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

• Date: 01 September 2017
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026017717241
• Author: Wisanupong Potipiroon,Michael T. Ford
• Subject Matter: Articles

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: wisanupong.p@psu.ac.th

717241PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017717241Public 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