This article was downloaded by: [Simon Anderfuhren-Biget]On: 09 January 2012, At: 14:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Public AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Profiles of Public Service-Motivated Civil Servants:

Evidence from a Multicultural Country

Simon Anderfuhren-Biget a

a Department of Political Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Available online: 03 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Simon Anderfuhren-Biget (2012): Profiles of Public Service-Motivated Civil Servants: Evidence from a

Multicultural Country, International Journal of Public Administration, 35:1, 5-18

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.635276

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Public Administration, 35: 5–18, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01900692.2011.635276

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLES

Profiles of Public Service-Motivated Civil Servants: Evidencefrom a Multicultural Country

Simon Anderfuhren-BigetDepartment of Political Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

This study analyses if and to what extent culture, associational membership, social trust, civicparticipation, and political ideology explain the PSM level of civil servants. On the basis ofa representative sample of 3,754 municipal employees from the German- (79 percent) andthe French-speaking (21 percent) parts of Switzerland, this study offers three striking piecesof empirical evidence. First, the social profile of the respondents is different for each PSMdimension: “Attraction to politics and policymaking” is mostly influenced by political partici-pation and sympathy for political parties; “Commitment to the public interest ” by culture andsocial trust; “Compassion” by clear-cut political positioning; and “Self-Sacrifice ” by volun-teering and religiosity. Second, socio-political variables add an important contribution to theexplanation of the first three dimensions. And third, cultural belonging has an important effecton the level of PSM.

Keywords: public service motivation, antecedents, social capital, civic participation, socialtrust, political ideology

INTRODUCTION

Public Service Motivation (PSM) is a prominent constructin public management research, a fact confirmed by therecent rise in studies and publications on PSM (Perry &Hondeghem, 2008b). It focuses on the motives and actionsheld in the “public domain” that are “intended to do goodfor others and shape the well-being of society” (Perry &Hondeghem, 2008a, p. 3). From a motivational perspective,PSM-related values are steered towards the benefit of soci-ety on the whole or towards a particular interest in the publicsphere. PSM therefore has its roots in altruism and disinter-ested actions, and responds to the fulfillment of higher-orderneeds (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008b).

This study, following Perry’s call to bring society backto the theory of motivation (Perry, 2000), seeks to analyze

Correspondence should be addressed to Simon Anderfuhren-Biget,Department of Political Sciences, University of Geneva, 40 boulevard duPont d’Arve, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. E-mail: simon.anderfuhren-biget@unige.ch

the socio-political profile of public service -motivated civilservants. When looking at what shapes the degree of PSM,scholars have principally directed their attention towardsindividual, and to a lesser extent, organizational factors(Pandey & Stazyk, 2008). Conversely, institutions have char-acteristically been investigated for their capacity to carry andtransmit the inherent values of PSM (Perry & Vandenabeele,2008; Vandenabeele, 2007). In fact, little is known aboutthe effect of social capital, different forms of civic par-ticipation, party preferences, or cultural belonging on thefacets of PSM. This study undertakes the exploration of thesocio-political factors of PSM in a framework based on twocomplementary frames of analysis. On the one hand, socialcapital theory suggests the consideration of social capital,civic participation, and party preference as elements of thesocio-political profile of civil servants driven by PSM val-ues. On the other hand, Public Service Motivation theoryposits that public employees are motivated by the fulfill-ment of higher-order needs which are socially defined onthe basis of what is culturally valued (Child, 2002, cited byPudelko, 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

6 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

As Switzerland offers fertile ground for observing theeffect of cultural belonging on the dimensions of PSM, thisstudy analyses how the Swiss-German and Swiss-Frenchpopulations are related to PSM. Furthermore, civil servantspursue public interest on the basis of different motives(Bright, 2009) and PSM is a multidimensional construct thatencapsulates four dimensions: Attraction to politics and pol-icymaking; Commitment to the public interest, Compassion,and Self-Sacrifice. As those dimensions describe differ-ent motivational elements, we posit that public service-motivated civil servants nourish their diversified motiva-tion toward public service as a consequence of differentsocial practices and political preferences. This study tack-les this hypothetical equation by separately analyzing thesocio-political profile of the respondents for each dimen-sion of PSM. Our objective is to draw, on the basis of themost influential socio-political factors, a clearly articulatedportrait of civil servants, according to the different facetsof PSM.

On the basis of statistical analyses on a sample of3754 Swiss municipal employees from the German (79 per-cent) and French (21 percent) parts of Switzerland, thisresearch establishes three results that open new avenues forresearch. First, socio-political variables provide an impor-tant contribution to the explanation of most dimensions ofPSM. Second, the pattern of socio-political variables is dif-ferent for each PSM dimension. Third, cultural backgrounddoes have an effect on the dimensions of PSM.

The structure of the present study reads as follows: Thefirst section is dedicated to establishing the framework ofthe study. The next section presents the sample collection,the measures and method used. Section three turns to theempirical test of the hypotheses by means of correlationsand regressions analyses; it also sets forth the limitationsof the study. Finally, section four, discusses the results, andconcludes suggesting new avenues for further research.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Understanding Public Service Motivation

PSM is a particular feature of the motivational patterns ofpublic employees (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008b), and carriesgreater motivational potential than other sources of motiva-tion (Anderfuhren-Biget, et al., 2010; Vandenabeele et al.,2004). Although the idea that public servants are imbuedwith a particular ethic of social commitment is not new(for an extensive historical assessment, see Horton, 2008),the conceptualization of PSM in the early 90s has led to aresurgence of concern over the topic (Perry & Wise, 1990).

The construction of the PSM scale (Perry, 1996) wasa gateway for numerous academic studies looking at itsantecedents, outcomes, and correlates (for an overviewsee: Pandey & Stazyk, 2008). This study relies on

Vandenabeele’s (2007, p. 547) comprehensive and inclu-sive definition that describes PSM as “the beliefs, valuesand attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizationalinterest, that concern the interest of a larger political entityand that motivate individuals to act accordingly wheneverappropriate.”

Dimensionality issues

Since its conceptualization, PSM has been understood as amultidimensional construct consisting of a combination ofpro-social motives and values (Perry & Wise, 1990). Fouroperational dimensions were identified by Perry: “Attractionto politics and policymaking,” which taps into the desireof public employees to get involved in politics and makea difference in the policy process; ”Commitment to thepublic interest,” which characterizes their aspirations forpursuing the common good and furthering public interest;“Compassion” which involves empathy for others and isaimed toward their protection, and “Self-sacrifice” whichis associated with the willingness to substitute service toothers for tangible personal rewards (Perry, 1996). Thesefour dimensions or facets of the same construct can beseen as autonomous components. They have distinct sets ofantecedents (Bright, 2005; Camilleri, 2007; DeHart-Daviset al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997) andconsequences (Scott & Pandey, 2005; Vandenabeele, 2009).We therefore follow Bright’s suggestion to focus on thevarious forms and variations of PSM (2009).

Antecedents of PSM

PSM is influenced by different categories of factors (foran extensive presentation and discussion: Pandey & Stazyk,2008). Included as control variables in multivariate models(Pandey & Stazyk, 2008), socio-demographic antecedentshave been thoroughly scrutinized in empirical studies.On the one hand, age (Houston, 2000; Perry, 1997; Steijn,2006) and level of education (Bright, 2005; Moynihan&Pandey, 2007b; Naff & Crum, 1999; Perry, 1997; Steijn,2006) are consistently positively related to PSM.

On the other hand, gender seems only to be particu-larly related to “Compassion” for which women score higher(Bright, 2005; Camilleri, 2007; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006).Antecedents of PSM have also been analyzed within a socio-institutional frame. In this respect, religion, family, andprofession were identified as socializing institutions foster-ing public service values (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008).Along with the usual socio-demographics this study includesreligion. Previous inquiries have demonstrated that a senseof spirituality and a belief in transcendence seem closelyrelated to public service work (Houston & Cartwright,2007), although a divergence has been detected whenlooking separately at the dimensions (Perry, 1997; Perryet al., 2008).

PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTIVATED CIVIL SERVANTS 7

Given the fact that each dimension of PSM seems torelate to different antecedents, the first general hypothesisstates that: the four dimensions of PSM have different sets ofantecedents (H1). A specified set of hypotheses on how thosedifferent dimensions of PSM are related to the particularsocio-political elements are proposed below.

Finally, since the founding study on the antecedents ofPSM (Perry, 1997), other researchers have developed inte-grated models of the precursors of PSM. Besides individual-level variables, a study on American civil servants includesorganizational factors (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), whilea Danish one addresses job-related factors (Hansen, 2009).However, those models have mitigated explanatory power.In this respect, the present study considers how socio-political elements and culture might constitute additionalrelevant variables that nurture PSM and its dimensions.Therefore, the second research hypothesis posits that: socio-political variables contribute significantly to the explanationof PSM dimensions (H2).

Socio-political profile of public servants

Comparative studies in political science have consistentlyidentified differences among public and private employeeswhen looking at their civic values and behaviors. Thesedifferences might be the result of employment choices, asstated by the PSM perspective which presupposes the publicsector to attract employees with PSM-like values (Perry &Wise, 1990). Conversely, this study aims to create an accu-rate portrayal of civil servants motivated by the four facetsof PSM. It therefore considers the two interrelated ele-ments of social capital (social capital and social trust), civicparticipation (political participation and volunteering), polit-ical preferences, and cultural belonging (both Swiss-Germanand Swiss-French) as characteristics of their socio-politicalprofile.

Social capital: Associational involvementand social trust

Social capital is a rather elusive concept (Brewer, 2003,p. 10) with multiple definitions (Adler & Kwon, 2002),that altogether characterize the good will engendered bysocial relations. Conceptually, social capital is built uponassociational involvement and social trust, which are inter-related components that form a virtuous circle (Brehm &Rahn, 1997). On the one hand, personal networks areresources that can be mobilized by individuals to pursue thebenefits they value. On the other hand, the trust component,as developed below, deploys its effects on normative com-mitment according to the “generalized norm of reciprocity.”

Greater involvement in social networks seems to be adifferentiating feature of public employees (Brewer, 2003;Houston, 2008), and this participation is a decisive resourcein achieving what they value (Lin, 1999). Consequently,

we expect public service -motivated employees to use thisresource to pursue the goal they value most: the com-mon good.

Three types of affiliation, in which public employees con-sistently score higher, at least in the US and Swiss contexts,are considered in this study. In general, public employees aremore likely than other types of workers to be members of aprofessional organization (Houston, 2008; WVS, 2005), atrade union (Ackermann & Moser-Brossy, 2009; Houston,2008; WVS, 2005), or a political party (Houston, 2008;WVS, 2005). Professional identification, often approxi-mated with professional membership, is an important factorshaping the level of PSM, even if its relationship with thefour dimensions of PSM differs (DeHart-Davis et al., 2006;Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997). Obviously, pro-fessions are institutions of socialization, but they also are ausable resource: professional organizations build networks,or communities of individuals sharing affinities, esteem,jobs, or expertise.

The relationship between PSM and trade unionism is lessstudied. With an original qualitative research design, Davisfound that only “Attraction to politics and policymaking”was positively related to membership to trade unions (2009).In Switzerland, trade unions are often involved in defendingand promoting the quality of public services by protect-ing the employment conditions of public servants. Thereforetrade union membership, at least for public employees, testi-fies to a particular attachment to the values of public service.Hence, trade unions are also coalitions of individuals whoare willing to exert political pressure to attain their goals.Finally, Swiss civil servants are more likely to be membersof a political party than public employees of other countries(WVS, 2005). And this is probably due to the specificities ofSwitzerland’s direct democracy (see below). Moreover, soci-ological analyses of Swiss upper-level public managers atthe federal level demonstrate that participating in networksof power is an important feature of their social profile, as thisresource is critical for career development and the furtheringof desirable values (Urio et al., 1989).

If associational involvement is a resource to attaingoals, then this study considers social trust as an attitude(Reeskens, 2009) that “transforms individuals from self-seeking and egocentric agents with little sense of obligationto others into members of a community with shared interests,a common identity, and a commitment to the common good”(Adler & Kwon, 2002, p. 25). For that reason, the norm ofreciprocity is an essential (Coleman, 1994) but underesti-mated (Brewer, 2003) component of social capital that is ofa rather normative nature (Uslaner, 2002). In addition, socialtrust deploys it effects at both the individual and the societallevels. For the first, it has been shown, for example, that USand Australian public servants are slightly more trusting thanprivate employees (Brewer, 2003; Taylor, 2010) whereas thedifference is not significant in Switzerland (WVS, 2005).Moreover, Reeskens has shown that social trust is related to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

8 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

universalism and benevolence (2009), two universal valuesthat are significant to PSM. Therefore, even if it is not a dis-tinctive feature of public employees, we have sound reasonto expect social trust to be associated with PSM. At the soci-etal level, social trust, is also an attribute of a country, or agiven cultural group, thus enabling comparisons (Delhey &Newton, 2005; Newton, 2007; Newton & Norris, 2000). Andthis is true for Switzerland: Swiss-Germans have a higherlevel of social trust, for example, than their French or Italiancounterparts (Freitag, 2003a).

Civic participation: political participation andvolunteering

Generally speaking, public servants exhibit a greater level ofparticipation in democratic and civic life than private sec-tor workers (Goodsell, 2005). They vote more frequently(Corey & Garand, 2002; Garand et al., 1991) and have agreater sense of civic duty (Conway, 2000). Likewise, theyare more engaged in benevolent work, they spend moremoney on charities, and are more likely to endorse charitablebehaviors (Houston, 2006). Both kinds of social participa-tion show public servants to be particularly involved in theirpolitical and social environments. Consequently, we expectthem to be closely related to PSM and its dimensions.

To the best of our knowledge, only one study has directlylinked PSM to political behaviors. On the basis of anAustralian sample, Taylor has shown a positive associationbetween PSM and non-electoral political activities (Taylor,2010). The Swiss political system is characterized by thestrong political participation of its citizens who are giventhe opportunity to express and enact their political viewsthrough specific political institutions (Kriesi, 2005). First,voting on specific public policies is highly recurrent. Second,citizens have the ability, by means of petitioning, to launchpopular initiatives or to call for a referendum and Swiss pub-lic agents make frequent use of this democratic right (WVS,2005). Third, the Swiss political system is also characterizedby a government of militia that requires the involvement ofcitizens to run the country in their spare time (Wiesli, 2003).This ideal is more of a myth than a reality as politiciansare becoming more and more professionalized (Pilotti et al.,2010), but this government by common citizens is still thenorm at the municipal level (Geser et al., 1994). Thus, theultimate commitment to the political sphere is to run and tobe elected for a political mandate. Finally, because partici-pation in demonstrations or boycotts is a common tendencyof public employees (WVS, 2005), we consider this expres-sion of dissent to be a non-institutional way of participatingin the democratic life of Switzerland.

Conversely, several research studies have investigatedthe relationships between volunteering, charity and PSMvalues (Steen, 2008). Volunteering and involvement incharitable activities are distinguishable attributes of pub-lic service -motivated individuals (Houston, 2006; Perry

et al., 2008). However, the study of Clerkin, Payter et al.using the four facets of PSM provides the clearest picture:“Compassion” and “Commitment to the public interest ”arepositively related to volunteering, when it is the opposite for“Attraction to politics and policymaking” (2009).

Political preferences of public servants

PSM is about values and preferences, and public agents withhigh levels of PSM prefer to purse the common good insteadof their own interests. Comparative studies have shown thatpublic servants are more supportive of democratic valuessuch as equality of treatment or the promotion of minorityrights (Blair & Garand, 1995). At the same time, they aremore likely to adhere to liberal (Garand et al., 1991) or left-ist (Blais et al., 1990) political ideologies. This latter findinghas also been established in Switzerland (WVS, 2005). Sucha preference is funded into two complementary reasons.On the rational side, public choice theory explains that pub-lic employees, as rational agents, will be more likely to votefor liberal or left-wing parties because they support publicspending and thus guarantee the persistence of their work.On the normative side, public servants, being PSM driven,are more leftist or liberal because those parties promotepublic, community and social services (Brewer, 2003).

The interests and values promoted and defended by left-ist political parties in Switzerland sustain both theoreticalclaims. Of the numerous political parties, three broad cate-gories can be made (Kriesi, 2005).The left or liberal parties(Socialists Party, Green Party, and Workers Party) were cre-ated to protect the interests of the underprivileged on thebasis of the solidarity principle; hence, they favor a wel-fare state that intervenes in private economy. Governmentalright-wing parties (Radical-Liberal Democratic Party, andChristian Democrat Party) which historically had a greatinfluence in shaping modern Switzerland, serve the inter-ests of the economy and the wealthy are reluctant aboutstate interventionism. Finally, the conservative right-wingparties consolidating the populist, nationalist, and tradition-alist parties (Swiss People’s Party and several micro-parties)gather citizens disappointed with institutions and politics,and their programs are characterized by xenophobia andneo-liberalism. Given that these three categories of politi-cal parties pursue different values, it thus logical to expectthe dimensions of PSM to be diversely related to them.

Cultural effects and PSM

PSM relies on need theories of motivation which stressthat public employees are motivated by the fulfillment ofhigher order needs like values and other normative con-cerns (Perry & Wise, 1990). If lower-order needs may beconsidered fairly universal, then higher-order needs, on thecontrary, are socially defined and characterize what is cul-turally valued (Child, 2002, cited by Pudelko, 2006). In thisrespect, the cultural variable is widely used in organizations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTIVATED CIVIL SERVANTS 9

studies and has been demonstrated to be an important factorthat influences both the conceptualization and level of con-structs (d’Iribarne, 2009; Hofstede, 1980). This influence isalso true for PSM studies: its measure is related to the insti-tutional particularities of the studied country (Giauque et al.,2011), and its level differs across countries (Vandenabeele &Van de Walle, 2008; Westover & Taylor, 2010).

To apprehend how cultural differences influence PSM,this study proposes that conceptions of the organization andregulation of the interactions among individuals, as well asattitude toward the state, might provide an explanation of thedifferent levels of PSM among cultural groups. The diversedefinitions culture agree that it is mostly about shared mean-ings, and that language is a privileged medium as well as akey repository of cultural values (Hall, 1997).

Switzerland is a country characterized by linguistic frag-mentation (Hug & Trechsel, 2002), one of the most promi-nent and relevant cleavages explaining political behaviors,value preferences, and levels or configurations of social cap-ital (Freitag, 2004; Kriesi et al., 1996; Lijphart, 1979; Linder,1994). Given the importance of language for cultural studiesand its pre-eminence in the Swiss context, this study usesit as a proxy to apprehend how different senses of culturalbelonging impact the dimensions of PSM. Broadly speak-ing, Switzerland has two dominant cultures: Germanic andLatin (Swiss-French and Swiss-Italians) that can be catego-rized according to the ideal-types set by Tönnies (1887):“Swiss-French “society” (Gesellschaft) favors state regula-tion whereas Swiss-German “community” (Gemeinschaft)leaves it up to social control and self-guiltiness, or evenindividual responsibility”(Konishi, 2009, p. 345). The senseof community that characterizes Swiss-Germans relies oninter-individual relations based on proximity and friendship,and on the greater importance given to self-regulation onthe basis of moral obligations and values such as traditionand authenticity. In this respect, given the greater importanceof normative concerns as regulators of behaviors within the“community” model, we expect Swiss-Germans to exhibit agreater level of PSM. Therefore, the third general researchhypothesis reads as: Swiss-Germans will score higher onPSM, particularly on the normative dimension (H3).

Specified dimensional hypotheses

“Attraction to politics and policymaking” is based on util-itarian drives. It characterizes the motivation of individualshaving a particular attachment to the political sphere, will-ing to serve the public interest by influencing politicalprocesses. Thus, we expect that associational membership,political participation and sympathy for political partiesincrease the level of “Attraction to politics and policymak-ing” (H1a).

“Commitment to the public interest” is a norm-basedmotive related to the individual’s desire to fulfill a soci-etal obligation or standard (DeHart-Davis et al., 2006;

Perry & Wise, 1990). Social trust is of a similar natureand volunteering has been shown to be positively related tothis dimension. Hence, Germanic culture relies heavily onmoral obligations. We therefore expect that Germanic cul-tural belonging as well as a high level of social trust andvolunteering will increase the level of “Commitment to thepublic interest” (H1b).

“Compassion” is an affective motive that involves emo-tions and the will to protect others which is closely related tovolunteering motives. Furthermore, compassion is a ratherleftist party attribute, whereas the conservative right issomewhat more reluctant to exhibit such empathy towardsothers. Thus, we expect that a high level of volunteer-ing and sympathy for the left will increase the level of“Compassion.” Conversely, sympathy for the conservativeright will decrease it (H1c).

“Self-sacrifice” or “willingness to substitute service toothers for tangible personal rewards” (Perry, 1996, p. 6) ischaracterized by a devotional desire to help others and asense of abnegation. We therefore anticipate that a highlevel of volunteering will increase the level of “Self-Sacrifice” (H1d).

DATA, MEASURES, AND METHOD

Description of the study and sample

The primary data of this empirical study was collected in anational survey of civil servants at the Swiss municipal level.Apart from the municipalities in the Italian-speaking part ofSwitzerland, virtually all the 2636 Swiss municipalities werecontacted. In order to raise the level of participation, themunicipal authorities were promised a standardized bench-mark report containing the survey’s key results. In the end,279 municipalities participated in the survey, which waseither paper-based or administered online. By the end of thisprocess, the survey had been given to 9852 civil servants,from whom 3754 questionnaires were returned, yieldinga response rate of 38.1 percent. As to the separation ofthe German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland, anadequate measure can be discerned from the respondent’ssurvey language whereby 79 percent of the respondents usedthe German questionnaire and 21 percent the French version.This corresponds roughly to the mother tongue distribu-tion of the resident population of Switzerland: 63.7 percentGerman; 20.4 percent French; 6.5 percent Italian; and 9 per-cent other languages (Lüdi &Werlen, 2005).The sampleincludes municipal civil servants of various hierarchical lev-els but most of them are employees. They perform a varietyof job tasks: 7.4 percent participate in the formulation orplanning of public policies; 50.9 percent are in charge ofthe implementation of public policies; and 41.7 percentsupply internal services. Full details on the demographiccharacteristics of the sample can be found in appendix.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

10 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

Measures

The dimensions of Public Service Motivation asdependent variables

Measures of PSM are varied and their inconsistency is oneof the “big issues” of PSM research (Wright, 2008). Eventhough its multidimensionality has been set since the begin-ning (Perry, 1996), most studies use a collapsed measureof PSM, summing up all PSM items into one single mea-sure. Following the suggestion of Bright (2009) and thefindings of some of the newest publications (Vandenabeele,2009), this study uses summative indices of each of the fourdimensions. A set of eleven items mostly inspired by Perry(1996) was used. Besides a general summative measure ofPSM (alpha = .769), two items form the “Attraction topolitics and policymaking” (PSM_POL, alpha = .915) andthe “Self-sacrifice” (PSM_SS, alpha = .577) dimensions.In this respect, we should mention that the items usedto measure the “Attraction to politics and policymaking”dimension (“I’m very interested in politics” and “I liketo discuss political subjects with others”) do not pre-cisely focus on policymaking, but are rather a measure ofpolitical interest. Four items constitute “Commitment tothe public interest” (PSM_CIV, alpha = .646) and threeform “Compassion” (PSM_COMP, alpha = .679). Cronbachcoefficients are relatively low, but they mostly stayed withinthe ranges found in other studies (Camilleri, 2006; Castaing,2006; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Kim, 2009; Perry, 1996;Vandenabeele, 2008).

Control variables

The baseline models (M1) of regression in this study con-sist of the usually inserted control variables of PSM studies:age, gender, and level of education, hierarchical level andincome. We have also inserted religiosity in the first step ofthe hierarchical regressions.

Variables of the socio-political profile

Three items asking whether or not the respondent is a mem-ber of a professional organization, a trade union or a politicalparty were used to create a cumulative index that variesfrom no membership (= 0) to three types of membership(= 3).To asses the impact of social trust on the dimensionsof PSM, an overall index was formed. Three items weredirectly translated from Putnam’s surveys (Putnam, 2000,2002): work colleagues, people of the neighborhood, and thecommunal authorities (instead of local police). Conversely,because the race debate is totally irrelevant in the Swisscontext, we’ve decided, instead of bypassing it, to trans-pose it to more accurately reflect the realities of the coun-try. Switzerland is multicultural and has a high percentage(22 percent) of foreign residents. Therefore we have askedwhether: Swiss, in general; foreigners, in general and thethree different populations (Swiss-Germans, Swiss-French,

and Swiss-Italians) were worthy of trust. Of the eight items,a summative index with good reliability was constructed(Cronbach = .882). Four items asking whether or not therespondent have exhibited different kinds of political behav-iors (voting; signing initiatives, petitions and referendums;participation in demonstrations; being elected for a polit-ical mandate) were used to create a cumulative index ofpolitical participation. This measure varies from no type ofpolitical participation (= 0) to four types of political partic-ipation (= 4). A dummy: “Have you been volunteering ordid you give money to a charity organization during the lasttwelve months?” assessed the engagement of civil servantsin benevolent activities and their commitment to charities.The political preference of the respondents was estimatedwith a generic question: “Do you feel sympathy for a par-ticular political party?” A list of all the Swiss politicalparties was provided as possible answers. Responses werethen recoded into three dummies, according to the typologyof Swiss political parties developed by Kriesi - left, moder-ate right and conservative right (2005). Finally, the languageused to fill out the questionnaire (German or French) wasused to approximate the effect of cultural belonging on theexplanation of the dimensions of PSM.

Statistical method

Descriptive statistics and t-test for mean differences are usedto compare the levels of PSM between the Swiss-Germansand the Swiss-French to verify if a cultural effect will occur(H3). Otherwise, this study uses multivariate hierarchicalregression to estimate the respective effect of the depen-dent variables on PSM and each of the four dimensions.The baseline model (M1) consists of the socio-demographicvariables. The second model (M2) estimates for each of thefour dimensions of PSM the effects of the socio-politicalcharacteristics in order to observe whether or not the fourdimensions have a different set of antecedents (H1), andif their configurations are as expected (H3; H1a; H1b;H1c; H1d). The comparison of the portion of explainedvariance between M1 and M2 enables the empirical assess-ment of H2,which states that socio-political variables sig-nificantly contribute to the explanation of the dimensionsof PSM.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis

Means differences analyses

Mean differences provided in table 1 offer insights aboutthe effect of the linguistic cleavage on the mean level ofthe PSM dimensions. Swiss-Germans display a higher levelof PSM when looking at its aggregated measure (meandifference = .263).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTIVATED CIVIL SERVANTS 11

TABLE 1Mean comparison

PSM Mean (n)Mean

difference T-test, two-tailed

PSM_Total G! 3.70 (2773) .263 t (3501) = 11.461p < .001F!! 3.44 (730)

PSM_Pol G 3.34 (2926) .372 t (3696) = 7.911p < .001F 2.97 (772)

PSM_Civ G 4.07 (2866) .436 t (3610) = 17.209p < .001F 3.64 (746)

PSM_Comp G 3.74 (2888) ".058 t (3644 = "1.832p < .067F 3.80 (758)

PSM_SS G 2.93 (758) .323 t (3632) = 9.276,p < .001F 3.25 (2876)

!G = Swiss-Germans!!F = Swiss-French

At the dimensional level, the same is true for threeout of four dimensions: “Attraction to politics and policy-making,” “Self-sacrifice“ and “Commitment to the publicinterest”; the greater difference is for the latter (.436).Conversely, “Compassion” is the only dimension for whichSwiss-French municipal servants score higher than theSwiss-Germans, but this difference is not significant. Thesedescriptive results provide preliminary support for the thirdgeneral hypothesis.

Correlations analyses

All bilateral associations between the PSM dimensions andits general measure are significant and relatively high (seeintercorrelations matrix in the appendix). Such associationssupport the fact that the four dimensions are part of a generalsecond order construct (Wright, 2008). “Commitment to thepublic interest” (r = .795) is the first dimension related tothe aggregated measure of PSM, while “Attraction to politicsand policymaking” (r = .607) is the least. Bilateral associa-tions between the separate dimensions of PSM demonstratethat “Compassion” shares most of its characteristics with“Self-Sacrifice” (r = .416), whereas “Self-Sacrifice” and“Attraction to politics and policy-making” are the leastassociated (r = .138).

Considering the aggregated measure of PSM in isolation,one might consider that public service motivation is asso-ciated with gender (men) and older employees who havecomfortable, hierarchically advantageous positions in theirorganizations. Such employees tend to be well-educated andthus in the upper wage scale. At the same time, these publicservice -motivated employees are rather trusting and possessan important social network. Not only do they prove to beexemplary volunteers, they also show a high level of polit-ical participation and are clear supporters of leftist parties.Likewise, the positive coefficient shows that Swiss-Germansare more likely to have a high level of PSM, thus sustainingthe third hypothesis. However, when looking more precisely

at the dimensions of PSM, the picture is no longer the sameas each dimension has its own pattern of individual andsocio-political characteristics. This result is in line with thefirst hypothesis.

Individual factors per dimension

The respondents with a high level of “Attraction to poli-tics and policymaking“ are clearly middle-aged men witha low degree of religiosity. They occupy high hierarchi-cal positions, are well educated and receive an importantannual income. For the “Commitment to the public inter-est” dimension, respondents are older men who are neitherparticularly educated nor religious. Middle-aged womenare more prominently represented in the “Compassion”dimension; they are at the bottom of the hierarchy andare thus in the lowest part of the wage scale. Municipalemployees with high “Self-Sacrifice” are mostly youngmen who possess the highest level of religiosity (coeffi-cients for hierarchical, educational and income level are notsignificant).

Socio-political factors per dimension

Hypothesized clusters of socio-political factors are con-firmed by the empirical analysis (H1a; H1b; H1c; H1d).As expected, respondents with a high level of “Attractionto politics and policymaking” logically show greater polit-ical participation and are somewhat engaged in voluntaryand charitable affairs. They are members of several associ-ations of interests, and have strong sympathy for politicalparties (H1a). The greater association with moderate rightparties is not surprising as they are the governmental partiesthat dominate the Swiss political sphere in general, and par-ticularly among municipal authorities. The municipal civilservants strongly “Committed to the public interest” are alsowell entrenched in associational networks, and are the mosttrusting and the most engaged in volunteering and charity(H1b). Hence, they participate quite frequently in politi-cal actions, and are generally leftists. Besides the fact that“Compassionate” municipal civil servants are likely to beSwiss-French with a low degree of associational member-ship, this dimension of PSM is strongly associated withvolunteering. In addition, their political positioning is evi-dent. They clearly feel sympathy for the left and dislikeconservative right parties (H1c). Results for municipal civilservants with a strong sense of “Self-Sacrifice” are not soclear (see low levels of significant coefficients of associ-ation). Nevertheless, we can say with some certainty thatthey tend not to participate much in political life, are some-what involved in associational network, and are engaged inthe volunteering and charity sphere, though not necessar-ily to a great extent. Finally, they seem not to care aboutpolitical issues as they have no preferences for any particularparties (H1d).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

12 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

Inferential analysis

Generally speaking, the models of regression (Table 2) pro-vide further evidence supporting the three general researchhypotheses. First, in comparison to the general measureof PSM, each dimension has it own configuration ofantecedents (H1). Second, the socio-political characteristicsobtained in this study indubitably contribute to raising boththe explanation of the aggregated measure of PSM and itsfour dimensions (H2). Third, Swiss-Germans score higheron PSM (H3).

The regression analysis for the aggregated measure ofPSM largely confirms the results of the analysis of the cor-relations. In addition, results clearly show that the additionof culture as well as socio-political variables significantlyincrease the explained variance (!R2 = .158) of the aggre-gated measure of PSM. With the exception of the effect ofthe moderate right category of political preference, all socio-political variables have a significant and important effect.Conversely, only an analysis of the properties of the sepa-rate dimensions provides a comprehensive understanding ofthe socio-political profile of public service -motivated civilservants.

“Attraction to politics and policymaking” is the PSMdimension most influenced by socio-political characteristics(!R2 = .156) with all socio-political variables contributingsignificantly to its explanation. Political participation, partypreference, and associational involvement, as expected, havethe greatest influence on this dimension (H1a). Municipalemployees with a high level of this public service motivationcan be portrayed as well-off men with commanding posi-tions in the municipality. They are interested and engaged inpolitics and possess important social networks to sustain andfurther their influence.

“Commitment to the public interest” is the second dimen-sion to be significantly influenced by socio-political factors(!R2 = .128). It is also the most influenced by cultural dif-ferences (Swiss-German municipal civil servants are morecommitted to civic interest than their Swiss-French coun-terparts), and by social trust (H1b). Those results thereforedepict that municipal civil servants driven by public inter-est are relatively old and mostly Swiss-German. They havea high level of social trust and tolerance towards the varietyof categories of Swiss inhabitants.

“Compassion” is the third dimension influenced by socio-political factors (!R2 = .082). Besides volunteering, whichremains an important factor shaping the compassionatemotivation of municipal civil servants, the most striking butexpected result concerns their political preferences (H1c).In contrast to municipals civil servants motivated by thepolitical dimension, those who are compassionate clearlyset forth their preferences for leftist parties and converselydislike conservative right parties. Such a result shows thathumanitarianism and tolerance, two social values promoted

by leftist parties, seem to be a shared attribute of com-passionate civil servants. In summary, compassionate civilservants are older educated women located at the bottomof the hierarchy, with clear-cut political preferences forleftist parties.

As we have stated previously, “Self-Sacrifice” is thedimension that is the least influenced by the socialantecedents analyzed in this study (!R2 = .058).Nevertheless, municipal civil servants driven by abnegationand devotion are more involved in benevolent and char-ity affairs (H1d). Furthermore, comparatively speaking, thisdimension is highly influenced by religiosity. This resultis particularly in line with the abnegation ethic advocatedby Christian (Catholic and Protestant) faiths. In summary,civil servants who are motivated by “Self-Sacrifice ”areaverage employees who are most likely male and of Swiss-German cultural origin. Besides being highly religious, theyare extremely involved in volunteering.

Limitations

Three principal limitations should be mentioned before weproceed to the concluding remarks. First, the cross-sectionalresearch design we used in this study does not allow for thesetting of a definite causality among the studied independentvariables and PSM and its dimensions. Second, culture ismore than just language. This study, due to its multiculturaland linguistic context, uses the preferred respondent lan-guage as a proxy for culture. However, given the importantcontribution accounted by the variable, and its relevance inSwitzerland, we believe that this proxy identifies effects thatcould not be accounted for by language variation alone. Thethird principal limitation of the study relates to the itemsused to measure the “Attraction to politics and policymak-ing” dimension: “I’m very interested in politics” and “I liketo discuss political subjects with others” adapted from Perry(1996) and Kim (2009). They do not focus on policymaking,but are, rather, a measure of political interest. Along withRitz (Ritz, 2011), we call for a clarification of the contentof this essential dimension of the PSM construct. Finally,we must repeat that this study was done with a sample ofSwiss municipal employees. Thus, the provided results arerelevant for the population under study and need to be cor-roborated with evidence from other settings (countries andlevels of governance) to be considered fully reliable as ageneral model.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Even if previous studies have shown that public servants dis-tinguish themselves on the subject (Brewer, 2003; Houston,2008; Taylor, 2010), socio-political variables seem to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

TAB

LE2

Mod

els

ofre

gres

sion

s

PSM

_Tot

alP

SM_P

olP

SM_C

ivP

SM_C

omp

PSM

_SS

M1

M2

M1

M2

M1

M2

M1

M2

M1

M2

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Bet

a!(s

ig)

Gen

der

".03

8(.0

52)

".05

9(.0

01)

".10

1(.0

00)

".09

9(.0

00)

.000

(.981

)".

030

(.108

).1

11(.0

00)

.095

(.000

)".

068

(.001

)".

090

(.000

)A

gein

clas

ses

.174

(.000

).1

07(.0

00)

.081

(.000

).0

10(.5

49)

.143

(.000

).1

12(.0

00)

.254

(.000

).1

98(.0

00)

.037

(.061

).0

14(.4

65)

Hie

rarc

hica

llev

el".

036

(.123

)".

058

(.007

).0

01(.9

52)

".03

5(.0

81)

.019

(.426

).0

11(.6

16)

".12

3(.0

00)

".12

8(.0

00)

.000

(.984

)".

011

(.648

)L

evel

ofed

ucat

ion

.122

(.000

).0

27(.1

36)

.179

(.000

).0

84(.0

00)

.006

(.767

)".

046

(.014

).1

09(.0

00)

.040

(.034

)".

014

(.471

)".

044

(.025

)In

com

ein

clas

ses

.081

(.002

).0

33(.1

73)

.162

(.000

).1

88(.0

00)

.099

(.000

).0

40(.1

08)

".06

5(.0

13)

".04

5(.0

76)

".01

9(.4

85)

".05

5(.0

38)

Rel

igio

sity

.130

(.000

).0

79(.0

00)

.050

(.003

).0

08(.5

92)

.094

(.000

).0

60(.0

00)

.104

(.000

).0

77(.0

00)

.115

(.000

).0

82(.0

00)

Cul

tura

lbel

ongi

ng.1

64(.0

00)

.103

(.000

).2

65(.0

00)

".02

4(.1

54)

.148

(.000

)A

ssoc

iatio

nal

invo

lvem

ent

.081

(.000

).0

96(.0

00)

.042

(.022

).0

11(.0

00)

.039

(.044

)

Soci

altr

ust

.171

(.000

).0

79(.0

00)

.170

(.000

).1

29(.0

00)

.113

(.000

)Po

litic

alpa

rtic

ipat

ion

.152

(.000

).2

57(.0

00)

.059

(.001

).0

39(.0

34)

.002

(.921

)Sy

mpa

thy

tow

ard

left

.142

(.000

).1

14(.0

00)

.071

(.000

).1

61(.0

00)

.021

(.257

)Sy

mpa

thy

tow

ard

mod

erat

eri

ght

.028

(.095

).1

14(.0

00)

".02

1(.2

18)

".04

5(.0

08)

".02

2(.2

22)

Sym

path

yto

war

dco

nser

vativ

eri

ght

".03

4(.0

36)

.041

(.008

)".

039

(.021

)".

119

(.000

)".

019

(.294

)

Vol

unte

erin

g.1

57(.0

00)

.073

(.000

).1

09(.0

00)

.120

(.000

).1

37(.0

00)

Sig

=.0

00Si

g.=

.05

R2

.092

.250

.137

.294

.057

.185

.084

.166

.020

.078

Adj

uste

dR

2.0

90.2

47.1

36.2

91.0

55.1

81.0

82.1

62.0

18.0

74!

R2

.158

.156

.128

.082

.058

f-ra

tio50

.794

!!!

79.1

70!!

!83

.434

!!!

86.6

11!!

!31

.292

!!!

60.4

19!!

!47

.552

!!!

37.9

85!!

!10

.398

!!!

24.4

60!!

!

! Sta

ndar

dize

dB

eta

!!! S

ig.0

00

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

14 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

underestimated by PSM scholars. Thus, an extended modelwas developed to bridge this gap. This model has shown tobe particularly appropriate for three out of the four dimen-sions of PSM and provides a better mode of explanationthan previous studies. The retained socio-political factors, inaddition to the usual individual control variables, accountedfor more than 29 percent of the variance of “Attraction topolitics and policymaking,” 18.5 percent for ”Commitmentto the public interest,” 16.6 percent for “Compassion,”almost 8 percent for “Self-Sacrifice,” and 25 percent ofthe aggregated measure of PSM. These results overtake orare very close to those of three previous empirical stud-ies on the antecedents of the PSM. Perry’s study (1997)included parental socialization, religious socialization, pro-fessional identification, political ideology, and a set of socio-demographics that launched the institutional perspective.His model explained 7 percent of the variance of “Attractionto politics and policymaking”; 18 percent for “Commitmentto the public interest”; 7 percent for “Compassion”; 15 per-cent of “Self-Sacrifice”; and 13 percent of the aggregatedmeasure of PSM.

A decade later, the study conducted by Moynihan andPandey (2007) integrate individual and organizational vari-ables that accounted for 16 percent of the variation of“Attraction to policy-making”; 15 percent for “Commitmentto the public interest”; and 22 percent for the aggregatedmeasure of PSM. The third and mere recent study by Hansen(2009) comprised individual, organizational context and jobrelated variables explained 12 percent of the variance of“Attraction to policy-making,” 14 percent of “Compassion,”13 percent of “Commitment to the public interest,” and20 percent of the aggregated measure of PSM. Neither theseprevious studies nor the present ones could satisfactorilyexplain an amount of variance of PSM and its dimensions.It therefore seems that other important variables, for a com-prehensive explanation of the sources of PSM, were omitted.Conversely, the field is wide open for models with institu-tional, socio-political, and cultural, as well as organizationaland job-related variables. Such an integrated strategy couldprovide fruitful insights on the fostering elements of PSM.

Most of the studies that relate PSM with work outcomesor other type of variables use an aggregated measure ofPSM. This study, like Perry’s (1997), looks at the foster-ing factors of PSM at both the aggregated and dimensionallevel. It provides critical insights regarding PSM as anaggregated measure, thus corroborating the necessity foranalyzing them separately (Bright, 2009; Vandenabeele,2009). It depicts four ideal-typical profiles related to thisprimary conceptualization. A great challenge for PSM schol-ars would be to compare the four individual conceptions ofPSM (“Humanitarians”; “Communitarians”; “Samaritans,“and “Patriots”) described by Brewer, Selden et al. (2000)to the four ideal-typical profiles identified by the presentstudy. However, besides the fact that clustered individualsshare the same view on PSM, no information is provided

on their socio-political backgrounds. Such information couldhave allowed for an interesting comparative perspective.

If the present study shows that each dimension of PSMhas its own set of socio-political antecedents, it also providesinsights into the commonalities among the four dimensionsof PSM. Three socio-political variables are significant fac-tors for all four dimensions. Among them, social trust (rmean = .122) and volunteering (r mean = .109) have thegreatest average effect (r mean for associational involve-ment = .047). We therefore consider them a common ele-ment of the socio-political profile of public servicemotivatedcivil servants. If volunteering has already been discovered tobe an important correlate of PSM, then our study has deter-mined that social trust might be one of the crucial factorsthat contribute to understanding PSM. This latter finding hasmultiple consequences for future PSM research.

Our study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to testthe cultural perspective with primary data from a question-naire designed to analyze PSM and its features, as previouscomparative studies were carried out using secondary data(Vandenabeele & Van de Walle, 2008; Westover & Taylor,2010). This approach, which was initially based on intu-itions and a general understanding of Swiss particularities,led to the addition of a variable based on the privilegedlanguage of our respondents as a proxy for culture. If cross-cultural concerns were tackled with respect to measurementissues (Giauque et al., 2011), then the results of our studybroadened its purpose.

We have found that Swiss-Germans, because they belongto a culture that gives a greater importance to self-regulationon the basis of moral obligations and values, score higher onPSM. We interpret this result in light of the pre-eminenceof the socio-political factors that shape PSM. Knowingthat Swiss-Germans can rely on greater social capital, aremore involved in associational and voluntary life (Bühlmann&Freitag, 2006; OFS, 2008; Stadelmann-Steffen et al.,2007), and are more trusting than their French counterparts(Freitag, 2003a), the result is not puzzling and provides evi-dence that has significant implications for further researchon PSM. In this respect, a supplementary statistical analysisprovided no evidence that culture moderates the relationshipbetween the socio-political antecedents and PSM. Cultureis not a variable that interferes with these relations and hasits own effect. It is thus an important factor that contributesto explaining the level of PSM (aggregated or dimensionalmeasures). This is of particular interest since PSM stud-ies are currently at a turning point with the internationaldiffusion of the approach (Vandenabeele & Van de Walle,2008). If PSM is mostly influenced by socio-political fac-tors such as social trust or social capital, which are, in turn,culturally contingent (Freitag, 2003a, 2003b; Newton &Norris, 2000; Stadelmann-Steffenet al., 2007), then we havegood reason to expect that such factors are crucial variablesexplaining differences in PSM levels among individuals orcultures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTIVATED CIVIL SERVANTS 15

However, these findings still need to be strengthened.Besides international comparisons of the antecedents ofPSM, replications in contexts characterized by multiculturalworkforces could be another strategy to analyze how socialcapital and cultural belonging influence PSM.

To sum up, this study of the socio-political profile ofpublic service-motivated public servants provides three sig-nificant pieces of evidence in the search for the personal andsocietal variables that influence PSM and its dimensions.First, socio-political variables are important explanatory ele-ments of PSM. Consequently, we strongly advise furtherinvestigation of the socio-political profile of public service-motivated public servants in order to strengthen these firstresults. Second, each dimension has its own individual andsocio-political characteristics. We therefore encourage PSMscholars to further investigate the dimensionality issues ofPSM, particularly when looking at the outcome of PSM,which should be as diverse as its antecedents. Third, cul-ture is a significant variable that explains the level of PSM.Thus, we encourage the replication of PSM studies either inmulticultural countries or in organizations with multiculturalworkforces (i.e., international organizations).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is part of a broader research project(No. 100012–116083) financed by the Swiss NationalScience Foundation. A preliminary version of this articlewas presented at the 14th. International Research Societyfor Public Management (IRSPM) Conference (Bern). Theauthor would like to thank the participants, as well as thereviewers of IJPA for their accurate comments and sugges-tions that undoubtedly contribute to its improvement.

REFERENCES

Ackermann, E., & Moser-Brossy, D. (2009). Evolution des effectifs dessyndicats en 2008: Bern, Switzerland, Union Syndicale Suisse (USS).

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a newconcept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

Anderfuhren-Biget, S., Varone, F., Giauque, D., & Ritz, A. (2010).Motivating employees of the public sector: Does public service motiva-tion matter? International Public Management Journal, 13(3), 213–246.

Blair, W., & Garand, J. (1995,). Are bureaucrats different? democraticvalues, political tolerance, and support for the political system amonggovernment employees and other citizens, 1982–1992. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Chicago, Illinois, August 31 – September 3.

Blais, A., Blake, D. E., & Dion, S. (1990). The public/private sector cleav-age in North America: The political behavior and attitudes of publicsector employees. Comparative Political Studies, 23(3), 381–403.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes andconsequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science,41(3), 999.

Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building social capital: Civic attitudes and behav-ior of public servants. Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory, 13(1), 5–26.

Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer, R. L. (2000). Individual concep-tions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60(3),254–264.

Bright, L. (2005). Public employees with high level of public service moti-vation. Who are they, where are they, and what do they want? Review ofPublic Personnel Administration, 25(2), 138–154.

Bright, L. (2009). Why do public employees desire intrinsic nonmonetaryopportunities? Public Personnel Management, 38(3), 15–37.

Bühlmann, M., & Freitag, M. (2006). Freiwilligkeit als soziales kapi-tal der gesellshaft. ein vergleich der schweizer kantone. In P. Farago(Ed.), Freiwilliges engagement in der schweiz (pp. 56–107). Zurich:SeismoVerlag.

Camilleri, E. (2006). Toward developing an organizational commitment-public service motivation model for the Maltese public service employ-ees. Public Policy and Administration, 21(1), 63–83.

Camilleri, E. (2007). Antecedents affecting public service motivation.Personnel Review, 36(3), 356–377.

Castaing, S. (2006). The effect of psychological contract fulfillment andpublic service motivation on organizational commitment in the Frenchpublic utilities. Public Policy and Administration, 21(1), 84–98.

Child, J. (2002). Theorizing about organization cross-nationally: part 1–anintroduction. In M. Warner & P. Joynt (Eds.), Managing across cultures:Issues and perspectives (pp. 26–39). London: Thomson Learning.

Clerkin, R., Paynter, S., & Taylor, J. (2009). Public service motivation inundergraduate giving and volunteering decisions. The American Reviewof Public Administration, 39(6), 675.

Coleman, J. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: BelknapPress.

Conway, M. M. (2000). Political participation in the United States.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Corey, E. C., & Garand, J. C. (2002). Are government employees morelikely to vote? An analysis of turnout in the 1996 U.S. national election.Public Choice, 111(3), 259–283.

d’Iribarne, P. (2009). L’épreuve des différences: L’expérience d’uneentreprise monde. Paris: Seuil.

Davis, R. S. (2011). Blue Collar Public Servants: How Union MembershipInfluences Public Service Motivation. American Review of PublicAdministration, 41(6), 705–723.

DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimen-sions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66(6),873–887.

Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of socialtrust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European SociologicalReview, 21(4), 311–357.

Freitag, M. (2003a). Beyond Tocqueville: The origins of social capital inSwitzerland. European Sociological Review, 19(2), 217–232.

Freitag, M. (2003b). Social capital in (dis)similar democracies: The devel-opment of generalized trust in Japan and Switzerland. ComparativePolitical Studies, 36(8), 936–966.

Freitag, M. (2004). Swiss worlds of social capital. Swiss regions and can-tons in comparative perspective. Swiss Political Science Review, 10(2),87–118.

Garand, J. C., Parkhurst, C. T., & Seoud, R. J. (1991). Bureaucrats, policyattitudes, and political behavior: Extension of the Bureau Voting Modelof Government Growth. Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory, 1(2), 177–212.

Geser, H., Ladner, A., Schaller, R., & Ballmer-Cao, T. H. (1994). Dieschweizer lokalparteien. Zürich: Seismo.

Giauque, D., Ritz, A., Varone, F., Anderfuhren-Biget, S., & Waldner,C. (2011). Putting public service motivation into context: A bal-ance between universalism and particularism. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 77(2), 227–253.

Goodsell, C. T. (2005). The bureau as unit of governance. In P. DuGay (Ed.), The values of bureaucracy (pp. 17–40). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

16 ANDERFUHREN-BIGET

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.),Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices(pp. 1–13). London: Sage Publications.

Hansen, M. B. (2009). Antecedents of PSM. The case of Danish municipalmanagers. Paper presented at the International Public Service MotivationResearch Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, June 7–9.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differencesin work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Horton, S. (2008). History and persistence of an idea and an ideal. In J. L.Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: Thecall of public service. New York: Oxford University Press.

Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713–727.

Houston, D. J. (2006). “Walking the walk” of public service motivation:Public employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, money. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 67–86.

Houston, D. J. (2008). Behavior in the public square. In J. L. Perry & A.Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management. The call of publicservice (pp. 177–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Houston, D. J., & Cartwright, K. E. (2007). Spirituality and public service.Public Administration Review, 67(1), 88–102.

Hug, S., & Trechsel, A. (2002). Clivages et identification partisane. In S.Hug & P. Sciarini (Eds.), Changements de valeurs et nouveaux clivagespolitiques en Suisse (pp. 207–235). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Kim, S. (2009). Revising Perry’s Measurement Scale of Public ServiceMotivation. American Review of Public Administration, 39(2), 149–163.

Konishi, M. (2009). Minorisation et différences de vote entre Alémaniques,Romands et Suisses Italiens. analyze des votations fédérales et de lapresse écrite. Geneva: Geneva University.

Kriesi, H. (2005). Direct democratic choice: The Swiss experience, Oxford:Lexington Books.

Kriesi, H., Wernli, B., Sciarini, P., & Gianni, M. (1996). Le clivage linguis-tique: Problèmes de compréhension entre les communautés linguistiquesen Suisse. Bern, Switzerland: Office Fédéral de la Statistique (OFS).

Lijphart, A. (1979). Religious vs. linguistic vs. class voting: The“Crucial Experiment” of comparing Belgium, Canada, South Africa, andSwitzerland. The American Political Science Review, 73(2), 442–458.

Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review ofSociology, 25, 467–487.

Linder, W. (1994). Swiss democracy: Possible solutions to conflict inmulticultural societies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Lüdi, G., & Werlen, I. (2005). Le recensement Fédéral de la population2000: Le paysage linguistique de La Suisse. Neuchâtel, Switzerland:Office Fédéral de la Statistique.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fos-tering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1),40–53.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007b). Finding workable leversover work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, andorganizational commitment. Administration and Society, 39(7), 803–832.

Naff, K., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does publicservice motivation make a difference? Review of Public PersonnelAdministration, 19(4), 5–16.

Newton, K. (2007). Social and political trust. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D.Klingmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 342–382).New-York: Oxford University Press.

Newton, K., & Norris, P. (2000). Confidence in public institutions. In S. J.Pharr & R. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies. What’s troubling thetrilateral countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Office Fédéral de la Statistique (OFS). (2008). Le travail bénévole enSuisse. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: OFS.

Pandey, S. K., & Stazyk, E. C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of publicservice motivation. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation inpublic management: The call of public service (pp. 101–117). New York:Oxford University Press.

Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessmentof construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.

Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181–197.

Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-servicemotivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,10(2), 471–488.

Perry, J. L., Brudney, J. L., Coursey, D., & Littlepage, L. (2008). Whatdrives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of publicservice motivation. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 445–458.

Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008a). Building theory and empirical evi-dence about public service motivation. International Public ManagementJournal, 11(1), 3–12.

Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008b). Editors’ introduction. In J. L. Perry& A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call ofpublic service (pp. 1–14). New York: Oxford University Press.

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 call of public service (pp. 56–80).New York: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service.Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.

Pilotti, A., Mach, A., & Mazzoleni, O. (2010). Les parlementaires Suissesentre démocratisation et professionnalisation, 1910–2000. Swiss PoliticalScience Review, 16(2), 211–245.

Pudelko, M. (2006). Universalities, particularities, and singularitiesin cross-national management research. International Studies ofManagement & Organization, 36(4), 9–37.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Social Capital Extended Survey. Retrieved on May 5,2009, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/docs/survey_instrument.pdf.

Putnam, R. D. (2002). Social Capital Short-Form Survey. Retrievedon May 5, 2009, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/pdfs/socialcapitalshortform.pdf

Reeskens, T. (2009). Investigating the moral foundations of trust: The rela-tion between human values and generalized trust across Europe. Paperpresented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation. Toronto, 3–6 September.

Ritz, A. (2011). Attraction to public policy making. A qualitative inquiryinto improvements in PSM measurement. Public Administration - AnInternational Quarterly 89(3), 1128–1147.

Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public service motivation.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155–180.

Stadelmann-Steffen, I., Freitag, M., & Bühlmann, M. (2007). Freiwilligen-Monitor Schweiz 2007. Zürich: Seismo.

Steen, T. (2008). Not a government monopoly: The private, nonprofit, andvoluntary sectors. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation inpublic management: The call of public service (pp. 203–222). New York:Oxford University Press.

Steijn, B. (2006). Public service motivation in the Netherlands. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Conference of the EGPA. Public Personnel PoliciesStudy Group, Milan, Italy. 6–9 September.

Taylor, J. (2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions ofpublic, nonprofit and private sector employees. Public Administration88(4), 1083–1098.

Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft. Leipzig: Fues.Urio, P., Bauman, Bardin-Arigoni, G., & Joye, D. (1989). Sociologie

politique de la haute administration de La Suisse. Paris: Economica.Uslaner, E. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of pub-

lic service motivation: An institutional approach. Public ManagementReview, 9(4), 545–556.

Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Development of a public service motivationmeasurement scale: Corroborating and extending Perry’s measurementinstrument. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 143–167.

Vandenabeele, W. (2009). The mediating effect of job satisfaction andorganisational commitment on self-reported performance: More robustevidence of the PSM-performance relationship. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 75(1), 11–34.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTIVATED CIVIL SERVANTS 17

Vandenabeele, W., Depré, R., Hondeghem, A., & Yan, S. (2004). The moti-vational patterns of civil servants. Viesoji Politika Ir Administravimas,13, 52–63.

Vandenabeele, W., & Van de Walle, S. (2008). International differences inpublic service motivation: Comparing regions across the world. In J. L.Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: thecall of public service pp. 223–244. New York: Oxford University Press.

Westover, J., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfac-tion: The effects of public service motivation, rewards and work relations.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,59(8), 811–828.

Wiesli, R. (2003). Switzerland: The militia myth and incomplete profes-sionalization. In J. Borchert & J. Zeiss (Eds.), The political class inadvanced democracies (pp. 374–392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, B. E. (2008). Methodological challenges associated with pub-lic service motivation research. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem(Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service(pp. 80–100). New York: Oxford University Press.

World Value Survey (WVS) (2005). Official Data File V.: WVS20090901.World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org).

APPENDIXAppendix of the Study

TABLE A1Demographic description of the sample

GenderMale 54.4%Female 45.6%

Educational levelSecondary levelSecondary school 4.2%Professional apprenticeship 44.7%

(Continued)

TABLE A1(Continued)

High school diploma 7.7%Upper professional apprenticeship 22.3%University degree 17.6%Other 3.5%

Age!

15–19 4.7%20–29 12.9%30–39 21.3%40-49 29.7%50–59 25.7%60–69 5.8%Mean: 42.26

Linguistic regionSwiss-German 79%Swiss-French 21%

Hierarchical positionApprentice, trainee 4.2%Auxiliary 0.8%Employee 51.4%Manager 27.2%Senior manager 15.3%Other 1.1%

Time with organisation!

<1 12.2%2–5 27.9%6–10 23.6%11–15 9.9%16–20 11.8%21–25 6.3%26–30 4.2%31–35 2.6%>36 1%Mean: 10.34

!classified in years N = 3754

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

TAB

LEA

2In

terc

orre

latio

nm

atrix

Mea

nSt

.D

ev.

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1PS

M_T

otal

3.65

.56

2PS

M_P

ol3.

291.

17.6

07!!

3PS

M_C

iv3.

99.6

4.7

95!!

.302

!!

4PS

M_C

omp

3.75

.78

.703

!!.1

72!!

.399

!!

5PS

M_S

S3.

19.8

6.6

29!!

.138

!!.4

16!!

.333

!!

6G

ende

r.4

4.5

0".

093!

!".

214!

!".

081!

!.1

08!!

".07

0!!

7A

gein

clas

ses

3.75

1.24

.225

!!.1

76!!

.189

!!.1

76!!

.048

!!".

203!

!

8H

iera

rchi

call

evel

3.50

.97

.121

!!.2

18!!

.138

!!".

064!

!.0

22".

246!

!.3

66!!

9L

evel

ofed

ucat

ion

3.43

1.81

.146

!!.2

64!!

.067

!!.0

54!!

".00

7".

098!

!.0

86!!

.329

!!

10In

com

ein

clas

ses

2.62

1.25

.175

!!.3

11!!

.170

!!".

051!

!.0

26".

460!

!.3

93!!

.638

!!.3

89!!

11R

elig

iosi

ty.1

7.3

7.1

44!!

.067

!!.1

01!!

.112

!!.1

23!!

".03

4.0

41!

.030

.041

!.0

1712

Cul

ture

1.79

.41

.184

!!.1

37!!

.273

!!".

052!

!.1

42!!

.026

".00

3.0

51!!

.051

!!.1

15!!

.022

13Fo

rmal

soci

alca

pita

l.7

3.7

7.2

02!!

.282

!!.1

45!!

.037

!.0

77!!

".22

0!!

.238

!!.2

91!!

.223

!!.3

43!!

.047

!.0

62!!

14So

cial

trus

t3.

40.6

4.2

29!!

.144

!!.1

98!!

.147

!!.1

31!!

".07

8!!

.063

!!.0

79!!

.092

!!.0

93!!

.028

".00

6.0

55!!

15Po

litic

alpa

rtic

ipat

ion

1.44

.97

.272

!!.3

88!!

.171

!!.1

01!!

.060

!!".

058!

!.2

26!!

.247

!!.2

29!!

.220

!!.0

65!!

.098

!!.2

99!!

.094

!!

16Sy

mpa

thy

left

.21

.41

.186

!!.1

86!!

.068

!!.2

12!!

.023

".01

3.0

77!!

".02

8.1

54!!

".00

2.0

36!

".12

8!!

.044

!.0

27.1

24!!

17Sy

mpa

thy

mod

.ri

ght

.18

.39

.084

!!.2

14!!

.030

".02

6.0

02".

102!

!.0

29.0

97!!

.118

!!.1

35!!

.052

!!.0

26.0

45!

.061

!!.1

12!!

.177

!!

18Sy

mpa

thy

cons

.ri

ght

.12

.32

".03

9!.0

77!!

".02

6".

153!

!.0

02".

115!

!".

039!

".01

1".

067!

!.0

27.0

19.0

82!!

.015

".03

3.0

33".

015

.145

!!

19V

olun

teer

ing

.64

.48

.279

!!.1

99!!

.201

!!.1

88!!

.176

!!.0

30.1

46!!

.146

!!.1

42!!

.116

!!.1

93!!

.079

!!.1

65!!

.084

!!.2

28!!

.128

!!.0

55!!

".02

9

!!C

orre

latio

nis

sign

ifica

ntat

the

0.01

leve

l(2-

taile

d).

! Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

cant

atth

e0.

05le

vel(

2-ta

iled)

.L

istw

ise

N=

3018

.

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

imon

And

erfu

hren

-Big

et] a

t 14:

38 0

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

12