Rethinking Public Service Motivation From the Perspective of Person–Environment Fit: Complementary or Supplementary Relationship?

Abstract

Research on public service motivation (PSM) has paid attention to the concept of fit to identify underlying mechanisms of the relationship between PSM and beneficial outcomes such as higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Nonetheless, there have been rare studies aimed at theoretically comparing PSM with the person–environment (P–E) fit. In this article, PSM is reviewed from the perspective of P–E fit, not only because PSM and P–E fit share some theoretical perspectives, such as job attraction, employee rewards, and individual performance, but also because incorporating the concept of PSM into the fit framework may allow us to better understand PSM and enhance its theoretical development. This article concludes that PSM has a complementary relationship with P–E fit as the two provide more concrete and valid explanations for job applications, outcomes, and rewards when they are incorporated.

Keywords

public service motivation person–environment fit value congruence

Introduction

Public service motivation (PSM) theory is important because it is a comprehensive theory that can be used to examine (a) why individuals apply for jobs in public organizations and (b) how public organizations motivate government employees for high performance (Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000). Ample evidence has shown that PSM is positively associated with organizational performance (Brewer & Selden, 2000), performance appraisal (Naff & Crum, 1999), job grade (Alonso & Lewis, 2001), whistle-blowing (Brewer & Selden, 1998), and nonelectoral political activities (Taylor, 2010), and that it is negatively associated with red tape (Scott & Pandey, 2005).

Many PSM researchers (e.g., Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2008; Wright & Pandey, 2008) have maintained that the concept of PSM is closely related to person–environment fit (P–E fit), which refers to a congruence between a person and the environment (organization, group, job, etc.) in which he or she works. For example, the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction (Wright & Pandey, 2008), turnover intention (Moynihan & Pandey, 2008), performance (Bright, 2007), and job attitudes (Kim, 2012) is significantly mediated by a fit framework. It further suggests that a fit mechanism is the missing link that may explain the inconsistent findings about the relationship between PSM and outcomes (Bright, 2007). Comparing PSM and a fit framework could provide additional insights into the dynamics of PSM and employer attractiveness (Vandenabeele, 2008). Nevertheless, rare research to date has comprehensively reviewed PSM from the perspective of a fit framework at a conceptual level.

This article seeks to connect the concepts of PSM and P–E fit at the conceptual level. Although the mediating roles of P–E concepts on the relationship between PSM and outcomes have been noted in many studies (e.g., Coursey, Yang, & Pandey, 2012; Wright & Pandey, 2008), the linkage has not been conceptually and comprehensively examined. In particular, this article addresses the research question of whether P–E fit has a complementary or supplementary relationship with PSM. Many PSM researchers (e.g., Bright, 2007; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008; Steijn, 2008) have argued that P–E fit provides more concrete mechanisms on job applications, outcomes, and rewards for PSM. The connection is important because P–E theory helps to deepen or modify some of our understanding of how PSM works to effect beneficial results in personnel management (e.g., decreased turnover intention) and overall organizational outcomes. Thus, this article may contribute to answering how public organizations can develop and achieve high levels of PSM at the organizational level.

PSM Theory

As Rainey (1982) pointed out, public service is a broad, multifaceted concept. PSM has been characterized in many different ways, including a service ethic (Coursey, Perry, Brudney, & Littlepage, 2008), prosocial orientation (Taylor, 2010), and government calling (Vandenabeele, 2008). Furthermore, PSM can be defined in various ways, such as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368), and a “general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or humanity” (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999, p. 23). PSM describes “individuals’ prosocial motivation to do good for other people and society through the delivery of public services” (Perry, Brudney, Coursey, & Littlepage, 2008, p. 3). In general, the concept of PSM can be considered the phenomenon of an individual’s dedication to public service or interests (Scott & Pandey, 2005).

Perry and Wise (1990) identified three motives of PSM: (a) rational, (b) norm-based, and (c) affective. Rational motives are based on individual utility maximization. Norm-based motives are grounded in a desire to pursue the common good and further the public interest. Affective motives originate from human emotion. Specifically, Perry and Wise (1990) argued that PSM is mostly associated with the normative motive—a desire to serve public interest and social equity as a whole. Perry (1996) assessed the conceptual construct of PSM and concluded that it has four dimensions: (a) attraction to public policy making, (b) commitment to public interest, (c) compassion, and (d) self-sacrifice. Subsequently, Perry (1997) created a model for antecedents of PSM and empirically tested the model, finding that altruism and helping behaviors learned from one’s parents are strongly associated with PSM. Perry (2000) later developed a model to integrate self-concept and socialization into PSM with four premises: (a) Rational, normative, and affective processes motivate human beings; (b) people are motivated by their self-concept; (c) preferences or values should be endogenous to any theory of motivation; and (d) preferences are learned through social processes.

Many scholars in public administration have contributed to uncovering the relationship between PSM and various types of organizational behavior, such as organizational performance perceived by individuals (Brewer & Selden, 2000), whistle-blowing (Brewer & Selden, 1998), and political participation (Taylor, 2010). However, mixed findings on the relationship between PSM and outcomes have been reported, and some scholars (e.g., Bright, 2007; Wright & Pandey, 2008) have attempted to identify the fit framework to address these inconsistencies. They believe that the fit framework, particularly value congruence (i.e., person–organization fit [P–O fit]), mediates the relationship between PSM and beneficial outcomes.

In recent years, some scholars have pointed out the limitations of PSM. For example, Gailmard (2010) has contended that PSM cannot explain why job applicants prefer working for one organization, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over other agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or Federal Bureau of Investigation. Furthermore, PSM researchers (e.g., Bright, 2007; Steijn, 2008) have argued that the direct relationship of PSM with outcomes such as positive job attitudes is questionable. That is, they believe that fit mechanisms mediate the relationship between PSM and the outcomes. Third, PSM theory proposes that public employees with high PSM cannot be motivated by extrinsic rewards, such as high monetary rewards. Nonetheless, this presumption has not been supported by empirical studies (e.g., Liu & Tang, 2011; Taylor & Taylor, 2011). The inconsistent findings of the empirical studies may be caused in part by needs–supplies fit (N–S fit), which refers to the cognitive judgment of congruence between employees’ needs and rewards (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Therefore, a better understanding of P–E fit, specifically in terms of realizing the limitations and inconsistent findings of PSM, is needed, because P–E fit is an important missing link in the relationship between PSM and outcomes (Bright, 2007). In the next section, the concept of P–E fit is presented, followed by a comparison of PSM and P–E fit in terms of job application, outcomes, and rewards, all of which both PSM and P–E fit commonly cover.

What Is Person–Environment Fit?

The origin of the concept of P–E fit can be traced to Plato’s work in The Republic, where he suggested that leaders should assign employees to their jobs in accordance with their personality and abilities (Dumont & Carson, 1995). Frank Parsons (1909), based on his vocational choice theory, suggested that when job seekers select their jobs, they should first understand their skills, abilities, and goals and try to match them with job requirements to ensure career success. According to Kurt Lewin’s (1951) field theory, “In general terms, behavior (B) is a function (F) of the person (P) and of his environment (E), B = f(P, E)” (p. 337). Lewin also suggested that we have to understand both person and environment, not just one or the other, to accurately explain and understand an individual’s behavior. The concept of P–E fit was significantly developed in the field of occupational stress during the 70s and 80s. For example, French, Caplan, and Harrison (1982) advanced the theory of P–E fit to explain the relationship between employees’ stress, defined as a perceived misfit between person and environment in terms of needs fulfillment, and stress symptoms such as depression.

In recent years, P–E fit has been broadly defined as “the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, p. 281). P–E fit can be divided into five major types, depending on the conceptual operationalization for the assessment of congruence: (a) person–vocation fit, (b) person–job fit (P–J fit), (c) P–O fit, (d) person–group (or team) fit, and (e) person–supervisor fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Person–vocation fit refers to the compatibility between people’s interests and their job choices. P–J fit is defined as the match between the abilities of a person and the demands of a job. P–O fit is the congruence in terms of value, climate, and goals between a person and his/her organization. Person–team fit refers to the interpersonal compatibility between individuals and their work groups. Finally, person–supervisor fit is defined as the interpersonal relationship between supervisors and their subordinates (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In this article, P–E fit encompasses a larger framework to include these five subconcepts of fitness. In particular, P–O fit and P–J fit are used to connect PSM with P–E fit.

The concept of P–E fit consists of two main mechanisms: (a) supplementary fit and (b) complementary fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Supplementary fit exists when a person and an organization possess similar or matching characteristics such as values, culture, or goals, whereas complementary fit occurs when a person or organization’s characteristics provide what the other wants (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). For the complementary fit, for instance, P–J fit has two basic subconceptualizations: (a) demands–abilities fit (D–A fit) and (b) N–S fit. The D–A fit occurs when an individual has the abilities required to meet the job demands. In contrast, the N–S fit occurs when a job satisfies individuals’ needs, desires, or preferences (Edwards, 2008; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In other words, supplementary fit requires a similarity in one dimension between the employee and organization, whereas complementary fit requires a mechanism of need-satisfaction.

In summary, individual’s behavior is the result of reciprocal interactions between people and their work environments (Chatman, 1989; Edwards, 2008). According to P–E fit, job attitudes and behaviors result from the congruence between attributes of the person and the environment (Edwards, 2008; Pervin, 1989; Schneider, 1987). The framework fundamentally postulates that (a) individuals are heterogeneous in terms of personality, ability, values, and preferences; (b) individuals perceive the environment differently; and (c) both individual differences and environment jointly affect individuals’ behaviors (Chatman, 1989; Edwards, 2008; Pervin, 1989). The framework generally suggests that better fit leads to beneficial work outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment and decreased job turnover intention (Chatman, 1991; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Kristof, 1996).

Linking PSM With P–E Fit

Perry and Wise (1990) suggested three propositions: (a) The greater an individual has PSM, the more likely the individual will seek membership in a public organization; (b) PSM is positively related to outcomes such as performance and organizational commitment; and (c) individuals who have higher PSM are less likely to be dependent on monetary rewards. In this section, PSM is connected with P–E fit in terms of (a) job application, (b) outcomes, and (c) rewards. First, how the value congruence mechanism is related to PSM to explain why individuals who have higher PSM apply for jobs in the public sector is discussed. Second, the reason why PSM needs a fit mechanism to connect with its outcomes is presented. Finally, an explanation on how individuals who have higher PSM may interact with their reward preferences is provided.

Value Congruence Mechanism for Job Application and Employment Selection

PSM researchers (e.g., Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 2000; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2007) have maintained that social institutions, meaning the institutionalization of rules as well as identities and beliefs, may be antecedents of PSM. For example, institutionalized values during the process of social institution affect an individual’s identity, consisting of PSM and identity regulation, and both individual identity and social institution directly and indirectly affect an individual’s behavior (Vandenabeele, 2007). Empirical findings also support the association of socialization with PSM. For example, both professional identification and a higher level of education are significantly associated with PSM (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Religious activity is a significant antecedent of PSM (Perry et al., 2008).

The following question remains: What does an individual get during the process of socialization? Personal values can be viewed as normative beliefs, not only because a major source of values may be social expectations or norms (Vardi & Wiener, 1996) but also because values have “oughtness” characteristics that are socially desirable and tend to be endorsed by all individuals (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). Socialization is also defined as a process by which an individual comes to understand values, expected behaviors, and norms (Chatman, 1991). Then, values are core components in the process of socialization. Put simply, values are acquired or learned during socialization in societies in which people acquire and learn norms or expectations (Lusk & Oliver, 1974). Given that social institutions are antecedents of PSM (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 2000; Perry et al., 2008; Vandenabeele, 2007), there seem to be sound reasons to believe that values could be fundamental antecedents of PSM if values are core components in the socialization process. Therefore, values acquired in the socialization process assume to be antecedents of PSM.

PSM is noteworthy in that it is a concrete model as it articulates why people want to engage in public service and work in public organizations. PSM argues that individuals apply for a job in the public sector based on three types of motives: rational, norm-based, and affective; that is, rational choices, normative beliefs, and emotions make people seek a job in the public sector. Although there are inconsistent findings (e.g., Christensen & Wright, 2011; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2012), empirical research has shown that job seekers who possess a high level of PSM are more likely to prefer prospective employment in the public sector (Coursey, Brudney, Littlepage, & Perry, 2011; Vandenabeele, 2008).

In early models of the fit, some researchers attempted to identify the concept of a fit between people’s personality and a job. For example, Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model posits that job applicants are more likely to select organizations with which they have a high degree of perceived fit, and organizations likewise select applicants with whom they subjectively perceive a higher fitness. If employed workers perceive a high misfit in terms of job or organizational culture, they subsequently leave organizations (Schneider, 1987).

Empirical findings have also suggested that the concept of fit is a crucial factor when job applicants select jobs and employers screen applicants. Perceived value congruence between job seekers and an organization is associated with fit perception, and the fit perception of job seekers significantly predicts their job choice intentions (Cable & Judge, 1996). Analogously, job interviewers subjectively evaluate the fitness of job applicants with their organizations in terms of value. An interviewer’s perceived value congruence has significant effects on his/her hiring recommendations and the organization’s hiring decisions (Cable & Judge, 1997). People voluntarily drop out of the selection process when they perceive a misfit (Ryan, Sacco, McFarland, & Kriska, 2000). As such, perceived fitness is an important factor in employment selection, job choice, and turnover intention.

Figure 1 presents a mechanism of value congruence in the process of job and employment selection. As it assumes that individual values are antecedents of PSM, value congruence between employees and organizations is the focus. There seem to be two possibilities of fit mechanisms for value congruence: complementary fit (needs-fulfillment mechanism) and supplementary fit (similarity-attraction mechanism; Kristof, 1996).

Figure 1.

Value congruence mechanism for job application and employment selection.

In the complementary fit mechanism, individuals may have motives to work for the government to activate public action in the direction of the values they hold (Gailmard, 2010). For instance, a person who places a higher value on environmental protection and strongly desires to help with such protection may apply for jobs at public organizations such as the EPA or a relevant nonprofit organization (NPO; for example, Greenpeace). In turn, public organizations may prefer individuals who perceive value congruence because they are more committed to the organization’s goals and mission than others (Gailmard & Patty, 2007). Under these circumstances, we can say that the needs-fulfillment mechanism works for policy-motivated job applicants who seek membership in the government (Edwards & Cable, 2009).

In the supplementary fit mechanism of value congruence, the perceived value similarity between certain job applicants and the organization are positively associated with job choice intention (Cable & Judge, 1996), and perceived value similarity between interviewees and interviewers is strongly associated with hiring recommendation (Cable & Judge, 1997). That is, job seekers may apply to public organizations, because they perceive that their individual values are well matched with those of the public organization, and the organization may employ those people as it perceives high value congruence with them. In this situation, we can say that the supplementary fit mechanism works for the job applicants (Cable & Edwards, 2004).

PSM theory argues that individuals with high PSM are more likely to seek membership in public sectors; however, it does not fully explain why individuals prefer one organization (e.g., the EPA) to other organizations (e.g., the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]) or why public organizations select certain job applicants over others. In contrast, P–E fit proposes the importance of the matching values of job applicants and employers, arguing that individuals may apply for a particular organization or job when they perceive high similarities in values between themselves and the employing organization, or when the organization provides an opportunity to enact the values they hold.

In summary, both PSM and P–E fit can explain why people choose to engage in public service or work in public organizations. However, P–E fit is fundamentally different from PSM in terms of its mechanism in job application and employment selection; it covers similarity-attraction and needs-fulfillment mechanisms for both job applicants and employers (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards & Cable, 2009), whereas PSM only works through a needs-fulfillment mechanism induced by the three types of motives for public service (Gailmard, 2010; Perry et al., 2008; Perry & Wise, 1990). Using the value congruence mechanism of a fit framework to explain why individuals seek membership in public organizations leads to a proposition like the one below, which focuses solely on job application as PSM only covers job application, not employer selection.

Proposition 1: The greater an individual’s PSM, the more likely the individual will be to seek employment in a public organization because he or she subjectively believes his or her values are matched with the values of the public organization.

PSM and Its Outcomes

Perry and Wise (1990) originally suggested that PSM is positively related to individuals’ performance and organizational commitment. Empirical studies have reported that PSM is found to be positively associated with organizational level of performance ranked by public employees (Brewer & Selden, 2000), individuals’ performance appraisal (Naff & Crum, 1999), and whistle-blowing (Brewer & Selden, 1998).

PSM researchers (e.g., Bright, 2007; Kim, 2012; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2007) have consistently reported that PSM is connected with positive outcomes through fit frameworks. As Perry and Vandenabeele (2008) suggested, PSM is associated with outcomes in the way of moderated or mediated relationships, rather than direct relationship. For example, Bright (2007) reported a strong mediating effect of P–O fit (i.e., value or goal congruence) on the relationship between PSM and job performance and found that the job performance of public employees was better explained by P–O fit than by PSM. Moreover, other research has found that P–O fit significantly mediates the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction (Wright & Pandey, 2008) and turnover intention (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Therefore, P–E fit could uncover the underlying mechanism that connects PSM with work outcomes.

It is generally known that the concept of fit is strongly associated with organizational commitment, defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604) or the “psychological attachment” to organizational membership (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986, p. 492). For example, perceived fit mechanisms between organization and individual characteristics explain employees’ higher organizational commitment (Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen, 1991; Meyer, Irving, & Allen, 1998). Employees show higher organizational commitments when their goals or visions are congruent with their organization’s (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Thus, the concept of fit may be more directly connected with beneficial work outcomes such as higher organizational commitment than PSM (Bright, 2007; Christensen & Wright, 2011).

Value congruence is associated with the beneficial outcomes for an organization, because higher P–O fit yields better communication, predictability, interpersonal relationships, and trust among group members, thereby increasing job satisfaction and organizational identification and decreasing turnover intention (Edwards & Cable, 2009). Value congruence also generates clearer role expectations, leading to less role ambiguity and conflict and increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Strube, 1999). Accordingly, individuals who hold similar values should share common aspects of cognitive processing that lead to common ways of interpreting events. These common interpretations reduce uncertainty and stimulus overload and improve interpersonal relationships (presumably by reducing conflict and misunderstandings), which improves job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989).

P–J fit is also significantly associated with individual performance.¹ P–J fit is defined as the match between a person and a job (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). It consist of two concepts—the match between the abilities of a person and the demands (i.e., D–A fit), and the match between the needs/desires of a person and what is provided by a job (supplies-values fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Whereas P–J fit is relevant to an individual’s compatibility with a specific job, P–O fit pertains to how an individual matches an organization’s values, goals, and mission (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). There has been ample evidence that higher P–J fit is positively associated with individual performance. For example, in a study by Ivancevich (1979), performance was highest when a person’s readiness for decision making matched the amount of decision making offered on the job. In another study, managers’ performance was higher when their skills and abilities were well matched with those required for the job (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990).

As many PSM researchers (e.g., Bright, 2007; Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2007) have suggested, PSM may pertain to outcomes such as higher job satisfaction and performance through the mechanism of a fit framework, such as P–O fit and P–J fit. P–J fit suggests that managers should try to match subordinates’ skills with the job requirements (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990; Edwards, 2008). Even though individuals have higher PSM, they may not produce beneficial outcomes for their organizations when their skills and abilities are not well matched with the job requirements. As proposed above, the value congruence mechanism (i.e., P–O fit) may occur when individuals who have higher PSM are working for an organization in the public sector. For instance, if a public employee who places a high value on social interests has a job planning social welfare policy, the person may show high job satisfaction, because he or she has value congruence. In turn, the employee may pursue higher goals, leading to an improvement in individual performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). PSM in itself cannot fully explain the relationship between PSM and beneficial outcomes such as higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction; rather, it needs fit mechanisms (e.g., value congruence or P–J fit) to connect it with the outcomes. This rationale leads to the second proposition.

Proposition 2: PSM is positively related to beneficial outcomes through a fit mechanism.

PSM and Rewards

Lawler (2000) argued that the most important issue that should be considered by all organization theories is the relationship between pay and performance. Although many organizations conduct performance evaluations for many reasons, the most basic idea is that organizational rewards and punishments, such as pay, promotion, or discharge, linked to evaluated performance may improve individual or team performance (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). However, Perry and Wise (1990) contested the idea, asserting that financial incentives will not work for public employees who have high PSM because they place a lower value on monetary rewards. They further argued that pay for performance would be fruitless for improving government productivity or efficiency.

However, this view seems to be controversial, as empirical findings on public employees’ preference for monetary rewards are somewhat inconsistent (Wright, 2001). For example, some comparative studies on the value of money suggest that public workers place less value on extrinsic or financial rewards than their private-sector counterparts do (e.g., Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991), whereas other studies have failed to find differences in preference for monetary rewards (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995; Maidani, 1991). Moreover, a recent study reported a positive relationship between wages and individual effort in public service using a sample of public employees from 15 countries (Taylor & Taylor, 2011). In another study, high values on money moderated the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction (Liu & Tang, 2011). Therefore, the basic assumption of PSM with regard to the difference of pay reference between public and private employees has not been fully supported by empirical studies.

When PSM is considered the phenomenon of dedication to public service or interests (Scott & Pandey, 2005) or volunteerism (Coursey et al., 2011), it may be based on intrinsic motivation. Deci’s (1971, 1972) research seems to uphold the assumption that public employees with higher PSM are less likely to rely on monetary rewards. Deci (1971, 1972) reported that using extrinsic rewards such as money for intrinsically motivated behavior (e.g., volunteering) actually decreased the level of intrinsic motivation (i.e., “crowding-out”). The monetary reward might act as a stimulus that leads reward recipients to reevaluate their behavior from one that is intrinsically motivated to one motivated primarily by the expectation of financial rewards. Consequently, if PSM is intrinsically motivated, then it seems difficult to deny Perry and Wise’s (1990) argument that rewards may not work for intrinsically motivated people.

The problem, however, is that the concept of intrinsic motivation is rarely applicable to public employees in organizational settings, because it is almost impossible to find situations that completely lack external inducement in organizational settings (Latham, 2007). Therefore, the intrinsic motivation in PSM may not be useful in bureaucratic organizational settings, suggesting that the aim of PSM to motivate public employees in public agencies could be limited. That is, if PSM has intrinsic motivation, the theory may be more applicable to volunteerism rather than to the motivation of public employees in public organizations.

How do fit theorists view monetary rewards? In this regard, fit theorists emphasize the fitness of an individual’s preference for rewards. For instance, Cable and DeRue (2002, p. 875) noted that N–S fit implies that

judgments of congruence between employees’ needs and the rewards they receive in return for their service and contributions on a job (e.g., pay, benefits, and training) . . . and needs-supplies fit may be the most important type of fit from an employee perspective. (p. 875)

Accordingly, the N–S fit model posits that the effect of motivation may be maximized when employees’ value of or preference for rewards matches the reward provided by the employing organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002). For example, younger workers without children may perceive a better fit when they receive an offer of minimal benefits but above-market pay levels, whereas older employees may have a better fit when they are offered comprehensive benefits (Milkovich & Newman, 1999). Thus, the fit model provides the practical implication that managers should reward their subordinates in accordance with their reward preferences. Following the N–S fit model, monetary rewards may motivate public employees if they place a high need on such rewards.

Proposition 3: Monetary rewards motivate public employees when they place a high need on extrinsic rewards.

Comparisons Between PSM and P–E Fit

The frameworks of PSM and P–E fit are quite similar in that both cover comprehensive human resource management (HRM) aspects, such as (a) an applicant’s job selection, (b) performance, and (c) rewards (Vandenabeele, 2008). As noted above, however, they have some important differences as well. Table 1 summarizes the differences.

Table 1.

Comparison of PSM With P–E Fit.

	PSM	P–E fit framework
Job application	People apply for jobs in public organizations because of their motivation for public service (a needs-fulfillment mechanism)	People apply for jobs because they subjectively perceive that they are well matched with the organizations in terms of values or goals (similarity-attraction and needs-fulfillment mechanisms)
Performance	The higher PSM people have, the more satisfied they are with their jobs in public organizations, leading to higher performance	Performance is a function of demand–ability fit, value congruence between employees and organizational culture or norms, person–supervisor fit, person–group fit, and so on.
Reward	Monetary rewards do not work insofar as they are intrinsically motivated	Monetary rewards work only when they are matched with employee reward preference (i.e., needs–supplies fit)

Note. PSM = public service motivation; P–E = person–environment.

For the job application and employment selection, first, PSM argues that people apply for jobs in the public sector because they are motivated to provide public service (Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010; Perry & Wise, 1990). That is, PSM believes that the three motives of rational choices, norm-based beliefs, and affective emotions make individuals seek a job in public service. In contrast, P–E fit maintains that people apply for jobs because they subjectively perceive that they are well matched with an organization in terms of values or goals (Cable & Judge, 1994; Christensen & Wright, 2011). Furthermore, P–E fit is fundamentally different from PSM in terms of its mechanism for job application and employment selection. PSM employs a needs-fulfillment mechanism to explain why individuals apply for a job in the public sector. For example, individuals may apply for a job in the public sector (e.g., with the EPA) because they are motivated to activate public action in the direction of their preferred values (Gailmard, 2010). However, the framework covers both similarity-attraction and needs-fulfillment mechanisms to explain job applications and employment selection (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards & Cable, 2009).

Second, PSM holds that the higher PSM people have, the more satisfied they are with their jobs in public organizations, resulting in higher job performance (Perry & Wise, 1990). In contrast, P–E fit suggests that individual performance is a function of various types of fit, such as demand–ability fit, value congruence between employees and organizational culture or norms, person–supervisor fit, person–group fit, and so on. (Chatman, 1991; Edwards, 2008; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In recent years, however, many PSM researchers (e.g., Bright 2007; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008; Steijn, 2008) have suggested that PSM is connected with outcomes through moderating or mediating roles of fit mechanisms. That is, PSM has a complementary relationship with fit frameworks to connect PSM with outcomes.

Third, in terms of rewards, PSM suggests that monetary rewards will not work as PSM is intrinsically motivated (Perry & Wise, 1990). Nonetheless, many empirical studies (e.g., Liu & Tang, 2011; Taylor & Taylor, 2011) have not supported a negative relationship between momentary rewards and PSM. In contrast, P–E fit argues that monetary rewards work when the rewards are matched with employee reward preferences (i.e., N–S fit; Cable & DeRue, 2002). More specifically, the framework suggests that motivation effect by monetary rewards occurs only when individuals have a high need for the rewards.

Conclusion

As Behn (1995) suggested, it is important to question how public managers motivate their subordinates for high performance. PSM is a comprehensive theory of public administration used to explain why people choose to work in the public sector and engage in public service. It also provides a theoretical understanding of public employees’ motivation to provide better public service (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Many PSM researchers have consistently argued that the concept of PSM is closely related to P–E fit (e.g., Steijn, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2008; Wright & Pandey, 2008). In recent years, Perry and his colleagues (2010) suggested that PSM researchers have to look at situational and contextual factors that influence PSM, because those factors may interact with PSM and produce different relationships between PSM and outcomes. The suggestion seems to be consistent with the basic assumption of P–E fit that both personal traits and the environment affect individuals’ behaviors (Chatman, 1989; Lewin, 1951). Thus, this article reviewed PSM from the perspective of P–E fit, as it may allow us to better understand PSM and its limitations, thereby leading to theoretical developments of PSM.

Some limitations of PSM are revealed when the two theories are compared. First, although PSM can explain why individuals want to work in the public sector, it cannot explain why individuals with high PSM prefer working for a specific organization over other organizations (Gailmard & Patty, 2007). For instance, suppose that a job seeker applies for a job with the EPA. PSM argues that motives lead the person to apply for the job, but it does not fully explain why the person prefers the EPA to other organizations (e.g., the OMB). In this regard, the value congruence mechanism suggests that the individual wants to work for the organization because he or she hopes to activate public action in the direction of the values he or she holds (Gailmard, 2010). Thus, PSM may be a function of the degree to which an organization provides opportunities for a job seeker to satisfy his or her values (Christensen & Wright, 2011).

Second, regarding the relationship between PSM and outcomes, PSM does not explicitly provide a mechanism to explain the relationship between PSM and high individual performance. In this regard, the concept of P–E fit provides a clearer explanation; for example, value congruence generates clearer role expectations, leading to less role ambiguity and conflict and thus higher satisfaction and commitment (Kalliath et al., 1999). The higher people’s P–E fit with an organization, the more likely they are to have effective communication and enhanced trust with others, thereby increasing job satisfaction and decreasing intention to leave (Edwards & Cable, 2009).

Third, PSM suggests that monetary rewards will not work for people with higher PSM, not only because people in public organizations have value sets that differ from those of their private-sector counterparts but also because they are intrinsically motivated (Perry & Wise, 1990). However, we must be cautious in this conclusion because extrinsic rewards, including monetary benefits, have a multidimensional construct and important symbolic attributes (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999). For example, people who have higher self-esteem may care about monetary rewards because of the symbolic meaning of the rewards.

In this article, PSM was connected with P–E fit at a conceptual level. As some PSM researchers have argued (e.g., Bright, 2007; Steijn, 2008), a fit framework may provide PSM with more concrete mechanisms to explain job applications and employment selections, the relationship between PSM and outcomes beneficial for organizations, and the motivation for public employees. This article concludes that PSM has a complementary relationship, rather than a supplementary one, with the P–E fit theory. Many workers cannot enjoy their jobs, because employers are interested in fitting employees to jobs rather than fitting jobs to employees (Csikzentmihalyi, 2004). P–E fit may increase public workers’ enjoyment of their jobs, and thus improve job performance, by emphasizing the importance of fit between employees and their work environments.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual ASPA conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2-6, 2012, under the title “Rethinking Public Service Motivation From the Perspective of Person-Organization Fit.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biography

Geunpil Ryu is the senior consultant for the POSCO Research Institute. He earned his PhD in public administration at the State University of New York at Albany. His research focuses on the well-being, vale congruence, and work motivation of public employees.

References

Alonso

Lewis

G. B.

(2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.

Behn

R. D.

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

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 413-440.

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, 685-712.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

Facer

R. L.

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

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, 361-379.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884.

Cable

D. M.

Edwards

J. R.

(2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834.

Cable

D. M.

Judge

T. A.

(1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348.

10.

Cable

D. M.

Judge

T. A.

(1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311.

11.

Cable

D. M.

Judge

T. A.

(1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546-561.

12.

Caldwell

D. F.

O’Reilly

C. A.

III . (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648-657.

13.

Chatman

J. A.

(1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.

14.

Chatman

J. A.

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

15.

Christensen

R. K.

Wright

B. E.

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

16.

Coursey

D. H.

Brudney

J. L.

Littlepage

Perry

J. L.

(2011). Does public service motivation matter in volunteering domain choices? A Test of functional theory. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 48-66.

17.

Coursey

D. H.

Perry

J. L.

Brudney

J. L.

Littlepage

(2008). Psychometric verification of Perry’s public service motivation instrument. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 79-90.

18.

Coursey

D. H.

Yang

Pandey

S. K.

(2012). Public Service Motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72, 572-582.

19.

Crewson

P. E.

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

20.

Csikzentmihalyi

(2004). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

21.

Deci

E. L.

(1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.

22.

Deci

E. L.

(1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 113-120.

23.

Dumont

Carson

A. D.

(1995). Precursors of vocational psychology in ancient civilizations. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 371-378.

24.

Edwards

J. R.

(1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

I. T.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283-357). New York, NY: John Wiley.

25.

Edwards

J. R.

(2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 167-230.

26.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

D. M.

(2009). The Value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 654-677.

27.

French

J. R. P.

Jr. Caplan

R. D.

Harrison

V. R.

(1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York, NY: John Wiley.

28.

Gabris

G. T.

Simo

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

29.

Gailmard

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

30.

Gailmard

Patty

(2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 873-889.

31.

Harrison

R. V.

(1978). Person–environment fit and job stress. In Cooper

C. L.

Payne

(Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 175-205). New York, NY: John Wiley.

32.

Ivancevich

J. M.

(1979). An analysis of participation in decision making among project engineers. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 253-269.

33.

Kalliath

T. J.

Bluedorn

A. C.

Strube

M. J.

(1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1175-1198.

34.

Kim

(2012). Does person-organization fit matter in the public -sector? Testing the mediating effect of person-organization fit in the relationship between public service motivation and work attitudes. Public Administration Review, 72, 830-840.

35.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

Jacobsen

C. B.

(2013). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 899-926.

36.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

37.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

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

38.

Latham

G. P.

(2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice. Thousand Oak: CA: SAGE.

39.

Lauver

K. J.

Kristof-Brown

(2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454-470.

40.

Lawler

E. E.

(2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Lewin

(1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42.

Liu

B. C.

Tang

T. L. P.

(2011). Does the love of money moderate the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction? The case of Chinese professionals in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 718-727.

43.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

44.

Lusk

E. J.

Oliver

B. L.

(1974). Research notes: American managers’ personal value systems—Revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 549-554.

45.

Maidani

E. A.

(1991). Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private. Public Personnel Management, 20, 441-448.

46.

Meglino

B. M.

Ravlin

E. C.

Adkins

C. L.

(1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.

47.

Meyer

J. P.

Bobocel

D. R.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). Development of organizational commitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences. Journal of Management, 17, 717-733.

48.

Meyer

J. P.

Irving

P. G.

Allen

N. J.

(1998). Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 29-52.

49.

Milkovich

G. T.

Newman

J. M.

(1999). Compensation. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Mitchell

T. R.

Mickel

A. E.

(1999). The meaning of money: An individual-difference perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 568-578.

51.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

52.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

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

53.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 205-227.

54.

Murphy

K. R.

Cleveland

J. N.

(1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal–based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

55.

Naff

K. C.

Crum

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

56.

O’Reilly

C. A.

III Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

57.

Parsons

(1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

58.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5-24.

59.

Perry

J. L.

(1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 181-197.

60.

Perry

J. L.

(2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 471-488.

61.

Perry

J. L.

Brudney

J. L.

Coursey

Littlepage

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

62.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

63.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

L. R.

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

64.

Perry

J. L.

Vandenabeele

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

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 56-79). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

65.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

66.

Pervin

L. A.

(1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14, 350-360.

67.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

Mowday

R. T.

Boulian

P. V.

(1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

68.

Rainey

H. G.

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

69.

Rainey

H. G.

Steinbauer

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

70.

Ravlin

E. C.

Meglino

B. M.

(1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666-673.

71.

Ryan

A. M.

Sacco

J. M.

McFarland

L. A.

Kriska

S. D.

(2000). Applicant self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 163-179.

72.

Schneider

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

73.

Scott

P. G.

Pandey

S. K.

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

74.

Steijn

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

75.

Taylor

(2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit and private sector employees. Public Administration, 88, 1083-1098.

76.

Taylor

(2011). Working hard for more money or working hard to make a difference? Efficiency wages, public service motivation and effort. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 67-86.

77.

Vandenabeele

(2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9, 545-556.

78.

Vandenabeele

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

79.

Vardi

Wiener

(1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151-165.

80.

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.

81.

Wright

B. E.

(2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the current literature model and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 559-586.

82.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person–organization fit. Administration & Society, 40, 502-521.