****Work Solutions*****Only

216 Public Administration Review • March | April 2012

management practices that can be adapted to govern- ment, fundamental diff erences exist between the two sectors.

Th is run-government-like a-business rhetoric undoubtedly will gain even more momentum as we move further into the silly season of the presidential campaign.

In contrast, this article provides more evidence that managing in government is distinctly diff erent from managing in the private sector. While those of us who have devoted our careers to government may take this on faith, much of the general public has a diff erent view.

One key area of diff erence relates to the public and private sector workforces. Th ese diff erences include what motivates our employees to serve—and succeed— in government and how leaders who understand these motivations can apply this knowledge. As documented in “Pulling the Levers” and elsewhere, this understand- ing should inform how government agencies select, develop, motivate, advance, and retain talent.

Th is research also can be linked to the critical issue of why public sector leaders should focus on improving employee engagement and the steps leaders can take to drive higher levels of engagement. Other research has documented that employee engagement can be a powerful force for individual and organizational eff ectiveness. In the private sector, this translates into superior fi nancial performance as well as lower turno- ver, less employee lost time, and fewer accidents. Th e latter impacts clearly translate to the public sector.

Moreover, research on employee engagement that specifi cally focuses on government shows that agencies with higher levels of engagement have more success achieving their strategic goals.

Th e link between the work of Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey and the engagement research stems from the

According to a 2011 survey conducted by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, state and local government execu- tives reported that the number-one issue they face today is morale. Recently released results from the Partnership for Public Service’s annual “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” rankings (based on surveys of more than 265,000 federal employees) showed a decline in job satisfaction across the federal government.

Th ese results should not be surprising given the current wave of attacks on the public sector and, sadly, on public servants. A diffi cult economic and political climate has led to a decline in confi dence in government, as well as public sector pay freezes, cuts in worker benefi ts, threats of government shutdowns, and the certainty of budget reductions.

In this tough environment, “Pulling the Levers” has important implications for practitioners. In particular, the results provide the following:

• Additional—and timely—evidence that the public sector is indeed diff erent from the pri- vate sector. As a result, managing in government requires diff erent strategies and approaches than managing in the private sector. • A connection to research on the topic of employee engagement, including the role of the leader in driving high levels of engagement, which can be a powerful force for individual and organiza- tional eff ectiveness.

Th is research should be another stop sign for those who argue that public sector leaders should “run government like a business.” As government continues to come under harsh criticism—including the char- acterization of government workers as underworked and overpaid—the knee-jerk reaction will continue to be that government should look and act more like the private sector. While there are private sector

Commentary on “Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence”

Bob Lavigna University of Wisconsin

Bob Lavigna is human resources director

for the University of Wisconsin. Previously,

he was vice president for research for the

Partnership for Public Service, senior man-

ager of consulting for CPS Human Resource

Services, and administrator of the Wisconsin

merit system. He began his career with

the U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce.

He is past president of the International

Public Management Association for Human

Resources and the ASPA Personnel Section.

He holds a master’s degree in human

resources from Cornell University.

E-mail : rlavigna@ohr.wisc.edu

Commentary

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 216–217. © 2012 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02557.x.

Commentary 217

and engagement are not the same, other research has shown that they are linked. Th e Partnership for Public Service now has done these rankings six times since 2003 and, each time, eff ective leadership has been the primary driver of employee satisfaction.

Th e bottom line is that public sector leaders must understand the levers that the authors describe and then apply them in a way that is positive but not manipulative. Th is means integrating public service motivation into the ways in which we recruit, man- age, develop, and retain talent.

Two other points that the authors make are also worth remembering. First, while transformational leadership and its impact on public service motivation is a pow- erful force, it is unwise to ignore public sector com- pensation. While the authors did not fi nd evidence that pay motivates public servants, they also point out that this should not be interpreted to mean that pay does not matter. Th is is a key point, particularly because the compensation of many public employees actually is decreasing—the only aspect of pay that is increasing is the employee’s share of benefi ts such as retirement and health care. Th e net eff ect is a pay cut.

Also worth noting is the authors’ warning not to underestimate the diffi culty of fi guring out how to become a transformational leader. I am particularly struck by this statement: “Th e crush of transactional duties and the challenges of executing transforma- tional competencies means that it is easier to call for more transformational leadership than it is to do it.” I fi ght this battle every day in my own struggle to be an eff ective leader. Again, I believe that focusing on what drives employee engagement can help answer the fundamental question of how managers can become transformational leaders.

argument that transformational leaders should make explicit the line of sight between their employees’ jobs and the organization’s mission. Th ese leaders also should work to foster a sense of pride in the organiza- tion. Th is is consistent with research documenting how leaders can move the needle of employee engagement— and it is also quite actionable for practitioners who understand the need to focus on engagement.

While a range of factors can drive engagement (and are incorporated in various employee engagement surveys), these factors primarily boil down to ensuring that employees:

• See the link between their work and the organiza- tion’s mission • Take pride in both their work and the organiza- tion • Are satisfi ed with their supervisors and leaders • Have the opportunity to perform well at work • Can grow personally and professionally • Are satisfi ed with recognition received • Have real input to decision making (i.e., their opinions count) • Would recommend their organization as a good place to work

Th is research parallels the message of “Pulling the Levers,” particularly the conclusion that transforma- tional leaders direct and inspire employees’ eff orts by raising awareness of the importance of organizational values and outcomes.

Th e 2011 “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” rankings show that leadership is the number-one driver of employee satisfaction across the entire federal government. While satisfaction

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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.