Unit I Org Ther
breal
UnitIArcticle.pdf
Public Personnel Management 2016, Vol. 45(4) 405 –424
© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091026016676093
ppm.sagepub.com
Article
Is Public Service Motivation a Better Explanation of Nonprofit Career Preferences Than Government Career Preferences?
Leonard Bright1
Abstract Public service motivation (PSM) is a multifaceted theory that explains, among other things, the career preferences of individuals. Some have suggested that PSM is not inherently government specific and thus is also a meaningful characteristic of individuals who are employed in the nonprofit sector. This study sought to add to this body of research by exploring the relationship that PSM has to nonprofit and government career preferences, while controlling for the influences of age, gender, minority status, and work experience. The findings of this study demonstrated that individuals with high levels of PSM preferred nonprofit careers over government careers. However, the gender of the respondents was found to be the most important predictor of career preferences when compared with PSM. The implications of these findings to the field of public administration and management are discussed.
Keywords public management, motivation theory, public administration, workplace attitudes and behaviors
Introduction
Public service motivation (PSM) is a multifaceted theory that explains, among other things, the career preferences of individuals. Originally, it was theorized that PSM drew individuals to government employment because of the inherent opportunities to
1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding Author: Leonard Bright, George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 4220 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA. Email: [email protected]
676093PPMXXX10.1177/0091026016676093Public Personnel ManagementBright research-article2016
406 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
serve the public interest and community goals (Rainey, 1982). Today, some have sug- gested that PSM is not inherently government specific (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008) and thus is also a meaningful characteristic of individuals who are employed in the nonprofit sector. At the very least, nonprofit organizations have become major actors in the delivery of public services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Rhodes, 1994; Salamon, 1995). According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there are over 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in operation in the United States. Most are public char- ities that are involved in a variety of policy domains and represent nearly 10% of the total wages given to employees.
Given the size and impact of the nonprofit sector, it makes sense that attention is focused on understanding the forces that drive individuals into this employment sector, especially in terms of PSM. There is evidence that the relationship between PSM and nonprofit careers may be stronger than some may realize or acknowledge. Recent stud- ies have found that not only is PSM high among nonprofit employees (Miller-Stevens, Taylor, & Morris, 2015; Taylor, 2010; Word & Carpenter, 2013), it may also be a better predictor of preferences for careers in the nonprofit sector than those found in local, state, and federal levels of government (Bright & Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Rose, 2012). However, given the limited number of studies that comparatively explore the topic, more research is needed to help confirm the validity of these trends. Also, many studies on this topic are based on undergraduate students who are unique in terms of their maturity and age. These characteristics may make them more susceptible to negative images of government and thus inherently less interested in government employment. Investigating this question using a recent national survey of graduate stu- dents in public administration programs will help disentangle the socializing effect of organizations, as well as help broaden the generalizability of the findings.
The purpose of this article is to investigate whether PSM is a significantly better pre- dictor of nonprofit career preferences when compared with government career prefer- ences, while considering the influence of other important explanations. This will provide a test of whether a significant relationship exists between PSM and career preferences in this national survey sample, as well a clearer understanding of the strength of this rela- tionship relative to other meaningful variables. This purpose will be accomplished in several stages. First, the article will provide a brief review of the field of PSM research and the theoretical underpinning that explains why a relationship should exist between PSM and nonprofit career preferences. Second, the methodology that was used to collect the data for this study will be presented. Finally, the findings of this study and their implications for the field of public administration will be discussed.
PSM
Why do individuals choose government work? This has been a central question among PSM scholars. Some suggested that individuals mainly choose government employ- ment because of a desire for job security (Buchanan, 1975) and other pragmatic con- cerns (Gabris & Simo, 1995). However, many scholars differed with this assessment and suggest that individuals who choose government employment do so out of a desire
Bright 407
to serve their community and a predisposition to highly value intrinsic opportunities (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz, Massey, & Brown, 1998; Rainey, 1982).
The motive that attracts individuals to public service has been called public service motivation. PSM has been described in many ways such as an altruistic need to serve the public interest (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999), and as values that concern the interest of a larger political entity that motivate individuals to act (Vandenabeele, 2007). However, Bozeman and Su (2015) suggested that failing to distinguish PSM from other concepts such as altruism and service motivation will be a “conceptual stum- bling block” that will ultimately limit its empirical impact. Nonetheless, altruism is a defining characteristic of PSM. For instance, one of the most widely accepted defini- tions of PSM was offered by Perry and Wise (1990), who defined it as an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives uniquely grounded in government institutions that is driven by rational, normative, and affective motives. The rational motives rep- resent desires to use public service to support one’s own private interest. The norm- based motives relates to a sense of service and duty to government, and society. The affective motives capture the importance or conviction an individual may hold about a given cause. Hence, a major contribution of PSM theory is the acknowledgment that individuals can be attracted to public service for a variety of reasons, albeit altruistic, affective, and even self-centered.
Similarly, Perry (1996) made a significant methodological contribution to the field by developing the first multivariate measurement scale that test PSM apart from other concepts, such as satisfaction and work preferences. In recent years, much attention has focused on improving the generalizability, parsimony, and internal consistency of Perry’s (1996) scale while preserving the integrity of Perry and Wise’s (1990) theoreti- cal contribution (Kim, 2009a, 2009b; Kim et al., 2013). However, as Kim et al. (2013) noted, these improvements are likely to progress incrementally.
Nonetheless, the theoretical and methodological refinements that have been made with regard to PSM have facilitated an exponential increase of research on the con- cept, especially from the standpoint of its relationship to the attitudes and behaviors of individuals. Basically, the field of research has found meaningful relationships between PSM and individuals’ work perceptions and preferences (Bright, 2005, 2009; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), satisfaction and commitment (Gould-Williams, Mostafa, & Bottomley, 2015; Homberg, McCarthy, & Tabvuma, 2015; Kim, 2012; Naff & Crum, 1999), job performance (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Andersen, Heinesen, & Pedersen, 2014; Bright, 2007; Naff & Crum, 1999; Ritz, 2009), charity and volun- teerism (Clerkin, Paynter, & Taylor, 2009; Ertas, 2014; Houston, 2006), and job and organizational fit (Bright, 2007, 2008, 2013; Christensen & Wright, 2011; Gould- Williams et al., 2015; Kim, 2012; Liu, Tang, & Yang, 2015; Quratulain & Khan, 2015).
PSM and Career Preferences
So, to what extent does PSM predict career choices? Perry and Wise (1990) originally hypothesized that the greater an individual’s level of PSM, the more likely he or she is to seek employment in public organizations. There is evidence that PSM is related to
408 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
an attraction to government careers (Carpenter, Doverspike, & Miguel, 2012; Ko & Jun, 2015; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Liu, Hui, Hu, Yang, & Yu, 2011; Ritz & Waldner, 2011; Vandenabeele, 2008; Winter & Thaler, 2016). It has been shown that as the level of PSM rises within individuals, their attraction to government organizations also rises. However, most of the existing research on this topic do not comparably explore the relationship that PSM has to both government and nonprofit career choices. When comparative analyses are conducted, many studies focus on the relationship between government and business career choices. As a result, it is unclear as to whether govern- ment occupations are the primary goal of individuals with high levels of PSM, when compared with careers in the nonprofit sector.
Exploring the connections between PSM and nonprofit career choices will move the field forward. As a matter of fact, calls to broaden the application of PSM beyond the context of government have been given for quite some time (Mann, 2006; Perry, 2000). If this is the case, it is important to address how the concept of PSM can be applied to preferences for nonprofit careers. There are at least two answers. First, both government and nonprofit sectors are engaged in what is called public service. These are occupations that tend to deemphasize profit generation and emphasize service to others. The characteristics of public service work are attractive to individuals with high levels of PSM. Second, the motivational tendencies of government and nonprofit employees are discussed in altruistic terms (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Perry & Wise, 1990). As previously discussed, PSM is an altruistic concept applied to the public sec- tor. While altruism is not the only motivator,1 existing research suggest that meaning- ful opportunities to help others and contribute to the needs of the community are highly motivating to nonprofit employees and volunteers (Amos, Holmes, & Allred, 2015; Benz, 2005; Gidron, 1983, 1985; Lammers, 1991; Park & Word, 2012). Given the connection that PSM has to the nonprofit sector, it would be useful to compara- tively explore the relative strength of this relationship.
PSM, Nonprofit, and Government Comparisons
There are at least three related perspectives that vary in terms of their support of the assertion that government organizations are not the only sector, or even the primary sector that attracts individuals with high levels of PSM. The first perspective suggests that PSM is not inherently government-centered. For example, while Perry and Wise (1990) originally asserted an inherent link between PSM and government organiza- tions, Perry and Hondeghem (2008) later revised this statement by suggesting that PSM is not government sector–specific, but relates to motives of serving the public good more generally. Christensen and Wright (2011) offered some support for this proposition. Using a sample of first-year law students, these scholars found that while PSM does enhance the attractiveness of work that is altruistic in nature, it was not a meaningful predictor of the sector of these work opportunities. Hence, this perspective suggests that meaningful public service opportunities are present in all sectors of employment. As a result, individuals with high levels of PSM can be attracted to careers in government, business, or private sector.
Bright 409
The second perspective suggests that nonprofit and government employees are similar in motivational orientations and values (Miller-Stevens et al., 2015; Taylor, 2010; Word & Carpenter, 2013). For example, Word and Carpenter (2013) found that Perry’s (1996) PSM scale was a good representation of the attitudes of nonprofit employees, leading them to suggest that PSM was a predictor of their behaviors. Similarly, Miller-Stevens et al. (2015) found a high degree of similarity between the values of nonprofit and local government managers, even though there were differ- ences in terms of their emphasis on altruism. In this case, nonprofit managers ranked altruism higher in importance to their organizations than did public managers. Moreover, this perspective suggests that there are no inherent or widespread differ- ences between government and nonprofit employees on the basis of PSM. The oppor- tunities for public service are more equally distributed between nonprofit and government sectors. As a result, individuals with high levels of PSM would be attracted to nonprofit and public organizations equally.
The third perspective is that nonprofit organizations have environmental and struc- tural characteristics that facilitate the availability of a unique set of intrinsic opportuni- ties that are inherently more appealing to individuals with high levels of PSM than the kinds of work opportunities available in government organizations (Hansmann, 1980; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Mann, 2006; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). One of the unique fea- tures of many nonprofit organizations is the salience of their public service missions (Benz, 2005; Brown & Yoshioka, 2003; Rose-Ackerman, 1996), which is believed to offset their relatively low salary levels2 (Preston, 1989; Serra, Serneels, & Barr, 2011). In addition, several studies have found that nonprofit employees reported having sig- nificantly greater access to attractive job conditions such as meaningful work, auton- omy, discretion, flexibility, and family-friendly policies than those reported by government employees (Lee & Wilkins, 2011; LeRoux & Feeney, 2013; Mann, 2006; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). Even more recently, research suggest that when compared with nonprofit career options, PSM is not a predictor of government careers (Bright & Graham, 2015; Rose, 2012) and/or has a very limited relationship (Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012). Moreover, this perspective suggests that while PSM may not be government sector–specific, it is instead nonprofit sector–specific. This is based on the viewpoint that the most attractive public service opportunities to individuals with high levels of PSM are more likely found in the nonprofit sector. If this is the case, PSM would be more closely related to preferences for nonprofit careers, when compared with preferences for the government or private-sector careers.
Demographics and Career Preferences
The central question this study seeks to address is whether individuals with high levels of PSM are significantly more attracted to nonprofit careers when compared with gov- ernment careers. To gain a clearer picture of this relationship, it is important to con- sider the impact of other competing explanations on career preferences such as demographics. For instance, there are studies that have investigated the relationship between gender and career preferences. While a small body of research demonstrated
410 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
that females were more likely to choose and/or work in government (Blank, 1985; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Liu et al., 2011), a larger body of research found that females were significantly less interested in government employment than their male counter- parts (Bright & Graham, 2015), but are more likely to work for nonprofit organizations (Bright & Graham, 2015; Doverspike, Qin, Magee, Snell, & Vaiana, 2011; LeRoux & Feeney, 2013; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Rose, 2012; Themudo, 2009). The attraction that females have to nonprofit organizations is largely attributed to prosocial and altru- istic motives, as well as the availability of work–life balance opportunities (Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Themudo, 2009).
Second, there are studies that have investigated the relationship between age and career preferences. Although there are many ways to conceptualize age differences (Bright, 2010), it is often conceptualized as generational differences (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002), which asserts that individuals collectively experience defining life events that uniquely shape their ideals and career preferences. For example, some studies suggest that millennials are more interested in monetary rewards, have unreal- istic high salary requirements, and are more interested in balancing their work–life responsibilities than previous generational cohorts (McGinnis-Johnson & Ng, 2016; Ng & Gossett, 2013; Partnership for Public Service, 2012). However, most studies fail to find a strong relationship between age and career preferences (Holland, 1959; Kjeldsen, 2012; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Tschirhart, Reed, Freeman, & Anker, 2008). Only a very few studies have found that younger individuals preferred nonprofit orga- nizations (Lewis & Frank, 2002; Ng & Gossett, 2013).
Third, there are studies that have investigated the relationship between work expe- rience and career preferences. These studies found that work experience in the public sector and/or private sector was strongly related to career preferences (Bright & Graham, 2015; Henderson & Chetkovich, 2014; Light, 1999; Tschirhart et al., 2008). The longer an individual worked in a particular employment sector, the more likely he or she will prefer that sector. There are two potential explanations of this relationship. On one hand, it has been suggested that these relationships are driven by a sense of competence and the realities of the work environment (Tschirhart et al., 2008). Years of experiences in a particular sector enhances one’s sense of competency and under- standing of the realities of that sector, which positively enhances preferences to remain in that sector. On the other hand, this relationship could be a function of sunken costs. The longer individuals work in a given sector, the greater the investment that will be lost if a different career option is chosen.
Finally, existing research have explored the relationship between minority status and career preferences. In the United States, the public sector is traditionally viewed as being more progressive than other sectors when addressing discrimination in its hiring practices. The importance of being representative of the citizens who are being served is a foundational principle in the field of public administration (Kingsley, 1944). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that minorities make up 34% of the federal government (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2015), which is on par with national demographic statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). While these practices suggest that a strong relationship is present between minority status
Bright 411
and government career preferences, the empirical findings are very mixed. For instance, a few studies have found no relationship between minority status and career preferences (Bright & Graham, 2015; Rose, 2012), whereas others have confirmed this relationship, though in contradictory directions (Blank, 1985; Doverspike et al., 2011; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Ng & Gossett, 2013). For example, Ng and Gossett (2013), using a sample of Canadian students,3 found that racial minori- ties were significantly less likely to prefer government occupations, whereas Lewis and Frank (2002) and Doverspike et al. (2011) found that minorities were more likely to prefer government occupations.
Method
This study will explore the relationship that PSM has to career preferences, while considering the influences of age, gender, minority status, and years of work experi- ence. The data for this study were drawn from a national survey of students in public affairs master’s degree programs in the United States, conducted in 2013. One hundred universities and schools of public affairs were randomly selected from a list obtained from the Network of Schools of Public Policy Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) and were asked to participate in the study. Twenty-six schools agreed to participate that were located in various regions in the United States. Each school was asked to forward a link to an online survey to its public affairs and administration graduate students.4 The survey instructed the students that their participation in the study was completely voluntary, their individual answers would be kept confidential, they could refuse to answer any question that made them uncomfortable, and they could end the survey at any time with no penalty or loss. Five hundred sixty-two students responded to the survey. Approximately 35% of the students who were enrolled in the 26 degree programs participated in this study.5
The central study variables were career preferences, PSM, age, gender, and years of work experience in nonprofit and government sectors. All of these variables were col- lected from the online survey. For example, the career preferences of the respondents were collected using the following survey question: “Which of the following sectors of employment do you most prefer to work after graduation?” The response categories included “government sector (federal, state, or local),” “nonprofit sector,” and “busi- ness sector.” Preferences for government employment were coded as 0, whereas pref- erences for nonprofit were coded as 1. Business employment preferences were excluded from the sample, given the focus of this study. PSM6 was measured and collected using a Kim (2009a) 12-item revision of Perry’s (1996) 24-item PSM scale. Kim’s (2009a) scale measures four dimensions of PSM: attraction of public policy making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice. In this study, Kim’s (2009a) scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .83. See Table 1 for a description of the variables and coding strategies.
The analysis of this study was conducted in two stages. First, the data were examined for multicollinearity problems using variance inflation factor (VIF) and bivariate corre- lation scores. The VIF scores were obtained for each independent variable in successive
412
T a b
le 1
. D
es cr
ip ti o n
o f St
ud y
V ar
ia bl
es .
La be
l D
es cr
ip ti o n/
su rv
ey q
ue st
io n
V ar
ia bl
e co
di ng
n M
in im
um M
ax im
um M
SD
A ge
W ha
t ye
ar w
er e
yo u
bo rn
? D
at e
o f bi
rt h–
Y ea
r o f St
ud y
52 2
20 60
30 .0
6 8.
03
C ar
ee r
pr ef
er en
ce W
hi ch
o f th
e fo
llo w
in g
se ct
o rs
o f em
pl o ym
en t
do y
o u
m o st
p re
fe r
to w
o rk
af
te r
gr ad
ua ti o n?
T he
r es
po ns
e ca
te go
ri es
in cl
ud ed
g o ve
rn m
en t
se ct
o r
(f ed
er al
, s ta
te , o
r lo
ca l) , n
o np
ro fit
s ec
to r,
a nd
b us
in es
s se
ct o r
go ve
rn m
en t
= 0
, no
np ro
fit =
1 4
51 0
1 0.
39 0.
49
G en
de r
W ha
t is
y o ur
g en
de r?
m al
e =
0 , f
em al
e =
1 53
7 1
2 1.
64 0.
48 M
in o ri
ty s
ta tu
s H
o w
w o ul
d yo
u de
sc ri
be y
o ur
r ac
ia l o
r et
hn ic
g ro
up ?
m in
o ri
ty =
0 ,
no nm
in o ri
ty =
1 53
5 0
1 0.
68 7.
23
Pu bl
ic s
er vi
ce
m o ti va
ti o n
K im
’s (
20 09
a) P
SM s
ca le
: (a
) M
ak in
g a
di ffe
re nc
e in
s o ci
et y
m ea
ns m
o re
t o m
e th
an p
er so
na l
ac hi
ev em
en ts
; ( b)
I f ee
l s ym
pa th
et ic
t o t
he p
lig ht
o f th
e un
de rp
ri vi
le ge
d;
(c )
I am
in te
re st
ed in
m ak
in g
pu bl
ic p
ro gr
am s
th at
a re
b en
ef ic
ia l f
o r
m y
co un
tr y
o r
th e
co m
m un
it y
I be
lo ng
t o ; (
d) I t
is d
iff ic
ul t
fo r
m e
to c
o nt
ai n
m y
fe el
in gs
w he
n I se
e pe
o pl
e in
d is
tr es
s; (
e) B
el ie
ve in
p ut
ti ng
d ut
y be
fo re
s el
f; (f
) I co
ns id
er p
ub lic
s er
vi ce
m y
ci vi
c du
ty ; (
g) S
ha ri
ng m
y vi
ew s
o n
pu bl
ic p
o lic
ie s
w it h
o th
er s
is a
tt ra
ct iv
e to
m e;
( h)
S ee
in g
pe o pl
e ge
t be
ne fit
s fr
o m
a p
ub lic
p ro
gr am
I h
av e
be en
d ee
pl y
in vo
lv ed
in b
ri ng
s m
e a
gr ea
t de
al o
f sa
ti sf
ac ti o n;
( i) I a
m p
re pa
re d
to m
ak e
en o rm
o us
s ac
ri fic
es
fo r
th e
go o d
o f so
ci et
y; (
j) , I
p re
fe r
se ei
ng p
ub lic
o ffi
ci al
s do
w ha
t is
b es
t fo
r th
e w
ho le
c o m
m un
it y
ev en
if it
h ar
m ed
m y
in te
re st
s; (
k) I a
m o
ft en
re
m in
de d
by d
ai ly
e ve
nt s
ho w
d ep
en de
nt w
e ar
e o n
o ne
a no
th er
; ( l)
M ea
ni ng
fu l p
ub lic
s er
vi ce
is im
po rt
an t
to m
e. PS
M s
um .
C o nt
in uo
us 50
2 57
.3 6
7. 23
17 72
Y ea
rs o
f go
ve rn
m en
t ex
pe ri
en ce
H o w
m an
y ye
ar s
o f ex
pe ri
en ce
d o y
o u
ha ve
w o rk
in g
in g
o ve
rn m
en t
se ct
o r?
C o nt
in uo
us 51
6 0
31 2.
77 4.
97
Y ea
rs o
f no
np ro
fit
ex pe
ri en
ce
H o w
m an
y ye
ar s
o f ex
pe ri
en ce
d o y
o u
ha ve
w o rk
in g
in n
o np
ro fit
s ec
to r?
C o nt
in uo
us 51
8 0
30 2.
10 3.
47
N ot
e. P
SM =
p ub
lic s
er vi
ce m
o ti va
ti o n.
Bright 413
interactions using a regression model in SPSS. Each iteration demonstrated that the VIF scores ranged from 1.7 to 1.0. Similarly, bivariate statistics revealed that none of the independent variables had correlations above .7. These statistics are an indication that multicollinearity is not an issue in this data sample. Second, a logistic regression model was used to explore the probability that each study variable was related to career prefer- ences, while considering the relationships of age, gender, minority status, and nonprofit and government work experience. The findings are reported below.
Findings
Description of the Respondents
As shown in Table 2, the majority of the respondents of this study identified them- selves as being between 20 and 30 years old (69%), female (64%), and White (68%). In addition, most have between 0 and 1 years of experience in either the government or nonprofit work sectors. However, 15% of the respondents reported having 6 to 10 years of work experience in government or nonprofit organizations. In addition, when asked “which of the following sectors of employment do you most prefer to work,” half of the respondents indicated that they preferred government employment, whereas 32% indicated that they preferred employment in the nonprofit sector.
As shown in Table 3, the bivariate correlations reveal interesting patterns. For instance, the results demonstrated that years of work experience in nonprofit and gov- ernment were negatively related. Few of the respondents had work experience in both sectors. This finding supports existing research that suggest that sector shifting is not a common characteristic among public affairs students (Tschirhart et al., 2008). In like manner, gender was strongly related to years of nonprofit work experience. Females were more likely to have work experience in the nonprofit sector when compared with the male respondents. No meaningful relationship was found between gender and years of government work experience.
Unexpectedly, government work experience was strongly and negatively related to PSM. As the respondents’ years of government experience increased, their level of PSM significantly declined. This finding was similar to those found in existing research (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007) and has been explained in terms of burnout. In addition, the bivariate correlations revealed that career preferences were meaningfully related to gender, nonprofit and government work experience, and PSM. More specifi- cally, females, nonprofit work experience, and high levels of PSM were associated with greater preferences for nonprofit careers than government careers.
Logistic Regression Model
In addition to the bivariate correlations, this study investigated the relationship that PSM had to career preferences, while considering the influences of age, gender, minority status, and years of work experience. As shown in Table 4, there are three major findings. First, this study confirmed that gender, minority status, and years of
414 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
experience in the government and nonprofit sectors were all significantly related to the career preferences of the respondents. The age of the respondents was the only variable that was not meaningfully related to career preferences. However, the respondents who were female, nonminorities, and had years of nonprofit experience were significantly more likely to prefer nonprofit careers.
Second, this study demonstrated that years of experience in nonprofit and government organizations were also significantly related to career preferences, although in different directions. In this case, years of government experience appeared to enhance interest in government career options, whereas experience in nonprofit organizations significantly
Table 2. Background Characteristics.
%
Age (M = 30) 20-30 years old 69 30-40 years old 20 40-50 years old 7 50+ years old 4 Gender Male 36 Female 64 Race and ethnicity Black/African American 8 Hispanic/Latino 8 White/Caucasian 68 Asian/Pacific Islander 11 Native American/Alaska Native .2 Middle Eastern 1 Multiracial 3 Government experience (M = 3 years) 0-1 year 62 1-3 years 13 3-6 years 10 6-10 years 9 10+ years 6 Nonprofit experience (M = 2 years) 0-1 year 63 1-3 years 13 3-6 years 10 6-10 years 9 10+ years 6 Career preferences Government 50 Nonprofit 32
Bright 415
diminished these interests. However, the participants with nonprofit experience appeared less willing to consider an alternative career choice than those with government work experience. To explain, the participants with nonprofit experience were 1.1 times less likely to desire government careers options, whereas participants with government expe- rience were only 0.784 times less likely to prefer nonprofit careers options.
Moreover, after controlling the influence of age, gender, minority status, and work experience in nonprofit and government sectors, PSM was found to be significantly related to career preferences. Individuals with high levels of PSM were 1.03 times more likely to prefer careers in the nonprofit sector than careers in government. However, PSM was not the most influential factor on the career preferences in this study, when compared with gender. Females were 2.7 times more likely to prefer non- profit careers when compared with their male counterparts.
Conclusion
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between PSM, and nonprofit and government career preferences. This study found that PSM was a
Table 3. Bivariate Corrections Among Study Variables (N = 421).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 1 2. Gender −.021 1 3. Minority status .052 −.048 1 4. Government experience .523** −.076 .079 1 5. Nonprofit experience .305** .108* .064 −.127** 1 6. Public service motivation −.048 −.005 −.087 −.110* .021 1 7. Career preferences −.018 .220** .073 −.293** .295** .130** 1
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
Table 4. Logistic Regression of Independent Variables on Career Preferences (N = 421).
B SE Wald Significance Exp(B)
Age 0.025 .017 2.167 .141 1.025 Gender (females) 1.004 .251 15.969 .000 2.730 Minority status (minorities) −0.644 .258 6.237 .013 0.525 Years of nonprofit experience
0.107 .035 9.552 .002 1.113
Years of government experience
−0.231 .044 27.536 .000 0.794
Public service motivation 0.038 .017 4.908 .027 1.039 Classification probability 72 Nagelkerke R2 .289
416 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
significantly better explanation for why individuals prefer employment in nonprofit organizations instead of government organizations, even when considering the influ- ences of age, gender, minority status, and years of government and nonprofit work experience. However, it is important to note that this finding does not suggest that PSM is not related to government career preferences. It only confirmed that when comparisons were made, PSM was a significantly better predictor of nonprofit career preferences. As a result, the findings contribute to the growing body of research that demonstrates that PSM is a significantly better predictor of nonprofit career prefer- ences (Bright & Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Rose, 2012).
There are three major contributions in this study. First, this study confirms that demo- graphics matter with respect to career preferences. In support of existing research, females and nonminorities were significantly more likely to prefer nonprofit careers (Bright & Graham, 2015; Doverspike et al., 2011; LeRoux & Feeney, 2013; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Rose, 2012; Themudo, 2009). Males and minorities were more likely to prefer government employment. Also, consistent with existing research, age was not a meaningful predictor in this study (Holland, 1959; Kjeldsen, 2012; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Tschirhart et al., 2008). However, these findings of this study may have been largely driven by the fact that most of the respondents were around the same age/generational cohort. Thus, there may not have been enough variation among the respondents in terms of age to adequately test its relationship to career preferences.
Second, this study demonstrated that even though PSM was a meaningful explana- tion for career preferences, the best explanation centered on gender. Many explana- tions have been offered in the literature for why females tend to gravitate toward the nonprofit sector, such as gender role socialization, the masculine images of public organizations, and the flexibility of the nonprofit work environment (DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2006; Ferguson, 1984; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Stivers, 2002; Themudo, 2009). Notwithstanding these explanations, it is clear from this study that PSM was not an explanation for this finding. The bivariate correlations revealed that the respondents’ level of PSM did not vary by their gender. Both males and females reported similar levels of PSM. Instead, a post hoc cross-tab analysis revealed that gender differences were driven by the preferences of the male respondents, rather than the female respondents. Females preferred government careers (n = 159) at relatively equal levels as nonprofit careers (n = 138) in this sample. The difference was found in terms of male preferences. Significantly more males preferred government employ- ment (n = 115) than nonprofit employment (n = 39). This is an indication that males are significantly more sensitive to the characteristics of nonprofits than their female counterparts. The reason for this finding is not entirely clear, though one can speculate that the perception that males may hold regarding the feminization of the nonprofit sector could be one reason.
Third, the findings of this study suggest that PSM is a nonprofit specific. This conclu- sion is provocative because PSM originally developed as an explanation for government career choices, when compared with employment in the private sector. Significant dif- ferences were found between PSM and nonprofit or government career preferences. PSM was significantly higher among the respondents who preferred nonprofit careers.
Bright 417
Even so, if there are real differences in terms of the career preferences of individuals on the basis of PSM, what could explain the results? Why did the respondents with high levels of PSM prefer the nonprofit sector?
One answer could center on the measure and conception of PSM. One could argue that the findings of this study were driven by a reliance on altruism when conceptual- izing and measuring PSM. Altruism, some may suggest, is inherently related to the nonprofit sector. However, altruism has always been a foundational motive of PSM, even though it is not the only motive. While scholars have worked to expand the con- cept to capture a wider range of motives, it is the belief of the author that altruism will remain central to PSM. Still, while there may be studies that rely on less robust mea- sures of PSM, the findings of this study were based on a robust measurement of PSM that included the altruistic as well as rational and affective dimensions.
A second answer centers on perceptions and negative messaging. The nonprofit sector may have been more attractive to individuals with high levels of PSM because of the negative messaging these individuals may have received regarding the charac- teristics of government organizations, as opposed to what exist in reality. These nega- tive images may have convinced some that government organizations are not good places work and fulfill their motives, when compared with nonprofit organizations. It should come to no surprise that government organizations are viewed negatively in the United States (Beard & Beard, 1986; Goodsell, 2003). This may be rooted in the American antifederalist traditions that promote suspicion of large and far away gov- ernments (Kenyon, 1985). It may also be related to the highly partisan political battles and sensational media coverage that erodes trust in government (Newland, 1997; Wamsleyl, Goodsell, Rohr, White, & Wolf, 1984). The negative images of government organizations are an important consideration given the respondents’ low years of expe- rience in government. Most lacked firsthand knowledge of the realities of work life and the kinds of opportunities that are available in government or nonprofit organiza- tions. As a result, respondents may have been more susceptible to negative messaging that exaggerates the negative features of government. In contrast, research suggest that most public employees are satisfied with their agencies and are willing to recommend their agencies as good places to work (Partnership for Public Service, 2015).
A third answer centers on the realities of government work environments. The findings of this study could be a reflection of real differences in terms of the quantity and quality of available public service opportunities that are present in government and nonprofit organizations. Over the last few decades, the nonprofit sector has dramatically grown in the United States. According to the statistics, nonprofits grew by more than 25% between 2001 and 2011 (outpacing the percentage growth in hiring of businesses during this same period) and employed 10% of the workforce in 2010 (Bernasek, 2014). Currently, there are significantly more nonprofit career opportunities than what existed when the concept of PSM was first developed. Hence, individuals with high levels of PSM may now have more opportunities to recognize the nonprofit sector as a more viable and more accessible means of fulfilling their motives. Also, federal survey data indicate that the level of satis- faction among many government employees is not as stable as it can appear. Although most federal employees are satisfied and committed to their work overall, these attitudes
418 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
drastically decline after their first year of employment (Partnership for Public Service, 2015). Relatedly, existing research has found that PSM significantly declines over time in public agencies (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), a finding that was replicated in this study. Therefore, it may be the case that public organizations are less suitable to individuals with high levels of PSM when compared with nonprofit careers. Research in the field may now be finally catching up with this reality.
Nevertheless, the contributions of this study should be kept in perspective, given its weaknesses. For instance, this study relied on a cross-sectional design, and does not adequately consider the degree to which preferences change over time. It could be that individuals who desire nonprofit careers today may desire careers in government tomorrow. Also, although PSM and career preferences may be related, the causal path of this relationship is unclear. Individuals may select their career preferences first and adopt the values they believe are appropriate for that type of work later. Hence, the extent to which PSM is causing these preference selections cannot be fully confirmed. A longitudinal study is better equipped to control the effects of these kinds of threats to validity (Bozeman & Su, 2014). As a result, more research is needed to establish the internal and external validity of the findings.
In conclusion, this study suggests that the field of public administration may be losing the battle in convincing individuals with high levels of PSM that government organizations are the most ideal places to fulfill their public service needs (Bright & Graham, 2015; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Light, 1999; Rose, 2012). This is unfortu- nate given the fact that the differences between the sectors should not be as great as to obscure the meaningful opportunities that exist in both sectors to contribute to the well-being of society. At the very least, there is a need in the field to be more effective in either promoting the benefits of government employment to individuals with high levels of PSM, or we need to be seeking real reforms that create rewarding govern- ment work environments for these individuals. Until this happens, it appears that non- profit organizations are in a better position to reap the benefits of PSM than government organizations. If these trends hold, the recruitment challenges that government organi- zations face will become steeper in the future.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Existing research also suggest that nonprofit employees and volunteers are also driven by egoistic motives (Mesch, Tschirhart, Perry, & Lee, 1998; Selander & Ruuskanen, 2016; Veludo-de-Oliveira, Pallister, & Foxall, 2015).
Bright 419
2. This statement is not meant to suggest that all nonprofit organizations have inherently lower salaries relative to the government or business sectors. Recent research suggest that the wage gap or the labor donation hypothesis is a function of demand (Jones, 2015).
3. It is important to keep in mind national differences when interpreting the results of studies conducted in different countries.
4. This approach was utilized to remain compliant with our university’s institutional review board (IRB) requirements, to give the widest possible protection of confidentiality to stu- dents, and to help lessen many programs hesitation about providing a third party access to their students given federal laws that governing student data. As a result, the data collected from students was a convenient sample.
5. The response rate was calculated from data that was obtained directly from the degree programs. However, not every program provided this information. As a result, informa- tion on student body size was supplemented with information gained from other published sources.
6. Some scholars favor the “deconstructed” viewpoint of public service motivation (PSM) and dismember it in an attempt to prove some given relationship at the sub-dimension level. In contrast, this study centers on understanding how PSM holistically impacts career choices, over and above its individual variations.
References
Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.
Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Allred, A. (2015). Exploring impact philanthropy, altruistic, hedonic, and egoistic motivations to support animal causes. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27, 351-372.
Andersen, L. B., Heinesen, E., & Pedersen, L. H. (2014). How does public service motivation among teachers affect student performance in schools? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 651-671.
Beard, C., & Beard, W. (1986). The case for bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 46, 107-112.
Benz, M. (2005). Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction?—Evidence on worker well-being in non-profit firms. Kyklos, 58, 155-176.
Bernasek, A. (2014, March 9). For nonprofits, a bigger share of the economy. The New York Times, p. 4BU.
Blank, R. M. (1985). An analysis of workers’ choice between employment in the public and private sectors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 38, 211-224.
Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review, 75, 700-710.
Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: Who are they, where are they, and what do they want? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25, 138-154.
Bright, L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public ser- vice motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27, 361-379.
Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration, 38, 149-166.
420 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
Bright, L. (2009). Why do public employees desire intrinsic nonmonetary opportunities? Public Personnel Management, 38, 15-37.
Bright, L. (2010). Why age matters in the work preferences of public employees: A comparison of three age-related explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39, 1-14.
Bright, L. (2013). Where does public service motivation count the most in government work environments? A preliminary empirical investigation and hypotheses. Public Personnel Management, 42, 5-26.
Bright, L., & Graham, B. C., Jr. (2015). Why does interest in government careers decline among public affairs graduate students? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21, 575-594.
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 5-18.
Buchanan, B. (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic: Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration & Society, 6, 423-444.
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 244-257.
Carpenter, J., Doverspike, D., & Miguel, R. F. (2012). Public service motivation as a predictor of attraction to the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 509-523.
Christensen, R. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 723-743.
Clerkin, R. M., & Coggburn, J. D. (2012). The dimensions of public service motivation and sec- tor work preferences. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 209-235.
Clerkin, R. M., Paynter, S. R., & Taylor, J. K. (2009). Public service motivation in undergraduate giving and volunteering decisions. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 675-698.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499-518.
DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66, 873-887.
Doverspike, D., Qin, L., Magee, M. P., Snell, A. F., & Vaiana, L. P. (2011). The public sector as a career choice: Antecedents of an expressed interest in working for the federal govern- ment. Public Personnel Management, 40, 119-132.
Ertas, N. (2014). Public service motivation theory and voluntary organizations: Do government employees volunteer more? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 254-271.
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24, 33-51.
Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among service volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12(1), 20-35.
Gidron, B. (1985). Predictors of retention and turnover among service volunteer workers. Journal of Social Service Research, 8(1), 1-16.
Goodsell, C. T. (2003). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washingtion D.C.: CQ Press
Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Bottomley, P. (2015). Public service motivation and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector: Testing the mediating effect of per- son-organization fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 597-622.
Bright 421
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). Role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835-901. Henderson, M., & Chetkovich, C. (2014). Sectors and skills: Career trajectories and training
needs of MPP students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20, 193-216. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6,
35-45. Homberg, F., McCarthy, D., & Tabvuma, V. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 75, 711-722. Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-728. Houston, D. J. (2006). “Walking the walk” of public service motivation: Public employees and
charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 67-86.
Jones, D. B. (2015). The supply and demand of motivated labor: When should we expect to see nonprofit wage gaps? Labour Economics, 32, 1-14.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., Massey, T. K., Jr., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Motivation in public and pri- vate organizations: A comparative study. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21, 230-250.
Kenyon, C. M. (1985). The Antifederalists. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Kim, S. (2009a). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. American
Review of Public Administration, 39, 149-163. Kim, S. (2009b). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A research note.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 839-851. Kim, S. (2012). Does person-organization fit matter in the public-sector? Testing the mediating
effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72, 830-840.
Kim, S., Vandenabeele, W., Wright, B. E., Andersen, L. B., Cerase, F. P., Christensen, R. K., . . . De Vivo, P. (2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of mea- surement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 79-102.
Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy. An Interpretation of the British civil Service. Yellow Springs, O: Antioch Press.
Kjeldsen, A. M. (2012). Vocational study and public service motivation: Disentangling the socializing effects of higher education. International Public Management Journal, 15, 500-524.
Ko, K., & Jun, K.-N. (2015). A comparative analysis of job motivation and career preference of Asian undergraduate students. Public Personnel Management, 44, 192-213.
Lammers, J. C. (1991). Attitudes, motives, and demographic predictors of volunteer commit- ment and service duration. Journal of Social Service Research, 14, 125-140.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When Generations Collide: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, Millennials: Who They are, Why They Clash, How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. New York: HarperBusiness.
Lee, Y.-j., & Wilkins, V. M. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71, 45-56.
LeRoux, K., & Feeney, M. K. (2013). Factors attracting individuals to nonprofit management over public and private sector management. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24, 43-62.
Lewis, G. B., & Frank, S. A. (2002). Who wants to work for the government? Public Administration Review, 62, 395-404.
422 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
Light, P. C. (1999). The new public service: Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Liu, B., Hui, C., Hu, J., Yang, W., & Yu, X. (2011). How well can public service motivation
connect with occupational intention? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 191-211.
Liu, B., Tang, T. L.-P., & Yang, K. (2015). When does public service motivation fuel the job satisfaction fire? The joint moderation of person–organization fit and needs–supplies fit. Public Management Review, 17, 876-900.
Mann, G. A. (2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource manage- ment and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Public Personnel Management, 35, 33-48.
McGinnis-Johnson, J., & Ng, E. S. (2016). Money talks or millennials walk: The effect of com- pensation on nonprofit millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 283-305.
Mesch, D. J., Tschirhart, M., Perry, J., & Lee, G. (1998). Altruists or egoists? Retention in sti- pended service. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 3-22.
Miller-Stevens, K., Taylor, J. A., & Morris, J. C. (2015). Are we really on the same page? An empirical examination of value congruence between public sector and nonprofit sector managers. Voluntas, 26, 2424-2446.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hackett, E. J. (1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sec- tor. Monthly Labor Review, 106, 3-12.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.
Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.
Newland, C. A. (1997). Realism and public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(2), II-III.
Ng, E. S. W., & Gossett, C. W. (2013). Career choice in Canadian public service: An explora- tion of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, 42, 337-358.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Park, S. M., & Word, J. (2012). Driven to service: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management, 41, 705-734.
Partnership for Public Service. (2012). Federal Leaders Face Challenges Attracting Top College Graduates to Government Service. Partnership for Public Service and the National Association of Colleges and Employer. Retrived from https://ourpublicservice.org/publica- tions/index.php
Partnership for Public Service. (2015). 2014 Best Places to Work Analysis: Improving the Employee Experience. Partnership for Public Service. Retrived from https://ourpublicser- vice.org/publications/index.php
Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
Perry, J. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of public administration research and theory, 10, 471-488.
Perry, J., & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J., & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.
Bright 423
Preston, A. E. (1989). The nonprofit worker in a for-profit world. Journal of Labor Economics, 7, 438-463.
Quratulain, S., & Khan, A. K. (2015). How does employees’ public service motivation get affected? A conditional process analysis of the effects of person–job fit and work pressure. Public Personnel Management, 44, 266-289.
Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. The American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1-32.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. The Political Quarterly, 65, 138-151.
Ritz, A. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 53-78.
Ritz, A., & Waldner, C. (2011). Competing for future leaders: A study of attractiveness of public sector organizations to potential job applicants. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 291-316.
Rose, R. P. (2012). Preferences for careers in public work: Examining the government-nonprofit divide among undergraduates through public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 416-437.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701-728.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the mod- ern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Selander, K., & Ruuskanen, P. (2016). Why do third sector employees intend to remain or leave their workplace? Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 6, 81-100.
Serra, D., Serneels, P., & Barr, A. (2011). Intrinsic motivations and the non-profit health sector: Evidence from Ethiopia. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 309-314.
Stivers, C. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Taylor, J. (2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes, and actions of public, nonprofit and private sector employees. Public Administration, 88, 1083-1098.
Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 663-683.
Tschirhart, M., Reed, K. K., Freeman, S., & Anker, L. A. (2008). Is the grass greener? Sector shifting and choice of sector by MPA and MBA graduates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 668-688.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved from http://www.census. gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2015). FEDSCOPE [Datafile]. Available from https:// www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp
Veludo-de-Oliveira, T. M., Pallister, J. G., & Foxall, G. R. (2015). Unselfish? Understanding the role of altruism, empathy, and beliefs in volunteering commitment. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27, 373-396.
Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motiva- tion—An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9, 545-556.
424 Public Personnel Management 45(4)
Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86, 1089-1105.
Wamsleyl, G. L., Goodsell, C. T., Rohr, J. A., White, O. F., & Wolf, J. F. (1984). The public administration and the governance process: Refocusing the American dialogue. Dialogue, 6, 2-18.
Winter, V., & Thaler, J. (2016). Does motivation matter for employer choices? A discrete- choice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, nonprofit, and for-profit hos- pitals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 762-786.
Word, J., & Carpenter, H. (2013). The new public service? Applying the public service motiva- tion model to nonprofit employees. Public Personnel Management, 42, 315-336.
Author Biography
Leonard Bright is an Associate professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, College Station. He currently teaches courses in public management, program evaluation, and organizational theory and behavior. His research has appeared in the American Review of Public Administration, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Public Personnel Management, Review of Public Personnel Administration, and Teaching Public Administration.
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
