case Study

Lars G. Tummers is assistant professor

of public management and public policy at

Erasmus University Rotterdam and visiting

scholar at the University of California,

Berkeley. He specializes in public leadership,

public innovation, and policy implementa-

tion. He was awarded the Erasmus

University Research Prize in 2013 for excel-

lence in research. He received a Marie Curie

Grant to analyze how civil servants cope

with stress, combining the psychological

and public administration literature.

E-mail: [email protected]

Eva Knies is assistant professor of

organizational science and human resource

management in the School of Governance,

Utrecht University. She studied public

administration and organizational sciences

at Utrecht University. Her 2012 doctoral

thesis is titled “Balanced Value Creation:

A Longitudinal Study of the Antecedents

and Effects of People Management.” Her

research focuses on the way in which

organizations deal with social transforma-

tions in their human resource management

and its impact on (public service)

performance.

E-mail: [email protected]

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector 859

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 73, Iss. 6, pp. 859–868. © 2013 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12138.

Lars G. Tummers Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Eva Knies Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Th ere have been many important studies on leadership in the public administration discipline; however, schol- arly inquiry still lags behind related disciplines such as psychology and business administration. Th is article helps fi ll that gap by analyzing the role that public leaders play in making work more meaningful for their employees, which, in turn, has a positive infl uence on employee job outcomes. Specifi cally, the authors analyze the mediating role of work meaningfulness in the relationships between leader-member exchange and organizational commit- ment, work eff ort, and work-to-family enrichment. Samples from education, health care, and local govern- ment are used. Results show that leadership strongly infl uences work meaningfulness, which, in turn, infl u- ences job outcomes. In addition, the impact and extent of leadership and work meaningfulness are higher in health care and education than in local government. Th e results emphasize the importance of leadership and meaningful work in the public sector.

There have been a number of important studies on leadership in the public administration, and more specifi cally public management, discipline (see, e.g., Fernandez 2005; Kim 2002; Terry 2002; Wright and Pandey 2010). However, this area of scholarly inquiry still lags behind related disciplines such as business administration and psychology (Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). Hansen and Villadsen recently concluded that compared to other disci- plines, “leadership theory has generally received little attention in public management research” (2010, 247). In a recent literature review on administra- tive leadership, Van Wart (2013) was more nuanced, stating that there has been substantial development. However, he also noted that “fragmentation and confl icting nomenclature continue to be a problem, but at a more sophisticated level” (2013, 13). More specifi cally, he noted that for leadership studies in public administration, “well-designed studies would

be welcomed by various public sector industries, jurisdictions, and levels of administration” (17).

In response to the call for well-designed leadership studies in public administration, this article focuses on developing a theoretical model relating leadership, the meaning of work, and the resulting job outcomes. Th is model will be tested using data collected in three public sector settings: health care, education, and local government.

In the theoretical model, we build on the well-known notion of leader-member exchange (LMX), which has its roots in social exchange theory (Blau 1964). LMX describes the quality of the relationship between a leader and a member (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). LMX research indicates that leaders develop dif- ferentiated relationships with their employees. In relationships characterized by low LMX, there is essentially an economic exchange between employer and employee (i.e., time is exchanged for money). In high-quality relationships, mechanisms of reciproc- ity and social exchange become eff ective: the leader and the employee trust each other, employees feel

valued by their supervisor, and eff ective working relationships develop. In general, high LMX has several important positive job outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction, higher perform- ance, and lower staff turnover (Dulebohn et al. 2012).

However, a piece of the puzzle appears to be missing when examining LMX and its outcomes. As Gerstner and Day (1997, 835) observed, although there is evidence that a better employee–supervisor relation- ship enhances outcomes, this association needs further examination. Th ey suggested examining variables that potentially mediate the relationship. A number of private sector studies have examined possible mediat- ing mechanisms, and these often use the notion of empowerment. However, results are inconsistent.

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector

Th is article focuses on develop- ing a theoretical model relat- ing leadership, the meaning

of work, and the resulting job outcomes.

860 Public Administration Review • November | December 2013

Whether LMX is a management practice or a leadership practice is open to debate (Zaleznik 1977), but we follow mainstream LMX research and view LMX as a leadership practice (Dulebohn et al. 2012; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, and Wayne 1997).

Th e impact of LMX on several outcomes has been studied exten- sively. In a meta-study, Gerstner and Day (1997) noted that LMX was positively related to several work outcomes, such as supervision satisfaction, overall satisfaction, and commitment. More recently, Dulebohn et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 247 studies and found a possible 16 important outcomes of LMX quality, such as behavioral outcomes (lower turnover intention and higher job performance), attitudinal outcomes (higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment), and perceptual outcomes (higher perceived procedural justice and empowerment).

Th ere are some studies that examine the infl uence of LMX on vari- ables outside of work, such as work–life balance and work–family arrangements. For instance, Brunetto et al. (2010) found that LMX predicted perceptions of work–family confl icts in particular for public sector employees. However, this area is far less studied than work-related outcomes (Culbertson, Huff man, and Alden-Anderson 2009).

Background on Meaningfulness In this article, the concept of meaningfulness at work is considered as a potential mediator between LMX and outcomes. Here, it is useful to fi rst describe the background of meaningfulness. We will discuss the background of the meaningfulness concept, linking it to various literature streams, such as work and organizational sociol- ogy (particularly alienation studies) and work and organizational psychology (empowerment, job characteristics model, engagement).

Th e concept of meaningfulness builds on the alienation tradition that comes from the sociology of work and organization fi eld.

Alienation refers broadly to a sense of social estrangement and an absence of social support or meaningful social connection. Th e intellec- tual roots of the alienation concept are found in the work of Karl Marx ([1844] 1961), who focused on objective work alienation: workers become alienated when they do not own the means of production or the resulting product. Many sociologists writing on alienation draw

on Marx, although, in contrast to Marx, they focus on subjective work alienation: alienation as perceived by the worker (DeHart- Davis and Pandey 2005).

Social scientists have used the (subjective) alienation concept in various studies, and a number of meanings have been attributed to the term. In an attempt to provide clarity, Seeman (1959) broke down these meanings into fi ve alienation dimensions: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation, and self-estrange- ment. Of these dimensions, powerlessness and meaningless are considered to be particularly important (DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005; Tummers 2011). Th is article focuses on the role of mean- ingfulness/meaninglessness. In a work setting, meaninglessness can occur “when workers are not able to understand the complex system

While Aryee and Chen (2006) found that empowerment mediated the relationship between LMX and job outcomes, Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe (2000, 407) failed to fi nd such a relationship. Further, Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar (2009) argued that the relation- ship between LMX and job outcomes was moderated rather than mediated by psychological empowerment.

Th is article analyzes work meaningfulness, one of the dimensions of psychological empowerment, as a potential mediator between LMX and its outcomes. Th is approach seems more promising than using the broad concept of empowerment. Th e hypothesis tested is that when employees and managers have a good relationship (i.e., high LMX), leaders will provide their employees with greater insight into how the organization works and give them more responsibility. It seems reasonable to expect this to positively infl uence employees’ job experience and the possibility of their making a diff erence in their work. In turn, one could expect this to have positive outcomes (see also Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000). In this article, the focus is on two important outcomes inside the work context— organizational commitment and work eff ort—and one important outcome outside the work context—work-to-family enrichment.

Th is article contributes to the literature by (1) focusing on leader- ship in the public sector using an explicit theoretical model; (2) analyzing one specifi c dimension of empowerment, work mean- ingfulness, to explain the relationship between LMX and certain outcomes; and (3) testing the developed model using three inde- pendent public sector samples drawn from education, health care, and local government. Th e article answers the following research question: To what extent does the meaningfulness of work medi- ate the relationship between LMX and outcomes inside the work context—organizational commitment and work eff ort—and outside the work context—work-to-family enrichment?

In the following section, we discuss the theoretical framework. Th e next section describes the method used to test our hypotheses, and then the results are discussed. We conclude by discussing the contribution of this article to the public management literature on leadership.

Theoretical Framework Background on Leadership In broad terms, there are two contrasting views on leadership in organizations (Howell and Hall-Merenda 1999). One view is leader focused and attempts to explain performance by analyzing specifi c leadership behaviors and linking these directly to outcomes. Th is view is adopted in theo- ries on transactional and transformational leadership (for a recent public sector example, see Wright and Pandey 2010). Th e second view is relationship based, analyzing how leaders interact with their employees. Th is view is best exemplifi ed by the concept of leader- member exchange (Howell and Hall-Merenda 1999, 680; Wang et al. 2005, 420). Given the aim of this research—to analyze the role of work meaningfulness in the relationship between LMX and outcomes—the second view is most appropriate.

LMX is defi ned as the quality of the relationship between a leader (supervisor) and a member (employee) (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995).

Th e concept of meaningful- ness builds on the alienation tradition that comes from the

sociology of work and organiza- tion fi eld.

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector 861

remark, it can be argued that public organizations have consider- able goal complexity and goal ambiguity (Jung 2011; Rainey and Bozeman 2000). In an organization with substantial goal complex- ity and ambiguity, it could be diffi cult for employees to understand the contribution of their specifi c work to the organization or to society—in other words, to feel that their work is meaningful. On the other hand, many people chose to work in the public sector because they aim to do meaningful work and contribute to society (Perry and Hondeghem 2008). Hence, studying work meaningful- ness—and ways to improve it—could be quite important in public sector settings.

Leadership, Meaningfulness, and Outcomes In this section, the relationships between LMX, meaningfulness, and three relevant outcomes are analyzed. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model outlining the relationships between the variables in this article.

We fi rst analyze how LMX infl uences meaningfulness at work. One would intuitively expect the degree of LMX to positively infl uence experienced meaningfulness. When the relationship between leaders and employees is of high quality, employees are given greater deci- sional latitude and provided with more opportunities to participate. Th is makes it easier for them to make meaningful contributions to the organization and to society and increases their understanding of their role within it. Hence, it can enhance their experienced mean- ingfulness at work (see also Aryee and Chen 2006).

On this basis, one can consider how the outcomes are infl uenced. First, we look at two important eff ects on the work level: aff ective organizational commitment and work eff ort. Th ese eff ects were selected given their importance for organizational performance (McAllister 1995; Meyer et al. 2002).

Aff ective organizational commitment is defi ned as an “employee’s emotional attachment to, identifi cation with, and involvement in the organization” (Allen and Meyer 1997, 11). Employees who experience aff ective commitment stay with an organization because they genuinely want to, because they can identify with that organi- zation. Following Gerstner and Day (1997), one would expect the

of goals in the organization and its relationship to their own work” (Kanungo 1982, 26).

Th e meaninglessness/meaningfulness of work concept can also be found in the work and organizational psychology fi eld. Here, it is fi rst related to the literature on psychological empowerment. Spreitzer (1995, 1443) noted that meaning of work is one of four components of psychological empowerment. It is described as the fi t between the requirements of a work role and one’s own beliefs, values, and behaviors. In a recent review, Maynard, Gilson, and Mathieu (2012) concluded that of the four components of psycho- logical empowerment, meaning of work had the strongest relation- ship with job satisfaction (see also Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000). Overall, it was found that certain components of psychologi- cal empowerment are potential mediators between various work antecedents (such as leadership) and work outcomes (such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment). Th is article follows a similar line of reasoning in analyzing work meaningfulness as a potential mediator between LMX and outcomes.

Next, the concept of meaningfulness is also discussed in the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1980). Th e mean- ingfulness experienced in work is seen as a key psychological state that mediates the relationships between core job characteristics and outcomes. In a meta-analysis, Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) found that experienced meaningfulness was the primary mediator between job characteristics and outcomes. As such, mean- ingfulness seems to be an important mediator when relating job characteristics to outcomes (see also Arnold et al. 2007; Clausen and Borg 2011).

Work meaningfulness is also related to the concept of work engage- ment, although these concepts also diff er notably. Schaufeli et al. defi ned engagement as “a positive, fulfi lling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (2002, 74), noting that engaged employees have a sense of energetic and eff ective connection with their work activities and see them- selves as able to deal well with the demands of their jobs. In this article, work meaningfulness is defi ned as an employee’s perception that he or she is able to understand the complex system of goals in the organization and its relationship to his or her own work; this has both similarities as well as diff erences with the work engagement concept. On the one hand, both the meaningfulness and engage- ment concepts refer to work-related attitudes, and both are posi- tive psychological states. However, while engagement refers to job demands in relation to an employee’s own abilities, meaningfulness refers to the goals of the organization in relation to an employee’s own work. One could argue that the concepts are related in the sense that meaningful work can result in greater employee engage- ment (Olivier and Rothmann 2007).

A few remarks can be made regarding analyzing the role of mean- ingfulness specifi cally in public organizations. However, it must be stated that making a simple distinction between public organiza- tions, on the one hand, and private organizations, on the other, seems overly simplistic (Rainey and Bozeman 2000). Besides their public, semipublic, or private legal status, many characteristics infl uence organizations and their working environments, such as size, location, environment, and function. Notwithstanding this

Leadership (LMX) Meaningful work Organizational commitment

Work effort

Work-to-family enrichment

+ +

+

Outcomes

Figure 1 Hypothesized Relationships among Leadership, Meaningful Work, and Outcome Dimensions

862 Public Administration Review • November | December 2013

have both direct and indirect (through meaningfulness) components. Based on the foregoing, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 1a: LMX has a positive direct eff ect on organiza- tional commitment.

Hypothesis 1b: LMX has a positive indirect eff ect, through the level of meaningfulness, on organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2a: LMX has a positive direct eff ect on work eff ort.

Hypothesis 2b: LMX has a positive indirect eff ect, through the level of meaningfulness, on work eff ort.

Hypothesis 3a: LMX has a positive direct eff ect on work-to- family enrichment.

Hypothesis 3b: LMX has a positive indirect eff ect, through the level of meaningfulness, on work-to-family enrichment.

Method Testing the Proposed Model Using Survey Data from Three Sectors Th is section describes the survey procedures used to test the hypoth- eses. As suggested by Perry (2012), we analyzed our procedures using the “total survey error framework” of Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson (2012). Th e total survey error framework assesses the quality of the techniques used in conducting a survey. In using this framework, shown in table 1, researchers aim to increase the quality of their studies. In order to improve the reliability and validity of the fi ndings, we have taken various measures in order to keep the possible errors identifi ed by Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson (2012) to a minimum.

Survey data from three sectors were collected: education, health care (midwives), and local government (municipalities). Th ese sec- tors were chosen because they potentially diff er in their degree of meaningfulness: whereas work in education and health care is often perceived as meaningful, it is sometimes harder to see working for local government as contributing to society. Th is diff erence could infl uence the mediating mechanisms.

We initially established contact with organizations and asked whether they would agree to participate in the research project. We then contacted respondents by e-mail, including a link to the questionnaire, which also described the research project and its objectives and stressed anonymity. Two follow-up mails were sent to increase the response rate.

In the health care sector, our sample consisted of 1,278 midwives. We chose to focus particularly on midwives given that they were expected to perceive their work as very meaningful.1 We received 790 completed questionnaires, for a response rate of 61 percent. Of the valid responses, 97.2 percent were from women, and their average age was 40. Th is is consistent with national fi gures for midwives, which is a traditionally

level of LMX to be positively related to the degree of organizational commitment. Further, if employees feel that their work is meaning- ful, this will increase their organizational commitment—and they will stay with their organization because they want to (Pierce and Dunham 1987).

Work eff ort refers to the extent to which employees exert eff ort that goes beyond their formal job requirements (Gould-Williams 2004). It seems that, for organizations, it is paramount that employees “go the extra mile.” One could expect the level of LMX to be positively related to work eff ort. Here, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and White (2007) showed that LMX signifi cantly infl uenced the level of self-assessed work eff ort. Moreover, we also expect meaningfulness to positively infl uence the eff ort that workers put into their work. Cummings and Manring (1977) found that meaningfulness was positively related to work eff ort and performance. Further, Arnold et al. noted that “higher purpose [or less meaninglessness] was associated with increased job satisfaction, perceptions of unit cohesion, and work eff ort” (2007, 195).

In addition to organizational commitment and work eff ort, an outcome outside of work is considered: work-to-family enrich- ment. Work–family researchers have examined both negative and positive relationships between work and family life. Initially, the main focus was on work–family confl ict, although more recently, the positive relationships between work and family have been emphasized through work-to-family enrichment (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Work-to-family enrichment occurs when resources from the former improve performance in or positively aff ect the latter. Th is article focuses on the aff ective dimension of work-to- family enrichment, that is, “when involvement in work results in a positive emotional state or attitude which helps the individual to be a better family member” (Carlson et al. 2006, 140). For instance, work-to-family enrichment occurs when an employee feels valued at work (e.g., because he or she can help students with their theses) and, because of this, is in a good mood at home. We would expect high LMX to increase work-to-family enrichment (see also Bernas and Major 2000). Further, work meaningfulness may create a positive emotional state and, consequently, increase the likelihood that work-to-family enrichment occurs (Hackman and Oldham 1980).

In the foregoing discussion, a link was established between both LMX and meaningfulness and three outcomes. Further, it was hypothesized that LMX infl uences meaningfulness. Given its attitu- dinal foundations, meaningfulness is seen as closer than LMX to the outcome dimensions, and therefore it should serve as a mechanism through which LMX infl uences the outcomes dimensions (see also Aryee and Chen 2006). However, we do not expect the relationship between LMX and the outcomes to be fully mediated by the level of meaningfulness. Rather, we expect the level of LMX experienced by employees to also have a direct eff ect on the outcomes. For example, if employees experience high levels of LMX, they will work harder, not only because of the increased meaningfulness but also because they want to “return the favor” (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Th us, overall, we expect the relationship between LMX and the studied outcomes to

Overall, we expect the relation- ship between LMX and the

studied outcomes to have both direct and indirect (through

meaningfulness) components.

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector 863

We used fi ve items from Mottaz’s (1981) often-applied scale.2 We retained all of the items but reversed the answers (recoded, R) in the statistical analyzes. A sample item is “I often wonder what the importance of my job really is” (R). Cronbach’s alpha was .815.

Organizational commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) developed a number of items to measure affective organizational commitment. We used the fi ve best-fi tting items from this scale. A sample item is “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.” Cronbach’s alpha was .893.

Work effort. We used the eight-item work-effort scale developed by Gould-Williams (2004) to measure employee discretionary effort. We used the fi ve best-fi tting items. A sample item is “I volunteer for things that are not part of the job.” Cronbach’s alpha was .683.

Work-to-family enrichment. We included the three-item affect dimension of work-to-family enrichment based on Carlson et al. (2006, 140). A sample item is “My involvement in my work puts me in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member.” Cronbach’s alpha was .926.

Control variables. We also included commonly used control variables: gender, age, supervisory tasks (yes/no), number of working hours, children living at home (yes/no) (possibly relevant given the focus on work–family interference), and level of education (1 = primary school, 2 = secondary school, 3 = intermediate vocational education, 4 = higher vocational education, 5 = academic education, 6 = postgraduate, e.g., specialization or PhD).

Measurement Quality and Data Analysis Confi rmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the hypoth- eses, followed by structural equation modeling (SEM). Th e CFA and SEM techniques are often used in psychological research but

female occupation (97 percent female) with a mean age of 37 (Hingstman and Kenens 2011). For the local government group, we surveyed employees from the two largest Dutch municipali- ties (Amsterdam and Rotterdam). We invited 473 employees to participate and received 229 completed questionnaires. Again, the responding sample (54.1 percent female, average age 43) was some- what similar to the Dutch municipal averages: 46 percent female (Netherlands Ministry of the Interior 2010), with an average age of 43 (Statistics Netherlands 2010). In the education sector, we invited 881 employees from a school for intermediate vocational educa- tion and 200 university employees. Th e overall response rate was 29 percent (313 employees). Here, the average age of the respondents was 47 years, and 63.8 percent were female. Th is is again somewhat similar to the Dutch education averages: 62 percent female and average age 43 (Statistics Netherlands 2010).

For all three sectors, we performed a nonresponse analysis. Results showed that employees did not participate because of a lack of time, technical diffi culties completing the online instrument, and the fact that they already had to fi ll out a lot of questionnaires. Th is analysis does not suggest any severe bias in our sample.

Measures Th e variables were all measured using fi ve-point Likert scales, where 1 indicated very weak support for the item statement and 5 indi- cated very strong support.

Leader-member exchange. The LMX scale of Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993), which is made up of seven items, was used. A sample item is “I feel that my immediate supervisor understands my problems and needs.” Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .919.

Meaningfulness. The concept of meaningfulness is based on the alienation tradition, which considers its opposite: meaninglessness.

Table 1 Description of Total Error Framework Used to Assess Public Administration Articles (see Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson 2012) and the Test for Each Potential Error in the Data Used

Type of Error Description of Error Ways to Avoid Error Testing for Potential Errors in the Data Used

Coverage errors

A form of nonsampling error that occurs when the target population and the sample frame(s) are mis- matched in terms of coverage.

Show construction of sampling frame and how it overlaps with the intended population

Target populations are specifi ed (health care, especially midwives, local government employees, employees in education). Sampling frames have been specifi ed. Given the size of the target populations, some coverage error was unavoidable (survey of midwives, two municipali- ties, two education institutions). However, for each group, we specifi ed the similarity of the respondents in terms of gender and age with the overall target population, with satisfying results.

Sampling errors

“Sampling error arises when the en- tire target population, or universe, is not selected and decreases as the sample size increases.”

High sampling size and report sample size; use of probability sampling

For the surveys in local government and education, parts of the organiza- tions were approached (given the size of the organizations). All sample sizes are reported and are quite high (1,278 health care, 473 local government, 881 education).

Nonresponse error

Nonresponse errors occur when there are systematic differences in responses between respondents and the total sample.

Enhance response rates and report response rate; conduct nonre- sponse survey

• Follow up mail sent to increase response rate • Response rates shown (61% health care, 48% local government, 29%

education) • Nonresponse surveys conducted and did not suggest a bias in our

results (common reasons given were, for instance, lack of time) Measurement

error Many sources of measurement error

exist, such as diffi culty in interpret- ing questions and social desirability.

High quality of questionnaire (use validated scales or discuss ques- tionnaire with target population)

• All used scales have been validated in earlier research • Social desirability is unlikely to be a major issue given the nature of the

questions (see Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson 2011, 92)

Processing error

Processing errors occur after data collection, such as in data coding, editing, weighting, and estimation procedures.

Analytical techniques should match variable measurement structures; model assumptions should be checked

• Checked for common method variance, showed that it was not a major concern in our sample.

• Treated Likert scales as ordinal data given that they are essentially ordinal (rather than interval)

• Used advanced and approved techniques to test quality of scales (CFA) and test hypotheses (SEM)

864 Public Administration Review • November | December 2013

employing surveys, but this reality is frequently ignored by research- ers. Here, the non-normal distribution of the data was taken into account by using the weighted least squares with a robust estimator approach available within Mplus.

Th e data for all items were collected from individual respond- ents and thus are potentially subject to common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Although a recent study showed that “in contrast to conventional wisdom, common method eff ects do not appear to be so large as to pose a serious threat to organizational research” (Lance et al. 2010, 450), we have addressed this poten- tial problem in various ways. In the survey design, we spread the items relating to diff erent variables across various sections of the questionnaire. Further, we conducted two sets of CFAs to check for common method bias in the data, comparing the hypothesized structure with a one-factor model. Th e analyses provide evidence against there being a bias stemming from common method vari- ance. Hence, common method bias does not appear to be a serious concern.

Results Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables are presented in table 2. Respondents were fairly positive about the support they received from their leaders and reported a high level of work mean- ingfulness. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for respondents employed in the various sectors. Th ere are signifi cant diff erences between the groups. Health care employees have the highest scores for all the variables. Employees working in education were generally slightly more positive than municipal employees.

SEM Results Th e results presented in table 4 show that for the overall model, a good model fi t was achieved (CFI = .987, TLI = .985, RMSEA = .045). Th e results indicate that LMX has a direct eff ect on all the outcome variables. Th is off ers support for hypotheses 1a, 2a, and

are relatively new to most public administration scholars (but see, e.g., Tummers and Bekkers, forthcoming; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey 2012). Th erefore, we discuss a number of the analyses’ char- acteristics in some detail.

Confi rmatory factor analysis is a technique used to test the factor structure of latent constructs based on theory and prior research experience. Th is is appropriate here given that previous analyses have already explored some of the variables, such as LMX. CFA has several advantages over exploratory factor analysis, such as more stringent psychometric criteria for accepting models, and this improves both validity and reliability (Brown 2006).

A CFA results in a measurement model being specifi ed. Th is model specifi es the number of factors and shows how the indicators (i.e., items) relate to the various factors. For instance, it shows how the items measuring work-to-family enrichment relate to the latent construct of work-to-family enrichment. Th e results of the CFA confi rm the factor structure described earlier. Th e standardized coeffi cients all had adequate values between 0.514 and 0.984 (p < .001). Th is shows evidence of convergent validity—that is, items that tap the same latent construct are related to each other (Kline 2010).

Th e measurement model is a precursor for the SEM analyses in which a structural model is constructed showing how the various latent factors relate to each other (see the Results section). In an SEM analysis, a total model can be tested in which variables can be both dependent and independent, one of the advantages over regression analyzes. Given that in our model, the work meaningful- ness variable is both dependent, being hypothetically infl uenced by LMX, and independent, hypothetically infl uencing outcomes, this is appropriate.

Th e data analysis was carried out using Mplus (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2010). Data are often non-normally distributed when

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 82.4% n.a. 1 2. Age 42.23 11.66 –.225*** 1 3. Educational level 4.00 0.75 .221*** –.111*** 1 4. Supervisory tasks (0 = no, 1 = yes) 17.4% n.a. –.027 .052 .220*** 1 5. No. of working hours 35.84 13.28 –.131*** –.158*** .074* .219*** 1 6. Children at home (0 = no, 1 = yes) 56.2% n.a. .052 –.044 .072* .060 –.109** 1 7. LMX 3.42 0.78 .061 .001 .000 .096* –.089 .046 1 8. Meaningfulness 4.17 0.51 .086** –.073* .100** .163*** .119** .099** .332*** 1 9. Organizational commitment 3.68 0.82 .219*** –.137** .146*** .167*** .227*** .080* .439*** .537*** 1 10 Work effort 4.01 0.53 .159*** –.003 .082* .221*** .163*** .061 .235*** .448*** .442*** 1 11. Work-to-family enrichment 3.55 0.79 .109** –.034 .057 .029 –.091** .085* .292*** .274*** .302*** .282*** 1

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. n.a. = not applicable.

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Sectors in Study

LMX Meaningfulness Commitment Work Effort Work-to-Family Enrichment

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Health care 3.50 0.72 4.26 0.43 3.96 0.72 4.08 0.51 3.61 0.72

Municipalities 3.35 0.86 3.95 0.61 3.12 0.74 3.87 0.57 3.36 0.96 Education 3.35 0.82 4.04 0.60 3.25 0.76 3.91 0.56 3.52 0.88 Total 3.42 0.78 4.17 0.51 3.68 0.82 4.01 0.53 3.55 0.79

ANOVA (F) 3.593* 35.150*** 155*** 16.680*** 7.997**

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector 865

reported higher levels of work-to-family enrichment than men, as did those working fewer hours.

Additional SEM analyses were conducted to test the model in the various sectors. Fit indices indicate a strong fi t in all three sectors: health care (CFI = .983; TLI = .980; RMSEA = .045), munici- palities (CFI = .979; TLI = .976; RMSEA = .047), and education (CFI = .983; TLI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.043), showing the robust- ness of the model. Th e results indicate that in health care, all of the paths outlined above are signifi cant. In local government, meaningfulness is only a signifi cant mediator in the case of work eff ort. Th e indirect paths are not signifi cant for commitment and work-to-family enrichment. In the education sector, the direct paths from LMX to work eff ort and to work-to-family enrichment are not signifi cant, meaning that the relationships between LMX and these two outcomes variables are fully mediated by meaningfulness.

Conclusions and Discussion Th is study contributes to understanding leadership in public sector organizations in two ways: fi rst, as encouraged by Van Wart (2013), by developing an explicit theoretical model and then testing this with data from various public sector settings; and second, by focusing on the dynamics and mechanisms of leadership, analyzing the mecha- nisms at play to explain how a better relationship between employees and their leaders boosts outcomes. More specifi cally, the role of work meaningfulness was analyzed as a potential mediator between LMX and outcomes, both inside and beyond the work context.

Th e results indicate that the meaningfulness of work is an important mediator between leadership and outcomes, in line with theoretical expectations. When employees and managers have a good relation- ship (i.e., high LMX), this positively aff ects employees’ perceptions of making a diff erence in their work and seeing the relationship of their work to the larger organization. It may be that in such situa- tions, leaders provide employees with greater insight into how the organization works and give them more responsibility. In return,

this results in higher organizational commit- ment and greater work eff ort and enriches work-to-family crossover. Th is emphasizes the importance of meaningful work. Th is is sig- nifi cant, as many organizational behavior and leadership scholars downplay the importance of meaningfulness (but see May, Gilson, and Harter 2004). Organizational behavior schol- ars tend to focus on autonomy or job control

(see for instance Deci and Ryan 2004). While the role of participa- tive management is well researched in leadership theory (e.g., Kim 2002), there is much less research on meaningful work. Th e current research suggests that the role of meaningfulness is signifi cant and an important study topic regarding leadership issues in the public management discipline. An interesting avenue here could be to combine the leadership literature concerning meaningfulness with insights from public service motivation (Vandenabeele 2008).

Th e fi ndings show that the mechanisms that connect LMX and outcomes vary between sectors. In health care, LMX has both a direct eff ect on outcomes and an indirect one through meaning- ful work. In education, meaningfulness is an even more important mechanism: it fully mediates the relationships between LMX and

3a. LMX is also signifi cantly related to meaningfulness. In turn, meaningfulness has a signifi cant relationship with all the out- come variables. Th e results indicate that the relationships between meaningfulness and the outcome variables are stronger than those between LMX and the outcome variables. We also tested for indirect eff ects: of LMX, through meaningfulness, on commitment, on work eff ort, and on work-to-family enrich- ment. All of these indirect paths are signifi - cant, supporting hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 3b.

Overall, the levels of explained variance are quite high. First, regard- ing commitment, the model explains 40.4 percent of the variance. Th is is attributable to the direct and mediated eff ects of LMX and to the signifi cant control variables (gender and number of working hours). Women and those who work long hours3 reported higher levels of commitment. Th e level of work eff ort variance explained is 23.8 percent. Gender, supervisory tasks, number of working hours, and the direct and mediated eff ect of LMX all contribute to explaining this variance. Women, supervisors, and those who work the most hours reported higher levels of work eff ort. Th e model explains 11.6 percent of the variance in work-to-family enrichment. Th e direct and mediated eff ects of LMX are signifi cant, as well as the gender and number of working hours control variables. Women

Table 4 Results of SEM Analyses

Total H M E

LMX → Commitment .234*** (.028)

.233*** (.041)

.253*** (.048)

.135** (.048)

LMX → Work effort .077* (.038)

.195*** (.050)

.069 (.059)

-.013 (.057)

LMX → Work-to-family enrichment

.182*** (.040)

.154** (.055)

.394*** (.074)

.036 (.074)

LMX → Meaningfulness .212*** (.028)

.225*** (.042)

.231*** (.055)

.179*** (.040)

Meaningfulness → Commitment

.350*** (.042)

.415*** (.054)

.062 (.046)

.383*** (.109)

Meaningfulness → Work effort .393*** (.053)

.336*** (.066)

.378*** (.076)

.374* (.152)

Meaningfulness → Work-to- family enrichment

.257*** (.056)

.317*** (.078)

.024 (.096)

.555*** (.184)

LMX → Meaningfulness → Commitment

.074*** (.012)

.093*** (.019)

.014 (.011)

.068** (.022)

LMX → Meaningfulness → Work effort

.083*** (.015)

.076*** (.019)

.087** (.026)

.067* (.027)

LMX → Meaningfulness → Work-to-family enrichment

.055*** (.013)

.071*** (.021)

.006 (.022)

.099** (.036)

R2 Meaningfulness .141 .152 .165 .213

R2 Commitment .404 .437 .322 .310

R2 Work effort .238 .302 .364 .097

R2 Work-to-family enrichment .116 .143 .216 .102

CFI .987 .983 .979 .983

TLI .985 .980 .976 .980

RMSEA .045 .045 .047 .043

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Notes: Unstandardized coeffi cients are presented (standard errors in parenthe- ses). The control variables are not reported because of space limitations but can be provided by the authors. H = health care; M = municipalities; E = education.

Th e results indicate that the meaningfulness of work is an important mediator between

leadership and outcomes, in line with theoretical expectations.

866 Public Administration Review • November | December 2013

2. Th e seven items in the original scale were measured in the questionnaire. However, given that CFA test is often more stringent than the Cronbach’s alpha reliability measure (Kline 2010), two items were taken out in order to improve the fi t. Th is method was also applied to the scales for organizational commit- ment and work eff ort to improve fi t.

3. Th e scores for the control variables are not shown in table 4 because of space restrictions. Where the control variables were signifi cant, this is noted in the text.

References Allen, Natalie J., and John P. Meyer. 1990. Th e Measurement and Antecedents of

Aff ective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63(1): 1–18.

———. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Th eory, Research, and Application. London: Sage Publications. Arnold, Kara A., Nick Turner, Julian Barling, E. Kevin Kelloway, and Margaret C. McKee. 2007. Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well- Being: Th e Mediating Role of Meaningful Work. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3): 193–203. Aryee, Samuel, and Zhen Xiong Chen. 2006. Leader-Member Exchange in a Chinese

Context: Antecedents, the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and Outcomes. Journal of Business Research 59(7): 793–801.

Bernas, Karyn H. and Debra A. Major. 2000. Contributors to Stress Resistance: Testing a Model of Women’s Work–Family Confl ict. Psychology of Women Quarterly 24(2): 170–78.

Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Brown, Timothy A. 2006. Confi rmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. London:

Guilford Press. Brunetto, Yvonne, Rod Farr-Wharton, Sheryl Ramsay, and Kate Shacklock. 2010.

Supervisor Relationships and Perceptions of Work–Family Confl ict. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Human Resources 48(2): 212–32.

Carlson, Dawn S., K. Michele Kacmar, Julie Holiday Wayne, and Joseph G. Grzywacz. 2006. Measuring the Positive Side of the Work–Family Interface: Development and Validation of a Work–Family Enrichment Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(1): 131–64.

Clausen, Th omas, and Vilhelm Borg. 2011. Job Demands, Job Resources, and Meaning at Work. Journal of Managerial Psychology 26(8): 665–81.

Culbertson, Satoris S., Ann H. Huff man, and Rachel Alden-Anderson. 2009. Leader-Member Exchange and Work–Family Interactions: Th e Mediating Role of Self-Reported Challenge- and Hindrance-Related Stress. Journal of Psychology 144(1): 15–36.

Cummings, Th omas G., and Susan L. Manring. 1977. Th e Relationship between Worker Alienation and Work-Related Behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior 10(2): 167–79.

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan, eds. 2004. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

DeHart-Davis, Leisha, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 15(1): 133–48.

Dulebohn, James H., William H. Bommer, Robert C. Liden, Robyn L. Brouer, and Gerald R. Ferris. 2012. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past with an Eye Toward the Future. Journal of Management 38(6): 1715–59.

Fernandez, Sergio. 2005. Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework of Public Sector Leadership: Evidence from the Public Education Arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 15(2): 197–217.

Gerstner, Charlotte R., and David V. Day. 1997. Meta-Analytic Review of Leader- Member Exchange Th eory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6): 827–44.

both work eff ort and work-to-family enrichment. In other words, if teachers have a good relationship with their supervisor, this will increase the meaningfulness of their work, and this will have positive eff ects for the organization and for the employee. When it comes to local government, LMX has a direct relationship only with commitment and work-to-family enrichment, and meaningful- ness does not play a signifi cant role as a mediator. It would seem, particularly in education and also in health care, that the level of meaningfulness is an important predictor of outcomes, whereas in local government, employees seem to be committed and experi- ence work-to-family enrichment regardless of the meaningfulness they perceive in their jobs. It could be that employees in health care and education chose to work in these sectors because they want to perform meaningful work, whereas in local government, employees have other motives, such as job security and regular pay increases, reducing the role of meaningful work (Jurkiewicz and Massey 1996). Th is argument would fi t the descriptive statistics, which show that perceived meaningfulness is lower in the local government sector than in the other two investi- gated. A further possibility is that it could also be caused by a dif- ference in the nature of supervisor–employee relationships among sectors; managing a health care professional is obviously quite a diff erent task than managing a local government employee (see also Mintzberg 1998).

We end this article by discussing some of its limitations. First, some of the variables in the data set demonstrated limited variability. Th is is particularly the case for the variable meaningfulness. Although all possible scores are represented in the data set, attenuated ranges could result in either over- or underestimates of eff ect sizes. It could be that the high mean score for meaningfulness is a consequence of conducting the study in the public sector. Th at is, employees typically opt to work in the public sector because they want to contribute to society, that is, to do meaningful work. It would be interesting to compare public and private sector employees in future studies. Another methodological limitation is the use of cross-sec- tional data. As such, assumptions based on theoretical arguments are made about the likely direction of causality, moving from leadership through meaningfulness to outcomes. Future studies could employ longitudinal or experimental designs that could test the causality of these relationships.

Concluding, our empirical results emphasize the importance of lead- ership in the public sector. In line with Wright and Pandey (2010, 86), we note that “management matters” (Pandey, Coursey, and Moynihan 2007; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999; see also Hennessey 1998; Knies 2012). Our research fi ndings highlight the importance of studying and improving leadership in the public sector and, espe- cially, the need to relate leadership with meaningful work. Further, by testing explicit theoretical models in various parts of the public sector, this study highlighted important diff erences between various parts of the public sector.

Notes 1. Our results therefore are applicable only to the population of midwives, not to

health care workers in general (matching target population and sampling frame; see Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson 2012).

Th e level of meaningfulness is an important predictor of

outcomes.

Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector 867

Gould-Williams, Julian. 2004. Th e Eff ects of “High Commitment” HRM Practices on Employee Attitude: Th e Views of Public Sector Workers. Public Administration 82(1): 63–81.

Graen, George B., and Mary Uhl-Bien. 1995. Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Th eory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–47.

Greenhaus, Jeff rey H., and Gary N. Powell. 2006. When Work and Family Are Allies: A Th eory of Work–Family Enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 72–92.

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hansen, Jesper R., and Anders R. Villadsen. 2010. Comparing Public and Private Managers’ Leadership Styles: Understanding the Role of Job Context. International Public Management Journal 13(3): 247–74.

Harris, Kenneth J., Anthony R. Wheeler, and K. Michele Kacmar. 2009. Leader- Member Exchange and Empowerment: Direct and Interactive Eff ects on Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intentions, and Performance. Leadership Quarterly 20(3): 371–82.

Hennessey, J. Th omas, Jr. 1998. “Reinventing” Government: Does Leadership Make the Diff erence? Public Administration Review 58(6): 522–32.

Hingstman, Niels, and Raymond J. Kenens. 2011. Cijfers Uit De Registratie Van Verloskundigen: Peiling 2011 [Figures from the Registration of Midwives: 2011 Poll]. Utrecht: Nivel.

Howell, Jane M., and Kathryn E. Hall-Merenda. 1999. Th e Ties Th at Bind: Th e Impact of Leader-Member Exchange, Transformational and Transactional Leadership, and Distance on Predicting Follower Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(5): 680–94.

Humphrey, Stephen E., Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson. 2007. Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta- Analytic Summary and Th eoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1332–56.

Jung, Chan Su. 2011. Organizational Goal Ambiguity and Performance: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Relationships. International Public Management Journal 14(2): 193–217.

Jurkiewicz, Carole L., and Tom K. Massey. 1996. What Municipal Employees Want from Th eir Jobs versus What Th ey Are Getting: A Longitudinal Comparison. Public Productivity and Management Review 20(2): 129–38.

Kacmar, K. Michele, Suzanne Zivnuska, and Charles D. White. 2007. Control and Exchange: Th e Impact of Work Environment on the Work Eff ort of Low Relationship Quality Employees. Leadership Quarterly 18(1): 69–84.

Kanungo, Rabindra N. 1982. Work Alienation: An Integrative Approach. New York: Praeger.

Kim, Soonhee. 2002. Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership. Public Administration Review 62(2): 231–41.

Kline, Rex B. 2010. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London: Guilford Press.

Knies, Eva. 2012. Meer Waarde Voor En Door Medewerkers: Een Longitudinale Studie Naar De Antecedenten En Eff ecten Van Peoplemanagement [Balanced Value Creation: A Longitudinal Study of the Antecedents and Eff ects of People Management]. PhD diss., Utrecht University.

Lance, Charles E., Bryan Dawson, David Birkelbach, and Bryan J. Hoff man. 2010. Method Eff ects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions. Organizational Research Methods 13(3): 435–55.

Lee, Geon, Jennifer Benoit-Bryan, and Timothy P. Johnson. 2012. Survey Research in Public Administration: Assessing Mainstream Journals with a Total Survey Error Framework. Public Administration Review 71(1): 87–97.

Liden, Robert C., Raymond T. Sparrowe, and Sandy J. Wayne. 1997. Leader- Member Exchange Th eory: Th e Past and Potential for the Future. In Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management, vol. 15, edited by Gerald R. Ferris, 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Liden, Robert C., Sandy J. Wayne, and Raymond T. Sparrowe. 2000. An Examination of the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relations between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships, and Work Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3): 407–16.

Liden, Robert C., Sandy J. Wayne, and Dean Stilwell. 1993. A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader-Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 662–74.

Marx, Karl. [1844] 1961. Alienated Labor. In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, edited by Karl Marx, 67–83. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

May, Douglas R., Richard L. Gilson, and Lynn M. Harter. 2004. Th e Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability, and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(1): 11–37.

Maynard, M. Travis, Lucy L. Gilson, and John E. Mathieu. 2012. Empowerment— Fad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of Research. Journal of Management 38(4): 1231–81.

McAllister, Daniel J. 1995. Aff ect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 24–59.

Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky. 2002. Aff ective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61(1): 20–52.

Mintzberg, Henry. 1998. Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals. Harvard Business Review 76(6): 140–48.

Mottaz, Cliff ord J. 1981. Some Determinants of Work Alienation. Sociological Quarterly 22(4): 515–29.

Muthén, Linda K., and Bengt O. Muthén. 1998–2010. Mplus User’s Guide. 6th ed. Vol. 3. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Netherlands Ministry of the Interior. 2010. Kerngegevens Personeel Overheid En Onderwijs 2010 [Key Facts on Government and Education Staff 2010]. http://www.arbeidenoverheid.nl/media/81234/publicatie%20kg%202010.pdf [accessed July 1, 2012].

Olivier, A. L., and Sebastiaan Rothmann. 2007. Antecedents of Work Engagement in a Multinational Oil Company. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology 33(3): 49–56.

Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2007. Organizational Eff ectiveness and Bureaucratic Red Tape. Public Performance and Management Review 30(3): 398–425.

Perry, James L. 2012. How Can We Improve Our Science to Generate More Usable Knowledge for Public Professionals? Public Administration Review 72(4): 479–82.

Perry, James L., and Annie Hondeghem, eds. 2008. Motivation in Public Management: Th e Call of Public Service. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pierce, John L., and Randall B. Dunham. 1987. Organizational Commitment: Pre- Employment Propensity and Initial Work Experiences. Journal of Management 13(1): 163–78.

Podsakoff , Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff . 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the a Priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 10(2): 447–70.

Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Th eory of Eff ective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 9(1): 1–32.

868 Public Administration Review • November | December 2013

Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Isabel M. Martínez, Alexandra Marques Pinto, Marisa Salanova, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2002. Burnout and Engagement in University Students a Cross-National Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(5): 464–81.

Seeman, Melvin. 1959. On the Meaning of Alienation. American Sociological Review 24(6): 783–91.

Spreitzer, Gretchen M. 1995. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1442–65.

Statistics Netherlands [Centraal Bureau coor de Statistiek]. StatLine. http://statline. cbs.nl/ [accessed December 15, 2012].

Terry, Larry D. 2002. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: Th e Administrator as Conservator. 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang. 2008. Examining the Nature and Signifi cance of Leadership in Government Organizations. Public Administration Review 68(2): 319–333.

Tummers, Lars G. 2011. Explaining the Willingness of Public Professionals to Implement New Policies: A Policy Alienation Framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(3): 555–81.

Tummers, Lars G., and Victor J. J. M. Bekkers. Forthcoming. Policy Implementation, Street-Level Bureaucracy and the Importance of Discretion. Public Management Review.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 2013. Administrative Leadership Th eory: A Reassessment after 10 Years. Public Administration 91(3): 521–43.

Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2008. Government Calling: Public Service Motivation as an Element in Selecting Government as an Employer of Choice. Public Administration 86(4): 1089–1105.

Wang, Hui, Kenneth S. Law, Rick D. Hackett, Duanxu Wang, and Zhen Xiong Chen. 2005. Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal 48(3): 420–32.

Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Administration Review 72(2): 206–15.

Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure Matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 20(1): 75–89.

Zaleznik, Abraham. 1977. Managers and Leaders: Are Th ey Diff erent? Harvard Business Review 55(3): 67–78.

If you are interested in submitting a manuscript to

Public Administration Review,

please review the guidelines under publications at www.aspanet.org

and follow the submission instructions.