Comparing Organizational Trust and Public Service Motivation Influence on Job and Organization Engagement Between Public and Private Sector Organizations Employees

Abstract

This study investigates sectoral differences in the socio-motivational mechanism behind job engagement and organization engagement. Relying on the Job Demands-Resource Model and using a cross-sectional study of 350 employees in the Israeli labor market, we conduct a multiple group comparison and analysis within an SEM framework to identify the mechanisms by which the employment sector relates to the mediating role of PSM via the link between organizational trust and job and organization engagement. Differences were observed between sectors as the presence of PSM empowered the organizational trust effect on two engagement factors (job, organization) only among public servants. More specifically, the findings underline that, first, an individual’s PSM is expressed differently among private than public organizations; second, organization and job engagement are differentially related to antecedents; third, employees may vary in terms of the extent to which they are engaged in their organization role and in their job.

Keywords

job engagement organization engagement organizational trust Public Service Motivation sectoral differences

Introduction

Employees perform better when engaged, thereby increasing productivity, innovation, and citizens’ satisfaction. Thus, employee engagement can be considered a performance measure for personnel management (OECD, 2021, p. 144). Gallup (2020) meta-analysis indicates that such a powerful relationship between employee engagement (as measured by Gallup’s Q¹² survey) and performance can be extrapolated across teams, organizations, industries, and countries. The importance of employee engagement research in public administration is further confirmed, as it leverages performance and positive workplace attitudes across sectors (Borst, 2018). While recent decades have witnessed an increasing body of research on employee engagement, there is an unfortunate dearth of studies investigating this behavior in the public sector context (Borst, 2018; Borst et al., 2019, 2020; Mostafa & Abed El-Motalib, 2020; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013). Much of our insight into this phenomenon derives from empirical studies conducted among private sector workers and has largely appeared in the OB and business literature or in global consulting reports. This article illuminates this issue by investigating whether the social and motivational factors predicting the two distinct types of engagement—job and organization engagements—differ significantly between the public and private sector.

As research on employee engagement progresses scholars have raised two arguments: First that individuals may be engaged—or the reverse—over various domains of their work lives (Byrne et al., 2016; Saks, 2006; Saks & Gruman, 2014; W. Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011), thus requiring clarification of precisely which type of engagement is being discussed (i.e., work, job, task, organization, group or team) (Saks & Gruman, 2014). This position is consistent with Rothbard’s (2001) notion that one’s degree of engagement depends on the role in question. The second argument holds that the antecedents and consequences of engagement themselves depend on the type of engagement (Saks, 2006). Although previous work indicates that job and organization engagements are related, yet distinct, constructs (Saks, 2006), most research has focused on the job or work as the target of employee engagement with significantly less attention being given to organization engagement, a related but still distinct target of employee engagement (Saks et al., 2022). Consequently, while engagement may be directed to targets other than the job and work, most of what we know from reports concerns job and work engagement (Saks et al., 2022), with far less being known about organization engagement.

A variety of antecedents have been generally linked to employee engagement (Breaugh, 2021). However, the specific motivational factors relating to each distinct type of engagement are less well understood. One open question concerns the issue whether the same generic factors explain distinct types of employee engagement, that is, job and organization engagement, across sectors, such as public service motivation (PSM) (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999; Buelens & Van Den Broeck, 2007; Mann, 2006; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000; Wittmer, 1991; Wright, 2001). This article thus explores whether a high level of PSM affects job and organization engagement among public sector and their private-sector counterparts.

In the exploration of the psychological-motivational processes likely to enhance these two distinct types of engagement, our investigation derives from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) suggesting that job resources (including social support) and personal resources both independently and/or in combination predict work engagement. The JD-R model also examines occupational well-being and highlights the complex mechanisms involved in the mix of demands and resources (Bakker et al., 2014, p. 401). However, our research concentrates solely on the motivational process, namely, how job resources predict personal resources and work engagement (p. 401). Thus, the research model incorporates specific job resources—organizational trust—as facilitating the key personal resource of PSM and two types of engagement. In line with previous studies, it is suggested that trust processes are necessary to cultivate individual PSM (Nyhan, 2000; Park, 2012) and employee engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008, 2011; Lin, 2010; Ugwu et al., 2014).

The proposed research model (see Figure 1) assumes differences in an individual’s motivational attitude, such as PSM, within work environments displaying dissimilar orientations—economic gain (private organizations) or social gain (public and non-profit organizations) (Andersen et al., 2011; Borst et al., 2019; Hansen & Kjeldsen, 2018). Despite the growing number of comparative cross-sector examinations on the topic of PSM (Andersen et al., 2011; Buelens & Van Den Broeck, 2007; Houston, 2000; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013, Prysmakova, 2021a; Rose, 2013; Taylor, 2010), the vast majority focus on the public sector (Prysmakova, 2021b, p. 100). This gap gives rise to the following key research questions:

How does PSM mediate the relationship between organizational trust and two specific types of employee engagement—job and organization—among front-line service employees?

Do these relationships between organizational trust-PSM-job and organization engagement differ between public servants and private sector employees in the Israeli context?

Understanding these questions permits a partial response to Mann’s (2006) question regarding the ramifications of PSM for personnel management in the public sector (p. 33). Practically, it helps management plan organizational trust and PSM intentions efficiently so as to facilitate employee job and organization engagement.

This article makes two contributions to engagement and PSM literature. As the first such comparative study to examine this research question among public and private staff employed in the Israeli labor market, it extends research on the global PSM perspective by focusing on the Israeli context. Second, the public sector in Israel offers fertile ground for this study due to the Government Decision No. 3993 (2011) to improve the human capital management mechanisms in the civil service, which led to “Human Capital Management Reform in the Civil Service” (Civil Service Commission, 2013), focusing on cultivating public servants’ engagement and PSM as key infrastructure for successful public performance. Further, the Israeli government response to recent Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2016, 2021) recommendations focuses on ensuring sustainable performance in the public administration context on the part of leading engaged public servants. Despite government’s strategy to illuminate the critical role of PSM as a key priority together with a decision to cultivate public servants’ engagement in the workplace, there remain glaring empirical and pragmatic deficits in our understanding of the social-motivational mechanism as these enhance different types of engagement. This article’s practical perspective offers novel empirical knowledge regarding this lacuna, thereby helping to develop and implement adjusted practical management tools tailored to strengthen public servants’ organizational trust, PSM and two specific types of engagement.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development

This study builds on the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, p. 218), which predicts engagement by categorizing working conditions as either resources or demands. This model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, p. 218) proposed that two groups—job resources (e.g., social support and autonomy) and personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy and optimism) play a role in motivating and stimulating engagement outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Bakker et al. (2014) introduced the JD-R model of occupational well-being suggesting that both burnout and work engagement predict outcomes for individual employees and for the wider organization. Burnout, which seems to be more strongly related to health outcomes, is mainly caused by high job demands and to a lesser extent by reduced job resources. Work engagement more strongly relates to motivational outcomes and is mostly a function of job resources. They conclude that “burnout and work engagement represent substantially different experiences and deserve their own attention from both researchers and practitioners” (p. 405).

In this respect, the current study focuses narrowly on the motivational process that begins with the availability of job resources and personal resources and which may stimulate work engagement outcomes. Our research model does not examine how both job demands and resources initiate different processes or their joint effects. Based in part on the comprehensive JD-R model, our main assumption holds that job resources predict personal resources and work engagement (p. 401). However, we extend the motivational process by examining specific defining job and personal resources that might influence two distinct types of engagement—job and organization. In terms of theoretical fit (Schaubroeck, 2013), the JD-R model enables us to make predictions about the way job resources at the organizational level and personal resources at the individual level reinforce individual’s job and organization engagement.

Our theoretical framework draws on Bakker’s (2015) suggestion regarding the uses of JD-R theory to build a model of PSM. As suggested, job resources are the initiators of a motivational process, and serve as the most important predictors of employee engagement (Bakker, 2015, p. 724). Correspondingly, included in the proposed research model are organizational trust (organizational level) under the category of job resources and PSM (individual level) under the category of personal resources. Organizational trust as a type of social support (Greenhaus et al., 2010, p. 279) is a strong predictor of future behavior (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006, p. 571). Job resources, such as social support, may play either an intrinsic or extrinsic motivational role (Bakker, 2015; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Personal resources entail PSM being integrated in the research model, as it falls under the category of an individual “key psychological resource” (Bakker, 2015, p. 726). We assume that employees maintaining a sense of calling, particularly PSM, are motivated to mobilize their own daily job resources to remain engaged. The JD-R model may be applied to all work environments and can be tailored to the specific occupation under consideration (Bakker et al., 2014, p. 399). It thus enables comparison among private versus public sector employees. Guided by this assumption, we utilize the JD-R model in the presentation of the suggested competing models.

Job Engagement and Organization Engagement

The concept of employee engagement gained momentum following Kahn’s (1990) foundational work on “personal engagement” with work, yet has been defined in different ways using various measures (Bailey et al., 2017). Over the years researchers have pointed to the need to distinguish between dominant types, definitions, and measures of concept engagement (Basit, 2017; Byrne et al., 2016; Saks & Gruman, 2014; W. Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011; Shuck et al., 2017). Two main classificatory definitions have emerged in the literature: employee engagement (Rich et al., 2010, p. 619) and work engagement (W. B. Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Both are described as multidimensional motivational states (Saks, 2022). The current study relies more heavily on Saks (2006, p. 602), who summarizes engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance.” Most employees have at least two roles—their work role and their role as a member of the organization—and Saks suggests that engagement is specific to the role that is under consideration. As he initially noted “one way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. That is, employees will choose to engage themselves to varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive from their organization.” (p. 603). Further, and continuing the line of thought developed by Saks (2006) and Saks and Gruman (2014), we contend that an employee might be highly engaged in activities associated with their role as a member of the organization while at the same time feeling disengaged from their job or the reverse.

While Saks (2006) did not offer a specific definition for organization engagement, he did argue that one can extend or generalize the definition of employee engagement to different targets or roles (Saks et al., 2022). Further, Saks et al. (2022) suggest that organization engagement be defined as “the harnessing of organization members” selves to their organizational role; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during organization role performances (p.4). This definition derives from Kahn’s (1990) notion of personal engagement. Drawing on this, our study targets an examination of whether organizational trust (as a job resource) and PSM (as personal resource) affects one’s job and organization engagement by comparing employment sectors.

Organizational Trust, Job Engagement, and Organization Engagement

A scholarly consensus exists concerning organizational trust’s vital role within the organizational atmosphere and such processes as teamwork, leadership, goal setting, and cooperative behavior (Alfes et al., 2016; Jones & George, 1998; Mayer et al., 1995). The current study refers to Nyhan and Marlowe’s (1997) definition of trust as “the level of confidence that one individual has in another to act in a fair, ethical, and predictable manner” (p. 615). In line with Lee et al. (2020), we then draw on Zucker’s (1986) view that trust is associated with positive expectations grounded in the exchange of strong beliefs, reliable attitudes, and shared values between colleagues at work. Previous studies show that trust is a predictor of positive employee outcomes such as commitment, motivation, and intention to remain in the public sector (Gould-Williams, 2007; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). As suggested, there is no single factor that so thoroughly affects individuals’ behavior as does trust (Lin, 2010). Previous evidence indicates employees are more likely to engage with their work when they perceive a high level of organizational trust (e.g., Chughtai & Buckley, 2008; Lin, 2010). Whereas organizational trust represents individuals’ confidence and expectations about the actions of their organizations, engagement reflects their enthusiasm about their work as assigned by the organization, implying the potential influence of the former on the latter (Lin, 2010).

Following the line of thought developed by Saks et al. (2022), we suggest that individuals can extend or generalize their engagement to different targets or roles, and assume that, in both sectors (the public and private), an individual’s trust in their organization (i.e., policies, goals, values, and coworkers or managerial decisions) increases a willingness to harness themselves to their organizational role. Employees dedicate themselves to the organization when they experience trusting relationships with their organization (Gill, 2008). Similarly, we assume that when employees believe they are valued and treated fairly through their work and within their organizational interactions, they are also likely to be more engaged in their job. When an employee retains confidence that their colleagues and organization have made competent decisions, this also increases their sense of having a future with the organization, and thus enhances their willingness to engage with their work (see Lin, 2010). Employees with high levels of organizational trust as a type of social support (Greenhaus et al., 2010) are more likely to perform tasks with greater effort, since situations that promote trust create a clear and predictable work environment enabling risk-taking and investment in work performance (Alfes et al., 2016; Kahn, 1990). In contrast, if employees sense that their organization has failed to fulfill promised inducements or policies, reduced organizational trust is the almost inevitable consequence (Robinson, 1996), resulting in disengagement from job and organization. Consequently, the hypotheses regarding the influence of organizational trust on two distinct types of engagement can be introduced as follows:

H1a: Organizational trust will be positively related to job engagement in both the public and private sectors.

H1b: Organizational trust will be positively related to organization engagement in both the public sector and private sectors.

Sectoral Differences in the PSM–Job and Organization Engagement Relationship

PSM refers to a particular type of motivation (Pedersen, 2013) expressed in different approaches and by various definitions. Initially, PSM was conceptually linked with the public sector and defined as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368). Scott and Pandey (2005) suggest that the concept of PSM is reflective of an intrinsic desire to perform work that is deemed worthwhile for society out of commitment to public service. Subsequent definitions, however, provide more global conceptualizations, transcending public sector affiliation and associating the construct with other related concepts. For example, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) define PSM as a “general, altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or humankind” (p. 23). Vandenabeele (2007) suggests that PSM is “the belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate” (p. 547). Pandey et al. (2008) suggest that “rather than simply a theory of public employee motivation, PSM actually represents an individual’s predisposition to enact altruistic or pro-social behaviors regardless of setting” (pp. 91–92). As these manifold definitions indicate, the conceptualization of the role of PSM as uniquely present in public institutions and organizations is the subject of scholarly controversy.

A body of researchers has noted that PSM does not represent a public sector-specific measure of work motivation; rather it exhibits a particular type of motivation prevalent in the public sector, while also retaining relevance for studying volunteers’ motivations (see Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2010; Clerkin et al., 2009). Others posit that PSM underscores the unique motives and “other-regarding” behavior public servants display (Clerkin & Coggburn, 2012). It may be considered an attitude favoring the public good (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010; Pandey et al., 2008; van Witteloostuijn et al., 2017). Perry et al. (2010) have noted that PSM is not uniquely found in government organizations but is grounded in the tasks of public service provision and is more prevalent in government than other sectors. PSM as a concept itself transcends sectors, but individuals with high levels of PSM are more likely to self-select into the public sector. Since PSM also has been presented as a motive to serve, volunteer, or otherwise act to set aside self-interest to benefit others (Anderfuhren-Biget et al., 2010), it can be assumed that it is not a construct solely affecting public sector employees (Brewer & Selden, 1998; van Witteloostuijn et al., 2017); private sector employees also may display PSM if they have this sense of altruism. Together with Steen’s (2008) argument that PSM is associated with potential benefits in both private sector and public sector organizations, it is suggested that PSM also can be treated as “a common denominator for a set of largely altruistic and pro-social motives associated with serving the public good” (Pedersen, 2013, p. 360). These mixed approaches, together with inconclusive empirical findings on differences in PSM among the public and private sectors (Borst et al., 2019; Kjeldsen & Hansen, 2018; Liu et al., 2012; Pedersen, 2013), raise the question regarding its nature, influence and presence in different work environment or sectors.

This study is underpinned by previous work indicating that, despite the similarities noted above, public servants still value differing motives than do private sector employees and are more likely to place a higher value on the intrinsic reward work perceived as “important,” which provides a sense of accomplishment, and less on extrinsic reward motivators such as higher income and shorter hours (Houston, 2000). Andersen and Kjeldsen (2013) demonstrate that public or private employment does indeed matter to the PSM–job satisfaction relationship—even when they compare employees performing the same jobs in both two sectors. Other empirical studies indicate that PSM stimulates public servant’s engagement (Borst et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Noesgaard & Hansen, 2018). Further, while employees in both sectors may hold altruistic and pro-social motives associated with serving the public good, we assume that, first, public servants display a different level of PSM when compared to their counterparts in the private sector. Here we depart from most studies, however. Rather than simply studying sectoral differences of organizational PSM and employee engagement, we broaden the scope of discussion to include the distinction between job and organization engagement. This is to state that, beyond sectoral differences regarding the role of PSM, it possibly affects an individual’s job engagement but not necessarily his or her organization engagement or the reverse. As previous studies indicate, when public sector employees experience a PSM–work environment fit and feel that they can contribute to society while supporting others in performing their jobs, they are more likely to be satisfied (Kjeldsen & Hansen, 2018; Steijn, 2008; Wright & Pandey, 2008) and remain engaged (Borst et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Noesgaard & Hansen, 2018). Basing our argument on the foregoing, we contend that public service-motivated employees are expected to display higher levels of job engagement when they have the opportunity to act pro-socially in their job. Otherwise, they are likely to experience a discrepancy between motivation (making a positive difference in the lives of others) and the opportunity to fulfill this in their job. This position is further supported by Hackman and Oldham (1976), who theorized that task significance leads to feelings of job meaningfulness. It the same line, we assume that when public service-motivated employees feel they can display their PSM as part of their sense of their belonging to their organization they are likely to express a high level of organization engagement.

In sum, we consider that the broad pro-social work environment of public sector organizations and the characteristics of the pro-social job in the public service provide more opportunities to display PSM or act pro-socially. Therefore, we hold that when comparing public and private sector employees performing similar jobs there are important reasons for expecting sector differences in the PSM–and the two types of engagement relationship. As a result of the discussion above, we have established the following hypotheses:

H2a: The positive relationship between PSM and job engagement is stronger in the public sector than in the private sector.

H2b: The positive relationship between PSM and organization engagement is stronger in the public sector than in the private sector.

The discussion now turns to an explanation of the mediating role of PSM in the link between organizational trust and an individual’s job and organization engagement.

The Mediating Role of PSM Between Organizational Trust, Job, and Organization Engagement

A recent comparative study indicates that public servants have different personalities and work in different institutional contexts, and that these differences influence their work engagement (Borst, 2018). Similarly, it has been found that enhanced PSM serves as a core component are likely to increase public servants’ employee engagement (Borst et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Noesgaard & Hansen, 2018). Building on that, we argue that employees with a high level of personal resources such as PSM are likely to use their daily job resources (i.e., social support from colleagues) to fulfill their work with energy and dedication: this is high work engagement. Based on previous studies, the foregoing underscores the positive impact of organizational trust on public servants’ PSM (Park, 2012; Chen et al., 2014). Organizational trust has been identified as a predictor of positive employee outcomes, such as commitment, motivation, and intention to remain in the public sector (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008; Gould-Williams, 2007; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Lin, 2010). Further, we hold that trust perceptions will increase an individual’s PSM (expressed in their willingness to contribute to society), which, in turn, enhances their organization and job engagement. Finally, since PSM matters for public sector employees’ work satisfaction and engagement (Borst, 2018; Borst et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Noesgaard & Hansen, 2018), there will be found sectoral differences in the mediation role of PSM in the relationship between organizational trust and the two types of engagement. Despite evidence that organizational trust nurtures an individual’s PSM (Nyhan, 2000; Park, 2019) and that PSM leads to higher engagement behaviors among public servants (Borst et al., 2019; Lavigna, 2015), precisely how this pattern predicts one’s job engagement and organization engagement across different sectors remains unexplored. This then leads to the following hypotheses:

H3a: PSM acts as a significant mediating variable in the relationship between organizational trust and job engagement in the public sector but not in the private sector.

H3b: PSM acts as a significant mediating variable in the relationship between organizational trust and organization engagement in the public sector but not in the private sector.

Research Model

Methodology and Results

The Israeli Public Sector Context

This study was conducted in the Israeli labor market, where, according to the Bank of Israel (2021) (Panel Z-1: Demographic Characteristics and Workforce), approximately 4,128,700 total employees are divided between the private (2,666,100) and public sectors (1,470,300).

As in many developed nations, over the last decade the Israeli public sector has faced major challenges in its efforts to establish a national strategy for evaluating government performance and improving public service motivation (Policy Paper, The Israel Democracy Institute, 2014). Following OECD (2016, 2021) recommendations focusing on ensuring sustainable performance in the public administration context by leading engaged public servants, Israel participated in the 2020 OECD pilot comparing various aspects of work and organization engagement and public service motivation. Our survey was conducted in this real-world context, where the government implemented national reform to support public servants’ internal motivation and engagement at the workplace.

Procedure and Participants

A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was used to collect data. Both public and private sector organizations (under certain conditions) were invited to participate. An online survey was conducted using iPanel, a broad and representative database online panel in Israel (http://www.ipanel.co.il/en/academic-research/). iPanel operates the largest panel in Israel, permitting access to diverse populations (within both sectors) in the content of selective populations and containing many segments. Ipanel adheres to the most stringent European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR) criteria. The representative sample includes components that match with key characteristics in the entire population and both the Israeli public and private sectors (income, gender, sector, family status, geographical distribution, and religion). It proportionally reflects specific characteristics as exemplified in our study’s target population. Demographically, the sample included a proportional number of participants from all five main geographical districts in Israel.

Survey data were collected among 350 employees at two chronological points separated by a lag of 2 months to reduce any potential influence of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). More specifically, proximal separation techniques were used to reduce the potential influence of common method bias in the employee surveys. A survey measuring organizational trust, PSM, and demographic information was distributed at the first time period, followed approximately 2 months later by a second survey measuring job and organization engagement. In the first wave of the online survey, a total of 450 employees completed the entire questionnaire (an 82% response rate). Following that, the second part of the survey was completed by 352 participants. The two questionnaire waves were paired, providing complete data for 350 participants; 188 from the private sector (53.7%) and 162 from the public sector (46.3%), yielding a total response rate of 77%. Respondents were categorized according to job description within customer service in the public and private sectors: 155 managers and 195 non-managers. The participants in this cross-sectional study were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) voluntary participation for the study and (b) their core occupation included customer service. These criteria do not reveal information about the specific occupational position in each sector. By using a rigorous screening question, we ensured that all participants are appropriately fit for this study as their core occupation is customer service, which we consider essential to this research.

Seniority averages were in the organization were as follows:22.1 years and 9.3 years corresponding to the length of time that individuals served in their role; 10.4 years for managers and 8.5 years for non-managers. 166 of the participants are male (47.4%) and 184 are female (52.6%). 133 employees hold a bachelor degree (38%), 61 hold master degree (17.4%), and 153 possess various professional certifications (43.7%).

Measurement

The proposed scales were adapted from prior relevant literature. To ensure the accuracy of the original scales and items the survey was initially created in English, then translated into Hebrew following McGorry’s (2000) procedures.

Organizational Trust was measured by the four-item scale developed by Huff and Kelley (2003). Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. (α = .79). The items included: (1) There is very high level of trust throughout this organization; (2) In this organization, subordinates have a great deal of trust in managers; (3) If someone in this organization makes a promise, others within the organization will almost always trust that the person will do his or her best to fulfill it; (4) Managers in this company trust their subordinates to make good decisions.

PSM: We use a validated five-item global measure of PSM, which assesses personal interest in performing public service work globally (Wright et al., 2013). Thus, PSM is modeled as a univariate construct based on an abridged version of the original PSM measure (see Kim et al., 2013; Perry, 1996). A five-item global measure of PSM was used and found to be empirically distinguishable from a measure of prosocial motivation used in organizational behavior research (Wright et al., 2013). The items were: (1) Meaningful public service is very important to me; (2) I am often reminded by daily events how dependent we are on one another; (3) Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements; (4) I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society, and; (5) I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others, even if it means I will be ridiculed. Each of the five items was measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” 1 to “Strongly Agree” 5. Cronbach’s alpha for the PSM scale was .82.

Job and organization engagement were measured using a modified version of Saks (2006) work engagement scale. Items focus on assessing a participant’s psychological presence in their job and organization. The organization engagement scale consists of six items: (1) Being a member of this organization is very captivating; (2) One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in this organization; (3) I am really not into the “goings-on” in this organization (R); (4) Being a member of this organization make me come “alive”; (5) Being a member of this organization is exhilarating for me; (6) I am highly engaged in this organization. The five items for job engagement were: (1) I really “throw” myself into my job; (2) Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time; (3) This job is all-consuming; I am totally into it; (4) My mind often wanders and I think of other things when doing my job (R); (5) I am highly engaged in this job. Participants indicated their response on a five-point Likert-type scale with anchors at 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The organization engagement scale had an internal reliability of 0.90 and the job engagement scale 0.82.

Control variables: Variables were controlled, including sector, gender, education level, employee’s role (manager vs. non-manager), and seniority (years in the organization) to examine if demographic characteristics have any significant impact on a model. As recommended by Cafferkey et al. (2019), we include these in an exploratory sense.

Methods

In this study, a core comparison was made between public and private sector employees. Thus, we applied the multiple group comparison approach within a conceptual structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. This analytical approach permits us to generalize about hypothesized sectoral differences. More specifically, we tested sectoral invariance across latent factors and pathways by means of gradual equality constraints compared to a free estimated (configural) model (Hong et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2017). The process of building a structural model requires preliminary construct validation in a measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis, that is, a model that assesses the fit between the empirical data and the theoretical constructs (Wang & Wang, 2019), namely model specification. The resultant theoretical model was followed by a structural model that explored direct regression effects, for example, from Organizational Trust to PSM and from PSM to Organization and Job Engagement, as well as indirect effects, for example, from Organizational Trust to Organization and Job Engagement through PSM. All analyses were performed by the Mplus statistical software V.8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2018). For better fit we included minor modifications such that the baseline model met fit criteria, for example, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Measurement model: The theoretical model included four constructs: Organization Engagement, Job Engagement, PSM, and Organizational Trust, for which we attempted to fit empirical latent factors, based on relevant survey instruments. An overall confirmatory model fit quality exceeded required thresholds for accepted fit quality: CFI = .961, TLI = .952, RMSEA = .058, χ² = 303.52, df = 140, p < .001, SRMR = .053. These results validated construct structures, that is, the way employees perceived these constructs. Separated measurement models were assigned for the two sectors and resulted in similar above threshold fit quality (Private sector: CFI = .940, TLI = .928, RMSEA = .074, χ² = 286.67, df = 141, p < .001, SRMR = .066; Public sector: CFI = .949, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .063, χ² = 233.39, df = 142, p < .001, SRMR = .059). At each measurement stage, items were dropped due to unacceptably low loading. In addition, item correlations were added to improve model fit if these correlations were theoretically justified. Taken together, these were preliminary tests to confirm the theoretical constructs in the full sample and when divided by sectors in a group comparison. In group-comparison our intent was that the model be tested subject to gradual constraints. First, the free unconstrained, configural model was estimated; see Table 1 for factor loadings. Factor loadings were freely estimated for each sector in the comparative model. These results were then compared to the weak and strong invariance tests. The χ² difference test revealed that constraining the factor loadings to be equal across the four factors did not result in a meaningful fit reduction (Δχ² = 22.99, df = 15, p = .084), whereas the strong invariance test resulted in a significant difference (Δχ² = 46.60, df = 30, p = .027). In contrast, the reduction in the CFI (weak invariance = .001; strong invariance = .004) was smaller than the recommended threshold for rejection (ΔCFI = .01) (Wang & Wang, 2019). We may conclude at this point that employees from both sectors perceive the four factors similarly (equal loadings) but have different factor levels (unequal intercepts). Independent t-test comparisons across the calculated indicators for the four factors revealed that public employees were higher on PSM (t = 3.69, p < .001) and lower on Organizational Trust (t = −2.26, p = .025) in comparison to their private sector counterparts, while no significant sectoral difference was found in the Organization and Job Engagement indicators. However, as the index for error measurement SRMR increased in the constrained models above the .08 commonly accepted threshold we kept the weakly constrained factors in further structural models.

Table 1.

Measurement Model Results, Factor Loadings, and Invariance Test.

	Organizational trust	PSM	Job engagement	Organization engagement
	F8	F9	F16	F17
Free unconstrained estimation
	Loadings	Loadings	Loadings	Loadings
Private sector
ITEM 1	.80	.69	.81	.84
ITEM 2	.92	.69	.83	.83
ITEM 3	.91	.77	.76	-
ITEM 4	.81	.64	.78	.76
ITEM 5		.61	-	.78
ITEM 6			.74	.74
Alpha	.92	.82	.90	.91
Composite reliability	.92	.81	.89	.89
AVE	.81	.53	.73	.68
MSV	.27	.27	.40	.40
Means	3.59	3.28	3.81	3.26
SD	0.98	0.81	0.79	0.91
Public sector
ITEM 1	.82	.60	.78	.87
ITEM 2	.97	.57	.72	.91
ITEM 3	.79	.83	.66	-
ITEM 4	.78	.75	.80	.74
ITEM 5		.66	-	.81
ITEM 6			.72	.78
Alpha	.89	.81	.85	.92
Composite reliability	.91	.82	.86	.91
AVE	.80	.53	.63	.72
MSV	.24	.24	.25	.25
Means	3.36	3.60	3.90	3.20
SD	0.93	0.82	0.69	0.99

Note. Dashed cells if item was dropped due to poor loading.

Model Goodness-of-Fit:

Configural model: CFI = .944, TLI = .933, RMSEA = .069, χ² = 520.05, df = 283, p < .001, Private: χ² = 286.67, p < .001; Public: χ² = 233.39, p < .001; SRMR = .063; Metric model (weak): CFI = .942, TLI = .934, RMSEA = .069, χ² = 543.30, df = 298, p < .001, Private: χ² = 297.30, p < .001; Public: χ² = 246.62, p < .001; SRMR = .072; Scalar model (strong): CFI = .940, TLI = .934, RMSEA = .068, χ² = 567.53, df = 313, p < .001, Private: χ² = 307.52, p < .001; Public: χ² = 260.01, p < .001; SRMR = .074.

A complementary analysis was applied for the common method variance (CMV) (Fuller et al., 2016; Podsakoff et al., 2003). In a common method variance, the four-factor structure was compared to alternative factor structures and was found superior by means of model fit. The internal consistency was also assessed for each factor as appears in the composite reliability (CR; Raykov, 1997), and alpha in Table 1. For both sectors, these consistency measurements indicated highly reliable factors, for example, alpha > .80. To complete this preliminary analysis, we compared composite reliabilities to bivariate correlations to determine discriminant validity, that is, the extent to which the factors were independent of each other. The maximum shared variance (MSV) was used against the average variance extracted (AVE) to determine discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). For convergent validity, the AVE values were above .50 for all factors. However, the MSV was lower across all factors, which supported discriminant validity. Although the estimated factor correlations were positive and significant, factors could be considered as independent, even in the case of r = .76 between Organizational Trust and PSM among private sector employees (Brown, 2019).

We conducted multiple tests to detect possible factor bias. First, the single factor alternative was compared to the four-factor structure. This comparison resulted in model fit below acceptance threshold for the one-factor CFA (TLI = .899, SRMR = .089) lending support for the superiority of the four-factor structure. The Harman (1976) test for percent of shared variance in the single factor was 39%, which is below an expected 50%. Finally, two marker variables were used following Simmering et al. (2015)—age and education, where the first was less ideal than the second. Age was positively associated with the four factors, while education was not associated with any of the four factors. We captured education level and age (as expressed in seniority) in the final SEM model. In sum, an attempt was made to reduce common method variance among the self-reported measures by distributing the perception scales and the employability outcome scales at two different time periods. Results of a Harman one-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) revealed that common method variance was not a serious obstacle to this study.

The structural model: To test the hypotheses, we constructed a structural model that estimated the associations between factors in each sector simultaneously. The final structural model included additional background indicators for gender, education level, employee’s role (manager vs. non-manager), and seniority (years in the organization). Model results are presented in Table 2. Among private sector employees, women scored higher on Organizational Trust in comparison to men (β = .18, p < .05), whereas among public sector employees, women were more engaged to their job when compared to men (β = .23, p < .01). Organizational Trust and PSM were higher among managers in comparison to non-manager employees in the public sector (β = .15, p < .05; β = .17, p < .05; respectively), but no difference was assessed between managers and non-manager employees in the private sector. In contrast, private sector managers scored higher on their job engagement and organization engagement in comparison to private non-manager employees (β = .24, p < .001; β = .17, p < .05; respectively). Both the seniority and education factors did not show a significant effect on the research factors.

Table 2.

Structural Model Results, Direct Standardized Coefficients.

	Organizational trust	PSM	Job engagement	Organization engagement
Private
Gender	.18* (.07)	.02 (.07)	−.05 (.08)	−.004 (.07)
Education	−.03 (.08)	−.06 (.07)	−.001 (.07)	.06 (.07)
Manager	.14 (.08)	.10 (.08)	.24*** (.07)	.17* (.07)
Seniority	.07 (.08)	.03 (.08)	−.04 (.10)	.02 (.09)
Organizational trust		.56*** (.08)	.25* (.12)	.36** (.11)
PSM			.12 (.12)	.17 (.11)
Job engagement				Corr = .71*** (.06)
R ²	.05 (.03)	.34*** (.09)	.20** (.06)	.29*** (.08)
Public
Gender	.08 (.08)	.04 (.08)	.23** (.08)	.05 (.08)
Education	−.13 (.08)	−.13 (.08)	−.12 (.08)	.02 (.07)
Manager	.15* (.08)	.17* (.08)	.15 (.08)	.13 (.08)
Seniority	−.04 (.08)	−.09 (.08)	.11 (.08)	.05 (.07)
Organizational Trust		.49*** (.08)	.00 (.11)	.22* (.10)
PSM			.37** (.12)	.33** (.11)
Job Engagement				Corr. = .57*** (.09)
R²	.04 (.03)	.31*** (.07)	.28*** (.08)	.28** (.08)

***

p < .001. ** p < .01. *p < .05; Model Goodness-of-Fit: CFI = .934, TLI = .923, RMSEA = .062, χ² = 709.30, df = 425, p < .001, Private: χ² = 381.32, p < .001; Public: χ² = 327.98, p < .001; SRMR = .067.

The organizational trust factor was positively associated with PSM and job and organization engagement factors among the private employees (PSM: β = .56, p < .001; job engagement: β = .25, p < .05; organization engagement: β = .36, p < .01). However, among public sector employees, organizational trust was significantly associated with PSM and organization engagement (PSM: β = .49, p < .001; organization engagement: β = .22, p < .05) but not with job engagement. PSM among private sector employees was not associated with their job and organization engagement factors, while among their public counterparts, the PSM was positively associated with job and organization engagement (β = .37, p < .01; β = .33, p < .05; respectively). A post-hoc comparison between these regression weights did not indicate differences except the effect of organization trust on job engagement (d = −2.05, p = .041).

Indirect effects: One salient advantage in SEM models lies in the ability to determine indirect effects, which are indirect paths from independent variables to dependent variables in the presence of mediating variables. In this model, we tested the indirect effect of organizational trust on the engagement variables in the presence of PSM. We hypothesized that organizational trust may affect job and organization engagement through PSM, as an alternative mechanism to the direct effect, if it exists. We present empirical mediation results in Table 3. Results support possible indirect effects among public sector employees (Organizational Trust → PSM → Job Engagement: Indirect = 0.09, p < .05; Organizational Trust → PSM → Organization Engagement: Indirect = 0.19, p < .05). However, this mechanism was not found among private sector employees. Based on these results, it may be argued that the presence of PSM empowered the organizational trust effect on the two engagement factors in the public sectors, where organizational trust showed limited direct effect; whereas in the private sector organizational trust did not rely on PSM to show positive effect on engagement. We then propose complete and partial mediation effects of PSM on job engagement and organization engagement, respectively, among public sector employees only. We may describe this alternative mechanism as a positive effect of organizational trust on PSM, which in turn, positively affects the two engagement factors. A test of mediation difference shows that the first mediation is smaller than the second, significant however at p < .10 (Figure 2).

Table 3.

Indirect Effects From Organizational Trust to Job and Organization Engagement Through PSM, Unstandardized Coefficients.

	Indirect Path	Indirect	95% CI Indirect	Direct	Total
Private
	Organizational Trust → PSM → Job Engagement	0.04 (0.04)	[−0.03, 0.13]	0.14* (0.07)	0.18*** (0.05)
	Organizational Trust → PSM → Organization Engagement	0.10 (0.08)	[−0.01, 0.28]	0.37** (0.11)	0.46*** (0.09)
Public
	Organizational Trust → PSM → Job Engagement	0.09* (0.05)	[0.04, 0.19]	0.00 (0.06)	0.09* (0.05)
	Organizational Trust → PSM → Organization Engagement	0.19* (0.08)	[0.06, 0.38]	0.26* (0.11)	0.44*** (0.10)

***

p < .001. ** p < .01. *p < .05.

Discussion

This article focuses on an investigation of sectoral differences between the socio-motivational mechanism of organizational trust and PSM as enhancing two types of employee engagement—job and organization. The findings of this study have a number of implications for theory, research, and practice.

First, in the context of employee engagement literature, our study departs from previous work by highlighting the importance of revealing the specific antecedents of job and organization engagement through a comparative lens of public sector and private sector employees. This study approached employee engagement as role-specific with respect to one’s job and organization. We attempt to fill part of an existing gap in the engagement literature about whether the same antecedents predict distinct types of employee engagement: job and organization engagements across different sectors. In fact, the results support previous studies indicating that job and organization engagements are related but distinct constructs (Saks, 2006) resulting from different antecedents. The sectorial comparison between public servants and private sector employees revealed that the psychological-motivational process that leads to job and organization engagements among public servants are not the same as the public sector. In partial support of H1a and H1b, the results show that among private sector employees the organizational trust factor was positively associated with job and organization engagement. However, among public employees, organizational trust was significantly associated with organization engagement but not with job engagement. This supports the results first reported by Saks (2006) to the effect that organizational and job engagement are differentially related to antecedents. The finding also endorses Saks et al.’s (2022) notion that, like job engagement, employees can also vary in terms of the extent to which they are engaged in their organization role.

Second, this article addresses multiple gaps within the PSM and employee engagement literature. No published study to date has empirically or conceptually examined the mediating role of PSM in the relationship between organizational trust and two distinct types of engagement (job and organization) and comparing employment sectors. In the literature, the vast majority of PSM studies focus on the public sector (Prysmakova, 2021b; Ritz et al., 2016) while in recent years the number of comparative cross-sector observations has constantly grown (Andersen et al., 2011; Kjeldsen & Jacobsen, 2013, p. 21; Rose, 2013; Taylor, 2010). This study follows the line of this recent stream of comparative research and extends the development of PSM and engagement literature.

As the study of PSM has progressed, researchers also have proposed that (1) PSM is an individual, not a sector- based concept, (2) it is not a construct solely affecting public sector employees, and (3) private sector employees may display PSM when they experience altruism (Brewer & Selden, 1998; van Witteloostuijn et al., 2017). With a target of the controversial issue of PSM and sectoral differences, our findings reinforce the former argument that work attitudes, motivation, and PSM among public sector employees is very different from that of their private-sector counterparts (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999; Buelens & Van Den Broeck, 2007; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000; Wittmer, 1991; Wright, 2001). In the context of H2a and H2b this study lends support to the notion that the relationship between PSM and job and organization engagement is stronger in the public than in the private sector. It was found that PSM among private sector employees was not associated with their job and organization engagement factors, while among their public counterparts PSM was positively associated with job and organization engagement. In this vein, the findings confirm the mediation hypotheses H3a and H3b, as it was found that in the public sector the presence of PSM empowered the organizational trust effect on the job and organization engagement, whereas in the private sector, organizational trust did not rely on PSM to show a positive effect on either type of engagement. This is not to state that PSM does not exist among private sector employees or to imply an absence of some predisposition to altruistic or pro-social behaviors. Rather, the argument is that PSM matters more for positive work behaviors as job and organization engagements among public servants. Based on the analysis of these findings, it can be concluded that, unlike private sector workers, public servants possess different intrinsic motivational factors—the unique motive for public service (PSM), but to elicit the two distinct types of engagement (job and organization), the social-organizational component of organizational trust is also required.

Third, this study provides support for the theoretical argument derived from the JD-R Model to the effect that job and personal resources are important determinants of employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2011, 2014; Halbesleben, 2010). Regarding the JD-R model of occupational well-being (Bakker et al., 2014), the findings support part of the motivational process among public sector employees. Following the extension of the original JD–R model and the inclusion of personal resources, our work confirms the way job resources (organizational trust) predict personal resources (PSM) and two distinct types of engagement (job and organization) among public servants. While the JD-R model’s basic premise is that the more resources an employee possesses, the more engaged they will be, to date precisely which resources and why some resources rather than others might be more important for fostering different types of engagement remain unexplained. In this regard, Crawford et al. (2010) have noted that a “limitation of the job demands–resources model is that it does not include all relevant predictors of employee engagement or burnout. Its greatest use is to broadly categorize working conditions as either resources or demands in predicting engagement” (p. 844). It should be noted that PSM as a personal factor has hardly been empirically related to the JD-R model of employee engagement (Bakker, 2015; Borst et al., 2017). By providing empirical support for the notion that an individual’s PSM is expressed differently among private organizations public organizations (e.g., Andersen et al., 2011; Borst et al., 2019; Hansen & Kjeldsen, 2018) we emphasize the importance of the work environment as well as the motivational process that begins with the availability of specific job resources and personal resources which stimulate engagement outcomes.

Conclusions

This study set out to compare employment sectors regarding the influence of organizational trust and PSM on employee job and organization engagement. While previous research has established links between PSM and employees’ engagement (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018; Borst et al., 2017; De Simone et al., 2016; Lavigna, 2015), this study contributes to this line of thought by explaining two types of engagement (job and organization) and the mechanism underpinning them. The salient contribution offered in this study lies in the insight that there are significant differences between employment sectors that are relevant to understanding antecedents for employee job and organization engagement. Our findings underline that: (1) an individual’s PSM is expressed differently among private than public organizations; (2) organization and job engagement are differentially related to antecedents; (3) employees may vary in terms of the extent to which they are engaged in their organization role and in their job. In conclusion, this study emphasizes the importance of not only studying simple sectoral differences, but also encompassing relevant social, personal, and motivational components that can interpret the mechanisms behind such differences.

Certain practical implications for HRM, both mid- and high-level management and for executives, arise from this study. First, the results of this study shows that the influence of job resources and personal resources, in our case—organizational trust and PSM on employee engagement depends on the type of engagement (job or organization) and the sector under consideration (private or public). More generally, organizations and leaders seeking increased engagement in the workplace might consider that one’s degree of engagement depends on the role in question (Rothbard, 2001) that is, job or organization engagement. Consistent with Saks’s (2006) view that “a ‘one size fits all’ approach to employee engagement might not be the most effective” (p. 614), leaders and supervisors should recognize what employees’ most desired job and personal resources are and which are most likely to create a sense of obligation that is reciprocated with greater levels of and different types of engagement. Our findings suggest that organizational trust is a significant resource for the specific type of organization engagement in both the public and private sectors. Accordingly, to recruit highly engaged employees, who display proactivity and energy at their work within the organization, and who are not merely satisfied (passive) employees, it is useful for HRM to implement programs demonstrating the real advantage of social support which caring employees receive from their organization.

One promising application of this study concerns encouraging line managers to build a healthy and trusting personal relationships among their staff, one that helps employees foster closer connections with colleagues and greater care toward their organization. It is important to note that trust in one’s employer plays a key role in augmenting connective relationships while fostering thriving at work (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Programs that enable reciprocal support and trust between colleagues tend to result in that employee becoming more engaged with their organization: Specifically, an employee who feels that being a member of this organization make them “come alive.”

Second, this article considers the specific Israeli public sector context, where employees participated in a recent OECD (2021) pilot (together with six other countries) focusing on measuring and leading motivated and engaged public servants. In this regard, given that “employee engagement is based on trust within organizations, and, as such, can be hard to build and easy to break, especially during times of austerity” (OECD, 2016, p. 58), the findings are applicable to HRM strategies oriented to maximizing the benefit of trust behavior among employees, as these play a substantial role in increasing public servants’ engagement.

Finally, since organizational trust likely leverages an individual’s PSM, HRM leaders should recognize trust perceptions as social support instruments underpinning desired pro-social outcomes. By using their strategic managerial skills, public sector managers may nurture trust (between employees and the organization) as a core, indispensable social element shaping an individual’s PSM. Specifically, building a harmonious working environment encourages employees to respect and help each other, thereby enhancing their willingness to take the initiative in contributing to public services. In times of reduced or constrained resources, public organizations highly depend on social and personal resources to sustain motivated employees dedicated to the public’s goals, intending to become involved with things happening in their organization, and actively investing energy into their job. Moreover, this last implication is particularly important in light the deepening disengagement (“engagement gap”) phenomenon among employees around the globe (Hejjas et al., 2019).

Limitations and Future Research

This study is subject to certain limitations that should be considered in future explorations in this field. First, the research model was cross-sectional but not longitudinal, making it difficult either to draw inferences of causality or rule out the possibility of reverse causality. Future research that incorporates longitudinal designs is necessary to test the various alternatives. Second, with regard to the sample, limitations to comparison of the current research model between two sectors must be accounted for, because it does not include specific information about participants’ occupation in each sector. We focused solely on the question of their categorization as frontline employees in service organizations within the service tasks in each sector. Third, more refined methods might be deployed in the design of future studies on this topic. Common method bias risk could not be fully eliminated despite collecting data in two waves. Fourth, it should be noted that our findings reflect responses from Israeli employees. Cultural variation between nations and regions, chronological and other contexts, mean that findings are not universally applicable to different public and private sectors.

The present study should be seen as residing among early attempts to empirically examine the relationship among organizational trust PSM and employee job and organization engagement. Therefore, new avenues of research regarding job and organization engagement through trust and PSM (using longitudinal designs) should be addressed. A systematic review conducted by Bailey et al. (2017) indicates that scholars within HRM (i.e., C. Truss et al., 2013) have considered engagement as a management practice and proposed the notion of doing engagement, rather than being engaged. Thus, it is suggested that in light of this fresh perspective, future study investigate whether organizational trust and PSM also relates to the notion of “doing engagement” at the workplace. Finally, following our findings among private employees, women scored higher on organizational trust than men, whereas among public employees, women were more engaged to their job in comparison to men. Thus, further research is needed to shed light on these gender differences. Within the engagement literature there has been some limited attention to study engagement alongside the role of gender differences (K. Truss, 2014). The finding suggests that there is clear and important potential for further research that explores these gaps.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the committee of research and scientific activities of the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College

ORCID iD

Hedva Vinarski-Peretz

Author Biographies

Hedva Vinarski Peretz is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Political Science, Head of the MA programme of Public Administration and Public Policy and faculty member at the department of Health System Management and at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College. Her research focus on the spheres of applied Public Policy, Public Administration and Public Management. Hedva’s research has appeared on reputable publishing platforms such as Public Management Review, Local Government Studies, Public Money & Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, European Management Journal, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Art, International Journal of Organizational, Healthcare, etc.

Aviv Kidron is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of MA Studies in Organizational Development and Consulting at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College. Her research interests and teaching experience are within the fields of employees’ and managers’ organizational behaviour, trust, manager–employee relationships and the new world of work. Her articles have been published in journals, such as, Journal of Managerial Psychology, European Management Journal, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, etc.

References

Alfes

Shantz

Alahakone

(2016). Testing additive versus interactive effects of person-organization fit and organizational trust on engagement and performance. Personnel Review, 45, 1323–1339.

Ambrose

M. L.

Kulik

C. T.

(1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231–292.

Anderfuhren-Biget

Varone

Giauque

Ritz

(2010). Motivating employees of the public sector: Does public service motivation matter? International Public Management Journal, 13(3), 213–246.

Andersen

L. B.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2013). Public service motivation, user orientation, and job satisfaction: A question of employment sector? International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 252–274.

Andersen

L. B.

Pallesen

Holm Pedersen

(2011). Does ownership matter? Public service motivation among physiotherapists in the private and public sectors in Denmark. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(1), 10–27.

Bailey

Madden

Alfes

Fletcher

(2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31–53.

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). A job demands-resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 723–732.

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

(2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11.

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

S. L.

Leiter

M. P.

(2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28.

10.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.

11.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

12.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

(2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389–411.

13.

Bank of Israel. (2021). Panel Z-1: Demographic characteristics and workforce excel document. https://www.boi.org.il/he/DataAndStatistics/Pages/MainPage.aspx?Level=3&Sid=16&SubjectType=2

14.

Basit

A. A.

(2017). Trust in supervisor and job engagement: Mediating effects of psychological safety and felt obligation. The Journal of Psychology, 151(8), 701–721.

15.

Borst

R. T.

Kruyen

P. M.

Lako

C. J.

(2019). Exploring the job demands–resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a psychological perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 372–397.

16.

Borst

R. T.

Kruyen

P. M.

Lako

C. J.

de Vries

M. S.

(2020). The attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes of work engagement: A comparative meta-analysis across the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 613–640.

17.

Borst

R. T.

(2018). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287–313.

18.

Breaugh

(2021). Too stressed to be engaged? The role of basic needs satisfaction in understanding work stress and public sector engagement. Public Personnel Management, 50(1), 84–108.

19.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413–440.

20.

Brown

T. A.

(2019). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.

21.

Buelens

Van Den Broeck

(2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65–74.

22.

Byrne

Z. S.

Peters

J. M.

Weston

J. W.

(2016). The struggle with employee engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1201–1227.

23.

Cafferkey

Heffernan

Harney

Dundon

Townsend

(2019). Perceptions of HRM system strength and affective commitment: The role of human relations and internal process climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(21), 3026–3048.

24.

Carmeli

Spreitzer

G. M.

(2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169–191.

25.

Chen

C. A.

Hsieh

C. W.

Chen

D. Y.

(2014). Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: Evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92(4), 954–973.

26.

Chughtai

A. A.

Buckley

(2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 47–71.

27.

Chughtai

A. A.

Buckley

(2011). Work engagement: Antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International, 16(7), 684–705.

28.

Civil Service Commission (2013). The full report: The reform committee to improve human capital management mechanisms in the civil service (in Hebrew). Strategic Planning and Policy Division. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/reform_report2013_1/he/reformReport2013_0.pdf

29.

Clerkin

R. M.

Coggburn

J. D.

(2012). The dimensions of public service motivation and sector work preferences. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(3), 209–235.

30.

Clerkin

R. M.

Paynter

S. R.

Taylor

J. K.

(2009). Public service motivation in undergraduate giving and: Volunteering decisions. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(6), 675–698.

31.

Cooke

D. K.

Brant

K. K.

Woods

J. M.

(2019). The role of public service motivation in employee work engagement: A test of the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(9), 765–775.

32.

Crawford

E. R.

Lepine

J. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.

33.

De Simone

Cicotto

Pinna

Giustiniano

. (2016). Engaging public servants: Public service motivation, work engagement and work-related stress. Management Decision, 54(7), 1569–1594.

34.

Dietz

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557–588.

35.

Fuller

C. M.

Simmering

M. J.

Atinc

Babin

B. J.

(2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.

36.

Gallup. (2020). U.S. employee engagement rises following wild 2020. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/330017/employee-engagement-rises-following-wild-2020.aspx

37.

Gill

A. S.

(2008). The role of trust in employee-manager relationship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(1), 98–103.

38.

Gould-Williams

(2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: Evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(9), 1627–1647.

39.

Gould-Williams

Davies

(2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1–24.

40.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Callanan

G. A.

Godshalk

V. M.

(2010). Career management. Sage.

41.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

42.

Halbesleben

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

A. B.

Leiter

M. P.

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

43.

Hansen

J. R.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2018). Comparing affective commitment in the public and private sectors: A comprehensive test of multiple mediation effects. International Public Management Journal, 21(4), 558–588.

44.

Harman

H. H.

(1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press.

45.

Hejjas

Miller

Scarles

(2019). It’s like hating puppies!” Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337.

46.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

47.

Hong

Malik

M. L.

Lee

M. K.

(2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-Western sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 636–654.

48.

Houston

D. J.

(2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713–728.

49.

Huff

Kelley

(2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81–90.

50.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

51.

Jiang

Mai

Yuan

K. H.

(2017). Advances in measurement invariance and mean comparison of latent variables: Equivalence testing and a projection-based approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1823.

52.

Jones

G. R.

George

J. M.

(1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.

53.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

54.

Kim

Vandenabeele

(2010). A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 701–709.

55.

Kim

Vandenabeele

Wright

B. E.

Andersen

L. B.

Cerase

F. P.

Christensen

R. K.

Desmarais

Koumenta

Leisink

Liu

Palidauskaite

Pedersen

L. H.

Perry

J. L.

Ritz

Taylor

De Vivo

(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.

56.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

Hansen

J. R.

(2018). Sector differences in the public service motivation–job satisfaction relationship: Exploring the role of organizational characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(1), 24–48.

57.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

Jacobsen

C. B.

(2013). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 899–926.

58.

Lavigna

R. J.

(2015). Improving employee engagement: A public sector leadership imperative. Public Sector Digest, 37–42. https://employeeengagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Improving-Employee-Engagement-A-Public-Sector-Leadership-Imperative.pdf

59.

Lee

H. J.

H. G.

Park

S. M.

(2020). Do trust and culture matter for public service motivation development? Evidence from public sector employees in Korea. Public Personnel Management, 49(2), 290–323.

60.

Lin

C. P.

(2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517–531.

61.

Liu

Wen

(2012). Public service motivation of public-versus private-sector employees in a Chinese context. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(9), 1409–1418.

62.

Mann

G. A.

(2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource management and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 33–48.

63.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

64.

McGorry

S. Y.

(2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74–81.

65.

Mostafa

A. M. S.

Abed El-Motalib

E. A.

(2020). Ethical leadership, work meaningfulness, and work engagement in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 112–131.

66.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(Eds.). (2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

67.

Noesgaard

M. S.

Hansen

J. R.

(2018). Work engagement in the public service context: The dual perceptions of job characteristics. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(13), 1047–1060.

68.

Nyhan

R. C.

(2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87–109.

69.

Nyhan

R. C.

Marlowe

H. A.

(1997). Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21(5), 614–635.

70.

OECD. (2016). Engaging public employees for a high-performing civil service, OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267190-en

71.

OECD. (2021). Government at a glance 2021, Measuring employee engagement. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en

72.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89–108.

73.

Park

S. M.

(2012). Toward the trusted public organization: Untangling the leadership, motivation, and trust relationship in US federal agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 562–590.

74.

Pedersen

M. J.

(2013). Public service motivation and attraction to public versus private sector employment: Academic field of study as moderator? International Public Management Journal, 16(3), 357–385.

75.

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.

76.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681–690.

77.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

78.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

79.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

80.

Prysmakova

(2021a). Public service motivation of public and nonprofit employees: Comparative analysis of social service providers in a centralized system. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(6), 513–529.

81.

Prysmakova

(2021b). Institutional antecedents of public service motivation: Administrative regime and sector of economy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(1), 99–119.

82.

Rainey

H. G.

Bozeman

(2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470.

83.

Rainey

H. G.

Steinbauer

(1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32.

84.

Raykov

(1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.

85.

Rich

B. L.

Lepine

J. A.

Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.

86.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426.

87.

Robinson

S. L.

(1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.

88.

Rose

R. P.

(2013). Preferences for careers in public work: Examining the government–nonprofit divide among undergraduates through public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(4), 416–437.

89.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.

90.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

91.

Saks

A. M.

(2022). Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 32, 100835.

92.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.

93.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

Zhang

(2022). Organization engagement: A review and comparison to job engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance, 9, 20–49.

94.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

(2013). Pitfalls of appropriating prestigious theories to frame conceptual arguments. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(1), 86–97.

95.

Schaufeli

Salanova

(2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39–46.

96.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

97.

Scott

P. G.

Pandey

S. K.

(2005). Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155–180.

98.

Shuck

Osam

Zigarmi

Nimon

(2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: Identifying the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource Development Review, 16(3), 263–293.

99.

Simmering

M. J.

Fuller

C. M.

Richardson

H. A.

Ocal

Atinc

G. M.

(2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 473–511.

100.

Steen

(2008). Not a government monopoly: The private, nonprofit, and voluntary sectors. Motivation in public management . In Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 203–222). Oxford University Press.

101.

Steijn

(2008). Person-environment fit and public service motivation. International public management journal, 11(1), 13–27.

102.

Taylor

(2010). Public service motivation, civic attitudes and actions of public, nonprofit and private sector employees. Public Administration, 88(4), 1083–1098.

103.

The Israel Democracy Institute. (2014). Civil service personnel. Improving from the ground up: Defining a national strategy for public service to evaluate performance, provide service and improve motivation, Policy paper (in Hebrew). https://www.idi.org.il/media/3836/human_resources_in_the_civil_service_2014.pdf

104.

Truss

Shantz

Soane

Alfes

Delbridge

(2013). Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657–2669.

105.

Truss

(2014). The future of research in employee engagement. The Future of Engagement Thought Piece Collection, 80. In Robinson

Gifford

(Eds.), Institute for Employment Studies. Engage for Success Thought Leadership Paper 1 (pp. 80–87). Institute for Employment Studies. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/thought-leadership/the-future-of-engagement_2014-thought-piece-collection_tcm18-10758.pdf

106.

Ugwu

F. O.

Onyishi

I. E.

Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

(2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377–400.

107.

Vandenabeele

(2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9(4), 545–556.

108.

van Witteloostuijn

Esteve

Boyne

. (2017). Public sector motivation ad fonts: Personality traits as antecedents of the motivation to serve the public interest. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 20–35.

109.

Vigoda-Gadot

Eldor

Schohat

L. M.

(2013). Engage them to public service: Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5), 518–538.

110.

Wang

(Eds.). (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

111.

Wittmer

(1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 369–383.

112.

Wright

B. E.

(2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 559–586.

113.

Wright

B. E.

Christensen

R. K.

Pandey

S. K.

(2013). Measuring public service motivation: Exploring the equivalence of existing global measures. International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 197–223.

114.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—Organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502–521.

115.

Zucker

L. G.

(1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.