Public Service Motivation and Employee … Service Motivation and Employee Participation in Discretionary Pro-Environmental Behaviors Justin Michael Stritch The University of Georgia

Public Service Motivation and Employee Participation in

Discretionary Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Justin Michael Stritch

The University of Georgia

[email protected]

Abstract

To what extent does Public Service Motivation (PSM) influence participation in pro-

environmental behaviors? A theoretical framework based on PSM and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is constructed to answer this question. The study uses data from

873 City of Charlotte employees to determine the relationship between PSM and participation in

pro-environmental behaviors. Results suggest a significant, positive relationship between PSM

and both exhibiting and encouraging pro-environmental behavior in the workplace even while

controlling for environmental attitudes.

Manuscript Prepared for

The 11th

Public Management Research Conference

The Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, June 2-4, 2011.

I would like to thank Robert K. Christensen, John Ronquillo, Derrick Andersen, Justin Bullock,

Michael Trivette, and Mary Milan for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper.

Additionally, I give special thanks to Gina Shell and Julie Burch at the City of Charlotte (NC) for

access to the data used in the analysis.

Stritch 1

Introduction

Everyday in the United States millions of public sector employees go to work. Once in

the office, some workers choose to recycle their disposable drink containers while others choose

to throw their recyclables in a waste basket next to the recycling bin. Some workers put their

lunch in the break-room refrigerator while others use a mini-fridge tucked away under their

desks. Some workers turn their printer setting to duplex and print on both sides, while others

take no steps to reduce the amount of paper they use. Why do only some employees act in an

environmentally friendly, or “green,” manner? The variations in employee behaviors occur at a

time of growing need for resource conservation and mainstream acknowledgement of a need for

humans to limit their negative impact on the environment for long-term sustainability.

Government has been thrust into the environmental policy arena in the last thirty years as

the institution responsible for administering collective policies as they relate to the environment

(Rabe, 2006). Public organizations, however, may also take less visible steps to act as stewards

of the environment. Eco-initiatives at the employee level can reduce the sector‟s environmental

impact. Additionally, conserving resources such as water, paper, and energy may result in

saving financial resources. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study of employee

participation in voluntary pro-environmental behaviors within public organizations. The aim of

this study is to fill that void.

Why do some employees working in the same office space, or work environment, take

small steps to reduce their negative environmental impact while others do not? What are the

motivating factors for participation in pro-environmental behaviors for employees in public

organizations? In this paper I will answer these questions by looking at a central tenet of the

public management literature over the past 20 years: Public Service Motivation (PSM). I will

Stritch 2

examine PSM‟s influence on employee participation in pro-environmental behaviors and the

likelihood of encouraging other employees to participate in discretionary pro-environmental

behaviors.

The study is divided into four sections. The first section is a literature review, which

starts by discussing the history and development of the literature on pro-environmental behavior.

I provide a brief description of the variables and theories associated with pro-environmental

behavior and a description of a theoretical framework for the study based on PSM. The second

section comprises the research methodology employed in the study and describes the data and

statistical techniques used to test the hypotheses. The third section reports the results and

findings of the analysis. Finally, the study concludes with a discussion of the findings, focusing

on the implications for public managers.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2007) there were approximately three million

federal civilian employees and 15 million state and local government employees in 2007. This,

of course, does not capture the total number of individuals working in the public sphere, and

given the increasingly nebulous nature of the term “public,” the definition may be expanded to

include the number of private sector contract employees that provide a range of government

services (Bozeman, 2007). At the macro-level, government is often responsible for

implementing environmental policies, but at the micro-level, environmental stewardship can

meaningfully begin within the public sector with public servants‟ decisions to participate in

discretionary pro-environmental behaviors, creating a large, aggregated reduction in negative

environmental impacts. Understanding public employees‟ motivations for participating in pro-

environmental behavior is an essential first step in achieving these reductions.

Stritch 3

Public Organizations, Social Values, and Environmental Initiatives

Scholars have long discussed the various differences between public and private

management and how public values influence the decisions of public managers (Dahl, 1947;

Wamsley & Zald, 1973; Denhardt, 1981; Kirlin, 1996; Rainey, 2009). There is a governmental

obligation to promote the public interest that distinguishes public management from the private

sector and that creates the moral sense of “higher purpose” (Rosenbloom, Kravchuk, & Clerkin,

2009, p. 7). The sense of higher purpose forces public organizations to carefully consider how to

implement managerial policies ranging from hiring practices to the accountability of resource

expenditures. The expectation of responsible government should extend to the environmental

impact of day-to-day operations.

The emphasis New Public Management places on economics and efficiency (Box et al.,

2001) may give us pause to consider whether or not it is good to use public resources to promote

environmentalism within an organization where the public benefit is not so clear. However,

economy and efficiency have not prevented private sector managers from taking environmental

impacts into account. In his normative evaluation of organizational sustainability in the private

sector, Shrivastava (1995) laid out seven reasons why organizations should actively promote

sustainability: 1) To drive down operating costs by reducing ecological inefficiencies; 2) to

create a competitive advantage among green consumers; 3) to distinguish themselves by

implementing duplicable strategies in their specific industry; 4) to enhance the corporate image;

5) to reduce the risks associated with resource depletion, shifting in energy costs, and pollution

management; 6) to reduce the health risks to the community in which they operate; and 7) to

position to the organization ahead of the regulatory curve. For some organizations, achieving

ecological sustainability may become integrated into the strategic goals of the organization (p.

Stritch 4

955). Reducing costs, reducing health risks, and presenting a strong corporate image to the

public are just a few reasons why public managers might also consider the environmental impact

of daily operations.

Bansal and Roth (2000) identified a conceptual model of the reasons an organization

should pursue environmental initiatives. The reasons include benefits from competitiveness,

legitimacy and social responsibility, and motivating factors for corporate environmental

responsiveness. Epstein and Roy (2001) concluded that organizations should look to local social

and environmental issues to serve as the external drivers of the “corporate strategy,” and can be

used to identify relevant stakeholders and incorporate environmental performance measures into

corporate strategies. Stringer (2009) set forth a method of incorporating ecological sustainability

into a Balanced Scorecard, creating measurable objectives for organizations. Given the focus on

objectives in the era of New Public Management and strategic performance of public

organizations, environmental objectives can easily be included as a measure of organizational

performance.

Eco-Initiatives and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

When discussing employee participation in pro-environmental behaviors as supported,

but not mandated by their organization, it is important to develop a common language. The

terms “green,” “sustainable,” and “pro-environment” have all been used to describe a wide

variety of activities and behaviors designed to minimize environmental impacts. Ramus (2002)

defines eco-initiatives as “actions (or initiatives) taken by individuals and teams to improve the

environmental performance of companies” (p. 152). These actions may decrease the

environmental impact of the company, solve an environmental problem, or lead to the

development of a more eco-efficient product or service (Ramus, 2002).

Stritch 5

Throughout this paper, the terms “eco-initiative” and “pro-environment” will be used to

describe the discretionary employee behaviors examined. The behaviors range from carpooling

to recycling. These behaviors can also be categorized as Organization Citizenship Behaviors

(OCBs). According to Organ (as cited in Christensen & Whiting, 2009, p. 4), an OCB is an

“individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by a formal

reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effect functioning of the organization…the

behavior is not an enforcement requirement of the role or the job description…its omission is not

generally understood as punishable.”

This study of public sector employee participation in organization eco-initiatives will

look specifically at voluntary employee behaviors promoted by the organization and designed to

minimize the negative impact on the environment. Any behavior that minimizes environmental

impact will be referred to as “pro-environmental” (Karp, 1996; Dahlstrand & Biel, 1997;

Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Clark et al., 2003). To construct an

understanding of public employee participation in organizational eco-initiatives, I need to

understand the determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Understanding the determinants of

pro-environmental behavior, however, is difficult and to date there is not a generalizeable theory

that explains this behavior (Stern, 2000; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Clark et al., 2003;

Poortigna et al., 2004). The purpose of the following section is not to develop a general theory,

but rather to examine each of the variables that have been used in explanatory models, both

independently and in combination.

Social Bases of Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) evaluated common hypotheses about the social bases that

asserted a relationship with environmental behavior. The authors found that those who were

Stritch 6

younger, had higher educational attainment, and were more politically liberal, were more likely

to be concerned with environmental quality than those that were older, less-educated, and

conservative. The authors found empirical inconsistencies on the effect of a person‟s residence,

political party identification, and occupation on environmental concern. Evidence of income and

sex were not systemically related to environmental concern (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Dietz,

Kalof and Stern (2002) found contradictory evidence that supports the “gender hypothesis,” but

the authors commented on the need to further examine the effect of gender on factor structures of

environmental concern. Clark et al. (2003) found a significant negative relationship between

participation in a premium green energy program and family size, and a positive relationship

between participation and household income. Poortinga et al. (2004) also found the same

relationship between pro-environmental behaviors and both family size and household income.

Values and Belief Bases of Pro-Environmental Behavior

A number of studies attempt to explain pro-environmental behavior with values (e.g.

Stern & Dietz, 1994; Karp, 1996; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002). Stern and Dietz (1994) found

“self-transcendence” and “ecocentrocism” are positively associated with “environmentalism,”

while “self-enhancement” and “anthrocentrisim” have a negative effect on ecological problem

awareness. Stern and Dietz (1994) concluded individuals with collective values and those who

value the environment for its own sake are more likely to be concerned about environmental

problems than those who do not value it for its own sake (cited in Garvill & Nordlund 2002, p.

753). Karp (1996) examined the effect of values on environmental behavior and found that

“self-transcendent/openness” and “univeralism/biospheric” have a positive influence on pro-

environmental behavior, while the values of “self-enhancement/conservation” have negative

influences on pro-environmental behavior. Nordlund and Garvill (2002) found support for a

Stritch 7

values-based approach using a “norm-activation” model where a personal norm of “a feeling of

moral obligation to protect the environment” predicted participation in pro-environmental

behaviors.

Identifying how values shape pro-environmental behaviors is complicated and might be

influenced by numerous external and internal drivers acting in a variety of ways. Kollmuss and

Agyeman (2002) observed the complexity: “Environmental knowledge, values and attitudes,

together with emotional involvement make up a complex called „environmental consciousness,‟”

and attitudes may change due to the life-stage of a person along with a variety of other

contextual factors (p. 256). Recently, there has been a turn toward behavioral economics to

explain the contextual factors that may influence the likelihood of a person‟s participation in

discretionary eco-initiatives or pro-environmental behaviors (Stern, 2006; Corraliza & Berenguer,

2000; Dieckman & Preisendorfer, 2003).

Contextual Factors Influencing Participation in Pro-Environmental Behaviors

In addition to individual social bases and values, contextual characteristics greatly

influence environmental behaviors. Stern (2000) suggested that causal factors of behavior may

interact with each other and noted that “attitudinal causes have the greatest predictive values for

behaviors that are not strongly constrained by the context of personal capabilities…behaviors

that are expensive and difficult, contextual factors and personal capabilities are likely to account

for the variance” (p. 422). Stern (2000) summarized the contextual factors he believes interact

with attitudes to formulate a more complete model explaining discretionary participation in pro-

environment behaviors. First, material costs and rewards may influence the types of behavior a

person chooses to perform. Second, laws and regulations may induce or prohibit certain

behaviors. Third, the technology available may influence a person‟s ability to participate in a

Stritch 8

pro-environmental behavior. Fourth, social norms and expectations may impact behavior. Fifth,

supportive policies may facilitate these behaviors. Finally, advertising and awareness might

introduce people to environmental behaviors, and thus induce participation.

Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) indicated the importance of the interaction among

personal determinants, values and beliefs, and situational determinants (physical-environmental)

on the predictive value of personal variables. The study made two major contributions. First,

environmental behavior does, in fact, rely on the interaction situational and personal variables.

Second, when a high conflict level is exhibited between situational and personal variables, the

predictive value of personal attributes is minimized. Dieckman and Preisendorfer (2003) found

evidence that environmental concerns will influence the behavior of individuals in situations that

pose a low cost to the individual. As the behavior begins to bear a higher cost, or larger

inconvenience, the likelihood of participation goes down.

Ramus and Steger (2000) found the presence of well-written and formulated

environmental policies were more likely to result in employees pursuing eco-initiatives. Ramus

and Steger (2000) and Ramus (2002) observed that at the employee level both organizational

policies and supportive supervisory behaviors can increase the likelihood of employee

participation in environmental initiatives. Stringer (2009) even discussed the need to

incorporate these behaviors and targets into the strategic management of an organization. We

know from the wealth of literature on goal setting that creating attainable goals can serve as a

motivating force that is likely to increase participation (see Locke & Latham 2002).

Public Service Motivation as a Theoretical Framework

When examining public employees‟ values and beliefs, one has to inquire about the

potential impact of the motivational bases of Public Service Motivation (PSM) and how that

Stritch 9

might influence participation in pro-environmental behaviors. Rainey (2009, p. 266) describes

PSM as the ethic that motivates people to serve the public, or the “service ethic.” Since the early

1980‟s, PSM has evolved into one of the central theories to public management scholarship (see

Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990; Perry, 1996; Brewer, Seldon, & Facer, 2000; Wright

& Pandey, 2005; Coursey & Pandey, 2007). Additionally, the definition of PSM itself has

evolved over the time. Perry and Wise‟s (1990) early conception was of public employees‟

predispositions to respond to motives grounded primarily in public institutions. Recently, the

definition of PSM has become more encompassing. Vandenebeele (2007) described PSM as the

“beliefs, values, and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest that concern

the interest of a larger political entity and motivates individuals to act accordingly whenever

appropriate.”

Why do I expect PSM to be a predictor of participation in voluntary pro-environmental

behaviors? As discussed earlier, pro-environmental behaviors can be described as OCBs.

Recently, there has been a flurry of public sector research on the relationship between PSM and

OCBs (Kim, 2006; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008; Christensen & Whiting 2009). Kim

(2006) found a positive relationship between PSM and participation in OCB in a study of the

Korean civil service. Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan (2008) found a positive relationship

between PSM and interpersonal citizenship behaviors (ICBs), a subcategory falling under the

OCB umbrella. As argued earlier, discretionary participation in eco-initiatives meet Organ‟s

definition of OCB. Building on the relationships found between PSM and OCB, I generate the

following hypothesis with respect to participation in voluntary pro-environmental behaviors:

H1: Employees with higher levels of Public Service Motivation (PSM) are more

likely to display pro-environmental behaviors than those with lower levels of PSM.

Stritch 10

Additionally, I am interested in determining how PSM affects the likelihood employees

encourage participation in pro-environmental behavior among their co-workers. Encouraging

pro-environmental behaviors also can be defined as an OCB. I expect PSM to explain

encouraging behavior given the external orientation and pro-social nature of the PSM construct.

Employees who see the benefit of the initiatives to both the organization and society are going to

be more likely to encourage others to participate. The second hypothesis based on the framework

integrating PSM and OCB is:

H2: Employees with higher levels of PSM will be more likely to encourage the

participation of others in pro-environmental behaviors.

There is little research that focuses on the pro-environmental actions in public

organizations‟ internal operations, and to date, no research has looked at public employees‟

discretionary participation in pro-environmental behaviors, or eco-initiatives. The following

analysis attempts to provide an understanding of environmental stewardship at the employee

level. Additionally, if a relationship between PSM and likelihood of participation and

encouraging pro-environmental behaviors is established, the research will add support to both

Kim‟s (2006) and Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan‟s (2008) work on the relationship between

PSM and OCB.

Data

I will use survey data from the City of Charlotte (NC) to test the study‟s two hypotheses.

The electronic survey was designed to help City managers understand the likelihood of employee

participation in discretionary pro-environmental behaviors and eco-initiatives. The data

collected in the survey were used to design programs encouraging participation in pro-

environmental behaviors among employees. The survey population included 3,120 City of

Charlotte employees in the following departments: Department of Engineering and Property

Stritch 11

Management, Neighborhood and Business Services, City Attorney‟s Office, Charlotte-

Mecklenburg Police Department Headquarters, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department,

Business Support Services and the City Manager‟s Office. The survey was distributed on the

list-serve for all City employees working at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center.

Additionally, internal communications representatives from the Police Department, the Fire

Department, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department, and the Solid Waste Department were

asked to help distribute the survey within their own departments. Two reminders were sent to

those receiving the survey. The survey was open for approximately three weeks and yielded 843

responses for a response rate of approximately 27 percent.

Variables and Models

I will construct two models to test PSM‟s effect on the dependent variables stated in the

hypotheses. PSM is the key independent variable in both models and will be operationalized

using an index score based on survey responses for five PSM questions in the survey. The five

questions used are the same five used on the Merit Service Protection Board (MSPB) survey of

federal employees and can be found in Appendix I. Each question measures employee

responses on a seven-point Likert-scale (see Wright & Pandey, 2005, p. 7 for complete

discussion). The lowest possible PSM score for a respondent is five and the highest is 35 and the

scale reliability coefficient is .7941.

The likelihood of participation in a variety of discretionary pro-environmental behaviors

is the dependent variable in Model I. The variable is operationalized by constructing an index

score of the responses to ten survey questions that ask respondents the likelihood of their

participation in a specific pro-environmental behavior. The questions were evaluated and those

determined to be applicable to all workers in the City remained in the model. A seven-point

Stritch 12

Likert-scale is used to measure responses. The measure‟s possible composite scores range from

10 to 70. Appendix I contains the specific questions used to create the measure. The scale

reliability coefficient for the variable is .6861.

Model II assesses the impact of PSM on the likelihood that an individual encourages pro-

environmental behavior among their employees. The same PSM index score is used again. The

likelihood of encouraging participation is the dependent variable in Model II. This variable is

measured by creating a scale score for questions utilizing a seven-point Likert-scale to test the

likelihood of encouraging participation among other employees. Appendix I contains the

questions used to generate the measure. The composite score ranges from a low score of 3 to a

high score of 21. The scale reliability coefficient is .7793.

A key control variable in both models is a person‟s predisposition or attitude toward the

environment. Employees who feel more connected to environment should be more likely to

participate in pro-environmental behaviors than those who do not feel as deep a connection. The

connectedness to nature measure is a composite score based on 12 questions in Mayer and

Frantz‟s (2004) Connectedness to Nature Scale. I chose this scale because it taps attitudes, or

“connectedness,” toward the environment without asking questions with a simple “right” answer.

Simply asking employees if they think the environment is important may generate socially

desirable responses. The original scale has 14 questions, but two were omitted at the City‟s

request due to their politically sensitive nature. While this is not an ideal scenario, it is important

to use a tested mechanism to capture environmental attitudes in constructing the variable for the

analysis. These questions are worded in a way to tap “connectedness” to the environment, and

not simply opinions on the importance of environmental stewardship. Environmental

Stritch 13

connectedness is a composite score ranging from 12 to 60 and has a scale reliability coefficient

of .8539. Appendix I contains the questions used to generate the measure.

I control for race, educational attainment, age, tenure and workspace in the two models.

To control for race a dummy variable is constructed (minorities are coded with a “1” and those

who are white are coded with a “0”). Dummy variables are created to control for educational

attainment. Dummy variables are generated for employees whose highest level of educational

attainment is a bachelor‟s degree and those whose highest level of education is a graduate or

professional degree. The coefficients of these two dummy variables can be interpreted compared

to those achieving a high school education or less.

Age is measured in ten year increments (under 30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69) and a

dummy variable is constructed for each group. The under 30 dummy variable is dropped from

the model and used as the comparison group to interpret coefficients produced by the other age

categories. Public sector tenure is measured in five year increments (5 or less, 6-10, 11-15, 16-

20, and more than 20 years) and dummy variable is constructed for each category. The dummy

variable for those with five or fewer years of experience is dropped from the analysis and serves

as the comparison group. A complete description of the collection and responses of the control

variables is available in Appendix III.

Methods Procedures

The first level analysis will be of the descriptive statistics of the key explanatory

variables. Second, the Pearson‟s correlation coefficient is used to analyze the bivariate

relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The final step in the analysis is

to run multivariate OLS regression to test both models. By examining the effect of controls, I

Stritch 14

am able to more accurately assess the true impact of PSM on the dependent variables in the

models by looking at the standardized beta-coefficients produced for each model.

Descriptive Analysis

Public Service Motivation (PSM) is a composite score on a scale from 5 to 35, with five

being the lowest possible level of PSM and 35 being the highest. The mean PSM score among

employees is 27.20. The survey measures an employee‟s likelihood of participation in eco-

initiatives on a composite scale of 10 to 70, with 10 being least likely and 70 being most likely to

participate in environmental initiatives. The mean score for employees on this scale is

50.33. The survey also measures the likelihood of encouraging pro-environmental behaviors on

a composite scale of 3 to 21, with 3 being least likely and 21 being the most likely to encourage

others to participate in pro-environmental behaviors. The mean score for City of Charlotte

employees is 11.92. The survey also measured environmental attitudes on a composite scale of

12 to 60. The mean score for this variable is 47.52. In Appendix II, Table I contains the

descriptive statistics of the independent variable (PSM), the two dependent variables

(participation pro-environmental behavior and encouraging pro-environmental behaviors) and

the environmental connectedness control variable examined in the study.

The number of non-responses, or “skips,” to survey questions measuring the control

variables is rather high, but not entirely unexpected. While the survey results are anonymous and

can not be tracked back to individual employees, these variables may have been viewed as

possible identifiers raising concerns about the anonymity of survey participants. Since the

information was collected by an employer (The City of Charlotte) this concern may have been

greater than if the survey had been implemented by an outside agent. Additionally, when the

instrument was designed, the City wanted employees to have the ability to opt-out of questions

Stritch 15

that may make them uncomfortable. The demographic questions were of secondary priority to

the City whose main interest in the data was to measure employee participation in pro-

environmental behaviors. As previously mentioned, the control variables are described in

Appendix III. The maximum number of cases with complete information is used in both the

bivariate and regression correlations that follow.

Bivariate Analysis

The first step in testing the hypotheses is to examine the bivariate associations between

the independent and dependent variables to determine whether the predicted relationships

exist. The results of these analyses are located in Table II of Appendix II. The Pearson

correlation coefficient between PSM and Likelihood of Pro-Environmental Behavior is 0.329,

significant at p<.000. The correlation coefficient between PSM and Likelihood of

Encouragement is 0.321 significant at p<.000. While this analysis generates preliminary support

for both hypotheses, it is necessary to test the variables further in more complex models that

control for environmental attitudes, age, race, educational background, work environment, and

the number of years a person is employed in the public sector.

Model I: PSM and Participation in Pro-Environmental Behaviors

The complete results for Model I are located in Appendix II. The first model tests

PSM‟s effect on participation in the pro-environmental behaviors while controlling for

environmental attitude, age, work environment, number of years in public employment, race and

education. The r-squared of the model is .265. In the model, PSM has a beta coefficient of .356,

significant at the p<.000 level. As expected, the largest predictor in the model was

environmental connectedness which has a beta coefficient of .455, significant at the p<.000 level.

The fact that the significant effect of PSM does not disappear when controlling for

Stritch 16

environmental attitudes confirms my hypothesis and provides evidence for the fact that PSM has

an independent effect on participation in eco-initiatives that can not be attributed to

environmental attitudes.

Model II: PSM and the Likelihood of Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviors

The complete results for Model II are located in Appendix II. The second model tests

the impact of an individuals‟ PSM on the likelihood of that individual encouraging pro-

environmental behaviors of their colleagues at work while controlling for age, work environment,

number of years in public employment, race and education. The r-squared of the second model

is .2856. In the model PSM, has a beta coefficient of .2124 and is significant at the p<.000 level.

The analysis also reveals environmental connectedness has a beta coefficient of .2089,

significant at the p<.000 level. The finding supports the hypotheses that higher PSM is

associated with a higher likelihood of encouraging discretionary pro-environmental behaviors in

others. This reiterates my earlier finding of the positive impact PSM on pro-environmental

behaviors.

Conclusion

This study provides support for the hypotheses that employees with high levels of PSM

will be both more likely to participate in pro-environment themselves and more likely to

encourage these behaviors among other employees in their organization. Employees that model

behaviors and encourage participation in an organization may have an impact on their coworkers

and help promote discretionary pro-environmental behaviors throughout the organization. These

conclusions are supported by both the bivariate analysis and the two OLS models used to test the

hypotheses that controlled for environmental attitudes, race, age, years of service in the public

Stritch 17

sector, education and workspace. The research builds support for the pro-social and outward

orientation of PSM, linking it to another type of OCB; pro-environmental behavior.

To tap the PSM of public sector employees, it is important public managers explain the

societal benefits of the discretionary behavior of their employees, whether in an informal

initiative among a few employees or in a branded campaign. Rather than just saying, “please

recycle,” it may be more fruitful to put particular initiatives in the context of the societal benefit

of that particular action. We know that employees with high levels of PSM have a pro-social

orientation, and maximizing this connection with an initiative may be the necessary step to

inciting participation. In addition to PSM, public managers can tap into other well known

theories of public management to inform the creation of organizational eco-initiatives and to

encourage participation in them. Drawing on both organizational commitment and goal setting

theories, public managers can design more effective programs. Additionally, public managers

need to emphasize the “service ethic” component of environmental stewardship when promoting

these initiatives within their organizations.

The study offers further evidence of the relationship between PSM and OCB, building on

earlier work (Kim, 2006; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008). The study demonstrates the need

for additional understanding to be constructed around PSM and other OCBs beyond the scope

provided in this paper. Discretionary environmental initiatives are just one example of OCBs

influenced by PSM, and other areas such as employee giving, corporate volunteering, and

participation in voluntary social committees can be examined utilizing the framework put

forward in this paper. Studies such as these can help us understand more about PSM and why it

matters in the public organization.

Stritch 18

While the findings are indeed important, the study is a preliminary one, designed to serve

as a starting point for further studies on eco-initiatives within the public organization. This study,

while linking PSM to participation in pro-environmental behaviors, falls short of what may be

the most interesting question of all: How do we encourage those with low levels of PSM to

participate in these eco-initiatives? We need additional understanding on how incentives and

disincentives can be used to encourage or discourage behavior. Future research incorporating

behavioral economics can inform managers of programs that are likely to create behavioral

changes for the public employee. While this study was conducted based on existing data from the

City of Charlotte, more intensive studies that span multiple agencies, levels of government, and

economic sectors need to be conducted in order to more fully understand employee participation

in organizational eco-initiatives.

References

Bansal, P. & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of economic responsiveness.

Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.

Box, R.C., Marshall, G.S., Reed, B.J., & Reed, C.M (2001). New public management and

substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608-619.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic

individualism. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC.

Brewer, G. A., S. C. Selden, & R. L. Facer II. (2000). “Individual conceptions of public service

motivation.” Public Administration Review, 60(3), 254-264.

Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M.R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-

environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 23, 237-246.

Christensen R. K., & Whiting, S. W. (2009). Employee evaluations in the public sector: public

service motivation, task and citizenship behaviors. The Korean Journal of Policy

Studies, 23(2), 41-56.

Corraliza, J.A. & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs and actions: a

situational approach. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 832-848.

Stritch 19

Coursey, D. H. & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public service motivation measurement: testing an

abridged version of Perry‟s proposed scale. Administration & Society, 39, 547-568.

Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: three problems. Public

Administration Review, 1(7), 1-11.

Dahlstrand, U. & Biel, A. (1997). Pro-environmental habits: propensity levels in behavioral

change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(7), 588-601.

Denhardt, R.B. (1981). Toward a Critical Theory of Public Administration. Public


Dieckmann, A. & Preisendorfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of

environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society

15(4), 441-472

Dietz, T., Kalof, L. & Stern, P.C. (2002). Gender, values and environmentalism. Social

Science Quarterly, 83(1), 353-364.

Epstein, M.J. & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key

performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34, 585-604.

Karp, D.G. (1996). Values and their impact on environmental behavior. Environment and

Behavior, 28(1), 111-133.

Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organization citizenship behavior in Korea.

International Journal of Manpower, 27(7-8), 722-740.

Kirlin, J. J. (1996). The big questions of public administration in a democracy. Public


Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and

what are the barriers to pro-environment behavior? Environmental Education Research,

8(3), 240-260.

Locke, E. A, & Latham, G.P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and

task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57(9), 705-717.

Mayer, S. F. & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of

individuals‟ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,

503-515.

Nordlund, A.M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structure behind pro-environmental behavior.

Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740-756.

Stritch 20

Pandey, S.K., Wright, B.W. & Moynihan, D.P. (2008). Public service motivation and

interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: testing a preliminary model.

International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89-108.

Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability

and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public

organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98.

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


Poortinga, R., Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, concern and environmental behavior: a

study into household energy usage. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70-93.

Rabe, B.G. (2006). Second generation climate policies in the American States:

proliferation, diffusion and regionalization. The Brookings Institution.

Rainey, H.G. (2009). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. Jossey Bass: San

Francisco.

Ramus, C.A., & Steger, U. (2000). The role of supervisor support behaviors and environmental

policy in employee “eco-initiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626.

Ramus, C.A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions. Journal of World

Business, 37, 151-164.

Rosenbloom, D.H., Kravchuk, R.S. & Clerkin, R. M (2009). Public Administration:

Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector, (7th

Ed.). McGraw-

Hill: New York.

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The

Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936-960.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.

Stringer, L. (2009). The Green Workplace. Palgrave MacMillian: New York.

Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.

Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

U.S. Census Bureau (2007). The Census of Governments. Retrieved on February 29, 2011 from

http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/

Stritch 21

Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R.E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: a review

of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. The Public Opinion Quarterly,

44(2), 181-197.

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

Public Management Review, 9(4),545-556.

Wamsley, G. I., & Zald, M.N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public


Wright, B. E. & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Exploring the nomological map of the public service

motivation concept. Paper Prepared for the 8th

Public Management Research Conference,

September 29-October 1, 2005.

Stritch 22

Appendix I: Survey Questions Used in Scale Construction

Public Service Motivation Scale

Scale Scores

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Meaningful public service is very important to me 1 7

I am not afraid to go to bat for others, even if it means I will be ridiculed 1 7

I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one

another

1 7

I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society 1 7

Making a difference in society means more to me than personal

achievement

1 7

Minimum and Maximum Totals (Range) 5 35

Scale reliability coefficient .7941

Participation in Pro-Environmental Behaviors Scale

How likely are you to do the following while at work? Very

Unlikely

Very

Likely

Recycle all paper waste 1 7

Recycle all aluminum cans or plastic bottles 1 7

Use reusable bottles or cups for beverages 1 7

Turn off your computer monitor 1 7

Use the back of old copies as scratch paper 1 7

Volunteer to have a smaller workspace or share your workspace 1 7

Print on both sides of the paper 1 7

Use common appliances as opposed to personal appliances 1 7

Turn off lights in empty rooms 1 7

Consider fuel efficiency of the work vehicles you use when appropriate 1 7


Scale reliability coefficient= .6861

Encouragement Scale

How are likely are you to do the following while at work? Very

Unlikely

Very

Likely

Ask other employees to recycle 1 7

Join a team to encourage environmentally friendly behaviors at work 1 7

Participate in voluntary training on environmental awareness 1 7


Scale reliability coefficient= .7793

Stritch 23

Connectedness to Nature Scale

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me 1 5

I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong 1 5

I recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other living organisms 1 5

I often feel disconnected from nature 1 5

When I think of my life, I imagine myself as part of a larger process of living 1 5

I feel as though I belong to the earth as equally as it belongs to me 1 5

I have a deep understanding of home my actions affect the natural world 1 5

I often feel a part of the web of life 1 5

I feel that all inhabitants of earth share a common life-force 1 5

I consider myself to be a member of the top member of a hierarchy that exists in nature 1 5

I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me 1 5

My personal welfare is independent of the welfare of the natural world 1 5

Minimum and Maximum Totals (Index Range) 12 70

Scale Reliability Coefficient=.8539

Stritch 24

Appendix II: Analysis and Results

Table I

Descriptive Statistics for Interval Level Variables

Variable N Range Min Max Mean

Std.

Dev.

Public Service Motivation 657 30 5 35 27.20 5.47

Likelihood of Encouragement 657 24 3 21 11.92 5.40

Likelihood of Pro-Environmental 657 59 11 70 50.34 10.29

Environmental Attitude 657 46 12 66 47.52 8.26

Table II

Bivariate Analysis of PSM and the Dependent Variables

Variable Pearson Correlation Sig. n

Likelihood of Pro-Environmental Behavior .3022 0.000 657

Likelihood of Encouragement .3405 0.000 657

Stritch 25

Model I: PSM and Participation in Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Independent Variable beta

std.

error t Sig.

PSM .356*** .078 4.58 .000

Controls

Environmental Attitudes .455*** 0.052 8.77 .000

Age (Relative to Employees Under 30)

30-39 -.979 1.401 -.70 .486

40-49 .864 1.5156 .57 .569

50-59 2.304 1.598 1.44 .150

60-69 1.627 2.036 .80 .424

Minimum Education (Relative to those selecting “Other”)

Bachelor's Degree 1.692 0.893 1.89 .059

Graduate/ Professional Degree .569 1.126 .51 .613

Race(Relative to Whites) .557 0.99 .56 .574

Years in Public Employment (Relative to those with less than 5 years)

6 to 10 .872 1.038 .84 .401

11 to 15 -2.196 1.392 -1.58 .115

16 to 20 -3.039* 1.509 -2.01 .045

More than 20 years. -3.410** 1.291 -2.64 .008

Private Work Environment (Relative to those who “Share an Office”) 2.465** .898 2.75 .006

Constant 17.296 2.760 6.260 .000

n 550

F 13.78

Prob>F .000

R-square .265

*p<.05

**p<.01

***P<.005

Stritch 26

Model II: PSM and Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Independent Variable beta

std.

error t Sig.

PSM .212*** .040 5.32 .000

Controls

Environmental Attitudes .209*** .027 7.83 .000

Age (relative to those under 30 years old)

30-39 1.456* .722 2.02 .044

40-49 1.764* .779 2.26 .024

50-59 2.043*** .821 3.16 .002

60-69 2.99*** 1.046 2.86 .004

Education (Relative to those selecting “Other”)

Bachelor's Degree 1.691 .893 1.89 .059

Graduate/ Professional Degree .569 1.126 051 .613

Race (Relative to Other Minorities) 1.039* .509 2.04 .042

Years in Public Employment (Relative to those over 30 Years)

Less than 5

6 to 10 1.032 .533 1.93 .054

11 to 15 -.158 .715 -.22 .825

16 to 20 -2.169** .776 -2.8 .005

More than 20 years -1.731** .663 -2.61 .009

Private Office 1.201* .461 2.6 .010

Constant -6.061*** 1.419 -4.27 .000

n 550

F 15.28

Prob>F .000

R-square .2856

*p<.05

**p<.01

***P<.005

Stritch 27

Appendix III: Detailed Description of the Control Variables

Table VII

Race of Employees

Race Frequency Percent

American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 0.59%

Asian or East Indian 11 1.30%

Biracial or Multiracial 6 0.71%

Black (African American) 100 11.86%

Hispanic or Latino 7 0.83%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4 0.47%

White 544 64.53%

No Response 166 19.69%

Total 843 100.00%

Work Environment Employees' Highest Educational Attainment

Description Frequency Percent Education Frequency Percent

Cubicle 190 22.54% Associate's Degree 119 14.12%

Field 46 5.46% Bachelor's Degree 282 33.45%

Other 77 9.13% Graduate/ Professional Degree 144 17.08%

Private Office 236 28.00% High School Graduate 35 4.15%

Reception Desk 6 0.71% Other 4 0.47%

Shared Office 132 15.66% Some College 118 14.00%

No Response 156 18.51% Some High School 1 0.12%

Totals 843 100.00% No Response 140 16.61%

Total 843 100.00%

Employees Ages Number of Years Working the Public Sector

Age Frequency Percent Years Frequency Percent

Under 30 75 8.90% Less than 5 219 25.98%

30-39 180 21.35% 6 to 10 187 22.18%

40-49 219 25.98% 11 to 15 82 9.73%

50-59 181 21.47% 16 to 20 71 8.42%

60 and Over 47 5.58% 21 to 25 92 10.91%

No Response 141 16.73% 26 to 30 34 4.03%

Total 843 100.00% More than 30 19 2.25%

No Response 139 16.49%

Total 843 100.00%

Public Service Motivation and Employee … Service Motivation and Employee Participation in Discretionary Pro-Environmental Behaviors Justin Michael Stritch The University of Georgia

Documents