The Role of Motivation, Commitment and Leadership in Strengthening Public Service Performance

Adrian Ritz University of Bern

Centre of Competence for Public Management Schanzeneckstrasse 1, P. B. 8573

CH-3001 Bern Switzerland

Tel.: +41 31 631 53 13

E-Mail: adrian.ritz@kpm.unibe.ch

First draft. Please do not quote! To be presented at the annual conference of the European Group of Public Administration EGPA 2007, September 18-21, Madrid, Spain Study Group III: Personnel Policies

1. Introduction

Over the past two or three decades, management reforms have once again challenged public

administration; and, with their demand for a more performance-based public administration,

they have shaped both the academic discussion and reforms in public organizations. In Swit-

zerland, these New Public Management (NPM) reform approaches have left their mark on all

levels of government (Steiner and Ladner 2006; Lienhard, Ritz et al. 2005: Schedler 2003;

Ritz 2003). Such reforms are typical so-called “internal modernization” reforms, in contrast

to the stronger “marketization” in the Anglo-Saxon sphere. By using new forms of budgeting

and accounting, performance contracts, and management with target agreements, the efficien-

cy and effectiveness of administrative actions should be increased.

The heart of administrative reforms revolves around culture change (Pollitt and Bouckaert

2004). The new steering principles call into question the previous values of the bureaucratic

constitutional state according to Max Weber (1976), and the economizing of the decision-

making rationality of public institutions becomes more important (Meyer and Hammerschmid

2006). Managers again have more autonomy, which, against the backdrop of managerialism

(Pollitt 1990), should cause their actions to become more target-based and performance-

based. The management function in terms of improving goal-setting and delegation is called

the central component of the public sector’s new orientation (Hood 1991). This challenges

the prior understanding of administration, since up to now the basic principle that applied

was: the best possible accountability structures instead of direct influence by managers

(Ruscio 2004). In addition to the managerialistic reform measures, there is also, at the same

time, the question of what influence employee motivation has on performance-based public

institutions.

This correlation between leadership behavior, motivation, and commitment in public institu-

tions is examined in this article. It is highly relevant, both theoretically and practically, for

explaining in a better manner the basic area of conflict between managerialistic steering prin-

ciples and incentive mechanisms, on the one hand, and the public interest for managing state

institutions, on the other. During recent years, there has been increasing study of the question

of whether a specific motivation of public employees exists. The theoretical works of Perry

have also been increasingly supplemented by several empirical studies. But in spite of these

studies, considerable need for research exists in order to be able to find the reasons for the

various dependencies and the influencing factors on the motivation and performance behavior

of public employees. Whereas up to now empirical studies on the existence of PSM have

dominated, studies on the causes and influencing factors, as well as on the effects of PSM,

will become more and more important (Moynihan and Pandey 2007, Camilleri 2007).

In this article, prior research is augmented by new perspectives and empirical results from

Switzerland on the relationship between motivation, leadership behavior, and performance in

the Swiss federal administration. The article deals, on the one hand, with the relationship

between public sector motivation (PSM), job satisfaction, organizational commitment (OC),

and leadership behavior and, on the other hand, with the influence of these variables on the

internal efficiency of public administrations.

The article is structured as follows: Chapter 2 discusses the PSM construct in relationship to

organizational performance. Chapter 3 examines the question of what extent PSM affects the

OC of public employees and the links between OC and performance. At this point, this article

addresses the basic challenge of Perry and Wise (1990), which calls for a more in-depth study

of the correlation between PSM and Organizational Commitment, something which has been

examined by Kim (2005) and Crewson (1997). In Chapter 4, this is compared to the influence

of management using organizational goals and supervisory behavior in terms of their influ-

ence on performance. Chapter 5 tests the model using empirical data collected from em-

ployee questionnaires of the Swiss Federal Administration.

2. Public Service Motivation and Performance

The concept of PSM assumes that there are specific motives that are activated particularly by

the features of public institutions. Motivation arises from the interplay between the person, or

the person’s permanent motives, and the situation (von Rosenstiel 2007). Aspects of situa-

tions, such as public administration per se become incentives for the individual to the extent

that they activate specific motives in the person and guide his/her behavior in a specific direc-

tion. Perry and Wise (1990) established the PSM concept and described it as “. . . an individ-

ual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institu-

tions and organizations”. Based upon this concept, Perry developed (1996) the measurement

process for directly measuring PSM using 40 items divided into the four following categories:

attraction to public policy-making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-

sacrifice. Research on PSM, which has intensified over the past few years, can be classified in

three basic categories: first, the exploration and explanation of the PSM construct; and,

second, the differentiation of PSM dimensions between persons in the public sector and per-

sons in the private sector; and, third, the international comparison of the PSM construct.

Brewer et al. (2000) have shown that various aspects of PSM can exist within one and the

same individual; thus, the three categories of motives according to Perry and Wise (1990)

cannot be allocated discretely to individuals. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) examined orga-

nizational influencing factors (e.g., hierarchy, red tape [= bureaucracy]) on PSM and came to

the conclusion that the reduction of bureaucracy (red tape) and clarification of organizational

goals have a positive effect on PSM. The studies of Alonso and Lewis (2001) and Gabris and

Simo (1995) are rather critical in their comments on PSM. Alonso and Lewis discovered in

their study of the American federal administration that, although it was true that those em-

ployees who expected a higher remuneration for excellent performance were also given high-

er evaluations, this did not distinguish them from persons with higher or lower PSM.

According to Houston’s study (2000), public sector employees are distinguished from those in

the private sector by the different ways in which they assess motives and incentives. This

study indicates that public officials place less value on extrinsic incentives, such as high sala-

ries, than do employees in the private sector. Rainey’s studies (1979; 1982), which assert,

among other things, that there is a weaker correlation between job performance and remunera-

tion or promotion among managers in the public sector than among those in the private sector,

leads in the same direction. Gabris und Simo (1995) determined, on the one hand, that PSM

is not distributed equally within public institutions, but is rather more prominent in managers;

on the other hand, although they did not utilize Perry’s PSM dimensions, they found no dif-

ferences in the motives of employees in the public and private sectors, or in non-profit organi-

zations. Crewson (1997) demonstrated that PSM in public organizations is different from that

in private organizations, specifically that it is stronger in public institutions. And the job

productivity of public service-motivated persons is higher than that of extrinsically oriented

employees. Buelens/Van den Broeck (2007) have found differences in the motivations of

public officials, since such persons are less motivated by money and place more value on the

balance between work and family. At the same time, however, they refer to the significance

of the situational influencing factors, for example, gender, work content, and hierarchical lev-

el, which largely explain the motivational differences and, therefore, also the sector differenc-

es.

PSM includes different values that exist not only in American administrations, but also cha-

racterize the ethos of public officials in various countries and national cultures, for example,

“l’ethique du bien commun” of French-speaking countries or the “civil servant ethos” in

German-speaking countries (Horton and Hondeghem 2006, Meyer and Hammerschmid 2006).

More recent research examines additional value categories of PSM, as well as their similari-

ties and variations when compared internationally, and points to the significance of institu-

tional and cultural influences on the formation of PSM (Vandenabeele, Scheepers et al. 2006,

Horton 2006).

For the present study, the correlation between PSM and the performance of public organiza-

tions is of particular interest. Output and outcome of public institutions is not easy to meas-

ure, since indicators are frequently insufficient or cannot be measured due to a lack of data.

Nevertheless, occasionally (weak) positive links between PSM and performance could be

shown. For this, Perry and Wise (1990) revert to job characteristics and conclude that PSM

acts upon those job features that result in increased motivation to perform (e.g., autonomy,

task identity, and perceived task significance). While some authors determine individual per-

formance using interviewee information obtained from the last performance appraisal

(Camilleri 2006; Brewer, Coleman Selden et al. 2000; Naff and Crum 1999) or by means of

salary levels and promotions as productivity measurement (Alonso and Lewis 2001), others

utilize efficiency and effectiveness measures (Brewer and Selden 2000; Kim 2005). Else-

where, the importance of self-set goals is used to explain the reason for different performance

levels (Locke and Latham 1990), or the readiness to identify and bond with an organization in

terms of OC serves as a predictor for performance behavior (Crewson 1997).

Against the backdrop of so-called High Performance Organizations (Popovich 1998; Becker,

Huslid et al. 2001), which exhibit a better ratio between performance and their associated re-

sources when compared to other organizations, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) and Brewer and

Selden (2000) develop different dimensions of organizational performance in public institu-

tions. On the one hand, they distinguish between two organizational performance perspec-

tives, namely, internal and external; on the other hand, performance variables in public insti-

tutions must be reinforced on a broader basis, and for this Brewer and Selden use efficiency,

effectiveness, and fairness. Accordingly, all three performances variables can be internally or

externally oriented. Using Korean data, Kim (2005) demonstrates that PSM has a positive

influence on these performance variables, even if it is less positive than job satisfaction, affec-

tive commitment, and organizational citizenship. In the following discussion, internal effi-

ciency will be used as the performance variable. The largely positive results of the studies

related to PSM’s influence on performance variables leads to our first hypothesis:

H1: The higher the Public Service Motivation, the higher the organization’s internal efficien-

cy.

3. Organizational Commitment, PSM and Performance

At their core, the various definitions of OC have one thing in common, namely, that OC is

characterized by the individual’s bonding, identification, and dedicated commitment to the

organization (Mowday, Steers et al. 1979; Mowday, Porter et al. 1982). Meyer und Allen

(1991) have developed the most widely disseminated OC concept, which makes a distinction

between affective, continuous, and normative OC. Affective commitment occurs when posi-

tive feelings experienced within the organizational context result in an emotional allegiance to

the organization. Continuous commitment stems from individual cost-benefit considerations

that cause a person to conclude that leaving the organization would be disadvantageous.

Normative commitment arises if leaving the organization due to convictions or values is con-

sidered to be wrong (Weller 2003). OC has a positive correlation to job satisfaction, motiva-

tion, and attendance, and a negative one to fluctuation, tendencies to fluctuation, and absen-

teeism (Mowday, Steers et al. 1979; Mowday, Porter et al. 1982; Mathieu and Zajac 1990).

Affective and normative commitment have a positive correlation to performance behavior,

while continuous commitment results in insignificant or negative links in this regard (Meyer,

Paunonen et al. 1989). The correlation between OC and effective performance is only weakly

substantiated. The research findings show that OC’s direct influence on job performance is

only slight (Mowday, Porter et al. 1982; Mathieu and Zajac 1990). Romzek (1990) concluded

that there is a positive relationship between OC and performance behavior, since employees

with strong OC are more committed to organizational goals and exhibit a greater willingness

to work hard. This indicates a positive correlation between OC and extra-role behavior, being

proactive, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), all of which contribute positively

to the effectiveness of an organization (Matiaske and Weller 2003). We are therefore led to

deduce our next hypothesis:

H2: The greater the Organizational Commitment, the higher the internal efficiency of the or-

ganization.

Against the backdrop of social exchange theories (March and Simon 1958), the correlation

between PSM and OC is based on the assumption that, the more personality traits and motives

correspond with organizational conditions and incentives, the more OC increases (Knoke and

Wright-Isak 1982). Various studies conclude that, given similarly high job motivation for

employees in the public and private sectors, the former—namely, public sector employees—

compensate for lower extrinsic incentives with intrinsic incentives in terms of contributions

made to the super ordinate goals of public institutions (Frank 2004; Baldwin 1984; Rainey

1979). We therefore conclude that employees in public institutions, who ascribe more weight

to the public interest and to serving the government and society than they do to the limited

economic incentives existing in public administration, should exhibit greater OC (Crewson

1997; Perry and Wise 1990).

There is no agreement about the direction of the correlation between attitudes and behavior,

since, on the one hand, behavioral patterns can influence attitudes, or attitudes can influence

behavior (Weller 2003; Bateman and Strasser 1984). The correlation examined in this article

considers PSM to be an antecedent to OC (Castaing 2006, Perry and Wise 1990; Steers

1977). Perry and Wise (1990) operate on the premise that the greater the PSM, the more like-

ly a person will seek affiliation with a public organization. This can also be interpreted in

terms of remaining with the organization. “[S]ome public employees may be motivated by a

commitment to a public program because of personal identification with a program. In many

instances, however, commitment to a program may emanate from a genuine conviction about

its social importance” (Perry and Wise 1990: 369). The study by Camilleri (2006) shows

interesting results in the government administration of Malta, where OC was able to streng-

then PSM. From this, Camillieri derives PSM as the macro-concept and OC as the micro-

concept, whereby the optimum design of Human Resource Management for strengthening OC

can have a positive influence on PSM.

The third hypothesis, which must still be examined, is derived from this:

H3: Employees with higher Public Service Motivation exhibit greater Organizational Com-

mitment.

It is true that a correlation between PSM and OC could pose a tautology, since both constructs

are partially derived from similar principles of rational, normative, or affective motivational

factors (Shamir 1991). Due to the different contents of the two constructs, however, this is

called into question. OC refers to the bonding of employees to their workplace, whereas PSM

includes not only the commitment to the public interest, but also other things (e.g., attraction

to politics, sympathy, self-sacrifice) that go far beyond one’s own workplace and even the

organization itself. To be sure, people can be committed to their jobs, but they do not neces-

sarily also simultaneously exhibit great OC to their organization (Wiener and Vardi 1980).

And since PSM dimensions measure a more extensive construct than pure commitment to a

public organization or to one’s job, a tautology can probably be excluded (Naff and Crum

1999).

4. Other Factors Influencing Organizational Performance

In addition to the influence of PSM and OC on internal efficiency, in our model, we examine

the influence that job satisfaction, the goal dimension on the organizational level, and the lea-

dership behavior of supervisors have on internal efficiency. Both goal dimension and leader-

ship are very frequently called performance predictors.

Job satisfaction indicates the extent to which employees like their jobs. It is shaped by com-

paring the incentives offered by the work and the work environment, as well as by individual

motives. Job satisfaction therefore includes how an employee feels about his or her job and

aspects of the job (Locke 1976). It has a positive correlation with various individual concepts

of employee motivation, for example, job involvement, organizational citizenship behavior,

organizational commitment, and also job performance (Judge, Thoresen et al. 2001; Bateman

and Strasser 1984). To some extent, public administration employees are characterized as

being less satisfied with their work when compared to persons working in the private sector

(Rainey 1989). Overall, however, based upon empirical results (Judge, Thoresen et al. 2001;

Yousef 2000), one can assume that job satisfaction generally affects performance in a positive

way, which allows us to deduce the following hypothesis:

H4: The greater the job satisfaction, the greater the internal efficiency

Against the backdrop of the Goal-Setting Theory (Locke and Latham 1990), Perry et al.

(2006), as well as Wright (2004; 2007), studied the influence of mission, organizational goals,

and goal conflicts on job motivation and determined that employees in public institutions ex-

hibit higher job motivation if their tasks are clearly comprehensible, challenging, important,

and achievable. By being able to reinforce task-related goals, the mission and organizational

goals thus have a positive effect upon job motivation. According to Locke and Latham

(1990), employees pursue with more commitment those goals that, from their perspective, are

connected to more important goals and are achievable for them. Rainey and Steinbauer

(1999) see the effectiveness and performance of government agencies as being influenced by

the three factors “task”, “mission”, and “public service”. And according to Latham, Erez, and

Locke (1988), preset goals and mutually developed goals are equally effective with regard to

improving performance. We therefore deduce the hypothesis:

H5: The higher the goal dimension in relation to organizational goals, the greater the inter-

nal efficiency

The leadership behavior of supervisors considerably influences the motivation and behavior

of the employees (Judge, Piccolo et al. 2004; Burns 1978). In the public sector, leadership

behavior is also considered to be an important factor influencing organizational change, job

satisfaction, and organizational performance (Kim 2005; Thompson 2000; Hennessey 1998),

although Brewer and Selden (2000) could document in their study only a weak influence on

organizational performance. Particularly research on transformational leadership behavior

was able to show that, in contrast to transactional leadership, extra performance can be at-

tained by the expansion and inspiration of individual goals (Bass and Avolio 1990). Trans-

formational leadership behavior is characterized by different factors which focus on inspira-

tional motivation, idealized leader influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized con-

sideration. Against the backdrop of the internal efficiency variable that is used in our model

as the performance variable, leadership behavior in terms of transformational leadership as-

pects, in contrast to organizational goals, is not considered to be the decisive factor. Never-

theless, we assume that the leadership behavior of supervisors also has a positive effect upon

the performance variable; and, from this, we deduce two hypotheses:

H6: The more pronounced the leadership behavior of the supervisor, the greater the internal

efficiency

H7: In contrast to the organizational goal setting, leadership behavior has less influence

upon the internal efficiency.

In addition to these two influencing factors of organizational goals and supervisor behavior,

the following demographic features are also included below as independent variables in the

analysis: gender, age, managerial function, wage class, and tenure in the Federal Administra-

tion.

5. Data and Method

The data of this study were collected within the framework of the 2007 employee survey of

the Swiss Federal Administration. The survey was planned as a random survey, although

complete surveys were carried out in numerous administrative units. Based upon the res-

ponses and the statistical indices of the 2005 personnel survey, one representative random

sampling per office was taken, which was additionally examined according to the representa-

tive distribution of sociodemographic features (language, sex, age, wage class). For reasons

of economic feasibility and practicality, the random sampling size was to remain as small as

possible without risking the statistical accuracy of the measurement. In some administrative

units, however, due to the total number of employees in the unit, a complete survey had to be

performed in order to achieve high statistical accuracy. Other administrative units expressly

requested a complete survey. The survey therefore represents a methodological mixture of

random sampling and complete surveys.

A total of 26,774 persons were given the questionnaire, which corresponds to approximately

three-fourths of the federal personnel. The response rate was 51% of those surveyed (13,532

responses), whereby the response quota in the seven departments ranged from 46 to 62 per-

cent.

The survey, which was generally administered as an Internet-based questionnaire, was per-

formed in German, French, and Italian. Employees without Internet access were provided

with paper questionnaires.

Dimensions and Items

The survey included 94 items, which were given to all participants, plus 9 sociodemographic

variables. Approximately 15 additional items on department-related questions could be in-

cluded for each department. 27 items were used for the current study (see Appendix).

The individual items were developed collaboratively with the project leaders of the human

resources office of the federal administration and selected managers (see items in the Appen-

dix). Two workshops were held with the conference of the human resources delegates of the

federal administration, and there were 10 manager interviews with partially structured inter-

view topics. This procedure made it possible to adapt the recommended topic areas and va-

riables to the situation of the federal administration.

The PSM items were developed, on the basis of three dimensions: “Attraction to Public Poli-

cy-Making”, “Commitment to the Public Interest”, and “Self-Sacrifice” (Perry 1996). Two

items were used for each dimension. The OC items were developed using Meyer and Allen

(1991), whereby the two dimensions “affective commitment” and “continuous commitment”

have been used. The items for measuring goal dimension emerged against the backdrop of

studies on high performance organizations (Becker, Huslid et al. 2001, Council 2002) respec-

tively of effective government organizations (Brewer and Selden 2000, Rainey and Steinbauer

1999). But they were largely developed in collaboration with the project leaders of the Swiss

federal administration. The items for measuring supervisor behavior were also developed in

this manner. These variables exhibit a similarity to individual dimensions of transformational

leadership behavior (Bass and Avolio 1990).

Three adapted items of internal performance efficiency were used to measure the independent

variables of organizational performance (Brewer and Selden 2000; Kim 2005). These are

related to cost reduction, process simplification, and timely decision-making in the surveyed

administrative units.

All of these items were surveyed on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest and 6 be-

ing the highest rating.

Measurement

The more complex dimensions of the study (PSM, OC, goal dimension, supervisor behavior,

internal efficiency) were reduced using confirmatory factor analysis. The respective scale

reliability coefficients are listed in the Appendix under the individual dimensions and are

comparable with other studies (Kim 2005). PSM has a scale reliability coefficient of 0.898

for the dimension attraction to public policy-making and 0.756 for commitment to the public

interest. The Lambda values lay between 0.75 and 0.94. Organizational commitment was

divided into the two dimensions of affective commitment (α=0.804) and continuous commit-

ment (α=0.856), exhibiting support for the discriminant validity of the measures used (Lamba

between 0.77 and 0.92). The leadership function differed in the two dimensions of direct su-

pervisor behavior (α=0.933) and organizational goal dimension (α=0.861) and can be diffe-

rentiated with Lambda values from 0.63 to 0.86. The dimension of internal performance effi-

ciency has an Alpha value of 0.829 and Lambda remains between 0.85 and 0.88.

The descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1. 16 of 91 bivariate correla-

tions are significant at least at the 5% level. The prevalence of significant correlations can

have different causes. On the one hand, the one-sided methodology using a self-report ques-

tionnaire at a specific time can result in a mono-method bias, since correlations arise due to

hidden, systematic features that support the measured variables (Spector 1994). On the other

hand, above all, the large-scale effect may well lose its impact, since the scope of this study’s

sample was large enough to identify statistically significant correlations with only 0.5 percent

divided variance (Diekmann 2002). In light of what are nevertheless deep correlations—apart

from four values above 0.5, all values lie between 0 and 0.44—the variables, however, can be

considered sufficiently differentiated.

The model tested within the framework of this study met the requirements of the ordinary

least squares regression analysis. For this, the estimated values for each independent variable

were calculated in relation to internal efficiency.

Table 1: Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities

In

terit

em c

orre

latio

ns (I

tem

No.

)

N

Mea

n S

D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

1 In

tern

al e

ffici

ency

13

326

see

appe

ndix

2 A

ttrac

tion

to p

ublic

po

licy

mak

ing

1308

9

0.

00

3 C

omm

itmen

t to

the

publ

ic in

tere

st

1308

9

 0.

25**

0.

00

4 S

elf-s

acrif

ice

1308

9

0.

02*

0.00

0.

00

5 A

ffect

ive

com

mitm

ent

1324

5

0.

31**

0.

12**

0.

38**

-0

.07*

*

6 C

ontin

uous

com

mitm

ent

1324

5

0.

37**

-0

.09*

* 0.

12**

-0

.03*

* 0.

00

7 Le

ader

ship

beh

avio

r 12

838

0.28

**

-0.0

1 0.

09**

0.

00

0.15

**

0.31

**

8 G

oal o

rient

atio

n 12

838

0.53

**

0.05

**

0.22

**

0.01

0.

31**

0.

29**

0.

00

9 Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n 13

336

4.13

1.

27

0.51

**

-0.0

5**

0.22

**

-0.0

3**

0.28

**

0.66

**

0.44

**

0.44

**

10

Gen

dera

1329

1 1.

73

0.44

-0

.05*

* 0.

07**

0.

02*

0.06

**

0.07

**

-0.0

4**

-0.0

1 -0

.03*

* -0

.05*

*

11

Age

b 13

256

3.86

1.

06

-0.0

3**

0.11

**

0.07

**

-0.0

1 0.

07**

0.

09**

-0

.06*

* 0.

01

-0.0

5**

0.17

**

12

Lead

ersh

ip p

ositi

onc

1331

4 1.

65

0.48

-0

.05*

* -0

.12*

* -0

.08*

* 0.

03**

-0

.17*

* 0.

03**

0.

02

-0.1

0**

-0.0

1 -0

.25*

* -0

.12*

*

13

Inco

med

1309

1 2.

93

1.01

-0

.04*

* 0.

27**

0.

06**

-0

.07*

* 0.

07**

-0

.03*

* 0.

05**

0.

07**

0.

00

0.14

**

0.19

**

-0.3

5**

14

Tenu

ree

1335

2 3.

17

0.98

-0

.06*

* 0.

04**

0.

03**

0.

01

0.07

**

-0.0

2 -0

.08*

* -0

.04*

* -0

.09*

* 0.

18**

0.

59**

-0

.17*

* 0.

10**

*p <

0.0

5; *

* p

< 0.

01; P

ears

on c

orre

latio

n co

effic

ient

a G

ende

r is

code

d 1=

fem

ale,

2=m

ale

b Age

is c

oded

1=b

elow

20

year

, 2=2

1-29

, 3=3

0-39

, 4=4

0-49

, 5=5

0-59

, 6=a

bove

60

c Lead

ersh

ip p

ositi

on is

cod

ed 1

=yes

, 2=n

o d In

com

e is

cod

ed 1

=sal

ary

clas

s 1-

11, 2

=12-

17, 3

=18-

23, 4

=24-

29, 5

=30-

38

e Tenu

re is

cod

ed 1

=unt

il 1y

ear,

2=1-

5, 3

=6-1

0, 4

=mor

e th

an 1

0

6. Findings and Discussion

Univariate Analysis

The univariate statistics show the following interesting results (see Appendix). Interest in

politics within the PSM dimension attraction to public policy-making has the highest average

value (mean: 4.31). This is in contrast to the interest in politicians and their work. This inter-

est focusing more strongly on the content of politics is also seen in the PSM dimension com-

mitment to the public interest and is comparable with the findings of Brewer et al. (2000):

“Individuals […] are not enamored by politics or captivated by the thrill of participating in the

policymaking process. The primary motives that emerge are serving the public, making a dif-

ference in society, and ensuring individual and social equity”. An additional regression anal-

ysis within the framework of the present study illustrates this, since it shows a negative corre-

lation between attraction to public policy-making and commitment to the public interest (B=-

0.36; p<0.001).

On the other hand, the respondents respond less positively when their involvement with the

public sector is compared to a specifically self-interested motive, such as, the attainment of

personal goals or one’s own financial situation. The latter aspect is comparable to Perry’s

findings (Perry 1996). Overall, this addresses the problems of other studies, which emphasize

the subordinate significance of extrinsic incentives in comparison to the organizational goals

and work content for public administration employees (Wright 2007, Bright 2005, Brewer,

Coleman Selden et al. 2000, Houston 2000, Brewer and Selden 2000, Crewson 1997).

Compared to the responses on PSM, those on OC consistently exhibited more positive values.

By way of comparison, particularly the individual’s willingness to work hard was valued very

high. This tends to contradict the wide-spread views regarding the willingness of civil ser-

vants to work hard and the extra motivation exhibited by civil servants. Due to the self-

reported surveys, as well as possible influences of social desirability, this high average of 5.03

should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, however, the mean clearly shows a consistently

strong commitment to the federal administration and the small portion of employees who are

actively seeking a new position outside of the federal administration.

Furthermore, it is interesting that the goal dimension is assessed quite positively or clearly

above the scale’s average. This more likely contradicts the goal-setting function in public

administrations—which has been called difficult—above all on the organizational level

(Rainey 1993). The mean for goal dimension is also differentiated quite distinctly from the

indicators on internal efficiency. The responses on cost reduction, process simplification, and

timely decision-making attain values that are average for the scale.

Bivariate Analysis

The correlations between the independent variables were examined using a correlational anal-

ysis (see Table 1). There is hereby a high positive correlation between job satisfaction and

continuous commitment (r=0.66, p<0.01). Modest positive correlation values were seen be-

tween job satisfaction and leadership behavior (r=0.44, p<0.01) or goal dimension (r=0.44,

p<0.01). Overall, all three dimensions of PSM have a significantly positive correlation with

affective commitment, but only commitment to the public interest shows a moderately strong

correlation (r=0.38, p<0.01); the two other dimensions have only a weak correlation to affec-

tive commitment. With regard to continuous commitment, the PSM dimensions attraction to

public policy-making (r=-0.09, p<0.01) and self-sacrifice (r=-0.03, p<0.01) both show a nega-

tive correlation. Affective commitment also shows a rather weak positive correlation to goal

dimension (r=0.31, p<0.01), as does continuous commitment to goal dimension (r=0.29,

p<0.01) or to supervisor behavior (r=0.31, p<0.01).

Thus, the third hypothesis H3 cannot be clearly confirmed. It is certainly true that employees

with a high PSM exhibit stronger affective commitment, but this correlation is comparatively

weak. Furthermore, the willingness to leave the federal administration is more probable for

those persons who have a greater attraction to politics or who exhibit greater self-sacrifice.

Leaving the federal administration is therefore assessed as a loss primarily by those persons

who feel particularly committed to the public interest.

These findings support the positive correlation between PSM and affective commitment de-

termined by Kim (2005). The study by Crewson (1997), who examined the influence of ser-

vice orientation compared to the preference for economic rewards in employees of the Ameri-

can federal administration, shows similar trends. According to his study, employees having a

high service orientation exhibit greater OC. Camilleri (2006) identified an influence of OC on

PSM and named PSM the macro-concept, which is positively influenced by changes on the

micro-level (OC). The present study supports these findings and it leads to further differentia-

tion, namely, particularly the two aspects of commitment to the public interest und affective

commitment have a stronger correlation.

In order to be able to recognize the importance of the separated, independent variables of

PSM, OC, leadership, goal orientation, and job satisfaction with respect to internal efficiency,

the standardized coefficients of regression analysis are examined (see Table 2). The adjusted

multiple coefficient of determination is 0.42, which is indicative of the model’s explanatory

power, although it also shows a potential for improvement. One reason for this may be the

selective choice of influencing factors of internal efficiency, in contrast to a model computa-

tion using a comprehensive set of influencing factors, for example, those in Brewer and Sel-

den (2000). The survey carried out by the author uses such a model of comprehensive per-

formance analysis for the Swiss federal administration. For the present study, the focus of the

analysis, however, was limited to the specified indicators related to human resource characte-

ristics and to leadership

All dimensions exhibit highly significant β values, although attraction to public policy-

making is only slightly significant on the 0.01 significance level and, in comparison to the

other dimensions, exert only a slight influence on internal efficiency. This confirms the ex-

pectations according to which questions of process efficiency and cost savings represent typi-

cal features of a management rationality, and persons who are particularly attracted to politics

more likely follow a political or bureaucratic rationality (Schedler 2003, Niskanen 1971).

Camilleri (Camilleri 2006) suggests in his findings “that individuals with strong attraction to

policy making tendencies appear to be more self-centered or self-seeking”. The informal per-

formance measures examined in his study, for example, pay and promotion equity, are more

important for these persons than internal efficiency.

Tabelle 2: Regressions to explain Internal Efficiency

The goal dimension of the organization exerts the greatest influence on performance

(β=0.383). Then come leadership behavior (β=0.157), job satisfaction (β=0.144), affective

commitment (β=0.093), continuous commitment (β=0.075), commitment to the public interest

(β=0.072), self-sacrifice (β=0.026), and, finally, attraction to public policy-making (β=0.015).

One can therefore maintain that the previously formulated first hypothesis H1 can be con-

firmed. All three measured partial dimensions of PSM exhibit a positive correlation to inter-

nal efficiency. H2 and H4 are also confirmed, since both forms of OC exhibit a positive cor-

relation to internal efficiency and job satisfaction exerts a comparably high positive influence

on the target variable. The goal dimension in terms of deriving subordinate goals from supe-

rordinate goals and an employee-oriented and partial transformational supervisor behavior

exert the strongest positive influence on performance efficiency. A comparison of the latter

Unstandardized Coefficient (B)

Standard Error p Standardized Coefficient (β)

Independent Variables Attraction to public policy making .015* .008 .0489 .015

Commitment to the public interest .072** .008 .0000 .073

Self-sacrifice .026** .007 .0003 .026

Affective commitment .093** .008 .0000 .093

Continuous commitment .075** .010 .0000 .075

Leadership behavior .157** .008 .0000 .157

Goal orientation .383** .009 .0000 .383

Job satisfaction .144** .009 .0000 .183

Independent Control Variables

Gendera -.059** .017 .0005 -.026

Ageb -.012 .009 .1517 -.013

Leadership positionc -.064** .016 .0001 -.031

Incomed -.087** .008 .0000 -.087

Tenuree -.006 .009 .5332 -.006

R2 .422

Adj. R2 .421

F Value 642.961**

N 11485 *p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 aGender is coded 1=female, 2=male bAge is coded 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60 cLeadership position is coded 1=yes, 2=no dIncome is coded 1=salary class 1-11, 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38 eTenure is coded 1=until 1year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10

two dimensions confirms the hypothesis (H7) that goal dimension exerts a stronger influence

on internal efficiency than does supervisor behavior.

These results exhibit the same order as those of Kim (2005). Job satisfaction is mentioned

there as a more important influencing factor for performance when compared to PSM or OC.

The results of the present study make clear particularly the importance of goal dimension and

the leadership behavior of supervisors with regard to assessing organizational efficiency.

If we compare the present results with those of Brewer and Selden (2000), then it is primarily

striking that, in their study, the leadership function—in contrast, e.g., to PSM—has a clearly

predictive power. Brewer and Selden refer, among other things, to an indirect influence of

leadership on performance, since leadership shapes the culture, which, according to their re-

sults, exhibits decisive influencing power. In the present study, leadership was measured us-

ing supervisor behavior and goal dimension. Supervisor behavior exerts both a great, if also a

lower influence than goal dimension on internal efficiency. Thus, the seventh hypothesis H7

is also confirmed. Goal dimension characterizes above all the process of goal operationaliza-

tion from the superior organizational level to the individual level of the employees. This cas-

cading derivation of goals from superior goals has a rather clear correlation to cost orienta-

tion, process simplification, and timely decision-making. Without having examined the con-

tent of goal-setting processes, however, it is difficult to say whether, ultimately, the goal-

setting process or the different goals at any one time were the decisive factor for the more

positive assessment of internal efficiency by the respondents. The results can be interpreted

to read that the leadership by supervisors or based upon established management-by-

objectives systems exerts greater influence on internal efficiency when compared to the moti-

vational influence factors. This emphasizes the significance of management-by-objective

processes in the everyday life of managers and supports the results of the OECD (2005), ac-

cording to which, in conjunction with the analysis of performance pay systems, management

by objectives is clearly attributed more significance than performance pay.

The control variables studied in the regression analysis show that the level of income, leader-

ship position, and gender exert an influence on performance. This means that the higher the

income or the more likely a person is to be a manager, the more positive the assessment of

internal efficiency is. Managers thus express themselves more positively regarding efforts at

cost savings, process simplification, or decision-making behavior. This is not very surprising,

since, when answering questions on internal efficiency, managers include these things as part

of their managerial responsibility. Furthermore, men assess performance more positively.

These results on gender and leadership position support the results of Kim (2005). The insig-

nificant correlations between performance and age, or respectively, performance and tenure,

as well as the positive correlation to leadership position or to salary level, are comparable to

the study results of Naff and Crum (1999).

Furthermore, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed using two models (see Appen-

dix). The first model examines the influence of the demographic features in terms of control

variables on the internal performance efficiency. In the second model, the independent va-

riables of PSM, OC, leadership, goal orientation, and job satisfaction are added. The compar-

ison of the two models shows that the independent variables of PSM, OC, leadership, and job

satisfaction have a decisive explanatory power with regard to internal performance efficiency.

With a significant difference in R2 of 0.41 and overall 42 percent in declared variance of per-

formance in the second model, compared to a significant 1.3 percent in the model with the

control variables, the additionally integrated dimensions of the second model are expected to

exert significant influence on the internal performance efficiency. Concerning the demo-

graphic features, the change in R2 was primarily caused by gender and leadership position, as

already explained above.

7. Conclusion

The management reforms in public administration over the past two decades have been sharp-

ly focused on performance-oriented management tools and employee performance. In Swit-

zerland, this is seen in the movement of various concepts of human resource management, for

example, performance pay systems or performance-oriented competency models for HR re-

cruitment, appraisal, and development strategies, from the private economy into the public

sector. Since 2007, the Swiss federal administration has adapted its concept for surveying all

of its 37,000 employees and also focused upon employee performance and employee com-

mitment. The present article analyzes these survey results by studying the internal efficiency

dependent upon PSM, OC, job satisfaction, goal orientation, and leadership. The use of exist-

ing items on the diverse concepts has proven to be valuable, since all factors could be dis-

cretely derived.

The findings basically confirm previous studies, e.g., those of Kim (2005), Brewer and Selden

(2000) and Crewson (1997), which studied the performance of public administration from the

viewpoint of PSM, OC and job satisfaction. The motivation, commitment, and job satisfac-

tion of public employees have a positive influence on internal efficiency in terms of cost re-

duction, process simplification, and decision-making within the Swiss federal administration.

At the same time, the results show that the efficiency increase that was studied is supported

primarily by those employees who have great interest in public service. To put it simply and

provocatively, the traditional, neutral civil servant contributes more to internal efficiency than

the employee who is primarily attracted to politics. In comparison to these influencing fac-

tors, however, it could be determined that the analyzed dimensions of leadership—the direct

supervisor behavior, on the one hand, and the organization-wide goal dimension, on the other

hand—exert clearly more influence on internal efficiency.

Goal dimension in terms of deriving subordinate goals from superior goals has been shown to

have the greatest influence on internal efficiency. Over the past few years, the Swiss federal

administration has made numerous efforts to introduce management by objectives and em-

ployee assessments throughout its system. The existing results clearly show the importance

of appropriate management tools on both the organizational and individual levels. Further-

more, previous study results are reinforced, since goal dimension, as well as OC and com-

mitment to the public interest, are supported. This elucidates the importance of specifically

adapted management tools in public administrations and promotes restraint in the use of pri-

vate-sector management techniques in the public sector. Goal dimension and result orienta-

tion are key components of management in public administrations; they become effective,

however, only when they take the specific motivation of public employees into consideration.

The present study could therefore show, among other things, that leaving the federal adminis-

tration is thus assessed as a loss primarily by those persons who feel particularly committed to

serving the public interest.

Where employees observe supervisor behavior that is more comparable to transformational

leadership than to transactional leadership, the internal efficiency is also assessed to be great-

er. Leadership behavior that is very supportive, that motivates the employees for their work,

that provides regular feedback, that gives praise, and that is open to change may influence the

studied variables in a positive manner. Against the backdrop of the other results, this admits

the interpretation that supervisor behavior that is capable of emphasizing the specific features

of public work during both goal-setting and feedback can contribute to the increase of effi-

ciency of public administrations.

A key challenge for politicians and administrators is to fulfill the demands for results-oriented

administration management and, at the same time, not to destroy the motivation of public em-

ployees. For example, in Switzerland, cost-of-living increases have not been guaranteed for

some years now, and the actual earnings have stagnated or even decreased. Combined with

ineffective pay-for-performance systems, this has had a decisively negative influence on the

atmosphere in public administration. The present study calls for a reflection upon current

human resource policies, which characterize many incentives in the public sector as unjusti-

fied privileges of civil servants. Frequent attempts are being made to increase the perfor-

mance of public employees using faulty, over-simplified steering concepts, without recogniz-

ing that more likely, the opposite is occurring and that the responsibility of public employees,

as well as the important role of a functioning administration, is being called into question in a

constitutional state.

Appendix 1 :

Questionnaire Items: (Scale: 1-6; Midpoint: 3.5)

Public Service Motivation (Attraction to public policy making α=0.898: Public interest α

=0.756):

- I am very interested in politics (dimension: attraction to public policy-making). (Mean:

4.31; sd: 1.33)

- I am very interested in politicians and their work (dimension: attraction to public policy-

making). (Mean: 3.86; sd: 1.29)

- I consider working in public administration a part of my commitment to society (dimen-

sion: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 4.25; sd: 1.23)

- I like working in public administration a lot because my work entails the shaping of Mea-

ningful, societal topics (dimension: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 4.14; sd:

1.27)

- Being able to make a contribution to society Means more to me than reaching personal

goals (dimension: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 3.79; sd: 1.19)

- My financial situation is certainly more important to me than performing good deeds (di-

mension: self-sacrifice). (R) (Mean: 3.05; sd: 1.14)

Organizational Commitment (Affective Commitment α=0.804; Continuous Commitment

α=0.856):

- The fate of my federal administration is very important to me (dimension: affective com-

mitment). (Mean: 4.84; sd: 1.09)

- I feel a strong allegiance to my administrative unit (dimension: affective commitment).

(Mean: 4.51; sd: 1.22)

- In my work, I am not satisfied with merely meeting goals, but, instead, I try to achieve

even better performance (Dimension: affective commitment). (Mean: 5.03; sd: 0.87)

- Most recently I have rarely considered seeking employment outside of my administrative

unit (dimension: continuous commitment). (R) (Mean: 3.67; sd: 1.71)

- If certain things in my job change soon, I will not seek other employment (dimension:

continuous commitment). (R) (Mean: 4.32; sd: 1.55)

Leadership Behavior (α = 0.933):

- My direct supervisor exemplifies what he or she demands of his/her employees. (Mean:

4.36; sd: 1.41)

- My direct supervisor is able to inspire employees to attain set goals. (Mean: 4.09; sd:

1.39)

- My direct supervisor provides me with regular feedback on my job performance and be-

havior. (Mean: 4.16; sd: 1.39)

- My direct supervisor praises me for good performance. (Mean: 4.30; sd: 1.43)

- My direct supervisor always tries to have open dialogue with his/her employees. (Mean:

4.47; sd: 1.41)

- My direct supervisor is open to change. (Mean: 4.53; sd: 1.25)

Goal Dimension (α = 0.861):

- My individual goals are challenging, but realistic. (Mean: 4.43; sd: 1.25)

- My individual goals were derived from the department’s important goals. (Mean: 4.47; sd:

1.30)

- The most important goals of our department are derived from the most important goals of

our administrative unit. (Mean: 4.39; sd: 1.08)

- In my department, we know precisely what we have to do to attain the most important

goals of the department. (Mean: 4.44; sd: 1.19)

- In my department, we measure work progress by using the set goals. (Mean: 4.23; sd:

1.22)

Job Satisfaction:

- How satisfied are you overall with your work situation? (Mean: 4.13; sd: 1.27)

Internal Performance Efficiency (α = 0.829):

- In my administrative unit, we consistently work to reduce avoidable costs. (Mean: 3.68;

sd: 1.32)

- In my administrative unit, work processes or documents are consistently being simplified.

(Mean: 3.27; sd: 1.27)

- In my administrative unit, important decisions are made in a timely fashion. (Mean: 3.49;

sd: 1.27)

Appendix 2:

Hierarchical Regression to explain Internal Efficiency Model 1 (β) Model 2 (β)

Independent Control Variables

Gendera -.055** -.026**

Ageb .030* -.013

Leadership positionc -.095** -.031**

Incomed -.061** -.087**

Tenuree -.073** -.006

Independent Variables    

Attraction to public policy making .015*

Commitment to the public interest   .072** 

Self-sacrifice   .026** 

Affective commitment   .093** 

Continuous commitment   .075** 

Leadership behavior   .157** 

Goal orientation   .383** 

Job satisfaction   .183**     

Change in R2 0.013  0.408 

F Change 31.001**  1011.787** 

Adj. R2 0.013  0.421 

F Value 31.001**  642.961** 

N 11485  11485 

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 aGender is coded 1=female, 2=male bAge is coded 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60 cLeadership position is coded 1=yes, 2=no dIncome is coded 1=salary class 1-11, 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38 eTenure is coded 1=until 1year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10

References Alonso, P. and G. B. Lewis (2001). "Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evi-dence From the Federal Sector." American Review of Public Administration 31(4): 363 - 380. Baldwin, J. N. (1984). "Are We Really Lazy?" Review of Public Personnel Administration 4(2): 80 - 89. Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). The Implications of Transactional and Transformational Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development. Research in Organiza-tional Change and Development. W. Pasmore and R. W. Woodman. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. vol. 4: pp. 231-272. Bateman, T. S. and S. Strasser (1984). "A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organi-zational commitment." Academy of Management Journal 27(1): 95-112. Becker, B. E., M. A. Huslid, et al. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance. Boston MA, Harvard Business School Press. Brewer, G. A., S. Coleman Selden, et al. (2000). "Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation." Public Administration Review 60(3): 254 - 264. Brewer, G. A. and S. C. Selden (2000). "Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 685 - 711. Bright, L. (2005). "Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation." Re-view of Public Personnel Administration 25(2): 138 - 154. Buelens, M. and H. Van den Broeck (2007). "An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector Organizations " Public Administration Review 67(1): 65-74. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, Harper and Row. Camilleri, E. (2006). "Towards Developing an Organisational Commitment - Public Service Motivation Model for the Maltese Public Service Employees " Public Policy and Administra-tion 21(1): 63-83. Camilleri, E. (2007). "Antecedents Affecting Public Service Motivation." Personnel Review 36(3): 356-377. Castaing, S. (2006). "The Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfilment and Public Service Motivation on Organiza-tional Commitment in the French Civil Service." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 84-98. Council, C. L. (2002). Building the High-Performance Workforce: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies. Washington. Crewson, P. E. (1997). "Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499 - 518.

Diekmann, A. (2002). Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek b. Hamburg. Frank, S. A. (2004). "Government Employees." American Review of Public Administration 34(1): 36 - 51. Gabris, G. T. and G. Simo (1995). "Public Sector Motivation as an Independent Variable Af-fecting Career Decisions." Public Personnel Management 24(1): 33 - 51. Hennessey, T. J. J. (1998). ""Reinventing" Government: Does Leadership Make the Differ-ence?" Public Administration Review 58(6): 522-532. Hood, C. (1991). "A Public Management for all Seasons?" Public Administration 69(1): 3 - 19. Horton, S. (2006). "The Public Service Ethos in the British Civil Service: An Historical Insti-tutional Analysis." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 32 - 48. Horton, S. and A. Hondeghem (2006). "Public Service Motivation and Commitment." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 1-12. Houston, D. J. (2000). "Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 713 - 727. Judge, T. A., R. F. Piccolo, et al. (2004). "The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Reserach." Journal of Apllied Psychology 89(1): 36-51. Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, et al. (2001). "The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relation-ship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review." Psychological Bulletin 127(3): 376-407. Kim, S. (2005). "Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(2): 245 - 261. Knoke, D. and C. Wright-Isak (1982). "Individual Motives and Organizational Incentive Sys-tems." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 1: 209 - 254. Latham, G. P., M. Erez, et al. (1988). "Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham Dispute Regarding Participation in Goal Setting." Journal of Applied Psychology 73(4): 753-772. Lienhard, A., A. Ritz, et al. (2005). 10 Jahre New Public Management in der Schweiz. Bern, Paul Haupt. Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Cause of Job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M. D. Dunnette. Chicago, Rand McNally. Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance. En-gelwood Cliffs, Prentice Hall. March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958). Organizations: Its Management and Value. New York.

Mathieu, J. E. and D. M. Zajac (1990). "A review and meta-analysis of the antece-dents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment." Psychological Bulletin 108(2): 171-194. Matiaske, W. and I. Weller (2003). Extra-Rollenverhalten. Organizational Behaviour: Verhal-ten in Organisationen. A. Martin. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer: 95-114. Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen (1991). "A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment." Human Resource Management Review 1: 61-89. Meyer, J. P., S. V. Paunonen, et al. (1989). "Organozational Commitment and Job Perfor-mance: It's the Nature of the Commitment that Counts." Journal of Apllied Psychology 17: 717-733. Meyer, R. and G. Hammerschmid (2006). "Public Management Reform: An Identity Project." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 99-115. Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, et al. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psycholo-gy of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York, Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, et al. (1979). "The measurement of organizational commit-ment." Journal of Vocational Behavior 14(224-227). Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey (2007). "The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation." Public Administartion Review 67(1): 40 - 53. Naff, K. C. and J. Crum (1999). "Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?" Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5 - 16. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago. OECD (2005). Performance-related Pay Policies for Government Employees. Paris, Organisa-tion for Economic Co-operation and Development. Perry, J. L. (1996). "Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Re-liability and Validity." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5 - 22. Perry, J. L., D. Mesch, et al. (2006). "Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited." Public Administartion Review 66(4): 505 - 514. Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise (1990). "The Motivational Bases of Public Service." Public Admi-nistartion Review 50(3): 367 - 373. Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Second expanded edition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Popovich, M. G. (1998). Creating High Performance Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Rainey, H. G. (1979). "Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform." Public Administartion Review 39(5): 440-448. Rainey, H. G. (1982). "Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic." American Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288-302. Rainey, H. G. (1989). "Public Management: Recent Research on the Political Context and Managerial Roles, Structures, and Behaviors." Journal of Management 15(2): 229-250. Rainey, H. G. (1993). Toward a Theory of Goal Ambuigity in Public Organizations. Reserach in Public Administration. J. L. Perry. Greenwich Conn., JAI Press. 2. Rainey, H. G. and P. Steinbauer (1999). "Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(1): 1-32. Ritz, A. (2003). Evaluation von New Public Management: Grundlagen und empirische Er-gebnisse der Bewertung von Verwaltungsreformen in der Schweizerischen Bundesverwal-tung. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien. Romzek, B. S. (1990). "Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties that Bind." Public Administration Review 50(3): 574-582. Ruscio, K. P. (2004). The Leadership Dilemma in Modern Democracy. Cheltenham, Nor-thampton, Edward Elgar. Schedler, K. (2003). "'... and Politics?' Public Management Developments in the Light of Two Rationalities." Public Management Review vol. 5(no. 4): pp. 533 - 550. Schedler, K. (2003). "Local and Regional Public Management Reforms in Switzerland." Pub-lic Administration 81(2): 325-344. Shamir, B. (1991). "Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organizations." Organization Studies 12(3): 405 - 424. Spector, P. E. (1994). "Using Self-Report Questionnaires in OB Reserach: A Comment on the Use of a Controversial Method." Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 385-392. Steers, R. M. (1977). "Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness." Admi-nistrative Science Quarterly 20: 546- 558. Steiner, R. and A. Ladner (2006). Die Schweizer Gemeinden im Fokus. Perspektiven für Ge-meindefinanzen, Schriftenreihe Finanzen der öffentlichen Hand Nr. 13. E. d. S. Gemeinden. Bern, Emissionszentrale der Schweizer Gemeinden: 9 - 34. Thompson, J. R. (2000). "Reinvention As Reform: Assessing the National Performance Re-view." Public Administration Review 60(6): 508-521.

Vandenabeele, W., S. Scheepers, et al. ( 2006 ). "Public Service Motivation in an Internation-al Comparative Perspective: The UK and Germany." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 13-31. von Rosenstiel, L. (2007). Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie. Stuttgart, Schäffer-Poeschel. Weber, M. (1976). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mit Erläuterungen. Tübingen. Weller, I. (2003). Commitment. Organizational Behaviour: Verhalten in Organisationen. A. Martin. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer: 77-94. Wiener, Y. and Y. Vardi (1980). "Relationship between Job, Organization, and Career Com-mitments and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach." Organizational Performance and Human Performance 26: 81-96. Wright, B. E. (2004). "The Role of Work Context in Work Motivation: A Public Sector Ap-plication of Goal and Social Cognitive Theories." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(1): 59 - 78. Wright, B. E. (2007). "Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?" Public Admi-nistartion Review 67(1): 54 - 64. Yousef, D. A. (2000). "Organizational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relationships of Lea-dership Behavior with Job Satisfaction and Performance in a Non-Western Country." Journal of Managerial Psychology 15(1): 6-28.