Public service motivation in public and nonprofit service providers: The cases of Belarus and Poland

The work motivation construct is central to the theory and practice of many social science disciplines. Yet, due to the novelty of validated measures appropriate for a deep cross-national comparison, studies that contrast different administrative regimes remain scarce. This study represents an initial empirical effort to validate the Public Service Motivation (PSM) instrument proposed by Kim and colleagues (2013) in a previously unstudied context. The two former communist countries analyzed in this dissertation—Belarus and Poland—followed diametrically opposite development strategies: a fully decentralized administrative regime in Poland and a highly centralized regime in Belarus. The employees (n = 677) of public and nonprofit organizations in the border regions of Podlaskie Wojewodstwo (Poland) and Hrodna Voblasc (Belarus) are the subjects of study. ^ Confirmatory factor analysis revealed three dimensions of public service motivation in the two regions: compassion, self-sacrifice, and attraction to public service. The statistical models tested in this dissertation suggest that nonprofit sector employees exhibit higher levels of PSM than their public sector counterparts. Nonprofit sector employees also reveal a similar set of values and work attitudes across the countries. Thus, the study concludes that in terms of PSM, employees of nonprofit organizations constitute a homogenous group that exists atop the administrative regimes. ^ However, the findings propose significant differences between public sector agencies across the two countries. Contrary to expectations, data suggest that organization centralization in Poland is equal to—or for some items even higher than—that of Belarus. We can conclude that the absence of administrative decentralization of service provision in a country does not necessarily undermine decentralized practices within organizations. Further analysis reveals strong correlations between organization centralization and PSM for the Polish sample. Meanwhile, in Belarus, correlations between organization centralization items and PSM are weak and mostly insignificant. ^ The analysis indicates other factors beyond organization centralization that significantly impact PSM in both sectors. PSM of the employees in the studied region is highly correlated with their participation in religious practices, political parties, or labor unions as well as location of their organization in a capital and type of social service provided.^

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.