Gene A.

Brewer
The University of Georgia
Sally Coleman Selden
Syracuse University
Rex L. Facer II
The University of Georgia

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation

Many scholars and practitioners of public administration converge on the belief that some indi-
viduals are predisposed to perform public service. James L. Perry (1996) recently clarified the
public service motivation (PSM) construct and proposed a measurement scale. The present study
builds on and extends this important stream of research by examining how individuals view the
motives associated with public service. Specifically, we use an intensive research technique called
Q-methodology to examine the motives of 69 individuals. We identify four distinct conceptions of
PSM: individuals holding these conceptions are referred to as samaritans, communitarians, patri-
ots, and humanitarians. The practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

The public administration community has long main- tivities are vitally important to society at large (for ex-
tained that some individuals have strong norms and emo- ample, see Putnam 1995).2 Social scientists have spent
tions about performing public service. This “public ser- considerable time and effort trying to understand the
vice ethic” is thought to attract certain individuals to gov- role of self-interest in human behavior, but they have
ernment service and foster work behaviors that are consis- neglected these socially important motives and behav-
tent with the public interest.1 Such an ethic is important iors (Arrow 1985, 51; Downs 1991, 162–65; Golem-
because it challenges the prevailing assumption that pub- biewski 1996, 139–41). When cast broadly, PSM may
lic servants are self-interested (Golembiewski 1996, 139– help fill this gaping hole in current theories of human
41), and it provides insight on a broad range of issues that and organizational behavior.
are vital to the field of public administration. These issues
include individual work motivation and productivity in the Gene A. Brewer is a scholar-practitioner of public administration. His pri-
mary areas of research are administrative theory and reform, public service
public sector (Rainey 1982; Volcker 1990; Crewson 1995), motivation, and bureaucratic accountability in democratic government. His
improved management practice in public organizations recent work has appeared in Public Administration Review, Administration
(Romzek 1990; DiIulio 1994; Rainey 1997; Wittmer 1991), and Society, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, The
American Review of Public Administration, Journal of Public Affairs Educa-
enhanced political accountability of the bureaucracy tion, and Review of Public Personnel Administration.
(Ingraham and Ban 1986; Selden, Brewer, and Brudney Sally Coleman Selden is assistant professor of public administration at
1999; Rourke 1984; Meier 1993; Wood and Waterman Syracuse University. Her major areas of research interest include human
resource management and public management. Her recent work has ap-
1994, 104), and greater citizen trust in government peared in Public Administration Review, Administration and Society, Jour-
(Wamsley et al. 1990; Terry 1998; Brewer and Selden nal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and American Journal
of Public Administration. She is author of The Promise of Representative
1998). In short, the nature of public service motivation Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency (M.E.
(PSM) is one of the “big questions” of public administra- Sharpe).
tion and public management (Behn 1995, 318–19). Rex L. Facer II is a doctoral candidate in public administration and a re-
search coordinator for the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the Univer-
In addition, PSM has important implications beyond sity of Georgia. He has been involved in several research and technical
the field of public administration. Many people outside assistance projects examining state and local policy issues and has worked
government have strong motives to perform meaning- as a consultant for national and regional organizations such as National
Semiconductor and Dennon Digital Industries. His primary research interest
ful public, community, and social service, and these ac- is in organizational change.

254 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The purpose of this research is threefold. First, we re- ceptions of public service. Importantly, Rainey (1982, 298–
view the literature on how the PSM construct has been 299) pointed out that PSM is a broad, multifaceted con-
measured. Second, we introduce Q-methodology and ex- cept that may be conceived many different ways.
plain how it can be used to examine and clarify the PSM Dennis Wittmer (1991) and Gerald T. Gabris and Gloria
construct. Third, we extend the current state of knowledge Simo (1995) extended the dichotomous approach to in-
by assessing how 69 individuals view the motives associ- clude hybrid and nonprofit sector employees. Consistent
ated with public service. We discover four conceptions of with previous research, Wittmer (1991) found that public
PSM: individuals holding these conceptions are referred and hybrid sector employees valued community service
to as samaritans, communitarians, patriots, and humani- and being helpful to others more than private sector em-
tarians. Finally, we discuss the practical and theoretical ployees, whereas this latter group valued pay and job se-
implications of this research. curity as the most important rewards. In contrast, Gabris
and Simo (1995) examined samples of public, private, and
nonprofit sector employees and did not find significant
Public Service Motivation differences in the perceived need for service, helping, pay,
Beginning with Bruce Buchanan’s (1975) early study or job security. These mixed findings raise several impor-
of the public service ethic, several scholars have contrib- tant questions about PSM, but foremost is the question of
uted to this small but growing niche in the literature measurement.
(Rainey 1982; Wittmer 1991; Crewson 1995, 1997; Rainey (1982) pointed out that PSM is hard to define
Crewson and Guyot 1997; Gabris and Simo 1995; Perry and measure because of the complex nature of the con-
1996, 1997; Brewer and Selden 1998). In general, two struct. Building on his observation that PSM is a broad,
empirical streams of research have emerged. The major- multifaceted concept, James L. Perry and Lois R. Wise
ity of research has examined differences between public (1990) defined PSM as “an individual’s predisposition to
and private sector employees on PSM-related dimensions respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in pub-
such as reward preferences, the meaning of public ser- lic institutions and organizations” (368). They identified
vice, job involvement, and job satisfaction (Rainey 1982; three theoretical bases of PSM: rational, norm-based, and
Wittmer 1991; Crewson 1995, 1997; Gabris and Simo affective. Rational motives are grounded in individual util-
1995). The second stream of research has attempted to ity maximization, and they are operative when individuals
capture and explain the multifaceted dimensions of PSM want to participate in the policy process, are committed to
(Perry 1996, 1997). These two streams of research are a public program because of personal identification with
described in more detail below. it, and serve as advocates for a special or private interest.3
Bruce Buchanan II (1975) was one of the first scholars Norm-based motives are a desire to serve the public inter-
to attempt to study PSM by exploring differences between est, no matter how this latter term is defined. These mo-
public and private sector employees. He equated PSM with tives include patriotism, duty, and loyalty to the govern-
job involvement and measured it using a multiple-item ment, but they also raise ethical dilemmas. Identifying
scale. Contrary to his expectations, Buchanan found that which behaviors are congruent with the public interest is
public sector managers reported lower levels of job involve- difficult because scholars do not agree on a precise defini-
ment than their private sector counterparts. He rational- tion of the public interest (Downs 1967, 101–2; Rainey
ized this finding by saying public managers were frustrated 1982, 298). Affective motives are grounded in human
with bureaucratic “red tape.” emotion, and they are characterized by a desire and will-
Hal G. Rainey (1982) reviewed Buchanan’s findings and ingness to help others. These motives include altruism,
argued that public managers would score higher if asked empathy, moral conviction, and other prosocial desires.
more directly about public service. He tested this proposi- These three categories provide a useful framework for
tion by asking a sample of public and private sector man- understanding PSM, but the categories overlap. An indi-
agers to rate their “desire to engage in meaningful public vidual may have rational, norm-based, and affective mo-
service.” On this more direct and robust measure of PSM, tives that contribute to a single behavior.
Rainey found that public managers reported much higher Subsequently, James L. Perry (1996) translated the
scores than private managers. These scores were strongly theory of PSM into a measurement scale. He tested the
related to job satisfaction but weakly related to job involve- scale with confirmatory factor analysis and derived four
ment—further casting doubt on Buchanan’s use of job in- factors: public policymaking, public interest, compassion,
volvement as a proxy measure of PSM. Rainey’s findings and self-sacrifice. The first three factors correspond to the
were replicated by Baldwin (1984) and Reed (1988), but theoretical framework proposed by Perry and Wise (1990),
Rainey (1982, 297) himself acknowledged the major prob- and the fourth adds self-sacrifice—a factor often associ-
lem with these studies: individuals may have different con- ated with PSM in the literature. Following up on this re-

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation 255

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
search, Perry (1997) has provided further evidence of con- bureaucratic images (Cunningham and Olshfski 1986;
struct validity by identifying several antecedents of PSM Gaines, Van Tubergen, and Paiva 1984; Gough, Misiti, and
and reporting their correlations to the measurement scale. Parisi 1971; Hiruy 1987; Immerman 1970; Selden, Brewer,
Perry’s (1996) approach is a significant improvement and Brudney 1999; Shah 1982; Sylvia and Sylvia 1986;
over previous research that has used proxy variables to Yarwood and Nimmo 1976). In the present study, Q-meth-
measure PSM and sectoral comparisons to test for its ex- odology is used to allow public administrators to consider
istence (for a recent example, see Crewson 1997). How- and evaluate simultaneously items used to measure PSM.
ever, Perry’s approach was not designed to capture differ-
ences in individual conceptions of PSM. Using Perry’s The Q-Sample and the P-Sample
research as a cornerstone, this study applies a different tech- The Q-sample consists of statements taken from James
nique, Q-methodology, to understand PSM from the L. Perry’s (1996) research on PSM. Perry (1996, 8) devel-
individual’s point of view. Like Anthony Downs (1967), oped a list of forty items representing six dimensions of
who based his well-known typology of bureaucratic roles PSM: attraction to policymaking, commitment to the pub-
on the assumption that individuals have mixed motives, lic interest, social justice, civic duty, compassion, and self-
we will allow for rather than eliminate the possibility that sacrifice. These items were derived from two primary
PSM involves mixed motives. Thus, this research will pro- sources: the relevant literature and focus groups convened
vide a more systematic and comprehensive view of PSM, to discuss public service. Perry (1996) tested and revised
and a clearer understanding of the motives involved in the items three times before finalizing his instrument. The
performing public service. instrument consists of forty statements that are displayed
in Table 1 (See Appendix 1 for a list of statements by di-
mension). To construct a measurement model of PSM,
Method
Perry (1996) asked respondents to indicate their extent of
Q-Methodology agreement or disagreement with each item using a five-
Q-methodology is an intensive research technique in point Likert scale. Although Perry’s (1996) analysis yielded
which individuals sort statements about a topic according a four-dimensional model of public service measured by
to how strongly they agree or disagree with each state- 24 statements, we used the original sample of 40 state-
ment (Stephenson 1953). The approach requires respon- ments because they represent the primary dimensions dis-
dents to express their attitudes by ranking the statements. cussed in the literature and mentioned by students and prac-
The completed ranking, called the Q-sort, reflects the titioners of public administration.6
individual’s worldview about the topic under study (Brown We asked participants to sort the statements along a
and Ungs 1970, 128). continuum from most strongly disagree to most strongly
Most previous research on PSM has relied on survey agree (see Figure 1). After completing the Q-sort, we asked
methods in which respondents answer questions indepen- each respondent to explain why he or she had selected the
dently; that is, their reaction to one question should not three statements on which he or she agreed and disagreed
affect their reply to another. In contrast, Q-methodology with most strongly. Finally, we invited additional comments
requires individuals to evaluate each item in relation to the from the participants about their motives for performing
other items. The placement of each item influences the public service.
placement of other items as a replica of the overall attitude The P- or “person” sample includes public employees
forms.4 While surveys typically produce distinct pieces of and students of public administration and government.7 The
information that characterize an individual’s opinion to- Q-sorts were administered between August 1996 and March
ward a particular subject or issue, Q-methodology produces 1997. We interviewed local, state, and federal employees
a comprehensive view of an individual’s attitude (Brown in the states of Arizona, California, Georgia, New York,
and Ungs 1970).5 Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. Participants worked in the
The completed Q-sorts are correlated and factor ana- following types of agencies: administration (accounting,
lyzed to identify distinct groups of respondents (called Q- budgeting, personnel, etc.), agriculture, education, finance,
factors) who have rank-ordered the statements in a similar health care, human services, law enforcement, recreation,
way. The methodology thus distinguishes respondents who sanitation, transportation, and the military. In all, 74 Q-
share perspectives or attitudes (Brown 1980, 5–6). Q-meth- sorts were administered—five of which were unusable.
odology is well suited to investigate the attitudes and view- Of the 69 completed Q-sorts, 23 percent worked in fed-
points of bureaucrats (Brown 1980). Public administration eral agencies, 23 percent worked in state government, 25
scholars have used Q-methodology to understand bureau- percent were employed by a local government, and 29 per-
crats’ views on a variety of issues: administrative roles, cent were students of public administration and govern-
administrative ethics, job satisfaction, work motivation, and ment. Of those working in the public sector, 37 percent

256 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Figure 1
Table 1
Distribution of Statements
Q-Statements
Most Strongly Neutral Most Strongly
11. Making a difference in society means more to me than personal Disagree Agree
achievements.
–3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3
12. I am often moved by the plight of the underprivileged.* (3) (5) (7) (10) (7) (5) (3)
13. Most social programs are too vital to do without. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
14. It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
distress. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
15. I believe in putting duty before self. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
16. Doing good deeds is definitely more important to me than doing ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
well financially.* ___ ___ ___
17. People may talk about their self-interest, but they are really ___ ___ ___
concerned about the public interest.* ___
18. To me, patriotism includes seeing to the welfare of others. ___
19. Much of what I do is for a cause bigger than myself. ___
10. I often think about the welfare of people whom I don’t know Q-sort Directions
personally.*
11. Politics is a good word.* 1. There are 40 cards numbered from 1 to 40. As you read the cards,
place them in three piles. Place those cards you agree with in one pile.
12. Serving citizens would give me a good feeling even if no one paid Place those cards you disagree with in a second pile. Place those cards
me for it. about which you feel neutral or have no opinion in a third pile.
13. I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are 2. From the disagree pile select 3 cards with which you most disagree
on one another. and write the numbers of these cards in the space provided in the –3
14. When public officials take an oath of office, I believe they accept (most disagree) column.
obligations not expected of other citizens.
3. From those cards remaining in the disagree pile, select the next 5 you
15. I respect public officials who can turn a good idea into law. most disagree with and write their numbers in column –2.
16. It is easy for me to get intensely interested in what is going on in my 4. Continue with this procedure for column –1. You may find that you do
community.* not have enough cards to completely fill these columns. In that case,
17. I feel people should give back to society more than they get from it. select the more disagreeable cards from the neutral pile so that you can
18. I believe there are many public causes worth championing. fill the columns. In the event that you have too many cards, place the
19. I am one of those rare people who would risk personal loss to help extras in the neutral pile.
someone else. 5. At this time, do not fill the “neutral 0” column. Go to the agree pile and
20. I believe government can do much to make society more fair.* select the 3 cards with which you most agree. Write their numbers in
the +3 column.
21. I am willing to go to great lengths to fulfill my obligations to my
country. 6. From those cards remaining in the agree pile, select the next 5 you
22. Ethical behavior of public officials is as important as competence. most agree with and write their numbers in column +2.
23. I unselfishly contribute to my community. 7. Continue with this procedure for column +1. You may find that you do
not have enough cards to completely fill these columns. In that case,
24. I have a lot of compassion for people in need who are unwilling to select the more agreeable cards from the neutral pile so that you can fill
take the first step to help themselves.* the columns. In the event that you have too many cards, place the
25. Public service is one of the highest forms of citizenship. extras in the neutral pile.
26. I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society. 8. Now write down the numbers of the remaining cards (in the neutral
27. The give and take of public policymaking appeals to me.* pile) in the space provided under the 0 column. When you are fin-
28. I believe everyone has a moral commitment to public affairs no ished, you should have no cards left and no blank spaces on your
matter how busy they are. answer sheet.
29. I have an obligation to look after those less well off.
30. Meaningful public service is very important to me. held management positions. Forty-six percent of the par-
31. I care a lot for politicians.* ticipants were women and 54 percent were men. The P-
32. If any group does not share in the prosperity of our society, then we sample contained 17 racial and ethnic minorities: 12 Afri-
are all worse off.
33. I am willing to use every ounce of my energy to make the world a can Americans, 1 Hispanic, 1 Asian American, and 3 Na-
more just place. tive Americans. The age of the participants ranged from
34. I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole 20 to 65 years.
community even if it harmed my interests.
35. To me, the phrase “duty, honor, and country” stirs deeply felt
emotions. Analysis
36. It is my responsibility to help solve problems arising from We correlated the Q-sorts of all participants to create a
interdependencies among people.
37. An official’s obligation to the public should always come before
69 by 69 matrix. We then factor analyzed the matrix using
loyalty to superiors. the principal components method. The factors were rotated
38. I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I by varimax criteria revealing four factors with eight or more
will be ridiculed.
significant loadings.8 Each factor represents a conceptual
39. I consider public service my civic duty.
40. There are many public programs that I wholeheartedly support.*
template derived from placements of statements in com-
* Wording of statement reversed. parison with all the other statements. All participants who
load significantly on a factor hold similar conceptions of

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation 257

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 2 PSM. The factor loading for each Q-sort indicates its cor-
Factor Loadings relation with the factor.9 Table 2 displays the factor load-
Q-sort 1 2 3 4
ings of each Q-sort for the four factors.10 These factors rep-
11 –0.27 0.60* 0.15 0.15
resent individuals’ conceptions of PSM.11
12 –0.03 –0.02 0.31 –0.03 Factor interpretation proceeds on the basis of a “model”
13 0.16 0.11 0.37 0.25 Q-sort for each factor that emerges. The model Q-sort or
14 –0.19 0.44* 0.42* –0.07
15 0.50* 0.32 0.05 0.32 factor array is calculated by merging the individuals’ sig-
16 0.15 0.23 0.49* –0.10 nificant sort loadings. The magnitudes of significant load-
17 0.17 0.43* 0.16 0.05
18 0.58* 0.06 0.31 0.14 ings on a factor indicate that some Q-sorts are more closely
19 –0.60* 0.54* 0.27 0.10 associated with the viewpoint of the factor. Therefore, fac-
10 0.52* 0.14 0.12 0.06
11 0.22 0.30 0.20 0.39 tor weights must first be computed.12 Using the factor
12 0.00 0.33 0.44* 0.01 weights and raw data collected from individual sorters,
13 –0.37 0.72* 0.39 –0.04 individual Q-sorts are merged to produce factor scores. The
14 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.49*
15 0.28 0.50* 0.17 0.17 four model Q-sorts are presented in Table 3.
16 0.38 0.44* 0.11 0.44*
17 –0.02 0.78* 0.04 0.04
18 –0.13 0.58* 0.32 0.25
19 0.19 0.58* –0.01 0.11 Findings and Discussion
20 0.15 0.13 0.25 0.43* Factor 1: Samaritans
21 –0.17 0.17 0.55* –0.11
22 0.06 0.54* 0.47* 0.16 Individuals loading on this factor are strongly motivated
23 0.33 –0.10 0.03 0.46*
24 –0.12 0.74* 0.34 –0.08 to help other people. They see themselves as guardians of
25 0.18 0.61* –0.02 0.18
26 –0.31 0.34 0.13 0.29 Table 3
27 0.24 –0.22 0.22 0.00
28 –0.03 0.24 –0.02 0.34 Factor Scores
29 0.07 –0.16 0.27 0.25
30 0.35 0.01 0.47* –0.17 Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
31 0.26 0.40* –0.09 0.19
32 0.35 0.09 0.38 0.15 11 –1 0 0 1
33 0.19 0.27 0.55* 0.23 12 3 –2 0 2
34 0.57* 0.09 0.25 0.02 13 1 –3 0 1
35 0.29 –0.17 0.32 0.25 14 3 –2 1 –1
36 –0.06 0.07 0.47* 0.46* 15 –2 1 2 0
37 –0.09 0.33 –0.17 0.12 16 0 2 0 –1
38 0.11 0.28 0.12 0.28 17 –3 –3 –3 –3
39 0.34 0.11 0.44* –0.03 18 1 –1 –1 2
40 0.47* 0.04 0.26 0.23 19 0 1 3 –1
41 –0.04 0.37 0.49* 0.22 10 1 –2 –1 1
42 0.09 0.31 0.30 –0.06 11 –2 –1 0 –2
43 0.38 –0.03 –0.03 0.12 12 2 2 0 0
44 0.12 0.05 0.38 0.32 13 2 –1 1 0
45 0.11 0.16 –0.01 0.20 14 0 3 3 1
46 0.38 0.24 0.11 0.59* 15 2 1 1 2
47 0.36 0.51* 0.20 –0.05 16 0 2 –2 0
48 0.44* 0.24 0.05 0.37 17 0 1 0 1
49 0.76* 0.04 –0.05 0.11 18 3 1 1 3
50 0.05 –0.00 0.33 0.56* 19 1 0 2 –2
51 0.01 –0.11 –0.11 0.47* 20 2 0 –1 3
52 –0.17 0.25 –0.05 0.17 21 –3 1 1 –1
53 0.31 0.29 –0.17 0.13 22 1 3 2 3
54 0.24 0.02 0.11 0.66* 23 0 0 –1 –2
55 0.45* 0.25 0.27 0.48* 24 –2 –3 –3 –3
56 0.19 –0.05 0.00 0.58* 25 –1 2 0 1
57 0.59* 0.07 0.08 0.30 26 –2 –1 –1 –2
58 0.15 0.64* 0.16 0.23 27 0 0 0 0
59 0.33 0.29 0.10 0.47* 28 –1 0 –1 0
60 0.45* 0.34 0.11 0.13 29 0 –2 –3 –1
61 0.65* 0.02 0.06 0.26 30 –1 3 1 1
62 0.48* 0.45* –0.12 0.42* 31 –3 –2 –2 –3
63 0.02 0.64* 0.25 0.35 32 0 –1 –2 2
64 –0.10 0.53* 0.09 0.43* 33 –1 –1 –1 –1
65 0.52* –0.15 0.05 0.20 34 –1 0 1 0
66 0.07 0.50* 0.09 –0.08 35 –2 2 2 –1
67 0.01 0.65* 0.03 0.10 36 0 –1 –2 –2
68 0.58* –0.13 0.06 0.11 37 1 1 2 0
69 0.31 0.40* 0.16 0.42* 38 1 0 3 0
39 –1 0 –2 0
*Statistically significant at p< .01
40 2 0 0 2

258 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
the underprivileged and are moved emotionally when they 35). Communitarians believe there is a unique connection
observe people in distress (statements 2 and 4). As Perry between public servants and citizens. According to this
and Wise (1990, 369) suggested, this group may be acting group, public service is “one of the highest forms of citi-
in response to emotions evoked by individual conditions zenship”—an avenue by which a person can serve his or
of indigence. They are humbled by their experiences and her community and country (statements 25 and 35). These
are “reminded by daily events about how dependent we individuals are highly charged and eager to get intensely
are on one another” (statement 13). Samaritans seem com- involved in what is going on in their communities (state-
mitted to serving the less fortunate because they identify ment 16). They associate public service with government
with them (Downs 1990, 368). The following comments service. A sense of elitism and pride emerges from this
by two individuals who loaded significantly on this factor group: communitarians embrace higher ethical standards
illustrate these views: and expectations for public officials (statements 14 and
22). The following statements made by respondents in this
People should give back more to society if they have
group highlight these views:
been helped out of a situation.
Community and family are very important to me.
I risk loss for others but my risk is not something
Community should come before job when in doubt.
that would totally cave in my world. I risk what I
can afford to lose. I take those risks with people I Character and ethical behavior are stronger influ-
believe in, even when no one else does. Things would ences on what you will do when “the chips are down”
have been easier for me if I had that type of support. than any other factor. I feel it is important for offi-
I feel what those in distress feel. It is as if for that cials to do “the right thing” in their work whenever
moment I become that person. I offer assistance. possible. Otherwise, our society will have nobody
looking out for what is right as his or her main duty.
Samaritans allow themselves to be vulnerable in that
they are open about their compassion and empathy for If you don’t have ethical behavior, then what good
people in need and their commitment to make society fair is anything else? Competence is irrelevant when eth-
(statement 20). However, they hold relatively high expec- ics and morality are absent—that is not just for
tations for the people they assist; that is, they are put off elected officials but also for all other government
by individuals who are unwilling to help themselves (state- employees.
ment 24). In a sense, samaritans hold a reciprocal view of Public office is a privilege (tough to remember at
helping behavior; they expect recipients to exert effort also. times, but it is).
These individuals are motivated because they find their These individuals are public spirited; that is, they value
work intrinsically satisfying and would help people in need doing a good deed more than doing well financially (state-
even if they were not paid to do so (statement 12). ment 6). The following remarks by individuals loading on
This group believes that there are many public causes this factor help explain the relative lack of importance they
worth championing and expresses considerable support for place on money:
many public programs (statements 18 and 40). Despite their
proclivity to support public programs and act on behalf of Money rarely motivates me to do things better at
work. Meaningful public service is a serious reward.
those less fortunate, samaritans are not willing to sacrifice
[respondent’s emphasis]
their own interests (statements 5, 21, 26, 34, and 35). They
are driven to help citizens in need because it makes them If I were interested in money, I would not have
(samaritans) feel good and because they can identify with worked for the state. Job satisfaction and public ser-
these individuals. They do not act because they feel a sense vice motivate me.
of duty to their country or because they have self-sacrific- Communitarians are not consumed by self-interest: they
ing tendencies (statements 5, 26, and 35). believe citizens should give more to society than they re-
The view that emerges is that of an individual who cares ceive (statement 17). Communitarians differ from samari-
deeply, is touched by the plight of the less advantaged, tans in that they feel no special compunction to help un-
and finds personal gratification in helping. However, these derprivileged, distressed, or disadvantaged citizens (state-
individuals’ motives are not wholly altruistic. They bal- ments 2, 4, 25, 29, 30, and 35). Yet, this group is clearly
ance their concern for the underprivileged with their own motivated to serve the community, give something back to
needs and interests. society, and engage in meaningful public service.

Factor 2: Communitarians13 Factor 3: Patriots

This group is motivated and stirred by sentiments of Patriots act for causes much bigger than themselves
civic duty and public service (statements 14, 25, 30, and (statement 9), protecting, advocating, and working for the

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation 259

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
good of the public. As Buchanan (1975, 425–27) suggested, I strongly support those public programs which make
this group has a unique sense of loyalty to duty; they put society fairer because I believe that issues of equity
“duty before self” (statement 5). Not only is duty more are directly related to peace, tranquillity, happiness,
important than self, but individuals in this group “would and our ability to pursue individual, as well as col-
lective, achievement. [respondent’s emphasis]
risk personal loss to help someone else” (statement 19).
These individuals see themselves as guardians of the Respecting the welfare of others is a great patriotic act.
people, placing their obligation and responsibility to the I feel the welfare of our country as a whole depends
public ahead of their loyalty to superiors and their own on how we treat the underprivileged.
needs (statements 19 and 37). They want public officials
to do what is best for the whole community, regardless of Humanitarians are driven by a desire to make a differ-
personal consequences (statement 34). Like ence in society: making a difference means more to them
communitarians, they support higher ethical standards and than personal achievement (statement 1). Compared with
expectations for public officials (statements 14 and 22). samaritans who seem to act for self-gratification, humani-
The following statements from individuals loading on this tarians act more out of a sense of citizenship, patriotism,
factor illustrate that they perceive a larger calling to serve and responsibility (statements 8, 25, 30, and 32). Like
the nation and the public: communitarians and patriots, this group believes strongly
that public officials should be ethical and competent (state-
Public servants have the obligation to uphold public
ment 22).
trust and help citizens understand that public ser-
vice is a positive force in society.
The Role of Economic Rewards
As an official you are accountable to the public you The desire for economic rewards is not a defining fea-
serve—you serve the public. ture of any of the four conceptions of PSM. However, a
Serving the public and country are an important part willingness to forego such rewards plays a role in defining
of who I am. the perspectives of samaritans and communitarians. As
I love my country and the freedom we have like no noted in the previous section, communitarians report that
other country. I will do anything to keep the free- “doing good deeds” is more important than “doing well
dom we have so duty, honor and country raise my financially.” Moreover, both samaritans and communi-
emotions. tarians would elect to serve citizens, even if they were not
paid to do so. As one participant said: “I want to help oth-
Public servants are often overworked, underpaid, and
ers and make a difference. I don’t care if I get paid.” These
under appreciated, but I feel a calling due to a love
of my country. findings confirm previous research showing that monetary
rewards do not contribute to or diminish the desire to per-
Consistent with H. George Frederickson’s (1997, 202) form public service (Brewer and Selden 1998, 428–31).
prescription for public service, patriots act out of benevo-
lence and concern for the public rather than out of self- Politics and Policymaking Are Not Driving
interest. They offer a unique combination of idealism and Motives
activism in that they are willing to risk everything for the All four groups convey a general distaste for politics
rights of others and for the good of society (statements 19, and politicians. One respondent said: “Politics always
37, and 38). brings bad thoughts such as ‘crooks, liars, etc.’ That’s just
what the word brings to mind.” However, all four groups
Factor 4: Humanitarians agree that they respect public officials who can translate
Humanitarians are motivated by a strong sense of social good ideas into law (statements 11, 15, and 31). While some
justice and public service (statements 18, 20, 25, 30, and scholars maintain that public sector employees thrive on
32). Like samaritans, this group values many public causes the excitement of the policy process, our results suggest
and programs and views government as a vehicle for mak- that they are indifferent. All four groups placed the state-
ing society fair (statements 18, 20, and 32). While humani- ment “the give and take of public policymaking appeals to
tarians are touched by the plight of the underprivileged, their me” in the neutral category (statement 27). Individuals in
welfare concerns are more societal than samaritans (state- our P-sample are not enamored by politics or captivated
ments 2, 8, and 32). They believe that if any group is ex- by the thrill of participating in the policymaking process.
cluded from society’s prosperity, the entire society is worse The primary motives that emerge are serving the public,
off (statement 32). The following observations of individu- making a difference in society, and ensuring individual and
als loading on this factor reflect this perspective: social equity.

260 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Other Similarities and Differences has allowed participants to evaluate the items simulta-
This analysis reveals that PSM is a multifaceted con- neously. We find that the motives for performing public
cept involving at least four different orientations. While service are mixed: one group of motives does not emerge
each orientation represents a distinct viewpoint toward as dominant among the four perspectives; multiple mo-
performing public service, the perspectives overlap in sev- tives are operative in each perspective. Thus, this study
eral ways. Samaritans and humanitarians are compassion- offers a new, richer lens for viewing the PSM construct.
ate and passionate in their concern for others who lack Future research should assess how these different orien-
political and economic resources. Yet, their orientations tations affect the behavior of public servants and the opera-
differ slightly. Samaritans act because they identify per- tion of public organizations. One important question is
sonally with the impoverished, whereas humanitarians care whether PSM is manifested differently in public, nonprofit,
about human welfare from a societal perspective. Samari- and private sector organizations (Wittmer 1991; Gabris and
tans’ actions are not as altruistic as humanitarians are; they Simo 1995). Another question involves the origins of PSM:
are mindful of their own needs, possibly because they have to what extent are individuals genetically predisposed to
endured similar hardships. Humanitarians are motivated perform public service, and to what extent are their levels of
to make a difference in society, and, like patriots, they are PSM environmentally induced, that is, created by socializa-
driven by a strong sense of duty and patriotism. tion and culture (DiIulio 1994; Perry 1997)? A third related
Communitarians and patriots exhibit motives of self- question involves the life cycle of PSM: do individuals’ lev-
sacrifice and are stirred by sentiments of civic duty. Both els of PSM vary over time, and if so, what patterns exist
groups feel accountable to the public, but patriots are will- (Rainey 1982; Brewer and Selden 1998)? Finally, research-
ing to use more daring tactics to address the public’s needs. ers need to devise ways to test PSM against competing mo-
Patriots are more aggressive, and they are greater risk tak- tives such as self-interest (Golembiewski 1996; Brewer and
ers than communitarians. In fact, such individuals are will- Selden 1998). Many individuals in our sample make it abun-
ing to chance personal loss to help others. While dantly clear that self-interest is an insufficient motive to
communitarians care deeply about their communities and perform public service. These self-reports need to be con-
believe they have a responsibility to give something back firmed empirically.
to society, they are not fixated on the needs of the poor or This study has important practical implications for
underprivileged. policymakers and public managers. We have documented
Finally, the four conceptions of PSM differ in their scope four conceptions of PSM that have different attitudinal
of concern. Samaritans are concerned about other individu- bases and behavioral foci. Yet, these conceptions also have
als, communitarians about their community, patriots about much in common. Foremost, each conception is anchored
the nation, and humanitarians about humankind. While the in a strong desire to perform public service. This study
scope of concern is graduated across the four types, it is adds to a small, growing body of evidence that shows many
not cumulative. Individuals with broader scopes of con- people are strongly motivated to perform public service
cern do not necessarily internalize the views of those with (Rainey 1982; Crewson 1997; Brewer and Selden 1998).
narrower scopes of concern. As such, PSM challenges the prevailing assumption that
public employees are motivated by self-interest and must
be induced or forced to perform public service.
Conclusion One challenge for policymakers and public managers is
This research has explored individuals’ motives for per- to rethink traditional assumptions about employee moti-
forming public service. Our findings reveal that PSM is vation and adopt strategies that complement rather than
more complex than depicted in previous studies that have undercut PSM. This challenge is significant and complex.
explored adjunct concepts and contrasted groups of pub- Individuals strongly motivated to perform public service
lic, nonprofit, and private sector employees. Rainey (1982, are a huge asset, but they may be difficult to manage if
298) maintained that individuals hold different conceptions they believe the public service mission is being compro-
of PSM. This study confirms Rainey’s contention by pro- mised. Such individuals feel a primary responsibility to
viding evidence of four different conceptions. Perry and the people they serve and to the nation, and a lesser re-
Wise (1990) argued that PSM consists of rational, norm- sponsibility to public managers and policymakers. As one
based, and affective bases of motivation. Our findings re- participant explained: “The public should come before
veal that all three types of motives are important to all four people who are above you in office.” In some instances,
groups. Perry (1996) constructed measures along six di- these individuals may resist overhead control if they be-
mensions representing the three types of motives. In his lieve the public service mission is being impeded or the
research, respondents considered and evaluated each mea- public interest is being jeopardized. Such dilemmas are
surement item independently. As a next step, this study not peculiar to PSM; they mirror fundamental questions

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation 261

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
about the nature of administrative responsibility and the importance of public service makes current administrative
role of bureaucracy in democracy. The clear implication is reforms and management fads seem wrongheaded. These
that policymakers and public managers need to make bu- reforms emphasize instrumental goals such as efficiency
reaucracy more democratic by relaxing rigid bureaucratic and productivity, they reduce the roles of public employ-
structures, including employees in decision making pro- ees to suppliers and of citizens to consumers, and they drone
cesses, and trying to forge and maintain a broad consensus about the limitations of government. In sharp contrast,
on what is in the public interest. public employees emphasize the possibilities of govern-
This study has reported rich, insightful statements from ment; they describe public service as an important process
the participants about the motives involved in performing that involves serving others and the nation. We are left
public service. One public health nurse who participated with vivid images of people helping people—not princi-
in the study summarized her motives as follows: “I work pals and agents chasing customers. In other words, we
for a hospice—for the terminally ill—and I will do every- conclude that much can be learned about public service by
thing I can for the dying no matter what strain it puts on listening to people who perform it.
me.” Her moving personal account of the meaning and

Acknowledgments
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Steven R. Brown, Stuart I. Bretschneider, and Dan Durning
Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Soci- for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript,
ety for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Syracuse Uni- and Anand Aidasani for providing research assistance.
versity, 23 October, 1997. The authors thank James L. Perry,

Notes
11. Over the past 35 years, studies have repeatedly shown that tion of the Q-sort to several respondents, but to far fewer
public sector employees place a lower value on monetary than is the case, say, in survey research; even in studies of
rewards and a higher value on altruistic or service-related public opinion, sample of persons rarely exceed 50.” Q-
motives (for a summary of the literature, see Rainey 1997, methodology provides assurance that the perspectives it re-
ch. 9). veals actually exist, but it does not provide any assurance
12. The president of the United States recently urged college about the proportions of these perspectives among the gen-
graduates to use some of their talent, wisdom, and time for eral population. In addition, since random sampling proce-
“community service” (The New York Times, 16 May, 1996, dures are not used, researchers cannot eliminate the possi-
A19), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a similar bility that some people outside the sample share different
call (The Red and Black, 21 February, 1996, 4). perspectives. We sought to minimize these threats by con-
13. In one survey, employees of the Environmental Protection structing a small but broadly representative sample of 74
Agency reported a much stronger desire to have an impact individuals (only 69 individuals provided complete Q-sorts
on public affairs than other federal employees (U.S. Merit and were included in the analysis).
Systems Protection Board 1987, 9–10). 18 Varimax rotation is the most conventional scheme for factor
14. This technique implicitly requires that a respondent make rotation (Brown, Durning, and Selden 1998). However,
1/2(N) (N–1) judgments. In the present study, forty state- many proponents of Q-methodology recommend that re-
ments theoretically require 780 judgments per respondent. searchers use theoretical rotation to explore a priori expec-
tations. Doing so enables the investigator to pursue ideas
15. According to Steven R. Brown (1980, 55), “Sorting is inter-
and hunches (Brown 1986, 71).
active, dynamic, and operant, and the factors which emerge
are ‘operational definitions’ of the attitudes or value prefer- 19. For example, Q-sort 1 has a correlation of .60 with Factor 2.
ences which produced them.” To judge whether the individual loads significantly on a fac-
tor, we estimated the significance level as 2.58 times the
16. Eleven reversed statements were reworded so that all 40
standard error (SE). The SE is calculated by dividing 1 by
statements would tend in a positive direction.
vN, where N = number of statements (1/v40 = .158). Factor
17. To be consistent with Perry (1996), we included both stu- loadings in excess of 2.58(.158 = .4076 are statistically sig-
dents and practitioners in our study. In Q-methodology, the nificant (p<. 01). For example, Q-sort 1 is significantly as-
focus is on quality rather than quantity. According to Brown sociated with Factor 2 since it has a factor loading of .60.
(1991–92): “Most Q-technique studies involve administra-

262 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10. Seventeen Q-sorts did not load on any factor. Thirteen of pare and contrast the factor with other factors revealed in
these (76 percent) were completed by unemployed college the analysis.
students under the age of 25. We infer that these individuals 12. The formula for calculating factor weights is (Spearman
have not yet experienced certain factors that are critical to 1927, cited in Brown 1980):
the formation of PSM. f
11. Brown, Durning, and Selden (1998) suggest a threefold ap- w=
1-f 2
proach to interpret the factors. First, examine the composite where f is the factor loading and w is the weight (Brown
Q-sort for each factor focusing on the statements individu- 1980; McKeown and Thomas 1988).
als agreed and disagreed with most strongly (statements
13. This term should not be associated with a particular politi-
assigned the +3, +2, –3, –2 scores). Second, identify the
cal ideology such as communism.
common theme(s) underlying the distribution. Third, com-

References

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1985. The Economics of Agency. In Princi- Cunningham, Robert, and Dorothy Olshfski. 1986. Interpreting
pals and Agents: The Structure of Business, edited by J.W. State Administrator-Legislator Relationships. Western Politi-
Pratt and R.J. Zeckhauser. Boston, MA: Harvard Business cal Quarterly 39(1): 104–17.
School Press, 37–51. DiIulio, John D., Jr. 1994. Principled Agents: The Cultural Bases
Baldwin, J. Norman. 1984. Are We Really Lazy? Review of Pub- of Behavior in a Federal Government Bureaucracy. Journal
lic Personnel Administration 4(2): 80–89. of Public Administration Research and Theory 4(3): 277–318.
Behn, Robert D. 1995. The Big Questions of Public Manage- Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little,
ment. Public Administration Review 55(4): 313–24. Brown and Co.
Brewer, Gene A., and Sally Coleman Selden. 1998. ———.1991. Social Values and Democracy. In The Economic
Whistleblowers in the Federal Civil Service: New Evidence Approach to Politics: A Critical Reassessment of the Theory
of the Public Service Ethic. Journal of Public Administration of Rational Action, edited by K.R. Monroe. New York:
Research and Theory 8(3): 413–39. HarperCollins Publishers, 143–70.
Brown, Steven R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Frederickson, H. George. 1997. The Spirit of Public Adminis-
Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale tration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
University Press. Gabris, Gerald T., and Gloria Simo. 1995. Public Sector Moti-
———.1986. Q Technique and Method: Principles and Proce- vation as an Independent Variable Affecting Career Decisions.
dures. In New Tools for Social Scientists, edited by W. D. Public Personnel Management 24(1): 33–51.
Berry and M. Lewis-Beck. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publica- Gaines, Larry K., Norman Van Tubergen, and Michael A. Paiva.
tions, 57–76. 1984. Police Officer Perceptions of Promotion as a Source of
———. 1991–92. Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Motivation. Journal of Criminal Justice 12(3): 265–75.
Available at http://www.rz/unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/ Golembiewski, Robert T. 1996. The Future of Public Adminis-
qmeth/srbhc.htm. tration: End of a Short Stay in the Sun? Or a New Day A-
Brown, Steven R., and T.D. Ungs. 1970. Representativeness and dawning? Public Administration Review 56(2): 139–48.
the Study of Political Behavior: An Application of Technique Gough, Harrison G., Raffaello Misiti, and Domenico Parisi. 1971.
to Reactions to the Kent State Incident. Social Science Quar- Contrasting Managerial Perspectives of American and Ital-
terly 51(3): 514–26. ian Public Administrators. Journal of Vocational Behavior
Brown, Steven R., Dan Durning, and Sally Coleman Selden. 1(3): 255–62.
1998. Q Methodology. In Handbook of Data Analysis and Hiruy, Minas. 1987. Exploring the Perspectives of Ethics: The
Quantitative Methods in Public Administration, edited by G.J. Case of Public Administrators in the United States. Unpub-
Miller and M.L. Whicker. New York: Marcel Dekker. lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University.
Buchanan, Bruce II. 1975. Red Tape and the Service Ethic. Ad- Immerman, Rita J. 1970. Administrative Roles: An Empirical
ministration and Society 6(4): 423–44. Study of Bureaucratic Attitudes to Decision-Making. Unpub-
———.1995. The Public Service Ethic. Ph.D. Dissertation, The lished Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New York.
American University, Washington, DC. Ingraham, Patricia W., and Carolyn R. Ban. 1986. Models of
Crewson, Philip E. 1997. Public Service Motivation: Building Public Management: Are They Useful to Federal Managers
Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect. Journal of Pub- in the 1980s? Public Administration Review 46(2): 152–60.
lic Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499–518. McKeown, Bruce, and Dan Thomas. 1988. Q-Methodology.
Crewson, Philip E., and James F. Guyot. 1997. Sartor Resartus: Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
A Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector Entrant Meier, Kenneth J. 1993. Politics and the Bureaucracy:
Quality Reanalyzed. American Journal of Political Science Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government. 3d ed.
41(3): 1057–65. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.

Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation 263

 15406210, 2000, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0033-3352.00085 by Nazarbayev University, Wiley Online Library on [28/09/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Perry, James. L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation: Middle-Level Managers from the Public Sector. Unpublished
An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity. Jour- Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University.
nal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5– Stephenson, William. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-technique
22. and its Methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
———.1997. Antecedents of Public Service Motivation. Jour- Press.
nal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(2): 181– Sylvia, Ronald D., and Kathleen M. Sylvia. 1986. An Empirical
97. Investigation of the Impacts of Career Plateauing. Interna-
Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The Motiva- tional Journal of Public Administration 8(3): 227–41.
tional Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review Terry, Larry D. 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo-
50(3): 367–73. Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Pub-
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining lic Administration Review 58(3): 194–200.
Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–98. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 1987. Working for the
Rainey, Hal G. 1982. Reward Preferences Among Public and Federal Government: Job Satisfaction and Federal Employ-
Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic. American ees. Washington, DC.
Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288–302. Volcker, Paul A. 1990. Leadership for America: Rebuilding the
———.1997. Understanding and Managing Public Organiza- Public Service: The Report of the National Commission on
tions. 2d ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. the Public Service. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Reed, P. 1988. The Service Ethic: Adding Goals to the Equation. Wamsley, Gary L., et al. 1990. Refounding Public Administra-
Paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the Academy tion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
of Management, Anaheim, CA. Wittmer, Dennis. 1991. Serving the People or Serving for Pay:
Romzek, Barbara S. 1990. Employee Investment and Commit- Reward Preferences Among Government, Hybrid Sector, and
ment: The Ties That Bind. Public Administration Review Business Managers. Public Productivity and Management
50(3): 374–82. Review 14(4): 369–83.
Rourke, Francis E. 1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman. 1994. Bureaucratic
Policy. 3d ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Discretion: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boul-
Selden, Sally Coleman, Gene A. Brewer, and Jeffrey L. Brudney. der, CO: Westview Press.
1999. Reconciling Competing Values in Public Administra- Yarwood, Dean L., and Dan D. Nimmo. 1976. Subjective Envi-
tion: Understanding the Administrative Role Concept. Ad- ronments of Bureaucracy: Accuracies and Inaccuracies in
ministration and Society 31(2): 171–204. Role-Taking Among Administrators, Legislators, and Citizens.
Shah, Subashchandra Maganlal. 1982. Work Orientations of Western Political Quarterly 29(3): 337–52.

Appendix 1 — Statements by Dimension

Dimension Statements
Attraction to Policymaking 11, 15, 22, 27, 31
Commitment to Public Interest 7, 16, 23, 30, 34, 37, 39
Social Justice 18, 20, 32, 33, 38
Civic Duty 14, 21, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36
Compassion 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 24, 40
Self-Sacrifice 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 17, 19, 26

264 Public Administration Review • May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3