- Paper prepared for the IRSPM, 6-9 April, Bern-

Motivating Employees of the Public Sector: Does Public Service Motivation Matter?

Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, University of Geneva (Switzerland) Frdric Varone, University of Geneva (Switzerland) David Giauque, University of Lausanne (Switzerland) Adrian Ritz, University of Bern (Switzerland)

Abstract: This article analyses if, and to what extent, the Public Service Motivation (PSM) construct has an added-value to explain work motivation in the public sector. In order to address the specificity of PSM when studying work motivation, the theoretical model underlying this empirical study compares PSM with two other explanatory factors: material incentives such as performance-related pay, and team relations and support such as recognition by superiors. This theoretical model is then tested with data collected in a national survey of 3754 civil servants at the Swiss municipal level. Results of a Structural Equations Model clearly show the relevance of PSM. They also provide evidence for the importance of socio-relational motivating factors, whereas material incentives play an anecdotal role, suggesting the potential crowding-out of intrinsic motivation.

Keywords: Public Service Motivation, Motivation, Recognition, Team-Relations, Material Incentives, Structural Equation Modelling, Extrinsic-Intrinsic Motivation, Crowding-Out effect

Corresponding author:
Simon Anderfuhren-Biget (Research assistant, Phd. Student). University of Geneva, department of political sciences. Corresponding address: Simon.Anderfuhren-Biget@unige.ch

Work in progression, please do not cite without the prior and explicit authorization of the author
1

1. Introduction Motivated employees are the cornerstones of all organizations, as work motivation is one crucial determinant of individual and organizational performance. This holds true in the private, the public and the non-profit sectors. Work motivation is thus a great concern of academic scholars, managers and business consultants. Many paradigms and theories have sought to answer the longstanding question: "What motivates employees?" This article focuses on the work motivation construct, applied to the public sector. It tries to identify the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic factors explaining why public employees show varying levels of work motivation. Its originality relies on the construction of an integrative model of work motivation in the public sector. This model combines competing but not mutually exclusive motivational factors. Furthermore, it includes human resources management (HRM) practices such as performance related pay as extrinsic factors in relation to Public Service Motivation and the need to interact in a supportive work environment, where an individuals efforts are recognized, as intrinsic factors of motivation.

Competing hypotheses on the impact of various factors on work motivation are of course rooted in more profound considerations of what drives the actions of human beings, resulting in differentiated visions of human rationalities. In a nutshell, human beings are either selfish or altruistic. According to this ideal-typical dichotomy, public employees are either Knights or Knaves (Le Grand 2006). In the literature on public administration and management, motivation of public employees has consequently been studied from (at least) two opposing approaches. The first one, inspired by Public Choice theories, maintains that public employees behave according to: "a canny maximization of self-interest" (Sen 1995: 2). This conception of public employees motives has obviously penetrated the public sphere during the New Public Management (NPM) academic debate and the subsequent practical reforms (Giauque 2003; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004; Osborne and Gaebler 1992). This NPM vision of work motivation was concretely translated into the introduction of HRM tools originally coming from private business management such as performance-related pay (Forest 2008; Perry, Engbers, and Jun 2009). This HRM strategy largely aims at motivating public employees by the fulfilment of their extrinsic needs. The second approach we consider here is the Public Service Motivation (PSM) construct that has been proposed in opposition to this managerial trend (Perry and Wise 1990; Perry and Hondeghem 2008c). This construct is clearly part of the broad category of "needs-theories" of motivation (Perry and Wise 1990). It brings values and identity components back into work 2

motivation theories (Shamir 1991) and argues that public employees are stirred by higher order drives. It clearly puts the emphasis on the disinterested, altruistic and pro-socially oriented work behaviour in the public sector, even if a rational dimension (attraction to policy making) is part of the construct (Perry and Wise 1990). The PSM construct can be seen as a counterweight to the rational choice theories then dominating the field (Perry 2000; Perry and Vandenabeele 2008) and which stressed that human behaviours may exclusively be explained by individual psychological mechanisms regarding self-interest (Dardot and Laval 2009). In a word, the PSM construct was developed to broaden the theory of work motivation in public organizations and it postulates that public employees are specific insofar as they behave differently from their private sector counterparts and are not driven by extrinsic motives alone (Barrows and Wesson 2000; Blais, Blake, and Dion 1990; Boyne 2002; Rainey 1983; Rainey 1982; Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Bright 2009).

Many empirical studies have so far measured the level of PSM in various public organizations (Perry and Hondeghem 2008a) and have then tested the antecedents of PSM (e.g. sociodemographic factors), its outcomes (e.g. individual performance) or its correlates (e.g.

organizational commitment) (For an overview, see: Pandey and Stazyk 2008). If the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction has been studied in depth (Naff and Crum 1999; Park and Rainey 2007; Park and Rainey 2008; Taylor 2007; Taylor 2008; Bright 2008; Steijn 2008), the impact of PSM on work motivation remains clearly under studied. This article proposes to fill this gap by analysing the explanatory power of PSM for work motivation in the public sector. Furthermore, in order to address the relevance and specificity of the PSM construct when studying work motivation in the public sector, the theoretical model and the empirical study have to compare PSM with other explanatory factors of work motivation also drawn from "need theories" (i.e. material incentives and team relations and support). So our research question reads as follows: "What is the added-value of PSM compared with competing factors in explaining work motivation in the public sector?"

To answer this question we first developed an integrative model which combines PSM, material incentives and team relations and support from the organization as independent variables, work motivation being the dependent variable. We then tested this model, using a structural equation modelling approach, with data collected in a national survey of 3754 civil servants at the Swiss municipal level. The main results of our empirical study show that PSM has real added-value in explaining work motivation in the public sector. Team relations and 3

support also appear to be an important motivator of public employees, while material incentives are a poor predictor of work motivation. These preliminary results suggest the relevance of the PSM construct for motivation theories within the public sector and open promising new avenues of research.

2. Theoretical model and hypotheses

2.1. Work Motivation Work motivation is a longstanding topic in organizational studies (Lvy-Leboyer 2006). It is the primary determinant of performance for both private and public sectors. In organizational studies, several concepts are often misunderstood (Maugeri 2004). On the one hand, satisfaction (in this case work, job satisfaction) is a psychological state characterizing the interaction between an individual and his or her organization, between his or her expectations and the perception of the obtained results (Locke 1976; Michel 1994). On the other hand, different concepts focus on the attachment to the organization. Organizational commitment (eg: Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982; Meyer and Allen 1991) is a psychological state characterizing the link between an individual and his or her organization and it is closely related to the decision to stay within it or leave (Vandenberghe 2005). Organizational identification (eg: Foote 1951; Hall, Schneider, and Nygren 1970; Ashforth and Mael 1989; Van Dick 2004a) characterizes: "the process by which the goals of the organization and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or congruent" (Hall, Schneider, and Nygren 1970, 176), whereas work involvement aims at a comprehensive understanding of the way an individual projects him/herself into work and identifies with the job. This concept is related to the nature of the individuals investment in his/her professional role (Michel 1994) besides other potential roles. Work motivation, however, is a process by which the employee decides to work hard and sustain his/her efforts. Because patterns can be identified in the actions of employees at work, this concept is of particular interest.

Many theories and definitions of this construct compete to explain what motivates people and how they are motivated (Kanfer 1990). Apart from the diversity of conceptualizations and measurements of what induces employees to put energy and heart into a given task, most authors nowadays agree with the basic premise that: "the concept of motivation represents a hypothetical construct used to describe the internal and/or external forces producing the induction, the direction, the intensity and the persistence of behaviour" (Vallerand and Thill 4

1993, 13). According to this definition, motivation is a meta-concept which comprehensively focuses on the efforts and energy deployed by an individual when acting in a given setting. This construct relates to the individual's project, the general meaning that he/she attributes to his/her actions and behaviours (Michel 1994). For a work organization, this energy has to be deployed toward organizational goals and objectives. "Orientation of the motivation concerns the underlying attitudes and goals that give rise to action - that is, it concerns the why of action" (Ryan and Deci 2000, 54).

Contrary to the PSM construct, which explains that public employees behave according to specific, value-laden motives, founded particularly in the public sector environment, work motivation is a generic concept explaining why employees deploy and sustain energy at work.

Need, motive and value theories (Maslow 1954; Herzberg 1971; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 1959; Alderfer 1969; Deci and Ryan 1985) focus on the individual (internal) or situational (external) determinants of behaviour. They share the fact that motivation arises when individuals seek optimal satisfaction of certain needs (Roussel 2000). "Need theories" were developed on the back of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs (Maslow 1954). More associated with work motivation questions, Herzbergs two factor theory (hygiene and motivation) posits that these two categories function differently and that it is the motivation factors which increase satisfaction while hygienic factors only serve to reduce dissatisfaction. (Herzberg 1971). Later, self-determination theory introduced the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy into motivation theories (Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci 2000). Against the background of these work motivation theories, several needs or motives can be identified throughout the literature. Here we focus on three main categories of motivators: Public Service Motivation (PSM), team relations and support and material incentives. The expected impact of each category of variables on work motivation is presented in the following paragraphs, before being integrated in a global model which also includes some control variables.

2.2. Public Service Motivation In public management, empirical research about PSM has increased over the last 20 years (Perry and Hondeghem 2008b). As matter of fact, it is one of the fundamental concepts of HRM in the public sector (Coursey and Pandey 2007a). PSM was initially defined as the "individual's predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions or organizations" (Perry and Wise 1990, 368). A more recent definition 5

emphasises its institutional properties and determination of value-laden behaviour. Consequently, PSM represents "the beliefs, 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" (Vandenabeele 2007a, 547). Because of its altruistic component, PSM should be understood as a particular kind of motivation in the public sector (Perry and Hondeghem 2008b). Its empirical

operationalization, in terms of measurement, is diverse and suffers from controversies (Wright 2008). Initially it was developed for the North American context, and is composed of four dimensions, namely "Attraction to politics and policy making"; "Commitment to the public interest"; "Compassion" and "Self-Sacrifice".

As for a "need theory" framework, PSM consists in the fulfilment of higher order needs. One can thus argue that the will to act in congruence (Festinger 1957) or in consistence (Bandura 1986) with ones own values or principles is a specific need or motive of public employees. In doing so, individuals with a high level of PSM are likely to seek jobs in the public sphere (Perry and Wise 1990; Vandenabeele 2008; Steijn 2008). They will also be more satisfied with their jobs (Naff and Crum 1999; Bright 2008; Taylor 2007; Taylor 2008). The PSM construct demonstrates its theoretical relevance because it gives information about the orientation of the motivation. According to a PSM perspective, the motivation of public employees is oriented toward the realisation of the values and goals of public service through an identification process. Values and goals of public service are part of the self-definition of certain public employees and determine the justification of their behaviour. In the appropriate literature, PSM seems to be substituted for usual (non-domain characterized) work motivation measures, even if its conceptual characteristics are closer to an identification or a value-fit construct. In other words, in the PSM literature high scores for PSM dimensions indicate strong motivation of public employees.

Surprisingly, few studies have tested the assumption that PSM has an effect on work motivation. In a study looking at the motivational patterns underlying the choices made by civil servants and students in Belgium, Vandenabeele and his colleagues tested non-sector specific motivation theories. Their results show that PSM is an important and particular element of the motivational characteristics of public employees (Vandenabeele et al. 2004). The exploratory research conducted by Cerase and Farinella (Cerase and Farinella 2006) on the motivation of Italian officials shows that the four dimensions of PSM are differently 6

correlated to work motivation. "Attraction to politics and policy making" is positively correlated to a measure of non-motivation, whereas "Commitment to the public interest", "Self-Sacrifice" and "Bureaucratic governance" are positively correlated to work motivation. Those results are however preliminary and need further analysis. J. Taylors Australian study is also a dimensional analysis of PSM in relation to work outcomes (Taylor 2007). Its results concerning work motivation demonstrate that two of the four original PSM dimensions ("Commitment to the public interest" and "Compassion") have significant influences on work motivation with the influence being negative for the "Compassion" dimension. On the basis of these theoretical arguments and first diverging empirical results, it is reasonable to take all four dimensions of the PSM construct into account. We thus formulate the following research hypothesis: PSM has a positive impact on work motivation in the public sector (hypothesis 1).

Of course PSM is just one specific factor explaining work motivation and several other motivational factors do also have an effect on work behaviours of public employees (Vandenabeele and Ban 2009). Both material incentives and team relations may play a very important role in the motivational process of civil servants. Comparative studies of the motivational patterns of public and private sector employees motives (Solomon 1986; Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998) clearly suggest the appropriateness of an approach integrating additional explanatory factors to which we turn now.

2.3. Material incentives Since the seminal book of Deci and Ryan, the distinction between intrinsic drives and extrinsic factors has become a classic among motivation theories (Deci and Ryan 1985). While the former refer to the inherent satisfaction linked with undertaking an activity, the latter concern the outcomes of this activity (Ryan and Deci 2000). Comparative studies have consistently demonstrated that public employees have different motives from private ones. In particular they are more inclined to disregard extrinsic elements such as pay and monetary rewards and to value intrinsic job characteristics. These empirical results are validated both in North-America (Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998; Lyons, Duxbury, and Higgins 2006; Rainey 1982; Crewson 1997) and Europe (Buelens and Van den Broeck 2007). In a nutshell, it has been widely demonstrated that public employees are less motivated by monetary rewards than private ones and that the most critical motivator in the public sector was the desire to serve the common interest, seeking for a prosocial impact of their actions (Grant

2008) (from a PSM perspective). In Switzerland, performance-related pay is widespread among municipal public services (Steiner 2000).

Furthermore, empirical studies indicate that an increase in extrinsic motivators may even reduce the positive impacts of intrinsic factors on work motivation. Such a crowding-out effect (Frey and Jegen 2001) was observed in different institutional settings and might explain the (partial) failure of performance-related pay reward schemes to enhance the motivational level of public servants and the performance of public organizations (Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh 2009; OECD 2005; Perry, Engbers, and Jun 2009). For instance, the study of Marsden and his team of English civil servants clearly shows that public employees are sceptical about the usefulness of performance-related pay: they doubt both its incentive and its rewarding effects (Marsden, French, and Kubo 2001). Moreover, performance-related pay has missed its expected goal, has a detrimental effect and can even de-motivate public servants as it undermines intrinsically motivated public employees (Marsden and Richardson 1992). Those results are largely confirmed in other countries (Pilichowski 2009). Experimental designs looking at the motivations of volunteers also give proof of this undermining effect (Fehr and Gchter 2002). Relying on these previous findings, we formulate a second research hypothesis: Material incentives have a negative impact on work motivation in the public sector (hypothesis 2).

2.4. Team relations and support According to the psychological literature, the appropriate perspective on intrinsic motivation considers that need-based components, opportunities and incentives that fulfil the higher-level needs of individuals are intrinsic factors (Bright 2009). PSM can obviously be seen as an intrinsic motivator in public management due to its capacity to fulfil higher order needs (Perry and Wise 1990). However, other intrinsic motivators are also relevant in the public sector such as team relations and support. The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy is rooted in the selfdetermination theory of motivation (Deci and Ryan 1985) which argues that individuals are driven by the search for competences, autonomy and relatedness (Deci and Ryan 2000). We focus on the latter issue for two reasons. First, one of the most critical factors in the direct environment of a public employee are colleagues and superiors (Perry and Porter 1982). Secondly, because the survey on which this study relies was not designed specifically around this intrinsic trio. Therefore, it makes sense to put the emphasis on the socio-relational

components of the working team. We take it as a given that those elements are based on two complementary perspectives, as part of intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000).

The first one focuses on the relational aspects of the interaction of individuals at work. French sociology of work reminds us that socialization at work is important in terms of identity construction (Dubar 2005; Garner, Mda, and Senik 2006; Sainsaulieu 1988; Dubar 1992); it is also a strong factor in well-being in the work setting. Moreover, scientific literature regarding HRM practices points out the importance of such socio-relational components in the building of an organizational culture which stimulates creativity and innovation (Martins and Terblanche 2003). Thus HRM practices should promote working conditions that enable the employee's identification with organizational objectives. The relevance of this approach is supported by empirical studies suggesting that the adoption of such HRM systems leads to better production and financial results (Delaney and Huselid 1996; Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi 1997), stimulates creativity and innovation within organizational structures (Andriopoulos 2001; Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle 2005) and induces employees to adopt discretionary behaviour in line with the interests of the organization (MacDuffie 1995).

The second one concerns the recognition processes by colleagues and superiors and highlights subjective and affective elements of work motivation. This relational process, founded in a humanist perspective of work relations, has been defined as follows: Recognition is a reaction expressed within the short term after a specific or general action or behaviour which the individual perceives to merit a positive and personalised response (Bourcier and Palobart 1997). Such positive feedback is a determinant element of motivation and performance for the members of the working team (Stajkovic 2003; Lamontagne 2006). In a survey of 1689 employees of credit institutions, Ellen M. Whitener also found a significant statistical relationship between the degree of organizational commitment and employees perception of organizational support (Whitener 2001). For many scholars, it is important, or even vital, to have positive experiences at work to enhance the development of organizational commitment and work motivation. One of the principal mechanisms by which these experiences of work lead to such a desirable outcome is a feeling of being supported and valued. This feeling is the core of the concept of perceived organizational support which measures employees: global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986, 501). Employees are grateful for the support they receive, feel indebted to their enterprise and respond to the favourable treatment they 9

receive by showing a stronger commitment to their employer (Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro 1990). This psychological mechanism contributes to the consolidation of social exchange and is linked to the commitment variable and, by extension, to turnover intentions. This link has been established on several occasions (Hutchison 1997; Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro 1990; Eisenberger et al. 2001; Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron 1994; Shore and Tetrick 1991; Shore and Wayne 1993). The Eisenberger, Armeli et al. study (Eisenberger et al. 2001) in particular established a causal relationship between the two concepts via longitudinal data collection.

Here again, results from comparative studies give an idea about how important it is for public employees to interact in a supportive environment (Buelens and Van den Broeck 2007). Public employees value the possibility of having good interpersonal relationships with colleagues and co-workers more than their private counterparts (Posner and Schmidt 1996; Khojasteh 1993). In the same vein, recognition from colleagues and superiors has very strong motivational potential in the public sector (Khojasteh 1993; Rainey 1982). Hence, affiliation with colleagues is important for public employees (Vandenabeele et al. 2004). These empirical results generally confirm that socio-relational elements, such as inclusion in a team and good relationships within this working team, are crucial factors impacting work motivation. Hence recognition from superiors or colleagues represents a non-pecuniary reward for employees, fulfilling their need for affiliation and relatedness. Those components have thus to be included in a general theoretical framework of motivation. So our third research hypothesis reads as follows: Good team relations and support have a positive impact on work motivation in the public sector (hypothesis 3).

2.5. Theoretical model Within a broad need-theory of work motivation, the previous literature review leads us to draw the hypothesised model of the present study (see Figure 1). Two additional points should however be mentioned here. First, according to the standard assumptions of conventional linear regression analysis in Structural Equation Modelling (Arbuckle 2008a, 78), exogenous variables (i.e. PSM, material incentives and team relations) are to be correlated. Secondly, some other motivational factors are clearly features within the public sector. For instance, job security contributes a priori to its attractiveness (Vandenabeele 2008; Lewis and Frank 2002), even if some empirical results concerning the greater importance of job security for public employees are mixed (Houston 2000). Similarly, a positive indication of work-life balance 10

has been interpreted as a specific factor of motivation in the public sphere (Buelens and Van den Broeck 2007; Lindorff 2009; Worrall and Cooper 2007; Worrall, Cooper, and CampbellJamison 2000). Consequently, these two variables that may impact positively on work motivation also have to be taken into consideration in an integrative model of work motivation, as well as the classic socio-demographic variables (sex, level of education and organizational tenure).

- Figure 1 about here-

11

3. Sample, measures and methodology 3.1. Data collection and sample characteristics The primary data of this empirical study were collected in a national survey of civil servants at the Swiss municipal level. Apart from the municipalities in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland, virtually all the 2636 Swiss municipalities were contacted by mail and invited to take part in a national survey on the motivation of Swiss public servants. In order to raise the participation the municipal authorities were promised a standardized benchmark report containing the surveys key results. In the end, 279 municipalities participated in the survey, which was either paper-based or administered online. The municipalities themselves were responsible for its distribution amongst their employees and also provided us with some basic statistics (number of employees, percentages of male and female, supervisory and nonsupervisory employees, etc.) to assess the response rate and the representativeness of the sample accurately. At the end of this process, the survey was given to 9852 civil servants, from whom 3754 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 38.1%. Table 1 displays the demographic description of the sample.

- Table 1 about here-

The sample includes municipal civil servants of various hierarchical levels but most of them are employees (51.4%). They perform a variety of job tasks (7.4% participate in the formulation or planning of public policies; 50.9% are in charge of the implementation of public policies; and 41.7% supply internal services). As to the separation of the German and French speaking parts of Switzerland, an adequate measure is the respondents survey language whereby 79% of the respondents used the German questionnaire and 21% the French version. This corresponds roughly to the mother tongue distribution of the resident population of Switzerland (according to the 2000 federal census: 63.7% German; 20.4% French, 6.5% Italian, and 9% none of the national languages) (Ldi and Werlen 2005).

12

3.2. Measures of the variables This sub-section briefly presents the principal measures used in this study, beginning with the dependent variable. All measures consisted of items1 with response options on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. While the latent constructs of PSM and Work Motivation were measured with previously tested items, the two other constructs (TRSS and MIS) relied on self-developed items. On the other hand, with the exception of one item2, all questions were designed to capture whether the element is considered to be important for the respondent and whether the element exists in the respondents work setting, in order to create a scale reflecting the valorization and the existence of a given element. For instance: "In my opinion, it is fundamental that I have a high wage" (answer on the agreement scale) computed with the related score to the question: "This criterion applies to my current work setting" (answer on a "Yes" or "No" scale).3

All variables, except the dependent one, were tested with the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method with Amos 17.0 (Arbuckle 2008b). FIML (Full Information Maximum Likelihood) was chosen for its capacity to deal with missing values, while Maximum Likelihood was used to estimate the parameters (see below). All the scale items were found to have statistically significant factor loadings for their latent constructs. As the Cronbach coefficient of reliability is often misleading (Sijtsma 2009), we preferred to rely only on CFA procedures4 to construct and test our measurement instruments. Simultaneous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (SCFA) was used as a second model testing measurement and offered support for the discriminating validity of the measures used.

Work motivation Many different operationalizations of work motivation compete in the relevant literature. But the core of the concept consists in a sense of commitment to the job and a willingness to put
1 2

Presentation of the items for each construct in appendix. The item measuring trust toward co-workers: "My colleagues totally deserve my trust" (answers on a five points Likert agreement scale) was adapted from Putnam's Social Capital Short-form Survey (Putnam 2002). 3 Details on this procedure in appendix. 4 This method can be used following three common scenarios: Strictly Confirmatory: Tests one single theoretically founded model which results in the acceptance or the rejection of the model. Alternative Models: Tests several alternative theoretically founded models which results in the selection of the best model according to its fitness. Model Generating: Having rejected the theoretically founded postulated model, a new model is created using exploratory methods (Byrne 2001).

13

effort into work (Maugeri 2004). Two items measuring the generic concept of work motivation were adapted from Wright's study because of a previous test in a civil servant work setting (Wright 2004). The first item: "I am always totally committed to my work no matter how many difficulties there are" captures the commitment facet, whereas the second item: "I'm always ready to start early in the morning and finish late at night to get the job done" determines the eagerness of motivated employees. Because fit indices and factor loadings cannot be estimated with only two items, the reliability of the scale can only be inferred from Cronbach's alpha coefficient of reliability (.552).

Public Service Motivation (PSM) The various conceptualisations of PSM have resulted in different operational definitions. In this study, Perrys multidimensional measure is taken as the baseline (Perry 1996). We reduced the set of items to a 14-item scale including items for all four PSM dimensions. The items were chosen based on previous research in the psychometric testing of the PSM scale (Coursey and Pandey 2007; Coursey et al. 2008; Kim 2009; Vandenabeele 2007a, 2008a) and are specifically relevant for this Swiss context. We intended to keep the 14-item PSM scale applied in this study as close as possible to Perrys instrument (1996). Some adjustments were considered useful though. Major modifications were made in the attraction to policy-making scale. All items were translated into German and French. The wording of some items was slightly adapted to suit the national context of this study while preserving the meaning of the items. Following a CFA model generating procedure (Byrne 2001), our measure of PSM resulted in a four dimensional figure with two items per dimension. The question whether public service motivation is second-order formative or reflective still remains open (Wright and Christensen 2009). Though a case can be made for understanding PSM as a second-order formative construct, we stuck to a reflective measurement as stated by Coursey et al. (2008). The four dimensional PSM measure is very good in terms of its psychometric characteristics (Chi2=101.492; df=16; p-value=.000; TLI= .976; CFI=.989; NFI=.987; p-value of close fit=.998; RMSEA=0.038). For the first order all standardized factor loadings were above the usual threshold, (0.58-0.93) and were acceptable for the second order (0.35-0.84). Even though "Attraction to policy making" had a factor loading below the general threshold of 0.40, we decided to keep it in the final model to adhere to the most widely used four factor operationalization of PSM.

14

Material incentives (MIS) As stated in the theoretical section, extrinsic factors are characterized by their externality to the performed job and their capacity to fulfil low order needs. From a behavioural point of view, material incentives such as pay, performance-related pay or career advancement are extrinsic factors of motivation. After several CFA and revisions of the scale we used four selfdeveloped items relating to these components of extrinsic motivation. Our Material Incentive Scale (MIS) had good reliability in terms of its psychometric properties (Chi2=13.979; df=2; p-value=.001; TLI= .974; CFI=.995; NFI=.994; p-value of close fit=.764; RMSEA=0.040). The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.43 to 0.77.

Team relations and support (intrinsic factors, TRSS) The quality of team relations and support from supervisors are intrinsic factors which have been under studied in the field of public management. Therefore, we developed four items in order to examine the consequence of recognition by colleagues and supervisors in terms of positive feedback, as well as the importance of trust and good relationships between colleagues. In the context of this study, the Team Relations and Support Scale (TRSS) is of good quality (Chi2=3.902; df=2; p-value=.142; TLI= .992; CFI=.998; NFI=.997; p-value of close fit=.994; RMSEA=0.016). Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.40 to 0.66.

3.3. Statistical methods This study relied on the Structural Equation Modelling approach as it is particularly relevant when assessing a causal model with complex latent variables (Hayduk 1987). The analysis applied reflective CFA for the construction of the independent variable and SEM with Amos 17.0 FIML (Arbuckle 2008b) estimation to test the causal or structural model. Though the Maximum Likelihood estimator doesnt fully take into account the ordinal nature of the used measures and, as a consequence, factor correlations and factor loadings may be underestimated and 2 values inflated (Byrne 2001; West, Finch, and Curran 1995; Finch, West, and MacKinnon 1997) continuous methods can be used with little worry when a variable has four or more categories, as long as normally distributed categorical variables are given" (Bentler and Chou 1987, 88). In this study there were five categories and multivariate normal distribution was checked. Even though, given the Likert ordinal items, it would be more appropriate to apply diagonally weighted least squares estimation (DWLS) or weighted

15

least squares mean and variance adjusted estimation (WLSMV), FIML with ML estimation is also appropriate for ordinal variables (Jreskog and Moustaki 2006). FIML is a good method for avoiding a reduction of the sample caused by the covariance matrix creation and the exclusion of cases, either with likewise or pairwise deletion (Wothke and Arbuckle 1996); and is superior to data imputation methods (Olinsky, Chen, and Harlow 2003). Hence FIML provides estimators that have less bias and are less sensitive to sample variability (Enders 2001). That is why: "FIML appears to be the best method for handling missing data for most SEM applications" (Allison 2003 ; Duncan, Duncan, and Li 1998: quoted by). Model fit is assessed by inferential 2 and several descriptive goodness-of-fit indices. Since the 2statistic is known to be inflated for samples with N>200 (Kelloway 1998), 2 is referred to here as descriptive information rather than a strong inferential test upon which a model is accepted or rejected. In addition to 2, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI) and the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) are consulted as fit indices in line with their respective usual thresholds: TLI >.95; CFI > .95; NFI> .95; RMSEA< .06 according to Hu and Bentler (1999). In structural equation modelling, a strict confirmatory approach often has to be abandoned because the model set up and tested initially is usually rejected due to loose fit or poor factor loading. Therefore we modified our model and tested it again using the same data. The process of re-specification must go hand in hand with theoretical considerations in order to ensure and preserve the coherence between substantive theory and the proposed structural equation model.

4. Empirical analysis and discussion 4.1. Descriptive statistics Table 2 provides univariate and bivariate statistics of the variables used in this study. Means for Work Motivation and TRSS are high given the fact that these variables are measured on a 5 point Likert scale. At first sight, public employees of Swiss municipalities appear highly motivated and they highly value relationships with colleagues as well as a confident and supportive work environment. Multivariate normality was assessed by the distribution coefficient. Skewness and Kurtosis thresholds were not met according to Kline's cut-off criteria5 (Kline 2005). Bivariate correlations are all statistically significant and the measures appear to have discriminant validity as the highest correlation is .230.

3 for Skewness and 10 for Kurtosis

16

-Table 2 about here-

Prior to the analysis of the full structural model a two step procedure was carried out for the construction of the measures of the independent variables. First, the reliability of the dependent variables was tested separately following a CFA approach and modified according to fit indices and size of factor loadings. This process led to the construction of three exogenous variables (PSM; MIS; TRSS). The fit indices of the three dependent latent variables were all above the usual threshold for CFA analysis, as shown in the previous measurement section. Second, a Simultaneous Confirmatory Factor Analysis was done. All the independent variables were correlated in a single structural model to check cross-loading items and examine the strength of correlations between the variables in order to assess the discriminant validity. This intermediary model fitted the data well (Chi2=342.176; df=97; pvalue=.000; TLI= .970; CFI=.979; NFI=.971; p-value of close fit=1.000; RMSEA=0.026) and all independent variables were positively correlated and within an acceptable range (PSM <->MIS (.081); PSM <--> TRSS (.167); MIS <--> TRSS (.273)).

4.2. Hypotheses test

As it is common practice in SEM, several models were specified and tested. A preliminary model was tested containing socio-demographic control variables (sex, level of education and organizational tenure) as well as two other specific factors of work motivation in the public sector (job security and work-life balance). Those control variables were omitted from the final model for two reasons. First, the model had a very bad fit6. Second, those variables had no influence (non-significant and strong regression path; no rise in the R2 of Work Motivation) on the dependent variable. The final model analysed was therefore fairly simple, with three constructs rooted in three non-exclusive theoretical perspectives competing to explain the work motivation of municipal civil servants. Descriptive statistics provide the first evidence supporting the relevance of this approach and the structural estimates offer further confirmation. Pearson's bivariate correlations of the three independent variables (PSM; MIS; TRSS) and the dependent one (Motivation) provide preliminary evidence to support the general assumptions of the study (PSM <-->Motivation: r=.230**; MIS <-->Motivation:
(Chi2=2180.676; df=220; p-value=.000; TLI= .829; CFI=.860; NFI=.864; p-value of close fit=.867; RMSEA=0.049)
6

17

r=.035*; TRSS <-->Motivation: r=.124**7). However, to assess the strength of the regressions to the dependent variable clearly, a structural model was devised. Table 3 in the appendix shows its parametric characteristics. According to them, this model reached generally accepted thresholds and was well fitted (Chi2=480.171; df=125; p-value=.000; TLI= .962; CFI=.972; NFI=.963; p-value of close fit=1.000; RMSEA=0.028). Figure 2 presents the standardized estimates for the final model under scrutiny. This three factor model (PSM, MIS, TRSS) explained 22 % of the variance in work motivation (for a detailed presentation of the final model see figure 3 in the appendix).

- Figure 2 about here-

Hypothesis 1 postulates that PSM has a positive impact on work motivation. In the context of this study, we demonstrated that PSM accounted for the largest share of the variance of work motivation (standardized regression coefficient = .42). The respondents who reported having a strong level of PSM were significantly more likely to be highly motivated. The fact that PSM is a strong factor in work motivation in the public sector was also confirmed by a supplementary test: When we added PSM to the two other independent variables (TRSS and MIS), the percentage of explained variance of work motivation rose from 0.4% to 22%8. A test of the same two models, with and without PSM, executed with SPSS linear regressions, led to similar results. This result strongly supports the inclusion of PSM as an important motivational factor in the public sector. In summary, PSM has real added-value in explaining work motivation as it is the most important and significant predictor.

Hypothesis 2 asserts that material incentives have a negative impact on work motivation in the public sector. Results from the structural model strongly supported this assumption as MIS was negatively related to motivation. Of course, the strength of the coefficient is low but this result does confirm the fact that material incentives are poor factors of work motivation in the

** p<.01; *p<.05 Fit coefficient for the model without PSM: Chi2=116.872; df=32; p-value=.000; TLI= .967; CFI=.981; NFI=.974; p-value of close fit=1.000; RMSEA=0.027
8

18

public sector. However, one must be cautious in the interpretation of such an effect as the regression weight of is not significant (p-value= .211).

Hypothesis 3 makes the assumption that the perceived quality of team support, measured in terms of recognition from superiors and colleagues, quality of relationship with teammates and trust in them, has a positive impact on work motivation in the Swiss municipalities. The findings of this empirical study clearly support the relevance of the inclusion of sociorelational elements as motivational factors. The standardized coefficient of regression was significant and explained 15% of the variance of the dependent construct.

Hence a few comments have to be made on the coefficient of bilateral association between the explanatory variables. All the independent variables were significantly related. The association between TRSS and MIS was the strongest (.274) but is still moderate, while the one linking PSM and MIS was the weakest (.081). The latest result supports the general findings of the poor motivational potential of material incentives in the public sector and it gives insights into a potential crowding-out effect if public managers implement such incentive schemes when PSM is pre-eminent among their employees.

4.3 Limitations This study has two main limitations, namely how generalizable the empirical results stemming from the Swiss municipal context are and the use of self-developed measures. First, as the findings presented in this study concern Swiss public employees at the municipal level, we should be cautious and not interpret those results as a general judgment of the motivational patterns of all public employees in Switzerland (and beyond). Switzerland is a federal state characterized by the principle of subsidiarity between the local authorities, the Cantons and the Federal level of government. The local authorities thus have a great deal of autonomy under the Federal Constitution but are under certain restrictions at the cantonal level. They generate 70% of their income through their own taxes or fees (Steiner 2000). Their administrations are strongly diversified with large differences in their size (Horber-Papazian 2007). In any case, the municipal level of government is primarily characterized by a strong logic of service provision and by the closeness of elected politicians, public servants and the citizens. The distance between civil servants at both the cantonal and the federal level and the citizens is certainly greater. Furthermore, in our sample, the biggest cities in Switzerland (e.g. 19

Zurich, Geneva, Basel and Bern) were under-represented, which also leads to a supplementary caution when extrapolating the results obtained to the behaviour of Swiss public servants in general. The second cautionary note concerns what was developed to measure the variables. If the use of self-developed items calls into question the reliability of the result and its possible implications or in comparison with previous findings, we nevertheless maintain that those items were designed to capture, as well as possible, both the desiderata and the existence of motivational elements.

5. Conclusion The purpose of this article was to assess empirically the relative impact of PSM as a specific work motivation factor on the broad work motivation construct. Drawing upon a literature review of the need-theory aspects of motivation, we identified two other potential sources of public employees motivation: material incentives as extrinsic factors, and team relations and support as intrinsic factors. These three variables were then integrated in a structural model in order to test their respective influence. The main findings of this empirical study confirm that PSM is a strong predictor of work motivation in the public sector (Vandenabeele et al. 2004; Taylor 2007; Cerase and Farinella 2006). Furthermore, PSM has an explanatory added-value in comparison with competing factors. This result suggests that even if the PSM construct is only one feature among the specific motivators of the public sector, its prominence is real, at least in the Swiss municipal context of this study.

This study also confirms that material incentives are poor predictors of work motivation in the public sector (Wittmer 1991; Pilichowski 2009). Furthermore, alongside PSM, sociorelational factors such as recognition from colleagues and superiors trust in and relationships with colleagues are good predictors of work motivation. This need to interact in a supportive work environment might not be a specific feature of public work but it has its roots in the deepest human need for social relationships and recognition. This latest point hints at a social identity theory of work motivation. Identification, in the context of the workplace, can have multiple targets, and co-workers is one of them (Van Dick et al. 2004b) and is known to be both a factor in motivation and organizational performance (Van Knippenberg 2000; Foote 1951).

20

This study opens new research avenues. A replication of this study with better and attested measures of satisfaction with co-workers and superiors as well as material incentives would probably bring further insights and strongly support the necessity for an integrative framework when analysing the motivational patterns of public servants. In particular, it would be of great interest to perform the same analysis of other HRM practices in order to assess their impact on work motivation in the public sphere. On the other hand, few studies have been undertaken so far to measure the effects of organizational features such as corporate culture or even HRM practices on PSM (Moynihan and Pandey 2007). Therefore, it would be an interesting issue to assess different kinds of HRM practices in order to better identify their respective influence on work motivation in the public sector. This kind of research would also be of great interest for HRM practitioners. Furthermore, like other studies analysing the effects of PSM at its dimensional level, it is conceivable to think of different effects for each of its four constitutive dimensions (Vandenabeele 2009; Taylor 2007). One may also consider supplementing this quantitative cross-sectional study with in depth qualitative interviews with public agents from our sample on situations affecting their motivation.

Our results also raise normative questions regarding the New Public Management reform trend. They clearly demonstrate that if work motivation in the public sector depends on intrinsic factors such as PSM or the will to interact in a supportive and cooperative environment, NPM-like reforms could miss their expected goals. At least two interrelated human resource management devices inspired by NPM - performance-related pay and individual assessment - from this perspective could be counterproductive (Forest 2008) and have a detrimental effect on motivation in the public sector (Marsden, French, and Kubo 2001). Further comparative research with administrative services which have implemented such devices and, as control cases, traditional administrative services might provide further fuel for this debate.

21

References

Alderfer, C. 1969. "An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs." Organizational behavior and human performance 4(2): 142-175. Allison, P. 2003. "Missing Data Techniques for Structural Equation Modeling." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112: 545-557. Andriopoulos, C. 2001. "Determinants of Organisational Creativity: A Literature Review." Management Decision 39(10): 834-841. Arbuckle, J. L. 2008a. "Amos 17.0 User's Guide." SPSS. Arbuckle, J. L. 2008b. "Amos 17.0." SPSS. Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael. 1989. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization." Academy of Management Review 14(1): 20-39. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Barrows, D. and T. Wesson. 2000. "A Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction among Public and Private Sector Professionals." The Innovation Journal 5(1): 1-21. Bentler, P. M. and C.-P. Chou. 1987. "Practical Issues in Structural Modeling." Sociological Methods Research 16(1): 78-117. Blais, A. D. E. Blake and S. Dion. 1990. "The Public/Private Sector Cleavage in North America: The Political Behavior and Attitudes of Public Sector Employees." Comparative Political Studies 23(3): 381-403. Bourcier, C. and Y. Palobart. 1997. La Reconnaissance: Un Outil De Motivation Pour Vos Salaris, Collection Audit. Paris: Les Editions d'Organisation. Boyne, G. 2002. "Public and Private Management: What's the Difference?" Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 97-122. 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. Bright, L. 2009. "Why Do Public Employees Desire Intrinsic Non-Monetary Workplace Opportunities?" Public Personnel Management 38(3): 15-37. Buelens, M. and H. Van den Broeck. 2007. "An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector Organizations." Public Administration Review 67(1): 65-74.

22

Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerase, F. P. and D. Farinella. 2006. "Explorations in Public Service Motivation: The Case of the Italian Revenue Agency." Annual conference of the EGPA. Public personnel policies study group, Milan, Italy. Coursey, D. H. and S. K. Pandey. 2007. "Public Service Motivation Measurement. Testing an Abridged Version of Perry's Proposed Scale." Administration and Society 39(5): 547568. Coursey, D. H. and S. K. Pandey. 2007a. "Content Domain, Measurement, and Validity of the Red Tape Concept: A Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis." American Review of Public Administration 37(3): 342-361. Coursey, D. H. J. L. Perry J. L. Brudney and L. Littlepage. 2008. "Psychometric Verification of Perry's Public Service Motivation Instrument. Results for Volunteer Exemplars." Review of Public Personnel Administration 28(1): 79-90. Crewson, P. E. 1997. "Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499-518. Dardot, P. and C. Laval. 2009. La Nouvelle Raison Du Monde. Essai Sur La Socit Nolibrale. Paris: La Dcouverte. Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 2000. "The "What" And "Why" Of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior." Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227-268. Delaney, J. T. and M. A. Huselid. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance." Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 949-969. Dubar, C. 1992. "Formes Identitaires Et Socialisation Professionnelle." Revue Francaise de Sociologie 33(4): 505-529. Dubar, C. 2005. La Socialisation: Construction Des Identits Sociales Et Professionnelles. Paris: A. Colin. Duncan, T. S. Duncan and F. Li. 1998. "A Comparison of Model-and Multiple ImputationBased Approaches to Longitudinal Analyses with Partial Missingness." Structural equation modeling 5(1): 1-21. Eisenberger, R. S. Armeli B. Rexwinkel P. Lynch and L. Rhoades. 2001. "Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 42-51. 23

Eisenberger, R. P. Fasolo and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. "Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation." Journal of Applied Psychology 75(1): 51-9. Eisenberger, R. R. Huntington S. Hutchison and D. Sowa. 1986. "Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 500-507. Enders, C. K. 2001. "The Performance of the Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimator in Multiple Regression Models with Missing Data." Educational and Psychological Measurement 61(5): 713-740. Fehr, E. and S. Gchter. 2002. Do Incentives Contracts Undermine Volountary Cooperation? In Working paper series. Zrich. Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. IX, 291 p. ; 22 cm vols. Evanston: Row Peterson. Finch, J. F. S. G. West and D. P. MacKinnon. 1997. "Effects of Sample Size and Nonnormality on the Estimation of Mediated Effects in Latent Variables Models." Structural Equation Modeling 4(2): 87-107. Foote, N. N. 1951. "Identification as the Basis for a Theory of Motivation." American Sociological Review 16(1): 14-21. Forest, V. 2008. "Performance-Related Pay and Work Motivation: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives for the French Civil Service." International review of administrative sciences 74(2): 325-339. Frey, B. S. and R. Jegen. 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory." Journal of Economic Surveys 15(1): 589-611. Garner, H. D. Mda and C. Senik. 2006. La Place Du Travail Dans Les Identits. In Economie et Statistiques. Paris: INSEE. Giauque, D. 2003. La Bureaucratie Librale : Nouvelle Gestion Publique Et Rgulation Organisationnelle. 322 p. ; 22 cm vols, Conception Et Dynamique Des Organisations. Srie "Publi-Thses". Paris: L'Harmattan. 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. Guzzo, R. K. Noonan and E. Elron. 1994. "Expatriate Managers and the Psychological Contract." Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4): 617-626. Hall, D. T. B. Schneider and H. T. Nygren. 1970. "Personal Factors in Organizational Identification." Administrative Science Quarterly 15(2): 176-190.

24

Hayduk, L. 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel: Essentials and Advances. Vol. 13, Applied Psychological Measurement. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Herzberg, F. 1971. Le Travail Et La Nature De L'homme. Paris: EME. Herzberg, F. B. Mausner and B. Snyderman. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. Horber-Papazian, K. 2007. "Les Communes." Pp. 233-258 U. Klti, P. Knoepfel, H. Kriesi, W. Linder, Y. Papadopoulos and P. Sciarini, ed., Handbook of Swiss Politics, Zrich: NZZ Publishing. Houston, D. J. 2000. "Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 713-727. Hu, L. and P. Bentler. 1999. "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural equation modeling 6(1): 1-55. Hutchison, S. 1997. "A Path Model of Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12: 159-174. Ichniowski, C. K. Shaw and G. Prennushi. 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines." The American Economic Review 87(3): 291-313. Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and R. Sanz-Valle. 2005. "Innovation and Human Resource Management Fit: An Empirical Study." International Journal of Manpower 26(4): 364-381. Jreskog, K. and I. Moustaki. 2006. Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables with Full Information Maximum Likelihood. In Unpublished manuscript. Jurkiewicz, C. L. T. K. Massey and R. G. Brown. 1998. "Motivation in Public and Private Organizations: A Comparative Study." Public Productivity & Management Review 21(3): 230-250. Kanfer, R. 1990. "Motivation Theory and Industrial and Organizational Psychology." Pp. 75170 M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kelloway, K. E. 1998. Using Lisrel for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications. Khojasteh, M. 1993. "Motivating the Private Vs. The Public Managers." Public Personnel Management 22(3): 391-401.

25

Kim, S. 2009. "Revising Perry's Measurement Scale of Public Service Motivation." American Review of Public Administration 39(2): 149-163. Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2 ed. New York: Guilford. Lamontagne. 2006. Pourquoi La Reconnaissance Au Travail Contribue La Motivation Et Au Bien-tre Des Travailleurs?, Facult des sciences de l'ducation, Laval, Qubec. Le Grand, J. 2006. Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens: Oxford University Press. Lvy-Leboyer, C. 2006. La Motivation Au Travail: Modles Et Stratgies. 3me dition ed. Paris: Editions d'Organisation. Lewis, G. B. and S. A. Frank. 2002. "Who Wants to Work for the Government?" Public Administration Review 62(4): 395-404. Lindorff, M. 2009. "We're Not All Happy Yet: Attitudes to Work, Leadership, and High Performance Work Practices among Managers in the Public Sector." The Australian Journal of Public Administration 68(4): 429-445. Locke, E. A. 1976. "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction." Pp. M. D. Dunette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally. Ldi, G. and I. Werlen. 2005. Le Recensement Fdral De La Population 2000: Le Paysage Linguistique De La Suisse, Statistiques De La Suisse. Neuchtel: Office Fdral de la Statistique. Lyons, S. T. L. E. Duxbury and C. A. Higgins. 2006. "A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public Sector, and Parapublic Sector Employees." Public Administration Review 66(4): 605-618. MacDuffie, J. 1995. "Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry." Industrial & Labor Relations Review 48(2): 197-221. Marsden, D. S. French and k. Kubo. 2001. Does Performance Pay De-Motivate, and Does It Matter? London: Center for economic performance, LSE. Marsden, D. and R. Richardson. 1992. Motivation and Performance Related Pay in the Public Sector: A Case Study of the Inland Revenue. In Discussion paper. London: Center for economic performance, LSE. Martins, E. C. and F. Terblanche. 2003. "Building Organisational Culture That Stimulates Creativity and Innovation." European Journal of Innovation Management 6(1): 64-74. Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New-York: Harper & Row. 26

Maugeri, S. 2004. Thories De La Motivation Au Travail, Les Topos. Paris: Dunod. Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen. 1991. "A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment." Human Resource Management Review 1(1): 61-89. Michel, S. 1994. "Motivation Et Implication Professionnelles." Pp. 381-399 M. De Coster and F. Pichault, ed., Trait De Sociologie Du Travail, Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier. Mowday, R. T. L. W. Porter and R. M. Steers. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press. Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey. 2007. "The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation." Public Administration Review 67(1): 40-53. Naff, K. C. and J. Crum. 1999. "Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?" Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5-16. OECD. 2005. "La Rmunration Lie Aux Performances Dans L'administration." OECD. Olinsky, A. S. Chen and L. Harlow. 2003. "The Comparative Efficacy of Imputation Methods for Missing Data in Structural Equation Modeling." European Journal of Operational Research 151(1): 53-79. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Pandey, S. K. and E. C. Stazyk. 2008. "Antecedents and Correlates of Public Service Motivation." Pp. 101-117 J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, ed., Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, New York: Oxford University Press. Park, S. M. and H. G. Rainey. 2007. "Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment. Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies." Review of Public Personnel Administration 27(3): 197226. Park, S. M. and H. G. Rainey. 2008. "Leadership and Public Service Motivation in U.S. Federal Agencies." International Public Management Journal 11(1): 109 - 142. 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. 2000. "Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 471-488. Perry, J. L. T. A. Engbers and S. Y. Jun. 2009. "Back to the Future? Performance-Related Pay, Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence." Public Administration Review 69(1): 39-51. 27

Perry, J. L. and A. Hondeghem. 2008b. "Editors' Introduction." Pp. 1-14 J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, ed., Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, New York: Oxford University Press. Perry, J. L. and A. Hondeghem. 2008c. "Building Theory and Empirical Evidence About Public Service Motivation." International Public Management Journal 11(1): 3 - 12. Perry, J. L. and A. Hondeghem, eds. 2008a. Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. Perry, J. L. and L. W. Porter. 1982. "Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations." Academy of Management Journal 7(1): 89-98. Perry, J. L. and W. Vandenabeele. 2008. "Behavioral Dynamics: Institutions, Identities, and Self-Regulation." Pp. 56-80 J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, ed., Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, New York: Oxford University Press. Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise. 1990. "The Motivational Bases of Public Service." Public Administration Review 50(3): 367-373. Pilichowski. 2009. "Does Performance-Related Pay Work?" Public Management Outlook 30: 1-17. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Posner, B. and W. Schmidt. 1996. "The Values of Business and Federal Government Executives: More Different Than Alike." Public Personnel Management 25(3). Putnam, R. 2002. Social Capital Short-Form Survey. In http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/measurement.htm. Rainey, H. 1983. "Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentives, Goals, and Individual Roles." Administration and Society 15: 207-242. Rainey, H. G. 1982. "Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Public Ethic." American Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288-302. Rainey, H. G. and B. Bozeman. 2000. "Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the a Priori." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 447-469. Roussel, P. 2000. "La Motivation Au Travail, Concepts Et Thories." Les notes du LIRHE. Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci. 2000. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions." Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54-67.

28

Sainsaulieu, R. 1988. L'identit Au Travail: Les Effets Culturels De L'organisation. 3me ed. 476 p. : ill. ; 19 cm vols, Rfrences 18. Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Sen, A. 1995. "Rationality and Social Choice." The American Economic Review 85(1): 1-24. Shamir, B. 1991. "Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organizations." Organization Studies 12(3): 405-424. Shore, L. and L. Tetrick. 1991. "A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 76(5): 637-643. Shore, L. and S. Wayne. 1993. "Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 774-774. Sijtsma, K. 2009. "On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbachs Alpha." Psychometrika 74(1): 107-120. Solomon, E. E. 1986. "Private and Public Sector Managers: An Empirical Investigation of Job Characteristics and Organizational Climate." Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2): 247-259. Stajkovic, A. D. 2003. "Behavioral Management and Task Performance in Organizations: Conceptual Background, Meta-Analysis, and Test of Alternative Model." Personnel Psychology 56: 155-194. Steijn, B. 2008. "Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation." International Public Management Journal 11(1): 13 - 27. Steiner, R. 2000. "New Public Management in Swiss Municipalities." International Public Management Journal 3: 169-189. Taylor, J. 2007. "The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A Comparative Multidimensional Analysis." Public Administration 85(4): 931-959. Taylor, J. 2008. "Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Outcomes: An Australian Study." International Public Management Journal 11(1): 67 - 88. Vallerand, R. J. and E. E. Thill. 1993. Introduction La Psychologie De La Motivation. Laval; Paris: Etudes vivantes; Vigot. Van Dick, R. 2004a. "My Job Is My Castle: Identification in Organizational Contexts." International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2004 Volume 19 19: 171.

29

Van Dick, R. U. Wagner J. Stellmacher and O. Christ. 2004b. "The Utility of a Broader Conceptualization of Organizational Identification: Wich Aspects Really Matter?" British Psychological Society 77: 171-191. Van Knippenberg, D. 2000. "Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective." Applied Psychology: an International Review 49(3): 357-371. Vandenabeele, W. 2007a. "Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach." Public Management Review 9(4): 545-556. Vandenabeele, W. 2008. "Government Calling: Public Service Motivation as an Element in Selecting Government as an Employer of Choice." Public Administration 86(4): 1089 -1105. 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. 2009. "The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment on Self-Reported Performance: More Robust Evidence of the PsmPerformance Relationship." International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(1): 11-34. Vandenabeele, W. and C. Ban. 2009. "The Impact of Public Service Motivation in an International Organization: Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the European Commission." International Public Service Motivation Conference, 7-9 June 2009, Bloomington, Indiana. Vandenabeele, W. R. Depr A. Hondeghem and S. Yan. 2004. "The Motivational Patterns of Civil Servants." Viesoji Politika Ir Administravimas 13: 52-63. Vandenberghe, C. 2005. "L'engagement Organisationnel Dans Le Secteur Public: Quelques Dterminants Essentiels." Tlscope 12(2): 1-10. Weibel, A. K. Rost and M. Osterloh. 2009. "Pay for Performance in the Public Sector: Benefits and (Hidden) Costs." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory May advance access. West, S. G. J. F. Finch and P. J. Curran. 1995. "Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies." Pp. 56-75 R. H. Hoyle, ed., Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Whitener, E. 2001. "Do "High Commitment" Human Resource Practices Affect Employee Commitment? A Cross-Level Analysis Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling." Journal of Management 27(5): 515. 30

Wittmer, D. 1991. "Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preference among Government, Hybrid Sector, and Business Managers." Public Productivity & Management Review 14(4): 369-383. Worrall, L. and C. L. Cooper. 2007. "Managers' Work-Life Balance and Health: The Case of Uk Managers." European Journal of International Management 1(1-2): 129-145. Worrall, L. C. L. Cooper and F. Campbell-Jamison. 2000. "The Impact of Organizational Change Ont the Work Experiences and Perceptions of Public Sector Managers." Personnel Review 29(5): 613-636. Wothke, W. and J. Arbuckle. 1996. Full-Information Missing Data Analysis with Amos. In SPSS White Paper: SPSS Company. Wright, B. and R. K. Christensen. 2009. "Public Service Motivation: Testing Measures, Antecedents and Consequences." International Public Service Motivation Research Conference, 7-9 June 2009, Bloomington, Indiana. Wright, B. E. 2004. "The Role of Work Context in Work Motivation: A Public Sector Application of Goal and Social Cognitive Theories." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(1): 59-78. Wright, B. E. 2008. "Methodological Challenges Associated with Public Service Motivation Research." Pp. 80-100 J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, ed., Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31

Appendix Figures 1, 2, 3. Tables 1, 2, 3

Appendix
Description of the variables and items All these items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong agreement) Variable name Item name Items wording Items Wording (English) (French) Positive feed-back from Les retours positifs de la part Team relations Superior and support Recognition* my hierarchical de mon suprieur hirarchique superior are very direct sont pour moi trs important for me importants Colleagues Positive feed-back from Les retours positifs de la part Recognition* my colleagues are very de mes collgues sont pour important for me moi trs importants Relationships w/ It is important for me to Il est important que j'aie de Colleagues* have good working bonnes relations de travail relationship with my avec mes collgues colleagues Colleagues Trust My colleagues deserve Mes collgues de travail sont totally my trust tout fait dignes de ma confiance Material High Wage* It is important for me to Il est important que j'aie un incentives have a high wage revenu lev Pay per It is important for me to Il est important que j'aie un Performance* have an high pay per salaire la performance lev performance (prime, progression salariale) Career* It is important for me to Il est important que j'aie de have good career bonnes perspectives de perspectives carrire Bonus It is crucial for me that Selon moi, il est fondamental Exceptional there are bonuses to qu'il y ait des primes pour Perf* reward exceptional rcompenser des prestations work exceptionnelles. Motiv 1 I'm always ready to Je suis toujours prt Work begin early in the Motivation commencer le travail tt le morning and to stop matin et arrter tard le soir late at night to do the pour que le travail soit fait job Motiv 2 I am always totally Je suis toujours totalement committed to my work engag dans mon travail no matter how many quelque soit le degr de difficulties there are difficults PSM Pol 1 I'm very interested in Je m'intresse beaucoup la Policy Making politics politique Pol 2 I like to discuss J'aime dbattre de sujets political subjects with politiques avec d'autres others

32

PSM Civic Commitment

Civ Int 1

I consider public service my civic duty

Je considre mon engagement pour le service public comme un devoir

Civ Int 2

PSM Compassion

Comp 1

Comp 2

PSM Self-Sacrifice

Self-Sacr. 1

Self-Sacr. 2

Il est important que je mengage sans compter pour le bien commun La vie quotidienne me rappelle souvent que nous sommes dpendants les uns des autres La plupart des programmes sociaux me semblent trop vitaux pour pouvoir s'en passer I think people should Il est important que les gens give back to society rendent la socit bien plus more than they get from que ce qu'ils en retirent it I am one of those rare Je fais partie des personnes people who would risk prtes risquer une perte personal loss to help personnelle afin d'aider someone else quelqu'un d'autre

It is for me important to contribute for the common good I'm often reminded by daily events ho dependent we are on one another Most social programs are too vital to do without

*This category of items was constructed in order to test whether a certain aspect or job is valued, and in the same time exists in the work setting of the respondent. In this way, a strongly desirable element which is present has the highest score (5); and a strongly desirable element which is not materialized has the lowest score (1). But the contrary is also true. Items used in the current study results from a three steps procedure: 1. Respondents were asked whether it is a valued aspect of their job. Ex. It is important for me to have good working relationship with my colleagues. (Answers on a five point Likert scale of agreement) 2. Respondents were asked whether this particular aspect apply to their work situation. (Answers on two categories: Yes or No) 3. Recoding with SPSS following a conditional table:

Totally Dont agree at all (1) (2) (3) (4) agree (5) Poorly valued Strongly valued Yes/ Existing (1) 1 2 3 4 5 No/ Not existing (0) 5 4 3 2 1

33

Figure 1: Theoretical model

Control variables - Job security - Work-life balance - Sex, level of education, - Organizational tenure

Team relations and support (TRSS)

H3

Motivation at work
H2 Material incentives (MIS)

H1

Public Service Motivation (PSM)

Figure 2: Structural model (Standardized estimates)

.16

Team relations and support (TRSS)

.15

.22

.27

Motivation at work
-.03 Material incentives (MIS)

.42

Public Service Motivation (PSM)

.08

34

Figure 3: Full Structural Model

Res4
.12 .92

.84

Pol 1

e41

PSM Policy Making

.29 .16 .54 .34

.92

.84

Pol 2 Res5 PSM Civic Interest

e42

e11

Colleagues Recognition
.38

.75 .61

.37

e12

Relationships w/ Colleagues
.22 .47

.61

Civ Int 1
.74 .54

e51

e13

Colleagues Trust
.18 .42

Team relation and support PSM

.87

Civ Int 2

e52

e14

Superior Recognition
.15

.56

Res6

.31 .65

.43

Comp 1
.57 .33

e61

Res1
.22

.42 .70

PSM Compassion

Comp 2

e62

Job Motivation Res7

.27 .60 .36 .71 .50 .49 .60

.36

Self-Sacr. 1
.45

e71

Motiv1
-.03 .34

Motiv2

PSM Self-Sacrifice

.67

Self-Sacr. 2

e72

e31

e32

.08

e21

High Wage
.58 .58

e22

Pay per Performance

.42 .65

.76

Material incentives

e23

Career
.19 .43

e24

Bonus for exceptional job

35

Table 1. Demographic description of the sample N=3754 Gender Male Female Educational level Secondary school Professional apprenticeship High school diploma Upper professional apprenticeship University degree Other Age* 15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Mean: Linguistic region Swiss-German 79% Swiss-French 21% Hierarchical position Apprentice, trainee 4.2% Auxiliary 0.8% Employee 51.4% Manager 27.2% Senior manager 15.3% Other 1.1% Time with organization * <1 12.2% 2-5 27.9% 6-10 23.6% 11-15 9.9% 16-20 11.8% 21-25 6.3% 26-30 4.2% 31-35 2.6% >36 1% Mean: 10.34

54.4% 45.6% 4.2% 44.7% 7.7% 22.3% 17.6% 3.5% 4.7% 12.9% 21.3% 29.7% 25.7% 5.8% 42.26

* classified in years

Table 2: Descriptive statistics, distribution coefficients, bivariate correlations Mean S.d 1 Motivation N valid=3690 N missing= 64 2 PSM N valid=3542 N missing=212 Material 3 incentives (MIS) N valid=3092 N missing=662 Team relations 4 and support (TRSS) N valid=3337 N missing=417 ** p<.01 *p<.05 Skewness Kurtosis 1 .373 (.552) 2 3 4

4.114 .744 -.763

3.513 .614 -.266

-.004

.230** (.700)

3.038 .927 -.163

-.351

.035*

.041*

(.696)

4.094 .756 -1.159

1.663

.124** .104** .210** (.570)

Statistics based on summative indices. Pearson correlations.

36

Table 3: Structural estimates for the full model Structural estimates Regression p-value Weights (.001) (unstandardized) Motivation Motiv1 (1)9 Motiv2 .745 *** TRSS Colleagues recognition (1) Relationship w/ colleagues 1.030 *** Colleagues Trust .711 *** Superior Recognition .899 *** MIS High wage (1) Pay per performance 1.486 *** Career 1.245 *** Bonus for exceptional job .911 *** PSM PSM_Policy-making (1) Pol 1 (1) Pol 2 .989 *** PSM_Civic Interest 1.410 *** Civ Int 1 (1) Civ Int 2 1.228 PSM_Compassion .926 *** Comp 1 (1) Comp 2 .950 *** PSM_Self-Sacrifice 1.109 *** Self-Sacr.1 (1) Self-Sacr.2 1.141 *** 1 Set to 1 for identification purpose Bilateral associations Variables Correlations Covariances p-value (.001) TRSS <-->PSM .165 .040 *** MIS <--> PSM .081 .021 .002 MIS <--> TRSS .274 .114 *** Regression path on dependent variable Regression p-value Standardized weights (.001) factor loadings Motivation TRSS .156 *** .154 MIS -.032 .211 -.033 PSM .691 *** .418

Variance Standardized factor loadings

R2

.216 .597 .708 .400 (***) .543 .614 .472 .420 .438 (***) .582 .759 .652 .433 .150 (***) .343 .919 .918 .868 .605 .736 .558 .655 .573 .701 .600 .674 .118

.754

.312

.492

37

38