Attraction-Selection and Socialization of Work Values

Abstract

This article advances the research investigating the process of sector choice (attraction-selection) and changes in work values (socialization) over time using panel data. We find little evidence that work values predict actual employment in public schools, but there are differences in changes of work values after entering into public organizations, compared with private organizations. Overall, the findings reveal that after employment, individuals became more likely to have stronger preferences for monetary and job security values. The results offer support for prior studies, demonstrating that work values could be a dynamic state.

Keywords

work values public service motivation attraction-selection and socialization effects

Issues of attracting, acquiring, and retaining a talented workforce for public organizations have pervaded policy discussions for decades (Light, 2000; National Commission on the Public Service, 2003). These concerns have been growing due to the human capital crisis in the public sector and the aging workforce. Moreover, declining trust in government and high competition with the private sector might have exacerbated these phenomena (Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Light, 2000; Ritz & Waldner, 2011). One research approach to address these concerns is by using a person–organization (PO) fit framework conceptualized as the match between an individual and organizational attributes when the individual and organization share similar characteristics and/or meet each other’s needs (Sekiguchi, 2004, p. 179). Previous studies have shown that PO fit influences work attitudes and performance. For example, people who are better matched to organizations are expected to demonstrate higher work performance with lower turnover intention and job absenteeism (Bright, 2008; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2008; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003; Wright & Pandey, 2008). Thus, achieving PO fit would be desirable.

High levels of PO fit can be achieved through employee selection and socialization process. However, research designs in prior studies did not disentangle the two mechanisms (attraction-selection and socialization) mostly due to methodological difficulties (De Cooman et al., 2009). The first mechanism (attraction-selection) describes that individuals attracted to organization might be good matches for the values of the organization. In turn, organization prefers applicants who are good matches with the organization’s values (Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012). The second mechanism (socialization) addresses that individuals adapt their original values to match the values of a particular organization (De Cooman et al., 2009).

Among many aspects of employees and organizations, work value is a fundamental characteristic by which individuals judge their PO fit (Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002). Prior studies have argued that “because both employees and organizations have values, they can be directly compared in terms of value congruence as the defining operationalization of PO fit” (De Cooman et al., 2009, p. 102).¹ This argument implies that both individuals and organization have different preferences for the types of work values and that distinct sets of work values are embedded in each sector and organization (Judge & Bretz, 1992).

Public administration scholars have been engaged in research studies focusing on identifying and developing distinctive values, including Public Service Motivation (PSM) which is primarily embedded in public organizations. These studies have improved our understanding on the effect of PSM on outcomes in the workplace (Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010; Perry & Wise, 1990). The key premise in this literature is that people working in the public sector have higher levels of PSM than people in the private sector. Scholars have addressed two main arguments regarding this assumption. First, people with higher levels of PSM might have been attracted to the public sector (attraction-selection). Second, socialization through organization process might have affected the level of PSM (socialization; Kjeldsen, 2014; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Perry & Wise, 1990; Wright & Christensen, 2010). However, most empirical research studies have been limited to capturing the causal relationships of these arguments mostly due to methodological challenges (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008).

Based on the growing literature on work values, sector choices, and socialization, this study fills the knowledge gap by investigating the process of sector choice and changes in work values over time. Specifically, we examined the following: (a) whether work values (including PSM) affected an individual’s decision of sector choice, and (b) whether work values changed after employment in a sector. This article addressed the two questions using the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS-72) which tracked the history of individual employment records and personality traits of students in the United States since their senior years in high school.

The present study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, measuring individuals’ work values before and after entry into the labor market allowed us to disentangle the effects of work values on job choice from socialization effects. This is consistent with the approach used in the recent literature on this topic by taking advantage of the panel data to investigate whether higher PSM in the public sector is a result of attraction-selection or socialization (Kjeldsen, 2014; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013).

Second, supplementary questionnaires of the NLS-72 for teachers allowed us to focus on one occupation, teaching, in analyzing the effect of work values on career choice. Recent literatures have indicated that the positive association between PSM and public sector employment might depend on the nature of the job or the work itself rather than sector because a sector covers a broad range of jobs (Choi, 2016; Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013). Empirical studies have found that controlling for job characteristics could reduce the effect of PSM on sector choice (Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013). In particular, focusing on teachers would help us understand the dynamics of PSM because teaching is often considered an occupation that serves others.

Finally, although there have been substantial literatures on the effects of work values (especially PSM), only limited knowledge is available about the causes of PSM. More research studies by examining PSM as a dependent variable could offer public managers a set of policies that use PSM for the better performance of organizations (Bozeman & Su, 2015; Perry, 2014). Thus, this study will contribute to the understanding of how work values including PSM as an outcome can be changed and cultivated over time. This study is organized as follows. The next section addresses the theoretical framework and relevant literature. It is followed by the data set and empirical strategy. The subsequent section explains the results and the contributions of this study to the literature.

Literature Review

Because the data of the study focus on one occupation, teaching, this section starts with the characteristics of public and private schools in the United States that might affect the individuals’ sector choices. Then, we reviewed the literatures on work values focusing on the effects of attraction-selection and socialization.

Differences Between Public and Private Schools

The underlying distinctive premise for private schools is that they face market pressure, which leads to more market-oriented personnel policies, whereas public schools are under much stricter governmental regulation. Ballou and Podgursky (1998) described four major distinctive personnel policies between public and private schools: pay structure, recruitment, professional development, and dismissal of teachers.

Teachers’ salaries in public schools are much higher than those in private schools, on average. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reported that the average base salary for public school teachers was higher than that for private school teachers. In addition, all public schools within a school district follow a single salary schedule primarily based on experience and education, whereas salary schedules in private schools are more flexible.

Although public schools are constrained to hire teachers because the state governments regulate their hiring processes, in general, some private schools are free to hire uncertified teachers. Moreover, school administrators in private schools have greater discretion in training and developing the current teachers’ abilities than administrators in public schools because the latter are restricted by public sector regulations, as well as Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) that are negotiated with unions. This autonomy in private schools enables them to restructure personnel policies depending on instructional needs, such as enrollment and course requirements. Additionally, state regulations and grievance procedures make it extremely difficult to dismiss public school teachers. Theobald (1990) showed that only 42 public teachers from 1984 through 1987 were terminated in Washington State. This finding lies in sharp contrast to private schools, which have greater discretion in dismissing teachers on the basis of performance. Furthermore, private schools are considered to have more attractive working environments for teachers. For example, private schools are expected to have students with higher socioeconomic status than public schools because of their selective admissions processes (Ballou & Podgursky, 1998). These standards often create a positive classroom environment with better behaved and more academically motivated students. Thus, private school teachers are more satisfied with their working environments compared with public school teachers (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2009). Considering all of the above, in general, teachers in private schools are paid less on average and can be dismissed more easily if they perform poorly; however, they have a more flexible salary schedule that is based on individual performance, and they have better working environments compared with public school teachers.

Work Values and Job Choice: Effects of Attraction-Selection

A considerable number of studies have emphasized work values as criteria for selecting jobs (Vigoda-Gadot & Grimland, 2008). Individuals are more likely to choose jobs whose values are similar to their own work values (De Cooman et al., 2009). The application of a PO fit (i.e., compatibility between people and organizations) to employee selection has been described by Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model. The ASA model proposed that the perceived similarity between an individual and an organization could influence the applicant’s job choice behavior and the organization’s hiring decision, resulting in increasingly homogenous groups of people (De Cooman et al., 2009; Sekiguchi, 2004). The following section discusses the effects of attraction-selection for different types of work values on job choice (i.e., whether work values would shape employment).

PSM

The notion of work value congruence has been well applied to PSM in recruitment and selection research (Bright, 2008; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Ritz & Waldner, 2011; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2008; Wright & Christensen, 2010). PSM—“altruistic intentions that motivate individuals to serve the public interest” (Bright, 2008, p. 51)—appears to be important for employee attraction to public sector organizations. The literature has proposed that individuals with higher PSM are more likely to choose the public sector compared with the private sector because of the opportunity the public sector offers to fulfill individuals’ altruistic values. A great deal of research has investigated the link between PSM and individuals’ sector employment and has found that public sector employees value provision of public services more than their counterparts in the private sector (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Rainey, 1982).

However, empirical evidence for the impact of PSM on sector employment faces a methodological concern for causality because these studies have relied on cross-sectional research designs (Wright, 2008; Wright & Grant, 2010). Few recent studies have taken advantage of panel data to show a causal relationship between PSM and sector employment. For example, Wright and Christensen (2010) found that a strong interest in social service and helping others could not predict the employment sector of a lawyer’s first legal job. However, these characteristics (i.e., strong interest in social service and helping others) did increase the likelihood of the lawyer getting subsequent jobs in the public sector. In agreement with the previous literature, we first formulated the first hypothesis using longitudinal data to determine whether individuals with stronger work values for helping others or for social equity choose to become teachers in public schools.

Hypothesis 1a: Individuals with a high willingness to help others are more likely to choose a teaching career in public schools, compared to private schools.

Hypothesis 1b: Individuals with a high willingness to correct social inequity are more likely to choose a teaching career in public schools compared with private schools.

Another challenge of PSM research is that PSM is related to the provision of public service and not to the public sector itself because jobs in the private sector, such as teaching and nursing, can offer the opportunity to serve the public interest (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). Many individuals outside the public sector also support altruistic work values, such as “doing work that makes a helpful contribution to society makes a difference” (Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2006, p.612). Thus, a stronger test of PO fit in employee selection should consider job traits (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Steijn, 2008). As one way to control job traits, recent empirical studies have adopted research designs focusing on one occupation (e.g., lawyers, social workers, or physiologists). In their study using a survey of law students, Christensen and Wright (2011) found that PSM does not increase the likelihood of choosing the public sector, after controlling for the job characteristics. Kjeldsen (2012) also found that PSM predicts the preference of sector of Danish social workers but not their actual employment. Kjeldsen and Jacobsen (2013) also showed that PSM does not predict the actual sector of employment for Danish physiotherapy students.

To examine the precise impact of PSM, the present study controls job characteristics by utilizing one occupation: teaching. Teaching is one occupation of which the job characteristics are similar across sectors because teachers in both sectors teach classes and interact with students to bring about better learning. However, even within public schools, there are various working environments in terms of the students’ social and economic status and school finances. These differences could offer varying incentives to individuals with stronger work values for correcting social inequity. For example, working in schools with a higher share of poor students could offer more opportunities to fulfill individuals’ values to correct social inequities within the public sector. Thus, we draw the following hypothesis, which incorporates working environments into the choices of jobs and sectors.

Hypothesis 1c: Individuals with a high willingness to correct social inequity are more likely to choose a teaching career in public schools with larger proportions of poor students compared with private schools.

Monetary values

The conventional wisdom is that jobs in the private sector are paid higher salaries than comparable jobs in the public sector (Lewis & Frank, 2002) and that public managers are less likely to be motivated by financial rewards than private managers (Rainey, 1982). In a similar vein, Perry and Wise argued that “public organizations that attract members with high levels of PSM are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to manage individual performance effectively” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 371). However, empirical studies of Perry and Wise’s argument have shown mixed results. Whereas some studies found that workers in private organizations placed greater value on financial rewards than those in public organizations (e.g., Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991), other studies had different results, finding little or no difference between employees in each sector regarding monetary value (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995).

Because the present study focuses on teachers, we must consider the pay structures that public and private schools uniquely have, as discussed in the previous section. The different wage settings between public and private schools (i.e., in general, the average salary in public schools is higher than that in private schools) complicate the attraction effects of the sectors. Based on these differences and the previous literature, we formulated the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1d: Individuals with a high willingness to work for monetary rewards are more likely to choose a teaching career in public schools, compared with private schools.

Job security

Job security is one of the common perceptions that make public sector employment more favorable. Prior studies have predictably found that public employees are more motivated by job security compared with private employees (Bellante & Link, 1981); however, a considerable body of empirical studies has found little or no significant difference in job security between the sectors (Karl & Sutton, 1998; Khojasteh, 1993; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Rainey, 1982; Rawls, Ullrich, & Nelson, 1975), which is interesting given the substantial difference in the degree of job security between the sectors.

Common beliefs about job security are also applicable to the school setting. Once public school teachers are tenured after their probationary periods, it is extremely difficult to dismiss them based on individual performance, largely because of the protection under CBAs with unions and school administrators. In contrast, private schools are under limited regulations or rules; hence, schools or administrators can dismiss private teachers relatively easily. Thus, we formulated the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1e: Individuals who value job security in their work are more likely to choose to work in public schools compared with private schools.

Effects of Socialization on Employee Work Values

The field of organizational behavior has addressed the adaptation and socialization processes of employees’ work values in organizations over time (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Socialization is defined as “the process by which an individual acquires the attitudes, behavior and knowledge needed to participate as an organizational member” (Cable & Parsons, 2001, p. 3). Because employees may change their values in the direction of an organization’s values, the values of the organization and individuals become congruent after an employee enters an organization (De Cooman et al., 2009). The literature on organizational behavior has provided empirical evidence in different settings, such as public accounting firms (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) and among graduate students (Cable & Parsons, 2001).

Applying this logic to public organizations, we can expect that public employees would be likely to have higher PSM through the socialization process. Exploring the socialization process of PSM is important for understanding the antecedents and consequences of PSM. Recent studies have found a positive relationship between PSM and outcomes such as job satisfaction, intention to quit, and organization commitment (Bright, 2008; Steijn, 2008), but only a few studies have investigated the socialization process of PSM in public organizations, namely Kjeldsen and Jacobsen (2013) and Kjeldsen (2014). Kjeldsen and Jacobsen (2013) took advantage of PSM being measured before and after entry into organizations. Using a sample of physiologists in Finland, they found that the public employees’ PSM declined less after entry into public organizations when compared with that of private employees. Kjeldsen (2014) also showed that social workers’ compassion decreased less after entering the public sector compared with the private sector.

Another finding in socialization studies has been the decline in PSM for employees in public and private organizations after entering the labor market. Organizational theorists characterize this finding as a “reality shock,” which refers to “what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings” (Louis, 1980). Blau (1960) offered a possible explanation based on the case of newly hired social workers. He stated that new social workers are “motivated by an interest in working with and helping poor people, but contact with clients put these views to a severe test, which often resulted in disillusion” (Blau, 1960, p. 347). Studies of work values have yielded similar results and interpretations; as individuals begin to work, they place less emphasis on intrinsic rewards, such as challenging work tasks (Loscocco & Kalleberg, 1988), and greater emphasis on extrinsic rewards, such as pay and job security (De Cooman et al., 2009; Johnson & Elder, 2002). Other empirical studies have demonstrated the decreasing pattern of PSM-related work values with career stage (Buurman, Delfgaauw, Dur, & Van den Bossche, 2012; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Using field experiments, Buurman et al. (2012) found that public sector employees in the early stages of their careers are more likely to choose prosocial options (e.g., donation) compared with private sector employees, but this pattern disappears as their tenure increases.

In summary, individuals’ PSM-related work values could decline after entering the labor market, but PSM-related work values among public sector employees might not decrease as much as among private sector employees. Consistent with prior studies, we tested the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2a: Individuals are more likely to have higher work values for monetary rewards and job security, after labor market entrance.

Hypothesis 2b: Individuals are more likely to have lower work values for correcting social inequity after labor market entrance.

Hypothesis 2c: Individuals who choose to work in public schools are more likely to have higher work values for correcting social inequity after labor market entrance compared with those who choose to work in private schools.

The socialization process could occur not only across sectors, but it can also occur across jobs. Kjeldsen (2014) showed that individuals experienced a smaller decrease in the policymaking dimension of PSM when they worked in a service-regulation job compared with a service-production job. From the practitioners’ points of view, Glied and Schachter (2014) emphasized the characteristics of an organization or working environment in choosing a public service career. In a similar vein, teachers’ work values for correcting social inequity are more likely to be affected when he or she is working at schools with a larger share of low-income or minority students, even within the public sector. The goals and values of schools in these environments place greater emphasis on enhancing the performance of at-risk students. As such, it is likely that the teachers’ PSM-related work values would increase as they began to work in these schools or school districts compared with other schools. Based on the aforementioned studies and findings, we draw the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2d: Individuals who choose to work in public schools with larger proportions of students from low-income families are more likely to have higher work values for correcting social inequities after labor market entrance compared with others.

Considering all of the aforementioned hypotheses, the theoretical framework for this study is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Data and Methods

The main data set used in this article is the NLS-72, which first interviewed high school seniors in 1972. The follow-up surveys were performed in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, and 1986. Thus, we are able to include detailed information about individuals, such as education, work experience, and work values. In addition, for individuals who responded in the final wave of the survey that they have taught in either public or private schools, supplemental questionnaires asked about their teaching experiences.

Our sample focuses on participants who hold BA degrees and were hired as full-time teachers from 1976 through 1979.² This restriction attempts to avoid the possible confounding effects of previous job experience on sector employment by choosing the respondents’ first teaching job decisions after graduation from 4-year colleges. The final number of respondents in our sample is 281.

Measurements of Work Values

In 1972, the individuals were asked about key variables for measuring work values before they entered the labor market. Unlike other studies using retrospective questionnaires about work values, this feature of the data set allows us to capture whether the work values affected the individuals’ decisions to choose public or private schools (attraction-selection) and whether their work values changed after they gained work experience in private or public schools (socialization). The respondents were asked to choose one response from among “Not important,” “Somewhat Important,” and “Very Important” as answers to a question about selecting a job or career with regard to “Opportunities to be helpful to others or useful to society” (asked in 1972). The respondents were also asked about “Good income to start or within a few years,” “Job security and permanence” (asked in 1972, 1974, 1979, and 1986), and “Working to correct social inequity issues” (asked in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, and 1986).

Among these questions, two altruistic work value questions (i.e., helping others and correcting social inequity) are relevant to PSM (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). The PSM literature has consistently related PSM to altruism (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). For example, Perry et al. (2010, p. 452) noted that “PSM is a particular form of altruism or prosocial motivation that is animated by specific dispositions and values arising from public institutions and missions.” The literature has shown four approaches to measure PSM: (a) single survey item, (b) unidimensional scale, (c) multidimensional scale, and (d) behavioral proxies such as whistle-blowing (Perry et al., 2010). Despite recent studies using multidimensional measures of PSM, much of empirical studies commonly use either a single-item measure (i.e., desire to help others) or unidimensional scale using several items drawn from Perry’s (1996) scale. These measures reflect the altruistic content of PSM (Kim et al., 2013; Wright, Christensen, & Pandey, 2013). The wording of questions used in this study is not exactly the same as Perry’s (1996) scale, but the questions directly ask about the value preferences employed by many empirical studies.

Empirical Model 1: Attraction-Selection Effects

The first empirical model investigates the question of whether work values affect an individual’s decision to work in public or private schools. The dependent variable is the individual’s sector choice in the teaching profession, which is measured as a dichotomous variable (private school = 0 and public school = 1). It reflects that individual’s one-time decision about sector when he or she was first hired after graduating from college as a full-time teacher from 1976 to 1979 (age 23-25 years old). Our main variables are work values, which were measured before the individuals became full-time teachers.

Other control variables include individual characteristics, such as gender and race. Whether the individuals were fully certified teachers is also included in the model. In the teacher labor market, the public schools often require individuals to be certified fully (i.e., to have a state teacher’s license) for teaching, whereas some teachers might not have teaching certificates in some private schools. Thus, the certification variable controls for an individual’s opportunity to teach. To reduce possible multicollinearity problems in logit models, all variables from interaction terms are used as the mean-centered variables. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) score is less than two for all of the variables, which was not a problem in the present analyses.

For the first research question, we employ the following logit model for individual i at time t.

{Sector Employment}_{i t} = f ({Work Value}_{i t - 1}, {Gender}_{i}, {Certification}_{t - i}, {Minority}_{i}) .

Empirical Model 2: Socialization Effects

The second empirical model investigates whether there are socialization effects of work values as a result of working in public and private organizations. The dependent variable is the individual’s work values for job security, correcting for social inequity, and monetary rewards. The baseline specification is the difference-in-difference estimator, which compares the change in work values before and after entering the teaching profession in public and private schools. In other words, we first estimate the change in work values after employment for each public and private school teacher and then compare the change in work values of public and private teachers after working as a teacher. Employment is measured as a dichotomous variable, thereby capturing whether an individual is employed as a full-time teacher at time t. The sector is also measured as a dummy variable, representing whether an individual works in the private or public sector.

The interaction term between employment and sector, the main coefficient of the difference-in-difference estimator, reflects whether an individual has a change in work values after being employed in public schools compared with a teacher who is employed by private schools (socialization effects). We also add the interaction term among employment, public sector, and the proportion of low-income students in a school to capture whether individual’s work value would change depending on the proportion of low-income students after being employed in the public sector compared with those employed by the private sector (Hypothesis 2d). This interaction term refers to difference-in-difference-in-difference estimator. To control for each teacher’s unobserved heterogeneity or characteristics, the model included the fixed effect of individual teacher and fixed effect of time (year). As such, we were able to control for any time-invariant influences from each teacher and time effect that applies to all teachers. To correct possible problems from autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity in the difference-in-difference model, we used cluster standard errors at the individual teacher level (Bertrand, Duflo, & Mullainathan, 2004).

{Work Values}_{i t} = f ({Employment}_{i t}, {Sector}_{i t}, {Employment}_{i t} \times {Sector}_{i t}, {Employment}_{i t} \times {Sector}_{i t} \times % of Poor, {Gender}_{i}, {Minority}_{i}) .

Tables 1 and 2 describe the data structure of the NLS-72 and the descriptive statistics, respectively. This article focuses on 281 teachers as the total number of sample, and observations of work values are measured only once for the Helping Others variable, four times for Security and Money, and six times for Equity. Note that equation (2) is estimated on the basis of a panel model, whereas equation (1) is based on a logit model because a dependent variable in equation (1) is sector choice (e.g., public or private school) for individuals who became teachers between 1976 and 1979.

Table 1.

Measures: Survey Questionnaires.

Year	1972	1973	1974	1976	1979	1986
Survey	Base	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
How important is each of the following to you in your life?
Working to correct social and economic inequalities	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
How important do you think each of the following factors is in determining the kind of work you plan to be doing for most of your life?
Good income to start or within a few years	Yes		Yes		Yes	Yes
Job security and permanence	Yes		Yes		Yes	Yes
How important is each of the following to you in selecting a job or career?
Opportunities to be helpful to others or useful to society	Yes

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Observation	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Money	1,155	2.166	0.685	1	3
Equity	1,732	2.018	0.639	1	3
Security	1,151	2.402	0.641	1	3
Helping others	291	2.694	0.524	1	3
Female	291	0.694	0.461	0	1
Minority	291	0.093	0.29	0	1
Public employment	291	0.292	0.455	0	1
% low income	281	3.519	0.484	0	1
Certificate	291	0.374	0.484	0	1

Note. Work values such as Money and Security are asked to respondents four times (1972, 1974, 1976, and 1986) in the panel, while Equity variable is surveyed six times (1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, and 1986) and Helping others variable is observed only one time. Other variables such as female, minority, public employment, % low income, and certificate are based on total number of teachers observed in the analysis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics of Work Values

Figure 2 describes the changes in the average work values for the two groups that began working as teachers in either public schools or private schools after graduation from a 4-year college. Each work value is compared over time between the two groups. All of the participants chose teaching as their first full-time job when they were between 23 and 25 years old. Thus, work values after 23 years old reflect the situation after actual employment as a teacher. Each of the work values is measured as very important (3), somewhat important (2), or not important (1).

Figure 2.

Changes in work values over time.

Examining the overall importance, monetary rewards and job security become more important factors as work values over time, whereas people begin to prefer inequity less as a work value. Regarding monetary rewards, individuals who chose private schools emphasized more income before their employment in private schools, and this pattern remains consistent after entering the labor market as well. Job security shows a different trend from the other work values. As shown in Figure 2, individuals who chose to work in public schools had higher preferences for job security and permanence before their job choices, but as they entered the labor market (after age 25), individuals in private schools emphasized job security more than individuals in public schools. At the age of 25, public school teachers experienced a slight decline in social inequity as an important work value, but at age 32, society inequity became less important as a work value for public school teachers. Simple descriptive statistics was used to interpret these changes in work values. In the next section, we further investigated how work values were changed over time using multivariate analysis.

One of main assumption in the difference-in-difference model was that the estimator was valid when time trend was similar to each other between treatment and control groups before the treatment. In other words, if different time trends for treatment and control groups were identified, the estimated impact could be due to difference in time trend, not policy effect. Descriptive plots showed that there was no significant difference in time trend between work values of public school teachers and private school teachers, indicating that the time trend difference between treatment and control groups before treatment was appropriate for this study.

Attraction and Selection

Table 3 presents the results of the logit models testing the impact of work values on sector employment. The dependent variable is the dichotomous variable representing employment in the public sector. The models are estimated using the work values measured in 1972 (Models 1 and 3) and 1974 (Models 2 and 4) before entering the labor market. The only exception is the work value of helping others. This variable is based on the respondents’ answers in 1972 across all models because this survey item was asked only in 1972. Models 3 and 4 add the interaction terms between work values and school environment, such as the proportion of low-income students, to the baseline model.

Table 3.

Sector Choice: Attraction and Selection.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Helping others	−0.1252 (0.2627)	−0.1229 (0.2521)	−0.2097 (0.274)	−0.2004 (0.2608)
Equity	0.1812 (0.2227)	0.3597 (0.2441)	0.1718 (0.23)	0.2961 (0.2536)
Money	−0.3641 (0.2431)	−0.2052 (0.2404)	−0.3785 (0.2519)	−0.2497 (0.2421)
Security	0.4662* (0.2439)	0.6337* (0.2883)	0.5059* (0.2578)	0.6995* (0.2938)
Female	0.421 (0.2977)	0.343 (0.304)	0.3572 (0.3016)	0.2537 (0.3069)
Minority	−0.8128 (0.5089)	−0.8809* (0.5251)	−0.5962 (0.5252)	−0.7388 (0.5415)
Certificate	−0.4298 (0.2775)	−0.4018 (0.2856)	−0.4204 (0.2837)	−0.3694 (0.2939)
Equity × %Poor			−0.0567 (0.1966)	0.03 (0.2182)
Helping others × %Poor			−0.38 (0.2653)	−0.2375 (0.2588)
%Poor			−0.1096 (0.1173)	−0.1627 (0.116)
Measure of work values	1972	1974	1972	1974
n	291	284	281	275
Pseudo R	.3	.037	.036	.043

Note. Models are estimated with equation (1). Robust standard error is in parentheses.

*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

We find no evidence that individuals who place a greater emphasis on helping others or on social inequity are more likely to seek employment in public schools. This finding rejects Hypotheses 1a and 1b (β = −0.1252, p > .1 for helping others in Model 1; β = 0.181, p > .1 for correcting social inequity). The results also indicate that individuals with a greater desire for monetary incentives are less likely to choose public schools, but this difference is insignificant; thus, Hypothesis 1d is rejected (β = −0.3641, p > .1 in Model 1). Job security is the only significant work value affecting the actual choice of public sector employment, regardless of when the work values were measured, either in 1972 or 1974 (β = 0.4662 or 0.633, p < .1 in Models 1 and 2). Individuals with stronger work values for job security are more likely to choose teaching careers in public schools, providing supportive evidence for Hypothesis 1e. Regarding the interaction term between work values and the proportion of poor students, the coefficients are inconsistent and insignificant (β = −0.0567 or 0.03, p > .1 in Models 3 and 4 for interaction between equity and % poor; β = −0.38 or −0.237, p > .1 in Models 3 and 4 for interaction between helping and % poor), showing that Hypothesis 1c is rejected.

Socialization

Results of regression analysis for teacher and time fixed effects with cluster standard error at teacher level are shown in Table 4. Comparing the fixed effects and random effects models, a Hausman test rejects the null hypothesis that there are no differences between the estimates of the fixed and random effects models (Cameron & Trivedi, 2005). Thus, the result from the fixed effects models is provided. Other control variables, such as gender and race, are omitted in the estimation process with the fixed effects model because these variables do not vary over time.³

Table 4.

Socialization Effects of Work Values.

	Money	Equity	Security	Money	Equity	Security	Money	Equity	Security
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Employment	0.3285** (0.0460)	−0.0567 (0.0625)	0.5809** (0.0493)	0.3455** (0.0485)	−0.0464 (0.0641)	0.6222** (0.0555)	0.34** (0.0493)	−0.0657 (0.0652)	0.3276** (0.0485)
Employment × Public school				−0.0590 (0.0774)	−0.0335 (0.0570)	−0.1425* (0.0669)	−0.0647 (0.0805)	−0.0166 (0.0583)	−0.1560* (0.0687)
Employment × Public school × % Poor							0.0641 (0.0570)	−0.0021 (0.0353)	−0.0154 (0.0481)
n	1,155	1,732	1,151	1,155	1,732	1,151	1,115	1,673	1,111
R ²	.1469	.0853	.1943	.1476	.0856	.1984	.1519	.0920	.1970

Note. Models are estimated with fixed effects model from equation (2). Cluster standard error at the individual teacher level is in parentheses.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The main interesting variable is the interaction between employment and the public sector, which captures the socialization effects of work values in the public sector. It reflects how much public school teachers change their work values after being employed in the public sector compared with private teachers. The results show partial evidence that there are systematic differences in changes of work values after entering public organizations compared with private organizations. The coefficients in work values for monetary rewards and equity are statistically insignificant, thus rejecting Hypothesis 2c (β = −0.059, p > .1 for monetary rewards in Model 4; β = −0.0335, p > .1 for correcting social inequity in Model 5). The job security variable is negative and statistically significant (β = −0.1425, p < .1 for job security in Model 6), indicating that public school teachers placed less emphasis on job security when they began to work in public schools compared with private school teachers. This pattern is consistent in the model with interaction terms (Model 9).

Employment variable in the difference-in-difference specification tests the effect of labor market entry on work values of private school teachers. The model was reestimated with a binary employment variable as well as time and teacher fixed effects (see Model 1, 2, and 3). The employment variable was significant in monetary rewards and job security of the models, confirming Hypothesis 2a but rejecting Hypothesis 2b. However, its direction varies across the types of work values (β = 0.382 for money, p < .05; β = − 0.0567 for equity, p > .1; β = 0.5809 for security, p < .05). This finding reflects that individuals are more likely to have stronger preferences for monetary and job security values in selecting a job for a career after employment. The interaction term among public school, employment, and the proportion of low-income students captures that the work values of teachers change over time depending on sector employment and working environments, but all of the coefficients are statistically insignificant, thus rejecting Hypothesis 2d.

Discussion

In past years, scholars in public administration have had considerable interest in identifying the unique work values embedded in the public sector and exploring its effects. Earlier studies of PSM found that public sector employees placed greater value on helping others and providing a public service compared with private sector employees (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Rainey, 1982). However, it was unclear whether individuals with higher levels of PSM chose public employment or whether an individual’s higher PSM is cultivated through the organizational socialization process because most of the previous studies utilized cross-sectional or retrospective survey data. As such, recent studies have encouraged scholars to employ better methodological approaches to solve these fundamental causal issues of PSM (Wright & Grant, 2010), and a growing number of empirical studies have attempted to resolve this issue using panel data (Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kjeldsen, 2014; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013; Wright & Christensen, 2010). Another feature of the recent advancement in this line of research has been to include the attributes of jobs in studies. It is well understood that PSM is not an exclusive concept for the public sector organizations, but it relates to the provision of public service in both the public and private sectors (Andersen, Pallesen, & Pedersen, 2011; Kjeldsen, 2012).

The approach in this article is fully aligned with the call for incorporating the causal mechanisms of PSM into research designs and to control for job characteristics. With the example of teachers in panel data, our findings show that work values for helping others and correcting social inequity do not predict actual employment in public schools among teachers. This interesting result might be attributed to job characteristics embedded in teaching profession which do not significantly vary across sectors because teachers have opportunities to satisfy their altruistic work values regardless of public or private schools. The evidence in this study might be helpful for recruitment strategies to attract high-quality teachers. For instance, along with the opportunity to satisfy altruistic work values, job security, which is greater in public schools than private schools, can be emphasized. This finding is consistent with those of recent empirical studies using the panel data structure. They suggest that, after controlling for job characteristics, PSM does not predict the sector choice among law students (Christensen & Wright, 2011), social workers (Kjeldsen, 2014), or physiologists (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013). One caveat here is the PSM construct used in this study. Although we discussed different approaches to measure PSM in the previous section, two questions on altruistic work values may not be enough to capture entire aspects of PSM.

In addition, considering that many previous studies have used sector preferences or hypothetical job offers (e.g., Lewis & Frank, 2002) instead of actual sector employment, our findings corroborate previous empirical results by suggesting that actual job and sector choices could be based in more complicated interactions between employers and work values.

Our results also show a positive association between a stronger preference for job security and actual public sector employment among teachers. This result is relevant to the discussion about the difference in the literature between public service motivation and public sector motivation. These studies have noted that public service motivation is related to serving the public good, whereas public sector motivation is associated with the advantage of being publicly employed, such as a pension system and job security (Houston, 2000; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). As discussed in the previous section, there is a substantial difference in job security between public and private schools. Given these differences, our findings are reasonable.

More importantly, recent studies have drawn much attention to understanding the causal mechanism leading to PSM or work values. Bozeman and Su (2015) argued that fewer researchers have examined PSM as an outcome despite the numerous studies of PSM as a cause. The full grasp of the dynamics of PSM could provide clues regarding how managers could cultivate PSM in their work settings to enhance the productivity of organizations. As such, studies have provided some evidence that work values such as PSM can be reinforced through the roles of leaders (Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2012) or activated in organizations (Pedersen, 2015).

Our article about changes in work values is a step toward understanding PSM as an outcome. We find little evidence that work values for correcting social inequity are socialized through employment in public schools or in schools with higher proportions of poor students. However, we find that private school teachers place a greater emphasis on the work value of job security compared with public school teachers after entering the labor market. We also show that the importance of work values could undergo a sharp change after actual employment in both sectors, indicating increases in the work values of job security and monetary rewards. These findings are similar to the results of De Cooman and colleagues (2009, p. 106), who showed that “work values became somewhat less ideological and more self-oriented.”

This result could help scholars to understand another important question about PSM, that is, whether it is a stable or dynamic state (Wright & Grant, 2010). In this regard, Perry (2014) argued that the third wave of PSM research should devote much attention to the trait or state debate over PSM, with explicit and valid empirical evidence. Recent empirical studies have suggested that PSM can be changed by deployment to war (Brænder & Andersen, 2013), volunteering (Ward, 2014), or labor market entry after graduation among physiologists (Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013) and social workers (Kjeldsen, 2014). The changes in work values along teaching career trajectories provide additional evidence for the dynamic state of PSM.

Conclusion

This article aims to investigate the roles of work values in (a) the attraction-selection process in public and private schools, and (b) the socialization effects of sector employment on work values. By including different work values including PSM, the present study identifies the relative importance of PSM compared to other work values in job selection, and it also contributes to greater understanding of the dynamics of work values.

Regarding the first research question, we find heterogeneous impacts of work values on employees’ sector choices. The work values of job security and actual employment of public school teachers are positively related, but there is little evidence about the work values of monetary rewards, helping others, and correcting social inequity. Working environments, such as those with large proportions of poor students, are also insignificant factors in choosing sector employment.

In the second research question, we show that the work value of correcting social inequity is not significantly changed compared with teaching in private schools after being employed in public schools. However, the work values of job security and monetary rewards change differently through employment in both public and private schools. This research also lends supportive evidence to previous findings, demonstrating that individuals’ intrinsic motivation could diminish over time (e.g., correcting social inequity), while their extrinsic motivation could increase (e.g., job security and monetary rewards; Mortimer & Lorence, 1979; Ward, 2014).

With an emphasis on the potential for causal inference, this article has its limitations. First, our results do not represent the population of teachers across states because our sample is drawn from longitudinal survey respondents with experience as teachers. It also raises questions about the extent to which the results are generalizable to people in other occupations. Second, we emphasize changes in work values in terms of the mean importance of a value. In the literature about value continuity and change, Katzell (1964) addressed the order and relative importance that individuals place on different values. In other words, the relative ordering of individuals’ value preferences could change over time. Exploring the rank order in different work values could be helpful to understanding the crowding effects of market-oriented policies. We believe that both methods offer a more complete view of changes in work values and PSM.

Second, our null findings could be attributed to low statistical power because only 281 teachers were used. Specifically, these issues might have been exacerbated in the difference-in-difference and difference-in-difference-in-difference models by using fixed effect of teacher and year. We attempted to avoid possible bias with fixed effects. However, because fixed effects were only effective in controlling for time-invariant factors, we still faced possible bias from time-variant unobserved factors. Future studies without these limitations are needed to confirm our findings.

Finally, a construct validity issue of the measurements could arise from the single question measurement of work values. Given the nature of secondary data available, this study uses two altruistic work values for measuring PSM and this does not cover all of the dimensions of PSM suggested by Perry (1996). Future studies should explore these limitations by using multidimensional scale (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010; Kim et al., 2013).

Despite several limitations discussed here, this study increases the understanding of work values and PSM in the literature by focusing on the causal relationship between an individual’s work values and the organization’s environment. Considering the relatively dynamic traits of work values and PSM, this study provides another perspective for practitioners about how we can change work values in relation to positive outcomes in the workplace.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Yujin Choi is an assistant professor of public administration at Ewha Womans University. She conducts research on public management. Her research has been published in journals such as Public Administration Review and American Review of Public Administration.

Il Hwan Chung is an assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at Soongsil University. His research interests include public budgeting and finance, and education policy. His articles have been published in journals such as Regional Science & Urban Economics and Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management.

References

Andersen

L. B.

Pallesen

Pedersen

L. H.

(2011). Does ownership matter? Public service motivation among physiotherapists in the private and public sectors in Denmark. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 10-27.

Ballou

Podgursky

(1998). Teacher recruitment and retention in public and private schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 393-417.

Bellante

Link

A. N.

(1981). Are public sector workers more risk averse than private sector workers? Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 34, 408-412.

Bertrand

Duflo

Mullainathan

(2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? The Quarterly journal of economics, 119(1), 249-275.

Blau

P. M.

(1960). Structural effects. American Sociological Review, 25, 178-193.

Bozeman

(2015). Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review, 75, 700-710.

Brænder

Andersen

L. B.

(2013). Does deployment to war affect public service motivation? A panel study of soldiers before and after their service in Afghanistan. Public Administration Review, 73, 466-477.

Bright

(2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? The American Review of Public Administration, 38, 149-166.

Buurman

Delfgaauw

Dur

Van den Bossche

(2012). Public sector employees: Risk averse and altruistic? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83, 279-291.

10.

Cable

D. M.

Parsons

C. K.

(2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23.

11.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

P. K.

(2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Choi

(2016). Work values, job characteristics, and career choice decisions evidence from longitudinal data. American Review of Public Administration. doi:10.1177/0275074016653469

13.

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, 723-743.

14.

Clerkin

R. M.

Coggburn

J. D.

(2012). The dimensions of public service motivation and sector work preferences. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 209-235.

15.

Crewson

P. E.

(1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499-518.

16.

De Cooman

De Gieter

Pepermans

Hermans

Du Bois

Caers

Regers

M. S

. (2009). Person-organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction-selection-attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 102-107.

17.

Dineen

B. R.

Ash

S. R.

Noe

R. A.

(2002). A Web of applicant attraction: person-organization fit in the context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 723-734.

18.

Gabris

Simo

(1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24, 33-51.

19.

Glied

Schachter

D. R.

(2014). Commentary: Three-part harmony. Public Administration Review, 74, 112-113.

20.

Hall

D. T.

Schneider

Nygren

H. T.

(1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.

21.

Houston

D. J.

(2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-728.

22.

Johnson

M. K.

Elder

G. H.

(2002). Educational pathways and work value trajectories. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 113-138.

23.

Judge

T. A.

Bretz

R. D.

(1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261-271.

24.

Karl

Sutton

(1998). Job values in today’s workforce: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Public Personnel Management, 27, 515-527.

25.

Katzell

R. A.

(1964). Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In Borow

(Ed.), Man in a world at work (pp. 341-361). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

26.

Khojasteh

(1993). Motivating the private vs. public sector managers. Public Personnel Management, 22, 391-401.

27.

Kim

Vandenabeele

(2010). A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review, 70, 701-709.

28.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

B. E.

Andersen

L. B.

Cerase

F. P.

Christensen

R. K.

. . . De Vivo

(2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 79-102.

29.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2012). Sector and occupational differences in public service motivation: A qualitative study. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 58-69.

30.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2014). Dynamics of public service motivation: Attraction-selection and socialization in the production and regulation of social services. Public Administration Review, 74, 101-112.

31.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

Jacobsen

C. B.

(2013). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 899-926.

32.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

33.

Leisink

Steijn

(2008). Recruitment, attraction, and selection. In Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 118-135). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

34.

Lewis

G. B.

Frank

S. A.

(2002). Who wants to work for the government? Public Administration Review, 62, 395-404.

35.

Light

P. C.

(2000). The empty government talent pool: The new public service arrives. Brookings Review, 18, 20-23. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2000/12/winter-governancelight

36.

Loscocco

K. A.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(1988). Age and the meaning of work in the United States and Japan. Social Forces, 67, 337-356.

37.

Louis

M. R.

(1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.

38.

Lyons

Duxbury

Higgins

(2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees. Public Administration Review, 66, 605-618.

39.

Meglino

B. M.

Ravlin

E. C.

(1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351-389.

40.

Mirvis

Hackett

(1983, April). Work and workforce characteristics in the nonprofit sector. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 3-12.

41.

Mortimer

J. T.

Lorence

(1979). Work experience and occupational value socialization: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1361-1385.

42.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.

43.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

(2012). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 143-164.

44.

National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

45.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

Caldwell

D. F.

(1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.

46.

Pedersen

M. J.

(2015). Activating the forces of public service motivation. Evidence from a low-intensity randomized survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 75, 734-746.

47.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5-22.

48.

Perry

J. L.

(2014). The motivational bases of public service: Foundations for a third wave of research. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 36, 34-47.

49.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11, 3-12.

50.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70, 681-690.

51.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

52.

Rainey

H. G.

(1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers. American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.

53.

Rainey

H. G.

Steinbauer

(1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1-32.

54.

Rawls

Ullrich

Nelson

(1975). A comparison of managers entering or reentering the profit and nonprofit sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 616-623.

55.

Ritz

Waldner

(2011). Competing for future leaders: A study of attractiveness of public sector organizations to potential job applicants. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 291-316.

56.

Schneider

(1987). The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 437-453.

57.

Sekiguchi

(2004). Person-organization fit and person-job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54, 179-196.

58.

Steijn

(2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11, 13-27.

59.

Theobald

N. D.

(1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional, and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9, 241-250.

60.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary Teachers in the United States: Results from the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009-324), National Center for Education Statistics

61.

Vandenabeele

(2008). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86, 1089-1105.

62.

Van Maanen

Schein

E. H

. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

63.

Verquer

M. L.

Beehr

T. A.

Wagner

S. H.

(2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.

64.

Vigoda-Gadot

Grimland

(2008). Values and career choice at the beginning of the MBA educational process. Career Development International, 13, 333-345.

65.

Ward

K. D.

(2014). Cultivating public service motivation through AmeriCorps Service: A longitudinal study. Public Administration Review, 74, 114-125.

66.

Wittmer

(1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 369-383.

67.

Wright

B. E.

(2008). Methodological challenges associated with public service motivation research. In Perry

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management (pp. 80-100). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

68.

Wright

B. E.

Christensen

R. K.

(2010). Public service motivation: A test of the job attraction-selection-attrition model. International Public Management Journal, 13, 155-176.

69.

Wright

B. E.

Christensen

R. K.

Pandey

S. K.

(2013). Measuring public service motivation: Exploring the equivalence of existing global measures. International Public Management Journal, 16, 197-223.

70.

Wright

B. E.

Grant

A. M.

(2010). Unanswered questions about public service motivation: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review, 70, 691-700.

71.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—Organization fit testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40, 502-521.