motivated to adapt? the role of public service motivation...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Motivated to Adapt? The Role of Public Service Motivation as Employees Face Organizational Change
Bradley E. Wright [email protected]
University of North Carolina‐Charlotte
Robert K. Christensen [email protected]
University of Georgia
Kim Isett [email protected]
Columbia University - Georgia Institute of Technology
Abstract
Research on organizational change has consistently emphasized the role that the work environment plays in employee acceptance of change. Under examined in the public management literature is the role that employee values, particularly public service motivation (PSM), may play in employee acceptance of change. While some scholars have noted a positive correlation between employee PSM and organizational change efforts, our study seeks to explore the mechanisms that would explain this relationship. We examine the relationship between public service values and public employee acceptance of change with two separate studies: (1) a multi-year change effort to improve services provided by county level organizations serving justice-involved youth in four states and (2) a municipal reorganization driven by the need to reduce costs in a weakened economy. In both settings we confirm that PSM is positively correlated with acceptance of change, but find evidence that certain dimensions of PSM are driving the relationship.
Prepared for the 11th biennial Public Management Research Association Conference
Syracuse, New York June 2-4, 2011
2
Organizational excellence is about change . . . [but] a key barrier in most change efforts is the motivation to change.
- Lawler and Worley (2006)
Management scholars and practitioners have long been concerned with
organizational change. The factors that shape employee valuation of change and,
consequently, commitment to change are myriad and broadly researched (Burke, 2002;
Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). In this manuscript we focus particularly on change within
public organizations and the role that public service values may play in employee
acceptance of change. We are specifically interested in exploring the mechanisms by which
public service values shape commitment to organization change.
We begin by examining the potential role of motivation and public service values in
acceptance of change, and outline some hypotheses that we expect to test with two studies.
We then briefly review of more established factors that influence acceptance of change. We
describe the data from our studies, and our methods to examine the data. We conclude
with findings and a discussion of implications and future research.
Employee Motivation and Commitment to Organization Change
Employee commitment to change contemplates the mental dedication that “binds an
individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of
[planned] change” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 475). While there are many antecedents
of commitment to change (discussed in the next section), an employee’s individual values
and motivation can shape openness to organization change. For example, employee values
can precipitate resistance (Hultman, 1979) or willing internalization of change
implementation (Klein & Sorra, 1996). This may be especially true in the public sector
where the employees' altruistic values and desire to serve society make them more likely
3
to support their organization's missions as a function of value congruence (Weiss & Piderit,
1999). Such employees may be more open to change, especially if they are adequately
informed of changes and have opportunities to influence them.
In this study we are particularly interested in employee public service motivation
(PSM) and its potential impact on openness to organization change. Sometimes defined as
“a general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people” (Rainey &
Steinbauer, 1999, 23), employee PSM conceivably influences how receptive one is to
organization change. While previous studies suggest a positive correlation between
employee PSM and employee commitment to change, in this piece we seek to clarify the
mechanisms motivating this relationship.
PSM and Commitment to Change. Early theorists (Perry & Wise, 1990) identified
a positive conceptual relationship between PSM and organizational commitment.
Organizational commitment in turn can foster adaptability and openness to change
(Denhardt, 1993, 274). Perry and Wise (1990, 371) explain how this might work: “because
committed employees are likely to engage in spontaneous, innovative behaviors on behalf
of the organization, such employees are likely to facilitate an organization's adjustment to
contingencies.” Indeed more recent theoretical and empirical scholarship confirms that
employee public service motivation can be positively related to organizational change
efforts (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010).
Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) conceptually outline the theoretical link between
public service values and organizational change. Noting research on the positive
relationship between employee satisfaction, motivation, perceptions of organizational
effectiveness and organizational changes that benefit citizens (Lee, Cayer, & Lan, 2006;
4
Paarlberg, 2007), they argue that organizational changes designed to benefit others can be
an effective tool to effectively “manage” and satisfy employees’ motivations by “providing a
face for employees’ public service values, thereby translating abstract organizational goals
into significant—and very practical—action” (Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010, 714).
Prior work provided preliminary evidence of the PSM-change relationship. In their
study of state-level public managers Moynihan and Pandey (2007) empirically confirm
findings similar to those in Naff and Crum’s (1999) earlier study of federal-level managers.
Albeit from different causal directions, both papers demonstrate a positive relationship
between organizational reinvention/reform efforts and employee public service
motivation. Moynihan and Pandey (2007, 45-46) focus specifically on “employee friendly”
change (2007, 43), and posit that employee PSM is fostered in organizations that promote
reforms beneficial to the public (e.g., reduced red-tape, greater focus on performance). Naff
and Crum (1999, 10), on the other hand, suggest that employees exhibiting high PSM are
“more positive” about organizational reinvention because they believe these changes will
improve government services and benefit the public. While both studies found a direct
relationship between PSM and favorable employee views of change, neither study provided
a direct test of the underlying theory that this relationship is moderated by employee
expectations that the change would improve public service outcomes.
The purpose of our particular inquiry is to unpack the relationship between public
service motivation and employee acceptance of change. Our studies include both “positive”
and “negative” aspects of change—one study focuses on downsizing/austerity reforms,
while the other features more positive organizational changes aimed at improved service
delivery. Based on the scant literature in this area, we have no a priori reason to
5
hypothesize different directions for the relationship between employee public service
motivation and commitment to organization change.
H1A When organizational change is driven by service reform, employee PSM is
positively related to affective commitment to change.
H1B When organizational change is driven by the need to cut services/costs,
employee PSM is positively related to affective commitment to change.
Motivational Mechanisms and Commitment to Change. There are several general
theoretical mechanisms that begin to explain the relationship between employee PSM and
affective commitment to change. Our data allow us to focus on at least two general
construct types that are represented by different dimensions of PSM. The first construct is
primarily other-oriented, focusing on how the particular content of the change may impact
the public and coincide with employees’ valuation of public service. Key concepts in this
construct are attraction to public service, and commitment to public values. The second
construct concerns self-orientation and focuses on how employees perceive personal costs
and benefits of change, regardless of the content of the change. A key PSM concept in this
construct is the role of self-sacrifice.
Other-Oriented Change, Attraction & Commitment. Several scholars have implied
that employees with higher PSM are likely more likely to support organizational reforms
because they perceive that these reforms are consistent with the high value they place on
meaningful public service (Moynihan, 2006). In particular, the reforms often attempt to
make government more responsive to citizens and reduce organizational red tape and
other bureaucratic maladies that hinder the employee’s ability to help others or benefit
society through their work (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999). In other
6
words, employees with higher PSM are more likely to support organizational change
because change is assumed to benefit the public.
Unfortunately, this assumption may be questioned by the prevalence of criticisms
that highlight how common public management reforms may lower the quality of
government services and put the public at greater risk (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009; Boyne,
2003; Haque, 2001; Yang & Kassekert, 2010). In fact, this expectation seems to run counter
to scholarly claims regarding the pervasiveness of employee resistance to change.
Nonetheless, consistent with this past research, we expect that employees higher in PSM
may be more likely to support organizational change specifically because of specific
dimensions or forms of PSM. Consistent with past finds (Moynihan and Pandey, 2007), we
expect that this relationship is driven by PSM derived from a general attraction to public
service and commitment to public values.
H2A Employee attraction to public service is positively related to affective
commitment to change.
H2B Employee commitment to public values is positively related to affective
commitment to change.
Self-Oriented Change & Sacrifice. Much of the literature focusing on organizational
change suggests that such change often fails because of employee resistance that is driven
by personal fears that the change will adversely affect them in some way (French & Coch,
1948; Miller & Monge 1985; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Employees often fear changes that
might result in losing their job, changing comfortable social dynamics, and gaining
additional, less desirable or even more difficult tasks.
7
Employees with higher PSM, however, are often thought of as being more willing to
sacrifice their own interests and preferences for the benefit of society (Perry & Wise,
1990). Such employees are likely less to resist organizational change because they are less
likely to worry about how the changes will affect them personally. In other words, PSM
makes employees more likely to accept change simply because they are less likely to resist
it due to their tendency to place the needs of others before their own. Thus, we
hypothesize:
H3 Employee self-sacrifice is positively related to commitment to change.
Context and Commitment Change
Organizational change has consistently emphasized the role that the work
environment plays in employee acceptance of change. In particular, employees are
generally less cynical and more accepting of change when they feel adequately informed
and have had meaningful opportunities to participate in them (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
Communication about the changes can provide important information that helps
reduce stress and anxiety stemming from employee uncertainty about what specific
changes will occur and how the changes will affect their jobs and how they should respond
to the changes (Miller & Monge, 1985; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Communicating accurate
and timely information about planned organizational change not only helps explain need
for change but also helps employees better understand how change is likely to specifically
affect or, just as importantly, not affect them. Employee participation also provides greater
opportunity to communicate and learn more about the changes but does so in a way that
suggests the employee can actually influence what or how changes are made (Bordia,
Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004). Together, communication and participation can
8
also expose employees to information that can dispel any unnecessary concerns or
incorrect information about the rationale for or effects of the change (Bordia et al., 2006) as
well as support employees’ need for competence and autonomy. Thus it is not surprising
that so many studies have found that communication of change-related information,
employee participation in the design or nature of the change can improve employee
attitudes toward and successful implementation of change (Armenakis et al., 2007; Conway
& Monks, 2008; Miller & Monge 1985; Jimmieson, et al., 2004 Rafferty & Griffin, 2006:
Rafferty & Restubog, 2010Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Social support during times of change can also shape how well employees cope with
and commit to change (Shaw et al., 1993). Similarly, the salience or personal impact of the
changes on an employee and their working environment is likely to affect their
commitment to change. Employees who are more directly affected by change will likely
experience greater stress (Ashford, 1988) and reduce their acceptance of change. Finally,
we note that employee change related self-efficacy—personal belief in one’s ability to
handle the proposed changes and to function well in one jobs despite the changes—also
impacts commitment to change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Methods and Analysis
Data. To investigate the relationship between public service values and public
employee acceptance of change, we examine two different settings, each representing a
different type of organizational change.
The first data set was created from a study of change driven by service quality reform,
involving efforts in juvenile justice systems in four states (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana,
and Washington) as part of the Models for Change initiative of the John D. and Catherine T.
9
MacArthur Foundation. While the broader study utilizes both qualitative and quantitative
techniques to identify patterns that facilitate or inhibit change, our discussion will
primarily focus on the results of a 2010 web-based survey data collected from 167
frontline employees implementing the changes relevant to our study. Of the 167
employees identified to participate in the survey, 118 responded resulting in a 71 percent
response rate.
The second data set used came from a study that involved organizational changes
driven by economic pressures and the need to cut costs in a local government. These data
came from a 2010 survey of all employees working for a local government in the
southeastern part of the United States as the city began to implement a planned
reorganization of services and departments that would, among other things, result in a
reduction in force. Employees with city email addresses were asked to participate in an
online survey through email while those without email addresses were given printed
surveys to complete and mail directly to the research team. From this, a total of 449 usable
surveys were received (245 completed online and 204 received in the mail) for an
estimated response rate of 44 percent. In addition to differing from the first sample in
terms of the type of or reasons for change, respondents in this sample were not chosen
based on the degree to which the changes directly affected their job.
Measures. Each study variable was measured using previously established scales. The
dependent variable is measured by a six-item scale of affective commitment to change
developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). In the first data set, all six items of this scale
were used, but due to survey length constraints only five items were used in the second
data set.
10
Our focal independent variable, PSM, was measured in two different ways. First, to test
our first hypotheses, we used a four-item scale of prosocial motivation developed by Grant
(2008). Prosocial motivation has be defined as an individual’s desire to expend effort to
benefit other people (even if that effort requires sacrificing their own needs) and has been
conceptualized as both a trait and a state of the employee (Grant, 2008; Meglino &
Korsgaard, 2004; Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010). As a relatively stable trait, prosocial
motivation represents dispositions toward empathy and helpfulness (Penner, Dovidio,
Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005), and a concern for others (De Dreu, 2006; Meglino &
Korsgaard, 2004). As psychological state, prosocial motivation has been characterized as a
more temporary focus on protecting and promoting the welfare of other people that can
change over time in response to environmental conditions (Batson & Powell, 2003; Grant,
2007). While this measure is not commonly used in PSM research, it has been recognized
as very similar to PSM conceptually (Perry, et al., 2010; Wright & Grant, 2010) and recent
research has found it to be empirically indistinguishable from commonly used measures of
PSM (Wright, Christensen & Pandey, 2010).
Our second measure of PSM, used to test Hypotheses 2A and 2B investigating the
underlying mechanisms that drives the relationship between PSM and change support, was
constructed with four different dimensions of PSM using a newly revised measure of PSM
developed as an international effort and validated using local government employees in
twelve countries (Kim et al., 2010).
To isolate the effects of PSM on employee commitment to change, we controlled for a
number of common antecedents of employee support for organization change. The
measures of the social support for change, the appropriateness of change related
11
information, employee change self-efficacy, and degree of participation in change were
measured using multiple-item scales developed by Wanberg and Banas (2000). As with
affective commitment to change, the first data set included responses for all of the items in
each scale, the second data set only included a smaller subset of these items for three of the
four scales. We also controlled for the salience of the change for the Individual by using a
single item from Kelman (2005) and adapted to each change setting.
Responses for all questionnaire items in both data sets were recorded using a five-point
Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). The item wording for each
measure is provided in Appendix A. The means, standard deviations and reliabilities for
each measure are reported in Table 1 for our first data set, and Table 2 for our second data
set.
Findings and Discussion
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of ordinary least squares multiple
regression models testing the relationship between PSM and affective commitment to
change in both data sets after controlling for common antecedents for change. These
analyses validate previous studies finding a positive relationship between employee PSM
and perception of organization change, confirming both hypotheses 1A and 1B. Employees
with higher levels of PSM are more likely, whether in organizations undergoing positive
(precipitated by a longer term effort to improve service delivery) or negative (precipitated
by budgetary constraints) changes, to express affective commitment to organization
change. Table 3 reports findings for the former, and Table 4 for the latter. While our
analyses do not allow for a direct comparison of PSM’s effect in the two data sets, we note
that using the same set of predictors explained relatively similar levels of variation in
12
affective commitment to change (Adj R2 = 0.49 and 0.39) the strength of the effect of PSM
seems equivalent in across both analyses ( = 0.16 and 0.15).
In the present research, we are primarily interested in explaining the positive
relationship between PSM and commitment to organizational change. To this end, we
conducted an additional OLS regression model using measures of different dimensions of
PSM to test the specific conceptual mechanisms that may drive the relationship between
PSM and change support. Table 5 reports the results of this analysis that was only possible
for our second data set. Of the four dimensions, only employee self-sacrifice is significantly
related to affective commitment to change.1 We conclude that employees high in PSM self-
sacrifice are more likely to forgo their own preferences, which in turn allows them to
commit to change that they may view as beneficial as a whole (Perry & Wise, 1990). Our
observation that employees high in PSM (self-sacrifice) are likely less to resist
organizational change has some implications for public management research and practice.
For managers overseeing change, employees high in self-sacrifice may be good candidates
to foster social support for change and ideal vehicles to disseminate organizational
information about change. For researchers, we introduce evidence that PSM’s apparent
positive relationship to change commitment is primarily the function of employee self-
sacrifice as opposed to other dimensions of public service motives.
Beyond employee PSM we found that employees who felt adequately informed and
involved in the changes were more likely to commit to the organizational reform. Change
salience, on the other hand, was significantly and negatively related to affective
1 Given the relatively high correlations between the dimensions of PSM, we tested for multicollinearity. The results suggest limited reason for concern as all VIFs were below 2.4 and Tolerances were above 0.43.
13
commitment to change. In other words, the more an employee felt that the changes would
affect their job the less likely they were to be committed to that change. Given that the
organization change being studied involved both a substantial reorganization of personnel
responsibilities as well as a reduction in personnel, such findings are perhaps intuitive.
Conclusion
Work environment and employee motives shape how readily workers embrace
organizational change. As economic conditions continue to spur public sector
reorganization, our investigation into the role of public service motivation and employee
commitment to change seems especially relevant. Are employees who exhibit higher levels
of PSM more likely to commit to organizational change? If so, what explains that
relationship? Using two studies that involve (1) reorganization to improve service
delivery, and (2) reorganization to respond to financial pressures, we answer the first
question in the affirmative. The explanation rests largely in a single dimension of employee
PSM: self-sacrifice.
Our study is not without the limitations typical in cross-sectional research.
Furthermore, while our work here suggests that that type of change—whether
reorganization to improve service delivery or austerity-based downsizing—does not
moderate the effects of PSM on employee commitment to change, future work might more
thoroughly investigate the generalizability of this positive relationship in a variety change
settings.
Returning to our opening quote, regardless of whether organizational excellence is
about change, change is certainly a pressing reality in most public organizations today. Our
analysis suggests that employee motivation does play a role in commitment to change.
14
More particularly, the dimension of PSM associated with employee self-sacrifice gives us
additional insight into why some employees are more willing than others to accept
organization change.
15
References
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
Ashford, S.J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Battaglio, P. R., & Condrey, S. E. (2009). Reforming Public Management: Analyzing the Impact of Public Service Reform on Organizational and Managerial Trust. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 689-707.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty During Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.
Boyne, G. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 367.
Burke, W.W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Coch, Lester, and John R.P. French, Jr. 1948. Over- coming Resistance to Change. Human
Relations 1(4): 512–32. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). Rational self-interest and other orientation in organizational
behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Denhardt, R. (1993). The pursuit of significance: Strategies for managerial success in public
organizations: Waveland Press. Fernandez, Sergio and Rainey, Hal G. 2006. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the
Public Sector: An Agenda for Research and Practice.” Public Administration Review, 26:
168-176.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393-417.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48.
Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 927-944.
Haque, M. S. (2001). The Diminishing Publicness of Public Service under the Current Mode of Governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65-82.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474.
Hultman, K. (1979). The Path of Least Resistance. Preparing Employees for Change: Learning Concepts: Austin, Texas.
Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing Change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Brookings Institution Press.
Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Lotte B. Andersen, Francesco Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, Maria Koumenta, Peter Leisink, Bangcheng Liu, Jolanta Palidauskaite, Lene H. Pedersen, James L. Perry, Jeannette Taylor, Paola De Vivo, and Bradley E. Wright. (2010). Measuring Public Service Motivation: Developing an
16
Instrument for International Use. Paper at the Annual conference of the European Group for Public Administration, Toulouse, France, September 8-10.
Klein, K., & Sorra, J. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.
Lawler, E., & Worley, C. G. (2006). Winning support for organizational change: Designing employee reward systems that keep on working. Ivey Business Journal, 70(4), 1-5.
Lee, H., Cayer, N. J., & Lan, G. Z. (2006). Changing federal government employee attitudes since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(1), 21.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, A. (2004). Considering Rational Self-Interest as a Disposition: Organizational Implications of Other Orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 946-959.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social Information And Employee Anxiety About Organizational Change. Human Communication Research, 11(3), 365-386.
Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77-89.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40-53.
Naff, K., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference? . Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.
Paarlberg, L. E. (2007). The impact of customer orientation on government employee performance. International Public Management Journal, 10(2), 201-231.
Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710-718.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 365-392.
Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681-690.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public-Service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory (Transaction), 9(1), 1.
Shaw, J.B., Fields, M.W., Thacker, J.W. & Fisher, C.D. (1993) The availability of personal and external coping resources: Their impact on job stress and employee attitudes during organizational restructuring. Work & Stress, 7, 229-246.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132.
Weiss, J., & Piderit, S. (1999). The value of mission statements in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 193.
Wright, B.E., Christensen, R.K., & Pandey, S.K. (2010). Measuring Public Service Motivation: Exploring Antecedents, Consequences and the Equivalency of Existing Measures. Presented at the international workshop on Public Service Motivation and Public Performance in a Globalized World, Huazhong University of Science &
17
Technology, China. Wright, B. E., & Grant, A. M. (2010). Unanswered questions about public service motivation:
Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 691-700.
Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). Linking Management Reform with Employee Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 413-436.
18
Table 1. Measure Means, Standard Deciations, Correlations and Reliability For Service Driven Change
Range Mean Stdev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Affective Commitment to Change 6 - 30 22.55 3.95 (0.89)
2 Prosocial Motivation 4 - 20 18.17 1.66 .301 (0.92)
3 Change Information 4 - 20 13.94 2.61 .629 .232 (0.78)
4 Change Efficacy 3 - 15 11.85 1.89 .540 .168 .450 (0.64)
5 Change Participation 3 - 15 9.06 2.55 .426 .118 .436 .147 (0.71)
6 Change Social Support 3 - 15 7.29 1.40 .235 .086 .256 .198 .279 (0.51)
7 Change Salience 1 - 5 3.09 .81 .386 .200 .301 .278 .423 .299 na
8 Organizational Tenure (years) 7 - 20 10.13 8.07 -.111 -.257 -.082 -.157 -.070 -.207 -.154 na
Bolded p < 0.05
Correlations & Reliabilities
Table 2 Measure Means, Standard Deciations, Correlations and Reliability For Costs Driven Change
Range Mean Stdev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Affective Commitment to Change 5 - 25 14.43 3.87 (0.83)
Public Service Motivation
2 Attraction to Public Service 5 - 25 20.39 2.92 0.23 (0.88)
3 Commitment to Public Values 6 - 30 25.45 3.03 0.12 0.70 (0.83)
4 Compassion 5 - 25 19.08 2.88 0.21 0.63 0.64 (0.82)
5 Self-Sacrifice 4 - 20 12.92 3.10 0.31 0.56 0.40 0.52 0.85)
6 Change Information 3 - 15 8.71 2.94 0.52 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.23 (0.85)
7 Change Efficacy 1 - 5 3.36 1.01 .073 .020 .084 .003 -.028 .004 na
8 Change Participation 2 - 10 4.64 1.92 0.52 0.10 -0.03 0.13 0.24 0.61 0.07 (0.68)
9 Change Social Support 3 - 15 10.04 2.20 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.45 0.17 0.37 (0.58)
10 Change Salience 1 - 5 3.13 .99 -0.07 0.05 0.01 0.07 -0.01 0.12 -0.18 0.18 0.15 na
11 Organizational Tenure (years) 0 - 37 12.59 8.60 0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.03 0.07 -0.01 0.08 0.07 0.05 -0.05 na
Bolded p < 0.05
Correlations & Reliabilities
b SE b β Sig.
Prosocial Motivation 0.30 0.14 0.16 0.04
Change Implementation
Change Information 0.54 0.14 0.35 0.00
Change Efficacy 0.63 0.17 0.30 0.00
Change Participation 0.25 0.14 0.16 0.08
Change Social Support 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.92
Change Salience 0.48 0.42 0.10 0.25
Control Variables
Tenure 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.65
Ilinois -0.48 0.87 -0.04 0.59
Luisiana -0.20 0.72 -0.03 0.78
Washington 0.03 0.87 0.00 0.97
Constant -3.03 3.78 0.43
R Square 0.534
Adjusted R Square 0.486
Table 3. Regression Analysis Predicting Local Government Affective Commitment
to Service Driven Change
20
b SE b β Sig.
Prosocial Motivation 0.31 0.09 0.15 0.00
Change Implementation
Change Information 0.43 0.07 0.32 0.00
Change Efficacy 0.13 0.17 0.03 0.43
Change Participation 0.79 0.11 0.38 0.00
Change Social Support -0.14 0.08 -0.08 0.10
Change Salience -0.53 0.17 -0.13 0.02
Control Variables
Tenure -0.02 0.02 -0.04 0.41
Manager -0.39 0.51 -0.04 0.45
Salary 0.37 0.18 0.12 0.03
Gender 0.13 0.37 0.02 0.72
Fulltime -1.81 0.79 -0.10 0.02
Constant 4.91 1.81 0.01
R Square 0.40
Adjusted R Square 0.39
Table 4. Regression Analysis Predicting Local Government Affective Commitment to Change
to Cost Driven Change
21
b SE b β Sig.
Public Service Motivation
Attraction to Public Service 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.23
Commitment to Public Values -0.12 0.09 -0.09 0.18
Compassion 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.73
Self-Sacrifice 0.20 0.07 0.15 0.01
Change Implementation
Change Information 0.39 0.08 0.29 0.00
Change Efficacy 0.19 0.17 0.05 0.27
Change Participation 0.66 0.12 0.33 0.00
Change Social Support -0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.70
Change Salience -0.44 0.18 -0.11 0.02
Control Variables
Tenure -0.02 0.02 -0.05 0.34
Manager -0.31 0.52 -0.03 0.55
Salary 0.34 0.18 0.11 0.06
Gender 0.15 0.39 0.02 0.70
Fulltime -1.27 0.83 -0.08 0.08
Constant 7.257 1.925 0.03
R Square 0.41
Adjusted R Square 0.39
to Change
Table 5. Regression Analysis Predicting Affective Commitment to Cost Driven
22
Appendix 1: Survey Measures
Affective Commitment to Change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) I believe in the value of this change. This change is a good strategy for this organization This change serves an important purpose. Things would be better without this change. (R) This change is not necessary. (R) I think that management is making a mistake by introducing this change. (R) *
Prosocial Motivation (Grant, 2008; Grant & Sumanth, 2009) It is important to me to do good for others through my work.
I care about benefiting others through my work.
I want to help others through my work.
I want to have positive impact on others through my work.
Multidimensional Public Service Motivation (Kim et al, 2010)
Attraction to Public Service (APS)** I am interested in helping to improve public service
I admire people who initiate or are involved in activities to aid my community
It is important to contribute to activities that tackle social problems**
Meaningful public service is very important to me
It is important for me to contribute to the common good
Commitment to Public Values (CPV)** I think equal opportunities for citizens are very important
It is important that citizens can rely on the continuous provision of public services
It is fundamental that the interests of future generations are taken into account when
developing public policies
To act ethically is essential for public servants
I believe that public employees must always be aware of the legitimacy of their activities
I personally identify with the aim of protecting individual liberties and rights
Compassion (COM)** It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress
I feel sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged
I empathize with other people who face difficulties
I get very upset when I see other people being treated unfairly
Considering the welfare of others is very important
Self-Sacrifice (SS)** I am prepared to make sacrifices for the good of society
I believe in putting civic duty before self
I am willing to risk personal loss to help society
I would agree to a good plan to make a better life for the poor, even if it costs me money
23
Change related Information (Wanberg & Banas 2000)
The information about the changes has been communicated in a timely manner. The information I have received has adequately answered my questions about the
changes. I have received adequate information about the forthcoming changes. The information I have received about the changes has been useful. *
Participation in Change (Wanberg & Banas 2000)
I have been able to participate in the implementation of the changes that have occurred.
I have/had some control over the changes that have been proposed. I have (or could have) had input into the decisions being made about the juvenile
justice reforms. *
Change-Related Self-Efficacy (Wanberg & Banas 2000) I get nervous that I may not be able to do all that is demanded of me by the
reform/changes. (R) Wherever juvenile justice reform takes me, I'm sure I can handle it. * I have reason to believe I may not perform well in my job situation as a result of the
reform/changes. (R) * Social Support (Wanberg & Banas 2000)
My coworkers have been available and willing to listen to my concerns about this change.
My friends and family have been available and willing to listen to my concerns about this change.
My supervisor has done a lot to help me manage the stresses of change during these reforms.
Change Salience (adapted from Kelman 2005 and/or Wanberg & Banas 2000)
Juvenile justice reform has made my job easier.* The reorganization will have a major effect on my job.**
(R) Reverse worded. * Only available in data set 1. ** Only available in data set 2.