Management

2015
Vol.19, No. 2
DOI:
10.1515/manment-2015-0011 ISSN 1429-9321

AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY

The role of Public

Service Motivation and
Organizational Culture
for Organizational
Commitment

1. Introduction

Public sector organizations are facing

incredible pressures to adjust to the new,
evolving demands of their constituencies.
Starting from 1980s, many countries have
been trying to reform their public sectors.
Public sector employees who were perceived
as ineffective, are under pressure to increase
their outcomes. The interest in managerial
practices, which was one of reform streams, in
many cases resulted in erosion of values crucial
for public management (Maesschalck 2004,
pp. 465–489). This is the reason for growing
interest in issues that relate to the values of
public organizations (Perry, Hondeghem 2008,
pp. 294-313) which is believed to constitute
a panacea for mentioned problem.
Relationship-based approach and value
orientation is crucial for these organizations
whose main asset is human resources.
Understanding the motivations and
behavior of organizations and those who
Agata Austen, Ph.D.
work within them is not possible without
University of Economics in Katowice consideration of values. Matching employee
Bogna Zacny, Ph.D. and organizational characteristics is crucial
University of Economics in Katowice for the success of organizations. Employees

21
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

who find organizational values and goals compatible with their own ones are
more satisfied, perform better, and are less likely to leave the organization (Bright
2005, pp. 138–154). Thus the thesis of our consideration is as follows: Public
Service Motivation (PSM) and organizational culture are crucial for employees
commitment in organizational actions. The aim of the paper is to present the
theoretical model that proposes relationships between mentioned constructs.
Due to the presence of variables on different levels of analysis, we also discuss
some issues of multilevel research.

2. Multilevel research

The importance of combining multiple levels of analysis in the study of

organizational phenomena has been increasingly emphasized in the literature
(Hitt et al. 2007, Klein et al. 1999). The multi-level perspective, which has its roots
in systems theory, represents retreat from the analysis of organizations at one
level, towards the perception of organizations as complex and inter-connected
social systems, characterized by simultaneity of individual and collective
actions. It is assumed that organizational systems are analogous in terms of
their structures and processes. Principles of systems theory are manifested in
the form of analogy or logical homology which represent the same concepts and
analogical processes connecting various concepts (Katz, Kahn 1978).
Multi-level approach involves considering phenomena in relation to the context
in which it occurs, and searching for the variables it is formed by. Particular
organizational units are nested in larger structures (House et al. 1995). These
units form working groups, which in turn form larger organizational units
(departments, or strategic business units making up an organization). Next,
all of these may become a part of inter-organizational networks. Since units at
lower levels are characterized by common features, and are influenced by higher
levels, they are interdependent. Overlooking the idea of nesting one structure
into another may lead to wrong conclusions.
According to multilevel approach, the study of constructs at the level of an
organization should start with understanding of the individual level (Morgeson,
Hofman 1999). This poses a considerable challenge, because usually research
concerns only one level of analysis. Even if the study relates to multiple levels,
they examine the impact of variables at a higher level of analysis on the variables
at a lower level, and not the other way round. It may be due to the fact that
concluding about the influence of variables at a lower level of analysis on the
variables at a higher level is much more problematic (Luhmann 1998), even

22
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

though it might be indicated that the actions of individuals contribute to the

activities of the entire entity (Bedwell et al. 2012). Nevertheless, the individual
level is often ignored in management studies, primarily because it falls within
the area of interest of psychology, sociology, or organizational behavior; however,
it is of immense significance for the deep understanding of organizations.

3. Theoretical background

3.1. Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is defined as “a psychological state that (a)

characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization, and (b) has
implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the
organization” (Meyer et al. 1993, pp. 538-551). It has been argued that OC is a better
measure of human behaviors that other related measures as job satisfaction and
job involvement (Moon 2000, pp. 177-194). According to J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen
(1991) organizational commitment consists of distinct components: (1) affective
commitment (emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement
in the organization), (2) continuance commitment (perceived costs associated
with leaving the organization), and (3) normative commitment, which concerns
a feeling of (moral) obligation to remain in the organization.
Organizational commitment has a positive impact on job performance and work
motivation (Meyer Allen 1997, Naff, Crum 1999, pp. 5–16). Committed employees
are also more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors, such as creativeness or
innovativeness which are the basis for an organization’s proactive attitude (Katz,
Kahn 1978). Thus the culture of an organization has a profound influence on
the behavior of individuals within an organization (Barney 1986, pp. 656-665,
Trice and Beyer 1993). The lack of OC can have serious negative implications. It
may lead to a possible situations in which employees will withdraw from extra-
contractual activities (Grimshaw et al. 2003, pp. 267–288), it may also result in
high or unwanted turnover, adding to the cost of recruitment, selection, and
training. The instability caused by high turnover may also trigger problems
with the quality of services (Allen 2000, p. 188–202).

3.2. Public service motivation

Employee motivation plays a central role in management, both practically

and theoretically. In the era of restricted funding for public organizations,

23
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

motivating public employees is becoming an arduous challenge where non-

monetary ways of motivating people are required. PSM describes individuals’
pro-social motivation to do good for others and society through the delivery
of public services (Perry, Hondeghem 2008). It has been defined as “the beliefs,
values, and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest,
that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals
to act accordingly whenever appropriate” (Vandenabeele 2007, p. 547). In Europe
it is known under different names and appearances: in the United Kingdom, it
is described as public service ethos, and in France, public administrators speak of
l’éthique du bien commun (Vandenabeele et al. 2004).
According to J. Perry (1996) PSM is based on three motives that fall into three
analytically distinct categories: rational, norm-based, and affective. Rational
motives refer to actions grounded in individual utility maximization. Norm-
based motives involve actions generated by efforts to conform to norms. Affective
motives present emotional triggers of behavior. J. Perry’s conceptualization
of PSM is based on a multifaceted dimensional construct that includes the
following:
 the attraction for policy making: desire to participate in formulation of public
policy which reinforces one’s image of self-importance (rational motives),
 commitment to the public interest, attachment to ideas of civil duty and social
justice (normative motives),
 compassion, desire to protect citizens, attachment to the patriotic values
(affective motives),
 personal sacrifice: a strong desire to protect and work for the good of the public
(affective and normative motives).
The level and type of an individual’s PSM and the motivational composition
of a public service organization’s workforce affect individual job choice, job
performance, and organizational effectiveness. Individuals with high PSM
consistently demonstrate intrinsic motivation and have been shown to value a
sense of accomplishment over money (Bright 2005). That is why public service
organizations are more likely to employ individuals whose values are consistent
with the public service organization mission (Perry 1996, pp. 101-117). The
influence of PSM on organizational trust, productivity, or managerial practices
makes PSM one of the most important constructs in public management (Brewer
et al 2000).
Numerous research has been devoted to the identification of sociodemographic
antecedents of PSM such as age, gender and educational level, which are
individual antecedents, or to its outcomes. Other predictors of PSM have been

24
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

identified at the organizational level. For instance, red tape, administrative

constraints, job tenure are correlates of PSM. However, it is surprising that
organizational variables are rarely subject of interest (Anderfuhren-Biget et al.
2010, pp. 213-246).

3.3. Organizational culture

The definition of organizational culture has been discussed by scholars from

various disciplines, which results in confusion about its ontology. The notion
of culture is often used interchangeably with concepts such as values, norms,
physical and cultural artifacts, or organizational climate.
Organizational culture plays a significant role in the general functioning of
any organization. It determines organization’s performance and effectiveness.
Organizational culture helps employees obtain a sense of identity. They
understand that they belong to a community that has certain values, beliefs and
ideology. As a result, they may commit not only to their individual interests but
also to some imperative values. Organizational culture has also “a boundary
– defining role” (Robbins 2001, pp. 155-209), which means that it creates the
distinction between one organization and others. Culture is also a mechanism of
internal integration and coordination. It helps socializing of new members in the
organization, creating a competitive edge, and making sense of the environment
in terms of acceptable behavior and social system stability (Furnham, Gunter
1993). And finally, organizational culture influences positively financial outcomes
of companies (Denison 1990, Kotter Heskett 1992, Denison, Mishra 1995, pp. 204-
223, Sorensen 2002, pp. 70-91).
One of the most known framework of organizational culture was proposed by
K. S. Cameron and R. E. Quinn (1999). According to their model, organizational
culture has two dimensions: (1) flexibility vs stability and (2) internal vs external
orientation. Together, these two dimensions form four clusters which constitute
different types of organizational culture: Clan (internal and flexible with a focus
on people), Adhocracy (external and flexible with a focus on growth), Market
(external and stable with a focus on competition), and Hierarchy (internal and
stable with a focus on organizational structure).
Using abovementioned culture framework as a foundation, A. Hartnell et al
(2011) provided a comprehensive test of the relationship between organizational
culture and organizational performance. They found that employees were more
satisfied and committed in organizations that were more Clan-like, those with
a more Market orientation had superior operational and financial performance,

25
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

Adhocracy culture is connected with innovativeness, and effectiveness criteria

for Hierarchy are efficiency, timeliness, and smooth functioning.
There is also evidence that organizational culture is positively correlated
with organizational commitment—that is, a strong belief in and acceptance of
the organization’s goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort
on behalf of the organization; and a strong desire to maintain membership in
the organization (Mowday et al 1979). Organizational culture also moderates
and mediates relationships between many theoretical constructs, e.g. justice
perceptions and leader-member exchange (Erdogan et al 2006, pp. 395-406), high-
performance human resource practices and employees’ perceived organizational
support (Zhang Jia 2010, pp. 743-765).

4. Theoretical model

Our model is based on two constructs at the individual level: Public Service
Motivation and organizational commitment, and one at the level of organization
which is organizational culture. Its implies conducting multilevel research.
Figure 1 displays the conceptual model that presents relationships among PSM,
organizational culture and organizational commitment. It is a cross-level model
which is one of the types of multilevel models.

26
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

R. K. Christensen and B. E. Wright (2011, pp. 723–743) suggested that PSM may
have less to do with employee attitude and more to do with the PSM values shared
by the organization and employees, and the opportunities to act in congruence
with those shared values offered to employees by an organization. Thus, PSM
can be either enhanced or damaged by the organizational culture. Previous
research has rarely referred to relationships between PSM and organizational
culture. One of the examples may be work of D. P. Moynihan and S. K. Pandey
(2007, pp. 40-53) who examined organizational predictors of PSM, yet did not find
expected influence. They pointed that their “results on culture should be viewed
as preliminary, and there is value in testing this relationship with alternative
measures of culture, additional survey populations, and the full PSM scale” (p.
47). Other researchers prove that organizational culture is an important factor
in shaping the level of employee motivation (Massaras et al 2014, pp. 415–424).
They found a negative correlation between the level of employee motivation and
Hierarchy, Adhocracy and Market culture type and positive correlation between
the degree of employee motivation and the Clan culture. However, they do not
examine these relationships in terms of multilevel approach and their research
relates to motivation in general, not PSM.
Organizational culture depends on the organizational structures and practices
on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on the strategies deployed by the
actors according to the resources they can mobilize within to the organization
environment they are confronted to. In other words, organizational culture may
be described as a complex construction, in which individuals play a central
role (Anderfuhren-Biget et al 2010). As organizational culture is a product of
organizational actors, PSM should shape organizational culture. That is why we
propose, that:

H1: There is a mutual influence between Public Service Motivation and organizational
culture
According to multilevel approach, phenomena at higher level of analysis
influence phenomena at lower level to a higher extent than phenomena at lower
level influence phenomena at higher level.

H2: The influence of organizational culture on Public Service Motivation is stronger

than the influence of Public Service Motivation on organizational culture
Members with high levels of PSM are more willing to engage in whistle-
blowing to protect the public interest (Brewer, Selden 1998, pp. 413–439); they
believe that their jobs are important, which, in turn, leads them to work harder

27
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

(Wright and Davis 2003, pp. 70-90); they are more likely to be high performers
and enjoy higher job satisfaction; and they are less likely to leave their jobs
(Naff, Crum 1999). PSM has been also related to organizational commitment
(Pandey, Stazyk 2008, pp. 101-117; Perry and Wise 1990, pp. 367–373). PSM is
acknowledged to be antecedent of OC (Castaing 2006, pp. 84–98, Taylor 2008,
pp. 67-88, Vandenabeele 2009, pp. 11-34), but in some cases, organizational
commitment can act as the antecedent of PSM (Camilleri 2006). A. Ritz (2009,
pp. 1128-1147) found a positive relationship between commitment to public
interest and attraction to policymaking and employees’ affective commitment.
In recent research, A. Shrestha and A. Mishra (2015) provide evidences about
a positive relationship between self-sacrifice, commitment to public interest
and attraction to policymaking dimensions of PSM and organizational
commitment. Moreover, E. Camillieri and B. I. J. M. van der Heijden (2007,
pp. 241-274) found support that all dimensions of PSM have a significantly
positive relations with all dimensions of OC. The higher level of PSM, the
higher level of employees’ loyalty and emotional identification with the
organization that seeks public interests. Thus, PSM influences organizational
commitment, yet we don’t know if and what are the factors that might moderate
this relationship.
According to our knowledge the moderating role of organizational culture
on the relationship between PSM and OC hasn’t been examined yet. There is
some evidence that organizational culture and PSM are related, which was
discussed before. Organizational culture is also positively correlated with
organizational commitment, which means shared values make employees
more engaged in organizational goals, willing to take effort and stay in the
organization (Guzley 1992, pp. 379-402, Moon 2000, pp. 177-194, Ezirim 2012,
pp. 155-180). Research conducted by R. N. Padma and V. Nair (2009, pp. 32-
39) on the sample of public organizations shows also relationships between
organizational culture and organizational commitment: clan culture has a
positive impact on all dimensions of OC and market culture reduces affective
commitment. Moreover, some organizational characteristics connected with
organizational culture, such as level of interpersonal social communication and
level of mentoring socialization moderate the relationship between intrinsic
motivation in the public service and job engagement (Park, Word 2009, pp. 505-
514). Additionally, organizational learning culture moderates the relationship
between psychological empowerment (i.e. competency and self-determination)
and organizational commitment (Joo, Shim 2010, pp. 425–441). Organizational
culture expedites the process of employees identification with the organization

28
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

and forming the sense of belonging to it (Hofstede 1998, pp. 477-493). It helps
shaping the work-related behavior of the employee and may delineate particular
expectations that create pressure upon individuals that create an organization-
specific individual behavior and makes them achieve organizational goals
(O’Reilly 1989, pp. 9-25). These arguments let us to hypothesize

H3: Organizational culture moderates the influence of Public Service Motivation on

organizational culture.
We propose the following operationalization of variables presented in the
model.
N. J. First, to measure Organizational Commitment we propose the instrument
created by J. P. Meyer and Allen (1991, pp. 61-89). Its constituent subscales are
affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment.
This instrument was adapted to Polish conditions by A. Bańka et al. (2002) and
its validity and reliability has been proved. The level of PSM may be assessed by
the scale presented by J. Perry (1996). This model is specifically oriented toward
the United States. The literature provides evidence that J. Perry’s PSM scale is
valid and reliable (Perry, Coursey 2005, Wrigh, Pandey 2005). Organizational
culture may be examined with Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Validity and reliability of this tool have been proved
in many research (e.g. Lamond 2003, pp. 46–59, Yeung et al 1991, pp. 59-81).
Multilevel approach requires that the research sample enables assessment of
organizational culture by a sizeable number of members of organization, which
increases data homogeneity. The individual’s assessments of organizational
culture should then be aggregated. Members of the same organizations should
also asses their level of PSM and OC. In case of organizational-level construct,
data must be acquired not in one, but in many organizations which gives
appropriate level of variability. In other words, there must be significant between-
organization differences in and sufficient within –organization agreement on
organizational culture to examine its impact on individual level-data. Data
analysis must be conducted using special software such as R (a free software)
or Mplus. In case of latent construct, such as included in our model, a multilevel
SEM analysis may be used.

5. Conclusions

The main aim of our paper was to present the proposal of a research
modelincluding relationships between organizational commitment, Public

29
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

Service Motivation, organizational culture that might be examined empirically

We propose to assess these relationships using multilevel approach which is
appropriate when we want to understand, influence of variables on different
levels of analysis.
Presented research model is in keeping with the research trend in public
sector organizations values (Witesman, Walters 2014, pp. 375-405). Developing
our knowledge in these issues is necessary if we want to understand which
values of employees and organizational culture foster effects of individuals and
whole organizations. If proved, proposed relationships could provide cues that
could help managers to enhance employees’ organizational commitment. In
particular, recruiting candidates with high PSM should influence organizational
culture and strengthen these values that are the most advantageous for public
organization. On the other side, organizational culture may influence PSM in
both a positive or negative way, depending on the type of the culture. Finally,
particular organizational culture types are supposed to strengthen the influence
of PSM on OC.

Summary
The aim of the our paper is to discuss the relationships between
organizational culture, Public Service Motivation (PSM) and
organizational commitment (OC). On the basis of literature review
we formulated hypotheses presenting potential relationships
between mentioned constructs. We propose that there is a mutual
influence between PSM and organizational culture and that
organizational culture moderates the influence of Public Service
Motivation on organizational commitment. Due to the presence
of variables on different levels of analysis, we also discuss some
issues of multilevel approach.

Keywords: values, organizational culture, Public Service Motivation, organizational

commitment, multilevel research

Streszczenie
Celem niniejszego artykułu jest omówienie związków pomiędzy
kulturą organizacyjną, motywacją do służby publicznej (public
service motivation - PSM) oraz zaangażowaniem organizacyjnym
(organizational commitment - OC). Zaprezentowany przegląd
literatury przedmiotu pozwolił na wyprowadzenie hipotez

30
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

odnośnie relacji między wskazanymi powyżej konstruktami.

Stawiamy hipotezę, że występuje wzajemny wpływ motywacji
do służby publicznej i kultury organizacyjnej, a także że kultura
organizacyjna moderuje relację między motywacją do służby
publicznej i zaangażowaniem organizacyjnym. Ze względu na
występowanie w naszym modelu teoretycznym zmiennych na
różnych poziomach analizy, omawiamy także kwestie związane
z podejściem wielopoziomowym do badań.

Słowa
kluczowe: wartości, kultura organizacyjna, motywacja do służby publicznej,
zaangażowanie organizacyjne, badania wielopoziomowe

References
1. Allen, C. (2000), The hidden organizational costs of using nonstandard
employment. Personnel Review, 29(2).
2. Anderfuhren-Biget, S., Varone, F., Giauque, D. Ritz, A. (2010),
Motivating employees of the public sector: Does Public Service Motivation
matter?, International Public Management Journal, 13(3).
3. Bańka A., Bazińska R., Wołoska A (2002), Polska wersja Meyera i Alen
Skali Przywiązania do Organizacji, Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 8 p. 65-74.
4. Barney, J.B. (1986), Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 11 (3).
5. Bedwell W.L., Wildman J.L., Granados D., Salazar M., Kramer W.S. (2012),
Collaboration at Work: An Integrative Multilevel Conceptualization, Human
Resource Management Review, t. 22(2).
6. Brewer G. A., Selden, S. C. (1998), Whistle blowers in the federal civil service:
New evidence of the public service ethic, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 8.
7. Bright L. (2005), Public employees with high levels of public service motivation:
Who are they, where are they, what do they want?, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 25.
8. Cameron K. S., Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley Longman,
Inc.
9. Camillieri E., van der Heijden B. I. J. M. (2007), Organizational commitment,
Public Service Motivation and performance within the public sector, Public
Performance & Management Reviewm 31(2).
10. Castaing S. (2006), The effect of psychological contract fulfilment and public
service motivation on organizational commitment in the French Public Utilities,
Public Policy and Administration, 21(1).

31
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

11. Christensen R. K., Wright, B. E. (2011), The effects of public service motivation
on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person–organization
fit and person–job fit, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 21.
12. Crewson P. E. (1997), Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of
incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7.
13. Denison D. R. (1990), Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New
York: John Wiley.
14. Denison D. R. Mishra, A. K. (1995), Toward a theory of organizational culture
and effectiveness, Organization Science, 6 (2).
15. Erdogan B., Liden, R. C., and Kraimer, M. L. (2006), Justice and Leader-
Member Exchange: The Moderating Role of Organizational Culture, Academy
of Management Journal, 49(2)..
16. Ezirim C. B., Nwibere, B. M., Emecheta, B. C. (2012), The influence of
corporate culture on organisational commitment, The Nigerian experience
International Journal of Business & Public Administration, 9(3).
17. Furnham A., Gunter, B. (1993), Corporate assessment: Auditing a company’s
personality. London, Routlede.
18. Grimshaw D., Earnshaw, J., and Hebson, G. (2003), Private sector provision
of supply teachers: A case of legal swings and professional roundabouts, Journal
of Education Policy, 18 (3).
19. Guzley R. M. (1992), Organizational climate and communication climate:
Predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication
Quarterly, 5 (4).
20. Hartnell C. A. , Ou A.Y., Kinicki A. (2011), Organizational culture and
organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values
framework’s theoretical suppositions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96.
21. Hitt M. A., Beamish P. W., Jackson S. E., Mathieu J. E. (2007), Building
Theoretical and Empirical Bridges across Levels: Multilevel Research in
Management, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6).
22. Hofstede G. (1998), Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling
the concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3).
23. Joo B.-K., Shim, J. H. (2010), Psychological empowerment and organizational
commitment: the moderating effect of organizational learning culture, Human
Resource Development International, 13 (4)
24. Katz D., and Kahn, R. L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations, 2d ed.
New York: Wiley.
25. Klein K. J., Tosi H., Cannella A. A. Jr. (1999), Multilevel Theory Building:
Benefits, Barriers, and New Developments, Academy of Management Review,
24 (2).
26. Kotter J. P., and Heskett, J. L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance,
New York, Free Press.

32
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

27. Lamond D. (2003), The value of Quinn’s competing values model in an

Australian context, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18.
28. Maesschalck J. (2004), The impact of new public management reforms on public
servants’ ethics, Towards a theory. Public Administration, 82(2).
29. Massaras P., Sahinidis, A., Polychronopoulos, G. (2014), Organizational
Culture and Motivation in the Public Sector. The case of the City of Zografou,
Procedia Economics and Finance, 14.
30. Mathieu J. E., Zajac, D. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, 108.
31. Meyer J. P. Allen, N. J. (1991), A three component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1.
32. Meyer J. P., and Allen, N. J. (1997), Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research, and application, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., and Smith, C. A. (1993), Commitment to
Organizations and Occupations: Extensions and Test of a Three-Component
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4).
34. Moon M. J., (2000), Organizational Commitment Revisited in New Public
Management: Motivation, Organizational Culture, Sector, and Managerial
Level. By Public Performance & Management Review, 24(2).
35. Morgeson F. P., Hofmann D. A. (1999), The Structure and Function
of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory
Development, Academy of Management Review, 24, nr 2.
36. Moynihan D. P. Pandey, S. K. (2007), The role of organizations in fostering
public service motivation, Public Administration Review, 67 (1).
37. Naff K. C., Crum J. (1999), Working for America: Does public service motivation
make a difference?, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4).
38. O’Reilly C. (1989), Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and
Social Control in Organizations. California Management Review, 31(4).
39. Padma R. N., Nair V. Sumitha (2009), Organizational culture and its impact
on organizational commitment in public and private organizations. Global
Management Review (4) 1.
40. Pandey S. K. E. C. Stazyk. (2008), Antecedents and Correlates of Public
Service Motivation, in J. L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, Motivation in Public
Management. The Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Park S. M., Word, J. (2009), Motivated to serve: An empirical examination
of motivation and consequences in the public and nonprofit organizations.
International Public Service Motivation Research Conference, 66(4).
42. Perry J. (1996), Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct
reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 6(1).
43. Perry J. L., Hondeghem A. (2008), Directions for Future Theory and Research,
in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem, Motivation in Public Management. The
Call of Public Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33
AGATA AUSTEN
BOGNA ZACNY
 Management
2015
Vol.19, No. 2

44. Perry J., Coursey, D. (2005), What drives morally committed citizens? A study
of the antecedents of public service motivation. Paper presented at the Public
Management Research Conference, Los Angeles.
45. Perry J., Wise, L. (1990), The motivational bases of public service, Public
Administration Review, 50(3).
46. Ritz A. (2011), Attraction to Public Policy-Making: A Qualitative Enquiry into
Improvements in PSM Measurement, Public Administration, 89(3)
47. Robbins St. (2001), Basic Motivation Concepts, Chpt. 6. New Jersey,
Organizational Behavior Prentice Hall.
48. Shrestha A.K, Mishra A.K. (2015), Interactive Effects of Public Service
Motivation and Organizational Politics on Nepali Civil Service Employees’
Organizational Commitment, Business Perspectives and Research January,
3(1).
49. Sorensen J. B. (2002), The Strength of Corporate Culture and the Reliability of
Firm Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47.
50. Taylor J. (2008), Public service motivation and work outcomes: The effects of
organizational rewards and work relations. International Public Management
Journal, 11 (1).
51. Trice H. M. Beyer J. M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations. New
York: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
52. Vandenabeele W. (2007), Towards a theory of public service motivation, An
institutional approach, Public Management Review, 9.
53. Vandenabeele W. (2009), The mediating effect of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on self-reported performance, More robust
evidence of the PSM performance relationship. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 75(1).
54. Vandenabeele W., Hondeghem A., Maesschalck J., Depré R. (2004),
Values and motivation in public administration: Public service motivation in
an international comparative perspective, Paper presented at the European
Group of Public Administration, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
55. Witesman E., Walters L. (2014), Public service values: A new approach to the
study of motivation in the public sphere, Public Administration, 92(2).
56. Wright B. E., Davis B. S. (2003), Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of
the work environment, The American Review of Public Administration 33 (1).
57. Wright B. E., Pandey S. K. (2005), Exploring the Nomological Map of the
Public Service Motivation Concept. Paper presented at the 8th National
Public Management Research Conference, Madrid.
58. Yeung A. K. O., Brockbank J. W., Ulrich D. O. (1991), Organizational
Culture and human resources practices: An empirical assessment, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 5.
59. Zhang Z. Jia M. (2010), Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of
high-performance human resource practices on corporate entrepreneurship: from
China. Human Resource Management, 49 (4).

34
The role of Public Service Motivation
and Organizational Culture
for Organizational Commitment