Organizational Motivation

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017717241

Public Personnel Management 2017, Vol. 46(3) 211 –238

© The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091026017717241

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Does Public Service Motivation Always Lead to Organizational Commitment? Examining the Moderating Roles of Intrinsic Motivation and Ethical Leadership

Wisanupong Potipiroon1 and Michael T. Ford2

Abstract Much of the work in public management indicates that public service motivation (PSM) generally leads to higher levels of organizational commitment. We argue that this relationship is more complex than generally assumed. First, drawing from self- determination theory, we propose that intrinsic motivation is conceptually distinct from PSM and that the two variables could interact. Second, drawing from the fit perspective, we further propose that ethical leadership is a contextual variable that will enhance the effect of PSM. A field study of public employees in Thailand provides support for this contingency perspective. We found that intrinsic motivation moderated the effect of PSM, such that the effect was positive only for individuals with high-intrinsic motivation but negative for those with low-intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, our analysis revealed a three-way interaction, which indicated that PSM was most positively related to organizational commitment when accompanied by high-intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership.

Keywords public service motivation, prosocial motivation, intrinsic motivation, ethical leadership, organizational commitment

1Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand 2State University of New York at Albany, USA

Corresponding Author: Wisanupong Potipiroon, Faculty of Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand. Email: [email protected]

717241 PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017717241Public Personnel ManagementPotipiroon and Ford research-article2017

212 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Introduction

Over the past three decades, organizational commitment is one of the most studied phenomena in organizational behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Organizational com- mitment generally refers to a psychological attachment that an employee has to an organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Within the field of public administration, scholars have proposed several motives for why individuals may develop strong emotional attachment to their public sector organizations (e.g., Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). One of these motives is public service motivation (PSM), a particular form of prosocial motivation that reflects “an individual’s orientation to delivering services to people with a purpose to do good for others and society” (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008b, p. vii). The primary reasoning governing this assumption is that individuals with a strong internalized desire to do good and benefit the welfare of other people are more likely to join, feel emotionally attached to, and remain in public service organizations that allow them to do good for others and to be useful to society (Crewson, 1997).

Although past studies have provided support that PSM plays a critical role in shap- ing employees’ organizational commitment (e.g., Castaing, 2006; Crewson, 1997; Kim, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Vandenabeele & Ban, 2009) and reducing their turnover intentions (e.g., Bright, 2008; Naff & Crum, 1999; Steijn, 2008), researchers have argued that individuals with high PSM may develop a less favorable view of the organization if the work environments do not satisfy other underlying needs (e.g., Wright & Christensen, 2010). For example, it has been reported that the effect of PSM on intention to stay was stronger when employees felt that their job was useful to society—the so-called PSM fit (Steijn, 2008). In the same vein, Taylor (2008) indicated that PSM failed to predict organizational commitment when employees felt that their job did not provide opportunities that satisfy their prosocial needs. Consistent with this view, Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise (2010) suggested that to advance PSM research, it is necessary for researchers to take an interactionist perspective to investi- gate potential variables that may enhance or suppress the virtuous effects of PSM.

We adopt this perspective to examine when individuals with high PSM are most likely to feel committed to their organization. First, we draw attention to the role of intrinsic motivation, which captures the extent to which people find interest and enjoy- ment in the work that they do such that they would be motivated to exert more efforts without rewards (Amabile, 1993). Although PSM has been conceptualized as a spe- cific form of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Kim, 2006; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991), several researchers have recently questioned whether the two constructs are in fact conceptually distinct (e.g., Bozeman & Su, 2015; Gould- Williams & Esteve, 2015; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2009). Whereas PSM is an enduring “desire” to do good for others, intrinsic motivation captures the extent to which one derives enjoyment from the “work” itself. From the language of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), intrinsically motivated individuals will find “task enjoyment” to be an end in itself, whereas PSM-oriented individuals view “doing good for others” as a desirable end. We thus contend that these two constructs are

Potipiroon and Ford 213

conceptually distinct and that lumping them together would make PSM a “double- barreled” concept. Indeed, it has been indicated that prosocially motivated individuals do not necessarily derive enjoyment from public service because some public service jobs could be inherently boring or even unpleasant (e.g., Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). To this end, we suggest that these motivation-based variables could have meaningful interactive effects.

Second, given our interest in the immediate work contexts surrounding high-PSM individuals, we also propose that the PSM–organizational commitment relationship would depend on the characteristics of their leaders. In particular, we focus on the role of ethical leadership, which pertains to the characteristics of leaders who are both moral persons (e.g., being trustworthy and altruistic) and moral managers (e.g., pro- moting high-ethical standards [public service ethics]; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Our view is based on the person–environment (P-E) fit perspective (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), which indicates that both personal predispositions and the environment could interact to affect individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. Indeed, PSM scholars have suggested that the P-E fit is the missing link that could explain the mixed findings about the relationship between PSM and outcomes (e.g., Bright, 2007; Ryu, 2014; Wright & Pandey, 2008). In par- ticular, we focus on the person–supervisor (P-S) fit (Kristof-Brown, 1996; see also Kroll & Vogel, 2014) to suggest that PSM effects could be enhanced when leaders supply what followers need by aligning their public service values with the mission and ideology of public organizations. Arguably, ethical leaders in the public sector place great emphasis on making an outward, societal impact, showing concern for the common good, and being responsive and accountable to society at large (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Whereas past research has shown that perceptions of value-based leadership such as transformational leadership could interact with PSM to predict job performance (e.g., Bottomley, Mostafa, Gould-Williams, & León-Cázares, 2015; Caillier, 2014; Kroll & Vogel, 2014; Park & Rainey, 2008), we are not aware of any study that sheds light on the moderating role of ethical leadership, which we believe pertains directly to the maintenance of PSM values (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012; Wright, Hassan, & Park, 2016).

Taken together, our current study contributes to the PSM literature in several respects. First, we revisit the conventional wisdom regarding the PSM–organizational commitment relationship by suggesting that the impact of individuals’ desire to make a difference in society would depend on the level of perceived task enjoyment and the extent to which their leaders embrace and promote public service ethics. In so doing, we provide theoretical and empirical justification for the distinctiveness of the PSM and intrinsic motivation constructs and shed light on their potential interactive effect. No such empirical evidence currently exists. Furthermore, we illustrate the virtuous role of ethical leadership, which is an underexplored area of research in the public management literature (e.g., Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010; Wright et al., 2016). The following section paves way for the development of our hypotheses regarding the effects of PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership and their possible syner- gistic interactions.

214 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Theory and Hypotheses

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is defined as “the strength of an individual’s identifica- tion with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604) or “psychological attachment to an organization” (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986, p. 492). This psychological attachment has been shown to be related to goal and value congru- ence, behavioral investments in the organization, and the likelihood to remain in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). For public organizations, higher levels of organi- zational commitment could mean that employees will be more willing to work on the behalf of the organization even when the resources necessary to perform public ser- vice are limited (Crewson, 1997).

Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a three-component model (TCM) to describe multiple motivational bases of organizational commitment, which includes affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Affective commitment refers to the individ- ual’s identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the organiza- tion, which indicates that employees with strong affective commitment will continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. On the contrary, nor- mative commitment captures the individual’s felt obligation to remain in the organiza- tion, whereas continuance commitment reflects one’s perceived costs of leaving the organization and perceptions about other available employment alternatives.

This present study focuses on affective commitment, which is most theoretically relevant to the underlying role of PSM identity. In particular, affective commitment captures one’s internalized desire to follow a course of actions such as putting efforts into one’s work (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) and so does the desire of high-PSM individuals to go above and beyond the call of duties to benefit the welfare of other people (Perry & Wise, 1990). Several meta-analyses indicate that, among the three components, affective commitment is a strongest predictor of task performance, citi- zenship behavior, and attendance (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Furthermore, Solinger, Van Olffen, and Roe (2008) suggested that affective commitment is the only component in the TCM that pertains to the general conceptualization of organizational commitment, whereas normative and continuance commitment refer more to the perceived social and mate- rial costs of leaving.

PSM and Organizational Commitment

Perry et al. (2010) defined PSM as “a particular form of altruism and prosocial motiva- tion that is animated by specific dispositions and values arising from public institu- tions and missions” (p. 682). The original theoretical basis of PSM was based on the notion that individuals are motivated toward public service for specific reasons includ- ing (a) attraction to public policy making, (b) commitment to the public interest, (c) compassion toward others, and (d) self-sacrifice (Perry, 1996). Our present study

Potipiroon and Ford 215

focuses on the last three dimensions, which correspond with the recent conceptual definitions of PSM (Wright, Christensen, & Pandey, 2013). These conceptualizations have moved away from “multiple motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368) toward a broader empha- sis on “a general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people” (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999, p. 23).

In their seminal article, Perry and Wise (1990) proposed that individuals with high PSM are more likely to work in the government because of the opportunities to engage in meaningful public service and because they find this type of work to be rewarding. This assumption is grounded in the P-E fit perspective, which refers to “the compati- bility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their character- istics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281). Congruence between individuals and organizations can be achieved in two important ways: (a) supplemen- tary fit or (b) complementary fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Supplementary fit is achieved when individuals and organizations possess similar values or goals, whereas complementary fit is achieved when individuals’ unmet needs are satisfied by the organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Thus, PSM effects on attraction and reten- tion could be a function of both the degree to which individuals and organizations share public service values (i.e., person–organization [P-O] fit; Wright & Christensen, 2010) and the extent to which the organizations satisfy their salient needs, desires, or preferences—a needs–supplies fit (N-S fit; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Edwards, 2008; Kristof-Brown, 1996). This view has been echoed and supported by a plethora of PSM studies (Castaing, 2006; Kim, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Vandenabeele & Ban, 2009). Thus, we would expect that individuals with high PSM will be more likely than individuals low in PSM to have their needs met by public service organizations. This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: PSM is positively related to organizational commitment.

Boundary Conditions of PSM Effects

Although there is a tendency to view PSM as automatically increasing public employ- ees’ commitment to public organizations, scholars have argued that employees in the public sector will not necessarily find their work intrinsically gratifying, even if they are high in PSM (e.g., Bright, 2008; Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008; Steijn, 2008; Wright & Christensen, 2010). Notably, Wright and Christensen (2010) reported that lawyers who joined public organizations because of their interest in social services and helping others were not necessarily more likely to remain in the organization. These authors suggested that the failure to find a direct relationship between PSM and retention may be the result of characteristics of the specific job or the organization. For this reason, Wright and Christensen argued that it is more appropriate to ask when and under what conditions PSM will affect employee intentions to remain in the organization.

216 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

To date, few studies have investigated possible boundary conditions of the PSM– organizational commitment relationship (see Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2008, for excep- tions). Christensen and Wright (2011) suggested that

in order to understand the potential effects of PSM, we must consider (rather than take for granted) the degree to which the organization actually shares the individual’s public service values and offers jobs that are likely to provide opportunities for the employee to act on or to satisfy these values. (p. 739)

In addition, it should be noted that the strength of association between PSM and orga- nizational commitment tends to vary somewhat across studies. For example, Taylor (2008) indicated that PSM correlated .10 with organizational commitment, whereas Park and Rainey (2007) and Castaing (2006) reported correlations of .24 and .36, respectively. From a statistical standpoint, this suggests that moderators of the PSM– organizational commitment relationship may exist. We discuss below the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership.

The Role of Intrinsic Motivation

Whereas intrinsic motivation has been conceptualized in several ways, our study adopts a task-based definition, which emphasizes the importance of job characteristics (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Oldham & Hackman, 1981). In particular, Amabile (1993) pro- posed that individuals are intrinsically motivated when they find enjoyment, interest, or personal challenge in their work. Based on the job characteristic model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), jobs can be made more intrinsically motivating by increasing levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feed- back. This perspective suggests that a variation in a person’s intrinsic motivation is partly contingent upon the nature of the job.

Although it is generally assumed that PSM is a form of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991) and that government jobs can offer interesting opportunities for individuals to engage in meaningful public service (Frank & Lewis, 2004), several scholars have questioned whether the two constructs are conceptually and empirically distinct (e.g., Bozeman & Su, 2015; Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2009). That is, these authors ask if it is possible for people to be high in PSM but low in intrinsic motivation, or low in PSM but high in intrinsic motivation.

To make a case that intrinsic motivation could interact with PSM, we draw from the existing literature to theorize that intrinsic motivation differs conceptually from PSM. According to Grant (2008), intrinsic motivation refers to “the desire to expend efforts based on interest in and enjoyment of the work itself” (p. 49), whereas prosocial moti- vation, of which PSM is generally considered to be a form (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008a; Perry et al., 2010), refers to “the desire to expend effort to benefit other peo- ple.” In particular, intrinsic motivation is hedonic in nature (i.e., people expend efforts for pleasure and enjoyment), whereas prosocial motivation is eudaimonic (i.e., people expend efforts for meaning and purpose).

Potipiroon and Ford 217

Citing a number of studies on motivation, Grant (2008a) offered theoretical ratio- nale for why intrinsic motivation is distinct from prosocial motivation. First, from the perspective of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000), individuals’ motivation can be distinguished in terms of a continuum ranging from controlled (i.e., extrinsic) motivation to purely autonomous (i.e., self-determined) motivation. Controlled motivation originates from factors external to the self such as rewards and punishments (external regulation), internal pressures such as to maintain or enhance one’s self worth, or to avoid guilt or shame (introjected regulation), and values that are regarded as personally important (identified regulation), or fully endorsed and assimilated into the self (integrated regu- lation). In contrast, intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation, which occurs when a person experiences a task or an activity as truly enjoyable and satisfying such that external rewards are not needed. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are thus fully volitional and genuinely endorsed by the self. This fine-grained approach to understanding human motivation suggests that PSM could be regarded as an identi- fied or integrated motivation, which exemplifies a situation in which institutionalized or organizational values (e.g., making a difference in society) are perceived as person- ally significant or have been internalized into one’s public service identity.

Second, in terms of goal-directedness, intrinsic motivation is process-focused— engaging in an interesting task is like an end in itself. In contrast, prosocial motivation is outcome-focused whereby work serves as a means toward achieving other outcomes such as helping others. Third, intrinsic motivation is present-focused, concerning the experience of performing a particular task, whereas prosocial motivation is future- focused, concerned with the achievement of meaningful outcomes. Indeed, Bozeman and Su (2015) indicated that the concept of PSM could be linked with at least three desirable outcomes associated with the organization: the chances to advance the goals of public organizations, the chances to make a difference in society via public organi- zations, and identification with the mission of public organization. To the extent that PSM is viewed as a form of prosocial motivation (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008a; Perry et al., 2010), we thus contend that PSM could be differentiated from intrinsic motiva- tion, which is a purer form of autonomous motivation pertaining to the inherent psy- chological satisfaction of working.

We argue further that to the extent that PSM is measured cross-sectionally, it could be regarded as an individual difference variable that is relatively stable over time (Stazyk & Davis, 2015). Notably, Vogel and Kroll (2016) confirmed that PSM among public employees in Germany is stable over a period of 16 years, emphasizing that PSM can be regarded as an enduring trait. From the language of set-point theory, this suggests that although a person’s motivation can fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, peo- ple may actually be predisposed to certain levels of PSM. On the contrary, intrinsic motivation is generally viewed as a form of motivation that is driven by situational factors related to job characteristics (Amabile, 1993; Grant, 2008). Thus, PSM and intrinsic motivation do not necessarily covary as generally assumed. To illustrate this point, a person may have an enduring desire to make a positive impact on the lives of others, yet he or she may find little intrinsic reward in the work because he or she lacks the opportunities to make a positive impact on the lives of others (Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2008; van Loon, Kjeldsen, Andersen, Vandenabeele, & Leisink, 2016; Wright &

218 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Christensen, 2010) or because some of the work in the public sector is inherently bor- ing or unpleasant (Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). For example, a social worker might find public service to be a personally rewarding and important goal but may find the tasks of case work to be unpleasant. In fact, it has also been shown that job tenure can amplify the negative effects of certain aspects of the work environment (e.g., job boredom) in the public sector, such that it impedes one’s commitment to the job from generalizing to the organizational level (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). This suggests that employees may lower commitment to their public organizations when their jobs fail to satisfy their individual motivations as expected (Buchanan, 1974, 1975).

Based on these arguments, we anticipate that when intrinsic motivation is high, those with high PSM will likely feel more autonomous in their work roles, become more emotionally attached to the organization, and enjoy serving on its behalf rather than feeling obligated to remain. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic motivation moderates the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment such that when intrinsic motivation is high, the rela- tionship will be positive, but when intrinsic motivation is low, the relationship will be weak or nonsignificant.

The Role of Ethical Leadership

Leaders are a crucial source of social influence and organizational attitudes in the workplace. According to Shamir (1991), the primary function of leaders is “the cre- ation of shared meanings through their own actions as role models and their use of language, symbols and rituals” (p. 420). In this present study, we focus on the role of ethical leadership, which has been defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforce- ment, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120). By definition, ethical leaders are both moral persons and moral managers: A moral person is characterized by a strong character of honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity, whereas a moral manager serves as a role model and promotes ethical conduct at work (Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000). Thus, ethical leaders are not only honest and trustworthy decision mak- ers who uphold moral principles and integrity even in the face of significant external pressure, but they also promote ethical behavior among their followers by communi- cating ethical standards and expectations, providing ethical guidance, and holding fol- lowers accountable for ethical and unethical conduct (Treviño et al., 2000).

Over the past decade, accumulating research has indicated that ethical leadership is related to various important outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational com- mitment, willingness to put in extra effort on the job, task performance, and citizen- ship behavior (see Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, and Prussia

Potipiroon and Ford 219

(2013) indicated that because ethical leaders are altruistic, honest, and trustworthy and care for the well-being of others (i.e., moral persons), they can influence followers’ attitudes by way of fostering a positive and high-quality interpersonal relationship. Alternatively, Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, and Chonko (2009) indicated that ethical leaders serve as role models who exemplify ethical behavior and promote shared work norms and perceptions among followers (i.e., a moral manager), which in turn leads to positive work attitudes.

Although the concept of ethical leadership can be applied to any type of organiza- tions, it could be argued that public organizations would require a different style of ethi- cal leadership than private organizations. Stazyk and Davis (2015) in particular indicated that public managers embrace public service ideals that are governed by three sets of institutional values, including equal treatment and equity, responsiveness and representation, and the protection of individual rights. This outward-oriented and soci- etal focus of ethical leaders in the public sector could be attributed to the high PSM level inherent among public sector employees, the nature of tasks and missions of pub- lic organizations, as well as the influence of external stakeholders on the organization (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012). Notably, Wright et al. (2016) reported that public manag- ers whose desire is to serve the public and strive for social equity are more likely to be perceived by their subordinates as exhibiting qualities of ethical leadership.

Based on the P-E fit perspective (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), we suggest that the characteristics of ethical leaders who embody the purpose and values of public organiza- tion and of their constituents will match the underlying needs of individuals with high PSM. Whereas past research in the P-E fit literature has focused on the perceived match of personality traits (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002) and goal congruence (Witt, 1998) between supervisors and subordinates, Kroll and Vogel (2014) aptly pointed out that it is not sufficient if leaders and followers are to share altruistic motives. In particular, ethical leaders can also “supply” what followers “need” by providing them with the opportuni- ties to act on their PSM values (e.g., public interest, compassion, self-sacrifice). Because employees may view their supervisor as a salient representative of the values that consti- tute the institutional environment of their organizations, actions of ethical leaders could serve to remind high-PSM employees that public service is meaningful and useful to society, that their personal interests are less important than promoting social equity, and that standing up for the rights of others is important even if it requires personal sacrifice. In other words, we believe that ethical leaders could complement the needs of high-PSM individuals by aligning their values and goals with those of the organization. As has been noted by several researchers, ethical leaders stress public service values and purpose in decision making and clarify to their followers how their tasks and efforts will contribute to the overall achievement of other socially responsible goals (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010).

To the extent that leaders embody important organizational values, we believe that the role of ethical leadership in the public sector is highly relevant to enhancing the positive influence of PSM effects. Taken together, we propose that the characteristics of ethical leaders and those of individuals with high PSM will produce a positive match that results in a higher level of organizational commitment. Thus, we hypothesize that

220 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Hypothesis 4: Ethical leadership is positively related to organizational commitment. Hypothesis 5: Ethical leadership moderates the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment such that the relationship is more positive when ethical leadership is high.

Possible Synergistic Interaction of PSM, Intrinsic Motivation, and Ethical Leadership

Thus far, we have proposed that intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership will individu- ally enhance the effect of PSM. We further explore a possibility that PSM will relate more strongly to organizational commitment for individuals high in intrinsic motivation and under conditions of high-ethical leadership. Specifically, it is possible that individu- als with high PSM and intrinsic motivation thrive primarily when working under imme- diate leaders who consistently promote ethical ideals that match their prosocial predispositions (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) while providing a supportive work contexts (i.e., providing a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness) that allow their intrin- sic motivation to flourish (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ethical leaders can do this by offering followers high levels of autonomy and influence over decision making (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Piccolo et al., 2010) and increasing followers’ self-efficacy by serv- ing as legitimate role models, which allow employees to reach their potential at work (Walumbwa et al., 2011). In contrast, we expect that low levels of ethical leadership could present an undesirable effect especially when PSM and intrinsic motivation are both high. In particular, it has been shown that people with a greater sense of calling (i.e., feelings of strong passion for one’s work) tend to have heightened expectations about management’s moral duty to the work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009) and thus may develop stronger negative reactions when working with unethical leadership. For these reasons, we aim to explore an intriguing possibility that there is a three-way interaction between PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership in predicting organizational commitment. As no previous study has examined the possible interaction of these vari- ables, we refrain from drawing a definitive or formal conclusion about their relation- ships. In the sections below, we discuss the data collection procedures, the research method, our research findings, and implications for practice and further research.

Method

Sample and Procedures

The data used in the study were collected from public employees in the Ministry of Interior (MOI), which is one of the largest public agencies in Thailand. With offices and personnel at every level of administration (i.e., central, provincial, and district) across the country, this agency is responsible for implementing several national poli- cies that have a direct impact on the citizens. These policies include internal security

Potipiroon and Ford 221

(i.e., immigrant and border issues), drugs eradication, community development, and poverty reduction. The agency boasts itself of its ambitious mission: “To alleviate the suffering and promote the well-being of all Thai people.” Given the potential wide- ranging impacts of its responsibilities, this agency plays a vital role in developing a workforce of midlevel (e.g., chief district officers) and high-level leaders (e.g., provin- cial governors) to oversee provincial and district administration.

The survey participants were chosen from the headquarters office located in Bangkok. The survey questionnaires were hand-distributed to 250 public employees in 44 work units who were physically present when the researcher arrived at the head- quarters. Each participant was asked to fill out the survey during his or her work hours, which was returned to the researcher on the same day. As shown in Table 1, 33% of the 196 respondents who returned the survey were clerical workers, compared with 30% for the entire agency. Professional workers were 67% of respondents, compared with 63% for the entire agency. The gender distribution of respondents is fairly representa- tive of the agency population; 40% of respondents were men, compared with 56% of the entire agency. Respondents have an average organizational tenure of 17 years, and an average age of 44 years.

Measures

The survey instrument was administered in the Thai language. Because the original scales were developed in English, back translation (Brislin, 1970) was conducted where the original English versions were translated into Thai and then translated back into English (see the appendix). Affective commitment (α = .90) was measured with the six-item scale developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) and a 7-point Likert- type format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). PSM (α = .78) was measured with the five-item global measure adapted from Perry’s (1996) and a 5-point Likert- type format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This measure has been used in several PSM studies (e.g., Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Bellé, 2013; Brewer & Selden, 2000; Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kim, 2006; Pandey et al., 2008; Stazyk & Davis, 2015; Wright, 2008). Intrinsic motivation (α = .92) was measured with the four-item scale developed by Grant (2008) using 7-point Likert-type scales with anchors of 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Finally, ethical leadership behavior (α = .98) was measured with the 10-item scale from the Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) developed and validated by Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, and Prussia (2013) using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). On the basis of previous research (see Meyer et al., 2002), we controlled for age, organizational and dyad tenure, types of jobs (clerical = 0, professional = 1), gender (male = 0, female = 1), and education (0 = below bachelors’ degree, 1 = bachelor’s degree, 2 = master’s degree, and 3 = PhD). We also controlled for job satisfaction (α = .80) using a five- item scale developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) because job satisfaction is a close correlate of intrinsic motivation (Grant, 2008) and organizational commitment (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006).

222 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

We conducted a series of CFAs to examine the distinctiveness of the key study vari- ables; namely, PSM, intrinsic motivation, ethical leadership, organizational commit- ment, and job satisfaction. As recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), the overall model’s chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker– Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to assess the model fit. As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized five-factor model provided an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 = 850.20, df = 395, p < .01; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .92; TLI = .91, Model 1) and significantly better than the alternative models. For example, the alternative model in which indicators of PSM and intrinsic motivation were set to load onto a single factor fit the data significantly worse (χ2 = 1,01.49, df = 399, p < .01; RMSEA = .09; CFI = .89; TLI = .88, Model 2). Although the chi-square test of the hypothesized model was significant, a relative/normed chi-square (χ2/df) has been recommended as an alternative test, with a ratio of less than 3 indicating acceptable fit (Mueller, 1996). Here, the relative χ2/df ratio was 2.15, suggesting that the hypothesized model had an acceptable fit with the data.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 3. The results showed that PSM was moderately correlated with

Table 1. Agency and Sample Demographics.

Agency population Survey sample

Frequency % Frequency %

Positions 13,439 100.00 196 100 Executive 4 0.02 — — Managerial 884 6.51 — — Professional 8,553 63.64 131 66.83 Clerical 3,998 29.74 65 33.16 Education 13,439 100.00 196 100 PhD 11 0.08 3 1.5 Master’s 3,839 28.56 75 38.26 Bachelor’s 7,681 57.15 96 48.97 Below bachelor’s 1,908 14.19 22 11.22 Gender 13,439 100.00 196 100 Male 7,657 56.97 77 40.20 Female 5,782 43.02 119 59.80 Age 44.65 — 43.90 —

Potipiroon and Ford 223

intrinsic motivation (r = .46, p < .01) while PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership were all positively related to organizational commitment (r = .18, p < .05; r = .37, p < .01; r = .17, p < .05, respectively).

Analytic Procedures

Because our data were collected from individual employees nested within work units, it is possible that the observations were nonindependent, which may violate ordinary least square (OLS) assumptions. We conducted a one-way ANOVA to determine the between-groups variance in our dependent variable (organizational commitment). The results revealed that this variable did not vary significantly across the work units, F(43, 195) = 0.83, p > .75. We also conducted a null model using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM 6; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to test the degree of nonindependence in the dependent variable. This procedure revealed an ICC of .00, which suggests that OLS is a more appropriate choice for statistical analyses (Byrne, 2011).1

Hypothesis Testing

To probe the proposed interaction effects, we followed the hierarchical moderated regression procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Each of the predictor

Table 2. Comparison of Measurement Models (N = 196).

Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Model Δχ2/Δdf

1. Five-factor 850.20 395 .06 .92 .91 2. Four-factor (PSM

and IM merged) 1,011.49 399 .09 .89 .88 2 vs. 1 161.29/4**

3. Four-factor (IM and JS merged)

1,095.92 399 .10 .87 .86 3 vs. 1 245.72/4**

4. Four-factor (OC and JS merged)

1,100.33 399 .10 .87 .86 4 vs. 1 250.13/4**

5. Three-factor (PSM, IM, and JS merged)

1,206.15 402 .10 .84 .83 5 vs. 1 355.95/7**

6. Three-factor (PSM, IM, and OC merged)

1,698.92 402 .13 .77 .75 6 vs. 1 848.72/7**

7. Two-factor (PSM, IM, OC, and JS merged)

1,838.00 404 .13 .52 .74 7 vs. 1 987.80/9**

8. One-factor (all constructs merged)

3,247.41 406 .19 .50 .46 8 vs. 1 2,397.21/11**

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker– Lewis index; PSM = public service motivation; IM = intrinsic motivation; JS = job satisfaction; OC = organizational commitment; EL = ethical leadership. **p < .01.

224

T ab

le 3

. M

ea ns

, S ta

nd ar

d D

ev ia

tio ns

, a nd

C or

re la

tio ns

( N

= 1

96 ).

V ar

ia bl

e M

SD 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10

1.

C om

m itm

en t

3. 62

0. 68

(.9 0)

2.

PS

M 3.

91 0.

52 .1

8* (.7

8)

3.

In tr

in si

c m

ot iv

at io

n 5.

27 1.

17 .3

7* *

.4 6*

* (.9

2)

4.

Et hi

ca l l

ea de

rs hi

p 4.

42 1.

23 .1

7* .1

2 .2

6* *

(.9 8)

5.

Jo

b sa

tis fa

ct io

n 5.

08 0.

95 .5

0* *

.1 2

.4 7*

* .2

0* *

(.8 0)

6.

T

yp e

0. 66

0. 47

− .1

3 −

.0 5

− .1

3 −

.1 0

− .1

2 —

7.

T

en ur

e 20

3. 5

97 .1

7 .0

4 .0

3 .0

9 −

.0 5

− .0

0 −

.2 4*

*

8.

A ge

43 .9

0 8.

67 .0

4 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

1 −

.2 1*

* .7

4* *

9.

G

en de

r 0.

60 0.

49 .0

9 −

.0 5

.0 1

.0 3

.1 5*

− .3

4* *

.2 1*

* .1

4*

10 .

Ed uc

at io

n 1.

30 0.

68 −

.0 2

− .0

2 −

.0 3

− .0

7 −

.0 4

.5 6*

* −

.3 5*

* −

.3 1*

* −

.2 2*

*

11 .

D ya

d 20

.1 7

27 .6

5 .0

9 .0

3 .0

7 −

.0 1

.1 0

− .2

1* *

.0 6

.0 4

.0 8

− 11

N ot

e. C

ro nb

ac h’

s al

ph as

r ep

or te

d in

p ar

en th

es es

. P SM

= p

ub lic

s er

vi ce

m ot

iv at

io n;

t en

ur e

= o

rg an

iz at

io na

l t en

ur e;

d ya

d =

d ya

d te

nu re

; t en

ur e

in m

on th

s; t

yp e:

0

= c

le ric

al , 1

= p

ro fe

ss io

na l;

ge nd

er : 0

= m

al e,

1 =

fe m

al e.

*p <

.0 5.

* *p

< .0

1.

Potipiroon and Ford 225

variables was grand mean centered before the analyses. As shown in Table 4, organi- zational commitment was first regressed onto the control variables, then the three pre- dictor variables, the two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term. Because PSM and intrinsic motivation had moderately high correlations (r = .46), we also calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess potential multicolinearity. This procedure revealed that the mean VIFs were below 2.0, which indicates multico- linearity was not a problem.

We should note that our study did not use a direct measure to demonstrate a fit between supervisor and subordinates (e.g., “I think I fit well with the supervisor”); instead, we used an indirect “fit” measure based on a product term between PSM and ethical leadership. Our rationale is based on past research, which indicates that, when direct “fit” measures are used in conjunction with attitudinal outcomes, respondent’s perceptual distortions could bias study results, whereas indirect fit measure could allow a more accurate assessment of complementarity without asking for implicit judgment of fit by those involved (Kristof-Brown, 1996). Based on the P-E fit per- spective, several PSM studies have relied on indirect fit measures using such interac- tion terms as “PSM × the extent to which job is useful to society” (Steijn, 2008), “PSM

Table 4. Moderated Multiple Regression Results (N = 196).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 3.31*** 3.46*** 4.03*** 4.01*** 4.24*** 2.68*** Control Gender .09 (.10) .09 (.09) .08 (.09) .06 (.09) .09 (.09) .02 (.09) Education .10 (.10) .06 (.08) .07 (.08) .08 (.07) .07 (.08) .07 (.08) Age .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) Occupation type −.19 (.13) −.12 (.12) −.08 (.12) −.12 (.11) −.07 (.11) −.07 (.11) Org tenure −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) Dyad tenure .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) Job satisfaction — — — — — .27 (.05)*** Main predictors PSM .22 (.09)* .02 (.09) .00 (.09) .02 (.09) .00 (.09) .00 (.08) IM .21 (.04)*** .21 (.05)*** .26 (.04)*** .27 (.04)*** .14 (.04)** EL .13 (.05)* .13(.02)* .10 (.06) .07 (.05) Two-way interactions PSM × IM .18 (.06)** .17 (.06)** .13 (.05)* PSM × EL .04 (.06) .08 (.08) .11 (.07) IM × EL .04 (.03) .03(.03) Three-way interaction PSM × IM × EL .15 (.04)*** .14 (.04)*** F test 1.64*** 3.91*** 4.14*** 4.51*** 4.97*** 7.49*** R2 .07 .16 .18 .23 .28 .38 Change in R2 .09 .03 .05 .05 .10

Note. Coefficients are unstandardized; Values in parentheses are standard errors. All the main effect (continuous) variables were grand mean centered. PSM = public service motivation; IM = intrinsic motivation; EL = ethical leadership. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

226 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

× the extent to which jobs emphasize service to others” (Christensen & Wright, 2011), and “PSM × transformational leadership” (Kroll & Vogel, 2014).

As shown in Table 4, the results revealed that PSM had a significant positive effect on commitment (b = .22, p < .05; Model 1), which supports Hypothesis 1. When intrin- sic motivation was included as a predictor, it also had a significant positive effect on commitment (b = .21, p < .001; Model 2), providing support for Hypothesis 2, whereas the effect of PSM became nonsignificant (b = .02, p >.05; Model 2). Next, when ethi- cal leadership was entered as a predictor, it had a significant positive effect (b = .13, p < .05; Model 3), supporting Hypothesis 3.

Next, we entered the two-way interaction terms (“PSM × Intrinsic motivation” and “PSM × Ethical leadership”). The results showed that PSM interacted with intrinsic motivation in the anticipated direction (b = .18, p < .01; Model 4), thus providing support for Hypothesis 4, whereas the interaction between PSM and ethical leadership was non- significant (b = .04, p > .50; Model 4), failing to support Hypothesis 5. To test a possible interaction among PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership as shown in Model 5, we then entered the three two-way interaction terms and the three-way interaction term simultaneously as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). The results indicated a significant three-way interaction (b = .15, p < .001; Model 5). Overall, the R2 increased from .05 in Model 1 to .28 in Model 5, showing a change in variance explained of .23. This incremental variance explained by the model suggests that the model that included the three-way interaction was superior to one without the interaction. In addition, after job satisfaction was entered as a control variable in Model 6, the direct effects of intrinsic motivation and all the interaction terms remained significant.

To graphically understand the nature of the interactions, we followed the proce- dures recommended by Aiken and West (1991). We plotted the high and low levels of each variable (one SD above and below the mean). As shown in Figure 1, this

Figure 1. Two-way interaction plot. Note. PSM = public service motivation.

Potipiroon and Ford 227

procedure revealed that when intrinsic motivation was high, PSM was positively related to organizational commitment (b = .23, p < .05). However, when intrinsic moti- vation was low, PSM was negatively related to commitment (b = −.21, p < .05).

To probe the significance of the three-way interaction, we followed the proce- dures developed by Dawson and Richter (2006). This allows us to examine whether the slope for the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment was more positive under conditions of high-intrinsic motivation and high-ethical lead- ership than in the other three conditions. As shown in Table 5, the result revealed that the slope for high-intrinsic motivation and high-ethical leadership was signifi- cantly more positive than the other three, whereas the other three conditions did not differ significantly from one another. We also examined whether the slopes were significantly different from zero by following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken’s (2003) procedures. As shown in Table 6, the result revealed that the slopes were significantly different from zero only when intrinsic motivation and ethical leader- ship were high.

In addition, to demonstrate that our findings were meaningful from a practical standpoint, we identified the number of respondents in each of the combinations using median splits. The results indicated that there was a reasonably proportionate distribu- tion of the respondents in each of the combinations. For example, 23% of the respon- dents were in the high-PSM, high-intrinsic motivation, and high-ethical leadership condition, whereas 28% were in the in the low-PSM, low-intrinsic motivation, and low-ethical leadership condition, and 11% were in the high-PSM, low-intrinsic moti- vation, and low-ethical leadership combination. This suggests that the observed three- way interaction did not represent a rare occurrence in our data.

Discussion

In this present study, we challenge the assumption that PSM generally leads to higher levels of organization commitment. In doing so, we consider the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership. To date, scant attention has been paid to understanding the potential boundary conditions that may explain the variation in the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment. The significant two-way and three-way interactions observed in our study offer valuable contributions to the

Table 5. Results of Slope Difference Tests for Three-Way Interaction.

Pair of slopes t value for slope difference p value for slope difference

(1) and (2) 2.930 .004 (1) and (3) 4.216 .000 (1) and (4) 2.973 .003 (2) and (3) −0.195 .846 (2) and (4) −0.753 .453 (3) and (4) −0.467 .641

228 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

PSM literature. We discuss below the theoretical and practical implications, study limitations, as well as areas of future research.

Theoretical Implications

Over the past two decades, research has shown that individuals with high PSM are more likely to show commitment to their public sector organizations based on the perceived fit between the characteristics of the organizations and their own (e.g., Castaing, 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Park & Rainey, 2007; Taylor, 2008). Consistent with these previous studies, our research does indicate that PSM could provide a long-term benefit to public organizations in terms of helping retain moti- vated employees. PSM reflects one’s personal desire to engage in meaningful public service that would benefit citizens, community, or society and such a desire is likely to be fulfilled through public service jobs (Christensen & Wright, 2011).

However, our findings reveal that the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment is more complex than assumed. Specifically, we found that the strength of this relationship depends on the extent to which one finds interest and enjoyment in the work itself. As hypothesized, when intrinsic motivation was high, the relationship between PSM and organizational commitment was significantly positive, but to our surprise, when intrinsic motivation was low, this relationship became significantly negative. This suggests that work environments can act as a facilitator or constraint to the fulfillment of individuals’ altruistic needs. Although it is true that public organiza- tions can provide considerable opportunities for acts of altruism (Frank & Lewis, 2004) and that public employees are more likely to internalize the significance of their organizational goals and missions (Caillier, 2015; Wright & Pandey, 2011), our find- ings showed that low levels of intrinsic motivation could potentially undermine the achievement of these inherent opportunities.

Our work thus builds on the current knowledge in this area, which indicates that job-related aspects such as perceived societal impact (i.e., the degree to which the job is perceived to provide opportunities to contribute to society; van Loon et al., 2016), a job’s perceived usefulness (Steijn, 2008), or a job’s service orientation (Christensen & Wright, 2011) could enhance or hamper the impact of PSM. In particular, our finding

Table 6. Tests of Simple Slopes.

Slopes b SE t test (p value)

(1) High-intrinsic motivation, high-ethical leadership

.51 .14 3.52** (.001)

(2) High-intrinsic motivation, low-ethical leadership

−.22 .19 −1.19 (.235)

(3) Low-intrinsic motivation, high-ethical leadership

−.17 .15 −1.18 (.240)

(4) Low-intrinsic motivation, low-ethical leadership

−.08 .13 −0.67 (.502)

Potipiroon and Ford 229

is consistent with emerging research that highlights the dark side of PSM. For exam- ple, van Loon, Vandenabeele, and Leisink (2015) reported that PSM could lead to higher levels of burnout and job dissatisfaction among those working in people pro- cessing organizations (e.g., a police department) when they feel that the societal impact of their job is lacking.

The observed interaction also provides preliminary evidence about the distinctive- ness of PSM and intrinsic motivation—a critical issue that has been raised by several scholars (Bozeman & Su, 2015; Gould-Williams & Esteve, 2015; Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2009). Although PSM relates closely to intrinsic motivation (see also Ryan & Deci, 2000), as can be seen from the moderately high correlation reported in our study, we found in our factor analysis that the two constructs are empirically distinct. We believe that our attempt to draw a demarcation between the two constructs provides a more nuanced understanding of PSM and other measures (Bozeman & Su, 2015; Schott, Neumann, & Baertschi, 2016). In this spirit, we encourage researchers to further clar- ify the relationship between PSM and intrinsic motivation, and their common corre- lates such as task performance and citizenship behavior.

Another contribution from our study is that, although ethical leadership did not interact individually with PSM as hypothesized, a significant three-way interaction among PSM, intrinsic motivation, and ethical leadership was observed. In particular, we found that the effect of PSM on organizational commitment was most positive when accompanied by high levels of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership. But when intrinsic motivation and/or ethical leadership were low, PSM failed to have a positive impact. In fact, the plots depicted in Figure 2 showed that the PSM– organizational commitment relationship tended to be negative, albeit nonsignificant,

Figure 2. Three-way interaction plot. Note. PSM = public service motivation.

230 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

when intrinsic motivation and/or ethical leadership were lacking. Thus, when ethical leadership is low, PSM or intrinsic motivation does not motivate employees to feel more committed to their organizations. This emphasizes that ethical leadership may play an instrumental role in fulfilling employees’ needs to act on their public service mindedness. We encourage future researchers to examine other types of leadership attributes or styles that may have similar enhancing effects. In particular, we propose that a fit between a person’s PSM and the leader’s behavior could be assessed using a commensurate measurement—describing both PSM and leadership styles with identical or similar content dimensions (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown, 1996). A notable example of such an attempt is the work by Vandenabeele (2014), which stud- ied leadership promotion of public service values, whereby respondents were asked to what extent their direct supervisors discussed a set of public service values with them. Although we maintain that ethical leadership is pertinent to understanding PSM effects (Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012), it is possible that the nonsignificant interaction of PSM and ethical leadership was a result of the noncommensurate measurement. More research is needed to clarify these issues.

Finally, although our findings provide some support for our moderation hypothe- ses, one could rightfully argue that ethical leadership should contribute directly to PSM, which in turn will lead to higher levels of organizational commitment (see also Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010; Park & Rainey, 2008). This argument suggests that the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational commitment should be mediated by PSM. Our results however showed that ethical leadership did not corre- late significantly with PSM (r = .12, p > .10), thus failing to meet the basic criteria for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Nevertheless, our findings do indicate that ethical leadership still matters a great deal in terms of enhancing the effects of PSM and intrinsic motivation on organizational commitment.

Study Limitations

The present study is not without its limitations. First, like most other PSM studies, the measurements of all the study variables were based on employees’ self-reports, which could raise concerns about common method variance (CMV). However, we followed a number of nonstatistical procedures to reduce the problems (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon, & Podsakoff, 2003). For example, we applied various response formats in our survey, placed the survey items measuring the dependent variable at the beginning, and ensured anonymity by providing each respondent with a sealed envelope that was returned directly to the researcher on the same day. More importantly, it has been shown that interaction effects tend to be robust against CMV (Evans, 1985; Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Second, because the data were collected in one country, we acknowledge that the ability to generalize could be limited. It is a known fact that Thailand’s public sector is plagued with corruption, which could undermine the positive effect of PSM by reducing the match between organizational missions and characteristics of individuals (Cowley & Smith, 2014). This may partly account for the nonsignificant effect observed in

Potipiroon and Ford 231

our study. Future research situated in different contexts needs to be conducted to replicate and extend our findings.

Conclusion

Public management scholars have indicated that PSM plays a critical role in shaping employee commitment to organizations. We challenge the current wisdom by propos- ing the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and ethical leadership. Our findings highlight a complex interaction of factors that affect organizational commitment. An important implication that emerged from this study is that, whereas individuals with high PSM can contribute to organizational success in several ways, it is important to acknowledge that these very same individuals are likely to develop an unfavorable view of their organizations if their prosocial needs go unmet.

Appendix

Study Measures

Organizational commitment

1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with my organization. 2. I really feel as if my organizations’ problems are my own. 3. I feel like part of the family in my organization. 4. I feel emotionally attached to my organization. 5. My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 6. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.

Public service motivation

1. Meaningful public service is very important to me. 2. I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one

another. 3. Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements. 4. I am prepared to make sacrifices for the good of society. 5. I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be

ridiculed.

Intrinsic motivation. Why are you motivated to do your work?

1. Because I enjoy the work itself. 2. Because it’s fun. 3. Because I find the work engaging. 4. Because I enjoy it.

232 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

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.

Note

1. We also used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM 6; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to conduct the analyses. The results did not differ in any significant way.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

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.

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185-201.

Ethical leadership

1. My supervisor shows a strong concern for ethical and moral values. 2. My supervisor communicates clear ethical standards for members. 3. My supervisor sets an example of ethical behavior in his or her decisions/

actions. 4. My supervisor is honest and can be trusted to tell the truth. 5. My supervisor keeps his or her actions consistent with his or her stated values

(walks the talk). 6. My supervisor can be trusted to carry out promises and commitments. 7. My supervisor insists on doing what is ethical even when it is not easy. 8. My supervisor regards honesty and integrity as important personal values. 9. My supervisor opposes the use of unethical practices to increase performance. 10. My supervisor holds members accountable for using ethical practices in their

work.

Job satisfaction

1. I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 3. Each day seems like it will never end. (R) 4. I feel real enjoyment in my work. 5. I consider my job to be rather unpleasant. (R)

Potipiroon and Ford 233

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bellé, N. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73, 143-153.

Bottomley, P., Mostafa, A. M. S., Gould-Williams, J. S., & León-Cázares, F. (2015). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviours: The contingent role of public service motivation. British Journal of Management, 27, 390-405.

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

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting orga- nizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10, 685-712.

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 satis- faction and turnover intentions of public employees? The American Review of Public Administration, 38, 149-166.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new ave- nues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 583-616.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learn- ing perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Buchanan, B. (1975). Government managers, business executives, and organizational commit- ment. Public Administration Review, 34, 339-347.

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32-57.

Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884.

Caillier, J. G. (2014). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership, public service motivation, mission valence, and employee performance: A prelim- inary study. Public Personnel Management, 43, 218-239. doi:10.1177/0091026014528478

Caillier, J. G. (2015). Towards a better understanding of public service motivation and mission valence in public agencies. Public Management Review, 17, 1217-1236.

Castaing, S. (2006). The effects of psychological contract fulfilment and public service moti- vation on organizational commitment in the French civil service. Public Policy and Administration, 21, 84-98.

234 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

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.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correla- tion analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.

Cowley, E., & Smith, S. (2014). Motivation and mission in the public sector: Evidence from the World Values Survey. Theory and Decision, 76, 241-263.

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

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated mul- tiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917-926.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration. Literature Review, and Methodological Critique, 6, 283-357.

Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person–environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 167-230.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.

Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leader- ship and public sector performance. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 308-323.

Frank, S. A., & Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees working hard or hardly working? The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 36-51.

Gould-Williams, J. S., & Esteve, M. (2015, June 11-13). Public service motivation: Reconsidering its theoretical origins. Paper presented at the International Public Service Motivation Conference, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48-58.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta- analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.

Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 133-146.

Heres, L., & Lasthuizen, K. (2012). What’s the difference? Ethical leadership in public, hybrid and private sector organizations. Journal of Change Management, 12, 441-466.

Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-728.

Potipiroon and Ford 235

Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 722-740.

Kim, S. (2011). Testing a revised measure of public service motivation: Reflective versus for- mative specification. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 521-546.

Kristof-Brown, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptual- izations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of indi- viduals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2014). The PSM–leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Administration, 92, 974-991.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occu- pations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation com- paring job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39, 803-832.

Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to LISREL and EQS. New York, NY: Springer.

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.

Neubert, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., Roberts, J., & Chonko, L. (2009). The virtuous influ- ence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157-170.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 66-83.

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach- ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2009, June 7-9). Using research on altruism, prosocial behav- iour and public service behaviour to change how we manage in public organizations. Paper presented at the International Public Service Motivation Conference, Bloomington, IN.

Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motiva- tion: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70, 710-718.

Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Public service motivation and inter- personal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11, 89-108.

Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2007). Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27, 197-226.

236 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2008). Leadership and public service motivation in US federal agencies. International Public Management Journal, 11, 109-142.

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

Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008a). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11, 3-12. doi:10.1080/10967490801887673

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

Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of pub- lic service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70, 681-690.

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

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259-278.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational com- mitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

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 the- ory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 9, 1-32.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryu, G. (2014). Rethinking public service motivation from the perspective of person–envi- ronment fit complementary or supplementary relationship? Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0734371X14540688

Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1120-1136.

Schott, C., Neumann, O., & Baertschi, M. (2016, August 24-26). Public service motivation, prosocial motivation, prosocial behavior, and altruism: Towards disentanglement and con- ceptual clarity. 2016 EGPA Annual Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405-424.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83.

Potipiroon and Ford 237

Stazyk, E. C., & Davis, R. S. (2015). Taking the “high road”: Does public service motivation alter ethical decision making processes? Public Administration, 93, 627-645.

Steijn, B. (2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11, 13-27. doi:10.1080/10967490801887863

Taylor, J. (2008). Organizational influences, public service motivation and work out- comes: An Australian study. International Public Management Journal, 11, 67-88. doi:10.1080/10967490801887921

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How execu- tives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128-142.

Vandenabeele, W. (2014). Explaining public service motivation: The role of leadership and basic needs satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 153-173.

Vandenabeele, W., & Ban, C. (2009, June 7-9). The impact of public service motivation in an international organization: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the European Commission. Paper presented at the International Public Service Motivation Conference, Bloomington, IN.

van Loon, N., Kjeldsen, A. M., Andersen, L. B., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2016). Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0734371X16639111

van Loon, N., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation. Public Money & Management, 35, 349-356.

Vogel, D., & Kroll, A. (2016). The stability and change of PSM-related values across time: Testing theoretical expectations against panel data. International Public Management Journal, 19, 53-77.

Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–mem- ber exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 115, 204-213.

Witt, L. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational poli- tics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666-674.

Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among govern- ment, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 369-383.

Wright, B. E. (2008). Methodological challenges associated with public service motivation research. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 80-98). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Wright, B. E., & Christensen, R. K. (2010). Public service motivation: A test of the job Attraction–Selection–Attrition Model. International Public Management Journal, 13, 155- 176. doi:10.1080/10967491003752012

Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K., & Pandey, S. K. (2013). Measuring public service motivation: Exploring the equivalence of existing Global measures. International Public Management Journal, 16, 197-223. doi:10.1080/10967494.2013.817242

Wright, B. E., Hassan, S., & Park, J. (2016). Does a public service ethic encourage ethical behavior? Public service motivation, ethical leadership and the report ethical problems. Public Administration, 94, 647-663.

Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of per- son-organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40, 502-521.

238 Public Personnel Management 46(3)

Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence: When does mission matter? Administration & Society, 43, 22-44.

Yukl, G. A., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 38-48.

Author Biographies

Wisanupong Potipiroon is a lecturer in the Faculty of Management Sciences at Prince of Songkla University in Thailand. He received his PhD from University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include public service motivation and leader- ship. He has published in Review of Public Personnel Administration and International Public Management Journal.

Michael T. Ford is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research falls within the domain of occupational health psychology. He has published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Psychological Bulletin, and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART).

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.