’s effect on employee work motivation. 1984. The research investigating the effects of public service motivation.sector employee motives to any specific performance related attitudinal or behavioral consequences have produced mixed results. this study will empirically test the relationship between employee public service orientation and employee work motivation that is often asserted. suggests the effect of public service motivation on employee work motivation is mediated by the employee’s perception of the
. but rarely tested. 2001). has not done so within the broader framework of a psychological theory of work motivation (Gibson & Teasley. Alonso and Lewis (2001) found no relationship between a public service orientation and performance evaluations or career achievement.
it suggests that the effects of mission valence and public service motivation are mediated at the job level. 1997). Katzell & Thompson. Although goal theory can be used to illustrate how employee work motivation can be influenced by all three levels.importance of their job. Mitchell. This emphasis on the importance of outcomes is consistent with Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) have suggestion that the effectiveness and performance of government agencies may be enhanced by three interrelated levels of intrinsic rewards--task. 1992. to the extent they are committed to
. Goal theory suggests that employees will expend greater effort toward achieving performance goals that they believe will result in important outcomes (Locke & Latham. goal theory suggests that work motivation requires the employee to believe that performance goals can be attained and will result in important outcomes for themselves or. At the job level. 1990. mission and public service–that are available through the employee’s role in the organization. 1990). The second model is more consistent with the current public service motivation literature that public service motivation has a direct effect on employee work motivation. Competing Models for the Effects of Public Service Motivation Job Mediated Model Recent reviews of work motivation theories have suggested that any model of work motivation should include the underlying process variables that explain how goals affect work motivation (Kanfer. Public service motivation enhances the perceived importance of the employee’s job which in turn enhances motivation.
they are more likely to see goals as achievable and worthy of their effort. 1988. These job level attributes and their implications for explaining the separate contributions of public service and mission on work motivation are depicted in Figure 1 and will be discussed below. 391).organizational goals. Latham & Frayne. 1983. for their organization (Klein. they have
. In addition to having achievable goals. Early & Lituchy. 1986. 1989) found that enhancing employee self-efficacy to overcome obstacles affecting the ability to come to work can increase job attendance among public employees. Self-efficacy has been shown to enhance certain types of performance in the public sector. In other words. Self-efficacy. Frayne and Latham (1987. p. the individual’s judgment of his or her own “capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura. employee work motivation also requires that performance objectives be viewed as important. 1986. If employees feel more confident in their abilities. because individuals who believe that they can accomplish a goal are more likely expend the necessary effort and persist in the face of obstacles (Bandura. The extent to which goals seem achievable is determined by an individual’s sense of self-efficacy. work motivation is enhanced when employees see their job as not only as doable but also important. Self-efficacy influences motivation through its effect on the direction and persistence of behavior. Job Importance. Higher levels of selfefficacy often are associated with better performance. 1991). If employees do not perceive their job to be important or meaningful. Bandura & Cervone. 1991).
as mentioned above. 1991).little reason to be motivated to perform their work. 1999). & Erez. then they are more likely to see their work as meaningful (Wright. In the public sector. First. Perry & Wise. managers can persuade employees that their jobs are important by providing a convincing rationale for their work tasks (Locke. Perry & Wise. There are a number of ways in which organizations can affect the employee’s perceptions of goal importance. 2001). if employees can see how their work contributes to achieving important organizational goals. 1990. One way managers may attempt to do this is by linking the job performance directly to organizational performance. 1988). Similar to the concept of task significance. 1997. Although self-efficacy is important when understanding motivation at the job level. If achieving assigned goals can satisfy personal employee
. Wittmer. Rainey & Steinbauer. Latham. 1982. it is the concept of job importance that is especially salient in understanding the contributions public service motivation and organization mission make toward organization performance. this aspect of goal theory may be particularly salient because the link between individual and organization goals may extend beyond the boundaries of the organization (Perry & Porter. Public service motivation asserts that public employees may view their performance goals as important because of the congruence between the altruistic or community service nature of public sector goals and the high value that public sector employees place on work that helps others and benefits society (Crewson. 1990. however.
such as performing public service. 1989). Direct Effect Model Using the same basic theoretical constructs. 1991) or perceive a weak link between performance and rewards (Porter & Lawler. 1994). then they are more likely to be perceived as important and accepted as personal goals. 1968. 1981. Rainey. 1993. then the utility of this method for enhancing goal importance is severely limited. but such extrinsic rewards must contingent on performance if they are to act as performance incentives (Lawler. 1982. 1971. Newstrom et al. Lawler. First. Rainey. 1975. In addition to the intrinsic rewards provided by the nature of the job or function of the organization. 1998. Houston. Rawls et al.. organizations may also make assigned performance goals important to the employee by providing appropriate extrinsic rewards for goal attainment (Klein. Wittmer. in addition to an affect on job or task level motivation. mission and job characteristics make toward employee work motivation (Figure 2). public sector employees value extrinsic rewards less than their private sector counterparts (Cacioppe & Mock.motives. 1983). & Luther. Jurkiewicz et al. Khojasteh.. Middlemist. Wright. Kilpatrick et al. 1984. the literature on public service motivation may suggest an alternative explanation of contributions public service. 2000. Three changes in particular may be implied. 1991. Not only is the type and amount of reward important.1964. 1976.. If. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) suggest that.. Mowen. as evidence suggests. the organization’s mission may increase employee public service motivation by attracting “individuals who will self-select into the organization on the basis of the
1990). 1990. Wittmer. 1997. Using the 1999 New York State Workforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service 1999). five provided a current list or telephone directory. 35
. 1998. the research on public service motivation seems to imply that public service motivation would have a direct effect on employee work motivation and performance (Brewer & Seldon. a sample of state agencies was generated. In the second stage. Method The sample for this study consisted of 385 New York State employees drawn from a two-stage cluster sampling procedure. Such an assumption seems to underlie the view that no differences in public and private employee work motivation exist because the opportunity to fulfill altruistic or service needs in the public service compensates for the higher levels of extrinsic rewards available in the private sector (Perry & Wise. Of these 11 agencies. Perry & Wise. First. Employee lists from the seven remaining agencies were taken from the most recent New York State Office of General Services (OGS) Telephone Directory. 1999. Crewson.valence of the mission for them” (p. 26). 11 of the 72 state agencies in New York were selected at random with their probability for inclusion determined by the number of agency employees in January 1999. A third way that a model suggested by the public service motivation literature may differ from one implied by goal theory is that it may assume that extrinsic rewards have a direct effect on employee work motivation. 2000. 1991) rather than an indirect effect mediated by job-level characteristics. Second. Naff & Crum.
defined as the direction. For example. To these a sixth item was added for this study to assess the degree of persistence in an employee’s work-related behavior (“I am willing to start work early or stay late to finish a job”). 1997). work motivation. Baldwin (1984. While Rainey (1983) found a three-item variant of this measure to be unreliable. This four-item measure asks individuals to rate themselves on how involved they are in their work (direction) and how hard they work (intensity) on a set of five-point response scales. was measured using a general measure of work motivation first developed and validated by Patchen and his associates (Patchen.68). & Allen. this study measured work motivation using a six-item measure that adapted the five items employed by Baldwin (1984. from previously validated measures. Capitalizing on the successful application of the modified version of this measure in the public sector. Patchen.employees employed in the state capital were selected at random from each of the 11 agencies. Versions of this scale used in studies of public sector organizations have had mixed success. 1970. 1990). 1990) added an item concerning persistence to his adaptation of Patchen’s original four-item scale and achieved an acceptable level of internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = . Pelz. 1987. and persistence of work-related behaviors desired by the organization or its representatives (Mitchell.
. whenever possible. Study Measures Each of six study variables was measured using multiple items taken. intensity. 1987. 1965).
sometimes. Lee. three of which were adapted from an instrument of work-related expectancies (Sims. Items for all six study variables were measured on either a six-point (coded 1 – 6) strength of agreement (strongly disagree. composite scale scores for each measure were computed as the sum of the standardized item scores. Recognizing the important link between the dual meaning of public service (Brewer & Seldon. & Locke. generally agree. 1998). Earley. A complete list of the items used in each measure is provided in Appendix A. 1991) Goal Setting Questionnaire a five-item measure of the availability of extrinsic workrelated rewards contingent on performance was developed. and almost always/always) scale. Bobko. often.2 Organization importance was measured by three items assessing the degree of importance the employee places on the work of the organization.
. public service motivation was measured by three items assessing the respondent’s commitment to government employment the opportunities it provides to do something worthwhile for society. A multiple item measure of organizational importance and public service motivation were developed especially for this research. To accommodate the differences in response scales. rarely. agree a little. generally disagree. disagree a little. Szilagyi & McKemey.Self-efficacy was measured using four items. assessing the probability that effort would lead to good performance. and strongly agree) or a five-point (coded 0 – 4) frequency of occurrence (almost never/never.1 Based on Locke and Latham’s (1990. 1976).
Comparisons between the demographics of the sample respondents with characteristics of state employees as reported by 1999 New York State Workforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service 1999) suggested that the sample was similar to the population in terms of gender (51 percent and 48 percent female.9 percent from the Department of Labor. the sample was even more dominated by the presence of White employees (89. From the reduced sample of 355. and length of service to the organization (16 years on average for the sample.2 percent. Given the relatively high response rate (75. 30 were returned uncompleted because the selected participant was no longer employed by the agency. respectively). Response rates by agency ranged from a low of 64.2 percent) and the
.5 percent). age (the average age of the sample was 47 years while the state average was 45). while the average organizational tenure for all state employees was nearly 15 years). Although three-quarters of all New York state employees are classified in grades commonly associated with clerical or support positions (salary grade 17 or below). 267 usable questionnaires were returned for an overall response rate of 75.3 The characteristics of the sample did differ significantly from the population in terms of salary grade and ethnicity.5 percent from the Office of Mental Health to a high of 83. technical or managerial grades (at or above salary grade 18).Survey Respondents Of the 385 questionnaires that initially were mailed. While nearly three-quarters (71. two-thirds of the sample were classified in professional.8%) of New York state employees are Caucasian.
a modeling technique will be used in the covariance structure analysis to adjust for measurement error (Hayduk. Although the reliability of two measures. Distributions for four of the six measures were negatively skewed.limitations of the available sample frame.4 it seems likely that these differences were characteristic of the sample and not just of the survey respondents. with the mean score just above the scale midpoint.5 The potential range of values for each scale varied depending on the number of items and number of response categories per item. job importance. In recognizing the substantial salary grade differences and the emphasis on professional and management staff in the public service motivation literature.70) suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Table 1 shows the univariate statistics for each measure prior to standardization. Contrary to expectations. possibly due to social desirability bias (Rainey 1993). with respondents on average reporting a relatively high degree of work motivation.65 to 0. and organization importance.81 (Table 2). only data regarding respondents at or above salary grade 18 were included in the analysis. responses were the most positive when participants were asked to describe their own behavior (work motivation) or abilities (selfefficacy). self-efficacy. 1987). Respondents did
. Univariate Analysis of Measures Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha) for the six measures ranged from 0. respondents reported only a moderate amount of public service motivation. As might be expected with self-report measures. job importance and self-efficacy were slightly below the level of reliability (0.
the prevalence of significant relationships may be a function of characteristics of the study itself. with four-fifths of the correlations no larger than 0. The mean and median correlations among the measures were low (0. Bivariate Relations Table 2 provides the reliability estimates for each of the eight study measures included in the final analysis. the measures appeared to be relatively distinct. was 0. In addition to the interrelatedness of the study measures.5 percent of variance is shared. 1979).58. The measures may have been correlated over and above the true variance of the underlying latent variables due to shared systematic or source errors associated with collecting self-report data at a single point in time (Sullivan & Feldman. The prevalence of significant correlations between measures may also be a product of mono-method bias. The largest bivariate correlation.25 and 0. The sample size used in the study was large enough to be sensitive to small effects (Cohen 1988). as well as the zero-order correlations between them. suggesting that no measure shared greater than one-third of its variance with any other
. with the measure scored substantially below its midpoint. Although all six measures show a moderate degree of variability.21. respectively). specifically the sample size and source effects. between job importance and work motivation.37. finding statistically significant relations where only 2. Nonetheless. Nearly all of the correlations (11 of 15) were statistically significant at p < 0. the work motivation measure produced the greatest degree of homogeneity in responses.05.not perceive a strong relationship between rewards and performance.
the error variance for each measure was set by constraining the values associated with the measure in the theta delta or theta epsilon matrices equal to the variance of the measure multiplied by one minus the reliability (Hayduk 1987. To recognize that the relationship between the observed value of each scale and the theoretical construct it is intended to measure is not perfect.measure. respectively. 0. The hypothesized relationships among the independent variables and between these variables and the dependent variable were tested in a single indicator structural equation model incorporating measurement error (Hayduk 1987).7 Job Mediated Model The overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model suggested by goal theory was tested using six fit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996).33. Jöreskog & Sörbom 1992). Neither
. Both models were tested using composite scores of the multiple item measures as single indicators of their respective latent variable. Although the proportion of shared variance between these two measures was 0.30. Multivariate Analysis A covariance structure analysis for each model was conducted using LISREL version 8. All six of the indices suggested that the theoretical model was generally consistent with the general pattern of relationships reflected by the data. the estimated ratio of true-score variance to observed score variance (Cronbach’s alpha) for each measure was substantially higher.65 and 0.75.6 Thus the path from the latent variable to the measured indicator is estimated to be equal to the square root of the measure’s reliability.
p > 0.99. both greater than the thresholds generally considered necessary for a satisfactory model fit (0. the effect of extrinsic contingent rewards was no longer statistically significant (p > 0. The comparative fit index (CFI) was 1.49. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0. together explaining 64% of the variance in employee perceptions regarding the importance of their jobs. respectively). together explaining 49% of the variation in employee work motivation.05). Only the hypothesized relationship between rewards and job importance was not supported by the model.90 value used to suggest good model fit. positive effect on employee work motivation (p < 0. Together.00 and the standardized root mean square residual (standardized RMR) was 0. One possible explanation for this finding may be that the availability of intrinsic rewards suggested by the existence of important organizational goals
.66) were statistically significant. both surpassing the 0.05.08 and 0. job importance and job-related self-efficacy had direct. consistent with good model fit.05). the analysis also found support for four of the five hypothesized relationships (Figure 3). Once the effects of organization importance and public service motivation on job importance were accounted for.00 and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0. these findings support the assertion that the effect of organization importance and public service motivation on employee work motivation is mediated by job importance. Organizational importance and public service motivation had direct. positive effects on job importance (p < 0.the maximum likelihood chi-square (X2 (4) = 3.02.05).8 In turn. In addition to the six model fit indices.01) nor the p value test for close fit (0.
The standardized RMR was 0.35.05). However. The CFI was 0.05). explaining 64% of the variance in job importance and 25% of the variance in public service motivation. Although the six model fit indices were consistent with a good model fit. As predicted. all six of the indices suggested that the theoretical model was generally consistent with the general pattern of relationships reflected by the data.05). a nest model comparison of the direct effect model results with the job mediated model results showed that the job mediated model was a significantly better fit (X2d (2) = 6. p < 0.04. positive effects on employee work motivation (p < 0. the analysis did not support the
. only job importance and job-related self-efficacy were found to have direct.98 as was the traditional GFI. Direct Effect Model As with the previous model. the overall model fit of the hypothesized structural relationships of the direct effect model were tested using six fit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996). Again.06 and the p value test for close fit was 0.58. organizational importance was found to have direct positive effects on job importance and public service motivation (p < 0. The RMSEA was 0. Although the model still explained 48% of the variation in employee work motivation. The analysis found support for only four of the six relationships hypothesized by the direct effect model (Figure 4). The overall chi square test of model fit was not statistically significant (X2 (6) = 9.and the desire to perform meaningful public service may compensate for the limited availability of performance related extrinsic rewards as reported by survey respondents (see table 1). p > 0.09.05).
Conclusion Although the results of any single study should be viewed with some caution. they must find their job to be important and have confidence that they can successfully perform it. For employees to be motivated to perform their work. An empirical test of this new framework suggests that goal theory can provide a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the independent contributions of task. The failure to find a direct. suggesting that public service motivation is unrelated to employee performance after controlling for the effect of general task motivation as represented by job importance and jobrelated self-efficacy. positive relationship between public service motivation and employee work motivation is an important departure from the hypothesized direct effect model. mission and public service on employee work motivation and performance in the public sector. The more important the organization’s function and the more public service motivation an employee
.hypothesized relationships between either rewards or public service motivation and employee work motivation. The employees’ perception of the importance of the organizational mission and their desire to provide meaningful contribution to society are two factors that influence the degree of importance employees place on their jobs. this study advances our understanding of employee work motivation and performance in the public sector by reinterpreting the existing literature regarding public service motivation within the psychological conceptual framework of goal theory to suggest a series of new mechanisms by which employee values influence behavior.
This is consistent with the literature on public service motivation. the job mediated model did find that public service motivation has an important. extrinsic rewards were not found to influence employee work motivation. Perhaps contrary to the expectations of goal theory. the more important they find their work to be.exhibits. effect of work motivation. Consistent with the implications of goal theory. albeit indirect. as it has not only suggested that public sector employees are more motivated by the intrinsic rewards associated with altruistic and service related opportunities but that these rewards reduce the importance of extrinsic rewards in public organizations (Perry & Wise. 1990). In fact. This provides additional evidence to support the assertion that the intrinsic rewards provided by the nature of the job and function of the
. The findings of this study provide additional evidence to support that claim. extrinsic rewards were not found to have significant direct or indirect effect on employee work motivation. This suggests that not only can public service motivation influence employee performance in the public sector but also that it is critical that public sector organizations clearly communicate to their employees how important the organization’s function and performance is to society. however. After controlling for the influence of perceived organizational importance and employee public service motivation. neither the job mediated model nor the direct effect model tested in this study provided any evidence to suggest that extrinsic rewards influenced employee work motivation even when such rewards are contingent on performance.
2 This measure of public service motivation combing the interest to do public service with the interest to work in public service may have its weaknesses. performance related extrinsic rewards. the meaning of such scores are difficult to interpret. 5 Although composite scale scores for each measure used to analyze the measure relations were computed as the sum of the standardized item scores to accommodate the differences in response scale across items. organization goal conflict and ambiguity) that may affect the psychological or behavioral processes underlying how individual values and organizational characteristics lead to behavior (Wright. a more general measure of selfefficacy based on work-related expectancies was used in this study. These differences were no longer significant. 399). Employees assigned dedicated phone lines may be more likely to be at the higher levels of the organization. only lists the most frequently called state employees. 4 The 1998 New York State Office of General Services (OGS) Telephone Directory. job specificity and difficulty) and contextual factors (such as procedural constraints. Given the potential usefulness of goal theory to provide a strong theoretical framework for future studies regarding public service motivation. 1976) and resemble methods used to assess efficacy expectations in laboratory studies (Klein 1991). forthcoming). future research should extend this work by empirically testing relationships between employee public service motivation. job importance and organizational mission valence and employee or organizational performance measures controlling for other goal related constructs (such as performance feedback. if adjustments are made to take into account that the data regarding the state workforce were collected more than one year prior to the collection of the sample data.organization may be more important to public sector employees than. A recent study by Lewis and Frank (2002) found that employees who placed a greater value on the ability to help others and be useful to society were only “slightly more likely to choose government service” (p. 3 Statistical tests comparing the age and length of service of the sample with the population suggested that the sample was significantly older and with longer tenure than the population. or compensate for the limited availability of. however. used to select a sample for 7 of the 11 state agencies. For this
. Although some consider such a general measure to be inappropriate (Bandura 1986).
Although most measures of self-efficacy are task specific. work-related expectancy measures have been found to correlate with measures of locus of control (Sims et al.
6 Error variances associated with the indicators (e) are equal to one minus the indicator's reliability estimate. 7 This path can be interpreted as the factor loading of the observed indicator on the conceptual variable it was intended to measure.
. 8 Coefficients of determination for endogenous variables can be calculated from Figures 3 and 4 as one minus the error term for the latent variable (E). the sum of the raw item scores was used to describe the sample in terms of the eight study measures.reason.
Hypothesized Job Mediated Model
Public Service Motivation
Figure 2. Hypothesized Direct Effect Model
Public Service Motivation
Table 1 Univariate Statistics Potential Scale Range Work Motivation Job Importance Self-Efficacy Public Service Motivation Rewards Organization Importance 3 .05 3.30 2 .0 12.18 3 .5
10.78 2.61 5.06 13.09
2.22 3 .14
3 .13 3.20 16.5 10.5
Mean 24.26 Observed Observed Standard Minimum Maximum Score Score Deviation 3.98 12.71
.5 14.09 13 4 7 3 3 30 16 22 18 26
Midpoint 16.5 9.33 11.16 3 .
16* 0.29* 0.74) 0.20* (0.05 Cronbach's alpha in parentheses.37* 0.81) 2 3 4 5 6
6 Organization Importance
0.28* (0.75) 0.70)
*p < 0.00
0.21* (0.10 (0.32*
0.Table 2 Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities 1 1 Work Motivation 2 Job Importance 3 Self-Efficacy 4 Public Service Motivation 5 Rewards (0.65) 0.
.65) -0.06 0.09 0.
Public Service Motivation
The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights.89*
Work Motivation 0.51 E
0. Job Mediated Model Results
Contingent Rewards Self-efficacy
0. *Path coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.Figure 3.
0. *Path coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.36 E
0. Direct Effect Model Results
Contingent Rewards Self-efficacy
Work Motivation 0.81*
The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights.Figure 4.05
Public Service Motivation 0.
685-711. N. Buchanan. N. 11(2). N. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. Individual conceptions of public service motivation. A. and organizational commitment. A. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. not that consequential. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. B. 7-28. & Seldon. 10(4). 80-89.References Alonso. NJ: Prentice-Hall. 31(4). Bandura. 8(3). (1988). 16(2). Brewer.. Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. American Review of Public Administration. Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. (2000).. Baldwin. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Bandura. American Review of Public Administration. (2000). Bandura. 13(2). (1983). 181-193. Review of Public Personnel Administration. L. Cacioppe. Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. Seldon. Public Personnel Management. & Cervone. Baldwin. C. 363380. 60(3). 4(2). A. P. Brewer. S. A. N. 34(4). Perceptions of public versus private sector personnel and informal red tape: Their impact on motivation. Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. (1991). (2001). G. Australian Journal of Management. 20. Public versus private: Not that different. Brewer. (1984). J. (1986). & Cervone. Englewood Cliffs. (1986). 91-113. (1998). D. C. G. S. (1975). Baldwin. Are we really lazy? Review of Public Personnel Administration. G. 254-264. A comparison of the quality of work experience in
. & Mock. D. C. (1984). 1-27. R. 38. Bandura. Public Administration Review. 1017-1028. J. G. & Lewis. 413-439. P. A. J. & Facer.. (1987).. Self-evaluation and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. & Seldon. A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45. J. Public Administration Review. (1990).. Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotypes. R. business executives. A. 339-347. Baldwin. Government managers. S. 275-302.
Jurkiewicz. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. A. G. Massey. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 45(2). J. Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. 387392. Structural equation modeling with LISREL. (1991).
. 81-88. Frayne. & Simo. Crewson. American Review of Public Administration. 07-114. & Sörbom. Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. 22(1). 89-96. R. E. 24(1). (1992). 144-153. Hayduk. P. Jaccard. 21(3). 23(1). Public Productivity & Management Review. 1-53. A.. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.. (1987). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 713-727. & Brown. Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. G. (1992). L. Hillsdale. C. Public sector professionals: The effects of public sector jobs on motivation. P. C. LISREL VIII: Analysis of linear structural relations. (1998). R.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Public Personnel Management.. J. A. (1973). (1997). R. Motivation in public and private organizations: A comparative study. 37-48. Earley. C. 33-51. & Lituchy. Work motivation: Theory and practice.. C. K. Kanfer. F. (1992). American Psychologist. L. G. (1987).. (1996) LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multipkle regression. CA: Sage. Gabris. (1988). K. P. 10(4). job satisfaction and work involvement. 7. Houston. 72(3). Sage University Papers series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. T. 923-940. The humanistic model of organizational motivation: A review of research support. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. 76. 230-250. Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. J. D. Cohen. A. & Taher.. Mooresville. & Thompson. T. E. Emmert. D. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. & Latham. Gibson. Thousand Oaks. Katzell. & Wan.. Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models. 4. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 37(11). (2000) Public-Service Motivation: A multivariate test. IN: Scientific Software. & Teasley. Jöreskog. M. K. W. Public Administration Review. T. G. G. E. (1995). Human Relations.A. C.. D. K. (1990).government and private organizations. 499-518.
R. Kilpatrick. Newstrom. M. 391-401.. 66. (1991). 19. (1999). Research in Organizational Bbehavior (Vol. & Latham. Journal of Applied Psychology. New York: Jossey-Bass.. J. R. Klein. (1997). (2002). Comparative study of Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Joint effects of assigned goal levels and incentive structure on task performance. Who wants to work for government? Public Administration Review. A theory of goal setting and task performance. (1964). Earley. A. G. P. D. Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories... H. Lawler.. Naff. (1971). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration. 12. (1994). jr. 57-149). & Locke. E. W. 5. Self-management training for increasing job attendance: A follow-up and a replication. G. Mitchell. 230257. Lewis. F. DC: Brookings Institution. M. C. & Frayne. Public Personnel Management. Bobko. 49. & Frank. 22(3). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. M. P. E. New York: McGraw-Hill. public sector managers. & Monczka. C. J. Motivating the public employee: Fact vs. Lee.. C.). Motivation in work organizations. & Luther. 62(4). 467-482. R. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. E. New York State Department of Civil Service (1999). (1991). Cummings & B. B. J. Middlemist. (1990).. Locke.
. P.Khojasteh. Cummings. P. Matching motivation strategies with organizational contexts. & Crum. S. E. Public Personnel Management. fiction. (1989). pp. (1976).. Latham. Washington. & Jennings. Lawler. K. 441-448. A. Reif. M.. CT: JAI Press. An empirical analysis of a goal setting questionnaire. M. The image of the federal service. 67-72. 1999 New York State workforce management plan. T. E. (1981). (1993). 74(3). Englewood Cliffs. Maidani. K. (1991). Staw (Eds. 19(4). Journal of Applied Psychology. W. 5-16. 411416. NJ: Prentice-Hall. E. P. Public Personnel Management. 20(4).. Greenwhich. A. A. T. C. E. D. Mowen. G. Motivating the private vs. In L. 395-404. 598-603. E. L. A. L. R..
. Human Resource Management. Determining managerial strategies in the public sector: What kinds of people enter the public and private sectors? An updated comparison of perceptions. L. W. Academy of Management Review. New York: Marcel Dekker. E. Perry. Patchen. J. & Rainey. H. Public Administration Review. L. J. 13(2). 182201. Public Administration Review. G. Some questionnaire measures of employee motivation and morale. (1982). 7(1). Perceptions of incentives in business and government: Implications for civil service reform. (1990).. M.. & Bernstein. Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. Posner. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. achievement. W. & Wise. R. (1982).. MI. 5-22. & Porter. The public-private distinction in organizational theory: A critique and research strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 19-39). American Review of Public Administration. 15(2). C. Rainey. & Lawler. Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. Pelz. Perry. 207-242. L. D. (1970). (1983). Participation.
. 89-98.. Perry. In R. stereotypes. (1994). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 367-373. 181-197. Homewood. 35-43. Administration & Society.. 288-302. L. (1979). L. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Rainey. The motivational bases of public service. Patchen. Antecedents of public service motivation. L.).Nunnally.). (1982). H. (1988). 7(1). & Allen. Psychometric Theory (3rd ed. (1993). 21(2). Porter. H.. H. C. Z. L. J.. and values. Golembiewski (Ed. 39(5). (1968). New York: McGraw-Hill. goals and individual roles. Perry. H. (1965). W. J. 7(2). and involvement on the job. Work motivation. G. J. G. M. 440-448. 50(3). Rainey. Perry. G. I. (1997). J. 16(4). Private agencies and private firms: Incentive structures. L. B. H. IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press. G. Academy of Management Review. H. Rainey. & Schmidt. Institute for Social Research: Ann Arbor. E. Managerial attitudes and performance.T. Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations.
(1999). T. H. R. P. (1957).. Management-compensation policy and the public interest. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 19. R. 74. Public Personnel Management. (forthcoming) The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognition theories. Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. P. Wittmer. 510-523. A. J. L. Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government. (1975). hybrid sector and business managers. Schuster. S. H. G. (1974)..
.. 3. R. B. Antecedents of workrelated expectancies. Multiple indicators: An introduction. & Steinbauer. A comparison of managers entering or reentering the profit and nonprofit sectors. & McKemey. E. (1979). Academy of Management Journal. Szilagyi. D. 18(3). 1-32. 10. Wright. 616-623. (1989). M. J. 14(4). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. & Rietsema. & Feldman. 11(4). The effects of varied clarity of group path upon the individual and his relationship to his group. Sims. Sullivan. B. (1991). J. Academy of Management Journal. Wright. J. 29-45. Human Relations. D. Ullrich. CA: Sage. Beverly Hills. 369-383. A. Accepted for publication in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.. 699-705. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory... 559-586. B. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. Test of the mediating role of goals in the incentiveperformance relationship. (2001). (1976). O. Rawls. 9(1).Rainey. Public Productivity & Management Review. P. 547-559. & Nelson. H. E. Wright. Raven.
I can complete the work that is expected of me. The opportunity to provide meaningful public service is an important reason why I originally took this job. A lot of people can be affected by how well I do my job.(R) I can’t get my work done on time even when I try very hard.(R)* Job Importance I understand the importance of accomplishing my work objectives. I am willing to start work early or stay late to finish a job.(R)* I do extra work for my job that isn’t really expected of me. Rewards If I accomplish my work objectives.(R) Doing good work in no way increases job security here. all other items used a six-point agree/disagree scale coded 1 (Strongly Disagree) through 6 (Strongly Agree).* Organization Importance The work of this organization is not very significant in the broader scheme of things.* I have seen good job performance rewarded in my work unit.(R) (R) Reverse worded. It has been hard for me to get very involved in my current job. If this organization disappeared. I am not as well prepared as I could be to meet all the demands of my job.(R) I probably do not work as hard as others who do the same type of work. I work on tasks that seem useless or unnecessary. it would hardly be missed.(R)* Self-efficacy I am confident that I can successfully perform any tasks assigned to me on my current job.Appendix A Work Motivation I put forth my best effort to get my job done regardless of the difficulties. my accomplishments are recognized.(R) I believe that the priorities of this organization are quite important. It is important to me that my career is in government.(R)* Public Service Motivation Working for government allows me to give something back to society.* Time seems to drag while I am on the job. Fulfilling all my job responsibilities does little to improve my chances for a promotion.(R) When I improve my performance. it increases my chances for a pay raise.
. *Responses on a five-point frequency scale coded 0 (Never/Almost Never) through 4 (Always/Almost Always).