Religiousity as a MediatingVariable on the Relationship between

Personality Traits and Public Service Motivation

Author(s): Lindri Triyani Syarif1, and Ely Susanto2

Universitas Gadjah Mada

Research Background
The term Public Service Motivation (PSM) firstly appeared in research conducted by
Perry, in relation with administrative, behavioral, and social sciences (Perry, 2010). At that
particular moment, Perry believed that PSM was the only solution to improve qualities and
solve incentive problems emerging at public sectors. PSM as a new concept is perceived as an
astonishing point as a motive.
In the scope of public administration science, PSM holds a distinguished concept from
any other motivational concepts. This kind of motivation is interesting since during the era of
public based management, working ethics and motivation are separately placed (Kim, 2010).
During the time, working ethics were limited on working incentives, workload incentives, and
pension funds only. Some researchers argue that the classic model of working motivational
behaviors cannot be applied to describe motivations at public sectors (Perry, 1990). Working
behaviors of classic model is concerned for not having any ‘values’ and moral obligations at
working motivations (Kim & Vandenabele, 2000); while public services are a form of intuition
to serve and prioritize public affairs.
In relation with its antecedent, PSM is influenced by three major factors: socio-
historical context, motivational context, and individual characteristics (Perry, 2000). The socio-
historical context is regarded as the most popular and influential research in the facet of PSM’s
antecedent (Pandey, 2008). Yet, this article has nothing to do with it but individual
characteristics due to unsolved curiosities on to what extent the individual characteristics affect
someone’s PSM level. Factors influencing behaviors in the study of PSM is a representation of
altruistic motives, pro-social as well as affectionate attitudes (Pebble, 2016). Those three
motives reflect good and voluntary attitudes to improve a certain group’s qualities. PSM bears
the same definition as it.
Generally speaking, this article aims to show the relationship between personality traits
and PSM. This research elaborates previous research that examined the relationship between
personality traits and PSM (Witteloostjuin, 2016; Hamidullah, 2016; Ain, 2015; Jang, 2012).
The previous research only focuses on the explanation that there is strong relationship between
those variables; while how the relationship exactly exists is still obscure.
This research employs the religiosity variable as a mediating variable on the
relationship between personality traits and PSM. The researcher chose the variable after
considering several research (Perry, 1997; Osman, 2013; Saraglou, 2010; Giauque, 2009).

1
Master degree, Post graduate program of public policy and management at UGM, Email:
Lindrisyarif93@gmail.com, lindri.triyani.s@mail.ugm.ac.id
2
Reaseacher, promotor and lecturer of pubic policy and management at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Email :
elysusanto@mail.ugm.ac.id, Susanto76@gmail.com

1
Their research results claim that people’s religiosity level is influenced by personality traits.
On the other hand, religiosity is confirmed to be able to influence the PSM level. The most
influential personality traits in relation to religiosity are agreeableness and conscientiousness.
This supports that religiosity bears an identical context to altruist and pro-social attitudes, the
fundamental value of PSM making (Perry, 1997). Hence, the researcher could make a
preliminary assumption that the religiosity variable was the appropriate variable to explain the
relationship between personality traits and PSM.

Literature Reviews and Hypotheses

PSM
The preliminary definition of PSM is that as a form of desire to serve public importance.
Such definition was firstly stated by Perry and Wise (1990) in their study on administrative,
social, and behavioral sciences (Perry et al., 2010). Soon afterwards, the concept of PSM was
developed. Several researchers (Brewer, Selden, and Facer 2000; Kim and Vandenabeele 2010;
Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan 2008) define PSM in various ways but in the same concept that
as a certain attitude guiding individuals’ behavior to do goodness and realize social welfare
(Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). This concept is grounded by the argument that people with
interests to work at public sectors are people with desire to serve and help others. Perry and
Wise (1990) in their writing state that motivation in public service should be understood as a
psychological needs, suggesting an idea that individuals contributing to public interest
basically fulfil their own needs. One thing to notice, PSM is in the individuals themselves not
at a particular sector. Hence, you might find PSM at private sectors and at any occupations
(Wise, 2000).
Knoke & Isak (1982) propose an argument that PSM can be connected with three
motives that later become its foundation (Perrry, 1990). These motives provide a framework
that makes the concept of PSM more understandable. Those motives are believed to be rational,
normative, and affective motives. Besides, Perry and Wise (1990) suggested that most of what
we observe from PSM is a person’s desire to serve the public interest and social equity. The
first motive, the rational motive, the idea of that comes from individual interests. Individuals
are interested in performing certain acts in the government because they believe that they can
facilitate a certain group’s interest. PSM refers to the motives that individuals have to display
behaviors that they believe will have a positive influence on promoting the public interest
(Perry and Wise 1990).
The second motive, the normative motive, emerges due to the desire of serving public
interests. This motive is accounted for having the same characteristics as altruism, where the
public interests are defined as a private opinion (Perry, 2010). The last motive, the affective
motive, is based on faith to contribute benefits to others. In efforts to make their research to be
more comprehensive, Kim and Vandenabeele (2010) added three new motives: instrumental,
value-based, and identification. The instrumental motive is conveyed to have relation with
behaviors, the value-based motive focuses on values and ethics, and the identification motive
is connected to attitudes. Before Kim’s elaborative research, Perry (2008) had initially
constructed PSM using altruist traits and pro-social attitudes. These two concepts were finally
launched after Perry linked PSM to economic science, in that economists argued that it was
difficult to deny the perspective saying that altruist motivation existed at public services (Le

2
Grand, 2003). Preferences or values should be endogenous to any theory of motivation; and
preferences are learned through social processes ( Then, PSM was perfected by utilizing four
dimensions representing its existence: attraction to policy making (APM), commitment to
public interest (CPI), compassion (COM), and self-sacrifice (SS).
The dimension of attraction to public policy is related to achievements whose indicators
are political process of public policy making and obligation to perform an honest process in
public policy making. The dimension of commitment to public interest is connected to the
desire to serve public interests and perceive themselves (the people with such desire) as a
provider of public service. The indicator of this dimension is affectionate attitudes towards
social interests. The dimension of compassion deals with the altruistic attitudes, the indicators
are sympathy and empathy. The dimension of self-sacrifice is linked to national and patriotic
attitudes showed by love for the motherland. The indicator is being responsible and faithful to
the country (Perry & wise, 1990; Perry, 2000; Perry, 2008; Perry, 2010; Kim, 2010). These
four dimensions are believed to be the characteristics of public officials since they bear desires
to prioritize and serve public interests.

Personality Traits
Generally, Personality traits are defined as characteristics of individuals, portraying
how they interact with environments (McCrae, 2011). Some researchers describe that
personality does not form suddenly, but is a collection of elements in the elements together to
form individual characters. Personality is molded by nature and nurture (Ivancevich, 2011).
To understand personality trait it can be done by several approaches, one of them is
using the big five personality theory (Agreeableness, conscientousness, extraversion,
neuroticsm, and openness to experience) (McCrae & Costa, 1992). The big five personalities
do not categorize people in a certain personality but they all simultaneously appear as
personality traits that are later realized in their daily life.
Scale of the test refers to repeated measurements by Oliver Jhon & Srivastava (1999)
in Handbook of Personality : Theory and Research 2nd ed. According Jhon, big five personality
functioning in integrity to represents various personality in general scheme. The domination of
each trait will define different profiles on each individual.

Highly-valued Score Traits Karakteristik skor rendah

Gentle, kind, helpful, Agreeableness Cynical, rude, suspicious,
trusted, forgiving, Measuring individuals’ uncooperative, vengeful,
exploitable, organized quality of interpersonal evil, irritable, manipulative
orientation, from sympathy
to hostility of mind,
sentiment, and action

This trait describes people

who are friendly, caring, and
generally think well of other
people. This is the trait most

3
 strongly associated with
prosocial attitudes and
behaviors,such asgiving,
helping or trusting
otherpeople (Grazianoand
Tobin, 2009)
Organized, trusted, hard- Conscientiousness Aimless, untrusted, lazy,
working, disciplined, Measuring individual’ order unsympathetic, forgetful,
punctual, careful, neat, level, resilience, and careless, undisciplined,
ambitious, diligent motivation to achieve goals, unmotivated, pleasure-
as the contrary of loving
dependence and tendency of
laziness and weakness

Religiosity
Religiosity is defined as a symbol, the system of faith, values, and behaviors instituted
and centered at problems understood as a meaningful matter (Glock, 1995). To sum up,
religiosity is basically a form of relationship between human and God internalized in human’s
self and reflected in their daily behaviors.
In general, religiosity refers to spiritual factors where complete understanding between
an individual and the religion they follow exists. Such understanding brings commitment to
motivate religious and moral behaviors in all aspects of life. Thus it can be concluded that
religiosity is a system of belief influencing indviduals’ behavioral patterns. Religiosity is
divided into five dimensions (Glock & Star). It is believed that these five dimensions are
capable of representing individuals’ religiosity level. Those five dimensions are the ideological
dimension, the ritualistic dimension, the experiential dimension, the consequential dimension,
and the intellectual dimension.
The ideological dimension defines to what extent individuals accept dogmas of their
religion, such as their belief in their God including His characters. The ritualistic dimension
describes to what extent individuals fulfill their religious obligation, for example praying,
giving zakat, misa and fasting. The experiential dimension is dimensions related to religious
feelings experienced and felt by religious believers, such as near with God, solemn in praying.
The consequential dimension portrays to what extent a religious implication influences
individuals’ behaviors in their social life, for instances conducting charity or visiting sick
people. The intellectual dimension is illustrates the extent individuals understand of their
religion

Hypotheses Development
Some sub-factors existing in the agreeableness dimension (Pervin, 2005) that are
straightforward, trust, altruism, modesty, tender-mindedness, and compliance indicate that
agreeable people are those that react to others with warmth and try to avoid conflicts. They
solve problems by discussion. Hogan (in Raad & Perugini, 2002) explains that if there happens
a conflict to agreeable people, they tend to budge.

4
 In an organization, agreeableness refers to the level of tolerance towards other workers.
Agreeableness is also marked by friendliness and cooperativeness and that become the
fundamental principle to establish and understand an organizational cultures to avoid any
interpersonal disharmony sentiment. Tummers & Bekkers (2002) state that a working
environment that threatens individuals’ freedom makes them reluctant to implement public
policies. Facets existing in the agreeableness dimension also display basic traits of PSM such
as altruistic and pro-social traits. This means that agreeableness can affect individuals’ PSM
level. Besides, previous research (Witteloostuijn, Jang, Hamidullah, Ain) has examined a
strong and positive relationship between personality traits and PSM. Hence, the researcher
assumed that agreeableness improved the PSM value. The first hypothesis of this research is:
H1a: Agreeableness Having Positive Influence towards PSM

Conscientiousness in personality traits consists of six facets: self-discipline,

dutifulness, competence, order, deliberation, and achievement. These six facets describe that
those with high conscientiousness are responsible, committed, professional, and goal-focused.
Disciplined people perform well and thus create professional, working climates. Motowidlo
(1999) explains that technically careful people are those capable of working at complex fields.
The output of high PSM is good and satisfying performances. Hence, the researcher assumed
that people with high discipline and responsibility had a high level of PSM since attitudes of
conscientiousness trait increased the level of PSM. The assumption is supported by the results
of Jang’s research (2012) figuring out that conscientiousness is the strongest predictor
influencing PSM in the dimensions of public interest and obligations as a citizen. This is in
accordance with what Pandey and Stanzyk (2008) predicted that there was a positive
relationship between conscientiousness and commitment to public interests and civic duty in
PSM. Based on the prediction, hypothesis of this research is:
H1b: Conscientiousness Having Positive Influence towards PSM

Allport (1997) explains that the level of religiosity maturity is influenced by two
factors: external and internal. The internal factor is influenced by personality traits. High
religiosity trait born by people can be observed from their behaviors, attitudes, and life styles.
Values and norms suggested by any religion must be good in characters. Religiosity possesses
a strong influence towards altruistic behaviors. With a high level of religiosity, individuals will
have more attention to both social and religious norms so that the level of sincerity to help
people improves. Besides, altruistic behaviors are parts of agreeableness traits. Agreeableness
encourages individuals’ level of religiosity. Furthermore, Saraglou (2010) proves that there is
a positive correlation between personality traits and religiosity at five dimensions of big five
personalities. Saraglou points out that agreeableness and conscientiousness are the most
influential dimensions in relation to religiosity. Values contained by religiosity that always
command us to implement goodness in our daily lives are in accordance with traits of
agreeableness: friendly, kind-hearted, sympathetic, and sincere (McCrae, 1997). In conclusion,
the agreeableness trait influences religiosity values and thus the hypothesis of this research is:
H2a: Agreeableness with Positive Influence towards Religiosity

5
 Glock & Star (1975) in (Ardiansyah, 2006) divides religiosity into five dimensions as
the measuring scale for religiosity variables, one of which is the effect dimension. The
measuring indicator of this dimension is to what extent the implication of religious norms can
affect individuals’ behaviors. Conscientiousness is a responsible behavior. This factor tends to
be connected with working patterns more than interaction with others. Individuals with
conscientiousness are usually hard-working, responsible, and disciplined. These are
applications of religious values gained by conscientiousness people as a be responsible in work.
The researcher assumed that the conscientiousness trait improved the individuals’ religiosity
level by acting certain behaviors suggested by religion. This assumption is supported by
Saraglou (2010) stating that the high level of agreeableness and conscientiousness traits is
influenced by the level of religiosity. The researcher further assumed that personality traits can
influence religiosity values. Regarding to the fact, the researcher hypothesizes:
H2b: Conscientiousness with Positive Influence towards Religiosity

Values and norms stipulated by religions are closely linked to attitudes leading to good
morality. Verbit (in Spilka, 1985) unfolds that there are religious components explaining the
individuals’ level of religiosity maturity, one of which is ethics. The intended ethics consist of
regulations functioned to guide individuals’ behaviors. Therefore, religious tenets brings
impact on their behaviors. Mayers (2002) reveals that individuals’ level of religiosity deeply
influences personality and thus impacts on their daily behaviors. The researcher hence assumed
that religiosity influenced individuals’ PSM level. The assumption lays on the research
conducted by Peery & Brudney (2008) mentioning there is a direct, positive relationship
between religiosity and family socialization towards PSM.
Fallot (1998) argues that religion is one of cultural factors giving structures and
meanings to people’s values, behaviors, and life. Several religious values indicate altruistic
traits (Post et al., 2002). PSM has the same trait. Therefore, the researcher judged that
religiosity aspect of individuals were capable of improving the PSM values. Then, the
hypothesis of this research is:
H3: Religiosity with Positive Influence towards Public Service Motivation

Based on explanation and research results of several experts (Jang, 2012; Ain, 2015;
Hamidullah, 2016; Wittleoostuijn, 2016) investigating personality traits towards PSM utilizing
various sizes of PSM, they all agree that personality traits influencing PSM most are
agreeableness and conscientiousness. On the other hand, one of factors forming the level of
religiosity maturity is personality traits. The personality aspect influences individual patterns
and behaviors, indicating their religious obedience. Hence, the researcher assumed that
personality traits (agreeableness and conscientiousness) were able to improve the level of
religiosity maturity. The assumption is strengthened by Perry (2008) that has proven religiosity
as something potential to influence PSM. Perry perceives that religiosity is directly connected
to several dimensions of PSM: commitment to public interest and affectionate attitudes.
In several relevant cases, socializing people have a higher level of PSM than individualistic
people. Furthermore, a positive relationship in a certain community is believed to be a form of
spiritual closeness with God (Perry, 2008). People that frequently perform religious activities
possess their own perspectives that influence their PSM level.

6
 Research conducted by Stanzyk (2008) shows that religiosity is a part of PSM’s
antecedents. The relation with God comes with a broad context and if it is linked to PSM, then
it has indeed a high influence. Thus, religiosity can be regarded as a mediating variable of
agreeableness and conscientiousness traits towards PSM because religiosity is influenced by
personality traits that influence PSM as well. Based on the above explanation, then the
researcher’s hypothesis is as follows:
H4 a: Religiosity as the Mediating Variable of the Personality Trait Agreeableness and
PSM
H4b: Religiosity as the Mediating Variable of the Personality Trait Conscientiousness
and PSM

Research Method
The researcher used quantitative approach. The population of the research was civil
servants in ten official services in Padang. Those ten official services were (i) Department of
Education; (ii) Department of Health; (iii) Social Services; (iv) Department of Labor and
Industry; (v) Department of Women Empowerment, Child Protection, Public Control, and
Family Planning; (vi) Population and Civil Registration Agency, (vii) Department of
Cooperatives, Small and Medium Enterprises; (viii) One-stop Integrated Investment and
Services Office; (ix) Library and Archives; and (x) Trade Services. The sample of research
consisted of 250 respondents with each regional office consisted of twenty people who fulfilled
the criteria as having been working for one year.

Operasional Definition
The questionnaire consisted of eighteen item questions about personality traits (Costa
& Mc Crae, 1992, adapted from Neila, 2012). The questionnaire also consisted of questions
about public service motivation with total twenty four question items (Perry & wise, 1997),
adapted from Syamsir (2011), and questions about religiousity with total forty questions (Glock
& Star, 1972, adapted from Ardiansyah, 2006). The measurement of each question used Likert
Scale with five points as the highest point and one point as the lowest one.

Data Collection
The collected data were collected through questionnaire (primary data), literary study
on academic work, and other relevant sources (secondary data). The data processing in this
research used IBM application SPSS 16.

Examination
The examination tools used in this research was reliability test. These tools of test was
used to see how valid and reliable the questions in questionnaire. The researcher conducted an
assumption test on normality, auto-correlation, and multicollinearity after examining the
answers in questionnaire. If they fulfilled the conditions of assumption test, the researcher
performed the hypothesis test that included correlation test, F test, determination test, and
mediation test with regression model.

7
Result
The Result of reliability examination was examined by cronbach’s alpha method
showing the value of personality trait (0.739), variable of PSM (0.829) and variable of
religiousity (0.873). The three of them was rated more than 0.6 that meant that each item on
the questionnaire was reliable.
Table. 1.1 Statistics Test Result
No. Variable Mean Median Stdr Dev Min/Mak N
1 Personality trait 3.99 4.00 6.004 1/5 18
2 Religiousity 4.28 5.00 8.726 1/5 40
3 PSM 3.75 4.00 13.255 1/5 24

Based on Table 1.1, it can be seen the mean ranges from 3.4–4.2. Based on the interval
value, the range shows a high level and the average answer is ‘agree’.

Table 1.2. Assumption Test Result

Multicollinearity
Variable Auto-correlation Normality
Tolerance VIF
Agreeableness 1.872 0.690 1.450 0.004
Conscienstiousness 0.715 1.398 0.000
Religiousity 0.658 1.520 0.000
PSM 0.000

Table 1.2 explains that the value of correlation test is 1.872 whose range is between DU
and 4-DU as a tool’s condition of free autocorrelation. The result of multicollinearity value in
its independent variable is >0.10 and the value VIF <10 means independent variable does not
indicate any multicollinearity symptom. Meanwhile, the normality test result proves that the
distribution of data points spreads around diagram so it can be concluded that the data
distribution can be categorized as normal.
After assumption test done, the next test is the hypothesis test consisted of correlation
test, F test, and determination test, and mediation test.
Table 1. 3 The Correlation Test Result
Agree Consc PSM Relig
Agree 0.442** 0.406** 0.510**
Significant 0.000 0.000 0.000
Consc 0.442** 0.510** 0.482**
Significant 0.000 0.000 0.000
PSM 0.406** 0.510** 0.462**
Significant 0.000 0.000 0.000
Relig 0.510** 0.482** 0.462**
Signifiacan 0.000 0.000 0.000

Based on Table 1.3, it is found that the significant value is 0.000, means that the
correlation is strong among the variable examined. The star sign in the table shows there is

8
influence to the variable. The correlation value between agreeableness and PSM is 0.406 that
means that though the correlation is not strong, it is still significant. Meanwhile the value of
correlation between agreeableness and religiousity is 0.510 that means that there is enough and
significant correlation value. The result of correlation test between conscientiousness and PSM

Hipotesis Variabel Religiusitas PSM

Sc Beta Sig T SC Beta Sig. t
H1a Agreeableness 0.406 0.000 6.528
Adj R2 0.161
H1b Conscientiousness 0.510 0.000 8.705
Adj R2 0.256
Agreeableness 0.000
conscientiousness
F arithmetic 46.125
F table 3.04
DF 2
H2a Agreeableness 0.510 0.000 8.718
Adj R2 0.257
H2b Conscientiusness 0.482 0.000 8.094
Adj R2 0.229
H3 Religiusitas 0.462 0.000 7.652
Adj R2 0.210
H4a Agreeableness
Religius 0.324 0.000 5.022
F hitung 36.309
H4b Conscinetiousness
Religius 0.287 0.000 4.386
F hitung 50.701
Agreeableness
conscientiousness
Religiusitas 0.223 0.000 3.222
F aritmatic 35.797
F table 2.65
DF 3
is 0.510, means that the correlation value is considered enough and significant. The value of
correlation test between conscientiousness and religiusitas is 0.482 that means the correlation
value is enough and significant. Last, the result of correlation test between religiousity and
PSM is 0.462, means the correlation value is enough and significant.
Table 1.4 Result of F Test and Regression Test Result

9
 Based on the results of the table, the value of F arithmetic 46.125 with probability 0.000.
because the probability value is much smaller than 0.05 (pvalue <0.05) that means the trait
personality has a positive and significant effect on the PSM. In hypothesis 1a showed that the
value of koefiesien beta agreeableness 0406 with a significant level of 0.000 (pvalue <0.05) it
means that agreeableness has positive and significant effect on the variable PSM. Thus, it can
be concluded that Ho is received and Ha is rejected which means agreeableness positively
affect the PSM, in other words the higher the nature of agreeableness, the higher the value of
PSM in itself. Furthermore, based on the result of the output of the value of adj R2 is 0.161 this
means that 16.1% of the PSM variable can be explained by agreeableness.
Hypothesis 1b showed that the value of beta conscientiousness coefficient is 0.510 with
significant level 0.000 (pvalue <0.05) it means that conscientiousness has positive and
significant effect to PSM. In addition, the value of coefficient adj R2 of 0.256 this means that
25.6% of the PSM variable can be explained by conscientiousness. Based in the value of beta
coefficient and significance level in hypothesis 1b it can be concluded that Ho received and Ha
rejected. In other words the higher the nature of conscientiousness in the individual the higher
the value of PSM on himself.
In Hypothesis 2a, Agreeableness has a beta coefficient value of 0.510 with a significant
level of 0.000 (pvalue <0.05) it means that agreeableness has a positive and significant effect
on the variables of Religiuisitas. Thus, can be concluded that Ho received and Ha rejected
which means agreeableness have a positive effect on religiuisitas. The value of Adj R2
agreeableness is 0.257, this means that 25.7% of religiosity variables can be explained by
agreeableness. Based on the results of the hypothesis, the higher the agreeableness in the
individual the higher the value of religiosity
In hypothesis 2b the value beta coefficient of conscientiousness is 0.482 with a
significant level of 0.000 (pvalue <0.05) it means conscientiousness has a positive effect on
religiquality. Thus, it can be seen that the initial hypothesis of this study is acceptable. So it
can be concluded that conscienitousness has a positive and significant effect on the variable
religiosity. The value of coefficient adj R2 on conscientiousness is 0.229 that means that 22.9%
of variables in religiuisity can be explained by conscientiusness
Based on the results of the table, the value of F arithmetic 35.797 with probability 0.000.
because the probability value is much smaller than 0.05 (pvalue <0.05) that means the
religiousity and trait personality has a positive and significant effect on the PSM. Hypothesis
3 showed the value beta coefficient of religiousity 0.482 with a significant level of 0.000
(pvalue <0.05) it means that religiosity has a positive and significant effect on PSM. In short,
Ho on this hypothesis is accepted and Ha rejected. The coefficient value of adj R2 of religiosity
is 0.21 that means 21% PSM can be explained by religiuisitas
Hypothesis 4a in the table 1.4, showed the value beta coefficient of agreeableness after
mediated by religiosity is 0.230 with a significance level of 0.001. it shows that agreeableness
still positively and significantly influence (pvalue <0.05) to PSM although there is a decrease
in value from the result of hypothesis 1a (beta coefficient: 0.460) to 0.230. The reduced beta

10
coefficient value indicates that religiosity mediates partially the influence of agreeableness on
PSM, thus hypothesis 4a in this study is acceptable. The value of adj R2 is 0.246 that means
that 24.6% variation of PSM can be explained by agreedableness mediated by religiosity
Hypothesis 4b in the table 1.4, showed the value beta coeffiecient of conscientiousness
after mediated by religiosity has a value of 0.374 with a significant level of 0.000. It shows that
conscientiousness still has positive and significant effect (pvalue <0.05) on PSM although there
is a decrease in value from hypothesis 1b (beta coefficient: 0.510) to 0.374. The decrease in
value indicates that religiosity mediates partially the influence of conscientiousness on PSM.
It can be concluded that hypothesis 4b in this study is acceptable. The coefficient value of adj
R2 is 0.314, it means that 31.4% variation of PSM can be explained by agreedableness
mediated by religiosity

Discussion
The test result is suitable (hypothesis 1a) with the theory emphasized by Pervin (2005)
stating that the attributes belong to person whose agreeableness traits can fulfill the need of
public services . In this research, Padang civil servants regard themselves as people having
agreeableness trait: a helpful person that prioritizes other people interest than self-interest. This
can be seen by the mean value of personality trait that is 3.99, means that the respondents
mostly tend to answer agree and regard themselves as individuals with agreeableness traits.
Another work (Madinah, 2015) states that the agreeableness traits are similar to pro-social
behaviors, one of dimensions constructs the PSM. Hence, agreeableness traits significantly
influence the PSM value.
Based on statistics, it is concluded that the employees are optimistically ready for
cooperating, avoiding conflict, and helping other people to create a significant public service.
Regression test result above shows that the higher individual’s agreeableness value is, the
higher individual’s PSM value s/he has. The table adj R2 coefficient value above shows number
0.161, means that 16.1% of variable PSM can be explained by agreeableness, meanwhile the
rest 83.9% is explained by another factor.
Based on regression test result of Table 1.4, beta coefficient value on the hypothesis 1b
(conscientiousness to PSM) has value 0.510, means that this test result proves there is a positive
influence of conscientiousness on PSM of civil servants in Padang. In this research, Padang
civil servants regard themselves as individuals with conscientiousness trait. This is proven by
the high mean value (3.87), means that the respondents tend to agree on every questions in
questionnaire. The conscientiouness trait describes people as being discipline, constant, and
responsible. In this case, conscientiousness trait is used to increase the productivity and to arise
the discipline inside the employees and responsible on working. A civil servant has to take
responsible upon the assignment given and take care of what publics need. The
conscientiousness trait will correlate positively if related to PSM whose aims are to increase
the productivity and to arise discipline inside the employees. Besides, responsibility is involved
in conscientiousness so the higher conscientiousness level of an individual is, the higher PSM
value inside is. The table adj R2 coefficient value shows number 0.256, means that 25.6% of
the PSM variable can be explained by conscientiousness and the rest is explained by the other
factors.

11
 According to regression test result on hypothesis 2a (Agreeableness to Religiousity), it
is found that beta coefficient value is 0.510 showing that agreeableness has influence on
religiousity value of civil servants in Padang. Saraglou (2010) states that character kindness,
politeness, good manners, and well behavior involved in agreeableness trait whose norm and
social values are suitable with religious teaching. In this research, the employees regard
themselves as people who believe in ideology which then encourages them to do goodness as
one of the commitment to the belief itself. This perception is seen on mean value of 4.28,
meaning that the respondents are in the ‘agree’ position. This test result concludes that the
higher agreeableness value inside the employees is, the higher level of their religiousity is. The
adj R2 coefficient value on Table 1.4 shows number 0.257, means that 25.7% of religiousity
variable is explained by agreeableness and the rest is explained by another factor.
Based on regression test result of hypothesis 2b (Conscientiousness to Religiousity) on
Table 1.4, it is found that beta coefficient value is 0.482, means that conscientiousness trait
affects positively on religiousity. In this research, the employees regard themselves as
individuals who is responsible, discipline, and constant. This is seen by the respondents’
answers with values range approximately between 3.4—4.2 and the respondents’ answers tend
to be ‘agree’. This research shows that when the employees are given orders, they do not just
finish it but also do it more than being expected because they believe what they are doing is
part of implementation of their belief. Thus, it is concluded that the higher the level of
individual’s discipline, responsible, and constant traits (conscientiousness) is, the higher the
level of individual’s religiousity is. The adj R2 coefficient value on Table 1.5 is 0.229, means
that 22.9% of variable in religiousity can be explained by conscientiousness and the rest of it
(77.1%) is explained by another factor.
Based on the regression test result on hypothesis 3 (religiousity to PSM), beta
coefficient value is 0.462, means that there is an influence of religiousity on PSM. In this
research, the employees regard themselves as individuals with higher religiousity. This is
proved by mean value (in statistics test) that is 4.28 showing that the respondent’s answer tend
to be ‘agree’. Perry (1997) explains that individuals with faith to God have bound with PSM
because religiousity has context similar with pro-social attitude, so the influence of doctrine in
religious teaching can affect motivation aspects in public services. In this research, civil
servants in Padang believing in religious dogma give another influence to themselves to be
motivated in work. If religiousity is related to PSM, then the employee’s willing to do goodness
to other people by giving good public services and encouraging public prosperity. Thus, it can
be concluded that the clearer the influence is and the higher the level of religiousity is, the
higher the PSM value is. Based on the table above, it is found that the adj R2 coefficient value
is 0.21, means that 21% of variable in PSM is explained by the religiousity and the rest is
explained by the other factors.
Based on the regression test result on hypothesis 4, the result, after controlled by the
religiousity variable, has beta coefficient value 0.406 that becomes 0.230 for agreeableness
trait and 0.510 that becomes 0.374 for conscientiousness trait. The decreasing influence shows
that the religiousity mediates partially the influence of agreeableness and conscientiousness on
PSM. This test result supports the beginning hypotheses the researcher have been built. Some
references explain that basic religious belief can relate directly with some aspects in motivating

12
public services. Besides, the religiousity also lives up the belief inside individual to find the
meaning of life whit influence on attitudes and someone’s personality.
Based on the result of SAKIP evaluation done by the ministry of PAN and RB in 2016
in Padang stays on level B, though the rating improves from 2015 in position CC, the
improvement of evaluation value for Padang is still under 50, that means it is in position C. In
facing some circumstances like this, the employees around Padang are expected to work
effectively so the climate working of professional is created.
This can be happened by making the reparation of employees’ work quality directly as
one of the strategy to increase the quality of public service in Padang. By increasing the work
quality of human resources, the quality of Padang government also increases, and this just can
happen if the civil servants in Padang have agreeableness and conscientiousness traits. Hence,
the value of PSM inside the civil servants increases.
The employees will have responsibility and feel satisfied after finishing public affairs,
so they can feel that serving the public is the aim of their job. They consider working as public
servant is a soul calling. On the other hand, the employees who have high mature religious
level will give positive impact such encouragement to obey the government of Padang, in this
case, giving good and qualified services to the public. Besides, the aspects of religiousity has
its own specialty in the government of Padang since almost 98% of the employees are moslems.
The background of Padang administration with its value of religiousity gives its own points to
the employees. Therefore, there is indeed a role of religiousity that mediates the influence of
personality traits on PSM.
The result of this research answers the question that personality trait does not just
influence PSM directly, but also influence religiousity which then can predict the level of an
individual’s PSM. The sufficiency status of the mediation effect partially happened is caused
by internal and external factor as well as the other variables that also influence PSM.

Conclusion
We focus on personality traits as antecedents of PSM, and both classes of its underlying
motives, because personality has been identified as a main predictor of individual motives
(Bandura 2000; Mischel and Shoda 1998)
The study about PSM is very popular on these last one decades yet it still lacks of
empiric research about PSM antecedent (last Perry’s research, 2008). By using the big five
personality scale, this research adds the row of long literary review about antecedent proving
personality trait has influence on willing to serve the public. this research proved how the two
personality traits, conscientiousness and agrreableness, influence PSM. The result explains
PSM has a different level in each individual personality traits, also proved the religiousity as
variable mediating gives influence on the personality trits and PSM by regression test. This is
proved by the decreasing beta coefficient value before and after it is controlled.

Limitations
This research cannot be generalized other than 10 departments in Padang explained
above. Besides, personality traits examined in this research just limits to two characters
(agreeableness and conscientiousness) of five theories of big five personality. Collecting the

13
data by using questionnaire is subjective and susceptible to invalidity and unreliability, so the
validity and the reliability of the data strongly depend on the respondent’s honesty.

Suggestion
First, increasing the discipline among the civil servants can be done as the efforts to
improve PSM for civil servants. This is based on the value of conscientiouness trait that
influences the level of PSM more than agreeableness trait. Second, the government can recruit
the employees by considering their personality traits. Technically, the recruitment can be done
by testing their personality to a particular institution. Agreeableness and conscientiousness
traits can be trusted as part of personality trait that shows a high integrity to public, so it is
suggested that the test consists of both traits. Research on religiousity and personality traits is
still limited, so more research on the field is required to enrich the literature references.
Moreover, this research is provided to contribute more in further research on the field.

References

Ain Rahat-ul, Jadoon N, Jadoon Zafar I, & Paul, Z. (2015). Public Service Motivation and The Big Five
Personality Traits: The Case of Provincial Service of Pakistan. Journal of Research
(Humanities). Pp 91-114.
Ardiansyah, A. (2006). Perilaku Kewarganegaraan Organisasi Ditinjau dari Nilai Religiusitas dan
Kompetensi Sosial. Fakultas Psikologi. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Giauque, D., A. Ritz, et al. (2009). Motivation of Public Employees at the Municipal Level in
Switzerland. International Public Service Motivation Research Conference. Bloomington/USA.
Ivancevich, John et al. (2005). Perilaku dan Manajemen Organisasi, edisi ke-7. Jakarta: LP3ES.
Jang, Chy-Lu. (2012). The Effect of Personality Traits on Public Service Motivation: Evidence from
Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal. 40 (5) pp 725-734.
Madinnah F, Greeg Hamidullah. (2016). The Agreeable Bereaucrat: Personality and PSM. International
Journal of Public Sector Management. 29 (6) pp. 582-595.
McCrae, Robert R & John, Oliver P. _____. An Introduction to the Five Factor Model and Its
Application.
Neila, R. (2012). Adaptasi Bahasa dan Budaya Inventori Big Five. Jurnal Psikologi. 39 (2) pp. 189-207.
Osman-Gani, A., M, Hasyim et al. (2013). Establishing Linkages Between Religiousity and Spirituality
on Employee Performance. Employee Relation. 34 (4). pp. 360-376.
Perry, J, L. (1997). Antecedent of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory. 7 (2) pp. 18-24.
Perry, J, L. (2000). Bringing Society in: toward of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory. 10 (2) pp.471-488.
Perry, J, L & Wise, L. (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review.
50 (3) pp. 367-373.
Saraglou, Vassilis. (2002). Religion and the Five Factor of Pesonality: a Meta- analytic Review.
Personalty and Individual Difference. (32) pp 15-25.
Stazyk, E & Pandey, S. (2008). Antecedent and Correlates of Public Service Motivation.
Witteloostuijn, Arjen V, Esteve, M & Boyne, G. (2016). Public Sector Motivation Ad Font: Personality
Traits as Antecedents of the Motivation to Serve the Public Interest. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory. pp 1-16

14
15