Write at least a one page narrative describing each of the four articles attached to Organizational Motivation.? This will not be like the article assignme

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017717241

Public Personnel Management 2017, Vol. 46(3) 211 –238

© The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091026017717241

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Does Public Service Motivation Always Lead to Organizational Commitment? Examining the Moderating Roles of Intrinsic Motivation and Ethical Leadership

Wisanupong Potipiroon1 and Michael T. Ford2

Abstract Much of the work in public management indicates that public service motivation (PSM) generally leads to higher levels of organizational commitment. We argue that this relationship is more complex than generally assumed. First, drawing from self- determination theory, we propose that intrinsic motivation is conceptually distinct from PSM and that the two variables could interact. Second, drawing from the fit perspective, we further propose that ethical leadership is a contextual variable that will enhance the effect of PSM. A field study of public employees in Thailand provides support for this contingency perspective. We found that intrinsic motivation moderated the effect of PSM, such that the effect was positive only for individuals with high-intrinsic motivation but negative for those with low-intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, our analysis revealed a three-way interaction, which indicated that PSM was most positively related to organizational commitment when accompanied by high-intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership.

Keywords public service motivation, prosocial motivation, intrinsic motivation, ethical leadership, organizational commitment

1Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand 2State University of New York at Albany, USA

Corresponding Author: Wisanupong Potipiroon, Faculty of Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand. Email: [email protected]

717241 PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017717241Public Personnel ManagementPotipiroon and Ford research-article2017

212 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Introduction

Over the past three decades, organizational commitment is one of the most studied phenomena in organizational behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Organizational com- mitment generally refers to a psychological attachment that an employee has to an organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Within the field of public administration, scholars have proposed several motives for why individuals may develop strong emotional attachment to their public sector organizations (e.g., Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). One of these motives is public service motivation (PSM), a particular form of prosocial motivation that reflects “an individual’s orientation to delivering services to people with a purpose to do good for others and society” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008b, p. vii). The primary reasoning governing this assumption is that individuals with a strong internalized desire to do good and benefit the welfare of other people are more likely to join, feel emotionally attached to, and remain in public service organizations that allow them to do good for others and to be useful to society (Crewson, 1997).

Although past studies have provided support that PSM plays a critical role in shap- ing employees’ organizational commitment (e.g., Castaing, 2006; Crewson, 1997; Kim, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Vandenabeele & Ban, 2009) and reducing their turnover intentions (e.g., Bright, 2008; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008), researchers have argued that individuals with high PSM may develop a less favorable view of the organization if the work environments do not satisfy other underlying needs (e.g., Wright & Christensen, 2010). For example, it has been reported that the effect of PSM on intention to stay was stronger when employees felt that their job was useful to society—the so-called PSM fit (Steijn, 2008). In the same vein, Taylor (2008) indicated that PSM failed to predict organizational commitment when employees felt that their job did not provide opportunities that satisfy their prosocial needs. Consistent with this view, Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise (2010) suggested that to advance PSM research, it is necessary for researchers to take an interactionist perspective to investi- gate potential variables that may enhance or suppress the virtuous effects of PSM.

We adopt this perspective to examine when individuals with high PSM are most likely to feel committed to their organization. First, we draw attention to the role of intrinsic motivation, which captures the extent to which people find interest and enjoy- ment in the work that they do such that they would be motivated to exert more efforts without rewards (Amabile, 1993). Although PSM has been conceptualized as a spe- cific form of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Kim, 2006; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991), several researchers have recently questioned whether the two constructs are in fact conceptually distinct (e.g., Bozeman & Su, 2015; Gould- Williams & Esteve, 2015; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2009). Whereas PSM is an enduring “desire” to do good for others, intrinsic motivation captures the extent to which one derives enjoyment from the “work” itself. From the language of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), intrinsically motivated individuals will find “task enjoyment” to be an end in itself, whereas PSM-oriented individuals view “doing good for others” as a desirable end. We thus contend that these two constructs are

Potipiroon and Ford 213

conceptually distinct and that lumping them together would make PSM a “double- barreled” concept. Indeed, it has been indicated that prosocially motivated individuals do not necessarily derive enjoyment from public service because some public service jobs could be inherently boring or even unpleasant (e.g., Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). To this end, we suggest that these motivation-based variables could have meaningful interactive effects.

Second, given our interest in the immediate work contexts surrounding high-PSM individuals, we also propose that the PSM–organizational commitment relationship would depend on the characteristics of their leaders. In particular, we focus on the role of ethical leadership, which pertains to the characteristics of leaders who are both moral persons (e.g., being trustworthy and altruistic) and moral managers (e.g., pro- moting high-ethical standards [public service ethics]; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Our view is based on the person–environment (P-E) fit perspective (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), which indicates that both personal predispositions and the environment could interact to affect individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. Indeed, PSM scholars have suggested that the P-E fit is the missing link that could explain the mixed findings about the relationship between PSM and outcomes (e.g., Bright, 2007; Ryu, 2014; Wright & Pandey, 2008). In par- ticular, we focus on the person–supervisor (P-S) fit (Kristof-Brown, 1996; see also Kroll & Vogel, 2014) to suggest that PSM effects could be enhanced when leaders supply what followers need by aligning their public service values with the mission and ideology of public organizations. Arguably, ethical leaders in the public sector place great emphasis on making an outward, societal impact, showing concern for the common good, and being responsive and accountable to society at large (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Whereas past research has shown that perceptions of value-based leadership such as transformational leadership could interact with PSM to predict job performance (e.g., Bottomley, Mostafa, Gould-Williams, & León-Cázares, 2015; Caillier, 2014; Kroll & Vogel, 2014; Park & Rainey, 2008), we are not aware of any study that sheds light on the moderating role of ethical leadership, which we believe pertains directly to the maintenance of PSM values (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012; Wright, Hassan, & Park, 2016).

Taken together, our current study contributes to the PSM literature in several respects. First, we revisit the conventional wisdom regarding the PSM–organizational commitment relationship by suggesting that the impact of individuals’ desire to make a difference in society would depend on the level of perceived task enjoyment and the extent to which their leaders embrace and promote public service ethics. In so doing, we provide theoretical and empirical justification for the distinctiveness of the PSM and intrinsic motivation constructs and shed light on their potential interactive effect. No such empirical evidence currently exists. Furthermore, we illustrate the virtuous role of ethical leadership, which is an underexplored area of research in the public management literature (e.g., Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010; Wright et al., 2016). The following section paves way for the development of our hypotheses regarding the effects of PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership and their possible syner- gistic interactions.

214 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Theory and Hypotheses

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is defined as “the strength of an individual’s identifica- tion with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604) or “psychological attachment to an organization” (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986, p. 492). This psychological attachment has been shown to be related to goal and value congru- ence, behavioral investments in the organization, and the likelihood to remain in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). For public organizations, higher levels of organi- zational commitment could mean that employees will be more willing to work on the behalf of the organization even when the resources necessary to perform public ser- vice are limited (Crewson, 1997).

Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a three-component model (TCM) to describe multiple motivational bases of organizational commitment, which includes affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Affective commitment refers to the individ- ual’s identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the organiza- tion, which indicates that employees with strong affective commitment will continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. On the contrary, nor- mative commitment captures the individual’s felt obligation to remain in the organiza- tion, whereas continuance commitment reflects one’s perceived costs of leaving the organization and perceptions about other available employment alternatives.

This present study focuses on affective commitment, which is most theoretically relevant to the underlying role of PSM identity. In particular, affective commitment captures one’s internalized desire to follow a course of actions such as putting efforts into one’s work (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) and so does the desire of high-PSM individuals to go above and beyond the call of duties to benefit the welfare of other people (Perry & Wise, 1990). Several meta-analyses indicate that, among the three components, affective commitment is a strongest predictor of task performance, citi- zenship behavior, and attendance (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Furthermore, Solinger, Van Olffen, and Roe (2008) suggested that affective commitment is the only component in the TCM that pertains to the general conceptualization of organizational commitment, whereas normative and continuance commitment refer more to the perceived social and mate- rial costs of leaving.

PSM and Organizational Commitment

Perry et al. (2010) defined PSM as “a particular form of altruism and prosocial motiva- tion that is animated by specific dispositions and values arising from public institu- tions and missions” (p. 682). The original theoretical basis of PSM was based on the notion that individuals are motivated toward public service for specific reasons includ- ing (a) attraction to public policy making, (b) commitment to the public interest, (c) compassion toward others, and (d) self-sacrifice (Perry, 1996). Our present study

Potipiroon and Ford 215

focuses on the last three dimensions, which correspond with the recent conceptual definitions of PSM (Wright, Christensen, & Pandey, 2013). These conceptualizations have moved away from “multiple motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368) toward a broader empha- sis on “a general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people” (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999, p. 23).

In their seminal article, Perry and Wise (1990) proposed that individuals with high PSM are more likely to work in the government because of the opportunities to engage in meaningful public service and because they find this type of work to be rewarding. This assumption is grounded in the P-E fit perspective, which refers to “the compati- bility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their character- istics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281). Congruence between individuals and organizations can be achieved in two important ways: (a) supplemen- tary fit or (b) complementary fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Supplementary fit is achieved when individuals and organizations possess similar values or goals, whereas complementary fit is achieved when individuals’ unmet needs are satisfied by the organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Thus, PSM effects on attraction and reten- tion could be a function of both the degree to which individuals and organizations share public service values (i.e., person–organization [P-O] fit; Wright & Christensen, 2010) and the extent to which the organizations satisfy their salient needs, desires, or preferences—a needs–supplies fit (N-S fit; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Edwards, 2008; Kristof-Brown, 1996). This view has been echoed and supported by a plethora of PSM studies (Castaing, 2006; Kim, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Vandenabeele & Ban, 2009). Thus, we would expect that individuals with high PSM will be more likely than individuals low in PSM to have their needs met by public service organizations. This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: PSM is positively related to organizational commitment.

Boundary Conditions of PSM Effects

Although there is a tendency to view PSM as automatically increasing public employ- ees’ commitment to public organizations, scholars have argued that employees in the public sector will not necessarily find their work intrinsically gratifying, even if they are high in PSM (e.g., Bright, 2008; Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008; Steijn, 2008; Wright & Christensen, 2010). Notably, Wright and Christensen (2010) reported that lawyers who joined public organizations because of their interest in social services and helping others were not necessarily more likely to remain in the organization. These authors suggested that the failure to find a direct relationship between PSM and retention may be the result of characteristics of the specific job or the organization. For this reason, Wright and Christensen argued that it is more appropriate to ask when and under what conditions PSM will affect employee intentions to remain in the organization.

216 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

To date, few studies have investigated possible boundary conditions of the PSM– organizational commitment relationship (see Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2008, for excep- tions). Christensen and Wright (2011) suggested that

in order to understand the potential effects of PSM, we must consider (rather than take for granted) the degree to which the organization actually shares the individual’s public service values and offers jobs that are likely to provide opportunities for the employee to act on or to satisfy these values. (p. 739)

In addition, it should be noted that the strength of association between PSM and orga- nizational commitment tends to vary somewhat across studies. For example, Taylor (2008) indicated that PSM correlated .10 with organizational commitment, whereas Park and Rainey (2007) and Castaing (2006) reported correlations of .24 and .36, respectively. From a statistical standpoint, this suggests that moderators of the PSM– organizational commitment relationship may exist. We discuss below the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership.

The Role of Intrinsic Motivation

Whereas intrinsic motivation has been conceptualized in several ways, our study adopts a task-based definition, which emphasizes the importance of job characteristics (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Oldham & Hackman, 1981). In particular, Amabile (1993) pro- posed that individuals are intrinsically motivated when they find enjoyment, interest, or personal challenge in their work. Based on the job characteristic model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), jobs can be made more intrinsically motivating by increasing levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feed- back. This perspective suggests that a variation in a person’s intrinsic motivation is partly contingent upon the nature of the job.

Although it is generally assumed that PSM is a form of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991) and that government jobs can offer interesting opportunities for individuals to engage in meaningful public service (Frank & Lewis, 2004), several scholars have questioned whether the two constructs are conceptually and empirically distinct (e.g., Bozeman & Su, 2015; Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2009). That is, these authors ask if it is possible for people to be high in PSM but low in intrinsic motivation, or low in PSM but high in intrinsic motivation.

To make a case that intrinsic motivation could interact with PSM, we draw from the existing literature to theorize that intrinsic motivation differs conceptually from PSM. According to Grant (2008), intrinsic motivation refers to “the desire to expend efforts based on interest in and enjoyment of the work itself” (p. 49), whereas prosocial moti- vation, of which PSM is generally considered to be a form (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008a; Perry et al., 2010), refers to “the desire to expend effort to benefit other peo- ple.” In particular, intrinsic motivation is hedonic in nature (i.e., people expend efforts for pleasure and enjoyment), whereas prosocial motivation is eudaimonic (i.e., people expend efforts for meaning and purpose).

Potipiroon and Ford 217

Citing a number of studies on motivation, Grant (2008a) offered theoretical ratio- nale for why intrinsic motivation is distinct from prosocial motivation. First, from the perspective of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000), individuals’ motivation can be distinguished in terms of a continuum ranging from controlled (i.e., extrinsic) motivation to purely autonomous (i.e., self-determined) motivation. Controlled motivation originates from factors external to the self such as rewards and punishments (external regulation), internal pressures such as to maintain or enhance one’s self worth, or to avoid guilt or shame (introjected regulation), and values that are regarded as personally important (identified regulation), or fully endorsed and assimilated into the self (integrated regu- lation). In contrast, intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation, which occurs when a person experiences a task or an activity as truly enjoyable and satisfying such that external rewards are not needed. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are thus fully volitional and genuinely endorsed by the self. This fine-grained approach to understanding human motivation suggests that PSM could be regarded as an identi- fied or integrated motivation, which exemplifies a situation in which institutionalized or organizational values (e.g., making a difference in society) are perceived as person- ally significant or have been internalized into one’s public service identity.

Second, in terms of goal-directedness, intrinsic motivation is process-focused— engaging in an interesting task is like an end in itself. In contrast, prosocial motivation is outcome-focused whereby work serves as a means toward achieving other outcomes such as helping others. Third, intrinsic motivation is present-focused, concerning the experience of performing a particular task, whereas prosocial motivation is future- focused, concerned with the achievement of meaningful outcomes. Indeed, Bozeman and Su (2015) indicated that the concept of PSM could be linked with at least three desirable outcomes associated with the organization: the chances to advance the goals of public organizations, the chances to make a difference in society via public organi- zations, and identification with the mission of public organization. To the extent that PSM is viewed as a form of prosocial motivation (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008a; Perry et al., 2010), we thus contend that PSM could be differentiated from intrinsic motiva- tion, which is a purer form of autonomous motivation pertaining to the inherent psy- chological satisfaction of working.

We argue further that to the extent that PSM is measured cross-sectionally, it could be regarded as an individual difference variable that is relatively stable over time (Stazyk & Davis, 2015). Notably, Vogel and Kroll (2016) confirmed that PSM among public employees in Germany is stable over a period of 16 years, emphasizing that PSM can be regarded as an enduring trait. From the language of set-point theory, this suggests that although a person’s motivation can fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, peo- ple may actually be predisposed to certain levels of PSM. On the contrary, intrinsic motivation is generally viewed as a form of motivation that is driven by situational factors related to job characteristics (Amabile, 1993; Grant, 2008). Thus, PSM and intrinsic motivation do not necessarily covary as generally assumed. To illustrate this point, a person may have an enduring desire to make a positive impact on the lives of others, yet he or she may find little intrinsic reward in the work because he or she lacks the opportunities to make a positive impact on the lives of others (Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2008; van Loon, Kjeldsen, Andersen, Vandenabeele, & Leisink, 2016; Wright &

218 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Christensen, 2010) or because some of the work in the public sector is inherently bor- ing or unpleasant (Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). For example, a social worker might find public service to be a personally rewarding and important goal but may find the tasks of case work to be unpleasant. In fact, it has also been shown that job tenure can amplify the negative effects of certain aspects of the work environment (e.g., job boredom) in the public sector, such that it impedes one’s commitment to the job from generalizing to the organizational level (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). This suggests that employees may lower commitment to their public organizations when their jobs fail to satisfy their individual motivations as expected (Buchanan, 1974, 1975).

Based on these arguments, we anticipate that when intrinsic motivation is high, those with high PSM will likely feel more autonomous in their work roles, become more emotionally attached to the organization, and enjoy serving on its behalf rather than feeling obligated to remain. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic motivation moderates the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment such that when intrinsic motivation is high, the rela- tionship will be positive, but when intrinsic motivation is low, the relationship will be weak or nonsignificant.

The Role of Ethical Leadership

Leaders are a crucial source of social influence and organizational attitudes in the workplace. According to Shamir (1991), the primary function of leaders is “the cre- ation of shared meanings through their own actions as role models and their use of language, symbols and rituals” (p. 420). In this present study, we focus on the role of ethical leadership, which has been defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforce- ment, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). By definition, ethical leaders are both moral persons and moral managers: A moral person is characterized by a strong character of honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity, whereas a moral manager serves as a role model and promotes ethical conduct at work (Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000). Thus, ethical leaders are not only honest and trustworthy decision mak- ers who uphold moral principles and integrity even in the face of significant external pressure, but they also promote ethical behavior among their followers by communi- cating ethical standards and expectations, providing ethical guidance, and holding fol- lowers accountable for ethical and unethical conduct (Treviño et al., 2000).

Over the past decade, accumulating research has indicated that ethical leadership is related to various important outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational com- mitment, willingness to put in extra effort on the job, task performance, and citizen- ship behavior (see Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, and Prussia

Potipiroon and Ford 219

(2013) indicated that because ethical leaders are altruistic, honest, and trustworthy and care for the well-being of others (i.e., moral persons), they can influence followers’ attitudes by way of fostering a positive and high-quality interpersonal relationship. Alternatively, Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, and Chonko (2009) indicated that ethical leaders serve as role models who exemplify ethical behavior and promote shared work norms and perceptions among followers (i.e., a moral manager), which in turn leads to positive work attitudes.

Although the concept of ethical leadership can be applied to any type of organiza- tions, it could be argued that public organizations would require a different style of ethi- cal leadership than private organizations. Stazyk and Davis (2015) in particular indicated that public managers embrace public service ideals that are governed by three sets of institutional values, including equal treatment and equity, responsiveness and representation, and the protection of individual rights. This outward-oriented and soci- etal focus of ethical leaders in the public sector could be attributed to the high PSM level inherent among public sector employees, the nature of tasks and missions of pub- lic organizations, as well as the influence of external stakeholders on the organization (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Notably, Wright et al. (2016) reported that public manag- ers whose desire is to serve the public and strive for social equity are more likely to be perceived by their subordinates as exhibiting qualities of ethical leadership.

Based on the P-E fit perspective (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), we suggest that the characteristics of ethical leaders who embody the purpose and values of public organiza- tion and of their constituents will match the underlying needs of individuals with high PSM. Whereas past research in the P-E fit literature has focused on the perceived match of personality traits (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002) and goal congruence (Witt, 1998) between supervisors and subordinates, Kroll and Vogel (2014) aptly pointed out that it is not sufficient if leaders and followers are to share altruistic motives. In particular, ethical leaders can also “supply” what followers “need” by providing them with the opportuni- ties to act on their PSM values (e.g., public interest, compassion, self-sacrifice). Because employees may view their supervisor as a salient representative of the values that consti- tute the institutional environment of their organizations, actions of ethical leaders could serve to remind high-PSM employees that public service is meaningful and useful to society, that their personal interests are less important than promoting social equity, and that standing up for the rights of others is important even if it requires personal sacrifice. In other words, we believe that ethical leaders could complement the needs of high-PSM individuals by aligning their values and goals with those of the organization. As has been noted by several researchers, ethical leaders stress public service values and purpose in decision making and clarify to their followers how their tasks and efforts will contribute to the overall achievement of other socially responsible goals (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010).

To the extent that leaders embody important organizational values, we believe that the role of ethical leadership in t

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.