As it was earlier discussed and depicted in the Holistic Public Service Motivation Mod-el, Public Service Motivation can be, and in most cases is, the result of the interaction between the individual and organisational attributes. The present subchapter examines the different manifestations of this interaction in greater detail.
Two domains are especially relevant to Public Service Motivation: person-organisation fit and person-job fit (Leisink and Steijn 2008). Person-organisation fit “ addresses the compatibility between people and entire organisations” (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005: 285). It typically is operationalised in terms of the congruence be-tween the goals and values of the individual and the mission and values espoused by the organisation (Wright and Pandey 2008). Person-organisation fit is implicit in Perry and Wise’s definition of Public Service Motivation as a “predisposition to respond to mo-tives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organisations” (Perry and Wise 1990: 368). (Houston 2011: 764.) Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) also mention per-son-group and person-supervisor fit, but these could be regarded as minor components of person-organisation fit.
Regarding person-organisation fit Camilleri’s study has provided some evidence to show that the Public Service Motivation of public employees is mainly the result of the organisational environment surrounding them. The motivational context variables in Perry’s process theory of Public Service Motivation, particularly those related to the organisational setting, are the most dominant predictors of the Public Service Motiva-tion dimensions. Hence, public sector management has the task of creating the proper and appropriate environment for its employees. Furthermore, Public Service Motivation has generated particular interest because it is perceived or assumed to have a positive
impact on the job behaviour of individuals in particular, job satisfaction and fulfilment, and their respective level of performance. It is therefore important that public sector or-ganisations find ways of encouraging Public Service Motivation amongst its employees.
(Camilleri 2007: 373.)
Organisational commitment relating to person-organisation fit has a complex, multidi-mensional nature. Angle and Perry (1981, in Rainey 2009: 303) show the importance of the distinction between calculative and normative commitment to organisations. Calcu-lative commitment is based on the perceived material rewards the organisation offers. In normative commitment, the individual is committed to the organisation because he or she sees it as a mechanism for enacting personal ideas and values. Balfour and Wechsler (1996, in Rainey 2009: 303) further elaborate the concept of organisation commitment in a model for the public sector based on a study of public employees. Their evidence suggested three forms of commitment. Identification commitment is based on the em-ployee’s degree of pride in working for the organisation and on the sense that the organ-isation does something important and does it competently. Affiliation commitment de-rives from the sense of belonging to the organisation and the other members of the or-ganisation as “family” who care about on another. Exchange commitment is based on the belief that the organisation recognized and appreciates the efforts and accomplish-ments of its members.
According to Camilleri (2006, in Pandey and Stazyk 2008: 110) Public Service Motiva-tion is reinforced and strengthened by organisaMotiva-tional commitment. Moreover, affective commitment appears to be somewhat more important than normative commitment. This leads Camilleri to conclude organisational commitment to be a dominant predictor of Public Service Motivation. Pandey and Stazyk (2008: 111) conclude that individual’s emotional attachment to the organisation is of particular importance to any effort to fos-ter and sustain Public Service Motivation. Bright (2008, in Gailmard 2010: 37, 41) ar-gues that person-environment fit, which includes the congruence of individual and or-ganisational goals and values, affects intent to remain in public service more than a gen-eralized, non-organisationally-specific Public Service Motivation.
Although less frequently considered, person-job fit is also relevant to Public Service Motivation (Leisink and Steijn 2008). The domain of person–job fit addresses “the rela-tionship between a person’s characteristics and those of the job or tasks that are per-formed at work” (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005: 284). Thus, it is the focus of an occupation that is important as well. It is not working for government that attracts individuals with high levels of Public Service Motivation; it is that occupations that satisfy these motives are more common in the public sector. (Houston 2011: 764.) Person-job fit resonates especially with the organisational attribute of job characteristics.
Furthermore, the tasks and functions performed differ among public occupations, sug-gesting that not all public sector jobs provide the same opportunities. While not examin-ing Public Service Motivation, Buelens and Van den Broeck (2007) illustrated the im-portance of occupational focus for work motives. Using a survey of public and private sector employees in Belgium, they found that public sector employees differ from those in the private sector, but many of the motivational differences are better explained by job content rather than by sector of employment. Thus, occupational focus is important for understanding preferences for work motives. (Houston 2011: 764.) Person-job fit resonates also with professionalism and expertise, which relates to how an individual identifies more so with the profession and colleagues than with the organisation. How-ever, the organisation has the power to influence the work and motivation of the expert and in a way to control the further development of expertise through training and work design.
As Pandey and Stazyk (2008: 112) state Public Service Motivation is a dynamic concept contingent on a variety of nuances, and factors some rooted in individuals and others in institutions, which we have just begun to explore. Having joined an organisation, mem-bers with high levels of Public Service Motivation appear to contribute in positive ways:
They are more willing to engage in whistle-blowing to protect the public interest (Brewer and Selden 1998); they exhibit higher levels of organisational commitment (Crewson 1997). They believe that their jobs are important, which, in turn, leads them to work harder (Wright 2003); they are more likely to be high performers and enjoy higher job satisfaction; and they are less likely to leave their jobs (Naff and Crum 1999). One
of the perceived practical benefits of Public Service Motivation is that it both helps re-cruit individuals into the public sector and strengthens employee ties with the public sector, providing a basis for loyalty, motivation, and commitment that is more effective than monetary incentives. (Moynihan and Pandey 2007:41, 46–48.)
The next one will look more closely on the different kinds of rewards and incentives that can be used to reward and motivate the employee and is regarded as one of the or-ganisational attributes in the Holistic Public Service Motivation Model.