public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions …

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01870.x

PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION, CIVIC ATTITUDESAND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC, NONPROFIT AND PRIVATESECTOR EMPLOYEES

JEANNETTE TAYLOR

Using the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes dataset, this study compares the publicservice motivation (PSM), and civic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit and private sectoremployees in Australia. Sectoral similarities and differences were noted. This research also analysesthe relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and behaviours of these groups of employees.High PSM employees were found to have higher confidence in key national public and privateinstitutions, place more importance on citizens’ rights, and engage in more non-electoral politicaland prosocial acts than low PSM employees.

INTRODUCTION

Research on the public service ethic or public service motivation (PSM) in the pastdecade or so suggests that it is a valid and useful construct for predicting importantattitudes and outcomes (Le Grand 2003; Perry et al. 2008). PSM, it seems, in terms of itsclose association to work-related attitudes and behaviours like job satisfaction and jobperformance (Crewson 1997; Kim 2005; Taylor 2007), is of significance to organizations.In addition, PSM is argued to shape civic views and actions (Brewer 2003). Yet, not muchresearch has directly examined the relationships between PSM and civic attitudes andactions (Houston 2006, 2008). In particular, little is known about the effects of PSM on theadoption of civic attitudes relating to confidence in key institutions, and the importanceplaced on citizens’ rights; and engagement of civic acts relating to non-electoral politicaland prosocial activities.

In addition, despite the rising number of studies on PSM, most PSM research hasbeen confined to the public sector. This is largely based on the assumption that PSMcharacterizes public servants better than private sector employees, notably those whorespond to ‘the calling of the public service’ (Frederickson 1997). While producing usefulfocused findings, this monosectoral approach fails to test PSM’s association with civicattitudes and actions under a wider context. According to Van der Wal et al. (2006, p. 328),‘no studies have yet been conducted on the impact of public sector influences on privatesector moral behavior’. With business ethics and corporate social responsibility attractingmore attention in recent times, we should consider Steen’s (2008, p. 211) statement that‘especially in organizations whose prevailing incentives at first sight do not seem to fit inwith public service motives, the presence of highly public service-motivated employeescan make a difference in terms of the firm taking up its social responsibility’. Further,most sectoral comparison of PSM involves public and private employees; there are veryfew studies comparing the PSM levels of workers across three sectors: public, nonprofit,and private (Lyons et al. 2006).

This article has two objectives. The first is to determine whether there are significantdifferences in the PSM and civic attitudes and actions of public servants, nonprofitsector employees, and private sector employees. This will give an indication of whether

Jeannette Taylor is in the School of Social and Cultural Studies, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA.

Public Administration Vol. 88, No. 4, 2010 (1083–1098)© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148, USA.

1084 JEANNETTE TAYLOR

individuals working in the public service (public and nonprofit sectors) differ from theirprivate sector counterparts in their levels of PSM and civic attitudes and behaviours. Thesecond aim is to examine the relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and actions.This will provide some indication of whether people with high PSM levels are more likelyto adopt civic attitudes and engage in civic acts, regardless of their sector of employment.Most research on PSM examines its relationship with attitudes, with little attention onits behavioural consequences (Taylor 2007), particularly on prosocial outcomes (Perryet al. 2008). Partly due to this unbalanced focus on attitudes, Houston (2006) raised thequestion whether public servants who ‘talk the talk’ or have high levels of PSM actually‘walk the walk’ of PSM by engaging in public service activities. Two notable recentstudies on the relationship between PSM and civic acts are those by Brewer (2003) andHouston (2006). Brewer (2003) examined community oriented actions by studying publicservants’ membership and participation in civic organizations, while Houston (2006)examined their charitable acts, in the form of contributions of time (volunteer work),and donations of blood and money. In addition to two civic attitudes – confidencein key institutions, and importance of citizens’ rights, this research will focus on twocivic acts – non-electoral political activities, and prosocial activities. As the term suggests,engagement in non-electoral political activities excludes voting in an election, but includesother political activities of a non-electoral nature, such as making a financial donation,signing a petition, and taking part in a demonstration. Engagement in non-electoralpolitical activities by public, nonprofit and private employees constitutes one form ofcivic activity which is crucial for an accountable government. Even where governmentofficials are highly competent, and motivated by a concern for the public interest, it isimportant for citizens to articulate their preferences through various modes of citizenactivitism, in order to guide these officials as to what constitutes the public interest.A willingness to exercise citizen voice can also function as a check on incompetentbureaucrats and politicians, and expand the narrow interests that they can be allied with(Knack 2002).

UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION

The relevance of public service motivation (PSM) for explaining civic attitudes andactions is evident when one looks at its various conceptualizations. Earlier, Perry andWise (1990) observed that many public administration scholars believe in a public serviceethos that set public servants apart from their private sector counterparts. They went onto coin PSM to refer to ‘an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives groundeduniquely in public institutions and organizations’ (p. 368). They identified a typologyof motives associated with public service: (1) rational motives are based on individualutility maximization, and focus on behavior that serves to maximize an individual’s self-interest; (2) normative motives are based on social values and norms of what is properand appropriate; and (3) affective motives are characterized by a desire and willingness tohelp others, and include altruism. Along with self-sacrifice (which refers to a willingnessto forego tangible personal rewards for the intangible rewards derived from servingsociety), these motives were operationalized in Perry’s (1997) multi-dimensional scale:attraction to policy-making, commitment to the public interest, and compassion.

Subsequent research on PSM by other scholars offers more global definitions of thisconstruct, suggesting the applicability of PSM beyond the public sector (Rainey andSteinbauer 1999; Perry and Hondeghem 2008). Brewer and Selden (1998, p. 417), for

Public Administration Vol. 88, No. 4, 2010 (1083–1098)© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION AND CIVIC ATTITUDES 1085

example, defined PSM as ‘the motivational force that induces individuals to performmeaningful . . . public, community, and social service’. On this basis, PSM can be char-acterized as possessing an ‘other directed’ or prosocial orientation. According to Staub(1989, p. 50), ‘a prosocial orientation consists of (a) a positive evaluation of human beings,(b) concern about their welfare and (c) feelings of personal responsibility for people’swelfare’. Similarly, Eisenberg (1986, p. 30) stated that ‘caring, sympathetic concern, andvicarious responding to another’s emotions are frequently considered prosocial and altru-istic responses’. The common themes in PSM research, which generally focus on actionsthat are ‘intended to do good for others and shape the well-being of society’ (Perry andHondeghem 2008, p. 3), are consistent with these psychological characterizations.

But before the relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and behaviours areinvestigated, it is useful to test for any significant sectoral differences in the PSM, andcivic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit, and private employees. There is extensiveliterature which point to sectoral differences in employees’ attitudes, particularly betweenpublic and private employees (Rainey and Bozeman 2000). The next section is accordinglydivided into two parts: the first will test for sectoral differences, and the second willevaluate the relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and actions.

HYPOTHESES

Sectoral differencesThe fact that PSM is an individual, and not a sector-specific, concept (Brewer and Selden1998) would suggest that not all public servants can be expected to possess high levelsof PSM, and some people outside the government can have strong motives to performPSM-related activities. The public sector is also not the only place that allows individu-als to perform meaningful public service; private and nonprofit organizations can offersuch opportunities too (Perry and Hondeghem 2008). In short, ‘Rather than simply atheory of public employee motivation, PSM actually represents an individual’s predispo-sition to enact altruistic or prosocial behaviors regardless of setting’ (Pandey et al. 2008,pp. 91–2).

Despite the fact that the government comprises of a diverse group of public servants whoare working for many different reasons, some for intrinsic reasons and others for extrinsictangible reasons, it is equally likely that many individuals who are attracted to publicservice self-select themselves into public organizations because of a desire for the publicinterest, social justice, civic duty, and/or self-sacrifice (Perry 2000; Vandenabeele 2008). Byvirtue of their missions, public organizations are more likely to provide individuals withan opportunity to engage in public service. Although some of the empirical work offersevidence of no difference between public and private employees’ preference for extrinsicand intrinsic rewards (Buchanan 1975; Gabris and Simo 1995), the bulk of the empiricalevidence supports the existence of PSM among public employees in that they tend topossess an intrinsic over extrinsic rewards orientation. Research indicates that, in general,public employees, compared to private employees, are more concerned with intrinsicrewards, such as a sense of accomplishment than monetary incentives (Frank and Lewis2004), whereas private workers are more likely to value extrinsic reward motivators, suchas high salary and shorter working hours (Houston 2000). Government respondents tendto place higher value on challenging and important work (Crewson 1997), which providesthe opportunity to have an impact on public affairs, public policy, or work on behalf ofthe public (Houston 2000; Frank and Lewis 2004).



Beyond the public-private distinction, the nonprofit sector is expected to share morecharacteristics with those of the public sector than private sector. Nonprofits tend tohave a strong public service mission and an environment that more closely resembles themessy nature of public organizations (Corder 2001; Houston 2006). In their survey on thegeneral and work values of workers in public, parapublic, and private sectors, Lyons et al.(2006) found sectoral differences in the importance attached to making a contributionto society. Public and parapublic employees valued contributing to society more thanprivate employees, with parapublic employees placing significantly higher importanceon it than public servants. It is thus hypothesized that PSM is more likely to characterizepublic and nonprofit employees, who are both involved in providing a public service,than private employees.

H1: Public and nonprofit sector employees have significantly higher PSM levels thanprivate sector employees.

The PSM literature suggests that public and nonprofit employees are more likelythan private employees to possess attitudes that have prosocial orientation. Using 1996American National Election Study, Brewer (2003) found that public servants are more civicminded than other employees. Public employees score higher on attitudinal items relatedto social trust, altruism, equality, tolerance, and humanitarianism. Other studies foundpublic employees to possess more altruistic attitudes than private workers (Rainey 1997),be more supportive of democratic values or equality (Blair and Garand 1995), and possessa higher sense of civic duty (Conway 2000). According to Goodsell (2005, p. 32), ‘thevalues of public servants seem to stand apart . . . These are attitudes towards democraticparticipation and civic life’. Given the altruistic focus of nonprofit organizations, thistenet of civic views can be extended to nonprofit employees. On this basis, the secondhypothesis is

H2: Public and nonprofit sector employees have significantly higher confidence levelsin key institutions and higher importance placed on citizens’ rights, than private sectoremployees.

An implication of PSM being more highly concentrated in the public and nonprofitsectors is likely to be more civic actions by these workers than those in the private sector.In the US, Brewer (2003) found that public servants performed at least one third more civicactivities than other citizens, even after controlling for relevant explanatory factors. Coreyand Garand (2002) also reported that government employees are more likely to be civicallyactive. PSM is also closely related to prosocial acts. Using data from 2002 US General SocialSurvey, Houston (2006) observed that public and nonprofit employees are more likelythan private employees to report volunteering their time for a charitable organization,and making a blood donation and financial donation to a charitable organization.

H3: Public and nonprofit sector employees engage in significantly more non-electoralpolitical activities and prosocial acts than private sector employees.

The relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and actionsIf the prosocial orientation in PSM entails a positive evaluation of human beings (Staub1989), then it is likely that PSM can significantly shape people’s confidence level of theircountry’s major institutions. If the prosocial orientation in PSM promotes prosocial acts(Houston 2006, 2008), then it is likely that engagement with government or groups that



are attempting to influence government and large private corporations can increase one’sconfidence in these institutions. Individuals who are involved in civic activities are likelyto perceive that there is some chance of bringing about social change or control throughthe established political process (Keele 2007). People who do not engage in civic activitiescan feel a lack of political influence, which can cause feelings of powerlessness that fuelcynicism and distrust toward political and social leaders, the institutions that governpolitical life, and the regime as a whole (Putnam 2000). This leads to the expectation that

H4: PSM is significantly associated with confidence in key national institutions.

Another civic attitude that can be related to PSM is the importance placed on citizens’rights. Consistent with the PSM literature, the few studies on the relationship betweenPSM and engagement in civic activities report that individuals with higher PSM levelsare more civic-minded and involved in more civic activities than those with lower PSMlevels (see, for example, Brewer 2003). Individuals with higher PSM levels are expectedto hold more empathetic attitudes, and have a higher regard for the importance of civicparticipation (Houston 2008). It is anticipated that they would be more committed tocitizens’ rights (Lewis 1990; Langford 1996).

H5: PSM is significantly associated with the importance of citizens’ rights.

In terms of behaviour, it is expected that higher levels of PSM will lead to a greaterpropensity to engage in non-electoral political activities and prosocial acts. In contrast tostudies on civic and political participation which analyse voting turnout (see, for example,Corey and Garand 2002), this study will focus on non-electoral political participation,and not examine an individual’s tendency to vote in political elections because electoralvoting is compulsory in Australia. Since individuals with high PSM levels are reported tobe more civically active (Keele 2007; Houston 2008), it is hypothesized that

H6: PSM is significantly associated with engagement in non-electoral political activities.

PSM may also affect prosocial acts. Using survey data on 2188 U.S. federal employeeswho were aware of an illegal or wasteful activity involving their organization, Brewerand Selden (1998) found that a regard for the public interest is the most important motivefor whistle-blowing; the whistle blowers were less concerned about personal rewards andcomplaint success rates. Other forms of prosocial behaviour, such as volunteering, andorganizational citizenship behaviours have also been associated with PSM (Dekker andHalman 2003; Kim 2006). Perry et al. (2008) determined that high PSM levels are relatedto formal and informal volunteering. Prosocial orientation of individuals with high PSMlevels appears to foster prosocial acts (Houston 2006, 2008).

H7: PSM is significantly associated with engagement in prosocial acts.

DATA AND METHODS

DataResearchers who have used secondary data in their research on PSM include Houston(2006, 2008), who obtained data from the General Social Survey, while Park and Rainey(2008) relied on data from the Merit Principles Survey. Many studies on PSM, however,generally focus on a specific government agency or group of government organizations,which may or may not constitute a representative sample (Taylor 2007; Pandey et al. 2008).Like the research of Brewer and Selden (1998) and Brewer (2003), this study attempts



to use a representative random sample. It utilizes data from the 2005 Australian Surveyof Social Attitudes, which adopts a stratified random sampling by Australian state andterritory on a small group of Australians on the 2005 Australian electoral roll. Some 3902employed and unemployed individuals participated in the survey, representing an overallresponse rate of 43 per cent. In this study, unemployed Australians were removed, leaving2274 responses. After removing irrelevant and missing data, the number of respondentstotalled 2231. This was sub-divided into 109 nonprofit sector employees, 553 public sectoremployees, and 1569 private sector employees. A majority of the respondents were male(53 per cent), university graduates (30 per cent compared to 28 per cent certificate anddiploma holders), living in a metropolitan area (63 per cent), belonged to a religion (69per cent), considered themselves to be middle class (53 per cent), and identified withthe Liberal or National political party (37 per cent). On average, the respondents were50 years old. As workers, they tend to be in full-time (67 per cent), permanent (61 per cent)positions, with an annual income between AUS$52000 to AUS$77999 (20 per cent). Thefinal sample of 2231 employees is representative of the larger sample of 3902 employedand unemployed Australians on the above demographic controls with the exception ofgender, age, and education. Most of the respondents in the larger sample were females(53 per cent), slightly older (with a mean age of 56 years), and possessed certificatesand diplomas (25 per cent compared to 23 per cent university degree holders). Thesediscrepancies between the final and original samples can be explained by the fact that theoriginal sample contains employed and unemployed Australians while the final sampleonly takes into account the employed, which according to government national statisticsshowed a male-dominated and younger workforce (ABS 2005).

Measurement of variablesThe main independent variable is PSM. PSM is measured by five items which focus onthe qualities of a good citizen. Earlier, Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) used thesame items in the citizenship module of the 2004 International Social Survey Programmeto construct a composite PSM scale in their study on international differences in PSM.Although the items measure the qualities of a good citizen and their wording differ fromthose used in Perry’s (1997) scale, Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) argued thatthey fit into three out of the four dimensions of Perry’s scale. For example, the item on‘to help people in my country who are worse off than myself’ suggests a desire to helpothers in need, and thus is similar to Perry’s (1997) compassion dimension. Appendix 1presents the items. Further, this approach of developing a PSM index from a data set hasbeen frequently used in PSM research (Brewer and Selden 2000; Kim 2005). Confirmatoryfactor analysis (principal components, varimax rotation) on the five items measuring PSMrevealed a single index. Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.72 for the scale exceeds the suggestedminimum of 0.70 (Carmines and Zeller 1979). Nevertheless, the fact that PSM has beenmeasured by PSM-related items from a data set not developed specifically for this purposeshould be noted as a major limitation of this study.

There are four dependent variables relating to civic attitudes and actions:

1. Confidence in key institutions: The respondents are required to indicate theirconfidence level in six national institutions – public institutions (courts and thelegal system, Federal parliament, public service, and the social welfare system),and private institutions (major Australian companies, and banks and financialinstitutions). Scoring on the response scale is as follows: 1 for ‘no confidence at all’,



2 for ‘not very much confidence’, 3 for ‘quite a lot of confidence’, and 4 for ‘a greatdeal of confidence’.

2. Importance of citizens’ rights: It measures the degree of importance placed onpeople’s rights in five different areas (rights to an adequate living standard, rightsof minorities, rights of equal treatment, incorporation of citizens’ views in publicdecision making, and provision of more opportunities for citizens’ participation inpublic decision making). As in the case of the PSM variable, responses are scored inorder of importance, from 1 for ‘not important at all’ to 7 for ‘very important’.

3. Engagement in non-electoral political activities: It measures the frequency of eightdifferent forms of political and social actions that people can take, from signing apetition to taking part in a demonstration. More details are provided in Appendix 1.The response scale is scored as: 1 for ‘have not done it and would never do it’, 2 for‘have not done it but might do it’, 3 for ‘have done it in the more distant past’, and 4for ‘have done it in the past year’.

4. Prosocial acts: In contrast to the above variables, this is a single-itemed variable,and measures the extent to which respondents will take action on a government-proposed law which they regard to be unjust or harmful. Scores in the response scaleare: 1 for ‘not at all likely’, 2 for ‘not very likely’, 3 for ‘fairly likely’, and 4 for ‘verylikely’.

To confirm latent constructs from the measurement items above, a composite factorscore index of the multiple itemed variables was used, and principal component analysisand the varimax rotation technique was conducted to obtain factor extractions. Theresults in Appendix 1 showed a single index for each of these dependent variables.Appendix 1 also shows that the internal consistency or reliability of these scales exceedsthe recommended coefficient of 0.70 (Carmines and Zeller 1979).

Appendix 2 lists the control variables. These sociodemographic factors, such as age,race, and education are argued to affect civic attitudes and engagement (Reed and Selbee2001; Houston 2006). These controls also tend to be reported in studies on PSM (see, forexample, Perry et al. 2008).

RESULTS

Sectoral comparisonTable 1 shows the mean values of the main study variables and associated items inthe public, nonprofit, and private sector groups. Significant sectoral differences wereobserved for all variables with the exception of that on the importance of citizens’ rights.The nonprofit sector group showed the highest mean level of PSM, followed closely bythat of the public sector group, and finally the private sector group. The fact that thenonprofit and public sector groups have significantly higher PSM levels than that ofprivate sector group supports hypothesis 1. An analysis of the PSM variable by itemrevealed significant sectoral difference for two items; Vandenabeele and Van de Walle(2008) regarded them as reflecting Perry’s (1997) compassion dimension. For these items,the public sector group showed the highest mean value, followed by the nonprofit, andfinally the private sector groups.

In accordance to hypothesis 2, public employees showed the highest confidence levelsin key institutions, with nonprofit employees following closely, and then private employ-ees. An analysis of this variable by item showed a significant sectoral difference for



TABLE 1 Multivariate analysis of variance: comparison of means by sector

Item Nonprofitsector

Publicsector

Privatesector

F

PSM 5.500 5.320 5.059 7.787∗∗∗

To keep watch on the actions of government 6.250 6.016 5.957 1.323To be active in social or political associations 4.596 4.336 4.160 2.237To choose products for political, ethical or environmental

reasons, even if they cost a bit more5.442 5.201 5.017 2.288

To help people in Australia who are worse off thanyourself

5.815 5.886 5.644 3.254*

To help people in the rest of the world who are worse offthan yourself

5.038 5.126 4.598 9.700∗∗∗

Confidence in key institutions 2.174 2.228 2.149 4.616*Courts and the legal system 2.314 2.226 2.106 7.126∗∗

Federal parliament 2.214 2.244 2.224 .160Public service 2.128 2.360 2.076 33.538∗∗∗

Major Australian companies 2.320 2.344 2.386 1.040Banks and financial institutions 1.981 2.011 2.039 .449Social welfare system 2.160 2.190 2.113 1.922

Importance of citizens’ rights 6.433 6.370 6.263 2.504All citizens have an adequate standard of living 6.673 6.583 6.453 2.634Government authorities respect and protect the rights of

minorities6.255 6.138 5.762 7.963∗∗∗

Government authorities treat everybody equallyregardless of their position in society

6.385 6.583 6.497 1.138

Politicians take into account the views of citizens beforemaking decisions

6.726 6.520 6.592 1.280

People be given more opportunities to participate inpublic decision-making

6.098 6.059 5.979 .535

Engagement in non-electoral political activities 2.449 2.404 2.203 13.928∗∗∗

Signed a petition 3.588 3.340 3.229 6.434∗∗

Boycotted, or deliberately bought, certain products forpolitical, ethical or environmental reasons

3.216 3.076 2.806 8.260∗∗∗

Taken part in a demonstration 2.280 2.163 1.891 13.272∗∗∗

Attended a political meeting or rally 2.096 2.153 1.878 10.159∗∗∗

Contacted, or attempted to contact, a politician or apublic servant to express your views

2.481 2.403 2.209 5.645∗∗

Donated money or raised funds for a social or politicalactivity

2.500 2.645 2.412 3.718∗

Contacted or appeared in the media to express your views 2.000 1.885 1.790 2.582Joined an Internet political forum or discussion group 1.423 1.496 1.402 2.041

Prosocial acts: If a law was being considered by theFederal government that you considered to be unjust orharmful, how likely is it that you, acting alone ortogether with others, would be able to try to dosomething about it?

2.529 2.534 2.312 7.099∗∗

Notes: Number of participants (N) in the nonprofit sector is 109; N in the public sector is 553; N in the privatesector is 1569.∗Significance .05. ∗∗Significance .01. ∗∗∗Significance .001.



two items: the courts and legal system (with the nonprofit group registering the highestconfidence level), and the public service (with the public sector group showing the highestconfidence level). However, contrary to hypothesis 2, no significant sectoral differencewas found for the variable measuring the importance of citizens’ rights. Hypothesis 2is thus rejected. When it comes to engagement in non-electoral political activities, thenonprofit sector group displayed the highest mean level, followed closely by the publicsector group; the private sector group registered the lowest value. The former two groupswere also found to be more likely to engage in prosocial acts than the private sector group.The findings confirm hypothesis 3.

The relationships between PSM and civic attitudes and actionsTable 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the main variables.Overall, the respondents emphasized the importance of a strong public service ethic andcitizens’ rights. They, however, had ‘not very much confidence’ in the key public andprivate Australian institutions. As far as engagement in non-electoral political activitiesis concerned, most of them ‘have not done it but might do it’. When it comes to prosocialacts in response to a law considered to be unjust or harmful, their mean response fellbetween ‘not very likely’ and ‘fairly likely’.

Table 2 also shows significant relationships between the PSM variable and the depen-dent variables. Respondents with higher PSM levels were more likely to have higherlevels of confidence in major institutions, and place a higher importance on the rightsof citizens. High PSM respondents were also more inclined to engage in non-electoralpolitical activities and prosocial acts. Furthermore, a significant relationship was foundbetween civic attitudes and actions. Respondents who placed a high importance on therights of citizens were more likely to engage in non-electoral political activities and proso-cial acts. A significant association was also found between engagement in non-electoralpolitical activities and engagement in prosocial acts. A rise in one activity is related to arise in the other activity.

To fully examine the association between PSM and the four dependent variables, fourmultivariate regression analyses were conducted. Table 3 presents the results.

The table indicates that there are several sociodemographic variables with significantresults. Young, high income earners, who regarded themselves as of high social standing,and identified themselves with the major Liberal/National political party reported higherconfidence levels in key public and private institutions than their counterparts whowere respectively older, lower income earners, of lower social standing, and did notidentify strongly with any major political party. The profile of a respondent who placeda high importance on the rights of citizens tend to be female, older, belonging toa lower social class, and did not identify with any major political party. When itcomes to engagement in non-electoral political activities, the significant factors wereeducation (university graduates), religion (atheist), political party (absence of major partyidentification), employment status (non-permanent), sector of employment (nonprofitand public sectors), and income (high). Finally, the respondents who were more likelyto consider prosocial acts tend to be older, belonging to a higher social class, living in anon-metropolitan area, and working in the nonprofit and public sectors.

The data are also examined for heteroscedasticity and multicollinearity. A histogramof the standardized residuals illustrates a normal distribution. A scatter plot shows thatthe errors are relatively quite constant (homoscedastic) and independent of each other.In order to detect multicollinearity, the bivariate correlations and the square root of the



TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics, reliability results, and correlations

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4

1. PSM 5.184 1.1132. Confidence in key institutions 6.346 .769 .1273. Importance of citizens’ rights 2.186 .497 .335 −.0754. Engagement in non-electoral political activities 2.196 .577 .392 .034 .1515. Prosocial acts 2.374 .873 .316 .069 .109 .374

Note: Correlation is significant at 5 per cent level of significance or lower.

TABLE 3 Regression results

Independentvariable

Confidence inkey institutions

Importance ofcitizens’ rights

Engagement innon-electoral politicalactivities

Prosocial acts

Gender .018 (.035) .115 (.050)∗∗ .021 (.037) −.033 (.059)Age .148 (.001)∗∗∗ −.065 (.002)∗ .032 (.001) −.080 (.002)∗

Education .060 (.013) −.045 (.018) .223 (.013)∗∗∗ .066 (.021)Religion .038 (.036) .022 (.051) −.089 (.037)∗∗ .024 (.060)Social class .107 (.029)∗∗ −.084 (.041)∗∗ .018 (.030) .079 (.048)∗

Residence .060 (.034) −.009 (.048) −.045 (.035) −.079 (.056)∗

Political party −.110 (.015)∗∗ .101 (.021)∗∗ .063 (.015)∗ .006 (.024)Employment status .062 (.015) −.033 (.021) .082 (.015)∗∗ −.011 (.024)Sector −.051 (.030) −.038 (.042) −.089 (.031)∗∗ −.069 (.049)∗

Income .129 (.006)∗∗ −.043 (.009) .094 (.007)∗∗ .022 (.010)PSM .100 (.015)∗∗ .354 (.021)∗∗∗ .362 (.015)∗∗∗ .297 (.025)∗∗∗

R-square .094 .186 .267 .134F 8.048∗∗∗ 19.015∗∗∗ 29.546∗∗∗ 12.874∗∗∗

Notes: Standardized regression coefficient for each variable is reported, followed by standard error in parentheses.∗Significance .05. ∗∗Significance .01. ∗∗∗Significance .001.

variance inflation factor (VIF) of the variables are examined. The highest correlationis between engagement in non-electoral political activities and PSM (.392), but mostrelationships show a correlation coefficient of less than .400. Income is the variable withthe highest VIF value, ranging between 1.469 (with importance of citizens’ rights) and1.486 (with prosocial acts). All VIF scores are below the score of 5 that would triggermulticollinearity concerns (Berk 2003).

Importantly, table 3 shows the PSM variable to be a significant factor in all four models.PSM is found to be significantly associated with: (1) confidence in key institutions (H4);(2) importance of citizens’ rights (H5); (3) engagement in non-electoral political activities(H6); and (d) engagement in prosocial acts (H7). The fact that the sector variable wasdetermined to be insignificant for the former two findings offer support to hypotheses4 and 5. The latter two findings, in contrast, require further analysis because the sectorvariable was found to be a significant factor.

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was subsequently conducted on the two civic actsto reduce the influential role of sector. Table 4 present two prominent findings. First,there was a significant relationship between the employment sector and engagement in:(1) non-electoral political activities; and (2) prosocial acts. Second, having adjusted for



TABLE 4 ANCOVA results

Sum of squares F Partial eta squared

Engagement in non-electoral political activitiesSector 6.875 24.777∗∗∗ .017PSM 66.797 7.084∗∗∗ .145Error 404.853Adjusted total 486.266R-square .167

Prosocial actsSector 8.079 8.079∗∗ .008PSM 104.136 2.975∗∗∗ .090Error 1055.880Adjusted total 1174.336R-square .101

∗Significance .05. ∗∗Significance .01. ∗∗∗Significance .001.

differences in the sector of employment, there was still a significant difference in therespondents’ engagement in non-electoral political activities and prosocial acts based ontheir PSM levels. These findings confirm hypotheses 6 and 7.

DISCUSSION

This research supports past findings that public servants are indeed different fromtheir private sector counterparts, in their views and behaviours. Like Houston (2006),and Lyons et al. (2006), this study found that public servants share more similarities tononprofit workers than private employees, in terms of their PSM and civic participation.Public and nonprofit workers displayed significantly higher PSM levels than privateworkers. Although the importance placed on citizens’ rights were not found to besignificantly different across the sectors, public and nonprofit workers reported engagingin substantially more non-electoral political and prosocial activities than private workers.

According to rational choice theory, public employees participate in politics becauseof self-interest (Downs 1957; Opp 1989). Public employees are dependent on the state fortheir economic livelihoods so it would be in their interest to manifest pro-governmentattitudes and participate in politics (Garand et al. 1991a, b). This research provides anadditional explanation for public employees’ engagement in non-electoral political andprosocial activities. Identifying PSM as a prosocial orientation, this article examines theimplications of PSM on civic matters for public, nonprofit and private employees. Theanalysis provides general support for the hypotheses that individuals with high PSMlevels tend to have high confidence in key institutions, place more importance on citizens’rights, and more frequently engage in non-electoral political and prosocial acts than thosewith lower PSM levels. Trends in these relationships are observed in public, nonprofit,and private employees, and suggest the importance of PSM for civic matters regardlessof the sector of employment. The finding of a significantly higher PSM level in publicand nonprofit workers than that of private workers, combined with that of a strongrelationship between PSM and engagement in civic acts, would however suggest thatengagement in non-electoral political and prosocial activities is likely to be more prevalentamong public and nonprofit workers based on their higher PSM level (Houston 2008).Public bureaucrats who engage in such activities can increase trust among citizens and



get more people involved in the community. For example, they can bring people togetherto initiate dialogue on community issues. As civically active citizens, public employeesare in a prime position to be catalysts for the formation of social capital in society (Brewer2003).

Cohen and Vigoda (2000) argued that more community involvement can help thestate and its agencies in fulfilling their duties and commitment to the citizens. Citizens’demands from the state, as well as the obligation of the state to fulfil these demands, havedramatically increased in recent decades, putting considerable strain on the capacity ofpublic agencies to effectively respond to citizens’ needs. The more willing citizens areto engage in voluntary behaviours, the better the state operates, and society prospers(Brudney 1990). Cohen and Vigoda (2000) also proposed that engagement in civicactivities can generate positive spillovers in the workplace, suggesting a cyclical effect.They see work and politics as similar institutions in that roles in the political spherecan train occupants to perform workplace roles because experiences of self-direction orconformity in politics inculcate congruent values and orientations. Planning meetings,making speeches, and participating in debates and related civic activities are argued todevelop civic skills that are potentially transferable to the workplace, and can improveorganizational performance (Brady et al. 1995). Future research could examine theirpropositions.

The findings are subject to a few caveats. One of these relates to the use of cross-sectionaldata, which does not permit causality of relationships to be determined with confidence.Taking the significant relationship between the views on the importance of citizens’ rightsand engagement in prosocial acts as an example, does the finding suggest that orientationprecedes the act, or is it the other way around? Further, the Australian Survey of SocialAttitudes (AuSSA) is not designed to measure PSM. Adopting the approach used byVandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008), this research constructed a composite PSM scaleby averaging the score on a select set of PSM-related items in the AuSSA data set. Whilean approach such as this has been frequently applied in PSM research (Naff and Crum1999; Kim 2005), it is suboptimal when compared to Perry’s (1997) rigorous measurementscale.

This study has examined the relationships between PSM and civic attitudes andbehaviours. Future research should investigate other factors that can shape the civicattitudes and actions of public employees. This study has identified some socioeconomicfactors that have been significantly related to civic views and actions. The socioeconomic(SES) model is commonly used to explain political participation; SES factors, such as age,race, and education are argued to affect civic attitudes and engagement. Utilizing both theSES and mobilization models, Leighley (1995) provided an alternative interpretation ofevidence regarding the SES model: high SES is associated with engagement in civic mattersbecause it places the individual in a social context where participation opportunities areabundant. People from high SES have greater personal resources, and are more likelyto have the opportunity, through formal institutional (for example, political party)mobilization or informal social mobilization (for example, political discussion), to usesuch resources to engage in political acts. Taking into account the mobilization factorsraised by Leighley (1995), it begs the question whether public employees engage in morenon-electoral political activities merely because they are more often asked to do so. Thereis merit in exploring the effects of the work context. For instance, does the job securityoften enjoyed by public employees enable them to engage in more prosocial acts? Specificfeatures such as these in the public sector workplace may act to encourage desirable civic



attitudes and actions among public employees. There is definitely a lot of work to be donewhen it comes to understanding and promoting civic participation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author thanks the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

REFERENCESABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2005. Labour Force, Australia. Catalogue no. 6291.055.001, Canberra, ABS.Berk, R.A. 2003. Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Blair, W. and J.C. Garand. 1995. ‘Are Bureaucrats Different? Democratic Values, Political Tolerance, and Support for the Political

System Among Government Employees and Other Citizens, 1982–1992’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, Chicago, IL, 31 August–3 September.

Brady, H.E., S. Verba and K.L. Schlozman. 1995. ‘Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation’, American PoliticalScience Review, 89, 271–94.

Brewer, G.A. 2003. ‘Building Social Capital: Civic Attitudes and Behavior of Public Servants’, Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 13, 1, 5–26.

Brewer, G.A. and S.C. Selden. 1998. ‘Whistle Blowers in the Federal Civil Service: New Evidence of the Public Service Ethic’,Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 3, 413–39.

Brewer, G.A. and S.C. Selden. 2000. ‘Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance In FederalAgencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 685–711.

Brudney, J. 1990. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector: Planning, Initiatingand Managing Voluntary Activities. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Buchanan, B. 1975. ‘Red Tape and the Service Ethic’, Administration and Society, 6, 4, 423–44.Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Conway, M.M. 2000. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Cohen, A. and E. Vigoda. 2000. ‘Do Good Citizens Make Good Organizational Citizens? An Empirical Examination of the

Relationship Between General Citizenship and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Israel’, Administration and Society, 32,5, 596–624.

Corder, K. 2001. ‘Acquiring New Technology: Comparing Nonprofit and Public Sector Agencies’, Administration and Society, 33,194–219.

Corey, E.C. and J.C. Garand. 2002. ‘Are Government Employees More Likely to Vote? An Analysis of Turnout in the 1996 USNational Election’, Public Choice, 111, 259–83.

Crewson, P.E. 1997. ‘Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect’, Journal of Public Adminis-tration Research and Theory, 7, 4, 499–518.

Dekker, P. and L. Halman. 2003. ‘Volunteering and Values: An Introduction’, in P. Dekker and L. Halman (eds), The Values ofVolunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Eisenberg, N. 1986. Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Frank, S.A. and G.B. Lewis. 2004. ‘Government Employees – Working Hard or Hardly Working?’, American Review of Public

Administration, 34, 36–51.Frederickson, H.G. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Gabris, G.T. and G. Simo. 1995. ‘Public Sector Motivation as an Independent Variable Affecting Career Decisions’, Public

Personnel Management, 24, 1, 33–51.Garand, J.C., C.T. Parkhurst and R.J. Seoud. 1991a. ‘Bureaucrats, Policy Attitudes, and Political Behavior: Extension of the

Bureau Voting Model of Government Growth’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 2, 177–212.Garand, J.C., C.T. Parkhurst and R.J. Seoud. 1991b. ‘Testing the Bureau Voting Model: A Research Note on Federal and State

Local Employees’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 2, 229–33.Goodsell, C.T. 2005. ‘The Bureau as Unit of Governance’, in P. du Gay (ed), The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Houston, D.J. 2000. ‘Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 4,

713–27.Houston, D.J. 2006. ‘‘‘Walking the Walk’’ of Public Service Motivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood,

and Money’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1, 67–86.Houston, D.J. 2008. ‘Behavior in the Public Sphere’, in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (eds), Motivation in Public Management: The

Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Keele, L. 2007. ‘Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government’, American Journal of Political Science, 51, 2, 241–54.Kim, S.M. 2005. ‘Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations’, Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 15, 2, 245–61.Kim, S.M. 2006. ‘Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, International Journal of Manpower, 27, 8,

722–40.Knack, S. 2002. ‘Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from the States’, American Journal of Political Science, 46,

4, 772–85.Langford. T. 1996. ‘The Politics of the Canadian New Middle Class: Public/Private Sector Cleavage in the 1980s’, Canadian

Journal of Sociology, 21, 153–83.Le Grand, J. 2003. Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Leighley, J.E. 1995. ‘Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation’, Political Research Quarterly,

48, 1, 181–209.Lewis, G.B. 1990. ‘In Search of the Machiavellian Milquetoasts: Comparing Attitudes of Bureaucrats and Ordinary People’,

Public Administration Review, 50, 220–7.Lyons, S.T., L.E. Duxbury and C.A. Higgins. 2006. ‘A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public

Sector, and Parapublic Sector Employees’, Public Administration Review, 66, 4, 605–18.Naff, K.C. and J. Crum. 1999. ‘Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?’, Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 19, 4, 5–16.Opp, K.D. 1989. The Rationality of Political Protest: A Comparative Analysis of Rational Choice Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Pandey, S., B.E. Wright and D.P. Moynihan. 2008. ‘Public Service Motivation and Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior: Testing a

Preliminary Model’, International Public Management Journal, 11, 1, 89–108.Park, S.M. and H.G. Rainey, 2008. ‘Leadership and Public Service Motivation in U.S. Federal Agencies’, International Public

Management Journal, 11, 1, 109–42.Perry, J.L. 1997. ‘Antecedents of Public Service Motivation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 2, 181–97.Perry, J.L. 2000. ‘Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation’, Journal of Public Administration and Theory,

10, 2, 471–88.Perry, J.L. and A. Hondeghem. 2008. Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Perry, J.L. and L.R. Wise. 1990. ‘The Motivational Bases of Public Service’, Public Administration Review, 50, 3, 367–73.Perry, J.L., J.L. Brudney, D. Coursey and L. Littlepage. 2008. ‘What Drives Morally Committed Citizens? A Study of the

Antecedents of Public Service Motivation’, Public Administration Review, 68, 3, 445–58.Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Rainey, H.G. 1997. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (2nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Rainey, H.G. and B. Bozeman. 2000. ‘Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the A

Priori’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 447–69.Rainey, H.G. and P. Steinbauer. 1999. ‘Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government

Organizations’, Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 9, 1, 1–32.Reed, P.B. and L.K. Selbee. 2001. ‘The Civic Core in Canada: Disproportionality in Charitable Giving, Volunteering, and Civic

Participation’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 761–80.Staub, E. 1989. ‘Individual and Societal (Group Values in a Motivational Perspective and Their Role in Benevolence and

Harmdoing’, in N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, and E. Staub (eds), Social and Moral Values: Individual and Societal Perspectives.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Steen, T. 2008. ‘Not a Government Monopoly: The Private, Nonprofit, and Voluntary Sectors’, in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem(eds), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. 2007. ‘The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A Comparative Multi-DimensionalAnalysis’, Public Administration, 85, 4, 931–59.

Vandenabeele, W. 2008. ‘Government Calling: Public Service Motivation as an Element in Selecting Government as an Employerof Choice’, Public Administration, 86, 4, 1089–105.

Vandenabeele, W. and S. Van de Walle. 2008. ‘International Differences in Public Service Motivation: Comparing Regions Acrossthe World’, in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (eds), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Van der Wal, Z., L.W.J.C. Huberts, J.H. Van den Heuvel and E.W. Kolthoff. 2006. ‘Central Values of Government and Business:Differences, Similarities and Conflicts’, Public Administration Quarterly, 30, 3, 314–64.

Date received 2 January 2010. Date accepted 3 May 2010.



APPENDIX 1

Results of factor analysis on the main variables

TABLE A1 Independent variable: PSM (alpha = 0.73)

Items Factor loadings

To keep watch on the actions of government (a) .593To be active in social or political associations (a) .668To choose products for political, ethical or environmental reasons, even ifthey cost a bit more (b)

.668

To help people in Australia who are worse off than yourself (c) .761To help people in the rest of the world who are worse off than yourself (c) .729

Eigenvalue 2.356% of variance explained 47.115

Notes: The above items were preceded by the following question: ‘There are different opinions as to what it takesto be a good citizen. As far as you are concerned personally on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all importantand 7 is very important, how important is it. . .’. According to Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008), the itemsfit into three dimensions of Perry’s (1997) PSM scale: Politics and policy (a); self-sacrifice (b); and compassion (c).

TABLE A2 Dependent variables


Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Engagement in non-electoral political activities (alpha = 0.79)a

Signed a petition .516 −.070 .131Boycotted, or deliberately bought, certain products for political,

ethical or environmental reasons.658 −.063 .068

Taken part in a demonstration .718 −.014 .103Attended a political meeting or rally .739 .038 .031Contacted, or attempted to contact, a politician or a public servant

to express your views.658 −.086 .034

Donated money or raised funds for a social or political activity .576 .142 .005Contacted or appeared in the media to express your views .684 .030 .023Joined an Internet political forum or discussion group .587 .084 −.052

Confidence in key institutions (alpha = 0.73)b

Courts and the legal system .171 .624 .036Federal parliament −.065 .681 −.160Public service .068 .698 .066Major Australian companies −.045 .650 −.107Banks and financial institutions −.102 .709 −.036Social welfare system .025 .578 .041

Importance of citizens’ rights (alpha = 0.72)c

All citizens have an adequate standard of living −.010 .019 .667Government authorities respect and protect the rights of minorities .091 .113 .703Government authorities treat everybody equally regardless of their

position in society.040 .028 .732

Politicians take into account the views of citizens before makingdecisions

.069 −.107 .690

People be given more opportunities to participate in publicdecision-making

.073 −.199 .650



TABLE A2 Continued


Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Eigenvalue 3.579 2.808 2.194% of variance explained 18.836 14.778 11.546Cumulative % 18.836 33.614 45.160

Notes: The above items were preceded by the following question:aHow much confidence do you have in the following organizations?bThere are different opinions about people’s rights in a democracy. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at allimportant and 7 is very important, how important is it . . .cHere are some different forms of political and social action that people can take, please indicate for each onewhether you have done any of these things in the past year, whether you have done it in the more distant past,whether you have not done it but might do it, or have not done it and would never do it.

APPENDIX 2

TABLE A3 List of sociodemographic variables in the study

• Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female.• Age: by birthdate (19xx). For example, a mean of 53.6 (table A2, above) signifies a birthdate of 1954.• Education (qualifications): 1 = below high school; 2 = high school; 3 = trade/apprenticeship;

4 = certificate/diploma; 5 = university bachelor’s degree and above.• Religion: 0 = no religion; 1 = belong to a religion.• Social class: 1 = does not belong to any social class; 2 = working class; 3 = middle class; 4 = upper class.• Residence: 0 = town, country town, and rural area; 1 = metropolitan.• Political party identification: 1 = Liberal or National Party; 2 = Australian Labor Party; 3 = other party;

4 = no party.1

• Employment status: 1 = permanent; 2 = contract; 3 = casual.• Sector: 0 = nonprofit sector; 1 = public sector; 2 = private sector.• Income (annual, before tax):

Note: 1The measurement item was worded as ‘Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as Labor,Liberal, National or what?’. Respondents who indicated the Liberal or National Party are combined together;these two political parties tend to form a coalition in order to govern at the state and federal level. The LiberalParty and Labor Party constitute the major political parties in Australia; ‘other’ in the response scale refers tominor parties.


public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions …

Documents