dissertation final submission – dr. alford

EFFECTS OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND PUBLIC SERVICE

MOTIVATION ON JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT IN A PUBLIC WORKFORCE SAMPLE

by

Wesley A. Alford

A dissertation proposal presented to the Interdisciplinary PhD in Leadership program and the Graduate School of University of Central Arkansas in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in

Leadership

Conway, Arkansas August 2014

TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES:

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of

Wesley Alford presented on June 26, 2014

_________________________________ Dr. Elson Bihm, Committee Chairperson

_________________________________ Dr. Patrick Carmack

_________________________________

Dr. Amy Hawkins

_________________________________ Dr. Rhonda McClellan

PERMISSION

Title Effects of Leader-Member Exchange and Public Service Motivation on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in a Public Workforce Sample

Department Interdisciplinary PhD in Leadership Degree Doctor of Philosophy

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduate from the University of Central Arkansas, I agree that the Library of this University shall make it freely available for inspections. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my dissertation work, or, in the professor’s absence, by the Chair of the Department or the Dean of the Graduate School. It is understood that due recognition shall be given and the University of Central Arkansas in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my dissertation.

________________________________ Wesley Alford July 15, 2014

!

! v!

Acknowledgement

I would first like to thank my family and friends who have supported me in this endeavor. I also need to thank the great cohorts of students and the faculty of the PhD in Leadership program. You challenged me at every turn and I would not have it any other way. Thank you. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Leighanne. I could not have made it through this process without your love and support. You make me laugh every single day and I never want it to end!

!

! vi!

Abstract

This study investigated the combined effects of employee perceptions on the strength

of the relationship with his/her direct supervisor and the employee’s public service

motives on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. A survey measuring

leader-member exchange (LMX), public service motivation (PSM), job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment was distributed to a sample of employees of state

agencies. State agency employees were chosen for the sample because Perry and

Wise (1990) indicate those who seek employment with public organizations have

higher levels of PSM than those who work for public organizations.

Hypotheses about the combined effects of LMX and PSM on job satisfaction

and organizational commitment were tested using multiple regressions. A canonical

correlation and regression trees were used to further test the effects of LMX and the

PSM subscales of PSM Compassion, PSM Public Interest, and PSM self-sacrifice on

the outcome variables. Results indicate the LMX relationship reduced more variance

in job satisfaction and organizational commitment than the individual’s public service

motivation. These results suggest leaders in the public sector should emphasize

building strong working relationships with subordinates when attempting to keep

employees engaged and committed to public service organizations. Regressions run

!

! vii!

using LMX and the PSM subscales suggest PSM Public Interest reduces more

variance in job satisfaction and organizational commitment than the other subscales.

Results of the canonical correlation support the findings from the multiple regressions

while results from the regression trees suggest complex relationships between LMX

and the PSM subscales.

!

! viii!

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x Chapter I Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

Chapter II Literature Review ........................................................................................ 8 Chapter III Methods .................................................................................................... 26

Chapter IV Results ...................................................................................................... 32 Chapter V Conclusions ............................................................................................... 52

References ................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix A Glossary of Major Terms ....................................................................... 73

Appendix B Institutional Review Board Expedited Application ............................... 74

Appendix C Survey Instrument as Seen by Participants ............................................ 82

Appendix D Variable Measurement Scales ................................................................ 93 !!

!

!

! ix!

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables ............................................................. 35 Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alphas for Research Scales ..................................................... 36

Table 4.3 Summary of Spearman’s rho Correlations for All Variables ..................... 37 Table 4.4 Model Summary of Regression Analysis for Job Satisfaction

with LMX and PSM ....................................................................................... 38 Table 4.5 Model Summary of Forward Regression Analysis for Job

Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales ................................................... 40 Table 4.6 Model Summary of Backward Regression Analysis for Job

Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales ................................................... 41 Table 4.7 Model Summary of Regression Analysis for Organizational

Commitment with LMX and PSM .................................................................. 43 Table 4.8 Model Summary of Forward Regression Analysis for

Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales ........................ 44 Table 4.9 Model Summary of Backward Regression Analysis for

Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales ........................ 45 Table 4.10 Canonical Correlation ............................................................................... 47

Table 4.11 Independent Variable Importance for Job Satisfaction Regression Tree ................................................................................................................. 49

Table 4.12 Independent Variable Importance for Organizational Commitment Regression Tree .............................................................................................. 50!

!

!

! x!

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Regression Tree for Job Satisfaction ........................................................ 49 Figure 4.2 Regression Tree for Organizational Commitment ................................... 50

EFFECTS&OF&LEADER,MEMBER&EXCHANGE&&&

1&

Chapter I

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

In 2003, the Partnership for Public Service (PPS), a nonprofit organization

focused on revitalizing the federal workforce, and Deloitte, a large, international

consulting firm, began producing an annual report titled, “The Best Places to Work in the

Federal Government” (Partnership for Public Service, 2013). The aim of this report was

to develop a detailed view of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among

federal employees using data collected by the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal

Employee Viewpoint Survey. This survey reaches almost 700,000 employees in the

federal government and has provided valuable insight into the factors that contribute to

job satisfaction and commitment in this population. The report released at the end of

2012 revealed troubling statistics about both job satisfaction and commitment.

Analyses of the latest Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey indicated that job

satisfaction levels are at the lowest levels since 2003 when the Partnership for Public

Service first released its Best Places to Work list (Partnership for Public Service, 2013).

The 2012 job satisfaction scores were not only at their lowest levels recorded; they also

represented the largest one-year drop, from 64 out of 100 in 2011 to 60.8 in 2012. This

drop occurred while levels in the private sector remained constant at 70 out of 100

(Partnership for Public Service, 2013).

The PPS report indicates that effective leadership has been the most important

driver of employee satisfaction and commitment for the seventh year in a row

(Partnership for Public Service, 2013). The report defines effective leadership as “the


2&

extent to which employees believe leadership at all levels of the organization generates

motivation and commitment, encourages integrity, and manages people fairly, while also

promoting the professional development, creativity, and empowerment of employees”

(Partnership for Public Service, 2013, “Scores by Category: Effective Leadership,” para

1). Leadership is then broken down into four subcategories: empowerment, fairness,

senior leaders, and supervisors. The supervisor category measures how well immediate

supervisors allow employees to exercise their own leadership skills and how well

employees feel their supervisors help them develop and provide feedback on job

performance.

While the PPS report indicates that leadership is a driver of the drastic drop in job

satisfaction and organizational commitment scores, the reports do not indicate exactly

how these practices affect the scores. Adding to this problem, little academic research

has examined how leadership affects public sector employees. The PPS report findings

should resonate with public service motivation scholars, who for decades have been

investigating the relationship between organizational factors and employee motivation,

satisfaction, and commitment—factors that can be influenced by leaders. Moynihan and

Pandy (2007) found organizational characteristics, such as group culture, could be used

as levers to enhance or maintain levels of public service motivation (PSM) in public

sector employees. PSM is defined as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to

motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry

& Wise, 1990, p. 368) and has been positively correlated with job satisfaction (Brewer &

Selden, 1998; Cerase & Farinella, 2006; Crewson, 1997; Kim, 2005; Moynihan &

Pandey, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008; Taylor & Westover, 2011) and


3&

organizational commitment (Crewson, 1997; Moynihan & Pandy, 2007; Steijn, 2008;

Taylor, 2008). While Moynihan and Pandy (2007) did not investigate how leadership

and management practices affect levels of PSM, they, along with others (Belle, 2013;

Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008), call for more research on how

management practices affect PSM.

Some scholars have investigated how leadership practices can affect public

service employee motivation. Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) proposed that

transformational leadership practices would have a positive impact on the public service

motivation of employees and encourage managers and executive leaders to incorporate

and promote management techniques into their work routines that build on the motives

that promote public service. Belle (2013) found organizational interventions could

enhance PSM levels of employees and calls for more research on management practices

that can be used to enhance PSM levels.

Other research has examined how social factors, such as relationships at work can

affect PSM. Park and Rainey (2007, as cited in Koehler & Rainey, 2008) posited that

external influences, such as positive and supportive comments, are effective at enhancing

intrinsic motivations such as public service motivation. Respondents indicated they felt

empowered when their managers engaged in supportive and encouraging behaviors, and

they expressed higher levels of PSM afterwards. These findings are consistent with

previous research by Perry and Porter (1982) who found professional relationships have a

large impact on employee performance and motivation (also see Kelley, 1999; Paarlberg,

2007; Vinzant, 1998). Emmet and Taher (1992) claimed public sector employees derive


4&

their work attitudes from social relations on the job and the extent to which their intrinsic

needs are met.

Research in PSM has indicated that professional relationships, especially the

relationship between a direct supervisor and an employee, are strongly correlated with

performance and motivation (Taylor & Westover, 2011; Westover & Taylor, 2010).

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory examines this very relationship. According to

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), LMX is different from other leadership theories in that it

does not focus solely on the leader. Rather, it has a focus on the leader, the member, and

the relationship between the two.

Building on recent research by Taylor and Westover (2011) and Westover and

Taylor (2010) on the positive effects of supervisor-subordinate relations on PSM and

previous research indicating the separate positive effects of LMX and job satisfaction

(Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Seers & Graen, 1984; Stepina, Perrewe, Hassel,

Harris, & Mayfield, 1991) and organizational commitment (Duchon, Green, & Taber,

1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Liden & Maslyn,

1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nystrom, 1990; Schriesheim, Neider,

Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden,

1997) and PSM and job satisfaction (Brewer & Selden, 1999; Cerase & Farinella, 2006;

Kim, 2005; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008; Taylor & Westover, 2011) and

organizational commitment (Camilleri, 2006; Castaing, 2006; Cerase & Farinella, 2006;

Crewson, 1997), the proposed research will attempt to examine how these two constructs

might combine with one another to explain the outcome variables of job satisfaction and

organization commitment.


5&

Purpose of the Study

Research in both PSM and LMX have demonstrated that each construct is

strongly and positively correlated with both job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. What is lacking in the literature is an examination of how these two

constructs combine with one another when explaining these specific organizational

outcome variables.

PSM researchers have shown that work relations with managers do impact job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Taylor & Westover, 2011; Westover &

Taylor, 2010) but these studies only used the single item, “In general, how would you

describe your relations at your workplace between management and employees,” to

measure the relationship between employee and manager. The present study will build

upon these findings by examining the same relationship but measuring it using an

instrument that has been indicated as the best measure for examining the leader-member

relationship (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and viewing this

relationship through the lens of leader-member exchange.

Significance of the Study

The role of leadership in public service motivation research has been relatively

sparse. Only a few researchers (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010)

have examined or proposed ways in which leadership practices can affect public service

motivation. There is also little research on the role of social relationships in PSM

(Emmet & Taher, 1992; Park & Rainey, 2007; Perry & Porter, 1982) and only recently

has there been research into how the relationship with the supervisor can combine with

PSM to explain positive outcomes (Taylor, 2008; Taylor & Westover, 2010; Westover &


6&

Taylor, 2011). This study will build upon the recent research on supervisor relationships

and PSM and give it a theoretical lens in leader-member exchange theory.

This study also holds practical importance in that the results can be used in

creating leadership development programs for public institutions. As the Partnership for

Public Service (2013) reports suggests, job satisfaction and organizational commitment

scores are continuing to drop as a result of poor leadership. LMX development

interventions have had positive results in increasing job satisfaction in employees (Graen,

Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984), and high-quality LMX

relationships consistently have a positive correlation with organizational commitment

(Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Kinicki & Vecchio,

1994; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nystrom,

1990; Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996;

Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). If LMX and PSM are able to explain satisfaction and

commitment, then principles of LMX could be incorporated into the leadership

development curriculum to potentially address declining levels of satisfaction and

commitment in public employees, who, according to Perry and Wise (1990), will have

joined public institutions because of higher levels of PSM.

Hypotheses

The general hypotheses of the study are that LMX and PSM will combine to

explain a significant amount of variance in both employee job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. The general hypotheses are represented below and are

explained further in chapter two.

H1: LMX and PSM will both have positive relationships with job satisfaction.&


7&

H2: Both LMX and PSM will have positive relationships with organizational commitment

Plan of Study &

To address the general hypotheses that LMX and PSM will combine to explain

significant amounts of variance in job satisfaction and organizational commitment,

surveys were distributed to employees of state agencies to assess the employee’s

perception of the strength of relationship with his or her immediate supervisor, level of

public service motivation, level of job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Standard multiple regressions were used to analyze the data. Findings from the standard

multiple regressions led to further questions that were analyzed through forward and

backward multiple regressions, a canonical correlation, and regression trees.

Summary

Previous research in LMX and PSM have indicated positive associations with job

satisfaction and organizational commitment yet no study has examined how these two

explanatory variables might combine to explain the variance in the response variables.

The current study aims to test the idea that LMX and PSM will combine to reduce the

unexplained variance in both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

The following chapters will provide an overview of the literature on LMX and

PSM and how they relate to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the methods

used to test the hypotheses, and results of the analyses. The final chapter includes a

discussion of the results, implications for theory and practice, limitations of the study,

directions for future research, and a conclusion. A glossary of major terms for the study

is included in Appendix A.&

&&


8&

Chapter II

Literature Review

The following sections will review literature on leader-member exchange theory,

public service motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. As there is a

vast amount of literature on each topic, only literature pertinent to this study will be

reviewed.

Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is different from most leadership

theories in that the focus is on the leader, the follower, and the relationship between the

two (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that many leadership

theories have historically focused on characteristics of the leaders or managers (i.e, trait

theories based on traits of leaders; contingency theories based on the style of the leader).

The emphasis of LMX on the relational aspect of the connection between leader and

follower is based in both role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964)

and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Role theory suggests that members of an

organization complete their work through the behaviors that are expected of the

individual in that position. These are the “leader” and “member” roles in the relationship.

Blau’s (1964) conception of social exchange theory consisted of both the economic and

social exchanges that occur in a relationship.

Leader-member exchange theory began as an examination of vertical dyad

linkages (VDL), the use of an average leadership style directed at subordinates by leaders

or direct supervisors (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). The theory evolved as

researchers began to notice that leaders do not use the same leadership style with all


9&

subordinates as was suggested by the Ohio State and Michigan studies (Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995). Rather, leaders developed individualized relationships with each

subordinate. As research examining VDL validated the existence of differentiated

relationships (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975;

Graen, Cashman, Ginsburg, & Schiemann, 1977, Rosse & Kraut, 1983; Vecchio, 1982),

researchers began to develop the theory of LMX as a way to examine the characteristics

of the differentiated relationships leaders have with subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995).

Further examination of the relationships between leaders and followers revealed

some subordinates reported higher quality exchanges with the leader while others

reported lower quality exchanges. Higher levels of mutual trust, respect, and obligation

between the leader and the follower characterized relationships rated as high quality.

Subordinates with higher quality exchanges with their leader typically go beyond what is

called for in their job descriptions and are referred to as being in the in-group (Zalesny &

Graen, 1987). Studies of in-group follower characteristics revealed these individuals had

similar decision-making styles as their leaders (Graen, 1989) and were high in growth-

need strength, or the need to grow and develop on a personal level through meeting

psychological or nonmaterial needs (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen,

Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Scandura & Graen, 1984).

Through Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory, members of the in-group are

receiving economic gains in the form of promotions and salary (Wakabayashi & Graen,

1984), or what is stipulated in the job description and contract with the organization,

while also creating social gains in the form of trust and respect (Zalensy & Graen, 1987).


10&

What distinguishes economic gains from the social gains is the idea that the benefits of

social exchanges are unstipulated (Blau, 1964). The leader is not obligated to trust and

respect the subordinate. Rather, those benefits are earned through the work the

subordinate produces and the relationship that develops between the leader and the

follower.

The relationships between subordinates and leaders with low-quality exchanges

are typified by lower trust, respect, and obligation. The subordinates with these types of

exchanges do not tend to stray from their job descriptions and are referred to as the out-

group (Zalesny & Graen, 1987). Members of the out-group are involved in economic

exchanges with the leader but may receive fewer social exchanges.

LMX researchers furthered the theory by examining how high quality and low

quality exchanges related to a number of organizational outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995). Studies in this realm of LMX research investigated the connection between the

differentiated relationships between leader and follower and organizational variables such

as organizational citizenship behavior (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986), performance

(Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Scandura &

Graen, 1984), job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Seers & Graen,

1984; Stepina, Perrewe, Hassel, Harris, & Mayfield, 1991), and organizational

commitment (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996;

Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner,

1995; Nystrom, 1990; Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Settoon, Bennet,

& Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).


11&

LMX research involving job satisfaction and organizational commitment are most

pertinent to this study and previous research on these topics are presented later in the

paper.

Public Service Motivation

Leading into the 1990s, political leaders were searching for a way to revitalize the

public service ethic in the United States (Perry & Wise, 1990). There was growing

support behind the public choice movement that was based on the idea that people were

motivated to work based on their own self-interests. Moving forward with this idea,

organizational leaders designed reward systems to meet and take advantage of the self-

interests of their employees. Organizations began to rely on the use of monetary rewards

to motivate their employees. This idea was also accepted by government institutions

when designing the reward systems for civil servants without taking into account the idea

that civil servants might be motivated by factors other than money.

Perry (2000) believed there were shortcomings in the prevailing theories of

motivation. The most notable shortcomings were the focus on individualistic bases of

motivation theories, the prevalence of ambiguous goals in public service, and the failure

of motivation theories to specify the behaviors to which it applies. Shamir (1991)

pointed out rational-choice theories of motivation view individuals as rational

maximizers that only seek short-term, maximum gains. This view completely disregards

any prosocial or altruistic behaviors that might motivate some individuals. These views

also do not take into account motivations that lead to behaviors that go beyond the self-

interests of individuals and focus on the collective.


12&

Perry and Wise (1990) posited those working in the public sector were not only

motivated by self-interests and money. They supposed there were other motivational

bases working within individuals that led them to public service and that current

motivation theories did not incorporate these ideas. They described this new idea as

public service motivation and defined it as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to

motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368).

Initial research on PSM focused on the three original hypotheses proposed by

Perry and Wise (1990) and on effectively building the construct of PSM. Research on the

first hypothesis, that high PSM individuals would seek employment in public institutions,

often referred to as the attraction-selection frame (Perry & Wise, 1990), produced general

support for the idea (Lewis & Frank, 2002; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2008).

The second hypothesis stated that PSM would be positively related to job

performance in public organizations (Perry & Wise, 1990). This hypothesis was based

on two assumptions. The first was founded on the ideas of Turner and Lawrence (1965)

that stated individuals can be intrinsically motivated by their jobs if they find their work

to be meaningful. Perry and Wise (1990) believed individuals with high PSM would be

motivated by their work because the significance of the tasks being performed in their

jobs would provide them an opportunity to satisfy their motives. The second premise of

the hypothesis was related to organizational commitment. Perry and Wise (1990)

suggested that those who are highly committed to an organization would also be more

likely to be highly motivated to perform well in their jobs.

Research on this hypothesis has been generally supported. Alonso and Lewis

(2001) were able to show a positive impact of PSM on performance when using job


13&

performance ratings and grade. Naff and Crum (1999) were also able to show a positive

relationship using self-reported performance appraisals. While these studies have

focused on the individual level of analysis, others (Francois, 2000; LeGrand, 2003)

examined this from the institutional level and found similar results.

The final hypothesis involved rewarding PSM individuals (Perry & Wise, 1990).

Perry and Wise (1990) contended that organizational rewards should be based on the

types of motivation present in an organization’s employees. The researchers

hypothesized that those individuals who are “motivated primarily by rational choice are

likely to find utilitarian incentives most effective. Organizations whose members are

motivated by normative and affective considerations must rely more heavily on

normative and affectual incentives” (Perry & Wise, pg. 371). They posit that

organizational leaders who do not correctly match rewards with motivations are not likely

to see employees perform at their maximum capabilities or effectiveness.

Subsequent research on this hypothesis has provided empirical support for this

proposition although much of the research has focused on how public employees place

value on financial rewards relative to employees in the private sector. Crewson (1997)

found that although employees in both the private and public sector place importance on

high pay, public sector employees rate intrinsic rewards as more valuable than do their

private sector counterparts. These findings are consistent with the original hypothesis

that high PSM employees are less reliant on utilitarian incentives even if the results did

not indicate that financial rewards were not any less important to those working in the

public sector.


14&

Frey and Jegen (2001) examined monetary rewards through an economic theory

known as motivation crowding theory. Crowding theory posits that monetary rewards

crowd out and undermine intrinsic motivation in individuals. External interventions,

such as bonuses, crowd out intrinsic motivation if the individual views the reward as

something controlling. If the individual perceived the reward as supportive, then the

reward will crowd in intrinsic motivation. Based on these findings, Francois and

Vlasspopulos (2008) suggested non-monetary rewards are more useful in public

organizations than monetary rewards.

Although there is research providing general support for this proposition, Perry,

Hondeghem, and Wise (2010) suggested further studies be conducted on the topic. They

suggested future research investigate how a balance of utilitarian and non-monetary

rewards affect motivations. They went on to state that research involving multiple

motives would inform this proposition as well.

Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as the “pleasurable or positive emotional

state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300), and it is one

of the most studied concepts in industrial/organizational psychology (Judge, Parker,

Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). The concept of job satisfaction has its origins in Taylor’s

scientific management theory that began to examine the attitudes associated with work

and in the Hawthorne Studies of the 1920s that demonstrated the role of workers and

their attitudes and perceptions of work situations (Locke, 1976).


15&

Locke (1976) identified three causal models of job satisfaction. These models

attempt to specify the variables that cause and combine to form job satisfaction. The

three models are expectancies, needs, and values.

The expectancy model is related to what the work environment offers, what the

individual expects, and what he or she is able to attain. This can be illustrated with the

attraction-selection hypothesis of public service motivation. Perry and Wise (1990)

hypothesized that individuals with high PSM would seek employment in public

organizations. The high-PSM individual expects that working in the public organization

will help satisfy their need to serve the public. The extent to which that individual has

high or low job satisfaction is determined by how well the work in the organization meets

the expectation of the high-PSM individual that the work fulfills their need to serve the

public.

The needs model of job satisfaction is closely related to the previous example of

the high-PSM individual. The needs model is based on the idea that the individual will

have high or low job satisfaction depending on whether or not the psychological and

physical needs of the individual are being met (Locke, 1976). The attraction-selection

example above works here as well because the level of job satisfaction is dependent upon

how well the work meets the psychological need of the individual to serve the public.

The final causal model of job satisfaction is the values model. The values model

is very similar to the needs model except for the fundamental difference between the

concepts of needs and values. Locke (1976) used Rand’s (1964) definition of value to

distinguish it from a need. He stated that values are something that an individual seeks to

attain, whether consciously or unconsciously. This differs from needs in that needs are


16&

innate whereas an individual’s values are learned or acquired over time. The overall

model of job satisfaction is the same. If an individual values high pay and the

organization for which he or she works is able to meet that value, then the individual is

expected to have high job satisfaction. If the organization cannot meet this value, then

job satisfaction is expected to be low.

From Locke’s (1976) value model came the job satisfaction interactive antecedent

model commonly referred to as the value-precept theory (Judge, et al., 2001). This

theory posits that an individual’s values are what determine satisfaction on the job. If an

individual places high value on a particular aspect of the job and that aspect goes

unfulfilled, then the individual would not be satisfied with that job facet. This model

could be important when examining job satisfaction and a construct such as PSM where

so much emphasis is placed on fulfilling psychological motives that are related to

personal values.

PSM and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is considered a strong correlate of

PSM in the public sector, mainly because this type of employment is able to satisfy the

needs and wants of employees by serving the public interest and contributing to society

(Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry & Wise, 1990).

The first major research to indicate a relationship between PSM and job

satisfaction was Brewer and Selden’s (1998) investigation of whistle-blowers in the

federal government. The researchers claimed whistle-blowers acted in ways that were

consistent with the theory of public service motivation and that these individuals reported

higher levels of job satisfaction than did their colleagues who were inactive by-standers.

Naff and Crum (1999) provided supporting evidence of this relationship when using a


17&

sample of nearly 10,000 responses to the 1996 Merit Principles Survey, which included

six questions taken from Perry’s (1996) PSM instrument, completed by federal

employees. Their findings indicated that employees who reported higher levels of PSM

also reported significantly higher levels of job satisfaction. The positive correlation of

PSM and job satisfaction has also been reported in Korean samples (Kim, 2005), Italian

samples (Cerase & Farinella, 2006), and Dutch samples (Steijn, 2008).

Taylor and Westover (2011) also found a positive correlation between PSM and

job satisfaction. However, they found that PSM’s impact on job satisfaction levels was

small when compared with workplace attitudes and work relations between individuals

and their coworkers and their supervisors or managers. Taylor (2008) and Westover and

Taylor (2010) found similar results regarding the relationship between PSM, job

satisfaction, and work relations in international samples. These findings are particularly

important to this study because they indicate that relationships at work, both with

coworkers and superiors, play a role in the correlation between PSM and job satisfaction.

However, all of these studies only measured work relationships with the single

instrument item, “In general, how would you describe your relations at your workplace

between management and employees,” instead of using a multiple-item measure of the

quality of the relationship.

LMX and job satisfaction. LMX is generally considered a strong correlate with

job satisfaction (Gertsner & Day, 1997). Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) were

some of the earliest researchers to examine the relationship between LMX relationships

and job satisfaction. They conducted a longitudinal study in which subordinate job

satisfaction was measured at multiple intervals while their immediate supervisors


18&

received training on how to develop higher quality relationships with their subordinates.

The results of the study indicated that the subordinates of leaders who received the LMX

interventions reported higher overall job satisfaction scores than those subordinates

whose leaders did not receive the trainings. Scandura and Graen (1984) found similar

results when investigating the effects of initial quality of LMX relationships. They found

that after supervisors received LMX development interventions, the subordinates who

initially had low-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors showed greater gains

in job satisfaction than subordinates who initially had high-quality relationships. These

studies suggest that leadership development programs designed to develop high-quality

relationships with subordinates can have positive effects on job satisfaction for

subordinates.

Satisfaction with supervision is a subscale of overall job satisfaction that is also of

interest to LMX researchers. Stepina, Perrewe, Hassell, Harris, and Mayfield (1991)

found that while characteristics of the job explained unique variance in internal

motivation, social satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and overall satisfaction, the LMX

relationship was able to explain unique variance in satisfaction with supervision.

Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found similar results but they also found something distinct

about overall job satisfaction. Instead of focusing solely on in- and out-groups, Vecchio

and Gobdel included a middle-group in their study. The results showed that the middle-

group was relatively more satisfied with their jobs than were those considered to be in the

in- or out-groups. These results highlighted the need for LMX research to re-think the

polar in- and out-groups and instead think of LMX relationships as a continuum and to

consider the role that negotiating latitude plays in LMX relationships.


19&

Organizational Commitment

For years, researchers have struggled to settle on a standard definition of

organizational commitment. The difficulty on setting a standard definition lies in the

complex and multifaceted nature of the construct (Meyer, Smith, & Allen, 1993). Neale

and Northcraft (1991) defined organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an

individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization” (p. 290). Meyer,

Allen, and Smith (1993) offered a similar, yet slightly different, definition of

organizational commitment. They defined it as a “psychological state that (a)

characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and (b) has implications

for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization” (p. 539).

Both definitions involve an examination of the relationship the employee has with the

organization, but Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) definition takes the idea further by

also including the likelihood that the employee will stay with or leave the organization.

While the differences between the definitions are subtle, the impact on the

generalizability of the study can be great. This is why Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993)

claim that researchers need to clearly state the forms of commitment being examined in

any particular study. For the purposes of this study, Meyer, Smith, and Allen’s (1993)

definition of organizational commitment and Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component

model of organizational commitment will be used to examine how LMX relationships

and level of PSM contribute to organizational commitment.

The three-component model of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen,

1991) is composed of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative

commitment. Affective commitment is the desire component of the model. This idea


20&

corresponds to the thought that employees have some kind of emotional attachment to the

values and goals associated with a particular organization (Buchanan, 1974; Kanter,

1968; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). This is similar to the attraction-selection

hypothesis posited by Perry and Wise (1990) in their initial development of the construct

of PSM. They postulated that high PSM individuals would seek employment with public

organizations because they identify with the values and goals of the institution. Whether

or not the individual stays with the organization may depend on if their motives are being

fulfilled through their affective commitment to the organization. This leads to the second

component of commitment, continuance commitment.

Continuance commitment is the need component of the model (Meyer & Allen,

1991). The need component brings cost into the commitment equation. What will the

individual lose if he or she decides to leave the organization? If the individual leaves this

organization, will he or she also lose his or her pension or seniority? Commitment

researchers refer to these as “side bets” (Becker, 1960) that an individual may or may not

lose when considering if he or she should leave the organization. In terms of PSM,

individuals may lose their ability to fulfill their need to serve the public, or a particular

population of the public, if they choose to leave a public institution. If this high PSM

individual believes he or she may not be able to fulfill this need at another organization,

then he or she may choose to continue working for the current organization.

The final component of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) model is normative

commitment. Normative commitment is the idea that an individual feels obligated to stay

with an organization, possibly because of an “internalized moral obligation” (Meyer &

Allen, 1991, p. 67). Meyer and Allen (1991) stated that normative commitment is less


21&

common than the other two types of commitment but that it is still a valuable approach to

studying the construct. Liou and Nyan (1994), however, found that affective and

continuance commitment were most important when studying public employee

commitment.

PSM and organizational commitment. The first study to empirically test the

relationship between PSM and organizational commitment was conducted by Crewson

(1997). He found that federal employees who had a higher preference for service

benefits or rewards, an attribute associated with PSM, had greater organizational

commitment than those who preferred more economic or extrinsic rewards. While the

results of the study were encouraging, the study was limited by the use of secondary data

and the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment required further

investigation.

Much of the research on the relationship between PSM and organizational

commitment since Crewson’s (1997) initial study has been conducted using international

samples. Camilleri (2006) examined the relationship between the two variables using a

structural equation model with a sample of Maltese public servants. His model illustrated

that PSM is reinforced and strengthened by organizational commitment. This model also

revealed that affective commitment had a direct effect on all dimensions of PSM. Cerase

and Farinella (2006) found that both affective and continuance commitment were

positively correlated with PSM in an Italian sample. However, they found that the

relationship between affective commitment and PSM was much stronger than that of

continuance commitment and affective commitment was significant across all dimensions

of PSM. Castaing (2006), using a sample of French civil servants, also found that


22&

affective commitment was the most important form of organizational commitment when

examining PSM.

LMX and organizational commitment. Research has consistently supported the

positive relationship between LMX and organizational commitment (Duchon, Green, &

Taber, 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Liden &

Maslyn, 1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nystrom, 1990; Schriesheim,

Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, &

Liden, 1997).

Nystrom (1990) provided a good examination of the relationship between LMX

and organizational commitment. His study developed because previous LMX research

tended to focus only on the relationship between LMX and job satisfaction in samples

largely consisting of university and government employees. Nystrom (1990) investigated

the relationship between organizational commitment and LMX in the private sector while

controlling for four situational variables that might affect the relationship. The four

situational variables he controlled for were the number of years the person had been in

the current job, the respondents’ seniority in the organization, job level or organizational

rank, and the size of the organization. After controlling for the situational variables,

Nystrom (1990) found that the LMX relationships between middle and upper managers in

private firms had a strong positive relationship with organizational commitment.

Moving beyond the simple correlation between LMX and organizational

commitment, researchers have attempted to find nuances in the relationship between the

two variables by using mediating variables. Green, Anderson and Shivers (1996) found

an indirect effect of LMX on organizational commitment through the mediating variable


23&

of satisfaction with work relations, a composite of coworker satisfaction and supervisor

satisfaction. Others have assessed the quality of LMX relationships as a mediating

variable between perceived organizational support, or the exchanges between an

employee and the organization, and organizational commitment in structural equation

models (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Both studies

found that the models using LMX relationships as mediators did not significantly differ

from the proposed models that did not use LMX relationships as a mediating variable

when attempting to reduce the variance in organizational commitment. These studies

serve as illustrations of the complexities inherent in the relationship between LMX and

organizational commitment.

Purpose of the Study

As previously stated, research in both LMX and PSM has indicated strong

correlations of both constructs with job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

However, to the knowledge of the author, no previous study has examined LMX and

PSM together and how they might combine to explain individual and organizational

variables. Recent studies (Taylor & Westover, 2011; Westover & Taylor, 2010) have

investigated how relationships with superiors and public service motivation link to help

explain response variables such as job satisfaction, but they have not had a theoretical

lens through which to interpret results. The purpose of this study is to examine how, or

if, LMX and PSM combine to explain the response variables and to use LMX as a

theoretical lens through which to interpret the results.


24&

Hypotheses

Based on the literature review, six hypotheses were developed. The following

section presents the hypotheses and brief justifications for the hypotheses.

LMX, PSM, and job satisfaction. Previous research in LMX (Gerstner & Day,

1997; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984; Seers & Graen,

1984; Vechio & Gobdel, 1984) and PSM (Brewer & Selden, 1999; Cerase & Farinella,

2006; Kim, 2005; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008; Taylor & Westover, 2011) has

resulted in strong, positive correlations of each construct with job satisfaction. Therefore,

it is hypothesized that both constructs will be positively correlated with job satisfaction.

H1: LMX and PSM will both have positive relationships with job satisfaction.

H1a: Strength of LMX relationship will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. The higher the quality of the LMX relationship, the higher the level of job satisfaction.

H1b: Level of PSM will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. The higher an individual’s PSM, the higher the level of job satisfaction.

Also, due to previous findings that both constructs exhibit strong positive

relationships with job satisfaction and findings in PSM literature that relationships at

work can influence job satisfaction (Taylor, 2008; Taylor & Westover, 2011; Westover &

Talyor, 2010), it is believed that level of PSM and strength of LMX relationships will

combine with one another and explain variance within the construct of job satisfaction.

H1c: Strength of LMX relationship and level of PSM will have a synergistic effect in explaining job satisfaction.

LMX, PSM, and organizational commitment. Research in LMX (Duchon,

Green, & Taber, 1986; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994;

Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nystrom, 1990;


25&

Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996;

Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) and PSM (Camilleri, 2006; Castaing, 2006; Cerase &

Farinella, 2006; Crewson, 1997) has consistently demonstrated a positive relationship

with organizational commitment. It is hypothesized that similar relationships will exist

within this sample.

H2: Both LMX and PSM will have positive relationships with organizational commitment.

H2a: Strength of LMX relationship will have a positive relationship with organizational commitment. The higher the quality of the LMX relationship, the higher the level of organizational commitment.

H2b: Level of PSM will have a positive relationship with organizational commitment. The higher an individual’s PSM, the higher the level of organizational commitment.

Due to recent findings in PSM literature that relationships at work affect levels of

organizational commitment (Taylor, 2008), it is predicted that PSM and LMX will

combine with one another to explain organizational commitment.

H2c: Strength of LMX relationship and level of PSM will have a synergistic effect in explaining organizational commitment

Summary

Based on previous research in LMX and PSM indicating strong positive

relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment, it is hypothesized that

both explanatory variables will have strong positive correlations with the response

variables. It is also expected that the two explanatory variables will combine to reduce

the unexplained variance in the response variables.

The next chapter describes the participants, the procedures used in the study, and

the measures used to construct the survey instrument.

&


26&

Chapter III

Methods

Overview

This chapter discusses the pilot study, methods, and procedures used to assess the

relationships between the explanatory variables, LMX and PSM, and the response

variables, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition, this section also

discusses the reliability and validity of the instruments used to measure the variables.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted prior to the full study. The purpose of the pilot study

was to assess the average amount of time it took to complete the survey. This was done

so that the researcher could accurately inform participants of the full study how much

time they could expect to spend on the survey. Responses from the pilot study were also

used to perform test runs of the statistical analyses used in the full study. Results of the

analyses on the pilot study data were similar to the results of the full study. Participants

for the pilot study were 59 graduate students and faculty members at a mid-sized

university.

Participants

Participants for the full study were employees of state agencies. A total of 130

useable responses were obtained from a pool of 353 state employees. The average age of

participants was 49.39 years. Of those who responded to the survey, 90 were female

(69%) and 40 were male (31%). The majority of respondents identified themselves as

Caucasian (83%) and African-American (11%). The remaining 6% identified as

American Indian (4%), Asian (1%), Hispanic (1%), and Pacific Islander (1%). The


27&

sample appears to be well educated with 48% reporting a master’s (29%), professional

(10%), or doctoral (9%) degree. Twenty eight percent report having a bachelor’s degree

while 6% report having an associate’s degree, 11% have some college credits but no

degree awarded, and 4% report having a high school diploma.

Institutional Review Board

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects at the

University of Central Arkansas approved all methods and procedures for this study. The

IRB application and consent form are included in Appendix A.

Procedures

The sample participants for this study were individuals employed by state

government offices. The researcher made contacts at the state agencies through

professors, colleagues, and other acquaintances. An overview of the study, procedures,

and survey instrument were emailed to agency contacts before they agreed to participate

in the study. The email was worded:

The link provided below will direct you to an anonymous research survey. This data is being collected by a doctoral student at the University of Central Arkansas as part of his dissertation. All survey responses are collected by survey software and are available to the researcher only. Data from the survey will be aggregated so that no respondent can be identified. Your participation in this study is voluntary. The survey takes an average of 10 minutes to complete. If the agency decided to participate, then the researcher obtained a letter of agreement

stating that the agency would disseminate the survey to employees via the agency’s email

system. Once the letter of agreement was obtained, the researcher sent the survey link

and a brief message stating the purpose of the survey to the contact at the agency so that

the link could be distributed to agency employees.


28&

The survey instrument was distributed to 353 employees at five state agencies of a

southeastern state and one state department in a southwestern state. The survey

instrument was constructed in Qualtrics Survey Software and a link to the survey was

emailed to the contact person at the state agencies and departments that had agreed to

participate in the study. The contacts at the state agencies then disseminated the surveys

to employees via the agency’s internal email system. Employees of the agencies agreed

to take part in the study by completing the survey or they could opt out by not completing

the survey. All survey responses were collected and stored under password protection in

Qualtrics Survey Software.

Measures

The survey instrument for the study consisted of four different scales used to

measure the four variables in the study, LMX, PSM, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. The four scales and nine demographic questions were combined to create

the survey. The survey as it appeared to participants is in Appendix B. The four scales

are described below. See Appendix C to view the individual questions that make up each

scale.

LMX. There is a controversy in LMX research in the area of measurement

(Shriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & Yammarino, 2001). Different researchers tend to use

different scales to measure the construct. Some of the disagreement among scales is

attributed to the lack of a clear construct definition (Shriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &

Yammarino, 2001). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and Gerstner and Day (1997) suggest

using the LMX-7 instrument because it is the most widely used LMX scale. Previous

studies have reported coefficient alpha internal consistency reliabilities of .86 (Scandura


29&

& Schriesheim, 1994), .87 (Schriesheim & Cogliser, 2009), and .90 (Wenderow, 2006)

for the LMX-7 scale. Based upon the reliability scores and frequent use of the LMX-7

scales, it is determined that this scale is appropriate for measuring the LMX construct.

There is also an on-going discussion among LMX researchers about the

importance of identifying the correct level of analysis for studies examining LMX

relationships (Shriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999; Shriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &

Yammarino, 2001). These researchers argue that most LMX research has not truly

examined dyadic relationships but have rather examined LMX at the individual level of

analysis because most studies have only evaluated the relationship from either the

leader’s perspective or the member’s perspective of the relationship. Schriesheim,

Castro, and Cogliser, (1999) stated, “All future LMX research should first specify the

level(s) of analysis at which effects are expected to occur” (p. 102). As PSM is a

construct that occurs at the individual level (Perry & Wise, 1990) and the focus of this

research was to examine how, or if, levels of PSM and the quality of the LMX

relationship, as perceived by the member, combine to affect job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, which are internal psychological variables, then the

individual level of analysis for LMX was appropriate.

Examining LMX at the individual level means that only subordinates were asked

to complete the survey instrument instead of both the leader and the subordinate. Each

participant responded to items on the LMX-7 instrument with a 5-point Likert scale

assessing the quality of their relationship with their current direct supervisor. Scores

from each respondent are summed to reflect an overall LMX score. Scores on this scale

can range from a low of seven to a high of 35.


30&

Public Service Motivation. Public service motivation was measured using the

scale developed by Perry (1996). The scale consists of 21 items representing three of the

four dimensions that make up the construct of PSM. One dimension, attraction to public

policy, was removed from the scale because previous research has indicated that this

dimension represents self-interest and is less value and mission specific (Alonso &

Lewis, 2001; Wright & Pandey, 2008). The scale has a coefficient alpha of .90 (Perry,

1996). The three subscales used in this study are PSM Compassion PSM Public Interest,

and PSM Self-Sacrifice. Participants rated their agreement with survey items on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Each respondent

will have an overall PSM score that is the sum of scores from each of the three

dimensions of the PSM scale (PSM Total = sum of PSM Compassion + sum of PSM

Public Interest + sum of PSM Self-Sacrifice). PSM scores could range from a low of 21

to a high of 105. PSM Compassion scores could range from eight to 40. Scores of PSM

Public Interest could range from five to 25 and PSM Self-Sacrifice scores could range

from eight to 40

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with a five-item scale from

Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000) that is a reliable scale (internal consistencies at .80 or

higher) adapted from the larger 18-item job satisfaction measure by Brayfield and Rothe

(1951). This measure utilizes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree.” Scores from each respondent are summed to reflect an overall job

satisfaction score. Job satisfaction scores can range from a low of five to a high of 25.

Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using

the affective commitment scale developed for Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-component


31&

model consisting of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative

commitment. Continuance and normative commitment were not examined in this study

due to previous research indicating the importance of affective commitment in public

employees (Liou & Nyhan, 1994). Allen and Meyer (1990) report a coefficient alpha of

.87 for the affective commitment scale. Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda (1994) found

consistent support for the scale across numerous studies. However, one item from the

scale was dropped due to poor factor loadings (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994).

The final scale consists of 7 items ranked on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Scores from each respondent are summed to

reflect an overall organizational commitment score. Organizational commitment scores

can range from a low of seven to a high of 35.

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the participants and procedures used to

obtain data for the project. The chapter also discussed the scales used to measure the

explanatory and response variables and why the specific scales were chosen. The

following chapter will discuss the statistical methods used to analyze the data and reports

the results of the analyses.

&&&


32&

Chapter IV

Results

Overview

This chapter begins with a discussion of the statistical methods used to analyze

the data and then describes the rate of returned surveys from the sample population. The

following sections report the demographics of the sample, descriptive statistics, and

results of analyses used to test the hypotheses. The chapter ends with a summary of the

results.

Data Analysis

Once data were collected, they were entered into SPSS version 22 for analysis.

Variables measured by more than one item were tested for internal reliability using

Cronbach’s Alpha and then transformed into a single score for each variable (e.g., PSM

Total and LMX Total). The analyses used to examine the data were Spearman

correlations, forward and backward multiple regressions, canonical correlations, and

classification and regression trees.

Correlations between the variables were tested using Spearman’s rho.

Spearman’s rho tests were utilized due to the use of ordinal scales to measure the

constructs. The combined effects of LMX and PSM on job satisfaction and

organizational commitment were tested using standard multiple regressions. Multiple

regression is a statistical test used to explain the reduction in variance of a quantitatively

measured response variable based on the values of two or more explanatory variables

(Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).


33&

Due to the findings of the standard multiple regressions between LMX, PSM, and

the response variables of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, subsequent

analyses were run using scores on the subscales of PSM instead of a total PSM score.

These analyses were exploratory and were run to examine if any of the three PSM

subscales (compassion, public interest, and self-sacrifice) appeared to play larger roles in

explaining the response variables. Forward and backward regressions, a canonical

correlation, and regression trees were performed to test the models.

In a forward regression, explanatory variables, in this case LMX and the PSM

subscales, are entered to the equation one at a time based on which variable will add the

most explanatory power to the model (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). A backward

regression differs from a forward regression in that all explanatory variables are added to

the model and then nonsignificant explanatory variables are removed at each step

(Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).

A canonical correlation is a statistical technique used to “assess the relationship

between two continuously measured variables” (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006, p.

193). In a canonical correlation, as opposed to a multiple regression, all of the

explanatory variables are combined to create a new, weighted synthetic explanatory

variate. Two or more response variables can also be combined into a weighted response

variate. Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006) state that using the linear combinations of

canonical correlation variates is an advantage because it allows the researcher to discover

relationships that might not be uncovered in a single-variable design.

For the purposes of this study, the explanatory variables of LMX and all three

PSM subscales were combined to create the explanatory variate. The response variables


34&

of job satisfaction and organizational commitment were combined into a single response

variate. The results of the canonical correlation should closely reflect the results of the

forward and backward multiple regressions in terms of the weights of each explanatory

variable.

Regression trees were also used to test the relationships between LMX, PSM

subscales, and the outcome variables. Regressions trees are a non-linear statistical

analysis that repeatedly separates individual scores into binary groups that are

progressively more homogenous based on the outcome variable (Breiman, Friedman,

Olshen, & Stone, 1984). Using the natural regression criterion, the “best split at a node is

that split on the x variables which most successfully separate the high response values

from the low ones (Brieman, Friedman, Olshen, & Stone, 1984, p. 231). Essentially, the

most influential explanatory variable is used to separate the node into high and low

groups of the response variable until it reaches a terminal node.

Survey Results

Return Rate

Surveys were distributed to employees of the state agencies that agreed to

disseminate the survey. A total of five agencies and one state department agreed to

disseminate the survey, which resulted in a sample population of 353 state employees.

Of the 353 surveys distributed, 132 were returned. Of the returned surveys, 90 were

100% complete, 40 were 90% complete, and two did not respond to any questions.

Removing the two returned surveys that did not respond to any questions left a total of

130 usable surveys. This yields a return rate of 36.8%.


35&

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were run for each variable used in the study. Means,

standard deviations, minimums, and maximums are represented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

LMX 26.21 6.45 7.00 35.00 PSM (Total) 75.32 9.53 43.00 101.00 PSM Comp. 27.96 4.52 13.00 39.00 PSM PI 18.07 2.92 9.00 25.00 PSM SS 29.29 4.08 18.00 38.00 Job Satisfaction 18.70 4.05 6.00 25.00 Org. Commitment 24.36 5.37 7.00 35.00 N = 130

Results of Reliability Tests

In order to test the survey scales for reliability, tests for Cronbach’s Alphas were

performed. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is generally regarded as sufficient.

All scales used in the survey achieved levels of .70 or higher (see Table 4.2)


36&

Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alphas for Research Scales

Scale Coefficient

LMX-7 .93 PSM (Total) .87 PSM Comp. .73 PSM PI .77 PSM SS .82 Job Satisfaction .86 Org. Commitment .89

Tests of the Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b

H1a: Strength of LMX relationship will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. The higher the quality of the LMX relationship, the higher the level of job satisfaction. H1b: Level of PSM will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. The higher an individual’s PSM, the higher the level of job satisfaction H2a: Strength of LMX relationship will have a positive relationship with organizational commitment. The higher the quality of the LMX relationship, the higher the level of organizational commitment.

H2b: Level of PSM will have a positive relationship with organizational commitment. The higher an individual’s PSM, the higher the level of organizational commitment.

Spearman correlations were utilized to test the hypotheses of how LMX and PSM

related to the work outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Correlations between all variables, including PSM subscales, are available in Table 4.3.


37&

The first hypothesis (H1a) predicted LMX would have a positive relationship with

job satisfaction. The results indicate that LMX is positively and significantly correlated

with job satisfaction (rs[130] = .56, p < .01). However, the second hypothesis (H1b), that

PSM would also have a positive relationship with job satisfaction, was not significant

(rs[130] = .10, p > .05).

Spearman correlations were also used to examine the correlations of LMX, PSM,

and organizational commitment. Results of H2a, predicting a positive relationship

between LMX and organizational commitment, indicate a significant positive relationship

between the two variables (rs [130] = .45, p < .01). The hypothesis, H2b, predicting a

positive relationship between PSM and organizational commitment indicated the

direction of the relationship was correct; however, the relationship was not significant (rs

[130] = .16, p > .05).

Table 4.3 Summary of Spearman’s rho Correlations for All Variables

&Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. LMX --- .12 .16 -.01 .11 .56** .45** 2. PSM .12 --- .84** .77** .82** .10 .16 3. PSM SS .16 .84** --- .56** .51** .05 .14 4. PSM PI -.01 .77** .56** --- .47** .10 .16 5. PSM Comp .11 .82** .51** .47** --- .11 .08 6. Job Satisfaction .56** .10 .05 .10 .11 --- .62**

7. Org. Comm. .45** .16 .14 .16 .08 .62** ---

**p < .01


38&

Hypothesis 1c

H1c: Strength of LMX relationship and level of PSM will have a synergistic effect in explaining job satisfaction.

Standard multiple regressions were run to test the synergistic effects of LMX and

PSM on the outcome variable of job satisfaction. Pre-regression diagnostics did not

indicate a significant correlation between LMX and PSM (rs = .12, p < .18).

The first set of regressions tested the synergistic effects of the explanatory

variables on job satisfaction, hypothesis H1c. The first test was a standard multiple

regression. The results indicate LMX, b = .39, t(129) = 9.13, p < .01, significantly

reduced the unexplained variance in job satisfaction while PSM, b = .03, t(129) = 1.01, p

< .31, did not significantly reduce the variance in scores on the job satisfaction survey.

The two explanatory variables described a significant portion of the variance in job

satisfaction, R2 = .40, F(2,130) = 43.56, p < .001 (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Model Summary of Regression Analysis for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM

Model SS df MS F

Regression 860.81 2 430.40 43.56* Residual 1254.87 127 9.88 Total 2115.68 129

*p < .001 Multiple Regression for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM

Predictor B SE B Beta t LMX .39 .04 .63 9.13* PSM .03 .03 .07 1.01

*p < .01


39&

Due to the finding that the total PSM score was not a significant predictor of job

satisfaction, subsequent regressions were run using scores on the subscales of PSM

instead of a total PSM score. These regressions were run to determine if any of the three

PSM subscales (compassion, public interest, and self-sacrifice) could significantly predict

job satisfaction scores. Forward and backward regressions were performed to test the

model.

Forward and backward regressions use slightly different criteria when adding and

removing variables. When a forward regression adds a variable, the variable must

significantly predict variance in the dependent variable at an alpha level of .05 or less.

The criterion to remove a variable in a backward regression is less stringent. For a

variable to be removed in a backward regression, the alpha level must be equal to or less

than .10 (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).

The forward regression only entered the variables of LMX and PSM Public

Interest into the equation and produced a significant result, R2 = .42, F(2,130) = 46.75, p

< .001 (see Table 4.5). The other two subscales, PSM Self-Sacrifice and PSM

Compassion were not entered into the model because they did not account for a

significant portion of the residual variance of job satisfaction. Checks for

multicollinearity did not reveal a masking effect of PSM Public Interest on either of the

other two subscales.


40&

Table 4.5 Model Summary of Forward Regression Analysis for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales

Model 1 SS df MS F

Regression 850.69 1 850.69 86.08*

Residual 1264.99 128 9.88 Total 2115.68 129

Model 2 SS df MS F

Regression 897.69 2 448.55 46.75*

Residual 1218.57 127 9.60 Total 2115.68 129

*p < .001 Forward Multiple Regression for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales

Model 1 Predictor B SE B Beta t

LMX .40 .04 .63 9.28**


LMX .40 .04 .64 9.46**

PSM PI .21 .09 .15 2.20*

**p < .001 *p < .05

The backward regression entered all variables into the equation and then removed

the PSM Compassion subscale, leaving the variables of LMX, PSM Public Interest, and

PSM Self-Sacrifice to explain the variance in job satisfaction. The results of the

regression were slightly higher than the standard and forward regressions, R2 = .44,


41&

F(2,130) = 32.84, p < .001 (see Table 4.6). The increase in explained variance is due to

the inclusion of the third subscale in this model. The third subscale was included because

the criterion for inclusion or removal was raised from an alpha level of .05 to an alpha

level of .10 in the backward regression models.

Table 4.6 Model Summary of Backward Regression Analysis for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales

Model 1 SS df MS F

Regression 928.51 4 232.13 24.44*

Residual 1187.17 125 9.50 Total 2115.68 129

Model 2 SS df MS F

Regression 928.33 3 309.44 32.84**

Residual 1187.35 126 9.42 Total 2115.68 129

**p < .001


42&

Table 4.6 (continued) Backward Multiple Regression for Job Satisfaction with LMX and PSM Subscales


LMX .41 .04 .66 9.60**

PSM Comp. .01 .07 .01 .14 PSM PI .34 .12 .25 2.74*

PSM SS -.16 .09 -.16 -1.79


LMX .41 .04 .66 9.71** PSM PI .34 .12 .25 2.87*

PSM SS -.16 .09 -.16 -1.82

**p < .001 *p < .01

Hypothesis 2c

H2c: Strength of LMX relationship and level of PSM will have a synergistic effect in explaining organizational commitment This set of regressions tested the effects of LMX and PSM on organizational

commitment. The standard multiple regression indicated LMX, b = .42, t(129) = 6.80, p

< .01, and PSM, b = .09, t(129) = 2.14, p < .05, both significantly explained

organizational commitment (see Table 4.7). The two explanatory variables also

accounted for a significant portion of the variance of organizational commitment scores,

R2 = .29, F(2,130) = 27.08, p < .001.


43&

Table 4.7 Model Summary of Regression Analysis for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM

Model SS df MS F

Regression 1114.15 2 557.07 27.08*

Residual 2612.34 127 20.57 Total 3726.48 129

*p < .001 Multiple Regression for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM

Predictor B SE B Beta t LMX .42 .06 .51 6.80**

PSM .09 .04 .16 2.14*

**p < .01 *p < .05

Again, further regressions were run to explore the importance of the PSM

subscales in explaining organizational commitment. The forward regression only entered

LMX and PSM Public Interest into the model. The two variables explained a significant

amount of the variance in organizational commitment, R2 = .32, F(2, 130) = 29.93, p <

.001 (see Table 4.8). Checks for multicollinearity reveal there was no masking effect on

the PSM Compassion or PSM Self-Sacrifice by the PSM Public Interest subscale.


44&

Table 4.8 Model Summary of Forward Regression Analysis for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales

Model 1 SS df MS F

Regression 1019.85 1 1019.85 48.23*

Residual 2706.64 128 21.15 Total 3726.48 129

Model 2 SS df MS F

Regression 1193.77 2 596.89 29.93*

Residual 2532.71 127 19.94 Total 3726.48

*p < .001 Forward Multiple Regression for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales


LMX .44 .06 .52 6.95**


LMX .44 .06 .53 7.21**

PSM PI .39 .14 .22 2.95*

**p < .001 *p < .01

The backward regression again used higher criteria for the removal of variables

from the model. The forward model used an alpha criterion of .05 while the backward

model used a criterion of .10 for the removal of a variable. However, the model still

removed the explanatory variables PSM Compassion and PSM Self-Sacrifice, leaving


45&

only LMX and PSM Public Interest in the model. The backward model produced the

same results as the forward model, R2 = .32, F(2, 130) = 29.93, p < .001 (see Table 4.9),

and explained a significant amount of variance in organizational commitment.

Table 4.9 Model Summary of Backward Regression Analysis for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales

Model 1 SS df MS F

Regression 1197.32 4 299.33 14.79*

Residual 2529.17 125 20.23 Total 3726.48 129

*p < .001

Model 2 SS df MS F

Regression 1197.30 3 399.10 19.88*

Residual 2529.18 126 20.07 Total 3726.48 129

*p < .001

Model 3 SS df MS F

Regression 1193.78 2 596.89 29.93*

Residual 2532.71 127 19.94 Total 3726.48 129

*p < .001


46&

Table 4.9 (continued) Backward Multiple Regression for Organizational Commitment with LMX and PSM Subscales


LMX .44 .06 .53 7.09***

PSM Comp. -.003 .10 -.003 -.03 PSM PI .45 .18 .24 2.46*

PSM SS -.05 .13 -.04 -.40


LMX .44 .06 .53 7.16*** PSM PI .44 .18 .24 2.54*

PSM SS -.05 .13 -.04 -.42


LMX .44 .06 .53 7.21***

PSM PI .40 .14 .22 2.95**

***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05

Canonical Correlation Results

The canonical correlation was run between the synthetic explantory variate

composed of LMX and the three PSM subscales and the synthetic response variate made

up of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The analysis produced two

functions with squared canonical correlations (Rc2) of .460 and .024 respectively. The

Wilk’s criterion indicates the full model was significant, λ= .527, F(8, 248) = 11.71,

p<.001. The Wilk’s λ statistic represents the unexplained variance in the dependent

variable, therefore, 1-λ yields the full model effect size as an r2 metric. The two


47&

canonical functions of this model yielded an r2 type effect size of .473, which means the

model explained 47.3% of the variance shared by the variable sets.

The dimension reduction analysis allows for the testing of the hierarchical

arrangement of functions for statistical significance. As previously stated, the whole

model was significant. However, the second function, which is the only function tested

in isolation, was not statistically significant, F(3,125) = 1.04, p = .378.

Table 4.10 represents the canonical function coefficients, the structure

coefficients, the squared structure coefficients, and the communalities for the function

across each variable. The canonical correlation coefficients indicate that LMX is the

primary variable contributing to function 1 while the PSM subscales play a secondary

role. This idea is corroborated by the squared structure coefficients. However, the PSM

subscales are primarily responsible for function 2 with LMX playing a smaller role.

Table 4.10 Canonical Correlation

Function 1 Function 2

Variable Coef rs rs2 (%) Coef rs rs

2 (%) h2 (%)

LMX -.981 -.952 .906 .188 .116 .016 .922 PSMComp -.011 -.213 .045 .100 -.420 .176 .221 PSMSS .201 -.154 .023 -.832 -.949 .901 .924 PSMPI -.386 -.245 .060 -.296 -.780 .608 .668 JobSat -.771 -.976 .952 1.128 .220 .048 1.000 OrgComm -.301 -.826 .682 -1.332 -.564 .318 1.000

The sign of the structure coefficient of the work outcome variate is the same as

the explanatory variables in function 1 with the exception of PSM Self-Sacrifice. The


48&

difference in sign of PSM Self-Sacrifice and the outcome variables indicates a negative

relationship with the response variables.

Regression Tree Results

Regression trees were run on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment

with LMX and all PSM subscales as the explanatory variables. Both regression trees

were grown with the CRT method and minimum parent nodes of 100 cases and minimum

child nodes of 10 cases. The trees were run with 10 cross-validations as suggested by

Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, and Stone (1984).

The regression tree for job satisfaction consisted of five nodes, three of which

were terminal nodes (see Figure 4.1). The measure of variable importance indicates

LMX is the most important variable in creating node splits and PSM Compassion is the

second most important variable (see Table 4.11).


49&

Figure 4.1 Regression Tree for Job Satisfaction

Table 4.11 Explanatory Variable Importance for Job Satisfaction Regression Tree

Variable Importance Normalized Importance

LMX 5.84 100% PSM Comp .489 8.40% PSM SS .020 0.30% PSM PI .000 0.00%

The regression tree for organizational commitment consisted of five nodes, three

of which were terminal nodes (see Figure 4.2). The measure of variable importance


50&

indicates LMX is the most important variable in creating node splits while PSM

Compassion is the second most important variable (see Table 4.12).

Figure 4.2 Regression Tree for Organizational Commitment

Table 4.12 Explanatory Variable Importance for Organizational Commitment Regression Tree

Variable Importance Normalized Importance

LMX 7.54 100% PSM Comp 2.34 31.00%

Summary

Spearman’s rho correlations indicate all of the explanatory variables are positively

correlated with the outcome variables of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Results of the multiple regressions and canonical correlations indicate that LMX provides


51&

a better reduction in variance in both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

However, the regressions with the PSM subscales reveal PSM Public Interest reduces

more variance in job satisfaction and is approaching significance in the canonical

correlation. The same is true of PSM Public Interest in explaining organizational

commitment through multiple regressions and a canonical correlation. Interestingly, a

regression tree analysis showed PSM Compassion to be the second most important

variable behind LMX in causing splits between high and low scores on both job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. The differences in results of the regression

trees from the multiple regressions and canonical correlation could be due to the non-

linear nature of the regression trees versus the linear nature of the multiple regressions

and canonical correlation. These differences suggest the relationship between the PSM

subscales and LMX perceptions is complex. Future studies should further investigate

how these ideas combine to explain work outcomes.

The results of these analyses suggest employee perceptions of the strength of

relationship in the subordinate-supervisor dyad is more influential than the individuals

motivation to serve the public in reducing the variance found in job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. However, it appears that some facets of the individual’s

public service motives can be important factors in explaining these outcome variables.

The next chapter will review and discuss the findings of the results presented in

this chapter.


52&

Chapter V

Conclusions

Overview

This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section reviews and discusses

the findings of the study and how they support or do not support the hypotheses. The

next section discusses the major implications of the findings. The third section addresses

the limitations of the study while the fourth section provides future directions of study

based on the results. The chapter closes with conclusions gained from the study.

Review and Discussion of Findings

The correlations between LMX and job satisfaction and organizational

commitment revealed significant positive relationships between the variables. These

findings support hypotheses 1a and 2a and are consistent with previous research (Duchon,

Green, & Taber, 1986; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Gerstner & Day, 1997;

Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Liden & Maslyn, 1998;

Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nystrom, 1990; Scandura & Graen, 1984;

Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992; Seers & Graen, 1984; Settoon, Bennet,

& Liden, 1996; Vechio & Gobdel, 1984; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).

Correlations between total PSM and the outcome variables of job satisfaction and

organization commitment were positive in direction but not significant. Correlations

between the PSM subscales and the outcome variables also proved to be insignificant.

These results are not consistent with previous research (Brewer & Selden, 1999; Cerase

& Farinella, 2006; Kim, 2005; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008; Taylor & Westover,

2011) and the findings do not support hypotheses 1b and 2b. The lack of significant


53&

findings may be due to the small sample size or the fact that the study consisted of a self-

selecting sample. The sample for this study also differed from previous samples in that it

was not a federal employee sample (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Naff & Crum, 1999), it was

not using archival data from a mandatory survey (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Naff & Crum,

1999; Taylor & Westover, 2011), it was not an international sample (Cerase & Farinella,

2006; Kim, 2005; Steijn, 2008), and it measured the constructs using more than a single

question (Taylor & Westover, 2011). The differences in the sample from this study

versus previous studies could be a reason why no significant findings were found.

Multiple regressions were used to test the synergistic effects of LMX and PSM on

job satisfaction and organizational commitment, hypotheses 1c and 2c. A standard

multiple regression run between the two explanatory variables and job satisfaction

reduced a significant amount of the variance; however, the results indicate that LMX was

the only significant explanatory variable in the model. This result suggests the strength

of the perceived relationship one has with his or her direct supervisor is better at reducing

the unexplained variance in job satisfaction than is one’s public service motivations.

These results partially support hypothesis 1c and the findings of Taylor and

Westover (2011) and Westover and Taylor (2010). Their work found that work relations

with management and PSM both significantly reduced the variance in job satisfaction

whereas the current study only found the relationship with the direct supervisor to be a

significant explanatory variable. These differences might be due to the fact that the

previous research only used single measurement items to measure both relationship with

management and job satisfaction while the current study utilized multi-item scales for

each construct. Also, the single item used to measure the relationship with management


54&

was more of a measure of satisfaction with management rather than an assessment of the

perceived strength of the relationship between leader and member. The use of multiple

items to assess the constructs in this study may have provided more robust examples of

PSM and LMX.

Forward and backward regressions using the subscales of PSM, instead of the

total PSM score, were also run to determine if any of the subscales carried more weight

in the regression. Results of the regressions indicate that LMX still reduced the most

amount of unexplained variance in job satisfaction and that PSM Public Interest was a

significant explanatory variable in both the forward and backward models. PSM Self-

Sacrifice was included in the backward regression though it was not significant in the

model. These findings seem to suggest that while the individual’s perceived relationship

with his or her leader is the strongest factor in explaining job satisfaction, the second

strongest factor is the individual’s willingness and desire to serve those in their

community. The fact that PSM Self-Sacrifice was included in the model proposes

respondents are willing to give up some things that would benefit them personally, such

as personal achievement or pay, but not at statistically significant levels.

A standard regression of LMX and PSM significantly explained the variance in

organizational commitment. The results imply LMX and PSM are both significant

explanatory variables with LMX reducing the most variance between the two. These

findings support hypothesis 2c. These results are similar to the findings of Taylor (2008)

that work relationships, or in this case, perceived work relationships, with management

and PSM affect levels of organizational commitment. Forward and backward regressions


55&

with the PSM subscales again indicate the significance of the PSM Public Interest

subscale over the other subscales of PSM Compassion and PSM Self-Sacrifice.

A canonical correlation was utilized to examine the significance of LMX and the

PSM subscales on the outcome variables of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. The results again show LMX as the primary variable contributing to both

job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results of the canonical correlation

show PSM Public Interest as the most influential PSM subscale in the analyses. These

results are consistent with the results of the forward and backward multiple regressions.

The regression tree analyses also highlight the importance of LMX over all PSM

measures in reducing the variance in job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

LMX was the explanatory variable that separated all nodes into high and low groups.

Surprisingly, in terms of variable importance, PSM Public Interest was ranked last in

importance when explaining job satisfaction and did not even register when it came to

explaining organizational commitment. In both cases, PSM Compassion was ranked

second to LMX. These findings differ from the multiple regressions and the canonical

correlation and could be due to the linear nature of the previous tests and the non-linear

nature of regression trees. The differences found in the linear and non-linear analyses

indicate the relationship between LMX and the PSM subscales is complex and is

deserves more attention.

Implications

The findings of this study imply that a subordinate’s perceived relationship with

his or her immediate supervisor is far better at reducing the variance in job satisfaction

and organizational commitment than is the employee’s desire to serve the public good.


56&

These findings indicate that while high levels of PSM may be a reason for an individual

to seek employment with a public organization, as Perry and Wise (1990) suggested, the

motivation to serve the public may not keep that individual satisfied with his or her job or

committed to the organization. Rather, organizations might strive to develop high-quality

relationships between leaders and members to keep employees satisfied with their jobs

and committed to the organization.

Theoretically, these findings begin to answer the questions of how leadership

affects public service motivation. Moynihan and Pandey (2007b) report the removal of

red tape, the empowerment of employees, and clarified goals are organizational factors

that affect the individual’s level of PSM. However, these are all factors that can be

accomplished through the LMX relationship. By having a high-quality relationship with

one’s supervisor and discussing job problems and needs (LMX-7 question #2, see

Appendix C) and knowing where one stands with his or her supervisor (LMX-7 question

#1), red tape and other barriers impeding work processes can be removed or addressed

and role expectations and goals can be clarified. Therefore, these become more factors of

leadership and less of organizational factors. These issues can be addressed at the

individual or work unit level instead of the organizational level.

Leader-member exchange can also address the issue of rewarding individuals with

public service motivations. Perry and Wise (1990) initially hypothesized that

organizational leaders would need to match incentives with the individual’s motivations.

Employees with affective and normative motivations would not necessarily be content

with only monetary rewards. Crewson (1997) found that those with high PSM did place

a larger emphasis on intrinsic rewards but they still valued utilitarian rewards. Graen and


57&

Uhl-Bien (1995) claim LMX can address both utilitarian and intrinsic rewards through

the transactional and transformational aspects of the theory. The transactional aspect of

LMX includes the social exchanges required to build the relationship and the material

exchanges that include compensation for the work performed. These exchanges, in

particular the material exchanges, fulfill the monetary rewards valued by those with high

PSM. Through successful social exchanges, though, high quality relationships between

leader and member can develop. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) posit these high-quality

relationships are transformational in that they get the member to go beyond their self-

interests and place emphasis on larger interests such as the work group or organization.

For an individual with high PSM, the larger interest may be the population or cause for

which they are working. These high-quality, transformative LMX relationships may help

fulfill the affective or normative motives of a high PSM individual. This idea is in line

with the proposition made by Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) that transformational

leadership practices can “harness the power of employee’s public service motivations” (p.

716).

In terms of practical implications, these ideas suggest public sector organizations

might invest time and effort in leadership development programs that instruct new and

current leaders on practices that build the mutual trust, respect, and obligation, as Graen,

Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) were able to do, that are the foundations of high LMX

dyads (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Doing so could result in employees who are satisfied

with their jobs and committed to the work of the organization.

Limitations of the Study


58&

Limitations of the study include the small sample size and the fact that

participants could choose whether or not they wanted to participate in the study. A larger

sample might have better represented the population of individuals working for state

agencies across all construct measures and demographics.

Participants also had the option of taking the survey or not taking the survey.

This could mean that only those who felt they had strong or weak working relationships

with their immediate supervisors or were extremely high or low on PSM, job satisfaction,

or organizational commitment completed the survey. Those who did not feel strongly

either way may have opted not to take the survey.

Future Directions

Due to a small sample size, future studies may want to repeat this study with a

larger sample. The small sample size was mostly due to a lack of cooperation from larger

state agencies and time constraints forced the researcher to move forward with the

smaller sample. Future researchers should work well in advance to obtain permission

from agencies to distribute the survey instrument to employees. Also, due to the

exploratory nature of this study, no multiple comparisons were run. Future studies will

need to run these analyses.

Future studies should attempt to obtain a larger spread of LMX scores in order to

determine if PSM plays a larger role in explaining job satisfaction and organizational

commitment when LMX relationships are low versus high. Gerstner and Day (1997)

state that high LMX relationships are strongly correlated with higher overall satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and, in general, adds to an overall positive work experience

among members of the LMX dyad. However, if the strength of relationship between


59&

supervisor and subordinate is low and the overall work experience is unpleasant, it may

be the case that the individual’s desire to serve the public good becomes the driving force

behind satisfaction, commitment, and other organizational outcomes.

Future research should also examine if the strength of the LMX relationship

affects levels of PSM. It may be the case that high LMX relationships lower PSM levels

because members in a high LMX dyad are receiving better work assignments and the

work itself becomes the motivating factor in the job. However, high LMX dyads may

increase PSM levels because of the frequent contact with supervisors and the mutual

trust, obligation, and respect inherent in the high LMX dyad. The high quality exchanges

characteristic of the high LMX dyad allows the leader to convey how the member’s work

is affecting the population being served and this could motivate the individual even more.

Future research will also need to expand beyond the member’s perceived strength

of the LMX relationship and explore how, and if, a relationship exists between the true

LMX dyad and other work relationships, such as those with coworkers, and public

service motivation. Taylor and Westover (2011) and Westover and Taylor (2010)

touched on work relationships with coworkers but future studies may need to go beyond

simple regressions with work relationships and begin examining if informal social

networks within the organization have a relationship with public service motives. Social

network analysis (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013) would be an appropriate method

for studying if ideas such as network centrality and cliques within a network have a

relationship with PSM.

Conclusions


60&

As Partnership for Public Service (2013) reports continue to reveal strong and

sustained declines in job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the public

workforce, public organizations will need to find interventions that can address these

issues. The findings of this study advocate for a strong focus on leadership development

interventions that strive to build mutual trust, respect, and obligation between leaders and

their direct reports to address the drastic declines in job satisfaction and organizational

commitment.

Public service motivation scholars tend to focus on how organizational factors,

such as organizational policies and reward programs, affect an individual’s motivation

without taking interpersonal interactions into account. The findings of this study reveal

how important those interactions are when attempting to keep employees satisfied and

committed to their jobs and organizations and suggest a new line of inquiry for public

service motivation scholars.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


61&

References

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurements and antecedents of affective,

continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

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

Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration,

31, 363-380.

Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of

Sociology, 66, 33-42.

Belle, N. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service

motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73, 143-153.

doi: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02621.x

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Johnson, J.C. (2013). Analyzing social networks.

Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Brayfield, A.H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35, 301-311.

Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., & Stone, C.J. (1984). Classification and

regression trees. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.

Brewer, G.A., & Selden, S.C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New


62&

evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory, 8, 413-439.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of

managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Castaing, S. (2006). The effects of psychological contract fulfillment and public service

motivation on organizational commitment in the French civil service. Public

Policy and Administration, 21, 84-98. doi: 10.1177/095207670602100106

Cerease, F.P., & Farinella, D. (2009). Public service motivation: How does it relate to

management reforms and changes in the working situation of public

organizations? A case study of the Italian revenue agency. Public Policy and

Administration, 24, 281-308. doi: 10.1177/0952076709103812

Crewson, P.E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of

incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7,

499-518.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role

making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-

78.

Duchon, D., Green, S., & Taber, T. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal

assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied


Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment:


63&

The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-

380.

Emmet, M.A., & Taher, W.A. (1992). Public sector professionals: The effect of public

sector jobs on motivation, job satisfaction, and work involvement. American

Review of Public Adminstration, 22, 37-48.

Francois, P. (2000). Public service motivation as an argument for government

provision. Journal of Public Economics, 78, 275-299.

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

services. CESifo Economic Studies, 54, 22-54.

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

Surveys, 15, 589-611.

Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-

844.

Graen, G.B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career: 15 secrets for fast-track success.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larsons (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers

(pp. 143-166). Kent, OH: Kent University Press.

Graen, G.B., Cashman, J., Ginsburg, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-

pin quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal

study of the managerial understructure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22,

491-504.

Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member


64&

exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual

attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30,

109-131.

Graen, G.B., Scandura, T., & Graen, M.R. (1986). A field experimental test of the

moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied


Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25

years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6,

219-247.

Green, S.G., Anderson, S.E., & Shivers, S.L. (1996). Demographic and organizational

influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., & Locke, E.A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The

mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-

249.

Judge, T.A., Parker, S., Colbert, A.E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A

cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 25-52).

London, England: Sage.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kanter, R.M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment


65&

mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-

517.

Kelley, C. (1999). The motivational impact of school-based performance awards.

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(4), 309-326.

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

organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-

261. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui013

Kinicki, A.J., & Vecchio, R.P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-

subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and

locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82.

Koehler, M., & Rainey, H.G. (2007). Interdisciplinary foundations of public service

motivation. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public

management: The call of public service. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

LeGrand, J. (2003). Motivation, agency and public policy: Of knights and knaves, pawns

and queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Administration Review, 62, 395-404.

Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange:

An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management,

24, 43-72.

Liou, K., & Nyan, R.C. (1994). Dimensions of organizational commitment in the public

sector: An empirical assessment. Public Administration Quarterly, 18, 99-118.


66&

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.1297-1349).

Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W., Chao, G.T., & Gardner, P.D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the

moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology,

80, 418-431.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design

and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2007a). Finding workable levers over work

motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational

commitment. Administration & Society, 39, 803-832. doi:

10.1177/00095399707305546

Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2007b). The role of organizations in fostering public

service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Naff, K.C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation


67&

make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 5-16.

Neale, M.A., & Northcraft, G.B. (1991). Factors influencing organizational commitment.

In R.M. Steers & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp.290-316).

New York: McGraw Hill.

Nystrom, P.C. (1990). Organizational commitment. Group and Organization Studies, 5,

296-312.

Pandey, S.K, & Stazyk, E.C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of public service

motivation. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public

management: The call of public service (pp. 101-117). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service

motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public


Park, S.M., & Rainey, H.G. (2007). Consequences and interactions of leadership and

motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of

Management, Philadelphia, PA.

Paarlberg, L.E. (2007). Values management: Aligning employee values and organization

goals. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 201-232.

Partnership for Public Service (2013). Best places to work in the federal government

analysis: Federal leadership on the decline. Retrieved from Best Places to Work

in the Federal Government website:

http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/index.php.

Perry, J.L. (1996). Measuring public servie motivation: An assessment of construct


68&

reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6,

5-22.

Perry, J.L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 471-488.

Perry, J.L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about

public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11, 3-12.

Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L.R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of

public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public


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

public organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 7, 89-98.

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

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

Rand, A. (1964). The objectivist ethic. In A. Rand (Ed.), The Virtue of selfishness,

(pp. 13-35). New York: Signet.

Rosse, J.G., & Kraut, A.I. (1983). Reconsidering the vertical dyad linkage model of

leadership. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 63-71.

Scandura, T., & Graen, G.B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member

exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied


Scandura, T., Graen, G.B., & Novak, M.A., (1986). When managers decide to not decide

autocratically. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 106.

Scandura, T.A., & Schrieshrem, C.A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor


69&

career mentoring as complimentary constructs in leadership research. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(6), 1588-1602.

Schrieshrem, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange

(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-

analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.

Schrieshrem, C.A., Castro, S.L, Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F.J. (2001). The folly of

theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level of analysis review of the field

and a detailed leader-member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12,

515-551.

Schrieshrem, C.A., & Cogliser, C.C. (2009). Construct validation in leadership research:

Explication and illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 725-736. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.004

Schrieshrem, C.A., Neider, L.L, Scandura, T.A., & Tepper, B.J. (1992). Development

and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX 6) to leader-member exchange in

organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135-147.

Seers, A., & Graen, G.B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal

investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member

exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 283-306.

Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: The

differential effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member

exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies,

12, 405-424.


70&

Somech, A., & Wendrow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and direct leadership

on teachers’ performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision

domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly,

42, 746-772. doi: 10.1177/0013161X06290648

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

Public Management Journal, 11, 13-27.

Stepina, L.P., Perrewe, P.L., Hassell, B.L., Harris, J.R., & Mayfield, C.R. (1991). A

comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward

domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior

and Personality, 6, 93-104.

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

outcomes: An Australian study. International Public Management Journal, 11,

67-88. doi: 10.1080/10967490801887921

Taylor, J., & Westover, J.H. (2011). Job satisfaction in the public service: The effects of

public service motivation, workplace attitudes, and work relations. Public

Management Review, 13, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.532959

Turner, A.N., & Lawrence, P.R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.

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

in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86,

1089-1105.

Vecchio, R.P. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group and

within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200-208.


71&

Vecchio, R.P., & Gobdel, B.C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership:

Problems and perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

34, 5-20.

Vinzant, J.C. (1998). Where values collide: Motivation and role conflict in child and

adult protective services. American Review of Public Administration, 28(4),

347-366.

Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G.B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A

7-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603-614.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and

leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 40, 82-111.

Westover, J.H., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The

effects of public service motivation, rewards, and work relations. International

Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 811-828. doi:

10.1108/17410401011089481

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

person-organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence.

Administration and Society, 40, 501-521. doi: 10.1177/0095399708320187

Zalensy, M.D., & Graen, G. B. (1987). Exchange theory in leadership research. In A.

Keiser, G. Reber, & R. Wanderer (Eds.), Handbook of leadership (pp. 714-727).

Stuttgart, Germany: C.E. Paeschel, Verlag.

&&&


72&

Appendix A

Glossary of Major Terms

Leader-Member Exchange: a relationship based theory of leadership with an emphasis on the leader, the follower, and the relationship between the two. Public Service Motivation: an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations Job Satisfaction: pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences Organizational Commitment: psychological state that (a) characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and (b) has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization Affective Organizational Commitment: component of organizational commitment in which employees have some kind of emotional attachment to the values and goals associated with a particular organization


73&

Appendix B

Institutional Review Board Expedited Application


74&


75&


76&


77&


78&


79&


80&


81&

Appendix C

Survey Instrument as Seen by Participants

University of Central Arkansas Informed Consent Cover Letter You are being asked to participate in a research study. Before you give your consent to volunteer, it is important that you read the following information to be sure you understand what you will be asked to do. Investigators The investigator for this project is Wesley A. Alford of the PhD in Leadership program at the University of Central Arkansas. Mr. Alford’s research advisor is Dr. Elson Bihm. Mr. Alford can be reached at 501-852-0912or at [email protected]. His office is located in Mashburn 235 on the campus of the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Bihm can be reached at 501-450-5417 or at [email protected]. His office is located in Mashburn 215 on the campus of the University of Central Arkansas. Purpose of the Research This study is designed to investigate how individual motivations and professional relationships affect job attitudes. Procedures As a public employee, you are eligible to voluntarily participate in this research. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a brief survey. Your participation will take approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey. Potential Risks or Discomforts There are no foreseeable risks associated with the study. Potential Benefits of the Research This research could indicate how individual motivations and professional relationships affect job attitudes. Confidentiality and Data Storage Identifying information will not be used in the final report so the individuals will not be able to be identified. All records will be stored and locked for up to five years in the Leadership Program Director's office (Mashburn 235). Any electronic data will also be kept under password protection and deleted after five years.


82&

Participation and Withdrawal Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate or stop participation at anytime without penalty. To stop simply stop answering the questions. Questions about the Research If you have any questions about the research, you may contact Mr. Wesley Alford at 501-852-0912 or at [email protected]. This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Central Arkansas. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the Research Compliance Office at 501-450-3451 or [email protected]. I have read the information provided above. I understand that by returning a completed survey I am agreeing to participate in this research study. KEEP THIS INFORMED CONSENT COVER LETTER FOR YOUR RECORDS. Age Sex ! Female ! Male Race ! African American ! American Indian ! Asian ! Caucasian ! Hispanic ! Pacific Islander ! Other ____________________


83&

Annual income (individual income, not family income) ! Below $30,000 ! $30,000 - $39,999 ! $40,000 - $49,999 ! $50,000 - $59,999 ! $60,000 - $69,999 ! $70,000 - $79,999 ! $80,000 - $89,999 ! $90,000 - $99,999 ! $100,000 - $109,999 ! $110, 000 - $119,999 ! $120,000 - $129,999 ! $130,000 - $139,999 ! $140, 000 - $149,999 ! $150,000 or more Job title Highest level of education ! High School diploma ! some college, no degree ! Associate's degree ! Bachelor's degree ! Master's degree ! Professional degree ! Doctoral Degree ! Other ____________________ Number of years in current position Number of years at current organization Number of years working with current immediate supervisor Do you know where you stand with your immediate supervisor...do you usually know how satisfied your supervisor is with what you do? ! Rarely ! Occasionally ! Sometimes ! Fairly often ! Very Often


84&

How well does your immediate supervisor understand your job problems and needs? ! Not a bit ! A little ! A fair amount ! Quite a bit ! A great deal How well does your immediate supervisor recognize your potential? ! Not at all ! A little ! Moderately ! Mostly ! Fully Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, what are the chances that your supervisor would use his or her power to help you solve problems in your work? ! None ! Small ! Moderate ! High ! Very High Regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, what are the chances that he or she would "bail you out" at his or her expense? ! None ! Small ! Moderate ! High ! Very High I have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so. ! Strongly Disagree ! Disagree ! Neutral ! Agree ! Strongly Agree


85&

How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor? ! Extremely Ineffective ! Worse Than Average ! Average ! Better Than Average ! Extremely Effective I am rarely motivated by the plight of the underprivileged ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Most social programs are too vital to do without ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree To me, patriotism includes seeing to the welfare of others ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I seldom think about the welfare of people whom I do not know personally. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


86&

I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I have little compassion for people in need who are unwilling to take the first step to help themselves. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree There are few public programs that I wholeheartedly support ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I believe in putting duty before myself. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


87&

Doing well financially is definitely more important to me than doing good deeds. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Much of what I do is for a cause bigger than myself. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Serving citizens would give me a good feeling even if no one paid me for it. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I feel people should give back to society more than they get from it. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I am one of those rare people who would risk personal loss to help someone else. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


88&

It is hard for me to get intensely interested in what is going on in my community. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I unselfishly contribute to my community. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Meaningful public service is very important to me. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community even if it harmed my interests. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I consider public service my civic duty. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


89&

I feel satisfied with my present job. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree Each day at work feels like it will never end. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I find real enjoyment in my work. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I consider my job to be unpleasant. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


90&

I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside of it. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. ! Strongly Agree ! Agree ! Neither Agree nor Disagree ! Disagree ! Strongly Disagree


91&

Debriefing Thank you for completing the survey. This research study is designed to investigate how supervisor-subordinate working relationships and a desire to serve affect the job attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees. Thank you again for your participation in this study. If you have any questions about the research, please contact Wesley A. Alford at [email protected].


92&

Appendix D

Variable Measurement Scales

LMX$7&(Graen&&&Uhl,Bien,&1995)&&

1) Do&you&know&where&you&stand&with&your&leader…do&you&usually&know&how&satisfied&your&leader&is&with&what&you&do?&

&Rarely&& Occasionally& & Sometimes& & Fairly&Often& &&&&Very&Often&&&&&&&1& & & 2& & &&&&&&&&&&3&& &&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&4& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5&&

2) How&well&does&your&leader&understand&your&job&problems&and&needs?&&Not&a&Bit& A&Little& &A&Fair&Amount& &&&Quite&A&Bit& & A&Great&Deal&&&&&&&&&&1& & &&&&&&&2& & &&&&&&&&&&&&&3& & &&&&&&&&&&&4&& &&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&5&&

3) How&well&does&your&leader&recognize&your&potential?&&Not&At&All& &&&&&&&A&Little& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Moderately& &&&Mostly& Fully&&&&&&&&&&1& & &&&&&&&&&&&&2& & &&&&&&&&&&&3&& &&&&&&&4& && &&&5&&

4) Regardless&of&how&much&formal&authority&your&leader&has&built&into&his&or&her&position,&what&are&the&chances&that&your&leader&would&use&his&or&her&power&to&help&you&solve&problems&in&your&work?&

&None& & Small& & Moderate& & High& & Very&High&&&&&&1& & &&&&&2& & &&&&&&&&&3& & & &&&&&4& & &&&&&&&&&5&&

5) Again,&regardless&of&the&amount&of&formal&authority&your&leader&has,&what&are&the&chances&that&he&or&she&would&“bail&you&out”&at&his&or&her&expense?&

&None& & Small& & Moderate& & High&& & Very&High&&&&&&1& & &&&&&2& & &&&&&&&&&3& & & &&&&4& & &&&&&&&&&5&&

6) I&have&enough&confidence&in&my&leader&that&I&would&defend&and&justify&his&or&her&decision&if&he&or&she&were&not&present&to&do&so.&

&Strongly&Disagree& & Disagree& Neutral& Agree& &&&&&&&&Strongly&Agree&& &&&1& & & &&&&&&&&2& & &&&&&&&3& & &&&&&4& & &&&&&&&&5&&

7) How&would&you&characterize&your&working&relationship&with&your&leader?&&Extremely& Worse&Than& & Average& Better&Than& & Extremely&Ineffective& &&&&&Average& & & & &&&&&Average& & &Effective& &&&&&&&&&&&1&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&2&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&3& & &&&&&&&&&&&4&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5&


93&

&PSM$(Perry,&1996)&(5&point&Likert,&Agree&to&Disagree)&&PSM$Compassion$1)&I&am&rarely&motivated&by&the&plight&of&the&underprivileged&(Reverse)&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&2)&Most&social&programs&are&too&vital&to&do&without&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&3)&It&is&difficult&for&me&to&contain&my&feelings&when&I&see&people&in&distress&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&4)&To&me,&patriotism&includes&seeing&to&the&welfare&of&others.&&&&&& &1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&5)&I&seldom&think&about&the&welfare&of&people&whom&I&don’t&know&personally.&(Reverse)&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&6)&I&am&often&reminded&by&daily&events&about&how&dependent&we&are&on&one&another.&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&7)&I&have&little&compassion&for&people&in&need&who&are&unwilling&to&take&the&first&&&&&step&to&help&themselves&(Reverse)&&


94&

&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&&&8)&There&are&few&public&programs&that&I&wholeheartedly&support&(Reverse)&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&PSM$Self3Sacrifice&1)&Making&a&difference&in&society&means&more&to&me&than&personal&achievements.&&&&&&& 1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&2)&I&believe&in&putting&duty&before&self.&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&3)&Doing&well&financially&is&definitely&more&important&to&me&than&doing&good&deeds.&&(Reverse)&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&4)&Much&of&what&I&do&is&for&a&cause&bigger&than&myself.&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&5)&Serving&citizens&would&give&me&a&good&feeling&even&if&no&one&paid&me&for&it.&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&6)&I&feel&people&should&give&back&to&society&more&than&they&get&from&it.&


95&

&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&&&7)&I&am&one&of&those&rare&people&who&would&risk&personal&loss&to&help&someone&else.&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&8)&I&am&prepared&to&make&enormous&sacrifices&for&the&good&of&society.&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&Commitment$to$Public$Interest$&1)&It&is&hard&for&me&to&get&intensely&interested&in&what&is&going&on&in&my&community&(Reverse)&&&& &&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&

Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&2)&I&unselfishly&contribute&to&my&community.&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

&&3)&Meaningful&public&service&is&very&important&to&me.&&&&& &&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &&&4)&I&would&prefer&seeing&public&officials&do&what&is&best&for&the&whole&community&even&if&it&harmed&my&interests.&&&&& &&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &


96&

&&5)&I&consider&public&service&my&civic&duty.&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree& &

$Job$Satisfaction$(Judge,&Bono,&&&Locke,&2000)&&

1) I&feel&satisfied&with&my&present&job&&

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1& &&&&&&&&&&&2&&&&& 3& &&&& 4& &&&&&& 5& &&&&&& & &Strongly&Disagree& & & & & &&Strongly&Agree&&&

2) Most&Days&I&am&enthusiastic&about&my&work&&&&&&&&&&&&1&&&&&&&&&&&&& & 2& &&&3& && &&4& &&&&&& 5& &&&&&& & &Strongly&Disagree& & & & && &Strongly&Agree&&&&

3) Each&day&at&work&seems&like&it&will&never&end&(Reverse&Score)&&&&&&&&&&&1& &&&&&&&&&&&& & 2& &&& 3& &&&4& &&&&&& 5& &&&&&& & &Strongly&Disagree& & & & && &Strongly&Agree&&&

4) I&find&real&enjoyment&in&my&work&&&&&&&&1& &&&&&&&&&&& & &2& &&&&&&&&&&&&3& &&&4& &&&&&&&&&&5&&&&&&& & &Strongly&Disagree& & & & & &Strongly&Agree&&&

5) I&consider&my&job&to&be&unpleasant&(Reverse&Score)&&&&&&&&1& &&&&&&&&&&& & &2& &&&&&&&&&&&&3& &&&4& &&&&&&&&&&&5&&&&&&&& & &Strongly&Disagree& & & & & &Strongly&Agree&&&&&Organizational$Commitment$(Allen&&&Meyer,&1990)&&Affective$Commitment$$

1) I&would&be&very&happy&to&spend&the&rest&of&my&career&with&this&organization&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & &&&&&&&& &&&&&&&Disagree&&


97&

2) I&enjoy&discussing&my&organization&with&people&outside&of&it&&

&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&&&&&&&&&&&&&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&&

3) I&really&feel&as&if&this&organization’s&problems&are&my&own&&

&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&

&4) I&do&not&feel&like&“part&of&the&family”&at&my&organization&(Reverse)&

&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&

&5) I&do&not&feel&“emotionally&attached”&to&this&organization&(Reverse)&

&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&

&6) This&organization&has&a&great&deal&of&personal&meaning&for&me&

&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&

&7) I&feel&a&strong&sense&of&belonging&to&my&organization&

&&&&&1& & 2& & 3& & 4& & 5&Agree& & & & & & & &&&&&&&Disagree&

&

dissertation final submission – dr. alford

Documents