This article presents a systematic literature review synthesis of 5-year research on Behavioral Public Administration (BPA) in the public sector contexts. Based on an analysis of 439 studies, significant antecedents, outcomes, and mediating and moderating mechanisms were identified. The findings revealed that BPA incorporates psychological constructs to comprehend decision-making processes within the public sector. Public Service Motivation emerged as the most frequently examined construct, followed by cognitive biases and nudges that significantly impact policy compliance and ethical behavior. Methodologically, the research was predominantly comprised of case studies and survey experiments. Theoretically, BPA bridges behavioral psychology and institutional theory but lacks sufficient integration of cultural frameworks. Future research should focus on contexts within the Global South, strengthening the association of BPA and public administration frameworks such as administrative burden, street-level bureaucracy, and public value. It should also expand experimental and mixed-method designs to explore the identity-related factors (e.g. gender and ethnicity) in bureaucratic behavior, adjusting to socio-political contexts and regional governance priorities. Culturally sensitive investigations to inform policy application and ensure relevance to diverse institutional settings.
AalderingL.van der MeerT.Van der BrugW. (2018). Mediated leader effects: The impact of newspapers’ portrayal of party leadership on electoral support. International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740696
2.
AarøeL.BaekgaardM.ChristensenJ.MoynihanD. P. (2021). Personality and public administration: Policymaker tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13381
3.
AdamsI. T.MourtgosS. M.MastracciS. H. (2021). High-stakes administrative discretion: What drives body-worn camera activations?Public Administration Review, 81(4), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13339
4.
AhmadA. B.StraatmannT.MuellerK.LiuB. (2021). Employees’ change support in the public sector: A multi-time field study examining the formation of intentions and behaviors. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13275
5.
AkingbolaK.van den BergH. A. (2019). Antecedents, consequences, and context of employee engagement in nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16684910
6.
AlangT.StantonP.RoseM. (2022). Enhancing employee voice and inclusion through inclusive leadership in public sector organizations. Public Personnel Management, 51(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221085583
7.
AncaraniA.ArcidiaconoF.Di MauroC.GiammancoM. D. (2021). Promoting work engagement in public administrations: The role of middle managers’ leadership. Public Management Review, 23(8), 1234–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1763072
8.
BackhausL.VogelR. (2022). Leadership in the public sector: A meta-analysis of styles, outcomes, contexts, and methods. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 986–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13516
9.
BattaglioR. P.BelardinelliP.BelléN.CantarelliP. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
10.
BattaglioR. P.BelleN.CantarelliP.BattaglioR. P.BelleN.Self-P. C. (2022). Self-determination theory goes public: Experimental evidence on the causal relationship between psychological needs and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 24(9), 1411–1428. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1900351
11.
BelleN.CantarelliP. (2021). Nudging public employees through descriptive social norms in healthcare organizations. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13353
12.
BelléN.CantarelliP.BelardinelliP. (2018). Prospect theory goes public: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12960
13.
BenteinK.LapalmeM. È.GuerreroS.Parent-RocheleauX.SimardG. (2022). How can servant leaders foster public employees’ service-oriented behaviors? A multilevel multisource study in Canadian libraries. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13416
14.
BergeD. M.TorsteinsenH. (2022). Corporatization in local government: Promoting cultural differentiation and hybridity?Public Administration, 100(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12737
15.
BertelliA. M.M. RiccucciN. (2022). What is behavioral public administration good for?Public Administration Review, 82(1), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13283
16.
BhanotS. P.LinosE. (2020). Behavioral public administration: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13129
17.
BishuS. G.SabharwalM.ReyesR. (2023). Careers of women public managers: Career needs of women public managers across generations. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13548
18.
BiswalD. (2020). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein London, UK: Penguin 2009, ISBN: 978-0-141-04001-1. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2075
19.
BoinA. (2019). The transboundary crisis: Why we are unprepared and the road ahead. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(1), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12241
20.
BovensM.WilleA. (2021). Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions. Regulation and Governance, 15(3), 856–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12316
21.
BozemanB.FeeneyM. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 719–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304119
22.
BroL. L.JensenU. T. (2020). Does transformational leadership stimulate user orientation? Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration, 98(1), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12612
23.
BrunzelJ.ScheinE. H.ScheinP. A. (2018). Humble leadership: The power of relationships, openness, and trust. Williston, VT, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Gruppe Interaktion Organisation Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie, 51, 253–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-020-00513-1
24.
BundiP.PattynV. (2023). Trust, but verify? Understanding citizen attitudes toward evidence-informed policy making. Public Administration, 101(4), 1227–1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12852
25.
CarriganC.PandeyS. K.Van RyzinG. G. (2020). Pursuing consilience: Using behavioral public administration to connect research on bureaucratic red tape, administrative burden, and regulation. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13143
26.
ChenC.ChenC. A.LiuB.ChenT. (2025). Two sides of the same coin: How does civil servants’ public service motivation affect work-family conflict?Public Management Review, 27, 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2259916
27.
ChenC.MaL.ChenZ.GötzM.DonzallazM.JonasK.BallartX.RipollG.HartleyJ.ManzieS.HartleyJ.ManzieS.PedersenL. H.AndersenL. B.ThomsenN. (2020). Motivated to act and take responsibility: Integrating insights from community psychology in PSM research. International Journal of Public Administration, 11, 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2023.2209826
28.
ChoiH.HongS. (2021). Linking political and bureaucratic representation: Does minority representation on city councils affect the outcomes of street-level service?Public Administration, 99(2), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12696
29.
ChristensenJ.AarøeL.BaekgaardM.HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13134
30.
ColvinR. A.Blount-HillK. L. (2020). Truth and reconciliation as a model for change in response to #MeToo. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 1138–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13207
31.
DaiB.FuD.MengG.LiuB.LiQ.LiuX. (2020). The effects of governmental and individual predictors on COVID-19 protective behaviors in China: A path analysis model. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 797–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13236
32.
De JongS. B.KunzeF.BruchH. (2017). Organisational consequences of asymmetries in task dependence: The moderating role of HR practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12126
33.
DeslatteA. (2020). Positivity and negativity dominance in citizen assessments of intergovernmental sustainability performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa004
34.
DeslatteA.SwannW. L.FeiockR. C. (2021). Performance, satisfaction, or loss aversion? A meso-micro assessment of local commitments to sustainability programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa021
35.
DesmidtS.MeyfroodtK. (2021a). How does public disclosure of performance information affect politicians’ attitudes towards effort allocation? Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 756–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa054
36.
DesmidtS.MeyfroodtK. (2021b). What motivates politicians to use strategic plans as a decision-making tool? Insights from the theory of planned behaviour. Public Management Review, 23(3), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1708438
37.
DingF.LuJ.RiccucciN. M. (2021). How bureaucratic representation affects public organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13361
38.
DoeringH.DowneJ.ElrazH.MartinS. (2021). Organizational identity threats and aspirations in reputation management. Public Management Review, 23(3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679234
39.
DudleyS. E.XieZ. (2020). Designing a choice architecture for regulators. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13112
40.
FernandezS.MadumoO. (2024). Who should we pay more? Exploring the influence of pay for elected officials and bureaucrats on organizational performance in South African local government. Public Administration, 102(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12911
41.
FernandezS.MoldogazievT. (2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12049
42.
FoxA. M.StazykE. C.FengW. (2020). Administrative easing: Rule reduction and medicaid enrollment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13131
43.
FrankeG.SarstedtM. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515
44.
Frisch-AviramN.BeeriI.CohenN. (2020). Entrepreneurship in the policy process: Linking behavior and context through a systematic review of the policy entrepreneurship literature. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13089
45.
Gans-MorseJ.KalginA.KlimenkoA.VorobyevD.YakovlevA. (2022). Public service motivation as a predictor of corruption, dishonesty, and altruism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(2), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab018
46.
García-JuanB.Escrig-TenaA. B.Roca-PuigV. (2019). Empowerment in the public sector: Testing the influence of goal orientation. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018819020
47.
GershonR. R. M.BarocasB.CantonA. N.XianbinLiVlahovD. (2009). Mental, physical, and behavioral outcomes associated with perceived work stress in police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808330015
48.
GeysB.ConnollyS.KassimH.MurdochZ. (2020). Follow the leader? Leader succession and staff attitudes in public sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13189
49.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.JilkeS.OlsenA. L.TummersL. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609
GofenA.LottaG.MarchesinidaCostaM. (2021). Working through the fog of a pandemic: Street-level policy entrepreneurship in times of crises. Public Administration, 99(3), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12745
52.
HapsariD.RiyantoS.EndriE. (2021). The role of transformational leadership in building organizational citizenship: The civil servants of Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(2), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0595
53.
HarrisA. S.Meyer-SahlingJ. H.MikkelsenK. S.SchusterC. (2023). Activating the “big man”: Social status, patronage networks, and pro-social behavior in African bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac009
54.
HassanS.WrightB. E. (2020). The behavioral public administration movement: A critical reflection. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13130
55.
HattkeF.HenselD.KaluczaJ. (2020). Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13116
56.
HeikeD.DowneJ.ElrazH.MartinS. (2021). Organizational identity threats and aspirations in reputation management. Public Management Review, 23(3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679234
57.
HeineF.WitteloostuijnA.Van WangT. M.Van WitteloostuijnA.WangT. M. (2022). Self-sacrifice for the common good under risk and competition: An experimental examination of the impact of public service motivation in a volunteer’s dilemma game. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(1), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab017
58.
HendriksC. M. (2021). The field and study of deliberative democracy in Australia. In LewisJ. M.TiernanA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Australian politics (pp. 473–490). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805465.013.26
59.
HenshallC.JonesL.ArmitageC.TomlinsonL. (2022). Empowering nurses through inclusive leadership to promote research capacity building: A James Lind Alliance priority setting Partnership in Community Nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(9), 2765–2774. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15342
60.
HuangI. Y. F. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 through government initiatives and collaborative governance: The Taiwan experience. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 665–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13239
61.
JensenU. T.BroL. L. (2018). How transformational leadership supports intrinsic motivation and public service motivation: The mediating role of basic need satisfaction. American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017699470
62.
JiaX.ChenJ.MeiL.WuQ. (2018). How leadership matters in organizational innovation: A perspective of openness. Management Decision, 56(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0415
63.
JiangY.AsanteD.ZhangJ.AmpawE. M. (2023). The influence of ambidextrous leadership on the employee innovative behavior: An empirical study based on Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Current Psychology, 42(11), 9452–9465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02233-1
64.
KeiserL. R.MillerS. M. (2020). Does administrative burden influence public support for government programs? Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13133
65.
KimP. S. (2022). A behavioral approach to administrative reform: A case study of promoting proactive administration in South Korea. Public Administration and Policy, 25(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-08-2022-0093
66.
KimS. (2021). Education and public service motivation: A longitudinal study of high school graduates. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13262
67.
KimS. H.KimS. (2022). The role of social norms on public service motivation and prosocial behavior: Moderating effect versus direct effect. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(16), 1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1953072
68.
LeeJ.KimS. (2018). Citizens’ e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: Do individual social capital and e-participation management matter?Public Management Review, 20(6), 873–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1340507
69.
LejeuneC.BeausaertS.RaemdonckI. (2021). The impact on employees’ job performance of exercising self-directed learning within personal development plan practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(5), 1086–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1510848
70.
LiD. (2021). Spillover effects of minority representation on majority bureaucrats’ behavioral change. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1071–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13428
71.
LinosE.RieschN. (2020). Thick red tape and the thin blue line: A field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13115
72.
LinosE.RuffiniK.WilcoxenS. (2022). Reducing burnout and resignations among frontline workers: A field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(3), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab042
73.
LiuB.PerryJ. L. (2016). The psychological mechanisms of public service motivation: A two-wave examination. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14549672
74.
MarioI.IacuzziS.FedeleP.BrusatiL. (2019). Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: A systematic review. Public Management Review, 21(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438499
75.
MeleV.BelardinelliP. (2019). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy046
76.
MergelI. (2018). Open innovation in the public sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge.gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1320044
77.
MendezN.AvellanedaC. N.SongM. M. H.AnS. H.MeierK. J.MousaM.MahmoodM.KleizenB.VerhoestK.WynenJ.HanX.WangW.MulaphongD.Pérez-ChiquésE.RubinE. V.StefurakT.MorganR.JohnsonR. B.GiauqueD., . . . LeisinkP. (2023). Linking performance appraisal and government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(3), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00652-7
78.
Meyer-SahlingJ. H.MikkelsenK. S.SchusterC. (2019). The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy071
79.
MiaoQ.NewmanA.SchwarzG.CooperB. (2018). How leadership and public service motivation enhance innovative behavior. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12839
80.
MikkelsenM. F.PedersenM. J.PetersenN. B. G. (2023). To act or not to act? How client progression affects purposeful performance information use at the frontlines. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac020
81.
MoynihanD. (2018). A great schism approaching? Towards micro and macro public administration. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.11.15.
82.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
83.
NetraS.SørensenP.NejstgaardC. H. (2022). Does public managers’ type of education affect performance in public organizations? A systematic review. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 1004–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13553
84.
NgoyeB.SierraV.YsaT. (2019). Different shades of gray: A priming experimental study on how institutional logics influence organizational actor judgment. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13006
85.
OlsenA. L.HjorthF.HarmonN.BarfortS. (2019). Behavioral dishonesty in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy058
86.
OsborneS. P.LouiseB. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king?Public Administration, 89(4), 1335–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x
87.
OvermanS.SchillemansT. (2022). Toward a public administration theory of felt accountability. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13417
ParkJ. W.KimS. Y. (2025). The role of employee empowerment in promoting perceived behavioural control over whistleblowing: Implications for public organizations. Public Management Review, 27, 1333–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2287494
90.
PeetersR.GofenA.MezaO. (2020). Gaming the system: Responses to dissatisfaction with public services beyond exit and voice. Public Administration, 98(4), 824–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12680
91.
PerryJ. L.HondeghemA.WiseL. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an Agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02196.x
92.
PittarelloA.SchmidtT.SegelA.MayoR. (2023). Prior behavior and wording of norm nudge requests shape compliance and reciprocity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2327
93.
PorumbescuG. A.PiotrowskiS. J.MabillardV. (2021). Performance information, racial bias, and citizen evaluations of government: Evidence from two studies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(3), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa049
94.
PotipiroonW.ZhangY.LiuB.NielsenP. A.BoyeS.HoltenA. L.JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B.MiaoQ.YinH.SchwarzG.HussainM. A.MendezN.AvellanedaC. N.JensenU. T.AndersenL. B.JacobsenC. B.FischerC.CampbellJ. W., . . . Vigoda-GadotE. (2019). Emotionally engaged civil servants: Toward a multilevel theory and multisource analysis in public administration. Public Personnel Management, 53(2), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20986839
95.
PrysmakovaP. (2019). Understanding relationships between public service motivation and involvement in socio-political organizations: Perspectives of organizational field theory. Public Administration, 97(2), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12577
96.
ReshW. G.MarvelJ. D.WenB. (2018). The persistence of prosocial work effort as a function of mission match. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12882
97.
RitzA.SchottC.NitzlC.AlfesK. (2020). Public service motivation and prosocial motivation: Two sides of the same coin?Public Management Review, 22(7), 974–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1740305
98.
SchottC.BouwmanR. (2024). Does public service motivation truly predict dishonesty? Behavioural evidence from the private and public sectors. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(2), 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231197758
99.
ShimD. C.ParkH. H. (2019). Public service motivation in a work group: Role of ethical climate and servant leadership. Public Personnel Management, 48(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018806013
SongM.MeierK. J. (2018). Citizen satisfaction and the Kaleidoscope of government performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(19), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy006
102.
SteenT.SchottC. (2019). Public sector employees in a challenging work environment. Public Administration, 97(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12572
103.
SweetingK. D. (2023). Executive orders: Mandating inclusion in the federal workplace: Insights from federal executive departments’ strategic plans. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 590–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231187542
104.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, Wealth and Happiness: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ethics, 119(1), 308. https://doi.org/10.1086/592313
105.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2019a). Basic concepts why we need nudges how nudges influence example: Saving for retirement opinions nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness basic concepts why we need nudges how nudges influence example: Saving for retirement opinions. Penguin.
106.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2019b). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, and happiness. Yale University Press.
107.
ThomannE.van EngenN.TummersL. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024
108.
TremmelT. (2020). Barriers to entrepreneurship in public enterprises: Boards contributing to inertia. Public Management Review, 23(10), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1775279
109.
TuW.GongT. (2022). Accountability intensity and bureaucrats’ response to conflicting expectations: A survey experiment in China. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1779–1801. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1930123
110.
Van Den BekeromP.Van Der VoetJ.ChristensenJ. (2021). Are citizens more negative about failing service delivery by public than private organizations? Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa027
111.
Van RoekelH.GiurgeL. M.SchottC.TummersL. (2023). Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: Evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 56(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.18
VivierE.De JonghD.ThompsonL. (2021). Public leadership and participation: Understanding the experiences of South African local government officials’ engagement within informal settlements in the Western Cape. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1789–1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1764082
114.
WangH.ChenX.WangH.XieM. (2022). Employee innovative behavior and workplace wellbeing: Leader support for innovation and coworker ostracism as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1014195. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1014195
115.
YoungM. M. (2022). The impact of technological innovation on service delivery: Social media and smartphone integration in a 311 system. Public Management Review, 24(6), 926–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1877794
116.
ZarychtaA.GrillosT.AnderssonK. P. (2020). Public sector governance reform and the motivation of street-level bureaucrats in developing countries. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13132
117.
ZhangC.AdriaanseM. A.PotgieterR.TummersL.de WitJ.BroersenJ.de BruinM.AartsH. (2022). Habit formation of preventive behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of physical distancing and hand washing. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–17. [1588]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13977-1
118.
ZhengY.WuC. H.GrahamL. (2020). Work-to-non-work spillover: The impact of public service motivation and meaningfulness on outcomes in work and personal life domains. Public Management Review, 22(4), 578–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1601242
