National culture and public service motivation: investigating the relationship using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions

Abstract

Much research has focused on finding and explaining the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of public service motivation (PSM), but little is known about the influence of national context on individuals’ PSM. Previous research suggests that national culture may exert an independent influence on individuals’ PSM. This article examines PSM as an individual-level variable that is related to national culture, which is represented by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Using data from the International Social Survey Programme (2005), I investigate the relationship between cultural dimensions and individuals’ PSM. This article demonstrates that masculinity and indulgence are positively related to individuals’ PSM, whereas individualism is negatively associated with individuals’ PSM. However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance have a non-significant relationship with PSM. This article provides partial support for the thesis that national culture is associated with individuals’ PSM, but future research is required to explicate the relationship of cultural characteristics to individuals’ PSM.

Points for practitioners

Culture influences certain types of behavior both directly and indirectly. The article suggests that cultural tendencies such as masculinity, indulgence, and collectivism have a significant positive influence on individuals’ PSM. Organizational education and socialization enhancing these cultural values are likely to foster employees’ PSM.

Keywords

civil service ethics human resources management personnel policies public management

Introduction

Public service motivation (PSM) concerns the motives that guide people’s behavior (Wise, 2000). Many people from various situations seek to help others, advancing the common good and the public interest (Brewer, 2011). Public service motives are at the root of the actions taken to achieve outcomes that serve the public interest. PSM is ‘an individual’s orientation to delivering services to people with a purpose to do good for others and society’ (Perry and Hondeghem, 2008: vii). Thus, PSM is a peculiar form of altruism or prosocial motivation (Bozeman and Su, 2015; Perry et al., 2010). The greater an individual’s PSM, the more likely s/he is to engage in behaviors that benefit the public, despite the loss of tangible rewards (Kim and Vandenabeele, 2010).

Much research has been devoted to finding and explaining the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of PSM (see Bellé and Cantarelli, 2012; Perry and Hondeghem, 2008; Perry et al., 2010). One stream of research examines the institutions that communicate norms, values, and beliefs to individuals. Pandey and Stazyk (2008) show that the antecedents of PSM stem from both social institutions and organizational factors. Social institutions such as profession and family, as well as organizational factors such as culture, bureaucratic red tape, employee-friendly reforms, hierarchy, and tenure, contribute to variation in PSM. Empirical studies find that institutions such as family, occupation and work organization, religious affiliation, and volunteer organizations have an important influence on PSM (Camilleri, 2007; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997; Perry et al., 2008).

Analyzing survey data from 38 nations, Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) find national and regional variation in average PSM scores, which they attribute to institutional differences. Westover and Taylor (2010) report that PSM levels differ across countries. Houston (2011) suggests that national context matters for PSM and that the institutions used to deliver public services affect societal attitudes. Based on analyses of Swiss-German and Swiss-French data, the three studies analyze the relationship between societal culture and PSM. Anderfuhren-Biget (2012) finds that cultural belonging has an important effect on the overall level of PSM. Ritz and Brewer (2013) demonstrate that societal culture matters a great deal for PSM. Anderfuhren-Biget et al. (2014) show that culture has an effect on PSM overall, as well as its four constituent dimensions. Thus, we know that institutional arrangement appears to influence the development of PSM, and that the level of PSM varies across nations and cultures. It is therefore plausible that national culture is related to individuals’ PSM.

Single-nation studies are unable to explain the relevance of national culture to PSM. Cross-cultural studies in cross-national contexts are more complex than are domestic cross-cultural studies. To begin with, this research requires cross-level theorizing and research methods by relating national-level characteristics to individual responses. In addition, cross-national data collection introduces issues related to matching samples and construct equivalence. These challenges go beyond those faced by scholars studying cross-cultural differences in a single country or at a single level when cultural values are treated as individual differences variables in studies of PSM (Tsui et al., 2007).

The present article investigates whether cultural characteristics are related to individuals’ PSM, using an independent data set from the International Social Survey Programme: the Work Orientation III (ISSP 2005) data set consisting of 32 countries and 43,365 respondents. A brief overview of past inquiries and findings is necessary to situate the current study within the context of previous research on PSM and national culture.

National culture and public service motivation

Hofstede’s (1980) framework provides a useful starting point for researchers interested in exploring how national culture is related to PSM. Hofstede (1980: 25) defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another’. Hofstede (1980) identifies four independent dimensions that capture key value differences among countries: power distance (related to the problem of inequality), uncertainty avoidance (related to the problem of dealing with the unknown and unfamiliar), individualism-collectivism (related to the problem of interpersonal ties), and masculinity-femininity (related to emotional gender roles). Since the 1980s, Hofstede has added two dimensions: long-term vs short-term orientation (related to the choice of focus for people’s efforts) and indulgence vs restraint (related to the gratification vs control of basic human desires). The latter complements the fifth dimension and focuses on aspects not covered by the other five dimensions. In Hofstede et al. (2010), scores are listed for 76 countries and regions.¹

The seminal work by Hofstede (1980) offers a cultural framework that guided cross-cultural research for more than 30 years. Taras et al. (2010) meta-analyzed the relationship between Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions and a variety of organizationally relevant outcomes, and found that Hofstede’s framework can be used optimally in cross-cultural research.² Institutional theory suggests that national culture influences certain types of behavior both directly (through the cultural values that predominate in a society) and indirectly (through the institutions that are given meaning by the attributes of the culture) (Ahlstrom and Bruton, 2002; Kreiser et al., 2010). The following sections will discuss each cultural dimension and its relevance to PSM.

Power distance

Power distance is defined as ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede et al., 2010: 61). Alternatively, it is the extent to which subordinates are not expected to express disagreement with their supervisors, and supervisors are not expected to consult with their subordinates, in the decision-making process (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). People in large power distance societies accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place that needs no further justification, whereas those in small power distance societies strive for power equalization and demand justification for power inequalities. Power distance index scores tend to be higher for East European, Latin, Asian, and African countries, and lower for Germanic and English-speaking Western countries (Hofstede et al., 2010).

In small power distance societies, less powerful people and more powerful people should be interdependent; all should have equal rights; inequality in society should be minimized; social relationships should be handled with care; and the use of power should be legitimate and ethical. In such societies, people may tend to help others who are treated unfairly and face difficulties, and seek to enhance public values such as social equity, legitimacy, and public ethics. Thus, we can propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals’ PSM is enhanced in cultures characterized by small power distance. That is, power distance is negatively related to PSM.

Individualism

Individualism pertains to ‘societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’ (Hofstede et al., 2010: 92). The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among individuals. Individualism tends to prevail in developed and Western countries, whereas collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries (Hofstede et al., 2010).

People in an individualist culture are more concerned with their own self-interest, and will tend to be influenced less by group or societal norms. In a collectivist culture, the individual is more likely to be motivated by group interests. People are guided by what is the best for the group through sharing, cooperation, and group harmony. Collectivist societies value group loyalty and harmony over individual accomplishment.

In collectivist societies, people will try primarily to fulfill their obligations towards their in-group. This may be their family, but their collective loyalty may also be directed towards a larger unit such as their organization or their country. Service to one’s country was found to be strongly associated with collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010). In collectivist societies, people are more likely to prefer attitudes and behaviors that support what is best for the society at large. Doing good for others and society are more consistent with norms and values reflected in collectivist cultures. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Individuals’ PSM is enhanced in cultures characterized by collectivism. That is, individualism is negatively related to PSM.

Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance is defined as ‘the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations’ (Hofstede et al., 2010: 191). That culture tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviors, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of expertise. Strong uncertainty avoidance societies maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant towards deviant persons and ideas, but weak uncertainty avoidance societies maintain a more relaxed atmosphere in which practice counts more than principles and deviance is more easily tolerated. Uncertainty avoidance index scores tend to be higher in East and Central European countries, in Latin countries, in Japan and in German-speaking countries, and lower in English-speaking, Nordic and Chinese culture countries (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Uncertainty avoidance is associated with preference for clear rules and guidance. In weak uncertainty avoidance societies, people are more willing to take unknown risks. People think that if rules cannot be kept, they should be changed, and that the authorities are there to serve the citizens. Citizens in weak uncertainty avoidance countries believe that they can participate in political decisions at local level and protest against government decisions (Hofstede, 1991). People may have a willingness to risk personal loss to do good for society and perform meaningful public service. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Individuals’ PSM is enhanced in cultures characterized by weak uncertainty avoidance. That is, uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to PSM.

Masculinity

Masculinity stands for ‘a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life’ (Hofstede, 2001: 297). Femininity, as the opposite of masculinity, stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap. In other words, masculinity refers to the degree to which such values as assertiveness, performance, success, and competition prevail over such values as the quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships, care for the weak, and solidarity (Hofstede, 1984). Challenge, earnings, recognition, and advancement are important in masculine societies. Both value sets, masculinity and femininity, are present in any society, but the percentage of people preferring one over the other differs from one society to another (Hofstede, 1984). Masculinity is high in Japan, in German-speaking countries, and in some Latin countries such as Italy and Mexico; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Masculine culture countries strive for a performance society, whereas feminine countries strive for a welfare society (Hofstede et al., 2010). Femininity stands for a stress on affiliation and relationships, giving priority to solidarity with the weak over reward for the strong, to providing aid to poor countries over investing in armaments, and to protection of the environment over economic growth (Hofstede et al., 2010). People in feminine societies may tend to help others and do good for society. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Individuals’ PSM is enhanced in cultures characterized by femininity. That is, masculinity is negatively related to PSM.

Indulgence

In Hofstede et al. (2010), indulgence has been added as a new dimension, based on Minkov’s (2007) analysis of the World Values Survey data for 93 countries. It more or less complements long-term vs short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2011).³ The high indulgence society’s people can freely fulfill their basic needs and desires as there are no strict social norms. On the other hand, restraint societies have stricter social norms and the gratifications of drives are suppressed and regulated. The core of indulgence dimension consists of happiness, life control, and importance of leisure. All this predicts relatively high happiness. Indulgence tends to prevail in South and North America, in Western Europe and in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, whereas restraint prevails in Eastern Europe, in Asia and in the Muslim world.

Indulgent societies have higher percentages of very happy people. The pursuit of democratic values is strongly correlated with indulgence (Hofstede et al., 2010). People in indulgent societies are more likely to attach importance to democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech. People in indulgent societies are more likely to have positive emotions toward others and engage in behaviors that benefit the public. Therefore, we can propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Individuals’ PSM is enhanced in cultures characterized by indulgence. That is, indulgence is positively related to PSM.

Methods

Data collection

All individual-level data for the present study came from ISSP 2005. The ISSP is a continuous program of cross-national collaboration, which runs annual surveys on topics important for the social sciences. It started in 1984 with four countries and has grown to 53 member countries in 2015.⁴ ISSP 2005 (Work Orientation III) surveys were conducted in 32 countries from February 2005 to February 2007 with a standardized questionnaire administered by mail, written, or oral survey. Data were collected by multi-stage stratified random sampling. This study analyzes 43,365 cases from these 32 countries (see Appendix). Of the respondents, 45.6 percent were men and 54.4 percent were women. By employment sector, 15.1 percent worked for the government; 8.7 percent worked for public enterprises; 45.0 percent worked for private firms; 12.1 percent were self-employed; 0.9 percent worked for voluntary organizations; 12.7 percent were not in the labor force; and 5.5 percent did not answer.

Measures

National culture dimensions scores for each country are obtained from the Hofstede study (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010). The country scores are entered on the five cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and indulgence. Each country’s national culture scores are uniformly applied to all individuals within that country.

As Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) explained, the ISSP was not designed to measure PSM, thus rendering replication of the same multi-dimensional scales used in previous research impossible (Kim et al., 2013; Perry, 1996). In the ISSP 2005 data set, two items on work motivation are available to use as a PSM measure. These items include the importance an individual attaches to having a job that both helps others and is useful to society. These two items have been used to represent PSM in previous studies (Houston, 2011; Lewis and Frank, 2002; Vandenabeele and Van de Walle, 2008; Westover and Taylor, 2010; Wright and Christensen, 2010).⁵ An exploratory factor analysis showed that these items hold together well, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.802. The responses to the following two questions were summed to construct the measure:

How important is a job that allows someone to help other people? (Not important at all = 1; very important = 5.)

How important is a job that is useful to society?

A set of control variables was included in the analysis. First, national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2004 was included.⁶ As there is a strong relationship between culture and economic development (House et al., 2004), it is important to use macro-level economic indicators as control variables to examine the effect of culture. Second, individual-level variables included were female gender, age, education, public sector membership, and attendance of religious services.⁷ Each was used as a control variable to adjust for potential variations in sample composition across countries. Some evidence is available to suggest that these individual variables may be associated with an individual’s PSM (Pandey and Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997).

Analyses

Given that our dependent and control variables were measured at the individual level and the independent variables were measured at the country level, our hypothesis-testing necessitated hierarchical or cross-level techniques. Conventional statistical techniques offer two possibilities to test our hypotheses. Data can either be aggregated at the highest level (i.e. country) or country-level data can be assigned to each individual in his/her respective country. However, both approaches are inadequate to test hierarchical models as they can result in aggregation bias, mis-estimated precision, and level of analysis problems (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). Given that we are interested in the effects of country-level variables (national culture) on an individual-level variable (PSM), traditional regression analysis is not adequate. Therefore, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) will be used to test the hypotheses (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002).

In this analysis, the individuals can be seen as level-1 units of study, and the countries are level-2 units. At level 1, the unit of analysis was the individual, and each person’s PSM was a function of gender, age, education, income, sector, and attendance of religious services. At level 2, the unit of analysis was the nation, where the dependent variable was hypothesized to depend on specific national culture factors adjusted for the regression coefficients in the level-1 model. Given that we are interested in the effects of country-level cultural dimensions on PSM after controlling for individual-level factors, we use the grand-mean centering option for the individual-level variables (Hofmann and Gavin, 1998), and an intercepts-as-outcomes model (as opposed to a slopes-as-outcomes model).⁸ The t-tests for country-level parameters produced in the level-2 analysis provide the tests for our hypotheses. They show the effects of national-level cultural variables on PSM, controlling for individual differences.

Findings

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables.⁹ The bivariate correlations between national culture dimensions show that there exist negative relationships between power distance and individualism (r = −.656, p < 0.01), power distance and indulgence (r = −.390, p < 0.05), individualism and uncertainty avoidance (r = −.506, p < 0.01), and uncertainty avoidance and indulgence (r = −.554, p < 0.01), and positive relationships between power distance and uncertainty avoidance (r = .546, p < 0.01), and individualism and indulgence (r = .386, p < 0.05). GDP per capita correlates positively with individualism (r = .608, p < 0.01) and indulgence (r = .474, p < 0.01), but associates negatively with power distance (r = −.655, p < 0.01) and uncertainty avoidance (r = −.401, p < 0.05). There are positive correlations between PSM and all individual-level variables except education (r = −.011, p < 0.05). The average value of PSM is 8.05 and the range is 2–10. Israel and Mexico score high on PSM, but Finland and Sweden score low on PSM, as shown in the Appendix.

Table 1.

Basic statistics and correlations.

Individual-level variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Female	0.54	0.50
2. Age	45.89	17.05	−.012*
3. Education	2.70	1.53	−.036**	−.216**
4. Public sector	0.29	0.46	.122**	.108**	.177**
5. Attendance of religious services	3.51	2.31	.107**	.070**	−.117**	−.015**
6. PSM	8.05	1.53	.081**	.017**	−.011*	.064**	.170**
Country-level variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Power distance	48.84	20.46
2. Individualism	58.69	22.28	−.656**
3. Masculinity	48.25	23.14	.098	.066
4. Uncertainty avoidance	64.53	21.46	.546**	−.506**	.103
5. Indulgence	51.58	19.99	−.390*	.386*	.074	−.554**
6. GDP per capita (as in 1,000 USD)	25.30	15.88	−.655**	.608**	−.120	−.401*	.474**

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. SD = standard deviation.

Table 2 presents hierarchical linear models that examine the predictors of PSM. In Model 1 (Null Model), a significant chi-square for the dependent variable shows that between-country variance is significantly different from zero, indicating that the intercept term varies across countries. A significant chi-square for PSM is obtained (χ²= 3500.9, p < 0.001). In addition, an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) can be computed that represents the percentage of the total variance in PSM that is between countries (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). The ICC for this model is 0.077. It indicates that there are significant differences among countries on PSM that can be explained by country-level independent variables, and a multi-level model is an appropriate method for analyzing the data; but it also means that most of the variation in PSM exists at the individual level vis-à-vis the national level.

Table 2.

Hierarchical linear models.

	Model 1 (Null Model)		Model 2 (Random-Coefficient Regression Model)		Model 3 (Intercepts-as- Outcomes Model)
	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Intercept	7.9855***	0.0749	7.9960***	0.0758	7.9960***	0.0557
Level-1 variables (individual level)
Female			0.2132***	0.0343	0.2136***	0.0343
Age			0.0025*	0.0011	0.0025*	0.0011
Education			0.0394***	0.0104	0.0398***	0.0104
Public sector			0.3279***	0.0416	0.3285***	0.0417
Attendance of religious services			0.0507***	0.0091	0.0503***	0.0091
Level-2 control (national level)
GDP per capita					−0.0089	0.0043
Level-2 variables (national level)
Power distance					−0.0037	0.0044
Individualism					−0.0095*	0.0036
Uncertainty avoidance					0.0005	0.0030
Masculinity					0.0072*	0.0026
Indulgence					0.0070**	0.0021
Level-1 variance	2.14419		2.07019		2.07019
Level-2 variance	0.17784		0.18764^a		0.12339
Chi-square	3500.90***		2912.02***		1564.97***
R² within countries^b			0.0345
R² between countries^c					0.3421

Notes: ^aThe introduction of level-1 predictors may change the level-2 variance because as each new level-1 predictor is entered into the model, the meaning of the intercept may change. Indeed, the residual variance at level 2 can be smaller or larger than the unconditional variance. The variance explained in a level-2 parameter is conditional on a fixed level-1 specification. Proportion reduction in variance statistics at level 2 is interpretable only for the same level-1 model. Thus, Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) recommend that researchers develop their level-1 model first, and then proceed to enter level-2 predictors into the analysis.

The proportion of variance within countries explained by level-1 predictors.

The proportion of variance between countries explained by level-2 predictors, after the individual level variables are controlled for.

p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

In Model 2 (Random-Coefficient Regression Model), all individual-level control variables are significant. This means that the pooled level-1 slopes between the independent variables and PSM differ from zero. Female gender, age, education, public sector employment, and attendance of religious services are positively associated with PSM. The most influential variable is public sector employment (γ = 0.3279, p < 0.001), and the next is female gender (γ = 0.2132, p < 0.001). Model 2 explains 3.45 percent of the individual variance in PSM within countries. Thus, we can say that the respondents who are women, older, with a higher degree of education, working in the public sector, and attending religious services show higher levels of PSM than others. This result supports previous research revealing that people with high levels of PSM were significantly more likely to be female and highly-educated (DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Moynihan and Pandey, 2007; Perry, 1997), showing that public sector workers had higher levels of PSM than did private sector workers (Steijn, 2008), and that religious activity had a positive effect on PSM (Perry et al., 2008), confirming the pre-existing evidence of a positive relationship between age and PSM (Perry, 1997).

Model 3 (Intercepts-as-Outcomes Model) examines the relationship between cultural dimensions and individuals’ PSM, controlling for GDP per capita and the individual-level variables. Our analysis shows that the country-level variables account for 34.74 percent in the between-country variance for individuals’ PSM. These results confirm the explanatory power of the cultural dimensions we consider in the study. Furthermore, the HLM analysis provides support for three of our five hypotheses. Masculinity and indulgence are each positively related to PSM, and individualism and GDP per capita are negatively related to PSM. However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance are not independently associated with PSM.

Hypothesis 1 posits a negative relationship between power distance and PSM. This hypothesis is not supported as the coefficient is statistically non-significant. Hypothesis 2, the expected negative relationship between individualism and individuals’ PSM, is supported (γ = −.0095, p < 0.05). It means that people in collectivist cultures have higher levels of PSM than people in individualist cultures. Hypothesis 3 predicts that uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to individuals’ PSM, but it is not supported. Hypothesis 4, the expected negative relationship between masculinity and PSM, is not supported as the coefficient is positive (γ = 0.0072, p < 0.05). People in masculine cultures have higher levels of PSM than do those in feminine societies. Hypothesis 5 predicts that indulgence is positively related to PSM, and is confirmed (γ = 0.0070, p < 0.01). Thus, people in indulgent societies have higher levels of PSM than do people in restrained societies. National GDP per capita is found to be negatively associated with PSM. That is, the lower the affluence of the country, the more individuals in the country tend to have higher levels of PSM.

We acknowledge some of the high correlations between the national-level variables of our model (see Table 1). To ensure that our results are stable, we assigned the country-level determinants to individuals within the country and ran linear regressions. Multicollinearity statistics do not indicate distortions of results because of correlation between independent variables. Variance inflation factors for all parameter estimates were less than 4, indicating that multicollinearity is not problematic (Bowerman and O’Connell, 1990).

Discussion

The current study tests the linkage between societal culture and PSM. The results suggest that people in collectivist, masculine, and indulgent cultures are more likely to display higher levels of PSM than are their counterparts in individualist, feminine, and restraint cultures. Collectivist cultures value ‘we’-consciousness and a sense of interdependence, and emphasize belonging and harmony. In collectivist societies, duties and obligations are important determinants of social behavior. Thus, engaging in behaviors that benefit others may be accepted as belonging to the duties and obligations of citizens. Societies that are characterized as masculine encourage individuals to be ambitious and to get a personal sense of accomplishment. Masculinity is related to achievement motivation (Hofstede, 1984). Thus, in masculine societies, people are more likely to actively participate in public and community activities in order to accomplish meaningful goals and pursue their values. In indulgent societies, there are higher percentages of very happy people who are more likely to have positive attitudes toward others and pursue democratic values. Thus, we can say that these cultural tendencies are likely to foster individuals’ PSM. However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance are not significantly related to PSM. This result suggests that helping other people and serving society may not be related to hierarchical orders, formal laws, and informal social rules, but to one’s willingness and attitude toward others and society. The cultural dimensions influencing one’s habitual mental attitude may be more important to PSM.

Culture affects the values, attitudes, assumptions, and expectations of individuals. Culture may shape PSM, influencing the perception that public service is more desirable and valuable. Socialization mechanisms may inculcate an appreciation for public service. Perry (1997) found different types of socialization, such as parental, political, religious, professional, or educational socialization, to be antecedents of PSM. Jacobson (2011) found that organizations can play an important role in the development of PSM among their employees. Through education and socialization procedures, managers and educators may build PSM-friendly culture, promoting positive attitudes toward others and society, and fostering the perception that people are dependent on each other and that doing good for others and society can be a meaningful goal.

Conclusion

Culture is a collective phenomenon because it is shared with people who live within the same social environment, which is where it was learned (Hofstede et al., 2010). This article develops and tests the relationship between national culture and people’s PSM. By examining the relatively large data set and using HLM, PSM is examined as an individual-level outcome variable that is influenced by national-level characteristics, which are represented by Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. The present article shows that masculinity and indulgence are, indeed, positively related to PSM, and that individualism is negatively associated with PSM.

This article has several limitations. First, as Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) explain, international comparative research is always subject to problems of comparability and conceptual equivalence. Similar words may reflect different social realities and therefore may have different meanings. Measurement items may not translate equally across countries and languages. The difficulty in measuring the outcome variables across contexts needs to be recognized. Second, the ISSP was not designed to measure PSM. For this reason, the multi-dimensional scales developed in previous research are not used (Kim et al., 2013; Perry, 1996). This article uses two items to represent PSM in previous studies. Future research should use more rigorous measures to evaluate PSM. Third, because the different sampling procedures were used at ISSP 2005, the level of social desirability bias could be different among countries. Social desirability bias means the respondent’s tendency to present himself in a favorable position with regard to social norms (Nunnally, 1978). Respondents have been shown to give more socially desirable responses in interview (face-to-face and telephone) surveys than in self-administration (e.g. postal) surveys (Bowling, 2005). Thus, we need to be aware of the potential effect of social desirability bias on the data distortion. Fourth, the article’s findings pertain to only 32 countries. We hope that future research can replicate this study in more countries to examine the relationships between national culture dimensions and PSM. Fifth, the composition of public sector employees may be different across the countries, and so it may affect the country-level relationship between culture and PSM. Houston (2011) demonstrates that both the locus and focus of an occupation are important to PSM. Certain occupations in some countries are included in the public sector but not in other countries. These selection effects could bias some of the test results. Finally, it should be noted that the direction of causation is debatable. We cannot be sure whether cultural dimensions influence PSM because the data are cross-sectional in nature. The ability to make causal statements about the hypothesized relationships is constrained.

As the first large-scale cross-national investigation of individuals’ PSM, this investigation expands prior theorizing and research considering individual and organizational characteristics as antecedents of PSM (Pandey and Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997). Unlike previous studies that have only proposed potential links between national culture and PSM, this study provides partial empirical support for the idea that national culture is associated with individuals’ PSM. This article makes a contribution because it is among a handful of studies considering the effects of national culture on PSM. This study provides partial support for the thesis that national culture is associated with individuals’ PSM, but future research needs to continue this line of work to explicate the relationship of national-level cultural characteristics to individuals’ PSM.

Footnotes

Funding

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A2A01017470).

Notes

Sangmook Kim is Professor of Public Administration at Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Seoul, Korea. His research interests are public service motivation, organizational behavior, human resources management, public management reform, and gender-related issues. His recent publications include: (co-authored, 2013) Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(1): 79–102; and (2013) Public Service Motivation in Korea (Seoul: Jipmoondang).

References

Ahlstrom

Bruton

(2002) An institutional perspective on the role of culture in shaping strategic actions by technology-focused entrepreneurial firms in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26: 53–70.

Ailon

(2008) Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s Consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review 33: 885–904.

Anderfuhren-Biget

(2012) Profiles of public service-motivated civil servants: Evidence from a multicultural country. International Journal of Public Administration 35: 5–18.

Anderfuhren-Biget

Varone

Giauque

(2014) Policy environment and public service motivation. Public Administration 92(4): 807–825.

Bellé

Cantarelli

(2012) Public service motivation: The state of the art. In: Tria

Valotti

(eds) Reforming the Public Sector: How to Achieve Better Transparency, Service, and Leadership, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 96–128.

Bowerman

O’Connell

(1990) Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach, Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Bowling

(2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 27: 281–291.

Bozeman

(2015) Public service motivation concepts and theory: A critique. Public Administration Review 75(5): 700–710.

Brewer

(2011) A symposium on public service motivation: Expanding the frontiers of theory and empirical research. Review of Public Personnel Administration 31: 3–9.

10.

Camilleri

(2007) Antecedents affecting public service motivation. Personnel Review 36: 356–377.

11.

DeHart-Davis

Marlowe

Pandey

(2006) Gender dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 66: 873–887.

12.

Hofmann

Gavin

(1998) Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management 24: 623–641.

13.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

14.

Hofstede

(1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, abridged edn, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Hofstede

(1991) Cultures and Organizations, London: Harper Collins Business.

16.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Hofstede

(2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1): http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 .

18.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

House

Hanges

Javidan

Dorfman

Gupta

(2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Houston

(2011) Implications of occupational locus and focus for public service motivation: Attitudes toward work motives across nations. Public Administration Review 71: 761–771.

21.

Jacobson

(2011) Creating a motivated workforce: How organizations can enhance and develop public service motivation (PSM). Public Personnel Management 40: 215–238.

22.

Kim

Vandenabeele

(2010) A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review 70: 701–709.

23.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

(2013) Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23: 79–102.

24.

Kreiser

Marino

Dickson

Weaver

(2010) Cultural influences on entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34: 959–983.

25.

Lewis

Frank

(2002) Who wants to work for the government? Public Administration Review 62: 395–404.

26.

McSweeney

(2002) Hofstede’s model on national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55: 89–118.

27.

Minkov

(2007) What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-cultural Data, Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika i Stil.

28.

Moynihan

Pandey

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

29.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

30.

Pandey

Stazyk

(2008) Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In: Perry

Hondeghem

(eds) Motivation in Public Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–117.

31.

Perry

(1996) Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6: 5–22.

32.

Perry

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

33.

Perry

Hondeghem

(2008) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Perry

Brudney

Coursey

Littlepage

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

35.

Perry

Hondeghem

Wise

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

36.

Raudenbush

Bryk

(2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Ritz

Brewer

(2013) Does societal culture affect public service motivation? Evidence of sub-national differences in Switzerland. International Public Management Journal 16: 224–251.

38.

Steijn

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

39.

Taras

Kirkman

Steel

(2010) Examining the impact of Culture’s Consequences: A three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 405–439.

40.

Tsui

Nifadkar

(2007) Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management 33: 426–478.

41.

Van de Walle S, Steijn B and Jilke S (2015) Extrinsic motivation, PSM and labour market characteristics: A multilevel model of public sector preference in 26 countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81(4): 833–855.

42.

Vandenabeele

Van de Walle

(2008) International differences in public service motivation: Comparing regions across the world. In: Perry

Hondeghem

(eds) Motivation in Public Management, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–246.

43.

Westover

Taylor

(2010) International differences in job satisfaction: The effects of public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 59: 811–828.

44.

Wise

(2000) The public service culture. In: Stillman

(ed.) Public Administration Concepts and Cases, 7th edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 342–353.

45.

Wright

Christensen

(2010) Public service motivation: A test of the job attraction–selection–attrition model. International Public Management Journal 13: 155–176.