The Role of Motivation, Commitment and Leadership in

Strengthening Public Service Performance

Adrian Ritz
University of Bern
Centre of Competence for Public Management
Schanzeneckstrasse 1, P. B. 8573
CH-3001 Bern
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 31 631 53 13
E-Mail: adrian.ritz@kpm.unibe.ch

First draft. Please do not quote!

To be presented at the annual conference of the European Group of Public Administration

EGPA 2007, September 18-21, Madrid, Spain
Study Group III: Personnel Policies

1. Introduction
Over the past two or three decades, management reforms have once again challenged public
administration; and, with their demand for a more performance-based public administration,
they have shaped both the academic discussion and reforms in public organizations. In Switzerland, these New Public Management (NPM) reform approaches have left their mark on all
levels of government (Steiner and Ladner 2006; Lienhard, Ritz et al. 2005: Schedler 2003;
Ritz 2003). Such reforms are typical so-called internal modernization reforms, in contrast
to the stronger marketization in the Anglo-Saxon sphere. By using new forms of budgeting
and accounting, performance contracts, and management with target agreements, the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative actions should be increased.

The heart of administrative reforms revolves around culture change (Pollitt and Bouckaert
2004). The new steering principles call into question the previous values of the bureaucratic
constitutional state according to Max Weber (1976), and the economizing of the decisionmaking rationality of public institutions becomes more important (Meyer and Hammerschmid
2006). Managers again have more autonomy, which, against the backdrop of managerialism
(Pollitt 1990), should cause their actions to become more target-based and performancebased. The management function in terms of improving goal-setting and delegation is called
the central component of the public sectors new orientation (Hood 1991). This challenges
the prior understanding of administration, since up to now the basic principle that applied
was: the best possible accountability structures instead of direct influence by managers
(Ruscio 2004). In addition to the managerialistic reform measures, there is also, at the same
time, the question of what influence employee motivation has on performance-based public
institutions.

This correlation between leadership behavior, motivation, and commitment in public institutions is examined in this article. It is highly relevant, both theoretically and practically, for
explaining in a better manner the basic area of conflict between managerialistic steering principles and incentive mechanisms, on the one hand, and the public interest for managing state
institutions, on the other. During recent years, there has been increasing study of the question
of whether a specific motivation of public employees exists. The theoretical works of Perry
have also been increasingly supplemented by several empirical studies. But in spite of these
studies, considerable need for research exists in order to be able to find the reasons for the

various dependencies and the influencing factors on the motivation and performance behavior
of public employees.

Whereas up to now empirical studies on the existence of PSM have

dominated, studies on the causes and influencing factors, as well as on the effects of PSM,
will become more and more important (Moynihan and Pandey 2007, Camilleri 2007).

In this article, prior research is augmented by new perspectives and empirical results from
Switzerland on the relationship between motivation, leadership behavior, and performance in
the Swiss federal administration.

The article deals, on the one hand, with the relationship

between public sector motivation (PSM), job satisfaction, organizational commitment (OC),
and leadership behavior and, on the other hand, with the influence of these variables on the
internal efficiency of public administrations.

The article is structured as follows: Chapter 2 discusses the PSM construct in relationship to
organizational performance. Chapter 3 examines the question of what extent PSM affects the
OC of public employees and the links between OC and performance. At this point, this article
addresses the basic challenge of Perry and Wise (1990), which calls for a more in-depth study
of the correlation between PSM and Organizational Commitment, something which has been
examined by Kim (2005) and Crewson (1997). In Chapter 4, this is compared to the influence
of management using organizational goals and supervisory behavior in terms of their influence on performance. Chapter 5 tests the model using empirical data collected from employee questionnaires of the Swiss Federal Administration.

2. Public Service Motivation and Performance

The concept of PSM assumes that there are specific motives that are activated particularly by
the features of public institutions. Motivation arises from the interplay between the person, or
the persons permanent motives, and the situation (von Rosenstiel 2007). Aspects of situations, such as public administration per se become incentives for the individual to the extent
that they activate specific motives in the person and guide his/her behavior in a specific direction. Perry and Wise (1990) established the PSM concept and described it as . . . an individuals predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations. Based upon this concept, Perry developed (1996) the measurement
process for directly measuring PSM using 40 items divided into the four following categories:

attraction to public policy-making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and selfsacrifice. Research on PSM, which has intensified over the past few years, can be classified in
three basic categories: first, the exploration and explanation of the PSM construct; and,
second, the differentiation of PSM dimensions between persons in the public sector and persons in the private sector; and, third, the international comparison of the PSM construct.

Brewer et al. (2000) have shown that various aspects of PSM can exist within one and the
same individual; thus, the three categories of motives according to Perry and Wise (1990)
cannot be allocated discretely to individuals. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) examined organizational influencing factors (e.g., hierarchy, red tape [= bureaucracy]) on PSM and came to
the conclusion that the reduction of bureaucracy (red tape) and clarification of organizational
goals have a positive effect on PSM. The studies of Alonso and Lewis (2001) and Gabris and
Simo (1995) are rather critical in their comments on PSM. Alonso and Lewis discovered in
their study of the American federal administration that, although it was true that those employees who expected a higher remuneration for excellent performance were also given higher evaluations, this did not distinguish them from persons with higher or lower PSM.

According to Houstons study (2000), public sector employees are distinguished from those in
the private sector by the different ways in which they assess motives and incentives.

This

study indicates that public officials place less value on extrinsic incentives, such as high salaries, than do employees in the private sector. Raineys studies (1979; 1982), which assert,
among other things, that there is a weaker correlation between job performance and remuneration or promotion among managers in the public sector than among those in the private sector,
leads in the same direction. Gabris und Simo (1995) determined, on the one hand, that PSM
is not distributed equally within public institutions, but is rather more prominent in managers;
on the other hand, although they did not utilize Perrys PSM dimensions, they found no differences in the motives of employees in the public and private sectors, or in non-profit organizations. Crewson (1997) demonstrated that PSM in public organizations is different from that
in private organizations, specifically that it is stronger in public institutions. And the job
productivity of public service-motivated persons is higher than that of extrinsically oriented
employees. Buelens/Van den Broeck (2007) have found differences in the motivations of
public officials, since such persons are less motivated by money and place more value on the
balance between work and family. At the same time, however, they refer to the significance

of the situational influencing factors, for example, gender, work content, and hierarchical level, which largely explain the motivational differences and, therefore, also the sector differences.

PSM includes different values that exist not only in American administrations, but also characterize the ethos of public officials in various countries and national cultures, for example,
lethique du bien commun of French-speaking countries or the civil servant ethos in
German-speaking countries (Horton and Hondeghem 2006, Meyer and Hammerschmid 2006).
More recent research examines additional value categories of PSM, as well as their similarities and variations when compared internationally, and points to the significance of institutional and cultural influences on the formation of PSM (Vandenabeele, Scheepers et al. 2006,
Horton 2006).

For the present study, the correlation between PSM and the performance of public organizations is of particular interest. Output and outcome of public institutions is not easy to measure, since indicators are frequently insufficient or cannot be measured due to a lack of data.
Nevertheless, occasionally (weak) positive links between PSM and performance could be
shown. For this, Perry and Wise (1990) revert to job characteristics and conclude that PSM
acts upon those job features that result in increased motivation to perform (e.g., autonomy,
task identity, and perceived task significance). While some authors determine individual performance using interviewee information obtained from the last performance appraisal
(Camilleri 2006; Brewer, Coleman Selden et al. 2000; Naff and Crum 1999) or by means of
salary levels and promotions as productivity measurement (Alonso and Lewis 2001), others
utilize efficiency and effectiveness measures (Brewer and Selden 2000; Kim 2005). Elsewhere, the importance of self-set goals is used to explain the reason for different performance
levels (Locke and Latham 1990), or the readiness to identify and bond with an organization in
terms of OC serves as a predictor for performance behavior (Crewson 1997).

Against the backdrop of so-called High Performance Organizations (Popovich 1998; Becker,
Huslid et al. 2001), which exhibit a better ratio between performance and their associated resources when compared to other organizations, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) and Brewer and
Selden (2000) develop different dimensions of organizational performance in public institutions. On the one hand, they distinguish between two organizational performance perspec-

tives, namely, internal and external; on the other hand, performance variables in public institutions must be reinforced on a broader basis, and for this Brewer and Selden use efficiency,
effectiveness, and fairness. Accordingly, all three performances variables can be internally or
externally oriented. Using Korean data, Kim (2005) demonstrates that PSM has a positive
influence on these performance variables, even if it is less positive than job satisfaction, affective commitment, and organizational citizenship. In the following discussion, internal efficiency will be used as the performance variable. The largely positive results of the studies
related to PSMs influence on performance variables leads to our first hypothesis:
H1: The higher the Public Service Motivation, the higher the organizations internal efficiency.

3. Organizational Commitment, PSM and Performance

At their core, the various definitions of OC have one thing in common, namely, that OC is
characterized by the individuals bonding, identification, and dedicated commitment to the
organization (Mowday, Steers et al. 1979; Mowday, Porter et al. 1982). Meyer und Allen
(1991) have developed the most widely disseminated OC concept, which makes a distinction
between affective, continuous, and normative OC. Affective commitment occurs when positive feelings experienced within the organizational context result in an emotional allegiance to
the organization. Continuous commitment stems from individual cost-benefit considerations
that cause a person to conclude that leaving the organization would be disadvantageous.
Normative commitment arises if leaving the organization due to convictions or values is considered to be wrong (Weller 2003). OC has a positive correlation to job satisfaction, motivation, and attendance, and a negative one to fluctuation, tendencies to fluctuation, and absenteeism (Mowday, Steers et al. 1979; Mowday, Porter et al. 1982; Mathieu and Zajac 1990).
Affective and normative commitment have a positive correlation to performance behavior,
while continuous commitment results in insignificant or negative links in this regard (Meyer,
Paunonen et al. 1989). The correlation between OC and effective performance is only weakly
substantiated. The research findings show that OCs direct influence on job performance is
only slight (Mowday, Porter et al. 1982; Mathieu and Zajac 1990). Romzek (1990) concluded
that there is a positive relationship between OC and performance behavior, since employees
with strong OC are more committed to organizational goals and exhibit a greater willingness
to work hard. This indicates a positive correlation between OC and extra-role behavior, being
proactive, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), all of which contribute positively

to the effectiveness of an organization (Matiaske and Weller 2003). We are therefore led to
deduce our next hypothesis:
H2: The greater the Organizational Commitment, the higher the internal efficiency of the organization.

Against the backdrop of social exchange theories (March and Simon 1958), the correlation
between PSM and OC is based on the assumption that, the more personality traits and motives
correspond with organizational conditions and incentives, the more OC increases (Knoke and
Wright-Isak 1982). Various studies conclude that, given similarly high job motivation for
employees in the public and private sectors, the formernamely, public sector employees
compensate for lower extrinsic incentives with intrinsic incentives in terms of contributions
made to the super ordinate goals of public institutions (Frank 2004; Baldwin 1984; Rainey
1979). We therefore conclude that employees in public institutions, who ascribe more weight
to the public interest and to serving the government and society than they do to the limited
economic incentives existing in public administration, should exhibit greater OC (Crewson
1997; Perry and Wise 1990).

There is no agreement about the direction of the correlation between attitudes and behavior,
since, on the one hand, behavioral patterns can influence attitudes, or attitudes can influence
behavior (Weller 2003; Bateman and Strasser 1984). The correlation examined in this article
considers PSM to be an antecedent to OC (Castaing 2006, Perry and Wise 1990; Steers
1977). Perry and Wise (1990) operate on the premise that the greater the PSM, the more likely a person will seek affiliation with a public organization. This can also be interpreted in
terms of remaining with the organization. [S]ome public employees may be motivated by a
commitment to a public program because of personal identification with a program. In many
instances, however, commitment to a program may emanate from a genuine conviction about
its social importance (Perry and Wise 1990: 369).

The study by Camilleri (2006) shows

interesting results in the government administration of Malta, where OC was able to strengthen PSM. From this, Camillieri derives PSM as the macro-concept and OC as the microconcept, whereby the optimum design of Human Resource Management for strengthening OC
can have a positive influence on PSM.

The third hypothesis, which must still be examined, is derived from this:
H3: Employees with higher Public Service Motivation exhibit greater Organizational Commitment.
It is true that a correlation between PSM and OC could pose a tautology, since both constructs
are partially derived from similar principles of rational, normative, or affective motivational
factors (Shamir 1991). Due to the different contents of the two constructs, however, this is
called into question. OC refers to the bonding of employees to their workplace, whereas PSM
includes not only the commitment to the public interest, but also other things (e.g., attraction
to politics, sympathy, self-sacrifice) that go far beyond ones own workplace and even the
organization itself. To be sure, people can be committed to their jobs, but they do not necessarily also simultaneously exhibit great OC to their organization (Wiener and Vardi 1980).
And since PSM dimensions measure a more extensive construct than pure commitment to a
public organization or to ones job, a tautology can probably be excluded (Naff and Crum
1999).

4. Other Factors Influencing Organizational Performance

In addition to the influence of PSM and OC on internal efficiency, in our model, we examine
the influence that job satisfaction, the goal dimension on the organizational level, and the leadership behavior of supervisors have on internal efficiency. Both goal dimension and leadership are very frequently called performance predictors.
Job satisfaction indicates the extent to which employees like their jobs. It is shaped by comparing the incentives offered by the work and the work environment, as well as by individual
motives. Job satisfaction therefore includes how an employee feels about his or her job and
aspects of the job (Locke 1976). It has a positive correlation with various individual concepts
of employee motivation, for example, job involvement, organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational commitment, and also job performance (Judge, Thoresen et al. 2001; Bateman
and Strasser 1984). To some extent, public administration employees are characterized as
being less satisfied with their work when compared to persons working in the private sector
(Rainey 1989). Overall, however, based upon empirical results (Judge, Thoresen et al. 2001;
Yousef 2000), one can assume that job satisfaction generally affects performance in a positive
way, which allows us to deduce the following hypothesis:
H4: The greater the job satisfaction, the greater the internal efficiency

Against the backdrop of the Goal-Setting Theory (Locke and Latham 1990), Perry et al.
(2006), as well as Wright (2004; 2007), studied the influence of mission, organizational goals,
and goal conflicts on job motivation and determined that employees in public institutions exhibit higher job motivation if their tasks are clearly comprehensible, challenging, important,
and achievable. By being able to reinforce task-related goals, the mission and organizational
goals thus have a positive effect upon job motivation. According to Locke and Latham
(1990), employees pursue with more commitment those goals that, from their perspective, are
connected to more important goals and are achievable for them. Rainey and Steinbauer
(1999) see the effectiveness and performance of government agencies as being influenced by
the three factors task, mission, and public service. And according to Latham, Erez, and
Locke (1988), preset goals and mutually developed goals are equally effective with regard to
improving performance. We therefore deduce the hypothesis:
H5: The higher the goal dimension in relation to organizational goals, the greater the internal efficiency
The leadership behavior of supervisors considerably influences the motivation and behavior
of the employees (Judge, Piccolo et al. 2004; Burns 1978). In the public sector, leadership
behavior is also considered to be an important factor influencing organizational change, job
satisfaction, and organizational performance (Kim 2005; Thompson 2000; Hennessey 1998),
although Brewer and Selden (2000) could document in their study only a weak influence on
organizational performance. Particularly research on transformational leadership behavior
was able to show that, in contrast to transactional leadership, extra performance can be attained by the expansion and inspiration of individual goals (Bass and Avolio 1990). Transformational leadership behavior is characterized by different factors which focus on inspirational motivation, idealized leader influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Against the backdrop of the internal efficiency variable that is used in our model
as the performance variable, leadership behavior in terms of transformational leadership aspects, in contrast to organizational goals, is not considered to be the decisive factor. Nevertheless, we assume that the leadership behavior of supervisors also has a positive effect upon
the performance variable; and, from this, we deduce two hypotheses:
H6: The more pronounced the leadership behavior of the supervisor, the greater the internal
efficiency
H7: In contrast to the organizational goal setting, leadership behavior has less influence
upon the internal efficiency.

In addition to these two influencing factors of organizational goals and supervisor behavior,
the following demographic features are also included below as independent variables in the
analysis: gender, age, managerial function, wage class, and tenure in the Federal Administration.

5. Data and Method

The data of this study were collected within the framework of the 2007 employee survey of
the Swiss Federal Administration. The survey was planned as a random survey, although
complete surveys were carried out in numerous administrative units. Based upon the responses and the statistical indices of the 2005 personnel survey, one representative random
sampling per office was taken, which was additionally examined according to the representative distribution of sociodemographic features (language, sex, age, wage class). For reasons
of economic feasibility and practicality, the random sampling size was to remain as small as
possible without risking the statistical accuracy of the measurement. In some administrative
units, however, due to the total number of employees in the unit, a complete survey had to be
performed in order to achieve high statistical accuracy. Other administrative units expressly
requested a complete survey. The survey therefore represents a methodological mixture of
random sampling and complete surveys.
A total of 26,774 persons were given the questionnaire, which corresponds to approximately
three-fourths of the federal personnel. The response rate was 51% of those surveyed (13,532
responses), whereby the response quota in the seven departments ranged from 46 to 62 percent.
The survey, which was generally administered as an Internet-based questionnaire, was performed in German, French, and Italian. Employees without Internet access were provided
with paper questionnaires.
Dimensions and Items
The survey included 94 items, which were given to all participants, plus 9 sociodemographic
variables. Approximately 15 additional items on department-related questions could be included for each department. 27 items were used for the current study (see Appendix).
The individual items were developed collaboratively with the project leaders of the human
resources office of the federal administration and selected managers (see items in the Appendix). Two workshops were held with the conference of the human resources delegates of the

federal administration, and there were 10 manager interviews with partially structured interview topics. This procedure made it possible to adapt the recommended topic areas and variables to the situation of the federal administration.
The PSM items were developed, on the basis of three dimensions: Attraction to Public Policy-Making, Commitment to the Public Interest, and Self-Sacrifice (Perry 1996). Two
items were used for each dimension. The OC items were developed using Meyer and Allen
(1991), whereby the two dimensions affective commitment and continuous commitment
have been used. The items for measuring goal dimension emerged against the backdrop of
studies on high performance organizations (Becker, Huslid et al. 2001, Council 2002) respectively of effective government organizations (Brewer and Selden 2000, Rainey and Steinbauer
1999). But they were largely developed in collaboration with the project leaders of the Swiss
federal administration. The items for measuring supervisor behavior were also developed in
this manner. These variables exhibit a similarity to individual dimensions of transformational
leadership behavior (Bass and Avolio 1990).
Three adapted items of internal performance efficiency were used to measure the independent
variables of organizational performance (Brewer and Selden 2000; Kim 2005). These are
related to cost reduction, process simplification, and timely decision-making in the surveyed
administrative units.
All of these items were surveyed on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest and 6 being the highest rating.
Measurement
The more complex dimensions of the study (PSM, OC, goal dimension, supervisor behavior,
internal efficiency) were reduced using confirmatory factor analysis. The respective scale
reliability coefficients are listed in the Appendix under the individual dimensions and are
comparable with other studies (Kim 2005). PSM has a scale reliability coefficient of 0.898
for the dimension attraction to public policy-making and 0.756 for commitment to the public
interest. The Lambda values lay between 0.75 and 0.94. Organizational commitment was
divided into the two dimensions of affective commitment (=0.804) and continuous commitment (=0.856), exhibiting support for the discriminant validity of the measures used (Lamba
between 0.77 and 0.92). The leadership function differed in the two dimensions of direct supervisor behavior (=0.933) and organizational goal dimension (=0.861) and can be differentiated with Lambda values from 0.63 to 0.86. The dimension of internal performance efficiency has an Alpha value of 0.829 and Lambda remains between 0.85 and 0.88.

The descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1. 16 of 91 bivariate correlations are significant at least at the 5% level. The prevalence of significant correlations can
have different causes. On the one hand, the one-sided methodology using a self-report questionnaire at a specific time can result in a mono-method bias, since correlations arise due to
hidden, systematic features that support the measured variables (Spector 1994). On the other
hand, above all, the large-scale effect may well lose its impact, since the scope of this studys
sample was large enough to identify statistically significant correlations with only 0.5 percent
divided variance (Diekmann 2002). In light of what are nevertheless deep correlationsapart
from four values above 0.5, all values lie between 0 and 0.44the variables, however, can be
considered sufficiently differentiated.

The model tested within the framework of this study met the requirements of the ordinary
least squares regression analysis. For this, the estimated values for each independent variable
were calculated in relation to internal efficiency.

13291

13256

Self-sacrifice

Affective commitment

Continuous commitment

Leadership behavior

Goal orientation

Job satisfaction

Gendera

Ageb

Leadership position

10

11

12

13352

14

Mean

SD

3.17

2.93

1.65

3.86

1.73

4.13

0.98

1.01

0.48

1.06

0.44

1.27

see appendix

-0.06**

-0.04**

-0.05**

-0.03**

-0.05**

0.51**

0.53**

0.28**

0.37**

0.31**

0.02*

0.25**

0.00

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; Pearson correlation coefficient

a
Gender is coded 1=female, 2=male
b
Age is coded 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60
c
Leadership position is coded 1=yes, 2=no
d
Income is coded 1=salary class 1-11, 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38
e
Tenure is coded 1=until 1year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10

Tenure

13091

Income

13

13314

12838

12838

13245

13245

13089

13089

13336

Commitment to the
public interest

13089

Attraction to public
policy making

13326

Internal efficiency

0.04**

0.27**

-0.12**

0.11**

0.07**

-0.05**

0.05**

-0.01

-0.09**

0.12**

0.00

0.00

0.03**

0.06**

-0.08**

0.07**

0.02*

0.22**

0.22**

0.09**

0.12**

0.38**

0.00

0.01

-0.07**

0.03**

-0.01

0.06**

-0.03**

0.01

0.00

-0.03**

-0.07**

0.07**

0.07**

-0.17**

0.07**

0.07**

0.28**

0.31**

0.15**

0.00

-0.02

-0.03**

0.03**

0.09**

-0.04**

0.66**

0.29**

0.31**

-0.08**

0.05**

0.02

-0.06**

-0.01

0.44**

0.00

-0.04**

0.07**

-0.10**

0.01

-0.03**

0.44**

-0.09**

0.00

-0.01

-0.05**

-0.05**

Interitem correlations (Item No.)

0.18**

0.14**

-0.25**

0.17**

10

0.59**

0.19**

-0.12**

11

-0.17**

-0.35**

12

0.10**

13

14

Table 1: Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities

6. Findings and Discussion

Univariate Analysis
The univariate statistics show the following interesting results (see Appendix). Interest in
politics within the PSM dimension attraction to public policy-making has the highest average
value (mean: 4.31). This is in contrast to the interest in politicians and their work. This interest focusing more strongly on the content of politics is also seen in the PSM dimension commitment to the public interest and is comparable with the findings of Brewer et al. (2000):
Individuals [] are not enamored by politics or captivated by the thrill of participating in the
policymaking process. The primary motives that emerge are serving the public, making a difference in society, and ensuring individual and social equity. An additional regression analysis within the framework of the present study illustrates this, since it shows a negative correlation between attraction to public policy-making and commitment to the public interest (B=0.36; p<0.001).

On the other hand, the respondents respond less positively when their involvement with the
public sector is compared to a specifically self-interested motive, such as, the attainment of
personal goals or ones own financial situation. The latter aspect is comparable to Perrys
findings (Perry 1996). Overall, this addresses the problems of other studies, which emphasize
the subordinate significance of extrinsic incentives in comparison to the organizational goals
and work content for public administration employees (Wright 2007, Bright 2005, Brewer,
Coleman Selden et al. 2000, Houston 2000, Brewer and Selden 2000, Crewson 1997).

Compared to the responses on PSM, those on OC consistently exhibited more positive values.
By way of comparison, particularly the individuals willingness to work hard was valued very
high. This tends to contradict the wide-spread views regarding the willingness of civil servants to work hard and the extra motivation exhibited by civil servants. Due to the selfreported surveys, as well as possible influences of social desirability, this high average of 5.03
should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, however, the mean clearly shows a consistently
strong commitment to the federal administration and the small portion of employees who are
actively seeking a new position outside of the federal administration.

Furthermore, it is interesting that the goal dimension is assessed quite positively or clearly
above the scales average. This more likely contradicts the goal-setting function in public
administrationswhich has been called difficultabove all on the organizational level
(Rainey 1993). The mean for goal dimension is also differentiated quite distinctly from the
indicators on internal efficiency. The responses on cost reduction, process simplification, and
timely decision-making attain values that are average for the scale.

Bivariate Analysis
The correlations between the independent variables were examined using a correlational analysis (see Table 1). There is hereby a high positive correlation between job satisfaction and
continuous commitment (r=0.66, p<0.01). Modest positive correlation values were seen between job satisfaction and leadership behavior (r=0.44, p<0.01) or goal dimension (r=0.44,
p<0.01). Overall, all three dimensions of PSM have a significantly positive correlation with
affective commitment, but only commitment to the public interest shows a moderately strong
correlation (r=0.38, p<0.01); the two other dimensions have only a weak correlation to affective commitment. With regard to continuous commitment, the PSM dimensions attraction to
public policy-making (r=-0.09, p<0.01) and self-sacrifice (r=-0.03, p<0.01) both show a negative correlation. Affective commitment also shows a rather weak positive correlation to goal
dimension (r=0.31, p<0.01), as does continuous commitment to goal dimension (r=0.29,
p<0.01) or to supervisor behavior (r=0.31, p<0.01).

Thus, the third hypothesis H3 cannot be clearly confirmed. It is certainly true that employees
with a high PSM exhibit stronger affective commitment, but this correlation is comparatively
weak. Furthermore, the willingness to leave the federal administration is more probable for
those persons who have a greater attraction to politics or who exhibit greater self-sacrifice.
Leaving the federal administration is therefore assessed as a loss primarily by those persons
who feel particularly committed to the public interest.

These findings support the positive correlation between PSM and affective commitment determined by Kim (2005). The study by Crewson (1997), who examined the influence of service orientation compared to the preference for economic rewards in employees of the American federal administration, shows similar trends. According to his study, employees having a

high service orientation exhibit greater OC. Camilleri (2006) identified an influence of OC on
PSM and named PSM the macro-concept, which is positively influenced by changes on the
micro-level (OC). The present study supports these findings and it leads to further differentiation, namely, particularly the two aspects of commitment to the public interest und affective
commitment have a stronger correlation.

In order to be able to recognize the importance of the separated, independent variables of

PSM, OC, leadership, goal orientation, and job satisfaction with respect to internal efficiency,
the standardized coefficients of regression analysis are examined (see Table 2). The adjusted
multiple coefficient of determination is 0.42, which is indicative of the models explanatory
power, although it also shows a potential for improvement. One reason for this may be the
selective choice of influencing factors of internal efficiency, in contrast to a model computation using a comprehensive set of influencing factors, for example, those in Brewer and Selden (2000). The survey carried out by the author uses such a model of comprehensive performance analysis for the Swiss federal administration. For the present study, the focus of the
analysis, however, was limited to the specified indicators related to human resource characteristics and to leadership
All dimensions exhibit highly significant values, although attraction to public policymaking is only slightly significant on the 0.01 significance level and, in comparison to the
other dimensions, exert only a slight influence on internal efficiency. This confirms the expectations according to which questions of process efficiency and cost savings represent typical features of a management rationality, and persons who are particularly attracted to politics
more likely follow a political or bureaucratic rationality (Schedler 2003, Niskanen 1971).
Camilleri (Camilleri 2006) suggests in his findings that individuals with strong attraction to
policy making tendencies appear to be more self-centered or self-seeking. The informal performance measures examined in his study, for example, pay and promotion equity, are more
important for these persons than internal efficiency.

Tabelle 2: Regressions to explain Internal Efficiency

Unstandardized
Coefficient (B)

Standard Error

Standardized
Coefficient ()

Attraction to public policy making

.015*

.008

.0489

.015

Commitment to the public interest

.072**

.008

.0000

.073

Self-sacrifice

.026**

.007

.0003

.026

Affective commitment

.093**

.008

.0000

.093

Continuous commitment

.075**

.010

.0000

.075

Leadership behavior

.157**

.008

.0000

.157

Goal orientation

.383**

.009

.0000

.383

Job satisfaction

.144**

.009

.0000

.183

-.059**

.017

.0005

-.026

-.012

.009

.1517

-.013

Independent Variables

Independent Control Variables

a

Gender
Age

Leadership position

-.064**

.016

.0001

-.031

-.087**

.008

.0000

-.087

-.006

.009

.5332

-.006

Income
Tenure

.422

Adj. R

.421

F Value

642.961**

11485

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

a
Gender is coded 1=female, 2=male
b
Age is coded 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60
c
Leadership position is coded 1=yes, 2=no
d
Income is coded 1=salary class 1-11, 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38
e
Tenure is coded 1=until 1year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10

The goal dimension of the organization exerts the greatest influence on performance
(=0.383). Then come leadership behavior (=0.157), job satisfaction (=0.144), affective
commitment (=0.093), continuous commitment (=0.075), commitment to the public interest
(=0.072), self-sacrifice (=0.026), and, finally, attraction to public policy-making (=0.015).
One can therefore maintain that the previously formulated first hypothesis H1 can be confirmed. All three measured partial dimensions of PSM exhibit a positive correlation to internal efficiency. H2 and H4 are also confirmed, since both forms of OC exhibit a positive correlation to internal efficiency and job satisfaction exerts a comparably high positive influence
on the target variable. The goal dimension in terms of deriving subordinate goals from superordinate goals and an employee-oriented and partial transformational supervisor behavior
exert the strongest positive influence on performance efficiency. A comparison of the latter

two dimensions confirms the hypothesis (H7) that goal dimension exerts a stronger influence
on internal efficiency than does supervisor behavior.
These results exhibit the same order as those of Kim (2005). Job satisfaction is mentioned
there as a more important influencing factor for performance when compared to PSM or OC.
The results of the present study make clear particularly the importance of goal dimension and
the leadership behavior of supervisors with regard to assessing organizational efficiency.
If we compare the present results with those of Brewer and Selden (2000), then it is primarily
striking that, in their study, the leadership functionin contrast, e.g., to PSMhas a clearly
predictive power. Brewer and Selden refer, among other things, to an indirect influence of
leadership on performance, since leadership shapes the culture, which, according to their results, exhibits decisive influencing power. In the present study, leadership was measured using supervisor behavior and goal dimension. Supervisor behavior exerts both a great, if also a
lower influence than goal dimension on internal efficiency. Thus, the seventh hypothesis H7
is also confirmed. Goal dimension characterizes above all the process of goal operationalization from the superior organizational level to the individual level of the employees. This cascading derivation of goals from superior goals has a rather clear correlation to cost orientation, process simplification, and timely decision-making. Without having examined the content of goal-setting processes, however, it is difficult to say whether, ultimately, the goalsetting process or the different goals at any one time were the decisive factor for the more
positive assessment of internal efficiency by the respondents. The results can be interpreted
to read that the leadership by supervisors or based upon established management-byobjectives systems exerts greater influence on internal efficiency when compared to the motivational influence factors. This emphasizes the significance of management-by-objective
processes in the everyday life of managers and supports the results of the OECD (2005), according to which, in conjunction with the analysis of performance pay systems, management
by objectives is clearly attributed more significance than performance pay.
The control variables studied in the regression analysis show that the level of income, leadership position, and gender exert an influence on performance. This means that the higher the
income or the more likely a person is to be a manager, the more positive the assessment of
internal efficiency is. Managers thus express themselves more positively regarding efforts at
cost savings, process simplification, or decision-making behavior. This is not very surprising,
since, when answering questions on internal efficiency, managers include these things as part
of their managerial responsibility. Furthermore, men assess performance more positively.

These results on gender and leadership position support the results of Kim (2005). The insignificant correlations between performance and age, or respectively, performance and tenure,
as well as the positive correlation to leadership position or to salary level, are comparable to
the study results of Naff and Crum (1999).
Furthermore, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed using two models (see Appendix). The first model examines the influence of the demographic features in terms of control
variables on the internal performance efficiency. In the second model, the independent variables of PSM, OC, leadership, goal orientation, and job satisfaction are added. The comparison of the two models shows that the independent variables of PSM, OC, leadership, and job
satisfaction have a decisive explanatory power with regard to internal performance efficiency.
With a significant difference in R2 of 0.41 and overall 42 percent in declared variance of performance in the second model, compared to a significant 1.3 percent in the model with the
control variables, the additionally integrated dimensions of the second model are expected to
exert significant influence on the internal performance efficiency. Concerning the demographic features, the change in R2 was primarily caused by gender and leadership position, as
already explained above.

7. Conclusion
The management reforms in public administration over the past two decades have been sharply focused on performance-oriented management tools and employee performance. In Switzerland, this is seen in the movement of various concepts of human resource management, for
example, performance pay systems or performance-oriented competency models for HR recruitment, appraisal, and development strategies, from the private economy into the public
sector. Since 2007, the Swiss federal administration has adapted its concept for surveying all
of its 37,000 employees and also focused upon employee performance and employee commitment. The present article analyzes these survey results by studying the internal efficiency
dependent upon PSM, OC, job satisfaction, goal orientation, and leadership. The use of existing items on the diverse concepts has proven to be valuable, since all factors could be discretely derived.
The findings basically confirm previous studies, e.g., those of Kim (2005), Brewer and Selden
(2000) and Crewson (1997), which studied the performance of public administration from the
viewpoint of PSM, OC and job satisfaction. The motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction of public employees have a positive influence on internal efficiency in terms of cost re-

duction, process simplification, and decision-making within the Swiss federal administration.
At the same time, the results show that the efficiency increase that was studied is supported
primarily by those employees who have great interest in public service. To put it simply and
provocatively, the traditional, neutral civil servant contributes more to internal efficiency than
the employee who is primarily attracted to politics. In comparison to these influencing factors, however, it could be determined that the analyzed dimensions of leadershipthe direct
supervisor behavior, on the one hand, and the organization-wide goal dimension, on the other
handexert clearly more influence on internal efficiency.
Goal dimension in terms of deriving subordinate goals from superior goals has been shown to
have the greatest influence on internal efficiency. Over the past few years, the Swiss federal
administration has made numerous efforts to introduce management by objectives and employee assessments throughout its system. The existing results clearly show the importance
of appropriate management tools on both the organizational and individual levels. Furthermore, previous study results are reinforced, since goal dimension, as well as OC and commitment to the public interest, are supported. This elucidates the importance of specifically
adapted management tools in public administrations and promotes restraint in the use of private-sector management techniques in the public sector. Goal dimension and result orientation are key components of management in public administrations; they become effective,
however, only when they take the specific motivation of public employees into consideration.
The present study could therefore show, among other things, that leaving the federal administration is thus assessed as a loss primarily by those persons who feel particularly committed to
serving the public interest.
Where employees observe supervisor behavior that is more comparable to transformational
leadership than to transactional leadership, the internal efficiency is also assessed to be greater. Leadership behavior that is very supportive, that motivates the employees for their work,
that provides regular feedback, that gives praise, and that is open to change may influence the
studied variables in a positive manner. Against the backdrop of the other results, this admits
the interpretation that supervisor behavior that is capable of emphasizing the specific features
of public work during both goal-setting and feedback can contribute to the increase of efficiency of public administrations.
A key challenge for politicians and administrators is to fulfill the demands for results-oriented
administration management and, at the same time, not to destroy the motivation of public employees. For example, in Switzerland, cost-of-living increases have not been guaranteed for

some years now, and the actual earnings have stagnated or even decreased. Combined with
ineffective pay-for-performance systems, this has had a decisively negative influence on the
atmosphere in public administration. The present study calls for a reflection upon current
human resource policies, which characterize many incentives in the public sector as unjustified privileges of civil servants. Frequent attempts are being made to increase the performance of public employees using faulty, over-simplified steering concepts, without recognizing that more likely, the opposite is occurring and that the responsibility of public employees,
as well as the important role of a functioning administration, is being called into question in a
constitutional state.

Appendix 1 :
Questionnaire Items: (Scale: 1-6; Midpoint: 3.5)
Public Service Motivation (Attraction to public policy making =0.898: Public interest
=0.756):
- I am very interested in politics (dimension: attraction to public policy-making). (Mean:
4.31; sd: 1.33)
- I am very interested in politicians and their work (dimension: attraction to public policymaking). (Mean: 3.86; sd: 1.29)
- I consider working in public administration a part of my commitment to society (dimension: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 4.25; sd: 1.23)
- I like working in public administration a lot because my work entails the shaping of Meaningful, societal topics (dimension: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 4.14; sd:
1.27)
- Being able to make a contribution to society Means more to me than reaching personal
goals (dimension: commitment to the public interest). (Mean: 3.79; sd: 1.19)
- My financial situation is certainly more important to me than performing good deeds (dimension: self-sacrifice). (R) (Mean: 3.05; sd: 1.14)
Organizational Commitment (Affective Commitment =0.804; Continuous Commitment
=0.856):
- The fate of my federal administration is very important to me (dimension: affective commitment). (Mean: 4.84; sd: 1.09)
- I feel a strong allegiance to my administrative unit (dimension: affective commitment).
(Mean: 4.51; sd: 1.22)
- In my work, I am not satisfied with merely meeting goals, but, instead, I try to achieve
even better performance (Dimension: affective commitment). (Mean: 5.03; sd: 0.87)
- Most recently I have rarely considered seeking employment outside of my administrative
unit (dimension: continuous commitment). (R) (Mean: 3.67; sd: 1.71)
- If certain things in my job change soon, I will not seek other employment (dimension:
continuous commitment). (R) (Mean: 4.32; sd: 1.55)

Leadership Behavior ( = 0.933):

- My direct supervisor exemplifies what he or she demands of his/her employees. (Mean:
4.36; sd: 1.41)
- My direct supervisor is able to inspire employees to attain set goals. (Mean: 4.09; sd:
1.39)
- My direct supervisor provides me with regular feedback on my job performance and behavior. (Mean: 4.16; sd: 1.39)
- My direct supervisor praises me for good performance. (Mean: 4.30; sd: 1.43)
- My direct supervisor always tries to have open dialogue with his/her employees. (Mean:
4.47; sd: 1.41)
- My direct supervisor is open to change. (Mean: 4.53; sd: 1.25)
Goal Dimension ( = 0.861):
- My individual goals are challenging, but realistic. (Mean: 4.43; sd: 1.25)
- My individual goals were derived from the departments important goals. (Mean: 4.47; sd:
1.30)
- The most important goals of our department are derived from the most important goals of
our administrative unit. (Mean: 4.39; sd: 1.08)
- In my department, we know precisely what we have to do to attain the most important
goals of the department. (Mean: 4.44; sd: 1.19)
- In my department, we measure work progress by using the set goals. (Mean: 4.23; sd:
1.22)
Job Satisfaction:
- How satisfied are you overall with your work situation? (Mean: 4.13; sd: 1.27)
Internal Performance Efficiency ( = 0.829):
- In my administrative unit, we consistently work to reduce avoidable costs. (Mean: 3.68;
sd: 1.32)
- In my administrative unit, work processes or documents are consistently being simplified.
(Mean: 3.27; sd: 1.27)
- In my administrative unit, important decisions are made in a timely fashion. (Mean: 3.49;
sd: 1.27)

Appendix 2:
Hierarchical Regression to explain Internal Efficiency

Model 1 ()

Model 2 ()

-.055**

-.026**

.030*

-.013

Independent Control Variables

a

Gender
Age

b
c

-.095**

-.031**

-.061**

-.087**

-.073**

-.006

Commitment to the public interest

.072**

Self-sacrifice

.026**

Affective commitment

.093**

Continuous commitment

.075**

Leadership behavior

.157**

Goal orientation

.383**

.183**

Leadership position
Income
Tenure

Independent Variables
Attraction to public policy making

Job satisfaction

.015*

Change in R
F Change
2

Adj. R

F Value
N

0.013

0.408

31.001**

1011.787**

0.013

0.421

31.001**

642.961**

11485

11485

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

a
Gender is coded 1=female, 2=male
b
Age is coded 1=below 20 year, 2=21-29, 3=30-39, 4=40-49, 5=50-59, 6=above 60
c
Leadership position is coded 1=yes, 2=no
d
Income is coded 1=salary class 1-11, 2=12-17, 3=18-23, 4=24-29, 5=30-38
e
Tenure is coded 1=until 1year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=more than 10

References
Alonso, P. and G. B. Lewis (2001). "Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evidence From the Federal Sector." American Review of Public Administration 31(4): 363 - 380.
Baldwin, J. N. (1984). "Are We Really Lazy?" Review of Public Personnel Administration
4(2): 80 - 89.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). The Implications of Transactional and Transformational
Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development. Research in Organizational Change and Development. W. Pasmore and R. W. Woodman. Greenwich, CT, JAI
Press. vol. 4: pp. 231-272.
Bateman, T. S. and S. Strasser (1984). "A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment." Academy of Management Journal 27(1): 95-112.
Becker, B. E., M. A. Huslid, et al. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and
Performance. Boston MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Brewer, G. A., S. Coleman Selden, et al. (2000). "Individual Conceptions of Public Service
Motivation." Public Administration Review 60(3): 254 - 264.
Brewer, G. A. and S. C. Selden (2000). "Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting
Organizational Performance in Federal Agencies." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 10(4): 685 - 711.
Bright, L. (2005). "Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation." Review of Public Personnel Administration 25(2): 138 - 154.
Buelens, M. and H. Van den Broeck (2007). "An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation
between Public and Private Sector Organizations " Public Administration Review 67(1): 6574.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, Harper and Row.
Camilleri, E. (2006). "Towards Developing an Organisational Commitment - Public Service
Motivation Model for the Maltese Public Service Employees " Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 63-83.
Camilleri, E. (2007). "Antecedents Affecting Public Service Motivation." Personnel Review
36(3): 356-377.
Castaing, S. (2006). "The Effects of Psychological Contract Fulfilment and Public Service
Motivation on Organiza-tional Commitment in the French Civil Service." Public Policy and
Administration 21(1): 84-98.
Council, C. L. (2002). Building the High-Performance Workforce: A Quantitative Analysis of
the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies. Washington.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). "Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence
and Effect." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499 - 518.

Diekmann, A. (2002). Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen.

Reinbek b. Hamburg.
Frank, S. A. (2004). "Government Employees." American Review of Public Administration
34(1): 36 - 51.
Gabris, G. T. and G. Simo (1995). "Public Sector Motivation as an Independent Variable Affecting Career Decisions." Public Personnel Management 24(1): 33 - 51.
Hennessey, T. J. J. (1998). ""Reinventing" Government: Does Leadership Make the Difference?" Public Administration Review 58(6): 522-532.
Hood, C. (1991). "A Public Management for all Seasons?" Public Administration 69(1): 3 19.
Horton, S. (2006). "The Public Service Ethos in the British Civil Service: An Historical Institutional Analysis." Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 32 - 48.
Horton, S. and A. Hondeghem (2006). "Public Service Motivation and Commitment." Public
Policy and Administration 21(1): 1-12.
Houston, D. J. (2000). "Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test." Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 713 - 727.
Judge, T. A., R. F. Piccolo, et al. (2004). "The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration
and Initiating Structure in Leadership Reserach." Journal of Apllied Psychology 89(1): 36-51.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, et al. (2001). "The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review." Psychological Bulletin 127(3): 376-407.
Kim, S. (2005). "Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government
Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(2): 245 - 261.
Knoke, D. and C. Wright-Isak (1982). "Individual Motives and Organizational Incentive Systems." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 1: 209 - 254.
Latham, G. P., M. Erez, et al. (1988). "Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of
Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham Dispute Regarding
Participation in Goal Setting." Journal of Applied Psychology 73(4): 753-772.
Lienhard, A., A. Ritz, et al. (2005). 10 Jahre New Public Management in der Schweiz. Bern,
Paul Haupt.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Cause of Job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. M. D. Dunnette. Chicago, Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance. Engelwood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958). Organizations: Its Management and Value. New York.

Mathieu, J. E. and D. M. Zajac (1990). "A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment." Psychological Bulletin
108(2): 171-194.
Matiaske, W. and I. Weller (2003). Extra-Rollenverhalten. Organizational Behaviour: Verhalten in Organisationen. A. Martin. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer: 95-114.
Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen (1991). "A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment." Human Resource Management Review 1: 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., S. V. Paunonen, et al. (1989). "Organozational Commitment and Job Performance: It's the Nature of the Commitment that Counts." Journal of Apllied Psychology 17:
717-733.
Meyer, R. and G. Hammerschmid (2006). "Public Management Reform: An Identity Project."
Public Policy and Administration 21(1): 99-115.
Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, et al. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York, Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers, et al. (1979). "The measurement of organizational commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior 14(224-227).
Moynihan, D. P. and S. K. Pandey (2007). "The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public
Service Motivation." Public Administartion Review 67(1): 40 - 53.
Naff, K. C. and J. Crum (1999). "Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation
Make a Difference?" Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5 - 16.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago.
OECD (2005). Performance-related Pay Policies for Government Employees. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Perry, J. L. (1996). "Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5 - 22.
Perry, J. L., D. Mesch, et al. (2006). "Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: The
Performance Paradigm Revisited." Public Administartion Review 66(4): 505 - 514.
Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise (1990). "The Motivational Bases of Public Service." Public Administartion Review 50(3): 367 - 373.
Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience.
Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis.
Second expanded edition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Popovich, M. G. (1998). Creating High Performance Organizations. San Francisco, JosseyBass.

Rainey, H. G. (1979). "Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications
for Civil Service Reform." Public Administartion Review 39(5): 440-448.
Rainey, H. G. (1982). "Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of
the Service Ethic." American Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288-302.
Rainey, H. G. (1989). "Public Management: Recent Research on the Political Context and
Managerial Roles, Structures, and Behaviors." Journal of Management 15(2): 229-250.
Rainey, H. G. (1993). Toward a Theory of Goal Ambuigity in Public Organizations. Reserach
in Public Administration. J. L. Perry. Greenwich Conn., JAI Press. 2.
Rainey, H. G. and P. Steinbauer (1999). "Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a
Theory of Effective Government Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 9(1): 1-32.
Ritz, A. (2003). Evaluation von New Public Management: Grundlagen und empirische Ergebnisse der Bewertung von Verwaltungsreformen in der Schweizerischen Bundesverwaltung. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.
Romzek, B. S. (1990). "Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties that Bind." Public
Administration Review 50(3): 574-582.
Ruscio, K. P. (2004). The Leadership Dilemma in Modern Democracy. Cheltenham, Northampton, Edward Elgar.
Schedler, K. (2003). "'... and Politics?' Public Management Developments in the Light of Two
Rationalities." Public Management Review vol. 5(no. 4): pp. 533 - 550.
Schedler, K. (2003). "Local and Regional Public Management Reforms in Switzerland." Public Administration 81(2): 325-344.
Shamir, B. (1991). "Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organizations." Organization Studies
12(3): 405 - 424.
Spector, P. E. (1994). "Using Self-Report Questionnaires in OB Reserach: A Comment on the
Use of a Controversial Method." Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 385-392.
Steers, R. M. (1977). "Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly 20: 546- 558.
Steiner, R. and A. Ladner (2006). Die Schweizer Gemeinden im Fokus. Perspektiven fr Gemeindefinanzen, Schriftenreihe Finanzen der ffentlichen Hand Nr. 13. E. d. S. Gemeinden.
Bern, Emissionszentrale der Schweizer Gemeinden: 9 - 34.
Thompson, J. R. (2000). "Reinvention As Reform: Assessing the National Performance Review." Public Administration Review 60(6): 508-521.

Vandenabeele, W., S. Scheepers, et al. ( 2006 ). "Public Service Motivation in an International Comparative Perspective: The UK and Germany." Public Policy and Administration 21(1):
13-31.
von Rosenstiel, L. (2007). Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie. Stuttgart, SchfferPoeschel.
Weber, M. (1976). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mit Erluterungen. Tbingen.
Weller, I. (2003). Commitment. Organizational Behaviour: Verhalten in Organisationen. A.
Martin. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer: 77-94.
Wiener, Y. and Y. Vardi (1980). "Relationship between Job, Organization, and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach." Organizational Performance and
Human Performance 26: 81-96.
Wright, B. E. (2004). "The Role of Work Context in Work Motivation: A Public Sector Application of Goal and Social Cognitive Theories." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 14(1): 59 - 78.
Wright, B. E. (2007). "Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?" Public Administartion Review 67(1): 54 - 64.
Yousef, D. A. (2000). "Organizational Commitment: A Mediator of the Relationships of Leadership Behavior with Job Satisfaction and Performance in a Non-Western Country." Journal
of Managerial Psychology 15(1): 6-28.