What Makes Government Work Great: The Characteristics of Positive Public Service

Introduction

Negative opinions of public servants have been pervasive in the media and in society at large, with too little done to counteract them. The vast majority of people do not trust government to do what is right (Pew Research Center, 2019), politicians are quick to take credit from public servants for policy successes and blame them when things go wrong (Nielsen & Moynihan, 2017), and stereotypes of the lazy bureaucrat abound (Baldwin, 1990; Van de Walle, 2004). In addition, there has been no shortage of focus on negative aspects of government, such as corruption (Rose-Ackerman & Paflika, 2016) and red tape (Blom et al., 2020). As a result, the prospect of fulfilling and impactful government work is likely overshadowed and diminished. This discouraging situation can be addressed by cultivating a better understanding of positive government work experiences and increasing their prevalence by paying greater attention to the needs and potential of public servants. Greater integration of research between the fields of public administration and positive psychology, the scientific investigation of human flourishing, can help facilitate this shift.

This article builds on promising examples that have emerged in recent years regarding the well-being of the government workforce. Interest in researching the topic is evidenced by an examination of the impact of leadership and autonomy on vitality (Tummers et al., 2018), outcomes associated with engagement (Borst et al., 2019), and the effects of community experiences on well-being (Boyd & Nowell, 2020). In practice, relevant examples have included large-scale resilience training of the U.S. Army (Reivich et al., 2011), Appreciative Inquiry efforts with the U.S. Navy and City of Cleveland (Cooperrider, 2012), and assessments of employee well-being in the British Civil Service (J. Jones, 2019).

But an important fundamental question remains: What do optimal work experiences really look like in the public sector? Conducting qualitative research can help establish a stronger theoretical basis for understanding the components that contribute most to public servants’ best experiences and their connection to elements of well-being that have been applied generally to individuals and organizations. As Ospina and Dodge (2005) state, “stories contain within them knowledge that is different from what we might tap into when we do surveys, collect and analyze statistics” (p. 147). This informs the approach taken in this study. Doing so can help confirm the applicability of well-being theories and research specifically to the reality of government work experiences and whether there are important distinctions that warrant further exploration in a public administration context.

This article first presents a look at commonly used measures of government employee experiences already used in the public sector and a summary of well-being–related research. Then, a qualitative study entailing interviews used to assess public servants’ best experiences, or “positive public service,” is summarized. For purposes of this article, “public service” refers to work intended to advance the public interest as performed by people who are employed in government. A theoretical framework is proposed to capture the prominent characteristics of these experiences and their alignment with components of well-being. It is important to note that, as a first step, this research was intended to create a model of optimal government work informed by firsthand experiences and did not seek to develop validated factors or metrics. The implications of this study are then discussed.

Recent Assessments of Public Employee Experiences

Many public sector organizations have evaluated the experiences of their employees, with job satisfaction being a prominent part of recent surveys at the federal, state, and local levels (City of Columbia, 2006; City of Durham, 2015; City of Germantown, 2016; City of Lawrence, 2015; City of Minneapolis, 2014; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2016; Vermont Department of Human Resources, 2017; Washington State, 2017). Questions from these instruments have varied, covering topics such as managerial support, fairness of salary, turnover intentions, work–life balance, job security, accountability, cooperation among coworkers, and impact. Meanwhile, numerous studies in the field of public administration have sought to identify drivers of job satisfaction, highlighting the significance of such factors as sufficient resources, level of pay, job security, supervisory relations, and degree of involvement (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2002; Gordon, 2011; Leider et al., 2016; Taylor & Westover, 2011; West & Berman, 2009).

Engagement has also been a focus in numerous government employee surveys. Several jurisdictions have calculated an engagement index or score based on a subset of questions—though none of them have used entirely identical elements (City of Durham, 2015; City of Germantown, 2016; City of Minneapolis, 2014; State of Colorado, 2015; State of Michigan, 2017; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2016). These varied assessments of engagement have included items such as organizational pride, teamwork, recognition, and meaning. The Gallup Organization has also conducted an engagement survey of federal, state, and local government workers using its own trademarked set of indicators (Ander & Swift, 2014; Clifton, 2016). This attention on engagement in the government workplace is valuable, as a recent meta-analysis found it to be correlated with high levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and lower turnover in the public sector (Borst et al., 2019; Cantarelli et al., 2016).

But it remains to be seen whether measures such as these adequately determine whether public servants are reaching their full potential and, if so, how. Furthermore, employee surveys of public sector workers, such as those mentioned, have often asked a plethora of questions on a scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree that do not necessarily capture the full degree to which employees are fulfilled by their work. In the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, for example, out of 84 questions, none asks about the sufficiency that each of the characteristics measured is experienced, or their frequency (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2016). Although employees may factor in the number, adequacy, and sufficiency of their experiences when answering such questions, agreeable assessments may still prove insufficient to capture whether they could be more fulfilled in their work. Simon (1997) noted such a potential limitation, asserting that “workers who say they are reasonably satisfied with their jobs may not be especially happy in them” (p. 170). By not asking its employees whether or not their experiences are enough, government may unwittingly be sending a silent message that enough is too much to expect. This is why the emerging shift to focus more on well-being in government work is so important.

Positive Psychology and Elements of Well-Being

The study of psychological well-being provides an important basis for understanding and identifying positive work experiences in the public sector. This is rooted in the field of positive psychology, which has sought to understand what goes well in people’s lives and why (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In other words, rather than seeking to simply ameliorate negative experiences, positive psychology focuses on how best to develop optimal ones (Pawelski, 2016). Contemplating what contributes to positive experiences dates back as far as Aristotle’s exploration of “eudaimonia” (as cited in Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010, p. 280) and has continued since by others, such as in McGregor’s (1960) more empowerment-centered approach to management with Theory Y, Maslow’s (1962) research on peak experiences, Ryff’s (1989) theory of positive human functioning, Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, and Diener and colleagues’ (2002) development of the subjective well-being (SWB) construct, defined as “a person’s cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life” (Diener et al., 2002, p. 63). The relatively new field of positive psychology has helped bring to the forefront a concentrated, scientific focus on the subject (Duckworth et al., 2005).

Well-being contributes to individual health and longevity (Diener & Chan, 2011) and has also been shown to lead to positive organizational outcomes (Kelloway & Day, 2005). These include reduced absences due to illness, fewer accidents, improved employee retention, higher organizational commitment, increased productivity, enhanced employer brand, and greater employee resilience (Cooper & Bevan, 2014). Well-being has also been connected to stronger motivation and creativity, which have been positively correlated with performance (Tenney et al., 2016) as well as better customer satisfaction and financial outcomes (Diener & Seligman, 2004). A meta-analysis found that life satisfaction, an indicator of well-being, was positively correlated with work-related variables such as job performance and commitment (Erdogan et al., 2012).

To better understand how well-being is manifested in employees in the public sector, it is instructive to examine components of human flourishing, starting with the five elements of Seligman’s (2011) prominent PERMA model: positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. The first of the five elements, positive emotion, such as joy, interest, contentment, and love, is a feel-good state of being that serves to expand typical patterns of thoughts and behaviors by facilitating exploration, connection, trust, sharing, and play (Fredrickson, 1998). Engagement is a subjective state identified retrospectively by the sensation of time having stopped and emotions suspended during an enjoyable pursuit (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Positive relationships embody strong social support and feeling recognized and appreciated by others in a manner that elevates self-worth (Reis & Gable, 2003). Meaning reflects that there is a purpose to one’s existence (Baumeister, 1991). And the last element, accomplishment, involves satisfying the need of achievement for its own sake (Seligman, 2011). These five elements have been found to be significantly correlated with SWB (Goodman et al., 2018), giving further credence to them as building blocks of optimal human functioning (Seligman, 2018). These elements are included in an inventory of seven core dimensions of prominent well-being theories, the remaining two being autonomy, which involves a sense of mastery or control, and optimism, which reflects a positive outlook on life (Su et al., 2014).

Positive psychology has made a mark on the workforce, particularly as seen in the field of positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003), along with research on thriving at work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). This has taken hold more strongly in Western Europe (World Health Organization, 2010), which has measured positive attributes of both the private and public sector workforce throughout the 27 European Union member states (Eurofound, 2015). But a more specific focus on the government work environment is warranted, given distinguishing characteristics that exist between the public and private sector workforces. Most prominent is the presence of public service motivation (PSM; Perry & Wise, 1990). Government workers have been found to be more motivated to serve the public and less driven by material rewards than employees in the private sector (Boyne, 2002; Buelens & Van den Brock, 2007). This is noteworthy, given that a meta-analysis of public administration research found PSM to be positively related to job satisfaction (Homberg et al., 2015) and indirectly with well-being (Boyd & Nowell, 2020). Other factors that potentially distinguish public sector work experiences include contending with bureaucracy, regular turnover of political leadership, public scrutiny, strong union influence, and limited financial incentives (Lavigna, 2014).

Examining pubic servants’ experiences in the light of the key components of well-being can help further illuminate the relevance of positive psychology for the field of public administration (and vice versa) and help shape more effective design, management, and assessments of public sector work. Based on the research discussed here, the seven components considered are positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, accomplishment, autonomy, and optimism.

Method

This study sought to identify the qualities of optimal government work experiences and their connection to core components of well-being, using in-depth interviews of public servants regarding their best experiences working for the government. Specifically, 33 current and prior public servants were interviewed in May and June 2017. This sample size is small but sufficient to qualitatively explore a range of perspectives in a population (Guest et al., 2006). The interview participants in this convenience sample represented different positions, responsibilities, and experience. The sample consisted of 75.8% women (n = 25) and 66.7% White participants (n = 22). Regarding participants’ most recent position in government, 15.2% (n = 5) were an appointed executive, 57.6% were managers of various levels (n = 19), and 27.3% were staff who did not have managerial responsibility over others (n = 9). Of the sample, 63.4% (n = 21) were still employed in the public sector at the time of the interviews. Participants performed a range of functions in subject areas including social services, transportation, enforcement, construction, emergency response, technology, housing, legislative affairs, education, and legal counsel, and were largely municipal employees from New York City.

Based on the principles of Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, 2012), the interview questions were designed to get participants thinking about their best experiences working for government by using a strengths-based approach. Such experiences could be a moment, a particular project, a job, or a period of time. Each respondent was responsible for determining what his or her best experience was in an unstructured manner. Then, to elicit descriptions about the experience, the following seven questions were asked:

Respondents were not directly asked about the specific subject matter of their work, though the open-ended questions provided them with the opportunity to discuss it if the topic itself (a particular policy or type of project, for example) was central to their positive experiences.

Participants consented to the interview and were allowed to withdraw at any time. The majority of interviews were conducted over the telephone. Responses were transcribed verbatim during the interviews, which lasted approximately 30 min each. Participants were requested to answer each question as they saw fit using as much or as little detail as they felt necessary to convey their response.

Responses were compiled from the in-depth interviews and organized by each of the questions asked, without attribution. Review of the compiled responses began a third of the way through the interviews. The first phase of the analysis included identifying the unique elements each respondent used to describe his or her experience for Question 1 (“What words would you use to describe the experience?”). This approach made it easier to unearth key themes as they were offered—often succinctly—by the respondents. In doing so, similar descriptors such as “collaboration” and “collaborative,” “resolving a problem,” and “working through a problem,” and “team,” “teamwork,” and “team building” were, respectively, distilled into the single elements of “collaboration,” “problem solving,” and “teamwork.” Sixty-eight unique elements were identified during this phase.

Next, these elements were grouped into themes based on their commonalities. Although these groupings were driven by the similarities among the elements themselves (e.g., grouping “exhilarating” with “energizing,” “autonomy” with “control,” and “mission” with “purpose”), the seven aforementioned well-being components were taken into account where there was a clear connection between them and certain clusters. Thirteen themes emerged.

Finally, these themes were grouped into broader characteristics, similar in concept to the aggregate dimensions in Batemen and Barry’s (2012) research. Answers to other interview questions were referenced as part of this analysis to provide additional context as needed to facilitate this categorization. This process continued until no additional major characteristics could be identified. Responses to each of the questions were then utilized to provide indicative examples of each characteristic. This aggregation is summarized in Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Aggregation of positive public service characteristics.

Results

Five characteristics of positive public service were evident in the experiences identified by participants: challenge, efficacy, camaraderie, empowerment, and service. Challenge was the most prevalent characteristic among all of the answers, followed by efficacy. Broadly speaking, these characteristics reflect that the public servants interviewed had been invigorated by difficult work that yielded prosocial results and were encouraged by being given the responsibility to do so alongside enjoyable and talented colleagues. An overview of each characteristic follows.

Discussion

The responses of study participants indicate that core components of established well-being theories can contribute to a better understanding of the optimal experiences of public servants, and thus the study of public sector organizations, but they are not entirely sufficient. For example, the nature of the challenge characteristic referenced by respondents often reflected how the degree of difficulty of those experiences aligned with the essence of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), a psychological state that epitomizes the engagement dimension of PERMA (Seligman, 2011), and represents a more active and energetic professional experience than mere job satisfaction (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). But such a challenge often involved enduring significant hardship along with the appeal of exploring unchartered territory, neither of which are directly associated with core well-being elements.

The attributes of the efficacy characteristic demonstrated how past performance serves as one of the key drivers of self-efficacy or one’s perception of their own capability to achieve a specific task or goal (Bandura, 1977). As such, notations of efficacy embedded in participant responses exemplified the element of accomplishment in PERMA (Seligman, 2011), with some recognition that the speed and quality of the result were as important as the completion itself.

Respondent experiences with regard to the camaraderie characteristic illustrated the well-being elements of both positive emotion and positive relationships, because attributes such as humor and fun were almost always mentioned by respondents in the context of experiences with their colleagues. This is indicative of hive-like behavior in the workplace, in which people flourish via integration in a larger social group (Haidt et al., 2008). They also evoked elements of Dutton’s (2003) theory of high-quality connections, including attentiveness, authenticity, recognition, helpfulness, and playfulness. This also relates to the connection found between a sense of community responsibility, in which one is willing to step up to help their organization, and well-being (Boyd & Nowell, 2020).

The empowerment characteristic highlighted was connected to the autonomy component of well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Su et al., 2014). But in addition to a sense of independence or control, respondents frequently recognized the importance of a particular leader’s role that enabled them to freely exercise their own discretion and judgment. Employees, after all, can rarely, if ever, bestow it upon themselves. As Schwartz (2015) asserted, “People aren’t stuck being one way or another. But nor are they free to invent themselves without constraint” (p. 85). This is further supported by positive psychology–related research, which found that a leader’s approach to task communication as well as job autonomy significantly affected government workers’ vitality (Tummers et al., 2018). The ability to work independently has been shown to be of importance to government workers, a factor likely to be underestimated earlier in their career (Van Ryzin, 2016). And, Berg et al. (2010) found that employees were more likely to pursue unfulfilled professional callings or interests if they worked in an environment in which they were provided with greater discretion.

Responses related to the service characteristic reflected how helping others through government work was an important part of public servants’ jobs (Van Ryzin, 2016). This essence of PSM (Perry & Wise, 1990) was typified by the many participants who expressed a conscious decision to pursue a career in the public sector and were glad they did so as a result of their experiences. Responses about the importance of having a mission, vision, or purpose evoked the well-being element of meaning, indicating the sense of purpose that often enables employees to view their work more as a calling rather than just a job or career (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Such feelings also reflected the emotional engagement fostered by PSM (Peretz, 2020). The service characteristic was not limited to the rank or job title of respondents, which is consistent with research that has shown clerical and professional staff are equally able to see their work as a calling (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) as janitors, nurses, beauticians, and engineers (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This characteristic also included positive emotion attributes, particularly from an SWB perspective, given the rewarding and fulfilling affect and sentiments expressed by many participants as a result of their service (Diener et al., 2002).

Further research related to optimal human functioning in the public sector could serve as an important counterweight to prominent challenges of government work, such as dealing with burdensome rules, limited resources, lack of public confidence, perceptions of wastefulness, and corruption. The findings here raise a number of potential lines of inquiry to explore this further. For example, how can the benefits of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998) help reinvigorate a federal workforce that reels from a government shutdown (Jarvis, 2014)? How might work assignments generate greater vigor, dedication, and absorption associated with engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006) given common perceptions of red tape, particularly at the staff level (Walker & Brewer, 2008)? How can greater collaboration be achieved among elected officials, appointees, and career civil servants, to strengthen their relationships given politicians’ proclivity for attributing blame to bureaucratic leaders and not sharing credit for successes (Nielsen & Moynihan, 2017)? Can purpose-driven tools such as job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) help employees find greater meaning in their work despite the negative consequences of budget cutbacks (Esteve et al., 2017)? Finally, might positive results stemming from beneficiary contact (Grant, 2008) help employees more effectively recognize their accomplishments in the face of a low public opinion of government (Swift, 2017) and initiatives that can take years to come to fruition (Bolino & Grant, 2016)? In addition to considering these questions, it would also be informative to determine how well-being compares between the public and private sector workforces, among different types of work within government, as well as between public servants in different countries.

Practitioners and researchers may also benefit by focusing their attention more on how each of the characteristics outlined in this article measures up for the government workforce, first by leveraging qualitative inquiry more. The inquiry is intervention principle of Appreciative Inquiry (Stavros et al., 2016) speaks to how the types of questions we ask influence where an organization focuses its attention and, by virtue of the nature of the questions themselves, sets the tone for what kind of change employees think is possible. As leaders in this area note, “If we want to learn about how to create an engaged workforce, we must ask questions about when people have felt most engaged and what engagement looks like to them” (Stavros et al., 2016, p. 102). Such qualitative focus, using public servants’ own narratives, can help further bridge the gap between literature and practice (Ospina & Dodge, 2005). That is what this study attempted to do.

From a more quantitative perspective, existing scales could help in further assessing the validity of these characteristics and refining the appropriate associated measures—perhaps even winnowing the number of questions often asked in government employee surveys—to determine to what extent public servants are truly having optimal work experiences. For example, the Comprehensive and the Brief Inventory of Thriving scales (Su et al., 2014) measure the seven core components of prominent well-being theories and, if modified for the government workplace, could assist with conducting such assessments in a more parsimonious fashion. Such a tool may need to be complimented by measuring the hardship, novelty, leadership, and PSM aspects found among the various positive experiences as well. This could be informed by scales such as one on curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2018), which assesses constructs such as joyous exploration and thrill seeking; the Work Climate Questionnaire (Baard et al., 2004), which was designed to measure employees’ perceived level of autonomy support from their managers; and Perry’s (1996) scale on PSM.

The characteristics of positive public service may ultimately be best interpreted in a manner similar to the dashboard approach to measurement, serving as a set of individual indicators for researchers and public servants to consider, rather than combined into a specific index or average (Forgeard et al., 2011). This is due to the fact that more than one characteristic was often exhibited in respondents’ reflections of their best experiences. For example, one respondent touched on several characteristics when describing the experience as “incredibly chaotic and yet essential and you felt energized to be doing something that was important to so many people and you felt like you had an impact that you could feel immediately.” Another respondent illustrated this multifaceted feature as well, saying:

This experience of literally delivering services with my own hands was like nothing I’ve done before. When you have that direct contact it’s amazing. It’s stressful. But when the outcome is good . . . it’s worth it. I was immersed.

There are several limitations to this analysis. Although these characteristics of public sector employees’ best experiences emerged early on in the interview process, and were further bolstered by additional interviews, it would be presumptuous to assume that the small sample is representative of the 22 million government employees in the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019), let alone public servants in other countries around the world. The convenience sample captured limited demographic data, not including information such as salary, age, tenure, and education, and responses were not examined for differences based on these or other personal or professional variables. And though not designed to be statistically representative, the differences between the sample in terms of race and sex (75.8% female, 66.7% White) and the workforces of the federal government (42.7% female and 62.3% White) and New York City’s municipal government (59% female and 38% White) should be noted (Department of Citywide Administrative Services, 2018; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2018). Future research should focus on how race, gender, sexuality, level of government, location, and other attributes may influence an employee’s self-assessment or job experience, though research has indicated little difference in employee engagement based on race (J. R. Jones et al., 2009) or perceived job well-being based on gender (Cifre et al., 2013; Wilks & Neto, 2013). Another potential limitation was that the analysis did not benefit from reviews by multiple researchers to further confirm the resulting interpretation, though it is acceptable for a single person to perform such an analysis (Feldman et al., 2004). Also, the characteristics of positive public service were not analyzed for their correlation to SWB, the elements of PERMA, autonomy, or other well-being components. The intent of this study was to lay the theoretical groundwork for additional research. Future analysis should be done to inform whether the characteristics of public servants’ best experiences are empirically distinct from one another or other well-being constructs, such as the aforementioned components. And, finally, the characteristics presented here, particularly camaraderie, do not take into account the impact of changes to the work environment, such as wide-scale telecommuting and social-distancing practices, necessitated by the recent response to COVID-19.

Conclusion

According to respondents’ descriptions, their best experiences involved hard work, often shaped them in new ways, raised their awareness of their own capabilities, strengthened bonds, and were connected to accomplishments of which they were very proud. This should become the rule in public service, rather than the exception. What is perhaps most important about the responses garnered through the interviews is the recognition that such optimal work experiences in government are without a doubt possible. Respondents had strong memories and feelings about what contributed to their best experiences working in government, and many said they enjoyed revisiting those situations. As Vigoda-Gadot et al. (2013) said, “public organizations need public servants who feel energetic and dedicated, are absorbed in their work for the public and hence are physically and mentally engaged” (p. 529). Accordingly, the five characteristics of public servants’ best experiences present a potential pathway to make what is good about government work even better. And that is what positive public service is all about.