How public service motivation affects job satisfaction: 

 

A question of employment sector or ‘public service jobs’ 

 

 

Paper presented at the 32nd EGPA conference in Toulouse, 8-10 September 2010.

Lotte Bøgh Andersen

Department of Political Science, Aarhus University & Danish Institute of Governmental Research

Anne Mette Kjeldsen Department of Political Science, Aarhus University

p. 1  

ABSTRACT

Many scholars expect public service motivation (PSM) to positively affect the job satisfaction

of public sector employees. This study tests whether the relationship between PSM and job

satisfaction does in fact differ between the public and private sectors, or whether the relation-

ship is rather a question of holding a ‘public service job’. Using data from a web-survey of

3364 Danish employees, we found a stronger, positive association between PSM and job sa-

tisfaction among employees working with public service delivery (health, education, and cul-

tural services) compared with employees working in organizations with other tasks. In con-

trast, the employment sector was found to be insignificant for the effect of PSM on job satis-

faction. This shows that the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction depends on orga-

nizational task – whether it delivers public services or not. Hopefully, this encourages manag-

ers to take PSM into account in order to optimize employee job satisfaction and ultimately

increase organizational performance.

   

p. 2  

Introduction 

Job satisfaction positively affects individual performance (Petty et al. 1984; Judge et al. 2001;

Kim 2005), and this makes it highly relevant to investigate the causes of job satisfaction.

Among many, this article concentrates on a cause which is especially relevant for the provi-

sion of public services, namely public service motivation (PSM). This can be defined as an

individual’s orientation to delivering service to people with a purpose to do good for others

and society (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008: vii). The literature on PSM has shown that a positive

association between public employee PSM and job satisfaction exists (Naff & Crum, 1999;

Steijn, 2008). Furthermore, job satisfaction is seen as a mediator between PSM and individual

performance (Vandenabeele, 2009). But although the literature has moved considerable for-

ward in the last years (Pandey & Stazyk, 2008), we still do not know exactly for whom PSM

leads to job satisfaction. What moderates the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction?

Does it for example only exist for employees performing certain types of services? And/or

can the positive effect of PSM on job satisfaction also be found in the private sector?

Generally, the positive relationship between PSM and job satisfaction is primarily

assumed to exist for public employees (Bright, 2008; Steijn, 2008), but it has not been tested

whether the relationship differs between the public and private sectors. It seems logical that

PSM only leads to job satisfaction if the employees are actually able to help others and socie-

ty in their current jobs, and the PSM-fit literature has documented that the relationship be-

tween PSM and job satisfaction is strongest for employees working in organizations in which

they subjectively perceive their possibilities for delivering public service (i.e. outliving their

PSM) to be good (Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2008). However, it is difficult for public managers to

get to know their employees’ subjective perceptions. Thus, more objective knowledge about

where PSM positively affects job satisfaction would enable public managers to use the PSM

of their employees more effectively and thereby utilize the effect of PSM on job satisfaction

and ultimately performance.

Individuals with high PSM may be better able to act on their PSM in the public sec-

tor if it is perceived to offer better opportunities for serving the public, and if public em-

ployees experience that they can ‘donate’ effort more directly to ‘the public’ rather than to a

private residual claimant. Therefore, PSM perhaps only affects job satisfaction in the public

sector, but not in the private sector. In other words, the relationship between PSM and job

satisfaction may vary between sectors. On the other hand, it may be the service type rather

p. 3  

than employment sector, which matters. Both private and public school teachers can act on

their PSM in contrast to for example administrative workers performing programmed jobs,

which offer little opportunity to make a difference. Therefore, another possibility is that PSM

primarily affects job satisfaction for jobs which directly involve public service production,

and (at least in Denmark) such jobs can be found in both the private and the public sector.

Thus, the key question is whether the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction is differ-

ent for private and public employees, or whether it is rather a question of the type of services,

the employees produce?

Of course, PSM cannot be seen in isolation from other types of motivation. To insure

that the PSM-job satisfaction relationship is not due to confounding, we include user orienta-

tion, utilitarian incentives (such as salary), and personal characteristics such as age and gender

in the analysis. Using a survey of 3364 Danish public and private sector employees, we thus

empirically test whether sector and/or service type moderate the relationship between PSM

and job satisfaction controlled for these socio-demographic characteristics and other types of

motivation.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, we present the theoretical framework, discuss-

ing both the general association between PSM and job satisfaction and the reasons for expect-

ing the association to depend on sector and service type. In this section, we present two com-

peting hypotheses on the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction and two hypotheses

on the effect of other types of motivation. Second, we introduce the data and methods fol-

lowed (third) by a section with results and (fourth) a discussion of these. Finally, the conclu-

sion gives the overall answer to the research question and discusses managerial implications

of the findings.

Theoretical framework 

Job satisfaction is closely related to employee work motivation, which concerns the energy an

employee is willing to invest in order to achieve a given objective connected to his work. Of

course, motivation is only one of the factors that determine job satisfaction. Other factors in-

clude outside constraints (e.g., time, financial resources, and organizational requirements),

and individual skills and abilities. The basic argument is that achievement of objectives in-

creases job satisfaction (because of the psychological need for achievement), and this paper

focuses on a given type of objective, namely to deliver public service to help others (Le

Grand, 2003: 27).

p. 4  

In this context, ‘public services’ are services which are either ordered or (partly) fi-

nanced by society (or both). Therefore, public services are collectively oriented in one form or

another; teaching does, for example, both benefit the individual student in terms of improving

his skills, and society in terms of creating a better future labor force. Moreover, teaching is

also both ordered and financed by society in most countries. However, public services are not

necessarily produced in the public sector. In most countries, private health practitioners for

example produce public services, which are (at least partly) financed by the state.

The definition of public services is essential to understand one of the two core con-

cepts in this paper, namely ‘public service motivation’ (PSM). It concerns the energy an em-

ployee (for no private reward) is willing to put into producing public service. Formally, it can

be defined as “an individual’s orientation to delivering service to people with a purpose to do

good for others and society” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008: vii). Until recently, the PSM litera-

ture has primarily been based on American research, but during the last five years, the concept

has spread. In the US, an article by James Perry and Lois Wise (1990) sparked this trend.

They defined PSM as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primari-

ly or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990: 368). As the

definition indicates, the concept was originally closely related to organizations in the public

sector – in other words, the expectation that this type of motivation exists among public em-

ployees was almost built-in to the definition. However, it was quickly removed by simply

dropping the last two words (Perry, 1996: 6), and the definitions of the concept have generally

shifted from a sector focus towards a service focus. Thus, PSM is by no means synonymous

with ‘public sector motivation’ corresponding to the discussion above, which stressed that

‘public service’ can also be produced in the private sector.

As mentioned, a public service is collectively oriented, and the same is the case for

PSM. Vandenabeele (2007: 547) underlines this by stating that PSM “concerns the interest of

a larger political entity” and that it “goes beyond self-interest and organizational interest”.

However, helping others can also be directed towards individuals. This can be captured in a

separate concept measuring the motivation to do good for the individual user of the services

(hereafter called user orientation). In other words, it is possible to be altruistically motivated

to produce public service based on motivation linked to a specific recipient rather than based

on motivation linked to a generalized recipient (society). This is captured in the concept of

user orientation.

p. 5  

The second core concept in the paper is job satisfaction, which can be defined as “a

pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job expe-

riences” (Locke 1976 cited in Vandenabeele, 2009: 14). Now, why do some employees to a

greater extent have this type of emotional state? What makes individuals appreciate their jobs

and job experiences? Based on McClelland’s need theory (1951), we argue that one’s job will

lead to this state if it allows fulfillment of the psychological needs for achievement, power

and affiliation. Especially relevant in this context is the need for achievement, which refers to

an individual's desire for significant accomplishment and mastering of high standards (Mur-

ray, 1938: 164). What kind of achievement, the individual craves, differs (from blowing

smoke rings to discovering a new planet, as Murray writes), but for public service motivated

individuals, the conception of the ‘ideal successful self’ (Murray, 1938: 164) is closely linked

to producing public service for the benefit of society. If given this opportunity, these individ-

uals tap a unique source of job satisfaction linked to feeling of achievement, because they

make a difference. However, realizing PSM is not their only source of job satisfaction, yet it

is expected to add to the other sources. Therefore, a high level of PSM is expected to increase

job satisfaction if, and only if, the job allows the individual to excel in this area. In other

words, job satisfaction is expected to depend on the discrepancy between what one wants in a

job concerning delivery of public services, and what one has in the current job.

So, what jobs allows an individual to succeed in producing public service for the

benefit of society? The literature implicitly assumes that PSM is primarily associated with job

satisfaction in the public sector (Bright, 2008; Steijn, 2008). As mentioned in the introduction,

it is possible that the public sector offers better opportunities for serving the public, regardless

of the type of service produced. The institutional context in public organizations taken into

account, public employees may be better able to ‘donate’ effort to ‘the public’ rather than to a

private residual claimant. Thus, individuals with high PSM may be better able to act on their

PSM in the public sector. It is therefore possible that PSM positively affects job satisfaction in

the public sector, but not in the private sector. Specifically, PSM is expected to have a strong-

er positive effect on job satisfaction in the public sector compared to the private sector as

formulated in hypothesis 1a.

H1a: The positive association between PSM and job satisfaction is stronger for pub-

lic employees compared to private employees.

p. 6  

The public-private divide hardly explains all differences in the organizational ability to allow

public service motivated individuals to achieve their objectives. Hackman and Oldham (1976)

for example argue that the task itself is important. They state that task identity and task signi-

ficance are two out of five core job characteristics which impact three critical psychological

states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge

of the actual results). Thus, employees are expected to be more satisfied if they (1) experience

the job as generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile, (2) understand how effectively

they are performing the job, and (3) feel personally accountable and responsible for the re-

sults (Hackman & Oldham, 1976: 256-7).

To some degree, these insights have already been integrated in the PSM literature.

Bright (2008) thus focuses on the fit between person and organization, and Taylor (2008: 71-

2) introduces a PSM-fit variable defined as “the comparability between the needs of individu-

als to serve the public interest and the environmental conditions in their organization which

affect the fulfillment of these altruistic motives”. Steijn (2008: 14) also argues (and finds em-

pirically) that PSM positively affect job satisfaction if the PSM-fit is high, meaning that em-

ployees experience that they can ‘use’ their PSM in the organization they work for. Scientifi-

cally, it is optimal to measure the employees’ subjective evaluation of the PSM-fit, but when

it comes to the theory’s applications for practitioners, it would strengthen the usefulness if we

could obtain knowledge about the more objective moderators of the relationship between

PSM and job satisfaction.

Consistent with the PSM-fit literature, we argue that this association is primarily ex-

pected for organizations which produce public services as defined above (that is, services for

the benefit of society which are ordered and/or financed by society). For these organizations,

the argument presented by Bright (2008: 163) is central: PSM increases person-organization

fit, and because employees with high levels of PSM are congruent with the characteristics of

these organizations, they will have higher levels of job satisfaction. Operationally, it is diffi-

cult to say that a specific organization does not provide public service, whereas it is easier to

identify the ones which certainly do. This paper focuses on organizations which obviously

provide public services, namely the ones delivering health (e.g., hospitals), education (e.g.,

schools and universities), and cultural services (e.g., libraries, museums, and theaters). Hypo-

thesis 1b explicates the expectation concerning the relationship between PSM and job satis-

p. 7  

faction for employees in these public service delivery organizations, which can be either pub-

lic or private.

H1b: The positive association between PSM and job satisfaction is stronger for em-

ployees working in organizations which produce health, education, and cultural ser-

vices compared to employees working in organizations with other tasks.

To some degree, hypothesis 1a and 1b are competing, because they provide different expecta-

tions to the moderators of the association between PSM and job satisfaction (as illustrated in

figure 1 below). However, public service motivation is hardly alone in affecting job satisfac-

tion. In order to avoid confounding, we thus consider the variables that might be correlated

with both PSM and job satisfaction before we go into details with the data and methods.

Figure 1: Possible moderators of the relationships between motivation and job satisfaction

The first of these variables has already been mentioned, namely the user orientation of the

employees, defined as the motivation to do good for the individual users of the services. Fol-

lowing the same achievement-logic as for PSM, we expect this type of motivation to be posi-

tively correlated with job satisfaction. On the other hand, it is more questionable whether we

should expect the effect to depend on sector and/or service type. One could argue that a hair-

dresser would also be motivated to do good for the users, and the relationship may even be

stronger for providers of non-public services, because private employees only need to consid-

er the individual user (and not society at large). Moreover, private employees may also have

better opportunities for doing good for the individual users because they have fewer principals

to consider (Andersen et al., 2009). These expectations are, however, more tentative than for

PSM, and this paper thus settles for a general expectation stating a positive association be-

Public service motivation Job satisfaction

H1b: Service type

(public service delivery or not)

H1a: Employment sector

(public or private)

p. 8  

tween user orientation and job satisfaction – although we also test whether sector and service

type to moderate this association in the statistical models.

H2: User orientation and job satisfaction is positively associated.

The second relevant variable can be seen as the opposite of PSM, namely utilitarian incen-

tives such as salary. Again, we expect a direct positive effect on job satisfaction. Following

Le Grand (2003), individuals are neither pure altruists nor pure egoists, and we therefore ex-

pect them to be more satisfied with higher paid jobs, ceteris paribus. This association is, how-

ever, also tested for moderator effects of sector and public service provision, because Perry

and Wise (1990) argue that utilitarian incentives might matter less in public organizations

attracting employees with high levels of PSM. The most important utilitarian incentive for

Danish employees is their salary, and hypothesis 3 thus expects a positive association for all

employees.

H3: Salary and job satisfaction is positively associated.

The third group of variables consists of the personal characteristics of the employees, which

might affect both PSM and job satisfaction. The literature indicates that females have higher

job satisfaction (Steijn, 2008: 23) and perhaps also higher PSM (ibid: 21). At any rate, women

score higher on the compassion dimension of PSM (Pandey & Stazyk, 2008: 103), which is

why gender is included to ensure that the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction is not

spurious. Some studies find (weak) positive associations between age and job satisfaction

(Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008), while others find a negative effect (Taylor, 2008). The

effect of age on PSM is more consistently found to be positive (Steijn, 2008: 21; Pandey &

Stazyk, 2008: 102). Finally, education primarily seems to affect PSM (Steijn, 2008: 21, 23;

Pandey & Stazyk, 2008: 103) and not job satisfaction, but it is still included because some

studies indicate that there may be a relationship between job satisfaction and education

(Bright, 2008: 160; Naff & Crum, 1999: 12). We need not include the control variable ‘super-

visory position’, because the sample only contains employees without supervisory responsi-

bility. Figure 2 gives an overview of the tested model.

p. 9  

Figure 2: Job satisfaction and motivation: Tested model

 

Data and methods 

This paper relies on data collected in a web-survey in June 2009 using a web-panel hosted by

a private consultancy, Zapera. 15.000 invitations were sent out by e-mail, and the survey was

closed when 3364 Danish employees between 25 and 64 years old had answered the ques-

tionnaire. The sample provides cross-sectional data including both private and public sector

employees – all of them without leadership responsibilities. Employees working in the volun-

tary sector were excluded from the analysis. Although the representativeness of web-panels

can be seriously questioned (due to unobservable selection), this is not considered an impor-

tant problem in the present context as we are interested in testing a causal relation rather than

getting a full picture of the Danish population.

Table 1 shows the investigated employees according to their employment sector and

organizational task. As mentioned, organizations with a clearly defined public service task

include delivery of health, education, and cultural services (definitions and descriptive statis-

tics for all the used variables can be seen in table A2, Appendix A). The public employees

who do not directly produce public services are typically administrators or work with task

such as transportation. It is crucial for testing the moderating effect of employment sector and

service type that both private service delivery jobs and public sector jobs without service deli-

very exists, and table 1 shows that this is the case. 133 persons delivered public service in the

private sector (e.g., school teachers at private schools) and 485 public employees did not di-

rectly deliver public service (e.g., administrators).

Utilitatian incentives (salary)

Public service motivation

Job satisfaction

Employment sector Public service delivery

Personal characteristics: Gender, age, and education

User orientation

p. 10  

Table 1: Investigated Danish employees according to their employment sector and organizational task (2009, numbers and row percentage).

Organizational ‘public service’ task

Total No Yes Employment sector

Private sector 1523 133 165692.0 % 8.0 % 100.0 %

Public sector 485 874 135935.7 % 64.3 % 100.0 %

Total 2008 1007 3015 66.6 % 33.4 % 100.0 %

The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was measured using a single question asking the

respondents to indicate their general satisfaction with their current jobs on a scale from 0-10.

This is a common measure of job satisfaction used by most of the previous studies of the rela-

tionship between PSM and job satisfaction (Bright 2008; Taylor, 2009; Vandenabeele, 2009)

– although most studies supplement this general measure with a few more items creating a

reflective index of job satisfaction. Constructs formulated from multiple items are typically

preferred, but in line with Taylor (2009) (referring to a study by Scarpello and Campbell,

1983) we argue that a global rating of overall job satisfaction can be assessed as a more inclu-

sive measure.

To measure the employees’ PSM we used a shortened version of Perry’s (1996) mul-

ti-dimensional measurement instrument validated by Coursey and Pandey (2007) and Wright

and Christensen (2009). This approach distinguishes between three dimensions of PSM, pub-

lic interest, compassion, and attraction to policy making, reflecting that the wish to do good

for others and society can rest on normative, affective and rational/instrumental grounds of

human behavior respectively (Perry, 1996; Perry & Wise, 1990). Thus, an individual can be

motivated to serve the general public based on normative values and duty, based on affective

identification and empathy with underprivileged groups in society, and based on a ration-

al/instrumental wish to improve decision-making concerning public services. In line with Kim

and Vandenabeele’s (2009) notion of PSM being a first order reflective and second order

formative construct, these three dimensions were added up to a single measure of PSM (scale

from 0-100), meaning that “if any one of these dimensions increases, PSM increases; con-

versely, if a person’s PSM increases, this is not necessarily accompanied by an increase in all

p. 11  

dimensions” (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2009: 16-17). A principal component analysis of the

items used to construct the PSM-dimensions is presented in table A1, and it shows the ex-

pected dimensions.

In similar vein, the second independent variable, user orientation, was also measured

using a multi-item scale consisting of three questions reflecting motivation to serve the specif-

ic users of the services (e.g., in contrast to complying with formal rules). These items were

partly inspired by Vandenabeele’s (2008) ‘customer orientation’ dimension, and they have

previously proved successful in creating a consistent scale in a Danish context (Andersen et

al., 2009). Table A1 shows the validation of the user oriented motivation index in comparison

with the classical PSM-dimensions.

Finally, the third independent variable of this study, salary, and the employees’ per-

sonal characteristics were surveyed in a very straightforward way asking the respondents of

their gender, age, education, and monthly salary in DKR (for exact questions and descriptive

statistics of these variables see table A2 in the appendix). To investigate the proposed hypo-

theses of sector or public service provision moderating the relationships between PSM (and

the other two independent variables, salary and user orientation) and job satisfaction, we in-

clude a number of interaction terms into the multivariate OLS regression analyses: sec-

tor*PSM, sector*user orientation, sector*salary, service delivery job*PSM, service delivery

job*user orientation, and service delivery job*salary. If these interaction terms prove to con-

tribute significantly to the model in an F-test (p < 0.05), this indicates that the relationships

between the independent variables and job satisfaction differ according to employment sector

or service type.  

Results  

In this section we present the results of the OLS regressions employed to investigate the pro-

posed relationships between PSM and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1a and 1b both expect that

PSM is positively associated with job satisfaction, but that the strength of the association de-

pends on either sector or service type. All the different specifications in table 2 support that a

positive association exists; higher level of PSM has a positive impact on individual job satis-

faction controlled for personal characteristics. But the key question is whether the strength of

the association depends on public/private employment and/or service type? Model 4 and 5 test

the proposed interaction effects of sector and public service delivery on the associations be-

tween job satisfaction and PSM. These models also control for whether sector and service

p. 12  

type moderate the relationships between user orientation and job satisfaction and between

salary and job satisfaction.

Model 4 shows that employment sector does not matter for the effect of neither PSM

nor user orientation or salary on job satisfaction. Contrary, model 5 shows that the association

between PSM and job satisfaction is statistically stronger for employees working with public

service delivery (health, education, and cultural services). Thus, it seems that the PSM-fit has

more to do with service type than with public/private employment. It is noteworthy that nei-

ther employment sector nor public service delivery directly affects individual level of job sa-

tisfaction, but the positive, significant interaction term between service type and PSM indi-

cates that being occupied with public service delivery positively enhances the effect of PSM

on job satisfaction compared to the case of being occupied in other kinds of industries.

Moreover, motivation to serve the specific users as measured by the variable ‘User

orientation’ and the motivation that springs from receiving a higher salary for one’s work also

have positive impacts on job satisfaction. This supports hypothesis 2 and 3. Being oriented

towards helping the individual user thus increases job satisfaction, yet the same is true for

higher salaries, indicating that the picture of employees as neither pure altruists nor pure ego-

ists is supported.

p. 13  

Table 2: OLS regression of individual job satisfaction (unstandardized coefficients)

Bivariate Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

(Intercept) 7.335 *** 4.735 *** 5.033 *** 5.076 *** 5.162 ***

Gender (1=female) 0.140 0.140 0.175 * 0.123 0.124 0.114

Age (years) 0.018 *** 0.019 *** 0.009 * 0.007 0.007 0.007

Educational level 0.028 0.042 -0.011 -0.041 -0.042 -0.042

PSM 0.028 *** 0.023 *** 0.021 *** 0.014 ** 0.013 **

User orientation 0.020 *** 0.016 *** 0.017 *** 0.021 *** 0.021 ***

Salary (in 10.000 DKR) 0.144 *** 0.182 *** 0.193 *** 0.209 *** 0.201 ***

Sector 0.041 0.188 0.089 -0.031

Service 0.108 -0.023 -0.011 -0.216

Sector*PSM 0.015

Sector*User orientation -0.009

Sector*Salary -0.048

Service delivery job*PSM 0.015 **

Service delivery job *User orientation

-0.006

Service delivery job *Salary (in 10.000 DKR)

-0.023

Adj. R2 0.008 0.049 0.046 0.047 0.048

N 3364 2808 2553 2553 2553

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

p. 14  

Finally, the effect of personal characteristics on job satisfaction generally follows the

expectations from the literature, and inclusion of these variables does not change the results of

the strong positive correlations between PSM, user orientation, and salary and job satisfac-

tion. We find no significant effects of education, but women and old employees are generally

more satisfied. The effects of gender and age on level of job satisfaction are, however, me-

diated by sector and service type. More women and older employees are occupied in the pub-

lic sector, and these groups also work more frequently with public service delivery. Therefore,

the effects of gender and age are no longer statistically significant, when controls for sector

and service type are added (model 3). Since Bright (2008) has pointed to the inconsistency of

a positive relationship between PSM and job satisfaction, when tenure in public organizations

is typically found to be negatively correlated with PSM, this result has also been controlled

(and found to be robust) for tenure in public and private organizations respectively (measured

as number of years the respondent has been employed in his/her current organization).

In sum, the analysis confirms hypotheses 1b, 2 and 3. Job satisfaction is positively

associated with user orientation, salary, and (especially for employees working with direct

delivery of public services) PSM. How we should interpret these results, and how they relate

to the existing literature is discussed in the next section.

Discussion  

The finding that work with public service delivery positively enhances the effect of employee

PSM on job satisfaction compared to working in organizations with other work tasks sheds

new light on an important issue within the PSM-literature: Is PSM a matter of work task or

employment sector?

As presented in the introduction, most previous studies of PSM and job satisfaction

primarily expect this relationship to unfold within public sector organizations (e.g., Bright,

2008; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008). In this sense, PSM and its possible positive out-

comes are perceived to be related to a certain organizational context, namely sector. In con-

trast, we found that a higher level of PSM leads to an increased level of experienced job satis-

faction regardless of employment sector; private sector employees with higher levels of PSM

are equally satisfied with their jobs. Corresponding to the theoretical discussion of different

foundations for expecting a person-organization fit, this point to the possibility that other or-

ganizational characteristics than sector (public/private ownership) are perhaps more important

when determining the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction.

p. 15  

Our result of public service delivery moderating the relationship between PSM and

job satisfaction is in line with the results of Taylor (2008), Steijn (2008), and Leisink and

Steijn (2009). They show that PSM positively affects job satisfaction as long as the em-

ployees experience that their PSM fits the characteristics of the organization they work for

(denoted PSM-fit). Specifically, Taylor (2008) showed that PSM-fit is positively related to

job satisfaction controlled for public/private employment sector, and Leisink and Steijn

(2009) – although based on a sample consisting of only public employees – showed that

PSM-fit mediates the relationship between PSM and various outcome variables like organiza-

tional commitment and ‘willingness to exert effort’. Leisink and Steijn (2009: 47) conclude

that this indicates that it is important to distinguish between employees performing different

types of services within the sectors, i.e. the work task is at least as important (or more) as per-

son-organization fit based on sector when determining the relationship between PSM and job

satisfaction. The public sector is not a single employer, ‘but rather a patchwork of organiza-

tions’ (Vandenabeele, 2008: 1090). If the purpose is to assess specific organizational charac-

teristics which cause positive outcomes of PSM – in this case the opportunity to work with

public service delivery through health care, education, and cultural services, we thus need to

be aware of different types of organizations within the sectors.

Le Grand (2003: 36) argues that many individuals are ‘act-relevant knights’ meaning

that their motivation is tied to performing the helping activity in itself; it is only when the

work task allows one to actively do something good for others that the feeling of achievement

leading to job satisfaction arises. In this regard, our study shows that a certain objective cha-

racteristic of the organization – whether it directly delivers public services or not – creates

better opportunities for the employees to experience this feeling. This confirms the relevance

of classic motivational need-theory (McClelland, 1951; Murray, 1938) and Hackman and

Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (1976) in understanding the relationship between PSM

and job satisfaction. Therefore, managers seeking to reap the positive benefits of PSM should

look at the work task of the organization and whether it supports the employees as act-

relevant knights.

A last result that deserves a comment is job satisfaction as a product of PSM, user

orientation, and utilitarian incentives. This indicates that job satisfaction depends on internal

psychological rewards fostered by doing something good for others and society as well as on

extrinsic rewards. It is not surprising that employees’ job satisfaction is a mix of many mo-

p. 16  

tives, given that this has been discuss thoroughly in the literature (Rainey, 1982; Taylor,

2009). What is surprising, however, is that the association between especially salary and job

satisfaction is not moderated by neither sector nor service type. Since Rainey (and later Crew-

son, 1997; Houston, 2000) found that privately employed managers are more inclined to value

high income than public managers, we would expect a high salary to be stronger related to job

satisfaction in the private sector. Apparently, this not the case, suggesting that job satisfaction

can in fact be enhanced through the use of monetary incentives in both the private and the

public sector. However, further research on this area is needed since salary is only one of

many extrinsic rewards and other monetary incentives such as performance-related pay might

work differently.

Conclusion 

The most important finding of this study is that the positive association between PSM and job

satisfaction is stronger for employees who work in organizations producing health, education,

and cultural services compared to employees working in organizations with other tasks. In

contrast, the association between PSM and job satisfaction does not differ significantly be-

tween private and public employees. This is in line with the PSM-fit literature suggesting that

PSM can have a positive effect on job satisfaction for both public and private employees

when the organizational task is related to producing ‘public service’. The model also included

utilitarian incentives and user orientation. Both were positively associated with job satisfac-

tion, but neither sector nor organizational service type (public services – health, education,

and cultural service – or not) moderate this relationship.

However, the study does also have some limitations. The first major limitation is that

we have used cross-sectional data to make causal inference, which is always challenging in

terms of determining the correct time order of the variables. The causal direction used in this

paper is as specified in the literature, but job satisfaction might also affect PSM. This does

not, however, change the conclusion about the moderators of the relationship – although panel

studies of PSM and job satisfaction would be a very welcome addition to the literature.

Another challenge linked to the causal inference is that we cannot be sure, whether we have

included all the relevant control variables. This could be addressed by undertaking an experi-

ment, but we find it hard to imagine how public service motivation could be induced in such a

design.

p. 17  

The second major limitation concerns generalizability. The investigated employees

are part of a web-panel and therefore not representative – even for Danish employees. Moreo-

ver, analytical generalization is also limited to countries which (at least to some degree) re-

semble Denmark. Still, the research question concerns a causal relationship, and there is no

reason to believe that causal mechanisms differ between the sample and the Danish popula-

tion. Furthermore, the Danish case allows us to differentiate between public service jobs and

public/private employment, because there are a sufficient number of private employees, who

provide public services, to allow for a statistical test. Therefore, the paper still contributes to

the literature on the PSM-job satisfaction relationship.

The main result is that the effect of PSM on job satisfaction is shown to depend on

organizational task, more specifically on whether the organization directly delivers public

service or not. This should be seen in addition to the subjective PSM-fit, which is more pre-

cise, but demands more measurement and therefore is more difficult to use operationally.

Given that motivational mechanisms differ between different types of services, our thinking

about leadership strategies should even more strongly reflect this. The implication of our re-

sults is thus that managers of organizations which provide public service (for example educa-

tion, health, and cultural services) should take PSM more seriously into account in at least

three ways in order to optimize the positive effect of PSM on job satisfaction. First, they

should consider hiring employees with high initial PSM. Second, they should nurture the em-

ployees’ PSM and make sure that PSM is not crowded out by other types of motivation and

incentives. Third, the PSM-fit may be changeable at the margin. Managers in organizations

producing public service should therefore consider the recommendation of Moynihan and

Pandey (2007: 40) and create an environment that allows employees to feel they are contribut-

ing to the public good.

   

p. 18  

References 

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh; Thomas Pallesen & Lene Holm Pedersen (2009). ”Does employment sector matter for professionals’ public service motivation”. Paper presented at the 2009 conference on public service motivation, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 7-9 June 2009.

Bright, Leonard (2008). ”Does Public Service Motivation Really Make a Difference on the Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Public Employees?”, American Review of Public Administration, 38 (2), pp. 149-166.

Coursey, D. H. & S.K. Pandey (2007). “Public Service Motivation Measurement: Testing an Abridged Version of Perrys Proposed Scale”, Administration & Society, 39, pp. 547-68.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). “Public Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7 (4), pp. 499-518.

Hackman, J. R. & G. R. Oldham (1976). ”Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp. 250-279.

Houston, D. J. (2000). “Public Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (4), pp. 713-727.

Judge, T.A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono & G. K. Patton (2001). “The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review”, Psychological Bul-letin, 127 (3), pp. 376–407.

Kim, S.M. (2005). “Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15 (2), pp. 245–61.

Kim, Sangmook & Wouter Vandenabeele (2009). “A Strategy for Building Public Service Motivation Research Internationally”, research note, version 6.0, August 19th 2009.

Naff, Katherine & John Crum (1999). "Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?", Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19 (4), pp. 5-16.

Leisink, P. & B. Steijn (2009). “Public service motivation and job performance of public sec-tor employees in the Netherlands”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75 (1), pp. 35-52.

Le Grand, Julian (2003). Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. New York: Oxford University Press.

McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Moynihan, D.P. & S.K. Pandey (2007) “The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Ser-vice Motivation” Public Administration Review 67 (1): 40 - 53

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Pandey, Sanjay K. & Edmund C. Stazyk (2008). “Antecedents and Correlates of Public Ser-vice Motivation” pp. 101-117 in James Perry and Annie Hondeghem: Motivation in Public Management. The Call of Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.

p. 19  

Perry, James L. (1996). “Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Validity and Reliability, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6 (1), pp. 5-22.

Perry, James L. & Annie Hondeghem (2008). Motivation in Public Management. The Call of Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perry, James L. and Lois R. Wise (1990). “The Motivational Bases of Public Service”, Public Administration Review, 50, pp. 367-73.

Petty, M.M., G. W. McGee & J. W. Cavender (1984). “A Meta-analysis of the Relationships between Individual Job Satisfaction and Individual Performance”, Academy of Man-agement Review, 9 (4), pp. 712–21.

Reiney, Hal G. (1982). “Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic”, The American Review of Public Administration, 16, pp. 288-302.

Scarpello, V. & J. Campbell (1983). “Job Satisfaction: Are All the Parts There?”, Personnel Psychology, 36, pp. 577-600.

Steijn, B. (2008). “Person-environment fit and public service motivation”, International Pub-lic Management Journal, 11 (1), pp. 13-27.

Taylor, J. (2008). “Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Out-comes: An Australian Study”, International public management journal, 11 (1), pp. 67-88.

Wright, Bradley E. & Robert K. Christensen (2009). “Public Service Motivation: Testing Measures, Antecedents and Consequences”. Paper presented at the 2009 conference on public service motivation, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 7-9 June 2009.

Vandenabeele, Wouter (2007). “Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach”, Public Management Review, 9 (4), pp. 545-556.

Vandenabeele, Wouter (2008). “Government Calling: Public Service Motivation as An Ele-ment in Selecting Government as An Employer of Choice”, Public Administration, 86 (4), pp. 1089-1105).

Vandenabeele, Wouter (2009). ”The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: More robust evidence of the PSM-performance relationship”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75 (1), pp. 11-34.

 

   

p. 20  

Table A1: Measurement and descriptive statistics of study variables

Variable Definition Mean Min. Max. Std.dv N

Job satisfaction “Overall, on a scale from 0 to 10 how satisfied or unsatisfied are you with your current job?” (1=very unsatisfied, 11=very satisfied)

8.48 1 11 2.118 3089

Public interest Motivation to serve the general public based on values and duty (reflective index consisting of 3 Likert-scale items – see table A2 for wording of questions, Cronbach’s alpha: 0.715)

78.00 0.00 100.0 15.360 3274

Compassion Emotionally based motivation to do good for oth-ers based on identification and empathy (reflective index consisting of 4 Likert-scale items – see table A2 for wording of questions, Cronbach’s alpha: 0.609)

65.72 0.00 100.0 16.192 3235

Attraction to poli-cy making

Motivation to improve decision-making concern-ing public services (reflective index consisting of 3 Likert-scale items – see table A2 for wording of questions. Cronbach’s alpha: 0.645)

43.16 0.00 100.0 19.660 3237

PSM Overall level of general, altruistic motivation to serve the interests of other people and society (formative index of the public interest, compas-sion, and attraction to policy making indexes, theoretical range: 0-100)

62.30 20.83 95.83 11.155 3129

User orientation Motivation to serve the specific users of the ser-vice (reflective index consisting of 3 Likert-scale items – see table A2 for wording of questions, Cronbach’s alpha: 0.524)

77.24 0.00 100.0 16.975 3233

Salary Respondent’s gross salary in 10.000 DKR (monthly, amounts above 100.000 DKR are sorted out as faulty answers)

32689 2500 93000 11472 3308

Sector Dummy variable indicating whether the respondent is employed in a public or private sector organiza-tion (1=public)

0.43 0 1 0.495 3333

Service delivery job

Dummy variable indicating respondent’s industry of employment (1=public service delivery (health care, education, and cultural activities))

0.33 0 1 0.472 2994

Gender Gender of respondent (1=female) 0.51 0 1 0.500 3333

Age Age of respondent 43.42 25 64 10.133 3333

Educational level Respondents’ educational level (1=primary school, 2=middle school, 3=high school, 4= tech-nical or trade examination , 5= vocational educa-tion , 6= Short upper vocational education, 7=bachelor’s degree, 8=graduate degree, 9=PhD)

6.28 3 9 1.370 3333

p. 21  

Table A2: Principal component analysis of public service motivation items (pattern matrix)

Component 1 2 3 4 Attraction to policy making:

I associate politics with something positive 0.290 0.739 0.078 -0.008

The give and take of public policy making doesn’t appeal to me

(R) 0.162 0.680 0.051 -0.064

I do not care much about politicians (turned) 0.001 0.848 0.009 0.112

Public interest:

I contribute to my community 0.658 -0.090 0.114 0.130

Meaningful public service is very important to me 0.619 0.159 -0.054 -0.257

I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole

community, even if it harmed my interests 0.759 0.002 -0.120 -0.016

I consider public service my civic duty 0.766 -0.068 -0.012 -0.121

Compassion:

It is difficult for me to contain my feelings, when I see people in

distress. 0.099 0.059 0.126 -0.674

To me, considering the welfare of others is one of the most impor-

tant values 0.177 0.037 0.101 -0.719

I have little compassion for people in need who are unwilling to

take the first step to help themselves (R) 0.154 0.121 0.133 -0.681

I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are

on one another 0.245 0.078 0.174 -0.681

User orientation:

The individual user is more important than formal rules -0.187 -0.007 0.631 -0.141 It gives me energy to know that I helped the user/patient 0.216 -0.043 0.695 0.026 If the user/patient is satisfied, the job is done -0.036 0.040 0.818 0.085 R: Reversed. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization