Public service motivation and socialization in graduate education

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which the characteristics of public administration degree programs are related to public service motivation (PSM) using a higher education socialization framework. Using a sample of approximately 500 students enrolled in 26 Master’s degree programs across the country, this study confirms that gender, work experience, core course requirements, service learning opportunities, climate, Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration accreditation, and full-time status were all meaningful predictors of PSM among the students. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Public service motivation socialization higher education Master’s of Public Administration survey research

Introduction

There is a rich body of research that has found meaningful relationships between public service motivation (PSM) and various organizational outcomes. These findings have helped the field better understand the extent to which PSM is related to a range of attitudes and behaviors in public and nonprofit organizations. However, while the field has a clearer understanding regarding the outcomes of PSM, there is much less research on the antecedents of PSM. As noted by Bozeman and Su, “only limited progress has been made in providing an adequate set of explanations or hypotheses about how PSM develops and why some people have more of it than others” (Bozeman and Su, 2014: 6). These scholars called for more research on the causes of PSM.

One potential cause of PSM that needs more study, centers on public affairs graduate degree programs. These programs are designed to provide students with the knowledge they need to be competent public servants and to help shape their commitment to their chosen profession. If PSM is beneficial to organizations, then it would be valuable to understand the role that graduate programs can play in generating PSM in students who will potentially become public employees.

Basically, what are the predictors of PSM from the perspective of graduate degree programs? Weidman et al. (2001) developed a model that captured a range of socialization related factors that impact the attitudes and behaviors of graduate students. This model suggests that while degree programs represent the core experiences of graduate students, other peripheral factors may have more or equally important effects on the attitudes of students in these programs. Unfortunately, there are no studies that comprehensively explore the predictors of PSM among students in Master’s degree programs using the socialization framework.

A study of the relationships between the characteristics of graduate degree programs and the level of PSM of students is important for at least two additional reasons. First, graduate students have already made a choice to enter public administration programs presumably to receive advanced preparation for careers in public service. This gives a unique vantage point to explore how graduate programs and socialization-related factors are correlated to student attitudes over the course of their degree programs. The second reason this study is important is recent research that suggests the characteristics of degree programs may not be beneficial to the public service attitudes of individuals. Recent research has found that PSM declined among students who were enrolled in core public service vocational programs, whereas PSM significantly increased among students who were enrolled in non-public service training programs (Kjeldsen, 2012). Along similar lines, there is evidence that career interest in government work among graduate students also declined over the course of their training in public administration programs (Chetkovich, 2003; Infeld and Adams, 2011; Light, 1999). These findings raise important questions about the impact that public affairs degree programs are having on students’ attitudes and behaviors.

The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which students’ socialization experiences in students’ public administration degree programs impact students’ level of PSM using a sample of approximately five hundred students enrolled in Master’s degree programs across the country. The presentation of this study will be accomplished in several stages. First, the literature on public service motivation will be briefly reviewed. Second, a framework that was used to explore the socialization experiences of students in graduate programs will be presented. Third, the framework previously discussed will be applied to the research on the antecedents of public service motivation. Fourth, the methodology that was used to answer the questions of this study will be presented. Finally, the findings and implications of this study will be discussed.

The benefits of public service motivation

Public service motivation was originally grounded in an intuitive understanding that some individuals were very motivated by opportunities to help their neighbors and contribute to the well-being of society. It was believed that these inclinations attracted individuals toward certain kinds of organizations and occupations. Early research was largely limited by the rudimentary concepts and methods that emphasized the work preferences of public employees and their differences with business employees as a means of measuring PSM. However, since the conceptual and methodological advancements offered by Perry and Wise (1990) and Perry (1996), scholarship in this area has exploded. After 24 years of research, scholars have re-conceptualized the concept (Perry and Vandenabeele, 2008), developed new measures (Kim, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Kim et al., 2012), and explored its impact on a range of societal and organizational outcomes globally (Jin, 2013; Kim and Vandenabeele, 2010).

While a comprehensive review of this research is beyond the scope of this paper, existing research suggests that PSM is directly or indirectly related to job performance (Alonso and Lewis, 2001; Andersen et al., 2014; Bright, 2007; Naff and Crum, 1999; Ritz, 2009), job satisfaction and commitment (Bright, 2008; Naff and Crum, 1999), perceptions of red-tape (Moynihan and Pandey, 2007), work preferences (Bright, 2005, 2009), occupational choices (Carpenter et al., 2012; Christensen and Wright, 2011; Clerkin et al., 2009; Jin, 2013; Liu et al., 2011; Pedersen, 2013; Rose, 2013; Vandenabeele, 2008), and volunteering/giving activities (Clerkin et al., 2009; Ertas, 2012). Overall, the majority of research suggests that PSM can be a valuable characteristic in the public sector workforce. If this is the case, it would be beneficial for the field to have a clearer understanding of the factors that lead to its development. Such knowledge would be useful for administrators and faculty of degree programs who are charged with preparing the next generation of public servants. The general literature suggests that many of the answers center in a clear understanding of the characteristics of socialization in graduate education degree programs.

Socialization in graduate education

Socialization is the process by which people learn the values, norms, and appropriate behaviors that make them effective members of their society (Brim and Wheeler, 1966; Van Maanen, 1976). Professionalization can be an outcome of socialization from the standpoint of graduate education. While there are still questions among scholars as to whether the field of public administration satisfies the standards to be a profession (Public Administration Review, 2012), few would disagree that graduate programs in public administration can be a path to professionalization in public service. In these programs students learn the skills, behaviors, and habits of mind that may make them successful in the field of public service. Even more, PSM may be an indicator of a calling to public service (Perry and Wise, 1990), which Moore and Rosenblum (1970) considered to be an essential characteristic of professionals. If this is the case, it would be useful to explore the predictors of students’ level of public service motivation from the standpoint of socialization. Building on the fields of organizational socialization (Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen, 1976), and vocational development (Holland, 1959), Weidman et al. (2001) suggested that there are at least four major predictors of the attitudes and behaviors of graduate students. These factors include the characteristics of individuals’ personal background, personal community, and professional community, as well as the characteristics of their graduate degree programs. While there are no studies that have been found that comprehensively explore the relative importance of these factors on the development of PSM among students pursuing public affairs degrees, there is a growing body of research that has explored these factors individually.

Personal background

Personal background characteristics are a reflection of larger societal forces that shape individuals prior to entry into graduate programs. Hence, students may be more or less prone to having high levels of PSM as a result of their differing experiences that are correlated with the background characteristics, such as their demographics, work experience, and undergraduate education? The findings in the PSM literature regarding the impact of these characteristics are somewhat mixed. For example, in terms of gender, although there are findings to the contrary (Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997; Ritz and Brewer, 2013), most studies found females to have significantly higher levels of PSM than males (Bright, 2005; Kjeldsen, 2012; Kjeldsen and Jacobsen, 2012; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011). The finding regarding age is even more mixed. These studies found no meaningful relationship between the age of the individuals and their PSM level (Bright, 2005; Kjeldsen and Jacobsen, 2012; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997), though a few studies did find positive (Camilleri, 2007; Perry and Vandenabeele, 2008; Ritz and Brewer, 2013; Steijn, 2008) and negative relationships (Vandenabeele, 2011).

There are more consistent findings regarding the relationships among levels of education, work experience, and PSM. There is evidence that suggests that students with liberal arts degrees are significantly more interested in public service jobs than those with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) degrees. Liberal arts education may mold students toward broad concerns for the community and civic life which may be precursors to the development of PSM and an interest in public service. Similarly, studies confirm that education level is positively related to PSM (Bright, 2005; Kjeldsen, 2012; Pandey and Stazyk, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011). That is, as the education level of individuals increased, their level of PSM significantly increased as well. Bright (2005) suggested that the increased level resulted from the effects of the professionalization of public service education. That is, professions tend to transmit norms of behavior that promote the importance of selfless service (Wilensky, 1964). On the other hand, years of work experience in public organizations was generally found to be negatively related to PSM (Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Ritz and Brewer, 2013). Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found PSM to significantly decline among public employees as the years of experience in public organizations increased. Similarly, Ritz and Brewer (2013) found tenure in organizations to be negatively related to all dimensions of PSM among Swiss federal civil servants. One can argue that this decline is related to an increasing awareness brought on by experience of the difficulties of work in bureaucracies that challenges idealistic assumptions about the public sector. Nonetheless, while there are studies that have explored the impact of age and gender, the results of these studies are quite mixed, with some studies finding positive relationships and others finding negative relationships (Bright, 2005; Camilleri, 2007; DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Kjeldsen, 2012; Kjeldsen and Jacobsen, 2012; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997; Ritz and Brewer, 2013; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011).

Personal community

Personal community characteristics represent the expectations and modeling of family members, friends, and employers that individuals absorb and bring with them to degree programs. As the biblical saying goes, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6, King James Version). Hence, students’ level of PSM may be associated in some way with the lessons and modeling provided by their family, friends, and employers. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that the work experiences of family members are meaningfully related to PSM in students (Camilleri, 2007; Kjeldsen, 2012; Perry, 1997; Perry et al., 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011). For example, Perry (1997) found that those individuals who reported having a parent who modelled public service and altruism had significantly higher levels of PSM than their counterparts. While Kjeldsen (2012) found that having at least one parent who worked in the public sector was not meaningfully related to PSM, she did find that the frequency of discussions about politics was positively related to PSM.

Professional community

Professional community characteristics capture the influence that practitioners, professional organizations, and accrediting agencies have on students’ attitudes. Research in the general literature suggests that the involvement of practitioners and professional accrediting/licensing associations is influential on students’ attitudes and behaviors (Weidman et al., 2001). This suggests that graduate programs can meaningfully influence the development of PSM in students through the quality and level of interaction they foster between students and experienced practitioners. Practitioners with many years of experience in public service are often used in degree programs as role models and adjunct professors. Many suggest that involvement of practitioners provides students with clearer perspectives on the realities of public service work (Cox III et al., 2007; Irvin, 2003; Letzmann et al., 2010; Milam, 2003). Similarly, professionals can be influential on graduate programs through the enforcement of accreditation standards. Accreditation influences the missions, course offerings, and faculty composition of graduate programs, and thus may be linked to PSM. As Pandey and Stazyk suggested, professional associations are a “socializing force that reminds individuals of their obligations to society” (Pandey and Stazyk, 2008: 105).

There is evidence that membership status and engagement in professional organizations are meaningfully related to PSM. The studies that were found on this topic confirm that participation in a professional organization is largely positively related to PSM in individuals (DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Pandey and Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997). For example, Perry (1997) found that involvement in a professional society (i.e., reading professional journals and attending professional meetings) was positively related to PSM’s individual dimensions of commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice, while negatively related to attraction to public policy making. He linked this to the lack of tolerance that professionals have for politics. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) confirmed the positive relationship that membership in a professional association has to PSM, but also found it to be positively related to attraction to public policy-making.

Program characteristics

The curriculum characteristic of degree programs captures the interactions and involvements that students have with their professors and peers through their academic programs and related activities. These curricular, mentoring, and climate aspects may shape students’ attitudes, and subsequently foster higher levels of PSM. As a matter of fact, existing research in public administration has found a link between the curricular characteristics of degree programs and students’ level of PSM. For instance, Vandenabeele (2011) explored the antecedents of PSM among a group of civil servants in Belgium and found that having a degree in a social science field (i.e., language and health studies) was related to higher levels of PSM. However, Kjeldsen and Jacobsen (2012) suggested that the relationship between public service-related graduate programs and PSM may not be beneficial over time. Using panel data, these scholars compared the level of PSM in students who were in core public service and non-core public service vocational programs in Denmark. They found that students’ levels of PSM were moderated by their length of time in their degree program. For example, among students in non-core public service programs, the level of PSM significantly increased as their length of time in their degree program increased, whereas the level of PSM of students in core public service programs slightly declined.

Interestingly, a similar trend was observed among students’ time in a program and their career interest in government. First year students entering public administration programs have been found to be significantly more interested in government careers than their second year counterparts (Chetkovich, 2003; Infeld and Adams, 2011; Light, 1999). These findings suggest that the curricular characteristics of public service graduate programs do little to enhance students’ attitudes about government work and may even be detrimental. Some have linked these findings to the curricular orientations of degree programs and suggest that those degree programs that have embraced analytical orientations and economic theory teach students to be skeptical of government intervention (Chetkovich, 2003; Elmore, 1986; Lowery and Whitaker, 1994; Schultze, 1977), and perhaps even counteract their level of public service motivation. However, despite these arguments, most studies have failed to find a meaningful connection between the curricular characteristics of degree programs, and the attitudes of students (De Soto et al., 1999; Hur and Hackbart, 2009; Infeld and Adams, 2011).

Likewise, one could expect that students who are directly exposed to opportunities to interact with community members to solve meaningful problems as a part of the requirements of their degree program may develop higher levels of PSM. At one level, there is support in the literature. There is evidence of positive links between PSM and volunteer activities (Clerkin et al., 2007; Houston, 2006; Perry et al., 2008). Individuals with high levels of PSM are found to engage in volunteer type activities significantly more than their counterparts with lower levels of PSM. However, research regarding the link between service learning opportunities and the attitudes of students is largely mixed (Doverspike et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2000; Reinke, 2003). For example, Reinke (2003) found that students involved in a service learning project produced mixed quantitative and qualitative results. On the one hand the students expressed the benefits of service learning on their understanding and application of their classroom concepts in a reflective written exercise. On the other hand, the results of a quantitative survey that measured their current levels of civic engagement before and after the class suggested that at best the project was ineffective on their attitudes and behaviors.

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to explore the relative and comparative importance that student background, personal community, professional, and curriculum characteristics have to the level of PSM among graduate students who are pursuing public affairs graduate education. To accomplish this purpose, 100 public affairs Master’s degree programs were randomly selected from a list¹ obtained from the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) in 2013. This list included both accredited and unaccredited public affairs Master’s degree programs. Of the programs selected, twenty-six programs agreed to participate in the study. A link to an online survey was forwarded to the programs to be given to their students². The students were instructed that their participation in the study was completely voluntary; their individual answers would be kept confidential; they could refuse to answer any question that made them uncomfortable; and they could end the survey at any time with no penalty or loss. Five-hundred and fifty-two (562) students responded to the survey. The overall response rate is approximately 35% of students enrolled in the 26 degree programs involved in this study (see Table 1)³.

Table 1.

Measurement and descriptive statistics of study variables.

Name	Descriptive survey question	Variable coding	N	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Age	Year of birth – year of study		522	30.06	8.03	20	60
Association membership	Are you a member of a professional association?	(0) No, (1) Yes	492	.28	.448	0	1
Citizenship	US citizenship status	(1) Noncitizen, (2) Citizen	537	1.11	.30	1	2
Community service	How regularly are you involved in community service or public service activities through your graduate degree program?	(1) Not at All to (3) Frequently	488	1.83	.725	1	3
Conference attendance	How regularly do you attend a regional, national, or international conference in your field of interest through your graduate degree?	(1) Not at All, (2) Occasionally, (3) Frequently	489	1.36	.509	1	3
Core finance	Number of finance	Number of finance Core courses	552	.81	.394	0	1
Core legal	Number of legal	Number of legal Core courses	552	.28	.488	0	2
Core management	Number of management	Number of management core courses	552	2.42	1.47	0	6
Core methods	Number of methods	Number of methods core courses	552	2.8	1.58	.50	6
Core policy	Number of policy	Number of policy core courses	552	.77	.58	0	2
Education	What is the highest level of education you have completed?	(1) Some college, (2) Associate, (3) BA, (4) Master’s	537	3.13	.394	1	4
Father’s government experience	Does your father have public sector work experience?	(0) No, (1) Yes	552	.24	.428	0	1
Full-time status	Are you a full-time or part-time graduate student?	(0) No, (1) Yes	499	.71	.454	0	1
Gender	What is your gender?	(1) Male, (2) Female	537	1.64	.47	1	2
Government experience	Overall, how many years of experience do you have working in government sector, nonprofit sector, and business sector?	Sum	516	2.7	4.97	0	31
Government–practitioner interactions	How regularly do you interact with someone who works in the following organizations in your graduate program? Government agency	(1) Never to (5) Daily	480	3.19	1.22	1	5
Minority status	How would you describe your racial or ethnic group?	(0) Minority, (1) Nonminority	535	.68	.46	0	1
Mother’s government experience	Does mother have public sector work experience?	(0) No, (1) Yes	552	.23	.421	0	1
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration accreditation		(0) Non-Accredited, (1) Accredited	552	.85	.35	0	1
Peer climate	Springer et al. (2009) Springer et al. (2009) survey items: (1) Students support each other in this school; (2) Students in my class work together to solve problems; (3) People in this school are willing to help each other; (4) People care about each other in this school; (5) I feel close to people at school; (6) I feel a part of this school; (7) I can count on people in this school when I have a problem; (8) My professors care about the work I do at school; (9) Professors at this school are close to the students: and (10) Students feel close to the teachers at this school	Sum	484	46.6	9.59	10	60
Public service motivation (PSM)	Kim (2009a) PSM scale: (1) Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements; (2) I feel sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged; (3) I am interested in making public programs that are beneficial for my country or the community I belong to; (4) It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress; (5) I believe in putting duty before self; (6) I consider public service my civic duty; (7) Sharing my views on public policies with others is attractive to me; (8) Seeing people get benefits from a public program I have been deeply involved in brings me a great deal of satisfaction; (9) I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society; (10) I prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community even if it harmed my interests; (11) I am often reminded by daily events how dependent we are on one another; and (12) Meaningful public service is important to me. Sum measure of PSM	Sum	502	57.36	7.23	17	72
Science, education, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) major	What is your undergraduate degree major?	(0) Non STEM; 1) STEM	529	.1191	.32	0	1
Year in degree program	What year are you in your current graduate degree program?	(0) First semester – 1 year, (1) Beyond	501	.57	.50	0	1

The central dependent variable of this study is the respondents’ level of PSM. This was collected using a Kim (2009a) 12-item revision of Perry’s (1993) 24-item PSM scale. This scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.83. Public service motivation is the aggregate sum of its various ingredients and is not represented by the sum of any single ingredient. To remain consistent with this perspective, an aggregate measure of PSM was used. However, individual dimensions of PSM (i.e., attraction to public policy making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice) were reported for the purpose of improving cross-country comparisons (Kim and Vandenabeele, 2010).

The independent variables collected in this study centered on the respondents’ degree program, student background, professional community, and personal community characteristics. The program characteristics that were collected included the core course topics, opportunities for community involvement, and peer climate. The curricular core requirements were collected primarily from each graduate degree programs’ websites, student handbooks, and NASPAA’s database. The number of core courses required in management, methods, finance, and public policy were computed following the techniques of Averch and Dluhy (1992), Cleary (1990), and Roeder and Whitaker (1993). For example, the number core of courses that emphasized management of public organizations were classified as management core; the application of quantitative and/or qualitative techniques of analysis courses were classified as methodological core; budgeting and financial techniques courses were classified as finance core; public policies and organizational environment courses were classified as public policy core; and legal institutions, law and ethics courses were classified as legal core. Opportunities for community involvement were collected from the following question: “How regularly are you involved in community service or public service activities through your graduate degree program?” The answer choices included (1) “Not at all” to (3) “Frequently”. Peer climate was measured using the Springer et al. (2009) 10 item scale. This scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.95.

The student background variables that were collected included the respondents’ age, gender, minority status, citizenship status, undergraduate STEM field status, years of public sector experience, year in program, and full-time status. The dummy variables for females, minorities, and non-citizens were each coded as 0. The respondents’ undergraduate majors were categorized in terms of their STEM field status. STEM fields were coded as 1. Lastly, students who were between their first semester and the end of their first year were coded as 0, whereas students who were later in their degree programs were coded as 1. Students that were full time were coded as 1.

The professional community variables that were collected included the frequency of interactions with government practitioners, professional association membership status, frequency of conference attendance, and American Society for Public Administration accreditation status (NASPAA). To assess the interactions that the respondents had with practitioners the respondents were asked, “How regularly do you interact with someone who works in the following organizations in your graduate program?” Answer choices included government agency, federal government, and local government. A variable was created for each category. In terms of conference attendance, the respondents were asked, “How regularly do you attend a regional, national, or international conference in your field of interest through your graduate degree program? The answer scale ranged from 1 for “not at all” to 3 for “frequently”. Association membership status was collected with the following Yes or No question: “Are you a member of a professional association?” Association membership was coded as 1. Lastly, the accreditation status of the respondents’ degree program was collected from a review of NASPAA’s databases. NASPAA accredited schools were coded as 1.

Furthermore, the personal community variables that were collected included the occupational sectors of the respondents’ parents, as well as the satisfaction that their parents, friends, and employers had with the respondents’ career choices. For example, the occupational sectors of the respondents’ parents were collected for their father and mother using the following question, “In which sector do your parents/guardians work?” The answer categories included government, nonprofit, and business sectors. Dummy variables were created for the respondents’ mother and father work experience in government. In addition to the primary study variables, two control variables were used in this study.

Analysis strategies

The analysis of this study was conducted in two stages⁴. First, a bivariate correlation analysis was conducted for the purpose of confirming the relationships among the study variables. Study variables that were found not to be correlated with the dependent variable were removed from subsequent analysis for the purpose of enhancing the power of the study and to maximize parsimony. Lastly, a multiple regression model was used to explore the relative importance of each variable to the dependent variable while controlling for the variance of the other variables. The findings are reported below.

Findings of the study

This study collected various kinds of information from the respondents including their individual background, degree program, professional community and personal community characteristics. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics regarding the respondents’ individual background characteristics in terms of their age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship and undergraduate STEM majors, and years of government experience. While the average age of the respondents were 30 years old, 67% of these indicated that they were between the ages of 20 to 30 years of age. The majority of the respondents indicated that they were female, non-minority, and US citizen. Similarly, most of the respondents indicated that they had obtained undergraduate degrees in non-STEM fields and had less than one year of experience working in government organizations.

Table 2.

Student background characteristics.

Age (Mean = 30)
	20 to 30 years old	67%
	30 to 40 years old	20%
	40 to 50 years old	7%
	50+ years old	4%
Gender
	Male	36%
	Female	64%
Race and ethnicity
	Black/African American	8%
	Hispanic/Latino	8%
	White/Caucasian	68%
	Asian/Pacific Islander	11%
	Native American/Alaska Native	0.2%
	Middle Eastern	1%
	Multi-racial	3%%
Citizenship
	US citizen	88%
	Non-citizen	12%
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) field
	Non-STEM Field	88%
	STEM field	12%
Government years of experience
	0 to 1 years	62%
	1 to 3 years	13%
	3 to 6 years	10%
	6 to 10 years	9%
	10+ years	6%

Table 3 describes the program characteristics of the respondents in terms of the number of required core courses by topic and frequency of community service involvement in their graduate programs. Most of the respondents’ core course requirements are focused on methods with the management core topics being the second most represented among the core requirements. The least required core course topic among the respondents’ degree program requirements is legal core topics. Similarly, only 19% of the respondents indicate they are frequently involved in community service activities, with the great majority indicating that they had occasional to no involvement at all.

Table 3.

Degree program characteristics.

		%	Mean
Required core courses			8
	Management courses	30%
	Method courses	36%
	Finance courses	12%
	Policy courses	10%
	Legal courses	4%
Frequency of community involvement
	Not at all	36.5
	Occasionally	44.5
	Frequently	19.1

As shown in Table 4, the respondents were asked about the peer climate in their respective programs. The results indicated that the majority of the respondents believe that the climates of their programs were supportive. However, there are a few areas worth noting. Reviewing the survey item means revealed that the majority of the respondents strongly agreed that people and students in the program were supportive of each other in their programs. When asked whether they agreed that people in their program were willing to help each other, nearly 75% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. However, they appeared to be less confident regarding their relationships with their professors. Individuals’ perception of their closeness with their professors was the lowest rated survey item. For example, when asked whether they agreed that they felt or were very close to professors in their program, 65% indicated that they somewhat agreed or agreed.

Table 4.

Peer climate response percentages by question (N = 552).

How much do you agree with the following statements?	Mean	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Somewhat disagree	Somewhat agree	Agree	Strongly agree
People care about each other in this program	4.81	2	2.9	4.9	22	38.5	29.5
Students support each other in this program	4.89	2.5	1.8	3.5	20	40.3	31.9
Professors in this program are close to students	4.46	1.8	4.7	9.4	31	34.9	18.1
Students feel very close to professors in this program	4.27	1.6	6.6	13.4	32.9	32.1	13.4
Students in this program work together to solve problems	4.79	1.4	3.9	4.1	21.9	41.6	27
People in this program are willing to help each other	4.96	1.8	1.8	2.9	18.6	41.3	33.5
I can count on people in this program when I have a problem	4.62	2.7	4.5	7.2	23.4	38.1	24.2
I feel close to people at this program	4.34	2.9	6.2	11.9	31.2	28.5	19.3
I feel a part of this program	4.68	1.6	5.5	6.2	22.8	36.8	27.1
My professors care about the work I do in this program	4.79	2.3	3.9	18.9	18.9	39.1	30.1

Table 5 presents the characteristics of the respondents’ professional communities in terms of the accreditation of their degree programs, professional membership status, and frequency of conference attendance and practitioner interactions. It is clear that the majority of the respondents were enrolled in programs that are accredited by NASPAA, with 42% of the respondents attending non-NASPAA accredited graduate programs. Conference attendance was a rare occurrence among the respondents with less than 2% indicating that they attended professional conferences frequently. Similarly, approximately 28% of the respondents had a membership in a professional organization. However, 70% of the respondents indicate that they had daily to monthly interactions with public sector practitioners in their degree programs.

Table 5.

Professional community characteristics.

Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration accreditation
Yes	58%
No	42%
Conference attendance frequencies
Not at all	65.6
Occasionally	32.9
Frequently	1.4
Association membership
No	72.4
Yes	27.6
Frequency of interactions with government practitioners
Never	11.7
Yearly	18.1
Monthly	24.4
Weekly	31.7
Daily	14.2

The personal characteristics of the respondents are displayed in Table 6 in terms of the public sector work experience of the respondents’ parents. The majority of the respondents’ parents have no work experience in government. Roughly 20% of the respondents have at least one parent who worked in the public sector. In addition to the major study variables, two control variables were collected in this study: “year in program” and “full-time status.” As shown in Table 7, most of the respondents have been in their programs for at least two years and were full-time students.

Table 6.

Personal community characteristics: parents’ work experience in government.

Fathers’ government experience
No	76%
Yes	24%
Mothers’ government experience
No	77%
Yes	23%

Table 7.

Control variables.

Year in program
1st^s year	43%
2nd year	57%
Full-time status
No	29
Yes	71

In addition to the descriptive findings, this study conducted a two stage analysis process on the predictors of individuals’ level of PSM. As shown in Table 8, the first stage involves an analysis of the bivariate correlations among the independent variable and PSM, and its individual dimensions. These results indicate that the level of PSM is significantly correlated with the respondents’ gender, years of public sector work experience, the number of graduate core courses in legal and finance topics, the frequency of community service involvements, peer climate, accreditation, frequency of conference attendance, and full-time status. In contradiction to existing research, this study finds that the respondents’ age, education level, association membership, and parent’s public sector experience are not meaningful predictors of the respondents’ level of PSM. As a result, these variables were removed from further analysis. The conflicting results of this study may be due to the characteristics of the respondents who were mainly graduate students as opposed to workers in public organizations.

Table 8.

Bivariate correlations among study variables and public service motivation (PSM).

	PSM
Age	0.009
Gender	0.000
Minority status	-0.009
Citizen	-0.019
Education Level	-0.007
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics	-0.053
Years of government Experience	0.006
Methods	0.011
Management	0.039
Policy	-0.010
Legal	0.121**
Finance	-0.128**
Service learning	0.213**
Peer climate	0.207**
Accreditation	0.121**
Conference attendance	0.127**
Association membership	0.037
Government interact	0.078
Father’s government experience	0.006
Mother’s government experience	-0.020
Year in program	-0.013
Full-time status	0.099*

**, Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*, Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

In the second analysis stage a multiple regression analysis was conducted to explore the relationship among each of the remaining predictors and PSM, while considering the other explanations. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 9. There are several findings worth noting. The findings suggest that full-time status, frequency of service learning opportunities, peer climate, accreditation, and number of conferences attended are all meaningful predictors of PSM, even when other explanations are taken into account. For example, the respondents who were attending their degree programs on a full-time basis were significantly more likely to have higher levels of PSM than their counterparts who were attending their programs on a part-time basis. Similarly, as the frequency of service learning and conference attendance increased among the respondents, they reported having significantly higher levels of PSM than their counterparts. Along these same lines, the respondents who attended NASPAA accredited schools demonstrated significantly higher levels of PSM than their counterparts in non-NASPAA accredited schools. Lastly, the findings demonstrated a strong link between the peer climate and PSM. That is, as the respondents’ perceptions of the support in their degree programs increased, their level of PSM appeared to increase as well.

Table 9.

Study variables regressed on public service motivation (PSM) and its dimensions.

	PSM
Full-time status	0.115*
Gender	0.024
Years of government experience	0.057
Legal	0.052
Finance	-0.089
Service learning	0.081**
Peer climate	0.171*
Accreditation	0.104*
Conference attendance	0.077
Adjusted R square	0.108

**, Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*, Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Conclusion of study

The purpose of this study is to help shed light on the potential predictors of PSM from the standpoint of socialization in higher education. More specifically, the findings confirm service learning opportunities, peer climate, NASPAA accreditation, and full-time status were all meaningful predictors of individual overall level of PSM. Overall, this study confirms that aspects of the degree programs and professional community characteristics are the two strongest predictors of the level of PSM in individuals, even when factors that represent the background and personal communities of individuals were taken into account. The implications of this study are discussed below.

First, this study finds that the curriculum characteristics of degree programs did not influence the respondent’s level of PSM. There were no meaningful relationships between any of the core course requirements and individuals’ overall level of PSM. Second, this study confirms that peer climate was found to be the most important predictor of the overall level of PSM as well the strongest predictor of three out of the four individual dimensions of PSM: “attraction to policy making;” “commitment to the public interest”; and “compassion.” This is the first study to demonstrate these strong links. The respondents who were in supportive climates were significantly more likely to have higher overall levels of PSM. While the reasons for these findings are not entirely clear, overall this study suggests that the development of PSM is more of an outcome of the quality of mentorship and interaction students have with their peers and professors than an outcome of the curricular requirements of degree programs. This logic also applies to the findings that full-time students have significantly higher levels of PSM than their part-time counterparts. A major difference between these students may be their level of engagement in their programs. Full-time students tend to be more engaged in their degree programs than part-time students, which may have been the reason for their significantly different levels of PSM. However, this study did not establish whether the benefits of supportive environments on PSM are fundamentally linked to public service education programs. These benefits may be linked in similar ways in other non-public administration degree programs and could be an explanation for Kjeldsen’s (2012) findings. This should be a topic of future research. These findings suggest that program administrators should pay attention to the influx of part-time students. Part-time students may have less access to department resources that could be critical to the development of PSM. It could also be that these students are fundamentally different and may be entering programs with a greater motive for advancement.

Third, this study suggests that greater opportunities for service learning offer greater benefits on the development of PSM in individuals. Previous research suggested the importance of service learning in organizations, but often failed to find a strong beneficial connection with the attitudes of students. This has lead scholars to the conclusion that much is not known about the effects of service learning on graduate students (Reinke, 2003). Hence, this is one of the first studies to confirm that a strong connection exists between service learning opportunities and students’ desire to contribute to the well-being of their community. Individuals who participated in service learning opportunities demonstrated significantly higher levels of PSM overall. By encouraging students to interact with their community members, these experiences teach students the importance of selfless service and apparently awaken them to the responsibilities they have to others. Yet, consistent with existing research, this study confirms that most of the respondents reported that they rarely participated in these opportunities (Hornbein and King, 2012; Schachter and Aliaga, 2003). Offering more opportunities of this kind and encouraging student involvement may be beneficial in any graduate level program.

Fourth, this study demonstrated the importance that the professional community characteristic had to individuals’ level of PSM. On this account, NASPAA accreditation and conference attendance were both positively related to PSM. Students who were enrolled in NASPAA accredited schools were significantly more likely to have higher levels of PSM, as well as a greater commitment to the public interest than those who were enrolled in non-accredited programs. This could be due to the emphasis that NASPAA accrediting standards place on public service. Additionally, in this study professional conference attendance was linked to PSM. A professional conference provides students with opportunities to network with practitioners and professors in the field and engage them in impactful discussions on important public policy issues. These interactions appear to cultivate students’ public service motives.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge the weaknesses of this study. That is, this study does not address whether degree programs are the primary sources of PSM in individuals. It is reasonable to assume that there are other sources of PSM that exist that were not examined in this study. As a matter of fact, only 10% of the variance in PSM is explained by the major predictors in this study. Additionally, the causal inferences of this study cannot be entirely proven given its cross-sectional nature. It may be that students with high levels of PSM are attracted to service learning opportunities rather than that these opportunities are developing these motives in individuals. As a result, it is important that future research confirms the causal relationships of these variables. Nonetheless, with these qualifications in mind, this study confirms that certain activities and characteristics are associated with higher levels of PSM, regardless of whether it is achieved through attraction or socialization. In either case, degree programs can enhance or diminish the levels of PSM among their student populations according to how they foster opportunities for service learning and conference involvement, build supportive peer climates, and adopt public service-oriented accreditation standards.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Alonso

Lewis

(2001) Public service motivation and job performance: evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration 31(4): 363–380.

Andersen

Heinesen

Pedersen

(2014) How does public service motivation among teachers affect student performance in schools? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3): 651–671.

Averch

Dluhy

(1992) Teaching public administration, public management, and policy analysis: Convergence or divergence in the masters core. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(3): 541–551.

Bozeman

(2014) Public service motivation concepts and theory: a critique. Public Administration Review 75(5): 700–710.

Bright

(2005) Public employees with high levels of public service motivation: who are they, where are they, and what do they want? Review of Public Personnel Administration 25(2): 138–154.

Bright

(2007) Does person–organization fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration 27(4): 361–379.

Bright

(2008) Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration 38(2), 149–166.

Bright

(2009) Why do public employees desire intrinsic nonmonetary opportunities? Public Personnel Management 38(3): 15–37.

Brim

Wheeler

(1966) Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Camilleri

(2007) Antecedents affecting public service motivation. Personnel Review 36(3): 356–377.

11.

Carpenter

Doverspike

Miguel

(2012) Public service motivation as a predictor of attraction to the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(2): 509–523.

12.

Chetkovich

(2003) What’s in a sector? The shifting career plans of public policy students. Public Administration Review 63(6): 660–674.

13.

Christensen

Wright

(2011) The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: disentangling the contributions of person–organization fit and person–job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 723–743.

14.

Cleary

(1990) What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed? Public Administration Review 50(6): 663–673.

15.

Clerkin

Paynter

Taylor

(2007) The Linkage of Public Service Motivation and Charitable Activity. Available at: http://www.pmranet.org/conferences/AZU2007/ArizonaPapers/Clerkin_Paynter_&_Taylor_2007.pdf (accessed 12 January 2015).

16.

Clerkin

Paynter

Taylor

(2009) Public service motivation in undergraduate giving and volunteering decisions. American Review of Public Administration 39(6): 675–698.

17.

Cox

III Leven

Banovetz

. (2007) Managers as Teachers: A Practitioner’s Guide to Teaching Public Administration. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.

18.

De Soto

Opheim

Tajalli

(1999) Apples and oranges? Comparing the attitudes of public policy versus public administration students. American Review of Public Administration, 29(1): 77–91.

19.

DeHart-Davis

Marlowe

Pandey

(2006) Gender dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 66(6): 873–887.

20.

Doverspike

Qin

Magee

. (2011) The public sector as a career choice: antecedents of an expressed interest in working for the federal government. Public Personnel Management, 40(2): 119–132.

21.

Elmore

(1986) Graduate education in public management: working the seams of government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6(1): 69–83.

22.

Ertas

(2012) Public service motivation theory and voluntary organizations: do government employees volunteer more? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(2): 254–271.

23.

Fisher

(1986) Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In: Rowland

Ferris

(eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.101–145.

24.

Gray

Ondaatje

Fricker

. (2000) Assessing service-learning. Change 32(2): 30–39.

25.

Holland

(1959) A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology 6(1): 35–45.

26.

Hornbein

King

(2012) Should We Be Teaching Public Participation? Student Responses and MPA Program Practices. Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(4): 717–737.

27.

Houston

(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(1): 67–86.

28.

Hur

Hackbart

(2009) MPA vs. MPP: a distinction without a difference? Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(4): 397–424.

29.

Infeld

Adams

(2011) MPA and MPP students: twins, siblings, or distant cousins? Journal of Public Affairs Education 17(2): 277–303.

30.

Irvin

(2003) Use of consultants as adjunct faculty in graduate nonprofit management programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education 9(3): 181–192.

31.

Jin

(2013) Public service motivation: a cross-country study. International Journal of Public Administration 36(5): 331–343.

32.

Kim

(2009a) Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. American Review of Public Administration 39(2): 149–163.

33.

Kim

(2009b) Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: a research note. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(4): 839–851.

34.

Kim

(2011) Testing a revised measure of public service motivation: reflective versus formative specification. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 521–546.

35.

Kim

Vandenabeele

(2010) A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review 70(5): 701–709.

36.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

. (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(1): 79–102.

37.

Kjeldsen

(2012) Vocational study and public service motivation: disentangling the socializing effects of higher education. International Public Management Journal 15(4): 500–524.

38.

Kjeldsen

Jacobsen

(2012) Public service motivation and employment sector: attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(4): 899–926.

39.

Letzmann

Nickels

Stockdale

(2010) Engaging students to connect beyond the text: a reflection on the value of professionals as adjuncts. Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(1): 67–76.

40.

Light

(1999) The New Public Service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

41.

Liu

Hui

. (2011) How well can public service motivation connect with occupational intention? International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(1): 191–211.

42.

Lowery

Whitaker

(1994) Comparing public administration and policy analysis approaches to public service education. American Review of Public Administration 24(1): 25–42.

43.

Milam

(2003) Practitioner in the classroom: bringing local government experience into the public administration curriculum. Public Administration Review 63(3): 364–369.

44.

Moore

Rosenblum

(1970) The Professions: Roles and Rules. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

45.

Moynihan

Pandey

(2007) The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review 67(1): 40–53.

46.

Naff

Crum

(1999) Working for America: does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5–16.

47.

Pandey

Stazyk

(2008) Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In: Perry

Hondeghem

(eds) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.107–117.

48.

Pedersen

M J

(2013) Public service motivation and attraction to public versus private sector employment: academic field of study as moderator. International Public Management Journal 16(3): 357–385.

49.

Perry

(1996) Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5–22.

50.

Perry

(1997) Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(2): 181–197.

51.

Perry

Brudney

Coursey

. (2008) What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 68(3): 445–458.

52.

Perry

Vandenabeele

(2008) Behavioral dynamics: Institutions, identities, and self-regulation. In: Perry

Hondeghem

(eds) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.56–79.

53.

Perry

Wise

(1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367–373.

54.

Public Administration Review (2012) Professionalism in public administration and public service: call for proposals. Public Administration Review 72(4): 631–632.

55.

Reinke

(2003) Making a difference: does service-learning promote civic engagement in MPA students? Journal of Public Affairs Education 9(2): 129–138.

56.

Ritz

(2009) Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal government. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(1): 53–78.

57.

Ritz

Brewer

(2013) Does societal culture affect public service motivation? Evidence of sub-national differences in Switzerland. International Public Management Journal 16(2): 224–251.

58.

Roeder

Whitaker

(1993) Education for the public service: Policy analysis and administration in the MPA core curriculum. Administration & Society 24(4): 512–540.

59.

Rose

(2013) Preferences for careers in public work: examining the government-nonprofit divide among undergraduates through public service motivation. American Review of Public Administration 43(4): 416–437.

60.

Schachter

Aliaga

(2003) Educating Administrators to Interact with Citizens: A Research Note. Public Organization Review 3(4): 433–442.

61.

Schultze

(1977) The Public Use of Private Interest. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

62.

Springer

McQueen

Quintanilla

. (2009) Reliability and validity of the Student Perceptions of School Cohesion Scale in a sample of Salvadoran secondary school students. BMC International Health and Human Rights 9(30): 1–9.

63.

Steijn

(2008) Person–environment fit and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal 11(1): 13–27.

64.

Van Maanen

(1976) Breaking in: socialization to work. In: Dubin

(ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp.67–130.

65.

Vandenabeele

(2008) Government calling: public service motivation as an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration 86(4): 1089–1105.

66.

Vandenabeele

(2011) Who wants to deliver public service? Do institutional antecedents of public service motivation provide an answer? Review of Public Personnel Administration 31(1): 87–107.

67.

Weidman

Twale

Stein

(2001) Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

68.

Wilensky

(1964) The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology 70(2): 137–158.