SYMPOSIUM CONCLUSION: FUTURE RESEARCH ON THE DIMENSIONS OF COLLABORATION JOY A. CLAY University of Memphis As the research findings in this symposium demonstrate, public and nonprofit managers in health and human service agencies continue to collaborate with multiple goals in mind. As would be anticipated, the collaborations described in the symposium generally addressed service gaps, enhanced services, improved access, and expanded programs. A common underlying expectation was that participation in the collaboration would further an agency’s mission (Goodsell, 2011). As cautioned by Word in her commentary, however, making joint decisions and sharing power does not come easy when agencies also must respond to countervailing pressures that inherently flow from the agency’s political, social, and economic contexts. Overall, the symposium examines levels of linkages, decision-making, hierarchy, autonomy, shared administration, governance, outcomes, and more. Reflecting their various research questions, the authors use a variety of methods to examine the multiple dimensions of collaboration. Clearly, the symposium’s researchers are building on and adding to our knowledge about cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004) as well as how to assess the multiple dimensions of collaboration. The authors effectively used existing instruments and models to understand collaboration dimensions but also propose new models and test metrics/variables. 140 JHHSA SUMMER 2012 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The case authors and practitioner commentaries respectively offer interesting suggestions for potentially fruitful research directions. In reacting to the symposium, key research directions appear to have some urgency. Clearly, an important area of research should include a fuller examination of collaboration impacts, beyond the outcomes of a specific collaborative effort to community- wide issues of equity, diversity, fairness, and responsiveness. Mayhew’s research draws attention to the need for more attention to how end users, not just the collaboration participants, assess the effectiveness of the collaboration and whether the resulting programming actually yields innovation and effectiveness. Similarly, Wrobel comments that assessing additional stakeholders, especially parents, is needed to assess the impact on the children and families served by a collaborative. These researchers convincingly argue that there has been insufficient attention to measure end user perceptions of outcomes from collaborations. Especially relevant to health and human services sectors, research directed at improving our capacity to identify specific indicators that pinpoint cultures of competition vs. collaboration could enable participants and policymakers to build more effective collaboration ...

1. SYMPOSIUM CONCLUSION: FUTURE RESEARCH
ON THE DIMENSIONS OF COLLABORATION
JOY A. CLAY
University of Memphis
As the research findings in this symposium
demonstrate, public and nonprofit managers in health and
human service agencies continue to collaborate with
multiple goals in mind. As would be anticipated, the
collaborations described in the symposium generally
addressed service gaps, enhanced services, improved
access, and expanded programs. A common underlying
expectation was that participation in the collaboration
would further an agency’s mission (Goodsell, 2011). As
cautioned by Word in her commentary, however, making
joint decisions and sharing power does not come easy when

2. agencies also must respond to countervailing pressures that
inherently flow from the agency’s political, social, and
economic contexts.
Overall, the symposium examines levels of
linkages, decision-making, hierarchy, autonomy, shared
administration, governance, outcomes, and more.
Reflecting their various research questions, the authors use
a variety of methods to examine the multiple dimensions of
collaboration. Clearly, the symposium’s researchers are
building on and adding to our knowledge about
cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (Keast,
Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast, Mandell, Brown, &
Woolcock, 2004) as well as how to assess the multiple
dimensions of collaboration. The authors effectively used
existing instruments and models to understand
collaboration dimensions but also propose new models and
test metrics/variables.

3. 140 JHHSA SUMMER 2012
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The case authors and practitioner commentaries
respectively offer interesting suggestions for potentially
fruitful research directions. In reacting to the symposium,
key research directions appear to have some urgency.
Clearly, an important area of research should include a
fuller examination of collaboration impacts, beyond the
outcomes of a specific collaborative effort to community-
wide issues of equity, diversity, fairness, and
responsiveness. Mayhew’s research draws attention to the
need for more attention to how end users, not just the
collaboration participants, assess the effectiveness of the
collaboration and whether the resulting programming
actually yields innovation and effectiveness. Similarly,
Wrobel comments that assessing additional stakeholders,

4. especially parents, is needed to assess the impact on the
children and families served by a collaborative. These
researchers convincingly argue that there has been
insufficient attention to measure end user perceptions of
outcomes from collaborations.
Especially relevant to health and human services
sectors, research directed at improving our capacity to
identify specific indicators that pinpoint cultures of
competition vs. collaboration could enable participants and
policymakers to build more effective collaboration
structures and processes. This issue appeared relevant
throughout the symposium. Similarly, concrete measures to
analyze how the diversity of professional cultures and
norms affect collaboration dynamics and structures could
help practitioners be strategic about collaboration practice
and leadership. Very importantly, research attention to how
organizations learn effective collaboration practices could
also be rewarding and insightful and help funders set better

5. benchmarks for expectations.
JHHSA SUMMER 2012 141
Both practice and theory would benefit from more
researcher attention to the role of local government,
especially counties, in affecting collaboration dynamics,
structures and outcomes, positively and negatively. As
mentioned by Knepper, further examination of the role of
county government in network analysis as well as more
comparative studies of networks would be beneficial.
Sullivan’s rich description of SPARC highlights how the
same program resulted in an enduring collaboration in one
county but not in another nearby county. What indicators
predict the barriers? In his commentary, Mirvis notes many
barriers to county involvement. With counties playing such
an important role in health and human services
collaborations, a better understanding of the counites as
intermediaries, facilitators, and/or participants could be a

6. productive area of research. Again, more comparative
studies of counties and counties within regions also would
be beneficial to build our knowledge base about
collaboration.
Given the importance of intergovernmental
relationships and the increased role of government or
nonprofit agencies serving as intermediaries, deeper
examination their role(s) on outcomes could help build and
sustain more effective collaboration practice. Although the
Head Start collaboration increased access to funding,
reduced duplication, and served more children, Wrobel
notes that policy constraints made collaboration difficult
for each agency. Consequently, further research into local,
state and federal constraints on collaboration seems
justified. Leslie calls for additional research on state and
federal dynamics, noting that where one is in the system
affects problem definition, accountability demands, and the
building of trust and performance. More insight into these

7. dynamics would provide very usable insights. Sakran
convincingly argues for more examination of the dynamics
142 JHHSA SUMMER 2012
of merging funding streams and regulatory differences, and
how these dynamics affect interagency collaboration.
NEXT STEPS
The interconnection of government and nonprofit
sectors continues to be important in serving our
communities (Roberts, 2011; Crosby, 2010; Weber, 2009;
Bryer, 2009; Dawes, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2009; Agranoff,
2008; Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast, Mandell,
Brown, & Woolcock, 2004; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003;
Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2004). As noted by Goodsell
(2011), agencies are not acting in silos but seek
collaborative relationships to further their missions, what
he labels as “dispersed public action” (p. 270). However,

8. questions about the degree and quality of the collaboration
approach remains. For example, does the collaboration
result in more than superficial, instrumental approach to
collaboration? Does the collaboration yield the
programming improvements and enhancements only
minimally expected? Alternatively, does the collaboration
approach yield a shared relationship that drives innovation,
quality, and effectiveness? Does the collaboration
effectively engage the investment of the community, key
stakeholders, and concerned citizens not affiliated in
agencies in ways that sustain their involvement and
commitment? As Lubin and Esty (2010) note, gaining
advantage for organizations caught in an emerging
megatrend requires “leadership, methods, strategy,
management, and reporting” and thus the need to
“transition from tactical, ad hoc, and siloed approaches to
strategic, systematic, and integrated ones” (p. 47). The
pressure to coordinate, partner, and collaborate shows no

9. sign of diminishing. Consequently, research into how to do
this more strategically and systematically appears justified.
JHHSA SUMMER 2012 143
Although the policy-area literature often uses
qualitative research from case analysis, the sophistication
level of methodology needs to continue to increase as
researchers compare multiple cases to identify patterns or
test frameworks (Welsh, 2004; Agranoff, 2008; Vogel,
Ransom, Wai, & Luisi, 2007; Simo & Bies, 2007; Chen,
2008). Our understanding of the dynamics and multiple
dimensions of collaboration would benefit from more
research that examines large-scale collective impact.
Complaining about the approach that has nonprofits
chasing grants and attempting specifically to measure their
individual influence, Kania and Kramer (2011)
convincingly argue that isolated initiatives will not likely
solve large-scale social problems. Instead, they call for a

10. more systematic approach to collaboration that supports
and drives social impact from collective action.
The research in the symposium contributes to our
knowledge base as the researchers have focused on
unpacking collaboration and partnering dynamics and the
evolution of these dynamics. This research also describes
the breadth of interests involved in the collaboration, the
goals and priorities that attracted the various agencies to
join together, and the variety of structures that were
designed for the collaboration. The cases and commentaries
also provide insights into factors that may yield successful
or unsuccessful collaborative efforts. Clearly, more
research from a multi-level, multi-dimensional approach
remains to be done.
REFERENCES
Agranoff, R. (2008). Enhancing performance through
public sector networks: Mobilizing human capital in

11. communities of practice. Public Performance &
Management Review, 31 (1), 320-347.
144 JHHSA SUMMER 2012
Bryer, T. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in
collaboration: Administrator and citizen role
perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69 (2),
271-83.
Chen, B. (2008). Assessing interorganizational networks
for public service delivery: A process-perceived
effectiveness framework. Public Performance &
Management Review, 31 (3), 348-363.
Crosby, B. (2010). Leading in the shared-power world of
2020. Public Administration Review, 70
(Supplement), S69-S77.
Dawes, S., Cresswell, A., & Pardo, T. (2009). From “Need

12. to Know” to “Need to Share”: Tangled problems,
information boundaries, and the building of public
sector knowledge networks. Public Administration
Review, 69 (3), 392-402.
Goodsell, C. (2011). Mission mystique: Belief systems in
public agencies. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, 37 (Winter), 36-
41.
Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the
right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and
strategies. International Public Management
Journal, 10 (1), 9-33.
Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G.
(2004). Network structures: Working differently
and changing expectations. Public Administration

13. Review, 64 (3), 363-371.
JHHSA SUMMER 2012 145
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community based
participatory research for health. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, N. (2011). Beyond smokestacks and silos: Open-
source, web-enabled coordination in organizations
and networks. Public Administration Review,71 (5),
677-693.
Schulz, A., Israel, B., & Lantz, P. (2004). Assessing and
strengthening characteristics of effective groups in
community-based participatory research
partnerships. In C. D. Garvin, L. M. Gutierrez, &
M. J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of Social Work
with Groups (pp. 332-349). New York: Guilford.
Simo, G., & Bies, A. (2007). The role of nonprofits in

14. disaster response: An expanded model of cross-
sector collaboration. Public Administration Review,
67 (Supplement), 125-142.
Vogel, A., Ransom, P., Wai, S., & Luisi, D. (2007).
Integrating health and social services for older
adults: A case study of interagency collaboration.
Journal of Health and Human Services
Administration, 30 (2), 199-228.
Weber, E. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough
cases of collaboration: "Ideas" in the Blackfoot
Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69 (2),
314-327.
Welsh, M. (2004). Fast-forward to a participatory norm:
Agency response to public mobilization over oil and
gas leasing in Pennsylvania. State and Local
Government Review, 36 (3), 186-197.

15. 146 JHHSA SUMMER 2012
Joy A. Clay is a professor in the Division of Public and
Nonprofit Administration and Associate Dean for
Interdisciplinary Studies, College of Arts and Sciences at
the University of Memphis. Her research interests include
collaboration and community-based evaluation as well as
maternal and infant health policy.
Copyright of Journal of Health & Human Services
Administration is the property of Southern Public
Administration Education Foundation and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
REFLECTION PAPER TWO
Reflection Paper #2 ASSIGNMENT

16. Objective: Understand and apply the concept of meaningful
work using your current job. You may also refer to a past job or
use school if you are currently unemployed.
Chalofsky states that the interplay of self, work and balance are
key to achieving meaningfulness. Reflect on your current job
and answer the following questions.
To what degree are you able to bring your whole self (mind,
body, emotion, spirit) to your work and the workplace? What
constraints, either external or created by you, are there to
bringing any/all of these to the work environment? Consider the
culture of your organization as discussed in your previous
reflection paper. See reflection paper #1 BELOW
What is the emotional labor (Ciulla) required of your job?
What social and personal requirements exist beyond the
economic transaction for which you were hired?
To what degree are you able to exercise autonomy and control
in your work environment and in what ways do you feel
empowered?
Do you exhibit a learning orientation or a performance
orientation and what are the reasons that prompt this
orientation?
How does your job fit into what you consider to be your life’s
purpose?
What practical changes can you make in any of these areas to
achieve more meaning at work and greater life balance?
Instructions:
1. Describe your organization in paragraph format in 1500-2000
words. Answer each bullet point above.
2. Use subheadings. There should be a centered subheading for
each bullet point listed above (e.g. Whole Self, Emotional
Labor, etc.). This helps ensure that you address each required
item and shows me that you covered them all.
3. Format using double-spaced, Times New Roman, 12-point
font.
4. Submit this as a Word document by the due date posted in
your syllabus.

17. 5. Please remember to follow the rules of academic integrity as
every paper is automatically submitted to Turnitin.com when it
is submitted to D2L.
REFLECTION PAPER # 1, Use to relate and continue to new
reflection paper #2
Reflection Report one
The organization relationship to its environment.
I choose to write about a church that I am acquainted with let’s
call it “Shiloh”. Upon first accepting the invitation to become a
member I was greeted with smiles and I believe genuine
politeness. This sentiment was mutual for I felt like an
enormous burden had finally been removed from my back. I felt
free and along with this freedom there was a desire to learn as
much as I could about Jesus. I had a voracious appetite for
anything that would assist in my learning and growing into his
stature. The attraction intensified as I started to get answers to
long dormant uncomfortable questions. Why are you here? What
is your Purpose? What happens when you die? What is life all
for or about? As I read and studied the blinders were removed
and all I saw was light. Light in passages of scripture I have
read before but at that time there was no light. No connection
just an Intellectual ascent. This brings me to our first question.
1, Does the organization perceive itself to be dominate,
submissive, harmonizing, searching out a niche.
I would say do to my experiences that in the United States most
Christian churches seem to be dominate. There is very little
acceptance of other faith into today’s society. Due to many
negative associations and activities from individuals from other
faiths in particular the Muslim faith: As well as a failure on the
part of the Christian community to put their own selfish and
self-interest aside many have put religion aside. So how is it
dominate? Even though a large number of people have turn
away from the faith in practice many still claim to be Christian.
Or worse they claim they can be good of themselves. Not so at

18. Shiloh. It is a place where the bible is studied. Also you are
welcomed for who you are and not just what you are or have.
Also unlike some that are in the spotlight today advocating the
reemergence of separatism and cast system and also claiming to
be a Christian; Shiloh is all about tearing down walls not
reestablishing them. Therefore If you look at it from the
perspective of Christianity you may say dominate. If you look at
from a more personal perspective I would say Shiloh is filling a
niche and hopefully, and prayerfully a niche that will someday
transform the whole.
The nature of human activity
2, Is the “correct” way for human to behave to be dominate
/pro-active, harmonizing, or passive/fatalistic?
I don’t believe its one size fits all scenario. I believe because
we are human. We were created the highest moral creatures on
the earth, and because we can reason and have the power of
choice we may find ourselves fluctuating between the choices. I
try to be balance in my decision making moving from principle
not just emotions or feelings. This hasn’t always been the case,
it wasn’t until what I discussed earlier that that this mindset
came to be. The world teaches that you have to be the best.
From early childhood games like musical chairs. The music
plays and when it stops everyone must sit down. However there
isn’t enough chairs for everyone. The game continues until you
have two children and one chair. The music stops and you have
one winner and one loser. Why? It’s just a game you may say. I
say look at what it teaches. Look how earlier the self-interest
or survival of the fittest mindset is developed. By my answer I
will say that I’m leaning towards Harmonizing.
The nature of reality and truth
3, How do we define what is true and what is not true: and how
is truth ultimately determined both in the physical and social
world? By pragmatic test, reliance on wisdom, or social
consensus?
A lot of what we determine to be truth has been either proven
by one own personal experience or by another’s. However this

19. doesn’t mean just because it may be truth to me you will agree
or that it will be truth to you as well. You see the concept of
truth must be defined and agreed upon by all who are looking to
base their beliefs on it. For a long time many thought that the
earth was flat. It was their truth. Was it true? No, someone came
along and proved that the earth was round. Did they accept that
truth? No. My point is that you must have a foundation and we
as individuals as well as society choose what that will be. I
believe truth may be arrived at by test but I also hope that for
some question I would rely on another wisdom or experience so
that I may not have to have a negative experience to verify.
“The stove is hot do not touch”.
The nature of human relationships
6, what is the “correct” way for people to relate to each other.
To distribute power and affection? Is life competitive or
cooperation? Is the best way to organize society on the basis of
individualism or groupism? Is the best authority system
autocratic/paternalistic or collegial/participative?
I believe the biblical model is well suited to answer this
question first “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you”. When raising my children one needed a whooping and the
others I could look at or talk to and the corrected there
behavior. I’m saying you can’t go wrong with showing and
giving affection when it is warranted. But there will be times
when you must be firm. Hopefully you will lead with affection.
By nature I am very competitive. It hasn’t always serve me
well. I learned that when I feed into my competitive nature I
really don’t care about my opponent. Therefore, I’m trying to
practice to be more cooperative. Think about the big picture or
to put other individuals I care for first.
We are all going to be judged individual so that is my
preference. Even though there can be a lot of good done when
we pull together. History testifies that the majority can and has
led many astray. Not sure on the last part of the question.
Hopefully insight will come as we proceed through the
semester.

20. Homogeneity vs, Diversity
7, Is this group best off if it is highly diverse or if it is highly
homogeneous, and should individual in a group be encouraged
to innovate or conform?
Oh how I love diversity. I believe the more the merrier.
Different insights viewpoints experiences all go into what we
discussed earlier about truth and human activity. To work
together but at the same time be different is great. It is a goal
that many have tried to achieve and haven’t. I for one will
embrace diversity and encourage its development. Diversity
doesn’t harm the individual it enriches them. If I just had my
own inclinations and thoughts where would I be? Where would
you be if left to yourself? No we need each other and shouldn’t
be threaten by that necessity.
Along with the need of diversity there is the need to be
innovative. Again this shouldn’t be looked at negatively for
without innovation we wouldn’t have many of the scientific
marvels we have today. It may be cliché but “if you can dream
it you can achieve it”.
Leading to Make a Difference: A Field
Experiment on the Performance Effects of
Transformational Leadership, Perceived
Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation
Nicola Bellé
Bocconi University
ABSTRACT
Scholars have recently begun to investigate job design as one of
the contingencies that mod-

21. erates1 the performance effects of transformational leadership
in public sector organizations.
Drawing on this stream of research, we used a completely
randomized true experimental
research design to explore the potential of two extra-task job
characteristics—beneficiary
contact and self-persuasion interventions—to enhance the
effects of transformational lead-
ership on public employee performance. The participants in our
field experiment were
138 nurses at a public hospital in Italy. Whereas participants
who were exposed to trans-
formational leadership manipulation alone marginally
outperformed a control group, the
performance effects of transformational leadership were much
greater among nurses who
were also exposed to either beneficiary contact or self-
persuasion interventions. Follower
perceptions of pro-social impact partially mediated2 the
positive interaction of transforma-
tional leadership and each of the two job design features on job
performance. Moreover,
the performance effects of transformational leadership and the
interaction effects of trans-
formational leadership and each of the two job design features
were greater among partici-
pants who self-reported higher levels of public service
motivation. The implications of the
experimental findings for public administration research and
theory are discussed.
InTRoDuCTIon
Transformational leadership has often been referenced as one of
the most power-
ful factors motivating purposeful action and high public

22. employee performance (e.g.,
Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010; Park and Rainey 2008; Trottier,
Van Wart, and Wang
This study is part of a joint research project with the Italian
National School of Public Administration
(Scuola Superiore della Pubblica Amministrazione – SSPA).
Address correspondence to the author at
[email protected]
1 A moderator is a variable that affects the strength or
direction of the relationship between a predictor and
an outcome. In other words, the effect of the predictor on the
outcome depends on the level of the moderator.
2 A mediator is a variable that accounts for all or some of the
observed relationship between a predictor and
an outcome.
JPART 24:109–136
doi:10.1093/jopart/mut033
Advance Access publication June 13, 2013
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on
behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-
mail: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 110
2008; Wright, Moynihan and Pandey 2012; Wright and Pandey
2010). However,
despite nonexperimental evidence that suggests that
transformational leadership is
positively correlated with follower performance, experimental

23. and quasi-experimental
studies have shown that transformational leaders are not
unconditionally successful
(Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and
Shamir 2002; Grant
2012; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996).
Scholars have recently begun to investigate job design as one of
the contingen-
cies that may moderate the performance effects of
transformational leadership (Grant
2012). This study aims to link this highly promising stream of
literature with public
administration research and theory. Using a completely
randomized true experimen-
tal research design, we explored whether, how and under what
contingencies two
job design features—that is, beneficiary contact and self-
persuasion interventions—
enhanced the performance effects of transformational
leadership on a group of nurses
at a public hospital in Italy. In the following sections, we begin
by situating our research
within the relevant literature and illustrating our hypotheses.
We then go on to describe
the experiment that we conducted to test these hypotheses, and
we conclude with a
discussion of our findings and their implications for research
and theory.
THEoRETICAL BACKGRounD AnD RESEARCH QuESTIonS
Transformational Leadership in the Context of Public
Administration
The conventional conceptualization of transformational

24. leadership encompasses
four behavioral dimensions: inspirational motivation, idealized
influence, intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass 1985; Burns
1978). Inspirational
motivation involves articulating a vision of the future that is
appealing and inspiring
to followers. Idealized influence is associated with charismatic
actions and modeling
behavior that causes followers to identify with their leader.
Intellectual stimulation
involves soliciting followers’ ideas and challenging them to
question old assump-
tions and analyze problems from new perspectives. Finally,
individual consideration
entails attending to each follower’s needs through mentoring,
coaching and other
similar activities.
At its core, transformational leadership involves motivating
followers to tran-
scend their immediate self-interest “for the sake of the team,
the organization or
the larger polity” (Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993, 579). As
noted by Wright and
Pandey (2010), this emphasis on the mission may make
transformational leadership
naturally suited to the public sector, whose employees are
inherently required to see
beyond self-interest to the well-being of the larger community.
Wright and Pandey
(2010) note that the mainstream leadership literature is
pessimistic regarding the
potential for transformational leadership behavior in public
organizations compared
to private ones. These negative predictions are based on the fact

25. that public organi-
zations rely heavily on bureaucratic control systems (Bass and
Riggio 2006; Howell
1997; Pawar and Eastman 1997; Shamir and Howell 1999),
which are expected to
inhibit transformational leadership behaviors (Lowe, Kroeck,
and Sivasubramaniam
1996). However, empirical research has contradicted the
expectations of mainstream
leadership theory in this regard (Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio
2002). Wright and
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 111
Pandey (2010) provide two alternative explanations for the
discrepancy between the
theoretical predictions and the empirical evidence: either public
organizations are
not as bureaucratic as is commonly thought (Boyne 2002;
Pandey and Wright 2006;
Wright 2004), or bureaucratic control mechanisms do not inhibit
transformational
leadership behavior.
Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership in Public
Sector organizations
Abundant observational research has shown that
transformational leadership
predicts higher levels of job performance among followers
(e.g., Bass and Riggio
2006; Judge and Piccolo 2004; Jung and Avolio 2000). Public
administration stud-

26. ies on this topic have generally reached the same conclusion.
For instance, a cross-
sectional empirical study that was conducted using more than
6,900 responses to
the Merit Principles Survey 2000 has shown that federal
employees who perceive
their supervisors as displaying more transformation-oriented
leadership tend to
self-report higher levels of performance and work quality along
with higher job
satisfaction and lower turnover intentions (Park and Rainey
2008). Another cross-
sectional survey of senior managers working in local US
governments has shown
that transformational leadership is positively correlated with
mission valence—
identified as a predictor of higher job satisfaction and work
motivation (Wright
2007)—through the mediators of public goal clarity and public
service motiva-
tion (PSM) (Wright, Pandey, and Moynihan 2012). A different
study based on the
same cross-sectional data (Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright
2012b) concluded that
transformational leaders enhance the use of performance
information by their fol-
lowers—which is “a form of behaviour that is a logical
contributor to both higher
individual and organizational performance” (Moynihan and
Pandey 2010, 859)—
through the mediators of goal clarity and organizational
culture. Employing the
same survey data, Moynihan, Wright, and Pandey (2012) found
that perceptions
of red tape were lower among agency heads who rated their
supervisor, the city

27. manager, as more transformational and that transformational
leadership altered
perceptions of red tape through the mediators of goal clarity,
political support, and
internal communication.
Despite this nonexperimental evidence suggesting that
transformational lead-
ership is positively correlated with job performance,
experimental studies on this
topic have provided mixed results. Both field experimental work
(Barling, Weber, and
Kelloway 1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002; Grant
2012) and laboratory
experiments (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996) have shown
inconsistent evidence of the
effectiveness of transformational leaders in motivating higher
performance among
their followers. To our knowledge, apart from a field
experiment in the Israeli military
(Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002), no true experimental
work on the perfor-
mance effects of transformational leadership in public sector
organizations has ever
been published. Our study takes a step toward filling this gap by
testing the following
hypothesis using a randomized control group study:
H1 Transformational leadership has a positive effect on public
employee performance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 112
Influence of Transformational Leadership and Job Design

28. on the Performance of Public Employees
One possible explanation for the inconclusive results of
previous experimental stud-
ies of the performance effects of transformational leadership is
that transformational
leaders are not unconditionally successful in motivating their
followers. The contrary
has been proposed: that transformational leaders can be
effective only insofar as they
succeed in moving beyond rhetoric and turning their visions
into a tangible reality
(Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996). How can leaders reify their
vision? Research has shown
that an effective method is to heighten their followers’
awareness of making a positive
difference in other people’s lives (Thompson and Bunderson
2003).
At its core, transformational leadership entails motivating
followers to go beyond
their immediate self-interest by linking an inspiring vision to
core values (Shamir, Zakay,
Breinin, and Popper 1998). Research in several disciplines has
shown that doing good for
others is a fundamental human value across cultures,
employment sectors, and typologies
of workers. In particular, cultural psychological research has
demonstrated that benevo-
lence is at the top of the hierarchy of values in many cultures
worldwide (Schwartz and
Bardi 2001). Similarly, three related fields of study that have
blossomed during the last
20 years—that is, pro-social motivation (e.g., Brief and
Motowidlo 1986), PSM (e.g.,
Perry and Wise 1990), and altruism (e.g., Piliavin and Charng

29. 1990)—all emphasize the
centrality of other-regarding motives (Perry, Hondeghem, and
Wise 2010).
If orientation toward the other is a relevant determinant of
organizational
behavior in general (De Dreu 2006; Grant 2007; Meglino and
Korsgaard 2004),
the perception of benefiting others plays an even more relevant
role for workers
who provide public services (Grant 2008a; Perry and Wise
1990). Consequently, for
public leaders who want to make their inspiring messages more
concrete in the eyes
of their followers, emphasizing the pro-social effects of their
vision is particularly
important.
Recent experimental research has shown that beneficiary
contact (Bellé 2013;
Grant 2007; Grant 2008a; Grant et al. 2007) and self-persuasion
interventions (Bellé
2013) may nurture the belief among employees that they make
a positive difference in
other people’s lives. In light of this evidence, we investigated
the moderating effect that
beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions may have
on the performance
effects of transformational leadership.
(a) Beneficiary Contact
Relational job design research has shown that giving employees
the opportunity to
meet the individuals who benefit from their efforts can greatly
enhance their motiva-
tion and performance (Bellé 2013; Grant 2008a; Grant et al.

30. 2007) by heightening
their perception of themselves as making a difference in other
people’s lives (Grant
2007). Using quasi-experimental and observational research
designs, Grant (2012) has
recently demonstrated that giving employees the opportunity to
interact with the ben-
eficiaries of their efforts—and thus tangibly illustrating how
the leader’s vision bene-
fits other people—strengthens the performance effects of
transformational leadership.
To corroborate both the external and the internal validity of
these findings, we
tested the following hypothesis adapted from Grant (2012) in a
different country
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 113
using a different typology of workers and a completely
randomized true experimental
research design.
H2a Beneficiary contact strengthens the effect of
transformational leadership on public
employee performance.
(b) Self-Persuasion
Self-persuasion is an indirect persuasion technique that entails
“placing people in situ-
ations where they are motivated to persuade themselves to
change their own attitudes
or behavior” (Aronson 1999, 875). Research on role-playing has

31. long demonstrated
the persuasive effect of self-generated arguments: while trying
to convince another
person, individuals may end up convincing themselves in the
process (Janis and King
1954; King and Janis 1956). In a now-classic experiment by
Elms (1966), cigarette
smokers who were assigned the role of nonsmokers trying to
convince a friend to
stop smoking found cigarettes more distasteful than did those
who received the same
information passively.
Wright and Grant (2010) have recently urged public
administration scholars to
examine techniques that have proven effective in inducing self-
persuasion, such as
idea reflection (e.g., Gregory, Cialdini, and Carpenter 1982) and
advocacy (e.g., Gordijn,
Postmes, and de Vries 2001; Miller and Wozniak 2001). In a
recent randomized control
group experiment with nurses working at a public hospital, a
self-persuasion manipula-
tion had a positive effect on the persistence, output,
productivity and vigilance of the
participants (Bellé 2013). In light of this research, we
investigated if putting followers in
situations in which they were compelled to persuade themselves
of the pro-social influ-
ence of the vision of their leaders could strengthen the
performance effects of trans-
formational leadership. We therefore formulated and tested the
following hypothesis:
H2b Self-persuasion interventions strengthen the effect of
transformational leadership on

32. public employee performance.
Mediating Role of Perceived Pro-Social Impact
Several studies have suggested that nurturing the perception of
task significance
among employees—that is, the employees’ belief that they are
making a positive dif-
ference in other people’s lives—can enhance their motivation
and effort. These studies
identify two possible mediators that may explain the effect of
task significance on job
performance. On the one hand, research that draws from social
information process-
ing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978) and from traditional
models of job design that
are focused on the task structures of jobs (Hackman and
Oldham 1976; Hackman
1980) posits that nurturing employee perceptions of task
significance makes them
experience their jobs as more meaningful (Zalesny and Ford
1990). This perceived
meaningfulness, in turn, can motivate employees to exert more
effort (Fried and Ferris
1987; Parker and Wall 1998).
On the other hand, contemporary research on job design (Grant
2007) focuses
on perceived pro-social impact as mediating the impact of task
significance on job
performance (Grant 2008b). Adopting the latter theoretical
perspective, we expected
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 114

33. that both beneficiary contact and self-persuasion would
strengthen the relationship
between transformational leadership and follower-perceived
positive influence on oth-
ers, which, in turn, would positively affect job performance. To
examine beneficiary
contact, we experimentally tested the following hypothesis
adapted from Grant (2012):
H3a Public employee perceptions of pro-social impact mediate
the moderating effects
of beneficiary contact on the relationship between
transformational leadership and
public employee performance.
For the self-persuasion intervention, we formulated and tested
the following
hypothesis:
H3b Public employee perceptions of pro-social impact mediate
the moderating effect
of self-persuasion interventions on the relationship between
transformational
leadership and public employee performance.
Moderating Role of PSM
During the last two decades, PSM research has thoroughly
investigated the unique-
ness of “motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public
institutions and organiza-
tions” (Perry and Wise 1990, 368). Vandenabeele describes
PSM as “the belief, values
and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational
interest, that concern

34. the interest of a larger political entity” (2007, 547). This
conceptualization is closely
linked to the construct of transformational leadership, which
entails motivating fol-
lowers “to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the
team, the organization
or the larger polity” (Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993, 579).
Transformational leadership rests on an assumption regarding
employees that
contradicts agency theory (Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright
2012a; Van Wart 2005)—the
assumption that, in the terms proposed by Le Grand (2006),
individuals are altruistic
“knights.” Whereas transaction-based approaches conflict with
the other-regarding val-
ues of many public employees—and have the potential to turn
“knights” into “knaves”
by crowding out intrinsic or pro-social motivations (Le Grand
2006; Moynihan 2010;
Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh 2010)—transformational leadership
may represent a supe-
rior fit for a workforce with high levels of PSM. This is
particularly the case for public
organizations because their employees tend to be motivated by a
greater desire to
serve others than private sector workers exhibit (e.g., Pandey
and Stazyk 2008; Steijn
2008).
Based on previous theoretical work by Paarlberg and Lavigna
(2010) and the limited
empirical evidence that is available to date (Park and Rainey
2008; Wright, Moynihan,
and Pandey 2012), we expected that transformational leadership
would be more likely

35. to increase job performance for employees with stronger PSM
than for employees with
weaker PSM. The rationale governing this hypothesis is that
employees with greater
PSM care more about doing work that has a positive impact on
others (Perry and Wise
1990). The inspiring messages that transformational leaders
deliver to motivate their
followers to go beyond their own self-interest convey to
employees with strong PSM
that their jobs have the potential to express and fulfill their
values for the benefit of
others. Literature on needs-supplies fit posits that workers are
more willing to expend
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 115
the effort that is necessary for them to perform effectively when
their jobs match their
values (Edwards et al. 2006). As a result, we expected that
employees with stronger PSM
would be more likely to improve their job performance in
response to transformational
leadership—alone or enhanced by job design interventions—to
express and fulfill their
aim of helping others. We therefore formulated and tested the
following hypotheses:
H4 Transformational leadership has a greater performance
effect on public employees
with stronger public service motivation.
H5a The positive interaction between transformational

36. leadership and beneficiary
contact has a greater performance effect on public employees
with stronger public
service motivation.
H5b The positive interaction between transformational
leadership and self-persuasion
interventions has a greater performance effect on public
employees with stronger
public service motivation.
METHoD
Participants and Design
The participants were 138 nurses from a group of public
hospitals belonging to the
same local health authority (LHA) in Italy. The 138 nurses had
been hired by the LHA
during the two previous years and were attending mandatory
training for recent hires.
At the beginning of 2011, the LHA joined an international
cooperation project that
was intended to strengthen the healthcare system in a former
war zone. The LHA was
contributing to the project by collecting surgical tools and drugs
donated by several
organizations (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, other hospitals,
nongovernmental
organizations) and assembling surgical kits that were ready for
shipment to health prac-
titioners operating in the target area. The 138 recent hires were
required to spend four
hours on the project as part of their mandatory training.
Procedures

37. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six equal-sized
groups of 23 nurses
each: control (group 1), transformational leadership (group 2),
beneficiary contact
(group 3), combined transformational leadership and beneficiary
contact (group 4),
self-persuasion (group 5), and combined transformational
leadership and self-persua-
sion (group 6).3 The six groups attended six separate sessions
that were led by the
Director of Nursing at the LHA and by her assistant. The
Director knew that we were
conducting a research project on the performance effects of
leadership; however, she
was unaware of the specific research hypotheses and
experimental procedures.
3 Grant (2012) used a similar experimental design with
unequal-sized groups ranging from 12 to 26
participants. Power calculations indicated that the size of our
groups was adequate to detect effect sizes similar
to those found in previous studies in this research area (Bellé
2013; Grant 2012) with statistical power greater
than the conventional threshold of .80 at a significance level of
.05 (Murphy and Myors 2004).
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 116
Group 1 (Control)
The Director of Nursing and her assistant welcomed the
participants and showed them a
short video that provided basic information about the project’s
aims along with informa-

38. tion on how to perform the assigned task. This task consisted of
retrieving a list of items
(including surgical tools and pharmaceuticals) from shelves and
boxes, checking shelf-life
labels and verifying product integrity, storing the items inside a
case in a specific order
and putting a label on each completed case with a signature and
the completion time.
Group 2 (Transformational Leadership)
In addition to showing the tutorial video, the Director of
Nursing, who initiated the
project and was its main sponsor, talked for approximately 15
min at our instruction,
explaining why the project was meaningful to her and
communicating her enthusiasm
for the project by telling vivid stories of successful operations
performed thanks to the
surgical kits that had been assembled during the previous
phases. Based on her direct
experience assembling the surgical kits, the Director also gave
the participants some
practical tips and encouraged them to identify ways to improve
the assembly process.
She also urged the participants to contact her directly with any
feedback or to suggest
ideas for improvements.
Group 3 (Beneficiary Contact)
In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group,
the participants in
the beneficiary contact condition were given the chance to have
a 15-min meeting
with a former patient from the target area, one who had
benefited from the surgical
kits a few years prior after being injured by an antipersonnel

39. mine. At the time of the
experiment, this person was collaborating with the project staff
by serving as a liaison
with health practitioners operating in the target area thanks to
his fluency in Italian.
The beneficiary explained how surgical tools similar to those
included in the kits had
saved his life.4
Group 4 (Transformational Leadership × Beneficiary Contact)
In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group,
the participants first
heard the Director’s speech and then received a visit from the
beneficiary. While deliv-
ering her speech, the Director was unaware that participants
would also receive a visit
from a former patient from the target area.
Group 5 (Self-Persuasion)
In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group,
the nurses in the
self-persuasion condition participated in a 30-min individual
brainstorming session
(e.g., Furnham and Yazdanpanahi 1995) that was designed and
led by a psycholo-
gist who was unaware of the research hypotheses. These
participants were first asked
to write a short essay which they were told would be included in
a presentation that
would be used to campaign for the project. The assignment was
to describe how the
4 Before meeting the experiment participants, the beneficiary
signed an informed consent form that stated
that his participation in the study was voluntary. The consent
form specified that no information identifying

40. him would be disclosed at any time by the researchers. To
provide his consent, the beneficiary had to check
an opt-in box.
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 117
participants thought their efforts would make a concrete
difference in the lives of
those who received the kits. The nurses were then invited to
silently generate and write
down a list of arguments and ideas that might convince other
hospitals and phar-
maceutical companies to participate in the project. We designed
this self-persuasion
manipulation following Wright and Grant (2010), who have
suggested asking public
employees to reflect on the importance of their work and then
to explain “why it is
critical for each person to engage in public service” (696).
Group 6 (Transformational Leadership × Self-Persuasion)
In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group,
the nurses in the
combined transformational leadership and self-persuasion
condition first heard the
Director’s speech and were then asked to do the same things as
the nurses in group
5 to induce the process of idea reflection. While delivering her
speech, the Director
was unaware that participants would also participate in the
individual brainstorming
session.

41. Except for the Director’s speech, the beneficiary’s visit and the
interventions
intended to induce reflection, the six sessions were identical.
The nurses in the various
sessions had exactly the same net amount of time (i.e., three
hours) to actually perform
the assigned task. The nurses were not assigned any specific
target number of surgical
kits to assemble and were informed that their performance
would not be subject to
evaluation. The participants in all of the groups answered a
pre-experiment question-
naire at the beginning of their session and a postexperiment
questionnaire at the end
of their shift.
Measures
Performance
We measured performance as the number of surgical kits that
each participant cor-
rectly assembled during his or her three-hour shift (Bellé 2013).
This metric was
meant to capture both participant effort (e.g., Blumberg and
Pringle 1982; Gneezy
and Rustichini 2000; Grant 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Schmidt and
Hunter 1983) and the
participants’ ability to maintain attention and accuracy while
performing their jobs
(e.g., Brewer and Brewer 2011).
Whenever possible, we measured variables using multiple-item
scales that had
been tested and validated in previous studies. Appendix 1
reports the items included in
the scales that were employed in our analyses. Unless otherwise

42. indicated, all items used
7-point Likert-type scales with anchors of 0 (disagree strongly)
and 6 (agree strongly).
Perceived Pro-Social Impact
As a measure of perceived pro-social impact, the
postexperiment questionnaire fea-
tured three items that had been previously tested and validated
by Grant (2008a).
Public Service Motivation
We measured participant PSM using a popular five-item version
of Perry’s (1996)
original scale (Alonso and Lewis 2001; Brewer and Selden
2000; Kim 2005; Pandey,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 118
Wright, and Moynihan 2008; Wright and Pandey 2008; Wright,
Moynihan, and
Pandey 2012; Wright, Christensen, and Pandey forthcoming)
that has recently been
validated as a multi-item unidimensional measure of PSM
(Wright, Christensen, and
Pandey forthcoming). We measured PSM levels as reported by
the participants in the
pre-experiment questionnaire.
Manipulation Checks
The postexperiment questionnaire featured manipulation checks
for transformational
leadership, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion (see
appendix 1).

43. Controls
In addition to asking questions regarding age, gender and job
experience, we con-
trolled for conscientiousness (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and
Lucas 2006) and intrin-
sic motivation (Ryan and Connell 1989).
RESuLTS
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using Lisrel 8.80
to construct the latent
variables from their respective questionnaire items and assess
the validity and reli-
ability of the study measures (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006).5
Appendix 1 reports the
standardized factor loading of each item on its expected latent
variable (λ). Appendix
1 also shows the Cronbach’s alpha (α), the construct reliability
estimate (ρ), and the
average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct.
Standardized loadings ranged
from .64 to .87, and AVE estimates ranged from .62 to .74.
These values indicated
that the individual scale items converged on their respective
latent variables.6 All of
the construct reliability estimates were well above .7, which is
usually accepted as
the threshold for having good construct reliability. The
discriminant validity of the
measures appeared to be high because all construct AVE
estimates were larger than
the corresponding squared interconstruct correlation estimates
(SIC). Inferential χ2
statistics and descriptive goodness-of-fit indices suggested that
all of the scales used
were a reasonable fit for our data (χ2(303) = 284.37, p > .10;

44. root mean square error of
approximation = .06; comparative fit index = .93; Tucker-Lewis
index = .92).
The six groups did not differ at the .05 level with respect to
participant age, gen-
der, years of experience in nursing, PSM, conscientiousness or
intrinsic motivation
(table 1). To evaluate the effectiveness of the experimental
interventions, we con-
ducted analyses of the manipulation checks reported in table 1.
Participants who had
heard the Director’s speech (groups 2, 4, and 6) rated her as
significantly more trans-
formational (M = 4.98, Standard deviation [SD] = 1.37) than did
those who had not
(M = 3.84, SD = 1.02), p < .05. Nurses who had had the
opportunity to meet the
beneficiary (groups 3 and 4) perceived themselves as having
greater beneficiary con-
tact (M = 5.90, SD = .40) than did those who had not (M = 1.62,
SD = .65), p < .05.
Finally, participants who had participated in the individual
brainstorming session
(groups 5 and 6) reported higher levels of reflection on the
importance and positive
5 Due to the ordinal nature of the data at the item level, we
used weighted least squares estimation.
6 To suggest adequate convergent validity, standardized
loadings estimates should be .5 or higher, and ideally
.7 or higher, and the average variance extracted should be .5 or
higher (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006).

45. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 119
Ta
b
le
1
C
h
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
o
f
Sa
m
p
le
a
n
d
M
an

46. ip
u
la
ti
o
n
C
h
ec
ks
b
y
C
o
n
d
it
io
n
C
o
n
d
it
io

47. n
G
ro
u
p
1
G
ro
u
p
2
G
ro
u
p
3
G
ro
u
p
4
G
ro
u

48. p
5
G
ro
u
p
6
C
o
n
tr
o
l
T
L
B
C
T
L
×
B
C
S
P

49. T
L
×
S
P
n
23
23
23
23
23
23
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea

50. n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
M
ea
n
S
D
A
ge
28
.3
9
5.

51. 28
27
.5
2
4.
07
28
.7
0
4.
49
27
.8
7
3.
36
28
.5
2
5.
33
27
.3
9

52. 4.
25
F
em
al
e
(p
ro
p
o
rt
io
n
)
0.
70
—
0.
74
—
0.
65
—
0.

53. 61
—
0.
65
—
0.
78
—
Y
ea
rs
o
f
nu
rs
in
g
4.
00
3.
10
3.
87
2.

54. 94
4.
09
3.
27
4.
22
3.
16
3.
70
2.
93
3.
78
3.
20
P
u
b
li
c
se
rv

55. ic
e
m
o
ti
va
ti
o
n
4.
55
0.
69
4.
51
0.
74
4.
60
0.
70
4.
57
0.

56. 67
4.
58
0.
67
4.
49
0.
59
C
o
n
sc
ie
n
ti
o
u
sn
es
s
4.
72
0.

57. 69
4.
69
0.
66
4.
78
0.
60
4.
81
0.
63
4.
75
0.
59
4.
67
0.
68
In
tr
in

58. si
c
m
o
ti
va
ti
o
n
3.
67
1.
13
3.
82
1.
24
3.
58
1.
01
3.
61
1.

59. 18
3.
71
1.
11
3.
79
1.
09
M
an
ip
u
la
ti
o
n
c
h
ec
k
s
T
L

60. 3.
73
1.
01
4.
74
1.
54
3.
88
1.
04
5.
17
1.
23
3.
91
1.
00
5.
04
1.
33

61. B
C
0.
22
0.
74
5.
87
0.
46
5.
83
0.
58
5.
96
0.
21
0.
26
0.
75
0.
13

62. 0.
63
S
P
2.
77
1.
14
3.
01
1.
21
2.
69
1.
09
3.
06
1.
18
5.
70
1.
02

63. 5.
65
0.
71
N
ot
e.
T
L
,
tr
an
sf
o
rm
at
io
n
al
l
ea
d
er
sh

64. ip
;
B
C
,
b
en
efi
ci
ar
y
co
n
ta
ct
;
S
P,
s
el
f-
p
er
su

65. as
io
n
.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 120
pro-social impact of the project (M = 5.68, SD = .87) than
did those who did not
(M = 2.88, SD = 1.16), p < .05. These results indicate the
validity of our experimental
manipulations.
Table 2 displays the means and SD for the number of surgical
kits assembled
correctly by condition. A series of two sample t-tests
correcting for unequal variance
indicated that all treatment groups but one outperformed the
control group at the .05
level of significance. The only exception was the group that
was exposed to the trans-
formational leadership manipulation alone (group 2), for which
the difference in per-
formance with respect to the control group was only marginally
significant (p = .069).
This result only partially supports hypothesis 1.
A 2 (transformational leadership: yes, no) × 2 (beneficiary
contact: yes, no) fac-
torial analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the
performance effect of trans-
formational leadership was significantly stronger for nurses who

66. also met a prior
beneficiary of such efforts than it was for nurses who did not
meet the beneficiary
(F(1,88) = 4.63, p = .034). This result provides evidence that
supports hypothesis 2a.
The positive interaction between transformational leadership
and beneficiary contact
and their joint influence on participant performance are
apparent in the divergence
between the two lines in figure 1.
Unlike in a previous quasi-experimental study by Grant (2012),
both transforma-
tional leadership (F(1,88) = 13.59, p < .001) and beneficiary
contact (F(1,88) = 25.49,
p < .001) had a positive main effect7 on participant performance
in this study.
Another 2 (transformational leadership: yes, no) × 2 (self-
persuasion interven-
tion: yes, no) ANOVA showed that the performance effect of
transformational leader-
ship was greater for nurses who also received the self-
persuasion intervention than it
was for their colleagues who did not (F(1,88) = 4.43, p = .038).
This result supports
hypothesis 2b. The positive two-way interaction between the
transformational leader-
ship and self-persuasion conditions is indicated by the
difference in slope between the
two lines in figure 2.
Table 2
Average Number of Surgical Kits Assembled Correctly by
Condition

67. Group Condition n Mean SD ∆ w.r.t Control
1 Control 23 38.26 8.11 —
2 Transformational leadership (TL) 23 42.91 9.01 4.65*
3 Beneficiary contact (BC) 23 47.04 10.60 8.78***
4 TL × BC 23 64.74 14.20 26.48****
5 Self-persuasion (SP) 23 45.78 10.47 7.52***
6 TL × SP 23 63.43 13.91 25.17****
*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01; ****p < .001.
7 A main effect is the effect of an experimental manipulation
on a dependent variable on average across the
levels of the other conditions being experimentally
manipulated. A simple effect is the effect of an experimental
manipulation on a dependent variable at a single level of the
other conditions being experimentally
manipulated.
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 121
Both transformational leadership (F(1,88) = 13.04, p = .001)
and self-persuasion
manipulation (F(1,88) = 20.62, p < .001) had positive main
effects on participant
performance.
We tested hypotheses 3a and 3b using a three-step moderated
mediation proce-
dure suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007). Both
hypotheses posited first-stage
moderation; that is, we expected that both the beneficiary
contact condition and the
self-persuasion intervention would strengthen the relationship

68. between transforma-
tional leadership and perceived pro-social impact, and in turn,
perceived pro-social
impact would positively affect job performance. For both
interaction effects—that
is, for transformational leadership × beneficiary contact and
transformational lead-
ership × self-persuasion—perceived impact may be considered a
mediator if (1) the
interaction generates an increase in perceived impact, (2) the
interaction significantly
affects job performance when perceived impact is not controlled
for, (3) perceived
impact has a significant, unique effect on job performance, and
(4) the effect of the
interaction on job performance becomes insignificant when
perceived impact is added
to the model (MacKinnon and Dwyer 1993; MacKinnon, Warsi,
and Dwyer 1995;
Preacher and Hayes 2004).
Figure 1
Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Beneficiary
Contact on Job Performance
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 122
We began the three-step moderated mediation analysis for the
beneficiary con-
tact condition (hypothesis 3a) by fitting a regression model that
predicts perceived
pro-social impact. The first column of table 3 indicates the
statistically significant
interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary

69. contact as predictors
of perceived pro-social impact (p = .025). In step 2, we fitted a
regression model that
would predict the number of surgical kits that the participants
assembled correctly.
Although the interaction between transformational leadership
and beneficiary con-
tact was positive and significant at the .05 level (table 3, middle
column), the interac-
tion was no longer significant once we had added perceived
social impact in step 3
(table 3, right column). Instead, perceived social impact
significantly predicted (p <
.001) the number of surgical kits assembled by the participants
when transformational
leadership, beneficiary contact and their interaction were all
controlled for. We con-
ducted further analyses to investigate whether the decrease in
the coefficient of the
interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary
contact was signifi-
cant. Sobel-Goodman tests allowed us to confirm the indirect
effect of the interaction
between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact on
performance through
Figure 2
Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Self-Persuasion
on Job Performance
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 123
Ta

70. b
le
3
M
ed
ia
ti
o
n
o
f
th
e
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
b
et
w
ee
n
T

71. ra
n
sf
o
rm
at
io
n
al
L
ea
d
er
sh
ip
a
n
d
B
en
ef
ic
ia
ry
C

72. o
n
ta
ct
b
y
P
er
ce
iv
ed
P
ro
-S
o
ci
al
I
m
p
ac
t—
R
o
b
u

73. st
S
E
S
T
E
P
1
S
T
E
P
2
S
T
E
P
3
D
V
:
p
er
ce

74. iv
ed
p
ro
-s
o
ci
al
i
m
p
ac
t
D
V
:
su
rg
ic
al
k
it
s
D

75. V
:
su
rg
ic
al
k
it
s
C
o
ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et
a
C

76. o
ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et
a
C
o
ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et

77. a
IV
s
T
L
0.
12
0.
26
0.
45
0.
65
4
0.
05
4.
65
2.
53
1.
84
0.
06

78. 9
0.
13
**
3.
65
2.
77
1.
32
0.
19
1
0.
10
B
C
0.
68
0.
33
2.
07
0.

79. 04
1
0.
27
**
8.
78
2.
78
3.
15
0.
00
2
0.
25
**
*
2.
88
2.
83
1.
02

80. 0.
31
2
0.
08
T
L
×
B
C
1.
00
0.
44
2.
29
0.
02
5
0.
35
**
13
.0

81. 4
6.
06
2.
15
0.
03
4
0.
32
**
4.
38
4.
59
0.
95
0.
34
3
0.
11
P
P

82. I
8.
66
1.
05
8.
24
0.
00
0
0.
62
**
**
n
92
92
92
F
(d
f)
16
.5
1

83. (3
,
88
)
9.
92
(
3,
8
8)
36
.3
2
(4
,
87
)
P
ro
b
>
F
0.
00

84. 0
0.
00
0
0.
00
0
R
-s
q
u
ar
ed
0.
33
0.
33
0.
59
R
o
o
t
M

85. S
E
1.
05
14
.5
4
11
.4
2
N
ot
e.
T
L
,
tr
an
sf
o
rm
at
io
n

86. al
l
ea
d
er
sh
ip
;
S
P,
s
el
f-
p
er
su
as
io
n
;
P
P
I,
p

87. er
ce
iv
ed
p
ro
-s
o
ci
al
i
m
p
ac
t.
*p
<
.
10
;
**
p
<
.

88. 05
;
**
*p
<
.
01
;
**
**
p
<
.
00
1.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 124
the mediator of perceived pro-social impact (p < .001). To
reduce concerns about the
standard error of the indirect effect, we constructed 95% bias-
corrected confidence
intervals around the indirect effect by drawing (with
replacement) 1,000 random sam-
ples from 92 observations from the full sample. The indirect
effect of the interaction

89. between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact
through the mediator of
perceived social impact was significant at the .05 level because
the 95% bias-corrected
confidence interval (8.66, 18.76) did not include zero (Edwards
and Lambert 2007;
MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz 2007). These results support
hypothesis 3a.
A three-step moderated mediation analysis that we conducted to
test hypothesis
3b (self-persuasion) yielded results that were similar to those
that we obtained for
the beneficiary contact condition. The interaction between
transformational leader-
ship and self-persuasion, which significantly predicts job
performance in the step 2
model (table 4, middle column), becomes insignificant after
perceived social impact
is controlled for in the step 3 model (table 4, right column).
Sobel-Goodman tests
confirmed the indirect effect of the interaction between
transformational leadership
and self-persuasion on performance through the mediator of
perceived social impact
(p < .001), and the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval
(7.85, 17.85) for this indi-
rect effect did not include zero. These results support
hypothesis 3b.
To test hypothesis 4, we investigated whether the performance
effect of transfor-
mational leadership varied across the levels of PSM that
participants self-reported
in the pre-experiment questionnaire. In figure 3, we plotted the
simple slopes at one

90. SD above (dotted line) and below (solid line) the mean for PSM
(Aiken and West
1991). As indicated by the divergence between the two lines,
the transformational
leadership manipulation positively interacted with the levels of
PSM of the followers
in predicting the number of surgical kits that the participants
correctly assembled
(F(1,42) = 5.61, p = .023). In other words, the performance
effect of transforma-
tional leadership was stronger for participants who had self-
reported higher PSM
levels in the pre-experiment questionnaire. This result provides
evidence in support
of hypothesis 4.
To test hypothesis 5a, we investigated whether the two-way
interaction between
transformational leadership and beneficiary contact varied
across levels of PSM. We
conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with two
between-subject factors
(i.e., transformational leadership and beneficiary contact)
predicting the number of
surgical kits assembled correctly by the participants and a
single covariate (mean-
centered PSM score). The ANCOVA showed that the positive
joint influence of ben-
eficiary contact and transformational leadership on job
performance was greater for
participants who had higher self-reported levels of PSM than it
was for nurses who
had reported lower levels of PSM (F(1,84) = 5.71, p = .019).
This result supports
hypothesis 5a. Figure 4 depicts the three-way interaction effect
of transformational

91. leadership, beneficiary contact and PSM on job performance.
The two lines with hol-
low markers represent participants who reported high PSM (one
SD above the mean),
whereas the two lines with solid symbols represent participants
with low PSM (one
SD below the mean). It can be noted that the divergence
between the two lines—which
indicates a two-way interaction between transformational
leadership and beneficiary
contact—is greater for participants with high PSM than it is for
participants with
low PSM.
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 125
Ta
b
le
4
.
M
ed
ia
ti
o
n
o

92. f
th
e
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
b
et
w
ee
n
T
ra
n
sf
o
rm
at
io
n
al
L

93. ea
d
er
sh
ip
a
n
d
S
el
f-
P
er
su
as
io
n
b
y
P
er
ce
iv
ed
P

94. ro
-S
o
ci
al
I
m
p
ac
t—
R
o
b
u
st
S
E
S
T
E
P
1
S
T
E

95. P
2
S
T
E
P
3
D
V
:
p
er
ce
iv
ed
p
ro
-s
o
ci
al
i
m
p

96. ac
t
D
V
:
su
rg
ic
al
k
it
s
D
V
:
su
rg
ic
al
k
it
s
C
o

97. ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et
a
C
o
ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et
a

98. C
o
ef
.
S
E
t
P
>
t
B
et
a
IV
s
T
L
0.
12
0.
26
0.
45

99. 0.
65
4
0.
05
4.
65
2.
53
1.
84
0.
06
9
0.
13
**
3.
61
2.
81
1.
28
0.

100. 20
3
0.
10
S
P
0.
62
0.
33
1.
90
0.
06
1
0.
26
**
7.
52
2.
76
2.
72

101. 0.
00
8
0.
22
**
*
1.
92
2.
84
0.
68
0.
50
1
0.
06
T
L
×
S
P
0.

102. 93
0.
43
2.
14
0.
03
5
0.
29
**
12
.4
8
6.
18
2.
10
0.
03
8
0.
27
**

103. 4.
66
4.
69
0.
99
0.
32
3
0.
12
P
P
I
9.
01
1.
10
8.
18
0.
00
0
0.

104. 65
**
**
n
92
92
92
F
(d
f)
14
.8
5
(3
,
88
)
8.
27
(
3,
8
8)
32

105. .6
9
(4
,
87
)
P
ro
b
>
F
0.
00
0
0.
00
0
0.
00
0
R
-s
q
u

106. ar
ed
0.
28
0.
30
0.
58
R
o
o
t
M
S
E
1.
04
14
.8
1
11
.5
6
N

107. ot
e.
T
L
,
tr
an
sf
o
rm
at
io
n
al
l
ea
d
er
sh
ip
;
S
P,
s

108. el
f-
p
er
su
as
io
n
;
P
P
I,
p
er
ce
iv
ed
p
ro
-s
o
ci
al
i

109. m
p
ac
t.
*p
<
.
10
;
**
p
<
.
05
;
**
*p
<
.
01
;
**
**
p

110. <
.
00
1.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 126
To test hypothesis 5b, we conducted an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) with
two between-subject factors (i.e., transformational leadership
and self-persuasion
interventions) predicting performance and a single covariate
(mean-centered PSM
score). The ANCOVA showed that the positive interaction
effect of the transforma-
tional leadership and self-persuasion conditions on job
performance was greater for
participants who had higher self-reported levels of PSM than it
was for nurses who
had reported lower levels of PSM (F(1,84) = 4.66, p = .034).
Figure 5 depicts the three-
way interaction effect of transformational leadership, self-
persuasion interventions
and PSM on performance. As in the previous case, the two lines
with hollow markers
represent participants who reported higher levels of PSM (one
SD above the mean),
whereas the two lines with solid symbols represent participants
with lower levels of
PSM (one SD below the mean). Again, the divergence between
the two lines—which
indicates the two-way interaction between transformational

111. leadership and self-per-
suasion—is greater for participants with high PSM than for
participants with low
PSM. This result supports hypothesis 5b.
Figure 3
Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Public Service
Motivation (PSM) on Job
Performance
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 127
ConCLuSIon
This study advances our understanding of whether
transformational leadership can
boost job performance in public sector organizations and of the
contingencies that
may affect this relationship. In a randomized control group
experiment with nurses
working at a large public hospital in Italy, we found that the
performance effects
of transformational leadership were greatly enhanced by two
job design manipula-
tions—that is, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion
interventions—both of which
were intended to heighten the awareness of the participants that
they were making
a positive difference in other people’s lives. Whereas the group
of nurses who were
exposed to the transformational leadership manipulation alone
marginally outper-
formed the control group, the performance effects of

112. transformational leadership
were much greater among participants who were also exposed to
one of the two job
design manipulations. The followers’ sense that they were
making a positive difference
in other people’s lives mediated the positive interaction of
transformational leadership
Figure 4
Three-Way Interaction of Transformational Leadership,
Beneficiary Contact, and Public Service
Motivation (PSM) on Job Performance
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 128
and of each of the two job design conditions on performance.
Moreover, the perfor-
mance effects and the interaction effects of transformational
leadership and each of
the two job design manipulations were greater among
participants who self-reported
higher levels of PSM.
Theoretical Contributions
The first contribution of this study is the additional empirical
evidence that it has
added to the ongoing debate about the performance effects of
transformational
leadership. Taken together, in the context of public
administration, the results
of our field experiment corroborate previous mainstream
management research
that suggests that leaders can be effective only insofar as they

113. succeed in making
their messages credible. We identify two specific job design
interventions—that is,
beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions—that
public sector leaders
can effectively use to turn their visions into a tangible reality.
Moreover, we
Figure 5
Three-Way Interaction of Transformational Leadership, Self-
Persuasion, and Public Service Motivation
(PSM) on Job Performance
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 129
illuminate the mechanisms through which these interventions
may enhance the
performance effects of transformational leadership. Our data
provide evidence
that supports our hypotheses of first-stage moderation: both
beneficiary contact
and self-persuasion strengthened the relationship between
transformational lead-
ership and perceived pro-social impact, and in turn, perceived
pro-social impact
positively affected job performance. These results contribute to
a nascent and
highly promising field of study that focuses on job design as
one of the contin-
gencies that may moderate the performance effects of
transformational leader-
ship. Our contribution to this stream of research is two-fold.
First, our findings

114. corroborate the results of recent empirical work by Grant
(2012) that has dem-
onstrated the interaction between transformational leadership
and beneficiary
contact. Our study achieves this by replicating Grant’s results
using a completely
randomized, true experimental research design in a different
country and a dif-
ferent industry. Second, to our knowledge, our study is the first
to demonstrate
that self-persuasion interventions may play a leadership-
enhancing role similar to
that of beneficiary contact.A second contribution of our
research is the evidence
that it provides about the moderating role of PSM (Perry and
Wise 1990) in the
performance effects of transformational leadership. PSM has
this effect indepen-
dently and when compounded by structural job features that
heighten employees’
perception that they are making a difference in other people’s
lives. To our knowl-
edge, this study has been the first to date that has
experimentally investigated the
relationship between PSM and transformational leadership.
An additional contribution of our research is of a
methodological nature and
lies in the fact that our study is based on a randomized
experiment with real public
employees performing a task that was part of their ordinary
job. Empirical research
in the field of public administration has traditionally relied on
correlational designs,
which are well suited to testing theoretical predictions in a
broad range of popu-

115. lations but fall short with regard to internal validity (McGrath
1981). Although
not completely immune to limitations (e.g., external threats to
validity, maturation
effects and researcher bias), randomized true experimental
research is best suited
to achieving high levels of internal validity (Shadish, Cook,
and Campbell 2002).
A recent review found only a handful of true experimental
studies published in jour-
nals that are directly associated with the field of public
administration (Brewer and
Brewer 2011). Most of these studies were laboratory
experiments on decision-mak-
ing and used students as surrogates for public sector workers
despite of the mixed
evidence regarding the external validity of this method (e.g.,
Fuchs and Sarstedt
2010; Peterson 2001; Remus 1986, 1989). Our study departs
from previous experi-
mental research in public administration because it was
conducted with real workers
performing a task that was part of their ordinary job. Field
experiments have the
virtue of establishing internal validity while maintaining more
generalizability and
contextual realism than laboratory experiments do, although the
latter have other
virtues stemming from their artificiality (Henshel 1980). To
date, the use of rand-
omized field experimental research is almost unprecedented in
public administration
(Bellé 2013). Our study takes a small step toward filling this
gap, and we hope that
our research design serves as a model for other public
management scholars consid-

116. ering field experiments.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 130
Limitations and Future Directions
Our findings should be interpreted in light of several
limitations that identify ave-
nues for future research. First and foremost, the use of
temporary and experimentally
induced manipulations of transformational leadership,
beneficiary contact and self-
persuasion does not allow our findings to be generalized to
more enduring, naturally
occurring variations in these conditions. The peculiar
professional nature of nurs-
ing constitutes an additional threat to the generalizability of
our findings from the
nurses who took part in the experiment to other public sector
employees. Regarding
the external validity of our results, we should also note that the
participants were
recent hires, and thus, our findings cannot be generalized to
employees who have been
employed by the organization for a longer period of time.
Future research might tri-
angulate our results using nonexperimental designs such as
longitudinal studies and
case studies. Although they are inferior to experiments in terms
of internal valid-
ity, observational designs may be superior in terms of external
validity because they
examine intact groups and do not disrupt the preexisting
research setting (Dimitrov

117. and Rumrill 2003).
Regarding construct validity and measurement issues, we should
note that for some
of the study variables, there is no single widely accepted
measure. This was especially
true for PSM, for which several measures have been used in
earlier studies. We opted
for a widely used, five-item version of Perry’s (1996) original
scale that was recently
validated as a multi-item unidimensional measure of PSM
(Wright, Christensen, and
Pandey forthcoming). Future research may test whether our
results are robust to the
use of multidimensional scales (e.g., Kim et al. 2013; Perry
1996) that may provide a
more nuanced understanding of the interplay among
transformational leadership, per-
ceived pro-social impact and individual subdimensions of the
PSM construct.
APPEnDIx 1
Variables and Measurements
Variable (source) Measurements
Performance Number of surgical kits assembled correctly
Age Years of age
Gender 0 = male, 1 = female
Job experience Years of experience in the field of nursing
Likert-type scales (0 = disagree strongly, 6 = agree strongly) λ
Perceived pro-social
impact (grant 2008a)
α = .83; ρ = .87; AVE = .68

118. − I am very conscious of the positive impact that my work
has on others
.79***
− I am very aware of the ways in which my work is
benefiting others
.81***
− I feel that I can have a positive impact on others through
my work
.88***
Continued
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 131
Public service
motivation (e.g.
Alonso and Lewis
2001; Brewer and
Selden 2000)
α = .75; ρ = .89; AVE = .64
− Meaningful public service is very important to me .77***
− I am often reminded by daily events about how
dependent we are on one another
.81***
− Making a difference in society means more to me than

119. personal achievements
.86***
− I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good
of society
.82***
− I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even
if it means I will be ridiculed
.85***
Tranformational
ledership (Avolio,
Bass, and Jung 1999;
Northouse 2009)
α = .89; ρ = .93; AVE = .62
− . . . (inspirational motivation) .78***
− . . . (inspirational motivation) .84***
− . . . (idealized influence) .70***
− . . . (idealized influence) .78***
− . . . (intellectual stimulation) .81***
− . . . (intellectual stimulation) .74***
− . . . (individualized consideration) .85***
− . . . (individualized consideration) .81***
Beneficiary contact
(Grant 2008c)
α = .81; ρ = .85; AVE = .72
− The project gave me the opportunity to meet the people
who benefit from my work

120. .87***
− The project provided me with contact with the people
who benefit from my work
.85***
Self-persuasion
(Gregory, Cialdini,
and Carpenter 1982;
Gordijn, Postmes and
de Vries 2001)
α = .77; ρ = .82; AVE = .69
− Before performing the task, I carefully reflected on the
ways in which my effort would benefit others
.83***
− Before performing the task, I carefully reflected on why
it is critical for other hospitals and pharmaceutical
companies to join the project
.83***
Conscientiousness
(Donnellan, Oswald,
Baird, and Lucas
2006)
α = .85; ρ = .87; AVE = .62
− I get chores done right away .64***
− I often forget to put things back in their proper place (R)
.80***
− I like order .85***
− I make a mess of things (R) .84***

121. Intrinsic motivation
(Ryan and Connell
1989)
α = .88; ρ = .83; AVE = .63
− My job is fun .73***
− I find my job engaging .82***
− I enjoy my work .82***
α = cronbach’s alpha; ρ = composite reliability values;
AVE = average variance extracted.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
APPEnDIx 1 (continued)
REFEREnCES
Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West. 1991. Multiple
regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. Public Service
Motivation and Job Performance:
Evidence from the Federal Sector. American Review of Public
Administration 31:363–80.
Aronson, Elliot. 1999. The Power of Self-Persuasion. American
Psychologist 54:875–84.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 132
Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dong I. Jung. 1999. Re-
examining the components of trans-

122. formational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:441–
62.
Barling, Julian, Tom Weber, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 1996.
Effects of transformational leader-
ship training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology 81:827–32.
Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. 2006.
Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bellé, Nicola. 2013. Experimental Evidence on the Relationship
between Public Service Motivation
and Job Performance. Public Administration Review 73:143–53.
Blumberg, Melvin, and Charles D. Pringle 1982. The missing
opportunity in organizational
research: Some implications for a theory of work performance.
Academy of Management
Review 7:560–569.
Boyne, George A. 2002. Public and private management: What’s
the difference? Journal of
Management Studies 39:97–122.
Brewer Gene A., and Gene A. Brewer Jr. 2011. Parsing
Public/Private Differences in Work Motivation
and Performance: An Experimental Study. Journal of Public
Administration Research and

123. Theory 21:i347–i362.
Brewer, Gene A., Sally C. Selden, and Rex L. Facer. 2000.
Individual conceptions of public service
motivation. Public Administration Review 60:254–64.
Brief, Arthur P., and Stephan J. Motowidlo. 1986. Prosocial
Organizational Behaviors. Academy of
Management Review 11:710–25.
Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
De Dreu, Carsten K. W. 2006. Rational Self-Interest and Other
Orientation in Organizational
Behavior: A Critical Appraisal and Extension of Meglino and
Korsgaard (2004). Journal of
Applied Psychology 91:1245–52.
Dimitrov, Dimiter M., and Phillip D. Rumrill Jr. 2003. Pretest-
posttest designs and measurement of
change. Speaking of Research 20:159–165.
Donnellan, M. Brent, Frederick L. Oswald, Brendan M. Baird,
and Richard E. Lucas. 2006.
The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big
Five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment 18:192–203.
Dumdum, Uldarico R., Kevin B. Lowe, and Bruce J. Avolio.
2002. Meta-Analysis of Transformational
and Transactional Leadership Correlates of Effectiveness and
Satisfaction: An Update and
Extension. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership:
The Road Ahead, eds. Bruce J.
Avolio and Francis J. Yammarino, 35–65. New York, NY: JAI

124. Press.
Dvir, Taly, Dov Eden, Bruce J. Avolio, and Boas Shamir. 2002.
Impact of transformational leader-
ship on follower development and performance: A field
experiment. Academy of Management
Journal 45:735–744.
Edwards, Jeffrey R., and Lisa Schurer Lambert. 2007. Methods
for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated
path analysis. Psychological
Methods 12:1–22.
Edwards, Jeffrey R., Daniel M. Cable, Ian O. Williamson, Lisa
Schurer Lambert, and Abbie J. Shipp.
2006. The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and
environment to the subjective experi-
ence of person– environment fit. Journal of Applied
Psychology 91:802–827.
Elms, Alan C. Influence of fantasy ability on attitude change
through role playing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 4:36–43.
Fried, Yitzhak, and Gerald R. Ferris. 1987. The validity of the
job characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 40:287–322.
Fuchs, Sebastian and Marko Sarstedt. 2010. Is there a tacit
acceptance of student samples in
marketing and management research? International Journal of
Data Analysis Techniques and
Strategies 2:62–72.

125. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 133
Furnham, Adrian and Tania Yazdanpanahi. 1995. Personality
differences and group versus indi-
vidual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences
19:73–80.
Gneezy, Uri, and Aldo Rustichini. 2000. Pay Enough or Don’t
Pay at All. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 115:791–810.
Gordijn, Ernestine H., Tom Postmes, and Nanne K. de Vries.
2001. Devil’s advocate or advocate
of oneself: Effects of numerical support on pro- and
counterattitudinal self-persuasion.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27:395–407.
Grant, Adam M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation
to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review 32:393–417.
———. 2008a. Employees without a Cause: The Motivational
Effects of Prosocial Impact in Public
Service. International Public Management Journal 11:48–66.
———. 2008b. The significance of task significance: Job
performance effects, relational mechanisms,
and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology
93:108–12.
———. 2008c. Designing jobs to do good: Dimensions and
psychological consequences of prosocial
job characteristics. Journal of Positive Psychology 3:19–39.

126. ———. 2012. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact,
prosocial impact, and the performance
effects of transformational leadership. Academy of
Management Journal 55:458–76.
Grant, Adam M., Elizabeth M. Campbell, Grace Chen, Keenan
Cottone, David Lapedis, and
Karen Lee. 2007. Impact and the Art of Motivation
Maintenance: The Effects of Contact with
Beneficiaries on Persistence Behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes
103:53–67.
Gregory, W. Larry, Robert B. Cialdini, and Kathleen M.
Carpenter. 1982. Self-relevant scenarios
as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does
imagining make it so? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 43:89–99.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation
through the design of work: Test of
a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
16:250–79.
Hackman. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Henshel, Richard L. 1980. The purpose of laboratory
experimentation and the virtues of deliberate
artificiality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16:466–
78.
Howell, Jane M. 1997. Organization contexts, charismatic and
exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership
Studies Monograph. Center for Political Leadership and
Participation. College Park, MD: Univ.
of Maryland.

127. Janis, Irving L., and Bert T. King. 1954. The influence of role-
playing on opinion change. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 49:211–18.
Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom. 2006. LISREL for
Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International.
Judge, Timothy A., and Ronald F. Piccolo. 2004.
Transformational and transactional leadership:
A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology 89:755–68.
Jung, Dong I., and Bruce J Avolio. 2000. Opening the Black
Box: An Experimental Investigation of
the Mediating Effects of Trust and Value Congruence on
Transformational and Transactional
Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21:949–64.
Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Bradley E. Wright,
Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Francesco
Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, et al. 2013. Investigating
the Structure and Meaning of
Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an
International Instrument and
Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of
Public Administration Research and
Theory 23:79–102.
Kim, Sangmook. 2005. Individual-level Factors and
Organizational Performance in Government
Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 15:245–261.
King, Bert T. and Irving L. Janis. 1956. Comparison of the

128. effectiveness of improvised versus non-
improvised role-playing in producing opinion changes. Human
Relations 9:177–86.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. 1996. Direct and
indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology 81:36–51.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 134
Le Grand, Julian. 2006. Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy:
Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and
Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowe, Kevin B., K. Galen Kroeck, and
Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam. 1996. Effectiveness Correlates of
Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-
Analytic Review of the MLQ litera-
ture. Leadership Quarterly 7:385–425.
MacKinnon, David P., Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S.
Fritz. 2007. Mediation analysis. In
Annual review of psychology, vol. 58, eds. Susan T. Fiske, Alan
E. Kazdin, and Daniel L.
Schacter, 593–614. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
MacKinnon, David P., and James H. Dwyer. 1993. Estimating
mediated effects in prevention studies.
Evaluation Review 17:144–158.
MacKinnon, David P., Ghulam Warsi, and James H. Dwyer.
1995. A simulation study of mediated
effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30:41–62.

129. McGrath, Joseph E. 1981. Dilemmatics: The Study of Research
Choices and Dilemmas. American
Behavioral Scientist 25:179–210.
Meglino, Bruce M., and Audrey Korsgaard. 2004. Considering
Rational Self-Interest as a
Disposition: Organizational Implications of Other Orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology
89:946–59.
Miller, Richard L. and William Wozniak. 2001. Counter-
attitudinal advocacy: Effort vs. self-gener-
ation of arguments. Current Research in Social Psychology
6:46–55.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2010. A Workforce of Cynics? The
Effects of Contemporary Reform on
Public Service Motivation. International Public Management
Journal 13:24–34.
Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. The big
question for performance management:
why do managers use performance information? Journal of
Public Administration Research and
Theory 20: 849–66.
Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E.
Wright. 2012a. Prosocial Values and
Performance Management Theory: Linking Perceived Social
Impact and Performance
Information Use. Governance 25:463–483.
Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E.
Wright. 2012b. Setting the Table: How
Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information

130. Use. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 22:143–164.
Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay
K. Pandey. 2012. Working Within Constraints:
Can Transformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red
Tape? International Public
Management Journal 15:315–336.
Murphy, Kevin R., and Brett Myors. 2004. Statistical Power
Analysis: A Simple and General Model
for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Northouse, Peter G. 2009. Leadership Theory and Practice. Fifth
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paarlberg, Laurie E., and Bob Lavigna. 2010. Transformational
Leadership and Public Service
Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance.
Public Administration Review
70:710–718.
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Connecting
the dots in public management:
Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the
public manager’s role ambiguity.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:511–
32.
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Edmund C. Stazyk. 2008. Antecedents
and Correlates of Public Service
Motivation. In Motivation in Public Management: The Call of
Public Service, eds. James L.
Perry and Annie Hondeghem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

131. Pandey, Sanjay K., Bradley E. Wright, and Donald
P. Moynihan. 2008. Public service motivation
and interorganizational citizenship behavior: Testing a
preliminary model. International Public
Management Journal 11:89–108.
Park, Sung M., and Hal G. Rainey. 2008. Leadership and Public
Service Motivation in U.S. Federal
Agencies. International Public Management Journal 11:109–42.
Parker, Sharon K., and Toby D. Wall. 1998. Job and work
design: Organizing work to promote well-
being and effectiveness. London: Sage.
Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact,
and Public Service Motivation 135
Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth K. Eastman. 1997. The
nature and implications of con-
textual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual
examination. Academy of
Management Review 22:89–109.
Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An
assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 6:5–22.
Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The
Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public
Administration Review 50:367–73.
Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise.
2010. Revisiting the Motivational

132. Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an
Agenda for the Future. Public
Administration Review 79:681–90.
Peterson, Robert A. 2001. On the use of college students in
social science research: Insights from a
second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research
28:450–61.
Piliavin, Jane A., and Hong-Wen Charng. 1990. Altruism:
A Review of Recent Theory and Research.
Annual Review of Sociology 16:27–65.
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and
SAS procedures for estimating indi-
rect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers
36:717–731.
Remus, William. 1986. Graduate Students as surrogates for
managers in experiments on business
decision making. Journal of Business Research 14:19–25.
———. 1989. Using Students as subjects in experiments on
decision support systems. Proceedings
of the 22nd annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Science: 176–180.
Ryan, Richard M., and James P. Connell. 1989. Perceived locus
of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
57:749–761.
Salancik, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. A social
information processing approach to job atti-

133. tudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly
23:224–253.
Schmidt, Frank L., and John E. Hunter. 1983. Individual
differences in productivity: An empir-
ical test of estimates derived from studies of selection
procedure utility. Journal of Applied
Psychology 68:407–414.
Schwartz, Shalom H., and Anat Bardi. 2001. Value hierarchies
across cultures: Taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32:268–290.
Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T.
Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Shamir, Boas, and Jane M. Howell. 1999. Organizational and
contextual influences on the emer-
gence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly 10:257–83.
Shamir, Boas, Eliav Zakay, Esther Breinin, and Micha Popper.
1998. Correlates of charismatic
leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit
characteristics, and superiors’
appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management
Journal 41:387–409.
Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. 1993.
The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science
4:577–594.
Steijn, Bram. 2008. Person–Environment Fit and Public Service

134. Motivation. International Public
Management Journal 11:13–27.
Thompson, Jeffery A., and J. Stuart Bunderson. 2003.
Violations of principle: Ideological currency
in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review
28:571–586.
Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang.
2008. Examining the Nature and
Significance of Leadership in Government Organizations.
Public Administration Review
68:319–33.
Van Wart, Montgomery. 2005. Dynamics of leadership in public
service: Theory and practice. Armonk,
NY: ME Sharpe.
Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2007. Toward a Public Administration
Theory of Public Service Motivation:
An Institutional Approach. Public Management Review 9:545–
56.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 136
Weibel, Antoinette, Katja Rost, and Margit Osterloh. 2010.
Pay for Performance in the Public
Sector—Benefits and (Hidden) Costs. Journal of Public
Administration and Theory 20:387–412.
Wright, Bradley E. 2004. The role of work context in work
motivation: A public sector application
of goal and social cognition theories. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory

135. 14:59–78.
———. 2007. Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission
Matter? Public Administration Review
67:54–64.
Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. Unanswered
questions about public service motiva-
tion: Designing research to address key issues of emergence
and effects. Public Administration
Review 70:691–700.
Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. Public service
motivation and the assumption of
person-organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value
congruence. Administration &
Society 40:502–21.
———. 2010. Transformational leadership in the public sector:
Does structure matter? Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 20:75–89.
Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K.
Pandey. 2012. Pulling the Levers:
Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and
Mission Valence. Public
Administration Review 72:206–215.
Wright, Bradley E., Robert K. Christensen, and Sanjay
K. Pandey. Forthcoming. Measuring Public
Service Motivation: Exploring the Equivalence of Existing
Global Measures. International
Public Management Journal.
Zalesny, Mary D., and J. Kevin Ford. 1990. Extending the
social information processing perspec-