PSM and environmental consciousness: is there a real connection?

There are two types of motives when it comes to taking policy leadership. One largely relies on human inclination to extrinsic stimuli or attachment to some forms of expressed reward systems; these motives, manifested in... [ view full abstract ]

There are two types of motives when it comes to taking policy leadership. One largely relies on human inclination to extrinsic stimuli or attachment to some forms of expressed reward systems; these motives, manifested in self-interests in financial or non-financial gains of individuals or institutions, are often seen as the fundamental by many scholars (Buchanan, Tullock or Niskanen etc.). Because these motives are often long established in the systems so their long lasting existence seems to suggest certain vitality in substantiating and sustaining policy effectiveness. Nonetheless, little empirical evidence suggests so. On the contrary, characteristics of public sector decision making are more accentuated, empirically, to a completely different type of motives that relate decision making circumstances to values, rather than serving self-serving interests, but self-sacrificing or serving to a relatively abstract entity known as the public. Though public service motivation (PSM) reflects in some sense an ambiguous notion of collective sense of entity, it can be understood as a value system that is completely different from self-interest and instrumental motive system in that a core value structure is organized around an intrinsic core rather than external stimulus, and precisely because of this, actions out of this motive structure tends to sustain and powerful.

Studies of policy failures tend to blame institutional arrangements (lack of planning, capacity, trust etc.). Nevertheless, motives to sustain, either from leaders or individual workers, are believed to be the key to sustain policy changes and effectiveness. This is particularly important when policy actions require significant changes institutionally and psychologically, as reflected in the case of environmental policy implementation which often requires significant changes in growth-oriented mentality. Indeed, as it is argued about why it is so difficult collectively to take pro-environmental actions, we don’t do it not because we don’t know how important the environment is, but because we don’t feel the importance. That is to say that we don’t really have a value system installed in ourselves. This point differentiating values from needs or pressures is emphasized in the theory of planned behaviors (TPB) that also ties values to the intent of policy actions.

This study uses an experimental design (a randomized trial with a pretest/posttest alignment) to assess the impact of mere exposure effect on environmental consciousness, a value construct that is recently tied to PSM empirically. We collect data from a group of more 500 public service employees who participated in a service training program in Taiwan. The result reveals the leadership potential to develop policy tools to sustain the effectiveness of policies by enhancing a motive system that drives intrinsic values of self sacrifice and contributions.