Paper to be presented at the 2011 PMRA Conference, Syracuse, NY, June 2-4, 2011.

Panel 8: Public Service Motivation

Public Service Motivation and Employment Sector: 

Attraction or Socialization? 

 

Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen Department of Political Science

Aarhus University (ChristianJ@ps.au.dk)

Anne Mette Kjeldsen

Department of Political Science Aarhus University

(annemette@ps.au.dk) Abstract: Within the public service motivation (PSM) literature, several studies have shown that PSM is positively associated with public sector employment. However, the question of whether PSM influences or is influenced by employment decisions remains open, since these studies mostly rely on samples with current employees. This paper investigates the relationship between PSM and employment sector in a pre-entry as well as entry and post-entry setting using data from two panels with Danish physiotherapists: one with students entering their first job in the public or private sector and one with current employees among whom some have made a sector switch. The analyses show that while different dimensions of PSM are relevant for attraction effects in both sectors, PSM does only to a limited extent predict actual job choices and sector switches. Furthermore, once employed, public organizational membership does not foster PSM; it rather prevents PSM from declining as much as in the private sector. This suggests that PSM acts both as an antecedent and as a conse-quence of sector employment but in a more complex way than previously assumed.

 

Introduction 

It is crucial for the success of organizations that there is a fit between organizational and employee

characteristics. Employees who think that the values and goals of the organization match their own

are more satisfied, perform better, and are less likely to leave the organization (Bright, 2008; Steijn,

2008; Vandenabeele, 2009; Wright & Pandey, 2008). This is considered to be an organizational

strong point in a time where demographic changes threaten the workforces of industrialized coun-

tries across the World. Drawing on Person-Environment Fit theory, a fit between person and organ-

ization can be achieved either by attracting applicants with appropriate characteristics or by influen-

cing the applicants, once they are employed (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Chatman, 1991; Kristof-

Brown, 1996). With respect to this, the Public Service Motivation (PSM) literature has focused on a

match between the personal characteristic of pro-social motivation to help other people and contri-

bute to society and employment in a public sector organization. In 1990, Perry and Wise thus pro-

posed that “the greater an individual’s public service motivation, the more likely the individual will

seek membership in a public organization” (p. 370). However, despite the past two decades’ rapidly

increasing number of studies into this field of research, there is still only limited (but mostly sup-

portive) evidence in favor of this proposition (Perry et al., 2010).

The reason for this uncertainty may be that most previous studies have tested the attraction ef-

fect using cross-sectional survey data of individuals who have already entered the labor market 

(e.g., Lewis & Frank, 2002; Steijn, 2008; Tschirhart et al., 2008). Thus, the norm and value shaping

socialization which takes place in the work environment may have blurred the picture. Consequent-

ly, we do not know to what extent individual PSM is influenced by employment sector, or whether

it is individual PSM that influences employment decisions? (Wright, 2008) To answer this question,

longitudinal data measuring individuals’ PSM in pre-entry as well as in entry and post-entry life

stages are needed (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008, p. 302-303). Recently, a study by Wright and Chris-

tensen (2010) was the first to address this by using panel data to measure the PSM of U.S. lawyers

in 1984 and 1990. They showed that PSM does not predict the employment sector of an individual’s

first job, but it increases the likelihood that individuals’ subsequent jobs are in the public sector.

Although making a significant contribution to the literature in terms of the longitudinal data and

increased knowledge about the role of PSM in attraction-selection-attrition processes, the study still

suffer from some weaknesses.  

First, Wright and Christensen rely on samples with current employees for their panel data.

Thus, we still lack knowledge of PSM in a pre-entry setting and how it evolves at the entry stage.

Panel data measuring the PSM of students before and after their first job choice would enable us to

 

get a clear separation between PSM-based attraction and socialization effects ruling out the possi-

bility that the positive association between higher levels of PSM and public sector employment is

due organizational socialization (Wright & Grant, 2010, p. 694). Second, Wright and Christensen

measure PSM using a single item (“Interest in social service/helping others”) which does not distin-

guish between different dimensions of PSM, i.e. different reasons for wanting to undertake proso-

cial actions. Perry (1996) identified that individuals express PSM in four different ways as general

commitment to the public interest, compassion with underprivileged groups, attraction to public

policy making, and self-sacrifice. As these dimensions of PSM have been shown to have different

relationships with sector employment/preference (Andersen et al., 2011; Vandenabeele, 2008a),

studies investigating PSM in different institutional settings should aim at using a measurement scale

that allows to distinguish between dimensions (Perry et al., 2010; Wright, 2008).

This paper will address this and approach the endogeneity problem of the PSM/sector em-

ployment relationship by studying how an individual’s initial PSM affects the attraction to work in

the public or private sector, and how this choice in turn affects the individual’s motivation after

organizational entry. Our data consist of panel surveys of 2,029 employed physiotherapists (public

and private) and 248 physiotherapy students (surveyed before and after their first job choice). We

focus on a single profession, Danish physiotherapists, because they have the same education and

perform very similar work tasks in the public and private sectors. Moreover, they have an almost

equal possibility of private or public sector employment, which ensures that it is in fact possible to

make a sector choice. As a result the student panel provides a unique opportunity to test the “pure”

attraction and socialization effects associated with PSM while the employed physiotherapists’ panel

is used to investigate the possible different patterns of socialization in the two sectors when a sector

switch is made. Measuring the dynamics of PSM and employment sector (both as an aggregate con-

struct and separate dimensions), the findings show that the relationship is in many ways more com-

plex than the proposition by Perry and Wise (1990) presumes. Organizations can to some extent

attract individuals based on their motivational profiles, but they can also play an active role in

changing individuals’ PSM. This raises new points of awareness for public managers in recruitment

and retention processes and for scholars assuming strong ties between PSM and employment in a

public sector environment.

Theoretical framework 

Public service motivation (PSM) describes individuals’ prosocial motivation to do good for other

people and society through the delivery of public services (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008, p. 3). More

specifically, it has been defined as “the motivational force that induces individuals to perform mea-

 

ningful… public, community, and social service” (Brewer & Selden, 1998, p. 417) and ”the belief,

values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest

of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate”

(Vandenabeele, 2007, p. 547). Throughout the last two decades, PSM has received considerable

research attention. This trend was sparked by Perry & Wise (1990) who laid out the theoretical

foundations of the concept and proposed a research agenda for its positive prevalence and outcomes

in a public sector context. As a result of this groundbreaking article, most research done so far has

concentrated on documenting the existence of higher levels of PSM among public sector employees

compared with private sector employees (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995; Houston,

2000; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Andersen et al., 2011).

An important focus for this stream of research into sector differences in PSM has been to try

to disentangle the dynamics surrounding PSM in various settings (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). Perry

and Wise (1990, p. 368) originally described PSM as ”an individual’s predisposition to respond to

motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations”, but they also

stressed that “public service motivation should be understood as a dynamic attribute that changes

over time and, therefore, may change an individual’s willingness to join and stay with a public

organization” (1990, p. 370) (our italics). As a result, later studies on PSM and job choice have

drawn more explicit on insights from Person-Enviroment Fit theory (Kristof-Brown, 1996; Kristof-

Brown et al., 2005) and the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Model proposed by Schneider

(1987), where the main argument is that individuals choosing a job want to find an environment

which matches their personal charachteristics. With respect to the environment of the organization,

this has often been interpreted as a search for an organization that supplements one’s values (i.e. a

person-organization fit based on value congruence), whereas a specific job in the organization is

more likely chosen on the basis of a complementary fit (i.e., the matching of individual abilities

with organizational demands or individual needs with organizational supplies), (Kristof-Brown et

al., 2005, p. 284-288).

Focusing on PSM, the personal charachteristic that individuals will seek to match with the

workplace is their wish to help others and contribute to society (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). According

to Perry and Wise (1990), a work environment nurturing and fulfilling such a motivation is more

likely to be found in public sector organizations compared with private sector organizations. The

core purpose of the public sector is to serve the public interest and ensure citizens an adequate level

of welfare which (due to the external benefits of public services) would not otherwise be provided

(Boyne, 2002; Rainey, 2009, p. 67). In contrast, the environment of private sector organizations and

their operation in the market implies an entirely different focus on effective production and low-cost

 

policies which does not seem to correspond well with the altruistic foundations of PSM. Therefore,

individuals with higher levels of PSM are expected to seek public sector employment rather than

private sector employment (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 370).

This proposition has led a number of scholars to look at PSM attraction and selection effects

regarding employment in a public or private sector organization. Using cross-sectional data from

the U.S. General Social Surveys in 1989 and 1998, Lewis and Frank (2002) asked the question:

“Who wants to work for the Government?” They found that individuals who prefer a public sector

job rate being useful to society and helping others as more important attributes in their jobs than the

ones prefering private sector employment. Likewise, using a large dataset with 6,229 Dutch public

and private sector employees, Steijn (2008) confirmed a positive association between preference for

“doing work that is useful to society” and public sector employment. Moreover, private sector

workers with this preference were found to be more likely to look for a job in the public sector. This

coincides with the expectation formed from the Person-Environment Fit theory: Individuals seek to

get employment in an environment that matches their preferences. However, since these studies are

cross-sectional, they run the risk of organizational socialization blurring the picture. Thus, the fit

between individual and environment may be due to individual motivational adaptions to the

environment rather than a matter of attraction, selection, and attrition. As the only one (so far) using

a sample of students and thus conduting a clearer test of the proposed PSM attraction effect,

Vandenabeele (2008a) found that Flemish master students with higher levels of PSM (public

interest, compassion, and policy making) are more attracted to work in public sector organizations

characterized by higher levels of publicness. Finally, the recent study by Wright and Christensen

(2010), which as mentioned in the introduction uses longitudinal data, also confirms a positive

association between “Interest in social service/helping others” and attraction to public sector

employment, however, only regarding subsequent job choices and not a lawyer’s first legal job. By

use of panel data measuring the PSM of Danish psysiotherapy students before and after entering

their first job in the public or private sectors, the first two expectations on attraction and selection

effects between PSM and employment sector are thus:

H1: The higher an individual’s level of PSM is prior to labor-market entry, the more the indi-

vidual will be attracted to public sector employment (controlled for other work preferences).

H2: The higher an individual’s level of PSM is prior to labor-market entry, the more likely it

is that the individual gets employment in the public sector (controlled for initial sector prefe-

rence and other work preferences).

 

As PSM is only one of many factors assumed to affect attraction and selection into public or

private sector employment (however, considered predominant when looking at individuals

performing public service delivery), it is relevant to control for other work preferences such as

valuation of job security and high salary to assess the validity of the relationship between PSM and

employment sector (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008, p.3; Rainey, 1982; Vandenabeele, 2008a; Wittmer,

1991). Furthermore, one should be aware that the actual selection of employees into public or pri-

vate sector organizations (i.e. whether the employees get the jobs that they applied for) also depends

on various other external factors – most notably the demand from organizations of certain labor

skills which in turn depends on the general condition of the economy (Wanous, 1991). However,

when examining the ASA-model within a single profession, Danish physiotherapists, such poten-

tially disturbing factors are to a wide extent kept constant.

Though limited in number, previous studies of the attraction-selection proposition by Perry

and Wise (1990) are overall supportive. But regarding the broader dynamics of PSM reflecting the

entire causal chain of attraction-selection-attrition and socialization mechanisms surrounding the

concept and its relations to public/private sector employment, our knowledge is still very limited.

Thus, one of the major questions within the PSM literature still calling for more research is: “How

stable or changeable is public service motivation?” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008, p. 302). Is PSM

something that employees bring to their workplace and/or does it evolve and change as a result of

the organizational environment that the individual is situated in? To our knowledge, there has not

previously been performed a direct test of the PSM socialization mechanism implicitly mentioned

by Perry and Wise’s (1990) notion of PSM as a dynamic concept. By comparing the same individu-

als’ pre- and post-entry PSM, this study seeks to address this gap in the literature.

Brewer states that: “In all likelihood, organizational socialization is an important mechanism

for transmitting a ‘public institutional logic’ and seeding public service motivation in the individual.

Organizational socialization may quicken an individual’s sense of public service and inculcate pub-

lic service-related virtues and norms” (2008, p. 149). Newcomers in a public sector organization are

expected to show loyalty and duty to the public interest as this is a means to keep the organization’s

legitimacy towards politicians and the larger public and hence its survival. Drawing on March and

Olsen’s work on institutions and the “logic of appropriateness”, public sector organizations are

therefore expected to seed public values in the identity of public employees which causes them to

develop PSM (March and Olsen, 1995, p. 58; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007, p. 41; Perry, 2000). In

contrast, private sector organization’s survival is dependent on making a profit which does not nec-

essarily correspond with services in the interest of the public, but rather with the interest of specific

customers. Therefore, the organizational socialization taking place in private sector organizations is

 

likely to concentrate on market-related goals and values based on a “logic of consequentiality”. In

sum, public service motivation may be more easily fostered in public sector organizations than in

private sector organizations. As public employees’ PSM has been shown to be positively related to

performance both at the individual and organizational level (Brewer, 2008; Naff & Crum, 1999;

Vandenabeele, 2009), knowledge about whether and how this organizational socialization into

higher levels of PSM is taking place is thus highly interesting.

Studies within the fields of organizational behavior and personnel psychology typically define

socialization as “the process by which an individual acquires the values, knowledge, and expected

behavior needed to participate as an organizational member” (Cable & Parsons, 2001, p. 2; Chat-

man, 1991, p. 462; Feldman, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), and an empirical study by Chat-

man (1991) has supported the existence of this process of individual adaption to fit the organization.

Tracking the careers of 171 auditors in eight U.S. public accounting firms while comparing their

values at the entry stage with those of the organization and then making the same comparison again

after almost a year of organizational membership, she found that although the employees’ values

upon organizational entry is the strongest predictor of their values one year later, the degree of em-

ployee involvement in organizational socialization activities also played a significant role in pre-

dicting their fit with organizational values. Through interaction with other employees and signifi-

cant peers (more specifically measured as the number of hours spent with an organizational mentor

and attendance of organizationally sponsored social and recreational events), the values of newco-

mers in the public accounting firms (e.g., the desirability of quality, respect for individuals, being

socially responsible, risk-taking etc., O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991, p. 516) became more

similar to those valued by the organization (i.e. organizational managers).

In a similar study which also includes an assessment of pre-entry values congruence between

applicants and organization, Cable and Parsons (2001) likewise demonstrated a positive association

between fixed socialization activities and employees experiencing that their values match those of

the organization (see also the study by Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004). However, employee perception

of values congruence prior to joining the organization was still found to explain more of the va-

riance in employee-organization values congruence one year after entry (referred in Wright and

Grant, 2010, p. 693). Besides confirming that a fit between employee and organizational characte-

ristics can be the result of an attraction mechanism with employee values as rather stable traits that

controls the selection of a matching workplace/organization, both of these studies also indicate that

individuals’ beliefs and perceptions can change as a result of organizational membership. Focusing

on how PSM as a personal characteristic is likely to match with employment in a public sector or-

ganization (while at the same time having data that measures this attitude at both pre- and post-entry

 

stages), we thus expect employee PSM to get cultivated through organizational socialization

processes when entering public sector employment. The following two expectations regarding or-

ganizational socialization in the public sector are therefore tested:

H3a: After entering the public sector, individuals’ levels of PSM will be higher than it was

prior to getting a public sector job.

H3b: After switching from the private sector to the public sector, individuals’ levels of PSM

will be higher than it was prior to getting a public sector job.

We are, however, aware that some studies have found results that go against this expected so-

cialization effect. A study by Mortimer and Lorence (1979) showed that people with more social or

people-oriented values (e.g., chance to work with people and being useful to society) were likely to

select into jobs and professions that stressed welfare, teaching and social service, and a comparison

with the values of the same people 10 years after showed that they had not changed as a result of

their current job characteristics. This emphasizes the validity of the attraction-selection hypothesis

over organizational socialization as the explanation for more public employees showing higher le-

vels of PSM than private sector employees. In fact, Moynihan and Pandey (2007) investigating or-

ganizational antecedents of PSM showed that PSM is likely to decline with the length of organiza-

tional membership (tenure). Moreover, PSM was also found to be negatively correlated with the

perception of organizational red tape. As higher levels of red tape is oftentimes perceived to be a

core characteristic of public sector organizations compared with private sector organizations

(Boyne, 2002, p.101; Bozeman & Scott, 1996), this might curb or prevent public sector organiza-

tional socialization processes into higher levels of PSM from taking place. Public employees may

become frustrated in achieving their goals of doing good for other people and society when they

experience burdensome, formal rules and this may cause their PSM to drop or ultimately a decision

to leave the organization (Buchanan, 1975).

Nonetheless, Moynihan and Pandey (2007) only measure the policy making and public inter-

est dimensions of PSM, and their results regarding the negative associations between PSM, tenure

and red tape mainly hold for the policy making dimension whereas tenure might have a positive

effect on public interest (however, not significant). Furthermore, they rely on a cross-sectional data-

set with managers in state-level primary health and human service agencies which does not allow

them to distinguish between possible different dynamics of PSM in the public and private sectors.

The same goes for the study by Mortimer and Lorence (1979), who use their panel to investigate

 

attraction and socialization regarding different occupations and not different sectors. Thus, our pan-

el data focusing on one professional group employed (or with the opportunity to be employed) in

both sectors and measuring also the compassion dimension of PSM aims at providing further in-

sights into the possible PSM socialization processes taking place in the transition from pre-entry to

post-entry career stages.

This expectation of public sector organizations socializing employees into higher levels of

PSM is closely related to the final part of the causal chain of PSM and public/private sector job

choice: attrition. If a match between person and organization is not achieved through attraction or

socialization this may have negative consequences for an employee’s willingness to stay with the

organization. Cable and Parsons (2001, p. 3) point out: “To the extent that newcomers learn during

the socialization process that their values do not match their organizations’ values, they experience

dissonance because the norms for success are counter to personal assumptions. Among newcomers’

dissonance-reducing options are changing their self-perceptions (e.g., their personal values) or leav-

ing the organization”. With respect to this, several studies have shown that value and goal congru-

ence between person and organization are positively associated with lower turnover intent and also

lower absenteeism (Cable & Judge, 1996; Chatman, 1991; Verquer et al., 2003; Wright & Pandey;

2010). As high turnover rates are in several ways very costly to organizations, organizations seek to

attract employees with the “right” values and motives and/or make use of extensive organizational

socialization tactics in order to obtain this match between employee and organizational values and

goals. In their assertion of PSM as a dynamic attribute, Perry and Wise (1990, p. 370) thus expect

individuals with higher levels of PSM to be attracted to and more willing to stay employed in public

sector organizations as compared to private sector organizations, and if they (in some way or anoth-

er) experience that their public service related values and motivation do not fit with their current

organization, then they are likely to revise their preferences or seek membership in organizations

compatible with their interests.

This is confirmed in the previously mentioned study by Steijn (2008) who shows that private

sector employees with higher levels of PSM are more likely to be looking for a public sector job.

Likewise, a number of studies using cross-sectional data have confirmed a positive association be-

tween public sector employees’ higher levels of PSM and intention to stay, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment etc. (Bright, 2008; Crewson, 1997; Naff & Crum, 1999; Taylor, 2008).

A study from the economic literature using panel data also confirms that PSM increases the likelih-

ood that employees will move from the private to the public/non-profit sector (Georgellis et al.,

2008), but the longitudinal study by Wright and Christensen (2010) is not able to confirm this ex-

 

pectation as well as other studies from the economic literature have also failed to predict switches

from the private to the public sector on the basis of PSM (Gregg et al., 2008). Given these results

and the studies showing that PSM declines with tenure, Wright and Christensen explain this finding

with a lack of knowledge of the conditions under which PSM has a positive influence on keeping

people in the public sector.

Steijn (2008) and Taylor (2008) (among others) have shown that the positive association be-

tween PSM and job satisfaction/intention to leave is partly or fully mediated by perceived person-

organization fit. Even though public sector employees are expected to operate in an environment

which to a greater extent than a private sector environment supports their needs to help other people

and contribute to society, not all public sector jobs allows for this. In a very recent study, Wright

and Christensen (2011) thus show that the environment of the specific job (PJ-fit) and whether this

satisfies individual desire to produce public service is more important for individuals’ job choice

decisions based on PSM than the environment of the sector (PO-fit). Given that this study allows

control for the job content in both sectors by keeping it constant, favorable conditions for isolating

the positive effect of PSM on keeping people in public sector employment are, however, present,

and we therefore finally test the proposition that:

H4: Individuals with higher levels of PSM are more likely to stay in a public sector job, whe-

reas individuals with lower levels of PSM are more likely to switch to the private sector (con-

trolled for initial level of PSM and other work preferences)

Data and methods 

To test the hypotheses, we used panel data from two surveys of all Danish physiotherapists in the

public and the private sectors as well as of physiotherapy students. In the following section, both the

case of Danish physiotherapists, the research design of the two panel surveys, and the data collec-

tion will be discussed. In addition, the measurement of the conceptual variables and other control

variables along with the statistical methods used to examine the stated hypotheses are outlined.

Danish physiotherapists in the public and private sector

Danish physiotherapy provides a useful case for studying the ASA-model and organizational socia-

lization into PSM for several reasons. First, though results may be less applicable to other parts of

the labor market, studying only one profession allows control for a number of potentially disturbing

variables that may otherwise affect the relationship between employment sector and PSM. Thus

internal validity is prioritized over generalizability. The physiotherapists belong to the same occu-

 

pational group, and they have all completed 3½ years of theoretical and practical education, which

not only provides them with practical skills, but also imposes them with a set of rather firm norms

for the practice of physiotherapy (though they are not as firm as with highly professional groups

such as doctors). Most physiotherapists are members of The Association of Danish Physiotherap-

ists, which has the authority to negotiate wages and labor market conditions for the physiotherapists

as well for setting professional standards for their practice.

Second, as mentioned in the introduction, almost equal shares of the physiotherapists are em-

ployed in the public and private sector. Thus, physiotherapists have the opportunity of actually

choosing sector of employment, which makes it a very suitable test for attraction and attrition ef-

fects.

Third, we can pin down most of the differences in sector choice to ownership. According to

Rainey et al. (1976), Bozeman (1987), and Perry and Rainey (1988), public and private sector or-

ganizations can be distinguished in terms of both ownership, source of funding, and degree of polit-

ical control with organizational activities. Organizations classified as belonging to the public sector

are ideally the ones which are publicly owned, funded by taxpayers, and densely regulated by law,

whereas private sector organizations are owned by private investors/stakeholders, they are funded

by customers buying their products, and they ideally operate in a free market environment. When

studying Danish physiotherapists, differences between the sectors are, however, not as extensive as

this. Though private physiotherapy clinics are private businesses, they to a large extent rely on

finance from the public sector, which provides a total of two thirds of the revenue for private physi-

otherapy (Andersen et al., 2011). Furthermore, the privately provided physiotherapy is densely re-

gulated by agreements between the Association of Danish Physiotherapists and the relevant public

authorities (Regionernes Lønnings- og Takstnævn & Danske Fysioterapeuter, 2008a, 2008b), legis-

lation (e.g., Law Announcements No. 95 of February 7, 2008, and No. 1350 of December 17,

2008), and guidelines (e.g., National Board of Health, 2004). Moreover, tasks are very similar

across sectors with focus on maintenance and treatment of physical problems among both ordinary

and disabled patients. This also means that there are good opportunities for switching sector of em-

ployment, and it is therefore rather common for Danish physiotherapists to have work experience

from both sectors.

On the other hand, there are slight differences in relation to patient groups and organizational

setups. In the public sector, the main employers are hospitals and geriatric care, which are for the

most part large units employing several professional groups such as doctors, nurses, and other

health care workers. In the private sector, many physiotherapists are self-employed or working in

 

rather small clinics with less than five employees and most often only with physiotherapists. Public-

ly provided physiotherapy is mainly aimed at weaker patients such as hospital patients and elderly,

and though private clinics treat disabled people, they also treat patients with minor difficulties such

as tension headaches, bad backs, and sports injuries. Thus, sector of employment may call for dif-

ferent compositions of public service motivation. The overall picture is, nonetheless, that the differ-

ences between being employed in the public and private sector are minor compared to other occupa-

tional groups. This means that being a privately employed physiotherapist in Denmark is mainly a

question of ownership.

Research design and data collection

PSM is generally expected to be a significant motivational source for physiotherapists in both sec-

tors, since they are providers of public health care services. Therefore, PSM should play a role in

physiotherapist’s attraction and attrition decisions. Furthermore, PSM may be prone to changes af-

ter employment (socialization). As mentioned in the introduction, we measure the dynamics of pub-

lic/private job choice and different types as well as aggregate levels of PSM. This is important be-

cause previous research has shown that differences in PSM between sectors can also be expected on

the sub-dimensional level (Andersen et al., 2011; Ritz & Waldner, 2011; Vandenabeele, 2008a).

Furthermore, this study will give a clearer image of how such differences emerge, because we are

able to separate socialization from ASA-effects by studying motivation over time for both labor

market entrants as well as experienced physiotherapists. We have two panels of data consisting of:

1) A group who were students during our first period of surveying in 2009, and who have entered

the labor market before our second survey in 2011 (n=248). This panel provides a unique opportu-

nity to test the “pure” attraction, selection, and socialization effects among students of physiothera-

py who enter the labor market after they finalize their education. Since they have the opportunity to

choose among both private and public employers, we can study the role of PSM in the job attrac-

tion-selection process as well as the possible changes in PSM after entry to the job market. 2) A

group of physiotherapists who were already employed in 2009 (n=2,029) and some of these have

changed sector of employment before 2011 (n=205). For these people we can study attrition effects

for job changers as well as socialization effects for job changers compared to job keepers. In com-

bination, this results in the following model for the empirical analyses of the relationships between

PSM and public/private sector job choice:

Figure 1. Analytical model of the investigated relationships

 

More specifically about the data collection, the first round of panel data was collected in Feb-

ruary 2009 and the second round of survey data was collected in January/February 2011. The sur-

veys were sent to more than 8,000 physiotherapists of whom 65 percent responded to the first and

48 percent to the last survey. The lower response rate in 2011 is probably caused by a demanding

wage survey sent from the union just one month prior to our survey, which has most likely affected

the willingness to participate. The surveys were run via email, which was possible because the phy-

siotherapists’ union organize almost all Danish physiotherapists (public and private as well as stu-

dents) and could provide addresses for nearly all members (85 percent). 2,277 physiotherapists

answered both surveys, and these are making up the panel data used in the following analyses. Of

those, 248 were students in 2009.

Measures

Taking a closer look at the PSM concept as the main variable of interest in the present study, Perry

(1996) originally identified four different dimensions of PSM reflecting that the wish to contribute

to society through the delivery of public services can have different reasons and expressions. Thus,

the public interest dimension of PSM describes an individual’s normative wish to contribute out of

loyalty and duty towards government and community (or in broader terms “the common good”).

Next, the compassion dimension of PSM rests on affective commitment and empathy with under-

privileged groups. Third, a dimension labeled “Attraction to public policy making” was also identi-

fied. This dimension reflects a rational motivation related to the satisfaction of changing things to

the better through policy processes (which is the reason why this dimension has also be labeled “At-

traction to public policy participation”, Kim and Vandenabeele, 2010). Finally, the self-sacrifice

dimension describes the motivation to bypass one’s own needs in order to help others and society.

This dimension is closely related to the public interest dimension (Perry, 1996, p. 19), which is why

it is often omitted or collapsed with this dimension (Coursey & Pandey, 2007; Vandenabeele,

2008b; Wright, 2008). Based on the results by Coursey and Pandey (2007), PSM is thus operationa-

lized along the dimensions of public interest, compassion, and policy making. Reflecting that PSM

is a first-order reflective and second-order formative concept (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010; Wright,

Attraction/selection Socialization

PSM’09  Sector’09/’11 PSM’11

Attrition

Sector switch’11

 

2008), we furthermore include an aggregate measure of PSM made up of these three separate di-

mensions.

However, since some of the items did not work in a Danish context we had to make minor

changes. For example, the Perry (1996) item labeled PSM8 has been changed, because many Danes

associate “patriotism” negatively with the nationalist Danish People’s Party. In an attempt to keep

focus on the theoretical content of PSM and the compassion dimension, it was changed to: “To me,

considering the welfare of others is one of the most important values”. We succeeded in getting

consistent indexes with at least three items per sub-dimension. The wording of all the used PSM

items and their structuring in the three dimensions are shown in Table A in the Appendix. All three

dimensions were found to reflect the theoretically latent dimensions, and they all show modest to

high internal consistency. The additive indexes are scaled from 0 to 100 and respondents who have

a missing answer on one item on a given dimension have been assigned the mean value. Table 1

shows the mean values of the physiotherapists’ PSM in the two panels by public/private sector em-

ployment in 2011.

Table 1. Overview of public service motivation in the panels by respondents’ sector of employment in 2011 (mean scores (0‐100) and standard deviations in parentheses). 

  Student panel  Employee panel   Public 2011  Private 2011  Public 2011  Private 2011 

2009  2011  2009  2011  2009  2011  2009  2011 Public service  motivation  

67.49 (10.03) 

63.84 (9.83) 

66.52 (11.24) 

61.75 (10.36) 

66.25 (9.90) 

63.64 (10.30) 

65.53 (10.54) 

63.77 (10.11) 

Commitment to  the public interest  

77.35 (12.48) 

70.59 (12.50) 

77.92 (12.40) 

70.22 (13.32) 

77.46 (14.96) 

74.11 (14.31) 

75.84 (15.49) 

73.58 (14.67) 

Compassion  78.69 (11.43) 

76.32 (12.02) 

77.35 (13.78) 

75.23 (13.39) 

80.03 (13.99) 

78.20 (14.19) 

78,15 (14,47) 

77.46 (14.40) 

 Attraction to  policy making 

 46.22 (21.49) 

 45.64 (21.09) 

 47.64 (28.09) 

 42.06 (21.77) 

 40.97 (16.93) 

 38.64 (16.95) 

 42.71 (17.96) 

 39.88 (17.40) 

Table 1 first of all shows that individual PSM is a rather stable attitude over time. But taking a clos-

er look on the separate sub-dimensions reveals that some also go through significant changes. Thus,

the mean numerical change in PSM in the student panel is negative with 7.51 (95 pct. confidence

interval: [-7.89; -7.16]) and for the employee panel it is negative with 2.58 (95 pct. confidence in-

terval: [-3.07; -2.10]. This can be said to be substantially interesting for further analyses, and we

will thus return to this result in the empirical testing of the stated hypotheses.

 

Regarding the measurement of public or private sector job choice based on the ownership sta-

tus of the physiotherapists’ workplaces, the physiotherapists have been asked about their current

employer in both 2009 and 2011 and for the students in the 2009 survey, their preference for future

employer. Employment at publicly owned hospitals and other organizations at the municipal, re-

gional or state level have been coded 1=public sector employment, whereas employment at private

hospitals, private clinics or self-employed physiotherapists have been coded 0=private sector em-

ployment (and the same goes for preference for future employer, however, included a third category

for undecided). Comparing the sector of employment for the educated physiotherapists in 2009 with

their sector of employment in 2011 allows us to create two dummy variables for possible sector

switch (one for sector switch from public sector to private sector employment and one with the re-

verse sector switch from private to public) whereby we can detect the attrition effects based on the

physiotherapists initial composition of PSM.

Age and gender were included to control for generational and/or gender-based differences.

Furthermore, two variables measuring occupational tenure in the public or private sectors (in years)

were also included in the analyses to investigate the possible different socialization patterns for cur-

rent employees. Finally, the public or private sector job choice hypothesized to be based on PSM

was also controlled for other work related preferences such as job security and high salary which

are factors commonly associated with preference for public or private sector employment, respec-

tively (measured on Likert-scales from 5=of crucial importance in my job to 1=not at all important),

(Kilpatrick et al., 1964; Rainey, 1982; Vandenabeele, 2008a; Wittmer, 1991).

An overview of the distribution of respondents on the main variables by sector of employment

is shown in Table 2. First of all, we see that women outnumber men in both the public and private

sector, but the share of men is substantially larger in the private sector than in the public sector. The

mean age in 2011 is around 27 for the labor market entrants and just above 40 for the employed in

both sectors. The employed physiotherapists have around 14 years of work experience, but whereas

the public employees mainly have experience from the public sector, the private employees have

experience from both sectors. Around 10 percent from each sector has switched sector during the

period between the two surveys. If we take a look at the students’ sector preferences, the private

sector comes out on top. Especially those who get employment in the private sector prefer private

employers over public employers, but the private sector was also favored as future employer in

2009 among many of those who are in 2011 employed in the public sector. However, a substantial

number (one in three) of the physiotherapy students were undecided about sector preference back in

2009. Finally, we see that the students show slight differences in preferences for job security and

 

high salary, but surprisingly the current privately employed value job security highest. Among the

physiotherapists who were already employed in 2009, there is clearer variation along the expected

differences: privately employed put more emphasis on high salary than their public sector counter-

parts, whereas the public employees value job security higher than those in the private sector. We

will return to these interesting differences in the testing of the hypotheses.

Table 2. Overview of central variables in the panels by sector of employment 

  Student panel  Employee panel Sector of employment in 2011  Public  Private  Public  Private   (n=183)  (n=65)  (n=1,473)  (n=556) Gender 

Male  

20.8%  

32.3%  

12.1%  

29.7% Female  79.2%  67.7%  87.9%  70.3% 

Age (in years) in 2009 Mean Std.dev. 

 26.3% 03.4% 

 27.0% 04.9% 

 40.6 11.3 

 41.4 10.7 

Occupational tenure (in years) in 2009 Public sector Private sector 

    14.2 12.7 01.5 

13.6 05.3 08.3 

Sector of employment in 2009 Public sector Private sector 

     90.1% 09.9% 

 12.8% 87.2% 

Preference for sector in 2009 Public sector Private sector Undecided 

 30.2% 36.2% 33.6% 

 20,7% 43,1% 27,7% 

   

Other work preferences  Job security 

Mean Std.dev. 

High salary Mean Std.dev. 

  

03.69 00.90 

 02.81 00.77 

 

  

03.80 00.89 

 02.92 00.75 

  

3.59 0.87  

2.99 0.77 

  

3.34 1.04  

3.15 0.81 

Statistical methods

To investigate hypotheses 1, 2 and 4, which have dummy variables for employment sector or pre-

ferred employment sector as dependent variables, a number of logistic regressions have been per-

formed. Since logistic regression builds on odds, the coefficients shall be interpreted as changes in

odds for a given outcome (the dependent variable), when the regressor changes and not actual

changes in the dependent variable (Gujarati, 2009, p. 555). Regarding hypothesis 3, we perform the

analysis as a series of random effects regressions because the dependent variables, PSM and its sub-

dimensions, are interval scaled variables ranging from 0 to 100 measured in two points of time. As

we only have two periods of measurement, the number of degrees of freedom is too low for per-

 

forming the analysis using fixed effects models. The main disadvantage of this is that the estimates

may be inconsistent if individual-specific characteristics are correlated with the regressors (Came-

ron & Trivedi, 2009). However, we are able to yield estimates of all coefficients and marginal ef-

fects even for time-invariant regressors such as gender.

Results 

The relationship between PSM and job choice shows some interesting but also surprising patterns

related to our hypotheses about the relationship between PSM and public/private sector job choice.

Most importantly the results reveal that PSM is not restricted to the public sector, and that sector

differences for the Danish physiotherapists are generally limited. However, that does not mean that

PSM and sector has no relationship. In the following, we firstly test the attraction and selection ef-

fects among labor market entrants (H1 and H2). Second, we test socialization of PSM among labor

market entrants and experienced physiotherapists (H3a and H3b). Third and finally, we test attri-

tion/attraction effects among physiotherapists who have switched sector (H4).

Looking at students’ attraction processes towards public sector employment, Table 3 reveals

that PSM plays a role, but that the direction of this effect is not entirely consistent with our hypo-

thesis 1 (H1). Contrary to our expectations attraction to policy making has a negative and signifi-

cant effect on preferring public sector employment (Model 3.1). This result remains significant

when we control for preferences for job security and high salary in a future job. Furthermore, this

control reveals that public interest is positively related to the students’ preferences for public sector

employment (Model 3.2), which is in line with H1. Nonetheless, the strongest predictor of attraction

to future employer is not PSM but preference for high salary. People who emphasize high salary as

important for a future job are less likely to prefer the public sector as their future employer. In turn

this means that individuals who have strong preference for a high salary are more attracted to pri-

vate sector employment.

The panel structure of the data furthermore allows us to study how PSM and preferences for

sector employment in the first period (2009) are related to actual employment in the second period

(2011). As stated in H2 the expectation is that PSM will be positively related to public sector em-

ployment. However, as can be seen from Model 3.3 this is not the case for the Danish physiotherap-

ists. All three dimensions of PSM fail to explain the sector of employment. This also goes for the

preferences for job security and high salary (Model 3.4). Only sector preference explains actual

employment, which means that individuals who prefer public employment are more likely to end up

with a public sector job. Table 1 shows that most students prefer private sector employment, but

that in their first job most of them end up with a job in the public sector. This means that strong

 

preference for public employment is very likely to be fulfilled, whereas many with strong prefe-

rence for private sector employment must – at least for a period – accept a public sector job. Since

sector preference is found to be related to PSM, the results indicate that the effect of PSM on pub-

lic/private sector job choice goes through sector preferences.

Table 3. Logistic regression analysis of preferred employment sector in 2009 and actual employment sector in 2011, student panel. 

 Predictor 

Preference for public sector  employment in 2009 

Actual public sector  employment in 2011 

Model 3.1  Model 3.2  Model 3.3  Model 3.4 Male  ‐0.644 

(0.141) ‐0.446 (0.324) 

‐0.514 (0.189) 

‐0.430 (0.287) 

Age in 2009  ‐0.035 (0.426) 

‐0.035 (0.478) 

‐0.027 (0.499) 

‐0.005 (0.906) 

Public interest (CPI)  0.025 (0.101) 

0.032* (0.055) 

‐0.005 (0.736) 

‐0.007 (0.641) 

Compassion (COM)  0.008 (0.626) 

0.008 (0.612) 

0.007 (0.636) 

0.011 (0.456) 

Attraction to policy making (APM)  ‐0.018** (0.023) 

‐0.019** (0.020) 

0.003 (0.692) 

0.001 (0.948) 

Other work preferences:         Job security    ‐0.197 

(0.352)   ‐0.86 

(0.688) High salary    ‐0.745*** 

(0.006)   ‐0.172 

(0.495) Sector preference in 2009: 

Public sector  Undecided  Private sector (ref.) 

     0.906** (0.040) 0.605 (0.138) 

‐ 

 0.810* (0.075) 0.714* (0.095) 

‐ Model statistics         Constant  ‐1.601 

(0.393) 0.676 (0.759) 

1.078 (0.536) 

1.291 (0.534) 

Likelihood χ2  11.13**  21.33***  9.26  9.97 df  5  7  7  9 Nagelknerke Pseudo R2  0.085  0.160  0.073  0.080 Note: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. B coefficients reported, p‐values in parentheses. 

After looking at how physiotherapists are attracted and selected into the private and public

sectors, we will turn to the hypotheses about socialization. The expectation in the PSM literature is

that public employment nurtures the values and goals underlying PSM, and that individuals em-

ployed in the public sector therefore develop stronger desires to help other people and serve the

interests of society over time. This means that those who go into public employment should expe-

rience an increase in PSM. Regarding the students this is expressed in H3a which we can test by

taking advantage of the panel structure in the data. The test reveals how PSM develops in the short

 

run for the students who enter the labor market between 2009 and 2011. It thus shows whether there

is an immediate socialization effect of entering the public sector. Table 4 provides two interesting

results with respect to this.

Table 4. Random effects panel regression of public service motivation (2009 and 2011), student panel.  

Predictor 

Public Service Motivation 

Sub‐dimensions of public service motivation 

Compassion  Commitment to the public interest 

Attraction to  policy making 

Model 4.1  Model 4.2  Model 4.3  Model 4.4 Age  

‐0.15 (0.239) 

‐0.07 (0.660) 

‐0.17 (0.311) 

‐0.22 (0.464) 

Male  ‐3.35** (0.008) 

‐6.10*** (0.000) 

1.43 (0.397) 

‐4.92* (0.094) 

Working  ‐5.72*** (0.000) 

‐4.37** (0.012) 

‐8.82*** (0.000) 

‐5.17* (0.089) 

Working*Public  2.44* (0.086) 

2.28 (0.208) 

1.98 (0.338) 

3.48 (0.275) 

         Constant  69.10*** 

(0.000) 75.81*** (0.000) 

83.31*** (0.000) 

49.07*** (0.000) 

R2  0.066  0.077  0.085  0.019 No. of observations  436  446  389  426 No. of groups  249  251  237  247 Wald χ2 of model  34.46***  24.21***  48.05***  6.45 Note: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, B coefficients reported, p‐values in parentheses. 

First of all there is an immediate negative effect of entering the labor market (Model 4.1).

This effect is significant across sectors, and we interpret it as a shock effect. Second, entering the

public sector dampens this shock effect (Model 4.1), since the interaction between labor market

entry and public employment has a significant (p<0.10) positive effect on PSM. The shock effect

exists across the dimensions of PSM, but it is particularly strong for public interest, whereas the

weakest effect is for compassion. The dampening effect of public employment is only significant

for general PSM, but the coefficients show the same positive direction for all three dimensions. Fur-

ther analysis has shown that it makes no difference for the level of PSM whether employment has

lasted 2 months or 2 years. In addition, men are generally less public service motivated; only public

interest is higher for men, but this difference is not significant. Age is usually found to have a posi-

tive impact on PSM, but the negative effect here should probably be ascribed to the character of the

sample, which consists of students. It seems very likely that the age effect is different among stu-

dents than among workers. Students’ age might be linked to having experience from other fields

prior to education, whereas age for educated physiotherapists is linked to more professional expe-

rience.  

 

H3b states that individuals who switch sector will adapt to their new environment, and that

switching to public employment will improve PSM. If this expectation is correct, socialization

should be observed among “sector switchers” compared to “sector keepers”. If we look at how PSM

changes from 2009 to 2011, table 5 shows that regarding H3b, it is only attraction to policy making

which is related to sector switches for those who leave public employment for the private sector.

This means that entering the private labor market harms attraction to policy making. There are,

however, no indications that switches to the public sector enhances public service motivation – at

least in the short run. Furthermore, the results show that PSM changes positively with age, which

supports the general positive relationship between age and PSM. Changes in PSM are greater for

those who had high levels of PSM in 2009, which is very natural, since there is more room for

negative than for positive developments.

Table 5. OLS‐regression of public service motivation, employee panel.  

  Level of public service motivation 2011 

Predictor 

Public  Interest 

Compassion  Attraction to policy making 

General public service motiva‐

tion Model 6.1  Model 6.2  Model 6.3  Model 6.4 

Male  ‐1.198 (0.165) 

‐3.025*** (0.000) 

0.374 (0.682) 

‐1.075* (0.068) 

Age in 2009 (years)   0.216*** (0.000) 

0.155*** (0.000) 

0.010 (0.762) 

0.133*** (0.000) 

Sector 2009 (Public = 1)  ‐0.049 (0.950) 

(‐0.482 

(0.481) 

‐0.532 

(0.512) 

‐0.616 

(0.251) Public interest (CPI) 2009  0.451*** 

(0.000)       

Compassion (COM) 2009  

0.443*** 

(0.000)    

Attraction to policy making (APM) 2009     

0.537*** 

(0.000)  

Public service motivation 2009       0.541*** (0.000) 

Switch from public to private (2009‐2011) (1=switch, 0=same) 

‐0.115 (0.947) 

‐0.552 

(0.718) 

‐3.462* (0.061) 

‐1.198 (0.316) 

Switch from private to public (2009‐2011) (1=switch, 0=same) 

0.861 (0.550) 

‐0.845 

(0.503) 

2.040 (0.181) 

0.287 (0.774) 

 Model statistics 

       

Constant  28.082***  35.403***  16.910***  21.907*** F‐value of full model  80.355***  111.146***  132.747***  116.234*** Adj. R2  0.229  0.252  0.293  0.308 N  1,611  1,967  1,909  1,561 Note: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, unstandardized beta‐coefficients, p‐values in parentheses.

 

Whereas these results support that there is some socialization over a short period of time, we

can also test how PSM responds to sector affiliation over a longer period of time by examining so-

cialization of the employed physiotherapists. Though we cannot as with the student panel isolate

causal effects, we can perform a panel analysis, which allows us to control for much of the individ-

ual variation in PSM. Table 6 shows such a panel regression, where PSM depends of the employ-

ment sector, which changes for some individuals over the two periods, and of tenure in each sector.

The results show that sector differences can only be found for policy making PSM, which is nega-

tively related to public employment corresponding to the students’ attraction effects (Table 3). Fur-

thermore, the results show that tenure in the private sector negatively affects public service motiva-

tion and especially public interest. This result suggests that sector choice has an effect on PSM, but

that it is sector experience and not current sector which is relevant. Furthermore, this socialization

effect is negative in private sector organizations, but absent in public organizations. Thus there are

no indications of PSM-socialization in the long run in the public sector. This result can help to ex-

plain why PSM is lower in the private sector, but it does no lend support for H3b. The theoretically

grounded expectation was increased PSM in the public sector, but the results rather show a negative

socialization in the private sector. Finally, Table 6 indicates a positive association between age and

PSM despite control for tenure. This strengthens the finding of a positive age-effect on PSM.

Table 6: Random effects panel regression of public service motivation (2009 and 2011), employee panel.  

Predictor 

Public service  motivation 

Dimensions of public service motivation Compassion  Commitment to 

the public interest Attraction to  policy making 

  Model 5.1  Model 5.2  Model 5.3  Model 5.4 Age  0.129** 

(0.006) 0.178 (0.005) 

0.264*** (0.000) 

‐0.033 (0.661) 

Male  ‐0.834 (0.187) 

‐3.849*** (0.000) 

0.842 (0.339) 

0.595 (0.560) 

Sector of employment (Public = 1) 

‐0.666 (0.245) 

1.129 (0.145) 

‐0.828 (0.308) 

‐1.813** (0.046) 

Tenure (years) Private sector 

 ‐0.144*** (0.002) 

 0.013 (0.831) 

 ‐0.326*** (0.000) 

 ‐0.120 (0.101) 

Public sector  ‐0.027 (0.547) 

‐0.013 (0.838) 

0.040 (0.520) 

‐0.040 (0.580) 

Constant  60.95*** (0.000) 

69.568*** (0.000) 

67.948*** (0.000) 

44.000*** (0.000) 

R2  0.0101  0.0245  0.0261  0.0039 No. of observations  3,104  3,500  3,165  3,461 No. of groups  1,733  1,788  1,753  1,785 Wald χ2 of model  24.46***  64.31***  56.91***  14.17** Note: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, B coefficients reported, p‐values in parentheses.

 

22  

Table 7. Logistic regression analysis of sector switches (2009‐2011), employee panel.  

 Predictor 

Switching from public to private sector (public keepers as reference category) 

Switching from private to public sector (private keepers as reference category) 

Model 7.1  Model 7.2  Model 7.3  Model 7.4  Model 7.5  Model 7.6 Male  0.230 

(0.518) 4.592** (0.024) 

4.805** (0.020) 

‐0.542** (0.041) 

‐0.157 (0.890) 

‐1.004 (0.423) 

Age in 2009 (years)  ‐0.087*** (0.000) 

‐0.074*** (0.000) 

‐0.052 (0.171) 

‐0.090*** (0.000) 

‐0.087*** (0.000) 

0.005 (0.845) 

Public interest (CPI)  0.014 (0.212) 

0.014 

(0.209) 

0.015 

(0.197) 

‐0.009 

(0.275) 

‐0.010 

(0.269) 

‐0.015 

(0.121) Compassion (COM)  ‐0.008 

(0.420) ‐0.006 

(0.552) 

‐0.006 

(0.541) 

‐0.004 

(0.624) 

‐0.004 

(0.635) 

0.000 

(0.941) Attraction to policy making (APM)  0.018** 

(0.024) 0.018** 

(0.022) 

0.017** 

(0.027) 

‐0.004 

(0.491) 

‐0.004 

(0.503) 

‐0.003 

(0.634) Other work preferences             

Job security  ‐0.337** (0.037) 

‐0.365** (0.026) 

‐0.360** (0.027) 

0.201* (0.096) 

0.200* (0.097) 

0.083 (0.529) 

High salary  0.123 (0.522) 

0.121 

(0.531) 

0.102 (0.593) 

‐0.278* (0.067) 

‐0.276* 

(0.069) 

‐0.282* 

(0.086) Interaction: Male *Age    ‐0.137** 

(0.038) 

‐0.144** (0.032) 

  ‐0.012 

(0.729) 

0.017 

(0.650) Organizational tenure (years)             

Private sector      0.056 (0.142) 

    ‐0.329*** 

(0.000) Public sector      ‐0.038 

(0.347)     ‐0.029 

(0.362) Model statistics             Constant  ‐1.008  ‐0.686  ‐1.203  3.465  3.384  1.697 Likelihood χ2  44.466***  54.163***  58.318***  83.356***  83.479***  134.712*** Nagelknerke Pseudo R2  0.113  0.126  0.136  0.218  0.219  0.353 N  1,294  1,294  1,290  554  554  538 Note: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, B coefficients reported, p‐values in parentheses.

 

23  

Finally, the attrition/attraction effect posed in H4 is tested by looking at how levels of PSM in 2009

and a number of other variables explain sector switches from 2009 to 2011. The analysis shows that

it is only attraction to policy making which explains sector switches for individuals moving from

the public to the private sector. The more attracted to policy making (APM) an individual is, the

more inclined he is to switch to the private sector. However, the results in Table 6 also show that

APM drops after switching to the private sector. Thus, it seems that those who switch sectors in-

itially have high APM, but then it drops after the switch. Furthermore, public employees who value

security are less inclined to switch to the private sector. The interaction term reveals that the strong

negative effect of age is weaker for women than for men. This suggests that women will more often

switch sectors at a higher age than men. Surprisingly, tenure has no effect on switching from the

public sector. In the private sector, on the other hand, experience from this sector is the strongest

predictor of switching to the public sector, but in negative direction. This means that the more expe-

rience an individual has in the private sector, the less inclined that person is to switch to public em-

ployment. Age has a negative effect on switching from the private to the public sector (disappears

in Model 7.6 due to multicollinearity with tenure), and so has preference for a high salary. Public

service motivation has no impact on whether the physiotherapists switch from the private to the

public sector.

 

Discussion and conclusion 

Using survey data from two panel data sets on Danish physiotherapists in pre-entry as well as entry

and post-entry settings, this study set out to investigate the attraction-selection-attrition and sociali-

zation dynamics of PSM and public/private sector employment. This is a conservative test of the

relationship between PSM and employment sector, because Danish physiotherapists are performing

very similar tasks in the two sectors, and we can thus pinpoint the differences almost solely to the

public/private ownership status of their workplaces. Our results provide mixed support for the hypo-

theses we have set forward. This means that according to our results PSM does not play as signifi-

cant a role in these causal processes as suggested by Perry and Wise (1990). However, this does not

mean that PSM and employment sector are not related. There are both systematic and significant

differences across sectors, and these relate to attraction, selection, and attrition as well as to sociali-

zation. Against the backdrop of the theory, the results will now be summarized and discussed as

well as limitations of the present study and avenues for further research will be laid out.

 

24  

Regarding attraction to public sector employment (H1), the analysis has shown that PSM pro-

vides mixed results in predicting physiotherapist students’ preference for employment sector in their

first job as well as in predicting working physiotherapists’ likelihood of switching sector in a later

stage of their career (H4). Whereas the physiotherapy students with higher levels of commitment to

the public interest were more inclined to look for a job in the public sector, the students with higher

levels of attraction policy making were more attracted to private sector employment. Furthermore,

publicly employed physiotherapists with higher levels of policy making motivation were also found

to be more likely to switch to a private sector job, whereas PSM had no significant influence on

decisions about switching from the private to the public sector. This is somewhat surprising, but

underscores the importance of distinguishing between the different dimensions of PSM as well as

the relevance of PSM for job choice decisions in both sectors.

The finding that PSM only plays a minor role in explaining preference for public sector em-

ployment partly contradicts the results by Lewis and Frank (2002), Tschirhart et al. (2008), Steijn

(2008) and others who have shown that individuals with higher levels of PSM are more inclined to

be looking for a public sector job. But since these studies use cross-sectional data without pre-entry

measures of PSM, the respondents’ preferences for sector employment may very well be influenced

by previous organizational socialization. We have instead separated the attraction and socialization

effect, and this may be the reason why we do not see such strong differences in PSM between indi-

viduals attracted to public or private sector employment; differences in PSM between physiotherap-

ist students who have completed the same educational program are simply too small (Table 1). Re-

lated to this, the students face very similar public service jobs in the public and private sectors,

which could make the sector choice minor to their PSM compared to choosing the physiotherapist

profession in the first place. In other words, PSM may play a stronger role for the decision to work

with public service than explaining in which sector public service is delivered. More specifically,

this concerns the debate over whether it is a person-organization fit or a person-job fit which is most

prominent for individual job choice decisions (Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., p.

284-285; Leisink & Steijn, 2008). Christensen and Wright (2011) thus find that the possibilities for

U.S. lawyers’ to actually do good for others and society through their job (measured as the job’s

service-orientation) is a better predictor of their job choice decisions than public or private sector

status of the organizations. In the case of Danish physiotherapists, tasks are more or less identical

across sectors, and therefore PSM may be a second-order explanation compared to other prefe-

rences or unobserved attitudes of sector choice. The lack of strong sector differences in PSM might

 

25  

indicate that factors such as occupation, job, and task are often stronger correlated with PSM than

sector. This also corresponds well with earlier studies which have shown that for a PSM-related

concept such as organizational commitment, industry is a better explanation than sector (Steinhaus

& Perry, 1996).

On the other hand, we still see interesting and significant differences in the students’ attrac-

tion to the two sectors based on their individual PSM profiles. Though we unexpectedly found that

students with higher levels of policy making PSM were more inclined to look for a job in the pri-

vate sector, it is not a result without precedents. In his study from 2008(a) on Flemish master stu-

dents, Vandenabeele also found mixed results regarding the sub-dimensions of PSM and preference

for public or private sector employment. Although not significant, the findings from this study also

indicate that policy making PSM may have a positive association with preference for a private sec-

tor employer (Table 5, Model 2, p. 1099). Since we also found that higher levels of policy making

PSM make physiotherapists more likely to switch to the private sector in later stages of their ca-

reers, this only strengthens the validity of the result. An explanation for this unexpected association

between policy making PSM and private sector employment can perhaps be found in a study by

Moynihan and Pandey (2007). Investigating public managers, they show that perception of hierar-

chical authority (number of layers of authority) in an organization is strongly, positively related to

policy making PSM. As the privately employed Danish physiotherapists are often self-employed

and/or work in smaller clinics where the decision making processes are shorter, this may explain

why individuals with this type of PSM are attracted to the private sector. In a study of Danish pub-

licly and privately employed nurses, which to some extent work under similar conditions as the

physiotherapists, this presumption is supported in qualitative interviews (Kjeldsen, forthcoming).

Policy making PSM is about seeking influence in decision making processes and for self-employed

and ordinary physiotherapists with this desire, this can better be fulfilled in the private sector where

the road from idea to action is more straightforward. However, more research with measures of per-

ception of organizational and job characteristics in the two sectors (e.g., red tape and autonomy) are

required to get a firmer grip on the interplay between these factors, sector, and employee PSM.

If we extend these results regarding attraction effects to take a closer look at the intertwined

mechanism of selection, the analysis showed that preference for employment sector is significantly

related to actually getting a job in the desired sector after graduation from the physiotherapist edu-

cation. Although there is no direct effect from initial PSM to selection into the public or private

 

26  

sectors (as predicted in H2), there is evidence of a causal chain of events from initial PSM over pre-

ference for employment sector to actual public or private sector employment. This is tested from

pre-entry to entry, so we can rule out that this is caused by organizational socialization. The result

supports the predictions made from the Person-Environment Fit theory that individuals will look for

an organizational environment which matches their values about doing good for other people and

society when entering the labor market in a public service related job (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). Al-

though Lewis & Frank (2002) and Tschirhart et al. (2008) found that PSM predicts the wish to work

in the public sector, our results show that the relationship is most likely more complicated than that.

First of all, it is only for the public interest dimension of PSM our results are in the expected direc-

tion. Second, the present results fail to explain individuals’ actual sector of employment directly,

since it seems to be mediated by sector preference. This indicates that other factors such as selection

play a role. Selection could be based on ability, which we have not been able to observe here. The

selection mechanism depends on decisions by the employer who in turn is dependent on external

factors like general market conditions, the fiscal situation, supply of qualified labor etc. Returning

to Table 1, we saw that there were 36 pct. of the students who ended up in a public sector job but

who preferred to get employment in the private sector back in 2009. Contrary to the U.S. lawyers in

the study by Wright and Christensen (2010) who had a hard time getting a public sector job right

after graduation, this indicate that for the Danish physiotherapists entering the labor market it is the

other way around; it is hard to get a first-time job in the private sector. This weakens the possibility

of drawing up a clearer association between PSM and employment sector.

Whereas the effects of PSM on public/private sector job choice are mixed, the analyses

showed that other work preferences such as desire to get a high salary and job security are better

predictors of employment sector. Physiotherapy students with a preference for high salary were

found to be significantly less likely to prefer a job in the public sector (Table 3), and educated phy-

siotherapists with preference for job security were less likely to switch to a job in the public sector.

On the other hand, we saw that physiotherapists with a preference for high salary were less likely to

switch from a job in the private sector. Previous studies of PSM-differences between private and

public sector employees, which have included other work preferences have shown inconsistent re-

sults. While some studies find that public sector employees (or individuals preferring public sector

employment) place lower value on monetary rewards than their private sector counterparts (Kilpa-

trick et al., 1964; Lawler, 1971; Rainey, 1982; Rawls et al., 1975; Wittmer, 1991; Vandenabeele,

2008a) and higher value on job security (Baldwin, 1991; Kilpatrick et al., 1964; Vandenabeele,

 

27  

2008a), others find that there are no significant differences between public and private sector em-

ployees in terms of valuing a high salary/financial rewards (Crewson 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995;

Lewis & Frank, 2002; Wright & Christensen, 2010). It seems reasonable that PSM is only one fac-

tor among many others which is expected to predict public or private sector employment (Perry and

Hondeghem, 2008, p. 3), but when investigating individuals holding public service jobs it is pre-

sumably an important factor. Nonetheless, in the setting under study here with Danish physiotherap-

ists, who perform very similar public service tasks across sectors, PSM only differs little as shown

in Table 1 and focus is therefore easily shifted to other work preferences to determine attraction and

attrition.

Whereas PSM plays a less significant role than expected regarding attraction, selection and at-

trition to public sector employment, some very interesting results were achieved regarding sociali-

zation (H3a and H3b). Contrary to previous studies of sector differences in PSM (Crewson, 1997;

Gabris & Simo, 1995; Lewis & Frank, 2002) including the study by Wright and Christensen (2010),

our study makes the first attempt to open the “black box” of organizational socialization in the pub-

lic sector and investigate the effect of public sector employment on PSM by comparing individuals’

motivation in pre- and post-entry stages. Most strikingly, we found that physiotherapy students en-

tering the labor market generally experience a decline in their PSM, which for the publicly em-

ployed runs contrary to what was expected. Previous studies have shown that PSM declines with

job tenure in the public sector (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). This has been assigned to the larger

amount of red tape in the public sector which possibly frustrates the employees in their desire to do

good for the citizens and society (Buchanan, 1975). But due to limitations of their study, it cannot

be determined whether Moynihan and Pandey’s results on job tenure and PSM are caused by a

higher likelihood for public employees with high PSM to leave the public sector, or whether there is

in fact a decline in PSM over time (Wright, 2008, p. 89). As we have found a short-run decline in

PSM in both the public and private sectors when entering the labor-market, this result rather seems

to be linked to a shock-effect of meeting realities in a first-job experience.

However, as we also found that public sector employment hampers the decline in PSM in the

transition from pre-entry to post-entry stages and that private sector tenure in the long run leads to a

decline in PSM (and most notably in commitment to the public interest) there seems to be more to

the story. In other words, our study shows that although public sector employment does not exactly

foster higher levels of PSM, it certainly influences the PSM of its employees as public sector orga-

 

28  

nizational membership prevents individuals’ PSM from declining as much as could have been the

case. In addition to confirming those studies which have shown that already within the first period

after employment, people can adapt their values and attitudes to the environment (e.g., Chatman,

1991), this adds interesting new knowledge to our understanding of the dynamics between employ-

ment sector and PSM in the sense that it empirically supports the theoretical expectation of PSM

constituting both an endogenous as well as an exogenous factor in the relationship between PSM

and employment sector. This finding of short run socialization seems most applicable to the labor

market entrants who are probably more open-minded than their experienced colleagues. Thus, the

only effect of sector switch on changes in PSM found to be significant was a negative change in

policy making PSM for individuals who changed from public to private employment compared to

those who stayed in the sector. However, we do not know whether this change in policy making

PSM came prior to the choice of sector switch or vice versa. Nonetheless, this makes up for some of

the limitations of the study by Moynihan and Pandey (2007) by showing that individuals with high-

er levels of policy making PSM do actually tend to leave the public sector. For the labor market

entrants we have found a “pure” attraction effect, and though the effect for experienced workers is

more blurred, it combines to a general picture where policy making draws physiotherapists towards

private sector affiliation.

In sum, the analyses have shown that combinations of attraction and socialization processes

shape the relationship between PSM and public/private sector job choice. However, there are a

number of shortcomings in this study that should be dealt with in the future. First of all, since PSM

is only found to have a limited effect on job choice, it would be very relevant to know which role

PSM plays for the decision to enter an education, which leads to public service jobs, and whether

such professional training nurtures PSM. In the same avenue of studies it would be interesting with

more qualitative studies to shed light on, what actually happens in the transition from education to

employment. Though we can make a number of observations here based on quantitative data, it

would be tremendously useful to get closer to the actual causal mechanism to know more about

what actually happens with regard to individual attractions and organizational selections. Why do

the physiotherapists, for example, experience a decline in PSM at the entry stage regardless of sec-

tor? Second, it would be relevant to see more studies of different groups of employees, who perform

the same tasks in both sectors, to see if the results can be replicated across job types. Third, the

study is carried out over a recession, which might have had a general impact on how PSM develops

over time. Thus, the general drop in PSM which we have observed for both students and employees

 

29  

may to some extent be explained by this, and PSM may increase to the old level, when the economy

starts to recover. Finally, we have used no actual measures of person-environment fit here, and such

measures could perhaps have helped shed more light on, what actually happens, when PSM de-

clines.

For many reasons PSM is a useful instrument for organizations which deliver public services,

because it improves performance and employees’ willingness to exert an extra effort (Brewer, 2008;

Naff & Crum, 1999; Vandenabeele, 2009). Thus, organizations that are able to attract and retain

individuals with high PSM are probably better suited to meet many of the challenges that they are

met with by surroundings, clients, and other stakeholders. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten,

that PSM and especially achieving a PSM-fit between employees and organizations may also lead

to closure, one-sided ways of thinking and less responsiveness to changes (Billsberry, 2007;

Schneider et al., 1995). The study has shown that though PSM plays a role in the recruitment

process, other factors are also very important, and managers should therefore pay attention to intrin-

sic as well as extrinsic types of motivation. Employees working with public service are generally

concerned with helping others and society, but differences are only small across sectors.

 

30  

References 

Andersen, L. B., T. Pallesen & L. H. Pedersen (2011). Does Ownership Matter? Public Service Mo-tivation among Physiotherapists in the Private and Public Sectors in Denmark. Review of Pub-lic Personnel Administration, 31(1), 10-27.

Baldwin, J. N. (1991). Public versus Private Employees: Debunking Stereotypes. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(1/2), 1-27.

Billsberry, J. (2007). Attracting for Values: An Empirical Study of ASA’s Attraction Proposition. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 132-149.

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and Private Management: What's the Difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122.

Bozeman, B. (1987). All Organizations Are Public. Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. London, San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc.

Bozeman, B. & Scott, P. (1996). Bureaucratic Red Tape and Formalization: Untangling Conceptual Knots. American Review of Public Administration, 26, 1–17.

Buchanan, B. (1975). Government Managers, Business Executives, and Organizational Commit-ment. Public Administration Review 34(4), 339–347.

Brewer. G. A. (2008). Employee and Organizational Performance. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem, Motivation in Public Management. The Call of Public Service (pp. 136-156). New York: Ox-ford University Press.

Brewer, G.A. & S. C. Selden (1998). Whistle Blowers in the federal civil service: New Evidence of the Public Service Ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413-439.

Bright, L. (2008). Does Public Service Motivation Really Make a Difference on the Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Public Employees? The American Review of Public Administra-tion, 38, 149-166.

Cable, D. M. & T A. Judge (1996). Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organiza-tional Entry, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311.

Cable, D. M. & C. K. Parsons (2001). Socialization Tactics and Person-Organization Fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Christensen, R. K. & B. E. Wright (2011). The Effects of Public Service Motivation on Job Choice Decisions: Disentangling the Contributions of Person-Organization Fit and Person-Job Fit. Jounal of Public Administration Research and Theory.Online publication February 15, 2011.

Cooper-Thomas, H. D., A. van Vianen & N. Anderson (2004). Changes in Person-Organization Fit: The Impact of Socialization Tactics on perceived and Actual P-O Fit, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 52-78.

Coursey, D. & S. Pandey (2007). Public Service Motivation Measurement - Testing an abridged version of Perrys Proposed Scale. Administration and Society, 39(5), 547-568.

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

Feldman, D.C. (1976). A Contingency Theory of Socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 433-452.

Gabris, G. T. & G. Simo (1995). Public Sector Motivation as an Independent Variable Affecting Career Decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-49.

 

31  

Georgellis, Y., E. Iossa, V. Tabvuma (2008). “Crowding out Public Service Motivation”, CEDI Discussion Paper 08-07, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions (CEDI), Brunel University. http://ideas.repec.org/p/edb/cedidp/08-07.html

Gregg, P., P. Grout, A. Ratcliffe, S. Smith, & F. Windmeijer (2008). “How Important is Pro-Social Behavior in the Delivery of Public Services?”. CMPO Working Paper No. 08/197, Centre for Market and Public Organization, University of Bristol. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2008/wp197.pdf

Houston, D. J. (2000). Public Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test. Journal of Public Adminis-tration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713-728.

Kilpatrick, F. P., M. C. Jr. Cummings & M. K. Jennings (1964). The Image of the Federal Service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kim, S. & W. Vandenabeele (2010). A Strategy for Building Public Service Motivation Research Internationally, Public Administration Review, 70(5), 701-709.

Kjeldsen, A. M. (forthcoming). Sector and Occupational Differences in Public Service Motivation: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Public Administration.

Kristof-Brown, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its comceptualiza-tions, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., R. D. Zimmerman & E. C. Johnson (2005). Consequences of Individual's Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and Organizational Effectiveness. A Psychological View. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leisink, P. & B. Steijn (2008). Recruitment, Attraction and Selection. In J. Perry & A. Hondeghem, Motivation in Public Management. The Call for Public Service. (pp. 118-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, G. & S. Frank (2002). Who Wants to Work for the Government? Public Administration Re-view, 62(4), 395-404.

March, J. G. & J. P. Olsen (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press. Mortimer, J. T. & J. Lorence (1979). Occupational Experience and the Self-Concept: A Longitudin-

al Study, Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4), 307-323. Naff, K. & C. Crum (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a differ-

ence? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16. National Board of Health (2004). Vejledning om fysioterapeuters ordnede optegnelser

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=9876 O’Reilly, C.A., J. Chatman & D. F. Caldwell (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile

Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. 

Pandey, S. & D. Moynihan (2007). The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motiva-tion. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 40-53.

Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 471-488.

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

Perry, J. L. & A. Hondeghem (2008). Motivation in Public Management. The Call of Public Ser-vice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J. L., A. Hondeghem & L. R. Wise (2010). Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Ser-vice: Twenty Years of Research and An Agenda for the Future, Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681-690.

 

32  

Perry, J. L. & H. G. Rainey (1988). The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Criti-que and Research Strategy, The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.

Perry, J. L. & L. R. Wise (1990). The motivational bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-73.

Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward Preferences Among Public and Private managers: In search of a ser-vice ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288-302.

Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (4. Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. & Levine, C. (1976). Comparing Public and Private Organizations, Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233-244.

Rawls, J. R., R. A. Ullrich & O. T. Nelson (1975). A Comparison of Managers Entering or Reenter-ing the Profit and Nonprofit Sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 616–623.

Regionernes lønnings- og takstnævn & Danske Fysioterapeuter (2008a). Overenskomst om alminde-lig fysioterapi (www.okportal.dk).

Regionernes lønnings- og takstnævn & Danske Fysioterapeuter (2008b). Overenskomst om veder-lagsfri fysioterapi. (www.okportal.dk)

Ritz, A. & C. Waldner (forthcoming). Competing for Future Leaders. A Study of Attractiveness of Public Sector Organizations to Potential Job Applicants. Review of Public Personnel Adminis-tration.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-53. Schneider, B., H. W. Goldstein & D. B. Smith (1995). The ASA Framework: An Update. Personnel

Psychology, 48(4), 747–773. Steijn, B. (2008). Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation. International Public

Management Journal, 11(1), 13-27. Steinhaus, C. & J. L. Perry (1996). Organizational commitment: Does sector matter? Public Prod-

uctivity & Management Review, 19(3), 278-288. Taylor, J. (2008). Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Outcomes: An

Australian Study. International Public Management Journal 11(1), 67–88. Tschirhart, M., K. K. Reed, S. J. Freeman & A. L. Anker (2008). Is the Grass Greener? Sector

Shifting and Choice of Sector by MPA and MBA Graduates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37(4), 668–688.

Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Towards a Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Ap-proach. Public Management Review, 9(4), 545-556.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008a). Government Calling: Public Service Motivation as an Element in Se-lecting Government as an Employer of Choice. Public Administration, 86(4), 1089-1105.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008b). Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry's Measurement Instrument, International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 143-167.

Vandenabeele, W. (2009). The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 11-34.

Van Maanen, J. & E. H. Schein (1979). Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization, Research in Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 209-264.

Verquer, M. L., T. A. Beehr & S. H. Wagner (2003). A Meta-Analysis of Relations between Per-son-Organization Fit and Work Attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.

Wanous, J. P. (1991). Organizational Entry, 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preferences Among Govern-

ment, Hybrid Sector and Business Managers. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14(4), 369–383.

 

33  

Wright, B. E. (2008). Methodological Challenges Associated with Public Service Motivation Re-search. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem, Motivation in Public Management. The Call of Pub-lic Service (pp. 80-98). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wright, B. E. & R. K. Christensen (2010). Public Service Motivation: A Test of the Job Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 155-176.

Wright, B. E. & A. M. Grant (2010). Unanswered Questions about Public Service Motivation: De-signing Research to Address Key Issues of Emergence and Effects. Public Administration Re-view, 70(5), 691-700.

Wright, B. E. & S. K. Pandey (2008). Public Service Motivation and the Assumption of Person—Organization Fit: Testing the Mediating Effect of Value Congruence. Administration & Socie-ty, 40(5), 502-521.

Wright, B. E. & S. K. Pandey (2011). Public Organizations and Mission Valence: When Does Mis-sion Matter? Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44.

 

34  

APPENDIX 

Table A: Dimensions of public service motivation 

  

Student panel  Employee panel 2009  2011  2009  2011 

Cronbachsalpha 

Factor‐loadings 

Mean Cronbachsalpha 

Factor‐loadings 

Mean Cronbachsalpha 

Factor‐loadings 

Mean Cronbachsalpha 

Factor‐ loadings 

Mean 

Public interest:  0.578 77.67 0.457 70.47 0.559 78.14 0.508 73.20 

PSM23:I contribute to my community   0.594 4.44 0.550 4.34 0.452 4.60 0.707 4.38 PSM30: Meaningful public service is very important to me 

0.762 4.64 0.624 4.23 0.691 4.45 0.754 4.17 

PSM34: I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community even if it harm my interests  

0.672 3.57 0.602 3.28 0.738 3.60 0.550 3.55 

PSM39: I consider public service my civic duty  

0.668 3.82 0.687 3.43 0.792 3.85 0.576 3.58 

Compassion:  0.434 78.36 0.370 76.02 0.610 75.84 0.533 77.09 

PSM8: To me, considering the welfare of others is one of the most important values  

0.775 4.29 0.700 4.16 0.803 4.10 0.739 4.15 

PSM4: It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress  

0.755 4.17 0.555 4.04 0.751 4.06 0.648 4.14 

PSM13: I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another  

0.511 3.92 0.736 3.93 0.637 3.93 0.740 3.96 

Attraction to policy making: 0.484 46.37 0.498 44.70 0.540 42.71 0.524 40.51 

PSM11: I associate politics with some‐thing positive  

0.757 3.07 0.718 2.99 0.784 3.26 0.805 3.11 

PSM27: The give and take of public pol‐icy making doesn’t appeal to me (R)  

0.588 2.72 0.604 2.57 0.544 1.88 0.506 1,85 

PSM31: I don’t care much about politi‐cians (R)  

0.833 2.97 0.840 3.05 0.815 2.99 0.805 2.90 

Aggregated PSM   66.03 63.68 65.53 63.70