job characteristics, public service motivation, and work ... · security, power, prestige, career...

JobCharacteristics,PublicServiceMotivation,andWorkPerformanceinKorea.

SangmookKim1

Abstract:2

This study aims to analyze the effects of jobcharacteristics on PSM in the context ofKorean government organizations and tocompare the influence of PSM on workperformance with that of the main extrinsicincentives such as economic compensationandjobsecurity.Itusesdata(n=1,500)fromthe 2011 Public Service Panel Surveyconducted by the Korea Institute of PublicAdministration. The test results show thatonly three out of five core jobcharacteristics—skillvariety,tasksignificance,and feedback—arepositively associatedwithPSM and that PSM and economiccompensation, except job security, arerelated to work performance in Koreangovernment organizations. The practicalimplicationsarediscussed.

Key-words: Job characteristics,public servicemotivation,workperformance,Korea

1Department of Public Administration, SeoulNational University of Science and Technology,RepublicofKorea.2

This study was supported by the ResearchProgram funded by the SeoulNational Universityof Science and Technology. The survey datasetused in this study was produced by the KoreanInstitute of Public Administration (KIPA) and hasbeen authorized for use according to KIPA'sregulationsontheownershipanduseofresearchmaterial.

1. Introduction

Research on public service motivation(PSM) assumes that PSM is prevalent in thepublic sector (Brewer and Selden, 1998;Houston,2006;LewisandFrank,2002;Steijn,2008). A persuasive proposition is thatindividuals self-select into government jobsdue to their interest in public service (LewisandFrank,2002;Naff andCrum,1999;Perryand Wise, 1990). However, “becoming apublic sector employee involves not onlymakingachoice towork in thepublic sector,but also having the opportunity to do so”(Steen, 2008: 204). Particularly in Koreawhere jobs in the public sector are highlyvalued and competitive, and PSM is not theprime criterion in recruitment and selectionprocedures,thispropositionisnotsupported.The exam result is the only criterion todeterminewhowillworkforthegovernment.The government has traditionally offeredstrong extrinsic motivators such as jobsecurity,power,prestige,careerdevelopment,fringe benefits, pension, and work−familybalance. A series of surveys have proven jobsecurity to be themost importantmotive tobecomeacivil servant inKorea (Kwon,2013;LeeandChoi,2016).

An alternative proposition is that PSM isimproved by job experience in thegovernment because the governmentprovides civil servants with superioropportunities to perform meaningful publicservice (Brewer and Selden, 1998;Moynihanand Pandey, 2007). Civil servants may havevaluable experiences such as helping others,serving the public interest, and performingwork that is worthwhile to society, whichprovide the opportunity to develop publicservice motives. Those who work in publicorganizations may inculcate and strengthenPSM over time. However, relatively fewstudies have examined how PSM can be

KIM S., 2016, « Job characteristics, public service motivation, and work performance in Korea», Gestion et Management Public, vol.5, issue 1, 2016/3, p.7-24 [ISSN : 2111-8865]

JobCharacteristics,PublicServiceMotivation,andWorkPerformanceinKorea/SangmookKIM

8

fosteredor strengthened through jobs in thegovernment(Camilleri,2007;Kim,Henderson,andEom,2015).

Another fundamental assumption is thatemployees with greater PSM are likely toperformbetterinpublicsectorjobs(PerryandWise, 1990). It includes two issues: PSM ispositivelyrelatedtoperformance,andPSMismore important than monetary rewards forstimulating performance in the public sector.Crewson (1997) concludes that intrinsicrewards are more important to publicemployees than to those employed in theprivate sector. Wright (2007) concludes thatthe intrinsic rewardsmaybemore importanttopublicsectoremployeesthanperformance-relatedextrinsicrewards.InKorea,thehigherPSM among public employees is positivelyrelated to higher performance levels (Lee,2005). PSM has a positive relationship withorganizational performance (Kim, 2005).However,wearenotsureabouttheinfluenceof PSM on work performance in thegovernment when considering extrinsicincentivessimultaneously(Perry,2014).

Thegoalsof thisarticleare twofold.Thefirst is to analyze the effects of jobcharacteristics on PSM in the context ofKoreangovernmentorganizations.Thesecondgoal is to compare the influence of PSM onworkperformancewiththatofmainextrinsicincentives such as economic compensationand job security. This study uses data (n =1,500) from the 2011 Public Service PanelSurvey conducted by the Korea Institute ofPublic Administration. The respondents,selected by proportionate quota sampling—applying the typical quota characteristics—represented the population of Korean civilservants.Thisstudycontributestotheprocesstheory of PSM (Perry, 2000) by providingempirical evidence that job characteristics inthegovernmentcanfostercivilservants’PSM,which is more important than extrinsicincentivesinpredictingworkperformance.

2. PublicServiceMotivation

PSMreflectsadesire to serve thepublic(PerryandWise,1990).PerryandWise(1990:368) define PSM as “an individual’spredisposition to respond to motivesgrounded primarily or uniquely in publicinstitutions and organizations.” Brewer andSelden (1998: 417) describe it as “themotivational force that induces individuals toperform meaningful public service.” Raineyand Steinbauer (1999: 23) define it as “ageneral altruistic motivation to serve theinterestsofacommunityofpeople,astate,anationormankind.”PSMisthoughtofas“anindividual’s orientation to delivering servicesto people with a purpose to do good forothers and society” (Perry and Hondeghem2008: vii). This study defines PSM as anindividual’s predisposition to performmeaningful service for the country and thepublic, in pursuit of public values and thepublic interest rather than self-interest. PSMisanindividual,notasector-specific,concept(BrewerandSelden,1998).“PSMisnotjustapublicsectorphenomenonbutpertainstoallworksectors”(BozemanandSu,2015:702).

PSMisamultidimensionalconstructwithan overarching meaning (Perry andHondeghem, 2008). Perry and Wise (1990)propose that PSM has rational, norm-based,and affective motives. Rational motives aregrounded in individual utility maximization.Norm-based motives relate to a desire topursue the common good and further thepublicinterest.Affectivemotivesarerootedinhuman emotion. Rational motives includeparticipation in the policymaking process,commitment to a public programbecause ofpersonal identification,and specialorprivateinterest advocacy. Norm-based motivesincludeadesiretoservethepublicinterest,asenseofdutyand loyaltytothegovernment,and social equity. Affective motives includepatriotism of benevolence and commitmentto a program based on a genuine convictionaboutitssocialimportance.

Kim and Vandenabeele (2010) assess

RevueGestionetManagementPublic Vol.5,n°1Septembre/Octobre2016

9

internationalcommonalities inthecontentofPSMandmodestlychangeditsconcept.Theysuggest that PSM is fundamentally groundedin self-sacrifice, which underpins threedistinct categories of motives: instrumental,value-based, and identification. Value-basedmotives concern the ultimate public valuesthatindividualswanttoachievethroughtheirbehaviors and actions. Identification motivesrelate to people, groups, or objects thatindividuals want to serve. Instrumentalmotives consist of the means to performmeaningful public service. Value-basedmotives are related to values and ethics,identification motives to attitude, andinstrumental motives to behavior. Thisreconceptualization highlights self-sacrifice’scentrality to the construct as a whole andincreases the distinctiveness of thecomponent theoretical dimensions (Perry,2014).

Scholars have devoted themselves tofinding and explaining the antecedents,correlates, and outcomes of PSM (see Belléand Cantarelli, 2010; Perry, Hondeghem, andWise, 2010; Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann,2016). PSM is a result of not only individualsocio-historical backgrounds but also theorganizational environment in whichemployees find themselves (Moynihan andPandey, 2007). A systematic literature review(Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann, 2016) reportsmainly positive relationships between PSMand age, job grade, left-of-center politicalideology, religiosity, volunteering,parental/organizational socialization,organizationalcommitment,employee−leaderrelations (e.g., being fair and considerate ofemployees), certain job attributes (e.g.,autonomy and task variety), and employeeperceptionof theorganization (e.g.,whetherethical and customer-focused). Researchershave also confirmed relationships betweenPSMandpositiveoutcomes.PSMispositivelyassociatedwith jobsatisfaction,public sectorjob choice, organizational and jobcommitment, individual and organizationalperformance,and lowturnover (Ritz,Brewer,andNeumann,2016).

3. JobCharacteristicsandPSM

What a person does at work caninfluence workmotivation (Perry and Porter,1982). The process theory of PSM (Perry,2000) emphasizes that PSM can be fosteredvia institutions and that different jobcharacteristics shape different bases ofmotivation. However, few studies havepurposefully targeted this relationship.EmmertandTaher(1992)findnorelationshipbetween the job characteristics publicemployees experience in their jobs and theirintrinsicworkmotivation.Wright(2004)findsthat work context variables (i.e., proceduralconstraints,organizationalgoalspecificity,andorganizational goal conflict) are relevant toworkmotivation.Camilleri (2007) shows thatthe PSM of public employees is mainly theresult of the organizational environmentsurrounding them. The analysis indicates agenerally positive correlation between jobcharacteristics and the PSM dimensions.Moynihan and Pandey (2007) find that theexistence of red tape is negatively related toPSM.Still,fewstudieshaveexaminedtherolethat job characteristics and workenvironments play in cultivating PSM (Perry,2000), and thus this study focuses on thedirect relationships between jobcharacteristicsandPSM.

Job design involves the structuring ofvarious aspects of the job content. The jobcharacteristics model (Hackman and Lawler,1971; Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980)focusesonfivecoreelementsofthejob:skillvariety, task identity, task significance,autonomy, and feedback. The fundamentalpremise behind this model is that objectivecharacteristics of the work influenceoutcomes such as job satisfaction or jobperformance(FriedandFerris,1987).Thefivecore job dimensions are seen as promptingthreepsychologicalstates,which,inturn,leadto a numberof beneficial personal andworkoutcomes. The job characteristics theoryposits that an individual must experience allthree of the psychological states if desirableoutcomes are to emerge: the person must


10

experiencetheworkasmeaningful;s/hemustexperience personal responsibility for workoutcomes;ands/hemusthaveknowledgeofthe results of his or her work. High internalwork motivation, high-quality workperformance,highsatisfactionwiththework,andlowabsenteeismandturnoverareseveraloutcomevariablesthatarepredictedtoresultwhen the psychological states are present(Kulik,Oldham,andHackman,1987).

Skillvarietymeansthedegreetowhichajob requires a variety of activities in carryingout thework, involving the use of a numberof personal skills and talents (Hackman andOldham,1980).Becausethe jobrequirescivilservants to use multiple skills in variousactivities,skillvarietymaysatisfybasicneedssuch as the need for competence andrelatedness and, therefore, make thementhusiasticabouttheirwork.Skillvarietyhasasignificantpositiveimpactonthemotivationof civil servants inBelgium (Vandenabeeleetal., 2005). In contrast, lack of skill varietyundermines prosocial motivation ofgovernment employees (Koppell and Auer,2012).Skillvarietywillfosteremployees’PSMand make a positive contribution to jobperformance (Bakker, 2015). Thus, we havethefollowinghypothesis:

H1: Skill variety is positively related toPSM.

Taskidentityisthedegreetowhichajobrequires completion of a “whole” andidentifiablepieceofwork,thatis,doingajobfrombeginningtoendwithavisibleoutcome(Hackman and Oldham, 1980). When civilservants are doing a whole job, they careabout their work more. When they areresponsiblefordealingwiththeproceduresofwork as a whole and providing a completeresult, theywill bemotivated by employees’understanding that theirwork isworthwhile.In the context of the public sector, taskidentityproducesintrinsicrewards,andpublicemployees’ perception of these intrinsicrewards can influence their PSM (Jung andRainey, 2010; Rainey and Steinbauer, 1999).

Thus, task identitywill have a positive effectonemployees’PSM.

H2: Task identity is positively related toPSM.

Task significance means the degree towhichthejobhasasubstantialimpactonthelives of other people, whether those peopleare in the immediate organization or in theworldat large (HackmanandOldham,1980).When employees perceive a high degree oftask significance, they gain opportunities tofulfil their higher-order needs, such as self-actualization and self-esteem (Wright andKim, 2004). Perceived job significance has apositiveandstatistically significant impactonPSM levels, supporting the idea that suchperceptions are critical to developing aprosocial orientation and PSM in Koreanpublic sector employees (Kim, Henderson,and Eom, 2015). Employees are particularlymotivated by the extent to which their jobsaffect the well-being of others and society(HackmanandOldham,1980).

H3: Task significance is positively relatedtoPSM.

Autonomyisthedegreetowhichthejobprovides substantial freedom,interdependence, and discretion to theindividual in scheduling the work and indetermining the procedures to be used incarrying itout (HackmanandOldham,1980).Park and Rainey (2008) propose thatautonomy in the workplace enhancesemployees’ PSM by allowing employees tointernalize organizational regulations andintegrate ruleswith theirownvalues.On theotherhand,centralizedstructuresofdecisionmakingmay limit employees’ participation indecisions that directly affect their ability toperform their jobs, reducing their PSM(Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010). As employeeslosetheirautonomyovertheirwork,theyalsolose the ability to consider how theirdecisionsaffectthepublicinterest,weakeningpublic service behaviors (Moynihan, 2008).


11

Therefore, autonomy in the workplaceenhances employees’ PSM (Park and Rainey,2008).

H4: Autonomy is positively related toPSM.

Jobfeedbackmeansthedegreetowhichcarrying out the work activities required bythejobprovidestheindividualwithdirectandclear information about the effectiveness ofhis or her performance (Hackman andOldham, 1980). Based on the job feedback,employees would be highly involved in theirwork and continuously exert efforts toimprove their job performance. Feedbackenables employees to gauge their progresstoward goal attainment (Selden and Brewer,2000). In addition, connecting employees totheprosocial impactof their jobsmayplayasignificant role in increasing employees’motivation (Grant, 2007). The motivation ofpublic employees may be enhanced bygainingknowledgeoftheresultsderivedfromthework activities themselves. Thus,we cansuggestthefollowinghypothesis:

H5: Job feedback is positively related toPSM.

4. Multiple Incentives and WorkPerformance

Ithasbeen taken forgranted thatpublicemployeesjoiningthepublicsectorwithhighPSM bring positive behavioral andorganizational outcomes (Kim, Henderson,and Eom, 2015; Perry and Wise, 1990).However, it is also possible that employeesare attracted to public service professionswith different motives. The Koreangovernment has traditionally offered strongextrinsicmotivatorsthatmightattractpeopleto civil service (Kim, 2012). Most studiesexamining Korean government employeesindicate that they choose government jobsbecause of the promised job security ratherthan out of PSM or prosocial motivation(Hahm, 2010; Kwon, 2013). Lee and Choi

(2016)showthatPSMandprosocialbehaviorsare not associatedwith public sector choice.Only job security was found to be a mainreason why college students intended toenterthepublicsectorinKorea.Inaseriesofsurveys,jobsecurityisalsoconsideredasthemostimportantfactorwhenchoosingajobintheKoreangovernmentsector,followedbyaneconomically stable life, and attractive roleandasenseofmissioninpublicservice(Table1).

Table1:JobSelectionMotivesofCivilServantsinKorea

Whatwasthemostimportant reasonfor you to becomeacivilservant?

Unit:%

2004 2007 2010 2013

Jobsecurity 31.6 32.7 33.7 31.3

Economicallystablelife 10.1 17.8 19.3 19.6

Attractive role anda sense of missioninpublicservice

14.8 19.0 17.2 18.6

Power andinfluence 2.0 2.7 11.7 1.6

Parents orrelatives’advice/suggestion

13.0 10.6 9.4 11.2

Fair publicpersonnelsystem 11.0 5.9 4.7 5.7

Good socialreputation andrecognition

4.5 8.6 2.2 8.3

Source:Kwon(2013:25)

Thus,therearethreebigincentivesintheKorean public sector: job security, economiccompensation, and PSM. Job securitymeansthe security of job tenure civil servants areaccorded by either policy, contract, or law.Economiccompensation includesbothwagesand salaries and deferred compensation inthe form of pensions (Perry, 2014). Multi-incentiveresearchisusefulbecauseitgivesamore complete picture of the dynamics thatinfluence public employees’ behavior, but nostudies have looked simultaneously at the


12

three incentives yet (Perry, 2014). We canassume that the incentives are differentlyassociatedwithworkperformance.

First, it is expected that in publicorganizations, PSM is positively related toworkperformancebecausepublic jobswouldbeintrinsicallymotivatingfor individualswithhighPSM(PerryandWise,1990).BrewerandSelden (2000) find a positive and significantrelationship between PSM and perceivedorganizational effectiveness in the UnitedStates. Kim (2005) finds that PSM is asignificant positive influence on perceivedorganizational performance in Korea.Vandenabeele(2009)concludesthatthereisapositive and significant relationship betweenPSM and self-reported performance inBelgium.After conducting a field experimentin Italy, Bellé (2013) confirms the positiverelationship between PSM and jobperformance. Consequently, we propose thefollowinghypothesis:

H6: PSM is positively related to workperformance.

Second, it is also expected thatemployeeswhoaresatisfiedwithjobsecurityperform better than those who are notsatisfiedwithjobsecurity.Jobsecuritymeansthe extent towhich anorganizationprovidesstable employment (Herzberg, 1968). Yousef(1998) reports a positive significantcorrelation between satisfaction with jobsecurity and performance in a multiculturalnon-Western environment. Rosenblatt andRuvio (1996) indicate that job insecurity hasan adverse effect on organizationalcommitment and perceived performance.Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, and Varone(2013)findthatjobsecurityhasapositiveandsignificantimpactonperceivedorganizationalefficiency. When public employees aresatisfied with stable employment, they willexert more effort to achieve organizational

goals.

H7: Job security is positively related toworkperformance.

Third, it isexpectedthatemployeeswhoaresatisfiedwitheconomiccompensationwillperform better. Pay can be used to createconsequences for desired behaviors such ashigh performance that will reinforce thebehaviors (Perry, Mesch, and Paarlberg,2006).Merit pay plans can result in positiveoutcomes, particularly in terms of individualjobperformance.Empiricalresearchindicatesthat individual incentive plans can improveindividual performance (Milkovich andWigdor, 1991). Pay satisfaction is positivelyrelated to organizational-level performanceoutcomes (Currall et al., 2005). On thecontrary, “research has unequivocally shownthat pay dissatisfaction can have importantand undesirable impacts on numerousemployee outcomes” (Heneman and Judge,2000: 85). Thus, we have the followinghypothesis:

H8: Economic compensation is positivelyrelatedtoworkperformance.

5. ResearchDesign

Figure1showstheresearchmodelofthisstudy. It should, however, be noted that thedirection of causation is debatable. It iscertainly possible, and even likely, that workperformance influences PSM. For example,theprosocialimpactofpublicemployees’jobsmay strengthen their awareness that theiractions can have a prosocial impact and somayplay a significant role in increasing theirPSM. Thus, there is a likelihood for a causaldirectionfromworkperformancetoPSM.Thepresent study focuses on a simpler model(i.e.,PSMtoworkperformance),leavingmorecomplicatedtheoreticalissuessuchasmutualcausationforfuturework.


13

Figure1.ResearchModel

Two sets of control variables wereincluded in the analysis. First, gender, age,education, and organizational tenure wereincluded in explaining the variance of PSM.Socio-demographic characteristics arecommonly includedinPSMstudiesascontrolvariables (Pandey and Stazyk, 2008). Someevidence suggests that these socio-demographic variables may be associatedwith an individual’s PSM (Kim, 2015; Perry,1997). Second, goal clarity and self-efficacywere included for predicting workperformance. Goal claritymeans “the extenttowhichtheoutcomegoalsandobjectivesofthe job are clearly stated and well defined”(Sawyer,1992:134).Clearergoalsdrivehigherlevelsofperformancebyenergizingbehavior,encouraging persistence, and fosteringproblem solving (Locke and Latham, 2002;Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010). Self-efficacy isan employee’s belief “in their capabilities toproduce given attainments” (Bandura, 2006:307). High self-efficacy is thought tocontribute to improved performance in arangeofsituationsduetoitsassociationwitheffective behavioral strategies (Beauregard,2012).

5.1 Measures

All of the indicators described hereallowed responseson a five-point Likert-typescale (1 = strong disagreement, 5 = strong

agreement). The five job characteristicsweremeasured with 11 items suggested byHackmanandOldham(1980)andmodifiedbyIdaszak and Drasgow (1987). PSM wasmeasured with the 16-item index developedbyKimetal.(2013).Thismeasurementindexof PSM comprises the four dimensions ofattraction to public service, commitment topublic values, compassion, and self-sacrifice.The responseswere summed by each of thefour dimensions. The summed dimensionswereusedasfourobservedindicatorsofPSM,as in Bright (2007). Work performance atorganizational level means whether theorganization does well in discharging theadministrative and operational functionspursuanttothemissionandwhetherthecivilservants in the organization actually producethe actions and outputs pursuant to theorganizational goals (Kim, 2005). Workperformancewasmeasuredwith three itemsdevelopedbyKimandLee(2010).Goalclaritywas measured with three items used byRainey (1983) and Moynihan and Pandey(2005). Self-efficacy was measured with twoitems selected from the general self-efficacyscale (Jerusalem and Schwarzer, 1992;Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995). Thecompletelistofusedsurveyitemsisprovidedintheappendix.


14

5.2 Sample

The model and hypotheses were testedusingdatafromthe2011PublicServicePanelSurvey conducted by the Korea Institute ofPublic Administration. The participants—1,500permanentfull-timecivilservantsintheKorean national government and localauthorities—were selected by proportionate

quota sampling.This sample represented thepopulation of Korean civil servants byapplyingthetypicalquotacharacteristicssuchasgovernmentlevel(centralorlocal),typesofpublic officials, grades, and gender. Of thetotal respondents, 40 percent were nationalpublic officials, while 60 percent were localpublicofficials.Intermsofgender,68percentwere men. General characteristics of thesurveyrespondentsareprovidedintable2.

Table2:BackgroundofRespondents(n=1,500)Variables Characteristics Respondents PercentGender Male

Female1,020480

68.032.0

Age 20s30s40s50s

75534574317

5.035.638.321.1

Education HighschooldiplomaorunderJuniorcollegediploma(2years)Undergraduatedegree(4years)

Graduatedegreeormore

190157884269

12.710.558.917.2

OrganizationalTenure(years)

0–56–1011–2021–3030–40

265345440339111

17.723.029.322.67.4

5.3 Analyses

The statistical analysis applied partialleast squares (PLS) structural equationmodeling (SEM) to estimate the researchmodel using Smart PLS 2.0 (Ringe, Wende,and Will, 2005). SEM allows for all of therelationships in the model to be testedsimultaneously, and PLS is appropriate whenthe model is more complex (Fornell andBookstein,1982).Thestructuralmodel inPLSisassessedbyexaminingthepathcoefficients,t-statistics, and R2 value. A nonparametricbootstrapping procedure (3,000 replications)wasapplied to test thestatistical significanceofPLSpathcoefficients(DavisonandHinkley,1997).

6. Results

Descriptive statistics were computed forindividual itemsusingSPSS22.0,as shown inthe appendix. The loadings of all items ontheir factors are significant (p < .001) andgreater than .6. The loadingsof the summeddimensionsonPSMrangedfrom.690to.809.Table3showstheresultsofthePLSmethods.All Cronbach’s alphas are greater than thesuggestedlevelof.7,andallestimatesofthecomposite reliability exceed .7. All averagevarianceextracted (AVE) scoresareabove .5.The correlation estimates between the twoconstructs are from .122 to .451. Each


15

construct meets the criterion in support ofdiscriminant validity that the square root ofthe AVE of each construct is larger than theconstruct’s correlation with any otherconstruct in the model (Fornell and Larcker,1981). Thus, the results provide support forthe reliability, convergent validity, anddiscriminant validity of all constructs used inthisstudy.

In this model, the control variables andthe job characteristics account for 18.9percentofthevarianceofPSM,andthethreeincentives and the control variables explain

22.7 percent of the variance in workperformance. Table 3 represents the testresultsofthehypothesesontherelationshipsbetween job characteristics and PSM.Hypothesis1postulatesthatskillvarietyhasapositive effect on PSM. The relationshipbetweenskillvarietyandPSMispositiveandstatisticallysignificant(β=.061,p<.05),evenaftercontrolling for theeffectsof thecontrolvariables. Thus, it provides support forhypothesis 1, implying that the degree towhich a job requires skill variety is positivelyrelatedtothecivilservant’slevelofPSM.

Table3:ResultsofPLSModelEstimation

Inter-ConstructCorrelations α CR AVE JC-SV JC-TI JC-TS JC-AT JC-FB PSM GL-CL SE-EF W-PMJC-SV .907 .956 .915 (.956) JC-TI .747 .886 .796 .192 (.892) JC-TS .781 .871 .693 .357 .238 (.832) JC-AT .751 .889 .801 .168 .378 .275 (.895) JC-FB .763 .894 .808 .239 .371 .387 .451 (.899) PSM .774 .854 .595 .199 .149 .317 .137 .302 (.771) GL-CL .883 .928 .812 .131 .179 .213 .180 .257 .214 (.901) SE-EF .745 .886 .795 .122 .185 .192 .167 .270 .293 .217 (.892) W-PM .713 .841 .639 .247 .250 .366 .244 .341 .256 .433 .193 (.799)

StructuralParameterEstimatesDependentVariable:PSM DependentVariable:WorkPerformancePathfrom: β t-value Pathfrom: β t-valueGender(female) -.051* 1.975 Goalclarity .381*** 15.259Age .202*** 3.747 Self-efficacy .061* 2.293Education -.005 0.218 Jobsecurity .018 0.772Tenure -.009 0.174 Economiccompensation .087*** 3.489JC-SV .061* 2.312 PSM .148*** 5.212JC-TI .024 0.819 JC-TS .214*** 7.815 JC-AT -.030 1.096 JC-FB .177*** 6.384

Notes:α=Cronbach’salpha;CR=compositereliability;AVE=averagevarianceextracted;JC-SV=skillvariety;JC-TI=taskidentity;JC-TS=tasksignificance;JC-AT=autonomy;JC-FB=feedback;PSM=publicservicemotivation;GL-CL=goalclarity;SE-EF=self-efficacy;W-PM=workperformance.ValuesinparenthesesonthediagonalinthecorrelationmatrixshowthesquarerootsofAVE.

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

Hypothesis 3 predicts that tasksignificanceispositivelyassociatedwithPSM.The relationship between task significanceandPSMispositiveandstatisticallysignificant

(β = 0.214, p < .001). Thus, the test resultprovidessupportforhypothesis3.Hence,wecanexplain that thedegree towhich the jobhas task significance is positively related to


16

thecivilservant’slevelofPSM.

Hypothesis 5 expects that feedback ispositively related to PSM. It shows that therelationship between feedback and PSM ispositive (β= .177) and statistically significantatp< .001.Thishypothesis issupported.Wecan expect that the degree towhich the jobprovides feedback is positively related to thecivilservant’slevelofPSM.However,thepathcoefficientsoftaskidentityandautonomyarenotsignificant,and,thus,hypotheses2and4are not supported by the findings of thecurrentstudy.

Thus, in the Korean public sector, onlythree out of five job characteristics—skillvariety, task significance, and feedback—arepositively relatedwithPSM,but task identityandautonomyarenot.Tasksignificanceisthebetter predictor for PSM. These test resultsare somewhat different from the previousstudies. There were positive correlationsbetweenalljobcharacteristicsandPSMintheMaltese government ministries (Camilleri,2007), and all job characteristics except taskidentity have a significant positive impact onthe motivation of individual civil servants inBelgium(Vandenabeeleetal.,2005).Thiscanbeexplainedbythefactthatitisverydifficultto obtain a high level of task identity withinthebureaucraticenvironment,wheredivisionof labor vertically and horizontally is acommon practice in governmentorganizations(Vandenabeeleetal.,2005),andin the centralized decision-making structureand complex control system in Korea, civilservants are not able to have discretionarypowerandtoactontheirservicemotivations.

Among thecontrolvariables,onlyage (β= .202, p < .001) and gender (β = -.051, p< .05) are related toPSM.Theolder the civilservants, thehighertheir levelsofPSM.Menare likely to have higher levels of PSM thanwomen. However, education andorganizational tenure have no statisticallysignificanteffectonPSM.

Next, the relationships between theincentives and work performance areexamined. Hypothesis 6 postulates that PSM

ispositivelyrelatedtoworkperformance.Therelationship between PSM and workperformance is positive and significant(β= .148, p < .001). Thus, the test resultprovides support for this hypothesis,confirming the previous studies (Kim, 2005;Ritz,2009;Vandenabeele,2009).

Hypothesis7predicts that jobsecurity ispositivelyrelatedtoworkperformance,butitisnotsupportedbythetestresult.Oncecivilservants are appointed, they expect to havelife-longjobsecurityandperiodicpromotionsinKorea.Thus,wecansaythatgiventhehighlevel of job security in practice, job securityhas little positive impact on workperformanceinKorea.

Hypothesis 8 expects that economiccompensation is positively associated withworkperformance.Thetestresultshowsthatthe relationship between economiccompensation and work performance ispositiveandstatisticallysignificant(β=.087,p< .001). The test result provides support forhypothesis8,implyingthatpublicemployees’satisfaction with economic compensation ispositively related to their levels of PSM.Among the three incentives, PSM is a morepowerful predictor of work performance inKoreangovernmentorganizations.Wecansaythat PSM and economic compensation areeffective, but job security is not a positivepredictorofworkperformance in theKoreanpublicsector.

As expected, the two control variables,goal clarity (β = .381, p < .001) and self-efficacy (β = .061, p < .05), are positivelyrelatedtoworkperformance.Cleargoalsmayenergizebehavior,encouragepersistence,andfoster problem solving (Locke and Latham,2002). Civil servants are more likely toperform their work better when they haveclearly understood goals (Wright, 2007).Moreover, civil servants with higher self-efficacy will believe that the goal can beachievedandaremorelikelytopersistintheirefforts towardgoalattainment.AmbroseandKulik (1999) report that individualswith highlevels of self-efficacy typically set highpersonal goals and achieve high levels of


17

performance.

7. Discussion

The test results show that the civilservants’PSMwillbeenhancedbytheextenttowhichtheyperceivethattheirjobsrequireavarietyofactivitiesincarryingoutthework,affect the well-being of others, and providethemwithdirectandclear informationabouttheeffectivenessoftheirperformance.Theseresults support the theoretical expectationsand practical suggestions about the positiveeffects of job design on PSM (Hackman andOldham, 1980; Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010;Paarlberg, Perry, and Hondeghem, 2008).These findings imply that, even when civilservants join public professions without aninclination toward public service, thecharacteristics of their work itself can fosterandstrengthenPSM.

Job redesign may strengthen therelationship between job characteristics andPSM.First, itneedstoenhancecivilservants’understanding of the social significance oftheirwork(Paarlberg,Perry,andHondeghem,2008). Managers need to make theconnections between organizational missionandspecifictaskgoalsandtoexplainwhycivilservants should do their tasks. PSM may beenhancedbyredesigningtheirjobstoprovidethem with contact with the beneficiaries oftheirwork.Contactwithbeneficiariesenablesemployees to receive information andfeedback about the difference that theirefforts can make in beneficiaries’ lives,strengthening their awareness of thepotential prosocial impact of their actions(Grant, 2008). Second, it needs to providemore changes for civil servants to identifyhow well they are doing in their work.Feedback enables individuals to gauge theirprogress towardgoal attainment (SeldenandBrewer, 2000). Acknowledging feedback iscrucial to ensure that expectations can beclarified. Third, it needs to assign jobs thatrequirecivilservantstousemultipleskillsandtalents in various activities. Skill variety will

make them more enthusiastic about andcommittedtotheirwork.

ThetestresultsalsoshowthatbothPSMand economic compensation will influencework performance. Performance representsanaccumulationofbehaviorsthatoccurovertime and across contexts and people. Itmayberelatedtotheargumentthat“thedesiretoperformpublicservice is likelypropelledbyacombination of altruism and self-interest”(Ritz,Brewer,andNeumann,2016:423),andwe need to assess effects of PSM inconjunction with other incentives (Perry,2014).

Perry andWise (1990) proposed that inpublicorganizations,PSMispositivelyrelatedto performance. Previous researchers alsofound that PSM is positively associated withboth individual (Alonso and Lewis, 2001;Bright, 2007; Leisink and Steijn, 2009; Naffand Crum, 1999; Vandenabeele, 2009) andorganizational performance (Brewer andSelden, 2000; Kim, 2005; Ritz, 2009). Thisstudyprovidessupportforthefindingsoftheprevious studies. It suggests that Koreangovernment organizations should retain civilservantswithhighlevelsofPSM.Governmentorganizations should pay more attention toorganizational socialization as well asattraction-selection-attrition processes inordertohavecivilservantswithhighlevelsofPSM (Wright and Grant, 2010). First, inrecruitment and selection procedures,governmentorganizationsshouldusePSMasaprimecriterion forentry intopublic serviceemployment throughemployment interviews(Paarlberg, Perry, and Hondeghem, 2008).Structured face-to-face interviews, past-oriented (behavioral description) interviews,situational assessments, and realistic jobinterviews can be useful to identify thecandidate’s level of PSM (Paarlberg andLavigna, 2010). Second, governmentorganizations should provide formal andinformal socialization opportunities for civilservants to learn about organizationalexpectations for civil servants’ behavior thatreflect PSM. Organizational socialization


18

meanscivilservantslearningandinternalizingthe history, mission, goals, objectives, andnorms of their organizations, anddemonstrates how public service goals areachieved (Paarlberg, Perry, and Hondeghem,2008). Third, government organizationsshould provide good management practicesthat increase the level of PSM.Managementpracticesthataredesignedtostimulatepublicservicemotivesmay actually generate betterperformance(PaarlbergandLavigna,2010).Itis also important to build a public serviceculturethatcancultivatePSMingovernmentorganizations.

The extrinsic rewards such as payincreasesandbettereconomiccompensationfor civil servants need to be the foundationfor better work performance in the Koreangovernment.Civilservantsplacelessvalueonhigher pay and more importance onmeaningfulwork(Rainey,1982),butbasepayshouldbeenoughtoletthemconcentrateonsignificant tasks. Economic compensationmust meet standards that are driven byexternal and internal labor markets. Thegovernment must be able to pay enough tohirecivilservantswiththehighlevelsofPSMand retain the highest-output employees(Lazear,1999).Itmeansthatweneedtoseekanoptimalbalance,using“extrinsicincentivesto crowd in intrinsic rewards” (Perry andHondeghem,2008:308).Thus,itisimportantto design more elaborate compensationsystems, which are effective in the Koreanpublicsector.

8. Conclusion

This study focuses on the relationshipsbetween job characteristics and PSM andbetween multiple incentives and workperformance, and shows that only three outof five core job characteristics—skill variety,task significance, and feedback—arepositively associatedwithPSMand thatPSMand economic compensation, except jobsecurity, are related to work performance inKorean government organizations. Thecontributionsof thepresent studyare that it

clarifies the effects of job characteristics onPSM in the context of Korean governmentorganizations and that it analyzes theinfluences of the three incentives on workperformancesimultaneously.

This study has several limitations. First,we recognize limitations of self-reports andcross-sectional data. Self-reports can beinaccurateasrespondentsmaycomeupwithpost-hoc explanations or justifications,whichcould lead tosocialdesirabilitybias (KimandKim,2016).Cross-sectionalsurveydatadonotallow conclusions on the direction ofcausality, and thus theability tomake causalstatements about the hypothesizedrelationships is constrained. Moreover, withrespect to the incentives and workperformance relationships, the use of cross-sectionalsurveydatamaycreatethepotentialfor common-method bias to create spuriousrelationships. Longitudinal research designsmay be more appropriate for analyzing therelationships on which this study focusedbecause they can provide the ability toobserve how relationships culminate overtime (Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann, 2016).Second, the items for measuring economiccompensation, job security, and workperformance are not well developed. Thisstudy uses only a one-item measure torepresent economic compensation and jobsecurity. Future research should use morerigorous multi-item measures to evaluateeconomiccompensationandjobsecurity.Thethreeitemsforworkperformancearealsonotverified tobe goodenough toevaluateworkperformance. Future research should usemore valid measures to evaluate workperformanceinthepublicsector.

Despite growing evidence that civilservantsaremotivatedtodogoodforothersandsocietyandthatPSMpositivelyinfluencescivilservants’workperformance,manyeffortsto reformgovernmentorganizations in Koreahave taken the opposite approach—focusingon discriminating performance-related payand strengthening bureaucratic controlsystems (Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010; Perry,Engbers, and Jun, 2009). This study may


19

contributetoshowingwhichwayisbetterfortheKoreangovernment.

BibliographicReferences

Alonso P. and Lewis G B. 2001, Public ServiceMotivation and Job Performance: Evidence fromthe Federal Sector, American Review of PublicAdministration,31(4),363-380.

AmbroseM. L. and Kulik C. T. 1999, Old Friends,New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s,JournalofManagement,25(3),231-292.

Bakker A. B. 2015, A Job Demands–ResourcesApproach to Public Service Motivation, PublicAdministrationReview,75(5),723-732.

Bandura, A. 2006, Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan eds.,Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Greenwich,InformationAgePublishing,307-337.

BeauregardT.A.2012,Perfectionism,Self-Efficacyand OCB: The Moderating Role of Gender,PersonnelReview,41(5),590-608.

Bellé N. 2013, Experimental Evidence on theRelationship between Public Service Motivationand Job Performance, Public AdministrationReview,73(1),143-153.

Bellé N. and Cantarelli P. 2010, Public ServiceMotivation:TheStateoftheArt.Paperpresentedat the Conference “Reforming the Public Sector:How to make the difference?” December 2-3,2010.Rome,Italy.

Bozeman B. and Su X. 2015, Public ServiceMotivation Concepts and Theory: A Critique,PublicAdministrationReview,75(5),700-710.

Brewer G. A. and Selden S. C. 1998, WhistleBlowersintheFederalCivilService:NewEvidenceof the Public Service Ethic, Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413-439.

BrewerG.A.andSeldenS.C.2000,WhyElephantsGallop: Assessing and Predicting OrganizationalPerformanceinFederalAgencies,JournalofPublicAdministration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685-712.

Bright L. 2007, Does Person-Organization FitMediate the Relationship Between Public ServiceMotivation and the Job Performance of Public

Employees? Review of Public PersonnelAdministration,27(4),361-379.

Camilleri E. 2007, Antecedents Affecting PublicServiceMotivation.PersonnelReview,36(3), 356-377.

Crewson P. E. 1997, Public-Service Motivation:Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence andEffect, Journal of Public Administration ResearchandTheory,7(4),499-518.

CurrallS.C.,TowlerA. J., JudgeT.A.andKohnL.2005, Pay Satisfaction and OrganizationalOutcomes,PersonnelPsychology,58(3),613-640.

Davison A. C. and Hinkley D. V. 1997, BootstrapMethods and Their Application, Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.

EmmertM.A.andTaherW.A.1992,PublicSectorProfessionals:TheEffectsofPublicSectorJobsonMotivation, Job Satisfaction and WorkInvolvement, American Review of PublicAdministration,22(1),37-48.

FornellC.andBooksteinF.L.1982,TwoStructuralEquations Models: LISREL and PLS Applied toCustomerExit-VoiceTheory, JournalofMarketingResearch,19(4),440-452.

Fornell C. and Larcker D. F. 1981, EvaluatingStructural Equation Models with UnobservableVariables and Measurement Error, Journal ofMarketingResearch,18(1),39–50.

FriedY. andFerrisG.R.1987,TheValidityof theJob Characteristics Model: A Review and Meta-Analysis,PersonnelPsychology,40(2),287-322.

Giauque D., Anderfuhren-Biget S. and Varone F.2013, HRM Practices, Intrinsic Motivators, andOrganizational Performance in the Public Sector,PublicPersonnelManagement,42(2),123-150.

Grant A.M. 2007, Relational Job Design and theMotivation to Make a Prosocial Difference,AcademyofManagementReview,32(2),393-417.

Grant A. M. 2008, Employees Without a Cause:The Motivational Effects of Prosocial Impact inPublic Service, International Public ManagementJournal,11(1),48-66.

Hackman J. R. and Lawler E. E. 1971, EmployeeReactionstoJobCharacteristics,JournalofAppliedPsychology,55(3),259-286.

HackmanJ.R.andOldhamG.R.1976,Motivationthrough the Design of Work: Test of a Theory,


20

OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanPerformance,16(2),250-279.

Hackman, J. R. and Oldham G. R. 1980, WorkRedesign,Reading,Addison-Wesley.

Hahm J. 2010, A Survey of Public Employees’Opinions on Public Administration, Seoul, KoreaInstituteofPublicAdministration.

Heneman H. G. III. and Judge T. A. 2000,Compensation Attitudes. In S. L. Rynes and B.Gerhart eds., Compensation in Organizations:Current Research and Practice, San Francisco,Jossey-Bass,61-203.

Herzberg F. 1968,Work and the Nature of Man,Granada,London

HoustonD. J. 2006, “Walking theWalk”ofPublicService Motivation: Public Employees andCharitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money,Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory,16(1),67-86.

Idaszak J. R. and Drasgow F. 1987, A Revision ofthe Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of aMeasurement Artifact, Journal of AppliedPsychology,72(1),69-74.

JerusalemM.andSchwarzerR.1992,Self-EfficacyasaResourceFactorinStressAppraisalProcesses,InR.Schwarzered.,Self-Efficacy:ThoughtControlofAction,WashingtonDC,Hemisphere,195-213.

Jung C. S. and Rainey H. G. 2010, OrganizationalGoalCharacteristicsandPublicDutyMotivationinUS Federal Agencies, Review of Public PersonnelAdministration,31(1),28-47.

Kim S. 2005, Individual-Level Factors andOrganizational Performance in GovernmentOrganizations, Journal of Public AdministrationResearchandTheory,15(2),245-61.

KimS.2012,DoesPerson-OrganizationFitMatterin thePublicSector?Testing theMediatingEffectof Person-Organization Fit in the Relationshipbetween Public Service Motivation and WorkAttitudes, Public Administration Review, 72(6),830-840.

Kim S. 2015, National Culture and Public ServiceMotivation: Investigating the Relationship usingHofstede’sFiveCulturalDimensions, InternationalReview of Administrative Sciences, DOI:10.1177/0020852315596214.

KimS.andVandenabeeleW.2010,AStrategyforBuilding Public Service Motivation Research

Internationally, Public Administration Review,70(5),701-709.

KimS.,VandenabeeleW.,WrightB.E.,…,andDeVivo P. 2013, Investigating the Structure andMeaning of Public Service Motivation acrossPopulations: Developing an InternationalInstrument and Addressing Issues ofMeasurement Invariance, Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 23(1), 79-102.

KimS. andKimS. 2016, SocialDesirabilityBias inMeasuringPublicServiceMotivation,InternationalPublicManagementJournal,19(3),293-319.

KimT.,HendersonA.C.andEomT.H.2015,AttheFrontLine:ExaminingtheEffectsofPerceivedJobSignificance, Employee Commitment, and JobInvolvement on Public Service Motivation,International Review of Administrative Sciences,DOI:10.1177/0020852314558028.

KimY.andLeeM.2010,AStudyonImprovingLowPerforming Management Institutions toStrengthen Public Administration Competence,Seoul,KoreaInstituteofPublicAdministration.

KoppellJ.G.S.andAuerJ.C.2012,IsThereaSpiritof Governance? Public Administration Review,72(s1),S24-S33.

KulikC.T.,OldhamG.R.andHackmanJ.R.1987,Work Design as an Approach to Person-Environment Fit, Journal of Vocational Behavior,31(3),278-296.

Kwon H. 2013, A Survey of Public Employees’Opinions on Public Administration, Seoul, KoreaInstituteofPublicAdministration.

Lazear E. P. 1999, Personnel Economics: PastLessons and Future Directions, Journal of LaborEconomics,17(2),199-236.

Lee G. 2005, PSM and Public Employees’ WorkPerformance, Korean Society and PublicAdministration,16(1),81-104.

Lee G. and Choi D. L. 2016, Does Public ServiceMotivationInfluencetheIntentiontoWorkinthePublic Sector? Evidence from Korea, Review ofPublicPersonnelAdministration,36(2),145-163.

Leisink P. and Steijn B. 2009, Public ServiceMotivation and Job Performance of Public SectorEmployees in the Netherlands, InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,75(1),35-52.


21

Lewis G. B. and Frank S. A. 2002,WhoWants toWork for the Government? Public AdministrationReview,62(4),395-404.

Locke E. A. and Latham G. P. 2002, Building aPracticallyUsefulTheoryofGoalSettingandTaskMotivation, American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

MilkovichG.T.andWigdorA.K.eds.1991,PayforPerformance: Evaluating Performance AppraisalandMeritPay,WashingtonDC,NationalAcademyPress.

Moynihan, D. P. 2008, The Normative Model inDecline? Public Service Motivation in the Age ofGovernance,InJ.L.PerryandA.Hondeghemeds.,Motivation in Public Management: The Call ofPublic Service, Oxford, Oxford University Press,247-267.

Moynihan D. P. and Pandey S. K. 2005, Testinghow Management Matters in an Era ofGovernment by Performance Management,Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory,15(3),421-439.

MoynihanD.P.andPandeyS.K.2007,TheRoleofOrganizations in Fostering Public ServiceMotivation, Public Administration Review, 67(1),40-53.

NaffK.C.andCrumJ.1999,WorkingforAmerica:Does PSM make a Difference? Review of PublicPersonnelAdministration,19(4),5-16.

Paarlberg L. E. and Lavigna B. 2010,Transformational Leadership and Public ServiceMotivation: Driving individual and organizationalperformance,PublicAdministrationReview,70(5),710-718.

PaarlbergL.E.,PerryJ.L.andHondeghemA.2008,From Theory to Practice: Strategies for ApplyingPublic Service Motivation, In J. L. Perry and A.Hondeghem eds., Motivation in PublicManagement: The Call of Public Service, Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,268-293.

Pandey S. K. and Stazyk E. C. 2008, AntecedentsandCorrelatesofPublicServiceMotivation,InJ.L.PerryandA.Hondeghemeds.,MotivationinPublicManagement: The Call of Public Service, Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,101-117.

ParkS.M.andRaineyH.G.2008,LeadershipandPublicServiceMotivationinU.S.FederalAgencies,International Public Management Journal, 11(1),109-142.

Perry J. L. 1997, Antecedents of Public ServiceMotivation, Journal of Public AdministrationResearchandTheory,7(2),181-197.

Perry J. L. 2000, Bringing Society in: Toward aTheory of Public Service Motivation, Journal ofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,10(2),471-488.

Perry J. L. 2014, TheMotivational Base of PublicService:FoundationsforaThirdWaveofResearch,AsiaPacificJournalofPublicAdministration,36(1),34-47.

PerryJ.L.,EngbersT.A.andJunS.Y.2009,Backtothe Future? Performance-Related Pay, EmpiricalResearch, and the Perils of Persistence, PublicAdministrationReview,69(1),39-51.

PerryJ.L.andHondeghemA.2008,MotivationinPublic Management: The Call of Public Service,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

Perry J. L., Hondeghem A. and Wise L. R. 2010,RevisitingtheMotivationalBasesofPublicService:Twenty Years of Research and anAgenda for theFuture, Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681-690.

Perry J. L., Mesch D. and Paarlberg L. 2006,Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era:The Performance Paradigm Revisited, PublicAdministrationReview,66(4),505-514.

PerryJ.L.andPorterL.W.1982,FactorsAffectingtheContextforMotivationinPublicOrganizations,AcademyofManagementReview,7(1),89-98.

Perry J. L. andWise L. R. 1990, TheMotivationalBases of Public Service, Public AdministrationReview,50(3),367-373.

Rainey H. G. 1982, Reward Preferences amongPublic and Private Managers: In Search of theService Ethic, American Review of PublicAdministration,16(4),288-302.

Rainey H. G. 1983, Public Agencies and PrivateFirms: Incentive Structures, Goals, and IndividualRoles,Administration&Society,15(2),207-242.

Rainey H. G. and Steinbauer P. 1999, GallopingElephants: Developing Elements of a Theory ofEffective Government Organizations, Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 9(1),1-32.

RingeC.M.,WendeS.andWillA.2005,SmartPLS2.0(M3).http://www.smartpls.de.


22

Ritz A. 2009, Public Service Motivation andOrganizational Performance in Swiss FederalGovernment, International Review ofAdministrativeSciences,75(1),53-78.

RitzA.,BrewerG.A.andNeumannO.2016,PublicService Motivation: A Systematic LiteratureReview and Outlook, Public AdministrationReview,76(3),414-426.

Rosenblatt Z. and Ruvio A. 1996, A Test of aMultidimensional Model of Job Insecurity: TheCaseof IsraeliTeachers,JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,17,587-605.

Sawyer J. E. 1992, Goal and Process Clarity:Specification of Multiple Constructs of RoleAmbiguity and a Structural Equation Model ofTheir Antecedents and Consequences, Journal ofAppliedPsychology,77(2),130-142.

SchwarzerR.andJerusalemM.1995,GeneralizedSelf-Efficacy Scale, In J. Weinman, S. Wright andM.Johnstoneds.,Measures inHealthPsychology:AUser’sPortfolio,Windsor,NFER-Nelson,35-37.

Selden S. C. and Brewer G. A. 2000, WorkMotivationintheSeniorExecutiveService:Testingthe High Performance Cycle Theory, Journal ofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,10(3),531-550.

SteenT.2008,NotaGovernmentMonopoly:ThePrivate, Nonprofit, and Voluntary Sectors, In J. L.PerryandA.Hondeghemeds.,MotivationinPublicManagement: The Call of Public Service, Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,203-222.

SteijnB.2008,Person-EnvironmentFitandPublicService Motivation, International PublicManagementJournal,11(1),13-27.

Vandenabeele W. 2009, The Mediating Effect ofJob Satisfaction and Organizational Commitmenton Self-Reported Performance: More RobustEvidence of the PSM-Performance Relationship,International Review of Administrative Sciences,75(1),11-34.

Vandenabeele W., Depré R., Hondeghem A. andYan S. 2005, The Motivational Patterns of CivilServants, Viesoji Politika ir Administravimas, 13,52-63.

Wright B. E. 2004, The Role of Work Context inWork Motivation: A Public Sector Application ofGoal and Social Cognitive Theories, Journal ofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,14(1),59-78.

WrightB. E. 2007, Public Service andMotivation:Does Mission Matter? Public AdministrationReview,67(1),54-64.

Wright B. E. and Grant A. M. 2010, UnansweredQuestions about Public Service Motivation:Designing Research to Address Key Issues ofEmergence and Effects. Public AdministrationReview,70(5),691–700.

Wright B. E. and Kim S. 2004, Participation’sInfluence on Job Satisfaction: The Importance ofJob Characteristics, Review of Public PersonnelAdministration,24(1),18-40.

YousefD.A.1998,SatisfactionwithJobSecurityasaPredictorofOrganizationalCommitmentandJobPerformance in a Multicultural Environment,International Journal of Manpower, 19(3), 184-194.


23

AppendixSurveyItemsandStatistics(n=1,500)ConstructsandItems Mean SD FLJobCharacteristics:SkillVarietyThejobrequiresmetouseanumberofcomplexorhigh-levelskills.Thejobrequiresmetodomanydifferentthingsatwork,usinganumberofdifferentskillsandtalents.

3.203.16

.933.931

.951.963

JobCharacteristics:TaskIdentityThe job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work Ibegin.ThejobisarrangedsothatIcandoanentirepieceofworkfrombeginningtoend.

3.55

3.51

.843

.897

.917

.866

JobCharacteristics:TaskSignificanceTheoutcomeofmyworkcansignificantlyaffectthework,lives,orwell-beingofotherpeople.

Thejobisonewherealotofotherpeoplecanbeaffectedbyhowwelltheworkgetsdone.

The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme ofthings.

3.53

3.60

4.03

.954

.933

.797

.799

.870

.827

JobCharacteristics:AutonomyThejobgivesmeconsiderableopportunityforindependenceandfreedominhowIdothework.

Thejobgivesmeachancetousemypersonalinitiativeandjudgmentincarryingoutthework.

3.27

3.23

.934

.920

.884

.905

JobCharacteristics:FeedbackJust doing the work required by the job providesmany chances for me to

figureouthowwellIamdoing.AfterIfinishajob,IknowwhetherIperformedwell.

3.36

3.46

.807

.805

.899

.898PSM:AttractiontoPublicService(Summeddimension’sFLonPSM=.797)Iadmirepeoplewhoinitiateorareinvolvedinactivitiestoaidmycommunity.Meaningfulpublicserviceisveryimportanttome.Itisimportantformetocontributetothecommongood.Itisimportanttocontributetoactivitiesthattacklesocialproblems.

4.233.974.023.82

.609.661.649.732

.694.849.843.736

PSM:CommitmenttoPublicValues(Summeddimension’sFLonPSM=.690)Ithinkequalopportunitiesforallcitizensareveryimportant.It is important that citizens can rely on the continuous provision of publicservices.The interests of future generations should be taken into account whenmakingpublicpolicies.

Toactethicallyisessentialforpublicservants.

4.284.28

4.38

4.48

.625.595

.646

.637

.701.803

.662

.691PSM:Compassion(Summeddimension’sFLonPSM=.783)Ifeelsympathetictotheplightoftheunderprivileged.Iempathizewithotherpeoplewhofacedifficulties.IgetveryupsetwhenIseeotherpeoplebeingtreatedunfairly.Consideringthewelfareofothersisveryimportant.

3.824.094.264.07

.721.611.642.622

.832.869.730.670

PSM:Self-sacrifice(Summeddimension’sFLonPSM=.809)Iampreparedtomakesacrificesforthepublicgoodofsociety.Ibelieveinputtingcivicdutybeforeself.

3.433.62

.786.755

.837.809


24

Iamwillingtoriskpersonallosstohelpsociety.Iwouldagreetoagoodplantomakeabetterlifeforthepoor,evenifitcostsmemoney.

3.223.71

.853

.807.871.766

GoalClarityTheorganizationhasclearlydefinedvisionandgoals.Theorganization’smissionandgoalsarecleartoalmosteveryonewhoworkshere.Itiseasytoexplainthevisionandgoalsofthisorganizationtooutsiders.

3.693.44

3.18

.843

.856

.875

.887

.939

.885Self-EfficacyIcanalwaysmanagetosolvedifficultproblemsifItryhardenough.IamconfidentthatIcoulddealefficientlywithunexpectedevents.

3.563.66

.936

.768.915.868

JobSecurityIamconfidentthatIwillworkasacivilservantuntilmyretirementage. 3.88 1.039EconomicCompensationIamsatisfiedwithmycurrentsalary. 2.40 .898WorkPerformanceTheperformancelevelofmyworkiscloselylinkedwiththeperformanceleveloftheorganizationforwhichIwork.Theperformancelevelsofmycolleaguesarequitehigh.TheoverallperformanceleveloftheorganizationforwhichIworkisrelatively

high,whencomparedwithotherorganizations.

3.45

3.36

3.38

.834

.743

.795

.710

.847

.835SD=standarddeviation;FL=factorloading

job characteristics, public service motivation, and work ... · security, power, prestige, career...

Documents