does ownership matter for employee motivation when occupation is controlled for?

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 07 October 2013, At: 15:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Public AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Does Ownership Matter for Employee Motivation WhenOccupation Is Controlled for?Lotte Bøgh Andersen a & Lene Holm Pedersen ba Department of Political Science , Aarhus University , Aarhus , Denmarkb Department of Business and Politics , Copenhagen Business School , Copenhagen , DenmarkPublished online: 20 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Lotte Bøgh Andersen & Lene Holm Pedersen (2013) Does Ownership Matter for EmployeeMotivation When Occupation Is Controlled for?, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:12, 840-856, DOI:10.1080/01900692.2013.795162

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.795162

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01900692.2013.795162

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.795162

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Public Administration, 36: 840–856, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01900692.2013.795162

Does Ownership Matter for Employee MotivationWhen Occupation Is Controlled for?

Lotte Bøgh AndersenDepartment of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Lene Holm PedersenDepartment of Business and Politics, Copenhagen Business School,

Copenhagen, Denmark

The public service motivation literature argues that public employees are more motivated thanprivate employees to deliver public service for the benefit of society. But the reason for this maybe that the classical welfare services are predominant in the public sector. This article thereforeinvestigates if ownership matters to employee motivation when occupation is controlled for.The findings show that the employees in both sectors have pro-social motivation, but that publicsector employees are more motivated to work for the public interest, whereas private sectoremployees are more motivated to help individual users of services. The survey data are basedon 3,304 Danish employees working in private as well as public organizations.

Keywords: public service motivation, private, occupations, public

INTRODUCTION

The distinction between public and private organizations isfundamental to Public Administration as a discipline, andone important difference concerns the employees’ publicservice motivation (PSM). Perry and Wise (1990, p. 368) ini-tially defined PSM as “an individual’s predisposition torespond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in publicinstitutions and organizations that might drive individuals toperform public service.” The definition implies that certainfeatures in publicly owned organizations encourage individ-uals to deliver public service. However, PSM is increasinglyseen as a matter of service rather than ownership sector.In that context, this article examines whether the differ-ences in motivation between employees in publicly andprivately owned organizations is a matter of service ratherthan ownership sector.

If occupations providing classic welfare services such ashospital care, teaching, and elderly care are predominantlyemployed in publicly owned organizations, the high PSM

Correspondence should be addressed to Lotte Bøgh Andersen,Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University,Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C., Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]

in these occupations may alone explain the sector differ-ences identified in the literature. It may then be a questionof occupational composition rather than ownership sector.In contrast, if employees from the same occupation whowork in private and public organizations have different PSM,ownership sector matters. However, we do not know, becausethe literature on the association between ownership sectorand PSM (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Buelens &Broeck, 2007) does not control adequately for occupation.This is a serious limitation. Therefore, this article comparesPSM in privately and publicly owned organizations withadequate control for occupation.

The main argument in the article is that employees in pub-licly and in privately owned organizations have pro-socialmotivation, but that the reasons for and the recipients of thismotivation differ. The key difference in employee motiva-tion between privately and publicly owned organizations isexpected to be the service recipients. In publicly owned orga-nizations, the possibilities of working for the public interestare more evident, and the level of PSM is expected to behigher. In contrast, the pro-social motivation of employeesin privately owned organizations is expected to be more ori-ented towards the individual users; they are expected to havehigher user orientation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

DOES OWNERSHIP MATTER FOR EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION? 841

We investigate this for Danish employees, because anumber of publicly financed services are provided in bothpublicly and privately owned organizations. Given that wecan identify employees where the only important differenceis the ownership of the organization, Denmark constitutes a“most unlikely case.” If motivation differs between Danishemployees in publicly and privately owned organizations,ownership sector is likely to matter in most countries evenwhen occupation is controlled for.

The article is structured as follows: The next section dis-cusses the theoretical framework and reasons for expectingassociations between ownership sector and PSM and userorientation. We then introduce data and methods followedby an analysis of whether private and public employees havedifferent levels of PSM and user orientation when occupa-tion is controlled for. This is supplemented by an analysisof how PSM and user orientation are related to employ-ees’ preference for future government employment. Finally,a conclusion is reached.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:PRO-SOCIALITY, PUBLIC SERVICE

MOTIVATION, USER ORIENTATION, ANDOWNERSHIP SECTOR

People can be motivated to attain different types of goals,for example improving their own situation or improvinganother’s welfare (Penner et al., 2005, p. 368). When the ulti-mate goal is to increase the welfare of others—both individ-ual other persons and communities/groups of people—weclassify the motivation as pro-social. This article focuses ontwo types of pro-social motivation: public service motivationand user orientation.

PSM and User Orientation: Conceptsand Dimensions

A central distinction is the extent to which PSM is seen asdirected towards a collective entity, or if it also includes

doing good for specific others as in the latter definition. Perryand Hondeghem (2008, p. 6) encompass both aspects and seePSM as an orientation to do something good for others andsociety in the delivery of public service. In their understand-ing, the concept refers to pro-social motivation, which can bedirected towards a collective entity (the public), or towardsspecific others (users or clients), or both. Their ambition toinclude both types of pro-social motivation is in line with LeGrand’s argumentations for why altruists are not necessarilycollectivists (2003, p. 29). Also, it corresponds to the discus-sion of pro-social motivation in economics (see for exampleFrançois & Vlassopoulos, 2008). In Perry and Hondeghem’sdefinition, user orientation may be included as a dimensionof PSM, but we argue that it may be more fruitful to keep itseparate as a different type of pro-social motivation, becauseother definitions of PSM reserve the concept to be directedto collectives. For instance, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999,p. 23) see PSM as a “general altruistic motivation to servethe interests of a community of people, a state, a nation orhumanity.”

The incidence and dimensionality of PSM are fairly wellestablished. The top rows in Table 1 show the four classictypes of PSM developed by Perry (1996). In this article,we follow Coursey and Pandey (2007) and exclude self-sacrifice. Even the traditional dimensions of PSM often havedifferent causes and consequences (Kim, 2011), and wetherefore treat them separately as they may be differentlyrelated to ownership sector. Excluding self-sacrifice is nota major problem, given that the dimensions are treated sepa-rately, and that self-sacrifice and commitment to the publicinterest are normally highly correlated, but it would havebeen better to also be able to investigate self-sacrifice.

Perry and Wise (1990, p. 368) suggest that PSM derivesfrom three types of reasons: affective, normative, and ratio-nal. Affective bonding with others is the emotional basis ofserving others (Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982). The sense ofoneness or the feeling that one could be or could end up inthe other person’s situation is what may create a willingnessto do good for others (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010). Thus,identification is the core of affective reasons for PSM, and

TABLE 1Understandings of PSM and User Orientation

Type of motivation Definition Discussed in

Commitment to the public interest Motivation to deliver public services to serve therelevant society, based on values and duty

Perry (1996)/Kim &Vandenabeele (2010)

Compassion Emotionally (empathically) based motivation to dogood for others by improving public services

Perry (1996)

Attraction to policy making Motivation to improve decision making concerningpublic services to help others and society

Perry (1996)/Kim &Vandenabeele (2010)

Self-sacrifice The will to bypass one’s own needs to help others andsociety by providing public services

Perry (1996)

User orientation Motivation to help the specific user of public services Vandenabeele (2008a)Andersen, Pallesen &Pedersen (2011)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

842 ANDERSEN AND PEDERSEN

compassion is the dimension of PSM that is based on thistype of motivation. Norm-based reasons refer to actions gen-erated by efforts to conform to values and norms. Normsand values are likely to be internalized and people mayfeel satisfaction and accomplishment when they contributeto particular norms and values. This may be expressed asserving the public interest or as a desire to make a dif-ference for fellow citizens (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010),and commitment to the public interest is the PSM dimen-sion which most clearly is based on this type of motivation.Rational reasons are sometimes seen as encompassing self-interested motives (Perry & Wise, 1990; Wright & Pandey,2011), and as including a desire to represent special interestsas well as desires for individual utility maximization (Wise,2000).

However, understanding rational reasons as self-interest isinconsistent because PSM is seen as pro-social motivation.Rational self-serving motives cannot by definition be partof PSM regardless of the public good they produce (Wise,2000). In contrast, rational reasons behind PSM should beseen as instrumental. The delivery of public services isinstrumentally motivated, when it is based on an understand-ing of how means and measures can be combined in orderto contribute to the delivery of public services. The instru-mental reasons behind PSM are based on the understandingthat exercising a particular behavior is an instrument thatcan be used to do good for others. Examples include par-ticipating in the policy process and in community activities,as well as actively trying to contribute to social development(Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010). Attraction to policy making isthe dimension of PSM which is most clearly based on thistype of reason.

Delivering service to people with the purpose of doinggood for others and society can be directed towards manydifferent recipients. Brewer et al. (2000) identify four typesof public service-motivated individuals: Samaritans, whohelp individuals in one-on-one interactions; communitari-ans, who direct their services to their neighbors and localcommunities; patriots, who want to serve their country;and humanitarians, who focus on humankind broadly or onglobal concerns. The four types vary in their conceptions ofthe central recipients of public service. Even the traditionalPSM dimensions may be seen as being directed towardsdifferent recipients. First, individuals who want to serve inorder to help specific groups, such as socially exposed ormarginalized groups, are expected to possess a high level ofcompassion. Second, individuals who want to do good forall of society serve out of an inclination to help fellow citi-zens in general. These individuals have a high commitmentto the public interest. The political system—in contrast tothe specific or generalized other—constitutes a third type ofrecipient corresponding to attraction to policy making.

There is an affinity between Samaritans in Brewer et al.’s(2000) conceptualization and user-oriented individuals. TheSamaritans are driven to help citizens in need on the basis

of identification. They do not act because they feel a senseof duty to their country or because they have self-sacrificingmotives (Brewer et al., 2000, p. 259). Furthermore, the rel-evance of including user orientation in sector comparisonsof employee motivation is especially high after New PublicManagement has emphasized customer orientation as vitalin public organizations (Le Grand, 2003, p. 29; Walker et al.,2011). A customer-oriented organization seeks to understandits customers’ needs, expressed and latent, in order to moreeffectively to respond to those needs (Day, 1994; Slater &Narver, 1995). As such, “customer orientation” mainly existsat the organizational level.

However, Paarlberg (2007) suggests that customer ori-entation may also enhance the motivation of the indi-vidual employees. The relationship between customer andemployee may therefore reinforce the employees’ affectiveand normative commitment to the mission of the organiza-tion (Perry & Wise, 1990; Paarlberg, 2007). Vandenabeele(2008a, p. 145) introduced a customer orientation dimen-sion that included specific others whom the employee wantsto help. He did not retain the dimension, instead concen-trating on collectively oriented public service motivation assuggested by his definition of the concept (Vandenabeele,2008b), but we still find it relevant to discuss pro-socialmotivation focused on individual service users.

O’Reilly and Chatman (1986, p. 496) also argue that pro-social behavior can include both helping specific others andattending collective functions that do not necessarily helpthe individual, and Perry and Hondeghem (2008, p. 3), asmentioned, include both society and others in their PSMdefinition . We propose that customer orientation should beconceptualized as the motivation to serve specific others: theusers of the public service. We use the more inclusive term“user orientation,” because beneficiaries of public service donot always pay for it in a direct way.

In sum, employees have different recipients for their“good deeds” and different reasons to help the recipientsin the context of public service delivery. Underlying rea-sons and possible recipients of intentions to “do good” mayvary between institutional contexts. We do not argue that thedimensions discussed here are universally exhaustive, but wedo claim that they are relevant in Western Europe and in theUnited States.

Expected Motivational Differences BetweenEmployees in Privately and Publicly OwnedOrganizations

The first step in a discussion of ownership differences is toclarify what we understand by the private and public sector,respectively. In our understanding, the most important dis-tinction is between organizations owned by the public andorganizations owned by private actors. Other dimensions canalso be relevant, but many of them can be linked back toownership as discussed below.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


In the external environment, factors such as marketpressure and political authority are important (Rainey,Backoff, & Levine, 1976; Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994).Publicly owned organizations are to a higher extent publiclyfinanced and depend more on political authority for funding,whereas private organizations typically earn more of theirrevenue from the market and consequently are more exposedto competition and bankruptcy (Bozeman & Bretschneider,1994; Rainey, 2009). Even when the financing and compet-itive situations do not differ, the ultimate principal differsbetween politicians in publicly owned organizations versusshareholders/proprietors in privately owned organizations,and this makes the survival of organizations dependent ondifferent logics. The politicians ultimately decide whether apublicly owned organization survives, while privately ownedorganizations depend on their private owners, who tend tolook at the bottom line figures. This is the case even ifprivately owned organizations can act in a monopoly mar-ket with no real market competition, strong regulation ofthe market, and/or publicly financed services, and publiclyowned organizations can be subject to market competition ifquasi-markets are introduced.

Even when neither market situation nor financing dif-fers between privately and publicly owned organizations,the internal goals may still differ, because the owners (thepublic and politicians versus private owners) have differ-ent priorities. Apart from the difference in the profit motive,equity concerns—in the sense that Paul and David should betreated equally—are often more prominent in public organi-zations. In contrast, many private organizations idealize theuser as “king” (Quinn, 1990) and serving the customer bothsecures profits and helps the individual user. While privateorganizations often have close ties to their customers, pub-lic organizations have stronger relations with political andgovernment authorities and are more exposed to politicalinfluence (Mintzberg, 1973; Walsh, 1978).

The traditional expectation in the literature—publicemployees have higher PSM than private employees—isbased on theories of industrial psychology of attractions-selection-attrition. The assertion is that individuals areattracted to organizations based on the fit between an orga-nization’s values and their own (Wright & Christensen,2010). Perry and Wise (1990, p. 370) therefore expect that“The greater an individual’s public service motivation themore likely the individual will seek membership in a pub-lic organization.” The central assumption is that individualsseek organizational goals and incentive systems that matchtheir motives (Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982). In other words,the attractiveness of an organization increases if there isa fit between person and organization (Schneider, 1987,p. 400; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).Furthermore, individuals with high public service motivationare expected to experience a better fit in public organizations.Thus, ownership sector is in practice expected to work as a

proxy for organizational goals (Wright, 2007; Christensen &Wright, 2011).

Regarding organization-environment transactions, pub-lic organizations are seen as having a broader impactwith a wider scope of concern like the “public interest.”Furthermore, public organizations are more directly subjectto public scrutiny and unique public expectations (Rainey,Backoff & Levine, 1976). Especially the fact that the ulti-mate principal in publicly owned organizations is “the pub-lic” combined with the wider scope of concern makes usexpect that public organizations will attract individuals whoare interested in serving society. Although this differenceshould not be exaggerated for privately owned organiza-tions without market competition and/or public financing—or for publicly owned organizations which are subject tostrong market competition—the ownership difference stillimplies that the level of commitment to the public interestis expected to be higher for individuals working in pub-licly owned organizations compared to individuals workingin privately owned organizations. Individuals’ preference forfuture government employment (that is, in a publicly ownedorganization) is also expected to be positively associatedwith the level of commitment to the public interest.

Given that publicly owned organizations have strongerrelations with political and government authorities, pub-lic employees, especially in the higher echelons close todecision-making processes, interact more directly with thepolitical system (Rainey, Backoff & Levine, 1976, p. 237).This means that the decision-making processes, at least insome cases, more evidently can be a recipient of the work ofpublic employees. Therefore, individuals with a high levelof attraction to policy making are expected to prefer publiclyowned organizations over privately owned organizations.

Concerning compassion, we do not expect a differencebetween publicly and privately owned organizations. Thisdimension is, as mentioned, seen as founded on affectivereasons and related to empathy for and doing good for disad-vantaged groups. We expect compassion to be closely linkedto occupation, but we do not think that it differs systemati-cally between employees who provide the same services inpublicly and privately owned organizations (e.g., private andpublic school teachers). As discussed below, this highlightsthe importance of controlling for occupation when we inves-tigate ownership differences in PSM and user orientation(Buelens & Broeck, 2007; Andersen, Pallesen, & Pedersen,2011).

The bankruptcy constraint in private organizations andthe linked organizational focus on customers as “king” isexpected to make user orientation higher for individuals inprivate organizations than for individuals in public organi-zations. The individual user may be seen as the recipientdue to both profits and a pro-social motivation to help theindividual user. This article focuses on the latter but theimplication is the same for both: We expect higher user

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


orientation in privately owned organizations than in publiclyowned organizations.

The Importance of Controlling for Occupation andOther Relevant Confounders

People may select into performing specific tasks, ratherthan into a given ownership sector. Occupations—such asnursing—are categories of people who perform similar tasks,and some occupations may be more attractive than others foremployees with particular types of PSM and user orientation.For instance, individuals with a high level of compassionmay seek occupations where they can help socially disad-vantaged groups. Whether they work in a public or a privateorganization may be less important. Given that the com-position of occupations differs between the two ownershipsectors, we should therefore control for occupation if wewant to analyze whether ownership is associated with PSMand user orientation. If we find ownership differences in pub-lic service motivation and user orientation between publicand private employees from the same occupation, our knowl-edge about PSM and ownership thus becomes more robust.Kjeldsen (2012), for example, shows in a qualitative studythat nurses in public organizations have a higher level ofcommitment to the public interest, whereas nurses in pri-vate organizations are more motivated by doing good foreach specific user. It is an open question whether this canbe generalized.

Sector differences in motivation are often reported inthe existing research, but controls for occupation tend tobe weak, although educational level is often controlled for.Lewis and Frank find that government employees havehigher PSM (Lewis & Frank, 2002, p. 400), and Steijn (2008)finds that this result is also valid in a European context,e.g., that PSM is higher in the public than in the privatesector. Some studies hold occupation constant by delim-iting the sample to a single occupation. Crewson (1997,p. 505) finds that engineers in publicly owned organizationshave higher PSM than engineers in privately owned organi-zations. Here, occupation does not vary, but this result onlyholds for 8 out of the 14 years analyzed. Vandenabeele findsthat master students with high PSM are more inclined to seekfuture employment in “more public” organizations, and thisincludes affiliation with law as well as natural, medical, andbehavioral sciences (2008b). Christensen and Wright (2011)give survey-based vignettes to law students as they analysespreferences for future ownership sector and job. The studies,which hold occupation constant, tend to include few occu-pations, and more occupations must be included in order toimprove generalizability.

Using data from Denmark, it is possible to investigatefor 14 occupations whether employees in publicly and pri-vately owned organizations have different PSM and userorientation controlled for occupation. Several occupations in

Denmark perform similar tasks in both privately and publiclyowned organizations, and we have sufficient observationsfrom 5 of these occupations to make ownership comparisons.The relevant publicly financed services (education, healthservices, protective services, and personal care of especiallyold people) have long been provided in both types of organi-zations, and the level of contracting out of welfare servicesin local governments has generally been rather stable overtime. Additionally, we compare 9 occupations (such as com-puter professions) that perform the same tasks in publiclyand privately owned organizations.

Comparing employees in publicly and privately ownedorganizations, an important question is how many variablesrelated to ownership should be controlled for. Private orga-nizations may, for example, face stronger competition, espe-cially in densely populated regions, and public organizationsmay on average be bigger because it takes a political deci-sion to create them. Bargaining agreements are often moredetailed for public employees, and the relative salary mayalso differ. In this article, we control for salary, because thepay structure differs between public and private employeesin Denmark and this may affect PSM and user orientation.We also control for organizational size, because private orga-nizations tend to be smaller in Denmark, and this couldconfound our analysis of user orientation. We did not, how-ever, control for the specific level of competition faced by agiven organization as we argue that this is part of the owner-ship variable discussed above. We did include dummies forthe region in which the employees worked to account forregional difference in competition, but these are not includedsince they did not change the results at all. In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, it is relevant to control for age,as existing studies show that PSM and age are correlated.We also know that women have higher compassion thanmen and hence we control for gender when we investigatecompassion (Perry, 1997, p. 190; DeHart-Davis, Marlowe &Pandey, 2006; Camilleri, 2007; Pandey & Stazyk, 2008,p. 102).

HYPOTHESES

Based on the discussion above, the specific expectations tothe relationships between ownership sector and the PSMdimensions are as follows when occupation, age, gender,salary, and organizational size have been controlled for:

H1a: There is no difference in compassion betweenemployees working in publicly and privately ownedorganizations.

H1b: Employees in publicly owned organizations havehigher levels of commitment to the public interestthan employees in privately owned organizations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


H1c: Employees in publicly owned organizations havehigher levels of attraction to policy making thanemployees in privately owned organizations.

H1d: Employees in privately owned organizations havehigher levels of user orientation than employees inpublicly owned organizations.

As mentioned, we also investigate how the PSM dimen-sions and user orientation relate to preference for futuregovernment employment (that is, in a publicly owned orga-nization). If motivation and preference for governmentemployment are associated, they may be used actively inrecruitment, for instance by writing job ads which appeal toemployees with specific types of motivation. Our expecta-tions as to preference for future government employment areparallel to hypothesis 1a–1d, except that we also control forthe present ownership sector, as this is expected to influencethe preference for future government employment (Houston,2011).

While it follows from the arguments presented that weshould not expect compassion to be associated with prefer-ence for future government employment, and commitment tothe public interest and attraction to policy making to be posi-tively associated with this preference, hypothesis 2d deservesmore discussion. The question is whether individuals expectprivate employment to allow them to help the specific usersof public services more than public employment. In a qual-itative study of public service motivation, Kjeldsen (2012)found that several nurses had changed from a public to aprivate hospital to be able to do more for the individualpatients. In line with this, Andersen (2009, p. 88) foundthat health professionals working in privately owned orga-nizations much more often than their publicly employedpeers mentioned doing good for the patients when askedabout their most important motivation. Controlled for occu-pation, present ownership sector, gender, and age, hypothesis2d therefore expects a negative association between levelof user orientation and preference for future governmentemployment.

H2a: There is no association between employees’ level ofcompassion and their preference for future govern-ment employment.

H2b: The higher the level of commitment to the publicinterest of an employee, the more likely the employeeis to prefer future government employment.

H2c: The higher the level of attraction to policy making ofan employee, the more likely the employee is to preferfuture government employment.

H2d: The higher the level of user orientation of anemployee, the less likely the employee is to preferfuture government employment.

DATA

The data were collected in an Internet survey in June 2009.15,000 invitations were sent by e-mail to people aged 25–64,and 3,304 Danish employees working in privately or pub-licly owned organizations in that age group answered beforethe survey was closed, reaching the targeted 3,000 validresponses. Web surveys cannot be assumed to be represen-tative due to unobserved selection. Some respondents maybe more likely to participate in Internet surveys than oth-ers; for example not all social groups have equal access toinformation and communication technologies, equal time tofill out questionnaires, or equal writing abilities. The factthat the representativeness of web surveys can be seriouslyquestioned is less problematic, because we are interested inanalyzing associations rather than getting a full picture of theDanish population.

We based our measures of the PSM dimensions onthe short form developed by Coursey and Pandey (2007).Wright and Christensen (2009, p. 15) argue that the three-dimensional solutions correspond to the distinctions amongaffective, normative, and instrumental reasons. The dimen-sion self-sacrifice is excluded due to data limitations.The measurement of the dimension called user orienta-tion, which measures the motivation to help the specificuser of public services, is based on questions tested inBelgium and Denmark (Vandenabeele, 2008a; Andersen,Pallesen, & Pedersen, 2011). The user orientation dimen-sion has two weaknesses. First, none of the items is reversed.Furthermore, the alpha-coefficient is only 0.52. Hence, theresults should be interpreted with some caution.

To make sure that the three PSM dimensions and user ori-entation constitute different types of pro-social motivation,we performed an exploratory factor analysis of all items.It shows that the items used to operationalize commitment tothe public interest, compassion, attraction to policy making,and user orientation consistently have high loadings for thedimensions they are intended to measure and only for thesedimensions. For each dimension, we summed the responsesto the relevant Likert questions (see the Appendix for furtherdetails). Given that the reliability is adequate and the factoranalysis suggests that these items measure the same dimen-sions, we argue the scales to be defendable approximationsto interval scales, and treat them as interval data measuringlatent variables. All indexes have been rescaled to go from0 to 100.

Coding of occupations is based on the respondents’own detailed descriptions of their occupational categoryas reported in the survey. This description was afterwardscoded based on DISCO 88, the official Danish versionof the international classification ISCO-88 (InternationalStandard Classification of Occupations), which contains372 occupations with approximately similar work functions(see http://www.dst.dk/Vejviser/Portal/loen/DISCO/DISCO-88.aspx). The classification includes persons with similar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


occupations and similar tasks, but who do not necessarilyhave the same educational background. ISCO is managedby the International Labor Organization (ILO), and is atool for organizing occupations into a clearly defined setof groups according to the tasks and duties undertakenin the job (see http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.htm).

The respondents reported the ownership status of theorganization (coded as 1 for employment in a publicly ownedorganization, and 0 for employment in a privately ownedorganization). They also described their specific job, andthis description was, if possible, used to validate their self-reported ownership sector. This cross-validation (for the oneswhere this was possible) showed less than five percent errorin the self-reported ownership sector. Still, it is possible thatsome respondents classified themselves in the wrong own-ership sector. Concerning preference for future governmentemployment, we asked the respondents to express how likelythey would be to choose the public sector over the privatesector, if they should seek new employment (10 means “verylikely,” 0 “very unlikely”). Definitions, means, and stan-dard deviation for all variables are listed in Table A2 in theAppendix.

RESULTS

This section presents the results on variation in the PSMdimensions and user orientation between employees in pub-licly and privately owned organizations and on the associa-tions among PSM, user orientation, and preference for futuregovernment employment. The OLS regressions are presentedin the following order: compassion, commitment to the pub-lic interest, attraction to policy making, user orientation, andpreference for future government employment.

Hypothesis 1a stated that there is no difference in com-passion between public and private employees, and this isconfirmed by the analysis. Models 2-2 and 2-4 in Table 2demonstrate an apparently significant relationship for allinvestigated employees and for the employees where mem-bers of the occupation work in both privately and pub-licly owned organizations. The relationship does, however,become insignificant when occupation is controlled for (seemodel 2-5 in Table 2). Nothing substantial changes whensalary and organizational size are controlled for in model2-6 in Table 2. Our interpretation of the findings is that com-passion is a matter of gender and occupation, not ownershipsector, which is a major finding. Compassion is the drivingforce in certain occupations, and it is certainly more dom-inant among women than men. It may matter when peopleselect their occupation, but it does not seem to be associatedwith ownership sector.

Hypothesis 1b expected higher commitment to the pub-lic interest in publicly than in privately owned organizations,which is confirmed even when occupation is controlled for

(see Table 3, model 3-5). Employees in publicly owned orga-nizations report to a higher extent than private employeesthat they find it important to contribute to the community andto society in general, and that meaningful public service forfellow citizens is very important. This does not change whensalary and organizational size are controlled for in model3-6 in Table 3.

Hypothesis 1c stated that attraction to policy making, con-trolled for occupation and age, would be higher for employ-ees in publicly compared to privately owned organizations,but this is not confirmed by the analysis (see Table 4).Age has a negative impact on attraction to policy making,but there are no significant relationships between owner-ship sector and attraction to policy making. Furthermore,there is no significant variation between the different occu-pations, and neither salary nor the number of employeesin the organization is associated with attraction to policymaking.

Hypothesis 1d stated that private employees have higherlevels of user orientation than employees in publicly ownedorganizations controlled for occupation and age. The analy-sis confirms that employees in publicly owned organizationshave a significantly lower level of user orientation thanemployees in privately owned organizations when occupa-tion, gender, and age are controlled for (see Table 5, model5-5). As displayed in models 5-4 and 5-5, the correlationbetween ownership sector and user orientation for the occu-pations whose members work in both ownership sectors onlybecomes significant after occupation is controlled for. Thus,there is a spurious non-association, in the sense that thereappears to be no relationship in model 5-4, but when occu-pation is included in the analysis in model 5-5, there is arelationship when we compare members of the same occupa-tion working in different ownership sectors. This highlightsthe importance of controlling for occupation when owner-ship differences are investigated. Similarly, gender appears tobe significantly associated with user orientation, but the rela-tionship disappears when occupation is included in model5-5. Occupation thus mediates the effect from gender on userorientation. This indicates that women seem to choose occu-pations where they can help other individuals. Employeesin bigger organizations (with more employees working inthe organization) tend to have lower user orientation (seeTable 5, model 5-6) which might be because employees insmaller organizations are closer to the users.

The last analysis investigates whether the PSM dimen-sion and user orientation are associated with preferencesfor future government employment. It shows (see model 6-1 in Table 6) that present sector affiliation is very importantto reported choice of future ownership sector. Employmentin public organizations offers a good explanation of wherepeople see themselves as being likely to seek future employ-ment. This indicates that the careers people pursue rarelycut across ownership sectors. Hypothesis 2a stated that com-passion is not expected to be associated with the preference

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 2OLS Regressions of Compassion

Model 2-1 Model 2-2 Model 2-3 Model 2-4 Model 2-5 Model 2-6

Age (years) 0.266∗∗∗ 0.234∗∗∗ 0.246∗∗∗ 0.224∗∗∗ 0.212∗∗∗ 0.213∗∗∗(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

Gender (1 = woman) 8.137∗∗∗ 7.256∗∗∗ 7.568∗∗∗ 6.598∗∗∗ 5.348∗∗∗ 5.362∗∗∗(0.54) (0.55) (0.90) (0.94) (1.04) (1.04)

Ownership sector (1 = public) 4.083∗∗∗ 3.503∗∗∗ 0.683 0.776(0.57) (0.93) (1.05) (1.07)

Occupation (ref: Teachers) Adm.professionals

−7.263∗∗∗ −7.065∗∗∗(1.77) (1.80)

Science technicians −7.541∗∗∗ −7.351∗∗∗(2.17) (2.19)

Secretaries and other office clerks −6.087∗∗∗ −6.108∗∗∗(1.82) (1.84)

Lawyers and legal professionals −9.892∗∗ −9.791∗∗(3.28) (3.29)

Protective services workers −5.830 −5.247(3.07) (3.13)

Architects, engineers, and relatedprofessionals

−6.687∗∗ −6.450∗∗(2.40) (2.45)

Modern health associate prof.(except nursing)

−2.078 −2.226(3.26) (3.27)

Personal care and related workers −0.296 −0.233(1.68) (1.70)

Personnel managing/HR −5.648∗ −5.592∗(2.74) (2.75)

Material recording and libraryclerks

−4.624 −4.622(2.67) (2.68)

Nurses 1.041 0.762(2.06) (2.11)

Computer and computingprofessionals

−8.633∗∗∗ −8.318∗∗∗(1.75) (1.83)

Business or Bureaucracyprofessionals

−8.579∗∗∗ −8.322∗∗∗(2.11) (2.15)

Employees in Organization −0.288(0.39)

Salary (in 10,000s) −0.000(0.01)

(Intercept) 49.973∗∗∗ 50.061∗∗∗ 52.580∗∗∗ 52.224∗∗∗ 59.862∗∗∗ 60.636∗∗∗(1.23) (1.22) (2.04) (2.03) (2.49) (2.70)

N 3235 3235 1203 1203 1203 1199

Adj. R2 0.090 0.104 0.079 0.089 0.115 0.114

Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. Model 2-3 to 2-6 only contain individuals from occupations with members inboth the public and the private sector.

Note: ∗0.05 ≥ p > 0.01; ∗∗0.01 ≥ p > 0.001; ∗∗∗0.001 ≥ p.

for future government employment when present ownershipsector, task, gender, and age were controlled for. The resultsshow a positive correlation between level of compassion andchoice of future ownership sector (see model 6-2), but it dis-appears when the other PSM dimensions are included in theanalysis (see model 6-6). As expected in hypothesis 2b, com-mitment to the public interest is positively associated withpreference for future government employment (see model6-3), also when the other PSM dimensions are included inthe analysis, and when present ownership sector, age, gender,and occupation are controlled for (see model 6-6).

In contrast to the expectation in hypothesis 2c, thereis no relationship between attraction to policy making and

preference for future ownership sector (see models 6-4 and6-6). Our interpretation is that serving the public interest isthe core of public service motivation and the most impor-tant dimension for attracting employees to publicly ownedorganizations. Finally, hypothesis 2d expected user orienta-tion to be negatively associated with preference for futuregovernment employment when present ownership sector,occupation, gender, and age are controlled for. As displayedin model 6-6, the coefficient is negative, but not signifi-cant, and the expectation cannot be confirmed. None of theanalyses of preference for future government employmentchange substantially when occupation is controlled for (notshown).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 3OLS Regressions of Commitment to the Public Interest


Age (years) 0.189∗∗∗ 0.148∗∗∗ 0.161∗∗∗ 0.136∗∗ 0.121∗∗ 0.115∗∗(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

Gender (1 = woman) 2.051∗∗∗ 0.930 2.571∗∗ 1.498 1.256 1.247(0.53) (0.54) (0.87) (0.90) (1.01) (1.01)

Ownership sector (1 = public) 5.223∗∗∗ 3.982∗∗∗ 2.315∗ 2.430∗(0.55) (0.89) (1.02) (1.04)

Occupation (ref: teachers)Adm.professionals

−4.110∗ −4.115∗(1.72) (1.75)

Science technicians −5.721∗∗ −5.621∗∗(2.11) (2.14)

Secretaries and other office clerks −6.127∗∗∗ −6.203∗∗∗(1.79) (1.80)

Lawyers and legal professionals −7.174∗ −7.450∗(3.20) (3.22)



−5.249∗ −5.410∗(2.30) (2.35)


−2.855 −2.865(3.10) (3.11)

Personal care and related workers −3.317∗ −3.283∗(1.65) (1.66)

Personnel managing/HR −5.421∗ −5.502∗(2.69) (2.70)


−4.171 −4.066(2.57) (2.58)

Nurses −3.857 −3.756(2.02) (2.06)


−6.345∗∗∗ −6.307∗∗∗(1.71) (1.78)

Business or bureaucracyprofessionals

−2.467 −2.384(2.06) (2.10)

Employees in organization −0.203(0.38)

Salary (in 10,000s) 0.012(0.01)

(Intercept) 68.774∗∗∗ 68.878∗∗∗ 69.804∗∗∗ 69.393∗∗∗ 75.181∗∗∗ 75.323∗∗∗(1.20) (1.19) (1.95) (1.94) (2.41) (2.62)

N 3274 3274 1224 1224 1224 1220

Adj. R2 0.019 0.045 0.018 0.033 0.039 0.039

Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. Model 3-3 to 3-6 only contain individuals from occupations with members inboth the public and the private sector.

Note: ∗0.05 ≥ p > 0.01; ∗∗0.01 ≥ p > 0.001; ∗∗∗0.001 ≥ p.

CONCLUSION

This article has investigated whether private and publicemployees have different levels of PSM and user orientationwhen occupation is controlled for. It has also tested whetherpresent levels of PSM and user orientation are correlatedwith preferences for future government employment whenpresent ownership sector and occupation are controlled for.Table 7 summarizes the major findings.

The reason attraction to policy making is not associatedwith ownership sector or preference for future governmentemployment may be substantial as well as methodological.The substantial reasons may be that people are not motivated

by instrumental reasons when providing public services, orthat the political system does not constitute a significantrecipient of this motivation. Considering the methodologicalreasons, the items (Perry, 1996) have been criticized for notbeing appropriate for measuring personal attraction to pub-lic policy, as they encompass dissatisfaction with politiciansmore than interest in public policy making. A suggestion is todevelop items of attraction to policy making that to a higherextent can be seen as indicators of instrumental motives(Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010). As expected, the level of com-mitment to the public interest differs between ownershipsectors, and given that this dimension is highly correlatedwith self-sacrifice, the study indicates that public employees

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 4OLS Regressions of Attraction to Policymaking


Age (years) −0.194∗∗∗ −0.189∗∗∗ −0.147∗∗ −0.145∗∗ −0.154∗∗ −0.161∗∗(0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)

Gender (1 = woman) −2.318∗∗∗ −2.174∗∗ −2.531∗ −2.454∗ −1.879 −1.962(0.69) (0.70) (1.13) (1.18) (1.32) (1.32)

Ownership sector (1 = public) −0.682 −0.296 −0.374 −0.566(0.72) (1.17) (1.35) (1.37)

Occupation (ref: teachers)Adm.professionals

3.842 3.433(2.25) (2.30)

Science technicians −3.836 −4.190(2.77) (2.81)

Secretaries and other office clerks −3.250 −3.119(2.33) (2.35)

Lawyers and legal professionals −3.278 −3.717(4.18) (4.20)

Protective services workers 1.821 1.756(3.92) (3.99)


0.751 0.034(3.00) (3.06)


−4.326 −3.867(4.33) (4.34)

Personal care and related workers −3.257 −3.152(2.18) (2.19)

Personnel managing/HR −1.741 −1.969(3.48) (3.49)


3.111 3.239(3.41) (3.42)

Nurses −2.319 −2.831(2.69) (2.75)


−2.607 −3.323(2.24) (2.33)


4.841 4.384(2.67) (2.72)

Employees in organization 0.544(0.49)

Salary (in 10,000s) 0.010(0.01)

(Intercept) 52.791∗∗∗ 52.772∗∗∗ 49.406∗∗∗ 49.433∗∗∗ 50.288∗∗∗ 48.461∗∗∗(1.56) (1.56) (2.55) (2.56) (3.17) (3.44)

N 3237 3237 1202 1202 1202 1198

Adj. R2 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.008 0.019 0.019

Notes: ∗0.05 ≥ p > 0.01; ∗∗0.01 ≥ p > 0.001; ∗∗∗0.001 ≥ p.Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. Model 4-3 to 4-6 only contain individuals from occupations with members in

both the public and the private sector.

from a given occupation may have a higher level of self-sacrifice than their private sector peers, but future researchshould test this.

As the study does not include panel data, we do not knowwhether people choose to work in either publicly or pri-vately owned organizations and then develop a certain typeand level of PSM and user orientation, or if PSM and userorientation influence the initial choice of ownership sec-tor. In other words, motivation may be a result of “on thejob socialization,” but it may also exist before the first job.Previous studies indicate that initial PSM affects students’preference for government employment in their first job(Vandenabeele, 2008b), and this study shows an association

between commitment to the public interest and preferencefor future government employment—also after the first job.

Publicly owned organizations are supposed to serve “thepublic,” which is the ultimate principal for public employ-ees, and the literature traditionally expects PSM to behigher in the public sector. However, employees in publiclyowned organizations do not have a monopoly on motiva-tion to “do good” for others and society. Public servicemotivation also exists in the private and voluntary sectors(Steen, 2008). However, this article shows that PSM (thatis, commitment to the public interest) and user orientationvary between ownership sectors even when occupation iscontrolled for. Commitment to the public interest is higher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 5OLS Regressions of User Orientation


Age (years) 0.241∗∗∗ 0.268∗∗∗ 0.245∗∗∗ 0.256∗∗∗ 0.240∗∗∗ 0.244∗∗∗(0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

Gender (1 = woman) 2.089∗∗∗ 2.761∗∗∗ 3.037∗∗ 3.485∗∗∗ 1.828 1.889(0.59) (0.60) (1.01) (1.04) (1.17) (1.17)

Ownership sector (1 = public) −3.148∗∗∗ −1.650 −2.751∗ −2.448∗(0.62) (1.04) (1.20) (1.22)

Occupation (ref: teachers) Adm.professionals

−2.175 −1.386(2.01) (2.04)

Science technicians −1.084 −0.293(2.52) (2.55)

Secretaries and other office clerks 1.654 1.567(2.08) (2.09)

Lawyers and legal professionals −7.272 −6.662(3.71) (3.72)



−1.587 −0.565(2.74) (2.78)


1.615 1.103(3.63) (3.64)

Personal care and related workers 4.537∗ 4.283∗(1.91) (1.92)

Personnel managing/HR 1.681 2.093(3.10) (3.11)


2.204 2.208(2.97) (2.98)

Nurses 2.341 3.376(2.33) (2.38)


−2.355 −1.113(1.99) (2.07)


−1.329 −0.372(2.37) (2.41)

Employees in organization −0.930∗(0.44)

Salary (in 10,000s) 0.010−(0.01)

(Intercept) 65.669∗∗∗ 65.521∗∗∗ 64.512∗∗∗ 64.671∗∗∗ 66.912∗∗∗ 69.792∗∗∗(1.34) (1.34) (2.27) (2.27) (2.84) (3.11)

N 3233 3233 1202 1202 1202 1198

Adj. R2 0.024 0.031 0.027 0.028 0.035 0.037

Notes: ∗0.05 ≥ p > 0.01; ∗∗0.01 ≥ p > 0.001; ∗∗∗0.001 ≥ p.Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. Model 5-3 to 5-6 only contain individuals from occupations with members in

both the public and the private sector.

in publicly owned organizations than in privately ownedorganizations, and we argue that this is due to different recip-ients. In publicly owned organizations, pro-social motivationcan be directed to the generalized other, e.g., “the public,”while pro-social motivation in privately owned organizationsis directed to the specific other, e.g., the user. Therefore,employees in private organizations have higher levels of userorientation, and to a higher extent report that it gives themenergy to know that they helped the user, that the job is donewhen the user is satisfied, and that the individual user is moreimportant than formal rules. In contrast, employees in pub-licly owned organizations more frequently report that it isimportant to contribute to the community and that it is a civicduty to deliver public service.

The study has limitations. Most importantly, it is basedon cross-sectional data, and only one country is investigated.The lack of panel data means that we cannot make causalinferences, but it helps a little that we can investigate prefer-ences for future government employment. The fact that onlyDanish employees were investigated limits generalizability,but we hope that other studies will continue to investigate theassociations between PSM, user orientation, and ownershipsector in other settings. Houston’s research (2011) indi-cates that the motivational dynamics may differ betweenScandinavian welfare states and other countries, but the factthat ownership is the only important difference between theinvestigated Danish employees working in private and pub-lic organizations makes Denmark a “most unlikely case”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 6OLS Regressions of Preference for Future Government Employment


(Intercept) 3.874∗∗∗ 3.329∗∗∗ 2.773∗∗∗ 4.069∗∗∗ 3.716∗∗∗ 2.569∗∗∗(8.105) (5.906) (4.509) (7.929) (6.504) (3.567)

Age (years) 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.013 0.009(1.401) (1.014) (0.863) (1.155) (1.557) (1.097)

Gender (1 = woman) 0.273 0.221 0.241 0.297 0.243 0.218(1.389) (1.135) (1.256) (1.526) (1.245) (1.096)

Compassion 0.011∗ 0.007(2.012) (1.167)

Public interest 0.018∗∗∗ 0.016∗∗(3.256) (2.576)

Attraction to policy making −0.001 −0.003(−0.262) (−0.683)

User orientation 0.001 −0.002(0.277) (−0.567)

Ownership sector (1 = public) 3.221∗∗∗ 3.142∗∗∗ 3.085∗∗∗ 3.194∗∗∗ 3.224∗∗∗ 3.154∗∗∗(15.939) (16.095) (15.747) (16.049) (16.2) (15.546)

N 1107 1172 1169 1146 1149 1107

Adj. R-square 0.302 0.307 0.307 0.303 0.305 0.307

Note: The dependent variable goes from 0 (very likely to choose private sector over public in future employment) to10 (very likely to choose public sectorover private sector in future employment). ∗0.05 ≥ p > 0.01; ∗∗0.01 ≥ p > 0.001; ∗∗∗0.001 ≥ p.

Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. The analyses only contain individuals from occupations with members in boththe public and the private sector.

TABLE 7Major Findings

Variation between employees workingin private and public sectors

Associations between motivationalvariable and preference for future

government employment

Compassion No difference: Confirmed No influence: ConfirmedUser orientation Higher in private sector: Confirmed Negative influence: Not confirmedPublic interest Higher in public sector: Confirmed Positive influence: ConfirmedAttraction to policy making Higher in public sector: Not confirmed Positive influence: Not confirmed

for ownership differences in motivation. It could thereforebe argued that the differences in PSM and user orientationwould be bigger when private and public organizations aremore different.

Despite these reservations, the results may have impli-cations for whether contracting out can be expected tojeopardize the future provision of public services. The cen-tral finding is that commitment to the public interest is moreimportant in publicly owned organizations, whereas userorientation is more important in privately owned organiza-tions. This implies that we should maybe consider employeemotivation in the discussion about which services to producein which ownership sector. This question has been discussedand studied widely, with focus on the efficiency of serviceproduction in the different sectors (Boyne, 2002). However,the public service motivation angle adds to this discussion.We argue that if the public interest is a central concern forthe services produced, they may be better placed in the publicsector.

In contrast, if concerns for the individual user are moreimportant, they may be better placed in the private sector,that is, if both motivational types influence performance,and if the type of service can be produced as efficiently inboth ownership sectors. A classic example is teaching—itis a public concern to educate all citizens, but also that theindividual learns as much as possible, and teachers must con-stantly balance their time between individualized help andclass instruction. The key is prioritizing the needs of theindividual users versus the public interest, and the centralmessage in this article is that the motivation of private andpublic employees differs on this central point.

REFERENCES

Andersen, L.B. (2009). What determines the behavior and performance ofhealth professionals? Public service motivation, professional norms oreconomic incentives, International Review of Administrative Sciences,75(1), 79–97.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


Andersen, L.B., Pallesen, T., & Pedersen, L.H. (2011). Does ownership mat-ter? Public service motivation among physiotherapists in the private andpublic sectors in Denmark. Review of Public Personnel Administration,31(1), 10–27.

Boyne, G. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference?,Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.

Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The publicness puzzle in organi-zation theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences betweenpublic and private organizations. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 4(2), 197–224.

Brewer, G.A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, R.L. (2000). Individual concep-tions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60(3),254–264.

Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of differences inwork motivation between public and private sector organizations. PublicAdministration Review, 67(1), 65–74.

Camilleri, E. (2007). Antecedents affecting public service motivation.Personnel Review, 26(3), 356–377.

Christensen, R.K., & Wright, B.E. (2011). The effects of public ser-vice motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contribu-tions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 21(4), 723–743.

Coursey, D.H., & Pandey, S.K. (2007). Public service motivation mea-surement: Testing an abridged version of Perry’s Proposed Scale.Administration & Society, 39(5), 547–568.

Crewson, P.E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evi-dence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Researchand Theory, 7(4), 499–518.

Day, G.S. (1994). The capabilities of customer orientation. Journal ofMarketing, 58(4), 37.

DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S.K. (2006). Gender dimen-sions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66(6),873–887.

Francois, P.K., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2008). Pro-social motivation andthe delivery of social services. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(1),22–54.

Houston, D.J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariatetest. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10(4),713–728.

Houston, D.J. (2011). Public service motivation and preference for gov-ernment employment across nations. Paper presented at the AmericanSociety for Public Administration Annual Conference, March 11–15,Baltimore.

Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service moti-vation: Reflective versus formative specification. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 21(3), 521–546.

Kim, S., & Vandenabeele, W. (2010). A strategy for building public servicemotivation research internationally. Public Administration Review, 70(5),701–709.

Kjeldsen, A.M. (2012). Sector and occupational differences in public ser-vice motivation: A qualitative study. International Journal of PublicAdministration, 35(1), 58–69.

Knoke, D., & Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organiza-tional incentive systems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1,209–254.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005).Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, person-superior fit. PersonnelPsychology, 58(2), 281–342.

Le Grand, J. (2003). Motivation, agency and public policy. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lewis, G.B., & Frank, S.A. (2002). Who wants to work for government?Public Administration Review, 62(4), 395–404.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harperand Row.

O’Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment andpsychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and

internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,71(3), 492–499.

Paarlberg, L.E. (2007). The impact of customer orientation on govern-ment employee performance. International Public Management Journal,10(2), 201–231.

Pandey, S.K., & Stazyk, E.C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of publicservice motivation. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation inpublic management: The call of public service (pp. 101–117). Oxford:Oxford University Press

Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A. (2005). Prosocialbehavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,365–392.

Perry, J.L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessmentof construct validity and reliability. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.

Perry, J.L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181–197.

Perry, J.L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Editors’ introduction. In J.L. Perry& A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call ofpublic service (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J.L., & Wise, L.R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service.Public Administration Review, 50, 367–373.

Quinn, F. (1990). Crowning the customer—How to become customerdriven. Dublin, Ireland: O’Brien Press Ltd.

Rainey, H.G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations(4th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H.G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developingelements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32.

Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R.W., & Levine, C.H. (1976). Comparing public andprivate organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233–244.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40,437–453.

Slater, S.F., & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learningorganization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

Steen, T. (2008). Not a government monopoly: The private, nonprofit andvoluntary sectors. In J.L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivationin public management: The call of public service. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Steijn, B. (2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation.International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 13–27.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008a). Development of a public service motivationmeasurement scale: Corroboration and extending Perry’s measurementinstrument. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 143–167.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008b). Government calling: Public service motivationas an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. PublicAdministration, 86(4), 1089–1105.

Walker, R.M., Brewer, G.A., Boyne, G.A., & Avellanede, C.N. (2011).Market orientation and public service performance: New public manage-ment gone mad? Public Administration Review, 71(5), 707–717.

Walsh, A.H. (1978). The politics and practice of government corporations.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wise, L. (2000). The public service culture. In R.J. Stillman II (Ed.), Publicadministration concepts and cases (pp. 342–353) (7th ed.). Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Wright, B.E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter?,Public Administration Review, 67(1), 54–64.

Wright, B.E., & Christensen, R.K. (2009). Public service motivation:Testing measures, antecedents and consequences, paper presented at the2009 International Public Service Motivation Research Conference, June7–9, Bloomington, Indiana.

Wright, B.E., & Christensen, R.K. (2010). Public service motivation: A testof the job attraction-selection-attrition. International Public ManagementJournal, 13, 155–76.

Wright, B.E., & Pandey, S. (2011). Public organizations and missionvalence: When does mission matter?, Administration and Society, onlinepublication, 43, 1, 22–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


APPENDIX

TABLE A1Factor Analysis of All Items (Pattern Matrix)

Factor

1 2 3 4

1. I associate politics with something positive ATP 0.209 −0.599 0.052 −0.0292. The give-and-take of public policy making doesn’t appeal to me (R) ATP 0.106 0.462 0.054 −0.0953. I do not care much about politicians (R) ATP 0.057 0.841 0.020 0.1104. I contribute to my community CPI 0.476 −0.060 0.130 0.0345. Meaningful public service is very important to me CPI 0.529 0.122 −0.019 −0.1786. I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community

even if it harmed my interests CPI0.659 0.015 −0.077 −0.001

7. I consider public service my civic duty CPI 0.738 −0.045 −0.015 −0.0668. It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress (COM) −0.028 −0.012 0.019 −0.6869. To me, considering the welfare of others is very important COM 0.010 −0.032 −0.019 −0.806

10. I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one anotherCOM

0.183 0.034 0.093 −0.369

11. The individual user is more important than formal rules UO −0.060 0.014 0.355 −0.07412. It gives me energy to know that I helped the user/customer UO 0.171 −0.036 0.605 0.01613. If the user/patient is satisfied the job is done UO −0.043 0.031 0.704 0.053

Notes: R: Reversed. Extraction Method: Principal factor. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. All respondents (not only selected occu-pations) are included in the analysis. ATP: Attraction to policy making. CPI: Commitment to the public interest. COM: Compassion. United States: Userorientation. Cronbach’s alpha for items measuring CPI: 0.72, for items measuring ATP (0.65), for items measuring user orientation (0.52) and for itemsmeasuring compassion (0.69).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE A2Main Variables: Definitions and Statistics

Variable Operational definition Mean Min Max Std. N

User orientation Motivation to help the specific user of public services. Index consisting ofitem 12–14 in Table A1. Rescale to go from 0 to 100.

77.2 0 100 17.3 1202

Commitment to the publicinterest

Motivation to deliver public services to serve society, based on values andduty. Index consisting of item 4–7 in Table A1. Rescale to go from 0 to100.

78.4 0 100 15.1 1224

Compassion Emotionally (empathically) based motivation to do good for others byimproving public services. Index consisting of item 8–11 in Table A1.Rescale to go from 0 to 100.

67.9 18.75 100 16.0 1230

Attraction to policymaking

Motivation to improve decision making concerning public services to helpothers and society. Index consisting of item 1–3 in Table A1. Rescale togo from 0 to 100.

41.4 0 100 19.4 1202

Ownership sector The present ownership status of the organization in which the employeeworks. 1 is public sector, 0 is private

.54 0 1 .498 1243

Preference for futuregovernmentemployment

A scale from 0 to 10 expressing how likely the respondent is to choose thepublic over the private sector if the respondent were to seek new job. 10:very likely, 0: very unlikely

5.82 0 10 3.31 1183

Occupation Categorized work function based on the Danish version of ISCO-88A

Administrativeprofessionals

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: administrativeassociate professionals not elsewhere classified and administrativesecretaries and related associate professionals

.11 0 1 .315 1243

Science technicians Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: physical andengineering science technicians not elsewhere classified, chemical andphysical science technicians and life science technicians

.0 0 1 .237 1243

Secretaries and otherclerks

A compound of respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories:secretaries and other office clerks

.11 0 1 .307 1243

Lawyers and legalprofessionals

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: lawyers andlegal professionals not elsewhere classified

.02 0 1 .143 1243

Protective servicesworkers

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: fire-fighters,prison guards, protective service workers not elsewhere classified; anddoorkeepers, watchpersons, and related workers

.02 0 1 .151 1243

Architects, engineers andrelated professionals

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: architects,engineers, and related professionals; architects, engineers, and relatedprofessionals not elsewhere classified; and decorators and commercialdesigners

.05 0 1 .221 1243

Modern health associateprofessionals (exceptnursing)

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: modern healthassociate professionals (except nursing), dieticians and nutritionists,dental assistants, and pharmaceutical assistants

.02 0 1 .146 1243

Personal care and relatedworkers

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: specialeducation teaching associate professionals, institution-based personalcare workers, and home-based personal care workers

.11 0 1 .323 1243

Personnel managing/HR Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: personnel andcareer professionals and personnel and industrial relations departmentmanagers

.03 0 1 .177 1243

School teachers Respondents in the ISCO-88 category primary education teachingprofessionals

.15 0 1 .359 1243

Material-recording andlibrary clerks

Respondents in one of the following ISCO-88 categories: stock clerks,library and filing clerks, and production clerks

.04 0 1 .187 1243

Nurses Respondents in nursing associate professionals .06 0 1 .243 1243Computer and computing Respondents working primarily with IT functions .15 0 1 .352 1243Business or bureaucracy

prof.Respondents who belong to business professionals not elsewhere

classified..06 0 1 .237 1243

Age Respondent’s age in years 44.2 25 64 10.2 1243Gender Respondent’s gender. 1 is female. 0 is male .6 0 1 .491 1243Salary Respondent’s salary (self-reported) measured in 10,000s 61.74 44.21 1.2 900 1239Employees in organization The number of employees working in the organization (reported by the

employees) in the following categories: 1 (less than 10), 2 (10–24), 3(25–99), 4 (100–499) and 5 (500 or more)

3.40 1.22 1 5 1243

AISCO-88 is ILO’s abbreviation for International Standard Classification of Occupations. For a full overview of ISCO-88 see http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/major.htm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE A3Details on the Occupations Subject to Investigation

Occupation What do they do?

Administrativeprofessionals

Administrative professionals work in many types of public and private organizations. Their tasks usually include:Implementing and supporting the communication, documentation, and internal managerial coordination activities ofan organizational unit; making verbatim reports of proceedings; examining and summarizing legal records anddocuments; maintaining complete records of financial transactions; collecting, processing, and presentingmathematical, statistical, and actuarial data.

Science technicians Science technicians work in research units, in safety units/agencies, and in other organizations which apply methodswithin the field of physical science. Tasks performed by workers in this occupation usually include: undertakingtechnical work in the field of physical science; controlling and operating optical, electronic, and related equipmentand systems; inspecting application of safety standards and procedures relating to structures, equipment, processes,and products.

Secretaries and other clerks Secretaries and keyboard-operating clerks work in all types of public and private organizations. Their tasks usuallyinclude: recording dictated and other matter in shorthand; using word processors; entering various data intoelectronic equipment or in the form of perforations on cards or special tapes; operating bookkeeping and calculatingmachines; editing and transcribing correspondence and documents to conform to office standards; handlingcorrespondence; admitting new members and organizing official meetings and events.

Lawyers and other legalprofessionals

Legal professionals typically work for the prosecuting authority and in law firms, but they also handle legal issues inalmost all types of big public and private organizations, and conduct research on legal problems. Their tasks include:giving clients legal advice; undertaking legal business on clients’ behalf; conducting litigation when necessary;presiding over judicial proceedings; pronouncing judgments in courts of justice; drafting laws and regulations.

Protective services workers Fire-fighters work in fire brigades which are publicly owned in some municipalities and privately owned in others.Prison guards work in public prisons, but other watchpersons work in both public and private organizations (asdoorkeepers and security personnel). Safety and quality inspectors work in government agencies and in industrialand other enterprises. Tasks performed usually include: ensuring that buildings and other structures comply withapproved building plans, grading and zoning laws, and fire regulations; advising on and inspecting fire-preventionsystems; investigating fire sites to determine the cause of fire; inspecting industrial and other enterprises on thegrounds of occupational safety, and safety of production processes, as well as of goods produced, used or sold;ensuring compliance with health and environment protection rules and regulations; ensuring compliance with thequality standards and specifications of manufacturers.

Architects. engineers andrelated professionals

Architects, engineers and related professionals work in public planning and construction agencies and in privateconstruction firms. They apply existing knowledge and conduct research in architecture and engineering as well asin the field of technological and economic efficiency of production processes. Tasks performed usually include:advising on or directing the construction, maintenance and repairs of buildings, towns, traffic, landscape systems,electrical and electronic products and systems, machines, machinery, industrial plant; developing and applyingcommercial-scale chemical processes for the production of various substances and materials developing andapplying commercial-scale methods to extract water, oil, gas, and other minerals from the earth, or metals from theirores, or to develop new materials; surveying land, sea, and other areas and producing graphic, digital, and pictorialrepresentations, studying and advising on technological aspects of particular materials, products and processes andon efficiency of production and work organization.

Modern health associateprof. (except nursing)

Health professionals (except nursing) typically work in privately and publicly owned health organizations such ashospitals and dental clinics. They tend to patients and apply scientific knowledge relating to medicine, dentistry,veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and promotion of health. Tasks performed usually include: advising on or applyingpreventive and curative measures, or promoting health; preparing scientific papers and reports.

Personal care and relatedworkers

Personal care and related workers most often work at private and public nursing homes and in private and publicagencies specialized in delivering home-based personal care to old people. Workers at privately and publicly ownedhomes for handicapped citizens are also included. Tasks typically include washing, dressing, and feeding patients,bed making and other cleaning, and generally assisting with patients’ overall comfort.

Personnel managing/HR This occupation works in all types of big publicly and privately owned organizations. They are typically responsiblefor employee recruitment, training, assessment of talent, and construction of reward systems.

School teachers Teachers work at public and private primary and lower secondary schools, teaching a range of subjects at the primaryand secondary education level. Typical tasks include (a) preparing program of learning and giving instruction inareas such as reading, writing, arithmetic and other subjects, within prescribed or recommended curriculum; (b)preparing, administering and marking tests, projects and assignments to train pupils and to evaluate their progress,and giving remedial instruction if necessary; (c) organizing and supervising pupils’ extra-curricular activities; (d)encouraging personal development of pupils and discussing their progress with parents and head teacher.

Material-recording andlibrary clerks

The category includes employees working with material-recording in private and public organizations with thefollowing designations of occupation: stock clerks, library and filing clerks and production clerks. They typicallywork with database management, library cataloguing, ready reference, and serials and monograph processing.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE A3(Continued)

Occupation What do they do?

Nurses Nursing professionals typically work in privately and publicly owned hospitals and clinics. They apply medicalconcepts and principles relating to nursing of the ill, injured, or disabled. Tasks performed usually include: helpingmedical doctors in the practical application of preventive and curative measures and dealing with emergencies intheir absence; providing professional nursing services, care, and advice for the sick, injured, physically and mentallydisabled, and others in need of such care; and directing auxiliary nursing staff. Supervision of other workers may beincluded.

Computer and computing Computing professionals are employed in all types of large public and private organizations. Tasks performed usuallyinclude: conducting research into the theoretical aspects of and operational methods for the use of computers, suchas computer architecture and design, data structures and databases, algorithms, artificial intelligence, computerlanguages, data communication, and robotics: evaluating, planning, and designing hardware and softwareconfigurations for specific applications; designing, writing, testing, and maintaining computer programs; andpreparing scientific papers and technical reports, documentation, and manuals.

Business or bureaucracyprof.

Business and bureaucracy professionals include chief clerks, account executives, analysts, market researchers, andpublic relations workers. They are engaged in marketing, advertising, public relations, application of rulesconcerning patents, or steps to be taken in setting up and running an organization. Tasks include: a) conductingresearch and determining or advising on existing level of sales for particular products or services, and assessingpotential markets and future trends; (b) planning, advising on, or directing and coordinating production ofadvertising campaigns; (c) studying, advising on, and conducting public relations programs with a view toimproving the public’s knowledge and understanding of the enterprise or establishment in question; (d) givingadvice concerning patents and assisting in preparing applications or examining applications submitted forregistration, and writing reports setting out reasons for or against the granting of a patent; and (e) studying andadvising on financial, legal, organizational, marketing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

15:

05 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

does ownership matter for employee motivation when occupation is controlled for?

Documents