PS - PPM - Public Service Motivation, Public Management Reform and Organizational Socialization

r
6 4 4623
esea rch-arti cle2016
P PMXXX10.1177/0091026016644623P ublic Personnel Management Battaglio and French
Article
Public Personnel Management
Public Service
1–25
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Motivation, Public sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026016644623
Management ppm.sagepub.com
Reform, and
Organizational
Socialization: Testing
the Effects of
Employment At- Will
and Agency on PSM
Among Municipal
Employees
R. Paul Battaglio, Jr.1 and P. Edward

French2
Abstra
ct
This study tests public service motivation (PSM) by accounting for organizational
factors and socialization in shaping motives. Focusing on PSM and its four dimensions,
we control for employment at-will as an organizational factor and agency type in
influencing organizational socialization. Utilizing hierarchical linear modeling, we
evaluate PSM in 10 municipalities at the individual level, while controlling for agency
context as a predictor for a second level of analysis. The results underscore the effect
of organizational factors, indicating that municipal employees in employment at-will
environments have higher levels of self-sacrifice than their civil service counterparts.
Although municipal employees in public safety agencies exhibit higher levels of self-
sacrifice and commitment to the public interest than their peers in other agencies,
their levels of attraction to policy making and compassion are significantly lower.
The findings suggest the importance of a multi-dimensional approach to PSM when
considering institutional factors and agency socialization in the workplace.
Keywor
ds
public service motivation, motivation theory, civil service reform, employee at-will
1 University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on May 7, 2016
2Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, USA
Corresponding Author:
R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, GR31, Richardson, TX
75080-3021, USA.
Email: battaglio@utdallas.edu
Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on May 7, 2016

2 Public Personnel
Management
Introducti
on
Evaluating public service motivation (PSM) has expanded to include a number of
factors since Perry’s initial development, including, socialization processes that
occur outside of the organization, personal attributes, job characteristics,
organizational incentives, and overall work environment (Bright, 2005; Camilleri,
2007; Perry, 1997; Vandenabeele, 2011). From the extant literature, the role
organizations play in motivating employees is a prominent area of inquiry
(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Also promising is how one’s chosen profession may
influence individual perceptions of public service (Crewson, 1997; Taylor, 2007).
According to Crewson (1997), professional comparisons allow for the testing of
assumptions about individual motivation and their particular profession. Some
professions by nature may require a service orientation (e.g., public safety) as
opposed to others (e.g., engineers). Indeed, there is an established expectation of
differing value preferences between and among professions (Edwards, Nalbandian, &
Wedel, 1981). Individuals who work in public safety (e.g., police and firefighters)
may be more inclined toward a special calling to service (see Guy, Newman, &
Mastracci, 2008; Mastracci, Guy, & Newman, 2011).
Another point of inquiry is the impact on motivation that public management
reforms have had on personnel, specifically, personnel reforms that have eliminated
traditional civil service systems in favor of employment at-will (EAW; Bowman,
Gertz, Gertz, & Williams, 2003; Bowman & West, 2006; Coggburn, 2001, 2006;
Kellough & Nigro, 2002, 2006; Nigro & Kellough, 2008). In the U.S. states, EAW is
the reduction or elimination of grievance and appeals processes established in tradi-
tional civil service arrangements. This move is viewed as a means for boosting
employee motivation, and thus productivity, by way of an expedited dismissal
process unhindered by what reformers contend is a recalcitrant traditional system
unwilling or unable to mete out the disciplining of poor performing employees.
To test the significance of employee professional affiliation on PSM, we make a
distinction between municipal employees working in public safety agencies and rank-
in-file employees through a hierarchical linear analysis that controls for the
individual’s department of employment. In addition, we consider the public
management reform environment within a jurisdiction, namely, whether the personnel
system is civil service or EAW. Below, a discussion of relevant theoretical
developments in PSM and public management reform literature is carried out. The
article then establishes a set of hypotheses for evaluation. To test the hypotheses, the
present study employs hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The “Data and Method”
section of the article discusses the merits of HLM as well as data collection and
measurement. Finally, the “Discussion and Conclusion” sections offer concluding
remarks and avenues for further exploration.
Theoretical
Framework
PSM
Research
Eschewing an exhaustive analysis of PSM research, we focus on more recent
developments in the field relevant to the present analysis. Accordingly, we rely on
Perry and
Battaglio and French
3
Wise’s (1990) seminal definition that focuses on the individual’s inclination toward
motivational stimuli “grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and orga-
nizations” (p. 368). This stream of research suggests PSM is an integral factor in
shaping many important organizational factors, including, productivity, improved
management practices, accountability, and trust in government (Brewer, Selden, &
Facer, 2000; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). In terms of validity, the PSM construct has
proven to be a resilient predictor of the existence of a public service ethos among
public servants (Brewer et al., 2000; Coursey, Pandey, & Yang, 2012; Perry, 1996,
1997).
Yet, few studies have focused on the multi-dimensional aspects of PSM (DeHart-
Davis, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Taylor, 2007;
Vandenabeele, 2008). Exploring each dimension has the potential to provide a more
robust understanding of PSM as both a unitary and multi-dimensional concept. For
instance, Taylor’s 2007 study of Australian government employees found that
organizational outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job
motivation) varied by PSM dimension, with self-sacrifice in particular having a
significant, positive relationship with the outcome variables. Thus, our survey
included all four dimensions of Perry’s PSM construct: attraction to policy making,
commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice.
Consequently, the contribution of PSM research to motivation theory has proven
fruitful to broader organizational behavior questions related to public administration
(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Below, we focus our investigation on the role PSM
plays in organizational social processes and recent public management reform efforts.
PSM and
Organizations
Following the logic of Perry’s (2000) process theory and March and Olsen’s (1989)
work on institutions, Moynihan and Pandey (2007) suggested organizations have a
role in fostering experiences and policies that in turn shape PSM. A rational perspec-
tive to the study of the individual in the organization does not provide a complete
explanation of motivation. Social processes within organizations also play a role in
shaping an individual’s “normative beliefs and emotional understandings of the
world” (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007, p. 41).
Our interest is in understanding the role of public management reforms toward
shaping action in organizations (March & Olsen, 1989). Moynihan and Pandey
(2007) found that organizational factors have both positive and negative
consequences for the behavior of public servants and the value they place on public
service. They found that organizational factors such as red-tape and length of
organizational membership are negatively related to PSM, whereas hierarchical
authority and reform efforts have a positive relationship. Expanding upon their logic,
we argue that public management reforms—specifically EAW—influence employee
perceptions. In so doing, we broaden the theoretical appreciation of the work
environment and its impact on employee motivation, a framework that Perry and
others contend is important to our understanding of organizations and individuals
(Perry, 2000; Moynihan & Pandey,
2007).
4 Public Personnel
Management
In addition to organizational factors, we also consider sociohistorical influences

on individuals before entry into the workplace. This approach is consistent with the
theoretical premises that Perry (2000) and others (e.g., Moynihan & Pandey, 2007)
have suggested broaden our understanding of PSM. Such an understanding considers
both the exogenous factors (e.g., organizational aspects) and endogenous influences
(e.g., professional association, education, parental socialization) that make up the
sum total of the individual’s appreciation for self and the social process. Like any
organization, public organizations are not only engaged in the production of goods
and services but also constitute a social institution where “individuals interact and
influence each other in the context of a structured environment” (Moynihan &
Pandey, 2007, p. 42).
PSM and Public

Management Reform
Proponents of public management reform have proposed numerous initiatives and
reform efforts aimed at enhancing efficiency in the public sector, many of which pur-
sue strategies and courses of action that are similar to the private sector. The goal of
these reforms is often to dismantle traditional civil service systems viewed as lacking
a performance-oriented approach (Coggburn, 2001; Hays & Sowa, 2006; Kearney &
Hays, 1998; Kellough, 1999; Kellough & Selden, 2003). This shift has the potential
to disrupt the relationship between the goals and values of public employees and the
mission and values embraced by the organization (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, &
Johnson, 2005).
The trend toward EAW systems in the public service has not gone unnoticed.
Efforts at the federal, state, and local levels of government to curb employee rights
highlight a number of developments (Bowman et al., 2003; Bowman & West, 2006;
Coggburn, 2006; Hays & Sowa, 2006). At the federal level, legislation allowing
exemption from Title 5, Office of Personnel Management (OPM, 2008)
demonstration projects, and legislative approval of performance-based policies have
all contributed to scaling back traditional merit-based procedures in favor of private
sector management practices (Brook & Kiang, 2008). At the state level, far-
reaching personnel changes include staffing and compensation decisions increasingly
made by agency and division level managers; termination, transfer, and demotion
decisions devolved to the agency level; EAW environments removing hierarchical-
based rules and regulations for staffing and compensation decisions; and the erosion
or elimination of the expectation of continued employment in the public sector
(Battaglio, 2014). Indeed, Kettl (2015) argued that recent efforts to expedite removal
of Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel in light of the 2014 Department of
Veterans Affairs scandal—a data breach involving the falsification of wait-times at
VA hospitals—have looked to EAW efforts at the state level for guidance.
The dismantling of traditional employee dismissal and due process procedures—
the goal of EAW reforms—is often considered a primary component toward motivat-
ing employees in such a way as to empower and embolden them to achieve the
reforms’ stated purposes of a productive and responsive public service (Coggburn,
2001, 2006; Kellough & Nigro, 2006). However, research suggests a less than
sanguine opinion of
5
the EAW environment among public servants and managers. Incorporating private
sector concepts into the public sector has the potential to erode the public sector ethos
and limit its attractiveness to potential employees (Bowman & West, 2006;
Coggburn,
2001, 2006). Problems with morale may emerge if employees become less committed
and less participatory as they perceive employment decisions made by management
to be arbitrary and/or biased in an at-will environment (Battaglio, 2010; Bowman &
West, 2006; Coggburn, 2001, 2006; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003; Kellough &
Nigro, 2002, 2006; Goodman & Mann, 2010; Radin & Werhane, 1996; Roehling
& Wright, 2004).
Linking personnel reform research to self-determination theory affords an
opportunity to evaluate how individuals exhibit different levels of motivation and
respond to different types of stimuli (i.e., at-will employment) that often vary
according to organizational context and task characteristics (Frey, 1997; Koehler &
Rainey, 2008; Ryan
& Deci, 2000). Accordingly, PSM may have both intrinsic and extrinsic qualities
(Houston, 2011; Koehler & Rainey, 2008). Houston (2011) proposed that in an
autono- mous environment, “an individual with a public service identity is likely to
act out of a ‘logic of appropriateness’ rather than a ‘logic of consequences’” (p.
763). If PSM- oriented individuals are more likely to act out of a sense of duty as
opposed to punitive measures, then we would assume that EAW environments would
be stifling to pro- public service behavior. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Municipal employees in jurisdictions operating under EAW

will have lower levels of PSM than employees working in traditional civil service
systems.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Municipal employees in jurisdictions operating under
EAW will have lower levels of self-sacrifice than those working in traditional civil
service systems.
PSM and Organizational

Socialization
Few evaluations have explored the differences exhibited by individuals working
solely in the public sector in terms of PSM and the type of agency they work for
(e.g., public safety agencies vs. social service agencies). The process of socialization
within an organization imports significant “public institutional logic”—a key factor
in establish- ing PSM at the individual level (Brewer, 2008, p. 149; Kjeldsen &
Jacobsen, 2013). This socialization process within the organization plays an integral
role in shaping the public ethos among public servants. This ethos is an essential part
to maintaining an organization’s legitimacy among politicians and the larger public
(Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013). Similarly, March and Olsen (1995) contended that
public sector organizations are a powerful force in instilling public values that foster
PSM among public servants (March & Olsen, 1995; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007;
Perry, 2000; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). Examining agency effect through a
hierarchical linear model (discussed below) provides an opportunity to consider the
impact profession may have on PSM. As previously established by Crewson
(1997), professional comparisons
6 Public Personnel
Management
allow for the testing of assumptions regarding persons and their particular profession.
Some professions by nature may require a service orientation (e.g., social work) as
opposed to others (e.g., engineers; see Guy et al., 2008; Mastracci et al., 2011).
Indeed, there is an established expectation of differing value preferences between and
among professions (Edwards et al., 1981). As such, it may be “useful to find out what
combi- nations of PSM dimensions are most important for which people”
(Taylor, 2007, p. 951). This is especially true in studies of public safety personnel
(e.g., firefighters) where the self-sacrifice dimension has proven to be a more robust
predictor of the commitment among this profession to be risk-averse when it comes
to the welfare of citizens and their property (see, for example, Brewer, 2002; Lee &
Olshfski, 2002).
Given the demands placed on persons in public safety professions, especially during
crises, it is reasonable to assume that they may have stronger levels of PSM. This sug-
gests that the individuals sampled in our survey may well be “nested” within two
evolv- ing but fundamentally different professional or agency groupings. Thus, we
expect that some of the variance in the model of attitudes may be accounted for by the
characteristics of the individuals in the sample; yet a substantial portion may also be
attributable to the different nature of the evolution and characteristics of certain
professions. Specifically, controlling for all the individual-level variables, we
hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Municipal employees in public safety agencies will exhibit

higher levels of PSM than employees in other agencies controlled for in the
model. Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Municipal employees in public safety agencies will
exhibit higher levels of self-sacrifice than employees in other agencies controlled
for in the model.
PSM and Individual

Antecedents
In addition to the main hypotheses of our research, a number of respondent
characteristics are included in the model. Specifically, we control for supervisory
status, salary, education, membership in a professional association, and demographic
indicators such as gender and race (Vandenabeele, 2011). According to
predisposition opportunity (Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982), the linking of organizational
incentives and individual motivation is a key ingredient to overall success (Coursey et
al., 2012). Individuals engaged in supervisory roles are an example of this linkage
espoused by predisposition opportunity (Kristof- Brown et al., 2005). Although
supervisory status has not been directly tested with respect to the four PSM
dimensions, Coursey et al. (2012) found that managers’ PSM has a significant affect
on perceptions and citizen involvement in the policy-making process.
Financial remuneration has also proven to be linked to PSM. This stream of
research suggests that public employees value financial incentives, even those who
are highly motivated by the public service ethic (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Christensen
& Wright,
2011; Newstrom, Reif, & Monczka, 1976; Rainey, 1982; Vandenabeele, 2008;
Wittmer,
1991; Wright, 2007; Wright & Pandey, 2008). Among federal employees, pay was
one of the top factors in their consideration of employment in the public sector (U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board, 2013). As an individual need, pay represents
a key
7
component toward job satisfaction and motivation (Christensen & Wright, 2011).
Perry’s initial exploration of PSM and its antecedents found that higher levels of indi-
vidual income were negatively related to PSM and commitment to public
interest/civic duty. In their study of state health and human service public employees,
Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found no significant relationship with individual
income and PSM, and no significant relationship with income and attraction to policy
making and commitment to public interest/civic duty.
Education—possibly due to its close relationship with individual cognitive devel-
opment—is one of the most consistent positive antecedents of PSM (e.g., Bright,
2005; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997). Perry
(1997) asserted that education is an important antecedent to PSM, finding it strongly
and significantly related to all four dimensions as well as the overall composite scale.
Likewise, Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found level of education to be positively and
significantly related to composite PSM scores, and the subscales for attraction to pol-
icy making and commitment to public interest/civic duty.
Professionalism or professional identification is an important antecedent to PSM
(Andersen, 2007; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry,
1997). Like Moynihan and Pandey (2007), this study adopts the approach assuming
that membership to professional organizations would be a sufficient indicator of
professional identification as it will reflect at least a minimum level of
consciousness of professional values. Professionalism has a strong basis in the
suppositions ascribed to process theory, namely, that followers’ perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviors are a product of social learning and role modeling (Bandura,
1977, 1986). Professional identification is generally connected to a number of
characteristics such as “clear-cut occupational field; specialized technical knowledge
acquired from a formal educational program; ethical responsibility for the use of
expertise” (Perry, 1997, p. 182). Perry (1997) found that professional identification
had no significant relationship with his composite PSM scale. For the four
dimensions, professional identification was negatively and significantly related to
attraction to policy making, was positively and significantly related to commitment to
the public interest and self-sacrifice, and had no significant relation with compassion.
Moynihan and Pandey found professional identification to be significantly and
positively associated with the composite PSM scale, attraction to policy making, and
commitment to public interest/civic duty.
There is also evidence from previous research that individual or demographic vari-
ables, such as race and gender, are significantly correlated with PSM and/or job satis-
faction (Perry, 1997; Steel & Warner, 1990; Yaeger, Rabin, & Vocino, 1982). While
such differences have tended to be small, in some cases, minority respondents have
had higher mean PSM scores (Naff & Crum, 1999). Not surprisingly, minorities and
women tend to be engaged more in civic matters and avail themselves of public ser-
vices (Taylor, 2010), and thus, more likely to exhibit a public service ethos. Most
studies have demonstrated mixed or unexpected results with respect to gender (e.g.,
Bright,
2005, as opposed to Perry, 1997; Vandenabeele, 2011), suggesting the importance of
continued evaluation of gender in ongoing PSM research. Some have suggested that
PSM dimensions might be seen as feminine and masculine, with three of the
8 Public Personnel
Management
dimensions (barring compassion) seen as sociologically masculine (see, for example,

Bright, 2005; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Vandenabeele, 2011).
Research Context: Employment Practices in

Mississippi Municipalities
In Mississippi, public employees are considered at-will employees, unless the jurisdic-
tion implements a civil service system, or there is an employment contract (Goodman
& French, 2011; Goodman & Mann, 2010). Civil service provides for a formalized set
of procedures and regulations under which a defined set of employees work, often
including hiring, promotion, discipline, and dismissal terms and procedures. State
and local government employees who are protected by various civil service systems
are insulated from political fallout; thus, once a person is hired and completes
probation, he or she is a permanent employee and can only be removed for cause or as
part of a general reduction in the workforce. Adoption of the civil service system by
certain municipalities in this state is mandated by the Mississippi Code Annotated §
21-31-1 under Title 21
Municipalities, Chapter 31 Civil Service General Provisions. The mandate applies to
those municipalities that have full-paid fire and police departments and also fall under
eight additional provisions of this subsection.1 In addition, § 21-31-3 states that the
gov- erning authorities of any municipality in which there is located a port of entry or
in a county which has created a county port authority, may, in their discretion and by
ordi- nance, extend those civil service general provisions mandated by Mississippi
Code to all full-paid employees in all departments of the municipality (Mississippi
Code of 1972. Annotated § 21-31-1; Mississippi Code of 1972. Annotated § 21-31-3;
Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated § 21-31-13). There are 297 cities and towns in
Mississippi, 90% of those having populations less than 10,000. The municipalities
selected for this study have populations greater than 10,000 and employment
environments relative to our research hypotheses regarding at-will and civil service
systems. The adoption of either/ or both systems in these municipalities falls in line
with the Mississippi Code.
Data and
Method
The data for this study were obtained from a survey distributed to 1,159 employees
who were chosen randomly from the employee rosters provided by 10 municipalities
across the state of Mississippi (Starkville, Pascagoula, Greenville, Natchez, Hernando,
Biloxi, Gulfport, McComb, Meridian, and Tupelo). The cities were selected based on
their demographic locations, economic conditions, and population distribution (Table
1). Aggregate workforce demographics for these 10 cities included 23% female and
39% minority employees. Respondents represented all municipal departments,
including public safety, administration, public works, parks and recreation, and others.
The survey instrument was administered over a 7-month period in 2012. Each
employee selected was given the opportunity to complete the survey anonymously
during paid working hours. The survey team was on-site at different municipal
locations to oversee administration of the survey instrument and answer any
questions from the city’s employees. The mayors, managers, and senior management
teams had given approval for the project
9
Table 1. Survey Results.
Employment Number of Number Number %

at-will employees in random received from (response
City (coded 1) Population sample random sample rate)
Starkville 1 23,888 294 88 81 92
Pascagoula 0 22,392 271 77 51 66
Greenville 1 34,400 441 109 100 92
Natchez 0 15,792 245 70 61 87
Hernando 1 14,090 131 50 42 84
Biloxi 0 44,054 591 200 153 77
Gulfport 0 67,793 635 200 141 71
McComb 0 12,790 182 60 27 45
Meridian 1 41,148 458 150 117 78
Tupelo 1 34,546 450 155 154 99
Total 3,698 1,159 927 79
Note. State of Mississippi population = 2,967,297. Average population of cities surveyed = 31,089 −
(total populations divided by 10). Survey data collected from April 10, 2012, to December 5, 2012.
aAll populations are from the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
and encouraged all municipal employees to participate. In all, 927 surveys were com-
pleted for a 79% response rate. The survey was designed to collect information
concern- ing employee motivation, reward preference, and personal demographics.
The majority of respondents in this study were male (73%) and the greatest
percentage were between the ages of 35 and 44 (32%) (see Table 2). Minorities and
females were also represented as almost 32% of those in the study were non-White,
and approximately 27% were female. The survey results demonstrate minimal
differentia- tion from the aggregate breakdown of demographics for the 10 cities
cited above. Thus, the sample is generally representative of the municipalities
profiled. While great care was taken in the design sampling to minimize error
(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian,
2014) given the sample size and resource constraints, we are also cautious in our abil-
ity to generalize from the results. Nevertheless, the purpose of the analysis is not to
develop a full-blown model of employee attitudes, but rather to assess the relation-
ships between their public service and a number of theoretically justifiable variables
(see Coggburn et al., 2010). Most individuals (50.3%) possessed a high school educa-
tion, and the largest percentage (36%) had worked for their municipality 5 years or
less. Slightly more than half (54%) of the group was comprised of fire and police
personnel, and a majority of respondents (66%) were employed in non-management
positions. Most employees in this study earned less than US$40,000 per year.
Measurement
Validation
As our interest here is in perceptions of public service and not explicit measures of
performance, self-reports are appropriate (Chan, 2001, 2009; Conway & Lance,
2010;
10 Public Personnel
Management
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
Variable n
% Gender
Male 679 73.3
Female 247 26.7
Race
White 632 68.4
Non-White 292 31.6
Departments
Administration 39 4.2
Community Development 14 1.5
Fire 236 25.5
HR/Personnel 15 1.6
Parks and Recreation 76 8.2
Planning and Development 22 2.4
Police 266 28.7
Public Works 132 14.2
Electric 21 2.3
Airport 1 0.1
Other 105 11.3
Salary (in US$)
0-19,999 66 7.2
20,000-39,999 529 57.8
40,000-59,999 262 28.6
60,000-69,999 31 3.4
70,000-99,999 23 2.5
>100,000 5 0.5
Education
Less than HS 32 3.5
HS/GED 464 50.3
2-year college 238 25.8
4-year college 151 16.4
Master’s degree 32 3.5
Law degree 3 0.3
Doctorate degree 3 0.3
Departments
Public Safetya 502 54.2
Non–Public Safety 425 45.8
Note. HS = high school; GED = General Educational Development.

aPublic Safety includes Fire and Police.
Skinner, 1957). We maintain that employees are generally best suited to self-report
their workplace environment because they are the ones who are aware of the subtle
things they do in their jobs that lead to a feeling of value from public service (see
11
Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). As a response variable, PSM is tied to perceptions
of a public service ethos rather than an objective public service motive (see Judge,
Bono,
& Locke, 2000). Thus, our focus is on the perceived effects of organizational factors
(i.e., as perceived by the incumbent) on PSM, making self-reports theoretically the
most relevant measurement method (Conway & Lance, 2010; Judge et al., 2000).
Conway and Lance (2010) also contended that construct validity of the measure
employed is a means for preventing substantial method effects.
We employ a variation of Perry’s 24-item scale for measuring PSM. The survey
recorded level of agreement to questions measuring the original four subscales—
Attraction to Policy Making, Commitment to Public Interest, Self-Sacrifice, and
Compassion—using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). While the 24-item PSM scale achieved a very good measure of
internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and the four subscales ranged
from
.65 to .76 (Table 3), reliability and validity estimates overall proved less promising.
Thus, we also employed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in two stages for the
PSM scale. First, CFA was conducted for a second-order measurement model of
PSM, in which the four dimensions of PSM were treated as first-order factors and the
items of the dimensions were the observed indicators. In the second stage, CFA was
conducted for the overall measurement model in which all the major latent
constructs were correlated with each other. Model fit statistics recommended by
Williams, Vandenberg, and Edwards (2009); Bollen (1989); Bollen and Long (1993);
and Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and William (1998) were employed, including the
comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the coefficient of determination
(CD), and composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) scores.
Generally speak- ing, a good fit is indicated by a CFI above 0.95, RMSEA less than
0.08, and a SRMR less than 0.10. CR above the 0.70 threshold and an AVE above
0.50 are recommended (Hair et al., 1998). Based on our initial results from the
CFA for the 24-item PSM scale, several items were dropped from the scale due to
serious cross-loading and weak factor loading (<0.2). Specifically, we dropped two
items from the commitment to public interest (CPI) scale and five items each for the
compassion (COM) and self- sacrifice (SS) scales resulting in a 12-item PSM scale.
The fit of the second-order measurement model for the 12-item PSM scale was good
(2 = 97.20, p < .001; CFI =
0.979, RMSEA = 0.034, and SRMR = 0.034; CD = 0.980). The standardized second-
order factor loadings were 0.466 for attraction to policy making, 0.961 for commit-
ment to the public interest, 0.805 for compassion, and 0.921 for self-sacrifice, all of
which were significant at the p < .001 level. The resulting modified PSM model is
similar to that derived by Kim (2009).
Results from the interfactor correlations and reliability estimates (Table 3) demon-
strate that three of the PSM dimensions (excluding compassion) possess internal con-
sistency achieving CR scores above the 0.70 threshold. While our calculation of
AVE for each construct did not achieve the 0.50 threshold suggested by Hair et al.
(1998), we still find evidence for discriminant validity in Table 1. A comparison of
the square root of the AVE of each construct with their correlation estimates shows
that the square
12 Public Personnel
Management
Table 3. Standardized Factor Loadings for the Revised 12-Item PSM Scale (n = 908).
Standardized
Factors and items factor loading α
Attraction to Policy Making .65
PSM1: Politics is a dirty word (reversed). .640 0
PSM2: The give and take of public policy making does not .400
appeal to me (reversed).
PSM3: I do not care much for politicians (reversed). .857
Commitment to Public Interest .69
PSM5: I unselfishly contribute to my community. .663
PSM6: I consider public service my duty. .701
PSM7: Meaningful public service is very important to me. .739
Compassion .66
PSM10: Most social programs are too vital to do without. .710
PSM11: I am often reminded by daily events about how .516
dependent we are on one another.
PSM13: To me, patriotism includes seeing to the welfare of others. .604
Self-Sacrifice .76
PSM20: Making a difference in society means more to me than .655
personal achievement.
PSM22: I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the .610
good of society.
PSM24: I believe in putting duty before self. .661
Interfactor correlations and reliability estimates
APM CPI COM SS

APM .70 (.70)
CPI .176 .70 (.74)
COM .111 .446 .61 (.56)
SS .090 .415 .591 .67 (.71)
Note. Subdiagonal entries are the latent construct intercorrelations. The first entry on the diagonal is
the square root of the average variance extracted, whereas the second entry in parenthesis is the
composite reliability score. All standardized factor loadings and correlations are significant at p < .001.
PSM = public service motivation; APM = attraction to policy making; CPI = commitment to public
interest;
COM = compassion; SS = self-sacrifice.
root of the AVE for each dimension is higher than the corresponding interconstruct
correlation estimate (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gould-Williams, Mostafa, &
Bottomley,
2015).
The present study also gives us the opportunity to assess the impact of EAW on
PSM in a reform environment. Several municipalities in the state of Mississippi—our
loci of analysis—have elected to adopt EAW in lieu of traditional civil service
systems (see Goodman & Mann, 2010). The state’s reform environment
provides an
13
Table 4. Final Estimation of Variance Components for the Two-Level Null Models (χ2
Statistic Reported).
Public service Attraction to Commitment to
motivation policy making the public interest Compassion Self-sacrifice
Random Effect 119.68*** 140.62*** 92.11*** 128.17*** 121.02***
Intercept Level 1
***p ≤ .001.
opportunity to assess attitudes among municipal employees in both EAW and civil
service personnel systems. Thus, we included a dummy variable that measures
whether the jurisdiction’s personnel system incorporates EAW or is strictly civil
service.2
Data Analysis and

Results
As the dependent variable is continuous, it is necessary to apply a generalized form
of mixed linear modeling to the data to account for the multiple levels of data, which
include both individual and agency. To establish agency differences, we must
examine the results of the null models presented in Table 4. The null model explores
the extent to which there is an agency (Level 2) effect on the (Level 1) intercept of
PSM dimension scores. The fact that the intercept component for all four models is
significant suggests that the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is also significant,
indicating that a multi-level model is appropriate and needed (Garson, 2013). Thus, a
two-level model is estimated with a generalized linear mixed model (Luke, 2004).
Given the significant agency effect verified by the null models, ordinary least squares
will expe- rience correlated error necessitating linear mixed modeling. Our analysis
begins by formulating the individual (Level 1) model and a more complete model
which incorporates an estimate for the differences among municipal agencies.
We are now in a position to compose a model that incorporates the ability to test
the chief hypotheses regarding the Level 2 units (between agency differences). In the
pre- sentation of the null models (Table 4) for variation among agencies, it was
established that the possibility exists for strong differences in PSM dimension levels
among agencies. Thus, we must allow for the possibility that there are statistically
significant differences in associations with PSM dimensions across Level 2 units
(agencies). Accordingly, we divided the 10 agencies identified in the survey
(Administration, Community Development, Fire, HR/Personnel, Parks and
Recreation, Planning and Development, Police, Public Works, Electric, Airport) into
two categories: public safety agencies (coded 1) and other (coded 0). Now the
difference in means of the outcome variable between agencies can be estimated as the
difference in empathy with PSM dimensions between agencies that are either public
safety agencies (fire, police) or other, controlling for the grand mean across all
municipal employees (γ00). Furthermore, we maintain
that scores on the PSM dimensions may also differ across Level 2 units in terms of
EAW status (γ02) and organization size or full-time equivalent (FTE)
(γ03).
14 Public Personnel
Management
To build an adequate model that explains PSM dimensions among municipal

employees more completely, it is necessary to examine the within-agency variables
as well (Level 1). By combining (Level 1 and Level 2) predictors, we can determine
whether the Level 2 differences (public safety, EAW, and FTE) among agencies are
maintained, as well as assess the Level 1 hypotheses. To achieve this, a fixed effects
mixed model was estimated that incorporates estimates for both Level 1 and Level 2
explanatory variables:
PSM COMPONENTij = γ 00 + γ 01 ( PUBLIC SAFETY )j + γ 02 ( EAW

)
+γ10 (SUPERVISOR )i
+γ 20 ( EDUCATION ij) + γ 30 (SALARY )
+γ 40 ( PROFESSINALISM i)
+γ 50 ( GENDER )ij + γ 60 ( MINORITY )
+γ 60 ( MINORITY )i + u0 j + rij .
To estimate the model, we employ HLM 7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon,

& Du Toit, 2010). We utilize a unit-specific model along with a normal (continuous)
distribution of the outcome variable (numeric index of the four PSM dimensions).
Specifically, the Level 1 intercept term, expressed as β0j in output, is a function of a
random intercept term at Level 2 (γ00) and a Level 1 residual error term (rij). The
Level
1 intercept, in turn, is a function of the grand mean (γ 00) across Level 2 units, which
are agencies in the present study, plus a random error term (u0j), signifying the inter-
cept is modeled as a random effect. As opposed to ordinary least squares where a sin-
gle overall intercept is estimated, HLM 7 will create one Level 1 regression for each
agency, and then will utilize the variance in these intercepts when estimating parame-
ters and standard errors at Level 1 (Garson, 2013). The subscript i (Table 5) indicates
that a Level 1 model is to be estimated for all individuals in the sample, but the j sub-
script denotes that a different Level 1 model is to be estimated for all j Level 2 units.
The term µ0j is equal to the error term in the model. The deviance statistic measures
the contribution of the Levels 1 and 2 predictors over a random intercept model. The
significant chi-square statistic in Table 5 indicates that the full model presented is a
significant improvement over a restricted model. The dependent variable is centered
on its grand mean, while all regressors are uncentered.
The findings for our assessment of public management reform and PSM—munici-
pal employees in EAW environments—are significant, but not in the projected direc-
tion. Contrary to our hypotheses, EAW appears to be positively related to PSM
(H1a), specifically, the self-sacrifice dimension (H1b). Whereas a stream of research
has found that dismantling traditional employee dismissal and due process
procedures has served to discourage employees in EAW environments (Kellough
& Nigro, 2002,
2006), the findings here suggest that the effects of reform on motivation may be more
nuanced than previously assumed. Our results suggest that the EAW environment
may
15
Table 5. Generalized Linear Mixed Models of PSM and Subscales.

Public Attraction Commitment
Service to Policy to Public
Motivation Making Interest Compassion Self-Sacrifice
Fixed effect
γ00 Intercept 42.78*** 9.86*** 11.33*** 10.96*** 10.62***
γ01 Public Safety −0.18 −0.86*** 0.40*** −0.32** 0.59***
γ02 EAW 0.36 −0.18 0.02 0.13 0.43***
γ10 Supervisor −0.13 −0.18 −0.05 0.06 0.03
γ20 Education 0.56** 0.15* 0.06 0.15* 0.20**
γ30 Salary 0.15 0.03 0.07 −0.04 0.09
γ40 Professionalism 0.40 −0.17** 0.34* 0.03 0.20
γ50 Gender −0.39 0.28 −0.18 0.06 −0.56***
γ60 Minority 3.00*** 1.06*** 0.43*** .95*** .56***
Deviance statistic, 5,426.46*** 3,853.43*** 3,492.16*** 3,688.85*** 3,697.15***
intercept only model
Deviance statistic, 5,378.58 3,795.44 3,466.88 3,654.64 3,650.67
full model
χ2 111.17 99.56 80.95 118.09 93.85
df 74 74 74 74 74
p value <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.001 <.0001
Note. n = 778 (Level 1). n = 74 (Level 2). PSM = public service motivation; EAW = employment at-will.
*p ≤ .10. **p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .001.
be a positive boost to public service motives, particularly values associated with

self-sacrifice.
We hypothesized (H2a) that municipal employees in public safety agencies will
demonstrate a stronger positive association with PSM than those municipal workers
in other public agencies. Individuals in public safety agencies may also exhibit a
greater willingness to self-sacrifice given the intensity of duties associated with jobs
in these fields. Respondents are illustrated by the Level 2 variable (public safety
agency/other) measuring whether a municipal employee is nested within an agency
that is fire/police or one that is among the other agency choices. The Level 2 variable
in Table 5 con- firms our hypothesis for the self-sacrifice (H2b) dimension and
reveals a positive association with commitment to public interest; however, there is
an inverse relationship with the Attraction to Policy Making and Compassion
subscales. That is, public employees in fire and police agencies are more likely to
identify with values associated with commitment and self-sacrifice (e.g., serving
others, making a difference, giving back, sacrifice for the greater good, risk personal
loss, duty before self) and less likely to identify with tenets of attraction to policy
making (e.g., positive perceptions of politics, public policy, and politicians) and
compassion (welfare of others) com- pared with their peers in other municipal
agencies. Perhaps, employment in public safety organizations satisfies some very
specific public service motives that are
16 Public Personnel
Management
common to their particular line of work (Houston, 2011). As Kim and Vandenabeele
(2010) suggested, Self-Sacrifice may be a more robust dimension in comparison with
the other subscales. Public safety personnel may have a higher expectation with
regard to the sacrifice of their individual interests in their jobs, thus rendering greater
commitment to the public service (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010).
Respondent characteristics are also important in determining the importance
placed on PSM dimensions. Informed and educated municipal respondents are
generally positively associated with PSM (e.g., Bright, 2005; DeHart-Davis et al.,
2006; Moynihan
& Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997). However, there is the potential for a more refined
approach controlling for PSM dimensions to reveal a more nuanced association
between education and PSM dimensions (DeHart-Davis et al., 2006). Nevertheless,
our findings with regard to the PSM dimensions find no variation. Municipal respon-
dents with higher levels of education have higher levels of PSM, attraction to policy
making, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Remarkably, while municipal employees
who are members of professional associations have higher levels of commitment to
the public interest, they also exhibit less affinity to public policy making. Attraction
to policy making has proven to be a problematic predictor for PSM. While Perry
(1997) has found a negative relationship between the attraction to policy-making
component of PSM and professionalism, recent research (e.g., Kim, 2009, 2011)
suggests that this dimension may not accurately reflect rational motives. Some
scholars consider attraction to policy making as a proxy for distaste of the
political processes (e.g., Brewer et al., 2000), individual distrust of politicians (e.g.,
Coursey & Pandey, 2007), or alien- ation of professionals from politics (Perry, 1997).
Still others suggest that the negative relationship between attraction to policy making
and professionalism is evidence for the endurance of the politics-administration
dichotomy (e.g., Coursey, Perry, Brudney,
& Littlepage, 2008; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006). In light of the four dimensions, our
findings in this regard tend to support the latter findings suggesting a more nuanced
understanding of attraction to policy making. Perhaps, employee commitment to ben-
efiting society only goes as far as the acquiring and sharing of knowledge through
professional societies, leaving the ugly business of politics to “hired guns” working
for these associations.
The results for gender and race are also important predictors in our analyses. As
both groups tend to avail themselves of public services to a greater extent than White
males, we would expect a positive correlation between the control variables for
women and race and our PSM scale and four subscales. While the results for race are
as expected, the findings with respect to gender are mixed. Female municipal respon-
dents show less commitment to the public interest. The result for commitment to pub-
lic interest is contrary to the prevailing wisdom that women tend to have a greater
propensity for employment in “redistributive” occupations, a predilection for activist
government, and more egalitarian predispositions than males (Howell & Day, 2000).
Perhaps women working in municipalities in a state with a historical record of dis-
crimination may be less committed to the broader public interest as opposed to the
interests of women and others who have been traditionally disenfranchised. Such a
specialized public interest may be important for understanding race, gender, and PSM
17
and how they relate to the theory of representative bureaucracy. Indeed, DeHart-
Davis et al. (2006) suggested that except for the compassion dimension, all three
dimensions are sociologically masculine. The authors suggest that this is due to the
dominance of masculine interaction patterns in the public sector and overall historical
gender dis- crimination, which traditionally assigns a more precise caring and
nurturing role to women (Bright, 2005; Vandenabeele, 2011). The findings here are
generally in accor- dance with this explanation and similar studies (e.g., Camilleri,
2007; Vandenabeele,
2011).
Discussion and
Conclusion
The research findings here are in contrast to the logic of the self-regulating
framework of PSM as proposed through self-determination concepts (Houston, 2011;
Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). Respondents in EAW environments would appear to
be motivated by the logic of sanctions as opposed to a commitment to the public
service ethos. The findings mark a divergence in our understanding of PSM that
suggests individuals may be acting out of self-preservation as opposed to self-
determined actions in a man- ner perceived to be consistent with the values
underlying the public service identity (Houston, 2011). Moreover, our results suggest
that focus on PSM should be both unitary and multi-dimensional. In the case of
public safety, the combined PSM construct fails to achieve significance, while the
results for each of the four dimensions are significant and differ in direction. The
observations suggest a masking effect brought on by the divergent results for public
safety personnel and each dimension. Clearly, it is important to note the preliminary
nature of the findings from the current analyses. We focus specifically on the
perceived impact organizational factors have on PSM. As such, we have relied on
self-reported measures as the most suitable means for assessing the perceptions of
employees toward their workplace environment. We rec- ognize the contentious
nature of self-reported measures (i.e., common source bias) and encourage the use of
triangulation in future research.
Up until now, the logic has been that at-will employment comes with a cost in
terms of fear of reprisal for counter-productive behavior (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009;
Bowman & West, 2006; Coggburn, 2006; Condrey & Battaglio, 2007; Goodman &
Mann, 2010; Kellough & Nigro, 2002, 2006; Nigro & Kellough, 2000, 2008). In the-
ory, gains that might accrue from reward and punishment systems (i.e., performance-
based pay and EAW) should be offset by the loss in intrinsic motivation (Houston,
2011; Perry, Engbers, & Jun, 2009; Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2010). Yet, we find
that constrained, rule bound systems (as measured by the formal civil service system
dummy variables)3 seem to inhibit individual PSM, whereas such motives seem to
flourish in at-will employment environments. The threat of termination for cause
attributed to EAW systems would appear to be less deleterious to motivation than
previously believed. In particular, the findings suggest that municipal employees
working in EAW systems exhibit a greater willingness to self-sacrifice behavior.
Clearly the loss of job security has not diminished the potential for creating a
motivating influence on employees in the case of Mississippi municipalities. In
terms of
18 Public Personnel
Management
self-sacrifice, employees are motivated by the difference they make in society,

placing duty before self, putting aside financial remuneration, serving citizens, giving
back to society, willing to risk personal loss to help someone in need, and being
prepared to make sacrifices for the betterment of society (Perry, 1996). As
envisioned by proponents of EAW, elements such as those embodied in self-
sacrifice should encourage a more responsive and motivated workforce as a result of
the removal of job security.
Although the results here are limited to a few municipalities in a single
jurisdiction (Mississippi), they do stand in contrast to recent work that has
highlighted the short- comings of personnel reform in the U.S. states (see Bowman et
al., 2003; Bowman & West, 2006; Goodman & Mann, 2010; Kellough & Nigro,
2002, 2006), specifically, the inability of EAW to serve as a motivating force for
productivity. The findings presented here—from a jurisdiction that is at the
forefront of personnel reform in the United States—suggest that there is more to
EAW as a motivational tool. Future research might benefit from a more robust
analysis of EAW and PSM that utilizes the methodological tools employed with more
objective measures of performance. Linking EAW to both increased motivational
behavior among public servants as well as to productivity would represent a
powerful divergent path to that of mainstream research on human resources and
public management reform.
Our findings with respect to public safety personnel also support the importance of
job-related tasks that are “challenging, enjoyable, or personally meaningful”
(Houston,
2011, p. 762). According to Houston (2011), “behavior that is intrinsically motivated
is undertaken because of the inherent satisfaction that is derived from a task” (p.
762). Indeed, several studies have shown that public employees often exhibit elevated
levels of PSM when they are confronted with hardships or difficulties that seem to
violate the organization’s standard operating procedures. This was the case in Brewer
and Selden’s (1998) study of whistle-blowing in federal government where public
employees are willing to make sacrifices out of concern for the public interest.
Variety may be the spice of public service motives, where public safety agencies tap
into a more robust and complex set of values, particularly those consistent with the
Self-Sacrifice subscale.
Municipal employees working in public safety agencies were also less than enthu-
siastic toward the policy-making process. The differences may be attributable to the
types of persons drawn to work in public safety agencies. Some professions by nature
may require a special service orientation (Crewson, 1997; Edwards et al., 1981). This
may be especially true of public safety employees who are often placed in
emotionally demanding situations. Public safety employees may be tasked with
handling stressful situations that include people employed as “domestic hotlines
workers, EMTs, triage nurses, and agency/department spokespersons who are the
initial faces of the organization and who deal with the public immediately
following crises” (Mastracci et al.,
2011). At the least, the findings here suggest the importance of evaluating differences
in public service values while controlling for the job (Houston, 2011; Kim &
Vandenabeele, 2010).
For researchers, our findings here raise more questions than answers about the PSM
concept. Our results suggest the formative versus reflective nature of PSM is an
19
important topic for inquiry. In terms of public safety personnel, it would seem that
each dimension provides a unique contribution to an individual’s PSM (Wright,
2008). Future research should consider profession or agency differences when testing
for uniqueness among the four dimensions. Our research highlights the unique nature
of public safety professions. However, this uniqueness may not be solely to their
department socialization process. While PSM drives people into demanding
professions such as public safety, the institutional setting places these personnel in
crises as first responders shaping PSM and subsequently behavioral outcomes.
Perhaps both depart- mental socialization and sociohistorical institutions (education,
family, and religion) shape an individual’s PSM over time. Qualitative research
combined with longitudinal studies might be able to substantiate both institutional
settings.
Declaration of Conflicting
Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Fundin
g
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Note
s
1. Provisions of subsection (1) of the Miss. Code Ann § 21-31-1 apply to (a) any municipal-
ity, operating under a commission form of government, and having a population of not
less than 14,000, according to the federal census of 1940; (b) any municipality, under
whatever form of government, having a population of not less than 24,000, according to
the federal census of 1940, and situated in counties having a national military park; (c)
any municipality, operating under the commission form of government, and having a
population of not less than 10,500 nor more than 11,000, according to the federal census
of 1950;(d) any municipality, having an aldermanic commission or city manager form of
government, and having a population of not less than 3,881 at the 1960 federal census,
and situated on the Mississippi Gulf Coast; (e) any municipality with its corporate limits
being bounded on one side by the Mississippi River and being located in a county
having an assessed valuation in excess of 40 million U.S. dollars but less than 50 million
U.S. dollars and having a total population in excess of 37,500, according to the latest
federal census;(f) any municipality, operating under special charter, and in which there is
located a state-supported college for women; (g) any municipality having a population of
more than 10,000 according to the federal census of 1970, which is located within a
Class 1 county in which U.S. Highway
51 and U.S. Highway 98 intersect and bounded on the south by the State of Louisiana;
and (h) any municipality, bordering on the Escatawpa River, having an aldermanic
commission form of government and having a population of not less than 17,837
according to the 1990 federal census.
2. We coded those municipalities in a strictly employment at-will environment 1 and munici-
palities civil service or a mix of civil service and employment at-will 0. Classifications
for each city are as follows: Starkville—all employees are at-will; Meridian—all employ-
ees are at-will; Tupelo—all employees are at-will; Greenville—all employees are at-will;
20 Public Personnel
Management
Hernando—all employees are at-will; Gulfport—mixed, Police and Fire are civil service
and at one time most employees were civil service. On October 3, 2005, city switched to
at-will, but grandfathered in all current employees as civil service as they are mixed in
through- out the city; Biloxi—all employees are civil service except those who are elected
officials and appointed officials; McComb—Police and Fire are civil service everyone
else is at- will; Natchez—Police and Fire are civil service including the chief, everyone
else is at-will; Pascagoula—Police and Fire are civil service including the chief, everyone
else is at-will.
3. We also included a variable for city size (the number of full-time equivalent employees)
in our calculation as part of a third level of analysis for municipalities. Although FTE
proved to be negatively and significantly related to the public service motivation (PSM)
composite score as well as to the Attraction to Policy Making subscale, we decided to
exclude the variable in our final analysis due to the limited number of Level 3 units (10)
and for the sake of parsimony.
References
Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from
the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.
Andersen, L. B. (2007, September 19-22). Professional norms, public service motivation
or/and economic incentives: What motivates public employees? Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the European Group of Public Administration, Madrid, Spain.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Battaglio, R. P. (2010). Public service reform and motivation: Evidence from an employment
at-will environment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 341-363.
Battaglio, R. P. (2014). Public human resource management: Strategies and practices in the
21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Battaglio, R. P., & Condrey, S. E. (2009). Reforming public management: Analyzing the
impact of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 19, 689-707.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley. Bollen,
K. A., & Long, S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE.
Bowman, J. S., Gertz, M. G., Gertz, S. C., & Williams, R. L. (2003). Civil service reform
in Florida state government: Employee attitudes 1 year later. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 23, 286-304.
Bowman, J. S., & West, J. P. (2006). Ending civil service protections in Florida government:
Experiences in state agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 139-157.
Brewer, G. A. (2002, August 29-September 1). Public service motivation: Theory, evidence,
and prospects for research. 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Boston, MA.
Brewer, G. A. (2008). Employee and organizational performance. In J. L. Perry & A.
Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 136-
156). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evi-
dence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
8, 413-440.
21
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, R. L., II. (2000). Individual conceptions of public
service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 254-264.
Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are
they, where are they, and what do they want? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
25, 138-154.
Brook, D. A., & King, C. L. (2008). Federal personnel management reform: From Civil Service
Reform Act to National Security Reforms. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28,
205-221.
Camilleri, E. (2007). Antecedents affecting public service motivation. Personnel Review, 36,
356-377.
Chan, D. (2001). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impression
management in self-reports of work attitudes. Human Performance, 14, 77-96.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J.
Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,
verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311-338). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Christensen, R. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). The effects of public service motivation on job
choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job
fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 723-743.
Coggburn, J. D. (2001). Personnel deregulation: Exploring differences in the American states.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 223-244.
Coggburn, J. D. (2006). At-will employment in government: Insights from the state of Texas.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 158-177.
Coggburn, J. D., Battaglio, R. P., Jr., Bowman, J. S., Condrey, S. E., Goodman, D., & West, J.
P. (2010). State government human resource professionals’ commitment to employment at
will. American Review of Public Administration, 40, 189-208.
Condrey, S. E., & Battaglio, R. P. (2007). A return to spoils? Revisiting radical civil service
reform in the United States. Public Administration Review, 67, 425-436.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
325-334.
Coursey, D. H., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public service motivation measurement: Testing an
abridged version of Perry’s proposed scale. Administration & Society, 39, 547-568.
Coursey, D. H., Pandey, S. K., & Yang, K. (2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and
support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM
Theory. Public Administration Review, 72, 572-582.
Coursey, D. H., Perry, J. L., Brudney, J. L., & Littlepage, L. (2008). Psychometric verification
of Perry’s public service motivation instrument: Results for volunteer exemplars. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 79-90.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2003). The employment relationship in the U.K. public sec-
tor: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 13, 213-230.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence
and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499-518.
DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, K., & Pandey, S. J. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 66, 873-887.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-
mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: John
Wiley.
22 Public Personnel
Management
Edwards, J. T., Nalbandian, J., & Wedel, K. R. (1981). Individual values and professional edu-
cation: Implications for practice and education. Administration & Society, 13, 123-143.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Frey, B. S. (1997). A constitution for knaves crowds out civic virtues. The Economic Journal,
107, 1043-1053.
Garson, G. D. (2013). Introductory guide to HLM with HLM 7 software. In G. D. Garson
(Ed.), Hierarchical linear modeling: Guide and applications (pp. 55-96). Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
Goodman, D., & French, P. E. (2011). Assessing the temporary use of at-will employment for
reorganization and workforce reduction in Mississippi state government. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 31, 270-290.
Goodman, D., & Mann, S. (2010). Reorganization or political smokescreen: The incremental
and temporary use of at-will employment in Mississippi state government. Public
Personnel Management, 39, 183-209.
Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Bottomley, P. (2015). Public service motivation
and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of per-
son-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 597-622.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mut053
Guy, M. E., Newman, M. A., & Mastracci, S. H. (2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service
in public service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hays, S. W., & Sowa, J. E. (2006). A broader look at the “accountability” movement: Some
grim realities in state civil service systems. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
26,
102-117.
Houston, D. J. (2011). Implications of occupational locus and focus for public service moti-
vation: Attitudes toward work motives across nations. Public Administration Review, 71,
761-771.
Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. Journal of Politics, 62,
858-874.
Judge, T., Bono, J., & Locke, E. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
Kearney, R. C., & Hays, S. W. (1998). Reinventing government, the New Public Management
and civil service systems in international perspective. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 18(4), 38-54.
Kellough, J. E. (1999). Reinventing public personnel management: Ethical implications for
managers and public personnel systems. Public Personnel Management, 28, 655-671.
Kellough, J. E., & Nigro, L. G. (2002). Pay for performance in Georgia state government:
Employee perspectives on GeorgiaGain after 5 years. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 22, 146-166.
Kellough, J. E., & Nigro, L. G. (2006). Dramatic reform in the public service: At-will employ-
ment and the creation of a new public workforce. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 16, 447-467.
Kellough, J. E., & Selden, S. E. (2003). The reinvention of public personnel administra-
tion: An analysis of the diffusion of personnel management reforms in the states. Public
Administration Review, 63, 165-176.
23
Kettl, D. F. (2015). Water flowing uphill: National implications of state civil service move-
ments. Public Administration Review, 75, 190-191.
Kim, S. (2009). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A research note.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 839-851.
Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service motivation: Reflective versus for-
mative specification. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 521-546.
Kim, S., & Vandenabeele, W. (2010). A strategy for building public service motivation
research
internationally. Public Administration Review, 70, 701-709.
Kjeldsen, A. M., & Jacobsen, C. B. (2013). Public service motivation and employment sector:
Attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23,
899-926. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus039
Knoke, D., & Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organizational incentive systems.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 209-254.
Koehler, M., & Rainey, H. G. (2008). Interdisciplinary foundations of public service motiva-
tion. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of
public service (pp. 33-55). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individu-
als’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and
person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Lee, S. H., & Olshfski, D. (2002). Employee commitment and firefighters: “It’s my job.” Public
Administration Review, 62(Supp. 1), 108-114.
Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of
politics. New York, NY: Free Press.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mastracci, S. H., Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2011). Emotional labor and crisis response:
Working on the razor’s edge. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated § 21-31-1.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.
Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a
difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.
Newstrom, J. W., Reif, W. E., & Monczka, R. M. (1976). Motivating the public employee: Fact
vs. fiction. Public Personnel Management, 5, 67-72.
Nigro, L. G., & Kellough, J. E. (2000). Civil service reform in Georgia. Going to the edge?
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20(3), 41-54.
Nigro, L. G., & Kellough, J. E. (2008). Personnel reform in the states: A look at progress
fifteen years after the Winter Commission. Public Administration Review, 68, S50-S57.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5-22.
Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 7, 181-197.
Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 471-488.
24 Public Personnel
Management
Perry, J. L., Engbers, T. A., & Jun, S. Y. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay,
empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.
Perry, J. L., & Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Behavioral dynamics: Institutions, identities, and self-
regulation. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The
call of public service (pp. 56-79). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public
Administration
Review, 50, 367-373.
Radin, T. J., & Werhane, P. (1996). The public/private distinction and the political status of
employment. American Business Law Journal, 34, 245-260.
Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the
service ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Du Toit, M. (2010). HLM7.
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Roehling, M. V., & Wright, P. (2004). Organizationally sensible vs. legal-centric responses to
the eroding employment at-will doctrine. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
16, 89-103.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 489-505.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Steel, B. S., & Warner, R. L. (1990). Job satisfaction among early labor force participants:
Unexpected outcomes in public and private sector comparisons. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 10(3), 4-22.
Taylor, J. (2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit and
private sector employees. Public Administration, 88, 1083-1098.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Population. Retrieved from http://census.gov/topics/population.
html
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2013). Managing public employees in the public interest.
Retrieved from http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=790793&version
=793798&application=ACROBAT
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (2008). Pay & leave: Student loan repayment.
Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/student-loan-repayment/
Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in
selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86, 1089-1105.
Vandenabeele, W. (2011). Who wants to deliver public service? Do institutional antecedents of
public service motivation provide an answer? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
31, 87-107.
Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—
Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20,
387-412.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling
in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management
Annals, 3, 543-604.
Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among govern-
ment, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity & Management Review,
14, 369-383.
25
Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public
Administration
Review, 67, 54-64.
Wright, B. E. (2008). Methodological challenges associated with public service motivation
research. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The
call of public service (pp. 80-98). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of per-
son–organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration &
Society, 40, 502-521.
Yaeger, S. J., Rabin, J., & Vocino, T. (1982). Professional values of public servants in the
United States. American Review of Public Administration, 16, 402-412.
Author
Biographies
R. Paul Battaglio, Jr., PhD, University of Texas at Dallas, Dr. Battaglio is Associate Professor
of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Battaglio’s research interests include
public human resource management, organization theory and behavior, public and nonprofit
management, comparative public policy, and research methods. Dr. Battaglio is currently the
Editor-in-Chief of the Review of Public Personnel Administration.
P. Edward French, PhD, is Professor and Executive Director of the Stennis Institute of
Government at Mississippi State University. He is former Editor -in - Chief of Public
Personnel Management and serves on numerous editorial boards. In his research and teaching,
he special- izes in human resource management and local government politics.

PS - PPM - Public Service Motivation, Public Management Reform and Organizational Socialization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS - PPM - Public Service Motivation, Public Management Reform and Organizational Socialization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

r

R. Paul Battaglio, Jr.1 and P. Edward

1 University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on May 7, 2016

In addition to organizational factors, we also consider sociohistorical influences

PSM and Public

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Municipal employees in jurisdictions operating under EAW

PSM and Organizational

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Municipal employees in public safety agencies will exhibit

PSM and Individual

dimensions (barring compassion) seen as sociologically masculine (see, for example,

Research Context: Employment Practices in

Table 1. Survey Results.

Employment Number of Number Number %

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Note. HS = high school; GED = General Educational Development.

APM CPI COM SS

Data Analysis and

To build an adequate model that explains PSM dimensions among municipal

PSM COMPONENTij = γ 00 + γ 01 ( PUBLIC SAFETY )j + γ 02 ( EAW

+γ 20 ( EDUCATION ij) + γ 30 (SALARY )

+γ 50 ( GENDER )ij + γ 60 ( MINORITY )

To estimate the model, we employ HLM 7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon,

Table 5. Generalized Linear Mixed Models of PSM and Subscales.

be a positive boost to public service motives, particularly values associated with

self-sacrifice, employees are motivated by the difference they make in society,

You might also like