Unveiling the Public Service Identity: Rethinking Public Service Motivation Through Social Identity

Abstract

Over the past three decades, a substantial body of research has examined the concept of public service motivation (PSM). While this research has been coherent and incremental, there remains a need to refine its conceptualization. Built on previous research, this article addresses this gap by proposing a “new” conceptualization of PSM grounded in social identity theory (SIT). We argue PSM should be viewed as a public service identity (PSI) comprising of two key social identity components: the degree of identification and salience of this PSI. Drawing on SIT, self-determination theory, and social categorization theory, we develop a framework that explains how these identity-based factors shape the expression of PSI. Specifically, we propose that the strength of an individual’s identification with the public service role, as well as the situational salience of this identity, influence motivational drivers and behavioral outcomes. The article concludes by outlining concrete research directions and methodological approaches to empirically test and further develop this social identity-based model of PSI. This refined conceptualization has important implications for advancing theory and research, as well as informing public sector recruitment, training, and management practices.

INTRODUCTION

The development and maintenance of values and norms are critical in any functioning social group. These values and norms are typically acquired by interactions between social groups or institutions¹ and individuals, who in turn develop social identities (Tajfel 1982). Social identity is a key concept in social psychological literature used to understand the link between institutions, values, motivations, and actions (Abrams and Hogg 2010; Hogg 2016). In the public sector context, public values are embedded into public service motivation (PSM)—defined as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry and Wise 1990, 368). However, while public values reside at an institutional level, PSM is situated at the individual level. Social identity provides a useful lens to bridge this gap between the institution and the individual, as social identities can serve as “mediating forces” between public institutions and behavior (Perry and Vandenabeele 2008, 57).

By drawing on social identity theory (SIT), researchers can gain a more nuanced understanding of how the internalization of public values and norms shapes the motivational drivers and behavioral outcomes associated with PSM. This theoretical integration can also shed light on the heterogeneity in how PSM is experienced and expressed by public servants. Exploring the social identity underpinnings of PSM therefore represents an important avenue for advancing both theoretical and practical knowledge in this domain. Applying this approach, it has been suggested that PSM could be conceptualized as a public service identity (PSI) derived from public institutions (Bednarczuk 2018; Micacchi and Ritz 2024; Perry 2000; Ripoll 2019; Schott et al. 2015; Vandenabeele 2007). This conceptualization departs from the traditional view of PSM as solely an individual-level motivational construct. However, by theoretically grounding PSM as a social identity, the focus shifts to how the internalization and salience of public values and norms shapes the motivational drivers and behavioral outcomes associated with serving the public good. However, to date, the literature is limited in providing a comprehensive conceptualization of the PSI and its wider implications for theory and applied research (for exceptions see Bednarczuk 2018; Breaugh, Ritz, and Alfes 2018; Ripoll 2019; Schott et al. 2015; Vandenabeele 2007). This is a notable gap, as Sartori (1970) has cautioned about the dangers of inaccurate conceptualizations in the social sciences, which can lead to measurement and prediction errors.

The purpose of this article is therefore to address this gap by developing a robust conceptualization of the PSI and to identify how this social identity-based perspective can impact three critical areas of PSM research: (1) definition and measurement; (2) the nurturing and activation of PSM; and (3) the outcomes associated with PSM. By addressing this conceptual gap, the research aims to answer the question: can PSM be meaningfully understood as a social identity, and what are the theoretical and practical implications of this perspective?

This article thus has two main goals. First, although PSM has a large, diverse, and international body of literature published in top public management journals (Ritz, Gene, and Oliver 2016; Vandenabeele et al. 2018), the theoretical development of PSM remains relatively understudied and criticized (Bozeman and Su 2015; Prebble 2016). Indeed, the predominantly quantitative focus on antecedents and outcomes has led to the neglect of fundamental theoretical work necessary for the foundations of any good theory (Andersen, Pedersen, and Petersen 2018; Webeck and Hongseok 2022). This suggests that while the existing PSM literature has made significant empirical advancements, there is a need to further refine and strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of this concept. Grounding PSM in a social identity framework represents one promising avenue to address this gap and advance the theoretical maturity of the construct.

A promising attempt has been the link of self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Edward 2012) to PSM (Breaugh, Ritz, and Alfes 2018; Corduneanu, Dudau, and Kominis 2020; Vandenabeele 2007; Vandenabeele and Breaugh 2024). SDT captures the extent to which different values and norms have been personally internalized from an institution to form a social identity and whether the strength of this internalization leads to differences in attitudes and behaviors (Ryan and Edward 2012). The social identity perspective suggests that in addition to the strength of an identity, its salience is a crucial component linked behavioral outcomes (Hogg 2016; Oakes 1987; Stryker and Serpe 1994). To more comprehensively account for these identity-based variations, we build a holistic conceptualization of PSM as a public service (social) identity (PSI). In doing so, we integrate three complementary social psychology theories: SIT, self-categorization theory (SCT), and SDT.

The second goal of this article is to examine how the conceptualization of PSM as a PSI can inform further research. The concept of PSM has been conceptualized in diverse ways, and at times became intertwined or conflated with related but distinct constructs such as altruism, intrinsic, and/or prosocial motivation (Bozeman and Su 2015; Ritz, Gene, and Oliver 2016; Schott et al. 2019; Vendenabeele and Breaugh 2024). Since Perry (1996) proposed a measure of PSM, a considerable amount of research has been conducted to validate, improve, and expand this measure across different countries and cultures, including developing both unidimensional or multidimensional versions (Brewer and Selden 2012; Houston 2011; Kim et al. 2012; Vandenabeele 2008; Wright, Robert, and Sanjay 2013). These measurement scales often conflate identity with motivation and behavior. This conceptual and empirical entanglement can lead to multiple interpretations and inconsistent measurement, resulting in confusion regarding the antecedents and outcomes of PSM (Bozeman and Su 2015; Prebble 2016).

A clearer conceptualization and operationalization of PSM as a PSI would benefit appropriate measurement, therefore providing a more accurate estimation of its antecedents and consequences, while also helping to identify the corresponding psychological mechanisms at work (Molines et al. 2022; Schott and Adrian 2018). By laying new theoretical foundations that frame PSM through the lens of social identity, this article aims to bring this much needed clarity. In doing so, it will help to facilitate and advance a broader research stream on PSI and behavior.

The paper begins by presenting the core tenants of SIT, highlighting the two key dimensions of identification and salience. The article then analyzes how the social identity perspective can be applied to PSM, in particular, identifying the degree of identification and salience of a PSI. In the concluding section, the article provides a comprehensive research agenda to advance the PSI conceptualization.

INTRODUCING SOCIAL IDENTITY

Social identity can be defined as “part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his[/her] knowledge of his[/her] membership in a social group” (Tajfel 1982, 24). Being part of a social group, individuals develop and maintain their sense of self, which influences their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Tajfel and Turner 1979). Individuals categorize themselves and others into social groups based on shared characteristics, which include, for example, race, gender, religion, or nationality (Hogg 2016). Through this categorization process, individuals may enhance their self-esteem and self-worth, and display attitudes and behaviors mirroring the values and norms (or prototype) of the group (Abrams and Hogg 2010; Hogg and Abrams 1988).

SIT is a broad social psychology framework used to study inter and intra-group phenomena (Page 2022; Tajfel 1982). In management research, the concept has been influential in understanding the social influences of individual work behaviors (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth and Beth 2016; Petriglieri 2011). For example, Amiot and Sansfaçon (2011) show that identifying with a social group can be linked to outcomes at different levels. At an individual level, these include enhanced well-being and citizenship behaviors. Outcomes at the intergroup level include stronger group cohesion and motivation, while outcomes at the intra-group level include ingroup bias and social competitiveness.

There are two dominant theories used to understand social identity and its related outcomes. These are SIT (Tajfel and Turner 1979), and SCT (Turner and MichaelPenelopeStephenMargaret 1987). According to SIT, when people engage in identification processes, they receive the satisfaction of the intrinsic need to identify with a group (Hornsey 2008). Taking a stronger cognitive perspective, Social Categorization Theory (SCT) takes this one step further as it stresses the existence of multiple social identities within a single self, arguing that coherent, specific social identity-related behavior only occurs if that particular social identity is salient (Turner and Reynolds 2003). SCT also introduces the concept of depersonalization, which refers to the process by which individuals lose their sense of individuality or the emphasis over personal attributes when identifying with a social group (Stets and Burke 2000). Since SCT is a natural evolution of SIT, many scholars refer to both as the “social identity approach” (Hornsey 2008). Although the social identity approach explains intergroup behavior, its ability to describe the self-categorization or identification process in more detail is lacking. To solve this issue, scholars have used SDT (Amiot et al. 2017; Ryan and Edward 2012). According to SDT, social identification can take different forms depending on the extent to which group values have been internalized and integrated into the self.

The combination of SIT, SCT, and SDT is intentionally applied to the study of PSM because it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of what is it, how it is formed, and what outcomes it produces. First, the three theories share a dynamic view of identity formation, accounting for the role of the social context in the evolution of identity when confronted with external stimuli. This captures the fluidity of PSI. As it will be argued, PSI and its behaviors are likely to change in response to changing social contexts. Second, SIT and SCT naturally complement each other. While SIT describes how identities form through the process of identification, SCT accounts for the social context to explain when and why a social identity will be salient to drive behavior. Third, identity development is further enriched by SDT as it provides a theoretical grounding for understanding the antecedents of the identification process. Moreover, applying SDT we argue that there can be different types of PSI depending on self-regulation levels. This allows one to better predict different behaviors based on the type of an individual’s PSI.

This integrated framework deepens our understanding of PSM in three ways. First, by identifying the factors (individual and institutional) and processes facilitating the internalization of public norms and values and the regulation of a person’s PSI. Second, by opening the possibility for different types of PSIs through the perspective of self-regulation, it provides a basis for understanding behavioral persistence aligned with public values and norms. Third, by further explaining that PSI’s behaviors are dependent on the context that, through different cues, activates PSI over other identities that individuals may possess.

Figure 1 presents a model of our overarching theoretical model. In integrating SIT, SCT, and SDT to better understand PSM through an identity lens, two intersecting continuums emerge. The first continuum is identification, which is the degree in which a person’s identification with a group is integrated with their own identity and values. The continuum is derived from the extent to which someone’s identification is regulated based on SDT (self-determined to non-self-determined). The second continuum is salience, which is the extent to which an identity is salient or relevant to drive behavior in a particular environment. In this case, SCT forms the theoretical basis for identity salience (high to low). In the following sections, the two continuums are explored and then applied to develop the conceptualization of PSI.

SOCIAL IDENTITY IDENTIFICATION

Conceptualization

According to the social identity approach, (collective) identification refers to the extent to which an individual identifies with a group or category and intertwines himself with the fate of the group (Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1985). Identification offers a partial answer to the question “Who am I” (e.g. I am a doctor, I am young, I am a public servant). Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that identification is a “matter of degree” (21), rather than an absolute state as individuals can feel part of many different groups at varying degrees. What is critical is that identification is perceptual, which means that a person does not need direct interaction with the group, its members, or even experience tangible involvement. However, the degree to which a person feels a strong identification with a group can have significant implications for the way they behave in that social context.

Categories or groups tend to be mentally represented as prototypes or “fuzzy sets of interrelated attributes (e.g. attitudes, behaviors, customs, dress, and so forth) that capture overall similarities within groups and overall differences between groups” (Hogg 2016, 8). Prototypes are transmitted to individuals through the process of self-categorization, which entails depersonalization (Brewer 2001; Turner and MichaelPenelopeStephenMargaret 1987). Stets and Burke (2000) defined depersonalization as “seeing the self as an embodiment of the in-group prototype” (231). In this depersonalization process, individuals come to perceive and internalize the norms, values, and practices of the group. These norms, values, and practices provide meaning and structure to an individuals’ social reality, helping to guide their behavior and to act consistently to protect the interests of the group.

Identification can take different forms depending on the extent to which a person has internalized the groups’ prototype into their own sense of self (Amiot et al. 2020). According to SDT, the stronger these group prototypes have been internalized, the more self-determined behaviors and persistent outcomes will emerge (Amiot and Aubin 2013; Amiot and Sansfaçon 2011; Legault and Catherine 2014; Ryan and Edward 2012). As a result, SDT does not assume behavior is goal-directed; by contrast it proposes that behavior is directed by both the content of goals or outcomes and by regulatory processes through which goals or outcomes are pursued (Deci and Richard 2000). SDT is based upon two propositions. First, both social context and individual predispositions dictate the extent to which prototypes are integrated into the self, transforming prototypes into personally endorsed values and self-determined motivation. Second, differences in the integration of a prototype lead to various types of identity regulation (anchored between more or less self-determined forms), which in turn have different motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes.

According to SDT, there are different degrees of identification and the classification of these degrees results in a continuum anchored between non-self-determined (not integrated prototype) to self-determined (fully integrated prototype) identity regulation² (Ryan and Edward 2012). This continuum is then used to predict behaviors (Deci and Richard 2000; Ryan and Edward 2012). At the bottom of the continuum, often referred to as non-self-determined, there is very little to no identity regulation, and this results in an absence of any behavioral outcomes aligned with these expected social or group norms. This is referred to amotivation, or an absence of motivation. In the middle of the continuum, there are two “controlled” forms of identity regulation. Often referred to as having an external local of control, individuals with this controlled form of identity regulation have not fully internally integrated a group prototype into their self-concepts, which can result in non-consistent behavioral outcomes. External regulation involves acting according to a group prototype due to external pressures or rewards. Individuals in this state rely on external incentives or disincentives to lead their behaviors, which means that the absence of these incentives will also lead to an absence of behaviors. Introjected regulation represents a partial internalization of a group prototype based on self- and other-approval contingencies. Similar to external regulation, behaviors are guided by the anticipation of rewards and punishments but these are in the form of self-esteem-related feelings and appraisals.

The next stage in the continuum has three “autonomous” forms of motivation, which are sometimes referred to as having an internal locus of control. The motivation to behave according to the group prototype stems from an individual’s stronger integration of the groups prototype into their own self-concepts. The first form is identified regulation, which refers to the conscious endorsement of the content of a specific group prototype, and signaling that the individual has understood the importance and meaning of the values and norms attached to this social identity. The second form is integrated regulation, which reflects the process by which a prototype is fully integrated within oneself. Attitudinal or behavioral occurs because it is coherent with oneself or personal orientations. The final form is intrinsic regulation, which refers to a social identity that develops from a group prototype because the individual finds the group interesting or enjoyable. The main difference between the other two “autonomous” regulations and intrinsic regulation is that while the former are only driven by the internalized set of values and norms (or prototype) and thus mainly cognitively oriented, the latter may also be driven by affective emotions (Gagné and Deci 2005). The varying degrees of regulations outlined by SDT clarify the extent to which individuals have derived meaning from their social identities.

Antecedents

According to SDT identity development varies between individuals in terms of the extent to which an identity is integrated into a person’s self-concept. Like SIT and SCT, SDT shares the idea that these identities develop from the ways a person interacts with the social environment, highlighting the dynamic nature of identity development. A natural extension of this then is to understand what antecedents are linked to this development. According to Haslam et al. (2009, 2) individuals are more likely to identify with groups or categories because of the “capacity to enrich [their] lives in various ways: they [groups] are a source of personal security, social companionship, emotional bonding, intellectual stimulation, and collaborative learning.” Hence, the process of (collective) identification is guided by the fulfillment of multiple motives (Ashforth et al. 2008; Ashforth and Beth 2016; Greco et al. 2021; Hogg and Terry 2000). Cooper and Thatcher (2018) identify six motives that or antecedents that drive the identification process. These are self-enhancement, or the desire to view oneself positively and experience growth (Hogg, Terry, and White 2006); uncertainty reduction, which is the desire to find significance and identify one’s place in the social world (Weick 1995); self-expansion, which is the desire to expand one’s resources to facilitate reaching future goals and accomplishments (Aron et al. 2022); personalized belongingness, which is the desire for interpersonal attachments or to connect with other individuals (Baumeister and Leary 2017); depersonalized belongingness, which is the desire to experience similarity with the prototypical characteristics of a group (Mael and Ashforth 2001); and finally, self-consistency or the desire for consistency across past self-attributes (Shamir 1991).

Furthermore, Weisman et al. (2022) literature review synthesizes empirical research from various theoretical perspectives (including SIT, SCT, and SDT) to identify four key antecedents that influence identification motives and support the identification process³. First, identification is fostered by group characteristics like prestige and reputation (i.e. its status; Tsui and Ngo 2015), the distinctiveness of values and practices compared to other groups (Jones and Volpe 2011), the positive external image of the group (De Roeck and Delobbe 2012) and fit between individual and group values (Greco et al. 2021). Second, in organizational settings, identification can be supported by HR practices that provide the opportunities for self-development, the ability to participate in decision-making, and organizational justice (Shen and Benson 2016; Asadullah et al. 2017). Permanent, relational, and informational job designs can also foster group identification (Wieseke et al. 2012). Finally, mentoring and open communication (Bartels et al. 2010) and fulfillment of the psychological contract (Ali Arain et al. 2018) promote identification.

Third, since a groups’ nature depends on its composition, interpersonal interactions like transformational leadership styles and high-quality leader-member exchanges (Hussain and Shahzad 2019), positive social and emotional peer feedback, coping strategies and socialization tactics (Smith et al. 2013) also shape identification. Moreover, in work-related environments identification can be enhanced through more proximal workgroup, teams or departments (van Dick et al. 2008). Fourth, research highlights several individual-level attributes that promote identification with groups or social categories. For example, individuals themselves may have stronger relational or collective self-concept orientations such as a tendency to think of the self in terms of role relationships or group memberships (Cooper and Thatcher 2018). They may also have a stronger propensity to perceive actions as self-initiated and volitional, known as having strong autonomy causality orientations (Hagger, Koch, and Chatzisarantis 2015), or a stronger need for group identification or affiliation (Glynn 1998). In addition, the satisfaction of the innate psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness outlined by SDT increases identification (Deci and Richard 2000).

Ashforth and Schinoff (2016) propose that satisfaction of individual motives and identity development occur through three alternative mechanisms collectively referred to as the ABC model (Affect, Behavior, and Cognition). First, experiencing expected emotions or feelings affirms group fit, therein increasing identification. Second, behaving according to the norms and values (or prototype) of a certain group or social category also facilitates the incorporation of the group’s values and norms into one’s own self-definition. Finally, identification may increase when one consciously reflects on their membership of a particular group.

Consequences

Thus far we have discussed the conceptualization and antecedents of social identity identification. This section will focus on the consequences of more and less self-determined types of identification. In most cases, this is how identity is linked to behavioral expectations. Identification is the basis of productive social interaction, role taking, and collective power (Haslam et al. 2009). SIT suggests that when individuals strongly identify with a group, they adopt these group attitudes and behaviors due to the positive value they place on their membership in this group (van Vugt and Hart 2004). This reflects an institutional perspective because the outcomes one might expect from a specific identification are strongly correlated with the behavioral expectations it represents (Ullrich et al. 2007, Greco et al. 2021). For example, team identification explains team-level attitudes and behaviors, while organizational identification predicts organization-level outcomes. Following SDT theory, behavioral or attitudinal expectations are defined by the group or institution from which one’s identity derived (Ryan and Edward 2012). However, SDT’s distinction between different types of identity regulation, ranging from self-determined to non-self-determined, is critical for explaining behavioral persistence and effective performance in line with the values and norms of the group (Deci and Richard 2000).

Previous research has confirmed that identification has desirable outcomes like working towards the group’s best interest, group cohesion, citizenship behaviors, stronger motivation to look after the group, job satisfaction, or well-being (van Knippenberg and van Schie 2000). For example, in the workplace context, Riketta’s (2005) meta-analysis shows that organizational identification is positively correlated with affective and organizational commitment, attachment to one’s occupation, organizational satisfaction, job involvement, in-role and extra-role behaviors. Adopting an SDT perspective, previous research has shown that more self-determined regulations facilitate effective performance and well-being, while less self-determined regulation can detract from those outcomes, particularly if creativity, cognitive flexibility, or deep information processing is required (Gagné and Deci 2005). Finally, self-determined regulations lead to stronger automatization processes meaning well-established norms become enacted automatically without the need to spend much cognitive effort (Bargh 1999; Bargh and Chartrand 1999; Legault and Catherine 2014).

Although there is vast research confirming these rather “positive” outcomes, stronger degrees of identification may also have negative consequences. According to SIT and SCT, identification leads to more detrimental outcomes such as out-group bias, discrimination, social competitiveness, ingroup favoritism, and identity conflict (Amiot and Aubin 2013; Breaugh et al. 2022; van Knippenberg and van Schie 2000). Dukerich et al. (1998) explained this process by stressing that strong (or “focused”) identification involves the extreme incorporation of group’s characteristics into the self-concept, even losing individuality. For example, Conroy et al. (2016) identify three categories of detrimental outcomes caused by stronger levels of organizational identification. The first is how an organization functions, for example, increased unethical behavior, organizational change resistance, and over-investment. The second is higher conflict in interpersonal relationships, while the third identifies higher individual internal conflicts such as negative emotions, increased stress, and reduced well-being.

Thus far we have discussed the conceptualization, antecedents, and consequences of the first dimension of social identification, which is identification. The next section outlines the second dimension of salience, including its conceptualization, antecedents, and consequences. After this, we will then explore what both identification and salience in the context of social identity means for the reconceptualization of PSM as a PSI.

SOCIAL IDENTITY SALIENCE

Conceptualization

Identity salience is the extent to which a specific social identity can guide individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in each moment when many other social identities (each with its category and prototype) are available (Oakes 1987; van van Dick et al. 2009; Stryker and Serpe 1994). Social identities are therefore organized in a hierarchy of salience indicating the probability of manifesting across different social situations (Forehand, Rohit, and Americus 2002; Stets and Burke 2003). When social identities are salient in a specific context, individuals align themselves with a particular identity, through the process of depersonalization (van Rijswijk, Haslam, and Ellemers 2006; Turner 1987). When an identity is salient, it impacts an individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors based on the prototypes (norms, values or expected behaviors) of this identity. Although a positive relationship may exist between identification and salience, according to Forehand, Rohit, and Americus (2002) “possessing a strong association with an identity does not necessitate identity salience” (1088). This is because for an identity to exert its influence on behavior, there must be sufficient environmental cues to activate the identity in the first place. Salience is what brings utility and tangibility to the identification process. The focus of this section is thus to describe the antecedents and consequences of identity salience.

Antecedents

A key insight from SCT is that an individual’s self-identity can change depending on the availability of socio-contextual cues in their environment (Turner and MichaelPenelopeStephenMargaret 1987). For a social identity to have higher relevance to an individual, it needs to be chronically or situationally accessible (Oakes 1987). Chronic accessibility refers to self-categorizations that are accessible based on frequently (Abrams and Hogg 2010; Hogg and Terry 2000). Stryker and Richard (1994) elaborate on this frequency hypothesis by examining both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of these frequencies. The quantitative dimension reflects the absolute size of the group in which one has identified with (i.e. extensiveness), while the qualitative dimension refers to the depth of the ties to others an individual develops based on this identity (i.e. intensiveness). As a result of this, if a person associates a social identity with many individuals and the ties with these individuals are deep, the commitment to this identity will be high and its salience will increase, making it more chronically accessible (Callero 1985; Stryker and Richard 1982). Therefore, the degree to which a social identity has prior meaning and significance for the individual, the less input will be necessary to activate it (Oakes 1987).

While chronic accessibility focuses on the frequency, size, and depth of social identities that make them more likely to be salient, situational accessibility is linked to specific situations or contexts that make an identity salient (Abrams and Hogg 2010; Hogg and Terry 2000; James and Jeff 1989; Oyserman et al. 2007; van Knippenberg 2000; Worchel et al. 1998). Situational accessibility can emerge through a normative fit, for example, a situation reinforces prior expectations of the similarities of in-group members, or comparative fit, for example, a situation that highlights the in-group similarities by comparing them to other groups (Haslam 2001; van Dick et al. 2005). In both types of fit, individuals compare themselves with others by examining their similarities with in-group members and differences with out-group members. Fit is fostered through three different mechanisms. First, it involves both verbal and non-verbal stimulus cues that include references to group or out-group prototype information such as norms or symbols linked to this group (Forehand, Rohit, and Americus 2002). Second, the social environment plays a role by emphasizing the uniqueness of individuals within a group, helping to generate socially distinctive individuals (McGuire et al. 1978). Finally, social identities can become salient if they become in conflict with other identities (Wagner and Phillip 1993). These three mechanisms enhance the situational accessibility of a social identity by emphasizing group’s prototype and its uniqueness and value compared to other group prototypes.

Consequences

According to SCT, if a social identity is salient, an individual’s attitudes and behaviors are aligned with the norms and values embedded in the prototype of that identity (Turner 1999; Tarrant and Butler 2011). Hogg (2016) argues a social identity “must become the psychologically salient basis for perception and self-conception” (510) to effectively guide individual. In other words, a social identity needs to be salient in a given context to be applied consistently (van Dick et al. 2005; van Knippenberg 2000). This effect exists both for the rather “positive” (e.g. group cohesion) and “negative” or harming (e.g. ingroup bias) outcomes social identities might have (Turner and Reynolds 2003).

Past research suggests that when a social identity is salient, the impacts of self-determined regulation with this identity on a given outcome are likely to be higher (Q1 in figure 1; Forehand, Rohit, and Americus 2002; Haslam and Ellemers 2005; Leboeuf et al. 2010; McLeish and Oxoby 2011). For example, an individual is more likely to display positive team behaviors if they are identified with the team and this team identity is salient at work. However, the outcomes of identification with a social identity can be hindered if there is a substantial increase in the salience of another (competing) social identity emerges (Q2 in figure 1; Amiot et al. 2017; Haslam and Ellemers 2005; LeBoeuf, Eldar, and Bayuk 2010) In this case, the salience of one identity might interfere with identification of another identity. Next to this, salience can also exploit the absence of identification with other relevant identities (Q4 in figure 1; Stryker and Serpe 1994).

Building on this understanding of identity dynamics, the next section will explore the concept of PSI. PSI, grounded in PSM, reflects values and motives (or prototypes) rooted in public institutions, conceptualizing how individuals’ identification aligns with a broader public institutional environment and how the salience of this identity can be used as a mechanism for understanding public service-motivated behaviors.

THE PUBLIC SERVICE IDENTITY

Identification and PSI

Conceptualization

PSM is based on public values and motives, stemming from the public institution in which individuals are embedded (Andersen et al. 2013; Perry and Wise 1990). Analyzing the interplay between individuals and public institutions, PSM can be conceptualized as a PSI emerging from a macro-level public institutional environment (Vandenabeele 2007; Perry and Meyer et al. 2014; Ripoll 2019; Schott et al. 2015; Vandenabeele 2008). To develop a PSI, individuals acquire public values from a public institution. Applying SIT, these public values can be considered prototypes, where public institutions act as references groups. According to Peters (2000) public institutions can be formal (e.g. a legislature, an agency in the public bureaucracy, or a legal framework) or informal (e.g. a network of interacting organizations, a social class, or clientelism), both transcending the individual by holding common values that create patterns of behavior linking to identity prototypes. This distinction mirrors the social identity approach as it embraces the idea that groups or categories might not always be tangible.

A PSI identification will only occur if formal or informal public institutions emit public values, defined as “the rights, benefits and prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not) be entitled; the obligations of citizens to society, the state and one another; and the principles on which governments and policies should be based” (Bozeman 2007, 13). Hence, PSI is not simply about being identified with or viewing oneself as a member of a public institution, but about being identified with a set of public values derived from this public institution. Because of self-categorizing oneself as an actual or symbolic member of a public institution, PSI identification is a specific form of social identification.

Due to depersonalization, PSI identification enables individuals to view themselves as a representation of public institutions’ prototypes, identifying the corresponding normative aspects and patterns of behavior. This in turn facilitates the perception of the public values embedded in the prototype and its use to interpret individuals’ social reality. Hence, PSI identification can be defined as the extent to which individuals are oriented towards protecting or acting on behalf of the public values derived from the institution in which they hold membership. The notion of depersonalization can already be identified in PSM literature because of the inherent desire to serve the public beyond self-needs and desires. As noted by Vandenabeele (2007), PSM is directed toward the realization of public institutional values, rather than self-interest. Moreover, Schott et al. (2019) and Breaugh, Adrian, and Kerstin (2018) argue that PSM is based on other-oriented motives.

Applying the social identity approach, PSI identification takes different forms depending on differences in the internalization process as stipulated by SDT theory. To date, the PSM literature assumes that public service-motivated individuals are (mostly) self-determined (e.g. Perry and Jensen and Vestergaard 2017; Vandenabeele 2008, 2008). Hence, “higher PSM levels” denote individuals with a more self-determined PSI identification. However, this has never been empirically tested. This assumption is implemented at the level of operationalization and measurement of PSM with current instruments reflecting public values’ internalization (Vandenabeele and Schott 2020). However, the combination of SDT with the social identity approach suggests there could be instances where public values differ in the extent to which they have been internalized and therefore how the PSI is regulated, ranging from self-determined to non-self-determined forms of regulation. Although there are some studies in PSM research suggesting this idea (Breaugh, Ritz, and Alfes 2018; Ripoll 2019; Vandenabeele 2007; Vandenabeele and Breaugh 2024), it has not been consistently applied due to the lack of conceptualization and empirical measurement strategies. The study of PSI identification underscores the importance of examining what kind (i.e. more or less self-determined) of PSI someone has. By integrating the social identity approach with SDT, we therefore gain insight into the self-determined nature of PSI. The next section summarizes the antecedents of PSI identification.

Antecedents

Applying the core tenets of the social identity approach and SDT to PSI, a more self-determined PSI identification occurs when multiple motives are satisfied. Table 1 summarizes how each motive applies to PSI, including examples and emerging empirical support for each.

As previously noted, Weisman’s et al. (2022) review suggested that the antecedents of motives can be grouped into four main categories: group, context, interpersonal interactions, and individual characteristics. These will now be discussed from a PSI perspective, using support from the PSM literature to provide the basis for understanding PSI identity development.

First, at the group level, the external image of a group shapes identification processes. In the case of a PSI, institutions promote public values that are also supported by the public. This support reinforces the identification process of individuals’ PSI. PSM literature found empirical evidence to support this proposition. For example, in a rare study on PSM, group behaviors, and identity, Breaugh et al. (2022), show that team effectiveness is strengthen when members of the group have similar levels of PSM, compared to groups with more divergent levels of PSM. The positive image of public values in the context of PSM can also be seen in studies showing how public values increase job attraction for those who possess PSM (Ripoll et al. 2023a; Ritz, Weißmüller, and Meynhardt 2022). Linked to the group level is the stream of PSM literature that focuses on person environment fit ( Steijn 2008), or the perceived compatibility a person feels with their (work) environment. Some research has suggested that those with high PSM will have a greater fit with their organization, and jobs in the public sector (Bright 2013), while others have shown that, for example, over time, PSM increase and is sustained by working in the public sector (Ward 2013). However, the fit literature focuses on the perceptions of the perceived fit between and individual and their environment, hypothesizing that greater fit will lead to more PSM-related behavioral outcomes.

Second, at the contextual level, environments that are autonomy supportive—where individuals feel they can act in line with their own values and make meaningful decisions—are crucial for satisfying key motivational needs. These autonomy-supportive environments provide the psychological “nutrients” necessary to fulfill the various motives that underpin PSI because they facilitate the internalization of public values as part of an individual’s identity. In contrast, environments that rely heavily on extrinsic motivators, such as monetary rewards (pay), and those that impose rigid hierarchical control or excessive micromanagement, tend to undermine this internalization process. Previous PSM research also provides support for this. Particularly, the stream of literature that focuses on the use of extrinsic rewards as motives for public servants. Consecutive research has shown that certain pay or promotion polices linked to existence of controlling environments may crowd out PSM (Christensen et al. 2017; Jacobsen and JohanAndersen 2014; Moynihan 2010).

Third, by providing support, mentoring, and opportunities for growth at the interpersonal level, leaders can enhance followers’ sense of belongingness, making them feel like integral members of a public institution. The literature has shown that transformational and similar forms of leadership like ethical and collaborative leadership lead to an increase in PSM (Bellé 2013; Vandenabeele 2014; Jensen and Ladegaard Bro 2018; Høstrup and Andersen 2020; Ballart and Ripoll 2023).

Finally, at the individual level, the satisfaction of SDT's basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy also helps to fulfill certain motives (Ryan and Edward 2012). For instance, as individuals master tasks or overcome challenges, they experience a sense of pride and satisfaction, fulfilling their need for self-enhancement and therefore viewing the public institution as a source of support and recognition. Previous PSM studies support this notion by demonstrating that the satisfaction of these basic needs is related to higher levels of PSM (Andrews 2016; Jensen, Ladegaard, and Bro 2018; Ripoll and Xavier 2019; Vandenabeele 2014). Next to this, extending Weisman’s et al. (2022) findings, other individual-level traits such as autonomy causality orientations or collective self-concept orientations might also increase PSI identification.

These motives and their underlying antecedents offer a valuable framework for researchers to examine how group dynamics, context, and personal traits impact motive satisfaction and PSI identification. For public service-oriented organizations, understanding these factors can help create targeted strategies to strengthen PSI identification among employees. The next section will focus on the consequences of PSI, particularly the relevance of PSI in enhancing the PSM-behavioral relationship.

Consequences

In examining the impact of PSI identification on attitudes and bahaviors, we expect an alignment with the general social identity literature (van Knippenberg and van Schie 2000; Amiot and Aubin 2013). This means that PSI leads to attitudes and behaviors linked to pursuing public institutional values inherent in a person’s particular PSI. While not empirically tested, there is some evidence in PSM research to support this assertion. For example, in looking at organizational and group-level outcomes, PSM has been shown to be positively related to organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, group performance, and group cohesion (van Breaugh, Alfes, and Ritz 2022; Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann 2016; Taylor, Brewer, and Ripoll 2022; van Loon 2016).

By contrast, the negative aspects of identification can also be extended to PSI. Any type of group norm, whether normatively positive or negative can be internalized, and these can conflict across different groups. From a PSI perspective, this could be conflicting public values across different public institutions. This might help to explain why different types of professions show different, varying, or inconsistent levels of PSM. Recent developments in the “dark side” of PSM support this due to the inherent pluralistic nature of the public interest. For example, PSM scholars have shown that PSM can be associated with negative decision-making and behaviors like unethical judgement, inflexibility, communal narcissism, or blind loyalty (Fennimore 2021; Gailmard 2010; Maesschalck and ZegerLeo 2008; Ripoll and Schott 2023; Schott and Adrian 2018; Steen and Mark 2011). Following the framework of social identity, harmful and/or non-harmful norms within public institutions can be internalized and integrated into a PSI, which can lead to negative outcomes (Ripoll and Schott 2023; Schott and Adrian 2018).

Effective performance and persistence in promoting public values are closely tied to how PSI is regulated. A self-determined PSI leads to deeper engagement, cognitive flexibility, and intuitive decision-making. In contrast, less self-determined PSI focuses on rewards, resulting in superficial commitment and reduced performance under pressure or without incentives. While PSM research suggests that high PSM aligns with public values through value congruence, studies on PSM outcomes across self-regulation levels are limited, but nonetheless, some research has pointed to this. For example, Guo, Wen, and Zhu 2024 found that externally regulated PSI increases withdrawal behaviors in China. Similarly, Ripoll (2019) proposed that self-determined PSM enables automatic, intuitive thinking, while less self-determined PSM requires reflective processing to apply public values, thus providing preliminary support for this relationship.

Salience and PSI

Conceptualization

Being surrounded by multiple institutions or social categories, a public servant is likely to have access to many prototypes to drive their behavior. Therefore, the dynamics of salience outlined by SCT of a PSI identity is an essential mechanism to explain PSI’s behavioral consequences (Breaugh, Adrian, and Kerstin 2018). A salient PSI can be defined as the readiness to act or think according to the public values embedded on this identity.

Drawing on existing PSM literature, the idea of salience has already been discussed, typically under the term of “PSM activation” stream (Perry and Vandenabeele 2008). According to Perry and Vandenabeele (2008), PSM activation which directs individuals to act according to norms, values, and beliefs inherent in their public institutional prototypes. This means that PSI can be influenced by both chronic and situational salience identified in SIT and that the work environment becomes just as critical for seeing the influence of PSI on performance outcomes. This could, for example, be through a variety of HRM-related practices (Breaugh et al. 2022; Ripoll and Ritz 2021). This more dynamic approach to the role of the work environment deviates from PSM literature focusing on person-environment fit. Instead of viewing fit as a static match between personal and organizational values, the PSI perspective highlights how the salience of specific identities can be actively shaped by organizational practices and situational factors. For example, leadership behaviors, team dynamics, or task framing can amplify or suppress the salience of PSI, directly influencing employee motivation and performance. This is underscored in the next section, that examines the antecedent of salience of PSIs.

Antecedents

As suggested by SCT, PSI can be chronically or situationally salient. There are three factors that make PSI chronically salient: the frequency, ties to individuals and groups, and the depth of these ties. First, PSI needs to be used frequently. For instance, teachers often dedicate significant time and effort to serving their students, both in and outside the classroom. The regular interaction with students, as well as the fulfillment derived from witnessing student progress and success, can reinforce their commitment to public values like equity and fairness. Second, PSI must be tied to an extensive network of relationships with various individuals and groups. For example, public health officials working for government agencies must collaborate with community members, schools, healthcare providers, policymakers, and other governmental bodies to design and implement programs that improve public health outcomes. Their role in managing public health crises, promoting health equity, and addressing societal well-being contributes to the chronic salience of their PSI. By engaging with diverse stakeholders and addressing critical public needs, these officials reinforce their identity as public servants committed to protecting and enhancing the health of the population.

Third, the ties with these individuals need to be deep and meaningful to consistently activate a PSI. For instance, healthcare providers in rural areas often develop long-standing relationships with their patients and become deeply embedded within their local communities. The impact of their healthcare services and the close connections they maintain with patients contribute to the chronic salience of their PSI. Previous research on PSM has noted that as an individual’s commitment to their PSI increases, the salience of that identity also tends to increase (Schott et al. 2015; Ripoll 2019; Van Loon et al. 2015). However, empirical studies specifically examining this proposition in relation to the depth of interpersonal ties and PSI salience are lacking.

In additional to chronic salience, PSIs can also be situationally salient, which increases if the environmental context (using cues, conflict, and uniqueness) triggers the public institutional membership via normative and comparative fit. Normative PSI fit refers to a situation that reinforces the importance of the public values pursued by an individual. For instance, an environmental campaign to promote recycling and reduce waste in a community might align with public values such as environmental stewardship and civic responsibility. The actions developed by this campaign will prompt the salience of the public service identities attached to those values. Comparative fit, by contrast, occurs when a situation contrasts the public values pursued by an individual with other values (public or, specially, private). For example, a debate on increased funding for public healthcare programs in contrast to proposals for tax cuts or budget reductions in other areas might activate a PSI based on public values such as access to healthcare, equity, and social welfare over competing priorities.

There is extensive research focusing on PSM activation beyond the propositions of Perry and Vandenabeele (2008), hence providing initial support to PSI situational salience. For example, Meyer-Sahling, Mikkelsen, and Schuster (2019) proposed that PSM can be situationally activated by asking about PSM because this reflection reinforces PSM-related beliefs. Similarly, Pedersen (2015) found that low-intensity priming interventions can effectively activate PSM. Although these articles prove that PSI can be activated and that it is efficient in predicting outcomes, consistency in this approach is limited. For example, Christensen and Wright (2018) tested the influence of self-persuasion exercises (priming PSM-related value) to enhance ethical behaviors but found no effect. Meanwhile, Ripoll et al. (2023b) found that activation of public values, representing some of the norms of the PSM prototype, does very little to neutralize the blocking effect of negative moderators (like group pressure) on the relationship between PSM and ethics. This suggests that making PSI salient might be more complex than expected. The inherent complexity in determining the specific public values associated with one’s PSI and the way these values can be triggered over others highlights the need to further refine and validate measures that can effectively prime and capture both the chronic and situational salience of PSI, which is important for understanding the consequences of PSI salience. These consequences will be discussed in the next section.

Consequences

It is essential to consider salience to properly predict PSI outcomes. As argued by SCT, when a PSI is salient, it will guide behaviors aligned with public values embedded in the identity prototype (Q1 and Q4 in figure 1). However, the behavior might also be driven by the prototypes of other (salient) identities (Q2 and Q3 in figure 1). This line of reasoning has already been suggested and applied in the PSM field. For example, Schott et al. (2015) and Ripoll (2019) suggest the degree of commitment to PSM (chronic accessibility) is key to predicting PSM-related behaviors and PSM-favorable solutions to identity conflicts. The underlying premise of these studies was that studying how the position of PSM within the hierarchies of identity salience might affect the outcomes usually associated with this identity. Aligned with this, Pedersen’s (2015) external priming of public service motives (situational accessibility) had a positive influence on public service-oriented behavior. The experimental design of Meyer-Sahling, Mikkelsen, and Schuster (2019) also proves that when PSM was situationally salient, individuals were more likely to behave ethically.

PSI salience may also moderate the relationship between PSI identification and behavior. Applying the core tenets of the social identity approach, people will be more likely to behave in line with public values when PSI is both identified and salient. However, an increase in PSI salience can also prioritize this identity over others. For instance, in the case of whistleblowing, a salient PSI may lead someone to blow the whistle on unethical behavior even if this may go against the person’s identification with their work group. The experimental design of Meyer-Sahling, Mikkelsen, and Schuster (2019) provides limited evidence of this theoretical proposition, as they found the effect of PSM salience on ethical behavior is stronger for highly public service-motivated people. van Roekel and Schott (2021), in contrast, found the activation of PSM had a larger but not significant effect on ethical behavior for respondents with lower levels of PSM. Hence, it seems that PSI salience might increase the effects of PSI identification, but also may work as a key behavioral driver when PSI is less self-determined or non-existent.

Overall, in line with SIT, public servants may possess multiple identities, each shaped by various institutions or social groups in which they belong. Consequently, exposure to these diverse social categories provides public servants with a range of behavioral prototypes to guide their actions. Salience thus becomes an important component in understanding the extent to which public service identities, over other professional or personal identities, guide behaviors. This salience can be triggered through continual exposure to individuals or groups that reinforce group prototypes, or they can be triggered by specific environmental cues. Understanding these triggers thus becomes an essential component of future research, which will form part of the discussion in the next section.

AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH IN PSM

This article sought to deepen the theoretical understanding of PSM by framing the concept through the lens of social identity to offer a comprehensive theoretical grounding for the existing and future research. This opens many avenues for future research linked to measurement, empirical assessment of the antecedents of PSI identification and salience, and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

To advance the understanding of PSI, the first critical step is to develop and test comprehensive measures that capture its multifaceted nature. This starts with the refinement of measurement tools by first critically addressing the limitations of current PSM measures. While previous efforts in terms of measurement of PSM have attempted to do so (Perry 1996; Vandenabeele and Schott 2020; Wright, Robert, and Sanjay 2013), the current instruments do not measure the extent to which a person has identified with the values attached to the PSI or if it is salient enough to guide individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. New quantitative instruments also have the potential to increase the measurement validity of the concept. As a result, future studies should focus on creating and validating instruments that measure the identification and salience of PS identities. For example, researchers could use specific SDT measurement strategies (Deci and Richard 2000; Gagné et al. 2015) to assess various types of identification of PSI, asking why someone is motivated rather than if they are motivated to serve the public interest. This then shifts the focus from measuring how much PSM a person had towards what kind of PSM a person has. From a social identity perspective, research in organizational and workgroup identification (Edú-Valsania, Juan, and Fernando 2016; Mael and Blake 1992; van Kinppenberg and van Schie 2000) can also be used towards the development of new measures of PSI identification as they take a broader consideration for group identification processes. To this end, measures can be developed to better understand how group dynamics and values influence PSI identification in a workplace.

Beyond measuring PSI identification, future research needs to measure salience. Current work linked to PSM activation via priming offers a good starting point (see Meyer-Sahling, Kim Sass, and Christian 2019; Pedersen 2015; Ripoll et al. 2023b; van Roekel and Schott 2021). However, they lack a nuanced aspect of chronic versus situational salience. In addition, taking a person-environment approach means that measurements may reflect static versus dynamic identity salience. Drawing on Stryker and Serpe (1994) and Stets et al. (2008), PSI chronic salience could be measured through surveys that ask respondents to indicate how they would prioritize describing themselves in different social situations, such as meeting someone at a party, work contexts, meeting a friend of a friend, or going on a date, by ranking a list of descriptors, including “public service-oriented person” among others, with higher scores in this descriptor indicating a stronger salience of the PSI. To measure PSI situational salience, measures could assess the prioritization of PSI relative to other identities in a specific context, utilizing for example, rank item questions of current self-perceptions, with higher rankings indicating greater accessibility of the different identity schemas (see Aquino et al. 2009). Alternatively, context-sensitive surveys, diary studies, or active real-time assessments may be a good way to capture how PSI salience changes and fluctuates.

Linked to widening measurement approaches, incorporating a temporal dimension to understand the dynamics of identity evolution can capture the dynamic nature of the integration of PSI into their self-concept and how it evolves in response to changing institutional logics and social contexts (Tajfel and Turner 1979). This is particularly relevant in the current growth of social and political polarization found in many countries around the world, where public servants are confronted with rapidly changing values and beliefs in society. Understanding the role of social identity in this process of value change is crucial, especially in light of research showing heightened levels of burnout and disillusionment and also rule breaking or unethical behavior among public servants in politically volatile environments (Bernards, Eduard, and Sandra 2024; Piatak and Stephen 2021). This could be particularly relevant in countries like the United States and also Europe where political polarization has led to conflicting values and expectations among political and civil society, which can trickle down to bureaucratic decision-making. When this occurs, there is a high possibility that it will introduce conflict in public service identities and changing value prototypes. Therefore, understanding not only how identities form, but also change (or persist) in the face of conflict is a critical area of research to be undertaken. Taking a PSI approach thus provides a theorical grounding for understanding this process.

Beyond refining the measurement of PSI, an additional stream of research that emerges from our theoretical development is the need to understand the antecedents of PSI identification and salience. As such, the research could explore how need-like motives (e.g. self-enhancement, self-esteem, uncertainty reduction) influence the development of PSI identification. For example, is a strong sense of self-worth linked to a higher likelihood of PSI identification? Or, does PSI identification provide a significant mechanism for uncertainty reduction in the context of career stability and role clarity? Scholars could also examine what are the specific determinants that make PSI chronically and situationally salient. For example, what personality traits are most commonly associated with high chronic PSI salience? Or, how does upbringing and familial experiences related to public service shape an individual’s PSI identification? Or, how do organizational events (e.g. leadership changes, policy shifts) influence the situational salience of PSI? or, how does identity salience differ between different front-like service roles, who are likely to experience a higher frequency of citizen interactions compared to administrative roles such as policymakers who have less immediate feedback on their job impact. These avenues also include examining whether fulfilling these antecedents indirectly enhances the attitudes and behaviors associated with PSI like job satisfaction, organizational commitment, or turnover intentions.

A third area of future research to develop is investigating how the degree of identification and salience of PSI impact its attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Future research should assess how variations in these continuums of PSI affect different outcomes such as decision-making, performance, and overall well-being (Perry 1996; Ritz, Gene, and Oliver 2016). This also includes studying the effects of more non-self-determined forms of PSM, and the intersection between identification and salience. This can be done in several ways. First, to investigate the relationship between PSI, performance, and well-being outcomes such as burnout and job dissatisfaction, focusing on how different degrees of self-determination within PSI influence these outcomes is crucial as SDT also posits that less self-determined regulations can undermine well-being and lead to less consistent, or even negative, consequences (Gould-Williams, Mostafa, and Bottomley 2015). Second, future research could examine the (un)ethical behaviors associated with PSI (Esteve et al. 2016; Christensen and Wright 2018; Breaugh and Ripoll 2019; Ripoll and Schott 2023). Research could dig deeper into understanding why individuals engage in unethical behavior and through which mechanisms these occur, linking the current insights to in-group norms offered by a PSI theory may offer a deeper theoretical understanding of these issues (Schott and Ritz 2018). Third, beyond the need to address the drivers of performance and ethical behavior, both critical for public trust and effective public institution, PSI can shape cognitive processes and influence choices, often without conscious deliberation especially for identities that are strongly identified and chronically salient. Therefore, future studies should assess whether individuals who strongly identify with their PSI or when it is activated tend to automatically align their decisions with public values, even in complex situations.

Fourth, identity salience and its interaction with other identities play a critical role in shaping public service behaviors, and based on a social identity approach, there is a hierarchal organization of identities that compete for salience (Higg and Terry 2000). However, as noted, measuring salience has yielded inconsistent results (Meyer-Sahling, Mikkelsen, and Schuster 2019; Pedersen 2015; Ripoll, Hernández, and Ballart 2023b). It is imperative to design research strategies that can accurately identify the relative prominence of PSI within an individual’s broader set of relevant identities in a given context, and how this affects behavior and decision-making (Ripoll et al. 2023b). As such, research should focus on studying the interplay between identities, also including variation in both salience and identification dimensions. This could be done, for instance, by extending previous research on PSM priming, by attempting to manipulate different types of identities at the same time (through for example, dynamic surveys that measure and manipulate identity information), or by analyzing how different degrees of salience interact with competing identifications.

Finally, given the emphasis on public values as the key reference point from which PSI is developed, public values need to be more strongly identified when researching PSIs. Different public values may have varying implications for public service practice and policy. For instance, individuals oriented towards values like equity and social justice may prioritize efforts to address systemic inequalities, while those oriented towards transparency and accountability may focus on promoting government integrity and responsiveness. This might explain, for example, research at the intersection between PSM and professional identities (Andersen and Pedersen 2012; Schott et al. 2015). In this sense, it is crucial to examine and identify which public values a civil servant may identify with, the extent to which they are identified and salient in their PSI, and whether they change over time. Without measuring this, results could only be valid under general or abstract public values, which limits the predictive capacity of the concept and potentially increase the appearance of conflicting findings. Future research could look, for instance, to how PSI can be connected to Bozeman’s (2007) repository of public values, or to the attachment of some PSM dimensions to certain public values.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to present a framework for theorizing the social identity components of PSM. We argue that individual’s social identities develop through interactions with their social environment and that specific social environments can prompt the salience of an identity and the internalization of its values and norms (or prototype). When this occurs, individuals’ behaviors and attitudes will align with the institutional values and norms more closely. In doing so, we account for the more dynamic nature of identities, and how they may develop and change based both on changing norms, and identity conflicts. We apply this framework to the concept of PSM. While previous theoretical contributions integrated identity theory and PSM (see e.g. Breaugh, Ritz, and Alfes 2018; Ripoll 2019; Schott et al. 2015), this article uniquely advances the literature by providing a deeper theoretical bridging between social identity and PSM and suggesting the broader use of public service identities to understand why individuals are motivated to serve society. To this end, in recasting PSM as a social identity, we capture variations in the understanding of PSI across different institutions and counties which are directly linked to varying institutional norms, values, and cultures. We also provide a theoretical foundation for why PSI is a driver of behaviors through the extent to which a person has identified with institutional norms, values, and cultures and if these become salient in the environmental context in which they find themselves. As a result, we provide the basis for a more nuanced and institutionally and environmentally embedded approach to understanding the dynamic nature of PSI, and the future development of the concept.

Footnotes

References