Does Public Service Motivation Influence the College Students’ Intention to Work in the Public Sector? Evidence From Korea

Abstract

Previous studies have produced significant distinctions between public- and private-sector employees with respect to public service motivation (PSM) and PSM-related variables. Little, however, is known about whether those variables are associated with employment choice at a pre-entry level. This article will address this gap in the literature by exploring the effect of PSM on college students’ sector choice in Korea. In previous research on PSM, three types of PSM measures—Perry’s PSM scale, work values, and prosocial behaviors—were utilized as a PSM variable. In exploring the association between PSM and sector choice, we employed the three measures. The empirical model showed that PSM and prosocial behaviors were not associated with public-sector choice. Only job security was found to be a main reason why college students intended to enter the public sector in Korea. We will discuss the implications of our findings in this article.

Keywords

public service motivation recruitment and selection work motivation

Introduction

Civil service careers in the public sector have become less popular over time in the United States (Chetkovich, 2003; G. B. Lewis & Frank, 2002). There are many reasons for this: public organizations are negatively portrayed as bureaucratic (Naff & Crum, 1999), trust in government has declined over time (Perry & Wise, 1990), benefits in public-sector agencies are less than those in private-sector counterparts (Naff & Crum, 1999), and public employee satisfaction at work has gradually decreased (H. Lee, Cayer, & Lan, 2006). Nevertheless, what makes certain job seekers consider the public sector as a career choice? This is an important question in public administration research. Perry and Wise (1990) answered this question by proposing public service motivation (PSM) as a unique motivation of job candidates who want to pursue a career in the public sector. They argued that individuals with a high degree of PSM tend to seek membership in a public agency. Currently, PSM is considered an important theme in public administration and management research (Behn, 1995; Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Vandenabeele, 2008). The concept of PSM originates from “public service ethics” proposed by Buchanan (1975), who argues that public servants are characterized by a public service ethic: attitudes and behaviors that differentiate public managers from business managers. A great body of research on motivation of public employees has been undertaken in the field, and it is well documented that motivational differences exist between public-sector employees and their private-sector counterparts (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Frank & Lewis, 2004; Khojasteh, 1993; Rainey, Backoff, & Levine, 1976; Wittmer, 1991).

In the literature, there are two perspectives on why the motivations of public- and private-sector employees differ: attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) and adaptation-socialization (AS; Wright & Grant, 2010). From the ASA perspective, public–private differences in attitudes and perception emanate from self-selection of individuals with high levels of PSM into public-sector work (Leisink & Steijn, 2008; Wright & Christensen, 2010). The socialization view proposes that PSM is cultivated through the socialization process by which organizational members are imbued with public values and ethics in public institutions (Kjeldsen, 2012; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Moynihan and Pandey (2007) maintained that “PSM may be formed by sociohistorical factors before employees enter the organization, but it will also be influenced by the organizational environment in which employees find themselves” (p. 42; Kjeldsen, 2012; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007)

Our focus here is on the relationship between PSM and sector-choice decisions of job seekers with the ASA framework. Although this relationship has been found to be straightforward, most of the findings come from empirical research based in Western countries (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010). The purpose of our study is twofold. First, we will primarily investigate to what extent PSM influences public-sector employment choice at a pre-entry level in Korea. A theory is said to be a good theory if it is applied to reality in as many contexts as possible. Except for several studies (Kim, 2006; Bangcheng, 2009; Bangcheng, Tang, & Zhu, 2008), most empirical studies on PSM have been made in Western society contexts such as the United States and other Western countries. Given that institutional and cultural factors in a society influence the social behavior of members within the society, motives and PSM-related behaviors may vary across cultures and nations (Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, 1998; Koehler & Rainey, 2008). This study seeks to uncover whether PSM serves as a predictor of public-sector employment in the Korea context.

Second, this study examines how other PSM-related concepts such as prosocial behaviors and work values are associated with sector-choice decisions in this study. Brewer et al. (2000) claimed that there are two streams of research on PSM in the field: studies using multifaceted dimensions of PSM versus studies using PSM-related variables. Although a measurement scale for PSM was well developed by Perry (1996), other studies have utilized proxy measures of PSM, including prosocial behaviors, work values, or other attitudes (e.g., Gabris & Simo, 1995; Houston, 2000, 2006). Most of the studies have produced significant distinctions between public- and private-sector employees with respect to PSM and PSM-related variables. Little, however, is known about whether those variables are associated with employment choice at a pre-entry level. This study mainly attempts to answer to the three research questions as follows:

Research Question 1: Does PSM influence college students’ choice to work in the public sector in Korea?

Research Question 2: Do work values influence college students’ employment sector decisions in Korea?

Research Question 3: Do prosocial experiences influence college students’ choice to work in the public sector in Korea?

Our study will make a contribution to the PSM literature by uncovering the relationship between PSM (and PSM-related variables) and attraction to public-sector organizations in the specific Korean context.

Korean Context

South Korea is a society organized strongly around its members’ academic backgrounds, and an enormous value is attached to education. It is said that education is regarded as a road to success in life, but this proposition is entirely straightforward in Korean society. Due to the intense competition among high school students to enter universities, the Korean government has approved the establishment of private universities over the past several decades to meet the burgeoning demand for higher education (Kim & Lee, 2006). As of 2011, there were 434 higher education institutions, including 183 four-year universities and 147 two-year colleges. Regardless of children’s willingness, most parents aspire to educate their children at a university-level institution, pouring a lot of money into their children’s education and hoping for them to succeed in entering a prestigious university. At present, the gross college entrance rate reaches 72.5% (as of 2011) in Korea, the highest level among Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries. Regarding a strong educational background as a means of achieving a high level of social status, most parents in Korea strongly encourage their children to excel in school. Hence, in addition to formal education in school, most parents use private tutoring or extra learning activities at private institutions to enhance their children’s academic achievement and enable them to enter the universities that are highly respected in Korea. It is estimated that total household expenditure on private education in 2006 was about 24 billion U.S. dollars, equivalent to about 2.79% of gross domestic product (GDP; Kim & Lee, 2010).

High educational aspirations are strongly associated with the current economic situation in Korea. There has been a long-term economic recession in Korea since a financial crisis due to a shortage of foreign currency took place in 1997. This led to the nation receiving relief financing support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to protect it from national bankruptcy—what is known as the IMF crisis in Korea. The IMF crisis has detrimentally influenced the whole economy of Korea, leaving the job market frozen and thereby leading to a high unemployment rate. At present, due to the frozen job market, it is difficult to get a job for young people who have just graduated from university. Getting a job is largely dependent on a students’ major and which university he or she attended. As a consequence, competition among high school students to get into prestigious universities is more intense, pressuring them to pursue a major in applied studies advantageous for employment such as medical studies, engineering, or business (or public) administration at a university.

Whereas most private companies prefer job candidates who major in applied studies, including engineering and business administration, government agencies recruit people via national qualification examinations without preference of a job candidate’s academic background. The rank-in-person of Korean government consists of nine grades, ranging from Grade 9 (the lowest level) to Grade 1 (the highest level). Among the grade levels, there are only three thresholds—Grades 9, 7, and 5—where job candidates can enter by passing the qualification exams. Although Korean government employees have diverse academic backgrounds, majoring in public administration as an academic discipline is regarded as the learning process for becoming a civil servant. For this reason, public administration is perceived as a popular academic field among high school students who want to be a public employee in the future in South Korea. Unlike in the United States where public administration programs are established at professional graduate schools, they are usually found at the undergraduate level in Korea. Many universities have established public administration programs to meet the high demand for professional public services—as of 2002, there were 105 public administration programs among universities in Korea (Park & Park, 2006).

Literature Review

The ASA theory, developed by Schneider (1987), suggests that employers and employees are attracted to one another when both parties have similar values and characteristics. ASA theory posits that individuals are “differentially attracted” to organizations on a basis of the match of characteristics between individuals and organizations (Schneider et al., 1995, p. 748). The characteristics include organizational goals, structures, processes, and culture. From this perspective, in particular, goal is considered one of the most integral characteristics that attract job seekers to them in an organization. As a consequence of selection on the basis of the characteristics, members within an organization become more homogeneous in terms of their behavior (Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 1995; Schneider et al., 1998).

A public–private sector difference can be accounted for by the ASA perspective. In general, public administration literature suggests that job candidates who desire to work in public-sector organizations have a high degree of PSM. Perry and Wise (1990), for example, stated that “the greater an individual’s public service motivation, the more likely the individual will seek membership in a public organization” (p. 370). Many public administration scholars contend that the public–private distinction stems from self-selection of individuals who have distinct motives, goals, and value orientations into public institutions (Crewson, 1997; Kjeldsen, 2012; G. B. Lewis & Frank, 2002; Perry & Wise, 1990; Rainey, 1982; Vandenabeele, 2008; Vandenabeele & Steen, 2004). Job candidates infused with motives for the public interest are likely to have higher levels of PSM, thereby expressing a desire to work in public organizations.

So far, most of the PSM studies focused on the effects of PSM on employees and organizations in the public administration field. It has been found that PSM has a positive effect on public organizations, finding that PSM improves the positive job attitudes of employees (Kim, 2005; Naff & Crum, 1999), reduces principal-agent problems (Gailmard, 2010), and mitigates perceptions of red tape (Scott & Pandey, 2005). Bright (2005) also found that employees with high levels of PSM were less likely to desire monetary incentives than their counterparts. More important, PSM is found to be an effective means for improving performance in the public sector (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Naff & Crum, 1999). PSM is often compared with an extrinsic motivator such as pay-for-performance widely used in private organizations in the literature (e.g., Langbein, 2010; Mann, 2006; Moynihan, 2008). Agency theory suggests that monetary incentives are an important motivator that makes employees work in a way that is consistent with organizational goals. Public administration scholars, however, claim that the excessive use of monetary incentives has negative consequences for employees’ motivation in the public sector—various types of monetary incentives (e.g., pay-for-performance) lower the levels of PSM of employees (Langbein, 2010; Mann, 2006; Moynihan, 2010; Perry, Engbers, & Jun, 2009; Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). Whereas employees with a high degree of PSM are portrayed as “knights,” those who have a high degree of extrinsic motivation are viewed as “knaves” in the PSM literature (Le Grand, 2010). Some scholars are worried that the excessive use of performance incentives may turn the knights into the knaves in public organizations (Le Grand, 2010; Moynihan, 2008).

Given that market-based incentive systems faces some challenges, recruiting and maintaining individuals with high PSM is a vital element of successful human resource management in public organizations.

PSM and Public-Sector Choice

Neoclassical economics portrays human beings negatively, as utility maximizers who maximize their own self-interests. Rational choice theorists apply the nature of human beings proposed by neoclassical economics into political and organizational settings (e.g., Downs, 1967; Niskanen, 1971), maintaining that a public bureaucrat is a utility maximizer who seeks to maximize his own interests (e.g., power through increases in agency size and budget) rather than public interests. Unlike rational choice theorists, public administration scholars regard human beings positively—especially individuals working in the public sector. Public servants are said to have public service ethics and a desire to serve the public and society (Buchanan, 1975; Staats, 1988). Rainey (1982) contended that public service is a subconcept of profession, defining public servants as “professional public administrators to be committed to public values” (p. 299). Perry and Wise define PSM as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). According to Vandenabeele (2007), it is defined as “the belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate” (p. 547).

Many empirical studies have produced a significant distinction between public- and private-sector employees with respect to PSM. But most of the prior studies reached their conclusions based on cross-sectional survey data using the samples of incumbent employees. Some studies investigated an association between PSM and employment choice at a pre-entry level, but the empirical results were found to vary across studies. The relationship has been proved significant. For instance, analyzing perceptions of master’s students in Belgian colleges, Vandenabeele (2008) revealed that PSM was positively associated with preference for public-sector employment. However, Bright’s (2011) findings ran contrary to the result of Vandenabeele’s study, showing that PSM found no connection between PSM and the occupation choices of public employees within the public organizations. Some studies produced mixed results. G. B. Lewis and Frank (2002), for example, identified that PSM could positively affect public-sector employment for only college graduates but not graduate students. Bangcheng et al. (2011) showed that only one dimension (“self-sacrifice”) of PSM was associated with students’ public-sector choice for employment and that other dimensions of PSM were not related to students’ occupational intentions in China. Through a longitudinal study using a sample of lawyers, Wright and Christensen (2010) found that there was no relationship between PSM and their first job in the legal field but that PSM increased the likelihood that their subsequent job choice will be in the public sector. Existing studies regarding the association between PSM and public-sector employment choice were found to vary. As such, this research will explore how the relationship looks like in the Korean context.

Work Value and Public-Sector Choice

It is well acknowledged that public-sector employees hold different work values, distinct from those of private-sector employees. While the former are interested in intrinsic work values such as “helping others,” the latter place importance on extrinsic work values including money and promotion. Work values—for example, “helping others,” “contributing to society”—are often used as a proxy of measures of PSM in empirical research in the field (e.g., Wright & Christensen, 2010). The difference in the work values between public- and private-sector employees is well documented. Prior empirical research has shown that employees in the public sector are less likely than those in the private sector to pursue extrinsic values (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Mann, 2006; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991), whereas they have higher degrees of intrinsic work values than their counterparts (Frank & Lewis, 2004; Houston, 2000; Khojasteh, 1993; Rainey, 1982; Rainey et al., 1976). Extrinsically motivated individuals who place much importance on extrinsic rewards such as money prefer to work in organizations with high-powered incentive structures: private-sector organizations. In contrast, individuals who place a higher value on intrinsic values may want to develop their career at organizations in the public or nonprofit sector.

While a value discrepancy between public and private sectors clearly exists, there are some exceptions. In particular, job security is characterized by extrinsic value. Yet, public-sector employees were found to place higher importance on job security than private-sector counterparts (Baldwin, 1991; Belleate & Link, 1981; Houston, 2000; G. B. Lewis & Frank, 2002). Also, financial rewards are considered a typical type of extrinsic value. Although a large number of empirical studies found that job applicants who valued money were more strongly attracted to work in the private sector, several studies did not support such evidence (see Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995). We will explore the relationships between a variety of work values and sector choice in Korea.

Prosocial Behaviors and Public-Sector Choice

Various studies suggest that individuals are often motivated to make a difference in others’ lives (Grant, 2007; Paarlberg, 2007; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Grant (2007) indicated that individuals attached to altruistic values or benevolent dispositions are inclined to make their efforts to improve the welfare of others. At present, volunteers who have such motives play a crucial role in the provision of public services in government and nonprofit agencies (Dover, 2010). Although prosocial behaviors such as volunteering are viewed as a main feature of public- and nonprofit-sector employees, such behaviors are also cultivated in private organizations. Some studies investigated prosocial behaviors between private and nonprofit organizations, but the empirical evidence of the private–nonprofit difference in volunteering was mixed: while some studies found that public employees were more likely to perform altruistic acts than nonprofit employees (e.g., Wilson & Musick, 1997), other studies showed that nonprofit managers were more likely to volunteer than public managers (e.g., Light, 2002). Y. J. Lee and Wilkins (2011) resolved the mixed evidence by proposing that public-sector employees have a tendency to volunteer at a macro level (i.e., serving the public), while nonprofit-sector counterparts are more likely to be involved in micro-level volunteering activities (i.e., helping others).

Uniquely, Houston (2006) empirically tested to examine whether prosocial behaviors such as volunteering for a charitable organization, donating blood, and making a financial donation are different across employees in three sectors—public, nonprofit, and private. Analyzing the General Social Survey data, he found that public and nonprofit employees have a higher propensity to volunteer for a charitable organization than private-sector counterparts. His study also showed that public employees were more likely than private counterparts to donate blood, but there was no difference in blood donation between nonprofit and private employees. However, Houston’s study did not reveal whether prosocial behaviors were cultivated in public and nonprofit organizations or persons with prosocial attitudes were self-selected into the organization because the empirical results were obtained from the sample of incumbent employees. Grant (2007) indicated that a variety of factors such as interpersonal relationships, work contexts, well-designed job can cultivate motivation for prosocial behaviors in organizations. From the ASA perspective, it is likely that job candidates with high levels of prosocial attitudes prefer to work for public services. Our study here will explore whether college students’ prosocial experiences affect public-sector employment in Korea.

Method

Data

Undergraduate students in five universities¹ were targeted for the survey, with participation being voluntary. The introduction to this study was given to all the sampled students by the researcher, and the students were recruited only when they agreed to participate. In total, 632 students in five universities agreed to participate in the survey. Paper questionnaires were distributed to participants, and the students were informed that their responses would be used only for a research purpose and would be kept confidentially.

Measures

The dependent variable for this study is sector-choice decisions. We asked respondents for their intended future workplace, providing four response categories: (1) public, (2) private, (3) nonprofit, and (4) other. As shown in Table 1, the frequency of the nonprofit category is only 26 (4.2%). The small cases could result in convergence problems in multinomial analysis, thus we removed observations of the “nonprofit” and “none of the above” categories from the analysis. Hence, we utilized binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the effects of the independent variables on sector choices.

Table 1.

Sample Composition (N = 632).

	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	291	46.4
Female	336	53.6
College year
Freshmen	117	18.6
Sophomore	191	30.5
Junior	200	31.9
Senior	119	19.0
Major
Public administration	234	63.0
Nonpublic administration	398	37.0
Sector choice
Public sector	331	53.2
Private sector	222	35.7
Nonprofit	26	4.2
Other	43	6.9

Our main independent variables are PSM, work value, and prosocial behavior. Although Perry’s measures of PSM have some issues (Kim, 2009; D. E. Lewis, 2010), we attempted to measure PSM with Perry’s 24-item scale: 3 items for attraction to public policy making (APM), 5 items for commitment to the public interest (CPI), 8 items for compassion (COM), and 8 items for self-sacrifice (SS). To examine the degree to which survey items are related to each underlying dimension, construct validity was tested via second-order confirmatory factor analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the overall confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) model did not produce a good fit from the data, χ² = 150.5, p < .001; χ² / df = 2.69; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.78, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 082; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10. The standardized factor loadings of APM, CPI, COM, and SS were 0.58, 0.98, 0.78, and 0.76, respectively, and only the factor loading of APM dimension was found to be not statistically significant at the level of 0.05. Recently, Kim (2009) has found that the APM dimension is not appropriate to represent the reality of PSM in Korea, suggesting a three-factor structure of PSM in the Korean context. Following his suggestion, we specified a three-factor model after removing the APM factor that was used in the original model. The model fit indices remarkably improved in the revised model; χ² = 30.4, p < .01, χ² / df = 2.02, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 090; RMSEA = 0.07. The model fit indices suggested that the three-factor CFA model was a good fit with the data. The standard factor loadings of the three factors remained statistically significant (p < .01). Hence, we excluded the APM dimension, utilizing only three dimensions of PSM in this study.² The response categories of all of the question items are a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Figure 1.

Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of PSM.

Six question items were used to measure work values.³ We employed three questions about prosocial activities to examine the extent to which prosocial behaviors are correlated with sector-choice decisions. All the questions were the same as the ones Houston (2000) used in his study to explore the public–private distinction in prosoical behaviors. The items include “How many times have you donated your blood in the last year?” and “How many times have you volunteered for a charitable organization in the last year?” In analyzing, we control for gender, major, and college year in statistical models.

Analytical Results

Table 3 shows the main results of binary logistic regression analysis. The PSM model (Model 1) indicates that public-sector choice of college students is negatively correlated with COM and CPI dimensions of PSM, but it is positively related to the SS dimension. However, any coefficient of the variables did not reach the conventional level of significance (p > .10). This clearly shows that PSM does not affect college students’ public-sector choice in Korea. Interestingly, an academic discipline as a control variable was found to be a significant predictor in this model, showing that students who major in public administration are over 5 times more likely to prefer the public sector for employment than those who major in other disciplines.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among the Study Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. COM	11.00	3.76
2. CPI	17.49	2.44	.45***
3. SS	22.02	4.03	.44***	.46***
4. High income	4.34	.67	−.12***	.08	−.16**
5. Job security	4.39	0.72	−.09	.08	−.06	.49***
6. Advancement	3.90	.87	−.06	.08	.00	.37***	.31***
7. Interest in job	4.62	.70	.10*	.15***	.21***	−.00	−.03	.08*
8. Helping others	3.43	1.03	.35***	.33***	.42***	−.06	−.06	.05	.34***
9. Contribution to society	3.64	.99	.28***	.25***	.42***	−.07	−.07	.10*	.24***	.55***
10. Blood	1.31	4.44	.06	.10**	.04	−.01	−.01	.05	.03	.02	−.03
11. Donation	1.39	4.63	.13***	.08	.05	−.05	−.05	.00	.04	.06	.02	.77***
12. Volunteering	2.98	8.12	.10*	.15	.06	−.05	−.02	−.03	.06	.05	.02	.43***	.44***

Note. COM = compassion; CPI = commitment to the public interest; SS = self-sacrifice.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Binary Logit Model Predicting Public-Sector Choice.

Variable	Model 1 (PSM)	Model 2 (Work value)	Model 3 (Prosocial)	Combined model
PSM
COM	−0.02 (0.04)			−0.03 (0.04)
CPI	−0.06 (0.06)			−0.10 (0.06)
SS	0.07 (0.04)			0.05 (0.04)
Work value
Extrinsic value
High income		−0.44* (0.20)		−0.20 (0.26)
Job security		0.57*** (0.17)		0.49* (0.23)
Advancement		0.01 (0.13)		−0.12 (0.17)
Intrinsic value
Interest in job itself		−0.10 (0.16)		−0.12 (0.19)
Helping others		0.30* (0.12)		0.25 (0.17)
Contribution to society		0.15 (0.12)		0.21 (0.17)
Prosocial behavior
Blood donation			0.06 (0.80)	0.03 (0.05)
Monetary donation			0.00 (0.94)	−0.03 (0.04)
Volunteering			0.03 (0.02)	0.04 (0.02)
Control variable
Gender (1= male)	−0.43 (0.04)	−0.17 (0.20)	−0.16 (0.19)	−0.38 (0.26)
College year	−0.23 (0.14)	−0.15 (0.11)	−0.13 (0.10)	−0.26 (0.13)
Major (1= public affairs)	1.71*** (0.29)	1.47*** (0.23)	1.57*** (0.22)	1.59*** (0.28)
Likelihood ratio test	58.46***	93.73***	77.13***	68.99***
Pseudo R²	.16	.17	.13	.19
n	340	512	549	335

Note. Odds ratios are shown in parentheses. Reference group in the dependent variable is a private sector. The group (university) effect is included in each model. PSM = public service motivation; COM = compassion; CPI = commitment to the public interest; SS = self-sacrifice.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

For the work value model, the high income variable is negatively associated with intention of public-sector employment (r = −.44, p < .05), indicating that students who place a higher value on income are more likely to state that they intend to start working in the private sector. Job security is correlated highly significantly positively with public-sector choice (r = .57, p < .01), which indicates that college students who place importance on job security are more likely to choose the public sector as their workplace. A positive correlation exists between helping others and public-sector choice (r = .30, p < .05). However, the rest of the work value variables—advancement, interest in the job itself, and contribution to society—are not found to be statistically significant. As shown in the prosocial model (Model 3), the three prosocial behaviors employed in this study are not significantly associated with college students’ vocational choice.

As shown in Table 2, the variables of interest in this study are to some extent correlated with each other. To capture the pure variation of the outcome variable explained by the study variables, the variables need to be included in the same equation in a way that similar variables are controlled for. Hence, we combined all the study variables into the same regression equation, as shown in Model 4. It was found that the “income” and “helping other” variables were no longer significant in the combined model. This might be that the variation of the outcome variable explained by those variables is also accounted for by the three PSM variables. The job security and major variables remained statistically significant, holding all other study variables constant. College students who value job security rather than PSM and intrinsic work values tend to seek public service careers in Korea. It is worth noting that students’ major is a robust factor that predicts public-sector choice for employment across the three models: students majoring in public administration have a higher probability of considering public service jobs than those who major in other academic disciplines. To further examine the effect of academic major, we ran regression analysis including three interaction terms (COM × PA, CPI × PA, and SS × PA) in the subsequent model. It was found that none of the three moderating variables were statistically significant. This indicates that the relationship between PSM and public-sector choice is not different between students majoring in public administration and students whose major are not public administration. This can be interpreted in two ways. First, PSM is not a predictor of public-sector choice, irrespective of whether or not students’ academic major is public administration. Second, regardless of the levels of PSM, students majoring in public administration prefer to work in the public sector, compared with those who major in other academic disciplines. This indicates that students who want to work in the public sector are inclined to study public administration, no matter to what extent of PSM they have.

Discussion and Implications

The findings of the study suggest that PSM and prosocial behaviors are not significant predictors of public-sector choice of undergraduate job seekers in Korea. College students who place high values on job security are more likely to seek public service careers. The most unexpected evidence is that none of the three dimensions of PSM is correlated with public-sector choice. Presumably, this can be explained by two Korean specific contextual reasons. First, historically, government officials were not just public servants but the privileged ruling class who governed or directed ordinary people in Korea. Before Western civilization was imported more than 100 years ago, Korea had a social stratification system akin to the caste system in India: the loyalty and obedience of subordinates were imposed while the privilege and prestige of the ruling class were regarded as legitimate in Korean society. In those days, government officials were recruited via open competition, called the “Gwageo” system, in which a small number of applicants were selected as public officials only if their exam performance was in good standing. The current recruiting system sticks to this tradition. As mentioned earlier, there are at present three qualification exams for recruiting job candidates in central and regional government agencies in Korea: Grade 9, Grade 7, and Grade 5. In particular, the exam for Grade 5—what is called as “Hangjeong Gosi”—is considered a means of promoting social status, and passing the exam is regarded as “success in life”: Persons who pass the exam are highly respected in Korean society. Once applicants pass the exam, both job security and social recognition can be obtained. To receive the hallmark of success, a great number of undergraduate students are preparing for the qualification exam early in their college life. It is likely that college students trying to get a public service job are motivated by social recognition attached to passing the competitive exam, regardless of the level of PSM of the students. This might be the reason why PSM, intrinsic work values, and prosocial behaviors did not influence college students’ public-sector choice in Korea.

Another possible explanation is the current economic situation of Korea. While Korea has weathered the 2008 economic downturn relatively well, currently the Korean economy is not performing at the desired level, particularly in terms of employment opportunities. The unemployment rate has risen, and the number of job positions has shrunk, a predicament that extends back to the 1997 Asian currency crisis. As a result, preference for public-sector jobs has considerably increased because of the job security associated with them. A recent survey⁴ conducted by the Ministry of Educational Science and Technology showed that the most preferred future job of Korean high school students was teaching (11%), followed by civil service (4.2%), and the police force (4.1%). Interestingly, the three most preferred job positions of the students in Korea were jobs in the public sector. In addition, the survey investigated the perceptions of parents of high school students, showing that the parents preferred a government job (17.8%) for their children, followed by a teaching job (16.9%). Given that high school students have little freedom to choose a college majors in accordance with their aptitude and the career of children is determined to large extent by their parents—about 43% of the students answered that their career is determined by their parents in this survey—the survey findings may reflect the reality of job choices for undergraduate students in Korea. The survey results imply that job security is the most important criterion for selecting a job in the depressed economy: it is deemed to guarantee job security for teaching, public service, and policing jobs in Korea. However, this was not the case in the past. Under national economic development plans, Korea had achieved high economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s, in which government played a crucial role in developing the national economy. In those days, many people wanted to work in government to contribute to the nation and society (M. J. Lee, 2010). The current tough economic situations might change the motivation of job candidates for public-sector employment in Korea.

In addition, in our study, the student’s “major” variable is found to be the most significant factor in predicting public-sector choice. The empirical result reveals that students who major in public affairs are more likely to choose a government job than their counterparts, which indicates that high school students choose the public affairs major to pursue a government job. Yet, it remains uncertain whether students with the major of public administration have a higher degree of PSM than their counterparts in our statistical model.

Taken together, it would seem that without careful deliberation of motivation, ability and aptitude, college students pursue a government job only for the reason of job security or social recognition in Korea. Consequently, it may be difficult to differentiate job candidates with a high degree of PSM from their counterparts regarding public-sector choice in this research setting. Based on our findings, we make the claim that the ASA perspective does not hold true in Korea regarding the PSM-sector choice relationship. Although the explanatory power of ASA theory is limited in Korea, the theory is still valid in other contexts to account for the relationship between PSM and job choice (e.g., Vandenabeele, 2008).

Another important finding in our study was the measurement issue regarding PSM. Perry’s four dimensions of PSM are widely used in PSM research in the field, but those are not universally accepted. Initially, we utilized Perry’s four-dimension measurement tool, but the dimension of “attraction to public policy making (APM)” was found to be problematic in terms of construct validity. Our findings were consistent with prior research conducted by Kim (2009 ). In fact, the meaning of PSM might vary across countries such that the construct of PSM needs to reflect the reality of a country. Some PSM scholars revealed that Perry’s construct of PSM may not be appropriate when theory testing is made with non-Western samples, suggesting the development of a context-specific measurement of PSM in congruence with a nation’s culture and society (Kim, 2009). The current findings add to the growing body of research on PSM by revealing that the association between PSM and public-sector choice and PSM measurement are context dependent.

Whether the public–private difference in motivation is a consequence of self-selection or socialization is considered an important research question in the PSM literature (Christensen & Wright, 2011; Houston, 2000). With these findings in mind, we argue that PSM is and should be cultivated through the socialization process in public organizations in Korea. If recruits are randomly selected to government agencies regardless of PSM, there will be little difference in attitude and behavior between public and private employees. This nonsystematic selection makes a public organization possess both “knights” with high levels of PSM and “knaves” with high levels of extrinsic motivation.

We recommend that a variety of devices should be mobilized to increase the PSM of Korean government employees. Such programs as formal training and mentoring would be efficient ways to imbue organizational members with the organization’s underlying values (Chatman, 1991). High-powered incentive systems (i.e., pay-for-performance) in the public sector may encourage extrinsically motivated persons to get into a government-sector job. Moynihan’s (2008) suggestions are recommended for Korea in that the PSM index needs to be used as one of the criteria in the recruitment process for public employees.

There are two limitations to be addressed regarding the present study. First, our empirical findings were derived from survey data with convenience sampling. This may limit the generalizability of our findings by threatening external validity. Second, college students’ sector choice in this study is not a real choice in the job market but rather a measurement of the employment intentions of college students. As such, there is no guarantee that the intentions of students and their eventual employment position will be consistent.

Future research should deal with these challenges by employing probability-based sampling and targeting job applicants in the job market. In addition, this research leaves one unanswered question. How is PSM cultivated in public organizations in Korea? Empirical research should be conducted to investigate how PSM or other intrinsic work values are instilled in employees working in the public sector in Korea.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the audience of the 2011 American Society for Public Administration conference and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Our special thanks go to Prof. Sangmook Kim (Seoul National University of Technology) for his great advices.

Authors’ Note

An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the 2011 American Society for Public Administration conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Geon Lee is an assistant professor in the department of public administration at the Kyonggi University in Korea. His research interests include public-private sector difference, public organizational behaviors, conflict management, and survey research methods. His recent publications can be found at American Review of Public Administration, International Review of Public Administration, Public Administration Review, and Public Management Review.

Do Lim Choi is a professor in the Department of Public Administration at Chungnam National University. His research interests include public service ethics, organizational theory, and public personnel management. His research papers have appeared in many journals including International Review of Public Administration and Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. His most recent research was Influence of Diversity on Conflicts, Turnover, and Performance (2012).

References

Baldwin

J. N.

(1991). Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotype. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11, 1-27.

Bangcheng

(2009). Evidence of public service motivation of social workers in China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 349-366.

Bangcheng

Tang

N. Y.

Zhu

X. M.

(2008). Public service motivation and job satisfaction in China: An investigation of generalisability and instrumentality. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 684-699.

Behn

R. D.

(1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55, 313-324.

Belleate

Link

A. N.

(1981). Are public sector workers more risk averse than private sector workers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 34(3), 408-412.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 685-711.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

Facer

R. L.

II . (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 254-264.

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, 138-154.

Bright

(2011) Does public service motivation affect the occupation choices of public employees? Public Personnel Management, 40(1): 11-24.

10.

Buchanan

(1975). Red-tape and service ethic: Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration & Society, 6, 423-444.

11.

Chatman

J. A.

(1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

12.

Chetkovich

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

13.

Christensen

R. K.

Wright

B. E.

(2011). The effects of public sector motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 723-743.

14.

Crewson

P. E.

(1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499-518.

15.

Dover

G. J.

(2010). Public sector volunteering: Committed staff, multiple logics, and contradictory strategies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 235-256.

16.

Downs

(1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.

17.

Flanagan

C. A.

Bowes

J. M.

Jonsson

Csapo

Sheblanova

(1998). Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents’ civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 457-475.

18.

Frank

S. A.

Lewis

G. B.

(2004). Government employees: Working hard or hardly working? American Review of Public Administration, 34, 36-51.

19.

Gabris

G. T.

Simo

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

20.

Gailmard

(2010). Politics, principal-agent problems, and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 13, 35-45.

21.

Grant

A. M.

(2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393-417.

22.

Houston

D. J.

(2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-727.

23.

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.

24.

Khojasteh

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

25.

Kim

(2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-261.

26.

Kim

(2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 722-740.

27.

Kim

(2009). Testing the structure of public service motivation in Korea: A research note. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 839-851.

28.

Kim

Lee

J. H.

(2006). Changing facets of Korean higher education: Market competition and the role of the state. Higher Education, 52, 557-587.

29.

Kim

Lee

J. H.

(2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58, 259-296.

30.

Kim

Vandenabeele

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

31.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

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

32.

Koehler

Rainey

H. G.

(2008). Interdisciplinary foundations of public service motivation. In Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management (pp. 33-55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

Langbein

(2010). Economics, public service motivation, and pay for performance: Complements or substitutes? International Public Management Journal, 13, 9-23.

34.

Lee

Cayer

N. J.

Lan

G. Z.

(2006). Changing federal government employee attitudes since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 21-51.

35.

Lee

M. J.

(2010). Critical review on public service motivation. Seoul Association for Public Administration, Seoul, Korea.

36.

Lee

Y. J.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivation. Public Administration Review, 71, 45-56.

37.

Le Grand

(2010). Knights and knaves return: Public service motivation and the delivery of public services. International Public Management Journal, 13, 56-71.

38.

Leisink

Steijn

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

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management (pp. 118-135). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Lewis

D. E.

(2010). Measurement and public service motivation: New insights, old questions. International Public Management Journal, 13, 46-55.

40.

Lewis

G. B.

Frank

S. A.

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

41.

Light

P. C.

(2002). The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3), 6-16.

42.

Mann

G. A.

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

43.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). The normative model in decline? Public service motivation in the age of governance. In Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management (pp. 247-267). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

44.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2010). A workforce of cynics? The effects of contemporary reforms on public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 13, 24-34.

45.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

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

46.

Naff

K. C.

Crum

(1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 5-16.

47.

Niskanen

W. A.

(1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine, Atherton.

48.

Paarlberg

L. E.

(2007). The impact of customer orientation on government employee performance. International Public Management Journal, 10, 201-231.

49.

Park

H. M.

Park

(2006). Diffusing information technology education in Korean undergraduate public affairs and administration programs: Driving forces and challenging issues. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12, 537-555.

50.

Perry

J. L.

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

51.

Perry

J. L.

Engbers

T. A.

Jun

S. Y.

(2009). Back to the future? performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69, 39-51.

52.

Perry

J. L.

Mesch

Paarlberg

(2006). Motivating employees in a new governance era: The performance paradigm revisited. Public Administration Review, 66, 505-514.

53.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

54.

Rainey

H. G.

(1982). Rewards preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.

55.

Rainey

H. G.

Backoff

R. W.

Levine

C. L.

(1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233-246.

56.

Rioux

S. M.

Penner

L. A.

(2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 288-297.

57.

Schneider

(1987). The people make the place. Personal Psychology, 40, 437-453.

58.

Schneider

Goldstein

H. W.

Smith

D. B.

(1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.

59.

Schneider

Smith

D. B.

Taylor

Fleenor

(1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462-470.

60.

Scott

P. G.

Pandey

S. K.

(2005). Red tape and public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25, 155-180.

61.

Staats

E. B.

(1988). Public service and the public interest. Public Administration Review, 48, 601-605.

62.

Vandenabeele

(2007) Towards a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9(4): 545-56.

63.

Vandenabeele

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

64.

Vandenabeele

Steen

(2004). The civil service as an employer of choice in Belgium. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24, 319-333.

65.

Wilson

Musick

M. A.

(1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62, 694-713.

66.

Wittmer

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

67.

Wright

B. E.

Christensen

R. K.

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

68.

Wright

B. E.

Grant

A. M.

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