The American Review of Public

Administration
http://arp.sagepub.com/

Blue-Collar Public Servants : How Union Membership Influences Public Service

Motivation
Randall S. Davis
The American Review of Public Administration 2011 41: 705 originally published online 16 December
2010
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010392367
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://arp.sagepub.com/content/41/6/705

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

Additional services and information for The American Review of Public Administration can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://arp.sagepub.com/content/41/6/705.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 7, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 16, 2010
What is This?

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

Blue-Collar Public
Servants: How Union
Membership Influences
Public Service Motivation

TheAmerican Review of Public Administration

41(6) 705723
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010392367
http://arp.sagepub.com

Randall S. Davis1

Abstract
This study examines whether the norms and values of labor unions contradict public service
motivation (PSM). Using Perry and Wises conceptualization of (PSM) this article tests four
hypotheses by analyzing both quantitative data drawn from the employees of a large metropolitan
city and qualitative data drawn from semistructured interviews conducted in two large Midwestern
cities. I expect that as employees become socialized into union membership, they will increasingly
identify with rational, affective, and normative union motives. The quantitative findings suggest
that union socialization is associated with lower compassion, higher self-sacrifice, and greater
commitment to the public interest. Union socialization is unrelated to attraction to policy making. This study supports the hypotheses that unions shape members motives through the socialization process. I rebut the argument that public sector union members are solely self-interested,
but the findings suggest that union socialization can undermine ones feelings of compassion.
Keywords
personnel/human resource management, organizational behavior/psychology, organizational culture

Introduction
The concept of public service motivation (PSM) emerged in 1990 and has become a thriving area
of research in public management (Perry & Wise, 1990). Over the past two decades, scholars have
made substantial progress in understanding the antecedents and correlates of PSM (Alonso &
Lewis, 2001; Houston, 2000, 2006, 2008; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Pandey & Moynihan, 2006;
Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997; Wright, 2007). Relatively little research exists, however, on
how specific social institutions impact PSM (DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2006; Moynihan
& Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997). This article investigates one social institution largely neglected in
the PSM literature, labor unions.
Although union membership has steadily declined in the private sector for decades, labor
organizations continue to thrive in the public sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; Freeman,
1986, 1988; Waddington & Whitston, 1997). This trend is important because labor unions serve
1

University of Kansas, Lawrence

Corresponding Author:
Randall S. Davis, University of Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., 4060 Wescoe Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045
Email:rsdavis@ku.edu

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

706

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

as social institutions that communicate values, norms, and beliefs to individuals that could potentially contradict PSM through the socialization process. Many studies depict unions as self-interested
organizations that protect members at the expense of clients (Freeman, 1986; Moe, 2006, 2009)
or discriminatory against minority and women workers (Riccucci, 1987, 1988, 1990). However,
some propose that individuals in labor unions possess humanistic and collectivistic values (Barling,
Kelloway, & Bremermann, 1991; Waddington & Whitston, 1997). Similarly, some public administration literature tells stories of union members who risk personal well-being, ignore disputes,
and go beyond the call of duty in crisis situations (DiIulio, 1994).
This article explores the effects of unionization on the transmission of publicly oriented motives
by drawing from social psychology and PSM theory. I begin by connecting the literature on labor
unions and PSM to outline four hypotheses regarding the relationship between union socialization
and each subdimension of PSM. The next section describes the data collection and research design.
Third, I present quantitative results based on data from 330 public union members, and qualitative
data gathered from 60 semistructured interviews to investigate each hypothesis. Finally, I discuss
the findings and provide concluding remarks including limitations and possibilities for future research.

Public Service Motivation and Labor Union Socialization

Public management research on publicly oriented motives crystallized in 1990 with the condevelopment of public service motivation (Perry & Wise, 1990). Perry and Wise (1990) initially defined
PSM as an individuals predisposition to respond to motives grounded uniquely in public service
institutions and organizations (p. 368). In line with previous motivation research PSM was operationally defined in terms of three categories of motives with four component subdimensions (Perry,
1996).1 Rational motives correspond with ones attraction to the policy-making process, affective
motives relate to compassion, and norm-based motives correspond with both self-sacrifice and
commitment to the public interest.
More recent scholarship attempts to theoretically ground PSM in institutional explanations
(Perry, 2000; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). In particular Perry and Vandenabeele (2008) illustrate
that the public sphere has a unique institutional logic distinct from the private sphere. They distinguish the public from private not in terms of locus of ownership but rather in terms of their normative distinction. The public institutional logic is strongly tied to values associated with community
and democracy, as opposed to private values associated with self-advancement. Social institutions,
by means of socialization, social identification, and cultural communication shape the behaviors
of individuals, but the public values of these institutions vary across societies.
Perry and Vandenabeele (2008) describe social institutions as social structures infused with
values and rules. These values and rules are embedded across societies in religion, families, and
other social structures (p. 58). Many of the social structures previously examined (e.g., family,
religion, and profession) instill a sense of public service ethic in individuals (DeHart-Davis et al.,
2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997). Labor unions, however,
are unique social institutions in the sense that they communicate both public and private values.
They communicate public content in the sense that they are based on humanistic and collectivistic
work values (Barling et al., 1991), but they communicate private content in the sense that they
are strongly devoted to increasing members pay, benefits, and other tangible rewards (Belman
& Heywood, 1991, 1995; Belman, Heywood, & Lund, 1997; Donahue, 2008).
Although many public employees are automatically covered by collective bargaining agreements, they may not identify with union values. Unions communicate values, norms, and behaviors
to members in two ways (Fullagar, Gallagher, Gordon, & Clark, 1995). On one hand, institutional
socialization occurs when members attend formal union functions that provide newcomers with
a common set of experiences that are likely to elicit standardized responses. On the other hand,

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

707

Davis

individual socialization practices are idiosyncratic and informal (Fullagar et al., 1995, p. 147).
Institutional socialization occurs when members participate in meetings, and individual socialization occurs through informal encounters with other members. Each of these socialization experiences likely defines member norms and values to some degree. The following sections examine
the influence of union socialization on the specific motive categories associated with PSM.
Rational motives and union socialization. The initial description of PSM argues that it is sometimes
rooted in rational utility maximization (Perry & Wise, 1990). Civil servants are often drawn to the
policy-making process, because it (a) provides them the opportunity to impact policies they personally value or (b) it allows them to advocate the special interests of groups with which they identify
(Perry & Wise, 1990). Unions provide a collective voice for members to influence both the special
interests of union membersby altering work outcomesand public policy outcomes via political
channels. In fact, Freeman (1986) asserts that public sector unions . . . can influence employer
behavior through the political process (p. 42). Some suggest that unions successfully influence
employer behavior by electing those who support their contract positions and other policies they
value (Moe, 2006). Union participation in electoral politics, however, is used mainly as a complement to collective bargaining, but union participation in legislative politics (e.g., lobbying) may
provide a better mechanism for changing policy (Chandler & Gely, 1996).2
As Kearny points out the unions political activity and associated impact have been well documented in the literature (Kearney, 2010). For example, Delaney, Fiorito, and Jarley (1999) show
how changing political conditions affect union political participation, and Chandler and Gely
(1995) show that wage differentials between union and nonunion employees depend on unions
political activity. Few studies, however, have examined how the political activities of unions
structure member preferences toward policy making. One exception suggests that some members
can be skeptical of the political role unions play (Kochan, 1979). Based on evidence suggesting
that unions actively engage in the political process but that members not strongly tied to the union
express skepticism toward unions political role, I hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1: As members become socialized by unions, they will become increasingly
attracted to policy-making activities.3
Affective motives and union socialization. Another major component of PSM is grounded in the
affective motives of individuals. Individuals affective motives are closely tied to the psychological
state of compassion. Citing Frederickson and Hart (1985), Perry and Wise (1990) indicate that
patriotism of benevolence is an integral component of PSMs compassion subdimension.
Frederickson and Hart argue that the patriotism of benevolence requires the intentional inculcation,
and practice of, benevolencewhich is the extensive and non-instrumental love of others (p. 547).
If unions shape the beliefs, values, and motives of individuals, the question remains, How do
they impact members extensive and noninstrumental love of others? The literature on labor unions
in public administration and other disciplines provide conflicting answers to this question.
Some studies suggest that Marxist belief systems influence attitudes toward unionization
(Barling et al., 1991; Buchholz, 1978). According to Barling et al. (1991), Marxist work beliefs
assert that workers should have a greater span of control over the workplace as a means of avoiding exploitation and alienation (p. 726). Furthermore, unions place high value on protecting
individual rights (Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010). Because unions value members individual rights they also favor civil service systems and seniority rules that limit managerial discretion and flexibility in personnel processes (Ingraham, 2006).4 This conceptualization portrays
unions as progressive organizations committed to protecting the underprivileged based on benevolence for the working class. In fact, some suggest that organized labor developed around feelings
of compassion for working class minorities (Schofield, 1983).

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

708

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Some studies, however, suggest that unions are opposed to compassionate motives. For example,
unions have been reluctant to support programs strongly tied to compassionate public values such
as equal opportunity employment and affirmative action (Riccucci, 1990). Based on this observation
law-making bodies even took steps to cease overtly discriminatory practices and ensure adequate
representation of all covered workers. There are three types of prejudices that contribute to union
discrimination (Riccucci, 1988). First, unions often seek to control labor supply by constructing
monopoly power over employment. Discrimination based on monopoly power is not directly tied
to spite or feelings of superiority but rather from the desire to control wages. Second, unions can
discriminate based on personal prejudice. Under this circumstance union members seek a homogeneous workplace, which can be detrimental to minority and female employment. This form of
discrimination may occur unintentionally and could conceivably be rectified through intentional
effort. Finally, unions can discriminate based on role prejudice. Union members display role prejudice
when they view others as incapable of performing the duties of the position. This form of prejudice
is particularly pronounced for women in the uniformed services (Riccucci, 1988). When unions are
viewed this way it is reasonable to expect that they negatively affect compassionate motives.
Based on the studies outlined above, it is reasonable to argue that unions harbor specific affective motives, but it is difficultif not impossibleto ascertain a priori if union socialization positively or negatively affects compassion. As such, I do not present a directional hypothesis regarding
the relationship between union socialization and compassion. I do expect, however, that members
will reflect the affective motives of unions as they become socialized into union membership.
As such, it is reasonable to claim:
Hypothesis 2: As members become socialized by unions, they will identify with the compassionate motives of the union.
Norm-based motives and union socialization. The final category of motives associated with PSM
relates to public service norms. As Perry and Wise (1990) point out, one of the most commonly
identified normative foundations of public employment is a desire to serve the public interest
(p. 368, italics in original). Later research indicated that self-sacrifice, defined as the willingness
of individuals to substitute service to others for tangible personal rewards, was strongly correlated
with desire to serve the public interest (Perry, 1996). Due to their connectedness, I analyze both
commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice under the heading of norm-based motives.
The degree to which labor unions affect normative motives is somewhat ambiguous because they
reflect both public and private values.
Labor unions reflect private values in the sense that they strongly advocate tangible personal
rewards for members (e.g., higher pay, better benefits, and better general working conditions). In
fact, Donahue (2008) suggests that public employment serves as a backwater for less skilled
employees without the desire to succeed in private labor markets. He argues that under motivated
and less skilled workers seek public employment, not due to the normative character of public
employment but because labor unions are able to maintain higher wages with respect to similar
private sector occupations. If Donahues argument is true, it is reasonable to conclude that workers
seek employment in public organizations in search of tangible rewards rather than to fulfill benevolent motives. Several other studies illustrate the role labor unions play in advancing members private
interests (Ashraf, 1998; Belman et al., 1997; Belman & Heywood, 1991, 1995; Kearney, 2010).
However, unions reflect public values in the sense that they are devoted to other members and
will often personally sacrifice for the benefit of the union. In his analysis of organization culture
in the Bureau of Prisons, John DiIulio (1994) illustrates the public service ethic of union members
by saying

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

709

Davis

. . . for the 1,717 dues-paying members of the Federal Prison Retirees Association, the drama
[of the prison riots in Atlanta] was intensely personal. . . . Some retirees squeezed into their
old uniforms in a symbolic show of support. A contingent of retirees even rushed to the scene.
(p. 284)
DiIulios analysis illustrates that union members embody the norms of public service, particularly
when the cultural institutions with which they identify are in jeopardy. Others suggest that there
is considerable commitment and sacrifice among union members but that such motives vary across
unions (Visser, 2006).
As with affective motives, conflicting theoretical expectations confuse the directionality of
hypothesized relationships between union socialization and norm-based motives. Whereas some
scholars suggest that union socialization should lead to less commitment to the public interest and
self-sacrifice (see Donahue, 2008), other research indicates the opposite (see DiIulio, 1994). Most
agree, however, that unions harbor normative values. Those motives will be transmitted to members
through the socialization process. Therefore, I expect the following:
Hypothesis 3: As members become socialized by unions, their motives will more closely
resemble the unions commitment to public service.
Hypothesis 4: As members become socialized by unions, their motives will more closely
resemble the unions self-sacrificing motives.
The next section turns to an explanation of the data, research design, and methodology I employ.

Data and Research Design

This article employs a mixed-methods research design to evaluate the impact of union socialization
on public service motivation. Several public administration scholars advocate the use of mixedmethods designs because they can (a) capitalize on the benefits of both qualitative and quantitative
analysis, (b) enhance the credibility of research, and (c) add flexibility in the search for solutions
to practical problems (Riccucci, 2010; Yang, Zhang, & Holzer, 2008). I employ quantitative analysis
to uncover patterns of relationships between union socialization and PSM, whereas I conduct
qualitative analysis to expose added nuance to that relationship.
The data used for this project were collected in two phases. In the initial phase, researchers
conducted semistructured interviews with randomly selected employees in two Midwestern cities
in the summer and fall of 2009.5 Researchers recorded information from the interviews using two
methods. First, the vast majority of interviews were audio recorded; researchers then transcribed
recordings to maintain accuracy of respondent statements. Second, researchers collected field notes
in situations where respondents expressed discomfort with recordings. For the purposes of this
article, I analyzed interviews using Atlas.ti, a qualitative data software package to compare respondent statements. In an effort to generate qualitative data on PSM and union socialization, I created
codes for respondent comments regarding union socialization, attraction to policy making, compassion, commitment to the public interest, and self-sacrifice. Finally, I examined the instances where
these codes overlapped. Table 1 provides the characteristics of interview respondents.6
In the second phase of data collection, a follow-up survey of all employees in one of the cities
was conducted in the spring of 2010. All correspondence with respondents was based on the
tailored design method for mixed-mode surveys (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Municipal
managers provided employee information from which researchers constructed a contact list of
1,115 potential respondents. Each respondent in the sample received a prenotification letter from

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

710

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Table 1. Interview Sample Characteristics (n = 60)

%
Gender
Female
Male
Union membership status
Union members
Union stewards
No union affiliation
Employment category
Clerical
Public safety
Blue-collar
Professional

56.7
43.3
31.8
8.3
59.9
43.3
16.7
18.3
21.7

the city manager that introduced the study. Although the city manager introduced the survey to
municipal employees, researchers did not provide information to management about participants.
By ensuring confidentiality from management researchers minimized potential response bias.
Following the prenotification letter, those employees with municipal email addresses received
invitations to participate in electronic surveys, and those without email addresses received mail
questionnaires. Electronic surveys were supplemented by paper surveys in the event that (a) employees did not have access to a city email address or (b) respondents indicated that they preferred
paper surveys.
The invitation correspondence highlighted that participation was voluntary and confidential.
Following the initial communication, researchers conducted follow-up methods to contact respondents who had not yet participated. When the study concluded, 602 of the possible 1,115 respondents
responded to the survey, for a response rate of 53.99%. The 602 respondents came from 14 departments within the organization. Because this analysis seeks to uncover the impact of union socialization on PSM, I examined the survey responses of 359 union members.7 Table 2 provides the
demographic characteristics of survey respondents.
It is important to point out that the interview and survey samples differ somewhat. Although
researchers conducting interviews devoted substantial effort to randomly select participants, several
individuals neglected to participate in the interview process. Generally, the characteristics of interviewees deviate slightly from the population characteristics. The population characteristics for the
first organization, which participated in both the survey and interview process, reveal that approximately 78% of the employees are union members and 25% of the employees are female. The population characteristics for the second organization, which participated only in interviews, reveal that
nearly all the employees are covered by collective agreements (97%) and that 36% of the employees
are female.8 Females and nonunionized employees were more likely to participate in the interviews,
whereas the survey sample is more representative of the organizational population.
I used 17 survey items to operationalize union socialization, attraction to policy making, compassion, commitment to the public interest, and self-sacrifice. Scholars have validated many of
the survey items used for the purposes of this article in previous research. Twelve of the PSM
measures I used were validated by Coursey, Perry, Brudney, and Littlepage (2008), three attraction
to policy making measures were validated by Perry (1996), and I constructed two measures
designed to tap union socialization.9 Finally, previous research indicates that three demographic
characteristicsrace, gender, and educationare necessary model controls (DeHart-Davis et al.,
2006; Perry, 1997).10 I also included two variables to control for membership in police and fire

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

711

Davis
Table 2. Survey Sample Characteristics (n = 359)

%
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Education
High school/GED
Some college
Bachelors degree
Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Other
Missing
Race
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
Missing
Organization role
Department head
Superintendant
Administrative/policy staff
Supervisor
Lead worker
Clerical
Technical
Missing

27.9
71.6
0.6
13.6
48.7
23.7
1.9
3.6
6.4
1.9
1.4
0.8
7.0
5.6
78.0
7.2
0.3
0.3
2.2
16.4
32.9
16.2
29.5
2.2

unions. A discussion of all measures used in the study can be found in the appendix. The following
section presents the findings from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Findings
Analysis of quantitative data. The statistical method I employ, structural equation modeling (SEM),
possesses advantages over other statistical techniques. First, SEM controls for measurement error
by using multiple measures to tap underlying latent constructs. Structural models create latent constructs by separating the unique variance for observed items from the shared variance between items
presumed to measure the same construct (Kline, 2005). Second, SEM allows for specifying models
with multiple dependent variables. In this case, I examine the variance explained in each dimension
of PSM with a single latent variable, union socialization, and several observed covariatesrace,
gender, education, and department. I used Mplus Version 6 to examine the confirmatory factor
model and associated structural equation model (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2010).
There are some important points to discuss in terms of model estimation, identification, and
missing data. First, although researchers often treat survey responses as continuous variables,
they are actually ordered categorical variables. Current research shows that robust weighted least
squares estimation is theoretically appropriate when examining models with ordinal data (Flora &

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

712

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Curran, 2004). To correct for the nature of survey responses, I analyzed all variables as ordered
categorical. When using categorical variables, Mplus employs a robust weighted least squares
estimator (WLSMV) with delta parameterization (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2010). Second, there
are only two indicators for the union socialization construct. When the number of estimated parameters for a latent construct exceeds the pieces of known information, the construct is underidentified,
which prevents model estimation (Brown, 2006). As such, I constrained the factor loadings associated with union meetings and union interaction to equality for model identification purposes.11
Finally, a preliminary screening of the data revealed that no manifest variable, absent controls,
used in this analysis had more than 2% of the values missing. Even though there was limited missing
data, Mplus estimates the model while correcting for missing data on endogenous variables.
The findings drawn from the structural model indicate that the overall model fits the data well.
General rules indicate that RMSEA .08, CFI .90, and NNFI .90 suggest good fitting models
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). This model surpasses all three of those
criteria. The bidirectional (psi) paths between the PSM subdimensions can be interpreted as zeroorder correlations, and the unidirectional (beta) paths between union socialization and the PSM
subdimensions can be interpreted as regression coefficients.12 Figure 1 presents the standardized
parameter estimates and the overall model fit statistics.
The results presented in figure 1 illustrate the nature of relationships between union socialization
and each subdimension of PSM. Employees reporting more participation in union socialization
experiences also report greater commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice but less compassion. Contrary to expectations, there is no relationship between union socialization and attraction
to the policy-making process. Unlike traditional regression models, which calculate one R2 value
to indicate variance explained in a single dependent variable, there are multiple R2 values in structural models that correspond to each variable. The findings illustrate that the model explains 4.1%
of the variance in attraction to policy making, 16.7% of the variance in compassion, 15.8% of the
variance in commitment to the public interest, 7.7% of the variance in self-sacrifice, and the model
controls explain 23.1% of the variance in union socialization experiences.
Three of the four regression parameters significantly contribute to the model. I tested each of
the beta paths for significance using the 2 difference test option for categorical variables in Mplus.13
The results of 2 difference testing indicate that constraining the latent regression parameters for
commitment to the public interest, compassion, or self-sacrifice to zero would cause a significant
decrease in model fit. However, the relationship between union socialization and attraction to policy
making does not significantly contribute to the model. Table 3 illustrates changes in model fit and
associated significance levels in the event that a regression parameter was constrained to zero.
Finally, the model controls reveal a few significant relationships between sociodemographic
categories and each latent construct. First, non-White employees report greater attraction to the
policy-making process and more compassion, but having a college degree does not significantly
impact any of the latent constructs included in the model. Second, female employees report significantly less experience with union socialization experiences but report greater levels of compassion and commitment to the public interest. Finally, it is important to control for potential
differences between unions.14 Union members in the fire department report significantly greater
experiences in union socialization experiences and commitment to the public interest but substantially less attraction to the policy-making process. Union members in the police department report
more activity in union socialization experiences, but interestingly, report significantly lower levels
of compassion. Table 4 provides the parameter estimates and associated significance levels for
the relationships between union socialization, PSM, and all control variables.
Analysis of qualitative data. I further investigated the nature of the relationships between union
socialization and PSM by exploring qualitative data. Respondent statements revealed that the
motives of individuals are considerably more complex than often depicted in the PSM literature.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

713

Davis

.644

A.P.M.

.439

APM1

APM2

.977
APM3
.411
.479
.045

.394
.328
COM

.590

COM1
COM1
COM3

.486
MEET

.846
INT

.577

.149
.846

UNION
SOC

.077

COM4

COM5

.854

.276
.624
.162

.754

C.P.I.

.735

CPI1

CPI2

.766
CPI3
.900

S.S.

.567

SS1

.749

SS2

.597
.419

SS3
SS4

Model Fit: 2(170, n = 329) = 352.343, p <.001; RMSEA = .057; CFI = .935; NNFI(TLI) = .915

Figure 1. SEM standardized parameter estimates

The following paragraphs provide qualitative evidence related to the quantitative findings but
allows for a more detailed examination of the relationship between union socialization and PSM.
First, the structural model suggests an insignificant relationship between union socialization
and attraction to policy making. The attraction to policy-making items do not distinguish between
different types of policy making, which may contribute to the insignificant quantitative relationship.
The qualitative findings suggest that those socialized into union norms engage in legislativeas
opposed to electoralaspects of policy making.15 The vice president of one union described the
unions legislative political activities in this way, When one of the new council members had been
elected, the union had meet and greet with him. We questioned [all] the candidates. We wanted to
know if they would support an ordinance that would make regulations transparent. One agency
head verified the unions use of legislative political measures by saying that,

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

714

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Table 3. Regression Parameter Significance Levels

Model
Full model
Trimmed model
Attraction to policy making
Compassion
Commitment to the public interest
Self-sacrifice

df

df

352.343

170

<.001

N/A

N/A

N/A

347.279
358.771
388.764
360.410

171
171
171
171

<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001

0.493
4.512
14.885
6.623

1
1
1
1

.483
.034
.001
.010

Table 4. Parameter Estimates for Control Variables

Non-White
Variable
Union
socialization
Attraction to
policy making
Compassion
Commitment to
public interest
Self-sacrifice

College
degree

Female

Fire fighter

Police officer

0.009

.958

0.064

.658

0.502

.001

1.361

<.001

0.315

.033

0.388

.022

0.046

.734

0.104

.466

0.317

.090

0.121

.393

0.307
0.250

.090
.155

0.005
0.235

.976
.126

0.437
0.424

.010
.007

0.026
0.407

.905
.054

0.679
0.112

<.001
.471

0.099

.593

0.183

.256

0.207

.182

0.377

.096

0.052

.741

I know for a fact the Union here has had some very strong influence on not only mayors
in the past but other Council people. The difference is we now have a city manager who is
charged with conducting the administrative affairs of the city on a daily basis. Nonetheless
our union has a political action committee that is highly active. They interviewed all the
candidates running for city Council. The two questions [union officials asked] council
members: would you fire the [one specific department head], and would you fire [a different
department head]? Thats the involvement of the union. Theyre interested in controlling the
administrator with the mayor.
The department head suggests that unions can be active in legislative politics to influence
unelected administrators. It is important to note that although the department head views union
political activity negatively the union vice president suggests that his union engaged in legislative
politics to achieve a publicly oriented value, transparency.
Second, the quantitative analysis reveals that union socialization negatively affects compassionate motives, but the qualitative evidence suggests that compassion must be evaluated in terms of
group membership. One police officer expressed feelings of connectedness with other officers in
the union by referring to them as brothers. He pointed out that, You might not know the other guy
[at the national Fraternal Order of Police conference], but you know hes an FOP member, so you
have something in common. Many union members often display extraordinary levels of compassion for fellow members, but they may display less compassion for other groups. One firefighter
described the lack of union compassion for nonmembers in this way,
the union will spend whatever it takes to ensure that you are duly represented by them
against the city. If you are in with the union, no one can touch you. One girl didnt pay union
dues, and one guy didnt pay union dues [either] so the other members didnt speak to them.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

715

Davis

These statements support the finding that union members display less compassion but suggest
that increased compassion may be directed toward other dues-paying members.
Finally, the findings from the quantitative analysis suggest positive relationships between union
socialization and the norm-based motives associated with PSM. These quantitative relationships
are much more complicated in practice. As Perry and Vandenabeele (2008) illustrate public values
are associated with democracy and community, whereas private values correspond with selfadvancement. One steward in the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) pointed out the unions role in advancing private interests. When asked about the
benefits of union membership he replied The union does help, and it has helped. Over the years
we have fought to get pay raises [for our members]. The steward also indicated that the AFSCME
contract was negotiated with a me-too clause. The me-too clause, as he called it, was intended
to advance pay, benefits, and other tangible rewards for his union without regard for the benefit of
other municipal employees.
Nonunion employees who regularly interact with union members also recognized union motives
to advance private interests. A labor negotiations manager lamented the effects of unionization
on the public service ethic by saying,
From a workplace standpoint I guess doing these labor negotiations has reminded me too
many people go into public service and focus mostly on the stability of job and paycheck.
They are not really focused on the public service part of it. When you really talk about whats
important [to union members] labor negotiations focus on what [union members] are going
to get, not what theyre going to give.
Although many argue that emphasis on tangible rewards undermines publicly oriented norms,
union focus on extrinsic incentives does not completely crowd out the desire to serve the public
interest. One union steward illustrated this relationship by saying, I like helping people and being
a public servant. I take great satisfaction in delivering quality service. His experience, combined
with the quantitative findings, suggests that the relationship between the service ethic and desire
for tangible rewards is not inherently contradictory.
Although the qualitative findings I present here cannot be considered representative of all union
members, they do add nuance to the findings from the quantitative analysis. First, the qualitative
findings indicate that union members policy making efforts, in this instance, fell under the heading
of legislative politics. No members acknowledged the ballot box as a useful political tool, which
may partially explain the absence of a significant statistical relationship between union socialization and attraction to policy making. Second, the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that
unions are not entirely self-interested. In fact, union socialization can reinforce feelings of commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice. Although the qualitative data suggest that union
members desire tangible rewards, the quantitative results illustrate that union socialization does
not completely crowd out the service ethic. Finally, the qualitative data suggest that the overall
reduction in compassion must be gauged in terms of group membership. Although union members
may be less compassionate toward other social groups, they often display extraordinary feelings of
compassion for other members. The union may pit members against other groups (e.g., management
or non-members), thereby creating an us versus them mentality.

Discussion
Many PSM scholars call for increased attention to the social institutions responsible for inculcating
publicly oriented values (Perry, 1997, 2000; Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). This research begins
to examine one social institution heretofore neglected, labor unions. The vast literature on unions
provides conflicting expectations regarding the impact of union socialization on public service

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

716

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

motives. The vast majority of empirical work on labor unions assumes that union values reflect
members self-interested motives (Ashraf, 1998; Belman & Heywood, 1991, 1995; Donahue, 2008;
Freeman, 1986; Moe, 2006, 2009; Riccucci, 1990). However, some suggest that labor unions collectively display publicly oriented values (Barling et al., 1991; Schofield, 1983; Visser, 2006;
Waddington & Whitston, 1997). In this study, I sought to examine the impact of union socialization
on the publicly oriented motives of members.
Before discussing the results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses, it is important to
note that all data were collected in a single context, the state of Kansas. Kansas is a right to work
state, which means that employers cannot deny employment to any person due to union membership status. The quantitative analysis reported here represents the attitudes of those municipal
employees covered by a collective bargaining contracts, but not all employees covered by collective agreements interact with labor unions. As such, the quantitative results may paint an optimistic
view of union membership by examining the perspectives of only those who volunteer to participate in union socialization activities.
The structural models I report suggest that union socialization plays an important role in transmitting the values, norms, and beliefs associated with PSM. The model explains relatively large
portions of variance in each dimension in a parsimonious fashion (only six dependent variables
union socialization, gender, race, education, police department, and fire department are included
in the model). In addition, the statistical results confirm the hypotheses that union socialization
significantly affects the members motives. Due to the ambiguity of the literature on labor unions,
I did not hypothesize directional relationships, but the evidence I provide begins to explore the
directionality of relationships between union socialization and the categories of motives associated with PSM. One of the most interesting findings is that union socialization enhances some
component elements of PSM while reducing others. Union socialization reduces compassion,
significantly increases commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice and, interestingly, does
not influence ones attraction to the policy-making process. The differential impact of union
socialization on PSMs component subdimensions raises interesting questions about the overall
change in PSM resulting from union socialization.
The magnitude of each relationship provides insight into the overall impact of union socialization on PSM. Union socialization most strongly affects commitment to the public interest and
self-sacrifice (see Figure 1), positively in both instances. However, the negative influence of union
socialization on compassion is modest at best. The fact that union socialization positively affects
commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice rejects claims of union self-interest (Belman
& Heywood, 1991, 1995; Belman et al., 1997; Freeman, 1986, 1988; Moe, 2006, 2009), and the
negative influence of union socialization on compassion refute the claims that unions embody
only humanistic work values and display compassion toward the plight of all underprivileged
workers (Barling et al., 1991; DiIulio, 1994; Schofield, 1983; Waddington & Whitston, 1997).
The quantitative results provide broad statements on the impact of union socialization on the
subdimensions of PSM, but they do not provide insight into the types of activities in which union
members engage. The qualitative findings complement the structural model results in three
important ways. First, they suggest that the union members interviewed do engage in policy making, but policy-making activities are geared primarily toward legislativerather than electoral
politics. This finding is not surprising given that all interviewees worked in city manager forms
of government (see Chandler & Gely, 1996). Furthermore, respondent statements indicate that
unions engage in the policy-making process to both advance policies that they perceive benefit
the public interest and to influence work outcomes. Second, the qualitative results suggest that
researchers must inquire more deeply into the compassion subdimension. It is possible that union
socialization creates divided loyalties that increases feelings of compassion for other members of

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

717

Davis

their union, while decreasing compassion for outside groups. Likewise, some observe that
unions seek to maintain benefit levels for current members at the expense of future members
(Miller, 2009). As such, compassion must also be assessed in terms of current membership status
as opposed to future membership status. Finally, the qualitative information underscores the
possibly complimentary relationship between tangible work rewards and publicly oriented norms,
values, and beliefs.

Conclusion
My findings contribute to both the PSM and labor union literatures by testing a model that examines the impact of union socialization on publicly oriented individual motives. A substantial amount
of literature on labor unions suggests that they are self-interested organizations opposed to public
values (see Donahue, 2008). I contend that unions are not solely self-interested but may display
less compassion for other social groups outside their union. However, unions reinforce values
associated with commitment to the public interest and self-sacrificing motives. This research makes
clear that labor unions are complex organizations with substantial variation in beliefs, values, and
norms. Future research on labor unions cannot simply assume that labor unions are self-interested
organizations, but rather motives to advance the self-interest of members must be separated from
union values that espouse public interest.
There are some important limitations in this study. First, the quantitative data were collected
from a single municipal organization, and the qualitative data were collected from only two
municipal organizations in one state. As such, I cannot statistically control for potential community
effects. Future research should examine the generalizability of these claims to other contexts (e.g.,
different communities, states, forms of government, sizes of organizations, and with employees
who switch sectors). Second, the qualitative data only suggest added nuance to relationships
between union socialization and PSM. Very few interviewees provided stories regarding public
service motivation or the specific activities of unions, and only relatively few union members
participated in interviews. To address these limitations, more quantitative research should be
designed to uncover the specific intent of unions policy-making endeavors. Is union political
activity designed primarily to advance union interests or is it to advance policies perceived as
publicly important? Do different types of unions engage in policy-making efforts for different
reasons? In addition, more research should seek to answer: Compassion with respect to whom?
Do increased feelings of compassion for other union members come at the expense of others?
Additional research should also examine how the union socialization process unfolds over time.
Longitudinal data-collection efforts could address questions such as the following: Do cooperative
labor negotiations affect the influence of union socialization? Does the absence of pay increases
encourage the development of self-interested motives? Finally, it is important to understand
motivational differences between public and private organizations (Perry & Porter, 1982). Whereas
some research suggests that public and private employees may not differ with respect to motivation (Perry & Rainey, 1988; Rainey, 1983), others indicate that sector significantly affects union
motives (Donahue, 2008). Does sector moderate the relationship between union motives and
PSM? This article cannot definitively answer these questions.
The limitations I outline do not prevent this research from taking a first step in determining
how unions influence individuals public service ethic. In agencies where public sector unions
continue to thrive, we must not forget that collective bargaining is an important management
function. A complete understanding of union members motives provides important insight into
how managers and union representatives can best engage in the collective bargaining process to
achieve the public interest.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

718

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Appendix
Operational Definitions
Union Socialization. The latent construct of labor union socialization was assessed using two
measures rated on a 5-point scale ranging from quite frequently to never. Items were reverse scaled
so higher values indicate more participation in institutional and individual socialization experiences.
Respondents were asked to assess participation in union activities with the following questions:
MEETINGS: How often do you attend union meetings? (Reversed)
INT: How often do you interact with other union members outside of meetings and work?
(Reversed)

Attraction to Policy Making. Ones attraction to policy making was assessed using all three of
Perrys (1996) measures rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The items were reverse coded so higher values correspond with greater attraction to policy making. Respondents were asked to assess agreement with the following statements:
APM1: Politics is a dirty word. (Reversed)
APM2: The give and take of public policy making doesnt appeal to me. (Reversed).
APM3: I dont care much for politicians. (Reversed)

Compassion. Compassion was gauged using the five items from the adapted scale proposed by
Coursey et al. (2008) rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
All items were scaled so higher values reflect higher levels of compassion. Respondents were
asked to assess agreement with the following statements:
COM1: Most social programs are too vital to do without.
COM2: It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress.
COM3: I seldom think about the welfare of people whom I dont know personally. (Reversed)
COM4: I have little compassion for people in need who are unwilling to take the first step
to help themselves. (Reversed)
COM5: I am often reminded by daily events how dependent we are on one another.

Commitment to the Public Interest. Individual commitment to the public interest was gauged
using the three items from the adapted scale proposed by Coursey et al. (2008) rated on a 5-point
scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Based on the scaling higher values correspond to more commitment to the public interest. Respondents were asked to assess agreement
with the following statements:
CPI1: I unselfishly contribute to my community.
CPI2: I consider public service my civic duty.
CPI3: Meaningful public service is very important to me.

Self-Sacrifice. Self-Sacrifice was gauged using the four items from the adapted scale proposed
by Coursey et al. (2008) rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
All items were scaled so higher values reflect more self-sacrifice. Respondents were asked to
assess agreement with the following statements:

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

719

Davis
SS1: Much of what I do is for a cause bigger than myself.
SS2: Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements.
SS3: I feel people should give back to society more than they get from it.
SS4: I am one of those rare people who would risk personal loss to help someone else.

Model Controls. This model uses a series of sociodemographic variables as covariates or model
controls. The following demographic characteristics were collected in the survey instrument:
Gender
Race
Education
Police Officer
Fire Fighter
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.

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

Notes
1. Later analyses illustrate that there is strong psychometric support for three of four subdiminsions
commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice (Coursey et al., 2008). This article examines all four of Perrys (1996) original subdimensions independently due to direct interest on the impact
of labor unions on an individuals predilection toward the policy-making process.
2. Chandler and Gely suggest that unions are more active in legislative politics in city manager forms of
government because appointed officials cannot be influenced via electoral mechanisms. The context
of this study focuses exclusively on city manager forms of government. I hypothesize about overall
preferences toward policy making (both electoral and legislative) due to the nature of the PSM construct. The qualitative data reported below, however, suggests that union members surveyed engage
primarily in legislative politics.
3. I do not take a normative position union members attraction to the policy-making process. Union members may participate in the policy-making process for self-interested reasons, but they may participate
in an attempt to advocate policies that advance the public interest. Furthermore, it is important to note
that policies may serve both the public interest and union interest. Theory suggests that members will
be more attracted to the process, but it remains ambiguous on whether political participation advances
public values, private values, or a combination of both.
4. Ingraham (2006) also points out that unions are not inherently opposed to merit, but rather union members view seniority as a necessary protection to prevent political interference with the ideal of merit.
Regardless of the conceptual distinctions between civil service systems, seniority, and merit, it is important to note that union members favor advancement in the organization based on tenure as opposed to
more subjective managerial evaluations of performance.
5. Researchers took substantial effort to maintain the random selection of interview respondents. Due to
nonresponse to interview invitations several random samples were drawn until researchers reached the
ultimate goal of 100 interviews. I analyzed only 60 because there was limited information regarding
the relationship between PSM and union socialization in the other interviews. In addition, due to
the semistructured nature of interviews each respondent commented on different workplace features.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

720

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

6. Throughout the course of the interviews researchers did not record respondents race, age, or education due
to the sensitive nature of this information. The major demographic categories uncovered in the interviews
were union status and type of employment. Based on the work categories of individuals I categorized
secretarial staff as clerical, police officers and fire fighters as public safety, line staff (e.g., public works
garage workers) as blue-collar, and management as professional.
7. For the purposes of this article, observations with missing values on the grouping and control variables
were dropped from the analysis. This reduced the total usable sample size to 329.
8. Although 97% of employees in the second organization are covered by collective bargaining contracts not
all of those employees pay dues to labor unions. Although the organization did not provide information
on the total number of employees that belong to unions, fewer than 97% of employees pay dues to labor
organizations.
9. The Coursey et al. (2008) study validated 12 measures related to compassion, commitment to public interest, and self-sacrifice. The Perry (1996) study validated a total of 24 items across all four PSM dimensions.
10. Many studies illustrate the positive impact of professions on PSM. I assume here that education level
serves as a reasonable proxy for professional status for the purposes of model control.
11. Practically speaking equating factor loadings assumes that each of the manifest variables are equally good
predictors of the latent construct. Given that each manifest variable should tap a specific aspect of union
socialization this assumption is reasonable.
12. Because this article hypothesizes about the regression parameters between union socialization and PSM,
I did not include covariates in the diagram. Many of the model controls were not significant but were left
in the model to rule out alternative explanations. Table 4 provides the estimates related to model controls.
13. The table illustrates the change in model fit when the beta paths between union socialization and each
dimension of PSM were constrained to zero. Due to the use of categorical variables the difference test is
not distributed as a 2 value. The 2 column provides an accurate depiction of overall change in model fit.
14. To assess the effects of different unions, I included two dummy variables that control for membership in
fire unions and police unions. It is critical to control for police and fire unions because they represent the
most heavily unionized departments in the municipal governments examined here.
15. All the interview responses come from city manager forms of government. The fact that these union
members engage more in legislative political activity comports with previous research on union political
activities (Chandler & Gely, 1996). The fact that these unions engage in legislative politics could be due
to the form of government.

References
Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal
sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.
Ashraf, J. (1998). Collective bargaining and compensation at public junior colleges. Journal of Collective
Negotiations in the Public Sector, 27, 393-399.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Bremermann, E. H. (1991). Preemployment predictors of union attitudes:
The role of family socialization and work beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 725-731.
Belman, D., & Heywood, J. S. (1991). Direct and indirect effects of unionization and government employment
on fringe benefit provision. Journal of Labor Research, 12(2), 111-122.
Belman, D., & Heywood, J. S. (1995). State and local government wage differentials: An intra state analysis.
Journal of Labor Research, 16, 187-201.
Belman, D., Heywood, J. S., & Lund, J. (1997). Public sector earnings and the extent of unionization.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 50, 610-628.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Buchholz, R. A. (1978). An empirical study of contemporary beliefs about work in American society.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 2219-2227.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

721

Davis

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Union members summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news
.release/union2.nr0.htm
Chandler, T. D., & Gely, R. (1995). Protective service unions, political activities, and bargaining outcomes.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 295-318.
Chandler, T. D., & Gely, R. (1996). Toward identifying the determinants of public-employee unions
involvement in political activities. American Review of Public Administration, 26, 417-438.
Coursey, D. H., Perry, J. L., Brudney, J. L., & Littlepage, L. (2008). Psychometric verification of Perrys public
service motivation instrument: Results for volunteer exemplars. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
28(1), 79-90.
DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public service motivation.
Public Administration Review, 66, 873-887.
Delaney, J. T., Fiorito, J., & Jarley, P. (1999). Evolutionary politics? Union differences and political activities
in the 1990s. Journal of Labor Research, 20, 277-295.
DiIulio, J. D., Jr. (1994). Principled agents: The cultural bases of behavior in a federal government bureaucracy.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 277-318.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored
design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Donahue, J. D. (2008). The warping of government work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for
confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-491.
Frederickson, H. G., & Hart, D. K. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public
Administration Review, 45, 547-553.
Freeman, R. B. (1986). Unionism comes to the public sector. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(1), 41-86.
Freeman, R. B. (1988). Contration and expansion: The divergence of private sector and public sector unionism
in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(2), 63-88.
Fullagar, C. J. A., Gallagher, D. G., Gordon, M. E., & Clark, P. F. (1995). Impact of early socialization on
union commitment and participation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 147-157.
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 10, 713-728.
Houston, D. J. (2006). Walking the walk of public service motivation: Public employees and charitable
gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 67-86.
Houston, D. J. (2008). Behavior in the public square. In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation
in public management: The call of public service (pp. 177-199). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ingraham, P. W. (2006). Building bridges over troubled waters: Merit as a guide. Public Administration
Review, 66, 486-495.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kearney, R. C. (2010). Public sector labor-management relations: Change or status quo? Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 30(1), 89-111.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2010). Public personnel management: Contexts and strategies
(6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Kochan, T. A. (1979). How American workers view labor unions. Monthly Labor Review, 102(23), 15-22.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing
approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers (1999)
findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320-341.
Miller, G. (2009). Top 12 pension and benefits plan issues for 2009: Part I. Retrieved from http://www
.governing.com/columns/public-money/Top-12-Pension-and-.html

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

722

The American Review of Public Administration 41(6)

Moe, T. M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization,
22(1), 1-29.
Moe, T. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of
Political Science, 53, 156-174.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation.
Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40-53.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus users guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
Pandey, S. K., & Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: testing
the moderating role of culture and poltical support. In G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. OToole,
& R. M. Walker (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pandey, S. K., & Stazyk, E. C. (2008). Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In J. L. Perry
& A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 101-117).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity.
Journal of Public Adminsitration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 7, 181-197.
Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10, 471-488.
Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98.
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The publicprivate distinction in organization theory: A critique and
research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201.
Perry, J. L., & Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Behavioral dynamics: Institutions, identities, and self-regulation.
In J. L. Perry & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service
(pp. 56-79). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review,
50, 367-373.
Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles.
Administration and Society, 15, 207-242.
Riccucci, N. M. (1987). Black employment in municipal work forces. Public Administration Quarterly,
11(1), 76-89.
Riccucci, N. M. (1988). A typology for union discrimination: A public sector perspective. Public Personnel
Management, 17(1), 41-51.
Riccucci, N. M. (1990). Women, minorities, and unions in the public sector. New York, NY: Greenwood.
Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schofield, A. (1983). Rebel girls and union maids: The woman question in the journals of the AFL and IWW,
1905-1920. Feminist Studies, 9, 335-358.
Visser, J. (2006). Union membership statistics in 24 countries. Monthly Labor Review, 129(1), 38-49.
Waddington, J., & Whitston, C. (1997). Why do people join unions in a period of membership decline?
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35, 515-546.
Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review,
67(1), 54-64.
Yang, K., Zhang, Y., & Holzer, M. (2008). Dealing with multiple paradigms in public administration
research. In K. Yang & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration
(2nd ed., pp. 25-44). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012

723

Davis
Bio

Randall S. Davis is a PhD candidate in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Kansas.
His research interests include organization theory and behavior, particularly as it relates to the role social
institutions play in shaping the behavior and motives of public sector employees, municipal public management,
human resource management, and quantitative research methods.

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012