Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Public Service Ethos: Whither the Organization?

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Public ServiceEthos: Whither the Organization?

Julie Rayner • Alan Lawton • Helen M. Williams

Received: 26 November 2010 / Accepted: 29 July 2011 / Published online: 18 August 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Public services worldwide have been subject to

externally imposed reforms utilizing tools such as financial

incentives and performance targets. The adverse impact of such

reforms on a public service ethos has been claimed, but rarely

demonstrated. Individuals within organizations work beyond

their formal contracts of employment, described as Organiza-

tional Citizenship Behavior (OCB), to further organizational

interests. Given New Public Management reform and the sub-

sequent contextual changes in the way in which public sector

organizations are managed and funded, the present study the-

orizes that OCB directed towards the organization may be

‘crowded-out’. This article tests the relationships between

public service ethos and OCB and it presents empirical evi-

dence from a study in England (n = 433) of the ability of each

dimension of this ethos to predict OCB.

Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior �Public service ethos � New Public Management

Introduction

It has long been recognized that individuals within orga-

nizations work beyond their formal contracts (Fox 1974;

Organ 1988). Typically employees are said to ‘go the extra

mile,’ do unpaid overtime or ‘stay until the job is done’.

Whatever the expressions we use, populist or not, Bolino

and Turnley (2003) state that such endeavors have been

characterized among scholars as organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB). Clearly such behaviors are of concern to

managers, and organizations, as they provide extra ‘value’

from employees. It is argued by Bolino et al. (2002) that

OCB contributes to performance through the creation of

social capital. This frequently results from the willingness

of employees to exceed their formal job requirements in

order to help each other, ‘‘…to subordinate their individual

interests for the good of the organization, and to take a

genuine interest in its activities and overall mission’’

(Bolino and Turnley 2003, p. 61). As such OCB is of

commercial value having been found to improve compet-

itiveness (Orr et al. 1989; Organ 1990, 1997) and promote

effective functioning of the organization through behavior

that managers want but cannot demand (Motowidlo 2000).

Any lessening of these behaviors is likely to impact orga-

nizational performance. Research that examines the rela-

tionship between OCB and organizational outcomes is of

interest to organizations, and to policy makers in the public

services. The literature demonstrates that there is a growing

awareness of the relationship between OCB and its

potential consequences especially as OCB can be consid-

ered a key asset that is difficult for organizations to imitate

(Podsakoff et al. 2009). For those working in the public

services, their behavior has been characterized as further-

ing a public service ethos that, in some sense, promotes the

public interest, over and above organizational and indi-

vidual interests. Indeed, the basis of public service ethos

goes beyond these characterizations to suggest that public

sector professionals are motivated to perform helping

behaviors due to an intrinsic value system that includes

J. Rayner � A. Lawton (&)

School of Business and Economics, Monash University,

Gippsland Campus, Churchill VIC3842, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

J. Rayner


H. M. Williams

School of Business and Economics, Swansea University,

Swansea SA2 8PP, UK


123

J Bus Ethics (2012) 106:117–130

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0991-x

altruistic behavior as well as a belief in a ‘public service

ethos’ (Audit Commission 2002; Hebson et al. 2003; Le

Grand 2003). The traditional view of this ethos ‘‘empha-

sizes service, duty and obligation, rather than financial

viability, profit or shareholder value’’ (Audit Commission

2002, p. 58). It has recently been defined as ‘‘…a way of

life that includes a set of values held by the individual,

together with organizational processes and procedures that

shape, and are shaped, by those values. Such values are

enshrined in organizational goals that are directed towards

public rather than private or sectional interests’’ (Rayner

et al. 2011, p. 29). It is directed towards some notion of a

public interest that is distinct from organizational interests.

It thus has a wider focus than OCB.

Traditionally, employees identifying with a public service

ethos are credited to be motivated by it and refer to the

intrinsic value of ‘making a difference’ (Audit Commission

2002). ‘‘In many cases, particular satisfaction was associated

with serving the public good where this requires working

outside the scope of the contract’’ (Hebson et al. 2003: 493).

Moreover, public sector employees are described as com-

mitted to citizens, patients, students, clients, claimants, or

‘customers’ and work beyond contractual obligations

(Kirkpatrick et al. 2005). It has been argued that public sector

employees are more altruistic and pro-socially oriented than

those employed in the private sector (Hebson et al. 2003)

although to what extent this can be explained by a public

service ethos rather than for example, personality factors,

age or gender has not been established. At the same time, it is

a moot point whether the public service ethos can also be

depicted as rule bound, producer-led and unresponsive,

privileging the interests of professionals at the expense of the

patients or clients they serve (Lawton 1998). To date,

empirical evidence evaluating the relationship of this ethos

or foci towards OCB is lacking.

Without wishing to visit the debate on key similarities and

differences between the values found in different sectors

explored by, for example, Bozeman (2007), Van der Wal

et al. (2008), it is clear that in many countries public service

organizations have undergone profound reforms associated

with what Hood (1991) refers to as ‘the doctrines’ of New

Public Management (NPM). Subsequently, in order to sur-

vive and compete, many public sector organizations,

inspired by NPM and related philosophies, have downsized,

reduced employees’ holiday entitlement and increased the

number of working hours expected of them (Exworthy and

Halford 1998; McLaughlin et al. 2002). Individuals who

survived such redundancy process and ‘efficiency’ initia-

tives are often expected to shoulder the same amount of work

despite the reduction in human resources (Forde 2008). Such

experiences were common throughout a range of occupa-

tions in the public sector (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). It is

recognized that individuals generally have less time to

achieve their workplace objectives and time spent on OCB

(e.g., helping a colleague, spending time inducting a new

employee, taking on additional assignments, keeping up on

developments in one’s field) may be at the expense of task

performance.

Following more than two decades of NPM reform which

have been discussed fully elsewhere (e.g., Pollitt and

Bouckaert 2004; Frederickson and Ghere 2005; Ferlie et al.

2005) many public sector organizations now operate in

competitive and market related environments. As such, it

has been claimed that NPM undermines public service

ethos and the professionals who work in this sector, as

evidenced by the many debates around the shift from

professionalism towards managerialism (Exworthy and

Halford 1998; Minogue 1998; Powell, Brock and Hinings

1999; Ferlie and Geraghty 2005). Thus, a study of local

government conducted by Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler

(2000) reported that a majority of employees had experi-

enced a breach in their psychological contract leading to

the claim of reductions in OCB. However, empirical

research into the specific effects that public service ethos

has on OCB, is not easy to identify.

The introduction of performance regimes, financial

incentives and management control may lead to the

‘crowding out’ of intrinsic motivation (Frey 1997; Weibel

et al. 2007; Moynihan 2008), lending support to those who

point to the adverse effects of public management reforms

on a public service ethos (Terry 1995; Frederickson 1997).

Hence, Kirkpatrick et al. (2005, p. 178) argue, ‘‘There is

therefore a real risk that current changes may result in a

workforce that is more instrumental in its orientations to

work. A sense of vocation that once sustained the delivery

of good quality public services at relatively low cost, is

slowly being eroded.’’ Furthermore, Weibel et al. (2007,

p. 7) point out that ‘‘Intrinsically motivated behavior is

central in working situations and is in the literature often

seen as an important characteristic of OCB (Katz and Kahn

1978; Organ 1988).’’ We theorize that public service ethos

is similarly an intrinsic motivation and can be uninten-

tionally ‘crowded out’ by the provision of external rewards.

Given the claims that this ethos is eroding under NPM it is

important to add to public service ethos theory through

testing its explanatory power in relation to OCB.

This article examines the relationships between indi-

viduals working in and for the public services, their orga-

nizations and the wider public interest. In particular, these

relationships are tested through the concepts of OCB and

the public service ethos. At the same time, the changing

context of public service delivery, captured under the

umbrella term NPM, provides a backcloth. The following

sections discuss current research concerning OCB and

public service ethos, culminating in hypotheses to test

relationships between the constructs as described below.

118 J. Rayner et al.

123

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

For over two decades OCB has been subject to numerous

studies examining definitions, (Bateman and Organ 1983;

Organ 1997) identifying potential antecedents such as

personality traits (e.g., Borman et al. 2001) and measuring

different dimensions (e.g., Williams and Anderson 1991;

Van Dyne et al. 1995; Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004). In the

past, Organ (1988, p. 4) described OCB as ‘‘an interest in

work that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly rec-

ognized by the formal reward system, and that, in aggre-

gate, promotes the effective functioning of the

organization.’’ Conceptual difficulties exist such as overlap

between several constructs, for example, extra-role

behavior, pro-social organizational behavior, (Van dyne

et al. 1995) principled organizational dissent (Brief and

Motowidlo 1986), organizational spontaneity (George and

Brief 1992), and contextual performance (Borman and

Motowidlo 1993). This brought about a redefinition of

OCB as, ‘‘…behavior that contributes to the maintenance

and enhancement of the social and psychological context

that supports task performance’’ (Organ 1997, p. 91). The

construct has been subject to further modification as it is

proposed that OCB is a latent construct (Motowidlo 2000)

and as such, it should be redefined as ‘‘A general tendency

to be helpful and cooperative in organizational settings’’

(LePine et al. 2002, p. 55) which of course, may manifest

in many different behaviors. Hence, these helping behav-

iors may be aimed directly at the specific individuals and/or

the organization (Bolino 1999) with a goal to increase the

others’ welfare and this is strongly related to social

exchange theory and reciprocity (Blau 1964). Interestingly,

LePine et al. (2002) concluded that there are few differ-

ences in the nature of the relationships between predictors

of OCB directed towards individuals and OCB directed

towards the organization. However, results from more

recent studies do not support this conclusion (e.g., Graham

and Van Dyne 2006; Ilies et al. 2007; Halbesleben and

Bowler 2007); rather they suggest that some antecedents

might have differential relationships in their prediction of

these foci.

Research has also focused on outcomes or by-products

of OCB as it is positively associated to organizational and

group performance enhancing relationships as well as

overall efficiency, customer satisfaction, and performance

(Podsakoff and Mackenzie 1997; Podsakoff et al. 2009)

making them of interest to managers of all types of orga-

nizations (i.e. public, private, non-profit) as well as schol-

ars (Organ and Ryan 1995; Motowidlo 2000; Bolino and

Turnley 2005). However, we consider OCB to be of par-

ticular importance in public service not only because of its

traditional associations with ‘public service ethos’ but also

for the reason it can enhance the relationship between

citizens and public servants (Morrison 1994) and is nega-

tively related to waste (Waltz and Niehoff 1996).

Having discussed OCB and its importance to all orga-

nizations, we draw attention to the different forms of op-

erationalization of OCB of which, it is claimed, there are

over 30 different types (Tang et al. 2008). Given that

numerous scales exist and are used to measure this con-

struct, the interpretation of results is problematic; meta-

analyses, however, have attempted to summarize findings

within this field (see LePine et al. 2002; Podsakoff et al.

2009). Although Organ (1988) produced a five-dimension

framework of conceptually distinct OCB (i.e., altruism,

conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic vir-

tue), Podsakoff et al. (1990) were the first to develop a

sound measure to make operational these five dimensions.

Subsequently, other taxonomies of organizational citizen-

ship-like behaviors were also developed (see Morrison

1994; Van Dyne et al. 1994). The two most popular con-

ceptualizations of OCB claimed by Podsakoff et al. (2009)

are those of Organ (1988, 1990) and Williams and

Anderson (1991). The latter developed scales that distin-

guish foci of OCB from those perceived as in-role activities

as well as those directed towards the organization and

individuals within the organization.

Evidence suggests that public sector professionals per-

ceive inconsistencies between values associated with pub-

lic service ethos and the activities of their employing

organizations (Broadbent and Laughlin 2001). For exam-

ple, in the health sector, reforms have not always been

internalized and, it is argued, excessive focus on financial

incentives may have negative consequences (Franco et al.

2002). In the further education sector in the UK financial

incentives are offered to colleges to focus only on part of

the community (i.e., to equip their ‘customers’ with skills

for the workplace) and ignore the needs of others, thus

privileging one group at the expense of the wider public

interest (Randle and Brady 1997; Brown and Humphreys

2006).

Although writing in the context of civic, rather than

organizational virtues, Frey (1997) argues that policies that

establish fairness and equity serve to maintain or even

‘crowd in’ civic virtue, or in our case, OCB. This is a

useful insight and the theory of ‘crowding out’ offers an

explanation of the adverse impact of externally generated

reforms, such as those associated with NPM. Weibel et al.

(2007) state that the most comprehensive explanation of

the effect can be located in self-determination theory (see

Deci et al. 1989) and is concerned with the locus of cau-

sality (De Charms 1968). Here activities can be undertaken

due to an inner incentive that requires no external pressure

as it is intrinsically motivated, for example, a belief in

public service and the public interest. Alternatively, they

may be the result of external incentives and external

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Public Service Ethos 119

123

pressure through rewards such as performance related pay

or league table and efficiency targets. Rewards that are

contingent on performance are mostly perceived as

reducing self-determination (Deci et al. 1999). This is

explained by Weibel et al. (2007) as having two underlying

mechanisms: either actors accept and pursue market

incentives as a means to keeping their job, or they get

disillusioned with it as it ‘‘devaluates the sense of inherent

value of the work they and their colleagues undertake’’

(Moynihan 2008, p. 251). This leads us to theorize that

external incentives which undermine self determination

theory create a crowding-out effect. This merits investi-

gation as the nature and extent of NPM reform is variable

across the public sector in terms of, for example, compe-

tition for resources, internal markets, outsourcing, and

downsizing. Subsequently, the time individuals allocate to

OCB may be at the expense of task performance and such

extra role behaviors may have a detrimental impact on

individuals in terms of limiting their achievement of

extrinsic rewards such as bonuses and performance related

pay (Bergeron 2007). Hence, we argue that OCB directed

towards the organization is discouraged unintentionally.

This can be credited to a value system that, for example,

encourages professionals to satisfy targets by which they

are measured, rather than participate in helpful behaviors

directed towards the organization as this may not be rec-

ognized formally in any reward system. Given these con-

textual changes in the public service sector we argue that it

is important to distinguish the foci of OCB directed

towards the organization and behaviors towards other

individuals within organizations. A key question is: does

public service ethos predict OCB directed towards indi-

viduals working in the organization rather than towards the

organization?

Public Service Ethos and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior

As indicated earlier, public service ethos is an umbrella

term used to capture the beliefs and intrinsic values found

to be a basis to differentiate individuals who work in the

public rather than the private sector. Given the current

delivery of public services via public–private partnerships

or through Third Sector organizations, it is argued that

public service ethos can transcend the public sector (House

of Commons Report 2002). Although commentators debate

the value of this ethos it is generally accepted as being ‘a

good thing’ (see Rayner et al. 2011). Nevertheless, mea-

surement demonstrating positive associations between this

construct and a range of desirable attitudes such as job

satisfaction, commitment, or performance appears non-

existent. This contrasts with worldwide research into the

public service motivation construct (see Crewson 1997;

Alonso and Lewis 2001; Camilleri 2006; Kim 2006, 2009;

Taylor 2007, 2008; Bright 2005, 2007, 2008; Ritz 2009;

Andersen 2009; Leisink and Steijn 2009; Vandenabeele

2009). Research into ‘Public Service Motivation’ (PSM)

has been building internationally for over 20 years. This

construct also argues that public employees are motivated

by a sense of service not generally found among business

employees (Perry and Wise 1990; Houston 2006; Van-

denabeele and Van de Walle 2008; Perry and Hondeghem

2008; Perry et al. 2010). There is much interest, debate,

research, and measurement of relationships and, more

recently identification of work outcomes such as OCB and

commitment (Grant 2007; Taylor 2008; Kim 2009).

Despite the distinct terminological histories of public ser-

vice ethos and public service motivation constructs they are

claimed to be highly similar and as such the terms are often

used interchangeably (see Vandenabeele et al. 2006; Perry

and Hondeghem 2008, 2009; Horton and Hondeghem

2006; Horton 2008). Public service motivation is most

recently defined as ‘‘the belief, values and attitudes that go

beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that con-

cern the interest of a larger political entity and that moti-

vate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate’’

(Vandenabeele 2007, p. 547). As such it is claimed that

some individuals place a higher value on helping others

and performing work that is worthwhile (Rainey 1982;

Wittmer 1991; Crewson 1997; Grant 2007). This world-

wide evidence relating to public service motivation has

been facilitated by the application of an instrument created

by Perry (1996) that was subsequently tested and devel-

oped by others (see Coursey and Pandey 2007; Vandena-

beele 2008; Kim 2009). Similar values and motivations are

claimed of those who work in the public sector in the UK

and identify with a ‘public service ethos’ (Audit Com-

mission 2002; Hebson et al. 2003) although there is a

dearth of empirical evidence no doubt due in part to the

lack of suitable measurement tools. The key differences

between the public service ethos and the public service

motivation constructs, in addition to their distinct termi-

nological histories, are that public service motivation

transcends the public sector (Brewer and Selden 1998;

Vandenabeele 2007). It is located in individuals regardless

of their context, rather than being an ethos that is sector

based. Recent work by Perry and Vandenabeele (2008)

recognizes the importance of organizational context and

developments in the public service motivation literature

have explored the value congruence between the individual

and the organization (Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Paarl-

berg and Perry 2007; Wright and Pandey 2008). In con-

trast, a public service ethos explicitly requires supporting

organizational processes and values. Further, the theoreti-

cal frameworks relating to a public service ethos and public


123

service motivation differ, the former based on traditional

and philosophical roots, the latter founded in motivation

theory. OCB draws upon both social and psychological

constructs (Organ 1997). Likewise, it has long been

implied that public service ethos and its associations with

altruism is linked with OCB (e.g., Hebson et al. 2003; Le

Grand 2003; Kirkpatrick et al. 2005). Again, the gap

between these assertions in relation to public service

motivation and empirical evidence has started to close (see

Kim 2006, 2009; Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Pandey

et al. 2008). In contrast, the relationships between public

service ethos towards individuals, colleagues, the organi-

zation and the wider community remain under explored. To

gain a greater international comparison and convergence

we use a recently developed and tested three dimensional

measure of public service ethos (Rayner et al. 2011)

(Fig. 1). This ethos is conceptualized as consisting of

public service belief, public service practice and public

interest and goes some way to capturing this complex

concept and is summarized as follows:

Public Service Belief encapsulates why individuals

are motivated to work for the public services and

reflects personal attributes such as altruism, com-

passion and sentiments of wanting to make a differ-

ence to the lives of others.

Public Service Practice is concerned with how organi-

zational values, processes and practices including

accountability, fairness and probity are perceived to

support motivation towards public service.

Public Interest reflects the ends of public office such

that individuals act in the interests of the common good

rather than in their own selfish interests, the interest of

particular groups or other individuals. (p. 34)

The relationships between these dimensions are not a

constant and are likely to be in tension. With the trend of

increasing demands made on public sector funding there is

a constant pressure for public sector professionals to

introduce innovative ways of working in performing their

role, and to be more efficient and effective. Part of the

thrust of NPM reform is to make organizations more

accountable in their delivery of public services and

emphasizes competition, targets and controls (Wright

2001). Thus, NPM and related businesslike public sector

reforms over the last 25 years may well be accepted as a

value system within the public sector by some employees,

namely managers and those it empowers. However, case

study evidence suggests that some front line public sector

workers do not necessarily buy into some of these ‘new’

values and the managerialism that replaces more traditional

professionalism under bureaucracy (Exworthy and Halford

1998; Kirkpatrick et al. 2005). This is an intriguing issue

that merits further attention. It may be that public sector

professionals are committed to their colleagues and/or the

users of their services rather than the particular organiza-

tion that they work for. If changing organizational values

appear to privilege organizational goals, associated with

economy, efficiency and effectiveness, rather than citizen

and/or user interests, then OCB may be threatened. In

terms of our conceptualization of the public service ethos,

any change in public service practices may impact moti-

vation towards public service. Similarly, if the public

interest is identified with particular group, or organiza-

tional, goals, then OCB towards the organization may be

weakened. It is therefore, considered that in this context

OCB directed towards other individuals within the orga-

nization (such as co-workers and fellow professionals)

rather than towards the organization are prevalent.

In this study we theorize that public service ethos pre-

dicts OCB towards individuals whereas it is unrelated

towards the organization and we test the assumption via the

following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 There is a positive relationship between

public service belief and OCB directed towards individuals.


public service practice and OCB directed towards individuals.


public interest and OCB directed towards individuals.

No hypotheses regarding the three dimensions of public

service ethos and OCB directed towards the organizationFig. 1 The interlocking features of the public service ethos


123

are given as no relationship is expected to exist. In for-

mulating and testing these hypotheses the public service

ethos concept is refined through the three dimensions, as

are the two dimensions of OCB. The complex interplay

between public officials, their fellow professionals and

their organizations is captured and our understanding

deepened.

There are features of public service ethos identified in

common between the various organizational and profes-

sional groups that populate the ‘public sector’ (Pratchett

and Wingfield 1996; Hebson et al. 2003). Education pro-

fessionals employed in colleges in the further education

sector in England, were chosen for this study although

other public sector occupations such as the police, health or

social services are also viable. These public services have

undergone NPM reforms in terms of target-setting, have

been subject increasingly to efficiency and effectiveness

measures and have also been subject to business-like

practices (Randle and Brady 1997; Exworthy and Halford

1998; Brown and Humphreys 2003). Our sample represents

an under researched sector that has been subject to a

number of different managerial reforms during the past

decades. It is characterized by what Lipsky (1980)

describes as ‘street level’ public servants.

The adoption of a positivistic approach testing public

service ethos theory is nascent although, as discussed ear-

lier, evidence from associated constructs, such as public

service motivation, is growing. This exploratory research is

intended to make a unique contribution to public service

theory and, contribute, if not converge, with the emerging

evidence from studies measuring relationships between

public service motivation and OCB.

Method

Sample Selection and Survey Administration

The data were collected from a self-administered survey of

professional staff in 14 colleges that are responsible for

delivering higher and further education programs and

spread geographically throughout England. There was no

significant difference in organizational citizenship behav-

ior towards organizations (OCBO) and organizational

citizenship behavior towards individuals (OCBI) across

colleges (F = 1.15, p = .31 and F = 0.85, p = .61,

respectively), indicating that it is most appropriate to

analyze the data at the individual level.

Support for participating in this voluntary survey was

mediated via College Principals and/or Human Resource

Management Directors who agreed to distribute question-

naires to staff or make them available in common rooms.

Participants were guaranteed anonymity and supplied with

pre-paid envelopes in which to return their questionnaires.

The sample of 433 was considered representative and

comprised individuals working across the full range of

curriculum areas. Participants’ job titles range from

‘Learning Support’ to ‘Chief Executive’. Eighty-three

percent of respondents are lecturers and 13% managers.

The remaining 4% of participants are categorized as

‘Functional or Technical Support’. There is relatively equal

representation of males (47.6%) and females (52.2%) and

90.5% of participants are permanent staff with 80.4%

employed full-time, and 7.6% employed on fixed-term

contracts. Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations,

and zero-order correlations amongst study variables.

Measures

Public Service Ethos

We measured the three dimensions of public service ethos

via the 9-item measure which has proven reliability and

validity (Rayner et al. 2011). Participants were asked to

respond on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree

(1) to strongly agree (5). Example items include ‘‘Private

sector organizations deliver services to the public more

efficiently and effectively than public sector organiza-

tions’’(reverse coded) (public service practice); ‘‘Making a

difference in society means more to me than personal

achievements’’ (public service belief) and ‘‘I believe that

the public sector should not be concerned with profit’’

(public interest). Composite reliabilities (qc) for the three

factors were .70, .70, and .77 for public service belief,

public service practice, and public interest, respectively.

For a full set of items see Appendix.

Organization Citizenship Behavior Towards

the Organization (OCBO) and Towards Individuals (OCBI)

We selected 4 items from the Williams and Anderson’s

(1991) measure of the OCB dimension directed towards

individuals; and, 4 items from the dimension directed

towards the organization. The response scale ranged from

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) and example

items include ‘‘I generally take time to listen to co-work-

ers’ problems and worries’’ and ‘‘I sometimes take unde-

served or extended work breaks. (R)’’ (see Appendix for a

full list of items used). Evidence of reliability from Cron-

bach’s alpha coefficient using the 6-item scales ranges

from .89 to .75 (see Williams and Anderson 1991; Settoon

et al. 1996; Turnley et al. 2003). For this study the

Cronbach alpha coefficients were OCBI = .80 and

OCBO = .60.


123

Demographic Variables

Age, gender, job tenure, and role (1 = manager, 0 = not

manager) were used as control variables as they have been

shown to be related to public service ethos (Pratchett and

Wingfield 1996) examined in this study as well as the

similar construct public service motivation (e.g., Perry

1996; Houston 2000).

Exploratory Factor Analysis

To assess the factor validity of our measure an Explor-

atory Factor Analysis of the scale items was conducted

using principal axis extraction method and oblimin rota-

tion. All items loaded as expected, with factor loadings of

the items to their respective factors exceeding .47 and less

than .33 on any other factor (see Appendix). In total the

factors explained 57.32% of the variance and each factor

had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. This suggests that the

measures are sufficiently distinct from one another to be

considered separately. Moreover, in conjunction with the

fact that the lowest correlations amongst our substantive

constructs was very low (r = -.02, ns), it suggests that

common method variance is not a key concern in our

study.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and zero-order

correlations among the study variables. To test our

hypotheses we conducted two hierarchical regression

analyses predicting OCBI and OCBO, respectively. Within

each regression analyses we entered the control variables in

step 1 and the three dimensions of public service ethos

(public service belief, public service practice, and public

interest) in step 2.

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are

shown in Table 2, step 1, which tested the control vari-

ables, accounted for a significant amount of variance in

both OCBI and OCBO (R2 = .06, p \ .01; R2 = .07,

p \ .01, respectively). Interestingly, step 2 (which tested

the main effects) accounted for a significant increase in the

variance explained for OCBI (DR2 = .07, p \ .01) but not

for OCBO (DR2 = .02, ns). In line with our hypotheses,

this therefore suggests that public service ethos is related to

OCBI but not related to OCBO.

An examination of the beta weights in step 2 shows that

both public service belief (b = .17, p \ .01) and public

interest (b = .14, p \ .05) were positively associated with

OCBI. However, public service practice was not found to

be related to OCBI (b = .06, ns). In addition, as expected,

none of the dimensions of public service ethos were found

to be related to OCBO (public service belief b = .07, ns;

public service practice b = .00, ns; public interest b = .11,

ns). Our findings therefore show support for hypotheses 1

and 3 but do not support hypothesis 2.

Discussion

The study provides empirical and practical contributions to

the public administration field and these findings add to the

debate concerning the value of public service ethos theory

for public sector occupations (see Pratchett and Wingfield

1996; Hebson et al. 2003; Le Grand 2003). We also suggest

that the findings will be of interest to policymakers who

seek to introduce radical changes to the delivery of public

services. It cannot be assumed that reforms will have no

impact upon the values and behaviors of those public sector

professionals whom the reforms affect. Whether this is of

concern to policy makers is, of course, another matter.

The dynamic nature of the variables conceptualized in

the present study show an interesting and complicated

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 1.52 .50 –

2. Tenure 11.77 8.35 -.18** –

3. Age 45.95 9.46 -.17** .56 –

4. Role .23 .42 -.10 .26 .18** –

5. Public service belief 3.74 .70 .04 .07 .11* .08 –

6. Public service practice 2.98 .75 -.10* .22** .07 .05 .16** –

7. Public interest 4.17 .68 -.03 .20** .13* -.08 .30** .23** –

8. OCB towards individual 4.11 .56 .15** .06 .06 .12* .26** .06 .21** –

9. OCB towards organization 4.37 .56 .07 .01 .17** .01 .20** -.02 .19** .38** –

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01


123

picture due, in part, to the multifaceted nature of the con-

structs under examination. The pragmatic outcome for

public sector organizations and their managers is the

empirical evidence of the propensity of these value systems

and attitudes (conceptualized here as independent vari-

ables), to predict OCB. As discussed earlier, OCB is related

to organizational and group performance as well as overall

efficiency, customer satisfaction, and performance, and

negatively related to waste (e.g., Podsakoff and Mackenzie

1997; Waltz and Niehoff 1996; Podsakoff et al. 2009). It is

also reported that managers are willing to place a monetary

value on this type of helpful and discretionary behavior

(Orr et al. 1989). It is well established that, for example,

fairness, leader support, and conscientiousness predict

OCB (Podsakoff et al. 1990; Organ and Ryan 1995) and

recent empirical evidence has started to emerge to show

that public service motivation is also an antecedent to OCB

(Kim 2006, 2009; Moynihan and Pandey 2008; Pandey

et al. 2008). In line with these findings, the public service

belief and public interest dimensions are positively asso-

ciated with OCBI. Interestingly, the finding that public

service practice dimension is unrelated to OCBI may be

that this dimension is concerned, in part, with bureaucracy

and formalization and may act in a way to prevent OCBI.

Further, it is concerned with organizational practices that

are perceived to support motivation towards public service

and may give some credence to those who argue that the

public sector reforms of recent years have undermined

traditional values. As positive associations with OCB are

beneficial to all organizations in many ways this research

represents tangible evidence for claims in the literature that

such an ethos or motivation is related to OCB and notably

with the focus towards individuals. As such, this supports

the work of others who indicate that public service values

and motivations need to be nurtured (e.g., Brereton and

Temple 1999; O Toole 1993; Perry and Hondeghem 2008;

Moynihan 2008). It is claimed that this ethos is valuable

(Pratchett and Wingfield 1996; Le Grand 2003) and the

present study demonstrates this through empirical evidence

of its power to predict OCBI. As theorized, the three

dimensions of public service ethos do not have a rela-

tionship to OCB directed towards the organization.

In line with Hebson et al. (2003) we believe public

sector organizations themselves have an important role in

preventing the erosion of the public service ethos as well as

shaping and cultivating it. This may be more easily said

than done given the claim that the NPM value system is

incongruent with parts of the ‘traditional’ public service

ethos (Rhodes 1994; Moon 2000; Vigoda and Golem-

biewski 2001). As findings for the public interest and

public service belief dimensions predict OCBI we can

speculate that public sector professionals do still hold to the

view that their organizations are motivated to serve the

public interest although without previous measurement or

the existence of longitudinal research we cannot know

whether or not it is weakened.

Evidently, these constructs, and their associated behav-

iors are more complicated than the literature suggests and

as such illustrate that it is helpful to consider dimensions of

these constructs apart from one another, rather than toge-

ther. Further, in line with OCB researchers (e.g., Graham

and Van Dyne 2006; Ilies et al. 2007; Halbesleben and

Bowler 2007) the distinction between OCBO and OCBI is

supported here as a relevant and valid distinction.

As with most public sector organizations NPM has

fundamentally changed the basis of organizational design,

control and reward both in the UK and internationally.

In particular, our occupational sample of educational

Table 2 Summary of results for hierarchical regression analyses testing public service ethos in predicting OCB towards the individual and OCB

towards the organization

Step and variables used OCB towards individual OCB towards organization

1 2 1 2

1. Gender .23** .21** .16 .15

Tenure .09 .03 -.08 -.11

Age -.02 -.03 .26 .25

Role .10 .12* -.01 .00

2. Public service beliefs .17** .07

Public service practice .06 .00

Public interest .14* .11

F 4.76** 6.30** 5.44** 4.11**

R2 .06** .13** .07** .09**

DR2 .07** .02

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01


123

professionals and their colleges were granted corporate

status in 1993. This resulted in delegated responsibilities

for their governance and management and a wide range of

freedoms. Subsequently colleges have had to compete with

other organizations for students regardless of geographical

boundaries or traditional areas of expertise. They have also

been subject to increased political control in the form of

funding bodies and students were empowered through

students’ charters and league tables (Avis 1996, 1999;

Randle and Brady 1997). The financial constraints and

increasing controls set by such bodies result in increase

stress and work intensification for professionals (Chandler

and Clark 2002; Brown and Humphreys 2006). Further,

insufficient funds often produce tensions between compe-

tition and collegiality (Fitzgerald and Ferlie 2000).

Some commentators suggest this leads to neglect of

other community interests such as adult education which

has played a substantial social role in the sector for many

years (Ainley and Bailey 1997). In support of this view on

the comments section included in the survey one partici-

pant stated:

I feel I am putting something back into society. I

enjoy working with adults and value what they teach

me. I have little loyalty to the college but loads for

the students.

Such qualitative statements add richness to this study

and support the notion of incongruence between the values

of some learning professionals and the objectives of their

employing organization. This also contributes to the

arguments relating to crowding-out effects. Certainly,

inattention to the relational aspects of working in the public

service has impact. Another participant commented:

Obviously every employee has received a livelihood

due to the organization for which they work even if

its structure, ethos and management style is not

agreeable. The real issues are:

(1) compromise of public service ethos

(2) replacement of education with ‘‘training’’

(3) drive to boost attainment figures regardless of real

ability

(4) import of American style ‘‘kick ass’’ management.

(5) endless pointless reorganization

(6) funding based on phony initiatives.

Although these issues are outside the scope of this

article, such results support the importance of goal con-

gruence and person-organization fit in the public sector

(see Moynihan and Pandey 2008; Paarlberg and Perry

2007). In applying exchange theory, employees with high

job congruence will more likely perceive their employing

organization as fair and reciprocate with OCB towards it. It

also suggests why the adoption of ‘alien’ values may lead

to some professionals feeling disinclined to exhibit OCB

towards the organization, and, again, may crowd out public

service related behavior due to an overemphasis on

extrinsic motivations rather than intrinsic motivations such

as, for example, a belief in public service.

This research has enabled current norms, values, and

ethos possessed by this occupational group to be measured

in relation to OCB. A central feature of this analysis is that it

tests multivariate models and includes control variables. As

such, it holds constant factors that may be responsible for

explaining outcomes linked to the constructs of interest in

this study (e.g., age, gender, role, job tenure) providing

measurement of their unique impact on OCB. This repre-

sents methodological improvement over bivariate analysis

as it has the ability to determine the extent to which observed

relationships are artefactual (Goldberg and Waldman 2000).

Therefore, it more accurately facilitates the testing of claims

within the literature, generates a greater understanding of

the relationships between these particular constructs, and

provides a different perspective from the majority of studies

in this field. Moreover, longitudinal, rather than cross-sec-

tional measurement of these constructs, could provide a

stronger basis on which to accept or refute such assertions

that NPM reform has damaged public service ethos (Hebson

et al. 2003) and undermined those professionals working in

public sector contexts.

Future Directions and Limitations

The results of this study are of interest to policy makers and

managers and those questioning how public sector orga-

nizations can be influenced to be efficient and effective

without losing the benefits that are claimed to be associated

with the public service ethos, such as OCB. Our under-

standing of the ways in which different public sector pro-

fessionals interpret, actualize, and deal with these

constructs would benefit from an in-depth study using a

combination of quantitative and qualitative methodology

and a variety of sources of data. For example, interviews

with different stakeholders, direct observation and the

analysis of internal and external records would all be an

interesting next step for research in this area. This would

explore whether issues of variance between public sector

contexts of public service ethos, public sector reform and

OCB are evident and perhaps provide indications as to

why; whereas longitudinal research will enable us to

establish if such attitudes and behaviors associated with

these constructs are strengthening or eroding.

It is also worth considering, in the absence of a measure

to test relationships between NPM, which aspect of public

service reform has a positive effect on public service ethos


123

and OCB and which has a negative effect. Crowding-out

theory may explain why performance regimes, financial

incentives, and loss of control by professionals to managers

may lead to decreased motivation. It is not clear that other

reforms associated with NPM such as encouraging inno-

vation and entrepreneurialism, ‘customer’ or client orien-

tation, reduction in ‘red-tape’ or inspirational leadership

(Diefenbach 2009) will also have the same effect.

At a broad level, this research has been enlightening in a

number of ways, not least in producing evidence of positive

relationships between two of the three dimensions of public

service ethos and OCBI. Evidently, the null relationships

towards OCBO indicate a tension and say something

regarding the way this particular sample of professionals

view their organizations. This may be indicative of the way

they perceive reforms and, although it is reasonable to

expect that other public sector professionals feel similarly,

this is an assumption worth testing. Also, this research was

cross-sectional and therefore cannot be conclusive about

the direction of causality between public service ethos and

OCBI. Although it is unlikely that engaging in OCBI leads

to an increase in public service belief and public interest

the nature and direction of the relationships between these

constructs might be be-devilled with complexities and so a

key next step would be to test these relationships longitu-

dinally. We must also consider that explanations could be

attributed to moderation or mediation by other variables

and test for these effects (e.g., perceived fairness, leader-

ship, organizational justice, perceived organizational sup-

port, job satisfaction, personal characteristics, mission

valence, commitment). Further, different conceptualiza-

tions, dimensions and foci of OCB directed towards, for

example, supervisors, or customers (cf. Van Dyne et al.

1994; Bettencourt et al. 2001) may be measured with a

broader sample of public sector occupations and environ-

ments. This study, however, is not without its limitations

and would benefit from testing with samples from other

public sector occupations which have undergone similar

reforms. It will be interesting to see whether other public

sector occupations, with different professional values and

different types of relationships with their users, would

respond in the same way. We suspect they would.

Additionally, the focus in this study was on self-reported

OCB, future research would therefore do well to also

include additional subjective sources through the inclusion

of OCB reports from multiple sources (e.g., peers, man-

agers). Direct observation of OCB would also be a useful

extension to this study as it would provide an objective

measure and therefore enhance validity and reliability of

research in this area.

Conclusion

This analysis has allowed patterns of behavior and attitudes

to be measured in ways that predict specific outcomes. This

form of verification has, to date, been lacking in the liter-

ature. As such, this study has contributed to the more

abstract and theoretical claims usually associated with this

ethos and public sector reform. It has provided empirical

evidence of relationships between these constructs and

generated debate in terms of consequences for OCB. Key

findings are that the public service belief and the public

interest dimensions of public service ethos uniquely predict

OCB and the foci of this behavior is directed towards

individuals and not towards the organization. The research

has also added evidence to the claims that differentiating

between the foci of OCBI and OCBO is important. We

have provided some evidence to show the relationships

between dimensions of public service ethos and OCB and

the complexity of these constructs. Hence, arguments of

the kind that, for example, a public service ethos is

undermined by NPM reforms, or that it leads to OCB, are

rather too simplistic. We urge further research to explore

the nuances of such relationships.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the anonymous

reviewers of this article for their helpful suggestions. They would also

like to thank Zeger van der Wal for his contribution to an early

version of this paper.

Results from principal components analysis (pattern matrix) for each of the scales

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Public service practice

Private sector organizations deliver services to the public more efficiently

and effectively than public sector organizations (R)

.76

Adopting private management styles is a good way of running the public sector (R) .69

There is too much waste in public sector organizations (R) .68

Appendix: Survey Measures


123

References

Ainley, P., & Bailey, B. (1997). The business of learning—staff andstudent experiences of further education in the 1990. London:

Cassell.

Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job

performance: Evidence from the federal sector. AmericanReview of Public Administration, 31, 363–380.

Andersen, L. B. (2009). What determines the behaviour and

performance of health professionals? Public service motivation,

professional norms and/or economic incentives. InternationalReview of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 79–97.

Audit Commission. (2002). Recruitment and retention: Public sectornational report. London: Audit Commission.

Avis, J. (1996). The myth of the post-fordist society. In J. Avis, M.

Bloomer, G. Esland, D. Gleeson, & P. Hodkinson (Eds.),

Knowledge and nationhood (pp. 71–82). London: Cassell.

Avis, J. (1999). Shifting identity: New conditions and the transfor-

mation of practice teaching within post-compulsory education.

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 51(2), 245–264.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good

soldier: The relationship between affect and employee ‘‘citizen-

ship’’. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587–595.

Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational

citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy ofManagement Review, 32(4), 1078–1095.

Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A

comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of

service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management. Good

soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24,

82–98.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile:

Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior.

Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 60–71.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of

citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initia-

tive and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002).

Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion

domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.

Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection inorganizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J.

(2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and private interests: Counter-balancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: George-

town University Press.

Brereton, M., & Temple, M. (1999). The new public service ethos: An

ethical environment for governance. Public Administration,77(3), 455–474.

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal

civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413–440.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational

behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725.

Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high levels of public service

motivation: Who are they and what do they want? Review ofPublic Personnel Administration, 22(2), 138–153.

Bright, L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relation-

ship between public service motivation and the job performance

of public employees? Review of Public Personnel Administra-tion, 27(4), 361–379.

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Public service beliefs

Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements .84

It is important to me that the work I do is considered to be motivated by altruism rather than personal gain .81

I am motivated more by financial reward rather than by making a positive contribution to the lives of individuals (R) .60

Public interest

I believe that the public sector should not be concerned with profit .74

In general, public services should be provided on the basis of need rather than ability to pay .72

I believe the culture of a public sector organization should primarily, be concerned with helping clients/citizens .72

Organizational citizenship behavior towards the individual

I generally take time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries .82

I take a personal interest in the well-being of employees .82

I pass on work-related information to co-workers .74

I generally help others who have heavy workloads .73

Organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization

I sometimes spend a lot of time in personal ‘phone conversations (R) .78

I sometimes take undeserved or extended work breaks (R) .78

My attendance at work is above the norm .49

I always give advance notice when I am unable to come to work .47

Note: Loadings that were lower than .34 are not shown


123

Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a

difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of

public employees? The American Review of Public Administra-tion, 38(2), 149–166.

Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2001). Public service professionals and

the new public management: Control of the professions in the

public services. In K. McLaughlin, S. P. Osborne, & E. Ferlie

(Eds.), New public management: Current trends and futureprospects (pp. 95–108). London: Routledge.

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales:

making sense of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,39(2), 121–144.

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and

place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance.

Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 231–257.

Camilleri, E. (2006). Towards developing an organisational commit-

ment—public service motivation model for the Maltese public

service employees. Public Policy and Administration, 21(1),

63–83.

Chandler, B. J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear

of new public management. Human Relations, 55(9), 1051–1069.

Coursey, D. H., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public service motivation

measurement: Testing an abridged version of Perry’s Proposed

scale. Administration and Society, 39(5), 547–568.

Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the

psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large

scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 909–930.

Coyle-Shapiro, J., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring

organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or

‘it’s my job’. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 85–106.

Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical

evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administra-tion Research and Theory, 7(4), 499–518.

De Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affectivedeterminants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self determination

in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4),

580–590.

Deci, E. L., Koestener, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytical

review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards

on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.

Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector

organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic enlightenment.

Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909.

Exworthy, M., & Halford, S. (Eds.). (1998). Professionals and thenew managerialism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ferlie, E., & Geraghty, K. J. (2005). Professionals in public services

organizations: Implications for public sector ‘‘reforming’’. In E.

Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The oxford handbook ofpublic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C. (Eds.). (2005). The oxfordhandbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Fitzgerald, L., & Ferlie, E. (2000). Professionals: Back to the future.

Human Relations, 53(5), 713–739.

Forde, C. (2008). You know we are not an employment agency’:

Manpower, government and the development of the temporary

help industry in Britain. Enterprise and Society, 9(2), 337–365.

Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations.

London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

Franco, L. M., Bennett, S., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Health sector reform

and public sector health worker motivation: A conceptual

framework. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1255–1266.

Frederickson, G. H. (1997). The spirit of public administration. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frederickson, G. H., & Ghere, R. K. (2005). Ethics in publicmanagement. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Frey, B. S. (1997). A constitution for knaves crowds out civic virtues.

Economic Journal, 107, 1043–1053.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A

conceptual analysis of the mood and work-organizational

spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.

Goldberg, C. B., & Waldman, D. A. (2000). Modeling employee

absenteeism: Testing alternative measures and mediated effects

based on job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,21(6), 665–676.

Graham, J. W., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Gathering information and

exercising influence: Two forms of civic virtue organizational

citizenship behavior. Employee Rights and ResponsibilitiesJournal, 18, 89–109.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Employees without a cause: The motivational

effects of prosocial impact in public service. International PublicManagement Journal, 11(1), 48–66.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion

and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journalof Applied Psychology, 92, 95–106.

Hebson, G., Grimshaw, D., & Marchington, M. (2003). PPPs and the

changing public sector ethos: Case study evidence from the

health and local authority sectors. Work, Employment andSociety, 69(3), 481–501.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. PublicAdministration, 69, 3–19.

Horton, S. (2008). History and persistence of an ideal. In J. L. Perry &

A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: Thecall of public services (pp. 17–32). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Horton, S., & Hondeghem, A. (2006). Editorial: Public service

motivation and commitment. Public Policy and Administration,21(1), 1–12.

House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee. (2002).

Seventh Report. The Public Service Ethos. London: HMSO.

Houston, D. J. (2000). Public service motivation: A multivariate test.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(4),

713–724.

Houston, D. J. (2006). Public service motivation walking the walk of

public service motivation: Public employees and charitable gifts

of time, blood and money. Journal of Public ManagementResearch and Theory, 10(4), 713–727.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member

exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organi-zations. New York: Wiley.

Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational

citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Man-power, 27(8), 722–740.

Kim, S. (2009). Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service

motivation. The American Review of Public Administration,39(2), 149–161.

Kirkpatrick, I., Ackroyd, S., & Walker, R. (2005). The newmanagerialism and public service professions. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Lawton, A. (1998). Ethical management for the public services.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Le Grand, J. (2003). Motivation, agency, and public policy: Ofknights and knaves, pawns and queens. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Leisink, P., & Steijn, B. (2009). Public service motivation and job

performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands.

International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 35–52.


123

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and

dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical

review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),

52–65.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (2002). New publicmanagement: Current trends and future prospects. London:

Routledge.

Minogue, M. (1998). Changing the state: Concepts and practice in the

reform of the public sector. In M. Minogue, C. Polidano, & D.

Hulme (Eds.), Beyond the new public management: Changingideas and practices in governance (pp. 17–37). Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar.

Moon, M. J. (2000). Organizational commitment revisited in new

public management: Motivation, organizational culture, sector

and managerial level. Public Performance and ManagerialReview, 24(2), 199.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizen-

ship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective.

The Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual

performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human

resource management. Human Resource Management Review,10(1), 115–126.

Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The normative model in decline? Public

service motivation in the age of governance. In J. L. Perry & A.

Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The callof public services (pp. 247–267). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in

fostering public service motivation. Public AdministrationReview, 67(1), 40–53.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). The ties that bind: Social

networks, person-organization fit and turnover intention. Journalof Public Management Research and Theory, 18(2), 205–227.

O Toole, B. (1993). The loss of purity: The corruption of public

service in Britain. Public Policy and Administration, 8, 1–6.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The goodsoldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship

behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s

construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytical review of

attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-

ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 776–801.

Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed

and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34–40.

Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J. L. (2007). Values management aligning

employee values and organization goals. The American Reviewof Public Administration, 37(4), 387–408.

Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Public

service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior: Test-

ing a preliminary model. International Public ManagementJournal, 11(1), 89–108.

Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An

assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.

Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in publicmanagement: The call of public services. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting themotivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research

and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review,70(5), 681–690.

Perry, J. L., & Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Behavioral dynamics:

Institutions, identities, and self-regulation. In J. L. Perry & A.

Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The callof public services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public

service. Public Administration Review’, 50(3), 367–373.

Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M.

(2009). Individual- and organizational citizenship behaviors: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organiza-

tional citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A

review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance,10, 135–151.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on

followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: Acomparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Powell, M. J., Brock, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. (1999). The changing

professional. In M. Brock David, C. R. Hinings, & M. J. Powell

(Eds.), Restructuring the professional: Accounting health careand law. London: Routledge.

Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (1996). Petty bureaucracy and woolly-

minded liberalism? The changing ethos of local government

officers. Public Administration, 74, 639–656.

Rainey, H. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private

managers. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4),

288–302.

Randle, K., & Brady, N. (1997). Managerialism and professionalism

in the ‘Cinderella service. Journal of Vocational Education andTraining, 49(1), 121–139.

Rayner, J., Williams, H. M., Lawton, A., & Allinson, C. W. (2011).

Public service ethos: The development of a generic measure.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1),

27–51.

Rhodes, R. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing

nature of the public service in Britain. The Political Quarterly,65(21), 138–151.

Ritz, A. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational

performance in Swiss Federal Government. International Reviewof Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 53–78.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in

organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader—mem-

ber exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 219–227.

Tang, T. L.-P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M.-T. W., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim,

A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L. (2008). To help or not to help? The

Good Samaritan effect and the love of money on helping

behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 865–887.

Taylor, J. (2007). The impact of public service motives on work

outcomes in Australia: A comparative multi-dimensional anal-

ysis. Public Administration, 85(4), 931–959.

Taylor, J. (2008). Organizational influences, public service motivation

and work outcomes: An Australian study. International PublicManagement Journal, 11(1), 67–88.

Terry, L. (1995). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The adminis-trator as conservator. Thousand Islands, CA: Sage.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M.

(2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfilment on the

performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206.


123

Van der Wal, Z., de Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s

valued most? Similarities and differences between the organi-

zational values of the public and private sector. Public Admin-istration, 86(2), 465–482.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995).

Extra-role behavior: In pursuit of construct and definitional

clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B.

M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Green-

wich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L. G., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994).

Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,

measurement and validation. Academy Management Journal,37(4), 765–801.

Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of

public service motivation: An institutional approach. PublicAdministration Review, 9(4), 545–556.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Development of a public service motiva-

tion measurement scale: Corroborating and extending Perry’s

measurement instrument. International Public ManagementJournal, 11(1), 143–167.

Vandenabeele, W. (2009). The mediating effect of job satisfaction

and organizational commitment on self-reported performance:

More robust evidence of PSM-performance relationship. Inter-national Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 11–34.

Vandenabeele, W., Scheepers, S., & Hondeghem, A. (2006). Public

service motivation in an international comparative perspective:

The UK and Germany. Public Policy and Administration, 21(1),

13–31.

Vandenabeele, W., & Van de Walle, S. (2008). International

differences in public service motivation. In J. L. Perry & A.

Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The callof public services (pp. 223–246). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Vigoda, E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (2001). Citizenship behavior and

the spirit of new managerialism: A theoretical framework and

challenge for governance. American Review of Public Adminis-tration, 31(3), 273–295.

Waltz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors and Their Effect on Organizational Effectiveness in

Limited Menu Restaurants. In Academy of Management BestPaper Proceedings (pp. 307–311).

Weibel, A., Rost, K., & M. Osterloh. (2007). Crowding-out of

intrinsic motivation—opening the black box. Retrieved May 10,

2007 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=

957770.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as predictors of organizational

citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management, 17,

601–617.

Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward

preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business

managers. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14(4),

369–383.

Wright, B. E. (2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the

current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 4, 559–586.

Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. (2008). Public service motivation and the

assumption of person-organization fit. Administration and Soci-ety, 49(5), 502–521.


123

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957770

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957770

Documents

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Public Service Ethos: Whither the Organization?