Emotionally Engaged Civil Servants: Toward a Multilevel Theory and Multisource Analysis in Public Administration

Abstract

Excellent public services build on excellent civil servants who are both emotionally intelligent and engaged in their work. This article proposes a conceptual framework for a better understanding of the relationship between public employees and their complex workplaces. We focus on the engagement of civil servants, the role of managers’ and employees’ emotional intelligence, and on employees’ public service motivation (PSM) to provide better services to citizens. We develop three major propositions: (a) the positive effect of employees’ emotional intelligence on their engagement, (b) the moderating effect of managers’ emotional intelligence on the relationship between their employees’ emotional intelligence and engagement, and (c) the moderating effect of employees’ PSM on the relationship between public servants’ emotional intelligence and their engagement. Our conceptual framework may set the stage for future research on civil servants’ engagement and emotional intelligence and their aggregate impact on the quality of government actions and services.

Keywords

engagement emotional intelligence public service motivation multilevel theory

Introduction

The last two decades have established engagement as an important construct for both employee productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Halbesleben, 2010; Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006) and positive organizational performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). The issue of engagement has also been identified as of special importance to the public sector, due to its impact on the public’s satisfaction with the services provided (Harter et al., 2002). As Vigoda-Gadot, Eldor, and Schohat, (2013) previously noted:

The responsibility of the public sector is to promote public policy with a sense of “mission” toward the state and its citizens. This unique sense of purpose calls for engaged public sector employees, who serve rather than simply do the job. (p. 522-523)

The existing public administration literature on employees’ engagement is growing in work examining the construct’s antecedents (e.g., Jin & McDonald, 2016; Lu & Guy, 2014) and its implications for the outcomes of employees and their organizations (e.g., Marrelli, 2011). Such studies have yielded important theoretical and practical contributions, using a conceptualization and an operationalization of engagement as is commonly used in the general management literature. However, the research on engagement has been exposed to criticism for two reasons. First, numerous definitions of employee engagement exist and there is a lack of consensus regarding the name, meaning, and distinctiveness of employee engagement among scholars and practitioners (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012). A second related issue is that there is a proliferation of instruments developed to measure employee engagement, and there is no consensus on how engagement should be measured nor on the validity of existing measures (Saks & Gruman, 2014). In addition to these two ongoing concerns, a question remains whether civil servants’ engagement has the same meaning and content as engagement in the private sector. Taking a public administration perspective, it is our responsibility to frame theoretical constructs in the context of the public sector, by focusing on the norms and ethos of civil servants (Golden, 2000). Although there are situations where classic work-related constructs and models explain and even predict behavior successfully, these classic models do not necessarily suit the motivations, attitudes, and behavior of those in the public sector.

A clear demonstration of this idea is the concept of public service motivation (PSM), which was originally coined and validated by Perry and Wise (1990) as distinct from the more general construct of work motivation. As proponents of public-service motivation (e.g., Frederickson & Hart, 1985; Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990) argue, individuals are drawn to careers in public service primarily by a unique set of altruistic motives not found among private sector employees (Houston, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990). It may similarly be proposed that public sector employees exhibit a unique form of work engagement due to the sector’s unique characteristics. It has been previously argued (e.g., DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Mohanty & Mishra, 1998; Zeffane, 1994) that fundamental differences exist between the public and private sectors (e.g., bureaucratization and market forces), implicating the general orientation of the workplace in various ways (Scott & Falcone, 1998). For example, legal and political constraints are placed on government rather than private organizations, leading to perceptions of lower job satisfaction and lower job control in the public sector (Scott & Falcone, 1998). Moreover, civil servants have much more limited access to economic gains than their private sector counterparts to economic gains, potentially harming their incentive to be more productive. In the face of such challenges in the public-sector work setting, it seems likely that civil servants demonstrate a unique form of engagement that enables one to remain invested in the performance of his or her role. Thus, the exact nature of civil servants’ engagement remains to be revealed, to allow PA scholars to make causal conclusions about the antecedents and consequences of civil servants’ engagement.

To address this issue, we propose a multilevel theory of engagement and a multisource model of its antecedents. We build on prior work to present a three-pillar model that (a) conceptualizes the construct of civil servants’ engagement as multilevel engagement and explicates its distinctiveness and core foundations, (b) draws attention to the role of employees’ emotional intelligence and PSM in predicting civil servants’ engagement, and (c) attempts to enhance scholars’ understanding of the role of managers’ emotional intelligence in enhancing employees’ multilevel engagement.

The proposed model conceptualizes civil servants’ engagement in line with Kahn’s (1990) definition, as a multilevel construct that encompasses cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. Furthermore, a critical postulate in the proposed model is that the three dimensions of engagement are directed toward three distinct levels of the social context in which civil servants operate: the social community, the organization, and the individuals with whom civil servants interact when performing their work roles. We use the job demands–resources model (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; JD-R model) to propose that emotional intelligence is a personal resource that may act as a buffer against the negative impact of the demands civil servants face in doing their jobs, thereby positively affecting their multilevel engagement. Moreover, we maintain that this relationship is moderated by employees’ PSM, as well as their managers’ emotional intelligence.

Civil Servants’ Multilevel Engagement: Toward a Theory

Generally, work engagement reflects “ . . . a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Per Kahn (1990), when individuals are engaged, they employ and express all aspects of themselves—cognitive, emotional, and physical—during the performance of their work role. Our conceptualization of civil servants’ engagement follows Kahn’s (1990) pioneering definitions of engagement as well as the more recent work by Schaufeli and Bakkers’ (2010), assuming that civil servants’ engagement is a multilevel motivational construct, consisting of three separate, but related conceptual components—cognition, affect, and behavior. However, unlike other authors, whose key reference of engagement has been the work role (Kahn, 1990), the work activity (e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010), or the organization (e.g., Harter et al., 2002), we maintain that civil servants’ engagement should not be reduced to an individual’s psychological state of involvement or motivation to do one’ job. Instead, we propose that unlike the private sector, to be an engaged public servant means not only to manifest vigor, dedication, and absorption within one’s work role and organization, but also to be cognitively and behaviorally engaged to serve the social community and to outperform formal job demands with the intent of serving the organization’s mission. In other words, the construct of work engagement alone does not tap into the unique attributes of civil servants’ engagement that differentiates them from private sector employees—the engagement toward the social community and toward the individuals with whom civil servants interact—the citizen-clients and fellow colleagues. Hence, the construct of multilevel engagement (MLE) is proposed as an overarching construct, comprised of three levels of engagement, in accordance with their suggested contribution at various levels of the social context: the social community, the organization, and the individuals with whom civil servants interact. Moreover, we propose that each proceeding level of engagement builds on the next, eventually leading to complete engagement, such that the engagement toward the social community happens on a silent, personal level, not necessarily behaviorally manifested and acts as a catalyst for the next two levels. We further suggest that these three levels of civil servants’ engagement may be represented by the following three constructs, respectively: social responsibility (SR), work engagement (WE), and organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals (OCBI). An elaboration of the proposed model of civil servants’ engagement is detailed below.

(1) Engagement toward the social community—Social responsibility: At this level, the model includes a level of engagement that represents civil servants’ link to their society, above and beyond their motivation to perform specific work activities that give one pleasure and satisfaction. This level of engagement may be best represented by the construct of social responsibility, defined as “a sense of duty or obligation to contribute to the greater good.” Individuals who are driven by social responsibility are moved by their “duty to act on moral and prosocial grounds”. In the context of public administration, a sense of social responsibility helps individuals and government organizations have a positive impact on society (Chandler & Werther, 2014). Social responsibility is a similar yet distinct construct from PSM. The latter is a work-related motivational state that inclines individuals to choose to work in the public sector over the private one. In contrast, social responsibility is a broader mental orientation focused on contributing to society, that leads individuals to engage in socially responsible behavior in an ethical sense (Chandler & Werther, 2014), within or beyond the work context.

(2) Engagement toward the organization—Work engagement: At the intermediate level of the organization, the model comprises a level of engagement that represents civil servants’ links to the organization and their work roles. It may be best represented by Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) construct of work engagement, defined as “. . . a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (2002a, p.465; 2002b, p.74). As the construct’s definition and measurement using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002) suggest, work engagement may be best thought of as employees’ feelings about the activities and demands of their job. Unlike the case of social responsibility, this level does not reflect civil servants’ attitudes toward society, but rather an affective state of involvement in one’s job.

(3) Engagement toward individuals—OCBI: At the level of the individual, the model calls attention to civil servants’ behavioral orientation to engage in interpersonal helping behaviors and to outperform the formal job demands necessary for the provision of public service. We argue that this level of engagement is best represented by the construct of organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals (OCBI). OCB expresses a form of “informal contributions that participants can choose to make or withhold, without regard to sanctions or formal incentives” (Cohen & Vigoda, 2000, p. 597). Such behaviors may be distinguished into behaviors directed toward the organization (OCBO) and behaviors directed toward individuals (OCBI; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Examples of OCBO include being actively engaged in identifying problems related to the current provision of public services and suggesting appropriate solutions, whereas examples of OCBI include helping coworkers with their job tasks and proactively being involved in solving citizens’ problems. The proposed model of multilevel engagement will focus solely on OCB directed toward the individuals with whom civil servants interact (OCBI), as the latter covers the engagement toward individuals rather than the entire organization.

The most frequently used framework for studying work engagement is the JD-R model (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2014, 2017; Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001). The JD-R model proposes that although every organization is unique, all work environments may be characterized in terms of job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to aspects of the work context such as job pressures, task complexity, and role ambiguity that require energy. In contrast, job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that help employees deal with the demands of work, satisfy basic psychological needs, and achieve organizational goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Demerouti et al., 2001). These two categories of work conditions—job demands and resources—trigger two different psychological processes that are the basis of work engagement. Job demands deplete employees’ energy, contributing to burnout, whereas job resources motivate employees and are the most important predictors of their engagement. Job resources may not only potentially reduce the negative effects of job demands but also additionally stimulate personal growth and development as well as promote employees’ engagement. Hence, the more resources available to employees and the higher the degree of each resource, the more engaged employees are expected to be (Bakker, 2015). This article builds on the recently growing PA literature on the role of emotions in civil servants’ work, to introduce the construct of emotional intelligence to the discourse on the interplay between job demands and resources.

The Emotional Side of Public Service Work: Emotional Labor and Emotional Intelligence

The emotional side of public service work is a burgeoning area of interest in the public administration literature over the past decade (e.g., Guy & Lee, 2015; Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). Research focusing on the emotionally intense work demands of civil servants commonly utilizes the two constructs of “Emotional Intelligence” and “Emotional Labor” to explain for civil servants’ performance (e.g., Guy & Lee, 2015; Guy & Newman, 2004; Guy et al., 2008; Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006; Meier, Mastracci, & Wilson, 2006). As has been previously noted, the terms emotional intelligence and emotional labor have distinct meanings: “the former refers to the ability to sense and regulate one’s own emotions, as well as to sense others’ emotional state, while the latter refers to the exercise of emotive skills to get the job done” (Guy & Lee, 2015, p. 261). In other words, emotional labor is an emotive behavior defined as the management of feelings to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display (Hochschild, 1983); whereas emotional intelligence may be thought of as the ability to perceive, understand, appraise and express emotion, coupled with the ability to generate and regulate feelings (Ciarrochi, Forgas, & Mayer, 2001; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). It has accordingly been proposed that the abilities allowing individuals to perform emotional labor successfully are those grounded in EI (e.g., Hsieh, 2009). Indeed, EI was found to be a better predictor of performance for jobs that require emotional labor than for jobs overall (Joseph & Newman, 2010).

The first writings on the role of emotions in public administration literature are those that discuss the concept of emotional labor (e.g., Guy & Newman, 2004; Guy et al., 2008; Mastracci et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2006). In their pioneering book, titled Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service, Guy et al. (2008) defined the construct of emotional labor, examined its sparse PA literature, and provided empirical evidence for prototypical emotional labor in public sector settings. Since then, numerous studies have investigated the influence of the emotional labor across a range of public service occupations (e.g., Guy & Newman, 2004; Guy et al., 2008; Hsieh & Guy, 2009; Jin & Guy, 2009; Meier, 2005; Meier et al., 2006). One of the research streams has centered on the influence of emotional job demands on burnout, particularly emotional exhaustion (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; de Jonge, Le Blanc, Peeters, & Noordam, 2008; Wilk & Moynihan, 2005). In a study examining raw data from three earlier studies (Guy et al., 2008; Hsieh & Guy, 2009; Jin & Guy, 2009), Hsieh, Jin, and Guy (2012) concluded that emotional labor is a significant predictor of burnout. The authors clarified that the demands of pretending to feel one way while feeling another (i.e., false face acting) is what contributes to burnout. These findings suggest, in line with the JD-R theory, that emotional labor may be perceived as a job demand that leads to the depletion of personal resources and enhancement of burnout. However, the evidence in the literature that emotional labor is associated with burnout has been inconclusive, as some studies were not able to replicate previous results (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Castanheira & Chambel, 2009; Heuven, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Huisman, 2006).

To address this discrepancy, Hsieh (2014) examined a model of interactive effect of negative and positive display rules and job resources (e.g., job control, social support and rewards) on emotional exhaustion—a primary dimension of job-induced burnout. The findings suggested that only negative display rules (as opposed to positive display rules) are linked to an elevated level of emotional exhaustion, thus urging scholars to have a new perspective on the job demands–burnout relationship. Referring to the previously established notion in PA literature that public employees have a stronger desire to help the public as compared with their private sector counterparts (e.g., Perry, 1996), the author postulated that the lack of effect of positive display rules on emotional exhaustion may be explained by civil servants’ motivational bases (Hsieh, 2014). Hence, it was suggested that future research should examine whether PSM (Perry & Wise) acts as a moderator in the JD-R model of burnout.

The construct of emotional intelligence was first coined by Salovey and Mayer (1990), who defined it as “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth”(p. 189). Their proposed model falls under the ability model approach, which views EI in terms of abilities, much like other types of mental performance measures such as IQ (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Models falling under the mixed-model approach (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995), on the contrary, regard EI as consisting of a broad array of noncognitive factors such as personality and motivation (Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005). Of the two, the ability model is considered to be more rigorous and is more prevalent among scholars (Matthews et al., 2004), as it has been found to be more easily separated from personality traits (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005). For this reason, this article follows Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability-based four branch model (Salovey & Mayer, 1997) in which EI is subdivided into four components: (a) self-emotional appraisal—the ability to understand and express one’s own emotions naturally (emotional awareness), (b) other’s emotional appraisal—the ability to perceive and understand the emotions of others around them (emotional understanding), (c) use of emotion—the ability to use one’s own emotions constructively in workplace activities (emotional facilitation), and (d) regulation of emotion—the ability to control one’s own emotions (emotional management).

The construct of emotional intelligence was introduced to the public administration literature by Berman and West (2008), in an article assessing perceptions of managerial emotional intelligence in local government and the practices and policies affecting it. The PA research on emotional intelligence has since then revealed a positive relationship between employees’ EI and various work-related constructs, such as political skills (Vigoda-Gadot & Meisler, 2010), job satisfaction (e.g., Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Wharton, 2012; Vigoda-Gadot & Meisler, 2010), affective commitment (e.g., Levitats & Vigoda-Gadot, 2017), leadership effectiveness (Kotzé & Venter, 2011), well-being and employee engagement (Brunetto et al., 2012) and, finally, PSM and service quality (Levitats & Vigoda-Gadot, 2017). Moreover, in a study examining the mediating effect of emotional intelligence in the relationship between emotional labor and the performance variables of job satisfaction and burnout, Guy and Lee (2015) found emotional self-awareness, a component of emotional intelligence, to partially mediate the relationship with job satisfaction. Moreover, the sub-component of emotion regulation was found to mediate the relationship with burnout, such that the latter decreases as emotion regulation increases (Guy & Lee, 2015). Thus, it seems that the construct of EI is gaining a growing amount of academic interest in the field of public administration. More specifically, it has been studied and found to play a dominant role in relations with some of the most extensively studied constructs in PA literature, such as PSM (e.g., Levitats & Vigoda-Gadot, 2017). The relevant research on the latter relationship is detailed in the following section.

PSM and the Emotional Side of Public Service Work

The term public service motivation (PSM) was first coined by Perry and Wise in 1990. The authors defined it as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). The construct is built on the idea that individuals choose to act in the public domain to do good for others and society (Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010).

Perry and Wise (1990) identified a typology of motives associated with public service: (a) rational motives, grounded in self-interest maximization; (b) normative motives, related to efforts to conform to societal norms; and (c) affective motives, which trigger behaviors grounded in a desire to help others. Perry (1996, 1997) further proposed a four-dimensional PSM measurement scale that includes attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice.

The convergence between the three dimensions of compassion, self-sacrifice, and commitment to the public interest is the emphasis on an orientation toward the other—that is an integral part of public service work. In fact, a recent stream of PA research has focused on the relevance of PSM to the emotional side of civil servants’ work. In a study assessing how PSM affects two common emotional labor activities (surface acting and deep acting), Hsieh et al. (2012) found PSM to be negatively associated with surface acting and positively associated with deep acting, due to the compassion dimension, which represents the affective component of the PSM construct. The authors concluded that individuals with strong PSM are more likely to engage in emotional efforts that help them place themselves in clients’ shoes and take clients’ interests to heart. A positive relationship between PSM and emotional intelligence has too been revealed. In a study examining the mutual effect of emotional intelligence and PSM on civil servants’ performance, using a sample of 200 nurses in a large public hospital, Levitats and Vigoda-Gadot (2017) found support for a direct positive relationship between civil servants’ EI and PSM, suggesting that emotional intelligence may serve as an antecedent of PSM. Moreover, PSM was found to mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and affective commitment, and to interact with emotional intelligence in effecting service quality. The moderating effect revealed that the impact of PSM on self-reported service quality is stronger for public employees with more EI.

Model and Propositions: An Integration

Figure 1 portrays the general conceptual model proposed. In the following section, we discuss the model in detail and offer propositions concerning the various potential relationships.

Figure 1.

The multisource effect of emotional intelligence on civil servants’ multilevel engagement.

The Relationship Between Employees EI and MLE

Given what we know about emotional intelligence, it is reasonable to posit a positive relationship between employees’ emotional intelligence and the three concepts assumed to comprise civil servants’ multilevel engagement.

First, the relationship between EI and social responsibility seems likely due to the tight relationship between emotional intelligence and one’s altruistic orientation, through empathy (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Daus, 2008). Social responsibility is a sense of altruistic duty individuals feel toward society. Such altruistic individuals are motived to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for their own self-interests (Batson, 2011). As it has previously been established in research examining the empathy–altruism hypothesis, this altruistic motivation is evoked through empathic emotion (Batson, 1986: Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, 1981; Batson, O’Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, & Isen, 1983), which is an other-oriented emotional response congruent with the perceived welfare of another. This empathic concern is facilitated among individuals high in EI, as they are better able to understand another person’s point of view, identify accurately with another’s emotions, experience the same or other appropriate emotion in response to them, and to act on this internal experience with empathy, consequently enhancing one’s altruism (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). In line with this rational, it may be postulated that civil servants’ emotional intelligence will be positively related to their social responsibility (i.e., the affective sense of connection to others in the community and sense of responsibility for others), due to positive relationship between EI and empathic perspective taking—the ability to place oneself in another’s shoes and comprehend his or her point of view (Davis, 1983).

Turning to the organizational level of engagement, work engagement has previously been found to be positively related to emotional intelligence in the public sector (Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Farr-Wharton, 2012; Zhu, Liu, Guo, Zhao, & Lou, 2015). Referring to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), this relationship may be explicated by the role of EI as a personal resource in the interplay between job demands and resources. As it has previously been established in PA literature, emotional labor is an integral part of civil servants’ work, which acts as a significant predictor of burnout, namely, when false face acting is involved (Hsieh et al., 2012). These findings may suggest that once civil servants have to pretend to feel one way while feeling another, emotional labor acts a job demand that leads to the depletion of personal resources, decreasing engagement, and enhancing burnout. This is where EI may come in. As Hsieh (2009) previously noted, the abilities grounded in EI are those that allow individuals to perform emotional labor successfully. Thus, it may be conceived that in the context of civil servants’ emotional labor, employees’ emotional abilities to control one’s own emotions (emotional management) and to use them constructively in the workplace (emotional facilitation) will act as personal resources, buffering against the risk of emotional exhaustion, and positively influencing civil servants’ work engagement. As it has previously been noted (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010), demands are regarded as hindrances or challenges according to whether they trigger negative or positive emotions among employees. Thus, as high EI individuals are better able to regulate their emotions and those of others, this personal ability may be expected to be positively related to work engagement.

Finally, EI is likely to be positively related to the engagement toward individuals. A positive relationship between civil servants’ EI and their OCB has previously been documented in public administration literature (Cohen & Abedallah, 2015). Lee and Allen (2002) further stated that the role of emotions is particularly central in predicting OCBI, whereas OCBO is more strongly associated with job cognitions. The various attributes of emotional intelligence and dimensions of OCBI may explain this relationship. Of the five OCB subconstructs, those that are most identified with OCBI are the helping behavior and the courtesy dimensions. Helping behavior refers to altruism, peacekeeping, and cheerleading. Examples include solving conflicts among employees and offering to orient a new employee. Courtesy refers to behaviors that demonstrate good communication and general consideration for others, with the purpose of preventing organization problems. Thus, individuals high in EI are more likely to demonstrate OCBI as they adept at identifying and responding appropriately to the emotions of coworkers, customers, and superiors (Day & Carroll, 2004). For example, their enhanced ability to perceive and understand the emotions of others may aid them notice if someone would benefit from some assistance and handle emotionally laden situations in ways that go beyond their job description or organizational rules. Moreover, being alert to others’ feelings they may offer help or encouragement, should they sense that a coworker is frustrated or step forward to help smooth and manage interactions within their work groups. Based on these findings, we propose that employees’ emotional intelligence will have a positive effect on all three constructs comprising civil servants’ engagement. This leads to the following prediction:

Proposition 1: Employees’ emotional intelligence, in all its four subcomponents, has a positive effect on all three levels of civil servants’ engagement (social responsibility, work engagement, and OCBI).

The Relationship Between Managers’ EI and MLE

As proposed above, civil servants’ emotional intelligence is expected to positively affect all three levels of their engagement. However, this unconditional prediction may be too simple as there may be external factors that interfere with this relationship. One such factor, with high-impact potential and which was given too little attention in past studies, is managers’ level of EI. We maintain that the positive relationship between civil servants’ EI and the three factors comprising public sector engagement is moderated by their managers’ level of EI. Specifically, engagement is expected to be stronger for employees whose managers show higher levels of emotional intelligence, compared with employees whose managers show medium or low levels of EI. This proposition borrows from the JD-R theory and the existing emotional intelligence literature.

We consider a manager’s EI as a key factor that allows team members to fully utilize their emotional resources frequently and effectively (Côté, 2007). Several studies in the private sector have shown that the single most important contributor to the feelings of employee engagement is the relationship one has with the leaders of the organization (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Furthermore, it has been suggested that managers with a high level of emotional intelligence, who are effective in the emotional management of others, create a positive working environment for their staff (Momeni, 2009) and are adept at resolving the issues, frustrations, and obstacles that employees may face in their doing their jobs (Morrison, 2008). Moreover, they are better than their low EI counterparts at managing the emotional fluctuations employees experience at work and at facilitating positive emotions among their followers. By creating a positive context, such managers may establish the necessary foundation for their subordinates to utilize their own emotional resources to the benefit of higher public sector engagement, rather than having to address those resources to deal with organizational demands. In contrast, leaders with low EI may not be able to form this type of constructive team context that enables subordinates to fully utilize their EI resources for increased public sector engagement. Even worse, emotional resources of team members may need to be diverted to combat the organizational demands that leaders with low EI may create, such as decreased trust. In terms of the JD-R model, we posit that team members whose managers are highly emotionally intelligent enjoy a work environment that is rich in positive mood and morale. Therefore, we expect them to be better able to buffer the potentially negative emotional effects of demanding civil servant jobs, allowing them to remain focused on channeling their emotional intelligence to increase their engagement. Moreover, as highly emotionally intelligent managers are more aware of the feelings of others and are oriented toward acting upon them, we expect them to be very attentive to their subordinates’ personal and professional needs. Hence, they are more likely to adjust their management style to employees’ desires, providing job resources such as autonomy and social support in accordance with employees’ needs. Such job resources are consequently expected to alleviate the strain and reduce the risk of burnout when demands are highly stressful and increase employees’ work engagement when the demands are seen as a positive challenge (Tadić, Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2015). In either case, it may be assumed that subordinates of highly emotionally intelligent managers will be better able than those who work for managers with lower levels of emotional intelligence to use their own emotional intelligence to increase their engagement, because their managers provide them with the resources that dampen the negative impact of the demands of their jobs. On the contrary, employees whose managers manifest lower levels of EI may not be able to employ their own EI to remain engaged in the face of overwhelming demands, thus leading to burnout and self-undermining behaviors that harm their performance (Bakker, 2015).

Finally, as Grant and Berry (2011) asserted, the motivation to act pro-socially is “another-focused psychological process” (p. 77). For most individuals, the likelihood of working to promote the public good is conditioned by the behavior of their counterparts. From a public-sector perspective, Ostrom (1998, 2000) similarly argued that most individuals condition their behavior toward other members of society. She referred to such individuals as “conditional cooperators,” defined as “individuals who are willing to initiate cooperative action when they estimate others will reciprocate and to repeat these actions as long as a sufficient proportion of the others involved reciprocate” (Ostrom, 2000, p. 142). Hence, we expect managers’ emotional intelligence to invigorate the positive relationship between civil servants’ emotional intelligence and engagement. This leads to the following prediction:

Proposition 2: Managers’ EI moderates the relationship between civil servants’ EI and all three levels of engagement. Hence, subordinates of highly emotionally intelligent managers are expected to show a positive relationship between their emotional intelligence and three levels of engagement (social responsibility, work engagement, and OCBI), whereas this relationship is not expected to be significant among subordinates of managers manifesting medium or low levels of emotional intelligence.

The Relationship Between Employees EI and PSM

Levitats and Vigoda-Gadot (2017) found support for the positive relationship between civil servants’ emotional intelligence and PSM. The authors suggested that this relationship might be understood in two ways. First, considering that PSM is a motivational construct, the mechanism underlying this relationship might accord with Law, Wong, and Song’s (2004) proposition that emotionally intelligent individuals are able to manage their emotions in ways that enhance their motivation and the quality of their decisions. Furthermore, given that positive emotions often enhance motivation, emotionally intelligent employees who are aware of their emotions and their subsequent behavioral outcomes may successfully boost their positive emotions to enhance their motivation. The logic behind this proposed positive relationship may further be elucidated by examining the dimensions constituting PSM. The compassion dimension of PSM is based on a motivation called affective motives (Perry & Wise, 1990), defined as triggers of behavior grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts (Perry & Wise, 1990). Affective motives entail prosocial desires to help others such as altruism, which has been recognized to be positively tied to EI (Jordan et al., 2008). Thus, as high EI inclines individuals to enhanced altruism (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), we may expect highly emotionally intelligent individuals to exhibit more compassion. A similar logic may further hold true for the PSM dimensions of self-sacrifice and commitment to the public interest. The convergence between compassion, self-sacrifice, and commitment to the public interest is the emphasis on an orientation toward the other—represented by notions of altruism, self-sacrifice, and prosocial motivations (Perry et al., 2010). This convergence accords with Rainey and Steinbauer’s (1999) definition of PSM as a “general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or human kind” (p. 20). Hence, as individuals high in EI have a greater tendency to be empathic and actively orientated toward the needs of others (i.e., altruistic), they are more likely to manifest higher levels of self-sacrifice and commitment to the public interest, in addition to compassion. The above logic leads to the following prediction:

Proposition 3: Employees’ EI has a positive effect on employees’ PSM, namely, the dimensions of compassion, self-sacrifice, and commitment to the public interest.

The Moderating Effect of PSM on the Relationship Between EI and MLE

A slightly different perspective to that underlying the proposed direct effect of employees’ EI on multilevel engagement comes from recent public administration research (Bakker, 2015; Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). In an article integrating the PSM literature with the JD-R theory and the work engagement literature, Bakker (2015) conceptualized PSM as a person-level variable influencing the impact of lower level, daily fluctuations in JD-Rs on engagement, exhaustion and organizational behaviors. More specifically, it was proposed that PSM moderates the positive relationship between job resources and work engagement, such that employees high in PSM will be motivated to use their daily job resources (i.e., social support from colleagues, performance feedback, and autonomy) to do their jobs in a fully engaged manner. Similarly, Bakker assumed that daily personal resources interact with PSM in predicting work engagement and performance in the same way that daily job resources do. Thus, it was suggested that PSM might strengthen the positive relationship between personal resources (e.g., optimism and self-efficacy) and work engagement because civil servants with high level of PSM find their work important and meaningful (Bakker, 2015). We further postulate that in the context of the public sector, because high PSM individuals perceive their work as important and meaningful, they are more likely to be motivated to use their personal resources of emotional intelligence to the benefit of increased social responsibility, work engagement, and OCBI. In contrast, employees with lower levels of PSM are expected to be less concerned about doing work that benefits others and thus to be less oriented to channel their EI toward the three levels of civil servants’ engagement. This leads to the following prediction:

Proposition 4: PSM moderates the relationship between civil servants’ emotional intelligence and civil servants multilevel engagement (social responsibility, work engagement, and OCBI).

Discussion, Summary, and Road Ahead

To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first scholarly attempt to offer an integrative theoretical model explicating the distinctiveness and core foundation of civil servants’ engagement and propose emotional intelligence and PSM as its plausible antecedents. The model provides a fresh perspective on civil servants’ engagement and on the joint influence of emotional intelligence and PSM on the refined construct.

Although the applicability of the model remains to be tested empirically, our article extends the theoretical thought in several streams of literature. First, it contributes to the current public administration literature on engagement by drawing attention to the unique, multilevel attributes of civil servants’ engagement. We conceptualized the structure of civil servants’ engagement as a multilevel construct based on Kahn’s (1990) original definition of the construct of engagement, stressing its cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations with regard to society, organizations and individuals, respectively. Second, we offered an extension of the JD-R model (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) that considers emotional intelligence as a personal resource positively affecting civil servants’ multilevel engagement. We maintain that emotional intelligence and PSM, each, buffer employees against the negative impact of the demands of their jobs and jointly boost the positive impact of other factors on employees’ engagement. Moreover, our proposition that managers’ emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between employees’ emotional intelligence and engagement contributes to the JD-R model by suggesting managers’ emotional disposition as a plausible resource in the interplay between job resources and job demands. Third, the model extends the leadership literature (e.g., Lu & Guy, 2014) by considering the role of leaders’ emotional abilities in moderating the relationship between employees’ emotional intelligence and engagement, subsequently increasing organizational and employee performance.

Should the research model and its hypothesized relationships be examined and supported, the model will additionally make several practical contributions. First, should emotional intelligence and PSM be revealed as antecedents of civil servants’ engagement, the findings would provide managers and human resource practitioners with insights for the recruitment of civil servants based on their emotional intelligence and PSM profiles. Similarly, should civil servants’ EI be found to have a positive effect on their PSM and act as one of the construct’s antecedents, we could conclude that civil servants’ choice to work in the public sector is affected not merely by their PSM, but also, indirectly, by their level of emotional intelligence. Hence, it might be advisable to include courses designed to develop emotional intelligence in on-the-job training programs and to recruit employees for the public sector based on a demonstration of high emotional intelligence. Furthermore, should the emotional intelligence of managers be found to moderate the relationship between employees’ emotional intelligence and civil servants’ engagement, such an understanding of the distinct impact of managers’ emotional capabilities on engagement would assist practitioners with the future challenges of leadership selection and development efforts. Emotional intelligence may be used as a criterion in managers’ promotion and performance appraisal systems. HR departments can develop appraisal and monitoring methods that reflect and encourage emotional intelligence. Moreover, organizations may wish to invest in developing employees’ and managers’ emotional skills and cultivating an organizational culture that encourages emotionally intelligent behaviors. For managers, such findings would suggest that it is crucial for them to practice their emotional intelligence when interacting with their employees and master their emotions as well as those of their employees. Managers’ emotionally intelligent interactions with employees may help them ensure that employees remain highly engaged, cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally, consequently providing a high level of service that benefits citizens.

To enhance the contribution of the proposed model to these streams of literature, we see its ultimate value in testing it empirically. Hence, we wish to examine the model using advanced empirical quantitative methods. Because our model proposes some causal relationships between its various variables, we believe that both a survey method and an experimental research design are necessary to test the model. Preliminary insights may be gathered by using a survey method to collect data on all of the model’s variables and examining the various relationships the model proposes. To further validate the causal effect of employees’ emotional intelligence on multilevel engagement and PSM, as well as the moderating effect of employees’ public sector motivation and managers’ emotional intelligence on the relationship between employees’ emotional intelligence and MLE, experiments should be carried out, taking the form of a two-group, random selection, pretest and posttest design. One of the main advantages of such a design is its high level of internal validity. Its randomization will allow us to infer that any differences that appear in the posttest are likely to be the result of the manipulation of the experimental variable, rather than possible initial differences between the two groups.

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.

ORCID iD

Eran Vigoda-Gadot

Author Biographies

Zehavit Levitats is a doctoral student at the School of Political Science, University of Haifa. She specializes in studying the role of emotions and emotional intelligence in public administration. Her research interests include organizational behavior and human resource management in public administration; engagement and public service motivation (PSM).

Eran Vigoda-Gadot is a professor of public administration and management, political science, and governance. He founded the Center for Public Management and Policy (CPMP) at the School of Political Science, University of Haifa. For the past 3 years, he has been the Dean of The Herta & Paul Amir Faculty of Social Sciences, at the University of Haifa.

References

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265-269.

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). A job demands-resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75, 723-732.

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

S. L.

Leiter

M. P.

(2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209-223.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands-resources theory. In Chen

P. Y.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Work and wellbeing: A complete reference guide (pp. 1-28). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 273-285.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Euwema

M. C.

(2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170-180.

Bar-On

(1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

10.

Batson

C. D.

(1986). Sociobiology and the role of religion in promoting prosocial behavior: An alternative view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1380-1385.

11.

Batson

C. D.

(2011). Altruism in Humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

12.

Batson

C. D.

Duncan

B. D.

Ackerman

Buckley

Birch

(1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290-302.

13.

Batson

C. D.

O’Quin

Fultz

Vanderplas

Isen

(1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.

14.

Berman

E. M.

West

J. P.

(2008). Managing emotional intelligence in US cities: A study of social skills among public managers. Public Administration Review, 68, 742-758.

15.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Grandey

A. A.

(2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

16.

Brunetto

Teo

S. T.

Shacklock

Wharton

R. F.

(2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 428-441.

17.

Castanheira

Chambel

M. J.

(2009). Emotion work, psychological contract, and their relationship with burnout. In Morin

Ramalho

Neves

Savoie

(Eds.), New research trends in effectiveness, health, and work: A Criteos scientific and professional account (pp. 101-120). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Criteos/HEC-Montreal.

18.

Chandler

Werther

Jr. (2014). Strategic corporate responsibility: Stakeholders, globalization, and sustainable value creation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

19.

Ciarrochi

Forgas

J. P.

Mayer

J. D.

(2001). Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

20.

Cohen

Abedallah

(2015). The mediating role of burnout on the relationship of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy with OCB and performance. Management Research Review, 38, 2-28.

21.

Cohen

Vigoda

(2000). Do good citizens make good organizational citizens? An empirical examination of the relationship between general citizenship and organizational citizenship behavior in Israel. Administration & Society, 32, 596-624.

22.

Cole

M. S.

Walter

Bedeian

A. G.

O’Boyle

E. H.

(2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38, 1550-1581.

23.

Côté

(2007). Chapter 12 Group Emotional Intelligence and Group Performance. In Mannix

E.A.

Neale

M. A.

Anderson

C.P.

(Eds.) Affect and groups (Vol. 10, pp. 309-336), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

24.

Crawford

E. R.

LePine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834-848.

25.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

26.

Day

A. L.

Carroll

S. A.

(2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443-1458.

27.

de Jonge

Le Blanc

P. M.

Peeters

M. C. W.

Noordam

. (2008). Emotional job demands and the role of matching job resources: A cross-sectional survey study among health care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1460-1469.

28.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1-9.

29.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

De Jonge

Janssen

P. P. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27, 279-286.

30.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.

31.

DeSantis

V. S.

Durst

S. L

. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public-and private-sector employees. The American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.

32.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.

33.

Frederickson

H. G.

Hart

D. K

. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45(5), 547-553.

34.

Golden

M. M

. (2000). What motivates bureaucrats? Politics and administration during the Reagan years. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

35.

Goleman

(1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

36.

Grant

A. M.

Berry

J. W.

(2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73-96.

37.

Guy

M. E.

Lee

H. J

. (2015). How emotional intelligence mediates emotional labor in public service jobs. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(3), 261-277.

38.

Guy

M. E.

Newman

M. A.

(2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64, 289-298.

39.

Guy

M. E.

Newman

M. A.

Mastracci

S. H.

(2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service in public service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

40.

Halbesleben

J. R.

(2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In Leiter

M.P

Bakker

A. B.

(Eds.) Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). London, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.

41.

Harter

J. K.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hayes

T. L.

(2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

42.

Heuven

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Huisman

(2006). The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 222-235.

43.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

44.

Houston

D. J.

(2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 713-728.

45.

Hsieh

C. W.

(2009). Emotional labor in public service roles: A model of dramaturgical and dispositional approaches. Tallahassee: The Florida State University.

46.

Hsieh

C. W.

(2014). Burnout among public service workers: The role of emotional labor requirements and job resources. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 379-402.

47.

Hsieh

C. W.

Guy

M. E.

(2009). Performance outcomes: The relationship between managing the “heart” and managing client satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 41-57.

48.

Hsieh

C. W.

Jin

M. H.

Guy

M. E.

(2012). Consequences of work-related emotions: Analysis of a cross-section of public service workers. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 39-53.

49.

Jin

M. H.

Guy

M. E.

(2009). How emotional labor influences worker pride, job satisfaction, and burnout: An examination of consumer complaint workers. Public Performance & Management Review, 33, 88-105.

50.

Jin

M. H.

McDonald

(2016). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: The role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning opportunities. The American Review of Public Administration, 47, 881-897. doi:10.1177/0275074016643817

51.

Jordan

P. J.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Daus

C. S.

(2008). Emotional intelligence: Rhetoric or reality? In Cartwright

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psychology (pp. 37-58). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

52.

Joseph

D. L.

Newman

D. A.

(2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78.

53.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

54.

Kotzé

Venter

(2011). Differences in emotional intelligence between effective and ineffective leaders in the public sector: An empirical study. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 397-427.

55.

Law

K. S.

Wong

C. S.

Song

L. J.

(2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.

56.

Lee

Allen

N. J.

(2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

57.

Levitats

Vigoda-Gadot

(2017). Yours emotionally: How emotional intelligence infuses public service motivation and affects the job outcomes of public personnel. Public Administration, 95, 759-775. doi:10.1111/padm.12342

58.

Guy

M. E.

(2014). How emotional labor and ethical leadership affect job engagement for Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Management, 43, 3-24.

59.

Marrelli

A. F.

(2011). Employee engagement and performance management in the federal sector. Performance Improvement, 50(5), 5-13.

60.

Mastracci

S. H.

Newman

M. A.

Guy

M. E.

(2006). Appraising emotion work: Determining whether emotional labor is valued in government jobs. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 123-138.

61.

Matthews

Zeidner

Roberts

R. D

. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. London, England: MIT press.

62.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

63.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

(2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as personality, and as a mental ability. In Bar-On

Parker

J. D. A.

(Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 92-117). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

64.

Meier

M. R.

(2005). The invisibility of emotional labor: A case study of faculty members at small liberal arts colleges. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Springfield.

65.

Meier

K. J.

Mastracci

S. H.

Wilson

(2006). Gender and emotional labor in public organizations: An empirical examination of the link to performance. Public Administration Review, 66, 899-909.

66.

Mohanty

Mishra

P. K

. (1998). Occupational Stress: A comparative study of public & private sector. Social Science International, 14, 29-39.

67.

Momeni

(2009). The relation between managers’ emotional intelligence and the organizational climate they create. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 35-48.

68.

Morrison

(2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 974-983.

69.

Ostrom

(1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92, 1-22.

70.

Ostrom

(2000). Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, 172(173), 195-198.

71.

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.

72.

Perry

J. L.

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

73.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

J. 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.

74.

Perry

J. L.

Porter

L. W

. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of management review, 7(1), 89-98.

75.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

76.

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.

77.

Rosete

Ciarrochi

. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388–399.

78.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155-182.

79.

Salovey

Mayer

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

80.

Salovey

Sluyter

D. J.

(Eds.). (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

81.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In Bakker

A. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

82.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

83.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

Bakker

A. B.

(2006). Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In Burke

R. J.

(Ed.), New horizons in management. Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 193-217). Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar Publishing.

84.

Scott

P. G.

Falcone

(1998). Comparing public and private organizations: An exploratory analysis of three frameworks. The American Review of Public Administration, 28(2), 126-145.

85.

Tadić

Bakker

A. B.

Oerlemans

W. G. M.

(2015). Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 702-725. doi:10.1111/joop.12094

86.

Ten Brummelhuis

L. L.

Bakker

A. B

. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67, 545-556.

87.

Van Rooy

D. L.

Viswesvaran

Pluta

. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18, 445-462.

88.

Vigoda-Gadot

Eldor

Schohat

L. M.

(2013). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 518-538.

89.

Vigoda-Gadot

Meisler

(2010). Emotions in management and the management of emotions: The impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sector employees. Public Administration Review, 70, 72-86.

90.

Wilk

S. L.

Moynihan

L. M.

(2005). Display rule “regulators”: The relationship between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 917-927.

91.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E

. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.

92.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

A. K

. (2011). The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. In Flanagan

C. A.

Christens

B. D.

(Eds.), New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development: No. 134. Youth civic development: Work at the cutting edge (Vol. 134, pp. 11–25). San Francisco, CA: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development.

93.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244.

94.

Zeffane

(1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47, 991-1011.

95.

Zhu

Liu

Guo

Zhao

Lou

(2015). The impact of emotional intelligence on work engagement of registered nurses: The mediating role of organisational justice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24, 2115-2124.