The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A Comparative Multi‐dimensional Analysis

Abstract

There is a general consensus that individuals who are driven to serve the public interest can possess a mix of public service motives for engaging in altruistic actions. This article proposes that when analysed simultaneously, some public service motives may play a more important role than others in influencing work outcomes. The pressing questions are which ones and how? Through a survey of a group of Australian public sector employees, this article explores the relationship between the various dimensions of public service motivation (PSM) and the common work outcomes: organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job motivation. The combinations of PSM dimensions that had a greater impact on these work outcomes are also found to vary with different outcomes.

Public Service Motivation Differences BetweenPermanent and Contract Employees in the Local Government

“…Studies conducted by several scholars in South Korea also confirmed the study of American and European scholars (Choi, 2001;Kim, 2006;Kim, 2009). In Australia, the study of Taylor (2007; also proved the same conclusions. In addition, the study conducted by Liu et al (2008), ), Liu et al (2014 showed similar findings.…”

Investigating the Structure and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an International Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance

“…In particular, the items of the dimension of attraction to policy making lack face and content validity (Camilleri 2006;Coursey and Pandey 2007;Coursey et al 2008;Kim 2009b;Ritz 2011). Others have suggested that commitment to public interest dimension needs to concentrate more on a personal disposition to pursue public values (Castaing 2006;Leisink and Steijn 2009;Taylor 2007), and the items of compassion do not always represent affective motives (DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, and Pandey 2006;Moynihan and Pandey 2007;Wright 2008).…”

“…Only when the common elements of PSM are identified, and a reliable way of measuring them is developed, can scholars begin to understand the differences in PSM across cultures including the possibility of additional culturally specific dimensions. Although some important steps have been taken to internationalize the PSM scale (Kim 2009a;Taylor 2007;Vandenabeele 2008b), to date this work has been done incrementally, one country at a time. This study, however, takes a more systematic and comprehensive approach by combining the efforts of international PSM scholars to develop and then test a revised measurement instrument for PSM in 12 countries.…”

“…Since then, many scholars have used Perry's PSM dimensions and items to measure PSM (Kim 2009b;Wright 2008). Even though this 4D structure and its respective measurement items were originally developed based on samples within the United States, they have been used (often with changes) to measure PSM across other cultures and languages including Australia (Taylor 2007), Belgium (Vandenabeele 2008b), China (Liu, Tang, and Zhu 2008;Liu et al 2011), Germany , Italy (Cerase and Farinella 2009), Malta (Camilleri 2006), South Korea (Kim, 2009a(Kim, , 2009b, the Netherlands (Leisink and Steijn 2009), and Switzerland (Giauque et al 2011).…”

“…Given that the most commonly used measures of PSM were developed in the United States, it is not surprising that scholars have questioned the appropriateness of these measures for explaining and predicting public service-related motivations and behavior internationally (Cerase and Farinella 2009;Coursey and Pandey 2007;Giauque et al 2011;Ritz and Waldner 2011;Vandenabeele 2008b;Wise 2000). Still others have noted a general need to develop a more appropriate measure of PSM that can be used consistently and confidently regardless of the context or culture in which it is studied (Castaing 2006;Leisink and Steijn 2009;Liu, Tang, and Zhu 2008;Taylor 2007;Vandenabeele 2008a;Wright 2008;Wright and Pandey 2008).…”