1

Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service:

Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future

James L. Perry, Indiana University, Bloomington

Annie Hondeghem, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

and

Lois Recascino Wise, Indiana University, Bloomington

Paper prepared for presentation at the International Public Service Motivation Research

Conference, co-sponsored by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana

University, Bloomington and the Public Management Institute, Katholieke Universiteit

Leuven, Bloomington, Indiana, June 7-9, 2009.

2

Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service:

Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future

Abstract

This paper reviews the evolution of research about public service motivation conducted since

―The Motivational Bases of Public Service‖ (Perry and Wise, 1990) appeared in Public

Administration Review in 1990. It assesses research that has been conducted related to three

propositions presented in the 1990 article. The review of research covers both public

administration and social and behavioral sciences. Based upon the research review, we discuss

four priorities for future research: broadening research methodologies to include experimental

and quasi-experimental designs; improving measurement for survey-based research; modelling

and studying public service motivation as part of a constellation of motives affecting behavior;

and applying theory and findings about public service motivation to improve the effectiveness of

public organizations.

3

Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service:

Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future

In 1990, American public service was beginning to exit from more than a decade of

intense criticism and personnel reform. Politicians and policy makers had been searching since

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 for formulas to change government service. It was at this

juncture that Perry and Wise‘s (1990) ―The Motivational Bases of Public Service‖ appeared in

the 50th

anniversary volume of Public Administration Review. Their article was grounded in

thinking about motivational alternatives to merit pay, which had been introduced in the U. S.

federal government in 1979.

Since ―The Motivational Bases of Public Service‖ appeared, more than 125 studies about

public service motivation, covering more than a dozen countries, have been published, most of

them since 2000. This paper assesses three aspects of subsequent research. We begin by

reviewing several definitions of public service motivation, including the original that appeared in

Perry and Wise (1990). We next turn to answering the question: What have we learned from

public service motivation research to date? The review is framed around three propositions

offered by Perry and Wise (1990), but also takes into account recent research in the social and

behavioral sciences. The article concludes with a discussion of four priorities for future research.

A Note about Definition

A starting point for developing an understanding of public service motivation is the

motivation concept, a pivotal concern of modern organizational research. Its centrality to

modern organizational research also helps to account for the diversity of definitions. We prefer,

following Perry and Porter (1982, p. 29), to conceive of motivation broadly as the forces that

energize, direct, and sustain behavior. This definition is similar to Pinder (1998), who describes

4

motivation as internal and external forces that initiate work-related behavior, determining its

form, direction, intensity, and duration. Although motivation is often studied in the context of

work, we prefer not to limit the scope to ‗work‘ only, in part because the forces themselves are

not bounded by tasks alone, but involve environmental forces, the work itself, and individual

needs and motives.

Public Service Motivation

Public service motivation originates from beliefs that the motives of public servants are

different from their private sector counterparts. As Elmer Staats (1988), former Comptroller

General of the United States, concluded after fifty years of public service: ―‗Public service‘ is a

concept, an attitude, a sense of duty—yes, even a sense of public morality‖ (601).

In public administration, public service motivation has been defined in several different,

but compatible, ways. Perry and Wise (1990) defined it as ―an individual‘s predisposition to

respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations‖

(368). The definition clearly sought to emphasize motives, such as civic duty and compassion,

which are commonly associated with public enterprises.1

In a subsequent analysis of public service motivation and government effectiveness,

Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) offer a more general definition of public service motivation. They

associate the construct with altruism in referring to public service motivation as a ―general,

altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or

humankind….‖ (20). The Rainey and Steinbauer definition is similar to Brewer and Selden

(1998, 417), who defined the concept as ―the motivational force that induces individuals to

perform meaningful … public, community, and social service,‖ emphasizing its behavioral

implications and applicability beyond the public sector.

5

The most recent variation of the definition within public administration emanates from

Vandenabeele‘s (2007) research in Europe. Vandenabeele (2007) defines public service

motivation as ‗the belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational

interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act

accordingly whenever appropriate‖ (p. 547). The primary departure of this definition from

others is the addition of values as a component of institutional identity.

Altruism

Public administration definitions of public service motivation invoke both the concepts of

self-sacrifice (Perry and Wise, 1990; Perry, 1996) and altruism (Rainey and Steinbauer, 1999).

Thus, research about altruism has direct relevance for research about public service motivation.

Piliavin and Charng (1990) observe that altruism has traditionally been defined in terms of costs,

but they argue that motives should be central to its definition. They write: ―We have chosen to

adopt a largely motive-based definition of altruism as behaviour costly to the actor involving

other-regarding sentiments; if an act is or appears to be motivated mainly out of a consideration

of another‘s needs rather than one‘s own, we call it altruism‖ (30).

Economists have connected public service motivation to altruism, meaning the

willingness of individuals to engage in sacrificial behaviors for the good of others without

reciprocal benefits for themselves. Patrick Francois (2000) referred to public service motivation

as employees providing ―effort out of concern for the impact of that effort on a valued social

service‖ (275). In his research on public servant motivation and policy design, the economist

Julian LeGrand (2003), after reviewing relevant literature, including research about public

service motivation, concludes that ―it is hard to dispute the view that altruistic motivations are

6

prevalent among the providers of public services‖ (p. 35). Thus, economists have fairly

consistently equated public service motivation with altruism.

Prosocial Behavior

A third line of research, most closely identified with the field of organizational behavior,

is prosocial behavior, which encompasses a broad category of other-regarding behaviors (Brief

and Motowidlo, 1986). Some have argued that the meaning of prosocial be tied to an actor‘s

motives. Walster and Piliavin (1972), for instance, suggest that the definition include that the act

is voluntary and without expectations for return. Given how the literature on both prosocial

behavior and motives converges with our understanding of public service motivation, we believe

the prosocial literature merits consideration in research about public service motivation.

Summary

A review of different definitions of public service motivation as they are invoked across

several disciplines is helpful for affirming that the construct has currency beyond public

administration. Although the meaning of public service motivation varies across disciplines and

fields, the construct generally refers to individual motives that are largely, but not exclusively,

altruistic and are grounded in public institutions.

What Have We Learned from Public Service Motivation Research?

We examine three propositions offered by Perry and Wise (1990) in light of subsequent

research about public service motivation. We assess the validity of the propositions in light of

subsequent empirical research, what we now know, and what gaps exist in our knowledge related

to each of the three propositions.

7

Attraction-Selection-Attrition

In the original formulation, the first relationship Perry and Wise (1990) proposed was

between public service motivation and the likelihood of an individual selecting a public

organization. They posited:

Proposition 1: The greater an individual‘s public service motivation, the more

likely the individual will seek membership in a public organization.

The rationale for the prediction was straightforward. Perry and Wise reasoned that

individual behavior would be influenced by the magnetic effects of individual identity

and organization characteristics. Individuals who are high in public service motivation

would seek out contexts compatible with their dispositions and the contexts to which they

would likely be attracted were organizations that satisfied their higher prosocial and

altruistic orientations.

Review of public service motivation research on attraction-selection-attrition.

Public administration research about this proposition is limited, but generally supportive.

In a formative study that is often associated with the beginnings of public service

motivation research, Rainey (1982) found that public managers valued meaningful public

service more highly that private managers and the preference for public service was

significantly related to job satisfaction. Gabris and Simo (1995) arrived at a contrary

finding based on survey results from 96 respondents from six organizations, two each

from the public, nonprofit and private sectors. They concluded, ―It could be that public

sector motivation does exist, but like certain subatomic particles, it is virtually impossible

to isolate and visualize‖ (41).

8

More recent research reinforces Rainey‘s (1982) findings. In an analysis of U.S.

General Social Survey (GSS) data from 1989 and 1998, Lewis and Frank (2002) found

significant positive associations between a desire to help others and be useful to society

and preferences for government jobs. Furthermore, they suggested these relationships

might be stronger for college graduates, younger employees, and specific employment

classifications such as education. Vandenabeele (2008b), using a sample of 1714

advanced masters students in Flemish universities, found that public service motivation

positively correlated with student preferences for prospective public employers. The

association of student preferences was stronger for government organizations classified

as high, in contrast to low, publicness. An analysis of a large Dutch dataset (Steijn, 2008)

showed public sector workers had higher levels of public service motivation than private

sector workers. Interestingly, private sector workers with high levels of public service

motivation were more likely to be looking for public sector jobs.

Research about attrition from government organizations also supports the original

proposition. Crewson (1997) linked public service motivation empirically to higher

organizational commitment and lower turnover. Using data from the 1997 Merit

Principles Survey, Naff and Crum (1999) found a positive association between public

service motivation and intent to remain. Steijn‘s (2008) Dutch study showed that

workers with high public service motivation fit are more satisfied and less inclined to

leave their jobs and the organization they work for than workers without such a fit.

A recent study (Wright and Christensen, 2007), using a panel dataset of

employment information for attorneys, offers insights regarding some mixed findings and

why the public service motivation and attraction-selection-attrition relationships are more

9

nuanced than Perry and Wise (1990) originally projected. Wright and Christensen (2007)

found that a strong interest in social service/helping others did not predict the

employment sector of a lawyers‘ first legal job, but it did increase the likelihood of

holding subsequent jobs in the public sector. Wright and Christensen suggested that both

initial sector choices and retention were affected by other factors that moderated the

influence of public service motivation. Based upon their analysis and accumulated

evidence, they concluded: ―The findings of this study suggest that instead of asking

whether PSM affects employee attraction and retention, perhaps it is more appropriate to

ask when and under what conditions PSM affects employee attraction and retention‖

(15).

Social and behavioral science evidence. Economists have begun to contribute

important research about public service motivation‘s relationships to attraction-selection-

attrition. Grout, Ratcliffe and Windmeijer (2007) (as reported in Francois and Vlassopoulos,

2007) studied donated labor as measured by unpaid overtime in caring industries in the UK.

Grout et al found ―that people with high public service motivation in caring industries are more

likely to move to public sector or nonprofit firms....‖ (Francois and Vlassopoulos, 2007, 25). A

series of studies by Delfgaauw and Dur (2007; 2008a; 2008b) formally model self-selection

decisions in a perfectly competitive economy. Among their conclusions is that when prosocial

motivation is private information, then increasing the wage raises the probability of attracting

workers with lower prosocial motivations. Another recent study by Georgellis, Iossa and

Tabvuma (2008) used data from the first fourteen waves of the British Household Panel Survey

(BHPS) covering the period 1991-2004. Their analysis focused on 747 transitions from the

10

private to the public sector within the BHPS data. They concluded that individuals move to the

public sector because of the higher likelihood of fulfilling their public service motivation.

Research gaps and utility of research to date. As we note above, the research related

to attraction-selection-retention is beginning to demonstrate that the effects of public service

motivation are more nuanced than Perry and Wise (1990) projected. The research results are

promising, however, with respect to public service motivation being a factor in attraction and

retention. Research from public administration, economics and other disciplines holds out the

near-term prospect of creating useable knowledge that can be applied for improving recruitment,

selection and retention practices in public organizations.

One line of research that bears on attraction-selection-attrition that has received attention

recently but has not been fully assimilated into public service motivation research is person-

environment fit models (Leisink and Steijn, 2008; Wright and Pandey, 2008). The person-

environment fit models refer to several different ways of assessing the congruence between

individuals and the settings in which they reside (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson,

2005). ―Fit‖ refers to how congruent an individual is within a job or social unit, which may

include a group or organization. The logic of the person-environment fit models is that

individuals are likely to behave according to their essence if they are well adapted or ―fit‖ their

context.

Several recent studies (Vandenabeele, 2008b; Bright, 2008; Steijn, 2008) have used

various forms of person-environment fit models to analyze the effects of public service

motivation. Bright (2008), for example, found a strong, significant relationship between public

service motivation and person-organization fit. Given the theoretical case and the prospects that

11

this research will help to identify more completely factors influencing attraction and retention,

we believe this line of research merits continuing attention.

Motivation--Performance

The second proposition in Perry and Wise (1990) focused on the relationship between

public service motivation and individual performance. It reads:

Proposition 2: In public organizations, public service motivation is positively

related to individual performance.

Perry and Wise (1990) noted at the time: ―Systematic empirical evidence about the relationship

between public service motivation and performance does not exist‖ (371). Their arguments for

the proposition rested on two premises. First, public jobs would be intrinsically motivating for

individuals with high public service motivation because these individuals would embrace work

characterized by attributes such as high task significance. Second, public service motivation is

likely to affect positively organizational commitment, which influences prospects for reliable

role behaviors and innovative activities, both of which are critical for high individual

performance.

Review of public service motivation—performance research. Several studies (Naff

and Crum, 1999; Alonzo and Lewis, 2001; Bright, 2007; Leisink and Steijn, 2009; and

Vandenabeele, 2009) have tested the proposition by using self-reported measures of individual

performance. In an early study, Naff and Crum (1999) found a positive relationship between

public service motivation and self-reported performance appraisals among U.S. federal

employees. In a subsequent study of federal employees with data from the 1991 Survey of

Federal Employees and 1996 Merit Principles Survey (MPS), Alonzo and Lewis (2001) used job

performance ratings and grade to measure performance (Alonzo & Lewis, 2001). Using a

12

different model specification for the 1996 data than Naff and Crum (1999), Alonzo and Lewis

were able to replicate Naff and Crum‘s findings that public service motivation had a positive

impact on performance ratings. Alonzo and Lewis were unable, however, to find a relationship

between valuing service to others and higher ratings in the 1991 data set. Public service

motivation also had no association with grade level in 1996 and valuing service to others was

negatively related to grade level in 1991. Although Alonzo and Lewis acknowledged that

differences across the data sets in key measures made multiple interpretations of their findings

plausible, their analysis raises legitimate questions about the original proposition.

Three of the studies that used self-reports of performance also incorporated measures of

person-organization fit into their models. Bright (2007) used self-reported performance as the

dependent variable in a model that tested person-organization fit as a mediator of the relationship

between public service motivation and performance. His sample consisted of 205 public health

care, city government, and county employees from Indiana, Kentucky and Oregon. He found

indirect effects of public service motivation mediated by the fit measure, but no independent

direct effects. In a study of a large sample of Flemish state civil servants, Vandenabeele (2009)

concluded there was a positive and significant relationship between public service motivation

and performance, as measured by employee self-reports. In contrast to Bright (2007),

Vandenabeele found support for both direct and indirect effects on performance. The indirect

effects were mediated by job satisfaction and normative and affective commitment of the

motivation-performance relationships. The third of these studies (Leisink and Steijn, 2009)

analyzed the effects of public service motivation on three performance-related outcome

variables, commitment, willingness to exert effort and perceived job performance in a sample of

4130 Dutch public employees from all levels and a variety of functions. The hypothesis that

13

person-organization fit mediates the relationship between public service motivation and the

outcome variables was rejected. The effects of public service motivation and fit on the outcome

variables were independent.

Two other studies tested a model proposed by Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) in which

public service motivation is one of three types of motivation that are the proximate determinants

of the effectiveness of government organizations rather than individual performance. The first of

these two studies (Brewer and Selden, 2000) again used data from the U.S. 1996 MPS. It found

a positive and significant relationship between public service motivation and perceived

organizational effectiveness. The second study used responses from 1739 full-time public

employees in nine central government, five provincial, and twenty-six lower-level local

government agencies in Korea. Kim (2005) found that public service motivation was a

significant positive influence on perceived organizational effectiveness, replicating the results of

Brewer and Selden (2000).

Ritz (2009) used a three-item survey-based measure of internal efficiency as the

dependent variable in a sample of 13,532 Swiss federal employees from all seven ministries. He

independently entered two dimensions of public service motivation, attraction to public policy

making and commitment to the public interest, into regressions. Commitment to the public

interest was significant, but attraction to public policy making was not.

In addition to studies of individual and organizational performance, scholars have also

looked at discrete variables that represent facets of performance or could mediate the motivation-

performance relationship. Brewer and Selden (1998) concluded that public service motivation

was positively related to propensity to blow the whistle. Two recent studies (Kim, 2006; Pandey,

Wright and Moynihan, 2008), one based in Korea and the in the U.S., found positive associations

14

between public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior. Andersen (2009)

investigated the influence of public service motivation and professional norms on the

performance of a sample of public and private health professionals in Denmark. The public

service motivation of 24 health professionals was inferred from in-depth interviews and specific

discrete behaviors were used as measures of performance for the different health professions.

Andersen found that public service motivation was at the same high level for public and private

health professionals so that it did not affect performance, which did vary with professional norms

and economic incentives.

Social and behavioral science evidence. A path breaking study is Francois‘s (2000),

―Public Service Motivation as an Argument for Government Provision.‖ He acknowledges that

the claims of public administration scholars about a public service ethic have not been taken

seriously by economists. Using formal mathematical modelling, Francois demonstrates that

when public service motivation exists, conditions can be created for government bureaucracy to

better obtain effort from employees than a standard profit maximizing firm. The simple form of

Francois‘s argument is that if government organizations are populated by high public service

motivation employees, then government provision or purchase of certain public services is

efficient because it allows for the service ethic to be expressed and lowers the price to taxpayers.

The willingness of public employees to accept lower financial rewards is compensated by a non-

pecuniary benefit of meeting their public service goals. The result is efficient because public

employees motivated by public service are essentially volunteering a portion of their time for

free, which would not happen if they worked for a private, profit maximizing firm.

Another major contribution is LeGrand‘s (2003) Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy.

LeGrand develops a complex argument that is grounded in two constructs, motivation and

15

agency. LeGrand argues that the motivation of public servants is complex, but includes both

self-interested and altruistic motives. He couples his analysis of motivation with agency, i.e., the

capacity to take desired action. The purpose for coupling motivation and agency is to identify

how agency should be designed to maximize motivation. His conclusion is that public policies

should be designed to create quasi-markets in which public agencies compete with for-profit

firms in delivery of services. The consequence of such quasi-markets is that they serve to

harness altruistic motivations of all providers (LeGrand, 2003), public and private.

Research gaps and utility of research to date. At this juncture, the research seems to

point to the conclusion that public service motivation matters for performance, but a good many

questions remain unanswered about the degree that it matters and whether its effects are

collective rather than individual. Indeed, an interesting aspect of the evolution of the research is

that scholars have developed cases at both individual and collective levels for the contribution of

public service motivation. This is a departure from Perry and Wise‘s (1990) focus on individual

performance, but opens up both research and institutional design options that were not

considered twenty years ago.2

A research gap highlighted by the contributions of different disciplines is that public

administration research has focused primarily on the individual level of analysis and economics

research has emphasized institutional design. It would be advantageous for these two streams of

research to intersect. Public administration research could promote intersection were it to give

more attention to the institutional environment—such as the implications of ownership of the

firm (public, commercial, nonprofit) of the firm or the incentive structure in the workplace.

Two significant but less fundamental issues that need attention in future research are the

heavy reliance on self-reports in performance studies and the role of person-organization fit as a

16

mediator in the public service motivation—performance relationship (Bright, 2007; Brewer,

2008; Wright and Pandey, 2008). In a recent article, Wright and Pandey (2008) propose a model

that helps to explain inconsistencies in motivation-performance research. They suggest that the

effect of public service motivation on job satisfaction is mediated by value congruence. Their

model offers promising avenues for future research.

Motivation and Organizational Incentive Structures

The third and final proposition in Perry and Wise (1990) focused on the relationship between

public service motivation and the structure of organizational incentives. It reads:

Proposition 3: Public organizations that attract members with high levels of

public service motivation are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives

to manage individual performance effectively.

The rationale for the proposition was based on Knoke and Wright-Isak‘s (1982) predisposition-

opportunity model. They conceptualize motives as ―predispositions to act under appropriate

external cues‖ (210). If public service motivation represents an individual‘s predispositions to

act, then the incentives (i.e., external cues) organizations are prepared to offer members for their

commitments represent the opportunity side of the model. Knoke and Wright-Isak develop a

typology composed of eight different types of organizational incentive systems representing

familiar schemes, including pure utilitarian and service incentive systems.

Public service motivation—organizational incentive structure research. This

proposition has long-standing empirical support in the public administration literature, but most

of the evidence is confined to how highly public employees‘ value financial rewards relative to

their private sector counterparts or relative to some portfolio of rewards. Reviews prior to 1990

17

(Rainey, Backoff and Levine, 1976; Perry and Porter, 1982; Rainey, 1983) summarized this

evidence indicating that financial rewards are less important than other, non-pecuniary rewards.

Recent research formally incorporating public service motivation as an explanatory

construct confirms earlier findings. Crewson (1997), Karl and Sutton (1998) and Bright (2005;

in press) reported inverse relationships between public service motivation and preferences for

monetary rewards. Although those who choose public jobs tend to value intrinsic motivators

more and extrinsic motivators less than those who prefer the private sector, Frank and Lewis

(2004), using 1989 and 1998 GSS data, found that interaction terms intended to capture public-

private differences in a range of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards did not approach statistical

significance. This led them to conclude: ―In both sectors, an interesting job that allows one to

help others and a strong desire for job security appeared to increase the probability that one will

put in extra effort, and the size of the effect appeared to be about the same in both sectors‖ (46).

Social and behavioral science evidence. Scholarship in psychology, economics and

political science is making significant contributions toward illuminating the motivation—

incentive structure relationships. The longest-standing line of research originates with Deci

(1975) and has developed further in his collaboration with Ryan (Deci and Ryan, 2004; Ryan and

Deci, 2000; Deci, Koestner and Ryan, 1999). The core argument of Deci and Ryan‘s research is

that a variety of types of tangible contingent rewards undermine intrinsic motivation, but

unexpected and task-non-contingent rewards have no effect on intrinsic motivation. Moreover,

the experimental evidence suggests that recipients experience positive feedback differently from

tangible rewards. Positive feedback can amplify intrinsic motivation.

18

The Deci and Ryan research has influenced motivation crowding theory (Frey, 1997;

Frey & Jegen, 2001), which originates in economics. Frey and Jegen (2001) summarize the two

main premises of motivation crowding theory:

(a) All interventions originating from outside the person under consideration, i.e.,

both positive monetary rewards and regulations accompanied by negative

sanctions may affect intrinsic motivation;

(b) External interventions may crowd-out or crowd-in intrinsic motivation (or

leave it unaffected) (592).

One of the results of this line of research is that lower powered incentives (e.g., non-pecuniary

rewards) are optimal in public organizations (Francois & Vlassopoulos, 2008). Other research in

economics (Delfgaauw and Dur, 2008a, 2008b; Georgellis, Iossa and Tabvuma, 2008) provides

support for the contention that public service motivation advances the interest of a cost

minimizing government because it permits the employer to offer weaker financial incentives than

private firms do. Georgellis, Iossa and Tabvuma‘s (2008) analysis of transitions between

sectors from the first fourteen waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) arrived at

conclusions consistent with proposition 3. They write:

Our results show that higher wages, satisfaction with pay, job security and

working hours in the public sector are either insignificant in influencing the

probability of transition to the public sector or reduce this probability. Instead,

higher satisfaction with the intrinsic characteristics of work in the public sector

increases the probability of transition to the public sector. Individuals are more

likely to move due to higher satisfaction with the work itself in the public sector,

19

as the public sector provides greater opportunity for these individuals to carry out

their public service motivation.

A principal-agent analysis of public bureaucratic incentives by two political scientists

came to conclusions highly compatible with the research from psychology and economics.

Miller and Whitford (2007) argue that principal-agent theory posits it is in the principal‘s interest

to find incentives that channel the agent‘s self-interest toward efficient levels of effort from the

agent. They demonstrate, however, that the principal‘s self-interest in public settings militates

against offering such incentives. Their explanation is that bonuses large enough to produce the

efficient incentive effect in public organizations are prohibitively expensive for the principal,

creating what they call the ―principal‘s moral hazard constraint.‖ Miller and Whitford (2007)

suggest the solution for the principal‘s dilemma is to revert to using motives underlying public

service motivation. They write: ―Alternatively, the selection of agents becomes more important

when outcome-based incentives cannot align self-interest and organizational efficiency. People

with a strong sense of public cause may be more important to bureaucracy for that reason‖ (229).

Research gaps and utility of research to date. The growing body of research from

across several disciplines led the author of a recent review (Myers, 2008) to conclude:

―Rebuilding public sector motivation is viewed as a way to improve public service quality and

volume without incurring the transaction/monitoring costs associated with ‗higher powered‘

incentives such as performance-related pay‖ (6).

Summary

Notable strides have been made in studying the motivational bases of public service since

1990. It is worth highlighting that much of the research directly focused on public service

motivation has appeared since 2000 so progress has been especially rapid during the last decade.

20

It is also noteworthy that progress span disciplines, including economics, psychology and

sociology. Beyond the progress, future research needs to explore new directions that entail

closer integration with other disciplines, measurement advances, and new methodological

strategies for advancing knowledge. The research reviewed above indicates significant progress,

but still more needs to be done. Priorities for future research are addressed next.

What Are Priorities for Future Research?

We now set out new directions in light of what public administration and other

disciplines and fields have to contribute to public service motivation research. We identify four

priorities for future research: broadening research methodologies to include experimental and

quasi-experimental designs; improving measurement for survey-based research; modelling and

studying public service motivation as part of a constellation of motives affecting behavior; and

applying theory and findings about public service motivation to change institutional practices.

Experimental and Quasi-experimental Research

The reality for most public service motivation research is that it has relied on cross-

sectional survey methodology. To some extent the choice of research methodologies is the result

of scholars seeking to develop psychometric instruments to measure unobservable variables. As

public service motivation research matures, however, it becomes increasingly important to seek

more rigor in the research and to explore greater variety in research methodologies.

An obvious candidate for new methodologies is experiments, both laboratory (Bozeman

and Scott, 1992) and field (Grant, 2008). In a review article almost two decades ago, Bozeman

and Scott (1992) lamented the dearth of laboratory experiments in public policy and management

research and identified several reasons for their infrequent use. It is ironic that one of the reasons

21

was ―public policy and management researchers rarely study the individual level of analysis‖

(295). As an individual attribute, public service motivation is ripe for laboratory experiments.

It is not that laboratory experiments are without flaws, but they may present an

alternative approach to testing fundamental questions that may not be readily addressed with

other methods. Among the questions that could be investigated experimentally are:

Is public service motivation a stable individual attribute or is it influenced by

organizational and managerial interventions?;

Does the distinction between act-relevant and act-irrelevant altruism (Le Grand,

2003) capture meaningful differences in how individuals perceive motivational

contexts?; and

What factors mitigate sector choice for high public service motivation individuals?

Randomized field experiments would complement laboratory experiments by creating

opportunities for testing the external validity of results from the laboratory. Field experiments

are also likely to appeal to professional interested in applying research results because of their

greater authenticity relative to the laboratory. Grant‘s (2008) field experiment that manipulated

task significance for fund raisers in a public university is an excellent illustration of the value and

appeal of field experiments.

Bozeman and Scott (1992) observed that the greatest impediment to more experimental

research in public policy and management research may be lack of investigator training. But we

believe this impediment can be overcome. More frequent use of experimental studies would

certainly create some impetus for better training. In addition, many opportunities for researchers

to learn experimental methods are now available that were not when Bozeman and Scott (1992)

first broached the idea of more experimental studies in public administration.

22

Measurement Improvements

The call above for more experimental and quasi-experimental research is intended to

diversify and add rigor to public service motivation research. Cross-sectional surveys and

secondary aggregated data sources have been the foundation for a large share of research (Wise,

2004). We believe, however, that alternative methods should complement survey methods, not

replace them. The development of a survey-based measure for public service motivation (Perry,

1996) has been useful for permitting comparisons across disparate service and national settings

(see, for example, Kim, forthcoming; Liu, Tang, and Zhu, 2008; Taylor, 2008), supporting

research in other disciplines (Francois, 2000; Grant, 2008), and generally creating foundations

for cumulating results. Thus, we believe future research should turn to further improving

measurement.

Other scholars (Vandenabeele, 2008a; Kim, forthcoming; Wright, 2008) have identified

two important issues that need to be considered in advancing the measurement of public service

motivation. The first issue is the dimensionalities of the public service motivation construct.

The dimensionalities issue can be reduced to two questions: (1) Are the four dimensions of the

standard measurement instrument (Perry, 1996) correctly specified?; and (2) Do the dimensions

need to be expanded or modified to accommodate research in non-U.S. settings? These

questions have been addressed in other forums so we will not take them up here. We simply

note that these questions should be important facets of the measurement research agenda.

The second issue involves the specification of the construct. We agree with Wright‘s

(2008) conclusion, based upon his methodological review: ―Researchers should consider

operationalizing this four-dimension conceptualization as first-order reflective and second-order

formative‖ (85). Support for Wright‘s position is provided by Coursey, Brudney, Perry &

23

Littlepage (2008). The resolution of the specification issue in the way proposed by Wright

(2008) has significant implications going forward. The foremost of these implications is that if

public service motivation is a formative rather than reflective construct, then its dimensions

should no longer be used independently for measurement purposes.

Holistic Motivational Assessments

Although a relatively large body of research has been published about public service

motivation during the last two decades, the focus of a large portion of this research has been on

definition (Perry and Wise, 1990), measurement (Perry, 1996), and incidence (Crewson, 1997).

These issues will continue to merit attention in future research, but the foundation has been laid

so that scholars can turn their focus to other, more substantive and complex issues. Both

LeGrand (2003) and Wise (2004) imply one issue that should be high on this future agenda is the

composite of motivations that affect behavior. LeGrand (2003) writes: ―Altruism exists

alongside more self-interested motivations, and is combined with them to affect behaviour in

different ways‖ (35). Wise (2004) is more direct about the need for holistic models: ―If we look

only for evidence to support the existence of public service motives, for example, we cannot

obtain a picture of the complexity of human behavior in a given organization‖ (670).

Wise (2000) indicates several avenues that might be pursued in a next generation of

research that looks more holistically at public service motivation. Among the avenues she

suggests are:

―Individuals with public service motives are not by definition devoid of other motives

and human needs‖ (344);

24

―Situational factors play a role in explaining when public service motives surface and

dominate individual behavior and when behavior occurs as a consequence of other

motives‖ (345);

―...contextual factors related to individual actors, situations, events, and the organizations

in which behavior occurs influence the strength of public service motivation‖ (351-2).

Let us offer one example where more encompassing research—research that addressed

multiple motives and situations—could offer strategic payoffs. This more encompassing

research would involve at least two individual motivational components, public service

motivation (or, alternatively, altruism or prosocial motivation) and need for security, and

variations in property rights for jobs, which might be classified as an organizational or public

policy variable.

The set of variables specified above have been the center of debates about American

public administration for more than a century. Job security has been a central tenet of civil

service since the U.S. Pendleton Act of 1883. The attack on the job security of government

employees continues unabated today with states, such as Georgia and Florida, and federal

agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, leading the way promoting at-will

employment as an alternative to traditional job tenure systems (Kellough and Nigro, 2005;

Williams and Bowman, 2007). We also know that security and public service are important

motivators, particularly in traditional civil service systems. How do variations in these three

factors influence motivation of civil servants? What are the behavioral consequences of relaxing

property rights in government jobs? Do different combinations of individual public service

motivation and need for security influence behavior of civil servants?

25

Research along the lines sketched above is vital to create knowledge-based debate

relevant for public-service systems. More importantly, it moves us toward a more holistic and

complete understanding of behavior in public organizations.

Applications of Theory and Findings from Public Service Motivation Research

As we note above, public service motivation research is maturing, but remains a work in

progress. At the same time, the accumulating evidence from many disciplines makes a

persuasive case for experimenting with new applications. If we believe that various facets of

public service affect motivation, then it is time to begin ―practicing what we preach.‖

What steps might we take to begin applying public service motivation? A starting point

might be to look for ways to revitalize public service work. Light (1999) discovered in his

surveys of cohorts of MPA alumni from top public affairs programs that the work was the central

consideration associated with attraction-selection-attrition. Grant‘s (2008) field experiment on

task significance indicates that redesigning work to increase public service motivation can have a

significant influence on performance.

A strategic priority for improving practice is how to create balance between ‗rational

choice‘ based systems and ‗public service motivation‘ based systems. Research on motivation

crowding (Frey, 1997) highlights the risks of weighting reward systems too heavily toward

rational choice, thereby crowding out intrinsic rewards. It also calls attention to the benefits of

seeking an optimal balance, that is, using extrinsic incentives to crowd in intrinsic rewards.

Another substantive arena for applying research about public service motivation is

leadership. Leaders can influence public service motivation through several mechanisms,

including engaging employees‘ existing values, infusing jobs with meaning, and highlighting and

rewarding public service values (Paarlberg, Perry and Hondeghem, 2008). These processes are

26

not well understood, however, so a robust research program on the role of leaders in building

conditions for public service motivation would be desirable.

In order to support managers and human resources staff to deal with public service

motivation in their organization, there is a need for practical tools. How can we identify the

public service motivation of candidates in a selection context? How do we effectively integrate

public service motivation into performance appraisal systems? The psychometric instruments

that have been developed to date were oriented towards a research context, but not towards a

practical human resources context. Our point is that before public service motivation can

become a practical management tool, more investments need to be made.

27

References

Alonso, P., and Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence

from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31 (4): 363-380.

Andersen, L. B. (2009). What determines the behaviour and performance of health

professionals? Public service motivation, professional norms and/or economic incentives.

International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 79-97.

Baldwin, J. N. (1984). Are we really lazy? Review of Public Personnel Administration,

4(Spring), 80-89.

Batson, C. D. and Powell, A.A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In I. B. Weiner (ed.),

Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 463–484. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. (1992). Laboratory experiments in public policy and management.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(3), 293-313.

Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a

democratic public. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., and Facer, R. L. II. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service

motivation. Public Administration Review, 60 (3), 254-264.

Brewer, G. A. (2008). Employee and organizational performance. In J.L. Perry and A.

Hondeghem (eds), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, pp.

136–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, G.A. and Selden, S.C. (2000). ―Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting

Performance in Federal Agencies.‖ Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 10(4): 685-711.

28

Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of

Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.

Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are they,

where are they and what do they want?‖ Review of Public Personnel Administration,

25(2), 138-155.

Bright L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service

motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 27(4), 361-379.

Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job

satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public

Administration, 38(2), 149-166.

Coursey, D., Brudney, J., Perry, J. L., and Littlepage, L. (2008). Measurement questions in

public service motivation: Construct formation and nomological distinctiveness and

explanatory power for volunteering activities. Paper prepared for the Minnowbrook III

conference, Lake Placid, NY, September 5-7, 2008.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). ―Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence

and Effect.‖ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4: 499-518.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:

University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, and Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining

the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6),

627-668.

29

Delfgaauw, J. and Dur, R. (2007). Signaling and screening of workers‘ motivation. Journal of

Economic Behaviour and Organizations, 62(4), 605-624.

Delfgaauw, J. and Dur, R. (2008a). Incentives and workers‘ motivation in the public sector. The

Economic Journal, 118 (January), 171–191.

Delfgaauw, J. and Dur, R. (2008b). Managerial talent, motivation and self-selection in public

management. CESIFO Working Paper No. 2437. October.

Francois, P. (2000). ―‘Public service motivation‘ as an argument for government provision.‖

Journal of Public Economics, 78 (3): 275-299.

Francois, P. and Vlassopoulos, M. (2008). Pro-social motivation and the delivery of social

services. CESifo Economic Studies 54(1), 22-54.

Frank, S.A. and Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees: Working hard or hardly working?

American Review of Public Administration, 34(1), 36-51.

Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation.

Cheltenham, UK; Brookfield, VT.: Edward Elgar.

Frey, B. S. and Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys,

15(5), 589-611.

Frey, B. S., and Osterloh, M. (2005). Yes, managers should be paid like bureaucrats. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 14(1), 96-111.

Gabris, G. T. and Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting

career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-51.

Georgellis, Y., Iossa, E., and Tabvuma, V. (2008). Crowding out public service motivation.

Department of Economics and Finance, Brunel University. June.

30

Grant, A. M. (2008). Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial impact in

public service. International Public Management Journal, 11 (1), 48-66.

Gregg, P., Grout, P., Ratcliffe, A., Smith, S., and Windmeijer, F. (2008). How important is pro-

social behaviour in the delivery of public services? Bristol, UK: Centre for Market and

Public Organisation, Bristol Institute of Public Affairs, University of Bristol. Working

Paper No. 08/197.

Grout, P., Ratcliffe, A., and Windmeijer, F. (2007). How important is institution for the delivery

of public service? Paper presented at the American Economic Association, Chicago,

Illinois.

Horton, S. (2008). History and persistence of an idea and an ideal. In J. L. Perry & A.

Hondeghem (eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, pp. 17-32.

Kellough, J. E. and Nigro, L. G. (2005). Dramatic reform in the public service: At-will

employment and the creation of a new public workforce. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 16, 447-466.

Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government

organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.

Kim, Sangmook. (forthcoming). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A

research note. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Knoke, D. and Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organizational incentive systems.

Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 209-254.

31

Kristof-Brown, A. L. Zimmerman, R. D. & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals‘

fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and

person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-320.

Le Grand, J. 2003. Motivation, agency and public policy: Of knights and knaves, pawns and

queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Leisink, P. and Steijn, B. (2009). Public service motivation and job performance of public sector

employees in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1),

35-52.

Leisink, P and Steijn, B. (2008). Recruitment, attraction, and selection. In J. L. Perry and A.

Hondeghem (eds.), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service.

Oxford University Press, pp. 118-135.

Lewis, G. B. and Frank, S.A. (2002). Who wants to work for government? Public

Administration Review, 62 (4), 395-404.

Light, P. (1999). The New Public Service. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution.

Liu, B., Tang, N., and Zhu, X. (2008). Public service motivation and job satisfaction in China:

An investigation of generalisability and instrumentality. International Journal of

Manpower, 29(8), 684-699.

McGrath, J.E. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. In J.E.

McGrath (ed.), Judgment Calls in Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 69-80.

Miller, G. J. and Whitford, A.B. 2007. ―The Principal's Moral Hazard: Constraints on the Use of

Incentives in Hierarchy.‖ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2):

213-233.

32

Myers, J. (2008). ‗Public service motivation‘ and performance incentives: a literature review.

Oxford Policy Institute. June.

Naff, K. C. and Crum, J. (1999). ―Working for America: Does public service motivation make a

difference?‖ Review of Public Personnel Administration 19 (Fall): 5-16.

Paarlberg, L.E. Perry, J.L. & Hondeghem, A. (2008). From theory to practice: Strategies for

applying public service motivation. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (eds.), Motivation in

public management: The call of public service. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.

268-293.

Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., and Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Public service motivation and

interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model.

International Public Management Journal, 11(1): 89-108.

Perry, J. L. (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. L. & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public

service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J.L. and Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98.

Perry, J. L. and Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public

Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.

Piliavin, J.A. and Charng, H.W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research.

Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.

Pinder, C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

33

Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the

service ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288-302.

Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and

individual roles. Administration and Society, 15(August), 207-242.

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R., and Levine, C.H. (1976). Comparing public and private

organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233-244.

Rainey, Hal G. and Paula Steinbauer. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a

theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 9 (1), 1-32.

Ritz, A. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal

government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 53–78.

Robertson, P. J. and Tang, S. Y. (1995). The role of commitment in collective action: Comparing

the organizational behavior and rational choice perspectives. Public Administration

Review, 55(1), 67-80.

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78

Staats, E. B. (1988). Public service and the public interest. Public Administration Review, 48(2),

601-605.

Steijn, B. (2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation. International Public

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

Taylor, J. (2008). Organizational influences, public service motivation and work outcomes: An

Australian study.‖ International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 67-88.

34

Vandenabeele, W. (2008a). Development of a public service motivation measurement scale:

Corroborating and extending Perry‘s measurement instrument. International Public

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

Vandenabeele, W. (2008b). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in

selecting government as an employer of choice.‖ Public Administration, 86(4), 1089–

1105.

Vandenabeele, W. (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), 53–78.

Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation:

An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9(4), 545-556.

Walster, E. and Piliavin, J. (1972). Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues,

28(3), 165-189.

Williams, R. L. and Bowman, J.S. (2007). Civil service reform, at-will employment, and George

Santayana: Are we condemned to repeat the past?‖ Public Personnel Management, 36(1),

65-77.

Wise, L. R. (2004). Bureaucratic posture: On the need for a composite theory of bureaucratic

behavior. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 669-680.

Wise, L. R. (2000). The public service culture. In Richard J. Stillman II (ed), Public

Administration: Concepts and Cases, 7th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000, pp

342-353.

35

Wright, B.E. (2008). Methodological challenges associated with public service motivation

research. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (eds.), Motivation in public management: The

call of public service. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80-98.

Wright, B. E. and Christensen, R. K. (2007). Public service motivation: A longitudinal analysis

of the job attraction-selection-attrition model. Paper prepared for presentation at the 9th

Public Management Research Conference, Tuscon, Arizona, October 25-27.

Wright, B. E. and Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person-

organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration and

Society, 40(5), 502-521.

36

Endnotes

1 Among the organizations we would include as public enterprises are both government organizations and

nonprofit organizations, which confer public benefits. 2 An early effort within public administration to formally link individual and collective levels of analysis surrounds

the concept of organizational commitment. See Robertson and Tang (1995).