Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2012
Proenvironmental Behavior in Public
Organizations: Empirical Evidence from
Florida City Governments
Aisha Azhar
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY
PROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS:
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM FLORIDA CITY GOVERNMENTS
By
AISHA AZHAR
A Dissertation submitted to the
Askew School of Public Administration and Policy
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2012
The members of the committee approve the dissertation of
Aisha Azhar defended on June 20, 2012.
_____________________________
Kaifeng Yang
Professor Directing Dissertation
_____________________________
Gerald Ferris
Representative of Graduate Faculty
_____________________________
Ralph Brower
Committee Member
______________________________
James Bowman
Committee Member
______________________________
Richard Feiock
Committee Member
Approved:
____________________________________________________
Earle W. Klay, Chair, Askew School of Public Administration & Policy
____________________________________________________
David W. Rasmussen, Dean, College of Social Sciences & Public Policy
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members
ii
I dedicated this to my family for their unconditional love and support, especially my
husband, Azhar Manzoor.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My whole journey for writing this dissertation has been challenging yet exciting for
me. Exploring pro-environmental behavior in public organizations has not just contributed
to the organization behavioral research but simultaneously advanced my own individual
learning. My learning was possible because many people provided support, assistance, and
opportunity for learning. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who
assisted me in the completion of my dissertation. First, I would express my deep
appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Kaifeng Yang. This dissertation would not be
possible without his support, professional guidance, timely feedback and continuous
encouragement. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr Ralph S. Brower, Dr
James S. Bowman, Dr Richard C. Feiock and Dr Gerald Ferris, who read every part of my
manuscript and provided valuable insights. Their important feedback and comments were
crucial in making necessary changes, which greatly improved the clarity, quality and
readability of my dissertation.
I also want to extend my appreciation to those outside my dissertation committee
who have made significant contributions to this study. First of all, I would like to
acknowledge the Florida Public Affairs Center at Florida State University for the Ruth
―Sweetie‖ Cox dissertation Grant that funded a portion of this work. I am also grateful to Dr
Francis S. Berry who assisted me in collecting the local government employees contact
information from the city government of Tallahassee. Also, I want to thank Dr Robert Lee,
who helped this study to gather contact details from Lakeland city government.
I am grateful to all my colleagues who helped me get through this challenging stage.
I would like to extend my gratitude for the administrative staff at Askew School of Public
Administration, especially Ms Velda Williums and Kathleen Woods who assisted me in
getting over the administrative responsibilities of the dissertation process. Special thanks to
Kathleen Woods and Susan Spice who reviewed my drafts for prospectus and dissertation
and offered valuable feedback to improve the writing of the dissertation.
I really want to thank the government of the United States for funding my full
doctoral program through Fulbright scholarship. The Institute of International Education
(IIE) has provided me generous support in all financial matters related with my studies.
They really have contributed heavily towards the successful completion of my studies.
I want to give my utmost thanks to the Early Learning Coalition of the big bend,
which provided us huge financial support in sending our twin babies to a good day care.
Without their support, it would be impossible for us to afford the huge daycare costs and
thus concentrate on the stressful and time consuming work of the dissertation.
Finally, I want to thank my husband, Azhar Manzoor. He has done an excellent job
in supporting me during this stressful process and taking care of our twin babies- Rayyan
iv
Azhar and Eshaal Azhar- at times when I had to complete my drafts and meet deadlines. My
appreciation to him is more than I can describe. Also, a very special thanks to my parents
whose prayers brought me at this stage.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. ....................................................................................................1
Background of the Study .........................................................................................................1
Statement of Problem ..............................................................................................................4
Significance of Study ..............................................................................................................5
Study Plan ................................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................8
Conceptualization: Definition and Context .............................................................................8
The Nature of PEB ..................................................................................................................9
Current Models Explaining PEB ...........................................................................................11
Comparison of workplace and non-workplace PEB Models ................................................14
CHAPTER 3 MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ...............................................................................17
Individual Factors ..................................................................................................................18
Civic Participation .................................................................................................................18
Public Service Motivation .....................................................................................................20
Value-Action-Gap as Moderator ...........................................................................................22
Organizational Factors affecting PEB of Employees ............................................................24
Transformational Leadership.................................................................................................24
Organizational Green Culture................................................................................................25
Control Variables...................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................29
Unit of Analysis .....................................................................................................................29
Survey Procedure...................................................................................................................29
Sample and Data Collection ..................................................................................................30
Survey Instrument Development ...........................................................................................33
Statistical Methods ................................................................................................................34
Analytical Techniques ...........................................................................................................34
Measurement of Variables and CFA Results ........................................................................35
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................48
Demographic Characteristics of Sample ................................................................................48
Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................................50
Correlation Matrix .................................................................................................................51
Analysis .................................................................................................................................53
vi
Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................................53
Logisitc Regression Analysis of Items Common in Workplace and Non-workplace
Settings ..................................................................................................................................56
Evaluation of Hypotheses ......................................................................................................59
Summary................................................................................................................................63
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................64
Major Findings and Discussion .............................................................................................64
Implications of Study ............................................................................................................75
Limitations of Study and Future Directions ..........................................................................78
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................80
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................82
Appendix A: Definitions of Pro-environmental Behavior ....................................................82
Appendix B: Factors Affecting Non-workplace and Workplace PEB ..................................83
Appendix C: Summary of Hypothesis Testing ......................................................................84
Appendix D: Questionnaire ...................................................................................................86
Appendix E: Consent Letter for Survey ................................................................................93
Appendix F: Human Subjects Committee Approval .............................................................94
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................95
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......................................................................................................115
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4: Demographic Characteristics of Tallahassee and Lakeland ...........................................31
Table 4.1: Non-workplace Pro-environmental Behavior ...............................................................36
Table 4.1.2: Factor Loadings and Cronbach‘s Alpha: Non-workplace PEB .................................37
Table 4.2: Workplace Pro-environmental Behavior ......................................................................37
Table 4.2.1: Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for Workplace and non-workplace
PEB ...........................................................................................................................38
Table 4.3: Civic Behavior ..............................................................................................................40
Table 4.3.1: Factor Loadings and Cronbach‘s Alpha: Civic Engagement & Cognitive
Engagement ................................................................................................................41
Table 4.3.2 Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for Civic Engagement and Cognitive
Engagement ................................................................................................................42
Table 4.4: Public Service Motivation ............................................................................................42
Table 4.4.1: Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for Public Service Motivation ...............43
Table 4.5: Construct Reliabilities, Correlations and Cronbach Alphas .........................................44
Table 4.6: Transformational Leadership ........................................................................................45
Table 4.7: Green Organizational Culture .......................................................................................46
Table 4.8: Barriers (Value-Action Gaps) .......................................................................................46
Table 4.9: Organizational environmental policy ...........................................................................47
Table 5.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ..............................................................49
Table 5.2: Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables ......................................................................50
Table 5.3: Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables- Sub-sample of Tallahassee
Respondents...................................................................................................................50
Table 5.4: Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables- Sub-sample of Lakeland Respondents .......50
Table 5.5: The Correlation Matrix Relating to Workplace and Non-workplace PEB ...................52
Table 5.6: Results of Regression Analyses for Workplace PEB and Non-workplace PEB ..........55
Table 5.7: Logistic Regression Results for Workplace and Non-workplace PEBs .......................58
Table A.1: Definitions of Pro Environmental Behavior at Individual Level .................................82
Table B.1: Factors Affecting Non-workplace and Workplace PEB ..............................................83
Table C.1: Summary of Hypothesis Testing ..................................................................................84
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Theory of Planned Behavior, Source: Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes .........................12
Figure 3.1: Individual and organizational factors influencing non-workplace and workplace
PEB .............................................................................................................................17
Figure 4.1: Results of CFA Model Workplace and Non-workplace PEB .....................................39
Figure 4.2: Results of CFA for Civic Engagement and Cognitive Engagement ...........................41
Figure 4.3: Results of CFA for Public Service Motivation ...........................................................43
Figure 6.1: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on cost neutral nonworkplace PEB and PSM .............................................................................................67
Figure 6.2: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on cost oriented nonworkplace PEB and PSM .............................................................................................67
Figure 6.3: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on Civic Engagement
and Workplace PEB ....................................................................................................70
Figure 6.4: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on Civic Engagement
and Workplace PEB ....................................................................................................71
ix
ABSTRACT
Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) has received considerable attention in business
and other social sciences disciplines. However, no study has examined the link between
workplace and non-workplace PEB; almost no research study has focused on public
employees‘ workplace PEB; and little is known as to how salient public organizational
characteristics influence public employees‘ PEB. Building upon the existing theories in
other disciplines, this dissertation examines the extent to which PEB exists in public
organizations, and investigates how PEB is influenced by several salient characteristics of
public organizations, i.e. public service motivation (PSM) and civic participation
categorized as civic engagement and cognitive engagement.
Data were collected by means of self-report surveys from public employees of two
city governments in Florida-- Tallahassee and Lakeland. Confirmatory factor analysis and
multiple and logistic regression analyses were employed to test the proposed model.
The findings indicate that public service motivation positively influences nonworkplace PEBs. Civic engagement negatively and cognitive engagement positively
influences the workplace and non-workplace PEB. The barriers as moderator significantly
influences the positive relationship of PSM and workplace and non-workplace PEB, the
negative relationship of civic engagement and workplace PEB and positive relationship of
cognitive engagement with workplace PEB. Among organizational factors, green culture
and transformational leadership support workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
The findings demonstrate that public organizational characteristics potentially
influence employee environmental orientations not only at workplace but also in nonworkplace settings.
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It is said that the proper use of science is not to conquer nature but to live in it. In
words of John F. Kennedy ―The supreme reality of our time is -- the vulnerability of our
planet.‖ Kennedy pronounced this harsh reality even before the efforts to sustain planet‘s
resources were formally commenced in the United States. Sustainability or ‗going green‘ is
one of the most serious issues policy makers are concerned with in the present era. Green
efforts require one to do something to protect and restore the world‘s diminishing resources.
This study examines a critical aspect of sustainability-- pro environmental behavior
of employees in public organizations. The main objective is to examine how the proenvironmental behavior (PEB) of public employees is influenced by the salient
characteristics of public organizations. This chapter includes the background of the study, a
statement of the research questions and a brief discussion of the significance of the research
questions.
Background of the Study
The existing world is exposed to numerous environmental problems that pose threats
to environmental sustainability such as urban air pollution, global warming, water scarcity,
and loss of biodiversity. Many of these problems are caused by human behavior, and thus it
is important to manage or change the relevant human behaviors in order to reduce their
impact on environmental degradation (DuNann Winter & Koger, 2004; Gardner & Stern,
2002; Vlek & Steg, 2007). Many human behaviors need to be changed in order to play a
critical role in consuming the scarce resources in an efficient manner (Midden, Kaiser, &
McCalley, 2007). Furthermore, individuals need to use, buy and possess technical
innovations in proper ways (Steg & Vlek, 2009).
Scholarly research in business, sociology, psychology and education has paid
considerable attention to sustainable or pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Researchers
from other disciplines, particularly business studies, have extensively discussed the PEB of
individual citizens, consumers or households. Some recent studies in business scholarship
have also discussed the PEB of employees in business organizations (Graves & Sarkis,
2010; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Ramus & Steger 2000). However, no study in public
1
administration scholarship has touched upon the PEB of public employees.
The government has been the most active and concerned stakeholder in addressing
the environmental concerns in the United States and it has initiated a number of projects at
the state, city and county levels to address sustainable issues. The federal government has
undertaken the major responsibility of regulating green initiatives and energy management
programs (Washington Management Report, 2009). These initiatives are translated into
policies at the state and city levels, and these policies are finally implemented and
administered under local governments‘ jurisdiction. Thus, the major challenges of
implementing green programs are borne by local or city governments, which undertake
several managerial and economic roles while providing efficient and environmentally
friendly municipal utilities (Francis & Feiock, 2010; Lindseth, 2004; Wirl, 2000; Yi,
Matkin, & Feiock, 2011).
Local governments have shown an increasing interest in promoting energy
efficiency and waste reduction both in their governmental operations and in the community.
Several projects have been initiated at the state, city and local level e.g. Florida Green
Building Coalition (state), The U.S. Conference of Mayors‘ (USCM) Climate Protection
Center (city), and The National Association of Counties (NACO) at the county level. Some
of these projects work nationwide (e.g., The U.S. Conference of Mayors and NACO), and
are highly competitive in terms of recognizing city and county efforts towards energy
efficiency, renewable energy generation, and waste management.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center has recently gained over
1000 mayors‘ memberships from the 50 states, promising to reduce carbon emissions in line
with the Kyoto Protocol in their cities. Similarly, the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLIE) has initiated with over 1200 municipalities worldwide an
effort to measure and report carbon reduction.
Environmental initiatives have sprawled rapidly from one jurisdiction to another in
the past decade. At the state level, sustainable policies are shown to be shaped by regional
diffusion or internal determinants (Matisoff, 2008). Sustainable policies, at the state level,
are adopted and renewed based upon factors such as air quality, renewable energy interests,
restructured electricity markets and economic development (Feiock, Kassekert, Berry & Yi,
2009; Lyon & Yin, 2009; Krause, 2010). At the local level, the trend of joining USCM,
ICLEI or other environmental organizations has become prevalent (Zahran, Brody, Vedlitz,
Grover, & Miller, 2008; Feiock et al., 2009). Factors that affect these choices include
2
commitments to climate protection (Krause, 2009; Sharp & Dailey, 2010), political
preference, environmentalism, and fiscal capacity (Wang, 2009).
Considering the obvious importance and dramatically increased interest in handling
sustainable concerns, the behavioral aspects associated with this issue cannot be ignored.
The success of sustainability initiatives depends not just on policy adoptions and
professional memberships in climate control organizations but also on the willingness of
employees to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. For public employees particularly-entrusted with guarding public interest and resources-- protecting the environment and
natural resources becomes an even higher expectation. The significance of behavioral
assessment and modification is recognized by almost all practitioners and professional
organizations working towards sustainability goals.
Human involvement is critical at the implementation stage because efforts made
towards reduction of waste and other related tasks require behavioral changes by citizens
and employees to be successful. The Florida Green Building Magazine recognizes that the
right assessment of employees‘ activities and underlying behavioral modifications are
potentially the quickest way to introduce and implement green revolutions in organizations.
Behavioral modifications are considered as the ―cleanest, least expensive solution with the
fastest payback‖ (Schneider, 2011, p. 16). Schneider (2011, p.16) further asserts that it is
―not enormous changes, but easily managed, minimum modifications (that) can reduce
significant waste while saving money.‖
Studying the PEB of public employees is important from various perspectives. First,
public employees are also citizens who, just like the general public, equally bear the
responsibility of saving the environment. Secondly, public employees are assumed to
perform public service roles by not merely carrying out administrative responsibilities, but
performing these duties in conformance with the mission of protecting and guarding public
and state resources. Lastly, public employees are characterized by the ―patriotism of
benevolence‖ that is believed to be the ―primary motivation‖ of public employees
(Frederickson & Hart, 1985, p.547). Consistent with the patriotism of benevolence are
selfless and compassionate actions that are assumed to be undertaken by public employees
as a moral duty to do good for society and environment.
Thus, the significance of addressing behavioral aspects in the sustainability domain
is well recognized. However, no study has addressed this concern in public administration
scholarship. Most of the sustainable studies in public administration (PA) scholarship focus
on policy diffusion or adoption (Feiock, Kassekert, Berry, & Yi, 2009; Feiock, Lubell, &
3
Handy, 2009; Krause, 2010; Lyon & Yin, 2009, Matisoff, 2008), economic development
(Hess & Winner, 2007; Lubell, Feiock, & Cruz, 2009; Lubell, Feiock, & Handy, 2009;
Kahn, 2006; Portney, 2003), and management capacity (Krause 2011).
Business scholarship, however, has paid considerable attention to pro-environmental
behavior. A quick search with the phrase ―pro-environmental behavior‖ and sustainable
behavior‖ on the Web of Science database for the past decade yielded 235 articles from the
business category and 222 articles from the management category. There were still other
articles that showed up under the disciplines of environmental studies, sociology and
environmental science which were not included in the count. Business scholarly research on
PEB has addressed the issue from various perspectives. Numerous theories, frameworks and
models are presented to examine the complex interactions between the environment and a
variety of roles played by individuals as consumers, households, students and employees.
Broadly speaking, these research studies have investigated the influence of personal
values, attitudes, beliefs and norms on PEB. Some recent business research studies have
started to look at workplace PEB as well (Graves & Sarkis, 2010, Ramus & Steger, 2000;
Ramus, 2002). The business studies, however, have not examined the link between nonworkplace and workplace PEB, nor have they quantitatively tested the effects of
transformational leadership and culture on workplace PEB. More importantly, they do not
show how important public sector characteristics would influence PEB.
Statement of problem
Given the state of the practice and research, this dissertation aims to investigate
three questions. First, how is PEB influenced by the characteristics more prevalent in public
organizations? As mentioned, no PA study so far has examined the construct of PEB.
Compared with the PEB studied in business organizations, PEB in public organizations may
be greatly influenced by the public sector environment. As a result, investigating this
construct may produce different results. Public service motivation and civic participation,
for example, are or should be prominent in public employees. This study wants to
investigate how these characteristics influence employees‘ PEB.
Second, how do organizational policy, transformational leadership and green culture
influence PEB? Although these organizational factors have been addressed in business
scholarship, the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational green
culture with PEB has not been tested quantitatively. This research study would be the first
empirical study to test these relationships.
4
And third, what is the relationship between workplace and non-workplace PEB?
Research on PEB in business literature has been conducted in workplace and non-workplace
settings, but no study has investigated the potential link between workplace and nonworkplace PEBs. Non-workplace PEB is found to be influenced by a variety of personal
factors such as values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and habits. Similarly, workplace PEBs are
found to be influenced by organizational factors such as transformational leadership,
organizational green policy and green culture. However, no study has examined the
potential of organizational factors influencing employees‘ PEB outside the work places. No
study has examined how personal factors-- generally presumed to be the underlying factors
supporting non-workplace PEBs-- influences workplace PEBs.
Significance of study
By developing and testing a model of PEB that combines individual and
organizational factors, this research study has significant theoretical implications for public
administration and organizational behavior research, as well as practical implications for
employees in public service.
First, the study introduces the PEB construct to public administration scholarship.
Sustainability research is progressing significantly in the public policy sphere; however, it is
almost non-existent at the public management and organizational behavior in public
administration scholarship. Examining sustainable behavior is critical because it focuses
upon individual and group employee behavior, needs and efforts to carry out tasks related
with environment. With no research on employee sustainable behavior, there might be
some potential gaps underlying the sustainability domain such as exploration of the right fit
between individuals and organizations to act pro environmentally, identification and
improvement of motivation and reward mechanisms for improving the sustainable
performance, and so on. The focus of sustainability research so far has been on
organizational structures and organizational values and no attention has been given to
employee behavior and vales. Providing an insight to employee perspectives and their
motivations to act pro-environmentally, this study would be beneficial for scholars and
practitioners working towards sustainability.
Second, this research contributes to the study of how salient characteristics of public
organizations influence workplace attitudes, behaviors, and performance. PEB has been
studied extensively in business and other related disciplines. Examining it in public
organizations would add some new insights because public organizations are different from
5
private organizations in many aspects. Public servants have responsibility to meet public
objectives and community needs which is more important than their personal needs and
desires (Denhardt, Denhardt, & Aristigueta, 2009). Exploring public employees‘ sustainable
behaviors consistent with their public values and community orientation would produce
interesting findings that would contribute towards the literature in PA and other disciplines.
This has been an important research direction (e.g. Wright & Pandey, 2010, 2011; Yang &
Pandey, 2009, 2011). For example, red tape, goal ambiguity, Public Service Motivation
(PSM), among others, have frequently been used to assess how they affect public
management outcomes (Coursey, Yang, & Pandey 2012); DeHart- Davis & Pandey, 2005;
Scott & Pandey, 2005; Lee, Rainey, & Chun, 2010; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012; ).
By linking PEB with PSM and civic participation, this study also contributes to the research
on PSM and civic participation, both of which are important public administration topics
that are still drawing great attention. Notably, PSM and civic participation are not ―unique‖
to public employees; business employees have those qualities too.
Third, this research study contributes to PEB studies in general not only by
introducing some factors that are more salient in public organizations but also by testing the
effects of organizational policy, transformational leadership, and green culture. All these
factors have already been mentioned in business literature, but have not been tested
quantitatively (Graves & Sarkis, 2010; Harris & Crane, 2002; Ramus & Steger, 2000;
Ramus, 2002). Organizational environmental policy is the only factor that was studied
quantitatively (Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002).
Fourth, this research study contributes to the literature by, for the first time,
investigating the potential influence of organizational factors on both workplace and nonworkplace PEB. Workplace PEB and non-workplace PEB have been addressed separately
in business literature. No research study has explored the potential impact of organizational
factors on non-workplace behaviors. By exploring how organizational factors may possibly
influence non-workplace PEB, this study invites the attention of business and management
sustainability disciplines to potentially link up the two perspectives.
Study plan
A brief overview of the study is as follows. The next chapter discusses the literature
review of PEB in detail. The literature review includes theoretical background,
conceptualization of PEB and a review of prominent models, theories and frameworks in
workplace and non-workplace PEB literature. Chapter 3 includes theoretical linkages with
6
PEB and hypotheses of selected variables. Chapter 4 discusses the sampling design, data
collection and analytical techniques.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pro-environmental Behavior (PEB)
Conceptualization: Definition and Context
PEB is a prominent concept that has been approached from various disciplines,
perspectives, and levels of analysis. Similarly, different scholars have defined it as relevant
within the context and purpose of their studies (see Table A-1 in Appendix A).
Broadly speaking, PEB has been defined in non-workplace and workplace
(organizational) settings. For non-workplace PEB, the most common definition is by
Kollmus and Agyeman (2002, p. 240): ―behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the
negative impact of one‘s actions on the natural and built world (e.g., minimize resource and
energy consumption, promote the use of non-toxic substances, reduce waste production).‖
Another famous non-workplace definition refers to the ―behaviour that harms the
environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment‖ (Steg & Vlek, 2009, p.
309). Stern‘s (2000) definition defines PEB from the perspectives of its impact and intent
(see Table 2.1).
While non-workplace PEB has been approached by sociologists, economists, social
psychologists, and business scholars, workplace PEB has largely been examined only by
business researchers. There is no consistency found in the conceptualization or measure of
PEB across workplace studies. The measure for PEB used by Ramus and colleagues is just a
proxy of employees‘ reporting ―yes or no‖ for whether they think they had taken an
environmental initiative or not. PEB in workplace settings is defined as employee
environmental innovations (eco-initiatives) ―taken by individuals and teams that improve
the environmental performance of companies‖ (Ramus, 2002, p.152). Environmental
innovations or eco-initiatives in organizations are generally borrowed from other
companies, whereas the programs are innovative in the new organizational settings (Ramus,
2002). PEBs are conceived as environmental innovations because innovation is considered
as the ―implementation of creative ideas from individuals and/or teams‖ (Ramus, 2000, p.
605). Other studies have used different conceptualizations such as opportunity recognition
for environmental initiatives (Hostager, Neil, Decker, & Lorentz, 1998), prosocial behavior,
8
extra-role behaviors or supra role behaviors that are not required or formally rewarded by
organizations (Ramus & Killmer, 2007).
Workplace PEB is described by some as a special type of pro-social organizational
behavior referring to ―prosocial organizational behaviors that have a strong value creating
potential‖ (Ramus & Killmer, 2007, p. 556). Despite having enormous pressures from
stakeholders, managers generally do not consider environmental initiatives beneficial to the
economic potential of their firm‘s business. Corporate greening behaviors within this
perspective are defined as behaviors aimed at ―changing organizational practices to more
environmentally sound ones, classified readily as functional behavior that is intended to be
welfare promoting‖ (Ramus & Killmer, 2007, p. 556).
This research study intends to examine both workplace and non-workplace PEB. It
defines PEBs as behaviors that are undertaken by public employees consciously or
unconsciously to benefit the environment in their workplace and non-workplace settings. It
does not emphasize ―innovative‖ initiatives as Ramus and colleagues (2000, 2002) do
because some routine (non-innovative) activities, such as printing on two-sides of the paper
or turning off the lights when leaving an office, are also important. This study is interested
not in the ―big‖ innovations or programs, but normal activities that employees can engage in
regularly. By emphasizing ―innovative‖ initiatives, Ramus (2000) placed more emphasis on
those who are early innovators or adopters. But followers are important too.
Another distinction that needs to be made is whether PEB is voluntary or
involuntary. It can be assumed that PEB has been conceived as a voluntary or discretionary
behavior. Recent research studies have elaborated upon the use of more comprehensive
measures of PEB with dimensions such as required versus voluntary, cognitively simple and
difficult to perform PEBs, cost saving and expensive PEBs and so on (Boiral, 2009, Graves
& Sarkis, 2010). This study would consider the single measure of PEB which can have both
types of activities--required and voluntary-- because the extent to which a PEB is voluntary
or required may influence the effects of the organizational factors on the behavior.
The Nature of PEB
The literature on PEB is huge and has addressed the issue from a variety of
perspectives. There are two major lines of research that focus on individual motivations to
engage in environmental behavior. First is the economic approach, which is based on the
cost and benefit concerns of adopting environmental behaviors. The other is the ethical
9
approach that focuses upon the role of moral and normative concerns underlying
environmental behavior.
The economic approach is based on the assumption that individuals make reasoned
choices and choose alternatives with highest benefits against lowest costs (Steg & Vlek,
2009). In pure economic terms, people undertake PEBs when they are aware of the private
benefits of the voluntary environmental actions (Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995).
The most famous framework under this approach is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB;
Ajzen, 1991), which adopts a rational decision-making approach and highlights factors that
motivate individuals to undertake PEBs with expected monetary benefits in areas such as
choice of travel mode (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Harland, Staats, &Wilke, 1999; Heath &
Gifford, 2002), household recycling (Kaiser & Gutscher, 2003), purchasing energy savers,
use of unbleached paper, water use and meat consumption (Harland et al., 1999).
The ethical approach is based on the role of moral and normative concerns
motivating the environmental behavior. Four major perspectives have been identified in
theory to explain this approach: value-based concerns, environmental concerns, moral
obligation, and social norms (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Studies concerning the value-basis of
environmental behaviors suggest that the stronger the values (e.g. self-transcendence, prosocial or altruistic values), the more likely the individuals are to perform PEBs (De Groot &
Steg, 2007, 2008; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz & Zeleny, 1999; Stern & Dietz, 1994;
Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995). Studies concerning
the role of environmental concern also suggest the positive relationship between
environmental concern and PEB (Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schultz & Zeleny, 1998;
Vinning & Ebreo, 1992). The third perspective under ethical approach is based on moral
obligations (Schwartz 1977; Schwartz & Howard, 1984; Stern, 2000; Stern, Dietz, Abel,
Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). The fourth perspective focuses on the influence of social norms
(Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdni, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).
This study takes the perspective that includes both elements of PEB. People are
motivated by both instrumental reasons and normative reasons. In the former case, people
generally weigh the costs and benefits of performing PEBs. They adopt behaviors that bring
them some monetary benefits. Nevertheless, predicting people‘s behavior on purely
economic grounds does not reveal the whole picture. Economic factors are interlinked with
social, normative and cultural factors. The normative reasons explain what actually shapes
people‘s PEBs. The normative side is mostly influenced by the microsystem, which
includes family, neighbors, and peer-groups. While economic factors highlight the extrinsic
10
motivations of people, normative perspective describes values, attitudes and norms that
shape much of people‘s intrinsic motivation. PEBs under an economic perspective are quite
rational and self-oriented, whereas PEBs under a normative perspective focus beyond one‘s
own self and are concerned about the community at large. PEBs in public organizational
setting can be explained fully by incorporating both economic and normative perspectives.
Current Models Explaining PEB
As mentioned, no research study in public administration scholarship has examined
PEB; therefore, this study borrows literature from sociology, business and social
psychology for non-workplace PEB, and business organizational studies for workplace
PEB. The purpose is to identify major variables that have been used in the business
literature and that can potentially influence PEB.
Non-workplace PEB
Non-workplace PEB is found to be influenced by a number of factors such as
demographic factors, external environmental factors (e.g. institutional, economic social and
cultural factors) and internal/personal factors (e.g. motivation, environmental knowledge,
awareness, values, attitudes, emotion, locus of control, responsibilities and priorities
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The earliest PEB models emphasized the role of knowledge
focusing upon a linear progression in which environmental knowledge leads to
environmental attitudes, which in turn lead to PEB. These models assumed that, in order to
encourage environmental behavior it is important to educate people about the environment,
as that knowledge would develop attitudes for adopting PEB. Although, these models were
not supported by many researchers (Amelang, Tepe, Vagt, & Wendt, 1977; Hines,
Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986/1987; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Maloney, Ward, & Braucht,
1975; Owens, 2000; Oskamp, Harrington, Edwards, Sherwood, Okuda, & Swanson, 1991;
Schahn & Holzer, 1990a, 1990 b), the idea is still practiced by government and nongovernmental organizations, who base their communication campaigns on the assumption
that the public will adopt PEB if they acquire more knowledge about the issue (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002).
Most subsequent studies have used the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the
theory of planned behavior (TPB), the latter being the extension of the first. TRA was first
formulated by Ajzen and Fishbein in 1975, which holds that a person‘s behavior is a direct
11
function of a person‘s behavioral intention, which is further determined by both attitudes
and subjective norms toward that behavior. TPB was later developed by Ajzen (1985;
1991). TPB continues to take intention as the direct predictor of behavior, but argues that
intention is not determined by attitude toward the behavior and the subjective norm but also
by perceived behavioral control (see Figure below). Perceived behavior control means the
individuals' perception of the ease with which the behavior can be performed.
Figure 2.1: Theory of Planned Behavior, Source: Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of
planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, p.
179-211.
As argued in TPB, PEB has been linked to individual attitudes, norms and perceived
behavioral control. Individual attitudes are the positive or negative feelings about some
person, object, place or any other issue. Similar to attitudes are beliefs that are associated
with the information or knowledge a person has about the person, object, place or issue
(Newhouse, 1991). Two types of environmental attitudes are used to predict PEB: (1)
attitude towards the environment, and (2) attitudes toward ecological behavior (Hines et al.,
1986/1987). Three components of attitudes have been studied to predict PEB: affect,
cognition, and intention. The affective component is measured through an affect scale, the
cognitive component through factual knowledge, and the intention component is measured
by verbal commitment (Smythe & Brook, 1980).
12
Subjective norms include moral norms (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz & Howard,
1981); personal norms, information processing (Griffin, Dunwoody, & Neuwirth 1999);
value-basis of environmental beliefs, self-transcendence, prosocial, altruistic and biospheric
values (De Groot & Steg, 2007, 2008; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern,
Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995); social and cultural norms
(Boehmer-Christiansenas & Skea, 1991), and normative conduct (Cialdini, Kallgren, &
Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).
Perceived behavioral control relates to factors such as locus of control (Hines et al.,
1986-1987; Corbett, 2005), past behavior, self efficacy (Trumbo & O‘Keefe 2000), and
financial capability (Corbett 2000; Lynne, Casey, Hodges, & Rahmani 1995). Knowledge
of issues and knowledge of action strategies can be considered as relating to behavioral
control to some extent (Corbett, 2005; Hines et al., 1986-1987). Different barriers are also
linked to perceived control, such as barriers about individuality, responsibility, and
practicality (Blake, 1999); individual barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge and climate change
as a distant threat) and social barriers (e.g., lack of political action and lack of enabling
initiatives (Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, & Whitmarsh, 2007), as well as barriers of
habituation and the distancing effect of information technology (Takacs-Santa, 2007).
While TPB has been the dominant theory, there are other frameworks as well. For
example, there are studies that emphasize altruism, empathy and pro-social behavior.
Environmental issues are considered as a collective action and persons should respond to
these issues as a moral obligation. Theories and models under this framework assume that
altruistic behavior increases when a person is not only aware of suffering but also makes an
effort to alleviate the suffering (Shwartz, 1977). Environmental concerns include the
removal of the suffering from a person‘s own self (egoistic orientation), removal of
suffering of other people (social orientation), and removal of suffering and destruction in
the non-human world (biospheric orientation; Stern et al., 1993). Some sociological and
psychological studies have also mentioned variables such as possibilities to act ecologically,
environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes and values, behavioral incentives, and
perceived feedback about ecological behavior (Fietkau & Kessel, 1981).
Workplace PEB
In comparison with non-workplace PEB, much less research has been done on
workplace PEB. Several scholars have identified the theoretical links between
organizational research and environmental management (Cordano & Frieze, 2000;
13
Hoffman, 1999; Ramus & Steger, 2000), but no consensus exists as to the definition and
theoretical explanation. It is still an emerging area of research.
Supervisor and organizational support factors are found to influence employee PEBs
(Ramus & Steger, 2000). The studies of Ramus and Steger‘s (2000) and Ramus (2002) -the only empirical studies- revealed that employees who perceive strong signals of
organizational and supervisory encouragement are found to be more likely to develop or
implement ideas that are pro-environmental.
Leadership and motivation have an impact on workplace PEB (Graves & Sarkis,
2010). Comparing different types of leadership theories, Graves and Sarkis (2010) assert
that transformational leadership tends to influence PEB more than transactional and laissezfaire leadership. Despite having enormous pressure from stakeholders, managers generally
do not consider environmental initiatives beneficial to the economic potential of their firm‘s
business. Corporate greening behaviors, conceived as pro-social behaviors, tend to have a
strong value creating potential (Ramus & Killmer, 2007). It describes PEB as a special type
of pro-social organizational behavior, in that organizational members undertake behaviors
that conform with the wellbeing of other members, groups and organizations (Brief &
Motowidlo, 2007).
Hostager et al. (1998) assert that both organizational and individual factors affect
employee environmental innovation. Individuals must have the capacity (capability and
skills) and intrinsic motivation (values) to undertake such initiatives.
Comparison of workplace and non-workplace PEB models
The comparison of workplace and non-workplace PEB reveals that several factors
underlying PEB are similar across contexts, such as motivation, rewards and recognitions,
knowledge and information and so on (see Table B-2 in Appendix B). Most of the studies,
particularly in workplace settings, identify conceptual linkages between PEB and some
underlying factors that still need to be validated with qualitative or quantitative methods.
Some common variables might include: (1) knowledge, which is identified in both nonworkplace PEB models (Fietku & Kessel, 1981; Hines et al., 1987) and workplace PEB
(Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2000) (2) incentives (Fietku & Kessel, 1981; Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002) and organizational rewards (Ramus& Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2000); (3)
altruistic and intrinsic motivation; (4) attitudes, values and beliefs.
14
Although these variables may be used to explain both workplace and non-workplace
PEB, no research has incorporated both types of activities in a single study. This
dissertation would be the first empirical study to do so.
In using similar variables to explain both workplace and non-workplace PEBs, one
must recognize the differences between these two types of PEBs. Employees‘ PEBs may
differ in the degree to which they are required or voluntary (Boiral, 2009), difficult or easy
(Pelletier, 2002), cognitively simple or complex (Gagne & Deci, 2005), and money saving
or cost oriented PEBs. Workplace and non-workplace PEBs may differ on two dimensions.
First, non-workplace PEBs are voluntary while workplace PEBs can be voluntary or
required. Outside the workplace, individual PEB activities are generally performed in the
domain of individuals' private life, such as printing on two sides of the paper. Even when
PEB activities are socially desirable, governments generally cannot require residents to
conduct the activities via formal regulation or rules--with some rare exceptions. In the
workplace, however, some PEB activities may be required by the employer. Organizations
have set up systems that require employees to turn off computers before they leave or
dispose-off empty bottles or cans in separate bins. However, most of the PEBs in
organizations are still based on voluntary gestures not recognized by the formal
management systems (Boiral, 2002, 2005). These behaviors are mainly pro-social behaviors
that tend to create value for organization and society as a whole, and are based on nonrewarded behaviors (Ramus & Killmer, 2007).
Second, workplace PEBs largely do not have personal economic implications for
employees, but non-workplace PEBs do have monetary implications—some will save
money, some will cost more money, and others are cost-neutral. For example, printing on
both sides of paper or setting AC thermostat on higher setting in organization does not give
employees any personal monetary benefit. Performing same actions at home, however, save
them costs. The existing literature concerning individual PEB in non-workplace settings has
discussed these behaviors under the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Some PEBs,
on the other hand, cost more money in the non-workplace settings, such as buying organic
food, recycled or grey toilet paper, or organic fruits and vegetables. Employees still want to
spend on these green groceries as a gesture to behave pro-environmentally.
There are some PEBs that are cost neutral under which employees‘ environmental
actions are not contingent upon cost or benefit decisions. These behaviors are directed by
the moral or normative concerns by which individuals subscribe to values beyond their
15
immediate own interests. Examples of such behaviors include disposing-off waste properly
or recycling.
Summary
This chapter discussed the literature review of PEB by describing the nature of PEB
and the contexts in which PEB may take place. This chapter has also discussed about the
different types PEBs used in this research work. Further, it has given an account of how
similar types of pro environmental actions may mean differently given the different roles
public employees have to play in home, organization or shopping. Next, this study would
propose the model for examining how these behaviors are influenced by personal or
organizational factors.
16
CHAPTER 3
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
In this section, the TPB was used to develop a relatively comprehensive model of
PEB among public employees. This study included attitudes, norms, and behavioral control,
broadly defined in its consideration. At the same time, the study focused on attitudes,
norms, or controls (barriers) that are more salient in public organizations or have not been
tested in the general PEB literature. As hinted previously, the factors that are salient in
public organizations include two individual level variables that can be linked with attitudes
and norms: PSM and civic behavior. The variables that have not been tested in general are
organizational policy, transformational leadership, and green organizational culture. All
three variables relate to norms. In addition, this study will include Value-Action-Gaps as
barriers.
Value Action
Gap Barriers
Civic
Behavior
Nonworkplace
PEB
Public
Service
Motivation
Transformatio
nal Leadership
Workplace
PEB
Green
Organizational
Culture
Fig 3.1: Individual and organizational factors influencing non-workplace and workplace PEB
17
Figure 1 depicts the illustrative model with dependent, independent and moderating
variables. Individual factors include civic behavior and public service motivation that are
hypothesized to be positively correlated with workplace PEB and non-workplace PEBs. The
organizational factors include transformational leadership and organizational green culture
and are hypothesized to be positively correlated with workplace PEB and non-workplace
PEB. The value-action gap or barrier variable is a moderator that is hypothesized to
moderate the positive relationship between civic behavior and PEB and public service
motivation and PEB. The next section discusses the hypotheses in detail.
Individual Factors
Civic Participation
Civic participation as a norm (value and desirable action) is emphasized in public
organizations. It reflects the citizenship value that is inherent in public administration.
Citizenship includes memberships in community, active participation roles in
neighborhoods and voluntary associations and governmental jurisdictions. The
―qualifications, rights and obligations of citizenship, understood in this way, are defined and
prescribed by the values, norms, traditions, and culture of any given community or by
consensus among members of the community in specific instances‖ (Cooper & Gulick,
1984, p. 144).
Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini (2006) have classified
engagement in public life through four types of activities: civic engagement, political
engagement, public voice and cognitive engagement. This study considers two of the four:
Civic engagement and Cognitive engagement. The former is defined as ―participation aimed
at achieving public good, but usually through direct hands-on work in cooperation with
others‖ (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 51). The latter refers to ―paying attention to political and
public affairs‖ with activities such as following news in newspapers, talking about
environmental issues with friends and family, or simply being interested in environmental
affairs (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 54).
Since norms and values are difficult to measure, in this study they are measured by
the activities individuals participate in borrowing the measures of Zukin et al's (2006) on
group involvement, environmental organization membership, socialization, awareness and
responsiveness to environmental issues and concerns, and so on. This study argues that both
18
civic engagement and cognitive engagement would facilitate PEB. More participation in
civic life tends to shape individuals‘ values, responsibilities and moral beliefs through
normative influences and group pressures. More involvement with environmental
organizations, support groups, reading and responding to environmental issues in
newspapers and other discussion forums, and even environmental conversation with
member colleagues can potentially influence individuals‘ pro environmental orientations.
When people can see, talk and receive beneficial advice on saving money and conserving
energy, they are more likely to engage in PEB.
The government‘s efforts to promote environmental awareness in the public have
given way to an increasing interest by the public to undertake PEBs. For many people, the
environment related information is new. Besides knowing what types of light bulbs to buy,
how to recycle cans, bottles, and paper, and whether they should bring their own bags for
shopping, people generally do not know how they can contribute toward sustainability
actions. People rely on the shared opinions of friends or colleagues, derived through
observation and social interaction. In short, people tend to adopt or engage in PEBs based
on normative influences.
In light of above discussion, it is critical to discuss the extent to which public
employees engage, personally or cognitively, in civic activities. Public administrators play a
significant role as key agents in the administrative state, (Cooper, 1984). According to
Cooper (1984), public administrators are characterized by a highly ethical type of
citizenship that shapes the professional identity and role of public servants. Public
employees are also symbolized as the ―patriotism of benevolence‖ (Frederickson and Hart,
1985, p. 547), and are reported to be more actively engaged in all different forms of civic
affairs than are other citizens (Brewer, 2003). Their exposure to environmental groups,
organizations and environment related material is likely to influence PEBs. Based on this,
the hypotheses are:
H1: Public employees‘ civic behavior (civic and cognitive engagement) and money
saving non-workplace PEB are positively correlated.
H2: Public employees‘ civic behavior (civic and cognitive engagement) and cost
neutral non-workplace PEB are positively correlated.
H3: Public employees‘ civic behavior (civic and cognitive engagement) and cost
oriented non-workplace PEB are positively correlated.
19
H4: Public employees‘ civic behavior (civic and cognitive engagement) and
workplace PEB are positively correlated.
Public Service Motivation
The concept of Public Service Motivation (PSM) has been defined as ―an
individual‘s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public
institutions or organizations‖ (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368). With respect to responsible
behavior, public employees are believed to possess a sense of duty or a distinct call
(Pattakos, 2004; Perry, 1996; Staats, 1988) that makes them different from those who do not
have or do not respond to this call. It is generally assumed that individuals who work for the
public sector are more likely to possess PSM. While PSM developed within the public
administrative domain, it has not been categorized as a sector-specific concept (Brewer &
Seldon, 1998). However, individuals working for the public sector are assumed to have high
PSM because public organizations are more likely to provide individuals with an
opportunity to engage in public service.
Perry (1996) identified three categories where public service motivation might
decrease; rational, norm based and affective motives. The PSM scale contains four
subscales that are associated with these motives. Attraction to policy making corresponds
with the rational choice processes; commitment to civic duty or public interest with
normative processes; and self-sacrifice and compassion with affective processes.
Scholars who have examined PEB with altruism as one of the most necessary
antecedents (e.g. see Allen & Ferrand, 1999; Stern, Dietz & Karlof, 1993) assert that a
person‘s moral norm is a significant determinant to PEBs. As Corbett (2005) suggests, the
personal norm towards protecting the environment is activated when a person becomes
aware of other people‘s suffering and he or she feels a responsibility to alleviate the
suffering. Public service motivation has similar grounds for having a sense of responsibility
and care towards the public in general.
Under public service motivation theory, public employees generally fit into this
criterion of feeling for and serving the public as a commitment to help others instead of
working merely for self-interest. PSM assumes that public employees are characterized by
an ethic built on benevolence and a desire to help the community. Monetary rewards are not
considered to be significant motivators (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Brewer, Seldon & Facer,
2000). PSM addresses this unique ethic built on the actual desire to serve others.
20
The motive to participate in the process of public policy sounds rational to many
public servants (Kelman 1987), but the process may be exciting, appealing and more
particularly aligned with the norm of public spirit (Perry 1996). Individuals may be
motivated to work in this domain because they believe that their choices will promote an
agenda that might not have received attention in the past. Policy making involves
responsibility to operationalize matters aligned with public interests. People with high
aspirations to be involved in environmental concerns may also want to solve environmental
problems by participating in PEB.
A desire or commitment to serve the public interest has been identified as the most
common normative foundations of public employment (Downs 1994). Despite certain
disagreements, normative behavior is still integral to most conceptions of PSM (Perry &
Wise 1990), which can further be compared with the significance of norms in proenvironmental behavior. Schwartz‘s (1968, 1977) norm-activation theory has been applied
extensively to environmental behaviors (Black, Stern, & Elsworth, 1985; Stern et al., 1999;
Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Individuals‘ recognition of the environment posing threats to
other people, other species, or the biosphere, makes them undertake pro-environmental
behaviors and actions.
PSM theory is most aligned with the affective motive that corresponds with
compassion and self-sacrifice. Frederickson & Hart (1985) suggest that the patriotism of
benevolence should be the basic motive for civil servants. The authors define patriotism of
benevolence as ―an extensive love of all people within our political boundaries and the
imperative that they must be protected in all of the basic rights granted to them by the
enabling documents‖ (Frederickson & Hart, 1985, p. 547). Consistent with this, altruism,
empathy and compassion have been considered as the most common predictor of proenvironmental behavior that entails ―selfless action for the good of society or the
environment‖ (Monroe, 2003, p. 117).
With such high expectations to perform in favor of society, it can be posited that
public employees assumed to have high public service motivation also tend to have high
pro-environmental orientations. Since PSM theory is neither sector specific nor is it limited
to workplace or non-work settings, it tends to influence PEB irrespective of the context an
individual is in.
H5: Public service motivation and money saving non-workplace PEB are positively
correlated.
21
H6: Public service motivation and cost neutral non-workplace PEB are positively
correlated.
H7: Public service motivation and cost oriented non-workplace PEB are positively
correlated.
H8: Public service motivation and workplace PEB are positively correlated.
Value-Action-Gaps as Moderator
In the early linear models of PEB, there was a discrepancy found in the direct
relationship of attitude to behavior. Even people with high pro-environmental motivations
may have barriers that can prevent them undertaking PEB. Several possible explanations
were presented to address this discrepancy (Baron & Byrne, 1997; Bell, Greene, Fischer &
Baum, 1996, Blake,1999; Howitt, Billing, Cramer, Edwards, Kniverton, Potter & Radley,
1989; O‘Riordan, 1976 ). Blake (1999) described the discrepancy as Value-Action Gap,
which suggested that the attitude-behavior relationship is moderated by two primary sets of
variables: the structure of personal attitudes themselves and external or situational
constraints.
―Attitudes are likely to be better predictors of behavior if the attitudes in question
are strong relative to other (possibly conflicting) attitudes, and based on direct experience‖
(Blake, 1999, p. 264). Situational constraints refer to ―whether the behavior is in line with
the individual‘s favoured social norms, which in turn are influenced by different social,
economic, demographic, and political contexts‖ (Blake, 1999, p. 264).
Value-action gaps prevent individuals from performing environmental actions,
despite a general concern for the environment (Blake, 1999). These gaps or barriers have to
do with three types of barriers: (1) individuality: includes personal attitudes or cognitive
structure, such as laziness or lack of interest (2) responsibility: people would not take
environmental responsibility because they may see ―no need‖ to undertake PEB as they
assign the responsibility to other individuals, groups, or organizations which, they believe,
can perform these actions in more effective manner, and (3) practicality, including barriers
such as lack of time, lack of money, lack of information, lack of encouragement or proenvironmental facilities such as recycling and adequate public transport provision.
Similarly, Takacs-Santa (2007), identifies two types of barriers: individual barriers
such as lack of knowledge and climate change as a threat, and social barriers including lack
of governmental action and lack of enabling initiatives (Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole &
Whitmarsh, 2007).
22
Since public employees are generally exposed to higher levels of goal ambiguity and
procedural barriers (Fottle, 1981; Rainey, 1989, 1996; Baldwin & Fairley, 1991), and they
are also stereotyped as lazy, self-serving and misguided (Baldwin, 1984; Newstrom, Reif, &
Monczka, 1976), it would be worthwhile to study the moderating effect of these attitudes
described as ―conflicting attitudes‖ (Blake, 1999, p. 264) on the relationship of PSM and
civic engagement with PEB. Blake‘s (1999) situational constraints in public organizations
are typically characterized by multiple and conflicting goals and the presence of procedural
constraints on employees actions (Fottle, 1981; Rainey, 1989, 1996; Baldwin & Fairley,
1991), which tend to affect employees‘ motivations and performance (Wright, 2004).
Laziness, lack of time, money or information may decrease the level of PEB
concerns in employees who are active in civic engagement. Further, a lack of trust in the
current workplace, federal government and other public organizations may hinder
employees‘ inclination to participate actively in public life, public problem solving, and
community services.
On a similar note, employees who have high public service motivation may come
across the barriers that may restrict them for undertaking environmental actions, despite
their high inclinations to perform PEBs. For example, a working mother may not possibly
consider the option of commuting through public transportation if she has to drop her kids
at school despite her wish to use an alternate travelling mode to save on the price of gas.
Other constraints such as laziness, financial constraints, lack of time and information,
family pressures or cultural norms may also decrease the strength of employee PSM and
PEB. Alternatively, pro-environmental behavioral intentions for a public employee with low
barriers (e.g. time, information) towards PEB would be driven more by PSM and civic
engagement values, causing the direct effects of these variables on PEB to be stronger.
Thus, it can be hypothesized that value-action-gap barriers operationalized as
individual and social barriers moderate the relationship of civic engagement and public
service motivation with PEB.
H9: Value-action-gaps or barriers moderate the influence of civic engagement on
workplace and non-workplace PEBs to the extent that the influence of civic
engagement on PEB will be stronger when value-action barriers are low.
H10: Value-action-gaps or barriers moderate the influence of public service
motivation on workplace and non-workplace PEBs to the extent that the influence of
PSM on PEBs will be stronger when barriers are low.
23
Organizational Factors Affecting PEB of Employees
Transformational Leadership
Judge and Piccolo (2004, p. 755) described transformational leaders as ―leaders
(who) offer a purpose that transcends short term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic
needs.‖ Transformational leaders focus upon motivating their followers‘ attitudes and
assumptions instead of concentrating upon individual gains and expectations of rewards.
Transformational leadership requires leaders to articulate an appealing organizational
mission and subsequent specific goals; become a role model for followers; and finally help
followers achieve the goals/mission by intellectually stimulating them to change their old
assumptions about organizational problems and practices (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999;
Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008). Graves and Sarkis (2010) mention four dimensions of
transformational leadership: idealized influence or charisma, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985).
Referring back to pro environmental behavior literature, Graves and Sarkis (2010)
suggest that transformational leadership tends to influence PEB of employees more than the
other types of leadership such as transactional or laissez-faire leadership (Bass 1985; Bass,
Avolio & Atwater 1996; Judge and Piccolo 2004).
Transformational leadership theory provides an interesting framework for
conceptualizing environmental leadership (Egri & Herman, 2000). Corporate greening may
require firms to introduce important changes in employee behavior and it is generally
through the inspirational and value-based nature of transformational leadership that can
motivate employees are motivated to accept these changes (Egri & Herman 2000;
Fernandez, Junquera, & Ordiz 2006).
As compared to those in private organizations, transformational leaders in public
organizations generally were assumed by some to be less effective as public organizations
are perceived to have more bureaucratic control mechanisms (Bass & Riggio 2006; Howell
1997; Pawar & Eastman 1997; Shamir & Howell 1999 as cited in Wright & Pandey 2009).
Contrary to this notion, however, several studies report transformational leadership is as
common and effective as it is in private organizations (Dumdum, Lowe & Avolio 2002;
Lowe, Galen Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam 1996), and bureaucratic control mechanisms
have not been found to adversely affect the prevalence and effectiveness of transformational
24
leadership (Boyne 2002; Pandey & Scott 2002; Rainey & Bozeman 2000, Wright & Pandey
2009).
Research indicates that supervisory behaviors influence employees‘ willingness to
promote self-described environmental initiatives (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002).
Ramus & Steger (2000) and Ramus (2002) identified six areas of general leadership:
innovation, competence building, communication, information dissemination, rewards and
recognition and goals and responsibilities that can influence employees‘ pro-environmental
initiatives. The significance of transformational leadership influencing PEB has also been
acknowledged in other conceptual and qualitative studies (Graves & Sarkis, 2010).
However, no study has empirically tested the influence of transformational leadership on
workplace as well as non-workplace PEBs.
Leaders who exhibit transformational leadership on environmental issues are
expected to be proactive in articulating a vision; promoting competence building in terms of
offering environment related discussions and trainings; offering monetary, formal and
informal rewards that create a motivation to act pro-environmentally. Based on this, a
positive direct relationship can be hypothesized between transformational leadership
behavior and workplace PEB. The influence of transformational leadership on employees‘
pro-environmental orientations is expected to remain outside the organizational boundaries,
whereby employees may undertake PEBs even at home, shopping, or any other place than
their workplace. Thus the hypotheses for this relationship can be stated as follows.
H11: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership behavior and
their money saving non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H12: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership behavior and
their cost neutral non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H13: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership behavior and
their cost oriented non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H14: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership behavior and
their workplace PEBs are positively associated.
Organizational Green Culture
The organizational culture concept has been discussed repeatedly within the green
business literature (Newton & Harte 1997). Organizational culture is defined as the ―pattern
of basic assumptions‖ ―---invented, discovered or developed by the group out of their
experience‖ ―--- these assumptions are important to teach to new members‖ ―---define how
25
members should perceive, think and feel about problems‖ (Schein 1992, p. 12). From the
perspective of the environment, a ‗green organizational culture‘ is defined as ―the extent to
which the assumptions, values, symbols and artifacts of the organization reflect a desire or
need to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner‖ (Harris and Crane, 2002, p. 218219).
Organizational culture is considered a key determinant and an indicator of success or
failure for implementing green practices in organizations (Brio, Fernandes & Junquera,
2007). The concept of green culture has been addressed quite superficially in green
organizational theories and models. The most common view holds that organizations need
to have a dramatic cultural change in order to address environmental issues (Stead & Stead,
1992). Scholars supporting this view consider the role of top management a central
component for promoting green culture (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004; Hoffman, 1993;
Welford, 1995), so that managers responsible for directing employees‘ behaviors are
aligned with environmental values (Post & Altman, 1994). However, a top-down
management approach has been noted as preventing the greening of an organization‘s
culture (Harris & Crane, 2002).
Managers who have generally been given credit to promote organizational
environmental practices (Post & Altman, 1994) may also be the source of the most
challenging barrier toward green culture (Fineman, 1996; Crane, 2000). However, there is a
bottom up approach to organizational culture as well, by which management may adopt
environmental practices supported or promoted by its employees. A firm‘s underlying
cultural values must be inferred from cultural artifacts ranging from mission statements to
the office décor (Schein, 1993). Organizational green culture must be supported by
environmentally responsible assumptions, beliefs and behaviors (Harris & Crane, 2002)
shared by its members.
There has been some scholarly debate also on the degree of consensus on the
concept of ‗ideal‘ green organizational culture (Harris & Crane, 2002). Some scholars
believe that green organizational culture that exists at the organizational level or ―micro
culture‖ matters more (e.g. Welford 1995). Some scholars regard the institutional impact of
fostering this culture or ―macro culture of organizational systems‖ as the focus of promoting
green organizational culture (Harris & Crane 2002, pp. 216-217). The most consistent
finding in this discussion is that it is important to have an ‗extant culture‘ within
organizations with some cultural values that further support or restrict the
26
institutionalization of green values (Post & Altman 1994; Fineman 1996 cited in Harris &
Crane 2002, p. 217).
Johnson and Walck (2004) have identified five steps for the effective integration of
sustainability practice in the already existing set of values that can foster a green
organizational culture;

Top management recognizes and spreads the environmental dimension as a
new value of a company;

Top management recognizes and spreads how environmental practices can
influence the routines of a company;

Top management shows how the environmental values have to support the
various phases of environmental programs;

Systems of training, performance appraisals, and rewards focus upon
employees‘ environmental performance;

Employees incorporate the ecological dimension as a new organizational
value.
Organizational culture has been identified as a predominant factor that can influence
employees‘ PEBs (Rothenberg, 2003). This requires communication of values to
organizational employees and association of the reward and punishment systems in
organizations. Thus a positive relationship is hypothesized between organizational green
culture and employees‘ workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
H15: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and their
money saving non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H16: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and their cost
neutral non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H17: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and their cost
oriented non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H18: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and their
workplace PEB are positively associated.
Control Variables
One control variable is organizational environmental policy, an important factor that
influences employee pro-environmental actions (Barrett & Murphy 1996; Brophy 1996,
27
Hutchinson 1996; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus 2002). Many organizations have taken a
step further beyond the publishing of an environmental policy demonstrating their efforts to
work in favor of the natural environment (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Since 1992, when the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development took place in Brazil in 1992,
many organizations had started designing environmental policies that focused upon
reducing environmental impacts more than required by regulatory authorities (Ramus and
Steger, 2000).
Public organizations scope of implementing environmental policy is relatively
different from that of private organizations. Most of the sustainable policies are designed at
the state, city or county levels that incorporate the overall community. The scholarly
research has also focused upon polices that undertake city or county level programs.
Environmental policy decisions are most effective in the procurement departments where
public organizations have policies to apply environmental considerations to purchasing
decisions.
It is important that employees should be well informed about the environmental
policy of their organization. By measuring the perceptions of employees‘ knowledge about
the organization‘s environmental policy, this study measures the impact of that policy on
their pro-environmental tendencies. As mentioned previously, this study aims to test the
impact of organizational support through its environmental policy on employees‘ PEBs not
only within the organization but outside organizational contexts as well.
Other control variables include gender, education, age, married, income, Tallahassee
(whether public employee is from Tallahassee or Lakeland), and PEBs that are required or
voluntary in organization. Required PEBs are included as control variables to see how the
workplace PEBs are influenced by the tasks that employees perform either voluntarily or
required by organization. Non-workplace PEBs that are similar to the one that are
performed in organizations are also controlled with required PEBs to examine whether the
impact of required PEBs in organization persists when same behaviors are performed at
home. Gender and education are also considered as important control variables. Women are
found to be more emotionally engaged with PEBs (Fliegenschneee & Schelakovsky, 1998;
Lehmann, 1999). Education gives more knowledge about environmental issues, but has not
been found to increase PEBs.
28
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used for this study and consists of three
sections. The first section talks about unit of analysis and survey procedure. The next
section addresses the sample and data collection and questionnaire development. The final
section presents the reliability estimates of survey items and measurement of variables used
to test research hypotheses in this study.
Unit of Analysis
This study uses individuals (public employees) as its unit of analysis. Singleton and
Straits (2005, p. 45) define a unit of analysis as ―the entities (objects or event) under study‖.
Clarification of the unit of analysis can prevent the risk of drawing invalid or false
conclusions about the research findings (Babbie, 2001; Singleton & Straits, 2005). This
study measures the perceptions of employees about personal and organizational practices in
local governments in the selected organizations of the two cities. The local governments
include only city level organizations.
The study selected major public agencies and included employees at all levels (top,
middle and lower management). Since this work is examining the influence of
transformational leadership on employees‘ PEBs, employees‘ immediate supervisors should
be addressed at all levels in the organizations.
Survey Procedure
The data for this study were collected by means of a self-report survey. Survey
methodology is recognized as the most widely used data collection technique in
organizational research (Bartlett, 2005). Although other methodologies could also have
been used such as interviews, the study just employed survey methodology because of
budget and time constraints.
The study used self-administered electronic survey methodology. This methodology
is employed due to time and cost constraints. Electronic surveys are considered to be the
least costly mode for gathering data (Singleton & Straits, 2005). Another advantage is the
time savings. Web surveys require much less time to implement than other survey modes
29
(Kwak & Radler, 2002). An added advantage is flexibility in the questionnaire design. Web
questionnaires can ―incorporate extensive and difficult skip patterns, pop-up instructions for
individual questions, and drop-down boxes with a list of answer choices‖ (Singleton &
Straits, 2005, p. 244).
Although electronic surveys pose a threat-of-coverage issue, which may reduce the
response rate based on who uses and does not use internet and non-response errors.
Nevertheless the advantages of addressing large populations and administering the surveys
at remote locations using email contacts still make this the most useful and inexpensive
method of collecting data in the shortest possible time.
The study used self-administered mail questionnaires for Lakeland. While mailing
questionnaires are expensive and time consuming compared with electronic surveys, this
study had to mail paper surveys because the only contact information provided for Lakeland
was mailing addresses.
Sample and Data Collection
The data reported in this dissertation were collected by employing both selfadministered electronic survey and self-administered mail-in survey. The instrument was
sent to city government employees in two selected cities in Florida. Through stratified
random sampling, selection of cities was mainly based upon the city government orientation
towards how important the energy and climate change issues are in that jurisdiction. In
order to compare two cities, other factors such as political, socio-economic and urban
density characteristics of cities must be taken into account (Schnore & Alfrd, 1963). In
addition to investigating whether the city has a climate or energy plan, this study considered
the population and urban density of these cities.
The choice of the cities was determined on the bases of whether a city has a climate
or energy plan separate from the comprehensive plan. The survey of Energy Sustainable
Florida Communities was used to select cities. Two cities were chosen on the bases of the
scores of importance the cities placed on energy/climate change issues in their jurisdictions
from 1= ―not at all important‖ to 4= ―very important.‖ Tallahassee was chosen as a green
city, because it scored high (4= very important) on the importance scale. Lakeland, on the
other hand, scored low (1= not at all important) and was chosen as un-green city. The
selection criteria were also based upon the similarity in the population density and
30
metropolitan characteristics of the urban cities of Florida (US Census of Bureau Urban and
Rural definitions, 2010). The general demographics of both cities are given in the Table 4.
Tallahassee has higher population than Lakeland, but both cities fall under the
category of urbanized cities with less than 500,000 population. The median income is
almost same Tallahassee: $34,335 and Lakeland: $36,013. Both cities have similar
percentage of males and females. The median resident age is 26.1 in Tallahassee and 39.8 in
Lakeland. The percentage of whites is higher in Lakeland, whereas Tallahassee has higher
percentage of blacks. Both cities have similar percentage of residents with high school or
higher education level (Tallahassee: 89.9%, Lakeland: 79.2%). Tallahassee seems to have
higher percentage of single, whereas Lakeland seems to have more married people. On
average both cities demographic characteristics are similar.
Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of Tallahassee and Lakeland
Demographics
Tallahassee
city
Population
Income
Males
181,376
34,335
85,358
(47.1%)
96,018
(52.9%)
26.1
Females
Median resident
age (years)
White alone
Black alone
96,753
(53.3%)
62,538
(34.5%)
89.9 %
Tallahassee
city
government
2725
52,916
2032
(74.6%)
690 (25%)
1722 (63%)
880 (32.3%)
Sample
Lakeland
city
486
54500
291
(56.3%)
193
(37.3%)
45
97,422
36,013
45,687
(46.9%)
51,735
(53.1%)
39.8
294
(56.9%)
152
(29.4%)
100%
61,468
(63.1%)
19,788
(20.3%)
79.2%
Lakeland
city
government
3325
54940
2044 (61%)
Sample
1281(39%)
79 (38.7%)
202
55000
123 (61.3%)
50
2660 (80%)
171 (85%)
575 (17%)
31 (4.5%)
High school or
2626 (95%)
higher
Bachelor‘s degree 45%
789 (28%)
54.3%
20.9%
or higher
Single (Never
49.2%
856 (31.4%) 4.1 %
24%
married)
Married
35.5%
879 (32.3%) 65%
50.3%
Source: US Census of Bureau, 2010 for population size
Tallahassee city government data from official public records for Tallahassee
Other demographics: city-data.com
84.5%
77.4%
3.2%
79%
The demographic characteristics of city governments are also included to compare
the sample‘s representation for both cities. Table 4 shows the details for demographic
characteristics for Tallahassee and Lakeland city governments. For Tallahassee, the sample
very well represents the city employees‘ median income ($52,916), proportion of whites
31
(63% vs. 56%) and blacks (32% vs. 29%) and respondents above high school degrees
(95%). T tests show that the samples for income, white, blacks and respondents‘ with at
least high school diplomas are representing the city employee population. However, the
sample does not represent well the city employee population regarding gender, education,
and marital status. The t-test showed that males and females in sample (56% and 37%) are
not true representative of males and females‘ proportion in total population (74% and 25%),
suggesting that females are over-represented in the sample (t-value males= -.289; t-value
females= 6.474). Similarly, the t test (t-statistic= 13.15) shows that the education level (at
least bachelors) of public employees in sample (54.3%) is over representing the
population‘s education level of public employees (28%). Also, for marital status, the
percentages for singles and married in sample (4.1% and 65%) and population (31.4% and
32.3%) show that the sample is not truly representing the population of city employees (tstatistic singles= -13; t-statistic married= 15.57).
For Lakeland city, most of the demographic details in sample were representing the
city employee population as shown in the table 4. The only variation was found in the
proportion of blacks (4%) in sample whereas the population showed 17% blacks in their
workforce. That is, blacks were underrepresented in Lakeland (t value =5).
For Tallahassee, the sample very well represents the respondents‘ median income
($53,000), proportion of whites (63% and 56%) and blacks (32% and 29%) and respondents
above high school degrees (95%). The proportions for gender, bachelors‘ degree and marital
status from sample do not represent the actual population. The t-test showed that males and
females in sample (56% and 37%) are not true representative of males‘ proportion in total
population (74% and 25%). The education level of bachelors and above in Tallahassee
sample (28%) also does not represent the true percentage of bachelors and above from
population (54%).
For Lakeland city, most of the demographic details in sample were representing the
city population as shown in the table 4. The only variation was found in the proportion of
blacks (4%) in sample whereas the population showed 17% blacks in their workforce.
Overall, the Lakeland city respondents represent the city employees‘ population but
Tallahassee respondents seem not to represent the population very well.
For Tallahassee, the formal application was sent to the city government. The city
manager approved the project and provided us with the database of email contacts of all city
employees in Tallahassee. The electronic survey was conducted in four waves during spring
of 2012. Qualtrics- an advanced online survey tool was used to collect electronic responses.
32
The survey was sent to 1400 employees followed by six aggressive reminders. Employees
showed interest and enthusiasm in taking this survey. Several employees contacted and
offered to fill out the survey even after it was closed. We received 486 responses, which
makes it an overall response rate of 35percent.
For Lakeland, the city government provided approval and mailing addresses of city
government employees. We mailed paper surveys to 600 employees. We received 65
surveys back, or 11 %. Two subsequent reminders were sent with a note that employees can
send an email to request for an electronic survey. 68 employees requested for an online
survey and completed the electronic surveys. We received 69 paper surveys as a result of
the followed up reminders. A total of 202 surveys were received from Lakeland which
makes an overall response rate of 34%.
Survey Instrument Development
The survey questionnaire and measurement scale was developed on the basis of the
literature review and the objectives of the study. Variables were conceived and
operationalized on the basis of existing research across the subjects of pro-environmental
behavior and eco-initiatives (conceived as PEB through the action of individuals), public
service motivation, civic behavior, transformational leadership, organizational green culture
and value action gap barriers. For most of the questions, 5-point Likert scale was used. This
scale is a common way of measuring kinds of attitudes (Single & Straits, 2005). Single yesor- no questions are not sufficient to account for precision and reliability (Spector, 1992).
Also, the yes-or-no response format is imprecise because it restricts measurement to only
two levels.
For reliability and validity concerns, questions were adapted from the tested items
reported in the literature. To assure reliability and validity, questions should be clear, brief,
easily readable, and understandable. Also, vocabulary should be adequate for the
respondent, and directions should be easy to follow for the respondent (O‘Sullivan, Russel,
& Berner, 2003; Singleton & Stratits, 2005)
The study drafted an initial questionnaire followed by a pretest (pilot test). The
purpose for pilot testing was to circulate the questionnaire among scholars and professionals
for content validation. The questionnaire was distributed to 6 social science scholars (from
public administration or management professors and students), at least 2 of whom were
familiar with the study of PEB. After the scholars proof read the questionnaire, and
identified the content, grammatical and formatting errors, a revised questionnaire was
33
administered to graduate students at the Public Administration and Policy school of Florida
State University for pretesting. It is important to note that the sample used as a pre-test
should be as similar as possible to the main study (Bartlett, 2005). This study administered
the whole survey as a pretest and made small changes in the syntax, grammar and design.
Thus, the pretest used in this study was almost similar to the final survey.
The pretesting procedure was quite useful, as the study had to drop one or two items
that were not applicable in Lakeland city such as using public transportation for commuting
to offices. Lakeland does not have public transformation. Thus pretesting helped in making
the survey more valid and applicable to the contexts.
Statistical Methods
Multiple item measures were used to examine unobservable constructs to increase
reliability. After the scales and factor scores were obtained by factor analysis, a test for
reliability or internal consistency was conducted. For internal consistency, Cronbach‘s
coefficient alphas were generated (Hatcher, 1994). Finally, hypotheses testing was
conducted through ordinary least squares multiple regression analyses.
Analytical Techniques
The analyses of data were performed using a combination of several statistical
techniques. As shown in the measurement section, all dependent and independent variables
were latent constructs and were examined through multiple-item measures. Factor analysis
was used to determine whether or not each question measures the similar content.
The purpose of factor analysis is to reduce a number of items to a small number of
closely related groups of items generally known as factors (Spector, 1992). Factors are
generally created based on the covariance among the various items. Groups of items that are
more interrelated with each other generate factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
was used to estimate factors or latent variables. CFA employs the statistical testing of a
hypothesized factor (Spector, 1992). It determines what items or variables would load on a
factor.
For some factors, exploratory factor analysis was employed to determine the number
of factors to be generated from the given set of items. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
explores how many factors are needed to best represent the data. The main feature of EFA
is that the factors are derived from statistical results, rather than theory. Thus, EFA is
conducted without prior information about which variables belong to which construct.
34
After the constructs were obtained through factor analysis, a reliability or internal
consistency test was employed to test the internal consistency of the items. For this,
coefficient alpha or Cronbach‘s alpha for each latent variable was used. Cronbach‘s alpha is
the most popular reliability statistic to examine a scale‘s internal consistency. The
coefficient of Cronbach‘s alpha ranges from 0 to 1. Generally, a Cronbach‘s alpha of 0.7 or
higher is considered as an acceptable internal consistency for a scale (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham 2006).
After testing the reliability of scale, the next step was to test the hypotheses
suggested in Chapter 3. This study used multiple regression analysis to investigate the
linearity of relationships suggested by the hypotheses. Multiple regression analysis tests the
impact of an independent variable on the dependent variable, controlling for the effects of
other independent variables.
Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run to assess the measures in the model.
Seven latent constructs were developed from several observed indicators in order to test the
model. Separate CFA tests were run to measure workplace and non-workplace PEBs, civic
and cognitive engagement, and public service motivation. For transformational leadership,
green culture and barriers additive indices were used.
Measurement of Variables and CFA Results
Non-workplace PEB
This study intends to investigate the factors that influence pro-environmental
behavior of employees in their workplace and non-workplace settings. The participants‘
PEBs were measured with 10 items workplace PEBs and 8 items non-workplace PEBs,
adapted from the General Ecological Behavior (GEB) scale. The original GEB included
dichotomous measures of these items with a yes/no response format. To test the variation
across responses, the GEB scale for this study used the response format on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1= ―never‖ to 5= ―always‖ for the questions of ―how frequently
they have performed the given behaviors‖ in Table 4.1. The original GEB scale (Kaiser,
1998) has been shown to have adequate internal consistency (Cronbach‘s alpha=0.74).
35
Three factors for non-workplace PEB were generated based on the variation of the
activities performed in non-workplace settings. The first factor included activities that are
similar to the workplace PEBs. These activities, named as money saving PEBs, do not
provide employees any monetary benefit but at home these actions may save a good amount
of money. The second factor NWPPEB II, also named as cost neutral PEBs, include
activities that are performed purely for the purpose of saving environment without any
monetary benefit. The third factor NWPPEB III or cost oriented PEBs include buying
behaviors that may cost employees more but they still perform them for their proenvironmental orientations.
Table 4.1 Non- workplace Pro environmental behavior
฀
฀
฀
NWPPEB-I
NWPPEB1
NWPPEB2
NWPPEB3
NWPPEB4
NWPPEB5
NWPPEB-II
NWPPEB6
NWPPEB7
NWPPEB8
NWPPEB-III
NWPPEB9
NWPPEB10
NWPPEB11
How frequently do you perform following activities outside your
workplace such as in your home
Set computer on energy safe mode
Increase AC thermostat higher than required
Reduce heating thermostat lower than desired
Recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans
Print on both sides of paper
How often do you dispose of properly
Leftover paints
Leftover turpentine and white spirits
Electronic appliances
How often do you purchase
Grey toilet paper
Organic dairy products
Organic vegetables and fruits
For non-workplace PEB, three factors were created by exploratory factor analysis.
Table 4.1.2 shows that items for factor 1 (NWPPEB1, NWPPEB2, NWPPEB3, NWPPEB4,
and NWPPEB5), items for factor 2 (NWPPWB6, NWPPEB7, and NWPPEB8), and items
for factor 3 (NWPPEB9, NWPPEB10, AND NWPPEN11) have a statistically significant
correlations at less than 0.01 and have a positive relationships. Eigenvalue supported three
factors solution. As shown in Table 4.1.2, items measuring factor 1, factor 2 and factor 3 are
adequately loaded. Also, the Cronbach‘s alpha coefficients were .716, .905 and .728 for the
items of three factors.
36
Table 4.1.2 Factor loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha: Non workplace PEB
Factor 1
Factor Loadings
Cronbach’s Alpha
.546
NWPPEB1
.553
NWPPEB2
.635
.716
NWPPEB3
.932
NWPPEB4
.916
NWPPEB5
Factor 2
.950
NWPPEB6
.983
.905
NWPPEB7
.584
NWPPEB8
Factor 3
.408
NWPPEB9
.843
.723
NWPPEB10
.837
NWPPEB11
Workplace PEB
Similar to non-workplace PEB, the general measures for workplace PEB were based
upon the General Ecological Behavior (GEB) scale. The measures, however, were adapted
to correspond to the official or workplace settings. The last item in workplace PEB was
adapted from Ramus and Steger (2000). However, they used the dichotomous responses for
either taking environmental initiative or not, whereas this study changed the scale to match
with other items on scale.
Table 4.2 Workplace Pro-environmental Behavior
฀
฀
฀
฀
WPPEB1
WPPEB2
WPPEB3
WPPEB4
฀
WPPEB5
Setting computer on energy safe mode in the office
Increasing AC thermostat higher than required in an office room
Reducing heating thermostat lower than desired in an office room
How frequently do you recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans in
the separate containers placed in the office
How often do you take print on both sides of paper in the office
EFA results for workplace PEB showed that there should be one factor with five
items WPPEB1 to WPPEB5 based on Eigenvalue and MSA and Bartlett tests. The
correlation analysis was conducted for the five items in order to see how they are correlated
with each other. Construct reliability and Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient were used to
determine how well the five items measure a single idea. As shown in the Table 4.5, the
Cronbach‘s alpha of all five items is .68.
37
Several fit indices were evaluated to assess the fit of the measurement model to the
data. For workplace and nonworkplace PEB the chi-square statistic was significant (χ²=
543.733, df= 84, p < 0.001); however, sample size and model complexity are sensitive to
chi square significance (Bearden, Sharma & Teel 1982; Fornell & Larker 1981; Hu &
Bentler 1999), and therefore, other model fit indices were also included in the analysis. As
shown in Table 4.2.1, other measures used as a presentation strategy are CFI= .912, GFI=
.989; TLI=.890; NFI= .898; SRMR= .075, and RMSEA= .080. All measures indicated a
good model fit.
These fit indices were selected because they are known to be relatively insensitive to
large sample size or model complexity (Garver & Mentzer 1999; Hu & Bentler 1999).
RMSEA computes the average lack of fit per degree of freedom and is arguably the best
measure of absolute fit as it has a known sampling distribution, unlike adjusted goodness of
fit index (AGF1) and goodness of fit index (GFI). Values less than .10 are considered good
and below .05 are deemed strong evidence of absolute fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFI is
one of the most ―stable‖ fit indexes (Gerbing & Anderson 1992) as well as most reported
index in social sciences (McDonald & Ho 2002). The TLI was used as it adjusts for model
complexity and sample size (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and is also useful for comparisons across
samples (Bollen 1986). The values for comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI) are quite close to .95, the value for GFI was greater than .90 and the value of SRMR
was smaller than .08, all indicating an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Table 4.2.1 Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for Workplace and Non-workplace PEB
Measurement
χ²
543.733
df
84
χ²/df
6.473
GFI
.989
38
NFI
.898
CFI
.912
TLI
.890
SRMR RMSEA
.08
.080
Figure 4.1: Results of CFA Workplace and Nonworkplace PEB
Independent Variables
Items for Civic Engagement
The items for civic engagement were adapted from Zukin and colleagues‘ (2006)
National Civic Engagement Survey (NCES). Since the discussion of citizen participation
focused upon employees‘ participation and involvement per se, it did not include political
and public voice indictors. The items were mainly taken from the sections of civic
engagement indicators and cognitive engagement indicators. For items listed from CP1 to
CP4 in Table 4.3, respondents were asked ―how often during the past 12 months you have
engaged in the following activities.‖ (1) None in the past year; (2) 1 to 4 times; (3) 5 to 8
times; (4) 9 to 11 times; (5) 12 to 24 times; (6) 25 to 51 times; (7) 52- plus times; and (8)
not specified. For item CP5 to CP9, the likert scale of 1 to 5 was used with 1= never, and
5=very often.
39
Table 4.3 Civic Behavior
How often during the past 12 months you have engaged in the activity?
Worked together informally with someone or some group to solve an
฀ CP1
environmental related problem in the community
Spent time participating in any community service or voluntary activity
฀ CP2
(helping others for no pay)
CP3
Volunteered for a civic or community organization
฀
Donated money to environmental nonprofits, groups or associations,
฀ CP4
either locally or nationally.
How frequently do you perform the following activities?
talk about current events or things you have heard about in the news with
฀ CP5
฀
฀
฀
฀
CP6
CP7
CP8
CP9
your family and friends
Read a newspaper
Read magazines like Newsweek, Time, or U.S. News and World Report
Watch the national news on television
Listen to the news on the radio
The MSA and Bartlett tests confirm the appropriateness of factor analysis
application. Results with eigenvalue supported two factors solution. As shown in Table
4.3.1, four items (CP1-CP4) were loaded significantly on factor 1 (civic engagement) and
five items (CP5-CP9) loaded significantly on factor 2 (cognitive engagement).
The explicit measures of reliability and validity have been an issue with civic and
political engagement (Keeter, Jenkins, Zukins, & Andolina, 2005), since the number of
activities citizens engage in are very limited. It is difficult to develop a high reliable
measure of civic engagement using a battery of indicators due to factors such as low
incidence rates. The authors indicate that it is even not possible to create a scale with a high
degree of internal consistency with a large battery of items. The mission of their work was
to develop an index that would cover the most important forms of civic engagement but
short enough to be used by nonprofits and academic researchers.
The authors (p. 329) describe the process of developing the measures as follows;
―We began the project with exploratory work using a pair of
expert panels and a series of focus groups with citizens of various ages
during 2001. In the fall of 2001, we conducted several small surveys to
test specific items. In winter 2002, we conducted a large national survey
among individuals of ages 15 to 25 years. In spring 2002, we conducted
large national telephone survey. Two focus groups to help us provide
validation for our measures were held during the summer of 2002, and
another national telephone survey in fall 2002 provided additional
evidence about the reliability of the indicators.‖
40
The Cronbach‘s alpha is .806 for civic engagement and .722 for cognitive
engagement, which are satisfactory.
Table 4.3.1 Factor loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha: Civic Engagement & Cognitive
Engagement
Factor Loadings
Cronbach’s Alpha
CP1
.677
CP2
.948
.806
CP3
.866
CP4
.540
CP5
.567
CP6
.689
CP7
.694
.722
CP8
.610
CP9
.721
Table 4.3.2 shows the model fit indices for the model of civic and cognitive
engagement. The measures for GFI, CFI and TLI are above .90. RMSEA= .059 and
SRMR=.044 which is less than .07, all indicating an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler
1999)
Figure 4.2: Results of CFA for Civic Engagement and Cognitive Engagement
41
Table 4.3.2 Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for civic engagement and
cognitive engagement
χ²
df
χ²/df GFI
NFI
CFI
TLI SRMR RMSEA
Measurement 89.362
26
3.437 .973
.954 .967 .954 .044
.059
Items for Public Service Motivation
The construct of public service motivation (PSM) was first introduced by Perry
(1996), who proposed a four dimension construct, which includes attraction to policy
making, commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice. The Cronbach‘s
alphas for these dimensions are .77, .69, .72, and .74. In a recent study, Coursey and Pandey
(2007) proposed a three factor model based on a nationwide survey of public managers.
Their model eliminated the subscale of self-sacrifice. This newer scale was statistically
better than the original version of Perry‘s construct of PSM. This study has used the shorter
scale from Coursey and Pandey (2007), measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
(1)= ―strongly disagree‖ to (5)= ―strongly agree.‖
Table 4.4 Public Service Motivation
Attraction to Public Policymaking
Politics is a dirty word (reversed)
฀ PSM1
The give and take of public policy making doesn‘t appeal to me.
฀ PSM2
(reversed)
I don‘t care much for politicians (reversed)
฀ PSM3
Commitment to public interest
I unselfishly contribute to my community.
฀ PSM4
Meaningful public service is very important to me
฀ PSM5
I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole
฀ PSM6
community even if it harmed my interests
I consider public service my civic duty
฀ PSM7
Compassion
It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress
฀ PSM8
I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one
฀ PSM9
another.
PSM10
I have little compassion for people in need who are unwilling to take the
฀
first step to help themselves
The EFA supported the number of items loading on 3 factors as proved by earlier
scholars. The Cronbach‘s alphas for these factors were .739, .745, and .671, which
demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for the measure.
42
Table 4.4.1 shows the model fit indices for the public service motivation model. The
measures for GFI, CFI and TLI are above .90. RMSEA= .065 which is smaller than 0.07
and SRMR=.044 which is less than .07, all indicating an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler
1999)
Table 4.4.1 Model Fit for Measurement Model (CFA) for Public Service Motivation
χ²
df
χ²/df GFI
NFI
CFI
TLI SRMR RMSEA
Measurement 154.277 32
4.821 .955
.913 .929 .900 .0629
.065
Figure 4.3: Results of CFA for Public Service Motivation
Reliability and Validity
In addition to model fit, construct reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity tests were also conducted. Construct or composite reliability estimates indicate the
measures to be reliable. Following the very basic test of convergent validity, each
indicator‘s estimated coefficient on its posited underlying construct factor was found
significant (Anderson & Gerbing 1988). However, significant lambdas are considered as a
weak test of convergent validity (Steenkamp &Van Trijp, 1991). Another better indication
43
of convergent validity was tested by examining whether the standardized loadings are at
least .70. The condition was met for most of the items with exception of few items. The
shared correlation between constructs did not exceed 0.5, and thus met the discriminant
validity condition. The results for construct reliabilities and correlations among constructs
are provided in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Construct Reliabilities, Correlations and Cronbach Alphas
CR 1
2
3
4
5
6
.49
(.68)
1 Workplace PEB
(WPPEB)
.64
(.72)
.23
2 Money saving
Non-workplace
PEB (NWPPEB I)
(.91)
.06
.27
3 Cost-neutral Non- .76
workplace PEB
(NWPPEB II)
.88
(.72)
-.19
-.1
.07*
4 Cost-oriented
Non-workplace
PEB (NWPPEB
III)
.06*
.18*
.07
(.81)
.23
5 Civic Engagement .75
(CP1)
.85
.12*
.11*
.09*
.01*
(.72)
.26
6 Cognitive
Engagement (CP2)
.87
(.72)
.08
.46
.43
.38
.36
7 Public Service
Motivation (PSM)
.11*
.21** .04*
.17*
.38
.45
8 Transformational
Leadership (TL)
.07
-.30
.08
.28
.51
.22
Green Culture
(GC)
.04*
-.42
-.16
-.29
.003
-.05
9 Barrier (BAR)
Cronbach alpha in parentheses
Correlations are shown below Cronbach alphas,
Bolded correlations = p<0.01 , Correlations with * = p<0.05
CR= Construct Reliability
7
8
9
10
(.72)
.24*
(.91)
.06*
.34*
(.81)
.17
.15
-.002
(.67)
Items for transformational leadership
The items for transformational leadership were adapted from the Moynihan, Pandey
and Wright (2009) study on transformational leadership. The data were collected in Phase 4
of the National Administrative Studies Project (NASP-IV). They borrowed the items from
four socialized charismatic leadership subscales (vision, role modeling, inspirational
communication, and intellectual stimulation) developed by House (1998) that depict the
three transformational dimensions (inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and
intellectual stimulation). Items were taken from the subscales intellectual stimulation, role
modeling and inspirational communication and vision. The three-item measure represents
44
items from four different subscales (House 1998) that reflect three dimensions of
transformational leadership.
A factor analysis of these items extracted only one factor that explained nearly 76%
of their variance and is consistent with previous findings that suggest that the
transformational dimensions may be best characterized as a single factor (Avolio, Bass, &
Jung 1999). Because transformational leadership is an established scale, this study used the
index score for the regression analysis.
Moynihan, Pandey and Wright (2009) showed the reliability of transformational
leadership as 0.91. The scales were also shown to be internally consistent in test retest
measures. The scale is measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1)= ―strongly
disagree‖ to (5)= ―strongly agree‖. The Cronbach alpha coefficient is .91 which is
considered satisfactory.
Table 4.6 Transformation Leadership
฀ TL1
S/he clearly articulates his/her vision of environmental concerns for the future
฀
TL2
฀
TL3
S/he leads by setting a good example of green behaviors such as reusing paper,
disposing-of waste properly etc.
S/he challenges me to think about new ways of recycling and saving natural resources.
Organizational Green Culture
The items for organizational green culture were developed based on the literature
review. Two dimensions were kept in consideration while developing the measures: to
borrow the already developed items on organizational culture from business literature
(Schien, 1985, 1995), and adapt these items based on the extensive review of theoretical and
conceptual literature on green organizational culture (Harris & Crane, 2002; Hoffman,
1993; Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Johnson & Walck, 2004).
For organizational green culture, the index score was used for measurement and
regression analysis. As shown in Table 4.5, the Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient is .813 which
is considered satisfactory. Respondents were asked to respond to the question ―to what
extent do they agree or disagree with the following statements‖ with a measurement scale of
1= ―strongly disagree‖ and 5= ―strongly agree.‖
45
Table 4.7 Green Organizational Culture
My agency uses a common (and easy to understand) language for all the
฀ GC1
members to explain the importance of the environment.
My supervisor encourages me and others to learn about environmental
฀ GC2
concerns
The top management recognizes and spreads the significance of
฀ GC3
environmental concerns to lower level employees.
My agency rewards pro environmental behaviors.
฀ GC4
Value Action Gap Barriers
The items for individual and social barriers identified under value action gap
constraints were developed based on findings of the meta-analysis of barriers to PEB
conducted by Lorenzoni and colleagues (2007). The items were designed to assess
individual barriers (e.g., ―I do not know much about potential solutions to climate change‖)
and social barriers (e.g., ―politicians are not concerned about protecting the environment‖).
Respondents were asked the question ―to what extent do they agree or disagree with
the following statements‖ with a measurement scale of 1= ―strongly disagree‖ and 5=
―strongly agree.‖
Table 4.8 Barriers (Value-Action Gaps)
฀ BAR1 There is too much conflicting information on climate change to know whether
it is actually happening
฀ BAR2 Acting pro-environmentally is good, but it takes a considerable amount of my
precious time
฀ BAR 3 Environmental protection is a societal problem; changes that I make would not
make a difference
฀ BAR 4 I probably could recycle regularly, but then it doesn‘t fit in with my life
฀ BAR 5 I could commute through bus regularly, but it is inconvenient
฀ BAR 6 People are too selfish to do anything about climate change
The Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient for the six items is .674 (Table 4.5), which is a
little low from the accepted standard of 0.70. The reason for low reliability may be
associated with the unique characteristics of each item which falls into this construct.
However, since latent variables for value action gap have been theoretically approved and
tested and are very important to this study, the items measuring barriers were included for
the further analysis.
46
Control Variables
Items for organizational environmental policy
The study uses organizational environmental policy measures from Ramus and
Steger (2000). They developed the instrument (13 items) by conducting literature reviews,
interviews and focus groups through qualitative research and validation methods. For
employees‘ knowledge about organizational environmental policy, respondents were asked
to respond as 1= yes, or 0= no.
Table 4.9 Organizational environmental policy Scale
My organization has an official policy that encourages environmentally
฀ OEP1
friendly behavior.
Other control variables included female, age, income, white, married, education
Tallahassee, and PEBs required by organization. Age was coded as the number of years a
respondent is old. Education was used as the numbers with 1 as less than high school and 6=
doctorate as the highest education level. Income was also coded as 1 representing the
$20,000 or lower and 8 representing the income level of $80,000 or above. Female, white
and married were used as dichotomous variables. Tallahassee was also used as dummy
variable with Tallahassee employees as 1 and Lakeland employees as 0. PEBs required by
employer included the items that respondents performed in the organizations because they
were required by the organization. The variable was used as an additive index ranging from
0-6.
Summary
This chapter discussed the methodology used for this study. It described in
detail the items used to construct the latent constructs and the sources from where these
items were borrowed or adapted. This chapter also described the measurement of all
variables, their factor loadings and their internal reliability estimates. Furthermore, it
discussed which items were needed to be dropped, due to the measurement issues, from the
variables for final analysis.
The next chapter describes the demographic information of the respondents and the
analytical results of collected data followed by findings, discussion and implications of
results.
47
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter describes the results of the data and presents findings of the research
hypotheses discussed in chapter 3. In the first section, the demographic information of the
data is presented. The second section presents the univariate statistics of all the variables
used in this study. In the next section, the multiple and logistic regression analyses are
presented. Finally, the results from the regression analyses are discussed.
Demographic Characteristics of Sample
This section describes the demographic characteristics for both Tallahassee and
Lakeland city government employees. In the next section, the comparative analysis of
sample demographics in proportion with population demographics for both cities would be
presented. Table 5.1 summarizes the demographic information of respondents. Of all
respondents, the proportion of males (59.81%) was higher than that of females (40.19). In
terms of age, 35.4 percent respondents are in their 40s, 33.3 percent in 50s and 11.7 % and
13.7% fall in the age group of 30s and 20s respectively. For race, 66.98 percent are whites
and 26.32% are black. In terms of education level, a majority of respondents (79.72%) has
at least bachelor degree or more; 28.95 percent completed some college level, and 19.35
percent had a high school diploma. Also, a majority is employed in the public service as full
time employees (98.82%).
48
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Gender (Missing= 46)
Female
Male
Race (Missing=46 )
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian or pacific Islander
American Indian
Educational Level (Missing= 42)
Less than high school
High school graduate or G.E.D
Some college
Bachelor‘s degree
Master‘s degree
Doctorate degree
Marital status (Missing=47)
Married
Divorced
Single
Not married, but with a significant other
Widow/er
Annual Income (Missing=66)
under $20,000
$20,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $69,999
$70,000 - $79,999
$80,000 or above
Political Preference (Missing=57)
Extremely Liberal
Liberal
Slightly Liberal
Moderate, Middle of the road
Slightly conservative
Conservative
Extremely conservative
Current Job (Missing=9)
Full time
Part time
Supervisory Status (Missing=8)
Non-supervisor
Team leader
Supervisor
Manager
Department/ Agency Head
Age (Missing= 61)
1940-1950 (60s)
1951-1960 (50s)
1961-1970 (40s)
1971-1980 (30s)
1981-1990 (20s)
49
Frequency
258
384
Percent
40.19
59.81
430
169
13
10
7
66.98
26.32
2.02
1.56
1.09
0
125
187
203
121
10
0
19.35
28.95
31.42
18.73
1.55
459
69
82
25
6
71.61
10.76
12.79
3.90
.94
2
31
73
130
111
86
66
123
0.32
4.98
11.74
20.90
17.85
13.83
10.61
19.77
14
82
57
196
102
147
33
2.22
13
9.03
31.06
16.16
23.30
5.23
671
8
98.82
1.18
322
89
171
77
21
47.35
13.09
25.15
11.32
3.09
37
229
244
79
38
5.4
33.3
35.4
11.7
13.7
Descriptive Statistics
Table 5.2 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all latent variables used in this
study. The mean score of workplace (3.22) and non-workplace PEB (3.20) showed higher
mean scores. Also, public service motivation, green culture and transformational leadership
have higher mean scores, having 3.48, 3.18 and 3.22 respectively. On the other hand, civic
participation (M= 2.98) and value action gap barrier (M= 2.65) had relatively low mean
values below 3.00.
Also, as shown in Table 5.2, all variables were normally distributed. According to
Finney and Distefano (2006), an appropriate cutoff line of absolute value of ± 2 for
skewness and ± 7 for kurtosis. The skewness of items used ranges from -.3513 to .2725,
while the values for kurtosis range from 2.3557 to 3.9660, indicating that the responses are
fairly normally distributed.
Table 5.2 Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables
Variable
N
Mean Min
660 3.22
1
Workplace PEB
590 3.20
1
Non-workplace PEB
654 2.98
1
Civic Participation
631 3.48
1
Public Service Motivation
652 3.18
1
Green Culture
640 3.22
1
Transformational Leadership
649 2.655 1
Value-Action Gap Barrier
Max
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S.D
.7485
.801
.741
.447
.641
.901
.568
Skewness
-.3014
-.1306
.1969
-.0458
-.3513
-.3131
.2725
Kurtosis
3.5233
2.3557
3.1924
3.6389
3.1268
3.1717
3.9660
Table 5.3 Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables – Sub-sample of Tallahassee Respondents
Variable
N
Mean Min Max S.D
Skewness Kurtosis
463 3.716 1
5
.913
-.159
-.288
Workplace PEB
5
.698
-.047
-.473
Non-workplace PEB
422 3.183 1
3.081
1
5
.695
.246
.430
Civic Participation
464
5
.402
-.228
1.998
Public Service Motivation
489 3.417 1
5
.572
-.246
.306
Green Culture
463 3.282 1
5
.872
-.376
.354
Transformational Leadership
457 3.327 1
5
.559
.466
1.410
Value-Action Gap Barrier
465 2.636 1
Table 5.4 Univariate Statistics of Latent Variables – Sub-sample of Lakeland Respondents
Variable
N
Mean Min Max S.D
Skewness Kurtosis
187 3.64
1
5
.994
.259
.147
Workplace PEB
191 3.11
1
5
.739
-.011
.424
Non-workplace PEB
187 3.12
1
5
.666
-.425
.495
Civic Participation
185 3.78
1
5
.388
-.156
.481
Public Service Motivation
179 2.74
1
5
.778
-.188
-.641
Green Culture
179 2.75
1
5
.965
-.062
-.108
Transformational Leadership
195 2.71
1
5
.609
-.123
.071
Value-Action Gap Barrier
50
Correlation Matrix
Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the basic relationships among all the
variables and to check if there are possible multicollinearity problems among the variables
for hypothesis testing. The matrix correlation analysis is displayed in Table 5.5. As
expected, with the exception of civic participation and four control variables, all other
independent variables had statistically positive significant relationships with two dependent
variables, workplace PEB and non-workplace PEB. Also, the variable barrier is negatively
correlated with non-workplace PEB, but theoretical background in literature review
provided this indication for this expected negative relationship. In particular, for relations
between dependent and all independent variables, the correlation between non-workplace
PEB and public service motivation had the highest correlation coefficient (.632). This
implies that public service motivation may be the most significant factor influencing the
pro- environmental behavior. Also, green culture (.406) and civic participation (.328) had
high correlation in the relationship of non-workplace PEB. Value action gap barrier (-.643)
also had high correlation but with negative association.
51
Table 5.5 The Correlation Matrix: Items Relating to Workplace and Non-workplace PEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
WPPEB
1.00
2
NWPPEBI
.135
1.00
3
NWPPEBII
.061
.045
1.00
4
NWPPEBIII
.262
.142
.356
1.00
5
PSM
.098
.341
.231
.632
1.00
6
Civic eng
.066
.031
-.033
.328
.495
1.00
7
Cognitive eng
.125
.022
.054
.050
.133
.022
1.00
8
TL
.116
-.021
.145
.147
.290
.198
.038
1.00
9
GC
.084
.021
.014
.102
.406
.320
.092
.861
1.00
10
Female
-.09
-.067
-.012
.054
.109
.193
.035
.001
.074
1.00
11
Age
.127
.003
.003
.055
.081
.084
.032
.007
.023
-.077
1.00
12
Income
.102
.032
.022
.147
.137
.119
.133
.028
.041
-.205
.290
1.00
13
Education
-.056
-.005
.054
.152
.283
.249
.245
.045
.075
.135
-.034
.406
1.00
14
Barrier
.042
-.156
-.016
.065
-.643
-.370
-.193
.002
-.063
-.136
-.086
-.077
-.291
1.00
15
White
.106
-.013
.005
.033
.075
-.131
-.084
-.010
-.081
-.170
.142
.170
-.024
-.109
1.00
16
Married
-.009
.003
.087
-.022
.018
-.023
.095
-.047
-.078
-.333
.075
.258
-.049
-.022
.106
1.00
17
Tallahassee
-.104
.002
.112
.048
.050
-.018
-.092
.202
.264
-.028
-.164
-.021
.066
-.019
-.205
-.076
1.00
18
Policy
-.045
.016
.069
-.101
.039
.054
.007
.267
.35
.074
.050
.047
-.013
-.005
-.115
-.084
.309
Bolded correlations are significant at 0.01 level
52
18
1.00
Analysis
Multiple Regression Analysis
The ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression analyses were
conducted to test the hypotheses. The simplest way to check collinearity is an examination
of the correlation matrix for the independent variables. The presence of correlations
generally equal to 0.90 or higher is the first indication of substantial collinearity (Hair et al.,
2006). As shown in Table 5.5, there were no correlation coefficients greater than 0.90 or
higher. Thus the results of the correlation matrix indicated that multicollinearity problem
not be a big concern since no correlations were higher than 0.90. But this correlation
analysis is preliminary. Thus, the value of the variance inflation factor (VIF)1 was used to
check if there are any serious multicollinearity problems. The values of VIF were all within
a cutoff threshold, indicating there were no severe multicollinearity problems among all
independent variables.
Also, this study tested assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, and normality.
To identify whether or not there is a heteroscedasticity problem. The plot of residuals was
checked against the predicted dependent variable and statistical test. The residual plot and
predicted values indicated that there were no major violations of assumptions of
homoscedasticity. Also, residual plots against independent variables, normal probability
plot, and histogram passed the assumptions of linearity and normality.
Table 5.6 shows the regression results of the workplace PEB (Model 1) and three
types of non-workplace PEBs (Model 2, Model 3 and Model 4). The overall four models
support a good fit because the F-test is statistically significant at less than .01. The R² values
for workplace PEB, non-workplace PEBI (money saving PEBs), non-workplace PEBII (cost
neutral PEBs), and non-workplace PEBIII (cost oriented PEBs) were .078, .061, .060 and
.115 respectively. Accordingly, antecedent variables explain about 8 percent of the variation
in managers‘ perception of undertaking pro-environmental actions at their workplace while
1
VIF is expressed as the inverse of the tolerance value. Tolerance is calculated as 1- R². R² means the amount
of the selected one independent variable that is explained by all of the other independent variables in the
regression model (Hair et al. 2006). Therefore, small tolerance values and thus large VIF values (VIF=
1/tolerance) indicate a multicollinearity problem, because the tolerance value is the amount of a variable
unexplained by the other independent variables. Generally, a tolerance of less than .1 and a VIF of 10 or
higher indicate that there is severe multicollinearity problem among the independent variables (Hair et al.,
2006).
53
they account for 6 percent, 6 percent and 11.5 percent of variation in employees‘
perceptions of undertaking pro-environmental actions in non-workplace settings.
In the workplace PEB (model 1), for the personality factors, the effect of cognitive
engagement is positively significant (p < 0.05), as we expected. However, civic engagement
is significantly but negatively associated with workplace PEB. For the organizational
factors, transformational leadership and green culture are positively and significantly
associated with workplace PEB. The control variables that describe same PEBs at
workplace that are not performed voluntarily but required by organization also are
significantly and positively related with workplace PEBs. For moderator, the value action
gap barrier is not significantly associated with workplace PEB. However, interaction term
of barrier with civic engagement is positive and with cognitive engagement is negative. This
means that barrier moderates the positive relationship of cognitive engagement with
workplace PEB and negative relationship of civic engagement with workplace PEB.
In the money saving non-workplace PEB I (model 2), for individual factors, the
effect of civic engagement is significantly but negatively associated with non-workplace
PEB (p < 0.05), which was not expected. However, the effect of public service motivation is
not significantly associated with non-workplace PEBI. Also, the interaction between civic
engagement (CP1) and barrier is positively and significantly associated with non-workplace
PEB (p < 0.05). For organizational factors, no other variable was found to be significantly
related with money saving non-workplace PEBs. Green culture is positively and
significantly associated with non-workplace PEBI (p < 0.05). In terms of transformational
leadership, the effect is also positively and significantly associated with non-workplace
PEBI.
In the cost neutral non-workplace PEB II (model 3), for individual factors, the effect
of public service motivation (PSM) is significantly and positively associated with nonworkplace PEB (p < 0.05), which was expected. Also, the interaction between PSM and
barrier is negatively and significantly associated with non-workplace PEB (p < 0.05).
However, the effect of civic engagement and cognitive engagement were not significantly
associated with non-workplace PEBII. For organizational factors, transformational
leadership was found to be significantly and positively related with cost neutral nonworkplace PEBs, which was expected. Green culture was also significantly and positively
related with non-workplace PEB II.
In the cost oriented non-workplace PEB III (model 3), for individual factors, the
effect of public service motivation (PSM) is significantly and positively associated with
54
non-workplace PEB (p < 0.05), which was expected. Also, the interaction between PSM
and barrier is negatively and significantly associated with non-workplace PEB III (p <
0.05). However, the effect of civic engagement and cognitive engagement were not
significantly associated with non-workplace PEBIII. For organizational factors, no variable
was found to be significantly associated with cost oriented non-workplace PEBs.
Table 5.6 Results of Regression Analyses for Workplace PEB and Non-workplace PEB
Workplace
Non-workplace
Non-workplace Non-workplace
Variables
PEB
PEB I
PEB II
PEB III
-.160
.224
.492***
.704***
Public Service
Motivation (PSM)
-.175***
-.473***
-.035
-.271
Civic Engagement
(CP1)
.273***
-.064
-.079
.030
Cognitive
Engagement (CP2)
-.017
-.060
-.002
.005
Barrier
.147
-.137
-.491***
-.492***
PSM* barrier
.065***
.484***
.018
.302
CP1*barrier
-.112***
.145
.228
.079
CP2*barrier
.014***
.043
.011***
-.063
Green Culture (GC)
.035***
-.082
.120***
-.029
Transformational
Leadership (TL)
-.012**
.010
.066
.051
Age
-.005
-.051
.001
-.005
Female
-.014
.001
-.020
-.041
White
.014**
-.073
-.004
-.041
Income
-.008
.086**
.025
.081**
Education
.000
.043
.049
.029
Married
.001
.001
.028
.052
Tallahassee
.036
.061
.034
.031
Policy
.019***
.000
Required by
employer
595
# of Observations
.078
R²
2.344***
F
* p< .10 ** p< .005 *** p< .001
595
.061
1.708***
55
606
.120
1.202***
606
.115
4.069***
Logisitc regression analysis of items common in workplace and non-workplace settings
Since R² for models 1 and model 2 was quite small and some of the results were
unexpected such as civic engagement‘s negative association with workplace and the
interaction between civic engagement and barrier being positive, this study conducted the
individual analyses of the items that were used to construct these factors (WPPEB and
NWPPEBI). The items used to construct these factors were common in workplace and nonworkplace settings. Also, as mentioned previously, these PEBs are conducted in both
contexts with different intentions. The PEBS performed at workplace do not have economic
implications for employees, but non-workplace PEBs does have monetary implications.
Table 5.9 shows the results for logistic analysis of these ten items recoded as dummy
variables.
The in-depth analysis of individual items indicates that civic engagement was
significant for only two items B1-2 (increasing AC thermostat higher than required) and
B1-3 (reducing heating thermostat lower than required). However, the direction of this
relationship was positive and its interaction with barrier was negative, while the regression
analysis of workplace PEB construct showed negative relationship of civic engagement
with PEBs and positive relationship of its interaction with barrier. Similarly, the results for
the cognitive engagement were significantly and negatively associated with workplace PEB
while the relationship was positive in multiple regression analyses. However, both civic
engagement and cognitive engagement items were found insignificant in all non-workplace
PEB items.
The relationship of PSM was found positive and significant in only first item B1-1
with its interaction with barrier as significant too. PSM was not found significant in any
non-workplace PEB, however the constructs for PSM and its interaction with barrier were
found significant with both non-workplace PEB II and non-workplace PEB III. Barrier was
found significant and negatively associated with most of the items‘ relationship with
workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
For organizational factors, green culture was found significantly and positively
associated with B1-1. Transformational leadership was found to be positively and
significantly associated with only two workplace PEB items B1-2 and B1-3. The dummy
variable for Tallahassee employees was found significant in two workplace PEB items B1-1
and B1-3, which was quite expected. The control variable for PEBs required by the
56
organizations was found significant in almost all the workplace and non-workplace PEBs,
which indicates that the PEB performed as required versus voluntary play an important role.
57
Table 5.7 Logistic Regression Results for Workplace and Non-workplace PEBs
Variables
B1-1
B1-2
B1-3
B1-4
B1-5
Civic Participation (CP1)
-.799
1.939***
2.363***
-.878
-.071
Cognitive engagement
.240
-3.083*** -3.263***
-.047
-1.355
(CP2)
Barrier
Green Culture (GC)
Transformational
Leadership (TL)
Public Service Motivation
(PSM)
PSM* barrier
CP1*barrier
CP2* barrier
Female
White
Education
Married
Tallahassee
Age
Income
Policy
Required PEB
B3-2
-.827
-.075
B3-3
.649
-.017
B3-4
1.081
-.067
B3-5
.350
.586
-.190
.619***
-.170
-.004
-.017
.470***
-.062
-.174
.638***
-.691***
.283
.048
-.274
.266
.099
-.392
.357
.055
-.315**
.173
-.066
-.458***
-.029
-.126
-1.373***
.318
.071
-.566***
-.043
-.006
5.469**
-.880
-2.182
-1.828
4.926
3.667
-1.071
4.427
1.785
-.651
-1.976**
.262
-.167
.030
.646***
.157
-.074
.660***
.088
-.055
-.355
.472***
.116
-.671***
1.273***
.458
.341
-.155
-.201
-.468
.150***
.075
-1.120***
.362***
1.035
-.736***
1.221***
-.139
-.133
-.302***
-.534**
-.613***
.032
.168**
-.892***
.431***
.953
.266
-.093
.976***
.770***
.310***
-.086
.009
-.122**
.104
-.011
.418***
-2.233**
-.019
.544
.565***
.621***
.296***
-.608***
-.320
-.179***
.125**
-.578
.382***
-1.138
-.455
.990
-.251
.839***
-.603***
-.387
.526
-.222***
.205
-.210
.180
.634
.279
.059
.337
.579***
.092
.094
-.154
.079
-.072
.015
.400***
-1.215
.563***
.018
.000
.574***
.107
.259
.375
-.024
.283***
-1.390***
.132
.802
-.091
-.254
-.053
.589***
.077
-.531***
-.206
.012
-.059
-.171
.204***
575
.096
567
.131
578
.149
569
.162
575
.043
576
.099
-1.103
-.207
-.012
.103
.507
.081
-.717***
-.070
.045
-.059
-.495
.198***
1.603**
575
.092
576
.224
564
.083
575
.173
* p< .10 ** p< .005 *** p< .001
# of Observations
R²
B3-1
1.080
-2.417
Questions
B1-1 & B3-1: Set computer on energy safe mode
B1-2 & B3-2: Increase AC thermostat higher than required
B1-3 & B3-3: Reduce heating thermostat lower than desired
B1-4 & B3-4: Recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans
B1-5 & B3-5: Print on both sides of paper
58
Evaluation of Hypotheses
The proposed hypotheses were tested using regression analyses. Most of the results
were as expected, but a few were surprising and not supported by extent theories.
Hypotheses 1 to 4
Hypothesis 1 to 4 predicted that public employees‘ civic engagement and cognitive
engagement values correlate positively with workplace and different configurations of nonworkplace PEBs. The hypotheses were supported. In the regression analysis, the
standardized coefficient between civic engagement and workplace PEB was -.175, and the
coefficient between civic engagement and non-workplace PEB I was -.473, both of which
were significant at p= .05 level. These findings suggest that, the higher civic engagement a
public employee has, the lesser pro-environmental actions s/he may undertake in workplace
and non-workplace settings, controlling for the effects of other predictors. No hypotheses
were supported for the relationship between civic engagement and non-workplace PEB II
and non-workplace PEB III.
The standardized coefficients between cognitive engagement and workplace PEB
was .273, which was significant at p= .05 level. This means that controlling for the effects
of other variables, higher cognitive engagement a public employee has the more proenvironmental actions s/he may undertake in workplace settings. Cognitive engagement
failed to show any significant relationship with all the three types of non-workplace PEB.
Hypotheses 5 to 8
Hypothesis 5 to 8 predicted that public service motivation (PSM) correlate
positively with workplace and different variations of non-workplace PEB. The hypotheses
were supported for non-workplace PEBs. In the regression analysis, the standardized
coefficient between PSM and non-workplace PEB II or cost neutral PEBs was .492
significant at p=.05. This suggests that the higher the PSM public employees have, the more
likely they would engage in the non-workplace PEBs that do not provide them any
monetary value or cost them more, controlling for the effects of other variables in the
model.
The hypotheses for predicting the positive relationship between PSM and nonworkplace III or cost-oriented PEBs turned out to be positive. The coefficient between PSM
and non-workplace PEB III was .704, which was significant at p= .05 level. These findings
59
suggest that, the higher PSM public employees have the more cost oriented proenvironmental actions they may undertake in non-workplace settings. PSM did not show
any significant relationship with workplace PEB and non-workplace PEB I or money saving
PEBs.
Hypothesis 9
Hypothesis 9 postulated that value-action gaps or barriers moderate the relationship
of civic engagement and cognitive engagement with workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
That is, the influence of civic engagement on PEBs will be stronger when value-action
barriers are low. The hypotheses were supported, as relationship of the interaction of civic
engagement and barrier was found significantly and positively associated with workplace
PEB and non-workplace PEBI.
The coefficient between workplace PEB and the interaction of civic
engagement and barrier was .065, which was significant at p=.05. The coefficient between
non-workplace PEB I and civic engagement was .484 significant at p=.05. This suggested
that the value action barriers significantly moderate the relationship between civic
engagement and workplace PEBs as well as between civic engagement and non-workplace
PEB I. This means that the higher the barriers are, the stronger would be the negative
relationship of civic engagement and workplace PEB and non-workplace PEBI. Conversely,
with lower barriers, the negative relationship of civic engagement with workplace PEB and
non-workplace PEB I would be weaker.
Hypothesis 9 also postulated that value-action gaps or barriers moderate the
relationship of cognitive engagement with workplace PEB. That is, the influence of
cognitive engagement on PEBs will be stronger when value-action barriers are low. The
hypothesis was supported, as relationship of the interaction of cognitive engagement and
barrier was found significantly and negatively associated with workplace PEB.
The coefficient between workplace PEB and the interaction of cognitive
engagement and barrier was -.112, which was significant at p=.05. This suggested that the
value action barriers significantly moderate the relationship between cognitive engagement
and workplace PEBs, such that the higher the barriers are, the weaker would be the positive
relationship of cognitive engagement and workplace PEB. Conversely, with lower barriers,
the positive relationship between cognitive engagement and workplace PEB would be
weaker.
60
Hypothesis 10
Hypothesis 10 predicted that value-action gaps or barriers moderate the positive
relationship of public service motivation (PSM) with workplace PEB and non-workplace
PEBs. That is, the influence of PSM on PEBs will be stronger when value-action barriers
are low. The hypothesis was supported for non-workplace PEBs, as relationship of the
interaction of PSM and barrier was found significantly and negatively associated with nonworkplace PEB II and non-workplace PEB III.
The coefficient between non-workplace PEB II and the interaction of PSM
and barrier was -.491, which was significant at p=.05. Also, the coefficient between nonworkplace PEB III and the interaction of PSM and barrier was -.492, which was significant
at p=.05. This suggested that the value action barriers significantly moderate the
relationship between PSM and non-workplace PEBs, such that higher the barriers are
weaker would be the positive relationship of PSM and non-workplace PEB II and nonworkplace PEB III. Conversely, with lower barriers, the positive relationship of PSM with
non-workplace PEB II and non-workplace PEB III would be weaker. The interaction terms
were not significant for workplace PEB and non-workplace PEB I.
Hypotheses 11 to 14
Hypothesis 11 to 13 predicted the positive correlation between transformational
leadership and non-workplace PEB I, II and III, and hypothesis 14 predicted that
transformational leadership correlate positively with workplace PEB. Hypothesis 12 and 14
were not supported as the coefficients turned out to be insignificant. Hypothesis 11 and 13
were supported.
The standardized coefficient between transformational leadership and workplace
PEB was .035 and the coefficient for non-workplace PEB II and transformational leadership
was .120. Both coefficients were significant at p=.05. This suggests that the higher the
influence of transformational leadership on employees, the more likely they would be
engaged in workplace PEBs, controlling for the effect of other variables. Also, for nonworkplace PEB II or cost neutral PEBs, higher the influence of transformational leadership
on employees, more likely the employees would be engaged in non-workplace PEB II or
cost neutral PEBs at home.
61
Hypotheses 15 to 18
Hypothesis 15 to 17 predicted the positive correlation between organizational green
culture and non-workplace PEB I, II and III, and hypothesis 18 predicted that green culture
correlate positively with workplace PEB. Hypothesis 15 and 17 were not supported as the
coefficients turned out to be insignificant. Hypothesis 16 and 18 were supported in the
regression analysis.
The standardized coefficient between green culture and workplace PEB was .004
and the coefficient for non-workplace PEB II and green culture was .001, with both
coefficients significant at p=.05. This suggests that the higher the influence of green culture
on employees, the more likely they would be engaged in workplace PEBs, controlling for
the effects of other variables in the model. Also, for non-workplace PEB II, the higher the
influence of green culture on employees, the more likely the employees would be engaged
in non-workplace PEB II or cost neutral PEBs at home, controlling for the effects of other
predictors.
Control variables
The study controlled for some of the demographic characteristics of public
employees by adding control variables such as gender, age, income, education, race (white),
marital status, organizational environmental policy and employee being from Tallahassee
and Lakeland.
Age and income were significant for workplace PEB. The coefficient for age and
workplace PEB was -.012 which was significant at p=.05. This suggested that older
employees are less likely to perform PEBs in organizations. This finding- although a bit
unexpected- has strong theoretical linkages with the challenges of bringing green culture
into organizations. The literature suggested that senior managers play the most significant
role in discouraging the introduction of green practices into organizations (Harris & Crane,
2002).
Income shows a significant and positive relationship with workplace PEB, which
was quite expected. The higher the income is, the more likely a person would be engaged in
PEBs. However, the relationship with cost oriented PEBs or PEB III was not significant,
which could explain this relationship in more meaningful manner.
Education was significantly associated with non-workplace PEB I and III. The
coefficients for both the relationships were positive which was quite expected. Higher
62
education brings more prospects for learning and information has been identified as one of
the most important predictor of non-workplace PEBs (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, &
Rothengatter 2005; Lehman & Geller 2004; Schultz et al., 1995). Thus, the positive
relationship of education with non-workplace PEBs can be very well explained by the
strong theoretical reasoning.
Lastly, the control variable of PEBs required by employer was significant for
workplace PEBs. The coefficient between workplace PEB and required by employer was
.019 which was significant. This suggested that the PEBs, if mandated by the organization,
require employees to perform them. Since employees do not have much room to skip those
activities, the positive relationship is quite well explanatory.
Summary
This chapter presented the demographic and sample characteristics of 688 public
employees, data screening efforts, and results of data analyses. This study used CFA to
create factors for the latent variables to be used in the analysis. Multiple and logistic
regression analyses were used to test the relationships among the determinants, dimensions
and correlates of workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
A total of 18 hypotheses were tested. Nine hypotheses were fully supported and nine
were rejected. Appendix C presents a summary of the results of hypotheses testing. In the
next chapter, the major findings of this study will be discussed, as well as research
limitations and future research opportunities.
63
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
This chapter provides a discussion for the findings presented in Chapter five as well
as implications based on these findings. First, the major results are examined in further
detail. This is followed by an explanation of theoretical contributions and the practical
implications of the study. The research limitations of the current investigation, along with
some suggestions for future research, are also presented.
Major Findings and Discussion
The purpose of this work was to examine the influence of individual/personality and
organizational factors on pro environmental behaviors of public employees. Specifically it
investigated following questions: (1) how is PEB influenced by the characteristics prevalent
in public organizations, (2) how do transformational leadership and green culture influence
workplace PEB, and (3) how organizational factors potentially influence the non-workplace
PEBs. This study sought to answer these questions by designing a research model
integrating the individual and organizational factors that can influence pro environmental
behavior. These findings are highlighted and summarized below.
Impact of Public service motivation on non-workplace PEBs
As hypothesized (hypotheses 3 & 4), public service motivation (PSM) was
significantly and positively related to non-workplace PEB II (β = .492, p < 0.05). Also,
PSM had a positive and significant relationship with non-workplace PEB III (β = .704, p <
0.05). The results imply that PSM may have a positive effect on employees‘ pro
environmental activities in non-workplace settings. More interestingly, PSM turned out to
be significant for PEBS that provide them either no monetary benefit (PEB II) or cost them
more (PEB III). This means that employees in their non-workplace settings are willing to
undertake PEBs that provide them no extrinsic benefits or some PEBs even are adding more
costs to them. Instead they perform such behaviors because they are concerned with putting
their share for benefitting the environment for the good of society. This finding conforms to
the underlying intrinsic or pro-social nature of PSM.
64
As PEB literature suggests, a person‘s moral norm is a significant determinant of
PEB (Corbett, 2005). PSM is also characterized by moral and ethical values (e.g., Perry
1996; Houston 2006). The significant relationship between PSM and non-workplace PEBs
confirms the correlation of the value base of these constructs. Thus, the higher the concerns
for helping the humanity and being pro-social, the more likely the individuals would engage
in activities that would protect environment. In other words, PSM and PEB share similar
value base in terms of serving community.
PSM‘s significant and positive relationship with cost oriented PEBs gives strong
evidence that a desire to help community is not merely an organizational concern, rather it
is public servant‘s inherent commitment to serve public. Some critics may argue that cost
oriented PEBs (such as buying organic food or organic dairy) would eventually benefit
individuals themselves, the behaviors explained by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,
1991) in other social sciences disciplines. For public employees, such behaviors can be
described by the rational perspective of the theory of PSM, which explains that the
motivational bases of PSM can be rational where individuals‘ choice of action is based on
utility maximization (Perry, 2000).
Individuals, who perform these PEBs may undertake such actions with the primary
motive of benefitting themselves. However, indirectly these actions are contributing
towards reducing negative impacts on environment. When explaining a rational perspective,
Perry and Wise (1990, p.368) referred to Rawls (1971), who asserted that ―a greater
realization of self emanates from skillful and devoted exercises of social duties.‖ Similarly
individuals undertaking resources saving actions may therefore be satisfying personal needs
while serving social interests.
Impact of Value-Action Gaps or Barriers on PEBs - The Moderator
The existing research on PEB in other social science disciplines identifies some
barriers that prevent individuals from performing pro-environmental actions, despite a
general concern for the environment (Blake, 1999; Tackacs-Santa, 2007). These barriers are
generally classified into two types: individual and social barriers. This study examined the
impact of these barriers on personality factors: PSM and civic participation. The findings
for this issue confirmed the previous research and results indicated that these barriers
moderate the relationship of PSM with non-workplace PEBs and civic engagement with
workplace PEBs.
65
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the graphical representation of the moderating effect of
barriers on positive relationship between PSM and two types of non-workplace PEBs. The
slopes for the positive relationship show stronger relationship between non-workplace PEB
II and PSM when barriers are low, whereas the strength of the positive relationship between
non-workplace PEBII and PSM is relatively weaker when the barriers are high. The slopes
for positive relationship between non-workplace PEB III and PSM show the same
moderating effect of barriers on their positive relationship (fig 6.2).
As mentioned, the value base of PSM and PEBs is the same and the two constructs
correlate significantly with each other. Individuals concerned with the betterment of public
or society would be motivated to undertake actions that protects environment. However,
public employees, just like other people, may have time, information or family constraints
to perform pro-environmental actions. Business and psychology literature identify several
barriers such as laziness, lack of time and information, lack of trust or shirking the
responsibility to government or environmental institutions. If an employee has no family
and he lives alone, he has more time and resources to undertake PEBs. Thus value action
gaps or barriers have the tendency to decrease the positive relationship of PSM and PEB
irrespective of the salient characteristics of different work environments.
As mentioned, the types of PEBs significant with PSM were the types where no
extrinsic motivation was involved and employees may be required to pay extra cost to
perform some PEBs. It is likely that employees who have high PSM may come across such
barriers that may restrict them for performing PEBs, despite their high motivations to
perform PEBs.
The higher the barriers are (such as laziness, financial constraints, lack of time and
information or family pressures), the lesser the strength of the relationship between public
service motivation and pro environmental actions. On the other hand, employees may be
more motivated to undertake PEBs when they have no time, information or family issues,
and thus the relationship of PSM and PEB would be stronger, if these barriers are low.
66
Figure 6.1: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on cost neutral non- workplace
PEB and PSM.
Figure 6.2: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on cost oriented non-workplace PEB and
PSM
67
Impact of civic engagement and cognitive engagement on workplace and nonworkplace PEBs
The hypotheses concerning civic engagement relationship with PEBs were
significant for workplace PEB and money saving non-workplace PEB I. however the
relationship turned out to be negative, which means that the higher the levels of civic
engagement an employee has, the lesser he would perform PEBs in workplace and nonworkplace. This is an unexpected finding given the community oriented nature of civic
engagement. The cognitive engagement, on the other hand, showed significant and positive
relationship with workplace PEB.
There can be several explanations for the negative association of civic engagement
on workplace and non-workplace PEBs. First, it is very hard to draw clear boundaries with
the definition of civic engagement (Zukin et al., 2006). Citizens can participate in public life
in a variety of manners. Although civic engagement has been described distinctively from
other types of public engagement such as political participation, yet the distinguishing civic
engagement from political engagement is a challenging task (Zukin et al., 2006). Each form
of public action is valuable but neither alone is sufficient to address the multifaceted issues
associated with this issue (Zukin et al., 2006).
Secondly, the construct of cognitive engagement measured the general participation
of employees aimed at achieving a public good. It did not ask employees specific questions
about participating environmental concerns. However, the measures were kept general on
purpose to examine how regular civic participation activities such as volunteering for
community‘s work in cooperation with others would affect employees‘ pro-environmental
concerns.
Also, the detailed item wise logistic regression results also indicated that there were
only two workplace PEB items related with adjusting the thermostats for AC and heating
systems that were significantly associated with civic engagement. These are the behaviors
where employees generally do not get opportunity to perform because of the improved and
automatic temperature controlled work environments in most organizations. Other types of
PEBs that can be performed at work especially recycling, disposing-off waste, reusing
paper, and setting computer on safe mode etc were not significantly associated with civic
engagement. The correlation could turn out with negative because of the possibility of
performing these two actions (setting AC and heating thermostats) lesser than other
workplace PEBs
68
Thirdly, the negative association of PEBs with civic engagement and positive
association with cognitive engagement may suggest that public employees tend to pay more
attention to environmental concerns just by following the environmental news in
newspapers or talking more about the green issues with friends and families, but take less
interest in direct hands-on work in cooperation with others for promoting the same agenda.
The reasons can be the tough working schedules, generic stereotyping of public employees
as lazy (Baldwin, 1984; Newstrom et al., 1976) or the stronger influence of external barriers
(Blake, 1999; Lorenzoni et al., 2007) such as time, health or family issues. The role of
barriers affecting this relationship would be discussed in the next section.
Impact of Value Action Gaps or Barriers as moderator on relationships between civic
& cognitive engagement and workplace PEB
The barriers were found to be significantly moderating the relationships of civic
engagement and cognitive engagement with workplace and non-workplace PEBs. Figures
6.3 and 6.4 show the graphical representation of the moderating effect of barriers on
relationships between civic engagement and workplace PEB, and cognitive engagement and
workplace PEB respectively. The slopes for the slightly negative relationship of civic
engagement and workplace PEB show a weaker relation when barriers are high, whereas the
relationship gets better when barriers are high (fig 6.3).
As discussed, the finding for the negative association of civic engagement and
workplace PEB was quite unexpected and can be explained through various reasons. The
impact of barriers such as lack of time, information or workload is improving the
significance of relationship between civic engagement and PEB. It might be the case that
civic engagement activities require time for participation in such activities. It was found that
this relationship is negative, which implies that public employees may lack time for such
hands-on participation in public life. When barriers are high such as time or more work
load, employees are more likely not to participate in civic affairs, but this eventually gives
them some time to perform PEBs at workplace, which they could not have performed in
case they devote a portion of their time in for voluntary or community activities.
The moderating effect of barriers on positive relationship between cognitive
engagement and workplace PEBs can be explained with logical reasoning. Higher the
barriers, weaker would be the relationship between workplace PEB and cognitive
engagement. Conversely, weaker the barriers are, stronger would be the relationship
69
between WPPEB and cognitive engagement. Reading emails, participating in discussion
forums, reading newspapers, or talking about politics or civic affairs are time consuming
activities. They also require informative content to talk about. Employees who do not know
much about current affairs or who are short of time generally do not have the opportunities
to participate cognitively in civic affairs.
The findings for cognitive engagement and the moderating effect of barriers on its
relationship with workplace PEBs can be explained well theoretically and practically.
However, the findings for civic engagement predicting workplace PEB and the effect of
barrier moderating its relationship with workplace PEB are hard to explain with sound
theoretical reasoning. More work is required in this area to further explain the results.
Figure 6.3: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on civic engagement and
workplace PEB.
70
Figure 6.4: The Moderating Effect of Value-Action Gap or Barrier on cognitive engagement and workplace
PEB
Impact of organizational green culture on workplace and non-workplace PEB
Organizational green culture was found to be significant in its association with
workplace PEB and non-workplace PEB I. This means that the higher the impact of green
culture on employees, the more they would be engaged in PEBs.
The significance of organizational culture compatible with environmental concerns has been
discussed in business literature (Fineman 1996; Harris & Crane, 2002; Post & Altman 1994;
Shrivastava 1995; Ramus 1997). In this regard, organizational strategic vision is credited to
shape organizational culture that helps in the improvement of motivation and involvement
of workers in environmental issues (Shrivastava 1995; Ramus 1997; Russo & Fouts 1997).
Also, it develops communication mechanisms that enable improvement in the
environmental performance (Gupta & Sharma 1996; Hanna et al., 2000; Kitazawa & Sarkis
2000; Handfield, Melnyk, Calantone, & Curkovic 2001). Organizational green culture
supported by environmentally responsible assumptions, beliefs and behaviors may influence
employees to carry out the green practices not only in the organizations but outside the
organizational settings.
71
This finding supports the recognition of the importance of organizational culture in
promoting PEBs. Organizational culture matters because it helps in developing employees‘
vision to support pro-environmental concerns in organizations (Fernandez, Junquera &
Ordiz, 2003). As discussed in the introductory chapters, government has made significant
investments in addressing environmental issues, and these resources and investments can go
waste, if organizations fail to choose and use employees‘ ideas (Environmental Manager,
1994). Local governments are playing the most critical role in implementing the
sustainability goals and policies mandated by government. In order to generate a sustainable
competitive advantage, public employees have to be the part of the process of formulation
of strategies and ideas for successful implementation (Azzone & Noci, 1998; Fernandez et
al., 2003; Klassen & McLaughlin 1993; Polonsky, Rosenberger III, & Ottman 1998;
Handfield et al., 2001). Thus, effective implementation of comprehensive and advanced
environmental approach requires an organizational culture based on ecological values,
which includes a deep awareness on the part of employees. Otherwise, government
investments and management‘s efforts could lose part of their value (Fernandez et al.,
2003).
The positive association of organizational green culture with non-workplace PEB-I
offers an exciting finding. Since performing PEBs in organizations are discretionary acts
that do not have economic implications for employees, organizational culture as a
significant predictor shapes personal values of employees which lead them to undertake
environmental actions. Also, results indicate that green culture tends to influence the types
of non-workplace environmental activities that are discretionary or voluntary at home.
Green culture could have influenced employees‘ non-workplace PEBs that should be
similar to organizational activities (NWPPEB-I) or that have monetary implications, but it
showed significant influence upon voluntary PEBs in non-workplace settings. Employees‘
acquisition of environmentally responsible assumptions, beliefs and behaviors, as an
outcome of organizational green culture, primarily becomes the part of personality. Hence,
employees‘ persistence in carrying out PEBs at home should make sense.
Changing individual (particularly household and consumer) behaviors has been one
of the most important and common source for attaining macro level sustainability goals.
Considering the role of organizational green culture influencing PEBs at non-workplace
settings, provides a potential platform for policy makers and managers to promote further
developing green culture to influence employees. Employees are also citizens and if
72
government makes strategic plans to improve organizational strategies that influence
employees PEBs in their non-workplace settings, it would help them in accomplishing
environmental goals.
Impact of transformational leadership on non-workplace PEB
The results for the association of transformational leadership with non-workplace
PEB as well as with workplace PEB were found significant and positive. This implies that
higher the impact of transformational leadership on employees, more they would be
engaged in PEBs in organizations and outside the organizations.
Just like green culture, transformational leadership was found to influence the
voluntary non-workplace PEBs that do not involve any monetary benefits or costs.
Transformational leaders‘ inspirational and value-based nature for influencing employees
towards environmental concerns may be so stimulating that employees may wish to
continue the same behaviors at home. In addition to achieving organizational outcomes,
transformational leadership has been associated with the personal outcomes too (Hatter &
Bass, 1988; Barling, Moutinho, & Kelloway, 1998; Kirkpatrick & Locke 1996). In this
regard, a leader has been defined as ―one who motivates us to do more than we originally
expected to do‖ (Bass, 1985, p. 20).
The level of motivation where employees go beyond the organizational boundaries
can be achieved by increasing the awareness level about the importance of environmental
outcomes and possible ways to achieve them. Leaders play the most important role in
encouraging followers to go beyond self-interest for the good of the team and organization
(Bass, 1985). Environmental concerns are not just the organizational concerns and
transformational leaders may potentially influence followers to go beyond self-interest for
the good of organization, society, and community as per the mission of public
organizations.
In today‘s world, environmental concerns are highly pronounced and are given
priority in many organizations. Public organizations are paying special attention to
introducing and promoting pro-environmental behaviors and actions in work-settings.
Transformational leaders augment followers‘ capability to think on their own, develop fresh
ideas and question operating rules that are obsolete (Bass & Avolio 1990) or antienvironmental. It is highly likely that public employees do not only implement pro-
73
environmental actions within organizational boundaries, so they continue to perform PEBs
in their personal lives too.
Business literature on workplace PEB has recognized the importance of
transformational leaders to introduce and influence employees‘ behavior to bring about
important changes in organizations (Egri & Herman 2000; Fernandez, et al., 2006).
However, no research has addressed the potential influence of transformational leadership
on employees‘ PEBs in non-workplace settings. The positive and significant relationship of
transformational leadership and non-workplace PEB in this study reveals that employees
tend to see their leaders as role models, get influenced by their PEBs and want to carry out
the same behaviors in their professional and personal lives.
Influence of organizational factors on non-workplace PEBs
One of the major concerns this study wanted to address was the potential influence
of organizational factors on non-workplace PEBs. For this, employees‘ perceptions about
the influence of organizational green culture and transformational leadership were assessed
in relation with workplace and non-workplace PEBs. Hypotheses 11 to 18 predicted the
relationship of these organizational factors on workplace and non-workplace PEBs. The
results for the significant and positive association of organizational green culture and
transformational leadership with non-workplace PEBs support this finding.
There is hardly any study that has explored the impact of organizational factors on
individuals‘ personal behaviors in non-workplace settings. The reason may be that
individuals‘ behavioral transformation required within organization has generally nothing to
do with employees‘ personal or external lives. However, sustainability or environmental
concern is one of those major concerns that is not confined at workplace but goes beyond
organizational boundaries. Environmental issues are societal and community-wide
concerns; hence, employees‘ behaviors in both contexts matter.
This study has found that there is an untapped source of promoting proenvironmental behaviors and concerns that comes from making an effort at the
organizational level and potentially receiving outcomes at both workplace and nonworkplace settings.
74
Implications of study
This study proposed a model identifying the correlates and predictors of workplace
and non-workplace PEBs. The results have theoretical implications for research in public
administration and organizational behavior, as well as practical implementations for
managers in local governments.
Theoretical implications
Pro-environmental behavior is one of the most critical issues of the current era
because it is central to the issue of sustainability. This issue has received immense
popularity and attention in business and other social science literatures. Professional reports
and papers have been published in the area of policy and development in public
administration literature. However, no study examined pro-environmental behavior in the
public sector organizations. This research attempted to fill this gap by providing empirical
evidence on the extent to which this behavior exists in public organizations.
First, this study introduced the constructs for workplace and non-workplace PEBs.
The most challenging task was to differentiate, operationalize and measure proenvironmental behaviors in workplace and non-workplace settings based on the previous
quantitative and qualitative works. Few organizational studies have discussed workplace
PEB, but they either used qualitative methodologies or used PEB as dichotomous variable.
No study had proposed or used the construct for PEB to test the relationship of workplace
PEB with organizational correlates. By separately testing two types of PEBs-- workplace
and non-workplace-- this research found that the two types are influenced differently by
personal and organizational factors in different settings.
Second, this study contributes to the literatures of Public Administration and other
disciplines by proposing that salient characteristics of public organizations influence
workplace attitudes, behaviors and performance related with environment. Aligned with the
important research direction in Public Adminsitration, according to which the constructs of
red tape, goal ambiguity, and public service motivation have been frequently used to assess
how they affect public management outcomes (Coursey, Yang, & Pandey (in press);
DeHart- Davis & Pandey, 2005; Scott & Pandey, 2005; Lee, Rainey, & Chun, 2010;
Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012), this study‘s construct can be of vital importance to
this research stream. This research found that PSM is a significant predictor of PEB. This
75
finding also contributes to the research on PSM, which is an important public administration
concept and is still drawing great attention.
Third, this research, for the first time, has used several variations of PEB in testing
their relationship with personal and organizational factors. As mentioned, this study has
used workplace and non-workplace PEBs together in one study which has never been done
earlier. This study has also tested the variations of PEBs as voluntary or required in
organizations. Further, this study has examined the controlled effect of required PEBs on
non-workplace PEBs, which were significant. This study has also used different
configurations of non-workplace PEBs that include money saving PEBs, cost neutral PEBs
and cost oriented PEBs. All these PEBs were found to be influenced differently by different
predictors.
Fourth, this study contributes to PEB studies in general by empirically testing the
effects of transformational leadership and organizational green culture. These factors had
been discussed in business literature (Graves & Sarkis, 2010; Harris & Crane, 2002; Ramus
& Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2002), but had not been tested quantitatively. This study
contributes to the PEB research with its empirical analysis and significant association of
these factors with PEB.
Last, but not the least, this study contributes to the literature by, for the first time,
investigating the potential influence of organizational factors on non-workplace PEB. This
finding suggests that certain workplace strategies can potentially affect employees‘
capability to think on their own, develop fresh ideas and eventually produce outcomes that
are beyond organizational contractual expectations. Such findings provide a new platform to
explore topics that are achieved as organizational outcomes but they also can connect with
employees‘ external and personal lives, such as pro-environmental orientations, public
service motivation and civic participation.
Practical Implications
This research offers practical implications for government managers and leaders by
providing guidelines on how to improve management practices to enhance proenvironmental behaviors. The findings provide some interesting clues that government
leaders may consider for facilitating PEBs.
The examination of environmental behavior is not a new topic. It has been discussed
several times in several disciplines in different perspectives. A number of public, private
76
and non-profit organizations are working towards promoting the message to protect
environment at industrial, organizational and individual level. The US federal government,
state and local governments are the most important and influential stakeholders in the
sustainability domain. The federal government has been investing heavily in introducing
new products, programs and policies to spread the message to protect environment.
Managing individual PEBs has been identified as one of the critical solutions to address
environmental issues.
This study provides the organizations and practitioners working towards
sustainability a perspective of the behavioral aspects of employees while working on
developing the management capacity. A number of policies are introduced and implemented
to increase environmental behaviors at organizational and individual level. The premise
behind promoting the environmental messages and behaviors is to learn, implement and
endorse the message to others.
This study investigates the influence of personality factors and organizational factors
on PEBs, and offers some interesting practical solutions to improve PEBs. It shows that
organizational green culture and transformational leader positively influence employees‘
pro-environmental behaviors not only in organizational context but in their personal lives
too. This raises some management implications for promoting green culture in public
organizations. Promoting green culture in organizations requires clear communication of
values and alignment of reward systems to be practiced in organizations. Top management
must recognize and spread the environmental dimension as a new value of public firms.
These findings provide managers with important information for defining the work
routines in organizations embedded with environmental values. Environmental practices
should influence the routines of organizations and there should be formal or informal
sessions of training and rewards that should focus upon employees‘ environmental
performance. Once employees incorporate the ecological dimension as a new organizational
value, they would be able to carry forward the green values in their personal lives.
For transformational leadership, the findings suggest that the transformational
leadership values influence employees‘ involvement in non-workplace PEBs. Introducing
environmental tasks in pre-existing routines is likely to involve substantial changes in
employee behavior; and the value based and inspirational nature of transformational
leadership may be particularly effective in stimulating these changes (Brio et al., 2008; Egri
& Herman, 2000; Fernandez et al., 2006). As discussed, transformational leaders inculcate
77
green values by increasing the awareness level about the importance of sustainability
outcomes and possible ways to achieve them in followers to the extent that followers
continue to perform PEBs in contexts other than workplace settings.
For local government organizations, which are found to be less bureaucratic and
more innovative by nature than the other types of public organizations (Wright & Pandey
2010), transformational leadership behaviors may work effectively to instill proenvironmental values in employees. Leaders should use a broad range of communication
and empowerment practices within their organizations to encourage public employees to
perform PEBs in workplace or non-workplace settings.
Limitations of study and future directions
This research has some limitations that should be considered and overcome in future
studies. First, the survey data were collected in two cities of Florida. Florida might have a
different political environment and sustainability policies from local governments in other
state governments. Accordingly, this fact may lead to different results in terms of the
magnitude and direction of relationships. Thus, the future research needs to expand the
analysis to other local governments in order to determine the generalizability of the results.
Also, Tannenbaum (1997) pointed out that different organizations have different
combinations of facilitating factors. Accordingly, the future study needs to conduct the
analysis in a specific agency or organization or policy area.
Regarding the sample used in this study, a small sample representation issue must be
discussed. It included two cities to collect data from their city government employees in
order to reduce the self-selection bias. However, due to time and cost constraints, the data
collected from Lakeland were not proportionate in relation with data from Tallahassee.
Future research should consider increasing more responses from different cities and reexamine the relationships.
Second, the data were collected by means of self-report survey. Tallahassee data
were collected through electronic survey and Lakeland data were collected through postal
survey. Survey methodology is widely used in organizational behavior research. However,
participants, in general, often respond in a way that makes them look as desirable as
possible. They tend to under-report behaviors considered inappropriate and over-report
behaviors viewed as appropriate (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Thus, data acquired
78
from public employees only through either online survey or paper survey may have threats
to the validity of the research.
The study employed some direct approaches to address the social desirability bias.
One approach was to request respondents to answer honestly with assurance that there were
no right or wrong answers (Phillips & Clancy 1972; Brown, Copeland & Millward 1973).
Secondly, confidentiality was promised with respondents, so that respondents do not over or
under state their responses. Also, the measures of central tendency indicated that the
responses were not skewed and quite close to the averages (see tables 5.3 and 5.4).
Similarly the measures for standard deviation showed reasonable variation among
responses. No latent variable had high variation in responses. Future studies, nevertheless,
are necessary to further verify the findings reported here.
Another limitation is that this study relies on quantitative research methods. Such
methods can miss in-depth aspects of pro-environmental behaviors and actions that can be
explored only through an interpretative approach and qualitative methodology. According
to King, Keohane, & Verba (1994), research studies through qualitative methodology are
essential especially when findings obtained through quantitative methods are ambiguous.
PEB studies in business and other disciplines had been explored extensively through
qualitative methodology. However, the issues explored in this study are quite new to PEB
literature. Thus, future studies can employ case studies through qualitative methodology to
better explain quantitative findings.
A possible future direction for this domain is to further explore the different types of
PEBs. This study has used some dimensions of PEB- workplace versus non-workplace
PEBs, voluntary versus required PEBs, and economic versus non-economic PEBs. PEB
literature has identified several other types of PEBs that may differ in the degree to which
they are cognitively simple or complex (Gagne & Deci 2005) and arduous or easy (Pelletier
2002). Future studies can explore PEBs in more detailed manner to investigate the
relationship with public organizational factors and public employees‘ personality factors in
more comprehensive manner.
Finally this study has used two organizational factors--organizational green culture
and transformational leadership-- to examine their influence on workplace and nonworkplace PEBs. Future studies can use other organizational constructs such as red tape,
organizational citizenship behavior, performance measurement and evidence based
management to explore the influence of public organizational characteristics on PEB.
79
Conclusion
This dissertation aimed to explore the PEBs in public organizations. The study
mainly examined the PEB of public employees in organizations and home, and discovered
some interesting findings regarding PEB in two different settings. Additionally, PEB was
discussed with different categories of environmental behaviors in non-workplace settings.
The differentiation of PEBs from the perspectives of context and activities and the
relationship of these distinctive types of PEBs with personal and organizational factors
brought on surface some interesting findings never been explored before.
More interestingly, most of previous research has focused upon exploring new and
unique predictors, correlates and outcomes of PEBs in a variety of contexts most of which
have been in the non-workplace settings. No study had paid much attention towards
exploring the variations of PEBs and the impact of different predictors on these variations.
Building upon the existing work of PEB, this study has used a two faceted approach: one, it
has provided a broad perspective of PEBs by exploring its existence in workplace and nonworkplace settings; second, it gives a more exhaustive analysis of separate items and their
relationship with a set of personal and organizational factors. This gives reader a more
comprehensive approach of why some predictors are influencing PEBs in certain manner.
Personal factors and organizational factors both play a significant role in influencing
PEBs in workplace and non-workplace settings. Civic and cognitive engagement and public
service motivation are characteristics that public servants are generally recognized and
associated with. Civic engagement results as negatively influencing PEBs were conceived
as tricky and controversial, however, the theoretical and practical reasons presented in this
study explained well about this unusual relationship. PSM‘s positive influence on nonworkplace PEBs provided the most conventional results as the research related with PSM
has been offering. However, PSM‘s non-significant results for workplace PEB were bit
unexpected. The literature concerning PSM, however, has discussed about PSM not being
primarily an organizational construct (Brewer & Seldon, 1998), which explains well about
its significant association with non-workplace PEBs only.
With transformational leadership and green culture influencing positively the
workplace and non-workplace PEBs, the organizational factors have also done justice to the
importance of organizations in playing the important role for bringing about the betterment
in society. If green culture influences a public employees‘ PEBs in organization as well as
80
at home, this describes a logical argument that employees get the primary motivating force
for performing non-workplace PEBs from their organizations. PEBs performed at
workplace as voluntary or required tasks may give employees a platform to practice and
assimilate PEBs to the extent that they become part of their personalities and can be
performed later. This gives practical implications to public managers and federal and state
government for making wise investment decisions in redesigning green strategies to get the
most productive results for sustainability.
Such findings are significant from theoretical and practical perspectives, where
government can foster the organizational practices to influence PEBs at large. Examining
PEBs in public organizational settings has opened the prospects of investigating behavioral
issues influenced by the salient characteristics of public organizations. This study gives a
unique insight as to use the untapped resources available in organizations to accomplish
positive behavioral transformation in sustainability domain.
81
APPENDIX A
Table A.1 Definitions of Pro Environmental Behavior at Individual Level
Source/ Author Pro environmental
Definition
Term
Stern (2000)
Pro environmental
behavior by impact
Stern (2000)
Pro environmental
behavior by intent
Stern (2000)
Environmentalism
Kollmuss and
Agyeman (2002)
Pro environmental
Behavior
Steg and Vlek
(2009)
Pro environmental
Behavior
Steg, Dreijerink
& Abrahamse
(2005)
Pro environmental
Behavior
―The extent to which it changes the availability of
materials or energy from the environment or
alters the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or
the biosphere itself‖ (p. 408)
―Actor‘s standpoint as behavior that is undertaken
with the intention to change (normally, to benefit)
the environment‖ (p. 408)
―defined behaviorally as the propensity to take
actions with pro environmental intent‖ (p. 411)
―Behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the
negative impact of one‘s actions on the natural
and built world‖ (p. 240)
―Behaviour that harms the environment as little as
possible, or even benefits the environment‖ (p.
309
―the acceptability of policies to reduce household
carbon emissions‖
82
APPENDIX B
Table B.1- Factors Affecting Non-workplace and Workplace PEB
Antecedents
Non-workplace PEB Workplace PEB
Motivation
X
X
Values
X
Norms
X
Rewards and
X
X
recognition
Altruistic/
X
X
empathetic/moral based
orientations
Knowledge /
X
X
Information
dissemination
Habits or habitual
X
behavior
Persuasion
X
Locus of control
X
Individual
X
responsibility
Perceived feedback
X
X
about ecological
behavior
Capability and skills
X
X
Leadership support
X
Organizational
X
environmental policy
Green Culture
X
Innovation
X
Competence building
X
Communication/ social
X
X
marketing
Management of goals
X
and responsibilities
Environmental Concern
X
X
83
APPENDIX C
Table C.1 Summary of Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis
H1A: Public employees‘ civic engagement and money saving non-workplace
PEB are positively correlated
H1B: Public employees‘ cognitive engagement and money saving nonworkplace PEB are positively correlated
H2A: Public employees‘ civic engagement and cost neutral non-workplace
PEB are positively correlated.
H2B: Public employees‘ cognitive engagement and cost neutral nonworkplace PEB are positively correlated.
H3A: Public employees‘ civic engagement and cost oriented non-workplace
PEB are positively correlated.
H3B: Public employees‘ cognitive engagement and cost oriented nonworkplace PEB are positively correlated.
H4: Public employees‘ civic engagement and workplace PEB are positively
correlated.
H4: Public employees‘ cognitive engagement and workplace PEB are
positively correlated.
H5: Public service motivation and money saving non-workplace PEB are
positively correlated.
H6: Public service motivation and cost neutral non-workplace PEB are
positively correlated.
H7: Public service motivation and cost oriented non-workplace PEB are
positively correlated.
H8: Public service motivation and workplace PEB are positively correlated.
H9: Value-action-gaps or barriers moderate the influence of civic and
cognitive engagement on workplace and non-workplace PEBs to the extent
that the influence of civic engagement on PEB will be stronger when valueaction barriers are low.
H10: Value-action-gaps or barriers moderate the influence of public service
motivation on workplace and non-workplace PEBs to the extent that the
influence of PSM on PEBs will be stronger when barriers are low.
H11: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership
behavior and their money saving non- workplace PEBs are positively
associated.
H12: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership
behavior and their cost neutral non- workplace PEBs are positively
associated.
H13: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership
behavior and their cost oriented non- workplace PEBs are positively
associated.
84
Result
Accepted
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Accepted
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted for
workplace
PEB
Accepted for
nonworkplace
PEBs
Rejected
Accepted
Rejected
Table C.1- Continued
H14: Employees reported perceptions of transformational leadership
behavior and their workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H15: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and
their money saving non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H16: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and
their cost neutral non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H17: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and
their cost oriented non- workplace PEBs are positively associated.
H18: Employees reported perceptions of organizational green culture and
their workplace PEB are positively associated.
85
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
Appendix D
Questionnaire No. │ 
Please do not write your name on this questionnaire
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Pro environmental Behavior among City Government Employees
Researcher:
Aisha Azhar
Askew School of Public Administration & Policy
Florida State University
Faculty Advisor:
Professor Kaifeng Yang
Askew School of Public Administration & Policy
Florida State University
Email: [email protected]
86
The purpose of this survey is to learn about pro-environmental behavior among public
organizations (city government) employees. There are no right or wrong answers; what is
important is your own opinions or experience. Please be candid with your responses; they will be
kept fully confidential.
SECTION A: CURRENTJOB
A1
A2
Are you currently working full-time or part-time?
_____1. Full-time
_____2. Part-time
How long have you been working in your current job?
_____year(s) _____month(s)
A3
1
2
3
4
5
6
What is your supervisory status in your current job?
Non-supervisor: You do not supervise other employees.
Team Leader: You are not an official supervisor; you provide employees with day-to-day
guidance in work projects, but do not have supervisory responsibilities or conduct
performance appraisals.
Supervisor: You are responsible for employees‘ performance appraisals and approval of
their leave, but you do not supervise other supervisors.
Manager: You are in a management position and supervise one or more supervisors.
Department/ agency head
Other, please specify:
SECTION B: ENVIRONMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES
B1
How frequently do you perform the following activities in your office or workplace?
Never ------------------------------Always
01
02
Set computer on energy safe mode
Increase AC thermostat higher than required
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
03
Reduce heating thermostat lower than desired
1
2
3
4
5
04
Recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans
1
2
3
4
5
05
Print on both sides of paper
1
2
3
4
5
06
Use the back of old copies as scratch paper
1
2
3
4
5
07
Switch off lights while leaving the room
1
2
3
4
5
08
Switch off lights in empty rooms
1
2
3
4
5
87
B2
Does your organization have rules to require employees to do the following activities?
Yes
01
02
Set computer on energy safe mode
Increase AC thermostat higher than required
03
Reduce heating thermostat lower than desired
04
Recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans
05
Print on both sides of paper
06
Use the back of old copies as scratch paper
07
Switch off lights while leaving the room
08
Switch off lights in empty rooms
B3
No
How frequently do you perform the following activities outside your workplace such
as in your home?
Never -----------------------------Always
01
02
Set computer on energy safe mode
Increase AC thermostat higher than required
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
03
Reduce heating thermostat lower than desired
1
2
3
4
5
04
Recycle paper, plastic bags and aluminum cans
1
2
3
4
5
05
Print on both sides of paper
1
2
3
4
5
06
Use the back of old copies as scratch paper
1
2
3
4
5
07
Switch off lights while leaving the room
1
2
3
4
5
08
Switch off lights in empty rooms
1
2
3
4
5
B4
Outside your workplace, such as your home, how often do you dispose of the
following items properly?
Never -----------------------------Always
01
02
03
Leftover paint
Leftover turpentine and white spirit
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Leftover aerosols
1
2
3
4
5
04
05
Lamps
1
2
3
4
5
Leftover cosmetics
Batteries
Medication
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
06
07
88
08
B5
Electronic Appliances
1
2
3
4
5
Outside your workplace, such as your home, how often do you purchase the following
items?
Never -----------------------------Always
01
02
03
Grey toilet paper
Organic dairy
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Organic vegetables and fruits
1
2
3
4
5
04
Milk in glass bottles
1
2
3
4
5
SECTION C: PERSONAL ACTIVITIES
C1
How often during the past 12 months you have engaged in the activity?
None
01
02
03
04
C2
1 to 16
7 to12
13 to 24
25 to 51
52
plus
Worked together informally with
someone or some group to solve a
community problem
Spent time participating in any
community service or voluntary activity
Volunteered for a civic or community
organization
Donated money to nonprofits, groups or
associations, either locally or nationally.
How frequently do you perform the following activities?
Never -----------------------------Always
01
02
03
04
05
Talk about current events or things you have heard
about in the news with your family and friends
Read a newspaper
Read magazines like Newsweek, Time, or U.S. news
and World Report
Watch the national news on television
Listen to the news on Radio
89
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SECTION D: ORGANIZATION
D1
My organization has an official policy that encourages environment friendly
behavior.
_____1. Yes
D2
01
02
03
04
05
_____2. No
To what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly
Disagree
My agency uses a common (and easy to understand)
language for all the members to explain the
importance of environment
My supervisor encourages me and others to learn
about environmental concerns
The top management recognizes and spreads the
significance of environmental concerns to the lower
level employees.
My agency rewards the pro environmental behaviors
Employees who talk about taking green initiatives
are being ridiculed or made fun of
--------------
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SECTION E: PERSONAL ATTITUDES
E1
To what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly
Disagree
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
-----------------------
Strongly
Agree
Politics is a dirty word
The give and take of public policy making
doesn‘t appeal to me
I don‘t care much for politicians
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I unselfishly contribute to my community.
Meaningful public service is very important to
me
I would prefer seeing public officials do what
is best for the whole community even if it
harmed my interests
I consider public service my civic duty
It is difficult for me to contain my feelings
when I see people in distress
I am often reminded by daily events about
how dependent we are on one another.
I have little compassion for people in need
who are unwilling to take the first step to help
themselves
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
90
To what extent you agree or disagree on the following regarding your department
E2
Strongly
Disagree
01
02
03
S/he clearly articulates his/her vision for the
future environmental concerns
S/he leads by setting a good example of green
behaviors such as reusing paper, disposing of
waste properly etc.
S/he challenges me to think about old problems
in new ways of saving natural resources
beliefs?
02
03
04
05
06
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
To what extent you agree or disagree on the following regarding your personal
E3
01
------------------
Strongly
Disagree
There is too much conflicting information on
climate change to know whether it is actually
happening
Acting pro-environmentally is good, but it takes
a considerable amount of my precious time
Environmental protection is a societal problem;
changes that I make would not make a difference
I probably could recycle regularly, but then it
doesn‘t fit in with my life
I could commute through bus regularly, but it is
inconvenient
People are too selfish to do anything about
climate change
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
In what year were you born?
F2
F3
19_____
Are you:
_____ 1. Female
_____ 2. Male
Are you:
__ 1. American Indian
__ 2. Asian or Pacific Islander
__ 3. Black, not of Hispanic origin
__ 4. Hispanic
__ 5. White, not of Hispanic origin
__ 6. Other (please specify: ______________________
91
Strongly
Agree
1
SECTION F: DEMOGRAPHICS
F1
-------------------
What is your educational level? (Indicate highest level completed)
F4
__1. Less than high school
__2. High school graduate or G.E.D.
__3. Some college
__4. Bachelor‘s degree
__5. Master‘s degree
__6. Doctorate degree (Ph.D., M.D., Ed.D., etc.)
__ 7. Other (please specify: ______________________
F5
F6
F7
What is your marital status?
__ 1. Married
__ 2. Divorced
__ 3. Single
__ 4. Not married, but with a significant other
__ 5. Widow/er
In which of these groups does your annual personal salary fall?
__ 1. under $20,000
__ 5. $50,000 - $59,999
__ 2. $20,000 - $29,999
__ 6. $60,000 - $69,999
__ 3. $30,000 - $39,999
__ 7. $70,000 - $79,999
__ 4. $40,000 - $49,999
__ 8. $80,000 or above
Where would you place yourself on this scale?
__1. Extremely liberal
__2. Liberal
__3. Slightly liberal
__4. Moderate; Middle of the road
__5. Slightly conservative
__6. Conservative
__7. Extremely conservative
Thank you very much for your participation!
If there is anything else you would like to tell us, please do so in the space provided below:
92
APPENDIX E
CONSENT LETTER FOR SURVEY
Dear Public Employee,
I am a doctoral student under the supervision of Professor Kaifeng Yang in the Askew School of Public
Administration and Policy at Florida State University. I am working on a research project that seeks
information about pro environmental behavior in public organizations. The purpose is to study the extent
to which green behavior exists in public organizational employees and what strategies can be adopted to
increase such behaviors.
I am inviting your participation in this study, which will involve a paper survey. The questionnaire is
confidential to the extent permitted by law and no information will identify you personally. The survey is
for scientific purposes and all analyses will be conducted at the aggregate level. Records will be stored
securely and the survey will be destroyed after we complete our analyses.
The participation is voluntary and you may stop taking part at any time. The questionnaire should take
about 10 minutes to complete. There are no right or wrong answers. Candid responses based on your
personal experience are greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please feel free to contact me. The Institutional
Review Board at Florida State University has approved the research study. If you have any concern about
your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can
contact them through the Vice president for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633.
Your cooperation in this regard is highly appreciated. If you want, we will submit the summary report
after our findings and analysis to you. Submission of this paper survey will be considered your consent to
participate.
If you prefer an electronic copy, please email me your email address and I would send you the link.
Thanks in advance for your help. I greatly appreciate this.
Sincerely
Aisha Azhar
PhD Studant
Askew School of Public Administration & Policy
Florida State University
93
APPENDIX F
HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 3/2/2012
To: Aisha Azhar
Address: 159 Herlong Dr Apt 12
Dept.: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research
Pro environmental Behavior among City Government Employees
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal
referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and one member of the Human Subjects
Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been
approved by an expedited review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the
risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This
approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is
attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting
research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 2/28/2013 you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration
date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your
approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the
Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal
regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems
or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that
he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the
department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in
compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance
Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.
Cc: Kaifeng Yang, Advisor
HSC No. 2012.7848
94
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goaldirected behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 53-63.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions
in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(15), 1355-1374. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01681.x
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention
studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 273-291. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energyrelated behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27(4), 265-276. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Special Issue: Theories of Cognitive SelfRegulation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Processes, 50(2), 179-211.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2002). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and
proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 338-353.
doi:10.1177/00139169921972137
Amelang, M., Tepe, K., Vagt, G. & Wendt, W. (1977). Mitteilung über einige Schritte der
Entwicklung einer Skala zum Umweltbewußtsein. Diagnostica, 23, 86-88.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow
giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), pp. 464-477.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 193: 411-423.
Andrews, R., Cowell, R., & Downe, J. (2011). Promoting civic culture by supporting
citizenship: What difference can local government make? Public Administration, 89(2),
595-610. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01875.x
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from selfefficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned
Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 72-90. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb01375.x
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal
95
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
doi:10.1348/096317999166789
Azzone, G. & Noci, G. (1998). Seeing ecology and "green" innovations as a source of
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 119(2): 94-111
Babbie, E. R. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Baldwin, J.,. (1984). Notes of a native son. Boston: Beacon Press.
Baldwin, J. N., & Farley, Q. A. (2001). Comparing the public and private sectors in the
United States: A review of the empirical research. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of
comparative and developmental public administration (2nd ed., pp. 119-130). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, S. (1999). Regulating transport: behavioral changes in the field.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 479–509.
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? predicting students‘ car
use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis.
Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 264-285. doi:10.1177/0013916502250134
Barling, J., Moutinho, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Transformational leadership and group
performance: The mediating role of affective commitment. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Kingston, Ontario: Queen‘s University.
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. E.,. (1979). Exploring social psychology. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Barrett, S. & Murphy, D. (1996). Managing corporate environmental policy: A process of
complex change. In W. Wehrmeyer (Ed). Greening people (pp. 75-98). Sheffield,
England: Greenleaf Publishing
Bartlett, K. R. (2005). Survey research in organizational. In R. A. Swanson and E. F. Holton,
III (eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 97-113).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In R. W. Woodman &
W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, (4), 231272. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 5-34. doi:10.1111/j.14640597.1996.tb00847.x
96
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., and Teel, J. E. (1982), Sample size effects on chi-square and
other statistics used in evaluating causal models, Journal of Marketing Research, 19,
425–30
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1996). Environmental psychology (4th
ed.) Orlando, FL, US: Harcourt.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on
household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3-21.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.3
Blackman, A., & Bannister, G. J. (1998). Community pressure and clean technology in the
informal sector: An econometric analysis of the adoption of propane by traditional
Mexican brick makers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35(1),
1-21. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1019
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the value-action gap' in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S., & Skea, J. (1993). Acid politics: Environmental and energy
policies in Britain and Germany Belhaven P.
Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the Corporation through Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,
Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What‘s the difference? Journal of
Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00284
Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Bozeman, B., & DeHart-Davis, L. (1999). Red tape and clean air: Title V air pollution
permitting implementation as a test bed for theory development. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 141-178.
Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building social capital: Civic attitudes and behavior of public
servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 5-26.
doi:10.1093/jpart/mug011
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.
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer II, R. L. (2000). Individual conceptions of public
service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 254-264. doi:10.1111/00333352.00085
97
Brío, J. Á. d., Fernández, E., & Junquera, B. (2007). Management and employee
involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: An
empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(4), 491522. doi:10.1080/09585190601178687
Brophy, M. (1996). The essential characteristics of an environmental policy. In R. Welford,
(Ed.) Corporate environmental management: systems and strategies: 92-103. London:
Earthscan.
Buchanan, B. (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic. Administration & Society, 6(4), 423444. doi:10.1177/009539977500600403
Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: Waste recycling
in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(4), 317-325.
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research on sources of
pro-environmental sensitivity, The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11–21.
Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K. -., & Wong, Z. S. -. (1999). Reexamining the theory of planned
behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior, 31(5),
587-612. doi:10.1177/00139169921972254
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R.A focus theory of normative conduct: A
theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 201-234). New York: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative
conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human
behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24,
pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on
pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237-246. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6
Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S., & Sparks, P. (1999). Alcohol consumption and the
theory of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive mediation of past
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1676-1704. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb02046.x
Conway, M. M. (2000). Political participation in the united states / M. Margaret Conway
(3rd ed. ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
98
Cooper, T. L., & Gulick, L. (1984). Citizenship and professionalism in public
administration. Public Administration Review, 44( Special Issue: Citizenship and
Public Administration), pp. 143-151.
Corbett, J. B. (2005). Altruism, self-interest, and the reasonable person model of
environmentally responsible behavior. Science Communication, 26(4), 368-389.
doi:10.1177/1075547005275425
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental
managers: Applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(4), 627-641. doi:10.2307/1556358
Coursey, D. H., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public service motivation measurement.
Administration & Society, 39(5), 547-568. doi:10.1177/0095399707303634
Coursey, D., Yang, K., & Pandey, S. (2012). Public Service Motivation (PSM) and Support
for Citizen Participation: A Test of Perry and Vandenabeele's Reformulation of PSM
Theory. Public Administration Review. 72(4), 572-582.
Curtis, D. A. (1980). Management in the public sector: It really is harder. Emmitsburg,
MD: National Emergency Training Center.
Daamen, D. D. L., Staats, H., Wilke, H. A. M., & Engelen, M. (2001). Improving
environmental behavior in companies. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 229-248.
doi:10.1177/00139160121972963
Dagger, R. (1997). Civic virtues rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. Oxford
University Press.
Daneshvary, N., Daneshvary, R., & Schwer, R. K. (1998). Solid-waste recycling behavior
and support for curbside textile recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 144-161.
doi:10.1177/0013916598302002
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to
environmental significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330-354.
doi:10.1177/0013916506297831
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable proenvironmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2(2), 61-66. doi:10.1111/j.1755263X.2009.00048.x
De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The
role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37(8), 1817-1836. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.
DeHart-Davis, L., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived
rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 15(1), 133-148. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui007
99
Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2009). Managing human behavior in
public and nonprofit organizations. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Dietz, T., Dan, A., & Shwom, R. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social
psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185-214.
doi:10.1526/003601107781170026
Diekmann, A. & Preisendoerfer, P. (1992) Not cataloged environmental behavior: The
mismatch between expectations and reality. Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social
Psychologist ,44, pp. 226–251.
Diekmann, A. & FranzeN, A. (1996) Insight into length related to Albert ecological and
environmental behavior, in: R. Kaufmann-Hayoz & A. Di Giulio (Eds) Environmental
Problem man: Human sciences related to Albert transitions to environmentally
responsible behavior (Bern, Verlag Paul Haupt).
Donaldson, S.I. & Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.
Downs, A. (1994). Inside bureaucracy. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector:
Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571-604. doi:10.2307/1556356
Etzion, D. D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present:
A review. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637-664.
Etzioni, A. (2004). The common good. Cambridge: Polity.
Feiock, R. C., & Stream, C. (2001). Environmental protection versus economic
development: A false trade-off? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 313-321.
Feiock, R.C., Kassekert, K., Berry, F. S., & Yi, H. (2009). Institutional Incentives and
Early Adoption of Sustainable Energy Innovations, Paper presented at the American
Political Science Association‘s annual meeting, Toronto,Canada. September 3-6,
2009, Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1450809
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human
resources in the environmental issue: A review of the literature. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 14, 634-656.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers' profile in environmental
strategy: A review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 13(5), 261-274. doi:10.1002/csr.109
Ferraro, P. J., Rondeau, D., & Poe, G. L. (2003). Detecting other-regarding behavior with
virtual players. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 99-109.
doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00137-3
100
Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17(3),
479-500. doi:10.1177/017084069601700306
Fiorino, D. J. (2001). Environmental policy as learning: A new view of an old landscape.
Public Administration Review, 61(3), 322-334.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.,. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Fliegenschnee, M. & Schelakovsky, M. (1998) Umweltpsychologi e und Umweltbildung: eine
Einfu hrung aus humano¨kologische r Sicht (Wien, Facultas Universita¨ts Verlag).
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). ―Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error,‖ Journal of Marketing Research, 28
(February), 39–50.
Francis, Nathan and Richard. C. Feiock. (2010). A Guide for Local Government Executives
on Sustainable Energy Management. Washington D.C. IBM Institute for the Business
of Government.
Frederickson, H. G., & Hart, D. K. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of
benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45(5), pp. 547-553.
Fujii, S., & Kitamura, R. (2003). What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual
drivers? an experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Transportation, 30(1),
81-95. doi:10.1023/A:1021234607980
Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Development of script-based travel mode choice after forced
change. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(2), 117124. doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(03)00019-6
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., & Kitamura, R. (2001). Changes in drivers‘ perceptions and use of
public transport during a freeway closure. Environment and Behavior, 33(6), 796-808.
doi:10.1177/00139160121973241
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26: 331-362.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C.,. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A., & Jakobsson, C. (2003). Moderating effects of social
value orientation on determinants of pro-environmental behavior intention. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 1-9. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00081-6
Gärling, T., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel demand management targeting reduced private
car use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. Journal of Social
Issues, 63(1), 139-153. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00500.x
101
Garver, M. S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural
equation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics, 20 (1),
33-57
Geller, E. S. (1995). Actively caring for the environment. Environment and Behavior, 27(2),
184-195. doi:10.1177/0013916595272004
Geller, E. S. (2002). The challenge of increasing pro-environmental behavior. In R. B.
Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 525–
540). New York: Wiley.
Geller, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Everett, P. B. (1982). Preserving for environment: New
strategies for behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit
indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2),
132−160
Graham, J. W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not
automatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, R. B. Baliga, P. H. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 73-79). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Graves, L. M. & Sarkis, J. (2010). Fostering employee pro-environmental behavior: The
impact of leadership and motivation. Working Paper No. 2011-16
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of
risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors.
Environmental Research, 80(2), S230-S245. doi:10.1006/enrs.1998.3940
Govindarajulu, N. and Daily, B.E. (2004), Motivating employees for environmental
improvement, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104 (4): 364-73.
Grob, A. (1991) Meinung, Verhalten, Umwelt Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., & Ga¨ rling, T.
(2002). Effects of economic disincentives on private car use. Transportation, 29, 349–
370.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior
relationships. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699-718.
doi:10.1177/0013916595275005
Gupta, M.C. & Sharma, K. (1996). Environmental Operations Management: An Opportunity
for Improvement, Production and Inventory Management Journal, 37(3): 40-6
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.G. & Curkovic, S. (2001). Integrating
environmental concerns into the design process: The gap between theory and Practice',
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 18(2): 189-20
102
Hanna, M.D., Newman, WR. & Johnson, P. (2000). Linking Operational and Environmental
improvement through Employee Involvement', International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 20(2): 148-65.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro-environmental intention
and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and
structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAA Institute Inc.
Hatter, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors‘ evaluations and subordinates‘ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695702.
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the
use of public Transportation1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 21542189. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02068.x
Hess,
D.
and
L.
Winner.
(2007).
"Enhancing
Justice
and
Sustainability
at
the
Local
Level:
Affordable
Policies
for
Urban
Government." Local Environment
12,
379‐395.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Audrey, N. T. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research
on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 18(2):1-8
Hoffman, A. J. (1993). The importance of fit between individual values and organisational
culture in the greening of industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2(4), 10-18.
doi:10.1002/bse.3280020402
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S.
chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351-371.
doi:10.2307/257008
Hostager, T. J., Neil, T. C., Decker, R. L., & Lorentz, R. D. (1998). Seeing environmental
opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation, and desirability.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11 (1): 11-25.
Houston, D. J. (January 2006). ―Walking the walk‖ of public service motivation: Public
employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 67-86. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui028
House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership
approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, interclass correlations.
In Leadership: The multiple level approaches contemporary and alternative. London:
JAI Press.
103
Howitt, D. & Billig, M., Cramer, D., Edwards, D., Kniverton, B., Potter, J. & Radley, D.
(1989). Social Psychology: Conflicts and Continuities: An Introductory Textbook.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler. P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit Indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1-55.
Hutchinson, C. (1996). Corporate strategy and the environment. In R. Welford & R. Starkey
(Eds). Business and the environment: 85-104. London: Earthscan.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution : Changing values and political styles among
western publics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post modernization : Cultural, economic, and
political change in 43 societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jabbour, C. J., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The Central Role of HRM in the Search for
Sustainable Organizations. The International Journal of HRM, 19(12), 2133-2154.
Johnson, D. and Walck, C. (2004). Integrating sustainability into corporate management
systems. Journal of Forestry, 102 (July/August): 32-39.
Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the
environmental impact of cars? Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187-206.
doi:10.1177/0013916503251476
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755768.
Jung Wook Lee, , Rainey, H. G., & Young Han Chun, . (2010). Goal ambiguity, work
complexity, and work routineness in federal agencies. The American Review of Public
Administration, 40(3), 284-308. doi:10.1177/0275074009337620
Kahn, M. E.,. (2006). Green cities: Urban growth and the environment. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(5), 395-422. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x
Kaiser, F. G., & Gutscher, H. (2003). The proposition of a general version of the theory of
planned behavior: Predicting ecological Behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(3), 586-603. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01914.x
Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-19.
doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0107
104
Keeter, S., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Andolina, M. (2005). Community-based civic
engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to
flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 325–
338). New York: Springer.
Kelman, S. (1987). Making public policy: A hopeful view of American government. New
York: Basic Books.
King, G. R. O., Kohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific
inference in qualitative research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 36-51.
Kitazawa, S. & Sarkis, J. (2000). The Relationship between ISO 14001 and Continuous
Source Reduction Programs, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 20(2): 225-48.
Klassen, R.D. & McLaughlin, C.P. (1993). TQM and environmental excellence in
manufacturing. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 93: 14-22.
KLöckner, C. A., Matthies, E., & Hunecke, M. (2003). Problems of operationalizing habits
and integrating habits in normative decision-making Models1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33(2), 396-417. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01902.x
Kollmuss, A. A. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239260.
Konisky, D. M. (2007). Regulatory competition and environmental enforcement: Is there a
race to the bottom? American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 853-872.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00285.x
Krause, R. M. (2009). Developing conditions for environmentally sustainable consumption:
Drawing insight from anti-smoking policy. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
33(3), 285-292. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00769.x
Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of
climate protection initiatives by U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45-60.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00510.x
Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response
pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 18, 257–273.
Lam, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned
behavior, perceived moral obligation, and perceived water Right. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 29(5), 1058-1071.
105
Lee, J. W., Rainey, H. G., & Chun, Y. H. (2010). Goal ambiguity, work complexity and work
routineness in federal agencies. American Review of Public Administration, 40(3):284308
Lehmann, J. (1999). Findings of empirical research on environmental education and
environmental awareness. Leske and Budrich.
Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection:
Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13(1), 13-32.
Levinson, Arik. (2003) Environmental Regulatory Competition: A Status Report and Some
New Evidence, National Tax Journal, 56(1), 91-106.
Liere, K. D. V., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A
review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly,
44(2), 181-197. doi:10.1086/268583
Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2-3), 317-342.
doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00156
Lindenberg, S. (2001a). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In J. Turner (Ed.),
Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 635–668). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity and goal-framing processes. In D.
Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, B. Buunk, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial
behavior. An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives. Amsterdam:
Kluwer.
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding
environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-137. doi:10.1111/j.15404560.2007.00499.x
Lindsay, J. J., & Strathman, A. (1997). Predictors of recycling behavior: An application of a
modified health belief Model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(20), 17991823. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01626.x
Lindseth, G. (2004). The cities for climate protection campaign (CCPC) and the framing of
local climate policy. Local Environment, 9, 325-336.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging
with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global
Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445-459. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. doi:10.1016/S10489843(96)90027-2
106
Lubell, M., Feiock, R. C., & De La Cruz, E. E. R. (2009). Local institutions and the politics
of urban growth. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 649-665.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00392.x
Lubell, M., Feiock, R. C., & Handy, S. (2009) City Adoption of Environmentally
Sustainable Policies in California‘s Central Valley, Journal of American Planning
Association, 75 (3): 293-308
Lynne, G. D., Franklin Casey, C., Hodges, A., & Rahmani, M. (1995). Conservation
technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 16(4), 581-598. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(95)00031-6
Lyon, T. P. & Haitao, Y. (2009). Why Do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards?:
An Empirical Investigation, Working Paper.
Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let's hear from the people: An objective
scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American
Psychologist, 28(7), 583-586. doi:10.1037/h0034936
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). A revised scale for the
measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(7),
787-790. doi:10.1037/h0084394
Matisoff, D. C. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable
portfolio standards: Regional diffusion or internal determinants? Review of Policy
Research, 25(6), 527-546. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00360.x
McDonlad, R. P., Ho, M. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses, Psychological Methods. 7, 64-82.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based
social marketing. The American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537.
Midden, C. J. H., Kaiser, F. G., & Teddy McCalley, L. (2007). Technology's four roles in
understanding individuals' conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues,
63(1), 155-174. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00501.x
Mindell, A.,. (1991). City shadows: Psychological interventions in psychiatry. London:
New York: Arkana.
Moynihan, D.P., Pandey, S.K. & Wright, B.E. (2009). Pulling the Levers: Leadership,
Public Service Motivation and Mission Valence. Presented at the International Public
Service Research Conference, Bloomington, IN.
Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management
Studies, 34(1), 75-98. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00043
Newstrom, J. W., Reif, W. E., & Monczka, R. M. (1976). Motivating the public employee:
Fact vs. fiction. Public Personnel Management, 5(1), 67-72.
107
Niskanen, W. A. 1. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative. Chicago: Transaction
Publishers.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740-756. doi:10.1177/001391602237244
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal
norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
23(4), 339-347. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9
O'Riordan, T. (1976). Environmentalism. London: Pion.
Oskamp, S., Burkhardt, R. L., Schultz, P. W., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting
three dimensions of residential curbside.. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2),
37.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & Swanson,
D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 23(4), 494-519. doi:10.1177/0013916591234005
O‘Sullivan, E., G. R. Rassel, & M. Berner. (2003). Research methods for public
administrators (4th ed.) Addison Westely Longman, Inc
Owen, A. L., & Videras, J. (2006). Civic cooperation, pro-environment attitudes, and
behavioral intentions. Ecological Economics, 58(4), 814-829.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.007
Pandey, S. K., & Scott, P. G. (2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and
measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553-580.
Pargal, S., & Wheeler, D. (1996). Informal regulation of industrial pollution in developing
countries: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), 1314.
Pattakos, A. N. (2004). The search for meaning in government service. Public
Administration Review, 64(1), 106-112. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00350.x
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual
influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. The Academy of
Management Review, 22(1), pp. 80-109.
Pelletier, L. G. (2002). A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental
behaviors. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research:
205-232. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct
reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 522.
108
Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing Society In: Toward a theory of Public-Service Motivation.
Journal of Public Administration Research and theory, 10 (2): 471 – 88.
Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public
Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.
Polonsky, M.J., Rosenberger IU, P.J. & Ottman, J.A. (1998). Developing green products:
Learning from stakeholders', The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, April: 7-21.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and
environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
doi:10.1177/0013916503251466
Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking sustainable cities seriously economic development, the
environment, and quality of life in American cities. Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press
Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (2010). Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S.
cities. Urban Affairs Review, 46(1), 119-139. doi:10.1177/1078087410366122
Post, J. E., & Altman, B. W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process :
Barriers and opportunities. Boston, MA: Boston University, School of Management.
Potoski, M. (2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom? Public
Administration Review, 61(3), 335-343. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00034
Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development,
29(2), 209-227. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The
American Prospect, 13(4), 35-42.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Rainey, H. G. (1989). Public management: Recent research on the political context and
managerial roles, structures, and behaviors. Journal of Management, 15(2), 229-250.
doi:10.1177/014920638901500206
Rainey, H. G. (Winter 1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In
search of the service ethic. The American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288302. doi:10.1177/027507408201600402
Rainey, H.G. (1996). ‗‗Public opinion toward the civil service.‘‘ In H.A.-G.-M. Bekke, J.L.
Perry, and T.A.J. Toonen (eds.), Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations:
Empirical research and the power of a priori. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 10(2), 447-470.
109
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a
theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.
Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole
behaviours ? a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 16(8), 554-570. doi:10.1002/bse.504
Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and
environmental policy in employee "ecoinitiatives" at leading-edge european
companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), pp. 605-626.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects
of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 55(1), 120-151. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1027
Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental
management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783-1802.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00400
Russo, M. V., & P. A. Fouts (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate
environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40:
534-559.
Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern. Environment
and Behavior, 22(6), 767-786. doi:10.1177/0013916590226003
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schnore, L. F., & Alford, R. R. (1963). Forms of government and socioeconomic
characteristics of suburbs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8(1), 1-17.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007).
The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological
Science, 18(5), 429-434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of
personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105-121.
doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90019-5
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behaviour. A fivecountry study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540–558.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In
E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and
maintenance o f prosocial behavior (pp. 229 - 255). New York: Plenum.
Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public service motivation. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155-180. doi:10.1177/0734371X04271526
110
Sebastian, B. (2002). Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new
environmentally friendly behaviours — results of two field experiments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 22(4), 399-411. doi:10.1006/jevp.2002.0278
Shalom H., S. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 221-279). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
Shalom H., S. (1968). Words, deeds and the perception of consequences and responsibility
in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 232-242.
doi:10.1037/h0026569
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the
emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(2), 257-283. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00014-4
Sharp, E. B., Daley, D. M., & Lynch, M. S. (2011). Understanding local adoption and
implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Affairs Review, 47(3), 433457. doi:10.1177/1078087410392348
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2000). Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for
cervical cancer screening. Health Psychology, 19(3), 283-289. doi:10.1037/02786133.19.3.283
Shrivastava, P. (1994). CASTRATED environment: GREENING organizational studies.
Organization Studies, 15(5), 705-726. doi:10.1177/017084069401500504
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The
Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp. 936-960.
Singleton, R., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Staats, E. B. (1988). Public service and the public interest. Public Administration Review,
48(2), 601
Starik, M., & Special Research Forum "The Management of Organizations in the Natural
Environment. (2000). Special research forum "the management of organizations in the
natural environment". Briarcliff Manor, NY: Acad.
Starkey, K., & Crane, A. (2003). Toward green narrative: Management and the evolutionary
epic. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), pp. 220-237.
Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1992). Management for a small planet : Strategic decision
making and the environment. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
111
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of
energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4),
415-425. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stern, P. C., & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Human Dimensions of
Global Change. (1997). Environmentally significant consumption research directions.
Retrieved
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50(3), 65-84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof. (1999). A social
psychological theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97
Stern, P. C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude Objects1. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611-1636. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1995.tb02636.x
Stern, P. C., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental resources. In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 1043–1088). New
York: Wiley.
Stern, P. P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of
environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Tannenbaum, S. I. (1997). Enhancing continuous learning: Diagnostic findings from
multiple companies. Human Resource Management, 36: 437-452
Takács-Sánta, A. (2007). Barriers to environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 14
(1): 26-38.
Thøgersen, J. (2007). Social marketing of alternative transportation modes. In T. Ga¨ rling, &
L. Steg (Eds.), Threats to the quality of urban life from car traffic: Problems, causes,
and solutions (pp. 367–381). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of
leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319-333.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00865.x
112
Trumbo, C., and G. O‘Keefe. (2000). Understanding environmentalism and information
effects in water conservation behavior: A comparison of three communities sharing a
watershed. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Phoenix, AZ.
Tullock, G. (1970). Private wants, public means; an economic analysis of the desirable
scope of government. New York: Basic Books.
Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 211-224. doi:10.1111/j.17496632.2009.05163.x
US, C. B. (2009). The U.S. census bureau [electronic resource] : At work for you.
Washington, D.C: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration,
U.S. Census Bureau.
Vastag, G., Kerekes, S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (1996). Evaluation of corporate environmental
management approaches: A framework and application. International Journal of
Production Economics, 43(2-3), 193-211. doi:10.1016/0925-5273(96)00040-0
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific
environmental attitudes and changes in recycling Opportunities1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22(20), 1580-1607. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01758.x
Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). ? Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems,
driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1-19.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x
Weizsacker, E. U. v., & Jesinghaus, J. (1992). Ecological tax reform : A policy proposal for
sustainable development. London: Zed Books.
Welford, R. (1995). Environmental strategy and sustainable development : The corporate
challenge for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Wesley Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
19(3), 255-265. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0129
Whorton, J. W., & Worthley, J. A. (1981). A perspective on the challenge of public
management: Environmental paradox and organizational culture. The Academy of
Management Review, 6(3), pp. 357-361.
Winter, D. D. N., Koger, S. M. & Winter, D. D. N. (2004). The psychology of
environmental problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wirl, F., (2000). Lessons from utility conservation programs. Energy Journal 21, 87-108.
113
Woods, N. D. (2006). Interstate competition and environmental regulation: A test of the
race-to-the-bottom thesis. Social Science Quarterly, 87(1), 174-189.
doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2006.00375.x
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers:
Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public
Administration Review, 72(2), 206-215. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector:
Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1),
75-89. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup003
Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Public organizations and mission valence.
Administration & Society, 43(1), 22-44. doi:10.1177/0095399710386303
Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). How do perceived political environment and
administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 19(2), 335-360. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun002
Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation:
When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review,
71(6), 880-892. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x
Yetman, M. H., & Yetman, R. J. (2003). Environmental regulatory competition: A status
report and some new evidence. National Tax Journal, 56(1), 91-106.
Yi, H., Matkin, D., & Feiock, R. C. (2011). Incentivizing energy efficiency: Explaining
local commitment to energy efficiency in cities with municipal-owned utilities. Paper
presented at the American Society of Public Administration‘s annual meeting.
Zahran S, Brody S D, Vedlitz A, Grover H, Miller C, 2008, "Vulnerability and capacity:
explaining local commitment to climate-change policy" Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 26(3) 544-562
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new
engagement?: Political participation, civic life and the changing American citizenship.
Oxford- New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
114
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Aisha Azhar is originally from Pakistan, and received her MBA degree from the
National University of Sciences and Technology. She had taught the bachelor classes in the
management sciences department of National University of Modern Languages. She had
also worked as a research associate at the Lahore University of Management Sciences for
two years. She wanted to pursue her academic career and competed for the Fulbright
scholarship for doctoral studies. She chose to pursue her doctoral degree at the Askew
School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. Her research interests
focus on public service motivation, human resource management, pro-environmental
behavior and comparative public administration.
115