See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280023711

Public Service Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review and Outlook

Article  in  Public Administration Review · April 2016

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12505

CITATIONS READS

336 13,197

3 authors:

Adrian Ritz Gene A Brewer

University of Bern The University of Georgia
183 PUBLICATIONS   2,314 CITATIONS    153 PUBLICATIONS   5,892 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Oliver Neumann
University of Lausanne
26 PUBLICATIONS   529 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD-seminar on PSM (22-24 November Utrecht) View project

Public Service Motivation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Ritz on 12 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Public Service Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review and Outlook

Published in: Ritz, A., Brewer G. A. and Neumann, O. 2016. “Public Service Motivation: A

Systematic Literature Review and Outlook.” In Public Administration Review, 76(3):

414-426.

Adrian Ritz

University of Bern, Switzerland

Center of Competence for Public Management

Schanzeneckstrasse 1, P.O. Box 8573, CH-3001 Bern

Email: adrian.ritz@kpm.unibe.ch

Gene A. Brewer

The University of Georgia, USA

School of Public and International Affairs, Department of Public Administration and Policy

204 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA (USA) 30602-1615

Email: geneabrewer@uga.edu

1
 Oliver Neumann

University of Bern, Switzerland

Center of Competence for Public Management

Schanzeneckstrasse 1, P.O. Box 8573, CH-3001 Bern

Email: oliver.neumann@kpm.unibe.ch

Short Biographies

Adrian Ritz is professor of public management at the University of Bern’s Center of Compe-

tence for Public Management (Switzerland). His research interests focus on public manage-

ment, leadership, motivation and human resource management in the public sector. He has

published in various scholarly journals and his German book Public Management (with Norb-

ert Thom) has been published in its 4th edition.

Gene A. Brewer, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized scholar of public administration,

management and the policy process. He has long served as a faculty member in the Depart-

ment of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia. He is visiting profes-

sor of public management at Utrecht University School of Governance in the Netherlands and

guest professor of public management at the Public Governance Institute at Catholic Univer-

sity in Leuven, Belgium.

Oliver Neumann is a Ph.D. researcher in business administration at the University of Bern’s

Center of Competence for Public Management. His research interests include employee moti-

vation, person-job fit, prospect theory, and big data and statistical modeling. He received his

BA from the University of Mannheim (Germany) and completed his MA at the University of

Konstanz (Germany) and at York University in Toronto (Canada).

2
Abstract

Over the past two decades, research on public service motivation has seen rapid growth.

Despite the relatively large number of publications to date, no systematic research overview

has been created, leaving the body of literature somewhat unstructured and possibly

hampering future research. In this article, we fill this void with a systematic literature review

of 323 publications that examines six key aspects of the literature on public service

motivation: the growth of research on the concept, the most prominent studies based on a

referencing network analysis, the most frequent publication outlets, research designs and

methods, lines of inquiry and patterns of empirical findings, and implications for practice

drawn from the publications in our study sample. Strengths and weaknesses of the existing

literature are identified and future research directions are proposed.

3
Practitioner Points

 Public service motivation research has increased dramatically over the past 25 years,

and is becoming more international, multidisciplinary, and multi-sectored.

 Public service motivation has not been fully integrated into the human resource

management (HRM) practices of public organizations.

 The most frequently mentioned practical implications of public service motivation

appearing in the literature are:

1. public organizations should assess job applicants’ level of public service

motivation and consider their scores when making selection decisions.

2. public organizations should use management practices that increase public

service motivation in a fitting job context.

3. traditional or alternative reward systems should be used instead of pay-for-

performance schemes.

4
It has been over 25 years since research on the public service motivation concept began. The

topic did not have a substantial impact on public administration research in the 1990's, but in

more recent years its trajectory has increased dramatically. While early publications were

firmly situated in the field of public administration and focused primarily on the motivation of

U.S. public employees, the second and third decades of research have expanded along several

lines. It is now more international, multidisciplinary, and multi-sectored. There are, however,

some notable deficiencies that may hamper further research progress.

While rapid growth in the number of publications on public service motivation has

undoubtedly been gratifying to those interested in the topic, it also raises questions about

whether public service motivation can further develop into a substantial stream of research

with high relevance for administrative practice. Toward this end, we can say that research on

public service motivation is “not there yet.” Indeed, some scholars have expressed serious

doubts about the validity of the concept (e.g. Bozeman and Su 2015).

Certainly there are some major issues at stake. The question of how public managers can

motivate employees is a key question in public management that deserves scholarly attention.

Motivating public employees to help others and safeguard the public interest is also vital for

creating a strong and compassionate civil society. Additionally, one bellwether for assessing

the foundation of a scientific discipline is its ability to produce original insights that are

relevant both within and beyond the discipline. Public service motivation is one of the few

scholarly developments in the field of public administration that may be substantial enough to

meet this criterion (Brewer 2013, Perry and Vandenabeele 2015). It is important to assess

research progress on the topic because of the potential payoffs for administrative practice and

the possibility that it could strengthen the field’s footing in the scientific community.

Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to systematically review and summarize the public

service motivation literature published over the past 25 years. The article is structured as
5
follows. First, our methodological approach is detailed. Second, we summarize the literature

on the topic and document central characteristics of the research effort. Third, the overall

findings of the review are summarized. Lastly, we assess the state of research on public

service motivation using these metrics and other items of scholarly consensus as benchmarks,

and focus on three broad areas that need further scholarly attention: theory, methods, and

concept measurement.

Methodological Approach

We undertake this systematic literature review for three reasons. First, the topic has created

sufficient interest in the field of public administration to warrant a comprehensive review, and

consolidation of “what we know” will help eliminate wasted motion in future research.

Secondly, clear definitions of the concept exist which allows the researchers to identify the

studies for review. Finally, no systematic literature review has been conducted so far, aside

from a regional one that excludes Western countries (van der Wal 2015).

Such a review should present the state of knowledge in the field, highlight important issues

that research has left unresolved, and summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions

(Cooper 2010). Systematic literature reviews are different from narrative reviews and meta-

analyses in that they follow a rigorous methodological approach for identifying literature and

gathering information (Cooper 2010, Littell, Corcoran and Pillai 2008). Narrative reviewing is

more casual and less broad, describing a set of studies arranged thematically and drawing

overall conclusions from impressions of the trends. Meta-analysis is a set of statistical

methods for combining results from quantitative studies to analyze overall trends, often

focusing on a single variable relationship.

Thus far, several narrative reviews of the public service motivation literature have been

published, often with a purposely limited scope (e.g. Baarspul and Wilderom 2011, Bellé and

6
Cantarelli 2012, Brewer 2008, Kernaghan 2011, Pandey and Stazyk 2008, Perry 2012, 2014,

Perry and Hondeghem 2008, Perry, Hondeghem and Wise 2010, Perry and Vandenabeele

2015, Wright 2001, Wright and Grant 2010). The first two meta-analyses were published

recently investigating the relationships between public service motivation and job satisfaction

(Homberg, McCarthy and Tabvuma 2015), and public service motivation and performance

(Warren and Chen 2013). Thus, a systematic literature review is a natural step forward to

consolidate and advance research.

Studies included in the review were identified as follows. First, a search of twelve leading

public administration journals was performed.i Second, a systematic search of six major

online databases was conducted.ii The time frame searched was 1990 through 2014, starting

with Perry and Wise’s (1990) seminal article on the topic. The keywords used for the searches

were “public service and motivation”, “PSM and public service”, “public service and

altruism”, “public service and ethic”, “public service and prosocial”, “public work and

motivation”, and “public employee and motivation” (including phrase and Boolean searches).

Third, two methodological criteria were used for item selection: the concept of public service

motivation described by Perry and Wise (1990) had to be used in the article as a single or at

least a major baseline for a variable or topic studied. Additionally, if motivation was

measured, a measurement instrument relating it to the concept of public service motivation

had to be applied, although the measurement item or scale could be different from Perry’s

(1996) original one. Articles not meeting these criteria were excluded because there was no

explicit connection to public service motivation (e.g. general work motivation in the public

and/or private sector, public values, altruism, and volunteering). However, various definitions

of public service motivation and closely related concepts could be employed and those studies

were included. This selection strategy allowed us to focus intently on that specific generation

of research directly related to the concept that first appeared in the literature in the 1990s,

7
while being fully aware this does not cover the full range of work on motivation within the

public sector.

Only published work that has successfully passed peer review was included. All "grey

literature" was purposely excluded (Rothstein and Hopewell 2009). Our reason was that

published studies are more likely to maintain high quality standards, although narrowing the

sample introduces a risk of selection bias because studies producing subtle or insignificant

findings are difficult to publish (Lipsey and Wilson 1993). The first two stages of the search

process identified over 600 articles from the journal searches and over 2500 articles and book

chapters from the database searches. Applying the selection criteria yielded 323 English-

written articles on public service motivation (see appendix).

Once the literature was selected, a coding guide was used. This guide followed the categories

described in Cooper (2010) and resulted in a dataset that included about 400 variables for

each publication. For coding reliability purposes, the first 10 articles were independently

coded by two coders (Lipsey and Wilson 2001). Reliability was further increased through

regular meetings between the authors and research assistants in which coding questions were

answered and all coding disagreements resolved, thus improving inter-rater reliability (Littell,

Corcoran and Pillai 2008).

Systematic Literature Review and Analysis

To illustrate the sharp increase in scholarly interest in the public service motivation concept,

we produced a graph showing the number of publications by year (see figure 1).

[Figure1 here]

8
In the first phase, beginning with the seminal article by Perry and Wise (1990) and running

through 2005, a total of 29 studies were published and the yearly numbers ranged from zero to

five. In the second phase, from 2006 through 2012, the number of publications rose

significantly to 158 and ranged from 11 to 36 per year. Finally, the number of publications

peaked in 2013 and 2014 (60 and 76 studies respectively), totaling 136 in this third phase of

just two years. This number does, however, include 24 articles published online but not yet in

print at the end of 2014. This sharp increase over time illustrates that public service

motivation is a rapidly growing research topic.

To assess the growing interest in the topic among scholars, we also analyzed the number of

new authors per year, which we defined as the first time a person’s name appeared in our

chronologically ordered dataset (see figure 2). Thus, each author was only counted once.

[Figure2 here]

Similar to the growth in publications, the number of new authors remained low through 2005,

totaling 31. From 2006 through 2012, the numbers increased significantly, totaling 137 new

authors. Finally, the numbers peaked in 2013 and 2014 (with 69 and 74 new authors

respectively), totaling 143 over the two-year period. After 2005, the share of first-time authors

compared to established authors averaged 47.8% (SD 10.2). Comparing the two slopes

(figures 1 and 2) is interesting: instead of a limited circle of authors producing most of the

research output, we see evidence of a growing community of researchers that now totals more

than 300 strong.

Analysis of Referencing Network

9
To identify the most prominent articles in the scientific discourse on public service

motivation, we produced a matrix of the mutual references between the studies in our dataset

and conducted a network analysis based on these data. More specifically, we calculated two

separate directional (one-sided) measures of centrality, which in network graph theory are

commonly interpreted as measures of importance or prominence, but not of quality

(Wasserman and Faust 1994). First, an in-degree centrality measure was computed for each

study. This measure is defined as the ratio of the number of times an article was cited by the

other studies in our dataset (the in-degree of a study) to the total number of studies in the

dataset -1.iii

Second, we adjusted the in-degree centrality values for the time that has passed since the

publication of each study, controlling for the greater chance that older studies will be cited

compared to more recent ones, and taking into account that older studies do not have the

opportunity to cite newer ones. This gives younger but frequently cited studies a chance to

score higher and show their relative impact. This was done by conducting separate network

analyses for each year in which we only included studies published that year or later, resulting

in a second measure called in-degree centrality adjusted. Despite the varying sizes of the

networks across the years, the different in-degree centrality values are directly comparable

(Wasserman and Faust 1994, 179). Table 1 details the 20 highest-scoring studies from each

measure, which are very similar. The results show that Perry has authored or coauthored six

of these most prominent articles; Pandey has authored or coauthored three; and Brewer,

Houston, Kim, Lewis, Selden, Vandenabeele, Wise and Wright have contributed two each.

[Table1 here]

10
Publication Outlets

With regard to the types of publications in our dataset, we found that 24 (7.4%) were book

chapters, while the vast majority (299, 92.6%) were articles published in 59 different

scientific journals. We identified seven journals that each published 19 or more articles on

public service motivation: Public Administration Review (34), Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory (27), Review of Public Personnel Administration (27),

International Public Management Journal (25), American Review of Public Administration

(20), Public Administration (19), and Public Personnel Management (19).

In addition, we found some publications in journals from other disciplines, such as Social

Behavior and Personality (3), Journal of Development Economics (2), Journal of Higher

Education (1), and Politics and Policy (1). These journals span several social science

disciplines including business, economics, education, management, political science,

psychology, public policy, and sociology, indicating that public service motivation is no

longer being studied exclusively in public administration journals (which 252 or 84.3% of

articles could be assigned to), but rather is spreading across the social sciences (see also Perry

and Vandenabeele 2015).

Research Design and Methods

Countries Studied. Careful sample selection is crucial for the generalizability of empirical

research. If a majority of studies rely on samples from the same region of the world, the same

employment sector, the same level of government, or similar types of interviewees, the

generalizability of the findings may be limited. We investigated the geographic origin of the

empirical data used in previous studies by identifying the countries in which data were

collected (see table 2). A total of 21 studies employed samples comprising multiple countries,

which led us to assign two or more codes for each of these studies.

11
 [Table2 here]

Research was conducted on U.S. samples in 27.5% of the studies analyzing empirical data

(123 cases). Of the remaining 324 cases, 194 were based on data from Europe and 77 from

Asia, meaning that there were 53 studies with samples from other regions of the world. We

found only eleven studies from Africa and ten from South America, both of which are regions

traditionally underrepresented in public administration research. These results may, however,

partially reflect our focus on English language publications.

Types of Samples. As expected, a large number of studies (141, 55.3%) used data exclusively

from public sector settings, while few studies focused exclusively on the nonprofit (6, 2.4%)

or private (4, 1.6%) sectors. Additionally, 35 (13.7%) studies conducted public-private sector

comparisons, public-nonprofit sector comparisons (5, 2.0%) and comparisons of all three

sectors (5, 2.0%). Student samples were employed in 26 (10.2%) studies, and 33 (12.9%)

studies used general social survey data from various countries without distinguishing between

sectors. We found no significant imbalance in the levels of government studied in the public

sector study samples (national 72, 28.7%; state/regional 73, 29.1%; local 106, 42.2%).

Methods Used. We studied the type of data collection methods used and noted whether a

cross-sectional or longitudinal approach was employed. Most studies relied upon survey

research (146, 52.5%) and secondary analyses of survey data (69, 24.8%). Only a few studies

used individual interviews (29, 10.4%), experimental data (12, 4.3%), document or content

analysis (11, 4.0%), non-survey related archival data (4, 1.4%), focus groups (3, 1.1%), field

studies (2, 0.7%), or register data (2, 0.7%). The vast majority of empirical studies (209,

81.3%) used cross-sectional designs, while few (19, 7.4%) collected longitudinal data. There
12
were twelve (4.7%) controlled experiments, eleven (4.3%) case studies, and six (2.3%) studies

that relied on other approaches.

Table 3 summarizes the analytical methods used. Most studies employed multiple analytical

methods so multiple codes were assigned. The most frequent were univariate and descriptive

statistics (199 instances, 27.0%), bivariate analyses such as measures of association or tests of

differences (149, 20.2%), factor analyses aiming to confirm measurement scales (114,

15.5%), and multiple regression analysis (106, 14.4%). Some studies assessed categorical

employment sector choices, making logistic regression techniques another popular method

(58, 7.9%). Given that public service motivation is a multi-dimensional construct that may

have complex relationships with other variables, structural equation modeling (42, 5.7%) has

received increasing attention. Only 32 (4.3%) studies explicitly used qualitative analytical

techniques (such as unstructured interviews) – a number that includes 15 mixed method

studies utilizing both qualitative and quantitative techniques.

[Table3 here]

Measurement Scales Used. The first public service motivation measurement scale was

developed by Perry (1996). This four-dimensional scale is used in whole or part in most of the

studies in our sample. The most frequently assessed dimension was “commitment to the

public interest” (153, 26.4%), followed by “compassion” (149, 25.7%), “self-sacrifice” (135,

23.3%) and “attraction to public policy making” (102, 17.6%). The dimensions “social

justice” (30, 5.2%) and “civic duty” (10, 1.7%), which Perry (1996) identified but then

dropped or collapsed into other dimensions, were only rarely studied. In our sample, eight

studies assessed only one of the original dimensions, 19 assessed two dimensions, 42 studies

13
incorporated three, 92 studies included four, three studies included five, and four studies

assessed all six dimensions of the theoretical construct Perry articulated. Another 64 studies

used one or more original measures or dimensions such as “regard for the public interest”

(Brewer and Selden 1998) or “democratic governance” (Giauque et al. 2011, Vandenabeele

2008), but 26 of these studies also included one or more dimensions from Perry’s work.

Lines of Study and Empirical Findings

Studies of public service motivation have sought to answer many different research questions.

To summarize them, we classified the research questions into eight broad categories (see table

4). Each study was coded according to this scheme, with multiple codes being possible.

[Table4 here]

As the table shows, 173 (34.1%) studies assessed the relationship between public service

motivation and various outcome variables, the nature of which we will investigate later.

Fewer studies explored potential antecedents (88, 17.3%). There were 61 (12.0%) studies

dealing with conceptualization and further development of theoretical perspectives. Even

fewer studies mounted comparisons of the concept across employment sectors (48, 9.4%),

intensively reviewed the literature (33, 6.5%), or tried to elaborate practical implications (28,

5.5%).

Empirically Tested Antecedents. Table 5 shows that the most frequently studied antecedents

of public service motivation are the demographic characteristics of gender (64 occurrences),

age (56), and education (45). Other frequently assessed antecedents include job

grade/management level (23), job tenure (20), place of work (16), employee-leader relations

14
(15), minority status (15), and organizational tenure (15). Another 31 studies analyzed less

frequently studied antecedents not listed in table 5, such as social capital, national level of

unemployment, work overload, deployment to war, and job difficulty. In addition, table 5

summarizes the empirical results from these studies. Here we list the number of studies

reporting positive, mixed or neutral, and negative associations with public service motivation.

Aggregate findings suggest that women tend to exhibit higher levels of public service

motivation, and the variables age, education, job grade/management level, job tenure, place of

work in the public sector, and good employee-leader relations tend to increase levels of public

service motivation, although the results are not always consistent across studies.

[Table5 here]

Empirically Tested Outcomes. Table 6 reports on the empirically tested outcomes of public

service motivation and shows that four clusters of variables have received much attention.

They include job satisfaction (39 occurrences), choice of occupation or employment sector

(35), individual and organizational performance (26 and 8 respectively, totaling 34), and

organizational and job commitment (19 and 3 respectively, totaling 22). A total of 45 studies

analyzed various other outcome variables not listed, such as civic participation, red tape

perception, volunteering behavior, and whistleblowing. Aggregate results suggest that public

service motivation tends to be positively related to job satisfaction, choosing a public sector

job, individual and organizational performance, organizational and job commitment, person-

organization fit, and organizational citizenship behavior. Studies examining the relationship

between public service motivation and turnover intentions mostly found a negative

15
relationship, which can be interpreted as a positive result. It should be noted that mixed or

neutral results were reported in some studies.

[Table6 here]

Practical Implications from Previous Research

Studies frequently claim that public service motivation is highly relevant for practice

(Paarlberg, Perry and Hondeghem 2008). However, many studies also point out that public

service motivation has not yet answered the “so-what” question. In other words, the concept

has not been fully integrated into the human resource management (HRM) practices of public

organizations, and researchers have not translated theory to practice effectively. We regard

research utilization as one of the greatest shortcomings of public service motivation research

to date and thus give detailed attention to the issue. Two key questions are: how often have

previous studies translated findings into specific recommendations for practice; and is there

any consensus among the authors on what these practical implications are? To answer these

questions, we reviewed our study sample and identified the fourteen most frequently stated

types of recommendations for practice (see table 7).

[Table7 here]

The most frequent recommendation (59 times) is that public organizations should assess job

applicants’ levels of public service motivation and consider them in selection decisions. More

16
specifically, various authors recommended intensifying recruiting efforts in graduate

programs of public administration to ensure candidates have values that are consistent with

public service (Houston 2006), incorporating measures of public service motivation into

assessment tools (Clerkin and Coggburn 2012), and hiring employees with high public service

motivation for jobs that contribute to society (Andersen and Kjeldsen 2013). A closely related

group of recommendations (mentioned 11 times) suggested using public service motivation

for recruitment purposes. For example, one study recommended creating a public service

brand (Carpenter, Doverspike and Miguel 2012).

The second largest group of recommendations suggested using management practices that

increase public service motivation (32 times). Specifically, this set included recommendations

to let employees participate in important decisions (Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget and Varone

2013a), adapt organizational structures and practices to reinforce public service motivation

and reduce corruption (Pande and Jain 2014), and relax rigid bureaucratic structures where

needed (Brewer, Selden and Facer 2000).

A third rather large group recommended using traditional or alternative reward systems

instead of pay-for-performance schemes (30 times), such as offering employees health care

packages instead of bonuses (Andersen et al. 2012), creating incentives that align employee

predispositions with organizational mission (Paarlberg, Perry and Hondeghem 2008), and

helping employees to experience a sense of accomplishment and understand they are doing

something useful for society as an intrinsic reward (Kim 2006). Despite their good intentions,

we observe that most of the recommendations in table 7 are not actionable. They are not

specific enough to deploy in practice, and they often overlook legal or political obstacles. For

example, researchers would need to establish that public service motivation is a valid

indicator of job performance before managers could use applicant scores for selection

decisions, and researchers would need to explain how managers can reduce red tape, given

17
that many burdensome regulations are imposed by overhead political authorities for

accountability purposes. Unfortunately the gulf between research and practice seems wide.

Summary of Findings

Part of the increasing trajectory of public service motivation research can be attributed to

international growth of the research community and an influx of new data sources in various

countries. Today, authors and datasets are found on all six continents. Our analysis reveals

several additional noteworthy findings:

 Growth in number of publications occurred in three phases, each of which produced

substantially higher numbers than the previous one. Perry (2014, 34) recently described

research progress as a three-wave evolution: “definition and measurement”, “assessing

and confirming construct validity and diffusion of the construct”, and “learning from past

research and filling shortcomings and gaps”. We see considerable overlap between Perry’s

demarcation and our own, and believe Perry’s third wave of activity may coincide with

our third stage of growth that began in 2013. These newer studies often use public service

motivation as a “side concept” alongside other variables of interest, suggesting that

scholars are slowly integrating public service motivation into the field’s knowledge base.

 Europe has replaced North America as the dominant region for research on the topic, with

over 40% of all empirical work currently originating there. Asia has become the third

most important region for public service motivation research (see van der Wal 2015).

 Research on public service motivation remains closely bound to the field of public

administration, even though a number of studies have been published in other disciplines

based upon the outlets and author affiliations we recorded (see Perry and Vandenabeele

2015). In addition, our referencing network analysis confirms that three quarters of the 34

most influential authors have a full or partial academic background in public

18
 administration, whereas the remaining quarter comes from related fields such as political

science, economics, and management.

 Approximately three quarters of the empirical studies use public sector data. Only four

studies focus exclusively on private sector respondents and there are virtually no data

from international organizations (c.f. van der Wal 2013) or government contractors (as

discussed in Pfiffner 1999). Moreover, politicians and political appointees have received

scant attention (Pedersen 2013, Ritz 2015, van der Wal 2013).

 Nearly 80% of the studies analyze empirical data with a large majority using survey

research and cross-sectional designs. This is somewhat surprising since qualitative

methods are often used for concept development and theory building before large-scale

quantitative work is undertaken.

 Some researchers have strived to develop an improved measurement scale, but so far more

than three quarters of all empirical studies have utilized dimensions and items of Perry’s

(1996) scale. The rest generally hew closely to his work.

 Empirical findings on the antecedents of public service motivation are not very consistent.

Differences in the samples studied and the measures used seem to influence the size and

direction of the results. Nonetheless, mainly positive relationships exist between public

service motivation and age, job grade, employee-leader relations (e.g., being fair and

considerate of employees), certain job attributes (e.g., autonomy and task variety),

religiosity, parental or organizational socialization, employee perception of the

organization (e.g., whether it is ethical and customer focused), left-of-center political

ideology, volunteering, and organizational commitment. Mostly negative correlations

were found between public service motivation and role conflict and ambiguity.

19
 Researchers have confirmed relationships between public service motivation and positive

outcomes such as job satisfaction, public sector job choice, individual and organizational

performance, organizational and job commitment, and low turnover. One caveat is that

few negative outcomes have been studied to date. We have already pointed out that

publication bias that could help account for such findings, but one recent meta-analysis

has discounted this possibility (Homberg, McCarthy and Tabvuma 2015).

 Finally, the call for integrating public service motivation into HRM practice is of foremost

importance. Yet most of the studies in our sample offered recommendations that were

vague and non-specific, or difficult to implement for legal or political reasons. Hence,

future research should place a high priority on translating existing knowledge to practice.

Discussion and Future Research

The findings of our review bode well for public service motivation research and the field of

public administration because they suggest that researchers are producing original knowledge

that is having an impact beyond the discipline (even though research utilization is less than

desired). Indeed, public service motivation is one of the few original research concepts

developed by the public administration scientific community, and its impact provides

evidence of the field’s intellectual vitality and strengthens its footing in the social sciences. To

be clear, this does not mean that the public service motivation concept is universally accepted

or that research on the topic is exemplary.

Our review reveals some weaknesses in the research effort to date. Future research must

overcome at least three major limitations to improve the quality and impact of research

output. First, researchers have portrayed public service motivation as a desirable attribute and

they have tested its relationship to other desirable concepts, but not to undesirable ones. The

concept likely has a dark side. Second, more sophisticated methodological approaches are

20
needed to build stronger evidence on key research questions. Third, researchers have hewed

closely to a dominant measurement approach and they have favored survey research designs.

This mono-measure, mono-method approach has aided knowledge accumulation, but it may

be limiting our understanding of the concept. In all likelihood public service motivation has

additional dimensions and properties. In the following sections we discuss these shortcomings

in more detail.

Public Service Motivation Theory: Overcoming Optimism

Most research on the outcomes of public service motivation have investigated and confirmed

positive consequences. Only six studies in our sample have suggested that public service

motivation may have downsides such as job stress, value-conflicts, resigned satisfaction, and

over-engagement (e.g. Giauque et al. 2012, Quratulain and Khan 2013). Generally, scholars

assume that public service motivation is a form of work motivation that leads to increased

commitment, engagement, and performance (Bellé and Cantarelli 2012, Brewer and Selden

1998, Moynihan and Pandey 2007b, Ritz 2009). However, excessive forms of such behavior

can have detrimental effects on individuals and organizations (Demetrovics and Griffiths

2012, Macey and Schneider 2008). Some examples are poor work-life balance and employee

burnout (Bakker 2015). The theory of internalization (Kelman 1958) posits that employees

with high levels of job involvement who internalize institutional values are prone to such

conditions. High job demands coupled with low job resources can hasten their onset (Bakker

and Demerouti 2007). The notion that highly committed employees might produce

unfavorable outcomes can also be explained by moral licensing theory (Miller and Effron

2010). Past moral behavior may psychologically free employees to commit rogue behaviors in

the future (Bolino et al. 2013). Sachdeva, Iliev and Medin (2009) show that individuals with a

strong moral identity may feel licensed to act immorally, thus crowding out altruism and

prosocial behavior. Employees with high levels of public service motivation who work in

21
turbulent environments seem especially prone to such transgressions. Therefore, the

relationship between public service motivation and counterproductive outcomes should be

investigated more carefully.

Public Service Motivation Research Methods: Overcoming Shortcomings

We identified two broad areas of methodological shortcomings in the literature. First, the

strong dependence on cross-sectional data and methods does not allow for causal inference;

and second, the large number of inconsistent findings in the most frequently analyzed

relationships raises questions about model specification.

On the first issue, analyzing cross-sectional data does not provide definitive evidence of

cause-and-effect relationships (Wright and Grant 2010, Kirk 2013). Researchers are, however,

faced with many important questions about the direction of causality between public service

motivation and other concepts such as working in a public-service oriented job (Christensen

and Wright 2011), reward preferences (Pandey and Stazyk 2008), and individual performance

(Andersen, Heinesen and Pedersen 2014). To date, only a few studies have investigated

cause-and-effect relationships with appropriate data and methods. A set of 19 studies use

longitudinal designs (e.g. Andersen and Pallesen 2008, Le Grand 2010, Seider 2012, Taylor

and Westover 2011) and 32 studies use qualitative designs more or less explicitly for this

purpose (e.g. Davis 2011, Jacobson 2011, Perry et al. 2008, van der Wal 2013), while only

twelve studies employ randomized experimental designs with a control group (e.g. Bellé

2014, Brewer and Brewer 2011, Christensen and Wright 2011, Grant 2008).

Experiments are well suited to answer some pressing questions in public service motivation

research (for a recent example see Pedersen 2015). However, causal mechanisms that develop

over a long period of time, such as organizational socialization processes, are hard to capture

in a short-term experiment. Longitudinal research designs may be more appropriate because

22
they can provide high external validity and the ability to observe how relationships culminate

over time. A good example is Ward (2014) who investigated the effects of participation in

AmeriCorps programs on changes in the participants’ public service motivation.

Overall, mixed method designs, where the researcher utilizes the most appropriate data and

methods for the research question at hand, offer the most optimal solution. These designs can

be used to offset the weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research and provide

substantially stronger evidence on theoretical linkages and the role of context (Creswell and

Plano Clark 2011, see also Perry and Vandenabeele 2015). A total of 15 studies have used

mixed method approaches so far (e.g. Brewer, Selden and Facer 2000, Davis 2011, Jacobson

2011, Perry et al. 2008, Seider 2012, Vandenabeele 2008). One variation of this approach is to

employ multiple qualitative or quantitative research techniques within a single research

design. For example, medical researchers often combine experimental and longitudinal

techniques to investigate slowly maturing relationships, as in drug safety trials.

A second pressing issue we identified was the low consistency of results in the most

frequently analyzed variable relationships. A possible explanation is that some studies have

relied on simplistic conceptual models that omitted important variables. While several authors

have investigated mediation (e.g. Vandenabeele 2009, Wright and Pandey 2008) and

moderation effects (e.g. Carpenter, Doverspike and Miguel 2012, Christensen and Wright

2011, Steijn 2008), most studies do not appropriately consider context. This problem has been

exacerbated by the use of secondary data sources that were not designed to study the research

questions at hand. Inconsistent results may also derive from different study settings and hard-

to-avoid methodological problems such as sampling and measurement error. These problems

bias individual study results and obscure true effect sizes (Hunter and Schmidt 2015). Meta-

analysis can overcome these difficulties if researchers have produced a sufficient number of

studies on a variable relationship. Meta-analysis can also be used to attribute the variance in

23
study results to specific methodological imperfections or moderator variables, which is very

helpful in future research (Hunter and Schmidt 2015). While we contend that this systematic

literature review has taken an important step forward by integrating the literature, we strongly

recommend that researchers perform more meta-analyses to reconcile inconsistent findings

(see Homberg, McCarthy and Tabvuma 2015, Warren and Chen 2013).

Public Service Motivation Measurement: Overcoming Uniformity

Based on our review of measurement approaches, we offer two recommendations for future

research: these recommendations concern creating a more diverse set of measurement

instruments and incorporating mixed motives into new measurement approaches.

First, more diversity in measurement instruments is needed to expand and clarify public

service motivation’s conceptual boundaries and map its relationship to other key variables.

Our analysis shows that 50 studies recommend improving existing measurement instruments.

Considerable effort has been devoted to improving Perry’s (1996) instrument by refining

items or adding new dimensions to the scale (e.g. Giauque et al. 2011, Kim 2009, 2010, Kim

et al. 2013, Ritz 2011, Vandenabeele 2008). Yet it is unclear which of the refined scales has

the best measurement properties (e.g. Coursey and Pandey 2007, Kim et al. 2013,

Vandenabeele 2008). Indeed, some researchers have contributed to and endorsed more than

one. This process has been incremental; no entirely new measurement scales have been

developed. This could be a sign of the initial instrument’s quality, or of stagnation in public

service motivation research (see also Perry and Vandenabeele 2015). Developing new scales

might be difficult for researchers since Perry and Wise (1990) clearly drew the concept’s

boundaries and Perry (1996) followed with a measurement scale that reinforced those

boundaries. We applaud past progress in measuring the concept and recognize the advantages

of using a rather consistent set of measures in public service motivation research. Having said

that, we see great potential for new alternatives. These could include global scale approaches
24
(Wright, Christensen and Pandey 2013) and more specific measurement instruments tailored

for certain populations and purposes. There are, for example, several measurement scales for

the concept of organizational commitment. Research on these scales has increased the

legitimacy of the concept, helped to clarify its conceptual space, and established its impact on

other variables of interest. Subsequent meta-analyses have shown that different measures of

organizational commitment are similar but also somewhat distinctive, thus expanding the

concept’s conceptual domain and practical usefulness (Meyer et al. 2002).

Second, people often misconstrue public service motivation as a purely altruistic concept.

What they fail to account for is that individuals often perform meaningful public service for

rational, self-interested or instrumental reasons (Perry, Hondeghem and Wise 2010). Indeed,

self-interest can be a good thing when it is aligned with the public interest. Self-serving

motives are an important part of public service, and they play an important role in an

institutional environment characterized by competing policy interests and bureaucratic politics

(Brennan and Buchanan 1985).

Perry (1996) recognized this possibility early on and tried to include rational or self-interested

motives in his work. For example, he added a rational dimension of public service motivation

to his measurement scale and labeled it “attraction to public policy making”. This dimension

proved to be problematic for several reasons, including the fact that it tapped a narrow form of

instrumentalism that may not resonate with many people, and may have negative connotations

to others. There are other more compelling reasons for many people to perform public service,

including the need to earn a reasonable salary, which even the most altruistic individuals may

desire.

From the perspective of a needs-based approach to motivation, a person who performs a

public-service motivated act is satisfying a personal need while also benefiting others, which

suggests a mixed motive. A person working primarily for salary and benefits may aim for
25
personal aggrandizement or may be fulfilling important family responsibilities, which also

suggests a mixed motive. Most such motives are neither wholly self-interested nor purely

altruistic, but rather a mixture of the two (Bolino 1999, Brewer, Selden and Facer 2000,

Spitzmueller and van Dyne 2013).

The notion that public service motivation is altruistic rather than self-interested is thus

somewhat of a false dichotomy. The desire to perform public service is likely propelled by a

combination of altruism and self-interest. Brewer and Selden (1998, 417) emphasized that

public service motivation consists of the motives that induce people to perform meaningful

public service, regardless of what those motives are. Yet rational, self-interested and

instrumental motives are conspicuously missing from contemporary scholarship on the topic.

New measurement approaches should, therefore, embrace the likelihood that people have

mixed motives for performing public service, and explicitly build in these missing motives.

Otherwise, research on public service motivation could become disconnected from reality.

Conclusion

This review confirms that scholarly interest in public service motivation has increased

enormously over the last decade. An increasingly global research community has responded

to Perry and Wise’s (1990) call for the advancement of theory and measurement scales.

Empirical research on the antecedents and outcomes of public service motivation has also

been intensive, as it should be. Our systematic literature review is timely because

consolidation and integration of existing research findings is vitally important in a field where

tremendous research interest has been created in a short period of time. Researchers working

on this topic will benefit from the timely advice on research needs that we have derived from

the literature. Others who are mildly interested in the topic but have found the burgeoning

literature too burdensome to digest could benefit from our comprehensive review of the

26
development and trajectory of research on the concept. Although the research front is

expanding in terms of international diffusion, methodological development, and theoretical

linkages investigated, our analysis also reveals several important shortcomings.

The most important takeaway is that scholars must think critically about the public service

motivation concept to ensure a fruitful future for research on the topic. As mentioned in the

introduction, research on public service motivation is “not there yet”, but it is making strides

forward, at least in terms of research output. Even though the scientific merit of the concept is

still being debated, it has clearly struck a chord in the public administration community where

many scholars and practitioners recognize the need for an improved understanding of what

attracts individuals to work in the public square, and what motivates them to serve others and

advance the public weal. Certainly public service motivation research has become a central

force in addressing this important set of concerns.

Endnotes
i
The journals include: Administration & Society, The American Review of Public

Administration, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Public Policy and

Administration, Review of Public Personnel Administration, International Public

Management Journal, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, Public

Administration, Public Management Review, Public Administration Review, Public Personnel

Management, and Personnel Review.

ii
The database search included the following sources: JSTOR, Business Source Premier,

Public Administration Abstracts, Political Science Complete, Science Direct and ISI Web of

Knowledge.
iii
The below formula describes the computation of the in-degree centrality score for each

study 𝑖 in the dataset. For the adjusted in-degree centrality scores, the group size 𝑔 reflected

only those studies in the dataset published the same year as a study 𝑖 or later.
27
[Formula 1 here]

References

Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. Public Service Motivation and Job Performance:

Evidence from the Federal Sector. The American Review of Public Administration 31

(4):363-380.

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Tor Eriksson, Nicolai Kristensen, and Lene Holm Pedersen. 2012. At-

tracting Public Service Motivated Employees: How to Design Compensation Pack-

ages. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78 (4):615-641.

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Eskil Heinesen, and Lene Holm Pedersen. 2014. How Does Public

Service Motivation among Teachers Affect Student Performance in Schools? Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (3):651-671.

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, and Anne Mette Kjeldsen. 2013. Public Service Motivation, User Ori-

entation, and Job Satisfaction: A Question of Employment Sector? International Pub-

lic Management Journal 16 (2):252-274.

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, and Thomas Pallesen. 2008. “Not Just for the Money?” How Financial

Incentives Affect the Number of Publications at Danish Research Institutions. Interna-

tional Public Management Journal 11 (1):28-47.

Baarspul, Hayo C., and Celeste P. M. Wilderom. 2011. Do Employees Behave Differently in

Public- vs. Private-Sector Organizations? Public Management Review 13 (7):967-

1002.

Bakker, Arnold B. 2015. A Job Demands–Resources Approach to Public Service Motivation.

Public Administration Review 75 (5):723-732.

Bakker, Arnold B., and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. The Job Demands-Resources Model:

State of the Art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22 (3):309-328.

28
Bellé, Nicola 2014. Leading to Make a Difference: A Field Experiment on the Performance

Effects of Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service

Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (1):109-136.

Bellé, Nicola, and Paola Cantarelli. 2012. Public Service Motivation: The State of the Art. In

Reforming the Public Sector. How to Achieve Better Transparency, Service, and Lead-

ership, edited by Giovanni Tria and Giovanni Valotti, 96-125. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institution Press.

Bolino, Mark C. 1999. Citizenship and Impression Management: Good Soldiers or Good Ac-

tors? Academy of Management Review 24:82-98.

Bolino, Mark C., Anthony C. Klotz, William H. Turnley, and Jaron Harvey. 2013. Exploring

the Dark Side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Be-

havior 34 (4):542-559.

Bozeman, Barry, and Xuhong Su. 2015. Public Service Motivation Concepts and Theory: A

Critique. Public Administration Review 75 (5):700-710.

Brennan, Geoffrey, and James M. Buchanan. 1985. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Polit-

ical Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brewer, Gene A. 2008. Employee and Organizational Performance. In Motivation in Public

Management: The Call of Public Service, edited by James L. Perry and Annie

Hondeghem, 136-156. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, Gene A. 2013. Public Management Contributions for Improving Social Service

Performance: Public Values, Public Service Motivation and Rule Functionality. In

Managing Social Issues, edited by Peter Leisink, Paul Boselie, Maarten van

Bottenburg, and Dian Marie Hosking, 19-36. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

29
Brewer, Gene A., and Gene A. Brewer Jr. 2011. Parsing Public/Private Differences in Work

Motivation and Performance: An Experimental Study. Journal of Public Administra-

tion Research & Theory 21 (suppl_3):i347-i362.

Brewer, Gene A., and Sally Coleman Selden. 1998. Whistle Blowers in the Federal Civil Ser-

vice: New Evidence of the Public Service Ethic. Journal of Public Administration Re-

search & Theory 8 (3):413-439.

Brewer, Gene A., Sally Coleman Selden, and Rex L. Facer II. 2000. Individual Conceptions

of Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review 60 (3):254-264.

Carpenter, Jacqueline, Dennis Doverspike, and Rosanna F. Miguel. 2012. Public Service Mo-

tivation as a Predictor of Attraction to the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behav-

ior 80 (2):509-523.

Christensen, Robert K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2011. The Effects of Public Service Motiva-

tion on Job Choice Decisions: Disentangling the Contributions of Person-Organization

Fit and Person-Job Fit. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21

(4):723-743.

Clerkin, Richard M., and Jerrell D. Coggburn. 2012. The Dimensions of Public Service Moti-

vation and Sector Work Preferences. Review of Public Personnel Administration 32

(3):209-235.

Cooper, Harris 2010. Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 4 ed. Vol. 2, Applied Social Re-

search Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coursey, David H., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Public Service Motivation Measurement:

Testing an Abridged Version of Perry’s Proposed Scale. Administration & Society 39

(5):547-568.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Meth-

ods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30
Crewson, Philip E. 1997. Public Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Inci-

dence and Effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (4):499-

518.

Davis, Randall S. 2011. Blue-Collar Public Servants: How Union Membership Influences

Public Service Motivation. The American Review of Public Administration 41 (6):705-

723.

Demetrovics, Zsolt, and Mark D. Griffiths. 2012. Behavioral Addictions: Past, Present and

Future. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 1 (1):1-2.

Giauque, David, Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, and Frédéric Varone. 2013a. HRM Practices, In-

trinsic Motivators, and Organizational Performance in the Public Sector. Public Per-

sonnel Management 42 (2):123-150.

Giauque, David, Adrian Ritz, Frédéric Varone, and Simon Anderfuhren-Biget. 2012. Re-

signed but Satisfied: The Negative Impact of Public Service Motivation and Red Tape

on Work Satisfaction. Public Administration 90 (1):175-193.

Giauque, David, Adrian Ritz, Frédéric Varone, Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, and Christian

Waldner. 2011. Putting Public Service Motivation into Context. A Balance between

Universalism and Particularism. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77

(2):227-253.

Grant, Adam M. 2008. Employees without a Cause: The Motivational Effects of Prosocial

Impact in Public Service. International Public Management Journal 11 (1):48-66.

Homberg, Fabian, Dermot McCarthy, and Vurain Tabvuma. 2015. A Meta-Analysis of the

Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Public Admin-

istration Review 75 (5):711-722.

Houston, David J. 2000. Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 10 (4):713-727.

31
Houston, David J. 2006. “Walking the Walk” of Public Service Motivation: Public Employees

and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 16 (1):67-86.

Jacobson, Willow S. 2011. Creating a Motivated Workforce: How Organizations Can En-

hance and Develop Public Service Motivation (PSM). Public Personnel Management

40 (3):215-238.

Kelman, Herbert C. 1958. Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of

Attitude Change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (1):51-60.

Kernaghan, Kenneth 2011. Getting Engaged: Public-Service Merit and Motivation Revisited.

Canadian Public Administration 54 (1):1-21.

Kim, Sangmook 2005. Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Govern-

ment Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15

(2):245-261.

Kim, Sangmook 2006. Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

International Journal of Manpower 27 (8):722-740.

Kim, Sangmook 2009. Revising Perry’s Measurement Scale of Public Service Motivation.

The American Review of Public Administration 39 (2):149-163.

Kim, Sangmook 2010. Testing a Revised Measure of Public Service Motivation: Reflective

versus Formative Specification. Journal of Public Administration Research and The-

ory 21 (3):521-546.

Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Bradley E. Wright, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Francesco

Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, Céline Desmarais, Maria Koumenta, Peter

Leisink, Bangcheng Liu, Jolanta Palidauskaite, Lene Holm Pedersen, James L. Perry,

Adrian Ritz, Jeannette Taylor, and Paola De Vivo. 2013. Investigating the Structure

32
 and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an Interna-

tional Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 23 (1):79-102.

Kirk, Roger E. 2013. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Los An-

geles, CA: Sage.

Le Grand, Julian 2010. Knights and Knaves Return: Public Service Motivation and the Deliv-

ery of Public Services. International Public Management Journal 13 (1):56-71.

Lewis, Gregory B., and Sue A. Frank. 2002. Who Wants to Work for the Government? Public

Administration Review 62:395-404.

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 1993. The Efficacy of Psychological, Educational,

and Behavioral Treatment: Confirmation from Meta-Analysis. American Psychologist

48 (12):1181-1209.

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Edited by Leonard

Bickman and Debra J. Rog, Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Littell, Julia H., Jacqueline Corcoran, and Vijayan Pillai. 2008. Systematic Reviews and Meta-

Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Macey, William H., and Benjamin Schneider. 2008. The Meaning of Employee Engagement.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1 (1):3-30.

Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky. 2002. Affec-

tive, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis

of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61:20-

52.

Miller, Dale T., and Daniel A. Effron. 2010. Psychological License: When It Is Needed and

How It Functions. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by Mark

Zanna and James Olson, 115-155. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

33
Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007a. The Role of Organizations in Fostering

Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review 67 (1):40-53.

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007b. Finding Workable Levers over Work

Motivation: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Com-

mitment. Administration & Society 39 (7):803-832.

Naff, Katherine C., and John Crum. 1999. Working for America: Does Public Service Moti-

vation Make a Difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration 19 (4):5-16.

Paarlberg, Laurie E., James L. Perry, and Annie Hondeghem. 2008. From Theory to Practice:

Strategies for Applying Public Service Motivation. In Motivation in Public Manage-

ment: The Call of Public Service, edited by James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem,

268-293. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pande, Sanjay, and Neetu Jain. 2014. Relation between Personal Values and Corruption Per-

missiveness of Government Servants in India and the Moderating Role of Dissatisfac-

tion with the Financial Condition of the Family. International Review of Public Ad-

ministration 19 (2):126-142.

Pandey, Sanjay K., and Edmund C. Stazyk. 2008. Antecedents and Correlates of Public Ser-

vice Motivation. In Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, ed-

ited by James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem, 101-117. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Pedersen, Lene Holm 2013. Committed to the Public Interest? Motivation and Behavioural

Outcomes among Local Councillors. Public Administration 92 (4):886-901.

Pedersen, Mogens Jin 2015. Activating the Forces of Public Service Motivation: Evidence

from a Low-Intensity Randomized Survey Experiment. Public Administration Review

75 (5):734-746.

34
Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Re-

liability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (1):5-

22.

Perry, James L. 1997. Antecedents of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Admin-

istration Research and Theory 7 (2):181-197.

Perry, James L. 2000. Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2):471-488.

Perry, James L. 2012. Does Making a Difference Make a Difference? Answers from Research

on Public Service Motivation. In Reforming the Public Sector - How to Achieve Better

Transparency, Service, and Leadership, edited by Giovanni Tria and Giovanni Valotti.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Perry, James L. 2014. The Motivational Bases of Public Service: Foundations for a Third

Wave of Research. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 36 (1):34-47.

Perry, James L., Jeffrey L. Brudney, David H. Coursey, and Laura Littlepage. 2008. What

Drives Morally Committed Citizens? A Study of the Antecedents of Public Service

Motivation. Public Administration Review 68 (3):445-458.

Perry, James L., and Annie Hondeghem. 2008. Directions for Future Theory and Research. In

Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, edited by James L.

Perry and Annie Hondeghem, 294-313. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise. 2010. Revisiting the Motiva-

tional Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Fu-

ture. Public Administration Review 70 (5):681-690.

Perry, James L., and Wouter Vandenabeele. 2015. Public Service Motivation Research:

Achievements, Challenges, and Future Directions. Public Administration Review 75

(5):692-699.

35
Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service.

Public Administration Review 50 (3):367-373.

Pfiffner, James P. 1999. The Public Service Ethic in the New Public Personnel Systems. Pub-

lic Personnel Management 28 (4):541-555.

Quratulain, Samina, and Abdul Karim Khan. 2013. Red Tape, Resigned Satisfaction, Public

Service Motivation, and Negative Employee Attitudes and Behaviors: Testing a Model

of Moderated Mediation. Review of Public Personnel Administration Online First:1-

26.

Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a

Theory of Effective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Re-

search and Theory 9 (1):1-32.

Ritz, Adrian 2009. Public Service Motivation and Organizational Performance in Swiss Fed-

eral Government. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 (1):53-78.

Ritz, Adrian 2011. Attraction to Public Policy-Making: A Qualitative Inquiry into Improve-

ments in PSM Measurement. Public Administration 89 (3):1128-1147.

Ritz, Adrian 2015. Public Service Motivation and Politics: Behavioural Consequences among

Local Councillors in Switzerland. Public Administration Early View:1-17.

Rothstein, Hannah R., and Sally Hopewell. 2009. Grey Literature. In The Handbook of Re-

search Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, edited by Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and

Jeffrey C. Valentine, 103-127. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sachdeva, Sonya, Rumen Iliev, and Douglas L. Medin. 2009. Sinning Saints and Saintly Sin-

ners: The Paradox of Moral Self-Regulation. Psychological Science 20 (4):523-528.

Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt. 2015. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error

and Bias in Research Findings. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

36
Seider, Scott 2012. The Influence of Parental Support on the Community Service Learning

Experiences of American College Students. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice

7 (3):271-288.

Spitzmueller, Matthias, and Linn van Dyne. 2013. Proactive and Reactive Helping: Con-

trasting the Positive Consequences of Different Forms of Helping. Journal of Organi-

zational Behavior 34 (4):560-580.

Steijn, Bram 2008. Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation. International

Public Management Journal 11 (1):13-27.

Taylor, Jeannette, and Jonathan H. Westover. 2011. Job Satisfaction in the Public Service.

The Effects of Public Service Motivation, Work-Place Attributes and Work Relations.

Public Management Review 13 (5):731-751.

van der Wal, Zeger 2013. Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Differences between Work

Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites. Public Administration Review 73

(5):749-759.

van der Wal, Zeger 2015. “All Quiet on the Non-Western Front?” A Review of Public Service

Motivation Scholarship in Non-Western Contexts. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Ad-

ministration 37 (2):69-86.

Vandenabeele, Wouter 2007. Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Moti-

vation: An Institutional Approach. Public Management Review 9 (4):545-556.

Vandenabeele, Wouter 2008. Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement

Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry’s Measurement Instrument. International

Public Management Journal 11 (1):143-167.

Vandenabeele, Wouter 2009. The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment on Self-Reported Performance: More Robust Evidence of the PSM—

Performance Relationship. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 (1):11-

34.
37
Ward, Kevin D. 2014. Cultivating Public Service Motivation through AmeriCorps Service: A

Longitudinal Study. Public Administration Review 74 (1):114-125.

Warren, David C., and Li-Ting Chen. 2013. Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Pub-

lic Service Motivation and Performance. In Meta-Analysis for Public Management

and Policy, edited by Evan J. Ringquist, 442–474. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Ap-

plications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, Bradley E. 2001. Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature

and a Revised Conceptual Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory 11 (4):559-586.

Wright, Bradley E., Robert K. Christensen, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2013. Measuring Public

Service Motivation: Exploring the Equivalence of Existing Global Measures. Interna-

tional Public Management Journal 16 (2):197-223.

Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. Unanswered Questions about Public Service

Motivation: Designing Research to Address Key Issues of Emergence and Effects.

Public Administration Review 70 (5):691-700.

Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. Public Service Motivation and the Assump-

tion of Person-Organization Fit: Testing the Mediating Effect of Value Congruence.

Administration & Society 40 (5):502-521.

38
Figure 1: Number of Publications on Public Service Motivation by Year

39
Figure 2: Number of First-Time Authors (First Publication on Public Service Motivation) by

Year

40
 𝑑𝐼 (𝑛𝑖 )
𝐶𝐼𝐷 (𝑛𝑖 ) =
(𝑔 − 1)
Formula 1: Where 𝐶𝐼𝐷 (𝑛𝑖 ) denotes the in-degree centrality of a study 𝑖, defined as the ratio
of the number of times a study got cited (the in-degree 𝑑𝐼 (𝑛𝑖 ) of a study 𝑖) to the group size
(all studies in the dataset) 𝑔 − 1.

41
Table 1: In-degree Centrality Scores from the Network Analyses
Study Description Tim In-degree Rank In-degree Rank
es centrality centrality
cited adjusted
(Perry and This article reviews dif- 275 .854 1 .854 1
Wise 1990) ferent theories for PSM
and identifies a typology
of motives associated
with public service that
includes rational, norm-
based and affective mo-
tives.
(Perry 1996) This study develops a 244 .758 2 .763 2
scale to measure PSM on
four dimensions: attrac-
tion to public policy
making, commitment to
the public interest, self-
sacrifice, and compas-
sion.
(Crewson This research looks at the 169 .525 3 .531 3
1997) incidence of public-ser-
vice reward motivations,
consistency of these mo-
tivations over time, their
impact on organizational
performance, and the
ramifications of a public
service ethic for the the-
ory of representative bu-
reaucracy.
(Brewer and This study represents the 148 .460 4 .468 4
Selden 1998) first attempt to link PSM
to prosocial behaviors.
The authors look specifi-
cally at the conceptual
linkage between PSM
and whistle blowing.
(Moynihan This study tests Perry's 132 .410 7 .468 5
and Pandey theory and examines the
2007a) role that organizational
factors play in shaping
PSM.
(Perry 1997) This study investigates 143 .444 5 .450 6
the relationship between
PSM and five sets of an-
tecedents: parental so-
cialization, religious so-
cialization, professional
identification, political
ideology, and individual
42
 demographic characteris-
tics.
(Naff and This study examines the 135 .419 6 .431 7
Crum 1999) relationship between
PSM and federal employ-
ees' attitudes and behav-
ior using survey data. Re-
sults show a positive re-
lationship between PSM
and job satisfaction, per-
formance, organizational
commitment, and support
for the government's re-
invention efforts.
(Rainey and This article draws on the 117 .363 8 .374 8
Steinbauer literature and research on
1999) effective government or-
ganizations to develop
conceptual elements of a
theory to explain their ef-
fectiveness.
(Brewer, The study examines how 113 .351 9 .363 9
Selden, and individuals view the mo-
Facer 2000) tives associated with
public service using the
Q-methodology tech-
nique. Four distinctive
types were discovered.
(Houston This study compares 111 .345 10 .357 10
2000) public and private sector
workers with regard to
the incentives that they
value most highly in a
job.
(Alonso and This study tests the link 104 .323 11 .340 11
Lewis 2001) between PSM and indi-
vidual job performance
in federal service.
(Perry, This article provides a 75 .233 17 .338 12
Hondeghem, narrative review of 20
and Wise years of literature on
2010) public service motivation
with a focus on construct
definitions and measure-
ment, and on the aggre-
gate findings regarding
three propositions from
Perry & Wise (1990).

43
(Perry 2000) This article seeks to de- 101 .314 12 .325 13
velop a theory of motiva-
tion that brings society in
to the motivation equa-
tion and reflects varia-
tions across institutions
in the motivation pro-
cess.
(Kim et al. This article by 16 authors 40 .124 44 .296 14
2013) revises previous meas-
urement scales of PSM in
order to develop an inter-
nationalized scale. The
revised scale is tested in
twelve countries.
(Vandenabeele This article seeks to de- 80 .248 15 .284 15
2007) velop a general theory of
PSM, encompassing both
causes and consequences
of PSM. Based on an in-
terdisciplinary approach,
elements of institutional
theory and motivational
psychology are fused to-
gether.
(Houston The behavioral implica- 83 .258 13 .283 16
2006) tions of PSM are ad-
dressed by studying the
involvement in charitable
activities of public, non-
profit, and private work-
ers.
(Lewis and This article explores how 82 .255 14 .271 17
Frank 2002) individuals' demographic
characteristics and the
importance they place on
various job qualities in-
fluence their preference
for and employment in
the public sector.

44
(Kim 2005) This study focuses on in- 76 .236 16 .257 18
dividual-level factors,
such as job satisfaction,
affective commitment,
PSM, and organizational
citizenship behavior and
analyses their effects on
organizational perfor-
mance in the public sec-
tor of Korea.
(Steijn 2008) This study incorporates 69 .214 18 .255 19
insights from person-en-
vironment fit theories
into the discussion on the
effect of PSM on voca-
tional outcome variables,
such as job satisfaction
and intention to leave.
(Wright and This study investigates 68 .211 19 .251 20
Pandey 2008) the relationship between
PSM and job satisfaction.
Additionally, it tests
whether value congru-
ence between individual
and public organization
moderates this relation-
ship.
(Pandey and This chapter reviews an- 67 .208 20 .247 21
Stazyk 2008) tecedents and correlates
of PSM and tries to iden-
tify discernible patterns
of explanations.

45
Table 2: Distribution of the Origins of Empirical Data used in the Studies

Country (ISO Code)a Freq.b %b Continent Freq. %

US 123 27.5 Europe 194 43.4
DK 30 6.7 North America 140 31.3
CH, KR 20 4.5 Asia 77 17.2
CN 18 4.0 Oceania 15 3.4
NL 16 3.6 Africa 11 2.5
GB 15 3.4 South America 10 2.2
DE 13 2.9
AU, BE, FR 12 2.7
CA 11 2.5
IT, TW 9 2.0
NO 7 1.6
JP 6 1.3
ES, SE 5 1.1
AT, BG, FI, HU, IL, RU, SI 4 .9
BR, LT, MT, MX, NZ, PK 3 .7
CL, CY, CZ, EG, EU, IE, IN, IR, 2 .4
LV, PH, PL, PT, TH, TR, UY, ZA
AD, AR, BD, BF, CR, ET, GE, 1 .2
GH, HK, ID, JM, MA, MD, ML,
MY, PE, RO, RS, RW, SG, SK,
TT, UA, VE, VN, ZM
Total 447 100.0 Total 447 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
In case of multiple countries in a row, values are for each country.

46
Table 3: Distribution of Types of Analytical Methods Used
Analytical Methoda Freq. %b
Univariate: descriptive statistics 199 27.0
Bivariate: measures of association or tests of differences 149 20.2
Multivariate: factor analysis (and reliability assessment or measures 114 15.5
of internal consistency)
Multivariate: multiple regression (including multilevel, panel) 106 14.4
Multivariate: logistic regression (including multilevel, panel) 58 7.9
Multivariate: structural equation modeling (including panel) 42 5.7
A qualitative analytical technique 32 4.3
Multivariate: analysis of variance 16 2.2
Bivariate: linear regression (least squares method) 4 .5
Multivariate: other 17 2.3
Total 737 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
Percentages as the share of the total number of times methods were used.

47
Table 4: Distribution of Lines of Study
Line of Studya Freq. %b
Correlating PSM with outcome variables 173 34.1
Correlating antecedents with PSM 88 17.3
Theoretical conceptualization, defining motives and dimensions, integra- 61 12.0
tion with other theories
Comparing PSM across employment sectors (public/private/nonprofit) 48 9.4
Review study/research overview 33 6.5
Implications for HRM/managerial practice 28 5.5
International comparison of PSM 26 5.1
(Further) development of measurement instruments 22 4.3
Other 29 5.7
Total 508 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
Percentages are the share of the total number of lines of study.

48
Table 5: Studies on the Antecedents of Public Service Motivation
Antecedenta Freq. %b -c /c +c
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) 64 16.0 16 39 9
Age 56 14.0 6 22 28
Education 45 11.3 6 22 17
Job grade/management level 23 5.8 3 8 12
Job tenure or public sector experience 20 5.0 0 15 5
Place of work (e.g. comparing public 16 4.0 0 11 5
or non-profit service to other work)
Employee-leader relations 15 3.8 0 3 12
Minority status/race (0 = white, 1 = 15 3.8 2 11 2
non-white)
Organizational tenure 15 3.8 1 11 3
Salary/income 14 3.5 1 9 4
Job attributes (e.g. task feedback and 13 3.3 0 5 8
variety)
Religiousness 9 2.3 0 4 5
Parental or organizational socialization 8 2.0 0 3 5
Role states (conflict and ambiguity) 7 1.8 5 2 0
Employee perception of the organiza- 6 1.5 0 2 4
tion
Membership in association or union 6 1.5 0 3 3
Political attitude (0 = left, 1 = right) 6 1.5 3 2 1
Family life cycle status (e.g. marital 5 1.3 0 3 2
status)
Volunteering 5 1.3 0 1 4
HRM practices 4 1.0 0 2 2
Professional identification 4 1.0 0 2 2
Organizational commitment 3 .8 0 0 3
Organizational culture 3 .8 0 2 1
Red tape 3 .8 1 2 0
Basic psychological needs satisfaction 2 .5 0 1 1
Extrinsic reward preferences 2 .5 1 1 0
Other 31 7.8
Total 400 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
Percentages as the share of the total antecedents tested.
c
Number of times each predominantly statistically significant positive, mixed or neutral (co-
efficient near zero or not statistically significant), and negative associations with public ser-
vice motivation were found.

49
Table 6: Studies on the Outcomes of Public Service Motivation
Outcomea Freq. %b -c /c +c
d
Job satisfaction 39 16.3 0 15 24
Occupation or employment sector choice 35 14.6 0 20 15
(private, non-profit = 0 vs. public = 1)
Individual performance 26 10.9 0 11 15
Organizational commitmente 19 7.9 0 6 13
Turnover intentions 11 4.6 4 7 0
Person-organization fit 9 3.8 0 0 9
Organizational citizenship behavior 8 3.3 0 0 8
Organizational performance 8 3.3 0 2 6
Work motivation 6 2.5 0 2 4
Work effort 5 2.1 0 1 4
Performance data use 4 1.7 0 0 4
Work-related stress 4 1.7 0 1 3
Intrinsic work preferences 3 1.3 0 0 3
Job commitment 3 1.3 0 0 3
Mission valence 3 1.3 0 0 3
Extrinsic reward preferences 3 1.3 1 1 1
Charitable choices 2 .8 0 0 2
Organizational attraction 2 .8 0 0 2
Quality of work 2 .8 0 0 2
Responsiveness 2 .8 0 1 1
Other 45 18.8
Total 239 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
Percentages as the share of the total outcomes tested.
c
Number of times each predominantly statistically significant positive, mixed or neutral (co-
efficient near zero or not statistically significant), and negative associations with public ser-
vice motivation were found.
d
This includes three cases of “resigned satisfaction”, interpreted as a negative concept.
e
This category includes cases of “continuance commitment”, which may be interpreted as
detrimental to organizations.

50
 Table 7: Most Frequently Mentioned Practical Implications

Practical Implicationa Freq. %b

Consider individual's public service motivation in selection decisions 59 18.6
Use public service motivation-specific management practices 32 10.1
Use traditional or alternative reward systems instead of pay-for-perfor- 30 9.5
mance
Use communication to highlight organizational fit with the employee, 27 8.5
show how employees can benefit society, and clarify goals
Create public service-oriented organizational cultures 18 5.7
Train teams and managers on public service values 18 5.7
Enhance the motivation and performance of street-level bureaucrats by 13 4.1
letting them meet with beneficiaries
Design jobs for public service-motivated individuals and assign them to 12 3.8
such jobs
Use performance feedback 12 3.8
Use transformational leadership 12 3.8
Consider the mediating roles of job satisfaction and organizational 11 3.5
commitment when thinking of the relationship between public service
motivation and outcomes such as performance
Use public service motivation and stress public service values for human 11 3.5
resources marketing and branding
Use New Public Management reforms to foster public service motivation 10 3.2
and help make those reforms successful
Reduce red tape 2 .6
Other 50 15.8
Total 317 100.0
a
Multiple classifications per study were possible.
b
Percentages as the share of the total number of practical implications.

51

View publication stats