Politics and Positive Public Service

It is election season in the United States of America, causing excitement for some, trepidation for others, and perhaps even apathy for a few. It also means, when it comes to government, the public’s focus tends to be on two specific people: the presidential candidates from the major political parties rather than the nearly 22 million government workers who serve our communities in a variety of important functions, from health and safety to education and transportation and more. These workers are all too often part of a bureaucracy that does not get the positive attention—or credit—it deserves. So, it is a good time to remember how public service can take a backseat to politics, overshadowing the importance of the community impact and well-being of government workers beyond those in elected office, like the ones we encounter teaching our children, processing mail at our neighborhood post offices, ready to jump into action at our local fire departments, or picking up the trash from our curbs.

Positive Psychology Meets Public Administration

There is an important connection to be made between the fields of positive psychology and public administration. Instead of pathology, positive psychology focuses on what goes well in people’s lives and why (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Associated research on organizations has shown that well-being in the workplace is connected to lower absenteeism, stronger motivation, creativity, and lower turnover, all of which are positively correlated with performance (Tenney et al., 2016). Contributing factors to this include positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (Selgiman, 2011). As a practitioner in public administration, I have been particularly interested in the implications of this research for the government workplace. When I have worked with people who felt good about doing good with one another, it led to more fulfilling and impactful work, rather than when toiling for leaders of the clenched-fist variety who mistakenly equated harshness with high standards.

Simon (1997), author of a seminal public administration book, Administrative Behavior, also spoke to the importance of such positive experiences, noting that “willingness to do the work and the enthusiasm with which work is done may depend very much on how pleasant or unpleasant workers find the job and its physical and social environments” (p. 164). As a side note, students in and alumni of the Master of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) program at the University of Pennsylvania may be familiar with Simon (1997) for coining the concept of satisficing, an approach to decision making that values adequacy more than optimization. But Simon’s work has coincidentally been influential in informing government work as well.

Public administration is the study of how government functions (Stillman, 2020), which takes numerous factors into consideration: managerial, political, and representativeness (Rosenbloom, 1983). The first, managerial, emphasized the need for efficiency in carrying out government’s responsibilities. Through this lens, functions should be performed by people trained in a specific discipline, as part of a hierarchical organization that promotes coordination and standardization akin to a factory assembly line. The second, political, centers around accountability to the public. This is predicated on transparency and responsiveness. The goal is to ensure that the workforce is reflective of various constituencies and that they are adequately represented. The final factor is legal, which seeks to ensure that individual rights are protected, whether it be in handling personnel actions within the government or in providing (or withholding) services or benefits to the public. These factors add to the elements of well-being in informing how one experiences government work.

When considering the intersection of positive psychology and public administration and their key components, it is worth appreciating the range of the nearly 22 million people employed in public sector jobs at the federal, state, and local levels. This includes approximately 2.7 million at the federal level and 19 million at state and local governments. Moreover, these public servants hold a wide variety of roles unmatched in any private sector organization. A scan through census data is a good reminder of the breadth of state and local government full-time roles, including judicial and legal (394,414 employees), police protection (879,307 employees), solid waste management (98,619 employees), hospitals (858,208), and elementary and secondary education (4,265,938 employees), to name a few (United States Census Bureau, 2015). All contribute to well-being in their communities, navigating the range of factors that can make their jobs more fulfilling or less so, and not necessarily within their control.

Selling Public Servants Short

Despite the scale of the government workforce, public servants themselves are seldom in the position to frame the narrative around the government’s contributions to communities nationwide. Elected officials do that—as do the press and other commentators who focus largely on those who have run, or are running, for office. There are recent examples of this, but to avoid wading into more polarizing waters, I’ll refer to two earlier ones that struck a chord with me as a student interested in government, whose parents were dedicated public school teachers. Take, for example, President Ronald Reagan’s (1981) remarks from his inaugural address:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time, we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.

Approximately 41.8 million people watched these critical remarks (Bauder, 2021).

Such a critical stance is bipartisan. Shortly after the start of President Clinton’s first term in 1993, Al Gore visited the Late Show with David Letterman (Must Love Clintons a, 2012). Most of the conversation between the elected official and the TV host centered around the new administration’s interest in eliminating government waste. Letterman set the stage in his interview, asking Gore, “So, have you fixed the government?” The Vice President responded, “It certainly needs it” (Must Love Clintons a, 2012). Gore and Letterman then donned safety goggles as the Vice President conducted a test that he asserted was indicative of the problems with government. He placed an ashtray on the desk before the talk show host. “This is a designer ashtray,” Gore sarcastically explained, “because the taxpayers have paid lots of people to specify everything about this, including the testing procedure which has to be on a plank made out of maple for some reason.” The Vice President and Letterman then took turns hitting a sharp pick placed on the ashtray with a hammer to see how it broke apart. The crowd laughed at the absurdity of the exercise. “How is this saving taxpayers money?” Letterman asked. “It’s costing taxpayers a lot of money,” Gore responded. “That’s why we want to get rid of all this. The way…the government buys stuff like this is crazy” (Must Love Clintons b, 2012). Letterman shook his head, puzzled that the government would require such a seemingly pointless test. “I guess I just don’t understand politics,” he joked (Must Love Clintons b, 2012). Average viewership for the show at that time was at least 7 million people (Maglio, 2015).

These examples illustrate two important points. The first is the amount of attention such high-level government officials attract, with the microphones and cameras directed squarely at them with an audience of millions watching. It is not the kind of visibility that everyday government workers have through mainstream outlets. Second is how such a platform can distract from the good work that so many public servants are doing and, as these two cases show, to their detriment, casting a long shadow. Such high-profile criticisms fuel common stereotypes of ineffectual or lazy bureaucrats (Baldwin, 1990; Van de Walle, 2004).

Changing the Narrative

What gets lost is that great work is possible (and even exists) in government—something I know firsthand. This is why it was important for me to draw from the science of positive psychology and learn from government employees about their best work experiences. To that end, I conducted in-depth interviews with current and former public servants in my study. It was clear, as I had seen in my own 20-plus-year career in government, that fulfilling work is powerful (Jones, 2021). As an example, take this quote from one of the respondents about their best experience working for the government:

It made me feel like I could have done it for free. Brought me personal fulfillment at a level that I hadn’t encountered professionally before. It made me personally optimistic and countered the perception that work is a thing that you do as opposed to being a big part of yourself. (Jones, 2017, p. 8)

There was more where that came from. Each of the respondents, when reflecting on the highlights of their government careers, tapped into heartfelt experiences of helping others like the one above.

Through this qualitative research, five common attributes of government workers’ best experiences, or positive public service, emerged: challenge, efficacy, camaraderie, empowerment, and service (Jones, 2021). There were obvious connections to the key components of the PERMA model of well-being: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (Seligman, 2011), along with other features such as hardship, novelty, leadership, and helping others. It speaks to the importance of understanding both the positive contributions and experiences of government workers and how best to cultivate them, particularly when public perception runs counter.

Given the mainstream’s all-too-often negative focus on government, it can be a tall order for people to recognize such positive potential, or in other words, to employ a little less of a red-cape perspective focused on why the government needs to be fixed and a little more of a green-cape approach, appreciating the value and potential of those carrying out its mission (Pawelski, 2016). However, support for government workers occasionally finds its way to the mainstream. Take, for instance, Amy Poehler’s perspective in a New York Times interview:

Perhaps people were like, “It’s nice to be reminded that there might be people in public service who care about the things I care about and are decent; perhaps this is an example of people who have different ideas about the world and government still getting a beer together.” I believe that most people are decent people. . . I mean, I’m amazed by people who are in public service. To be an advocate for people who aren’t your own family? And to work in terribly lit offices?” (Marchese, 2021)

Whether such a perspective informed her starring (and at times surprisingly accurate) role as a dedicated public servant on Parks and Recreation or vice versa remains to be seen. But the television show, which featured government workers in a small town, did present an endearing, albeit fictional, view of public service.

In an even more mainstream context, just recently, a gratitude post for a colleague of mine in the New York City government went viral! The post was a positive rant affirming the great job she has been doing:

Remember that woman they hired in New York City to get rid of all rats? I just wanted to come on here and say that woman did her job. . . I just wanted to make sure that we came on here and gave her flowers. Like, Ma’am, you have done such a good job. (Achehata, 2024)

The post received 2.2 million views and 310,000 likes (and counting). In addition, it prompted comments from viewers who echoed the recognition—a true upward spiral, with one positive comment building on top of the next. How refreshing! More of that, please—this election season and beyond.

The Opportunity Ahead

Since research has shown that the well-being of employees positively impacts their contributions to their organizations, it is not a stretch to consider that flourishing government workers can serve their communities better as well. Yet, election season can distract from and diminish the essential contributions of public servants to our communities, with the spotlight reserved for candidates and soundbites. Given that commentary like Reagan’s “government is the problem” quip or Gore’s ashtray antics on Letterman can shape perceptions and miss the bigger picture, it’s a good time to focus more on positive public service. This is an ideal time to consider how the managerial, political, and legal factors noted in the research on public administration can support or stymie it. Further study is needed to understand the interplay of all these factors. Research on the importance of dignity, the meaning of work, and the need to feel valued, in addition to adding value, as suggested by Soren & Ryff (2023) and Prilleltensky (2019), is a start.

Government may not be perfect, but it stands to reason that a little recognition of the value of everyday public service can go a long way, not only in the well-being of government workers but also in the flourishing of the communities they serve. So, next time you see a public servant in action, consider affirming the value of their work—whether it be through a kind word, viral social media post, or hit sitcom. Government workers may rarely get the limelight or public accolades—especially during election season—but it does not mean they have not earned it.

This article was prepared by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of the City of New York or any office, agency, or department thereof.

References

Achehata, Mayssa [@mayssachehata]. (2024, August 8). Remember that woman that they hired in New York City to get rid of all the rats [Tik Tok]. https://www.tiktok.com/@https://www.tiktok.com/@mayssachehata/video/7400773113304124703?lang=en-gb /video/7400773113304124703?lang=en-gb

Bauder, D. (2021). Biden oath second only to Reagan and Obama with TV viewers. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/biden-oath-second-only-to-reagan-and-obama-with-tv-viewers/

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Industry employment and output projections to 2024. Monthly Labor Review. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/industry-employment-and-output-projections-to-2024-1.htm

Jones, B. (2017). Positive public service: Turning purpose into progress by changing how government works from the inside. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=mapp_capstone

Jones, B. (2021). What makes government work great: The characteristics of positive public service. Public Personnel Management, 50(4), 610–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020985559

Maglio, T. (2015, May 19). David Letterman by the number: Records and Social Stats before he says sayonara. The Wrap. https://www.thewrap.com/david-letterman-by-the-numbers-ratings-records-and-social-stats-q-score-cbs-late-show/

Marchese, D. (2021, February 19). Amy Poehler is into what Gen Z is selling. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/22/magazine/amy-poehler-interview.html

Must Love Clintons a. (2012, April 25). 1993 Vice President Al Gore on David Letterman Part 1 [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7ei2YTrM8

Must Love Clintons b. (2012, April 25). 1993 Vice President Al Gore on David Letterman Part 2 [Video File]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQHyK3aUvJs

Pawelski. J. (2016). Defining the ‘positive’ in positive psychology: Part II. A normative analysis, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137628

Prilleltensky, I. (2019). Mattering at the intersection of psychology, philosophy, and politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12368

Reagan, R. (1981, January 20). Inaugural Address 1981. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/inaugural-address-1981

Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219–227.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

Seligman, M.E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

Simon, H. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th ed.). The Free Press.

Soren, A., & Ryff, C. 2023. Meaningful work, well-being, and health: Enacting a eudaimonic vision. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(16), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20166570

Tenney, E. R., Poole, J. M., & Diener, E. (2016). Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we do not know. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002

United States Census Bureau. (2015) State and local government payroll data: March 2015. Annual survey of public employment and payroll. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

About the author | B.J. Jones (C’17) has over 25 years of public sector experience and is currently Executive Director of the “New” New York. B.J. has a BA in Management from Gettysburg College, an MPA from American University, and a MAPP degree from the University of Pennsylvania. He is an assistant instructor at the University of Pennsylvania and an adjunct assistant professor at NYU. He serves on the boards of the Frederick O’Reilly Hayes Prize Foundation and the South Street Seaport Museum. His journal article “What Makes Government Work Great: The Characteristics of Positive Public Service” was published in Public Personnel Management in 2021.