Exploring the Role of SES,Motivation,and Representation Among High SES Social Workers: A Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

This study examines how social workers with high socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds describe their motivations for serving low SES clients, with a focus on how SES background intersects with public service motivation (PSM). Drawing on PSM and the contagion effects—an extension of representative bureaucracy—this research explores whether exposure to colleagues from different SES backgrounds shapes how motivation is articulated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 licensed social workers in the United States with high SES backgrounds. The qualitative findings reveal that participants emphasized professional values, civic responsibility, and moral commitment as key motivators. While some acknowledged learning from colleagues of low SES, contagion effects rarely extended to shaping their direct interactions or decision-making with clients. These findings contribute to the literature by highlighting how high SES public servants understand their motivation to serve marginalized populations, with implications for professional training and the development of equity-oriented public service values.

Introduction

What motivates social workers to serve their communities, especially when their clientele groups do not share similarities in background, experience, or identity? One key explanation comes from public service motivation (PSM), a theory that suggests public servants are driven by an intrinsic commitment to public institutions and community well-being, rather than personal or financial gain (Perry & Wise, 1990). However, motivation alone does not fully explain how service delivery varies across diverse clientele. Another important perspective comes from the theory of representative bureaucracy, which posits that public institutions should reflect the demographics of the populations they serve (Kingsley, 1944), with the demographic composition of agencies shaping service legitimacy and outcomes (Meier, 2023). While traditional representative bureaucracy focuses on whether bureaucrats who share clients’ characteristics actively advocate for them, recent extensions of the theory—known as contagion effects—suggest that the presence of underrepresented colleagues can influence the behaviors and attitudes of non-minority bureaucrats as well (Atkins & Wilkins, 2013; Li, 2021; Meier, 2023; Meier & McCrea, 2024).

Despite extensive research on PSM and representative bureaucracy, little is known about how socioeconomic status (SES) functions as both a motivational driver and a representational identity. This gap is important because SES shapes lived experiences, access to opportunity, and social identity (Lareau, 2015), potentially influencing both why individuals enter public service and how they interact with clients (Evans & Evans, 2019; Holt & Choi, 2022). PSM research has explored rational, norm-based, and affective motives (Perry & Wise, 1990) yet has largely overlooked the role of SES. Likewise, contagion effects literature highlights how the presence of racial- and gender-marginalized coworkers can influence outcomes for underrepresented clients but has seldom examined non-visible identities like SES background.

This omission is particularly notable given that social equity is a core normative goal of both frameworks. Perry and Wise (1990) define PSM as including “activities intended to enhance the well-being of minorities who lack political and economic resources” (p. 369), while Meier (2023) frames representative bureaucracy as “laser-like focused” (p. 15) on achieving equity in bureaucratic outcomes for underserved groups. Together, these frameworks emphasize that public administrators are responsible not only for efficient service delivery but also for advancing equity. Their shared normative commitment offers a conceptual bridge between individual motivation and organizational representation—especially relevant when examining how high SES bureaucrats engage with low SES clients.

Furthermore, recent work in both fields underscores the value of qualitative methods for uncovering mechanisms that shape bureaucrats’ motivations and representative roles. PSM research increasingly highlights the role of socialization and institutional culture (Andersen et al., 2018; Schott et al., 2019), while representative bureaucracy studies examine how bureaucrats enact representation beyond demographic traits (Choi & Robinson, 2024). These approaches are particularly useful for investigating subtle identity dimensions including SES, which influence behavior through interpersonal dynamics, experiential knowledge, and professional norms (Graham & Shier, 2014). Yet despite these advancements, SES remains a neglected construct, calling for more qualitative inquiry into how SES background shapes public servants’ motivations and representational practices.

To address this gap, this study examines social workers from high SES backgrounds (i.e., individuals raised by college-educated parents, with high perceived household income and affluent childhood living conditions) and their motivations for serving low SES clients. The central research question explores how these social workers describe their motivations and experiences in advocating for clients from lower SES groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams with 10 licensed social workers in the United States who met the high SES background criteria. The study aimed to understand how these street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) articulate their motivations to serve low SES clients and whether they perceive any direct or indirect influences from colleagues of differing socioeconomic backgrounds. While not designed to test causal relationships, the research considers whether contagion effects or peer dynamics emerge in participants’ reflections, contributing to a broader inquiry into representational processes and motivational frameworks. Data were analyzed using a deductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), guided by theoretical constructs from PSM and representative bureaucracy theory.

The findings indicate that the high SES background social workers that were interviewed in this study are primarily motivated by professional training, institutional values, and a commitment to public service norms, with only minimal influence from peer interactions—challenging assumptions found in contagion effects literature. Rather than adopting perspectives through workplace exposure to low SES colleagues, participants emphasized norm-based PSM developed through formal education and professional socialization. These results underscore the importance of value-aligned hiring and ethics-based training in cultivating equity-driven service orientations. They also suggest that while team diversity remains crucial, peer influence may be limited without deliberate organizational efforts to build cultural competency and collective responsibility. By highlighting the independent role of institutional socialization in shaping motivation, this study contributes to both PSM and representative bureaucracy literature and affirms the need for human resource strategies that move beyond identity-based representation to strengthen mission-driven public service.

SES and Socioeconomic Background as Foundational Influence

SES and socioeconomic background play critical roles in shaping individual identity, agency, and long-term behavioral patterns. Research in sociology and psychology has consistently demonstrated that early-life socioeconomic conditions influence self-perception, decision-making, and professional trajectories (Carey & Markus, 2017). Individuals from high SES backgrounds tend to develop a strong sense of personal agency, or life strategy, characterized by confidence in their ability to shape their environments and navigate structured pathways such as higher education and professional networks (Belsky et al., 2012). In contrast, those from low SES backgrounds often develop an agency rooted in adaptability to external circumstances, prioritizing resilience and community-based support systems (Kraus & Callaghan, 2016). These divergent developmental trajectories result in distinct approaches to decision-making, problem-solving, and career motivations.

Beyond shaping personal agency, childhood SES has been linked to differences in prosocial behaviors such as altruism, compassion, and civic engagement. Research suggests that individuals from lower SES backgrounds often cultivate prosocial behaviors through direct experiences with hardship, leading to a heightened sense of solidarity with marginalized communities (Saarinen et al., 2021). Conversely, those from higher SES backgrounds, while also demonstrating prosocial tendencies, often do so through structured institutional channels, such as philanthropy, policy advocacy, and professionalized public service (Belsky et al., 1991). These differences suggest that SES not only influences motivations for public service but also the mechanisms through which individuals enact their commitment to social equity, understood as the fair and just treatment of individuals and the equitable distribution of services and benefits to society at large (Guy & McCandless, 2012; Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017).

In bureaucratic settings, the role of SES has been relatively underexplored, despite its significant implications for public service delivery. Traditional frameworks present notable gaps: representative bureaucracy emphasizes demographic congruence between bureaucrats and clientele as a key driver of equitable service outcomes (Meier, 2023) but does not fully account for how SES independently shapes bureaucrats’ motivations and service orientations, while PSM literature highlights intrinsic and institutional drivers of public service commitment yet has not fully integrated SES as a variable influencing these motivations. Given that SES shapes individual worldviews, professional pathways, and approaches to public service through early-life socialization, institutional pathways, and professional identity formation, it warrants greater attention as a foundational factor influencing bureaucratic behavior. By recognizing SES as an independent factor, this study expands the discourse on motivation and bureaucratic representation, offering a more nuanced understanding of how SLBs like social workers develop their commitment to public service. Integrating SES into public administration and personnel management research allows for a more comprehensive approach to understanding motivation, representation, and service effectiveness in bureaucratic settings.

Public Service Motivation

PSM theory posits that individuals possess a distinctive predisposition to respond to motives primarily grounded in public institutions and organizations (Perry & Wise, 1990). This framework conceptualizes PSM as a form of altruism specific to public service, distinguishing it from general prosocial motivation or organizational commitment (Vandenabeele et al., 2014). The theory identifies three fundamental categories of motives: rational motives stemming from utility maximization through policy formation, norm-based motives rooted in desires to serve the public interest, and affective motives based on emotional responses to social contexts (Perry & Wise, 1990). Further theoretical development by Brewer et al. (2000) refined these categories into four distinct conceptions of PSM: Samaritans driven by compassion, Communitarians focused on societal improvement, Patriots motivated by duty, and Humanitarians concerned with broader human welfare. These typologies offer a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the motivational complexities inherent in public service, particularly in professions such as social work that demand both emotional engagement and systemic understanding.

Beyond its conceptual foundations, PSM is strongly associated with prosocial behavior in structured institutional settings. While some scholars equate PSM with altruism (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999), others view it as a broader, multidimensional construct that integrates both self-regarding and other-regarding motives (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2015). Empirical research supports this distinction: PSM, more than altruism, predicts consistent prosocial behaviors in formal contexts such as organizational volunteering (Piatak & Holt, 2020). Institutions reinforce these behaviors by fostering collective purpose and ethical climates that sustain motivation (Esteve et al., 2015). Moreover, individuals with high PSM are more likely to engage in civic and ethical activities such as advocacy, charitable giving, and whistleblowing demonstrating the enduring influence of PSM beyond direct service roles (Brewer & Selden, 1998).

A growing body of research links PSM to social identity factors such as race, SES, and early life experiences (Scott, 2019). For example, Holt and Choi (2022) found that high school students exposed to racially and socioeconomically diverse environments reported stronger PSM-related values, while Evans and Evans (2019) associated adverse childhood experiences with variations in PSM and institutional trust. Similarly, Holt (2018) demonstrated that childhood SES helps predict entry into public and nonprofit careers. Taylor (2010) further observed that PSM is expressed differently across SES groups: higher SES individuals favor formal civic participation, while lower SES individuals engage in informal prosocial acts. Together, these studies suggest that although PSM is an intrinsic motivator across diverse identities and backgrounds, its expression is mediated by access to resources and social context.

PSM Among Street-Level Bureaucrats

Extending this conversation to the frontline, understanding how PSM operates among SLBs offers critical insight into how public values are enacted under conditions of discretion, resource constraints, and emotional labor. SLBs—such as social workers, public health professionals, and educators—act as the frontlines of government, translating public policy into practice through discretionary decisions often made in emotionally demanding and resource-constrained settings (Lipsky, 1980). Within these settings, PSM serves as a key explanatory framework for why individuals persist in their commitment to public service, even in the absence of direct personal or financial reward (Crewson, 1997; Esteve et al., 2015). Defined as an intrinsic, prosocial motivation to serve the public interest and advance societal well-being (Perry & Wise, 1990), PSM among SLBs is consistently associated with resilience, ethical decision-making, and responsiveness to marginalized populations (An et al., 2025; Rauhaus, 2022; Shim et al., 2015).

A growing body of research shows that PSM is not purely innate but shaped by the institutional and organizational environments in which SLBs work. Tu et al. (2024) found that norm-based PSM is reinforced by perceived job control, often supported by workplace structures that promote autonomy. Similarly, Yuan et al. (2022), drawing on self-determination theory, showed that discretion enhances SLBs’ sense of competence and autonomy, thereby strengthening PSM and fostering reform-oriented behavior. Zarychta et al. (2020) added that decentralized governance can cultivate self-sacrificial motivation, particularly when SLBs are recruited through value-aligned organizations including non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Together, these studies highlight how professional socialization, institutional support, and bureaucratic discretion play a central role in shaping and sustaining PSM in practice.

This perspective is especially valuable for understanding how PSM functions when SLBs and clients differ in SES background. PSM research emphasizes that individuals, regardless of social origin, can develop equity-driven motivations through professional training, organizational socialization, and the internalization of civic values and public service norms (An et al., 2025; Wongpreedee & Sudhipongpracha, 2024). However, no studies have directly examined how SES shapes SLBs’ PSM, either as a source of motivation or a barrier to equity-oriented service. This gap is notable, as SES, unlike more visible identities such as race or gender, may shape public service values in ways that are subtler but equally impactful.

Representative Bureaucracy and Contagion Effects

The theory of representative bureaucracy purports that public institutions should reflect the demographics of the populations they serve, a principle fundamental to democratic governance (Kingsley, 1944). Building on the foundational work of Mosher (1968), the theory is typically divided into three forms of representation. Passive representation refers to the extent to which bureaucrats share key identity characteristics (such as race, gender, or SES) with the populations they serve. Active representation occurs when those bureaucrats use their discretion to advocate for the interests of those groups (Selden, 1997). Symbolic representation emphasizes the trust and legitimacy conferred upon institutions when individuals see themselves reflected in government (Pitkin, 1967).

While traditional scholarship has focused on the direct relationship between individual identity and behavior, a recent and increasingly influential extension of representative bureaucracy centers on contagion effects—the idea that the presence of underrepresented bureaucrats can influence the behaviors, attitudes, and decisions of their colleagues who do not share those identities (Meier, 2023; Meier & McCrea, 2024). Rather than emphasizing only the actions of individual bureaucrats, this approach shifts attention to the relational and organizational dynamics that emerge from diverse bureaucratic environments. Contagion effects suggest that representation is not only enacted by those who demographically mirror the client population but also diffuses through teams and institutions, shaping how peers perceive and engage with marginalized groups (Atkins & Wilkins, 2013; Li, 2021; Meier & McCrea, 2024).

The theoretical foundation for contagion effects draws from both contact theory in social psychology and social influence theory in organizational behavior. Contact theory posits that sustained exposure to individuals from different backgrounds can reduce bias, build empathy, and shift attitudes (Amir, 1969). On the other hand, social influence theory holds that people are embedded in social contexts that shape their actions through shared norms, expectations, and informal learning (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Together, these perspectives suggest that representation within bureaucracies is not static or isolated to individuals but instead can spread through interpersonal interaction, norm transmission, and cultural adaptation.

A growing body of research shows that diverse team composition can shape how non-marginalized bureaucrats engage with clients, even without direct demographic matching. In education, male teachers improved outcomes for female students when working with more female colleagues (Gershenson et al., 2023; Meier & Xu, 2023), while White teachers became more supportive of Black female students when paired with African American colleagues (Atkins & Wilkins, 2013). Similar patterns appear in policing: White officers partnered with officers of color adjusted their behavior toward minority drivers (Li, 2021), and diverse teams were less likely to use excessive force due to disrupted loyalty norms (Nicholson-Crotty & Li, 2024). Along these lines, Boyd et al. (2010) demonstrated that male judges are more likely to support sex discrimination claims when serving with female colleagues, suggesting that exposure to underrepresented perspectives, even when traits are not explicitly visible, can shape professional decision-making. Groeneveld and Meier (2022) further argue that status distance within teams fosters social learning and behavioral adaptation. Collectively, these studies highlight the ripple effects of representation: demographic diversity within teams can influence majority-group behavior and improve service delivery, even in the absence of client identity matching.

Most research in public administration focuses on visible identities such as race and gender. Yet interdisciplinary work across sociology, education, psychology, and communication shows that contagion effects can also occur through non-visible traits. Centola and Macy (2007) distinguished between simple and complex contagions, finding that values like empathy and equity diffuse through repeated exposure and dense networks. Grabowicz et al. (2016) similarly found that shared values—reinforced over time—drive behavioral change more effectively than surface-level similarity. In organizational behavior, diverse team composition creates ripple effects: Floman et al. (2024) showed that school leaders’ emotional regulation influences educator well-being via emotional contagion; Bojić (2023) illustrated how linguistic and psychological cues in media shape user behavior; and Scherer and Cho (2003) demonstrated that community risk perception is shaped more by relational proximity than by demographics.

Taken together, this research suggests that contagion involving non-visible traits like SES may operate through shared language, experiences, and repeated interaction rather than visible markers (Bojić, 2023; Floman et al., 2024; Scherer & Cho, 2003). Though less immediately perceptible, SES significantly influences how bureaucrats interpret client needs, policy goals, and professional roles through cultural capital and institutional orientation (Bourdieu, 1986; DiPrete & Soule, 1986; Weeden & Grusky, 2005). Yet SES-based contagion effects remain empirically underexplored. This study addresses that gap by examining whether interactions with low SES colleagues influence the motivations of high SES social workers, thereby extending contagion theory into new terrain.

Social Workers as Street-Level Bureaucrats: Motivation and Representation

Social workers play a critical role in public service delivery by addressing systemic inequities and individual needs. Defined as agents of social change (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014), they operate at the frontline of government-administered or publicly funded programs, exercising discretion that shapes how policies are implemented (Pascoe et al., 2023). Whether employed in public agencies or nonprofits under government contracts, they are embedded in public personnel systems (Miller et al., 2017). As quintessential SLBs (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003), social workers interpret policies and deliver services to vulnerable populations. Their functional role, not simply job title, positions them as public personnel whose decisions directly influence citizen experiences (Evans & Harris, 2004; Riccucci, 2005). Even in nonprofit or hybrid settings, they remain accountable to public mandates and ethical standards (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). In an era of decentralized, contracted governance, understanding how social workers navigate discretion and accountability became increasingly important (Kellough & Nigro, 2006).

PSM and representational identity are key frameworks for understanding how social workers pursue equity, effectiveness, and responsiveness. PSM—an intrinsic desire to serve the public good (Perry & Wise, 1990)—is especially pronounced in social work. Those with strong PSM show high commitment and engagement (Prysmakova, 2021), motivated by both ethical values and the tangible impact of their efforts (Kjeldsen, 2014). Building rapport and trust remains central to effective service, requiring both technical and interpersonal skills to bridge the gap between policy and lived experience. PSM also helps explain how social workers remain committed even when they do not share clients’ backgrounds. Rather than relying on shared identity, those with strong PSM act from ethical principles and a sense of duty to social equity (Bangcheng, 2009). This motivation also helps them navigate emotional labor and client complexity, sustaining long-term commitment (Roh et al., 2016).

At the same time, social workers’ discretionary authority connects them to representative bureaucracy theory. Like other bureaucrats, they interpret and apply policy based on client needs, directly shaping service accessibility and quality (McBeath et al., 2014). Their policy interpretation directly shapes whether services reinforce or mitigate systemic inequities. When social workers share clients’ socioeconomic background, they may bring deeper experiential insight, enabling more effective advocacy and intervention (Merritt, 2019).

Despite their central role, social workers remain underexamined in public administration research. Integrating PSM and representative bureaucracy provides insights into how motivation and identity shape service delivery, influencing outcomes, equity, and public trust (Garrett, 1993). While representative bureaucracy often focuses on police or educators, social workers are equally pivotal, especially amid growing reliance on decentralized service models. Studies show that norm-based motivations drive commitment across both nonprofits and government agencies (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). Thus, this study leverages both frameworks to explore how high SES social workers serving low SES clients experience and enact motivation and representation.

Methodology and Data

PSM and representative bureaucracy research have deepened the understanding of how public servants engage communities and implement policy, yet qualitative work remains limited in capturing lived experiences that shape motivation and representation (Schott et al., 2019; Tao & Wen, 2023). Responding to calls for more exploratory research (Kennedy, 2014; Story et al., 2023), this study employs qualitative methods to examine how social workers from high SES backgrounds describe their motivations to serve and advocate for clients from lower SES groups. While broader SES dynamics are important, the present study is intentionally focused on individuals from high SES backgrounds to explore their specific motivational pathways. The research question is: How do social workers from high SES backgrounds describe their motivations and experiences in advocating for clients from lower SES groups? This exploratory question focuses on how personal background, professional context, and institutional structures shape service and representation.

Participants were recruited in two stages as part of a larger research project examining SES among social workers. First, 60 social workers (30 low SES, 30 high SES) were initially selected based on survey responses and demographic balance. Second, purposeful sampling ensured diversity within each SES category. Participants were interviewed via Microsoft Teams between January and March 2024, with sessions lasting between 45 and 90 minutes. Saturation was achieved with 10 interviews per group, totaling 20 social workers. The interviews analyzed in this paper represent a subset of a broader study; specifically, they are drawn from a larger set of interviews conducted with the same group of high SES social workers. ¹ Importantly, there is established precedent both within and beyond public administration research for using a sample size of 10 participants in qualitative studies. Prior work has demonstrated that this scale can yield rich, analytically robust insights, particularly when interviews are in-depth and thematically focused (see Juliussen et al., 2024; Sabharwal et al., 2017).

Participant demographics and professional contexts reveal a geographically diverse sample of high SES social workers (see Table 1). Interviewees were located in California (2), Michigan (1), New York (1), South Carolina (5), and Washington, D.C. (1), representing urban, suburban, and rural agencies receiving public funds. Most worked in public or nonprofit organizations delivering government-mandated services (e.g., Medicaid-funded child welfare, Housing Choice Voucher Program, “Section 8”), and all operated within public accountability structures (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010). ² High SES classification was based on self-reported indicators of childhood background: parental education, perceived family income, and childhood living conditions (five-point Likert scales; see Appendix Table A1). Participants typically reported at least one college-educated parent, above-average family income, and affluent living conditions—an approach consistent with multidimensional SES conceptualizations (Bertram et al., 2022; Shavers, 2007).

Table 1.

Respondent Characteristics.

Category	Count	%
Type of Agency
Public	3	30
Nonprofit	6	60
Private	1	10
Type of social worker
Case manager	2	20
Supervisor/managerial	4	40
Therapist	2	20
Clinical social worker	2	20
State
California	2	20
Michigan	1	10
New York	1	10
South Carolina	5	50
Washington DC	1	10
Gender
Male	1	10
Female	9	90
Race
White	8	80
African American/Black	1	10
Asian	1	10
SES background
High SES	5	50
High–middle SES	5	50
Educational attainment
Bachelor’s in Social Work	4	40
Master’s in Social Work	6	60

An IRB-approved protocol guided interviews, combining literature review and expert input. Open-ended questions explored personal and professional histories. Childhood SES was confirmed at the start of each interview. When discussing coworkers’ SES, participants relied on informal cues such as shared stories or casual remarks, rather than formal disclosures. These perceptions influenced how they interpreted peer dynamics and workplace influence. To probe contagion effects, participants were asked whether coworkers’ identities affected their client interactions. Sample questions included: “Do you have colleagues from similar SES backgrounds?” and “Do close relationships with coworkers from marginalized backgrounds influence how you view or serve similar clients?” (see full protocol in Appendix Table A2).

Data analysis followed a deductive framework informed by PSM and representative bureaucracy literature (Appendix Table A3). Coding began with theory-derived categories, then incorporated line-by-line open coding to identify emergent themes. Codes were refined and sub-categorized to improve accuracy and were interpreted in relation to key theoretical constructs. All coding was conducted using NVivo 14. This research aligns with qualitative traditions in public administration that explore how identity, motivation, and organizational context shape service delivery (Bishu & Headley, 2020; Yung, 2014). As Andersen et al. (2018) argue, qualitative approaches capture dimensions such as emotional labor and moral reasoning, often missed in surveys. Likewise, qualitative work in representative bureaucracy highlights how public servants perceive their roles and constraints in advocating for equity (Althaus & O’Faircheallaigh, 2022; Headley et al., 2021), insights especially relevant where discretion and frontline judgment are central to policy implementation.

Findings

The qualitative findings suggest that social workers from high SES backgrounds predominantly articulate motivations consistent with PSM, as conceptualized by Perry et al. (2010). The following sections are structured around the core dimensions of PSM to illustrate how these professionals describe their motivations. While respondents emphasized professional training and institutional values over interpersonal dynamics, this does not rule out implicit peer influences. Rather, the findings highlight the self-reported salience of PSM in shaping high SES social workers’ perceptions and practices. ³

Motives Grounded in Public Institutions and Organizations

Perry and Wise (1990, 368) define PSM as “motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations.” All (n = 10) of the interviewed high SES background social workers shared that they would explicitly root their motivation in their professional training and institutional values rather than contagion effects. One social worker stated:

“I remember one of my clients was very sensitive about being open about needing social security programs. So I met them privately, maybe at times even after the rush hours. This wasn’t something that I acquired from simply talking to my colleagues who are from [a] similar social class. It was something that I was trained as a social worker to do, which is part of my job.”

This social worker directly attributes their approach to institutional training rather than colleague interactions, demonstrating motivation grounded in public institutions. By explicitly rejecting the influence of colleagues in favor of professional training, they reveal how their motivation stems from institutional sources rather than interpersonal dynamics. Another social worker added:

“Well, I wouldn’t really put it the way that my coworker is the one who influences me to know what my clients go through simply because they come from similar backgrounds. As a social worker, that’s one of the things [professionalism] we learn, right? Being fit for this kind of job involves understanding diverse backgrounds and professional training.”

This statement highlights how high SES social workers view their motivation as stemming from their professional identity and training rather than contagion effects. The emphasis on “being fit for this kind of job” underscores how professional identity serves as a primary motivator, with coworker influence playing a minimal role in shaping client interactions.

Interest in a Community of People

Rainey and Steinbauer (1999, 20) characterize PSM as motivation oriented toward the “interests of a community of people, a state, a nation.” Slightly over half of the high SES social workers (n = 6) demonstrated that they prioritize broader community interests over individual or peer connections. One case manager explicitly stated:

“My coworkers don’t necessarily influence me because no single background is monolithic. . . I may also be able to relate to the client better than the person that is their shared background. You apply it to everybody.”

This case manager rejected the idea that shared backgrounds between colleagues and clients should determine service delivery, instead emphasizing equitable commitment to all community members. Their motivation reflects a broader orientation to public service that transcends personal similarities or contagion effects. This perspective was echoed by another case manager, who described their professional calling:

“I ultimately chose social welfare because I wanted to find meaningful employment that serves the public. At that time, I had a strong desire to work for people and contribute to building stronger communities.”

While acknowledging practical employment considerations, this case manager highlighted their “meaningful employment that serves the public” as a central motivator. This orientation toward serving others demonstrates how high SES social workers view their professional role as extending beyond individual relationships to encompass broader community service.

Public, Community, and Social Service Orientation

Brewer and Selden (1998, 417) define PSM as motivation oriented toward “public, community, and social service.” The findings from eight social workers showed that high SES social workers demonstrate this service orientation independent of contagion effects. One case worker noted:

“They [coworkers] can also point me in other directions that I may not know existed because, you know, I may not be able to identify them. But they shouldn’t be the ones to determine how I should judge a client or deliver services for the clients.”

The case worker’s motivation stems from their commitment to service rather than from contagion effects, aligning with Brewer and Selden’s (1998) conceptualization of PSM. It reflects how high SES social workers center their responsibility on client needs rather than workplace relationships. This service orientation is further illustrated by a clinical social worker who described their ongoing professional practice:

“I use my social work skills beyond formal requirements because I’m committed to public service values. When I talk with him, I feel like it provides a release because he isn’t getting appropriate mental health treatment, and serving public needs is my core motivation.”

By applying professional skills to address unmet mental health needs, this social worker illustrates Brewer and Selden’s (1998) conceptualization of PSM as oriented toward public service. The emphasis on providing a “release” for someone who is not receiving appropriate care highlights how high SES social workers view their professional responsibility as extending beyond formal boundaries to encompass broader service needs, independent of workplace dynamics or coworker influence.

Values Beyond Self-Interest and Organizational Interest

Vandenabeele (2007, 547) defines PSM as “belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity.” I find from six high SES social workers that broader societal values are prioritized over individual or organizational influences. One supervisor reflected:

“But to say that, you know, I have a full understanding of what it’s like. . . I will never know exactly. I’m not going to be competent in knowing anybody else’s culture. And neither would my colleagues, even if they do come from so-called same identity.”

The supervisor explicitly includes colleagues in this limitation, highlighting how their motivation stems from values that go beyond both self-interest and workplace relationships. This commitment to values beyond self-interest is further illustrated by a clinical social worker who described their personal connection to their work:

“Addressing poverty and inequality motivates me because these are fundamental societal issues. While I may not have experienced poverty personally, my commitment is to the broader public interest in creating a more equitable society.”

While acknowledging their privileged background without direct exposure to poverty, this clinical social worker frames their commitment in terms of broader societal issues of “poverty and inequality” rather than personal interest. This focus on systemic issues illustrates Vandenabeele’s (2007) conceptualization of PSM as concerned with broader political entities rather than individual interests. The emphasis on caring about these issues as societal problems despite the absence of personal experience highlights how high SES social workers view their professional responsibility as grounded in broader societal values rather than self-interest or organizational dynamics.

Although interviewees were not asked to assess their performance, several described discretionary behaviors aligned with client-centered advocacy, such as extending hours, simplifying procedures, and adjusting communication to fit clients’ socioeconomic realities. These accounts reflect an orientation toward equitable service consistent with PSM. While the study does not support causal claims about peer influence or outcomes, it offers a descriptive view of how high SES social workers articulate their motivations when working with low SES clients.

Supplementary Role of Contagion Effects and Theoretical Implications

While peer influence was not a dominant theme across the interviews, this study does not dismiss the potential role of contagion effects altogether. A few interviewees acknowledged that colleagues at times informally broaden their understanding of client needs or introduce new perspectives. For instance, one social worker mentioned that coworkers “can also point me in other directions that I may not know existed,” suggesting that interpersonal interactions may contribute to professional growth in subtler ways. However, these comments were framed as supplementary rather than foundational to the social workers’ motivations.

This paper, therefore, interprets contagion effects as present but peripheral within this sample. Rather than serving as the primary driver of advocacy for low SES clients, peer influence appears to reinforce or complement motivations more explicitly linked to professional identity and institutional values. Future research may examine more closely how such informal learning processes intersect with norm-based PSM, particularly in more diverse or larger workplace settings.

In response to the research question about how social workers from high SES backgrounds describe their motivations and experiences in advocating for clients from different SES backgrounds, the findings reveal two motivational pathways behind social workers’ advocacy for clients from different SES backgrounds. High SES social workers interviewed for this study consistently align with Perry et al.’s (2010) conceptualization of PSM, citing professional values, community commitment, service orientation, and principles beyond self-interest. They explicitly reject contagion effects from low SES coworkers, prioritizing institutional training over peer influence. This professional orientation supports their ability to serve clients across socioeconomic lines through PSM-driven commitment rather than interpersonal dynamics.

Discussion and Conclusion

Understanding what drives individuals to commit to public service is crucial for effective human resource strategies in public organizations. This study offers new insight by examining how social workers from high SES backgrounds develop and sustain their motivation to serve. Through qualitative interviews with 10 participants, the findings challenge assumptions about contagion effects, revealing that these professionals are primarily motivated by institutional socialization and professional values rather than coworker influence.

These findings provide novel qualitative evidence on how PSM operates within bureaucratic environments, particularly among professionals from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. High SES social workers consistently expressed strong intrinsic motivation rooted in institutional training, ethical responsibility, and a commitment to community welfare—reflecting Perry and Wise’s (1990) conceptualization of PSM as shaped by professional socialization rather than personal background or peer influence. Over half of the participants emphasized formal education and structured learning as key sources of motivation, reinforcing the idea that intrinsic drivers remain central to public service commitment, even among those who might be assumed to respond more to extrinsic incentives. While participants prioritized ethical fulfillment over financial rewards, extrinsic motivators such as professional development opportunities can still complement PSM when aligned with organizational missions.

Although prior research suggests that exposure to diverse peers can influence service orientation (e.g., Gershenson et al., 2023; Li, 2021), participants in this study emphasized professional ethics over peer dynamics. This suggests that if peer influence is at work, it may be operating below the level of conscious recognition. These findings point to the limits of self-reported data in capturing subtle influences and highlight the need for future ethnographic or observational research.

These findings offer several actionable insights for public personnel management. First, they emphasize the importance of value-aligned hiring practices. Rather than focusing exclusively on demographic representation, personnel managers may benefit from prioritizing candidates whose motivations align with the mission of serving vulnerable populations, regardless of background. This complements literature on person-organization fit and mission-driven hiring, which highlights that value congruence can enhance retention and performance (Wright & Pandey, 2008). Second, the findings underscore the role of professional training and institutional socialization in shaping equity-driven service orientations. Human resource development efforts such as ethics-based training, mentorship programs, and reflective supervision can help sustain PSM among employees from a range of SES backgrounds. Third, while diversity in team composition remains important, this study suggests that peer influence may not always be explicitly recognized or consciously internalized. Therefore, HR strategies should combine structural diversity initiatives with efforts to build cultural competency and collective responsibility through organizational learning.

While this study offers a theoretically grounded interpretation of how high SES social workers understand their motivation, several limitations should be acknowledged. The findings are based on self-reported perceptions and may not fully capture unconscious or implicit mechanisms such as contagion effects. Although participants did not explicitly attribute their motivations to exposure to colleagues from different SES backgrounds, this does not preclude the possibility that peer dynamics played a subtle role. As such, the findings should be viewed as a counter-narrative rather than a refutation of contagion theory. Future research would benefit from incorporating quantitative methods to test whether the motivational patterns identified here hold across broader samples of high SES social workers and public servants. These approaches can complement qualitative insights and help isolate key drivers of motivation. Observational or longitudinal designs may also clarify how implicit influences shape identity and motivation over time. Additionally, studies examining how service commitment evolves across different socioeconomic groups could clarify the long-term interplay between institutional culture, peer relationships, and equity-oriented service in diverse bureaucratic settings.

In conclusion, this study offers qualitative insight that factors beyond interpersonal exposure to low SES colleagues may shape the PSMs of high SES social workers. The participants in this study primarily attributed their motivations to institutional training, professional ethics, and a strong sense of professional identity. This affirms the continuing relevance of norm-based PSM in shaping public service orientation. Simultaneously, the absence of explicit references to peer influence does not rule out its presence. Informal norms, relational cues, and organizational culture may still shape motivation in ways not consciously recognized. This study contributes a counter-narrative that emphasizes institutional socialization and ethical orientation, while encouraging further research on how motivation to serve is shaped within diverse organizational environments.