Public Service Motivation,Personality,and the Hiring Decisions of Public Managers: An Experimental Study

Abstract

One of the main practical recommendations from the copious public service motivation literature is that human resources (HR) professionals should use public service motivation (PSM) to assist in selecting candidates for public service jobs. To test if PSM is indeed attractive to HR professionals in selecting applicants to work in the public sector, 238 HR managers recruited from the International Public Management Association for Human Resources rated three cover letters and then rated themselves about PSM and the Big 5 personality traits. The cover letters were randomized on most likely combinations of PSM and Big 5, revealed in earlier research. Our results are that real HR professionals did not rate cover letters more highly when they displayed aspects of PSM.

Keywords

public service motivation Big 5 personality traits hiring decisions behavioral public administration

Introduction

While candidates might apply to public sector jobs yearning for stability, decades of research about public service motivation (PSM) find that the average employee in the public sector shows more prosocial behaviors than their private sector counterparts demonstrate. PSM is a “set of needs a person possesses related to serving society” (Breaugh, Ritz, & Alfes, 2018, p. 1428). This sentiment has led many to consider the potential for hiring managers to utilize PSM to attract and select ideal candidates. Mann (2006) concludes his study with a question: “So the question remains: Can public service motivation offer any hope to government employers? The answer may have to await further research . . .” (p. 43). In the same journal, Jacobson (2011) notes the complexities associated with recruiting for PSM; the fact, along with her findings on developing PSM, suggests an “alternative strategy” that might better suit public sector managers (p. 230). Two years later, based on his findings, Bright (2013) notes that, “PSM may be best used as a strategy to recruit individuals to public organizations rather than specific public sector jobs” (p. 22). These scholars are not alone on considering PSM as a recruitment strategy; yet, research that addresses this question in a direct manner remains elusive.

In a comprehensive systematic literature review, Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann (2016) find that after 25 years of scholarship, PSM “has not been fully integrated into the human resource management practices of public organizations, and researchers have not translated theory to practice effectively” (p. 7). In part, this article responds to that gap in the literature. However, as PSM is not the only behavioral quality of an individual, this study considers a second and related void in the literature. Wright (2015) observed an absence of work on personality in public administration scholarship. He explains that scholarship “too often fails to incorporate more contemporary and valid personality frameworks such as the five-factor model” (p. 799). While both the psychology and management literature have moved in this direction, public administration lags behind (Cooper, Knotts, McCord, & Johnson, 2013). In addition, Bozeman and Su (2015) note that PSM scholarship would benefit greatly from the use of experimental methods. While there are indications that public management is moving more in the direction of experimental methods (James, Jilke, & Van Ryzin, 2017), these gaps in the literature remain and are pressing concerns for both research and practice. Using an experimental survey design, we examine how one’s personality traits and PSM might affect the hiring process.

The purpose of this study is to simulate human resource (HR) practices by combining the Five-Factor Model (Big 5) personality traits with PSM components in an experimental survey design. Primarily, our study seeks to understand the extent to which an applicant’s personality and commitment to public service—as presented in his or her cover letter—affects their chances of being hired for a public sector job. Do HR managers perceive applications alluding to certain personality dimensions and/or PSM elements as more desirable? Are HR managers more likely to invite these applicants to an interview? Second, controlling for the potential influence of the “attraction paradigm” (Byrne, 1971) or attraction-selection hypothesis (Holt, 2018), we test to see if a manager’s own personality traits and PSM affect their hiring decisions.

Literature Review

While public administration research is increasingly exploring PSM, the bulk of this literature is limited to the role of PSM from the perspective of the employee (or prospective employee). As Ritz et al. (2016) summarize, “Researchers have confirmed relationships between public service motivation and positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, public sector job choice, individual and organizational performance, organizational and job commitment, and low turnover” (p. 421). In other words, scholars have tested the association between PSM and employee-centric phenomena such as job satisfaction, job choice, and employee performance. For example, in one of the few studies that utilize experimental design, Bellé (2013) explored these issues in the provision of nursing care, examining PSM, transformational leadership, and performance. Bellé (2013) found that transformational leadership alone does not increase individual performance; however, when coupled with certain activities (e.g., contact with the service beneficiary and a self-persuasion exercise), transformational leadership leads to increased performance. In addition, Bellé found that performance increases even further for those who self-reported higher levels of PSM. As such, the study illustrates the more nuanced role of PSM as an intervening variable in the case of transformational leadership.

Shifting to the organizational perspective, however, reveals little research examining the relationship between PSM and management practices, particularly hiring practices (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). To our knowledge, only three studies have examined if and how hiring managers attract job candidates exhibiting PSM: Linos (2017), Jorgensen and Rutgers (2014), and Waldner (2012). Through a quantitative content analysis of 473 job requirements and job benefits stated in job advertisements seeking lawyers, Waldner compares the recruitment strategies of public and private sector employers. While job advertisements for public sector positions were twice as likely to list initiative as a requirement, in general, the job requirements varied minimally between sectors (Waldner, 2012). Some public sector advertisements, however, did incorporate elements of PSM, as Waldner (2012) observes,

Where public sector advertisements differentiate themselves from private ones, the public sector tends to take up specifically public topics such as requiring knowledge, sense, and understanding of political and bureaucratic processes as well as interest in public sector topics, thereby also echoing PSM. (p. 75)

More recently, Linos (2017) used a field experiment to randomize the message printed on postcards sent to boost recruitment of minority police officers in Chattanooga, Tennessee. She found that the messages emphasizing the potential impact in the community, the challenge of the job and the career benefits and stability of a job in the public service, translated in more applications than the generic ad. The same was not true for the ad highlighting the possibility to serve the public.

While the literature exploring the associations among personality, PSM, and hiring decisions is limited, previous research suggests some links. In a recent systematic review of 144 PSM articles published since 2008, Christensen, Paarlberg, and Perry (2017) analyzed the practical implications present in these articles. The most frequent recommendation, made by 38 out of 144 articles, had to do with the recourse of PSM in hiring decisions. Christensen et al. (2017) crystalized their recommendations to practitioners in the form of a lesson: “Lesson 1: Attracting and selecting employees with high public service motivation is a highly reliable way to capture the benefits of public service motivation, enhancing both employee performance and agency mission accomplishment” (p. 532). For example, studies have found associations between personality factors and job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Jiang, Wang, & Zhou, 2009; Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011), and suggested that an applicant’s personality traits relate to hiring decisions (Burns, Christiansen, Morris, Periard, & Coaster, 2014; Cole, Feild, Giles, & Harris, 2004; Lievens, Fruyt, & Dam, 2001; Van Dam, 2003). PSM and hiring scholarship has alluded to the potential for hiring managers to utilize PSM to attract and select ideal candidates. In this vein, Mann (2006) poses the question, “(i)n terms of recruitment, selection, and retention, should hiring departments seek out employees with a public service motive, and can it be screened for?” (p. 35). Several scholars suggest that hiring managers develop methods to intentionally hire those candidates who exhibit PSM. For example, Lewis and Frank (2002) advise that recruiting prospective employees “who are favorably predisposed to government service should yield greater success” than those who are not (p. 402). To increase organizational performance, Houston (2006) recommends that managers should utilize graduate programs in the community to actively target potential future employees who exhibit public service values. Clerkin and Coggburn (2012) also endorse targeted recruitment and clear messaging as a way to attract applicants with PSM, specifically recommending that recruitment materials highlight the PSM dimension of “self-sacrifice.” In addition, practical limitations notwithstanding, Clerkin and Coggburn (2012) make a call for administrators to incorporate PSM-related indicators into federal assessment tools used for screening applicants for federal positions. Andersen and Kjeldsen (2013) advise hiring managers to select candidates with high PSM to maximize person–job fit and job satisfaction, though they do not specify any recruitment or screening methods. Leisink and Steijn (2008) emphasize that hiring managers should create an image of “serving the public interest” in their recruitment materials to attract suitable candidates with PSM (p. 128). However, they theorize that PSM plays a lesser role in hiring practices, as managers tend to prioritize a candidate’s job-related abilities fit over his or her level of PSM (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). Moreover, hiring managers are also restrained by a number of outdated practices that limit their abilities to incorporate many of the findings from this research. In general, public sector hiring is restrained by civil service requirement, high levels of minimum qualifications, and geographic needs well outside of population centers (Barrett & Greene, 2016). This leads us to explore the literature that personality plays a role in hiring process.

The Big 5 in Employee Behavior

The Five-Factor Model, also known as the “Big Five” or “Big 5,” has a long history in psychology and is generally accepted as the primary way to understand personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 2008). As defined by McCrae and John (1992), the Big 5 model “is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience” (p. 175). The Big 5 was developed through years of empirical testing based on two approaches—the lexical approach and the questionnaire approach (McCrae & John, 1992). Both approaches demonstrate that these five dimensions or factors remain constant in individuals across time and cultures (McCrae & Costa, 2008).

Contrarily to the Myers–Briggs test, scholars use the Big 5 to help explain several phenomena. One of the most prolific areas of study, and the one most pertinent to this current study, is how the Big 5 relates to employee behavior. As Goldberg (1993) argued, “(r)esearch on the relations between personality traits and job performance is now of absolutely crucial importance for the optimal deployment of human resources” (p. 32). Multiple studies explore the relationship between the Big 5 and job performance as well as the Big 5 and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In a meta-analysis, Hurtz and Donovan (2000) analyzed “26 studies, yielding 35-45 independent correlations for each of the Big Five dimensions” (p. 872). Their findings indicate a relationship between the Big 5 factors and job performance, though this relationship varies according to the specific worker occupation and personality factor. Their findings further indicate “that personality may have a more stable impact on jobs that are more interpersonal in nature (e.g., customer service, sales, management)” (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000, p. 876). Oh and colleagues (2011) likewise conduct a meta-analysis on job performance and Big 5. Their study indicates a higher correlation between conscientiousness and job performance than most studies examining only self-reported characteristics.

The question most relevant to this study is, “Do recruiters and/or human resource departments effectively utilize the Big 5 to attract specific employees?” Some scholarship explores this area, suggesting an association between certain Big 5 dimensions and hirability. Cole and colleagues (2004) examined how recruiters evaluate resumes in relation to the Big 5. Using 122 resumes from graduating business majors, Cole and colleagues (2004) gave 244 recruiters the task of evaluating these resumes for specific job types (e.g., accounting, marketing). Their findings suggest a positive correlation between the prospective employment and two of the Big 5 factors—Conscientiousness and Extraversion—both moderated by job type. Recruiter evaluations with more technical jobs such as accounting or finance positively correlated with applicants who rated more highly in Conscientiousness, whereas “enterprising jobs” such as marketing or HR correlated with applicants who rated more highly in Extraversion.

Cole and colleagues (2004) confirm a study conducted by Van Dam (2003) which found that “perceptions of applicant personality were related to the outcome of the assessment procedure. The expected relationships between conscientiousness, emotional stability, and employment recommendations were found for a majority of interviewers” (p. 51). In another study, Lievens and colleagues (2001) examined how assessment centers evaluated job candidates and coded those assessments based on the Big 5. The researchers coded trait descriptors from the assessors’ notes for 403 candidates. These traits were categorized into their corresponding Big 5 category. Ultimately, the researchers found that candidates with more descriptors referring to Openness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness led to a greater chance of finding employment. Citing this research, we expect our study to produce similar results, demonstrating a positive correlation between cover letters exhibiting certain Big 5 dimensions and hirability. In addition, we consider how job type may moderate our findings.

Some Big 5 and hirability studies have considered the role of the evaluators’ perceptions and personality. In addition to testing whether recruiters made recommendations for employment based on the Big 5, Cole, Feild, Giles, and Harris (2009) evaluated the accuracy of the recruiters’ assessment of candidate personality traits. They found little evidence that recruiters could accurately evaluate candidates’ personality traits based on resumes; however, recruiters continued to recommend employment for those candidates whom they perceived as being extraverted, open to experience, and conscientious. In other words, while the recruiters’ assumptions were invalid, they still looked for certain perceived qualities in applicants. Burns and colleagues (2014) expanded on these findings in two ways. First, they examined whether reviewers with hiring experience versus those without experience made assumptions about personality based on cues in an applicant’s resume. For example, if an applicant misspells a word, does this error indicate a lack of conscientiousness? The researchers found that people do make these assumptions about personality based on cues in a resume. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference between professional and nonprofessional evaluators. The second part of the Burns and colleagues (2014) study compared the extent to which an evaluator’s self-personality evaluation related to hirability. The results indicate that one’s self-personality evaluation accounts for about 5% of the variability in hiring decisions, whereas the recruiters’ resume evaluation of personality cues explains over 50% of the variation in hiring.

Big 5 and public administration

Limited public administration scholarship has looked at how the Big 5, either alongside PSM or independently, affects public management practices or performance. The existing public administration literature, however, suggests positive correlations connecting Big 5 dimensions to job performance and satisfaction. Filiz and Battaglio (2017) examined the Big 5 and decision making within the Turkish government by distributing the Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) to a sample of Turkish district governors. Their findings suggest a positive relationship between the Big 5 factor conscientiousness and the DMQ factor subject, which includes motivation, self-regulation, cognition, and emotion. The scholars also found a statistically significant positive relationship between extraversion and the task factor, which includes uncertainty, time and money pressure, information and goals, and consequences of decisions. Similar to the broader literature on the Big 5, one study (Jiang et al., 2009) examines personality in relation to job performance in the public sector. The study, based in China, used a modified Chinese version of a personality test capturing only Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. The study found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. However, unlike previous research, the study found a negative relationship between agreeableness and job performance. The researchers surmise that this negative relationship is due to the paternalistic culture in China but suggest future research might parse this out.

Three additional public administration–focused studies examine the Big 5. First, Cooper and colleagues (2013) examined how the Big 5 affects OCBs—both on an individual and organizational level. The first relevant finding is that while most public managers have not heard of the Big 5, they have heard of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Second, in examining job satisfaction, Cooper and colleagues (2013) found that employees with higher scores in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and lower scores in Neuroticism have higher job satisfaction. These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating Big 5 into models seeking to understand employee job satisfaction in the public sector.

Second, Hamidullah, Van Ryzin, and Li (2016) incorporated the Big 5 and PSM into their survey experiment, seeking to find associations among the two in their results. Using the Public Service Research Panel, the study distributed two surveys—one with 220 responses and one with 204 responses. The researchers used a basic method of asking the respondents questions from two PSM scales—the Coursey and Pandey scale (Coursey & Pandey, 2007) on the first survey and the Kim and colleagues scale (Kim et al., 2012) on the second survey. They also asked respondents a standard set of Big 5 questions, which was the same in both surveys. They then regressed the PSM responses against the Big 5 responses and found that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion are all strongly related to PSM.

Expectations and Research Design

This association between the Big 5 and PSM is relevant to our study, as we employ both the Big 5 and PSM in measuring variations of hirability. In addition, the relationship between specific Big 5 dimensions and PSM elements suggests that the Big 5 literature may inform public administration research on PSM and job performance and hirability. Finally, van Witteloostuijn, Esteve, and Boyne (2017) explore the relationship between personality and PSM. While these scholars employ the honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (HEXACO) model, rather than the Big 5, their findings are equally as informative for this current study. While this scale is slightly different from the Big 5, the scholars similarly find that agreeableness and emotionality are positively associated with PSM. While the remainder of their results are mixed, this study does present a number of statistically significant relationships between personality and PSM. The connections of personality and PSM suggest public administration research on PSM should continue to pursue scholarship in this direction.

Thus, we expect our study to reveal that HR managers will evaluate cover letters exhibiting certain Big 5 dimensions and PSM more positively than cover letters without these features. To our knowledge, very limited public administration research has empirically examined the extent to which HR managers utilize PSM in selecting job candidates (Leisink & Steijn, 2008). As such, our intention is for this study to test a practical recommendation from the literature.

Expectations

All of these elements taken together provide a foundation for understanding how PSM and the Big 5 might affect hiring decisions. If high levels of PSM are indeed attractive to HR professionals in selecting applicants to work in the public sector, then cover letters containing elements of PSM will garner higher scores of hirability in the eyes of public sector HR specialists. The presence of the Big 5 elements should also bolster hirability scores.

We pair the elements of PSM and the Big 5 following the findings of Hamidullah et al. (2016): which indicate statistically significant relationships between commitment to public service and agreeableness, attraction to public service and conscientiousness, and general PSM and extraversion. Similar findings have been identified by van Witteloostuijn et al. (2017). They identified statistically significant positive relationships between commitment to public service and agreeableness, along with PSM and extraversion. While their findings do not identify a statistically significant relationship between attraction to public service and conscientiousness, a number of other studies identify conscientiousness as a meaningful factor. Conscientiousness is a statistically significant factor in OCB (Cooper et al., 2013; Kumar, Bakhshi, & Rani, 2009) and religiousness (Hardesty & Westermen, 2009), both predictors of PSM. Filiz and Battaglio (2017) also find, in a survey of Turkish civil servants, a positive statistically significant relationship between conscientiousness and the subject category of the DQM which includes motivation in decision making. Therefore, we account for the potential of this relationship in our experimental design. As such, we followed to the letter the construction of the Big 5 by averaging the two items for each of the five dimensions. Similarly, we also averaged out the 10 items from the Coursey and Pandey (2007) measures of the attraction to public service, commitment to public values, and compassion of PSM. The descriptive statistics from the main variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	n	M	SD
Desirable for the first vignette	184	3.82	1.14
Invite for the first vignette	185	4.09	1.12
Desirable for the second vignette	182	3.31	1.23
Invite for the second vignette	182	3.48	1.26
Desirable for the third vignette	181	4.46	0.72
Invite for the third vignette	181	4.54	0.69
Extraversion	177	4.39	1.72
Agreeableness	177	5.55	1.07
Conscientiousness	175	6.22	0.86
Neuroticism	176	2.29	1.17
Openness	176	5.55	1.02
Attraction to public service	178	3.25	0.76
Commitment to public values	178	4.02	0.55
Compassion	178	3.47	0.70

In addition, we account for two additional considerations. First, we consider the attraction paradigm. The “Attraction Paradigm” (Byrne, 1971) started with a very simple hypothesis: If one has similar attitudes to another, then he or she will be more attracted to that person. Byrne’s (1997) first study to test this hypothesis had an independent variable of 26 attitude items (measured on a 7-point scale) and dependent variable of attraction based on previous scholarship in sociometric research. In a 2008 meta-analysis, Montoya and colleagues found that perceived similarity had a more powerful effect than actual similarity:

Similarity produced a large effect in laboratory studies, r = .59. However, the association between actual similarity and attraction was significantly lower after a short interaction (r = .21), and was not detectable in existing relationships (r = 0.08; an effect that accounts for less than 1% of the overall variance). (p. 903)

Moreover, as interactions in the field increased over time, there was not a statically significant relationship between similarity and attraction.

Montoya and Horton (2013) explored a second disparity within the attraction paradigm—mainly the process by which one assesses attraction. Their analysis focused on two aspects. First, the reinforcement process, asserted by Byrne, hypothesizes that one is attracted to another because the other reinforces one’s own perspective (i.e., I am attracted to this person because he or she makes me feel like I am correct). The similarity itself creates an internal reinforcement. The second aspect Montoya and colleagues tested is the information processing perspective, which holds that assessing attraction is much more analytical. Individuals seek information about another and then use that information to assess and infer whether they will be attracted to the other. In 240 laboratory experiments, Montoya and colleagues (2013) tested four propositions from each school of thought. They found that the propositions from the information processing perspective were supported in three of the four effects tested, whereas the reinforcement theory was supported in two of the four effects proposed. Van Hoye and Turban (2015) explore attraction theory to determine whether awarding one’s personality type made a place of employment more attractive to work. Their findings suggest that perceived fit did make the organization more attractive. There are other studies that consider this from the vantage point of group diversity. For example, Van Knippenberg and Schippers examine work group diversity and suggest this diversity may be what attracts people to work together. Admittedly, this is not the central focus of our study, but we do expect that the “Attraction Paradigm” will play a role in our findings.

Second, we consider job type as a factor in whether Big 5 or PSM will have an effect on hirability. Much of the literature in this area has grown out of Holland (1959) in which John Holland articulated a “theory of vocational choice and personality types” (Holland, 1963, p. 547). While this literature is vast, we focus specifically on the findings of Cole and colleagues (2004). Their findings highlight that the vocational type moderates a relationship between personality and perceived hirability. Therefore, we expect job type will modify our results.

One the critiques of experimental work in general—and vignettes in particular—is the subsequent lack of realism. In their recent review, Christensen et al. (2017) specifically suggest that for HR managers, “(s)coring résumés may be a valid way to anchor public service motivation in prior behavior” and assist in hiring decisions (p. 533). Striving for realism in this study, we explicitly asked respondents to rate the cover letters in the same manner that they typically employ. We utilize real job advertisements and people who work in HR.

Participants

Participants were recruited through the newsletter of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR). According to its website, the IPMA-HR is “(c)omprised of four U.S. regions and more than 42 chapters, [and] IPMA-HR represents more than 9,000 individuals and 1,100 agencies in local, state and federal levels of government worldwide” (https://www.ipma-hr.org/). However, almost all the chapters are contained within the continental United States and we do know that all IP addresses in the sample came from U.S.-based computers. After two reminders, we collected 238 surveys, which include partially completed and fully completed surveys. The number of usable surveys without massive amount of missing data oscillates between 185 and 175 surveys. We do not have access to the characteristics of the full membership to assess if our sample is representative of the population. Rather, we are studying how the differences of PSM levels and personality types affect the hirability of candidates according to real HR managers working in the public sector. To clarify, this study is not a population-based survey experiment. Nevertheless, we surveyed managers rather than students or MTurkers (Stritch, Pederson, & Taggart, 2017) and asked these respondents to imagine themselves as hiring specialists. Notably, managers are seldom the type of participants in public management experimental research (Li & Van Ryzin, 2017).

Each respondent was asked to rate three vignettes and then answer questions about PSM and the Five-Factor Model. Vignettes are carefully crafted descriptions containing relevant information to obtain a judgment about a situation or a person (Rooks et al., 2000). Experimental vignettes involve presenting respondents with “realistic scenarios to assess dependent variables including intentions, attitudes, and behaviors” (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014, p. 352). Like other experimental approaches, experimental vignettes are helpful when a theory offers hints on how factors should influence processes or outcomes (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). We decided to include only three vignettes to limit the cognitive burden on respondents. We also considered job type, as there is evidence that job type is correlated with certain Big 5 characteristics (Cole et al., 2004). We utilize Holland’s (1996) RIASEC categorization to select careers from three different categories. The vignettes, respectively, present job descriptions and corresponding applicant cover letters for (a) a program coordinator (RIASEC Category Enterprising), (b) an electrician (RIASEC Category Realistic), and (c) an economist (RIASEC Category Investigative). As the vignettes were detailed, we discarded results from the few respondents who completed the survey in 2 min or less.

Respondents were also asked basic sociodemographic questions. We asked respondents to specify their employment sector as well as their title. This information allowed us to verify that they were indeed HR professionals working in the public sector.

Design

All respondents received the following instructions:

The human resources department at your organization has evaluated numerous resumes and narrowed down an applicant pool to people with the required qualifications. They have forwarded you the cover letters of each individual for your evaluation and advice on the hiring decision. In the following pages, you will be presented with specific job descriptions and cover letters for these applicants.

The experimental design is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Experimental Design.

Vignette	Control group	Treatment Group 1PSM	Treatment Group 2Big 5	Treatment Group 3PSM and Big 5
Program coordinator (commitment to public service and agreeableness)	Generic description (see Appendix B)	COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE love serving my community desire to continuing serving the public good serving the public. Like any public employee, I occasionally disagreed with policy decisions, but knowing that these policies would hopefully benefit the greater community eased my mind. I recognize that I am simply one piece of the puzzle and I am hopeful I can bring that piece to your county to serve your citizens.	AGREEABLENESS Working across departments and agencies allowed me to be part of a bigger team and to collaborate with a number of different people. I was able to build trusting relationships with my colleagues and establish strong ties across agencies. We had forthright conversations allowing us to be considerate of each collaborator’s position.	COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND AGREEABLENESS
Electrician (attraction to public service and conscientiousness)	Generic description (see Appendix B)	ATTRACTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE While not as hands on as my current work, I was strongly attracted to the position. The building inspector’s job is to make sure people did not cut corners. At the same time, the inspector had to compromise. Sometimes local businesses and politicians were opposed to strict code enforcement. It was exciting to watch political compromise occur in something that seemed so mundane. As a young student, I was excited by the prospect of working in this environment. The nagging feeling, I continue to have leads me to pursue a career in public service and apply for this position.	CONSCIENTIOUSNESS That said my current work requires that I am organized and disciplined. I run my own business so I have to keep myself on task. It is also essential that I take my time on every job I perform. The risk of messing up someone’s electrical system is way too high for me to be careless. Finally, as a business owner I have to be efficient with my time. I have to balance all of these components.	ATTRACTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Economist (general PSM and extraversion)	Generic description (see Appendix B)	GENERAL PSM Public service is in my blood. My father was a public servant and I always knew that working in government was the path I would like to take. I take great pride in serving my community. I love working with other policy makers to figure out the most advantageous solutions for our constituencies. Moreover, I am motivated by serving some of our most vulnerable populations and helping them better themselves in our communities.	EXTRAVERSION I love working with multiple people and bringing new ideas to the table. I frequently worked on multiple projects in a high paced environment. I am confident presenting my data and findings to large groups and feel well suited to offer robust advice based off of these findings. I am not the type of economist that likes to quietly conduct analysis in the corner and not engage in the conversation. I see my role as one that can conduct analysis but then is also comfortable speaking about that analysis to all stakeholders.	GENERAL PSM AND EXTRAVERSION

Note. PSM = public service motivation.

Each vignette follows the same design. First, they all include a job description. All three job descriptions were captured from real advertisements posted on governmentjobs.com. The exact wording for each job description is presented in Appendix A. Second, each respondent was randomly assigned to one of four arms of the experiment: a control group to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect (Bækgaard et al., 2015), Treatment 1 with additional sentences in the cover letter signaling an aspect of PSM, Treatment 2 with additional sentences in the cover letter indicating an aspect of the Big 5, and Treatment 3 with cover letters containing a combination of the PSM and Big 5 elements. The exact wording of the three vignettes for the control group is in Appendix B. The pairing of the elements of PSM and the Big 5 follows the findings of previous research articulated in our “Expectations” section. Because previous research found these particular combinations to be the most salient, we maximize our chances of detecting statistically significant differences between our control group and our treatment groups.

Independent variables

For the first vignette (program coordinator), Treatments 1 and 3 feature verbiage about commitment to public service in the cover letter; Treatments 2 and 3 include verbiage about agreeableness in the cover letter. As for the second vignette (electrician), Treatments 1 and 3 include verbiage about attraction to public service; Treatments 2 and 3 contain verbiage about conscientiousness. Finally, for the third vignette (economist), Treatments 1 and 3 include verbiage about PSM in general; Treatments 2 and 3 contain verbiage depicting extraversion.

Dependent variables

Following each vignette, respondents were asked to react to “This is a very desirable candidate for the available position” (desirable) and “I would invite this applicant to an on-site interview for the available position” (invite) on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Being perceived as a desirable candidate is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being invited to an interview.

Results

Because different elements of PSM and the Big 5 have different levels of salience for HR managers, we present our results for each vignette. The graphical representation of means for the two postvignette questions, desirable and invite, is presented in Figures 1 to 3.

Figure 1.

Comparison of means across the control and treatment groups for Vignette 1 program coordinator (commitment to public service and agreeableness).

Figure 2.

Comparison of means across the control and treatment groups for Vignette 2 electrician (attraction to public service and conscientiousness).

Figure 3.

Comparison of means across the control and treatment groups for Vignette 3 economist (general PSM and extraversion).

While several studies researching the relationship among Big 5, PSM, and hirability suggest otherwise, our results reveal that the presence of the Big 5 dimensions and PSM elements in an applicant’s cover letter largely do not influence his or her hirability. For all three vignettes, direct comparisons between the support for the generic cover letters and the cover letters signaling PSM revealed no statistically significant differences for the desirable and invite variables. Thus, applicants for all three positions, who included traits of PSM in their cover letters, were no more likely to be perceived as desirable by the HR managers or invited for an on-site interview. We ran similar comparisons of the generic cover letter and the cover letters signaling a Big 5 trait. This established one statistically significant difference. The cover letter indicating agreeableness was found to be more desirable than the generic cover letter (χ² = 10.56, p = .03). Finally, direct comparisons between generic cover letters and cover letters featuring both elements of PSM and Big 5 did not find differences, except for the desirability of the agreeable program coordinator committed to the public service (χ² = 10.00, p = .04). In sum, our electrician (Vignette 2) and economist (Vignette 3) were neither more desirable nor more likely to be invited to an interview based on the cover letters in which they were, respectively, attracted to public service and/or conscientiousness not generally animated by the public service and/or extraverted. The agreeable program coordinator (Treatment 2) and the agreeable program coordinator committed to the public service (Treatment 3) were seen as more desirable candidates than the taciturn program director, but they were not more likely to be invited to an interview.

That interaction presents models where the “attraction paradigm” (Byrne, 1971) is tested. For example, for Vignette 1, we controlled for low and high scores for commitment to public service and agreeableness. The low and high scores are calibrated around the median of our respondents. To maximize our chances to find statistically significant results, we also ran models in which all the vignettes were pooled together, and where we clustered error terms by respondents (table not shown). None of the coefficients from these pooled analyses reached statistical significance. Table 3 shows the results of ordered logistic regressions relating to the presence of elements of PSM, the Big 5, and the interactions for a vignette signaling a dimension of PSM and Big 5.

Table 3.

Results of the Ordered Logistic Regression Analysis for Vignette 2 in Odds Ratio—Electrician (Attraction to Public Service and Conscientiousness).

	Vignette 1 desirable	Vignette 1 desirable	Vignette 1 invite	Vignette 1 invite
	Coefficient	Coefficient	Coefficient	Coefficient
APS mentioned	n.s.	—	n.s.	—
APS—higher/lower for respondents	51.5%**	—	37.5%*	—
APS mentioned and high APS for respondents	−46.1%**	—	−33.0%*	—
Conscientiousness mentioned	—	n.s.	—	n.s.
Conscientiousness—higher/lower for respondents	—	n.s.	—	n.s.
Conscientiousness mentioned and higher conscientiousness for respondents	—	n.s.	—	n.s.
n	178	175	178	175
Adjusted count R^2a	.00	.00	.00	.00

Note. The coefficients are percent change in odds for 1 SD increase in X.

ASP= attraction to public service.

As the reader can see, the adjusted count R² is low here. It was higher for other models (not shown) and for the first and third vignettes where no main independent variables were statistically significant. One has to remember that for nonlinear models especially, measures of fit are not that useful to judge the pertinence of that model. As Long and Freese (2006) warned us, “Remember: there is no convincing evidence that selecting a model that maximizes the value of a given measure of fit results in a model that is optimal in any sense other than the model’s having a larger value of that measure” (p. 54).

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

The results for the first vignette (the program coordinator with commitment to public service and agreeableness) and the third vignette (the economist with general PSM and extraversion) are that none of the Big 5 scores and dimension of PSM reached statistically significant levels. The results are different for the second vignette.

One’s commitment to public service, either isolated or in relation to the HR professional’s PSM and Big 5 scores, does not raise the chances to be seen as desirable or to be invited to an interview (see Table 3). Being explicit about one’s commitment to the public service makes no discernible differences. This holds true even if we controlled for the HR manager’s own agreeableness and commitment to the public service.

The results of the second vignette are similar to the results from the previous direct comparisons. The cover letter mentioning the electrician’s attraction to public service was no more likely to be seen as desirable by an HR manager; however, this did not change the electrician’s chances of being invited to an interview. The HR professionals who had above average attraction to public service were more likely to evaluate all cover letters more positively on desirability and invitation. Nevertheless, there is one exception. HR managers with above average attraction to public service found this second cover letter mentioning the candidate’s own attraction to public service to be less desirable and less likely to be called on for interview. Compared with the baseline, the odds are, respectively, lowered by 46.1% (p < .05) and 33% (p < .1). Providing examples of being conscientious in the cover letter does not influence the desirable and invite scores. Models taking into account the HR manager’s attraction to public service and conscientious do not find statistically significant coefficients.

The results of the third vignette are the same as the results from the previous direct comparisons. Signaling a general inclination for PSM or being extraverted does not change the odds of more desirable evaluation by HR managers nor does it increase the chances of being invited to an interview, even for like-minded managers.

Limitations

As Van de Walle (2017) commented, “. . . because they need to summarize complex situations in a single vignette,” they can lack realism (p. 469). In this study, public sector HR specialists were asked to react to carefully crafted cover letters related to real job ads. However, they were not unwittingly interviewing actors prompted to act a certain way at their job site during normal business hours. Rather, they were filling out a survey comprising these three vignettes. Clearly simulating reality is quite different from reality. For realism purposes, the vignettes are fleshed out and accompanied with a job description. A possible criticism is that their length could confuse some respondents. Furthermore, reviewers did not spend an hour interviewing a candidate. They spent a few minutes reviewing a cover letter. More extensive evaluation might have yielded different results. The authors also considered if implicit bias should be a concern; however, based on the most current research (Slabbinck et al., 2018), the fact that high-order thinking was necessary for a response, and the topic specific attributes there the decision was made not to use an implicit association test.

Further limitations may also be found in the sample. It is not clear if the sample is representative of the population of hiring managers across the United States and it is not representative of international hiring managers. Hiring practices vary across jurisdictional boundaries; therefore, the results cannot be generalized in this manner.

However, it is not clear how to calibrate the Goldilocks Zone where instructions and cognitive tasks are not too brief and simplistic, and not too lengthy and taxing (Nisbett, 1978). That being said, we tried to submit respondents to a task familiar to them, and we only ask them to evaluate cover letters and not curriculum vitae (CVs) that accompanied them.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

Propelled by questions asked over 10 years ago by Mann (2006) and the observation of Ritz et al. (2016), we examine whether factors of PSM or Big 5 influence HR professionals in noting a candidate’s desirability and their decision to interview job candidates. Our results indicate, in all but one job category, there is little evidence that any of these factors make either a difference in a candidate’s desirability or interest in bringing them for an on-site interview.

Indicating your levels of PSM is not something that one can do with nonverbal cues. It does not work like baking cookies in your home to welcome visitors or wearing red to exude confidence. A candidate has to express aspects of PSM. In the hiring process, that expression will take the shape of written words prior to an in-person visit. These words might be ineffectual or even come through as obnoxious or insincere. HR managers do not seem impressed with PSM cues. In one instance, it could have hurt a candidate to signal his attraction to public service.

The recommendations of basing hiring decisions, in part, on levels of PSM (Andersen & Kjeldsen, 2013; Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012; Houston, 2006; Lewis & Frank, 2002) can initially happen via three channels. First, employers can advertise jobs indicating a desire toward candidates with high levels of PSM. Second, employers can select candidates with high PSM levels as reflected by their cover letter and activities on their CV. Third, employers can ask questions measuring PSM during an interview. We know that PSM levels can lower through one’s career in the public service. We know that one’s upbringing can foster higher or lower levels on PSM. Therefore, many candidates with high PSM will inevitably apply to public sector jobs, but according to our findings, they should not bother mentioning their PSM in their application.

While it is challenging to draw clear conclusions from null results, we can still learn from our findings. As Moynihan (2013) notes in his discerning conclusion headed A Significant Non-Significant Result, “Ultimately, the quality of the scholarly contribution should be determined by the importance of the question and the rigor of the research design, rather than the results” (p. 190). This research addresses a persistent question in the PSM literature that has yet to receive empirical attention. Furthermore, it uses a sample of those that can provide firsthand experience to answer the question. With that in mind, we draw three conclusions that can influence the trajectory of future research. First, our results highlight the potential differences in job type as a factor in how PSM and Big 5 might affect hirability. As Cole and colleagues (2004) find, a job type variable mediates perceptions of employability as related to Big 5. Our study points toward a similar phenomenon. We can speculate that hiring in careers that are more “realistic” such as an electrician might be influenced less by one’s PSM. In Holland’s (1996) adaptation of Gottfredson typology, he highlights that those within the “realistic” job type category avoid interaction with people. Similarly, those in the investigative category, such as the economist, are perceived as being asocial. Both of these suggest a diminished importance of perceived PSM traits. However, for the program coordinator, we did find statistically significant results. This position falls within the “enterprising” category of the RIASEC scale, which is associated with individuals who view themselves as persuasive. Others view enterprising individuals as energetic and gregarious. One can see why factors of PSM might be elevated in this job type category. Future research might provide a more comprehensive examination of how a RIASEC category might relate to PSM. This would direct practitioners toward a more applied framework to integrate into practice.

Second, our results suggest that PSM may not be influential in the public sector hiring process. Without extrapolating too far, this might indicate that hiring managers simply do not care or, more likely, unlike their private sector counterparts simply do not have the tools to assess behavioral characteristics. Hence, future research might design a comparative study examining how behavioral characteristics are accounted between private and public sector organizations. This may lead to more robust behavioral assessments in the public sector.

Finally, as noted in our limitations, vignettes are a substitute for reality but are not reality. Future research should try to submit cover letters to real job advertisements highlighting aspects of PSM. One could also envision a field experiment where candidates (actors) would signal aspects of PSM in a job interview to see if it matters.

In her study on the offer side of public sector employee selection, Linos (2017) found that stressing a message about serving the public was not effective to recruit more candidates to a police academy. In the current study, we focused on the demand side of public sector employee selection by analyzing whether recruiters found candidates who signaled different aspects of PSM to be more attractive. We did not find such effect. Coupled, these two studies show a glimpse into whether or not PSM affects the hiring process in the public sector. While still nascent, the current evidence suggests that PSM has little affect in the initial stages of the hiring process. It is entirely possible that this is by design, in that the system is designed to depersonalize decision making. More likely it suggests a “layering” effect in which even if governments attempt to modernize government organizations, bureaucratic systems remain underneath these attempts stifling this change (Bromberg, 2016). Lawrence A. Bossidy, former CEO of Honeywell once stated, “I am convinced that nothing we do is more important than hiring and developing people. At the end of the day, you bet on people, not on strategies.” This point is something that should resonate in public sector hiring. However, after nearly 30 years of research on PSM, its influence remains almost absent from the hiring process. Whether this is due to systematic factors or more specific decisions by hiring managers, this discrepancy between research and practice remains a pressing concern.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Vignette 3: Verbiage for the Job Description for an Economist.

This position is located in the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Office of Economic Affairs, Economic Development, and Public Finance Division. PD&R is responsible for providing advice and information to the Secretary to further his policy agenda; for maintaining current information to monitor housing needs, housing market conditions, and the operation of existing programs; and for conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. Duties as an Economist, you will: •Apply principles of urban, public, and regional economics to the analysis of housing issues, specifically low-income housing. •Conduct research concerning housing policy; housing markets, and report findings with respect to housing policy. •Prepare research designs which are based on relevant economic theory and policy analysis. •Prepare narrative research reports and conduct briefings that describe and assess housing markets, policy, and data.

Appendix B

Vignette 3 (Economist): Verbiage for the Cover Letter—Control Group.

I am applying for the position of Economist in the Economic Development and Public Finance Division. For the previous 15 years, I have worked in the field of economic development, primarily on urban housing policies. After completing my Master’s in Economics, I had a number of career path choices. I chose to work for my local city government first as an assistant planner and then as the chief planner for the city. After working in the city as the chief planner, I had the opportunity to work for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In this position, I conducted quantitative analysis based on the most relevant economic theory. I advised decision makers on new policy initiatives and served as an economic liaison between multiple teams. This allowed me to use many of my skill sets developed as chief planner and let my natural personality come out. I believe my skill sets and experience align well with the position described in the job announcement. I hope that I will have the opportunity to apply my skills in the Economic Development and Public Finance Division.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Christopher Cooper and Gregg G. Van Ryzin for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

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.

ORCID iDs

Daniel E. Bromberg

Étienne Charbonneau

Author Biographies

Daniel E. Bromberg is an associate professor of public administration and director of Academic Programs in the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is a fellow at the Center for Organization Research and Design (CORD), based at Arizona State University. He holds a PhD from the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers-Newark. His research interests include collaborative governance, government contracting, e-government, and performance management.

Étienne Charbonneau is an associate professor of public management at the École nationale d’administration publique, Montreal, Canada. He is also the Canada Research Chair in Comparative Public Management. He holds a PhD from the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers-Newark. He is a CORD fellow. His research focuses on performance management, citizen satisfaction, and accountability.

References

Aguinis

Bradley

K. J.

(2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351-371.

Andersen

L. B.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2013). Public service motivation, user orientation, and job satisfaction: A question of employment sector? International Public Management Journal, 16, 252-274.

Bækgaard

Baethge

Blom-Hansen

Dunlop

C. A.

Esteve

Jakobsen

. . . Wolf

P. J.

(2015). Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide. International Public Management Journal, 18, 323-342.

Barrett

Greene

(2016, February). Can Government hiring get out of the Stone Age? Governing. Retrieved from https://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-government-hiring-best-practices.html

Bellé

(2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73, 143-153.

Bozeman

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

Breaugh

Ritz

Alfes

(2018). Work motivation and public service motivation: Disentangling varieties of motivation and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 20, 1423-1443.

Bright

(2013). Where does public service motivation count the most in government work environments? A preliminary empirical investigation and hypotheses. Public Personnel Management, 42, 5-26.

Bromberg

D. E.

(2016). Gatekeepers: How procurement personnel guard against hybrid accountability. Public Organization Review, 16, 549-560.

10.

Burns

G. N.

Christiansen

N. D.

Morris

M. B.

Periard

D. A.

Coaster

J. A.

(2014). Effects of applicant personality on resume evaluations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 573-591.

11.

Byrne

(1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.

12.

Byrne

D. E.

(1971). The attraction paradigm: Personality and psychopathology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

13.

Christensen

R. K.

Paarlberg

Perry

J. L.

(2017). Public service motivation research: Lessons for practice. Public Administration Review, 77, 529-542.

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.

Cole

M. S.

Feild

H. S.

Giles

W. F.

Harris

S. G.

(2004). Job type and recruiters’ inferences of applicant personality drawn from resume biodata: Their relationships with hiring recommendations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 363-367.

16.

Cole

M. S.

Feild

H. S.

Giles

W. F.

Harris

S. G.

(2009). Recruiters’ inferences of applicant personality based on resume screening: Do paper people have a personality? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 5-18.

17.

Cooper

C. A.

Knotts

H. G.

McCord

D. M.

Johnson

(2013). Taking personality seriously: The Five-Factor Model and public management. American Review of Public Administration, 43, 397-415.

18.

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.

19.

Filiz

Battaglio

R. P.

Jr. (2017). Personality and decision-making in public administration: The Five-Factor Model in cultural perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(Suppl. 1), 3-22.

20.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

21.

Hamidullah

M. F.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). The agreeable bureaucrat: Personality and PSM. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29, 582-595.

22.

Hardesty

Westerman

J. W.

(2009). Relating religious beliefs to workplace values: Meta-ethical development, locus of control, and conscientiousness. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

23.

Holland

J. L.

(1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.

24.

Holland

J. L.

(1963). Explorations of a theory of vocational choice and achievement: II. A four-year prediction study. Psychological Reports, 12, 547-594.

25.

Holland

J. L.

(1996). Exploring careers with a typology: What we have learned and some new directions. American Psychologist, 51, 397-406.

26.

Holt

S. B.

(2018). For those who care: The effect of public service motivation on sector selection. Public Administration Review, 78, 457-471.

27.

Houston

D. J.

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

28.

Hurtz

G. M.

Donovan

J. J.

(2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

29.

Jacobson

W. S.

(2011). Creating a motivated workforce: How organizations can enhance and develop public service motivation (PSM). Public Personnel Management, 40, 215-238.

30.

James

Jilke

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2017). Introduction: Experiments in public management research. In James

Jilke

S. R.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(Eds.), Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions (pp. 3-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Jiang

Wang

Zhou

(2009). Personality traits and job performance in local government organizations in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 451-457.

32.

Jorgensen

T. B.

Rutgers

M. R.

(2014). Tracing public values change: A historical study of civil service job advertisements. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 6, 59-80.

33.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

B. E.

Andersen

L. B.

Cerase

F. P.

Christensen

R. K.

. . . De Vivo

(2012). 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.

34.

Kumar

Bakhshi

Rani

(2009). Linking the Big Five personality domains to organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1, 73-81.

35.

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). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Lewis

G. B.

Frank

S. A.

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

37.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2017). A systematic review of experimental studies in public management journals. In James

Jilke

S. R.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(Eds.), Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions (pp. 20-36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Lievens

Fruyt

Dam

(2001). Assessors’ use of personality traits in descriptions of assessment centre candidates: A Five-Factor Model perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 623-636.

39.

Linos

(2017). More than public service: A field experiment on job advertisements and diversity in the police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28, 67-85.

40.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2006). Regression models for categorical and dependent variables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

41.

Mann

G. A.

(2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource management and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Personnel Administration, 35, 33-48.

42.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In Boyle

G. J.

Matthews

Saklofske

D. H

. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 273-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

McCrae

R. R.

John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

44.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

(2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64-94.

45.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2013). Does public service motivation lead to budget maximization? Evidence from an experiment. International Public Management Journal, 16, 179-196.

46.

Nisbett

R. E.

(1978). A guide for reviewers: Editorial hardball in the 70s. American Psychologist, 33, 519-520.

47.

I.-S.

Wang

Mount

M. K.

(2011). Validity of observer ratings of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762-773.

48.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76, 414-426.

49.

Rooks

Raub

Selten

Tazelaar

(2000). How inter-firm co-operation depends on social embeddedness: A vignette study. Acta Sociologica, 43, 123-137.

50.

Slabbinck

Van Witteloostuijn

Hermans

Vanderstraeten

Dejardin

Brassey

Ramdani

(2018). The added value of implicit motives for management research Development and first validation of a Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) for the measurement of implicit motives. PloS One, 13, e0198094.

51.

Stritch

Pederson

M. J

Taggart

(2017). The opportunities and limitations of using Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in public administration and management scholarship. International Public Management Journal, 20, 489-511.

52.

Van Dam

(2003). Trait perception in the employment interview: A Five-Factor Model perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 43-55.

53.

Van de Walle

(2017). The experimental turn in public management: How methodological preferences drive substantive choices. In James

Jilke

S. R.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(Eds.), Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions (pp. 461-475). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Van Hoye

Turban

D. B

. (2015). Applicant-Employee Fit in Personality: Testing predictions from similarity-attraction theory and trait activation theory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23, 210-223.

55.

van Witteloostuijn

Esteve

Boyne

(2017). Public sector motivation ad fonts: Personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27, 20-35.

56.

Waldner

(2012). Do public and private recruiters look for different employees? The role of public service motivation. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 70-79.

57.

Wright

B. E.

(2015). The science of public administration: Problems, presumptions, progress, and possibilities. Public Administration Review, 75, 795-805.