140REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION June 2005140REV
1. 140 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION /
June 2005
140 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION /
June 2005
Bright / PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WITH SERVICE
MOTIVATION 139
REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / June
2005
Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service
Motivation
Who Are They, Where Are They, and What do They Want?
LEONARD BRIGHT
University of South Alabama
Morethanadecadeago,PerryandWisepopularizedtheconceptofpubl
icservice
motivation.Yettoday,stilllittleisknownaboutpublicemployeeswit
hhighlevels of public service motivation. This study sought to
fill this gap in the literature by investigating the relationship
that exists between public service motivation and
thepersonalcharacteristics,managementlevel,andmonetaryprefere
ncesofpublic employees. The findings reveal that public service
motivation is significantly related to the gender, education
level, management level, and monetary preferences of public
employees. The implications of this study and areas of future
research are discussed.
Keywords: employee motivation; public service motivation;
organizational behavior; public administration; work
preferences; public employees
M
orethanadecadeago,PerryandWise(1990)proposedatheoryofpubli
c service motivation. This theory contends that some individuals
are highly attracted to and motivated by public service work.
This attractiveness is argued to be influenced by several
3. workand public organizations. Public service motivation,
according to Perry and Wise, is an individual’s predisposition to
respond to motives grounded uniquely in public organizations
and institutions. According to the authors, the reasons why
individuals are attracted to public organizations and public
service careers can be organized into three distinct categories:
rational, normative, and affective. For example, from a rational
basis, individuals can be attracted to public organization
because of self-interest, such as advocating for public policies
that promote a specific private interest. From a normative
perspective, individuals can be attracted to public organizations
for ethical reasons, such as maintaining social equity. From an
affective point of view, individuals can be attracted to the
public sector because of emotional attachments, such as a
conviction about the importance of a program or service.
Seeking to build on his initial work on public service
motivation, Perry (1996) developed the only known
measurement scale that empirically assesses the level of
attraction that individuals have to public service work. Prior to
the development of the public service motivation scale, scholars
used various indirect methods of assessing the attraction public
employees have to public service work, such as job satisfaction
and work preferences (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000).
One important point about employee motivation in the public
sector is that individuals work in the public sector for a wide
variety of reasons. The reasons that lead one individual to
choose public sector employment may not be the reasons that
lead another individual to work in the public sector. On this
note, one can speculate that the career choices of individuals are
Bright / PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WITH SERVICE
MOTIVATION 139
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University -
4. Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University -
Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
related to their salient internal needs and motives. For example,
the desire for public service work could stimulate and satisfy a
variety of different needs within individuals (Brewer, Selden, &
Facer, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990). Similarly, an attraction to
public service may satisfy several motives, such as a desire for
the public interest, social justice, civic duty, and selfsacrifice
(Perry & Wise, 1990). Other needs that an attraction to public
service could satisfy include the psychological needs of
interpersonal interaction, stimulation, self-determination, and
growth (Alderfer, 1972; DeCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 2002;
Goldstein, 1939/1995; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Maslow,
1943; White, 1959).Public Service Motivation and Its
Supporters and Critics
Building on Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoretical framework and
Perry’s (1996) measurement scale, a few scholars have explored
public service motivation with an organizational framework in
mind. For example, Perry (1997) used his newly developed
measurement scale to investigate the
antecedentsofpublicservicemotivation.Hefoundpublicservicemot
ivationto be positively related to education level and age and
negatively related to income level. Naff and Crum (1998) found
that federal employees with high levels of public service
motivation had higher levels of job satisfaction, more positive
performance appraisals, and fewer intentions to leave the
government than did employees with lower levels of public
service motivation. Alonso and Lewis (2001), however, found
less conclusive results regarding the relationship between public
service motivation and the job performance of public
employees. They concluded that public service motivation is
weakly associated with the performance of federal employees
and may decrease their performance. More recently, Brewer et
al. (2000) investigated whether the motives of public service
motivation varied in different combinations from one individual
5. to another. They found four distinct clusters of public
employees with high levels of public service motivation, which
they labeled Samaritans, communitarians, patriots, and
humanitarians.
Although there is some interesting evidence that substantiates
Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoretical work on public service
motivation (Brewer et al., 2000; Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000;
Naff & Crum, 1998; Perry, 1996), Gabris and Simo (1995) have
challenged the utility of the concept and have argued that public
service motivation is not evenly distributed in public
organizations. According to these scholars, individuals who
would most likely be infused with altruistic motives for public
service work are those working at the highest levels in public
organizations. These scholars further point out that most public
employees, particularly those working at the
lowerlevelsofthepublicorganization,arenotworkingbecauseofanat
traction to public service work but because of the necessity to
survive. Based on these arguments, Gabris and Simo have called
for an abandonment of the whole concept of public service
motivation. There are two kinds of responses to this call. First,
some scholars have acknowledged that not all public employees
should be expected to possess high levels of public service
motivation or be highly attracted to public service work (Brewer
& Selden, 1998; Perry & Wise, 1990). Second, some scholars
point out that because public organizations provide
opportunities to perform public service work, individuals with
high levels of public service motivation would be highly
attracted to public organizations (Perry & Porter, 1982).
QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
The interesting and lively debate that has centered on Perry and
Wise’s (1990) theory of public service motivation highlights the
need for future research to answer at least three major
questions. The first question that can be raised from the
discussions of public service motivation is whether significant
relationships exist between public service motivation and the
6. education level, age, gender, and minority status of public
employees. Little empirical research is available that describes
public employees who are highly motivated by public service
work. A small number of studies have been identified that can
help provide some answers to this question. For example, Blank
(1985) found that non-Whites and women were more
likelytochoosepublicsectorcareersthantheircounterparts.Morerec
ently, Perry (1997) found that individuals with higher levels of
public service
motivationtendedtobeolderandhavehigherlevelsofeducationthant
heir
counterparts.Inlightofthesestudies,Idevelopedthefollowinghypot
hesis:
Hypothesis 1: Public employees with high levels of public
service motivation
willbeolder,female,andminoritiesandhavehigherlevelsofeducatio
nthan will employees with lower levels of public service
motivation.
A second question that has surfaced from the discussions of
public service motivation is its distribution within public
organizations. Do employees who work at the lower levels of
public organizations have significantly different levels of public
service motivation than those who work at the upper levels of
public organizations? It is idealistic to believe that the public
sector is completely composed of employees who are imbued
with an ethic of public service. A more likely perspective is one
that acknowledges that the public sector comprises a diverse set
of individuals who are working in the public sector for many
different reasons, some for intrinsic reasons and others for
extrinsic tangible reasons. However, no research has been
uncovered that empirically indicates where individuals with
high levels of public service motivation are distributed within
various levels of public organizations.GabrisandSimo(1995)
hypothesizedthatthepublicemployeeswho will have high levels
of public service motivation are those working at the highest
levels within public organizations. One factor that can be used
7. to test this hypothesis is the management level of public
employees. If Gabris and Simo are correct, significant positive
differences should be found between public employees’ level of
public service motivation and their management level. This
leads to a second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Managers will have significantly higher levels of
public service motivation than will nonmanagers, while taking
into consideration other competing explanations.
A third question that has surfaced in the discussions on public
service motivation centers on the relationship between the work
preferences of public employees and their level of public
service motivation. Do public
employeeswhohavehighlevelsofpublicservicemotivationdesiredif
ferent kinds of work opportunities than employees with lower
levels of public service motivation do? Research has established
that public employees highly value the intrinsic aspects of
public sector work (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz
& Brown, 1998; Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1997; Jurkiewicz,
Massey, & Brown, 1998; Karl & Sutton, 1998; Khojasteh, 1993;
Kilpatrick, Cummings, & Jennings, 1964; Newstrom, Rief, &
Monczka, 1976; Vinzant, 1998; Wittmer, 1991). However, no
research has established whether their level of public service
motivation influences the reward
preferencesofpublicemployees.PerryandWise(1990)indirectlyhy
pothesized that individuals with high levels of public service
motivation would be less attracted to monetary incentives.
Hence, if this is correct, then individuals with high levels of
public service motivation should desire monetary rewards
significantly less than employees with lower levels of public
service motivation. Restated, this forms a third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: A significant negative relationship will be found
between the level of public service motivation of public
employees and their preferences
for monetary incentives, while taking into consideration other
competing explanations.
8. RESEARCH METHOD
To testthethreehypothesessummarizedabove,
publicemployeesfrom a large county government in the state of
Oregon were randomly selected as potential respondents for this
study.1 The potential respondents were sent e-mail messages
from the jurisdiction’s senior management team and the
principal investigator that informed them of the study and
encouraged their participation. They were then mailed a job
survey through the jurisdiction’s interoffice mail system and
given 2 weeks to complete the survey. Included in the job
survey package were instructions for how to return the survey to
the principal investigator. A total of 349 usable surveys were
collected. The respondents of the survey represented 12 major
departments in the jurisdiction and a diverse mix of public
sector occupations (e.g., building inspectors, community health
workers, sheriffs, caseworkers, secretaries, district attorneys,
librarians, maintenance workers, detectives, juvenile
counselors, and probation officers).
As shown in Table 1, the survey collected several types of
information from the respondents: personal characteristics,
management level, level of public service motivation, and
monetary preferences. The personal characteristics of the
respondents were collected using several single-item survey
questions and a multi-item measurement scale. For example, the
gender of the respondents was collected with the following
survey question: What is your gender? Female respondents were
coded as 1, and male respondents were coded as 0. The age of
the respondents was collected with the following open-ended
survey question: What year were you born? The year of birth
was subsequently transformed into respondents’ approximate
ages by subtracting the year of birth from the year of this study
(2003). The minority status of the respondents was collected
with the following multiplechoice question: How would you
describe your racial or ethnic group? White and Caucasian
respondents were classified as nonminorities, and all other
respondents were classified as minorities. Minority respondents
9. were coded as 0, and nonminority respondents werecoded as 1.
Thelevel of education of the respondents was collected with the
following multiple-choice
surveyquestion:Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationyouhavecompl
eted? The response categories ranged from 1 = did not complete
high school to 6 = master’s degree or higher.
Table 1. Description of Survey Sample (N = 349)
Frequency
Percentage
Management level Nonmanagers
271
77.7
Managers and supervisors
77
22.1
Education level
Did not complete high school
0
0
High school diploma or GED
15
4.3
Some college
82
23.5
Associate degree or technical certificate
48
13.8
Bachelor’s degree
127
36.4
Master’s degree or higher
76
21.8
10. Gender Male
124
35.5
Female
222
63.6
Age 23 to 34
90
25.8
35 to 44
75
21.5
45 to 51
93
26.6
52 to 77
80
22.9
Years of public sector experience
0 to 5
81
23.2
6 to 11
92
26.4
12 to 20
86
24.6
21 to 36
87
24.9
Minority status
African American and Black
5
1.4
Hispanic and Latino
11. 25
7.2
White and Caucasian
299
85.7
Asian and Pacific
8
2.3
Native American and Eskimo or Aleut
2
0.6
None of the above
5
1.4
Salary level
$0 to $19,999
18
5.2
$20,000 to $39,000
140
40.5
$40,000 to $59,000
130
37.6
$60,000 to $69,000
24
6.9
$70,000 to $99,000
27
7.8
$100,000 and above
7
2.0
Note: The sample description figures are approximations and
represent those respondents who responded to the particular
survey question.
12. Second, the management level of the respondents was collected
with the following survey question: Are you a department
director, manager, or supervisor? Managers were coded as 1,
and nonmanagers were coded as 0. Third, the respondents’ level
of public service motivation was collected using Perry’s (1996)
24-item public service motivation scale. This scale was
designed to measure the attraction that individuals have to
public service work. Respondents were asked to rate their level
of agreement with each survey item using a 7-point Likert-type
scale, which ranged from 1 = highly disagree to 7 = highly
agree. Respondents received a summed score of their responses.
High scores represented higher levels of public service
motivation, and lower scores represented low levels of public
service motivation. Finally, preferences for monetary incentives
were collected using two questions that asked the respondents to
rate the desirability of receiving a higher salary and remaining
at their current salary level on a scale from 1 = highly
undesirable to 7 = highly desirable. The respondents’ scores
were reverse scored where appropriate and summed.
In addition to the data collection process, the condition of the
data was analyzed. Given that some cases contained missing
data, the pattern of missing data in the data set was examined
and determined to be what Little and Rubin (1987) labeled
missing at random. Subsequently, missing values
onanygivenvariablewerereplacedwiththemeanofthatvariable.
Thedata were also reviewed to ensure that the assumptions of
multivariate normality
wereupheld.2Basedontherecommendationsofseveralscholars(C.C
ohen & P. Cohen, 1983; J. Cohen, 1988; Little & Rubin, 1987;
S. G. West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), the data were found to be
in good condition. In addition, the data were analyzed using two
hierarchical regression models. The first regression model
tested the relationship between public service motivation and
the personal characteristics (e.g., education level, age, gender,
and minority status) and management level of the respondents in
two steps. The second regression model tested the relationship
13. between monetary preferences and the personal characteristics,
management level, and public service motivation of the
respondents in three steps.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONPersonal Characteristics and
Public Service Motivation
Hypothesis 1: Public employees with high levels of public
service motivation
willbeolder,female,andminoritiesandhavehigherlevelsofeducatio
nthan will employees with lower levels of public service
motivation.
The first question this study investigated centered on the
relationship that exists between public service motivation and
the personal characteristics of public employees. It was
hypothesized that public employees with high levels of public
service motivation will be older, female, minorities, and more
highly educated than those employees with lower levels of
public service motivation. This hypothesis received mixed
support. As shown in Table 2, significant positive relationships
were found between public service motivation and the education
level and gender of the respondents. In other words, respondents
with high levels of public service motivation were significantly
more likely to have higher levels of education and were more
likely to be female than those with lower levels of public
service motivation. This finding can be viewed from two major
perspectives. The relationship between education level and
public service motivation can be explained from a
professionalization perspective. It is not unreasonabl e to expect
that education facilitates distinct expectations and certain levels
of awareness within individuals. This higher level of awareness
that education facilitates
mayleadindividualstorecognizethevaluethatpublicservicehastoso
ciety.
Additionally,therelationshipbetweengenderandpublicservicemoti
vation seems to support a gender socialization perspective. This
perspective highlights the differing socialization experiences
that male and female individuals undergo in our society. We are
14. all influenced by the role expectations that society assigns to us
based on our gender. Males are generally expected and allowed
to be competitive, aggressive, and dominant, whereas females
are expected to assume supportive caretaking roles. Although
these role expectations are gradually changing and evolving,
they are still present and strongly rooted in many domains. The
results of this study suggest that differing societal expectations
about gender may be related to the attraction
thatindividualshavetopublicservicework.Publicserviceoccupatio
ns represent those work roles in governmental bodies that are
largely associated with the act of providing direct services and
benefits to society. One can argue that many public service
occupations are more congruent with the assumptions of support
and caretaking rather than the assumptions of dominance and
aggression. If this is the case, one can speculate that male
individuals who conform to masculine role expectations would
be more attracted to those public service occupations that are
associated with dominance and aggression than those
occupations that are associated with the assumptions of support
and caretaking. This would be consistent with the stereotype
that females are more service oriented than their male
counterparts.
Table 2. Summary Of Hierarchical Analysis for Education
Level, Age, Gender, and Minority Status Predicting Public
Service Motivation (N = 349)
Variable
R
2
R
2
t
p
Step 1
.044
16. –0.556
.578
Gender
.156
2.946
.003**
Minority status
–.094
–1.785
.075
Management level
.171
3.071
.002**
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.
In light of the conclusions presented above, three clarifying and
qualifying points are in order. First, the finding of this study
does not indicate that maleindividualsarenotattractedto
publicservicework. Itmerelyindicates that male individuals are
generally less attracted to public service work than are female
individuals. Second, this study does not question the fact that
male individuals work in public service occupations. What can
be questioned is whether males are working in public service
occupations for different reasons than their female counterparts.
Finally, the male participants in this study were undersampled,
thus skewing the gender variable toward the female participants.
This limitation leaves open the question of whether the
conclusions of this study regarding gender are representative of
the sample population. On this note, I argue that the
participation of the study participants was not influenced by
their level of public service motivation. If public service
motivation were the distinguishing factor in the participation of
17. the survey respondents, I believe that it is much more likely that
few to no differences would have been found between the male
and female public employees. Additionally, quality measures
were taken to ensure that the skewness of the gender variable
was within normal acceptable ranges (see Note 2).Management
Level and Public Service Motivation
Hypothesis 2: Managers will have significantly higher levels of
public service motivation than will nonmanagers, while taking
into consideration other competing explanations.
The second question this study investigated centered on the
relationship between the management level of public employees
and their level of public service motivation. It was hypothesized
that managers will have significantly higher levels of public
service motivation than nonmanagers, while controlling for
various competing explanations. As shown in Table 2, the
findings of this study support this hypothesis. A significant
positive relationship was found between the management level
of the respondents and their level of public service motivation,
while controlling for their age, education level, gender, and
minority status. Management level was also found to be a
stronger predictor of public service motivation than the personal
characteristics of the respondents. These findings provide some
support to Gabris and Simo’s (1995) contention that employees
with high levels of public service motivation are working at the
top levels of public
organizations.Itisimportanttonotetha tthisfindingdoesnotprovetha
temployees working in lower areas of public organizations are
not attracted to public service work. Instead, the findings
indicate that nonmanagers have significantly lower levels of
public service motivation than those working in managerial
positions.
This result can be explained from two different perspectives.
From one perspective, managers may have high levels of public
service motivation
becausetheirtangibleneedsaresatisfiedbytheirgreaterlevelsofsalar
y.This perspective is based on Maslowian principles, which
18. argue that the higher
levelpsychicneedsofindividualscannotbesatisfiedunlesslowerleve
lphysiological needs are first met (Maslow, 1943). Following
this logic, it may be the case that public service motivation may
be a psychic need within individuals that cannot be satisfied
unless their lower level material needs are met. Another
explanation for the differences that have been found between
managersandnonmanagersisorganizationalsocialization.Manager
scould have higher levels of public service motivation because
they are socialized
throughtheiryearsofpublicsectorexperiencetohighlyvaluepublicse
rvice work (Schein, 1968; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The
socialization mechanisms that are present in public
organizations may weed out employees who are less attracted to
public service work, while inculcating a value for public service
work into those who remain for years.Public Service Motivation
and Monetary Reward Preferences
Hypothesis 3: A significant negative relationship will be found
between the level of public service motivation of public
employees and their preferences Table 3. Summary of
Hierarchical Analysis for Education Level, Age, Gender,
Minority Status, Management Level, and Public Service
Motivation
Predicting Monetary Preferences (N = 349)
Variable
R
2
R
2
t
p
Step 1
.032
22. competing explanations.
The third general question this study investigated centered on
the relationship that exists between public service motivation
and the work preferences of public employees. It was
hypothesized that public service motivation would be negatively
related to public employees’ preferences for
monetaryincentives,whilecontrollingforvariouscompetingexplan
ations. The findings of this study strongly support this
hypothesis. As shown in Table 3, a significant negative
relationship was found between public service motivation and
the respondents’ preferences for monetary rewards, while
controlling for the effects of education level, age, gender,
minority status, and management level of the respondents. The
greater the level of public service motivation exhibited by the
respondents, the significantly less they desired monetary
rewards. This finding supports Perry and Wise’s (1990)
assumptions regarding the reward preferences of employees
with high levels of public service motivation. Also, this finding
seems to support the suggestion that organizations that attract
(or create) individuals with high levels of public service
motivation would have to rely less on tangible monetary
incentives as a means of motivating these employees (Perry &
Wise, 1990). However, this support is not without its
qualifications. For example, although public service motivation
is significantly related to the monetary preferences of public
employees, it is not the strongest predictor in comparison to
management level. As shown in Table 3, management level has
a greater effect size on and accounts for more variance in
monetary preferences than public service motivation.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to describe public employees with
high levels of public service motivation in terms of their
personal characteristics, management level, and monetary
preferences. The results revealed that employees with high
levels of public service motivation were significantly more
23. likely to be female, to be managers, and to have greater levels
of education than were public employees with lower levels of
public service motivation. In addition, in support of Perry and
Wise’s (1990) hypothesis, this study revealed that public
employees with high levels of public service motivation
significantly desired monetary incentives significantly less than
those with lower levels of public service motivation. Although
these findings support Gabris and Simo’s (1995) hypothesis
regarding the distribution of public service motivation in public
organizations, the authors’ call to abandon the theory of public
service motivation is premature. At the very least, this study
confirms that Perry and Wise’s theory of public service
motivation deserves more investigation.
To make the notion of public service motivation meaningful, we
need moreinformation. This study has demonstrated
thatpublicservicemotivation is not a whole cloth but varies by
gender, age, and level of managerial responsibility and is
related to monetary preferences. Yet there are two major
limitations of this study. First, the male population of this study
was undersampled, which in turn can lead to arguments that the
participants of
thisstudyarenotrepresentativeofthesamplepopulation.Althoughth
ereis little evidence to substantiate this claim, more research is
needed to establish the degree to which gender has a
relationship with the desire that public employees have for
public service work. A second limitation of this study is the
lack of strong evidence of causality. In other words, this study
does not prove that public service motivation causes the career
choices of individuals or their monetary preferences. As
previously noted, one can speculate that public service
motivation could be influenced by the career selections of
individuals as well as their salary level. Future research should
focus on creating research designs that shed more light on the
causal influences of public service motivation.
In addition, there are distinct areas of future research. For
example, research is needed that examines the degree to which
24. public service
motivationisauniquelypublicsectorphe nomenon.Onecouldconsid
erthatpublic service motivation may not be limited to public
employees but is also evenly distributed among highly
motivated employees in private and nonprofit organizations.
Additionally, it would be interesting to explore whether public
service motivation is evenly distributed among different types
of public organizations as well as among subunits within
organizations. For example, there is no research that determines
the extent to which public service motivation varies from one
working unit to another as a result of unique job characteristics.
Based on Brewer et al.’s (2000) discovery of unique clusters of
public service motives and Vinzant’s (1998) work with social
service employees, there is reason to believe that public service
motivation may vary as a result of the characteristics of a given
organizational unit.
More research on public service motivation will help scholars
and practitioners better understand, describe, and locate
individuals who may have high levels of public service
motivation in public organizations. It is these employees whom
public organizations have done the least to motivate in recent
years, even though the public sector is naturally equipped with
intrinsic opportunities that employees with high levels of public
service motivation find desirable. Far too often, public
organizations have failed to cultivate the intrinsic opportunities
of the public sector in favor of heavy reliance on monetary
incentives and other tangible rewards, such as pay for
performance, merit systems, and gain sharing as a means of
motivating public employees (Duke, 1989; Eisenberg &
Ingraham, 1993; E. K. Kellough & Selden, 1997; J. E. Kellough
& Lu, 1993; J. West, 2002). These broad-brush strategies are
based on a limited view of the values and desires of public
employees. Furthermore, they run the risk of motivating one
part of the public sector while demotivating another part.
Effective strategies of motivating public employees must take
into account the diversity and complexity of the public sector
25. workforce and offer opportunities that motivate those who are
interested in tangible rewards but particularly those who are
interested in opportunities that public service work and public
organizations naturally provide.
NOTES
1.Alistofapproximately 1,600employeeswasprovidedto theauthor
fromthejurisdiction, from which 980 employees were randomly
selected as potential participants in this study. Of the surveys
distributed, 10 surveys were returned because employees no
longer worked for the jurisdiction, which produced a response
rate of approximately 36%. In 2003, the following are the
approximate demographic characteristics of the jurisdiction in
termsofgenderandrace:46%female,53%male,84%White,2%Black
,9%Hispanic,3% Asian, and .05% Native American.
2. Multivariate normality refers to the degree to which the data
deviate from a normal bell-curve distribution. Violation of this
assumption can decrease the standard errors,
whichsubsequentlydecreasesthechancethatsignificancewillbefou
ndintheanalysis.One method of determining the multivariate
normality of the data is to review the skewness and kurtosis
ranges of the data set. Skewness ranges represent the tilt of the
data, whereas the kurtosis ranges represent the peakness of the
data. S. G. West et al. (1995) suggested that skewness ranges
should be less than two and kurtosis ranges less than seven. All
of the study variables used in this study fell between these
suggested ranges, with the exception of the kurtosis of the race
variable.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth:
Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation
and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. The
American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363380.
Blank, R. (1985). An analysis of workers’ choice between
26. employment in the public and private sectors. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 38, 11-19.
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the
federal civil service: New
evidenceofthepublicserviceethic.JournalofPublicAdministration
ResearchandTheory,8, 413-439.
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, L. F. (2000). Individual
conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration
Review, 60, 254-264.
Cohen, C., & Cohen, P. (1983).
Appliedmultipleregression/correlationanalysisforthebehavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building
empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499-518.
DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic
Press.
Deci,E.L.,& Ryan,R.M.(2002).Handbookofself-
determinationresearch.New York:University of Rochester Press.
Duke, L. (1989). Greenville, South Carolina and Alexandria,
Virginia: Problems and success using private sector techniques
to motivate personnel in the public sector. Public Personnel
Management, 18, 440-456.
Eisenberg, E. F., & Ingraham, P. W. (1993). Analyzing the
comparative pay for performance experience: Are there common
lessons? Public Productivity and Management Review, 17, 117-
128.
Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as
an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public
Personnel Management, 24, 33-51.
Goldstein, K. (1995). The organism: A holistic approach to
biology derived from pathological data in man. New York: Zone
Books.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
27. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1939)
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public service motivation: A multivariate
test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4,
713-727.
Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. Boomers
vs. Matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18,
18-37.
Jurkiewicz, C., & Massey, T. K. (1997). What motivates
municipal employees: A comparison study of supervisory vs.
non-supervisory personnel. Public Personnel Management, 26,
367-377.
Jurkiewicz, C., Massey, T. K., & Brown, R. G. (1998).
Motivation in public and private organizations. Public
Productivity and Management, 21, 230-251.
Karl,K.A.,&Sutton,C.L.(1998).Jobvaluesintoday’swor kforce:Ac
omparisonofpublic sector employees. Public Personnel
Management, 27, 515-527.
Kellough, E. K., & Selden, S. L. (1997). Pay for performance
systems in state government: Perceptions of state agency
personnel managers. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 17, 5-21.
Kellough, J. E., & Lu, H. (1993). The paradox of merit pay in
the public sector: Persistence of problematic procedure. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 13, 45-64.
Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private and public sector
managers. Public Personnel Management, 22, 391-402.
Kilpatrick, F. D., Cummings, M. C., & Jennings, M. K. (1964).
The image of the federal service. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Little, R. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with
missing data. New York: John Wiley.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1998). Working for America: Does
public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.
28. Newstrom, J. W., Rief, J. W., & Monczka, R. M. (1976).
Motivating the public employee: Fact vs. fiction. Public
Personnel Management, 5, 67-72.
Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An
assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 5-22.
Perry, J. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 181-
197.
Perry,J.,&Porter,L.W.(1982).Factorsaffectingthecontextformotiv
ationinpublicorganizations. Academy of Management Review,
7, 89-98.
Perry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational basis of public
service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the
profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9,
1-6.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Vinzant, J. C. (1998). Where values collide: Motivation and role
conflict in child and adult protective services. American Review
of Public Administration, 28, 347-366.
West, J. (Ed.). (2002). Civil service reform in Georgia
[Symposium issue]. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
22(2).
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural
equation models with nonnormal variables: Problem and
remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay:
Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector, and
business managers. Public Productivity and Management
29. Review, 14, 369-383.
LEONARDBRIGHT is an assistant professor in the department
of political science and criminaljusticeat
theUniversityofSouthAlabama.Hisresearchinterest
isinemployeemotivationin the public sector.
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University -
Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University -
Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at Texas A&M University -
Medical Sciences Library on May 9, 2016
