Unit I Org Ther

see attachment

Accurate detail

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Unit I Org Ther
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Unit I Article Critique

Instructions

Your task is to offer a detailed critique of a peer-reviewed article that you locate in the CSU Online Library. The article must be related to one of the historic approaches to organizational behavior discussed in Chapter 1 of the course textbook (e.g., scientific management, humanistic, positive organizational scholarship).

In your critique, address the following points:

· Identify the main points and arguments of the author(s).

· Support your opinion of the article with course-related terminology.

· Assess how the article relates to your experience or current job in the public or nonprofit sector.

· Evaluate how the points or arguments of the author or authors can be applied to the public sector.

Your focus of this assignment is to collect your thoughts and opinions on the topic and relate them in an intelligent, critical fashion. This is represented by the second and third bullet above.

Your critique must be at least two pages in length. Adhere to APA Style when constructing this assignment, including in-text citations and references for all sources that are used. Please note that no abstract is needed.

To help you in locating peer-reviewed articles, view the  

Peer-Reviewed Articles presentation

 to view a presentation from the CSU Success Center

Public Personnel Management
2016, Vol. 45(4) 405 –424

© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026016676093

ppm.sagepub.com

Article

Is Public Service Motivation
a Better Explanation of
Nonprofit Career Preferences
Than Government Career
Preferences?

Leonard Bright1

Abstract
Public service motivation (PSM) is a multifaceted theory that explains, among other
things, the career preferences of individuals. Some have suggested that PSM is
not inherently government specific and thus is also a meaningful characteristic of
individuals who are employed in the nonprofit sector. This study sought to add to
this body of research by exploring the relationship that PSM has to nonprofit and
government career preferences, while controlling for the influences of age, gender,
minority status, and work experience. The findings of this study demonstrated that
individuals with high levels of PSM preferred nonprofit careers over government
careers. However, the gender of the respondents was found to be the most important
predictor of career preferences when compared with PSM. The implications of these
findings to the field of public administration and management are discussed.

Keywords
public management, motivation theory, public administration, workplace attitudes
and behaviors

Introduction

Public service motivation (PSM) is a multifaceted theory that explains, among other
things, the career preferences of individuals. Originally, it was theorized that PSM
drew individuals to government employment because of the inherent opportunities to

1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:
Leonard Bright, George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 4220
TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Email: lbright@tamu.edu

676093PPMXXX10.1177/0091026016676093Public Personnel ManagementBright
research-article2016

mailto:lbright@tamu.edu

406 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

serve the public interest and community goals (Rainey, 1982). Today, some have sug-
gested that PSM is not inherently government specific (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008)
and thus is also a meaningful characteristic of individuals who are employed in the
nonprofit sector. At the very least, nonprofit organizations have become major actors
in the delivery of public services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Rhodes, 1994; Salamon,
1995). According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there are over 1.5
million nonprofit organizations in operation in the United States. Most are public char-
ities that are involved in a variety of policy domains and represent nearly 10% of the
total wages given to employees.

Given the size and impact of the nonprofit sector, it makes sense that attention is
focused on understanding the forces that drive individuals into this employment sector,
especially in terms of PSM. There is evidence that the relationship between PSM and
nonprofit careers may be stronger than some may realize or acknowledge. Recent stud-
ies have found that not only is PSM high among nonprofit employees (Miller-Stevens,
Taylor, & Morris, 2015; Taylor, 2010; Word & Carpenter, 2013), it may also be a better
predictor of preferences for careers in the nonprofit sector than those found in local,
state, and federal levels of government (Bright & Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn,
2012; Rose, 2012). However, given the limited number of studies that comparatively
explore the topic, more research is needed to help confirm the validity of these trends.
Also, many studies on this topic are based on undergraduate students who are unique in
terms of their maturity and age. These characteristics may make them more susceptible
to negative images of government and thus inherently less interested in government
employment. Investigating this question using a recent national survey of graduate stu-
dents in public administration programs will help disentangle the socializing effect of
organizations, as well as help broaden the generalizability of the findings.

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether PSM is a significantly better pre-
dictor of nonprofit career preferences when compared with government career prefer-
ences, while considering the influence of other important explanations. This will provide
a test of whether a significant relationship exists between PSM and career preferences in
this national survey sample, as well a clearer understanding of the strength of this rela-
tionship relative to other meaningful variables. This purpose will be accomplished in
several stages. First, the article will provide a brief review of the field of PSM research
and the theoretical underpinning that explains why a relationship should exist between
PSM and nonprofit career preferences. Second, the methodology that was used to collect
the data for this study will be presented. Finally, the findings of this study and their
implications for the field of public administration will be discussed.

PSM

Why do individuals choose government work? This has been a central question among
PSM scholars. Some suggested that individuals mainly choose government employ-
ment because of a desire for job security (Buchanan, 1975) and other pragmatic con-
cerns (Gabris & Simo, 1995). However, many scholars differed with this assessment
and suggest that individuals who choose government employment do so out of a desire

Bright 407

to serve their community and a predisposition to highly value intrinsic opportunities
(Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz, Massey, & Brown, 1998; Rainey, 1982).

The motive that attracts individuals to public service has been called public service
motivation. PSM has been described in many ways such as an altruistic need to serve
the public interest (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999), and as values that concern the interest
of a larger political entity that motivate individuals to act (Vandenabeele, 2007).
However, Bozeman and Su (2015) suggested that failing to distinguish PSM from
other concepts such as altruism and service motivation will be a “conceptual stum-
bling block” that will ultimately limit its empirical impact. Nonetheless, altruism is a
defining characteristic of PSM. For instance, one of the most widely accepted defini-
tions of PSM was offered by Perry and Wise (1990), who defined it as an individual’s
predisposition to respond to motives uniquely grounded in government institutions
that is driven by rational, normative, and affective motives. The rational motives rep-
resent desires to use public service to support one’s own private interest. The norm-
based motives relates to a sense of service and duty to government, and society. The
affective motives capture the importance or conviction an individual may hold about a
given cause. Hence, a major contribution of PSM theory is the acknowledgment that
individuals can be attracted to public service for a variety of reasons, albeit altruistic,
affective, and even self-centered.

Similarly, Perry (1996) made a significant methodological contribution to the field
by developing the first multivariate measurement scale that test PSM apart from other
concepts, such as satisfaction and work preferences. In recent years, much attention
has focused on improving the generalizability, parsimony, and internal consistency of
Perry’s (1996) scale while preserving the integrity of Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoreti-
cal contribution (Kim, 2009a, 2009b; Kim et al., 2013). However, as Kim et al. (2013)
noted, these improvements are likely to progress incrementally.

Nonetheless, the theoretical and methodological refinements that have been made
with regard to PSM have facilitated an exponential increase of research on the con-
cept, especially from the standpoint of its relationship to the attitudes and behaviors of
individuals. Basically, the field of research has found meaningful relationships
between PSM and individuals’ work perceptions and preferences (Bright, 2005, 2009;
Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), satisfaction and commitment (Gould-Williams, Mostafa,
& Bottomley, 2015; Homberg, McCarthy, & Tabvuma, 2015; Kim, 2012; Naff &
Crum, 1999), job performance (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Andersen, Heinesen, &
Pedersen, 2014; Bright, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999; Ritz, 2009), charity and volun-
teerism (Clerkin, Paynter, & Taylor, 2009; Ertas, 2014; Houston, 2006), and job and
organizational fit (Bright, 2007, 2008, 2013; Christensen & Wright, 2011; Gould-
Williams et al., 2015; Kim, 2012; Liu, Tang, & Yang, 2015; Quratulain & Khan, 2015).

PSM and Career Preferences

So, to what extent does PSM predict career choices? Perry and Wise (1990) originally
hypothesized that the greater an individual’s level of PSM, the more likely he or she is
to seek employment in public organizations. There is evidence that PSM is related to

408 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

an attraction to government careers (Carpenter, Doverspike, & Miguel, 2012; Ko &
Jun, 2015; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Liu, Hui, Hu, Yang, & Yu, 2011; Ritz & Waldner,
2011; Vandenabeele, 2008; Winter & Thaler, 2016). It has been shown that as the level
of PSM rises within individuals, their attraction to government organizations also
rises. However, most of the existing research on this topic do not comparably explore
the relationship that PSM has to both government and nonprofit career choices. When
comparative analyses are conducted, many studies focus on the relationship between
government and business career choices. As a result, it is unclear as to whether govern-
ment occupations are the primary goal of individuals with high levels of PSM, when
compared with careers in the nonprofit sector.

Exploring the connections between PSM and nonprofit career choices will move
the field forward. As a matter of fact, calls to broaden the application of PSM beyond
the context of government have been given for quite some time (Mann, 2006; Perry,
2000). If this is the case, it is important to address how the concept of PSM can be
applied to preferences for nonprofit careers. There are at least two answers. First, both
government and nonprofit sectors are engaged in what is called public service. These
are occupations that tend to deemphasize profit generation and emphasize service to
others. The characteristics of public service work are attractive to individuals with
high levels of PSM. Second, the motivational tendencies of government and nonprofit
employees are discussed in altruistic terms (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Perry & Wise,
1990). As previously discussed, PSM is an altruistic concept applied to the public sec-
tor. While altruism is not the only motivator,1 existing research suggest that meaning-
ful opportunities to help others and contribute to the needs of the community are
highly motivating to nonprofit employees and volunteers (Amos, Holmes, & Allred,
2015; Benz, 2005; Gidron, 1983, 1985; Lammers, 1991; Park & Word, 2012). Given
the connection that PSM has to the nonprofit sector, it would be useful to compara-
tively explore the relative strength of this relationship.

PSM, Nonprofit, and Government Comparisons

There are at least three related perspectives that vary in terms of their support of the
assertion that government organizations are not the only sector, or even the primary
sector that attracts individuals with high levels of PSM. The first perspective suggests
that PSM is not inherently government-centered. For example, while Perry and Wise
(1990) originally asserted an inherent link between PSM and government organiza-
tions, Perry and Hondeghem (2008) later revised this statement by suggesting that
PSM is not government sector–specific, but relates to motives of serving the public
good more generally. Christensen and Wright (2011) offered some support for this
proposition. Using a sample of first-year law students, these scholars found that while
PSM does enhance the attractiveness of work that is altruistic in nature, it was not a
meaningful predictor of the sector of these work opportunities. Hence, this perspective
suggests that meaningful public service opportunities are present in all sectors of
employment. As a result, individuals with high levels of PSM can be attracted to
careers in government, business, or private sector.

Bright 409

The second perspective suggests that nonprofit and government employees are
similar in motivational orientations and values (Miller-Stevens et al., 2015; Taylor,
2010; Word & Carpenter, 2013). For example, Word and Carpenter (2013) found that
Perry’s (1996) PSM scale was a good representation of the attitudes of nonprofit
employees, leading them to suggest that PSM was a predictor of their behaviors.
Similarly, Miller-Stevens et al. (2015) found a high degree of similarity between the
values of nonprofit and local government managers, even though there were differ-
ences in terms of their emphasis on altruism. In this case, nonprofit managers ranked
altruism higher in importance to their organizations than did public managers.
Moreover, this perspective suggests that there are no inherent or widespread differ-
ences between government and nonprofit employees on the basis of PSM. The oppor-
tunities for public service are more equally distributed between nonprofit and
government sectors. As a result, individuals with high levels of PSM would be attracted
to nonprofit and public organizations equally.

The third perspective is that nonprofit organizations have environmental and struc-
tural characteristics that facilitate the availability of a unique set of intrinsic opportuni-
ties that are inherently more appealing to individuals with high levels of PSM than the
kinds of work opportunities available in government organizations (Hansmann, 1980;
Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Mann, 2006; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). One of the unique fea-
tures of many nonprofit organizations is the salience of their public service missions
(Benz, 2005; Brown & Yoshioka, 2003; Rose-Ackerman, 1996), which is believed to
offset their relatively low salary levels2 (Preston, 1989; Serra, Serneels, & Barr, 2011).
In addition, several studies have found that nonprofit employees reported having sig-
nificantly greater access to attractive job conditions such as meaningful work, auton-
omy, discretion, flexibility, and family-friendly policies than those reported by
government employees (Lee & Wilkins, 2011; LeRoux & Feeney, 2013; Mann, 2006;
Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). Even more recently, research suggest that when compared
with nonprofit career options, PSM is not a predictor of government careers (Bright &
Graham, 2015; Rose, 2012) and/or has a very limited relationship (Clerkin &
Coggburn, 2012). Moreover, this perspective suggests that while PSM may not be
government sector–specific, it is instead nonprofit sector–specific. This is based on the
viewpoint that the most attractive public service opportunities to individuals with high
levels of PSM are more likely found in the nonprofit sector. If this is the case, PSM
would be more closely related to preferences for nonprofit careers, when compared
with preferences for the government or private-sector careers.

Demographics and Career Preferences

The central question this study seeks to address is whether individuals with high levels
of PSM are significantly more attracted to nonprofit careers when compared with gov-
ernment careers. To gain a clearer picture of this relationship, it is important to con-
sider the impact of other competing explanations on career preferences such as
demographics. For instance, there are studies that have investigated the relationship
between gender and career preferences. While a small body of research demonstrated

410 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

that females were more likely to choose and/or work in government (Blank, 1985;
Lewis & Frank, 2002; Liu et al., 2011), a larger body of research found that females
were significantly less interested in government employment than their male counter-
parts (Bright & Graham, 2015), but are more likely to work for nonprofit organizations
(Bright & Graham, 2015; Doverspike, Qin, Magee, Snell, & Vaiana, 2011; LeRoux &
Feeney, 2013; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Rose, 2012; Themudo, 2009). The attraction
that females have to nonprofit organizations is largely attributed to prosocial and altru-
istic motives, as well as the availability of work–life balance opportunities (Mirvis &
Hackett, 1983; Themudo, 2009).

Second, there are studies that have investigated the relationship between age and
career preferences. Although there are many ways to conceptualize age differences
(Bright, 2010), it is often conceptualized as generational differences (Lancaster &
Stillman, 2002), which asserts that individuals collectively experience defining life
events that uniquely shape their ideals and career preferences. For example, some
studies suggest that millennials are more interested in monetary rewards, have unreal-
istic high salary requirements, and are more interested in balancing their work–life
responsibilities than previous generational cohorts (McGinnis-Johnson & Ng, 2016;
Ng & Gossett, 2013; Partnership for Public Service, 2012). However, most studies fail
to find a strong relationship between age and career preferences (Holland, 1959;
Kjeldsen, 2012; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Tschirhart, Reed, Freeman, & Anker, 2008).
Only a very few studies have found that younger individuals preferred nonprofit orga-
nizations (Lewis & Frank, 2002; Ng & Gossett, 2013).

Third, there are studies that have investigated the relationship between work expe-
rience and career preferences. These studies found that work experience in the public
sector and/or private sector was strongly related to career preferences (Bright &
Graham, 2015; Henderson & Chetkovich, 2014; Light, 1999; Tschirhart et al., 2008).
The longer an individual worked in a particular employment sector, the more likely he
or she will prefer that sector. There are two potential explanations of this relationship.
On one hand, it has been suggested that these relationships are driven by a sense of
competence and the realities of the work environment (Tschirhart et al., 2008). Years
of experiences in a particular sector enhances one’s sense of competency and under-
standing of the realities of that sector, which positively enhances preferences to remain
in that sector. On the other hand, this relationship could be a function of sunken costs.
The longer individuals work in a given sector, the greater the investment that will be
lost if a different career option is chosen.

Finally, existing research have explored the relationship between minority status
and career preferences. In the United States, the public sector is traditionally viewed
as being more progressive than other sectors when addressing discrimination in its
hiring practices. The importance of being representative of the citizens who are being
served is a foundational principle in the field of public administration (Kingsley,
1944). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that minorities make up
34% of the federal government (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2015), which
is on par with national demographic statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). While
these practices suggest that a strong relationship is present between minority status

Bright 411

and government career preferences, the empirical findings are very mixed. For
instance, a few studies have found no relationship between minority status and career
preferences (Bright & Graham, 2015; Rose, 2012), whereas others have confirmed
this relationship, though in contradictory directions (Blank, 1985; Doverspike et al.,
2011; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Ng & Gossett, 2013). For example,
Ng and Gossett (2013), using a sample of Canadian students,3 found that racial minori-
ties were significantly less likely to prefer government occupations, whereas Lewis
and Frank (2002) and Doverspike et al. (2011) found that minorities were more likely
to prefer government occupations.

Method

This study will explore the relationship that PSM has to career preferences, while
considering the influences of age, gender, minority status, and years of work experi-
ence. The data for this study were drawn from a national survey of students in public
affairs master’s degree programs in the United States, conducted in 2013. One hundred
universities and schools of public affairs were randomly selected from a list obtained
from the Network of Schools of Public Policy Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA)
and were asked to participate in the study. Twenty-six schools agreed to participate
that were located in various regions in the United States. Each school was asked to
forward a link to an online survey to its public affairs and administration graduate
students.4 The survey instructed the students that their participation in the study was
completely voluntary, their individual answers would be kept confidential, they could
refuse to answer any question that made them uncomfortable, and they could end the
survey at any time with no penalty or loss. Five hundred sixty-two students responded
to the survey. Approximately 35% of the students who were enrolled in the 26 degree
programs participated in this study.5

The central study variables were career preferences, PSM, age, gender, and years of
work experience in nonprofit and government sectors. All of these variables were col-
lected from the online survey. For example, the career preferences of the respondents
were collected using the following survey question: “Which of the following sectors
of employment do you most prefer to work after graduation?” The response categories
included “government sector (federal, state, or local),” “nonprofit sector,” and “busi-
ness sector.” Preferences for government employment were coded as 0, whereas pref-
erences for nonprofit were coded as 1. Business employment preferences were
excluded from the sample, given the focus of this study. PSM6 was measured and
collected using a Kim (2009a) 12-item revision of Perry’s (1996) 24-item PSM scale.
Kim’s (2009a) scale measures four dimensions of PSM: attraction of public policy
making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice. In this
study, Kim’s (2009a) scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .83.
See Table 1 for a description of the variables and coding strategies.

The analysis of this study was conducted in two stages. First, the data were examined
for multicollinearity problems using variance inflation factor (VIF) and bivariate corre-
lation scores. The VIF scores were obtained for each independent variable in successive

412

T
a
b

le
1

.
D

es
cr

ip
ti

o
n

o
f
St

ud
y

V
ar

ia
bl

es
.

La
be

l
D

es
cr

ip
ti
o
n/

su
rv

ey
q

ue
st

io
n

V
ar
ia
bl

e
co

di
ng

n
M

in
im

um
M

ax
im

um
M

SD

A
ge

W
ha

t
ye

ar
w

er
e

y

o
u

bo
rn

?
D

at
e

o
f
bi

rt
h–

Y
ea

r
o
f
St

ud
y

52
2

20
60

30
.0

6
8.

03

C
ar

ee
r

pr
ef

er
en

ce

W

hi
ch

o
f
th

e
fo

ll

o
w

in
g

se
ct

o
rs

o
f
em

pl
o
ym

en
t

do
y

o
u

m
o
st

p
re

fe
r

to
w

o
rk

af

te
r

gr
ad

ua
ti
o
n?

T
he

r
es

po
ns

e
ca

te
go

ri
es

in
cl

ud
ed

g

o
ve

rn
m

en
t
se
ct

o
r

(f
ed

er
al

, s
ta

te
, o

r
lo

ca
l)
, n

o
np

ro
fit

s
ec

to
r,

a
nd

b
us

in
es

s
se

ct
o
r

go
ve

rn
m
en
t

=
0

,
no

np
ro

fit
=

1
4

51
0

1
0.

39
0.

49

G
en

de
r

W
ha

t
is

y

o
ur

g
en

de
r?

m
al

e
=

0
, f

em
al

e
=

1
53

7
1

2
1.

64
0.

48
M

in

o
ri

ty
s

ta
tu

s
H

o
w

w
o
ul

d
yo

u
de

sc
ri

be
y

o
ur

r
ac

ia
l o

r
et

hn
ic

g
ro

up
?

m
in

o
ri

ty
=

0
,

no
nm

in
o
ri

ty
=
1
53

5
0

1
0.

68
7.

23

Pu
bl

ic
s

er
vi

ce

m

o
ti
va

ti
o
n

K
im

’s
(

20
09

a)
P

S

M
s

ca
le

:
(a

)
M

ak
in

g
a

di
ffe

re
nc

e
in

s
o
ci

et
y

m
ea

ns
m

o
re

t
o
m

e
th

an
p

er
so

na
l

ac
hi

ev
em

en
ts

; (
b)

I
f
ee

l s
ym

pa
th

et
ic

t
o
t

he
p

lig
ht

o
f
th

e
un

de
rp

ri
vi

le
ge

d;

(c
)

I
am

in
te

re
st

ed
in

m
ak

in
g

pu
bl

ic
p

ro
gr

am
s

th
at

a
re

b
en

ef
ic

ia
l f

o
r

m
y

co
un

tr
y

o
r

th
e

c

o
m

m
un

it
y

I
be

lo
ng

t
o
; (

d)
I
t

is
d

iff
ic

ul
t

fo
r

m
e

to
c

o
nt

ai
n

m
y

fe
el

in
gs

w
he

n
I
se

e
pe

o
pl

e
in

d
is

tr
es

s;
(

e)
B

el
ie

ve
in

p
ut

ti
ng

d
ut

y
be

fo
re

s
el

f;
(f

)
I
co

ns
id

er
p

ub
lic

s
er

vi
ce

m
y

ci
vi

c
du

ty
; (

g)
S

ha
ri

ng
m

y
vi

ew
s

o
n
pu
bl
ic
p

o
lic

ie
s

w
it
h

o
th

er
s

is
a

tt
ra

ct
iv

e
to

m
e;

(
h)

S
ee

in
g

pe
o
pl

e
ge

t
be

ne
fit

s
fr

o
m

a
p

ub
lic

p
ro

gr
am

I
h

av
e

be
en

d
ee

pl
y

in
vo

lv
ed

in
b

ri
ng

s
m

e
a

gr
ea

t
de

al
o

f
sa

ti
sf

ac
ti
o
n;

(
i)
I
a

m
p

re
pa

re
d

to
m

ak
e

en
o
rm

o
us

s
ac

ri
fic

es

fo
r
th
e

go
o
d

o
f
so

ci
et

y;
(

j)
, I

p
re
fe
r

se
ei

ng
p

ub
lic

o
ffi

ci
al

s
do

w
ha

t
is

b
es

t
fo

r
th

e
w

ho
le

c
o
m

m
un
it
y

ev
en

if
it

h
ar

m
ed

m
y
in
te
re
st
s;
(

k)
I
a

m
o

ft
en

re

m
in

de
d

by
d

ai
ly

e
ve

nt
s

ho
w

d
ep

en
de

nt
w

e
ar

e
o
n

o
ne

a
no

th
er

; (
l)

M
ea

ni
ng

fu
l p

ub
lic
s
er
vi
ce

is
im

po
rt

an
t

to
m

e.
PS

M
s

um
.

C
o
nt

in
uo

us
50

2
57

.3
6

7.
23

17
72

Y
ea

rs
o

f
go

ve
rn

m
en

t
ex

pe
ri

en
ce

H
o
w

m
an

y
ye

ar
s

o
f
ex

pe
ri
en
ce

d
o
y

o
u

ha
ve

w
o
rk

in
g

in
g

o
ve
rn
m
en
t
se
ct

o
r?

C
o
nt
in
uo

us
51

6
0

31
2.

77
4.

97

Y
ea
rs
o

f
no

np
ro

fit

ex
pe

ri
en

ce
H
o
w
m
an
y
ye
ar
s
o
f
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
d
o
y
o
u
ha
ve
w
o
rk
in
g

in
n

o
np
ro
fit
s
ec

to
r?

C
o
nt
in
uo
us
51

8
0

30
2.

10
3.

47

N
ot

e.
P

SM
=

p
ub

lic
s

er
vi

ce
m

o
ti
va

ti
o
n.

Bright 413

interactions using a regression model in SPSS. Each iteration demonstrated that the VIF
scores ranged from 1.7 to 1.0. Similarly, bivariate statistics revealed that none of the
independent variables had correlations above .7. These statistics are an indication that
multicollinearity is not an issue in this data sample. Second, a logistic regression model
was used to explore the probability that each study variable was related to career prefer-
ences, while considering the relationships of age, gender, minority status, and nonprofit
and government work experience. The findings are reported below.

Findings

Description of the Respondents

As shown in Table 2, the majority of the respondents of this study identified them-
selves as being between 20 and 30 years old (69%), female (64%), and White (68%).
In addition, most have between 0 and 1 years of experience in either the government
or nonprofit work sectors. However, 15% of the respondents reported having 6 to 10
years of work experience in government or nonprofit organizations. In addition, when
asked “which of the following sectors of employment do you most prefer to work,”
half of the respondents indicated that they preferred government employment, whereas
32% indicated that they preferred employment in the nonprofit sector.

As shown in Table 3, the bivariate correlations reveal interesting patterns. For
instance, the results demonstrated that years of work experience in nonprofit and gov-
ernment were negatively related. Few of the respondents had work experience in both
sectors. This finding supports existing research that suggest that sector shifting is not
a common characteristic among public affairs students (Tschirhart et al., 2008). In like
manner, gender was strongly related to years of nonprofit work experience. Females
were more likely to have work experience in the nonprofit sector when compared with
the male respondents. No meaningful relationship was found between gender and
years of government work experience.

Unexpectedly, government work experience was strongly and negatively related to
PSM. As the respondents’ years of government experience increased, their level of
PSM significantly declined. This finding was similar to those found in existing
research (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007) and has been explained in terms of burnout. In
addition, the bivariate correlations revealed that career preferences were meaningfully
related to gender, nonprofit and government work experience, and PSM. More specifi-
cally, females, nonprofit work experience, and high levels of PSM were associated
with greater preferences for nonprofit careers than government careers.

Logistic Regression Model

In addition to the bivariate correlations, this study investigated the relationship that
PSM had to career preferences, while considering the influences of age, gender,
minority status, and years of work experience. As shown in Table 4, there are three
major findings. First, this study confirmed that gender, minority status, and years of

414 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

experience in the government and nonprofit sectors were all significantly related to
the career preferences of the respondents. The age of the respondents was the only
variable that was not meaningfully related to career preferences. However, the
respondents who were female, nonminorities, and had years of nonprofit experience
were significantly more likely to prefer nonprofit careers.

Second, this study demonstrated that years of experience in nonprofit and government
organizations were also significantly related to career preferences, although in different
directions. In this case, years of government experience appeared to enhance interest in
government career options, whereas experience in nonprofit organizations significantly

Table 2. Background Characteristics.

%

Age (M = 30)
20-30 years old 69
30-40 years old 20
40-50 years old 7
50+ years old 4
Gender
Male 36
Female 64
Race and ethnicity
Black/African American 8
Hispanic/Latino 8
White/Caucasian 68
Asian/Pacific Islander 11
Native American/Alaska Native .2
Middle Eastern 1
Multiracial 3
Government experience (M = 3 years)
0-1 year 62
1-3 years 13
3-6 years 10
6-10 years 9
10+ years 6
Nonprofit experience (M = 2 years)
0-1 year 63
1-3 years 13
3-6 years 10
6-10 years 9
10+ years 6
Career preferences
Government 50
Nonprofit 32

Bright 415

diminished these interests. However, the participants with nonprofit experience appeared
less willing to consider an alternative career choice than those with government work
experience. To explain, the participants with nonprofit experience were 1.1 times less
likely to desire government careers options, whereas participants with government expe-
rience were only 0.784 times less likely to prefer nonprofit careers options.

Moreover, after controlling the influence of age, gender, minority status, and work
experience in nonprofit and government sectors, PSM was found to be significantly
related to career preferences. Individuals with high levels of PSM were 1.03 times
more likely to prefer careers in the nonprofit sector than careers in government.
However, PSM was not the most influential factor on the career preferences in this
study, when compared with gender. Females were 2.7 times more likely to prefer non-
profit careers when compared with their male counterparts.

Conclusion

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between PSM,
and nonprofit and government career preferences. This study found that PSM was a

Table 3. Bivariate Corrections Among Study Variables (N = 421).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 1
2. Gender −.021 1
3. Minority status .052 −.048 1
4. Government experience .523** −.076 .079 1
5. Nonprofit experience .305** .108* .064 −.127** 1
6. Public service motivation −.048 −.005 −.087 −.110* .021 1
7. Career preferences −.018 .220** .073 −.293** .295** .130** 1

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Table 4. Logistic Regression of Independent Variables on Career Preferences (N = 421).

B SE Wald Significance Exp(B)

Age 0.025 .017 2.167 .141 1.025
Gender (females) 1.004 .251 15.969 .000 2.730
Minority status (minorities) −0.644 .258 6.237 .013 0.525
Years of nonprofit
experience

0.107 .035 9.552 .002 1.113

Years of government
experience

−0.231 .044 27.536 .000 0.794

Public service motivation 0.038 .017 4.908 .027 1.039
Classification probability 72
Nagelkerke R2 .289

416 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

significantly better explanation for why individuals prefer employment in nonprofit
organizations instead of government organizations, even when considering the influ-
ences of age, gender, minority status, and years of government and nonprofit work
experience. However, it is important to note that this finding does not suggest that
PSM is not related to government career preferences. It only confirmed that when
comparisons were made, PSM was a significantly better predictor of nonprofit career
preferences. As a result, the findings contribute to the growing body of research that
demonstrates that PSM is a significantly better predictor of nonprofit career prefer-
ences (Bright & Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Rose, 2012).

There are three major contributions in this study. First, this study confirms that demo-
graphics matter with respect to career preferences. In support of existing research, females
and nonminorities were significantly more likely to prefer nonprofit careers (Bright &
Graham, 2015; Doverspike et al., 2011; LeRoux & Feeney, 2013; Lewis & Frank, 2002;
Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Rose, 2012; Themudo, 2009). Males and minorities were more
likely to prefer government employment. Also, consistent with existing research, age was
not a meaningful predictor in this study (Holland, 1959; Kjeldsen, 2012; Lee & Wilkins,
2011; Tschirhart et al., 2008). However, these findings of this study may have been largely
driven by the fact that most of the respondents were around the same age/generational
cohort. Thus, there may not have been enough variation among the respondents in terms
of age to adequately test its relationship to career preferences.

Second, this study demonstrated that even though PSM was a meaningful explana-
tion for career preferences, the best explanation centered on gender. Many explana-
tions have been offered in the literature for why females tend to gravitate toward the
nonprofit sector, such as gender role socialization, the masculine images of public
organizations, and the flexibility of the nonprofit work environment (DeHart-Davis,
Marlowe, & Pandey, 2006; Ferguson, 1984; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Stivers, 2002;
Themudo, 2009). Notwithstanding these explanations, it is clear from this study that
PSM was not an explanation for this finding. The bivariate correlations revealed that
the respondents’ level of PSM did not vary by their gender. Both males and females
reported similar levels of PSM. Instead, a post hoc cross-tab analysis revealed that
gender differences were driven by the preferences of the male respondents, rather than
the female respondents. Females preferred government careers (n = 159) at relatively
equal levels as nonprofit careers (n = 138) in this sample. The difference was found in
terms of male preferences. Significantly more males preferred government employ-
ment (n = 115) than nonprofit employment (n = 39). This is an indication that males
are significantly more sensitive to the characteristics of nonprofits than their female
counterparts. The reason for this finding is not entirely clear, though one can speculate
that the perception that males may hold regarding the feminization of the nonprofit
sector could be one reason.

Third, the findings of this study suggest that PSM is a nonprofit specific. This conclu-
sion is provocative because PSM originally developed as an explanation for government
career choices, when compared with employment in the private sector. Significant dif-
ferences were found between PSM and nonprofit or government career preferences.
PSM was significantly higher among the respondents who preferred nonprofit careers.

Bright 417

Even so, if there are real differences in terms of the career preferences of individuals on
the basis of PSM, what could explain the results? Why did the respondents with high
levels of PSM prefer the nonprofit sector?

One answer could center on the measure and conception of PSM. One could argue
that the findings of this study were driven by a reliance on altruism when conceptual-
izing and measuring PSM. Altruism, some may suggest, is inherently related to the
nonprofit sector. However, altruism has always been a foundational motive of PSM,
even though it is not the only motive. While scholars have worked to expand the con-
cept to capture a wider range of motives, it is the belief of the author that altruism will
remain central to PSM. Still, while there may be studies that rely on less robust mea-
sures of PSM, the findings of this study were based on a robust measurement of PSM
that included the altruistic as well as rational and affective dimensions.

A second answer centers on perceptions and negative messaging. The nonprofit
sector may have been more attractive to individuals with high levels of PSM because
of the negative messaging these individuals may have received regarding the charac-
teristics of government organizations, as opposed to what exist in reality. These nega-
tive images may have convinced some that government organizations are not good
places work and fulfill their motives, when compared with nonprofit organizations. It
should come to no surprise that government organizations are viewed negatively in the
United States (Beard & Beard, 1986; Goodsell, 2003). This may be rooted in the
American antifederalist traditions that promote suspicion of large and far away gov-
ernments (Kenyon, 1985). It may also be related to the highly partisan political battles
and sensational media coverage that erodes trust in government (Newland, 1997;
Wamsleyl, Goodsell, Rohr, White, & Wolf, 1984). The negative images of government
organizations are an important consideration given the respondents’ low years of expe-
rience in government. Most lacked firsthand knowledge of the realities of work life
and the kinds of opportunities that are available in government or nonprofit organiza-
tions. As a result, respondents may have been more susceptible to negative messaging
that exaggerates the negative features of government. In contrast, research suggest that
most public employees are satisfied with their agencies and are willing to recommend
their agencies as good places to work (Partnership for Public Service, 2015).

A third answer centers on the realities of government work environments. The findings
of this study could be a reflection of real differences in terms of the quantity and quality
of available public service opportunities that are present in government and nonprofit
organizations. Over the last few decades, the nonprofit sector has dramatically grown in
the United States. According to the statistics, nonprofits grew by more than 25% between
2001 and 2011 (outpacing the percentage growth in hiring of businesses during this same
period) and employed 10% of the workforce in 2010 (Bernasek, 2014). Currently, there
are significantly more nonprofit career opportunities than what existed when the concept
of PSM was first developed. Hence, individuals with high levels of PSM may now have
more opportunities to recognize the nonprofit sector as a more viable and more accessible
means of fulfilling their motives. Also, federal survey data indicate that the level of satis-
faction among many government employees is not as stable as it can appear. Although
most federal employees are satisfied and committed to their work overall, these attitudes

418 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

drastically decline after their first year of employment (Partnership for Public Service,
2015). Relatedly, existing research has found that PSM significantly declines over time in
public agencies (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), a finding that was replicated in this study.
Therefore, it may be the case that public organizations are less suitable to individuals with
high levels of PSM when compared with nonprofit careers. Research in the field may now
be finally catching up with this reality.

Nevertheless, the contributions of this study should be kept in perspective, given its
weaknesses. For instance, this study relied on a cross-sectional design, and does not
adequately consider the degree to which preferences change over time. It could be that
individuals who desire nonprofit careers today may desire careers in government
tomorrow. Also, although PSM and career preferences may be related, the causal path
of this relationship is unclear. Individuals may select their career preferences first and
adopt the values they believe are appropriate for that type of work later. Hence, the
extent to which PSM is causing these preference selections cannot be fully confirmed.
A longitudinal study is better equipped to control the effects of these kinds of threats
to validity (Bozeman & Su, 2014). As a result, more research is needed to establish the
internal and external validity of the findings.

In conclusion, this study suggests that the field of public administration may be
losing the battle in convincing individuals with high levels of PSM that government
organizations are the most ideal places to fulfill their public service needs (Bright &
Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Light, 1999; Rose, 2012). This is unfortu-
nate given the fact that the differences between the sectors should not be as great as to
obscure the meaningful opportunities that exist in both sectors to contribute to the
well-being of society. At the very least, there is a need in the field to be more effective
in either promoting the benefits of government employment to individuals with high
levels of PSM, or we need to be seeking real reforms that create rewarding govern-
ment work environments for these individuals. Until this happens, it appears that non-
profit organizations are in a better position to reap the benefits of PSM than government
organizations. If these trends hold, the recruitment challenges that government organi-
zations face will become steeper in the future.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes

1. Existing research also suggest that nonprofit employees and volunteers are also driven by
egoistic motives (Mesch, Tschirhart, Perry, & Lee, 1998; Selander & Ruuskanen, 2016;
Veludo-de-Oliveira, Pallister, & Foxall, 2015).

Bright 419

2. This statement is not meant to suggest that all nonprofit organizations have inherently
lower salaries relative to the government or business sectors. Recent research suggest that
the wage gap or the labor donation hypothesis is a function of demand (Jones, 2015).

3. It is important to keep in mind national differences when interpreting the results of studies
conducted in different countries.

4. This approach was utilized to remain compliant with our university’s institutional review
board (IRB) requirements, to give the widest possible protection of confidentiality to stu-
dents, and to help lessen many programs hesitation about providing a third party access to
their students given federal laws that governing student data. As a result, the data collected
from students was a convenient sample.

5. The response rate was calculated from data that was obtained directly from the degree
programs. However, not every program provided this information. As a result, informa-
tion on student body size was supplemented with information gained from other published
sources.

6. Some scholars favor the “deconstructed” viewpoint of public service motivation (PSM)
and dismember it in an attempt to prove some given relationship at the sub-dimension
level. In contrast, this study centers on understanding how PSM holistically impacts career
choices, over and above its individual variations.

References

Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence
from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.

Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Allred, A. (2015). Exploring impact philanthropy, altruistic,
hedonic, and egoistic motivations to support animal causes. Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, 27, 351-372.

Andersen, L. B., Heinesen, E., & Pedersen, L. H. (2014). How does public service motivation
among teachers affect student performance in schools? Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 24, 651-671.

Beard, C., & Beard, W. (1986). The case for bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 46,
107-112.

Benz, M. (2005). Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction?—Evidence on worker well-being in
non-profit firms. Kyklos, 58, 155-176.

Bernasek, A. (2014, March 9). For nonprofits, a bigger share of the economy. The New York
Times, p. 4BU.

Blank, R. M. (1985). An analysis of workers’ choice between employment in the public and
private sectors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 211-224.

Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique.
Public Administration Review, 75, 700-710.

Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are
they, where are they, and what do they want? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
25, 138-154.

Bright, L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public ser-
vice motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 27, 361-379.

Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction
and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration,
38, 149-166.

420 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

Bright, L. (2009). Why do public employees desire intrinsic nonmonetary opportunities? Public
Personnel Management, 38, 15-37.

Bright, L. (2010). Why age matters in the work preferences of public employees: A comparison
of three age-related explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39, 1-14.

Bright, L. (2013). Where does public service motivation count the most in government work
environments? A preliminary empirical investigation and hypotheses. Public Personnel
Management, 42, 5-26.

Bright, L., & Graham, B. C., Jr. (2015). Why does interest in government careers decline among
public affairs graduate students? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21, 575-594.

Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 5-18.

Buchanan, B. (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic: Some unexpected differences between
public and private managers. Administration & Society, 6, 423-444.

Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where,
who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 7, 244-257.

Carpenter, J., Doverspike, D., & Miguel, R. F. (2012). Public service motivation as a predictor
of attraction to the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 509-523.

Christensen, R. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). The effects of public service motivation on job
choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job
fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 723-743.

Clerkin, R. M., & Coggburn, J. D. (2012). The dimensions of public service motivation and sec-
tor work preferences. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 209-235.

Clerkin, R. M., Paynter, S. R., & Taylor, J. K. (2009). Public service motivation in undergraduate
giving and volunteering decisions. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 675-698.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and
effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499-518.

DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 66, 873-887.

Doverspike, D., Qin, L., Magee, M. P., Snell, A. F., & Vaiana, L. P. (2011). The public sector
as a career choice: Antecedents of an expressed interest in working for the federal govern-
ment. Public Personnel Management, 40, 119-132.

Ertas, N. (2014). Public service motivation theory and voluntary organizations: Do government
employees volunteer more? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 254-271.

Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.

Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting
career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24, 33-51.

Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among service volunteers. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12(1), 20-35.

Gidron, B. (1985). Predictors of retention and turnover among service volunteer workers.
Journal of Social Service Research, 8(1), 1-16.

Goodsell, C. T. (2003). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washingtion
D.C.: CQ Press

Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Bottomley, P. (2015). Public service motivation
and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of per-
son-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 597-622.

Bright 421

Hansmann, H. B. (1980). Role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835-901.
Henderson, M., & Chetkovich, C. (2014). Sectors and skills: Career trajectories and training

needs of MPP students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20, 193-216.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6,

35-45.
Homberg, F., McCarthy, D., & Tabvuma, V. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between

public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 75, 711-722.
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-728.
Houston, D. J. (2006). “Walking the walk” of public service motivation: Public employees and

charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 16, 67-86.

Jones, D. B. (2015). The supply and demand of motivated labor: When should we expect to see
nonprofit wage gaps? Labour Economics, 32, 1-14.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., Massey, T. K., Jr., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Motivation in public and pri-
vate organizations: A comparative study. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21,
230-250.

Kenyon, C. M. (1985). The Antifederalists. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Kim, S. (2009a). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. American

Review of Public Administration, 39, 149-163.
Kim, S. (2009b). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A research note.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 839-851.
Kim, S. (2012). Does person-organization fit matter in the public-sector? Testing the mediating

effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and
work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72, 830-840.

Kim, S., Vandenabeele, W., Wright, B. E., Andersen, L. B., Cerase, F. P., Christensen, R. K.,
. . . De Vivo, P. (2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation
across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of mea-
surement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 79-102.

Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy. An Interpretation of the British civil
Service. Yellow Springs, O: Antioch Press.

Kjeldsen, A. M. (2012). Vocational study and public service motivation: Disentangling the
socializing effects of higher education. International Public Management Journal, 15,
500-524.

Ko, K., & Jun, K.-N. (2015). A comparative analysis of job motivation and career preference of
Asian undergraduate students. Public Personnel Management, 44, 192-213.

Lammers, J. C. (1991). Attitudes, motives, and demographic predictors of volunteer commit-
ment and service duration. Journal of Social Service Research, 14, 125-140.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When Generations Collide: Traditionalists, Baby
Boomers, Generation Xers, Millennials: Who They are, Why They Clash, How to Solve the
Generational Puzzle at Work. New York: HarperBusiness.

Lee, Y.-j., & Wilkins, V. M. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public
and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71, 45-56.

LeRoux, K., & Feeney, M. K. (2013). Factors attracting individuals to nonprofit management
over public and private sector management. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24, 43-62.

Lewis, G. B., & Frank, S. A. (2002). Who wants to work for the government? Public
Administration Review, 62, 395-404.

422 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

Light, P. C. (1999). The new public service: Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Liu, B., Hui, C., Hu, J., Yang, W., & Yu, X. (2011). How well can public service motivation

connect with occupational intention? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77,
191-211.

Liu, B., Tang, T. L.-P., & Yang, K. (2015). When does public service motivation fuel the job
satisfaction fire? The joint moderation of person–organization fit and needs–supplies fit.
Public Management Review, 17, 876-900.

Mann, G. A. (2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource manage-
ment and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Public Personnel Management, 35, 33-48.

McGinnis-Johnson, J., & Ng, E. S. (2016). Money talks or millennials walk: The effect of com-
pensation on nonprofit millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 36, 283-305.

Mesch, D. J., Tschirhart, M., Perry, J., & Lee, G. (1998). Altruists or egoists? Retention in sti-
pended service. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 3-22.

Miller-Stevens, K., Taylor, J. A., & Morris, J. C. (2015). Are we really on the same page?
An empirical examination of value congruence between public sector and nonprofit sector
managers. Voluntas, 26, 2424-2446.

Mirvis, P. H., & Hackett, E. J. (1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sec-
tor. Monthly Labor Review, 106, 3-12.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.

Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a
difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.

Newland, C. A. (1997). Realism and public administration. Public Administration Review,
57(2), II-III.

Ng, E. S. W., & Gossett, C. W. (2013). Career choice in Canadian public service: An explora-
tion of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, 42, 337-358.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Park, S. M., & Word, J. (2012). Driven to service: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public
and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management, 41, 705-734.

Partnership for Public Service. (2012). Federal Leaders Face Challenges Attracting Top
College Graduates to Government Service. Partnership for Public Service and the National
Association of Colleges and Employer. Retrived from https://ourpublicservice.org/publica-
tions/index.php

Partnership for Public Service. (2015). 2014 Best Places to Work Analysis: Improving the
Employee Experience. Partnership for Public Service. Retrived from https://ourpublicser-
vice.org/publications/index.php

Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

Perry, J. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of
public administration research and theory, 10, 471-488.

Perry, J., & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public
service. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration
Review, 50, 367-373.

Bright 423

Preston, A. E. (1989). The nonprofit worker in a for-profit world. Journal of Labor Economics,
7, 438-463.

Quratulain, S., & Khan, A. K. (2015). How does employees’ public service motivation get
affected? A conditional process analysis of the effects of person–job fit and work pressure.
Public Personnel Management, 44, 266-289.

Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the
service ethic. The American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory
of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 9, 1-32.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public
service in Britain. The Political Quarterly, 65, 138-151.

Ritz, A. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal
government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 53-78.

Ritz, A., & Waldner, C. (2011). Competing for future leaders: A study of attractiveness of public
sector organizations to potential job applicants. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
31, 291-316.

Rose, R. P. (2012). Preferences for careers in public work: Examining the government-nonprofit
divide among undergraduates through public service motivation. The American Review of
Public Administration, 43, 416-437.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic
Literature, 34, 701-728.

Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the mod-
ern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Selander, K., & Ruuskanen, P. (2016). Why do third sector employees intend to remain or leave
their workplace? Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6, 81-100.

Serra, D., Serneels, P., & Barr, A. (2011). Intrinsic motivations and the non-profit health sector:
Evidence from Ethiopia. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 309-314.

Stivers, C. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative
state. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Taylor, J. (2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes, and actions of public, nonprofit and
private sector employees. Public Administration, 88, 1083-1098.

Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 38, 663-683.

Tschirhart, M., Reed, K. K., Freeman, S., & Anker, L. A. (2008). Is the grass greener? Sector
shifting and choice of sector by MPA and MBA graduates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 37, 668-688.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved from http://www.census.
gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2015). FEDSCOPE [Datafile]. Available from https://
www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp

Veludo-de-Oliveira, T. M., Pallister, J. G., & Foxall, G. R. (2015). Unselfish? Understanding
the role of altruism, empathy, and beliefs in volunteering commitment. Journal of Nonprofit
& Public Sector Marketing, 27, 373-396.

Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motiva-
tion—An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9, 545-556.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00

424 Public Personnel Management 45(4)

Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in
selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86, 1089-1105.

Wamsleyl, G. L., Goodsell, C. T., Rohr, J. A., White, O. F., & Wolf, J. F. (1984). The public
administration and the governance process: Refocusing the American dialogue. Dialogue,
6, 2-18.

Winter, V., & Thaler, J. (2016). Does motivation matter for employer choices? A discrete-
choice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, nonprofit, and for-profit hos-
pitals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 762-786.

Word, J., & Carpenter, H. (2013). The new public service? Applying the public service motiva-
tion model to nonprofit employees. Public Personnel Management, 42, 315-336.

Author Biography

Leonard Bright is an Associate professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service
at Texas A&M University, College Station. He currently teaches courses in public management,
program evaluation, and organizational theory and behavior. His research has appeared in the
American Review of Public Administration, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Public
Personnel Management, Review of Public Personnel Administration, and Teaching Public
Administration.

Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 1

  • Course Learning Outcomes for Unit I
  • Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

    1. Evaluate a variety of views about human resource behavior in public organizations.
    1.1 Support your opinion on the selected article with course-related terminology.
    1.2 Assess how a selected article relates to personal experience in the public or nonprofit sector.
    1.3 Evaluate how the points and/or arguments of the author(s) can be applied to the public sector.

    Course/Unit

    Learning Outcomes

    Learning Activity

    1.1

  • Unit Lesson
  • Chapter 1, pp. 1-16
    Chapter 2, pp. 17–37
    Video: Problems with Management
    Video: Management at Google
    Unit I Article Critique

    1.2 Unit I Article Critique

    1.3 Unit I Article Critique

  • Required Unit Resources
  • Chapter 1: Organizational Behavior as a Way of Thinking and Acting, pp.1–16

    Chapter 2: Knowing and Managing Yourself, pp. 17–37

    In order to access the following resources, click the links below.

    Watch the following segments from the full video referenced below: Problems with Management [Segment 1
    of 6] and Management at Google [Segment 2 of 6].

    Chain, E. (Producer), Du Verne, H. (Executive Producer), & Pirot, A. (2016). Management has its own
    revolution [Video]. Films on Demand.
    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPl
    aylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146

    The transcript for these video segments can be found by clicking on “Transcript” in the gray bar to the right of
    the video in the Films on Demand database.

    Unit Lesson

    Welcome to Unit I! In this course, we will be discussing a number of major themes that relate to how people
    act within public and third-sector work environments. In addition, we will look at what motivates public sector
    workers in how they communicate with others, respond to conflicts, and give and receive orders, amongst a
    number of other topics. These observations and analyses extend beyond the scope of individual workers
    and employees and into how groups interact to resolve problems and to develop effective strategies. Also,
    this course will pose questions related to how well organizations are structured to address specific
    organizational missions and objectives, along with whether or not personnel departments are utilizing
    appropriate hiring standards.

    UNIT I STUDY GUIDE

    Introduction to Organizational Behavior
    and Managing Personal Behavior

    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146&loid=499342

    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146&loid=499342

    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146&loid=499343

    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146

    https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=150146

    PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 2

    UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

    Title

    Of course, we will also be discussing some of the core tenants of organizational behavior. Denhardt et al.
    (2016) define organizational behavior as “the study of individual and group behavior in organizational settings”
    (p. 3), and organizational behavior can be applied in a number of professional or work settings. Are you
    working in a public or nonprofit organization right now? If so, this content will apply to you. Are you thinking
    about working in a public or nonprofit organization in the future? If so, this content will apply to you. Do you
    work in a private sector organization? If so, this content will apply to you as well.

    A Working Relationship

    The relationships between workers in these settings should not be viewed as being only one-way (i.e.,
    relegated to a single direction). Studying organizational behavior involves looking at the effects of
    organizational structure and systems on individual behavior as well as the effects of individuals on wider
    organizational characteristics and associated attributes and policies. We all know how tenuous one-sided
    relationships can be, and we also know that talking for hours as the one person struggles to get a word in
    is not a conversation. Our behavior and actions involve and affect so many other people. Remember, the
    starting point of any study of organizational behavior will be with the individual, and analyses conducted
    on organizations and management are conducted from the perspective of individual people (Denhardt et
    al., 2016).

    In studying organizational behavior in the context of the public sector, there are additional considerations that
    must be kept in mind regarding motivating others and leading in a manner that is consistent with the public
    interest and democratic values (Denhardt et al., 2016). Perry (1997) lists five major antecedents associated
    with public sector motivation: parental socialization, religious socialization, professional identification, political
    ideology, and demographic correlates. The nature of these antecedents implies that when motivating others,
    there are a number of deeply ingrained factors to contend with. In modern times, as professionals are
    becoming firmer in identifying with many of these antecedents, it is useful to consider our own motivators. It is
    also useful to consider that the amount of emphasis that one places on a particular antecedent may change
    over time. Did you have strong motivations from your parents or your childhood religion when you were
    younger that faded as you developed your own political beliefs and attachment to one or more of your
    demographic characteristics? If so, you can probably identify how your motivations changed as a result.
    Ultimately, by gaining a better understanding of personal behaviors, the behaviors of groups, and the
    influences of organizational and environmental factors, we can better fulfill tasks as they relate to best serving
    public interests.

    PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 3

    UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
    Title

    Scientifically Speaking

    Historically, organizational behavior is a relatively new field of study with employees; before studying
    organizational behavior became more popular, it was viewed as an extension of work, tools, and machines.
    Another general finding shows that employees find work to be unpleasant, hence the need to be
    compensated for their labor. In considering the evolution of behavioral theories, it is important to consider the
    separate evolutions and effects of scientific-analytical mindset approaches as well as technological progress
    and developments as they relate to each successive movement (Adams, 1992).

    Frederick Taylor theorized that if management was committed to studying work tasks in a scientific manner,
    then best practices would be developed that would ultimately benefit both the employee and the organization,
    implying that the obligation of employee motivation was with management as opposed to with individual
    workers. Workers were still assumed to be naturally lazy and were expected to respond to orders without
    questions (Denhardt et al., 2016). How do you fit into Taylor’s model? It is doubtful that you are very lazy or
    that you would approve of strict punishments for not immediately engaging in course tasks.

    Another approach with some similar tenets is the public choice movement. Rubenstein et al. (2004) expand
    on this model, attributing to the model assumptions that humans are motivated primarily by self-interests and
    that organizations, incentives, and institutions should be designed to accommodate such interests. Can we
    believe that public sector workers are motivated primarily by self-interests when they can make more money
    in certain private sector positions, or can self-interests run deeper than monetary interests?

    Although more human-centered approaches were present at the turn of the 20th century, more extensive
    study into the motivating desires of individuals and groups were not studied with greater frequency until the
    publication of the Hawthorne studies during the 1930s. These studies revealed that workers change their
    behavior, generally in a more positive or productive manner, when they know that they are being observed

    Management perspectives over time

    PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 4

    UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

    Title
    and that relationships between humans influence workers’ behavior, thus leading researchers to conclude
    that a human solution is required to solve human problems (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).

    Research Says

    Chester Barnard’s studies emphasized the importance of individual participation for organization cooperation
    as well as cooperation between organizational units; Herbert Simon focused more closely on relationships
    between incentives and employee output. Douglas McGregor began to look more closely at the needs of
    individuals within work environments as well as the importance of developing morale within the workforce in
    order to achieve greater efficiency. His Theory X that people are lazy and motivated only by money and the
    optimistic Theory Y that focused on inherent human worth within organizations were paramount in debunking
    previous beliefs on employee behavior (McGregor 1960).

    Abraham Maslow’s needs hierarchy also addressed values in a
    more general sense. It is also important to note the impact and
    influence the fields of sociology, anthropology, and political
    science have had on the study of organizational behavior with
    each field providing relevant and valuable insight in its own
    unique manner.

    Looking more closely at Maslow’s hierarchy, can you identify
    which position you may currently classify yourself in or other
    positions that you may have occupied in the past?

    You can thank a psychiatrist and psychology scholars for the
    break from some of the more traditional theories and influences. More recent studies of organizational
    behavior focus heavily on individual behavior and are greatly influenced by psychological theory with
    emphasis placed on behavioral psychology and social psychology. Positive organizational behavior is a sub-
    field of psychology that focuses on positive aspects of human behavior as opposed to negative traits and how
    these aspects can be channeled into creating positive institutions and positive environments for individuals
    and groups (Denhardt et al., 2016). Also, greater efforts have been placed on studying different brain patterns
    and structures and their effects on employee behavior.

    What are the effects of these developments? According to Asplund and Blacksmith (n.d.), employees who are
    engaged with their work are twice as likely to be successful than less engaged employees. Fernandez and
    Rainey (2006) concluded that when two aspects of a course of action are vital for organizational change in the
    public sector, one must be specific to the strategy and extent to which the strategy rests on sound causal
    theory. This implies that mission clarity and strategy based on appropriate theory also leads to greater
    degrees of organizational success. Also, Dobuzinskis (1997) attests that modern workers are less interested
    in managerial hierarchies and strict control structures, further emphasizing the need to clarify more updated
    organizational strategies. Think about common office settings today. Can you imagine the workers from years
    past working in one giant, wall-less room, tossing footballs and blasting music? Welcome to 21st century
    hierarchies and structures. Apparently, the combination of engagement and strategy crafted from appropriate
    theories will, in fact, lead to greater productivity and positive organizational change.

    Additionally, the presence of higher-performing managers is correlated with increased productivity. Have you
    ever worked for an awful supervisor? Think about how you would do anything to subvert his or her authority,
    doing the bare minimum at most. Now think about when you have experienced the presence of a good
    supervisor. Have you been willing to put in extra, often unsolicited, effort? This presence includes conscious
    participation by higher ranking employees to provide role-expanding opportunities to lower ranking employees
    in an attempt to help them to develop greater voices in relation to general organizational performance, which
    can lead to more productive outcomes (Glew et al., 1995).

    Having knowledge of oneself is extremely important for one’s general livelihood, and it also plays a major role
    in one’s workplace satisfaction and success. Sluss and Ashforth (2007) separate the self into three levels:
    individual, which is focused on the unique nature of the individual and on specific attributes and abilities;
    interpersonal, which is focused on relationships between roles that the individual holds in relation to others;
    and collective, which is focused on how the individual fits into the social order of a group. Self-esteem can be
    described as our feelings about our personal competence, ability to cope, self-worth, and perceived
    worthiness of our lives, amongst other considerations (Leafgren & Sullivan, 1999). Self-esteem is closely

    Maslow’s hierarchy
    (FireflySixtySeven, 2014)

    PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 5

    UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

    Title

    related to the levels of the self. The manner to which each of these levels is competently developed and
    managed is believed to have an effect on how we respond to emotional challenges or any perceived threat to
    security, self-image, or self-worth. Do you feel more confident in your ability to express your needs and to
    cope with setbacks when your self-perception is more positive and when you are more in touch with how you
    react to personal, interpersonal, and group considerations? Considering the theory that organizational
    behavior is merely the result of interlocking choices by individuals emphasizes the importance of the self
    (March & Olsen, 1984).

    Without proper knowledge or realization of oneself, it is more difficult to work with or effectively manage
    others, which, in the public sector, can have a negative impact on the public’s collective livelihood. In order to
    gain a better understanding of themselves, people should engage in different development exercises that are
    intended to raise self-awareness and knowledge (Denhardt et al., 2016). Such exercises can include
    developing cognitive knowledge or an understanding of basic skills associated with certain tasks and
    behavioral skills, which ensure that these tasks will be appropriately addressed every time they are acted out.
    Furthermore, emotional intelligence is required in order to supplement these factors, particularly for public
    sector managers, as it surpasses technical skills and intelligence to allow for appreciation of others’ feelings
    and desires in applying the more base-level tools. Pulkkinen et al. (1999) expand on this notion, finding that
    high career orientation is linked to high self-control personality characteristics (e.g., stability, compliance)
    while low career orientation is linked to low self-control emotions such as anxiety or aggressiveness.

    According to Denhardt et al. (2016), emotional intelligence is comprised of four major components:

     self-management, which is the ability to control behavior and impulses while actively pursuing goals;

     self-awareness, which is the ability to recognize the effects of one’s emotions or moods on others;

     social awareness, which is the ability to understand others’ emotions and to respond to them
    appropriately; and

     social skills, which is the ability to build relationships, find common ground, and manage conflicts.

    In attempting to develop these components with the overall goal of improving emotional intelligence, leaders
    and managers must be mindful of possible barriers that they may be putting up that hinder their ability to
    properly apply emotional intelligence. Morriss et al. (2011) identified the barriers as described below:

     overemphasizing personal goals over organizational goals,

     being overly concerned with individual self-image,

     turning competitors into enemies,

     believing that one must lead by himself or herself, and

     requiring patience that may stand in the way of personal promotion or progress.

    Overcoming these barriers can be aided by regular sessions of self-evaluation and the development of self-
    knowledge. Important considerations to take into account when inventorying oneself in this way are exploring
    one’s personal values, personality style, interpersonal orientation, locus of control, career orientation, and
    self-disclosure. When applying these considerations, whether to ourselves or to others, it is of utmost
    importance to do so in an ethically appropriate manner that does not discriminate against unique or perceived
    undesirable personality characteristics or attributes.

    References

    Adams, G. B. (1992). Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development

    in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52(4), 363–373.

    Asplund, J., & Blacksmith, N. (2011, April 7). How strengths boost engagement. Business Journal.

    http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/146972/strengths-boost-engagement.aspx

    Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2016). Managing human behavior in public and

    nonprofit organizations (4th ed.). Sage.

    Dobuzinskis, L. (1997). Historical and epistemological trends in public administration. Journal of Management

    History, 3(4), 298–316.

    PUA 5303, Organizational Theory 6

    UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
    Title

    Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector.
    Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.

    FireflySixtySeven. (2014, November 2). MaslowsHierarchyofNeeds [Image]. Wikimedia.

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg

    Glew , D. J., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1995). Participation in organizations: A

    preview of issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21(3), 395–
    421.

    Leafgren, F., & Sullivan, J. R. (1999). The corporate communications guide: An effective performance tool for

    the workplace. Personality Resources.

    March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The

    American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.

    McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of the enterprise. McGraw-Hill.

    Morriss, A., Ely, R. J., & Frei, F. X. (2011). Managing yourself: Stop holding yourself back. Harvard Business

    Review, 89(1–2), 160–163.

    Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and

    Theory, 7(2), 181–197.

    Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the worker. Harvard University Press.

    Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A. E., & Stiefel, L. (2003). Better than raw: A guide to measuring organizational

    performance with adjusted performance measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 607–615.

    Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work

    relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9–32.

  • Learning Activities (Nongraded)
  • Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit
    them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information.

    Do you believe that you can develop your emotional intelligence or that with some concerted work that you
    can overcome the barriers mentioned in the lesson? Why not put some of the exercises from the course
    textbook to the test and find out for sure? You can start with this personality assessment to help prepare you
    for this unit’s discussion. You can let some of the rebels and imperials help you sort your type out.

    Visit the Star Wars personality chart to visit the Star Wars personality chart to discover where the Force
    places you. Do you feel that this chart helped accurately describe you? Explain.

    https://www.geekinheels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/star_wars_mbti

      Course Learning Outcomes for Unit I
      Required Unit Resources
      Unit Lesson
      A Working Relationship
      Scientifically Speaking
      Research Says
      References
      Learning Activities (Nongraded)

    Calculate your order
    Pages (275 words)
    Standard price: $0.00
    Client Reviews
    4.9
    Sitejabber
    4.6
    Trustpilot
    4.8
    Our Guarantees
    100% Confidentiality
    Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
    Original Writing
    We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
    Timely Delivery
    No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
    Money Back
    If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

    Calculate the price of your order

    You will get a personal manager and a discount.
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
    Total price:
    $0.00
    Power up Your Academic Success with the
    Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
    Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
    error: Content is protected !!
    Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

    Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code ORIGINAL