Coping With Conflict: Examining the Influence of PSM on Perceptions of Workplace Stressors

Abstract

While the presence and degree of workplace stress poses a significant problem for organizations in all sectors, scholarship frequently acknowledges that responses to workplace stress vary significantly across individuals. However, public sector human resource management (HRM) research, relative to generic HRM research, invests comparatively less attention toward understanding individual differences in response to perceived stressors. We employ the relational model of stress developed by Matteson and Ivancevich and Lazarus to examine how one dispositional characteristic commonly examined in public sector HRM research, public service motivation (PSM), influences the stress process. Results obtained using data from the 2010 U.S. Merit Principles Survey reveal that individuals with higher than average PSM experience more pronounced negative emotions when they perceive heightened workplace conflict, which subsequently increases their intent to separate from the organization.

Keywords

job stress public service motivation job satisfaction turnover/organizational mobility labor relations

Introduction

Although not widely examined in public sector human resource management (HRM) scholarship, occupational stress represents a significant problem for organizations. Researchers often characterize occupational stress as a workplace epidemic that degrades the physical and psychological health of employees (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Dawson, O’Brien, & Beehr, 2016; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). In addition to the health-related drawbacks employees experience as a result of occupational stress, estimates suggest that its deleterious side effects may cost organizations up to US$300 billion per year resulting from lost productivity (Cynkar, 2007; Dawson et al., 2016). Given that the psychological and physiological by-products of the stress process compromise both employee health and organizational performance (Lazarus, 2000; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005), public sector HRM scholarship can benefit from cultivating strategies designed to remediate the more damaging outcomes of occupational stress.

Unfortunately, attempts by public sector HRM scholars to build strategies for effectively addressing workplace stress confront three interrelated challenges. First, the term stress represents one of the most misunderstood concepts in organizational studies. According to Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), “[t]he word stress means so many things to so many different people that it has been described as the most imprecise in the scientific dictionary” (p. 9). Second, adequately understanding the stress process requires analyses of complex combinations of situational characteristics, individual dispositional differences, and one’s behavioral responses to their perceptions (Lazarus, 2000; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). Finally, generic expectations regarding how individuals appraise and respond to the situations they confront may not apply to every work context. As such, scholarship must identify those salient elements of work with an increased likelihood of initiating the stress process to best understand the relationship between stress and other important work outcomes (Fairbrother & Warn, 2003).

Our article seeks to address these three challenges in an effort to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how individuals respond to perceived stressors in public sector work environments. First, we seek to clarify the meaning of work stress in the public sector by drawing from transactional—or process—models developed in psychology and organization behavior (Lazarus, 2000; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005). The transactional approach views stress as “an adaptive response, moderated by individual differences, that is a consequence of any action, situation, or event that places demands upon a person” (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987, p. 10). We then slightly modify this definition based on subsequent work and employ the definition throughout the remainder article to broadly examine differences across individuals as they navigate the stress process.

Next, with respect to the second challenge, we explore the following question: What intra-individual characteristics common in public sector work environments moderate how employees appraise work situations? Occupational stress researchers often coalesce around the assertion that broad categories of personality differences, such as dispositional hardiness or locus of control, provide a common cognitive lens that influence how individuals appraise external demands (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987, see especially chap. 5; Spector & Fox, 2002, p. 274). Yet, more narrow intra-individual differences common in public work contexts may also influence the stress process. One individual characteristic frequently studied in public HRM research, public service motivation (PSM), may offer some insight into how employees respond differently to the stress process. Research has demonstrated that individuals with similar levels of PSM express similar interpretations of external situations and events (Davis & Stazyk, 2014; Davis, Stazyk, & Klingeman, 2017; Perry & Wise, 1990; Scott & Pandey, 2005; Stazyk & Davis, 2015). In this sense, PSM may represent an internal characteristic that homogenizes how individuals appraise and interpret the environmental demands arising from a given situation. As such, those with above-average PSM would likely interpret similar demands as negative stressors and behave similarly to those stressful situations.

Finally, given the observation of Fairbrother and Warn (2003) that research should address specific elements of work salient to the stress process, we avoid a generic discussion of workplace situations. Instead, this article focuses more specifically on the context of union–management interactions in the U.S. federal government. The context of union–management interactions represents a salient element of work in the public sector environment given the sheer volume of unionized workers. As a percentage of the workforce, unionization in the public sector far outstrips unionization in the private sector. In 2017, the unionization rate in the U.S. public sector setting was 34.4%, whereas the unionization rate in the private sector was only 6.4% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). As such, examining individual variations in the stress process in the context of union–management relations affords us the ability to ground our analysis in a relevant HRM issue for many public organizations. The following sections seek to address each of these objectives in an effort to examine how PSM influences the stress process in the context of public sector labor relations.

A Transactional Model of Work Stress

Conceptualizing Job Stress

According to Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), significant confusion challenges our ability to adequately understand the causes and consequences of work stress. Often, people tend to view stress as some external force, or stimulus, outside of their control that acts upon a person (see Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987, chap. 1). To some extent, this is what people mean when they say they are “stressed out.” Unfortunately, the layperson’s understanding of stress suffers from two interrelated shortcomings. First, it is impossible to identify a single situation or stimulus that is uniformly stressful for all people (Pinder, 2014). Second, even if two separate people agree that a given situation is stressful, individual responses to that situation are likely to vary considerably (see Lazarus, 1999, 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Pinder, 2014; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005). Given the drastic variation between people, understanding stress as a process offers a better understanding regarding how people interpret, understand, and adjust to the work situations they confront. As such, Matteson and Ivancevich (1987) have defined stress as “an adaptive response, moderated by individual differences, that is a consequence of any action, situation, or event that places demands upon a person” (p. 10). Stress research has generally moved away from the stimulus interpretation, and instead adopted the understanding that stress represents a transaction between people and the situations they confront (Dewe, O’Driscoll, & Cooper, 2012; Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001; Spector, 1998, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005).

Given that researchers have coalesced around the assumption that stress is a relational process (instead of a response to discrete stimuli), it is necessary to identify the psychological mechanism that connects work situations to behavioral responses. Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001) argues the process of appraisal serves to connect demands inherent in work situations to behavioral outcomes. Specifically, appraisal represents a two-step process broadly defined as the individual’s evaluation of whether and how what is happening is personally harmful or beneficial (Lazarus & Smith, 1988, p. 283). During the first step, or primary appraisal, the individual must determine the extent to which a given situation threatens their personal well-being. If the individual determines that a given situation threatens them, they subsequently engage in the second step, secondary appraisal, where they determine whether they have adequate resources to cope with the threat (Lazarus & Smith, 1988). When individuals believe that (a) a given situation threatens them, and (b) they lack the resources to cope with the situation, they will respond with negative emotions and interpret that situation as a stressor that hinders their ability to achieve personal goals and growth (Dawson et al., 2016; Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001; Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007; Spector, 1998, 2002). Alternatively, those who believe they have the resources to cope with the demand are likely to respond with favorable emotions and view the demand as motivating and a challenge to overcome (Dawson et al., 2016; Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001; Lepine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007; Spector, 1998, 2002). As such, Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001; but see also Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005) adds a critical element to the transactional model of stress by suggesting that the stress process involves the emotional by-product arising from the relationship between the individual and their environment. As such, we draw these streams of research together to arrive at the following definition of work stress:

Stress is an adaptive [emotional] response, moderated by individual differences, that is a consequence of [appraising] any action, situation, or event that places [physical or psychological] demands upon a person. (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987, p. 10; Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001; Lazarus & Smith, 1988)¹

Given this definition, it is also important to note that individuals structure subsequent work behaviors to eliminate negative emotions and reinforce positive emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002). Figure 1, which draws significantly from the work of Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001) and Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), provides a graphical representation of the transactional definition of work stress. Within the diagram, we also list the specific constructs used in this article to examine individual differences in the stress process. Below, we discuss each specific construct used to evaluate the transactional model of stress.

Figure 1.

Process model of work stress.

Work Situation: Labor–Management Relations

While it is intuitive to suggest that various work situations place demands on public employees, focusing on concrete work situations facilitates building recommendations for managing the stress process across different contexts (Fairbrother & Warn, 2003). Although we could have chosen numerous work situations as the focus for this article, we specifically examine the nature of union–management interactions. We chose union–management interactions as the work context examined for three reasons. First, relative to the private sector, public sector organizations are highly unionized. In fact, unionization rates are nearly 6 times higher in the public sector (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). This makes labor relations a salient context in which public sector HRM scholars can contribute to generic research on the stress process. Second, unfortunately public HRM scholarship has failed to keep pace with the growing challenges of managing a heavily unionized public workforce (Davis, 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Kearney, 2010; Kearney & Mareschal, 2014; Riccucci, 2011). Studying individual responses to work stress in the context of labor relations acknowledges the necessity of accounting for union variables in broader studies of public sector HRM. Finally, the very nature of labor relations implies an inherent adversarial relationship that pits the managerial value of efficiency against the labor value of workers’ rights (Davis, 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Donahue, Selden, & Ingraham, 2000; Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010; Stillman, 2004), which means that even when collective bargaining works well, it can be characterized by some degree of conflict.

The adversarial nature of labor relations, however, does not mean that all conflict between labor and management is uniform in intensity. Relationships between labor and management fall at varying points on a continuum with relative cooperation at one pole and relative confrontation at the other (Angle & Perry, 1986; Harbison & Coleman, 1951; Newland, 1968; Walton & McKersie, 1965). Scholars often conceptualize work situations characterized by perceived conflict as introducing stressors that compromise employees’ abilities to attain personal goals and growth (e.g., Dawson et al., 2016; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). Stressor, in this sense, is understood to mean any work situation that introduces psychological demands with which an employee must cope (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). However, employees do not uniformly appraise conflict between labor and management as personally threatening. Moreover, even for those who perceive labor–management conflict as threatening to personal welfare, it is unlikely to result in negative outcomes if the employee believes they possess the resources to cope with that conflict.

Dispositional differences between individuals serve as critical personal resources that shape how one appraises stressors such as conflict (Dewe et al., 2012; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Spector & Fox, 2002). For example, those who exhibit dispositional characteristics, such as trait anger, negative affect, or hostile attributional biases, filter work experiences through a common cognitive lens, which encourages them to interpret workplace situations as characterized by actions intentionally designed to harm them (e.g., Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). Alternatively, those who express dispositional traits such as optimism, self-esteem, or empathy tend to filter work situations through a more positive lens, which reduces the chance that one appraises conflict as personally harmful (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2002).

Individual Moderator: PSM

Given significant variation in the way people comprehend work demands, transactional models of stress traditionally include a host of cognitive and affective variables, which can be broadly understood as critical elements of personality (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). According to Spector and Fox (2002), “[p]ersonality includes conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability (trait anxiety), trait anger, and empathy among others” (p. 274), and each plays a role in influencing the connections between work situations and experienced emotions in the stress process (see also Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987, chap. 5). Unfortunately, the number of personality factors that contribute to the stress process are too numerous to include in a single study, which means that researchers must isolate specific aspects of personality relevant to the stress process in various work contexts. For the purposes of this study, we examine PSM as one aspect of personality, among many possible, with the capacity to influence the stress process particularly relevant to public HRM scholarship.

While PSM represents one of the native concepts of public management and serves as the basis for one of the most prominent research streams in the field, scholars have yet to coalesce around a common definition or unifying theoretical framework (Bozeman & Su, 2015). To some extent, conceptual disagreement among scholars regarding whether PSM represents an attitude, belief, or value, along with methodological challenges, has complicated efforts to understand how individuals with heightened PSM behave (Bozeman & Su, 2015; Wright & Grant, 2010). As such, research examining PSM must clearly elaborate guiding assumptions regarding conceptual definitions and causal mechanisms (Wright, 2001). Given current conceptual and theoretical disagreement in the PSM literature, it may be useful to ground PSM in broader theoretical frameworks to examine behavioral and attitudinal outcomes (Vandenabeele, Brewer, & Ritz, 2014; Wright & Grant, 2010). To serve this aim, we situate PSM within transactional models of work stress. Specifically, we treat PSM as an element of a broader prosocial personality (Finkelstein & Brannick, 2007; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995), associated with empathy, understanding, benevolence, and helpfulness (see also Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Houston, 2000; Koehler & Rainey, 2008; Perry & Wise, 1990).

Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes: Facet Satisfaction and Turnover Intent

According to Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001), the emotional response resulting from the appraisal of work situations represents a critical feature of the stress process. Of the numerous potential emotional responses to work situations, job satisfaction represents one of the most commonly examined in academic research. Job dissatisfaction represents a negative emotional response arising from an unfavorable appraisal of the work environment, which results from a discrepancy between the way an individual perceives the work environment and what one desires at work (Locke, 1969). Yet, job (dis)satisfaction is a complex concept that scholars have either evaluated globally or examined in terms of specific facets of work (Wanous & Lawler, 1972). The facet approach to satisfaction may offer added specificity for understanding which dimensions of one’s job serve as the most important drivers of overall work attitudes, but research on facet satisfaction often confronts the problem of specifying “which facets are relevant in a given setting to a particular person and in defending their choice of facets” (Wanous & Lawler, 1972, p. 95). Our focus in this study is how different individuals engage in the stress process, specifically in the context of psychological demands arising from labor–management relationships. As such, it seems reasonable to eschew the global approach to satisfaction and instead examine facets of satisfaction directly related to the interaction between employees and management. Much like the negative emotion arising from global dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction with supervisors also necessitates a behavioral response. Behavioral responses designed to remedy negative emotions associated with work situations range from revenge-seeking behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002, p. 178) to job search and voluntary separation from the organization (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).

Recent public HRM literature has invested significant attention to the topic of turnover. Turnover retains conceptual credence in public management not only because organizations incur significant costs associated with replacing personnel (Balfour & Neff, 1993; Staw, 1980), but also because turnover leads to the loss of critical tacit knowledge that helps organizations function effectively (Moynihan & Pandey, 2008; Staw, 1980). The sources of turnover, while varied, often indirectly relate to negative emotional by-products of unfavorable work experiences, or dissatisfaction (Bertelli, 2007; Bright, 2008; Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Langbein & Stazyk, 2013; Llorens & Stazyk, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008). While dissatisfaction represents one of the most critical drivers of turnover, it is important to note that dissatisfaction represents the emotional intermediary between perceptions of work situations and voluntary behaviors including separation from the organization (Spector & Fox, 2002). As such, it is important to treat satisfaction, both global and facet, as the emotional process that carries perceptions of the work context to organizational behaviors including turnover.

Hypotheses

Overall, the transactional model of work stress provides a theoretical tool to connect the specific elements of public sector work we examine here. Drawing from Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001), and Spector and Fox (2002, 2005), the connection between perceptions of union–management interactions and turnover intent is a three-step process. First, the individual experiences a work situation characterized by some degree of conflict between unions and management. Interactions between unions and management vary on a spectrum ranging from relative cooperation to relative conflict. When individuals perceive increased conflict at work, they must expend psychological energy to cope with that situation, but that expenditure of energy rarely results in attaining important organizational goals or specific work tasks (Dawson et al., 2016; Lepine et al., 2005). Ultimately, the expenditure of psychological energy in the absence of attaining meaningful work objectives acts as a demotivating and dissatisfying force for employees (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Dawson et al., 2016). Second, the outcomes of conflict are not identical across all individuals because the employee appraises the extent to which the work situation they confront threatens their welfare and whether they have the resources available to cope with that situation. To the extent that individuals with heightened levels of PSM exhibit greater degrees of benevolence and empathy traits, it seems reasonable to believe that they also experience more intense emotional negativity when they perceive organizations as embroiled in conflict. To the extent that empathy encourages individuals to view circumstances through the eyes of others, it may serve as a critical personality trait that encourages enhanced emotional negativity during perceived conflict. Specifically, those individuals who are more empathetic likely desire harmonious relationships between labor and management because they have the capacity to view the problem from the perspective of both parties. Under these circumstances, they would experience a greater discrepancy between the perceived and desired work environment during times of conflict. This discrepancy would enhance the extent to which the individual appraises the situation as personally harmful. As such, we expect that

Hypothesis 1: Increases in perceived conflict between unions and management will more substantially increase dissatisfaction with supervisors for those with high levels of PSM (i.e., PSM will moderate the relationship between work demands and emotional responses).

Third, the final step in the stress process occurs when the employee crafts a behavioral response to the emotions they confront. Intent to separate from the organization serves as a behavioral response designed to eliminate the negative emotions that arise from undesirable work situations (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2007; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005). As such, we expect that

Hypothesis 2: Increases in perceived conflict between unions and management will indirectly increase turnover intent via increased dissatisfaction with supervisors (i.e., emotions will mediate the relationship between work demands and behaviors).

However, given that the first step in the stress process is moderated by dispositional characteristics, the nature of the mediated relationship will also change across employees. Although some studies suggest that PSM does not directly contribute to turnover when accounting for other variables (Bright, 2008), we are unaware of evidence that suggests high PSM could actually increase turnover in certain work situations. In line with the transactional model of work stress, we argue that those with above-average PSM will express increased intent to turnover due to amplified emotional negativity arising from perceived conflict. Based on transactional models of work stress we expect that

Hypothesis 3: The indirect increase in turnover intent due to increases in union–management conflict via reduced satisfaction with supervisors will be more pronounced for those with high PSM (i.e., the mediated relationship between work demands and behaviors via emotions will be moderated by dispositional differences).

Data, Measurement, and Methodology

The data we employ to examine the connections between conflict in union–management relationships, PSM, and turnover intent were collected as a part of the 2010 Merit Principles Survey (MPS). We opted to focus on the 2010 data because a number of challenging factors occurring in the United States at that time, such as the economic downturn, made union–management issues particularly salient. The 2010 MPS was conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and was administered to a random sample of more than 70,000 federal government employees across a range of agencies (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2010). When the survey concluded, 58% of the potential respondents completed the survey for an overall sample size of 42,020. However, for the purposes of our analysis, we focus only on respondents who indicated their position was covered by a collective bargaining contract. These individuals are more likely to possess a working knowledge of the labor relations process and the extent to which conflict characterizes the relationship between unions and management. The total final sample size when including only employees covered by a bargaining contract is 12,748. A sizable majority of respondents in these data identified as White (80.8%) and were well educated (58.8% hold a Bachelor’s degree or greater). Moreover, the vast majority of employees are in the General Schedule pay system (78.2%) and hold nonsupervisory positions (76.7%). Unfortunately, the age and sex of respondents were not available to us in these data.

To evaluate the complex connections between labor–management conflict, PSM, facet satisfaction with supervisors, and turnover intent, we employed several questionnaire items. First, to examine union–management conflict, we drew four items designed to assess the extent to which union leaders and management work well together to achieve a host of organizational functions. The items ask the respondent to state whether management and unions work well together to improve employee work–life balance, the efficiency of agency operations, employee performance, and overall agency performance. Second, we assessed PSM based on five questionnaire items adapted from the work of Perry (1996), which are routinely included in the MPS survey. The following items were used to measure PSM: (a) meaningful public service is important to me; (b) I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed; (c) I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of the agency; (d) I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another; and (e) making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements.

Third, we used three items to evaluate facet satisfaction with supervisors that ask respondents to evaluate their satisfaction with (a) their immediate supervisors, (b) managers above their immediate supervisor, and (c) the recognition and rewards they receive at work. Although few studies in public management examine this particular facet of job satisfaction, the extent of satisfaction with supervisors is particularly relevant in the case of labor relations. Finally, we use a single item to assess turnover intent. The item asks the respondent to evaluate the likelihood they will leave their job in the next year. All items are measured on 5-point scales. A more detailed description of all items used for the analysis is available upon request.

It is also important to acknowledge the potential problems associated with common source bias (Conway & Lance, 2010; Richardson, Simmering, & Sturman, 2009; Spector, 2006). Common source bias refers to a circumstance where some unmeasured element encourages a respondent to exhibit similar answer patterns to different survey items. To the extent that common source bias is present in these data, an additional construct would emerge from a factor analysis of the variables included in our analysis. The results from a factor analysis do not reveal a single underlying factor in our data (available upon request). Given that our results do not indicate a single underlying factor, we moved on to examine measurement accuracy using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

To evaluate the hypotheses above, several statistical models were estimated. The first model evaluated the overall fit of our model to the data by estimating a CFA. To ensure the identification of each construct in the CFA, we constrained the residual variance of the turnover intent item to zero. The results from the CFA model indicated that our model adequately fit the data, χ²(60, N = 12,747) = 2,181.305, p < .001; root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .053 (.051, .055); comparative fit index (CFI) = .975; nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI]) = .968. In addition, the relationship between all constructs in the CFA model can be interpreted as bivariate correlations. The correlations between each theoretical variable were statistically significant and in the expected direction. Given that our measurement model was a good fit to the data, we next tested several subsequent models to examine our three hypotheses. Figure 2 provides the fully standardized estimates from the CFA model.

Figure 2.

Fully standardized CFA estimates.

Findings

After establishing measurement accuracy, we introduced five control variables—tenure, race, education, supervisory status, and retirement eligibility—and estimated two subsequent structural equation models (SEM). First, we estimated a SEM to evaluate the indirect relationship between union–management conflict and turnover intent through facet satisfaction with supervisors (Hypothesis 2). The results from the SEM revealed that the direct relationship between union–management conflict and turnover intent was not statistically significant (p = .747) when accounting for facet satisfaction and the other control variables. This suggests that the relationship between union–management conflict and turnover intent is fully mediated by facet satisfaction with supervisors. The indirect relationship between union–management conflict and turnover intent through facet satisfaction can be computed as the product of the two direct relationships between (a) union–management conflict and facet satisfaction and (b) facet satisfaction and turnover intent (Kline, 2016). The indirect effect of union–management conflict on turnover intent is 0.199 (p < .001). The absence of a direct relationship between union–management conflict in conjunction with the presence of a significant indirect effect provides support for Hypothesis 2. Given these findings are reported in the standardized metric, this result can be interpreted in terms of standard deviation changes.

We have enough evidence to conclude that union–management conflict influences turnover intent via facet satisfaction with supervisors. In addition, although we did not specifically hypothesize about the relationship between PSM and turnover intent, the findings from the SEM also suggested that the direct relationship between these two constructs was not statistically significant (p = .084). This supports findings in previous research that indicate that PSM does not directly influence turnover intent when accounting for additional factors in the organization’s environment (Bright, 2008). All other relationships between theoretical constructs in the structural model were significant at p < .001. Figure 3 provides the standardized estimates from the SEM.

Figure 3.

Standardized SEM estimates, indirect relationship.

In addition to the hypothesized relationships, the results from the SEM indicated some significant relationships between control variables and other model constructs. First, increases in tenure resulted in increased perceptions of union–management conflict, decreased PSM, decreased satisfaction with supervisors, and decreased turnover intent. Second, white respondents reported higher levels of union–management conflict, lower levels of PSM, higher job satisfaction, and lower turnover intent. Third, increased education was associated with increases in perceived union–management conflict and reduced PSM. Fourth, increased supervisory responsibility was associated with increases in PSM, increased job satisfaction, and increased turnover intent. Finally, eligibility to retire was associated with decreased perceptions of union–management conflict, higher PSM, and higher turnover intent. The results illustrating the relationships between model controls and theoretical constructs are provided in Table 1. In addition, there are several R² values associated with each endogenous variable in SEM models. First, the model controls explain 1.2% of the variation in union–management conflict and 2.9% of the variation in PSM. Second, the model controls, union–management conflict, and PSM explain 28.5% of the variation in facet satisfaction with supervisors. Finally, all model variables explain 22.8% of the variation in turnover intent.

Table 1.

Standardized Control Variable Estimates.

	Estimate	SE	Estimate / SE	p
Union–management conflict
Tenure	0.067	0.012	5.836	.000
White	0.096	0.009	10.083	.000
Education	0.031	0.010	3.250	.001
Supervisory status	−0.014	0.010	−1.491	.136
Retirement eligibility	−0.027	0.011	−2.445	.014
Public service motivation
Tenure	−0.094	0.012	−7.628	.000
White	−0.098	0.010	−9.609	.000
Education	−0.080	0.010	−7.640	.000
Supervisory status	0.111	0.010	10.841	.000
Retirement eligibility	0.040	0.012	3.312	.001
Facet satisfaction with supervisors
Tenure	−0.066	0.011	−5.940	.000
White	0.073	0.009	7.920	.000
Education	−0.004	0.009	−0.460	.645
Supervisory status	0.054	0.009	5.860	.000
Retirement eligibility	0.010	0.011	0.927	.354
Turnover intent
Tenure	−0.122	0.010	−12.023	.000
White	−0.086	0.009	−9.994	.000
Education	0.013	0.009	1.523	.128
Supervisory status	0.017	0.008	1.961	.050
Retirement eligibility	0.306	0.010	31.820	.000

Given that the mediation hypothesis was supported, we removed insignificant paths and estimated a second SEM model to evaluate whether the relationship between union–management conflict and facet satisfaction was moderated by PSM (Hypothesis 1). Our findings indicate that PSM serves as a significant moderator of the relationship between union–management conflict and facet satisfaction with supervisors (p < .001), which supports Hypothesis 1. However, to understand the nature of a moderating relationship, it is useful to plot and probe the interaction effect to determine the nature of the relationship between the focal predictor and outcome variable at different levels of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991; Little, Card, Bovarid, Preacher, & Crandall, 2007). Figure 4, Panel 1, illustrates the nature of the relationship between union–management conflict and facet satisfaction with supervisors, along with the 95% confidence bands, at 2 standard deviations above and below the PSM mean. Practically, this graph illustrates that individuals with high PSM (2 standard deviations above the mean) experience more pronounced declines in satisfaction with supervisors as a result of perceived conflict between unions and management.

Figure 4.

Complex relationships: Panel 1: Interaction effect and Panel 2: Conditional indirect effect.

The final step involves evaluating the conditional indirect relationship between perceived conflict and turnover intent (Hypothesis 3). As the results supported both the mediation and the moderation hypotheses, the first step of the indirect relationship, the pathway between union–management conflict and satisfaction with supervisors, is moderated. As such, the magnitude of the indirect effect is also conditioned upon changing levels of PSM. To fully understand the extent to which the magnitude of the indirect effect changes as a function of PSM, it is necessary to generate a graph that plots the magnitude of the indirect relationship across values of the moderator (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Figure 4, Panel 2, illustrates the estimated indirect effect between union–management conflict and turnover intent at varying levels of PSM. The dashed line provides the estimated indirect effect at a given level of PSM. The solid lines above and below the dashed line provide the 95% confidence bands associated with the estimated indirect effect. For example, when PSM is held at its mean of 0, the estimated indirect effect is 0.199. However, at 1 standard deviation above the PSM mean, the indirect effect of union–management conflict on turnover intent via facet satisfaction increases to approximately 0.225. This finding supports Hypothesis 3 and illustrates that increases in union–management conflict indirectly increase turnover intent via satisfaction with supervisors, and that conflict influences turnover intent to a greater degree for those with above-average PSM.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we examined individual variation in the stress process. Specifically, we treated conflict between unions and management as a work situation that levies psychological demands on employees. We then evaluated how that situation variably influences facet satisfaction and turnover intent for those with different levels of PSM. Examining these themes offers advantages for public sector HRM scholarship, given that researchers have invested comparatively little attention to the costs and consequences of stressors in the public workplace (see Giauque, Anderfuhren-Biget, & Varone, 2013; Tummers, Bekkers, Vink, & Musheno, 2015). Although this study emphasized the demands in one specific type of work situation, the findings presented here offer added insight into the complex dynamics that shape employee behavior in the public workplace. Overall, the findings we present lead to two interrelated conclusions.

First, our analysis provides support for the conditional indirect effects implied by transactional models of work stress (Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005). While public sector HRM scholarship frequently concludes that job satisfaction plays perhaps the most important role in turnover and turnover intent (Bertelli, 2007; Bright, 2008; Llorens & Stazyk, 2011; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008), future research can benefit from recognizing that dissatisfaction represents the emotional intermediary between work demands and workplace behavior. This finding suggests that U.S. public organizations should invest greater emphasis in developing HRM policies that account for the importance of employees’ emotional states (see, for example, Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008; Mastracci, Guy, & Newman, 2014). There are several possible approaches organizations might pursue to realize this aim. For instance, one tactic might be to encourage leaders and managers to simply take greater stock of the importance of emotions as drivers of employee behavior, perhaps through training modules. Alternatively, leaders and managers could work to create open and welcoming organizational cultures and HRM systems that more fully account for the positives and negatives of conflict—cultures and systems that seek to maximize the former and minimize instances of the latter.

Second, the evidence we provide suggests that extremely high levels of PSM may not always benefit U.S. public organizations. Since the origins of PSM research, some scholars suggested that extreme levels of commitment associated with high PSM could lead to zealotry and other unsavory organizational outcomes (Perry & Wise, 1990). Although public sector HRM scholars have yet to invest in a concerted research agenda designed to examine the individual and organizational drawbacks of excessive PSM, some research indicates that PSM can encourage burnout, diminished satisfaction, and higher perceptions of stress under certain conditions (Giauque et al., 2013; van Loon, Vandenabeele, & Leisink, 2015). These studies significantly advance understanding the drawbacks of PSM, but do not specifically address emotional intermediaries when examining the complex connections between organizational demands, PSM, and employee behaviors. Giauque and colleagues (2013), for example, expressed surprise that PSM related with higher stress perceptions among employees. However, when PSM is viewed as a cluster of personality attributes that increase the intensity of emotions in the presence of work demands, the findings presented by Giauque et al. (2013) make considerable sense. While we focused only on the psychological demands stemming from one narrow form of conflict in this article, research appears to be accumulating that indicates those with high PSM find it difficult to psychologically cope with challenging work environments. To the extent that those with high PSM are more likely to join the public workforce, public organizations would accrue added advantage from developing workplace structures to mitigate the deleterious effects of demands that initiate negative emotional appraisals. However, organizations must also acknowledge that the emotional by-products of work demands vary across different personality types.

While the findings presented here provide added insight into the connections between work demands, dissatisfaction, and turnover intent in the U.S. context, our study has certain limitations. First, the data used for this analysis are cross-sectional. Complex causal relationships like the ones examined here are necessarily temporal in nature. Future studies should examine similar psychological mechanisms using longitudinal data to determine whether the effects observed here become more or less pronounced over time. Second, there are several forms of work demands present in public organizations that initiate the stress process. Admittedly, the labor relations process influences some individuals more prominently than others. Conflict inherent in collective bargaining likely influences union members and labor leaders, but other members of the organization may be relatively immune to the psychological demands of labor relations. Future research should examine the extent to which PSM conditions the relationship between other forms of workplace demands and workplace behaviors. Third, public sector HRM scholarship indicates a number of factors influence how employees experience their work environments, such as interpersonal trust, perceived fairness, organizational leadership, and structure. To more fully understand the positive and negative consequences of work-related stress on employees, future research would do well to explore how these factors interact with one another. Fourth, public HRM systems vary considerably from country-to-country. As such, we would encourage researchers interested in non-U.S. systems to conduct research on related topics if appropriate and in a ways that account for the unique institutional context of different countries and systems. Finally, PSM represents only a single aspect of personality that influences the stress process. Other aspects of personality relevant to the public sector workplace likely shape the stress process. Future research should seek to evaluate the extent to which other aspects of personality offset the extent to which PSM encourages a negative appraisal of conflict.

Even with these limitations, this research supports the transactional model of work stress, which is a well-developed theoretical framework designed to explain organizational behavior, and adds to a growing stream of literature suggesting high PSM could result in negative work experiences under certain circumstances. Our understanding of the psychological outcomes of the stress process in public sector work contexts is far from complete. However, this study presents a more comprehensive picture about how those with high PSM respond to the psychological demands induced by workplace conflict.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

ORCID iD

Randall S. Davis

Author Biographies

Randall S. Davis is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Southern Illinois University. He earned his PhD in public administration at the University of Kansas. His research focuses primarily on the social and psychological mechanisms that contribute to individual performance in the public workplace. He has conducted research on several themes in public management including organizational behavior, human resources management, employee motivation, work stress, and goal setting.

Edmund C. Stazyk is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy, housed within the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany (SUNY). He earned his PhD in public administration at the University of Kansas. His research focuses on the application of organization theory and behavior to public management, public administration theory, and human resource management. His primary interests are in the areas of organizational and individual performance with an emphasis on employee motivation. He also conducts research in the areas of bureaucracy and organizational design, ethics, and human capital.

Allysha Kochenour is a PhD candidate at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (Department of Applied Psychology). Her research interests include occupational stress, psychometrics, and program evaluation. She holds an MS degree from the Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania and also has work experience in applied research consulting.

Emily Neuhoff is a PhD candidate at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (Department of Applied Psychology). Her research interests include organizational behavior, leadership, and organizational citizenship behaviors. She holds an MA degree from Southern Illinois University Carbondale and is currently working at Nielsen Holdings PLC as a data scientist.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Angle

H. L.

Perry

J. L.

(1986). Dual commitment and labor-management relationship climates. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 31-50.

Balfour

D. L.

Neff

D. M.

(1993). Predicting and managing turnover in human service agencies: A case study of an organization in crisis. Personnel Administration, 22, 473-486.

Bertelli

A. M.

(2007). Determinants of bureaucratic turnover intention: Evidence from the department of the treasury. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 235-258.

Bozeman

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

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

Facer

R. L.

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

Bright

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

Cavanaugh

M. A.

Boswell

W. R.

Roehling

M. V.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65-74.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common methods bias in organizational research. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 325-334.

10.

Cynkar

(2007). Whole Workplace Health. Monitor on Psychology, 38, 28-31.

11.

Davis

R. S.

(2011). Blue-collar public servants: How union membership influences public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 705-723.

12.

Davis

R. S.

(2013a). Unionization and work attitudes: How union commitment influences public sector job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 73, 74-84.

13.

Davis

R. S.

(2013b). Union commitment and stakeholder red tape: How union values shape perceptions of organizational rules. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33, 365-383.

14.

Davis

R. S.

Stazyk

E. C.

(2014). Making ends meet: How reinvention reforms complement public service motivation. Public Administration, 92, 919-936.

15.

Davis

R. S.

Stazyk

E. C.

Klingeman

C. M.

(2017). Accounting for personal disposition and organizational context: Connecting role ambiguity, public service motivation, and whistle-blowing in federal agencies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1402360

16.

Dawson

K. M.

O’Brien

K. E.

Beehr

T. A.

(2016). The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 397-415.

17.

Dewe

P. J.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Cooper

C. L.

(2012). Theories of psychological stress at work. In Gatchel

R. J.

Schultz

I. Z.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health and wellness (pp. 23-38). New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Donahue

A. K.

Selden

S. C.

Ingraham

P. W.

(2000). Measuring Government Management Capacity: A Comparative Analysis of City Human Resources Management Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 381-412.

19.

Douglas

S. C.

Martinko

M. J.

(2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547-559.

20.

Fairbrother

Warn

(2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 8-21.

21.

Finkelstein

M. A.

Brannick

M. T.

(2007). Applying theories of institutional helping to informal volunteering: Motives, role identity, and prosocial personality. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35, 101-114.

22.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

Miles

(2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

23.

Giauque

Simon

Varone

(2013). Stress perception in public organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33, 58-83.

24.

Guy

M. E.

Newman

M. A.

Mastracci

S. H.

(2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service in public service. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Harbison

F. H.

Coleman

J. R.

(1951). Goals and strategy in collective bargaining. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

26.

Houston

D. J.

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

27.

Kearney

R. C.

(2010). Public Sector Labor-Management Relations: Change or Status Quo? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 89-111.

28.

Kearney

R. C.

Mareschal

P. M.

(2014). Labor relations in the public sector (5th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

29.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

30.

Klingner

D. E.

Nalbandian

Llorens

(2010). Public Personnel Management: Contexts and Strategies (Sixth ed.). New York: Longman.

31.

Koehler

Rainey

H. G.

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

J. L.

Hondeghem

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

32.

Langbein

Stazyk

E. C.

(2013). Vive la différence? The impact of diversity on the turnover intention of public employees and performance of public agencies. International Public Management Journal, 16, 465-503.

33.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London, England: Free Association.

34.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665-673.

35.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In Scherer

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37-67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-169.

37.

Lazarus

R. S.

Smith

C. A.

(1988). Knowledge and appraisal in the emotion—Cognition relationship. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 281-300.

38.

Lepine

J. A.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Lepine

M. A.

(2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764-775.

39.

Little

T. D.

Card

N. A.

Bovarid

J. A.

Preacher

K. J.

Crandall

C. S.

(2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In Little

T. D.

Bovaird

J. A.

Card

N. A.

(Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 207-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Llorens

J. J.

Stazyk

E. C.

(2011). How important are competitive wages? Exploring the impact of relative wage rates on employee turnover in state government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 111-127.

41.

Locke

E. A.

(1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.

42.

Martinko

M. J.

Gundlach

M. J.

Douglas

S. C.

(2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36-50.

43.

Mastracci

S. H.

Guy

M. E.

Newman

M. A.

(2014). Emotional labor and crisis response: Working on the Razor’s Edge. New York, NY: Routledge.

44.

Matteson

M. T.

Ivancevich

J. M.

(1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human resource and management strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

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.

46.

Newland

C. A.

(1968). Collective bargaining concepts: Applications in governments. Public Administration Review, 28, 117-126.

47.

Penner

L. A.

Fritzsche

B. A.

Craiger

J. P.

Freifeld

T. R.

(1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In Butcher

Spielberger

C. D.

(Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

48.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of public administration research and theory, 6, 5-22.

49.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

50.

Pinder

C. C.

(2014). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

51.

Podsakoff

N. P.

LePine

J. A.

LePine

M. A.

(2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438-454.

52.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

53.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2011). Public Sector Labor Relations Scholarship: Is There a “There,” There? Public Administration Review, 71, 203-209.

54.

Richardson

H. A.

Simmering

M. J.

Sturman

M. C.

(2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762-800.

55.

Scott

P. G.

Pandey

S. K.

(2005). Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25, 155-180.

56.

Spector

P. E.

(1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In Cooper

C. L.

(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Manchester, UK: Oxford University Press.

57.

Spector

P. E.

(2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 133-136.

58.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend. Operational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

59.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

(2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269-292.

60.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

(2005). The stressor emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In Fox

Spector

P. E.

(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

61.

Staw

B. M.

(1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 253-273.

62.

Stazyk

E. C.

Davis

R. S.

(2015). Taking the “high road”: Does public service motivation alter ethical decision making processes? Public Administration, 93, 627-645.

63.

Stillman

R. J.

(2004). The American bureaucracy: The core of modern government. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

64.

Tummers

L. G.

Bekkers

Vink

Musheno

(2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1099-1126.

65.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, March 9). Union members summary. Division of Labor Force Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

66.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2010). Blowing the whistle: Barriers to federal employees making disclosures: A report to the president and the congress of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

67.

Vandenabeele

Brewer

G. A.

Ritz

(2014). Past, present, and future of public service motivation research. Public Administration, 92, 779-789.

68.

van Loon

Vandenabeele

Leisink

. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management, 35, 349-356.

69.

Walton

R. E.

McKersie

R. B.

(1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

70.

Wanous

J. P.

Lawler

E. E.

(1972). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 95-105.

71.

Wright

B. E.

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

72.

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.