U2D2-24 - Analyze & Show the difference from both private & public organizations ethical principles in regulatory management...see details

TOWARD A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION THEORY OF PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION An institutional approach

Wouter Vandenabeele

Wouter Vandenabeele Public Management Institute Katholieke Universiteit Leuven B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Public service motivation (PSM) is a promi-

nent concept within current Public Adminis-

tration, as it refers to the drive for public

interested and altruistic behaviour. Although

substantial empirical research on its nature

and its impact is available, little is known on

the origins of PSM. Led by cues provided by

previous empirical research, this article seeks

to develop a general theory of PSM, encom-

passing both causes and consequences of

PSM. Based on an interdisciplinary approach,

elements of institutional theory and motiva-

tional psychology are fused together, blend-

ing into an operational theory of PSM.

Key words Institutionalism, motivational theory,

person – organization fit, public service

motivation, self-determination theory

Vol. 9 Issue 4 2007 545 – 556

Public Management Review ISSN 1471-9037 print/ISSN 1471-9045 online

� 2007 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/14719030701726697

INTRODUCTION

The rise of New Public Management has had an important impact on how motivation is perceived within public management and public administration. The large-scale borrowing of private sector management techniques, together with the analysis of government in terms of political economy (Ostrom 1974), has led to a breakthrough of rational choice theory in this field of study (Dunleavy and Hood 1994; Mae Kelly 1998; Gruening 2001).

However, the explanatory power of these theories when analyzing specific ‘public’ or government-related behavior remains limited. Most public administration theorists identify behavior such as self-sacrifice, realizing the public interest and altruism as typical of public servants (Perry and Wise 1990; Frederickson 1997) and it is very hard to explain this type of behavior in terms of rational choice. In trying to explain such actions, the concept of public service motivation (PSM) has been developed as a counterweight to the self-interested motivation found in rational choice theories (Rainey 1982; Perry and Wise 1990; Perry 1996).

Most of the research is concerned with identifying possible consequences of the presence of PSM (or the lack thereof). Only the recent efforts by Perry (2000) and Moynihan and Pandey (2007) are aimed at explaining the origins of PSM.

This article would like to take the research on PSM to a next level. The aim of this article, starting from this research question, is to develop a framework that provides a perspective on both the causes and the consequences of public service motivation, together with a set of testable hypotheses. As no empirical data are available at present, the approach will be predominantly theoretical, interdisciplinary merging insights from various theoretical strands into one framework.

THE DEFINITION OF PSM

Despite the fact that public service motivated behavior is generally acknowledged in the field of public administration, its definition is no common ground. Perry and Wise (1990: 368) define PSM as ‘an individual predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions’. Although some authors have adopted his definition, others have developed their own (Brewer and Selden 1998; Rainey and Steinbauer 1999), while non-American authors do not use the term at all when studying public service motivated behavior (Pratchett and Wingfield 1996; Chanlat 2003). It is also evident that the content of such concepts differs according to nation and region (Norris 2003; Hondeghem and Vandenabeele 2005; Vandenabeele et al. 2006). Our own research also showed that Perry’s measurement model of PSM could not be replicated satisfactorily in a Belgian environment and some of the dimensions found by Perry could not be reconstructed at all (Vandenabeele and

546 Public Management Review

Hondeghem 2004). These differences in both terminology and content complicate research on PSM, especially hampering macro-level comparative studies.

To overcome these problems in applying PSM, an overarching definition of PSM has to be constructed. The definition should not only cover PSM in the narrow sense, but also other types of value-laden behavioral determinants such as ethics and roles. It should address matters beyond self-interest or organizational interest, it should refer to a political entity such as nations or states (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999) and like some other motivational concepts, it should be interactive in nature (Heckhausen 1991).

Integrating these elements into a definition, PSM is described as ‘the belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate’.

DIRECTIONS FOR A THEORY ON PSM: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

As stated before, dominant rational choice theories offer little to no explanation for public service motivation of civil servants. However, Perry (1997) found different types of socialization, such as parental, political, religious, professional or educational socialization to be antecedent of PSM or of some of its constituting dimensions. Therefore, institutional theory could provide some answers, as these types of socialization are stable social phenomena that transcend the individual level, very much resembling institutions.

Guy Peters (2000) defines an institution as ‘a formal or informal, structural, societal or political phenomenon that transcends the individual level, that is based on more or less common values, has a certain degree of stability and influences behavior’ (18). Institutions not only offer and constrain behavioral alternatives, but they also, up to a certain extent, model individual preferences (March and Olsen 1995). This means that institutions directly and indirectly determine the motives guiding individual behavior. Next to this, Perry (2000) advocated a more institutional approach in researching public service motivation and Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found an empirical impact of the organizational institution on PSM. The regional differences found in public service values referred to above only strengthen this plea for an institutional approach of PSM research.

There is a variety in institutional-inspired theories within the social sciences. Peters (2000) finds in his account of institutionalist theories within political sciences no less than seven different versions, while Hall and Taylor (1996) find three versions in their account. Nevertheless, as Scott (2001) argues, these theories have similar basic assumptions, but they have different perspectives on both the institutional basis and the level of analysis. The use of a broad definition such, as Peters’ above, enables us to look to these various theories for further insights.

Vandenabeele: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation 547

Another topic that needs to be addressed is the use of the term ‘institutionalism’ versus the term ‘new institutionalism’. Several recent authors prefer the use of the more modern ‘new institutionalism’ over the more classical term when describing the theories they apply or develop. However, the arrival of the new institutionalism was not the beginning of a new paradigm. Instead, it was more a shift in focus (Gidddens 1984; March and Olsen 1989; Selznick 1996), as the differences between old and new institutionalism are no greater than the differences between the various theories within the old or the new institutionalism are. Therefore, in this article, the term ‘institutionalism’ will be used.

CORE CONCEPTS OF AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

According to March and Olsen (1989), much of the individual behavior is done in the way people are ‘supposed’ to act. They attribute this to ‘the routines, procedures, conventions, organizational forms and technologies’ (1989: 22) around which actions are constructed. But these actions also refer to ‘beliefs, paradigms, codes, cultures and knowledge’ (1989: 22). This is what March and Olsen describe as the logic of appropriateness. It not only refers to the institutionalization of rules, but also to the institutionalization of identities and beliefs. As such, it is opposed to the more self- interested perspective based on rational anticipation and calculation of the consequences of an action, which March and Olsen describe as a logic of consequence.

By means of socialization, willing or unwilling, institutions are maintained and distributed among their members or participants. For a detailed description of the process of institutionalization, Scott (2001) refers to The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann (1967). The most important element of Berger and Luckmann’s theory is that socialization takes place through identification with significant others, eventually acquiring a new social identity as a member of the institution. Exactly how this socialization into institutional arrangements takes place is not described in their analysis. Other authors (van Maanen 1976) have tried to develop an account of socialization practices, but as this overview is limited and mostly descriptive, it offers no basis for further developing our theory.

In terms of our PSM-theory, one can consider public service motivated behavior to conform to a logic of appropriateness as it refers to the realization of certain institutional values rather than self-interest. Therefore, it is rooted in various institutions, as shown by Perry (1997), and public service motivation can be considered as an individual instantiation of these institutions.

However, institutional theory offers little explanation of how these processes influence individual behavior. In general, institutionalism finds it very hard to move between the individual level and the institutional level. This vagueness necessitates us to supplement the theory with a more individual level oriented theory to encompass the entire scope of public service motivation.

548 Public Management Review

SUPPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONALISM: THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY

Although institutionalism offers little detailed insights in how institutions move from the institutional level to the individual level (and back), it provides some very interesting clues about how these processes might occur. Key to this is the concept of identity (March and Olsen 1989, 1995; Scott 2001).

Stryker (1980) considers identity to be the constituting element of the ‘self’. Sociology, psychology and other branches of the social sciences know many interpretations of the self and the different identities related to it (Hatch and Schultz 2004; Leary and Tangney 2005). In general, three different types of identities are distinguished. One speaks of a role-identity (seeing oneself as holding a role), a social identity (seeing oneself as a member of a group) or a personal identity (seeing oneself as distinct from others), depending on the academic background of the discourse (Stets and Burke 2005). According to Albert and Whetten (1985), an identity is based upon normative and cultural-cognitive elements around which meanings are constructed, whereas according to Stryker (1980), identity refers to an internalized position within an institution. These references all define identity in terms of institutional elements, while retaining an individual focus. Therefore the concept of identity is a key element in supplementing our institutional theory with an individual level perspective, as it is the nexus between the two levels.

MOTIVATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AS A COMPLETION OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY: SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

However, even by identifying the connection between institutions and individuals, still little is known about the actual individual level processes within institutions. In order to understand these processes, a further completion of institutional theory by motivational theory is needed.

One such theory within the field of motivational psychology is ‘Self-Determination Theory’ (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (2004). SDT is an encompassing theory of motivation, with sufficient openings to take the institutional elements into account. Although SDT is composed of four sub-theories (Deci and Ryan 2004), each with its own emphasis, we will only focus on the elements that are useful to explicitly relate behavior and motivation to an institutional identity.

Compared to earlier motivational researchers (e.g. Herzberg et al. 1957), this approach leads to a slightly different view on the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is experienced in behavior when ‘people engage in the activity for its own sake, that is, because they experience the activity as inherently enjoyable and satisfying’ (Ryan and Deci 2000: 56). Next to intrinsic motivation, another type of motivation is extrinsic motivation, which involves doing an activity in

Vandenabeele: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation 549

order to attain an outcome that is separable from the activity itself (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Contrary to other researchers, Ryan and Deci (2004) discern no less than four types of extrinsic motivation, leaving the traditional dichotomy. These four types of extrinsic motivation range from external regulation at the one end, over introjection and identification to integration at the other end. External regulation is the type of motivation people have whenever they engage in an activity to obtain a reward or to avoid a negative sanction or punishment. In this case, the motivation is not at all internalized and if the sanction is removed, the motivation disappears. In the case of introjected regulation, people intra-psychically apply what happens in the case of external regulation. In this case, the motivation is still not internalized, as it is no part of the self. Instead, only the contingencies associated with this kind of behavior are internalized. In the case of identified regulation, people identify with the value of an activity. This value has become an element of the self, or of a constituting identity, and therefore it is considered to be internalized. In this case people engage in an activity because they feel personally committed to do so, disregarding possible external pressures. The final and most internalized variant of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. In this case, people have not only identified themselves with a value, but this value is congruent to the other values (and identities) they have internalized.

Deci and Ryan (2004) distinguish themselves from other motivational theorists by analyzing motivation in terms of a continuum, rather than thinking in terms of a dichotomy (e.g. Bandura 1997). On this continuum, motivation is graded from non- autonomous or controlled motivation at the one end to autonomous motivation at the other end. The first two types of extrinsic motivation, external regulation and introjection, are considered to be controlled types of motivation. Here, the individual has not fully grasped the significance of the action and the locus of causality is external to the self (Vansteenkiste 2005). The third and fourth type of extrinsic motivation, identification and integration, are considered to be autonomous types of motivation (similar to intrinsic motivation). Here, there is a sense of volition because individuals have fully internalized the value and they are personally committed to it. See Figure 1.

In their theory, Deci and Ryan mainly focus on motivation for individual behavior. Next to this, they are also interested in behavior that is associated with different types of identity. Ryan and Deci (2005) claim that individuals acquire their identities throughout history, by means of interactions with other individuals or institutions. On the one hand, identities are acquired because one is naturally interested in the activities these identities bring about. Ryan and Deci consider the behavior linked with these identities to be intrinsically motivated (intrinsic regulation). On the other hand, one acquires also identities for reasons other than this natural inclination. The behavior associated with these identities is thought to be extrinsic motivation (extrinsic regulation). The extrinsic regulation can be subdivided into categories, based on the

550 Public Management Review

above described continuum. They thus distinguish four types of identity regulation corresponding to the types of extrinsic motivation.

Next to this continuum of internalization, SDT also describes the process of internalization. A core element of the theory is that individuals have three basic psychological needs (Ryan and Deci 2004). These basic needs are the need for autonomy, the need for relatedness and the need for competence. They are assumed to be present within each individual and they are considered to be the base for individuals’ growth oriented movement and the process of internalization. According to SDT, internalization is positively correlated with the perceptions of autonomy, relatedness and competence (Vallerand and Ratelle 2004). In the same way, these needs are functional in developing identities and the corresponding types of regulation (Ryan and Deci 2005).

SDT is a valuable asset in the development of an institutional theory on PSM. It clarifies the relationship between the individual level and the institutional level by relating the concept of identity to the institutional make-up through the environmental responsiveness to individual basic psychological needs. Based on SDT, one can presume that public service motivation originates from within an institution that has institutionalized certain public service values. These values are internalized into a public service identity because certain basic psychological needs are satisfied within this institution. Public service motivation can be readily interpreted as such a public service identity, especially when one considers the Perry measurement scale (1996), which consists of a set of individual attitudes toward the various dimensions of his PSM concept.

MOTIVATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AS A COMPLETION OF INSTITUTIONAL THEORY: PERSON – ORGANIZATION FIT THEORY

Regardless of the many answers SDT provides in developing a supplemented institutional framework for analyzing PSM, some questions remain. The biggest

Figure 1: Continuum of internalization

Vandenabeele: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation 551

question remaining is the type of effect motivation has on behavior. Although recent research considers context, most SDT research assumes a direct and linear relationship between the degree of internalization and the effect it has on behavior (Vansteenkiste 2005), neglecting to elaborate the interactive element of motivation.

However, other motivational theorists state that motivation is an interactive variable (e.g. Heckhausen 1991). Regarding the matter of PSM, person – organization fit theory is probably the most promising variant. The theory assumes motivation for organizational behavior reaches a higher level if there is a fit between the person and the organization (Kristof 1996; Lievens et al. 2001). Often, this fit is based on congruence between a person’s own values and the organizational values. Consequently, without the interaction between individual and organization, no motivation and therefore no behavior can occur.

In the development of our theoretical framework, this leads to the proposition that individuals only perform certain behaviors if the institution in which they operate allows for the behaviors to be performed. In terms of PSM, this means that civil servants will only demonstrate public service behavior to the extent that their organization embraces public service values as a principle.

CONCLUSION: TOWARD AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION

Based on the institutional framework and its completions, a more operational theory of public service motivation is now available. See Figure 2.

Figure 2: Schematic overview of an institutional theory of public service motivation

552 Public Management Review

The theory assumes the existence of different institutions in which individuals operate. These institutions are embedded within the environment and have two essential components. First, they embrace, up to a certain extent, public service values such as interest in politics and policy making, public interest, compassion, self-sacrifice, customer orientation, democratic values and good governance (Hondeghem and Vandenabeele 2005; Vandenabeele et al. 2006). Second, institutions respond to the basic psychological needs located within each individual. These are key to the institutional socialization process or internalization. To the degree that these institutions’ responsiveness is better, the public service values will be better internalized within the individual’s public service identity. Consequently, the regulation of this identity will be controlled (external regulation or introjection) or autonomous (identification or integration). This leads to our first hypothesis H1:

H1: To the degree that institutions respond to the individual psychological needs of relatedness,

competence and autonomy, institutionalized public service values will be internalized more autonomously

in the individual identity.

According to SDT theory, such an identity has a direct impact on public service behavior such as attraction to government employment, a decreased turnover, an increased performance, increased job satisfaction and ethical behavior e.g. whistle blowing. To the degree that it is autonomous, the behavior will be more consistent and more positive. However, according to person – organization fit theories, such behavior will only occur when the institution in which the individual operates allows this performance. This leads to two, partly opposed, hypotheses H2a and H2b:

H2a: To the degree that a public service identity is more autonomous, it will result in a more consistent

and intense public service behavior.

H2b: To the degree that a public service identity is more autonomous, it will result in a more consistent

and intense public service behavior, given that the institution in which the individual operates embraces

the public service values.

Although these hypotheses might be contradicting, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that there will be a linear effect as well as an interactive effect. Therefore, both hypotheses are incorporated in our framework.

AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This theory presents many avenues for further research. First, this is only a theoretical development, so much work remains to be done in testing the theoretical propositions.

Vandenabeele: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation 553

As Perry (1997) found already five institutional contexts that impacted on the development of PSM, these institutions and their impact on PSM have to be researched.

Next to the hypotheses stated previously, this theory provokes new questions. The interplay between various institutions when socializing new identities, is unexplored in this theory. To explain these interactions, the theory should be further developed. Also on the domain of institutional change and evolution, much work remains to be done. Here, historical institutionalism can be a possible approach (for an interesting perspective, see Mahoney 2000).

In the field of SDT, there is also much further research awaiting. As it is based on basic needs, these concepts have to be further developed, in order to distinguish itself from earlier falsified theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy of need (see among others Rainey 1997).

However, other institutionally inspired theories should also be further developed, as this theory is only a single endeavor in trying to explain PSM. Undoubtedly, there will be biases associated with theoretical framework. Therefore, other middle range theories of public service motivation can bring new insights about or they might challenge propositions made in this framework. It is only by challenging the things we deem correct that scientific progress can be made.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Prof. Dr Annie Hondeghem, Prof. Dr Willy Lens and Prof. Dr Maarten Vansteenkiste for their valuable comments on this article. This article is part of a research project sponsored by Research Programme of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). Parts of this article have been presented at the IRSPM 2006 conference in Glasgow and at the EGPA 2006 conference in Milan.

REFERENCES Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985) ‘Organizational Identity’ in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds) Research in

Organizational Behavior 7, Greenwich: JAI.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Anchor Books.

Brewer, G. A. and Selden, S. C. (1998) Whistle Blowers in the Federal Civil Service: New Evidence of the

Public Service Ethic, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 8: 3 pp413 – 39.

Chanlat, J.-F. (2003) ‘Le Managérialisme et l’Ethique du Bien Commun: La Question de la Motivation au Travail

dans Services Publics’ in T. Duvillier, J.-L. Genard and A. Piraux (eds) La Motivation au Travail dans les

Services Publics, Paris: L’Harmattan.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. eds (2004) Handbook of Self-Determination Research, Rochester, NY: University of

Rochester Press.

Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C. (1994) From Old Public Administration to New Public Management, Public Money

and Management. 14: 3 pp9 – 16.

554 Public Management Review

Frederickson, H. G. (1997) The Spirit of Public Administration, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gruening, G. (2001) Origin and Theoretical Basis of New Public Management, International Public Management

Journal. 4: 1 pp1 – 25.

Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, Political Studies.

44: 4 pp936 – 57.

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2004) Organizational Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heckhausen, H. (1991) Motivation and Action, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O. and Capwell, D. F. (1957) Job Attitudes: Review of Research and

Opinion, Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.

Hondeghem, A. and Vandenabeele, W. (2005) Valeurs et Motivation dans l’Administration Publique:

Perspective Comparative, Revue Française d’Administration Publique. 115 pp463 – 80.

Kristof, A. L. (1996) Person – Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement

and Implications, Personnel Psychology. 49: 1 pp1 – 49.

Leary, M. R. and Tangney, J. P. eds (2005) Handbook of Self and Identity, New York: Guilford.

Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P. and Geirnaert, J. (2001) Organizational Attractiveness for Prospective

Applicants: A Person–Organization Fit Perspective, Applied Psychology: An International Review. 50: 1

pp81 – 108.

Mae Kelly, R. (1998) An Inclusive Democratic Polity, Representative Bureaucracies and the New Public

Management, Public Administration Review. 58: 3 pp201 – 8.

Mahoney, J. (2000) Path Dependence in Historical Sociology, Theory and Society. 29: 4 pp507 – 48.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions, New York: The Free Press.

—— (1995) Democratic Governance, New York: The Free Press.

Moynihan, D. P. and Pandey, S. K. (2007) The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation,

Public Administration Review. 67: 1 pp40 – 53.

Norris, P. (2003) ‘Is There Still a Public Service Ethos? Work Values, Experience, and Job Satisfaction among

Government Workers’ in J. D. Donahue and J. S. Nye, Jr (eds) For the People: Can We Fix Public Service?

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Ostrom, V. (1974) The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Perry, J. L. (1996) Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 6: 1 pp5 – 23.

—— (1997) Antecedents of Public Service Motivation, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 7: 2

pp181 – 97.

—— (2000) Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public Service Motivation, Journal of Public Administration

Research & Theory. 10: 2 pp471 – 88.

Perry, J. L. and Wise, L. R. (1990) The Motivational Bases of Public Service, Public Administration Review. 50: 3

pp367 – 73.

Peters, B. G. (2000) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, London: Continuum.

Pratchett, L. and Wingfield, M. (1996) Petty Bureaucracy and Woolly-Minded Liberalism? The Changing Ethos

of Local Government Officers, Public Administration. 74: 4 pp639 – 56.

Rainey, H. G. (1982) Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic,

American Review of Public Administration. 16: 4 pp288 – 302.

—— (1997) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rainey, H. G. and Steinbauer, P. (1999) Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective

Government Organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 9: 1 pp1 – 32.

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions,

Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25: 1 pp54 – 67.

Vandenabeele: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation 555

—— (2004) ‘An Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic-Dialectic Perspective’ in E. L. Deci

and R. M. Ryan (eds) Handbook of Self-Determination Research, Rochester: University of Rochester Press.

—— (2005) ‘On Assimilating Identities to the Self: A Self-Determination Perspective on Internalization and

Integrity within Cultures’ in M. R. Leary and J. P. Tagney (eds) Handbook of Self and Identity, New York:

Guilford.

Scott, W. R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Selznick, P. (1996) Institutionalism ‘Old’ and ‘New’, Administrative Science Quarterly. 41: 2 pp270 – 7.

Stets, J. E. and Burke, P. J. (2005) ‘A Sociological Approach to Self and Identity’ in M. R. Leary and J. P.

Tagney (eds) Handbook of Self and Identity, New York: Guilford.

Stryker, S. (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Structural Version, Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin.

Vallerand, R. J. and Ratelle, C. F. (2004) ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: A Hierarchical Model’ in E. L.

Deci and R. M. Ryan (eds) Handbook of Self-Determination Research, Rochester, NY: University of

Rochester Press.

Vandenabeele, W. and Hondeghem, A. (2004) L’Appel de la Fonction Publique: La ‘Motivation de Service

Public’ (Public Service Motivation) en tant que Facteur Décisif d’Engagement dans la Fonction Publique,

à l’Ere de la Nouvelle Gestion Publique, Revue Economique et Sociale. 62: 4 pp91 – 102.

Vandenabeele, W., Scheepers, S. and Hondeghem, A. (2006) Public Service Motivation in an International

Comparative Perspective: The UK and Germany, Public Policy and Administration. 21: 1 pp13 – 31.

Van Maanen, J. (1976) ‘Breaking In: Socialization to Work’ in R. Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization and

Society, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Vansteenkiste, M. (2005) ‘Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Goal Promotion and Autonomy Support versus Control’.

Dissertation, Leuven, Faculty of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

556 Public Management Review