Does Context Matter for the Type of Performance-Related Behavior of Public Service Motivated Employees?

• Author: Nina Mari van Loon
• Published date: 01 December 2017
• Date: 01 December 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15591036
• Subject Matter: Articles

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2017, Vol. 37(4) 405 –429

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X15591036

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Does Context Matter for the

Type of Performance-Related

Behavior of Public Service

Motivated Employees?

Nina Mari van Loon1

Abstract

Empirical studies have found a positive relationship between public service motivation

(PSM) and individual performance. However, it is unclear what public service

motivated employees are doing in terms of behavior that makes them perform.

Moreover, it is uncertain whether PSM inspires similar behaviors among employees in

different contexts. Conceptualizing performance as a multidimensional construct, this

study investigates the relationship between PSM and self-reported output, service

outcome, responsiveness, and democratic outcome behaviors. Using structural

equation modeling on survey data from 459 employees in people-changing (service

production, aimed at changing the user) and 461 employees in people-processing

(service regulation, categorizing, and processing users) organizations, the results

show that PSM is related to all performance-related behaviors in the people-changing

group, but neither to output nor responsiveness in the people-processing group.

PSM’s relationship to behavior may thus differ between contexts.

Keywords

motivation, public service motivation, public service performance

Introduction

In recent decades, attention toward explaining why public employees shirk or act in

their own interests has been balanced by studies trying to explain why they do their job

correctly, work hard, and do good for society. Researchers have aimed to provide an

1Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Nina Mari van Loon, Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC

Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Email: N.M.vanLoon@uu.nl

591036ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X15591036Review of Public Personnel Administrationvan Loon

research-article2015

406 Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(4)

alternative perspective to the “budget-maximizing, lazy” public employee by studying

why firefighters, policemen, nurses, policymakers, and other public employees,

despite the sometimes difficult circumstances, go above and beyond the call of duty

and perform well (DiIulio, 1994; Perry & Wise, 1990). One explanation seems to be

rooted in public service motivation (PSM), which drives employees in organizations

or jobs with a public function to perform well (Brewer, 2008; Perry & Wise, 1990).

Empirical research shows that PSM matters for whistle-blowing, ethical conduct, and

performance (Andersen, Heinesen, & Pedersen, 2014; Bellé, 2013; Brewer, 2008;

Brewer & Selden, 1998; Choi, 2004; Taylor & Taylor, 2011).

However, although studies generally show that those with high PSM perform better,

this does not provide full insight into how public service motivated employees behave.

Behavior is seen as a crucial intermediate between attitudes and performance in the

human resource management (HRM) literature but has been underexposed within the

public management literature (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; P. M. Wright & Nishii,

2006). What performance, and performance-related behavior, actually is in public ser-

vice providers is not easily captured: Public service providers have multiple goals and

multiple stakeholders, and what they should do is politically determined (Boyne, 2002;

Brewer, 2006; Brown, Potoski, & Van Slyke, 2006; Moynihan et al., 2011).

This multiplicity of interests makes it impossible to identify a single measure that

accurately represents performance (Brewer, 2006). Boyne (2002) therefore conceptu-

alized the performance of public service providers as multidimensional, consisting of

output, efficiency, service outcomes, responsiveness, and democratic outcomes. If the

desirable performance of public service providers is multidimensional, employees will

have to show behaviors relevant to all those dimensions to perform well. In references

to public employees, scholars have argued that multiple types of performance-related

behavior are expected of them (Jorgensen & Bozeman, 2007; Moynihan et al., 2011).

This study therefore follows Boyne’s (2002) multidimensional view—but applies it to

the individual level.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the relationship between PSM and performance

varies according to context (Ryu, 2014). When focusing on multiple dimensions of

behavior, the institutional context becomes highly relevant because what is asked of

the service providers depends on the service they provide. Liu and Perry (2014) found

that the relationship between PSM and outcomes was mediated by organizational

identification. Several authors have argued that the fit between employee PSM and the

organization is important, and more attention should be paid to the context in which

employee work (Bright, 2007; Ryu, 2014; Wright, 2007).

Regarding PSM, it may be highly influential what the dominant logic is regarding

the task and purpose of the service. Kjeldsen (2014) distinguished between regulatory

and production services and found that this distinction mattered for the relationship

between PSM and job choice. If the primary goal of the service provider is to redistrib-

ute or regulate services, referred to as people-processing, other types of behaviors are

seen as more appropriate than where the main purpose of the service is to produce ser-

vices by changing people (Hasenfeld, 1972, 1983; March & Olsen, 1989). The institu-

tional context, which determines whether this logic is predominantly people-processing