Aspen Grove Conference
PSM and Deviant Behavior: Findings from a Comparative Multi-lab Research Project, by Adrian Ritz, Kristina Weißmüller, Lode De Waele, Arjen van Witteloostuijn
Leadership, motivation and sense of community: Integrating insights on PSM and SOC-R in the study of political leadership, by Lotte Bøgh Andersen and Lene Holm Pedersen
Me, You, Us, Them and PSM, by Ulrich Jensen, Justin Stritch, Robert Christensen
Infusing Public Service Motivation (PSM) Throughout the Employment Relationship: A Review of PSM and the Human Resource Management Process, by Jessica E. Sowa, Willow S. Jacobson, Jasmine McGinnis Johnson and Jaclyn S. Piatak
PSM and Deviant Behavior: Findings from a Comparative Multi-lab Research Project
Adrian Ritz/Kristina Weißmüller/Lode De Waele/Arjen van Witteloostuijn
Over the last three decades, public service motivation (PSM) has become the most central theoretical construct to explain why people chose public sector employment. Although the positive effects of PSM on employee motivation, self-selection, and job-attraction are well researched, scholars recently started to challenge this “rosy view” on PSM by highlighting that the common scholarly conception of PSM might not cover the full spectrum of behavioral implications related to this type of public servants’ motivation (Schott & Ritz 2018). Although Perry and Wise (1990) already warned that high levels of PSM might produce negative outcomes, the so-called dark sides of PSM are severely understudied – especially on the micro-level of behavior. We close this research gap by conducting a multi-national research project (CorPuS) to further explore the relationship between public servants’ motivation and the likelihood of engaging in institutional deviance in the form of corruption, bending or breaking institutional rules, neglecting bureaucratic, egalitarian core-principles for pro-social as well as pro-self reasons. Specifically, we investigate whether PSM functions as a buffer variable reducing deviant behavior (bright side) or whether high levels of PSM might function as a resource to morally justify such behaviors.
Using a comparative research strategy among 15 countries in five different administrative cultures, this study employs an experimental multi-lab design using vignettes that accounts for a broad spectrum of behaviors and contexts of public sector corruption. In doing so, this study contributes to the severely under-studied dark sides of PSM-discourse by adding unique quantitative data from a novel experimental procedure. Its multi-culture, multi-lab, multi-context replication strategy will increase the external validity of its findings and of the theoretical implications derived from the data.
The CorPuS research project is coordinated by: Lode De Waele (University of Antwerp, Belgium), Kristina S. Weißmüller (University of Bern, Switzerland), Arjen van Witteloostuijn (VU Amsterdam, the Netherlands). The CorPuS research consortium also includes: Catherine Althaus (Australia and New Zealand School of Government, Australia); Robert K. Christensen (Brigham Young University); Ting Gong (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong); Dennis Hilgers (Johannes Keppler University Linz, Austria); Fabian Homberg (University of Southampton, UK, & LUISS University, Italy); Mei-Jun Hung (National University of Taiwan, Taiwan); Sangmook Kim (Seoul National University of Science & Technology, South Korea); Kristoffer Kolltveit (University of Oslo, Norway); Ming-Feng Kuo (National University of Taiwan, Taiwan); Jenny Lewis (University of Melbourne, Australia); Liang Ma (Renmin University of China, PR China); Fabio Monteduro (University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy); Janine O’Flynn (Australia and New Zealand School of Government, Australia); Guillem Ripoll Pascual (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain); Adrian Ritz (University of Bern, Switzerland); Lisa Schmidthuber (Johannes Keppler University Linz, Austria); Dong Chul Shim (Korea University, South Korea); Tsai-tsu Su (National University of Taiwan, Taiwan); Jeannette Taylor (University of Western Australia, Australia); Richard Walker (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong); Hanyu Xiao (The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong); Litianqing Yang (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong).
Leadership, motivation and sense of community: Integrating insights on PSM and SOC-R in the study of political leadership
Lotte Bøgh Andersen (a) and Lene Holm Pedersen (b)
Affiliations: (a) Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus & VIVE – Danish center for social research, (b) Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen & VIVE – Danish center for social research
Recently, there has been a call for moving research on public service motivation (PSM) beyond the boundary of public management and for integrating insights from a broader conceptual and theoretical landscape across related disciplines (Nowell, Izod, Ngaruiya, & Boyd, 2016). This study aims to contribute to this. Drawing on the work by Nowell, Izod, Ngaruiya and Boyd (2016), we investigate how two ‘other-regarding’ motivational forms, e.g. PSM and Sense of Community responsibility (SOC-R), are associated to taking on political leadership.
The theoretical contribution of the paper is to discuss the notion of the public in other-regarding motivational forms. PSM and SOC-R emphasize social norms and commitment to others and built on a person-environment fit logic, where there needs to be a match between social identity and the characteristics in the settings (Christensen & Wright, 2011; Nowell & Boyd, 2011). While PSM is rooted in a general calling to public service (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008), SOC-R denotes the willingness to engage to achieve group goals within a specific community setting (Nowell et al., 2016). The investigation of these two motivational forms is relevant to us, as we investigate the willingness exert political leadership and allocate available resources for public service in a particular community setting. Nowell et al. (2016) show that people with high PSM do not necessarily develop a strong sense of responsibility for the partnerships in their community and that SOC-R and PSM are distinct constructs. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss what is actually meant by ‘public’ and ‘community’ in PSM and SOC-R. Comparing and contrasting these open a discussion of what ‘publics’ other-regarding behaviors can be directed towards. These are important questions in late modern societies, where individual relationships with communities are changing ever more rapidly (Giddens, 1991).
An important empirical contribution of the paper is that it improves our understanding of the willingness to exert political leadership. We know that PSM is related to leadership and leadership positions, and that managers tend to have higher PSM than their employees (Van Loon et al. 2019). From an individual utility-maximizing point of view, it requires a significant commitment of time to take a political leadership position and to exert active leadership behavior in that position. Furthermore, recognition and prestige for political leaders are an uncertain gamble at best (Bhatti, Hjelmar & Pedersen 2016 & 2018)
The PSM literature finds that PSM matters to attraction, selection and attrition as well as to performance, well-being and a range of behavioral outcomes in public organizations (Andersen & Pedersen, 2012; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Wright & Christensen, 2010; Andersen, Heinesen, & Pedersen, 2016; Bellé, 2013; Jensen & Vestergaard, 2017). However, most of this literature is related to the provision of public services, whereas PSM only to a limited extent has been studied for politicians (Pedersen, 2014). The paper aims to extent the study of other-regarding motivational forms to neighboring fields, that is, the political leaders who make the decisions about the distribution of public service. The paper investigates how ‘other-regarding’ motivational forms are associated to taking on political leadership roles among local councilors in Denmark and exerting active leadership. The research question is: How are PSM and SOC-R associated to institutional positions among local councilors and to their leadership behavior in these positions?
SOC-R is rooted in social identity theory and driven by an interaction between who individuals believe they are within a given setting and how that type of person should act in that setting. It therefore views engagement as a behavioral consequence of seeking congruence between one’s behavior and one’s identity. In contrast, PSM is theorized as a more global predisposition associated with an individual, and PSM is expected to transcend specific workplace experience (Nowell et al., 2016). Nowell et al. expect that SOC-R will be a stronger predictor of OCBs compared to PSM. In line with this, we expect SOC-R to be a stronger predictor of taking on leadership positions compared with PSM, while the relationship between PSM and leadership positions is expected to be indirect and mediated by SOC-R. (Nowell et al., 2016).
As mentioned, the paper also investigates how and if PSM and SOC-R are associated to different types of leadership behavior in the local councils. We thus investigate transformational and transactional leadership as well as consensus building. The main expectation is that SOC-R is associated to consensus building whereas PSM is not. The reason for this is that an important part of leading a voluntary community is to build integration and consensus in that community. In contrast, leadership behavior in public (or private) organizations is based on the existence of a job contract where employees cannot quit without substantial personal costs.
The paper is based on a survey executed among all local councilors in Denmark (January 2019). We expect around 750 valid answers. The local councilors in the Nordic countries play a particular strong role in defining what the public good is in their communities as public service provision such as schools, day-care and elderly care are under their jurisdiction. Local councilors are therefore particularly interesting to study. Hence, local councilors are a most-likely case in the study of how PSM and SOC-R are related to political leadership behavior. If associations are not found here, they are not likely to be very strong. The analysis is carried out as block regressions. First, the association between PSM and SOC-R and institutional position is analyzed. Second, the association between PSM and SOC-R and leadership behavior is analyzed.
Andersen, L. B., Heinesen, E., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Individual Performance: From Common Source Bias to Institutionalized Assessment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 63–78.
Andersen, L. B., & Pedersen, L. H. (2012). Public Service Motivation and Professionalism. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(1), 46–57.
Bellé, N. (2013). Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.
Bhatti, Y., Hjelmar, U., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Arbejdsvilkår for fuldtidspolitikere. Copenhagen: KORA.
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(4), 723–743.
Jensen, U. T., & Vestergaard, C. F. (2017). Public service motivation and public service behaviors: Testing the moderating effect of tenure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 52–67.
Kjeldsen, A. M., & Jacobsen, C. B. (2013). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 899–926.
Nowell, B., & Boyd, N. (2011). Sense of community as construct and theory: authors’ response to McMillan. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(8), 889–893.
Nowell, B., Izod, A. M., Ngaruiya, K. M., & Boyd, N. M. (2016). Public Service Motivation and Sense of Community Responsibility: Comparing Two Motivational Constructs in Understanding Leadership Within Community Collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 663–676.
Pedersen, L. H. (2014). Committed to the public interest? Motivation and behavioural outcomes among local councillors. Public Administration, 92(4), 886–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02107.x
Pedersen, L. H., Hjelmar, U., & Bhatti, Y. (2018). What does the minister do? On the working conditions of political leaders. Public Administration, 96(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12393
Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service: The call of public service. Oxford University Press.
Van Loon, N., Kjeldsen, A. M., Andersen, L. B., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2018). Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2), 139-166.
Wright, B. E., & Christensen, R. K. (2010). Public Service Motivation: A Test of the Job Attraction–Selection–Attrition Model. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 155–176.
Me, You, Us, Them and PSM
Ulrich Jensen1. Justin Stritch1. Robert Christensen2
1 Arizona State University 2 Brigham Young University
Nearly 30 years after Perry and Wise’s (1990) seminal article, introducing one of the most-studied home-grown concepts in Public Administration research, this is a poignant time to pause and reconsider a question so fundamental, it often seems taken for granted: What is the unique value of ‘public service motivation’ to the study of human behavior and public service?
Ritz and colleagues (2016) recently reviewed 323 PSM publications to help organize this expansive, yet largely unstructured body of literature. While an important first step, this and other recent reviews (e.g., Harari et al. 2017) only scratch the surface of what is a much bigger challenge: The rapid growth and strong popularity in PSM research has not only yielded interesting insights but has also caused the concept to proliferate (Bozeman and Su, 2015 count 23 definitions) and drift into areas where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from other established constructs such as altruism, empathy, pro-social motivation and values. We argue that to answer the question – what is the unique value of PSM? – we need to revisit the “public” component of PSM and reconsider what it means to be motivated by public service. To this end, our paper seeks to identify the unique value of PSM in two ways.
First, PSM needs to be conceptually disentangled from related constructs such as altruism, empathy, and values. For example, if motivation depicts the energy to persist or endure certain behaviors in order to achieve a certain goals, it is clear that such end goals can be influenced by individuals’ conception of what they deem desirable for a community (i.e., value), but they are not the energy itself. Values contextualize what PSM means in a given context, but they do not equate. Similar, if empathy and an emotion-based motivation is a core part of people’s inclination to engage in pro-social or helping behaviors, how does PSM differ from altruism and pro-social motivation?
This highlights the second aspect of identifying the unique value of PSM: Its reference group. Brewer, Selden and Facer (2000) offered an early discussion of individual conceptions of PSM; distinguishing between orientations such other people, communities, countries and mankind. Other researchers have distinguished PSM from more individualized forms of pro-social motivation (Jensen and Andersen 2015), arguing that PSM is collective in nature (but have not distinguished between different levels of collectives). While these efforts have begun to disentangle the target group for public service motivated actions, it is still unclear what individuals identify as “the public” in their work and how differences in understandings of the public as a collective manifest among people working in public service. To address these issues, the paper will explore differences in how individuals identify as members of collectives and how the boundaries of those collectives may shape the meaning of what “the public” is and, subsequently, the meaning of public service.
Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 700-710.
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer II, R. L. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 254-264.
Harari, M. B., Herst, D. E., Parola, H. R., & Carmona, B. P. (2016). Organizational correlates of public service motivation: A meta-analysis of two decades of empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 68-84.
Jensen, U. T., & Andersen, L. B. (2015). Public service motivation, user orientation, and prescription behaviour: Doing good for society or for the individual user? Public Administration, 93(3), 753-768.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 367-373.
Ritz, A., Brewer, G. A., & Neumann, O. (2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414-426.
Infusing Public Service Motivation (PSM) Throughout the Employment Relationship: A Review of PSM and the Human Resource Management Process
Jessica E. Sowa, Willow S. Jacobson, Jasmine McGinnis Johnson and Jaclyn S. Piatak
Affiliations: (a) University of Baltimore, (b) University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (c) George Washington University (d) University of North Carolina Charlotte
An organization’s human capital is critical to its ability to deliver on its mission and produce value (Pfeffer, 1998; Pynes, 2013). As such, acquiring, developing, and retaining high quality employees, who together constitute a strong human capital stock, is the main goal of the human resource management (HRM) process in organizations. In public and nonprofit organizations, this HRM process also involves building a connection to public service values in the employment relationship. A rich body of knowledge has demonstrated that those who choose to work in public service organizations are motivated by public service motivation (PSM) and, as such, the HRM process has the potential to benefit from accounting for and levering this motivation. Scholars across countries have developed significant research and evidence showing that those who demonstrate high levels of PSM are drawn to work in public and/or nonprofit organizations, even when accounting for other motivations and employment conditions (see Holt, 2018; Piatak, 2016; Wright & Christensen, 2010 for a small sample of these studies). In addition, scholars have also demonstrated the relationship of PSM to various employee outcomes, such as turnover, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (see Naff & Crum, 1999; Kim, 2006; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008; Ritz et al., 2016; Shim & Faerman, 2017; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012 for a small sample of studies).
Research on PSM has been prolific over the past twenty years, still scholars continue to call for more work to connect PSM to practice and understand the larger managerial implications (Bozeman & Sue, 2015; Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010; Christensen, Paarlberg, & Perry, 2017). One way to do this is through exploring the relationship between PSM and the HRM process, focusing on key stages in the HRM process and investigating how PSM research may inform the design and operations of public and nonprofit HRM processes and systems. By doing so, public administration can take PSM from the theoretical (admittedly incredibly important) to the practical, providing insights on how HRM processes can be redesigned to harness the power of PSM within public service employment.
The HRM process involves numerous components, from job analysis and job design, classification and compensation, recruitment and selection, and performance evaluation and performance corrections (Battaglio, 2015; Pynes, 2013; Word & Sowa, 2017). While each of these components would be difficult to address in a single paper, drawing on a systematic review of research findings associated with PSM and the HRM process, in this paper, we will examine what do we know about how PSM influences the construction of public service positions, recruitment processes, selection tools, retention, and the performance appraisal and evaluation process of public service employees. Among the questions we will examine are the following:
How can we connect PSM to job design in public and nonprofit organizations? Are there ways to construct jobs in public and nonprofit organizations that will specifically align with and tap individuals’ public service motivation? While PSM is an individual level construct, can we explicate competencies and behaviors that can be built into public service job descriptions and positions to better recruit those who are public service inclined? Has what we have learned about PSM over the development of this concept been translated to the public service recruitment process? Can we build PSM into the onboarding process for public and nonprofit organizations? (Paarlberg and Lavigna, 2010).
How do selection methods in public and nonprofit organizations address PSM (if at all) and how do we improve this?
How can we connect PSM to the performance appraisal and performance management process in public and nonprofit organizations? Recent research in PSM has demonstrated there can be a “dark side” to high PSM for individuals working in public and nonprofit organizations (see Giauque et al. 2012; van Loon, Vandenabeele, & Leisink, 2015; Oelberger, 2018) and the performance management process provides a possible opportunity to use this HRM process to develop, refresh, reinforce, and/or reinvigorate employees’ PSM feelings and related behaviors.
While this paper will connect empirical findings on PSM with stages of the HRM process and reflect on the theory-practice connection, an additional focus will be on the future of the public service workforce and what careful attention to public service motives and behaviors in the HRM process may produce for recruiting and retaining the next generation of public and nonprofit employees. Recent research on younger workers (e.g. millennials or Generation Y) has demonstrated a desire amongst these employees for personally rewarding employment (see Johnson, Piatak, & Ng, 2017). As Generation Y takes on managerial positions and Generation Z approaches the workforce, harnessing the insights from PSM into the employment relationship and developing a research agenda for public service HRM that encourages new practices and processes that build on PSM may be a way to shore up and strengthen the public service pipeline. With increased challenges facing public service workers (Jacobson & Sowa, 2016; Piatak, 2018) and growing attacks on the value of this work (Marvel, 2014; Nielsen & Moynihan, 2017), bridging theory and practice for how we recruit and retain high quality, public service motivated workers is more critical than ever.
Battaglio Jr, R. P. (2015). Public Human Resource Management. Washington, DC: SAGE.
Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public
Administration Review, 75(5), 700-710.
Christensen, R. K., Paarlberg, L. & Perry, J. L. (2017). Public Service Motivation Research: Lessons for Practice. Public Administration Review, 77(4): 529-542.
Giauque, D., Ritz, A., Varone, F., & Anderfuhren‐Biget, S. (2012). Resigned but satisfied: The negative impact of public service motivation and red tape on work satisfaction. Public Administration, 90(1), 175-193.
Holt, S. B. (2018). For Those Who Care: The Effect of Public Service Motivation on Sector
Selection. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 457-471.
Jacobson, W. S., & Sowa, J. E. (2016). Municipal Human Resource Management: Challenges and Innovative Practices in Turbulent Times. State and Local Government Review, 48(2), 121-131.
Johnson, J.M., Piatak, J.S., & Ng, E. (2017). Managing Generational Differences in Nonprofit
Organizations. In Word, J.K.A. & Sowa, J.E. (Eds.), The Nonprofit Human Resource Management Handbook: From Theory to Practice. New York: Routledge.
Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea.
International journal of manpower, 27(8), 722-740.
Marvel, J. D. (2014). The Boston Marathon bombings: Who's to blame and why it matters for public administration. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 713-725.
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.
Nielsen, P. A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269-283.
Oelberger, C. R. (2018). The Dark Side of Deeply Meaningful Work: Work‐Relationship Turmoil and the Moderating Role of Occupational Value Homophily. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12411
Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89-108.
Paarlberg, Laurie E., and Bob Lavigna. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public administration review 70(5): 710-718.
Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public administration review, 70(5), 681-690.
Piatak, J.S. (2016). Public Service Motivation, Prosocial Behaviours, and Career Ambitions.
International Journal of Manpower, 37(5): 804-821.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Pynes, J.E. (2013). Human Resource Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations:
A Strategic Approach, 4th Edition. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ritz, A., Giauque, D., Varone, F., & Anderfuhren-Biget, S. (2014). From leadership to citizenship behavior in public organizations: When values matter. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 128-152.
Shim, D. C., & Faerman, S. (2017). Government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior:
The impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms. International Public Management Journal, 20(4), 531-559.
van Loon, N. M., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: the relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management, 35(5), 349-356.
Word, J.K.A. & Sowa, J.E. (2017). The Nonprofit Human Resource Management Handbook:
From Theory to Practice. New York: Routledge.
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206-215.
Public Service Motivation Theory: Does it provide a unique contribution to (or just a compelling retelling of) our understanding of Organizational Behavior?
Bradley Wright and Russell Hassan.
Although a considerable body of research exists on Public Service Motivation (Ritz, Brewer, & Neumann2016), important questions continue to be raised about the value of this work. While part of the concerns are driven by inconsistent findings and the reliance on weak research designs and data, there are also more fundamental concerns about the conceptualization of Public Service Motivation (PSM) and whether PSM research can contribute new theoretical insights beyond what can be drawn from other existing concepts and theories (Bozeman & Su 2015; Prebble 2016). In response to these concerns, this study will evaluate and extend PSM theory in two ways.
First, drawing on an existing framework for understanding different motives for prosocial or other-oriented behavior to evaluate if not strengthen our understanding of PSM and its distinctiveness (Batson 2011; Wright 2013). Drawing on the insights of this framework, we will discuss the potential implications for PSM theory, the interpretation of existing research and directions for future research.
Second, drawing on the existing research linking PSM to prominent organization behavior theories such as goal setting theory (Wright 2007), transformational leadership(Paarlberg & Lavigna 2010) and self-determination theory (Breaugh, Ritz & Alfes 2018), we will investigate the extent to which PSM can provide unique theoretical contributions beyond or merely compelling arguments consistent with these existing theories of employee work motivation.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bozeman, B., & Su, X. (2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 700-710.
Breaugh, J., Ritz, A., & Alfes, K. (2018). Work motivation and public service motivation: disentangling varieties of motivation and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 20(10), 1423-1443.
Prebble, M. (2016). Has the study of public service motivation addressed the issues that motivated the study?. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(3), 267-291.
Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710-718.
Ritz, A., Brewer, G. A., & Neumann, O. (2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414-426.
Wright, B.E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review, 67(1), 54-64.
Wright, B.E. (2013). Public service motivation: Some thoughts on conceptual and operational definitions. Presented at the International Institute of Administrative Science research conference: One step beyond – refining public service motivation theory and research methods, Utrecht University School of Governance, the Netherlands