What Motivates Different Groups of Public Employees Working for Dutch Municipalities? Combining Autonomous and Controlled Types of Motivation
| Author | Ulrike Weske,Carina Schott |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16671981 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2016
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2018, Vol. 38(4) 415 –430
What Motivates Different
© The Author(s) 2016
Article reuse guidelines:
Groups of Public Employees
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16671981
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X16671981
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Working for Dutch
Municipalities? Combining
Autonomous and Controlled
Types of Motivation
Ulrike Weske1 and Carina Schott2,3
Abstract
To this day, the question what motivates public sector employees is central in public
administration research. This exploratory study aims to delve into this question, arguing
that different types of motives coexist and that different groups of individuals might be
motivated by different motivational profiles. We use cluster analysis among public servants
(N = 475) working at two municipalities in the Netherlands to explore these notions. Our
findings show that different clusters of employees with different motivation profiles are
indeed present in the data. In addition, they provide some indications about who the
individuals in the clusters are in terms of demographic characteristics. These findings
help, among other things, to explain the mixed findings of previous studies investigating
sectional differences between public and private employees’ work motivation, and to
identify specific human research activities tailored at individuals’ reward preferences.
Keywords
work motivation, self-determination theory, mixed motives, clusters
Introduction
The question how public managers can motivate employees of public organizations
remains very important and frequently discussed (Ritz, Brewer, & Neumann, 2016)
1Utrecht University, The Netherlands
2University of Bern, Switzerland
3Leiden University, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Ulrike Weske, School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, Utrecht 3511 ZC, The
Netherlands.
Email: u.weske@uu.nl
416
Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(4)
because motivation plays a crucial role in work-related behavior (Pinder, 2014). In
contemporary public administration literature, different perspectives on public ser-
vants’ motivations can be identified. Proponents of rational and public choice theories
argue that individuals are self-interested and rational utility maximizes (Kelly, 1998).
As a counterweight, a specific form of autonomous motivation has been introduced:
public service motivation (PSM). PSM reflects public servants desire to engage in
“meaningful public service” (Rainey, 1982, p. 288).
Interestingly, empirical research on work motivation in public administration litera-
ture primarily investigates the assumption that public sector employees are more
intrinsically and less extrinsically motivated than individuals working in the private
sector (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2006). The
majority of studies support the assumption about motivational differences between
public and private employees (e.g., Bullock, Stritch, & Rainey, 2015; Houston, 2000;
Karl & Sutton, 1998; Lyons et al., 2006). However, there are also some studies that did
not find significant differences (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995). Buelens
and Van den Broeck (2007) argue that these conflicting results may be explained by
confounding variables such as such as age, job content, gender, or hierarchical level.
We agree that including these variables in the analysis investigating employees’
motivation can be an important step toward explaining mixed findings from previous
studies. However, we also argue that the mixed findings support the idea, which has
been a central aspect of the motivation literature for some time, that employees might
be driven by several motives simultaneously: intrinsic motives and certain types of
extrinsic motives. We base this on Le Grand’s (2003) argument that people are neither
pure knaves nor pure knights. Put differently, individuals might be motivated by differ-
ent motives at the same time.
In addition, on the basis of Causal Orientation Theory (COT), we argue that it is
essential to be aware of the fact that individuals working within the same environment
can have different motives. Some might feel strongly extrinsically motivated by the
working environment, while others feel more intrinsically motivated. According to
COT, there are substantial differences in individuals’ interpretations of external events.
In other words, different people seem to respond differently to the same events (Deci
& Ryan, 1985). This suggests that even individuals working in the exact same working
environment will perceive this environment differently, depending on their “causality
orientation.”
The idea that different groups with varying motivational profiles exist can also be
found in the work of Brewer, Selden, and Facer II (2000) on the concept of PSM. Even
though scholars do not fully understand yet how PSM relates to others types of moti-
vations, they agree that PSM reflects an autonomous or intrinsic rather than controlled
or extrinsic type of motivation (Jacobsen, Hvitved, & Andersen, 2014; Schott & Pronk,
2014). Using Q-methodology, Brewer et al. (2000) were able to identify different pro-
files of PSM.
The present study aims to delve into the question what motivates public servants,
while assuming that different types of motives coexist and arguing that different
groups of individuals might be motivated by different motivational profiles. To
Weske and Schott
417
operationalize different types of intrinsic and extrinsic motives, we use Ryan and
Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory (SDT). This means that SDT is not used in a
traditional way as a theory to explain how external circumstances stimulate or hamper
the internalization of extrinsic motives. Rather, it is used as a means that enables us to
differentiate between different types of motivation. To simultaneously investigate the
possibility of mixed motives and different motivational profiles within and between
groups, we use cluster analysis. Cluster analysis is an exploratory statistical technique
to group elements—subjects and variables—into a set of clusters of similar elements.
By investigating different motivational profiles, we contribute to the theoretical
debate on work motivation in the public sector, which is according to Rainey (2009)—
who refers to Locke and Latham (2004), and Steel and König (2006)—still “in a dis-
orderly state” (p. 292). Next to this, the current study is of practical relevance. Deeper
understanding of motivational profiles of employees is useful to identify specific
human research activities tailored at individuals’ reward preferences. They possibly
help public sector managers to satisfy the various motivations of their employees
simultaneously.
Theoretical Framework
This section provides a theoretical answer to the question what drives public servants’
behavior? Which types of motives are important to people in general and individuals
working in the public sector in particular? The section begins with an introduction to
SDT as a theory that helps operationalize different types of motivation ranging from
controlled (extrinsic) to autonomous (intrinsic). After that, we elaborate on the argu-
ment that individuals can be motivated by coexisting motives. The section ends with a
theoretical discussion on the basis of causality orientations theory (COT) that different
motives can not only coexist, but that it is also possible that there are different groups
of individuals who are motivated by varying combinations of autonomous and con-
trolled motivation.
SDT
Early motivation theories such as Herzberg’s (1966) two factor theory suggest that
motivational styles are a dichotomy: They are either intrinsic or extrinsic. In contrast,
SDT—a psychological motivation theory introduced by Ryan and Deci (2000)—
approaches motivation as less “black-and-white”: It views motivation as a continuum
ranging from controlled (extrinsic) to autonomous (stemming from the person itself),
depending on the degree of internalization of external pressures, which depends on the
satisfaction of three basic needs (need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness).
Autonomous motivation involves acting with a sense of volition and having the expe-
rience of choice. Controlled motivation, however, involves acting with a sense of pres-
sure, a sense of having to engage in actions (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Within these categories, five types of motivation are situated. Intrinsic motivation,
which results from people’s interest in the activity itself, is prototypically autonomous
418
Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(4)
or self-determined. The most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, external regula-
tion, represents behavioral engagement on the basis of external pressures and demands
or trying to attain a contingent reward. The weakest form of internalization is intro-
jected regulation. This regulation has been taken in by the person, but has not been
accepted as his or her own and is therefore controlled. The first more autonomous form
of extrinsic motivation is identified regulation, where people identify with the value of
a behavior for their own self-selected goals. Here, the behavior is more congruent with
their own personal goals and identities. Integrated regulation, the fullest type of...
To continue reading
Request your trial