Emotionally Engaged Civil Servants: Toward a Multilevel Theory and Multisource Analysis in Public Administration

• Author: Eran Vigoda-Gadot,Zehavit Levitats
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18820938
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18820938

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2020, Vol. 40(3) 426 –446

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18820938

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Emotionally Engaged

Civil Servants: Toward

a Multilevel Theory and

Multisource Analysis in

Public Administration

Zehavit Levitats1 and Eran Vigoda-Gadot1

Abstract

Excellent public services build on excellent civil servants who are both emotionally

intelligent and engaged in their work. This article proposes a conceptual framework

for a better understanding of the relationship between public employees and their

complex workplaces. We focus on the engagement of civil servants, the role of

managers’ and employees’ emotional intelligence, and on employees’ public service

motivation (PSM) to provide better services to citizens. We develop three major

propositions: (a) the positive effect of employees’ emotional intelligence on their

engagement, (b) the moderating effect of managers’ emotional intelligence on the

relationship between their employees’ emotional intelligence and engagement, and (c)

the moderating effect of employees’ PSM on the relationship between public servants’

emotional intelligence and their engagement. Our conceptual framework may set the

stage for future research on civil servants’ engagement and emotional intelligence and

their aggregate impact on the quality of government actions and services.

Keywords

engagement, emotional intelligence, public service motivation, multilevel, theory

Introduction

The last two decades have established engagement as an important construct for both

employee productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli,

Taris, & Bakker, 2006) and positive organizational performance (Harter, Schmidt, &

1University of Haifa, Israel

Corresponding Author:

Eran Vigoda-Gadot, Division of Public Administration & Policy, University of Haifa, Aba Hushi rd., Mount

Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel.

Email: eranv@poli.haifa.ac.il

820938ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X18820938Review of Public Personnel AdministrationLevitats and Vigoda-Gadot

research-article2019

Levitats and Vigoda-Gadot 427

Hayes, 2002; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). The issue of

engagement has also been identified as of special importance to the public sector, due

to its impact on the public’s satisfaction with the services provided (Harter et al.,

2002). As Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, and Schohat, (2013) previously noted:

The responsibility of the public sector is to promote public policy with a sense of

“mission” toward the state and its citizens. This unique sense of purpose calls for engaged

public sector employees, who serve rather than simply do the job. (p. 522-523)

The existing public administration literature on employees’ engagement is growing

in work examining the construct’s antecedents (e.g., Jin & McDonald, 2016; Lu &

Guy, 2014) and its implications for the outcomes of employees and their organizations

(e.g., Marrelli, 2011). Such studies have yielded important theoretical and practical

contributions, using a conceptualization and an operationalization of engagement as is

commonly used in the general management literature. However, the research on

engagement has been exposed to criticism for two reasons. First, numerous definitions

of employee engagement exist and there is a lack of consensus regarding the name,

meaning, and distinctiveness of employee engagement among scholars and practitio-

ners (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012). A

second related issue is that there is a proliferation of instruments developed to measure

employee engagement, and there is no consensus on how engagement should be mea-

sured nor on the validity of existing measures (Saks & Gruman, 2014). In addition to

these two ongoing concerns, a question remains whether civil servants’ engagement

has the same meaning and content as engagement in the private sector. Taking a public

administration perspective, it is our responsibility to frame theoretical constructs in the

context of the public sector, by focusing on the norms and ethos of civil servants

(Golden, 2000). Although there are situations where classic work-related constructs

and models explain and even predict behavior successfully, these classic models do

not necessarily suit the motivations, attitudes, and behavior of those in the public

sector.

A clear demonstration of this idea is the concept of public service motivation (PSM),

which was originally coined and validated by Perry and Wise (1990) as distinct from

the more general construct of work motivation. As proponents of public-service moti-

vation (e.g., Frederickson & Hart, 1985; Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990)

argue, individuals are drawn to careers in public service primarily by a unique set of

altruistic motives not found among private sector employees (Houston, 2000; Perry &

Wise, 1990). It may similarly be proposed that public sector employees exhibit a unique

form of work engagement due to the sector’s unique characteristics. It has been previ-

ously argued (e.g., DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Mohanty & Mishra, 1998; Zeffane, 1994)

that fundamental differences exist between the public and private sectors (e.g., bureau-

cratization and market forces), implicating the general orientation of the workplace in

various ways (Scott & Falcone, 1998). For example, legal and political constraints are

placed on government rather than private organizations, leading to perceptions of lower

job satisfaction and lower job control in the public sector (Scott & Falcone, 1998).