POLICY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION CLASS problem set please fill-up the Libby boxes no unnecessary explanations ONLY detailed and explained answers! please check the paper which I have uploaded

Garrett et al. (2006) conducted focus groups with senior civil serv ants who indicated that bureaucracy bashing in electoral campaigns impaired their mo- rale, undermined bureau recruitment and fueled distrust between civil servants and political appoin- tees. More recently, Chen and Bozeman’s (2014) survey -based study found t hat public sector man- agers tend to internalize the public’s perceptions of private sector superiority, resulting in lower re- ported levels of job involvement, job satisfaction, and pride in being members of their bureaus. Alongside the above scarcity in pub lic ad- ministration studies, a sizeable body of non -exper- imental, survey -based organizational research sug- gests that employees’ beliefs about their organiza- tions’ external image is positively associated with organizational identification (e.g. Bartels et al ., 2007; Dukerich et al. , 2002; Dutton et al. , 1994; Fulller et al., 2006; Riketta, 2005; Rho et al. , 2015; Smidts et al., 2001) and commitment (Carmeli, 2005; Carmeli & Freund, 2009). Building on social identity theory, this literature suggests that emplo yees are inclined to adopt highly -regarded organizations as central to their self -concept, over other potential identities (e.g., other organizations or social groups), because this reflects positively on their self -esteem (Meyer et al ., 2006). For public organizations, the above litera- ture implies that negative public sentiment and bu- reaucracy bashing may undermine employees’ or- ganizational attachment, with detrimental behav- ioral consequences. Still, we cannot draw reliable inferences from current research , since organiza- tional image , as conceptualized and measured in these studies, regards employees’ subjective beliefs about external audiences’ perceptions of their or- ganizations. The patent flaw in extant research per- tains to its overlook of the possible e ndogeneity be- tween the dependent variables – employees’ organ- izational identification and commitment – and em- ployees’ construction of the organization’s image.

Employees who have incorporated the bureau as central to their self -concept are presumably moti- vated to believe that external audiences value their organization, because such a belief allows them to maintain positive self -esteem. As Chen and Bo- zeman (2014 , p. 561) acknowledge, overcoming this shortfall entails an experimental manipulation of employee s’ perceptions of how external audi- ences perceive their organization. Hence, the first goal of this paper is to assess whether positive and negative reputation signals, which are independent of employees’ self -construction of the organiza- tion’s image, in f act shape their organizational at- tachment. Specifically, we hypothesize that: Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 1(1) 3 H1a-b: Negative (/positive) reputation signals are negatively (/positively) associated with an employee’s identification with, and commitment to, the organization. Organization -based Self -esteem as a M oderator of Reputation Signals Our above hypothesis suggests that bureaucratic reputation, due to its consequences for employees’ derivation of self -esteem from organizational membership, likely shapes their organizatio nal identification and commitment. Still, we propose that public sector organizations and their managers can regulate the effect of reputation signals on em- ployees by enhancing (or undermining) employees’ perceptions of themselves as competent and valued within the organization. An extensive body of research shows that employees’ perceptions of themselves as competent, influential, and important within the organization (Bowl- ing et al. , 2010), tagged Organizational -Based Self - Esteem ( OBSE ), are shaped by int ra-organizational factors. This includes organizational and job struc- tures that allow employee participation and discre- tion, encouraging messages from significant others (e.g., supervisors) and on -the -job experiences of success and failure (Pierce & Gardne r, 2004). Prior studies have confirmed a strong, positive, associa- tion between OBSE and both organizational iden- tification, and affective organizational commitment (Bowling et al. , 2010; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). In addition to its established direct effect, we expect employees’ OBSE to moderate the effect of reputation signals on their organizational identi- fication and commitment. Employees who feel competent, influential, and important within their bureau are pot entially more threatened by negative reputation signals. This is so because such signals conflict with a key grounding and dimension of their self -esteem and self -concept. Related organi- zational research documents employees’ response to such identity threa ts. It suggests that committed employees working in “dirty occupations” (Ash- forth et al. , 2007), or condemned organizations (Gendron & Spira , 2010), tend to guard their iden- tities through an array of strategies including adher- ence to occupational ideologie s that explain away external allegations as misguided, maintaining high social cohesion and/or defensive derogation of those who are making the accusations (e.g., Petriglieri , 2011). Consequently, we expect employ- ees who enjoy high OBSE to dispute the vera city and impartiality of negative reputation signals. The identity threat posed by negative external signals may accentuate these employees’ perception of us (bureau members) versus them (the ignorant pub- lic, self -serving politicians, and biased media) and paradoxically may enhance their organizational identification and commitment. Alternatively, a related psychological mechanism implies that employees who enjoy high self -esteem from organizational membership would be unaffected by external reputation sig nals, regardless of their content. Given their strong in- centive to maintain a positive image of their organ- ization, such employees are incentivized to accu- mulate information that supports their favorable image of the organization and to rehearse defense of their workplace. Well -rehearsed attitudes form strong and stable associations between objects and evaluations which are automatically activated (e.g., Fazio, 2001; Fazio et al. , 1986 ). Such entrenched as- sociations between their organization and positive evaluations may render employees’ attitudes imper- vious to the influence of new information, whether positive or negative. Turning to employees at the low end of OBSE, extant research would expect the bureau to be relatively peripheral to these employees’ se lf- concept, given their feeling of marginalization within the organization. As such, they are less psy- chologically invested in a positive image of the or- ganization and of their own work within it. We would therefore expect them to be more open to external direction and less judgmental of the verac- ity and impartiality of external signals, which nei- ther threaten nor reinforce a central dimension of their individual identity and self -esteem. Thus, their beliefs about the organization and how others view it, an d thereby their organizational identification and commitment, may be more malleable to the in- fluence of external signals. Negative reputation sig- nals would convey to employees that external audi- ences have a negative view of their organization, undermining their already low derivation of self -es- teem from organizational membership, leading to an even lower organizational attachment. Positive signals, conversely, would improve these employ- ees’ perceptions of the organization’s image, providing an external source of self -esteem from organizational membership and thereby boost their generally low organizational attachment. Thus, we Gilad, Ben -Nun Bloom, & Assouline, 2018 4 propose: H2a-b: The effect of reputation signals is moderated by organ- izational -based self -esteem, such that the detrimental (/ad- vantageous) effect of negative (/positive) reputation signals on organizational attachment wanes as employees enjoy higher organizational -based self -esteem. Methodology Research Design Our research focuses on the organizational identi- fication and commitment of employees of the Is- raeli National Social Security Institute (NSSI). The NSSI is a statutory organization, employing around 3,800 employees. NSSI provides all Israeli citizens with a basic, mandated pension and manages citi- zens’ claims for means -tested benefits for disability, unemployment and income support, among others. We conducted our research in July 2016 simultaneously in four of the NSSI’s 23 branch of- fices at the cities of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Beer Sheva and Rehovot. 1 We selected these four offices for their relatively large employee numbers and for their non -extreme values as revealed from a confi- dential NSSI’s client satisfaction survey. 2 Permis- sion t o conduct the study at the NSSI branches was granted by the organization’s chief HR director, the branches’ heads and local HR managers. The study was subject to ethical review and authorization by Hebrew University’s IRB committee. Three trained research assistants, supervised by the third coau- thor who works for the NSSI’s research depart- ment, distributed surveys in the relevant offices to consenting participants and collected them within about an hour of their distribution. Participants were randomly ass igned to one of three versions of our survey 3 employing a between -subjects, non -factorial design. 4 All surveys opened with an identical set of Likert -item ques- tions, including questions about employees’ OBSE, additional demographics and controls. Following these survey questions, two groups of respondents read and were primed with one of two versions of an experimental manipulation (N=62 and N=51).

The third control group received a manipulation - free survey (N=52). All participants were then asked identical survey items regarding their organi- zational identification and commitment. Manipulation and Operationalization of Variables The experimental manipulation, which provided re- spondents with an external signal of the NSSI’s reputa- tion, involved equivalent positive and negative framing (as in Olsen, 2015) of the findings of a real academic study (Mizrahi et al., 2010). The control g roup received no reputation signal. Our negative and positive reputa- tion signal conditions read as follows (bold and under- line in the original): The logic underlying the above manipula- tions is that organizational identification, like other forms of social identity, is malleable and open to external cues (cf. Benjamin et al. , 2016; Ben -Nun Bloom et al., 2015; Cohn et al. , 2014). Our measurement of Organizational Iden- tification, which appeared immediately following the manipulations, involved translation of three items (Cronbach’s alpha=0.82) from an index de- veloped by Mael and As hforth (1992). A re pre- sentative item from this index is “When talking to family and friends about the NSSI’s employees, I tend to say ‘we’ and not ‘them’.” Appearing following the manipulations, our operationalization of Affective Organizational Commitment drew on four item s (Cronbach’s al- pha=0.78) from a validated index developed by Al- len and Meyer (1990). Representative items from this index include “the NSSI is very meaningful for me,” or “the thought that I would be working at the NSSI until retirement pleases me.” “Towards conclusion, we would like to al- low you to convey, in your own words, how you experience the relati onship between the NSSI and the insured 5 public . In research conducted by the universities of Haifa and Ben -Gurion, funded by the NSSI, cit- izens were asked about their trust in the Insti- tute 6 and its employees. Around 50% of the insured who participated in the study reported that they [have no trust / trust] in the National Social Security institute. In the available space [below], tell us about an experience in which you encountered, personally or via the media, the public’s [mistrust/ trust] of the NSSI, and how you felt at that moment. ” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 1(1) 5 Our measurement of OBSE is a transla- tion of a six -item index (Cronbach’s alpha =0.87), developed by Pierce et al. (1989). A representative item is “my opinion is important in this work- place.” To facilitate interpretation of the relative effects of the variable s, we normalized all measure- ments to range between zero and one. The appen- dix presents descriptive statistics for the sample and for each of the three experimental groups, as well as a full translation of the above survey indices. Results The multivariate analysis in Table 1 tests the effects of the manipulated negative and positive reputation signals of NSSI’s reputation versus the baseline of the control group, on employees’ organizational commitment (Models I -Va) and identification (Models I -Vb). First, in accordance of H 1a-b we as- sess the independent effects of the positive and negative manipulated reputation signals (Models Ia & Ib). Then, in line with H 2a-b, we estimate OBSE as a moderator of the effect of both the positive and the negative reputation signals by specifying in- teractions between these two terms ( Models II -Va & II -Vb). We present both the bare -bone models (I-IIa & I -IIb, IVa & IVb), including just the exper- imental treatments and OBSE , as well as the mod- els using control variables (IIIa & IIIb, Va & Vb), holding constant employee demographics and fixed effects for the NSSI local branches as addit ional ro- bustness checks. Table 1 The interactive effect of reputation signals and organizational -based self -esteem on or- ganizational commitment and identification – Experiment Organizational commitment Organizational identification Ia IIa IIIa IVa Va Ib IIb IIIb IVb Vb Positive reputation signal .017 .021 .024 .245+ .288* .015 .016 .022 .379* .431** (.040) (.036) (.036) (.134) (.130) (.047) (.044) (.045) (.157) (.157) Negative reputation signal -.028 -.303* -.321** -.012 -.013 .001 -.211 -.239 .015 .027 (.038) (.126) (.120) (.035) (.035) (.044) (.149) (.148) (.041) (.042) Organizational -based self - esteem (OBSE) .306** .243* .556** .521** .333** .277* .602** .587** (.102) (.099) (.098) (.095) (.120) (.121) (.113) (.113) Negative signal X OBSE .384* .411** .298 .359+ (.162) (.155) (.193) (.192) Positive signal X OBSE -.294+ -.348* -.479* -.545** (.169) (.166) (.199) (.202) Education -.074+ -.088* -.060 -.083 (.042) (.042) (.051) (.051) Male .123** .123** .091 .090 (.047) (.047) (.058) (.058) Age -.121 -.085 -.179 -.141 (.103) (.105) (.127) (.127) Tenure .078 .059 .112 .092 (.063) (.064) (.079) (.078) Branch fixed -effects No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Constant .765** .531** .557** .339** .342** .698** .446** .497** .241** .262* (.028) (.082) (.098) (.079) (.099) (.032) (.096) (.116) (.091) (.113) N 156 156 150 156 150 159 159 152 159 152 R2 .009 .213 .340 .200 .327 .001 .141 .219 .159 .240 Note: Table entries are unstandardized OLS coefficients, with standard errors in brackets; ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.1 Gilad, Ben -Nun Bloom, & Assouline, 2018 6 Counter to the expectations of H 1a-b, the manipulated negative and positive signals of the NSSI’s reputation had no significant effect on em- ployees’ organizational commitment ( Model Ia) and identification ( Model Ib), compared with the control condition. In addition, comparing the pos- itive and negative reputation signals with each other directly (not presented in Table 1) yielded no statis- tically significant effects (p OC=.240, p OI=.742). While we find no evidence for the direct eff ects of reputation signals ( Models Ia and Ib), seven of the possible eight treatment -by -OBSE in- teractions - in both the controlled and uncontrolled models, and for both dependent variables - allow rejecting the null hypothesis for H 2a-b, showing the expect ed moderation trend. 7 Figure 1 depicts the marginal effects for the four interactions between the reputation signals and OBSE. That is, the changes in the effect of each of the two reputation signals across the ob- served range of OBSE. The upper panels depict the marginal effect of the negative and positive signals on organizational commitment (corresponding to Models IIIa and Va, respectively), and the lower panels - on organizational identification (Models IIIb and Vb). Starting with the left -hand side panels of Figure 1, the i nteractions indicate that exposure to a negative reputation signal, relative to the control condition, has a diminishing effect on organiza- tional commitment and identification of employees, which declines and reverses as employees’ OBSE increase. These res ults accord with H 2a. Specifically, the negative effect of the reputation cue on organ- izational commitment was significant at the 95% level among employees holding low to medium lev- els of OBSE - equal to, or smaller than, .58 on a 0 - 1 scale (15% of the sam ple) - and at least marginally significant under OBSE levels of .62 (p<.1, 24% of Figure 1 The m arginal effect of the reputation signals by level of OBSE on organizational commitment and identification Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 1(1) 7 the sample). The opposite effect, indicating a back- lash effect of negative reputation signals on organ- izational commitment, emerges at a 10% signifi- cance level for employees at the highest 2 -3% of OBSE scale (p<.1, 5.5% of the sample). Whereas this trend replicates for organizational identifica- tion, the negative effect of the negative reputation signal at the low level of OBSE does not reach con- ventional levels of statistical significance, whereas the backlash effect at the high level of OBSE is sig- nificant at a 10% level above an OBSE level of 0.92, which relates to 15% of the sample. Moving to the positive reputation signal presented in the right -hand side panels, the effect s of the signal at the minimum level of OBSE over- turns as hypothesized (H 2b). When OBSE is at the low to medium levels (organizational commitment:

p<.1 min to 0.63; organizational identification:

p<.1 min to 0.64; 27% of the sample), employees’ organizatio nal commitment and identification in- crease when exposed to the positive reputation sig- nal relative to the control condition. For employees at the highest level of OBSE, in line with our ex- pectations, exposure to the positive reputation sig- nal had no signif icant effect on organizational com- mitment at any level, but it did however have a sta- tistically significant negative effect on organiza- tional identification when OBSE is at its maximum level of 1 )b= -.114 , p=. 092 , 5% of the sample). 8 Discussion and Conclusion Public administration scholars assert that a positive organizational reputation is a requisite for bureau- cratic success, autonomy, and power (Alon -Barkat & Gilad, 2016; Busuioc & Lodge, 2015, 2017; Car- penter, 2010; Carpenter & Krause, 2012; Gil ad et al., 2015, 2016; Maor, 2015; Maor et al. , 2013). Yet, constructing a positive bureaucratic reputation is an uphill battle given the public’s mistrust in the public sector (e.g. Marvel, 2015, 2016) and bureaucracy bashing by politicians and the media. The assump- tion of extant research is that bureaucracies’ often negative reputations may undermine their perfor- mance, inter alia due to the detrimental effect for employee morale and commitment. Employing an experimental manipulation, this paper sought to es- timate the effect of negative and positive reputation signals on public sector employees’ organizational attachment, and its moderation by employees’ der- ivation of self -esteem from feeling valued and im- portant within the organization (OBSE). To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to assess the effect of an experimental manipulation of employees’ perceptions of external audiences’ views of the organization on employees’ organizational identification and commitment. Ex- perimentally manipulatin g reputation signals – ra- ther than measuring perceived organizational im- age, as is the rule in extant research – is important, given that there is likely a reciprocal influence (en- dogeneity) between employees’ organizational identification and commitment a nd their construc- tion of the organization’s image. Contrary to our expectations and those of extant survey -based research, we found no inde- pendent effect to the positive or negative reputa- tion signals on employees’ organizational attach- ment. Yet as expecte d, our findings confirm that employees’ OBSE fully conditions their reactions to external signals regarding the bureau’s reputa- tion. For employees who feel marginal and power- less within the organization, external reputation sig- nals provided a relevant cue for the bureau’s reflec- tion on their image as individuals, shaping their in- clination to adopt or reject the organization as part of their self -concept and to commit to it. Conversely, external reputation signals had little consequences for the organization al attach- ment of employees who blossom under intra -or- ganizational structures and dynamics that com- municate high regard for their contributions. If an- ything, these employees seem to reject the veracity and impartiality of negative reputation signals, ren- der ing their organizational identification and com- mitment even more salient. The key implication of our findings is that employees’ longing to feel valued and esteemed within the organization regulates their response to external reputation signals. Consequent ly, senior managers can mitigate, and even offset, the detri- mental effects of a negative bureaucratic reputation through organizational processes and interfaces that signal the value that they and the organization attribute to employees’ competence and con tribu- tions. These findings provide an important and hopeful message for those who believe that public sector organizations are unduly burdened by nega- tive reputations despite their generally decent per- formance. Still, a potential concern raised by our find ings is that employees’ derivation of high self - Gilad, Ben -Nun Bloom, & Assouline, 2018 8 esteem from feeling important and valued within the organization may buffer them selves and public organizations from adaptation to politicians and the public’s expectations and demands for change. These cont ributions notwithstanding, we acknowledge the limitations of our study. First, our conclusions draw on findings derived from one Is- raeli organization, calling for replication in other or- ganizations and countries, possibly employing a stronger manipulation of the organization’s posi- tive and negative reputations. Second, our moder- ate, one -off, manipulations of the NSSI’s reputa- tion are likely to have created no more than a tran- sitory effect on employees’ organizational identifi- cation and commitment. Still, we believe that the effects that we have shown are suggestive of the operation of OBSE as a buffer to employees’ cu- mulative exposure to real -world reputation cues via media coverage, and daily interactions with family, friends and clients. That said, our exp eriment did not include a manipulation check and we are there- fore unable to empirically rule out the possibility that the null main effects are due to the subtle na- ture of the manipulations or to the relatively small sample size. Still, the fact that the e xpected signifi- cant effect did emerge within the subset of employ- ees with low OBSE and that our group sizes (over 50 respondents in each group) are not atypical of similar experimental studies somewhat attenuate these conce rns. Third, future research may s eek to further unravel the micro -mechanisms underlying the moderating effect of OBSE. We suggested two possible micro -mechanisms. One offers that em- ployees, who feel central, valued, and influential within the organization reject the veracity and im- partial ity of signals that threaten their identity and self -esteem. A second explanation suggests that employees’ OBSE regulates the strength of associ- ation between the organization and entrenched positive attitudes. Whichever the case, this study points to the s carcity and importance of further re- search regarding the effects and moderation of rep- utation signals on public sector employees’ atti- tudes and behaviors. Acknowledgement The authors thank Saar Alon -Barkat, Noam Brenner and Chagai Weiss for their assistance in carrying out this research. Notes 1. For technical reasons, surveys in Rehovot were distributed two days after their distribution in the three other branch offices. 2. Two branches had above average and two had below average customer satisfaction scores. 3. In each branch, one research assistant manually distributed the surveys to all present employees who were at their rooms and desks handing the different versions in sequence, so that if one employee received version 1, the person sitting in the de sk or room next to her received ver- sion 2 and so forth. 4. Two additional treatment groups of different respondents who were exposed to manipula- tions of their OBSE are omitted from this pa- per. 5. “The insured” is NSSI internal jargon for citi- zens/clients. 6. “The Institute” is how employees refer inter- nally to the NSSI. 7. Although as indicated in Table 1 , the statistical significance was significant at a 10% level in two of the models ( pIVa =.085, p IIIb =.064) . 8. This unexpected finding may reflect the mod- erate nature of our positive manipulation, which suggested to employees that 50% of Is- raelis have high trust in the NSSI. Employees with very high OBSE may have assumed higher levels of citizen support and were there- fore negative ly primed by the positive manipu- lation. References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 63(1), 1 - 18. Alon ‐Barkat, S., & Gilad, S. (2016). Political Control or Legitimacy Deficit? Agencies Symbolic Response to Bottom -Up Public Pressures. Policy & Politics, 44 (1), 41-58. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 1(1) 9 Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20 -39. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing Dirty Work: Managerial Tactics for Countering Occu pational Taint. Academy of Management Journal , 50(1), 149 -174. Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple Organizational Identification Levels and the Impact of Perceived External Prestige and Communication Climate. Journal of Orga nizational Behavior, 28(2), 173 -190. Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Fisher, G. (2016). Religious Identity and Economic Behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics , 98(4), 617 -637. Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon, G. (2010). A Meta ‐ Analysis of the Predictors and Consequences of Organization ‐Based Self ‐Esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 601 - 626. Ben -Nun Bloom P., N. Arikan, G., & Courtemanche, M. (2015). Religious Social Identity, Re ligious Belief, and Anti -Immigration Sentiment. American Political Science Review , 109 (2), 203 -221. Bullock, J. B., Stritch, J. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2015). International Comparison of Public and Private Employees’ Work Motives, Attitudes, And Perceived Rew ards. Public Administration Review , 75(3), 479 -489. Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2015). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29 (2), 247 - 263. Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. (2017). Reputation and Accountability Relationships: Managing Acc ountability Expectations through Reputation. Public Administration Review, 77 (1), 91 -100. Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors.

Organization Studies, 26 (3), 443 -464. Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2 009). Linking Perceived External Prestige and Intentions to Leave the Organization: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. Journal of Social Service Research, 35 (3), 236 -250. Carpenter, D. P. (2010). Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 72 (1), 26 -32. Chen, C. A., & Bo zeman, B. (2014). Am I a Public Servant or Am I a Pathogen? Public Managers ‘sector Comparison of Worker Abilities. Public Administration , 92(3), 549 -564. Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Cross ‐National Comparative Study. Public Administration, 95 (1), 178 -195. Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business Culture and Dishonesty in The Banking Industry. Nature , 516 (7529), 86 -89. Del Pino, E., Calzada, I., & Díaz ‐Pu lido, J. M. (2016). Conceptualizing and Explaining Bureauphobia:

Contours, Scope, and Determinants. Public Administration Review , 76(5), 725 -736. Dick, G. P. (2011). The Influence of Managerial and Job Variables on Organizational Commitment in the Police. Public Administration, 89 (2), 557 -576. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in The Eye of The Beholder: The Impact of Organizational Identification, Identity, And Image on The Cooperative Behaviors of Physicians. Administrat ive Science Quarterly, 47 (3), 507 - 533. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational Images and Member Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly , 39(2), 239 -263. Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the Automatic Activation of Associated Evaluations: An Overview Cognition & Emotion , 15(2), 115 -141. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes. Journal of perso nality and social psychology , 50(2), 229. Fuller, J. B., Marler, L., Hester, K., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed External Image and Organizational Identification: A Test of The Moderating Influence of Need for Self -Esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146 (6), 701 -716. Garrett, R. S., Thurber, J. A., Fritschler, A. L., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2006). Assessing the Impact of Bureaucracy Bashing by Electoral Campaigns. Public Administration Review , 66(2), 228 -240 . Gendron, Y., & Spira, L. F. (2010) . Identity Narratives Under Threat: A Study of Former Members of Arthur Andersen. Accounting, Organizations, and Society , 35(3), 275 -300. Gilad, S., Maor, M., & Ben -Num Bloom, P. (2015). Organizational reputation, the content of public allegations, and re gulatory communication. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25 (2), 451 - 478. Gilad, S., Alon ‐Barkat, S., & Braverman, A. (2016). Large ‐Scale Social Protest: A Business Risk and a Bureaucratic Opportunity. Governance, 29 (3), 371 - 392. Good sell, C. T. (1994). The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham. NJ: Chatham . Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social Identity in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Concepts, Controversies, and Contributions. International Review of Industrial and Organi zational Psychology, 20 (1), 39 -118. Gilad, Ben -Nun Bloom, & Assouline, 2018 10 Hassan, S., & Rohrbaugh, J. (2012). Variability in the Organizational Climate of Government Offices and Affective Organizational Commitment. Public Management Review, 14 (5), 563 -584. Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2016). Perceptions of Public and Private Performance: Evidence from A Survey Experiment. Public Administration Review , 76(1), 111 -120. Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (2006). A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Publ ic Sector, and Para -Public Sector Employees. Public Administration Review, 66 (4), 605 - 618. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of The Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of organizationa l Behavior , 13(2), 103 -123. Maor, M. (2015). Theorizing Bureaucratic Reputation. In M. M. Arild Wæraas (Ed.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 17 -36). New York, Abingdon: Routledge Maor, M., Gilad, S., & Bloom, P. (2013). Organizational reputation, regulatory talk, and strategic silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23 (3), 581 -608. Marvel, J. D. (2015). Public opinion and public -sector performance: Are indiv iduals’ beliefs about performance evidence -based or the product of anti – public sector bias? International Public Management Journal , 18(2), 209 -227. Marvel, J. D. (2016). Unconscious Bias in Citizens’ Evaluations of Public Sector Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26 (1), 143 - 158. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A Review and Meta -Analysis of The Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment.

Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171 –194. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social Identities and Commitments at Work: Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665 -683. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, Continuance, And Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta -Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61 (1), 20-52. Mizra hi, S., Vigoda -Gadot, E., & Cohen, N. (2010). Trust, Participation and Performance: The Case of the Israeli National Insurance Institute. Public Management Review, 12 (1), 99 -126. Moldogaziev, T. T., & Silvia, C. (2015). Fostering Affective Organizational Commitment in Public Sector Agencies: The Significance of Multifaceted Leadership Roles. Public Administration, 93 (3), 557 - 575. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvem ent, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society , 39(7), 803 - 832. Olsen, A. L. (2015). Citizen (Dis) Satisfaction: An Experimental Equivalence Framing Study. Public Administration Review, 75 (3), 469 -478. Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under Threat : Responses to and The Consequences of Threats to Individuals' Identities. Academy of Management Review , 36(4), 641 - 662. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self -Esteem within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization -Based Self -Esteem Literature. Journal of management, 30 (5), 591 -622. Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization -Based Self - Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management journal, 32 (3), 622 - 648. Rho, E., Yun, T., & Lee, K. (2015). Does Organizational Image Matter? Image, Identification, and Employee Behaviors in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Public Administration Review, 75 (3), 421 -431. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational Iden tification: A Meta -Analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66 (2), 358 -384. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived External Prestige on Organizational Identification. Academy of Managemen t journal, 44 (5), 1051 -1062. Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Understanding Affective Organizational Commitment: The Importance of Institutional Context. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603 -624. Tajfel, H. (1982) . Social Identity and Intergroup Relations : Cambridge University Press. Tummers, L. G., & Knies, E. (2013). Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 73 (6), 859 -868. Van Dick, R. (2004). My Job Is My Castle: Identi fication in Organizational Contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 19, 171 -204. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). How Do Perceived Political Environment and Administrative Reform Affect Employee Commitment? Journal of Pu blic Administration Research and Theory, 19 (2), 335 -360. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration , 1(1) 11 Appendix Table 1A. Comparison of the experiment samples Control Negative signal Positive signal F test P-value Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD OBSE .79 .15 .78 .16 .79 .16 .176 .839 Education .59 .21 .49 .24 .50 .22 3.099 .048 Female .88 .33 .89 .32 .94 .24 .643 .527 Age .62 .20 .63 .21 .65 .17 .390 .678 Tenure .50 .34 .57 .34 .64 .33 2.055 .132 Org. commitment .76 .21 .74 .22 .78 .15 .68 .51 Org. identification .70 .25 .70 .24 .71 .20 .07 .93 Table 2A. Descriptive statistics N Mean Std Min Max OBSE 164 .753 .185 .111 1 Education 160 .529 .371 0 1 Male 163 .098 .298 0 1 Age 163 .557 .234 0 1 Tenure 158 .480 .406 0 1 Org. commitment 156 .760 .200 .21 1 Org. identification 159 .703 .232 0 1 Operationalization of variables ( Translated back from Hebrew) Organizational Identification 1. When someone criticizes the NSSI, it feels like a personal insult. 2. When talking to family and friends about the NSSI’s employees, I tend to say ‘we’ and not ‘them’. 3. When someone praises the NSSI, it feels like a personal compliment. Affective Organizational Commitment 1. The NSSI is very meaningful for me. 2. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to the NSSI (R). 3. I am proud to tell others that I work at the NSSI. 4. The thought that I would be working at the NSSI until retirement pleases me. Organizational -Based Self -Esteem 1. My opinion is important in this work place. 2. Th ere is faith in my competence in this work place. 3. I am trusted in this work place. 4. There is value to the work that I do here. 5. I am an important part of this work place. 6. I am influential in this work place.