The positive impact of public service motivation on several individual work outcomes of public sector employees has been documented. Recent research into the ‘dark side’ of such an individual trait, however, has led some scholars to suggest that organizational conditions such as procedural constraints could affect one’s motivation, thus leading to the resignation of other-oriented employees. This study explores the relationships between one of the dimensions of public service motivation – namely, self-sacrifice – procedural constraints and organizational commitment by expanding the job demands–resources model of organizational commitment to different institutional settings. The study employs a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative (structural equation modelling) and qualitative (focus groups and in-depth interviews) data from three industries in Italy (health, local public administration and non-profit organizations). Our findings show that self-sacrifice positively moderates the negative relationship between procedural constraints and organizational commitment. The findings also highlight some of the undesirable effects of self-sacrifice that organizations have to deal with.
Points for practitioners
Selflessly motivated employees tend to be more sensitive to burdensome procedures, and are hence likely to experience tougher effects of such conditions on their commitment. Given the evidence of the public sector being a highly bureaucratic working context, the sources and remedies for this issue deserve attention from both public administration scholars and practitioners. The findings of the study support the development of practices aimed at warding selflessly motivated employees from the risk of entering a loss cycle of psychological impairment.
Andrews R and MostafaAMS (2017)
Organizational goal ambiguity and senior public managers’ engagement: Does organizational social capital make a difference?International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(2): 377–395.
2.
BakkerAB (2015)
A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review75(5): 723–732.
3.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2014) Job demands–resources theory. In: CooperCL (ed.) Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide.
Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4.
BakkerABDemeroutiESchaufeliWB (2004)
Using the job demands–resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management43(1): 83–104.
5.
BattaglioRPJ (2014) Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
6.
BattaglioRPJHallJL (2018)
Trinity is still my name: Renewed appreciation for triangulation and methodological diversity in public administration. Public Administration Review78(6): 825–827.
7.
BorstRT (2018)
Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance.Public Personnel Management47(3): 287–313.
8.
BorstRTKruyenPMLakoCJ (2019)
Exploring the job demands–resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a psychological perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(3): 372–397.
9.
BozemanB (1993) A theory of government ‘red tape’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory3(3): 273–304.
10.
BozemanBSuX (2015)
Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review75(5): 700–710.
11.
BrewerGA (2019) Public service motivation: Overcoming major obstacles to research progress. In: Massey A (ed.) A Research Agenda for Public Administration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
12.
CastaingS (2006)
The effects of psychological contract fulfilment and public service motivation on organizational commitment in the French civil service. Public Policy and Administration21(1): 84–98.
13.
CookeDKBrantKKWoodsJM (2019)
The role of public service motivation in employee work engagement: A test of the job demands–resources model. International Journal of Public Administration42(9): 765–775.
14.
CrewsonPE (1997)
Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory7(4): 499–518.
15.
DawsonSMandersonLTalloVL (1993) A Manual for the Use of Focus Groups.
Boston, MA:
International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC).
16.
DeHart-DavisLPandeySK (2005)
Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(1): 133–148.
17.
DeHart-DavisLDavisRSMohrZ (2015)
Green tape and job satisfaction: Can organizational rules make employees happy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(3): 849–876.
18.
EichhornBR (2014) Common Method Variance Techniques. Cleveland State University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management.
Cleveland, OH:
SAS Institute Inc.
19.
FeeneyMK (2012)
Organizational red tape: A measurement experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(3): 427–444.
20.
GarverMSMentzerJT (1999)
Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics20(1): 33--57.
21.
GarziRCappelloSFazziG,et al. (2018) Benessere, sicurezza e motivazione nelle organizzazioni.
Milano:
FrancoAngeli.
22.
GiacomelliG (2019)
The role of hybrid professionals in the public sector: A review and research synthesis. Public Management Review. Epub ahead of print 1 August 2019. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1642952.
23.
GiauqueDAnderfuhren-Biget S and VaroneF (2013)
Stress perception in public organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration33(1): 58–83.
24.
GouletLRFrankML (2002)
Organizational commitment across three sectors: Public, non-profit, and for-profit. Public Personnel Management31(2): 201–210.
25.
GrantAM (2013) Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success.
New York:
Penguin.
26.
HombergF (2015)
A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction research. Public Administration Review2(1): 384–398.
27.
IacobucciD (2010)
Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology20(1): 90–98.
28.
JakobsenMJensenR (2015)
Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal18(1): 3–30.
29.
JexSMBachrachDGAdamsGA,et al. (2003)
The impact of situational constraints, role stressors, and commitment on employee altruism.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology8(3): 171–180.
30.
KaufmannWFeeneyMK (2012)
Objective formalization, perceived formalization and perceived red tape: Sorting out concepts. Public Management Review14(8): 1195–1214.
31.
KaufmannWTummersL (2017)
The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction. Public Management Review19(9): 1311–1327.
32.
KimSVandenabeeleW (2010)
A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review70(5): 701–709.
33.
KjeldsenAMJacobsenCB (2012)
Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23(4): 899–926.
34.
Kristof-BrownALZimmermanRDJohnsonEC (2005)
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology58(2): 281–342.
35.
LavignaB (2015)
Commentary: Public service motivation and employee engagement. Public Administration Review75(5): 732–733.
36.
LittleTDBovairdJA andWidamanKF (2006)
On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling13(4): 497–519.
37.
LooR (2002)
A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology17(1): 68–75.
38.
MeleVBelardinelliP (2018)
Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting,sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29(2): 334–347.
39.
MoynihanD andPandeySK (2007)
The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review67(1): 40–53.
40.
MoynihanDHerdP andHarveyH (2014)
Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(1): 43–69.
41.
NeumannO (2019)
‘Giving something back to society’: A study exploring the role of reciprocity norms in public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(2): 159–184.
42.
NutiSVainieriMAmatP,et al. (2016) Indagine di clima interno 2016. Aziende sanitarie Regione Umbria.
Pisa.
43.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016) Engaging Public Employees for a High-performing Civil Service.
Paris:
OECD Publishing.
44.
OlsenJP (2006)
Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(1): 1–24.
45.
PandeySKScottPG (2002)
Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory12(4): 553–580.
46.
PerryJL (1996)
Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory6(1): 5–22.
47.
PerryJLHondeghemA (2008) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press on Demand.
48.
PerryJLWiseLR (1990)
The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367–373.
49.
QuratulainSKhanAK (2015)
Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation. Review of Public Personnel Administration35(4): 307–332.
50.
RaimondoENewcomerKE (2017)
Mixed-methods inquiry in public administration: The interaction of theory, methodology, and praxis. Review of Public Personnel Administration37(2): 183–201.
51.
RitzABrewerGA andNeumannO (2016)
Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review76(3): 414--426.
52.
RitzASchottCNitzlC,et al. (2020)
Public service motivation and prosocial motivation: two sides of the same coin?Public Management Review 22(7): 974–998.
53.
SchottCNeumannOBaertschiM,et al. (2019)
Public service motivation, prosocial motivation and altruism: Towards disentanglement and conceptual clarity. International Journal of Public Administration 42(14): 1200–1211.
54.
ScottPGPandeySK (2005)
Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration25(2): 155–180.
55.
ShimDCParkHHEomTH (2017)
Street-level bureaucrats’ turnover intention: Does public service motivation matter?International Review of Administrative Sciences83(3): 563–582.
56.
SteijnBvan der VoetJ (2019)
Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide. Public Administration97(1): 64–80.
57.
VandenabeeleW (2007)
Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation. Public Management Review9(4): 545–556.
58.
VandenabeeleW (2009)
The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: More robust evidence of the PSM–performance relationship. International Review of Administrative Sciences75(1): 11–34.
59.
VandenabeeleWRitzANeumannO (2018) Public service motivation: State of the art and conceptual cleanup. In: OngaroEVan ThielS (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe.
London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 261–278.
60.
Van LoonNMLeisinkPVandenabeeleW (2013)
Talking the talk of public service motivation: How public organization logics matter for employees’ expressions of PSM. International Journal of Public Administration36(14): 1007–1019.
61.
Van LoonNMVandenabeeleWLeisinkP (2015)
On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management35(5): 349–356.
62.
Van LoonNMKjeldsenAMAndersenLB,et al. (2016a)
Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(2): 139–166.
63.
Van LoonNMLeisinkPLMKniesE,et al. (2016b)
Red tape: Developing and validating a new job-centered measure. Public Administration Review76(4): 662–673.
64.
WilliamsLJGavinMBWilliamsML (1996)
Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology81(1): 88–101.
65.
WilsonJQ (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
New York:
Basic Books.
66.
WrightBEPandeySK (2010)
Public organizations and mission valence: When does mission matter?Administration & Society43(1): 22–44.
67.
WrightBEChristensenRKIsettKR (2013)
Motivated to adapt? The role of public service motivation as employees face organizational change. Public Administration Review73(5): 738–747.
68.
YangKZhangYHolzerM (2008) Dealing with multiple paradigms in public administration research. In: YangKMillerGJ (eds) Handbook of Research in Public Administration.
New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis, pp. 25–44.
69.
YousafMZafarSAbi EllahiA (2014)
Do public service motivation, red tape and resigned work satisfaction triangulate together?International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management63(7): 923–945.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
