Imagine that you’re a city employee whose job is to answer questions from citizens. Every day, you sit at your desk from 9:00 to 5:00, answering calls from concerned citizens. Today, multiple people called to complain that their trash wasn’t picked up. Another person called to report littering at a city park. Someone else called to report that their electricity was shut off, even though that isn’t really the city’s problem. Most interactions are positive, though some are negative. Would you have the same motivations and passion for public service as your friend, an engineer with the street department who sits across the hall?
In the 1990s, a group of researchers sought to understand the motivations of public employees, developing a theory that is now known as “public service motivation” (PSM). This theory claims that public employees are motivated by unique, altruistic motives that drive them to make a difference in their community. This doesn’t impact those in the private sector, who are more likely to make career decisions based on compensation or job satisfaction.
When beginning my thesis, I began to think about employees like those described in the anecdote above, from a perspective of public service motivation. Specifically, I hypothesized that negative interactions with members of the public would decrease levels of public service motivation in public-facing roles. Doesn’t it seem natural that there would be great variation between these two categories of employees, those who work with citizen complaints all day, and those who work in more back-office, administrative roles? Through my research, I sought to answer this question.
To determine if public interaction drives levels of public service motivation, I decided to administer a survey to two groups of public employees, those who interact with the public daily, and those who do not. Specifically, I used Dr. James L. Perry’s 1996 survey to measure PSM. (link) This survey assigns respondents a “public service motivation score” from 1 to 7. To evaluate how public interaction plays a role, I also asked respondents to estimate the proportion of their typical workday in which they expect to interact directly with a member of the public.
In the end, I analyzed responses from 82 public employees in Allen County, Indiana, 38 of whom worked for the City of Fort Wayne and 44 of whom worked for various agencies in the county’s government. The results were found to be statistically significant, confirming the validity of Perry’s method to measure public service motivation. However, my hypothesis was not confirmed, nor did I find any other interesting correlations between any variables.
Moving swiftly along, I decided to assess if there were any interesting relationships between employee tenure, public interaction, and public service motivation. I thought this might show that levels of PSM change over time, employees with higher levels of interaction have lower tenure, or perhaps that PSM develops differently over time in employees with higher levels of public interaction. Once again, there were no interesting relationships discovered.
Of course, this study took place on a very small scale, so the results were not too surprising or disappointing. However, I went back to the literature, which offers a few interesting explanations for why I may have found this to be the case.
Some literature suggests that public interaction may in fact drive levels of public service motivation to increase. That sort of undermined my hypothesis, but it makes sense. Positive feedback from constituents can be motivational, and it makes sense that individuals with passions for public service would benefit greatly from being able to see the good they are doing in the community first-hand.
Additionally, public service motivation has been shown to weaken turnover intention among front-line bureaucrats. Simply put, those with high levels of public service motivation are more likely to remain in their jobs despite increased stress from public interaction. This resilience to workplace stressors may explain why I found tenure to be about the same across the board.
Finally, my research failed to capture the day-to-day variation that comes with the nature of these public-facing jobs. For example, a city’s customer service representatives would face increased stress after a natural disaster, which could cause a deluge of complaints regarding fallen trees, flooding, and power outages. If levels of public service motivation were to be measured shortly after such an event, I suspect they would be found to be lower, as I originally hypothesized.
In the end, though these results were inconclusive, they offered an intriguing look into the field of public service motivation research. Further research could more adequately capture the effects of the variation between employees in public-facing roles, better understanding how public interaction may shape public service motivation.
Gram Johnson is a senior studying Law & Public Policy at the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. After graduation, he will pursue a J.D. at the Maurer School of Law, joining the class of 2027.