Public Service Motivation: Rational Actor or Fool?

Introduction

There are numerous approaches to studying public service motivation. There are three key approaches that can be highlighted – conceptualization, service motivation measurement models, and research on social, behavioral, and performance evidence. The assumptions concerning human behaviors in each of these approaches are discussed further in the paper. Moreover, the weaknesses and strengths of those approaches are evaluated and practical examples based on the studied literature are provided.

There is a number of qualitative and quantitative research projects that evaluate the relevance of public service motivation for the application in an international environment (Sangmook & Wouter, 2012). The key topics of discussion are measurement approaches and the strategies that could be applied to trigger international research on public service motivation. The conceptual nature of public service should be analyzed with the intention of developing novel operational definitions and elaborating all-inclusive public service theories. Research conducted by Sangmook and Wouter (2012) allowed the authors to identify that the essential public service motives are based on altruism and can be divided into three rudimentary categories (including identification, contribution, and rating). It is important to understand that the relationship between the public service theories and rudimentary categories of motives sets up the path for the measurement model. In the case of failure, the organization will not be able to evaluate the empirical relationships between the main actors (Sangmook & Wouter, 2012). This will lead to incorrect conclusions concerning the theoretical aspects of the measurement model. Public service motivation should be perceived as a multi-layered and multifunctional instrument due to its complex nature. Proper operationalization of the public service motivation theories will trigger the commitment to public values, and successfully engage the team members in activities that require self-sacrifice and compassion.

Gender Differences in Public Service Motivation

Research conducted by feminist investigators in the area of public administration showed that male imaginings are prevalent in current public administration model (Dehart-Davis, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2006). Nonetheless, one should realize that public service motivation is influenced by both male and female imaginings. The authors of this particular article identified the strengths of the multidimensional motivation scale and discovered the particularities inherent in both male and female dimensions of public service motivation. Compassion was found to be the vital feminine aspect, while policy-making and provision of high-quality public service were found to be the key masculine aspects (Dehart-Davis et al., 2006). The strength of this model can be explained by the findings that suggested that there were no virtual differences between genders when it came to commitment to public services. The authors of the article consider that the categories that they identified during the process of research can be used as a universal separator (which includes compassion, public interest, and policy-making).

Public Service Merit and Recruiting

In public service motivation, the notion of merit is one of the key concepts (Kernaghan, 2011). Even though the perception of the term has changed over the years, the interpretation of it became much more flexible and numerous organizations have adopted it. This happened because the notion of motivation became the central aspect of public management. The concept of merit should be preserved, and essential values of public service should also be protected. Moreover, Kernaghan (2011) outlines a new explanation of the term “merit.” He says that the individuals that are highly motivated in terms of public service are inclined to be more satisfied with their occupations and show a higher level of organizational commitment. The key strength of this novel notion is that it stresses the fact of improved performance. The weakness of the employment of this notion within an organizational framework consists in the complexities linked to the maintaining of high-level performance and further development of public service motivation (Kernaghan, 2011). Overall, the new concept of merit points out the significance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The organization is requited to hire on the basis of merit and employ unprejudiced staffing practices. The advantage of the new perception of public service merit also relates to the improved human resource and public sector management practices.

Career Motivation

The differences between nonprofit and for-profit organizations generated extensive research in the area of career motivation (Lee & Wilkins, 2011). Even though both possess several shared aims, the findings show that the sources of motivation are different for the employees of public/ private and for-profit/ nonprofit organizations. The importance of this research can be explained by the presence of specific correlations between the aspects of public and nonprofit organizational practices. Lee and Wilkins (2011) identified that the employees who preferred improvement opportunities and a retirement fund were more inclined to finding a job in the public sector. On the other hand, the nonprofit sector majorly consists of the individuals who value occupations that require responsibility and offer approachable policies. Regardless of the numerous similarities (concerning both weaknesses and strengths), the aspects of motivation are not identical for nonprofit and public workers (Lee & Wilkins, 2011). The investigation showed that further research on the subject is necessary due to the overlapping nature of the two types of the workforce.

Motivational Basis of Public Service Motivation

A number of European initiatives are based on the intention to move away from the conventional model of public administration (Meyer, Egger-Peitler, Hollerer, & Hammerschmid, 2014). This transformation is supported by local organizational logic which impacts the social identities and motives of the workers. This legitimate shift expands the research conducted in the area of public service motivation, and Meyer et al. (2014) employ a nonconventional approach to discover the common institutional motives. The researchers associated the identities of employees and their moral norms with the level of public service motivation (Meyer et al., 2014). The outcomes in workers exposed the two key weaknesses of the conventional model of public administration – low levels of policy-making attraction and compassion. On the other hand, the model improved these aspects in terms of managerial public service motivation (Meyer et al., 2014).

Another approach was applied by Perry (1996) who was keen on investigating the motivational keys of public service and its overall influence on public administration. The researcher was able to measure public service motivation and statistically evaluate the developmental process of the employees. Perry (1996) introduced the notions of high reliability and discriminant and construct validity. Even more, he developed a standardized tool designed to help the organizations to measure public service motivation and collect valuable data (for instance, empirical evidence). Socialization is one of the crucial strengths of the measurement tool as it provides the opportunity to operate dependent variables in many studies (Perry, 1996). Therefore, the tool developed by Perry was multifunctional and could be used to measure motivation in business, governmental, and nonprofit environments. Perry and his measurement tool were able to answer a number or vital questions asked by other public service motivation researchers.

When taking into account public sector employment, we should also consider the implications of its positive correlation to public service motivation (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2012). Nonetheless, it should be noted that the influence of public service motivation on organizational decisions cannot be approximated without skepticism. The investigation of this subject may be useful in terms of pointing out the differences between public and private sectors. Kjeldsen and Jacobsen (2012) came to the conclusion that public service motivation had no visual impact on the public or any other relevant sector. This weakness may be explained by the preventive organizational measures that do not allow the decline of public service motivation in the private sector (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2012). On a bigger scale, the critical weakness of motivation in public service is the complexity of the associations between private and commercial sectors and consequences of their interactions.

The Charges Against Public Service Motivation Research

The main charge against public service motivation is based on the fact that it is utilized as an independent variable (Bozeman & Su, 2014). The examination of the subject showed that it could easily serve as a dependent variable. But the key weakness of the current public service motivation research consists in the unwillingness of the investigators to explore the mechanics and causal aspects of public service motivation (Bozeman & Su, 2014). Nonetheless, the investigators claim that the concepts of this subject are not thoroughly studied and cannot be utilized to the full extent of their power. Bozeman and Su (2014) provide several explanations of the term “public service motivation” and hypothesize the progress that could be made by means of this notion. They also discussed the impact of organizations on the level of public service motivation and investigated the option of controlling the employees’ morale and incentives.

Public Service Motivation Measurement

Continuing the topic of motivation measurement, Coursey and Pandey (2007) tested an instrument called public service motivation scale. The analysis features an estimation of the probabilities and takes into consideration the most prevalent indicators. The findings of the researchers validate the previous findings in the area and connect them to their conclusions made on the basis of the utilization of the public service motivation scale (Coursey & Pandey, 2007). The authors of the research found two weaknesses inherent in the two dimensions, but the outcomes of the study showed that these weaknesses did not undermine the overall efficiency of the instrument. Coursey and Pandey’s (2007) analysis reflected a practical point of view on the measurement of public service motivation. They used a short scale but indicated that the analysis of a longer scale had not been confirmed.

In 2015, Perry and Vandenabeele contributed to the research on motivation measurement. They stated that the process of research changed significantly over the past two decades and new challenges required us to answer the questions that were never answered before. The strength of the research conducted by Perry and Vandenabeele (2015) was in their understanding of public service. They proposed several new approaches to be tested when it came to the measurement of public service motivation. The directions that they chose for research proved to be beneficial in a number of ways (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2015). First, the researchers identified the methods that are the most important for the future research. Second, they came to the conclusion that it is necessary to re-evaluate the concepts of public service motivation and separate them from all the similar concepts. Third, the authors of this research dwelled on the areas of public service that should be investigated further in order to help the investigators to obtain innovative evidence concerning the methods of measuring motivation. Serious implications of the study became the key weakness of Perry & Vandenabeele (2015) model. They did not take into consideration the dynamic nature of the relationships between public service motivation and efficient human resource practices.

Public Service Motivation and Leadership

When talking about public service motivation, we should link it to the leadership practices and their influence on the overall organizational performance. The concept of motivation and its compliance with the potential impact on the employees are both reflections of the organizational leaders and their ability to communicate the mission of the organization (Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2011). This is also called mission valence. There are two aspects which may be considered the strengths of this model. First, Wright et al. (2011) obtained new evidence concerning the sources of public service motivation. Especially, the authors stress the significance of transformational leadership and associate it with high-level public service motivation. Second, the authors of the article studied the fundamentals of the associations between mission valence and transformational leadership. The influence of the latter on mission valence was identified as implicit. Moreover, it was one of the main sources of motivation development and description of the organizational goals (Wright et al., 2011). In the end, the researchers came to a conclusion that transformational leadership puts the leaders in a better position than any other leadership style. They also emphasize the attractiveness of this leadership style for the public organizations who are not afraid to motivate their employees to rise above their own interests and devote themselves to the organizational goals.

Nonetheless, one should realize that there are numerous challenges inherent in the process of implementing transformational leadership (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). Research shows that there is no methodology that will drastically improve the organizational and employee outcomes. For instance, robust public service values inherent in the employees would only be advantageous for the company if the workers realize the importance of their mission. The employees should collaborate within the environment. One of the key weaknesses consists in the fact that a high level of employee commitment may not coincide with the organizational policies. Paarlberg & Lavigna (2010) believe that it is necessary to introduce critical changes if the organization is looking to benefit from the amalgamation of leadership and public service motivation. Nonetheless, the organization should take into account the cost of such improvement. Regardless of all the probable weaknesses, a number of positive outcomes may be accomplished by the organization if adequate management practices are applied.

Empirical Findings and Moral Commitment

The findings of the last two decades concerning public service motivation were summarized by Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise (2010) and reflected the definition of the concept and its attractiveness for the organizations. The summary is based on the thought that the individuals who operate in the public domain are aimed at doing good for the society and other individuals. The authors highlight the disciplinary differences and the triggers of proper alignment with the organizational goals (Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010). The researchers found that human behavior functions on the basis of two complementary concepts which are mirrored by self-centeredness and self-concern. Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise (2010) came to the conclusion that behavioral choices had a momentous impact on the theories and practices of public management. Therefore, the authors indicate that public service motivation represents a different perspective of management practices and majorly subsidizes to the research on the subject.

The key strength of the approaches that involve public service motivation is their measurability. In 2008, Kim reviewed the existing 24-item model and elaborated a revised 14-item measurement model. The researcher collected the items that had a positive impact on the method and organized the model in a way that allowed him to generalize the structure of public service motivation and get rid of the overload (Kim, 2008). Ultimately, he elaborated the version of the scale that consisted of 12 items. The research caught the attention of other investigators and encouraged the examination of the public service motivation in terms of the latter being an international phenomenon. Nonetheless, the concept of measured motivation in public service environment may greatly impact public administration (Kim, 2008). This is why the measurement scale should be further explored and continually revised. The researcher claimed that the investigation should be keen on involving different nationalities and conducting the experiments in different contexts.

Moral commitment can be outlined on the basis of the connection between public service motivation and employee qualifications (Perry, Brudney, Coursey, & Littlepage, 2008). Perry et al.’s (2008) findings suppose that public service motivation is an effective instrument in terms of prediction of organizational outcomes and their influence on the society. The researchers evaluated the employee qualifications so as to identify the major determining factors of public service motivation. These factors included volunteer experience, parental socialization, and religious activity (Perry et al., 2008). The researchers found a positive correlation between religious activities and volunteering (in both official and casual environments). The importance of religion is supported by the results of the interviews. The latter also take into consideration the critical impact of life-changing events.

Conclusion

The issue of public service motivation is rather important for the organizations for a number of reasons. It guarantees engagement, effective allocation of human resources, compliance with the vision of the administration, and high-level performance. Robust connection exists between the leadership style and employees’ attitude toward public service motivation. There is a number of aspects that positively affect the perception of the organization and its objectives. This is why there are tools designed to measure motivation and evaluate its influence on the working environment. To my mind, Perry’s (1996) measurement instruments are the most efficient and allow the researcher to perform an in-depth analysis of the employees’ moral commitment and willingness to perform at a high level. On a long-term scale, the major goal of every organization is to elicit moral commitment and help the employees to become aware of the interests of the company. Even though Bozeman and Su (2014) presented several charges against the public service motivation research, I am certain of the fact that research in this particular area is vital. The organizational progress will be perceptible, and the vision of the institution and its employees will dynamically correspond to the changes in the market or client requirements.

References

Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2014). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. PUAR, 12(24), 1-11.

Coursey, D., & Pandey, S. (2007). Public service motivation measurement. Administration & Society, 39(5), 547-568.

Dehart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 873-887.

Kernaghan, K. (2011). Getting engaged: Public-service merit and motivation revisited. Canadian Public Administration, 54(1), 1-21.

Kim, S. (2008). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(2), 149-163.

Kjeldsen, A., & Jacobsen, C. (2012). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 899-926.

Lee, Y., & Wilkins, V. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 1(3), 45-56.

Meyer, R., Egger-Peitler, R., Hollerer, M., & Hammerschmid, G. (2014). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 861-885.

Paarlberg, L., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710-718.

Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

Perry, J., & Vandenabeele, W. (2015). Public service motivation research: Achievements, challenges, and future directions. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 692-699.

Perry, J., Brudney, J. L., Coursey, D., & Littlepage, L. (2008). What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 445-458.

Perry, J., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681-690.

Sangmook, K., & Vandenabeele, W. (2012). A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review, 3(1), 701-709.

Wright, B., Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2011). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206-212.