Understanding Balance in Public Service: When “Good” Is Only Good Enough

Children on seesaw

I was talking to a first responder friend of mine recently. We started talking about his Chief and how he “won’t make it until the end of the year”. When I asked why, their answer was merely, we don’t want to work for the guy, we do make great money however.”

When talking about leadership, motivation, and organizational culture, it’s easy to fall into the trap of “more is always better” and it’s easy to get lost in jargon or miss how the ideas connect.

Grant and Schwartz: The Inverted U and the Importance of Balance

Adam Grant and Barry Schwartz are two major voices in organizational psychology. Grant is known for his research into motivation and work culture, while Schwartz is famous for writing about the “paradox of choice” and human behavior.

Their Big Idea: The Inverted U

• The “inverted U” is a simple visual: “∩”. Imagine a hill, with a low starting point, a high peak, and then a drop-off.

• Grant and Schwartz use this shape to show that more of a good thing (like motivation, enthusiasm, or even positive traits) is usually better—up to a certain point.

• If you keep pushing past that optimal point, things can start to go downhill and become harmful.

• They highlight Aristotle’s idea: real virtue is found between extremes, not at the edges. In other words, moderation is a strength.

Why It Matters:

• In organizations, giving your all is celebrated, but if dedication tips over into obsession, burnout or ethical problems follow.

• This concept encourages leaders and organizations to look for that “sweet spot,” rather than believing that more is always better.

Grant and Schwartz’s discussion of the inverted U doesn’t just challenge the paradox of choice and human behavior; it puts moderation front and center. Their visualization of the ∩ concept offers a much-needed visual for those of us who aren’t satisfied with surface-level answers. They lean into Aristotle’s wisdom that “virtues reside between vices and excesses,” underscoring the truth that many positive traits can become barriers or even risks when carried too far.

This is more than just abstract philosophy. Grant and Schwartz show how the sweet spot—where motivation, policy, and practice are in balance—is critical for healthy teams and organizations.

Gailmard: Motivation’s Double-Edged Sword

Sean Gailmard is a scholar who studies how public agencies operate, focusing on the tension between government employees and those who set policy.

His Big Idea: Public Service Motivation (PSM) as a Tool

• PSM is the drive to work for the public good rather than just for a paycheck.

• Gailmard sees PSM as “a means to an end”—it can help government work better or, if too intense, create problems like conflicts or politicized workplaces.

• Like in the inverted U, too much motivation isn’t always positive; it can create unintended side effects.

Why It Matters:

• His work warns public administrators not to confuse high motivation with guaranteed good results.

• Leaders should recognize both the benefits and risks of highly motivated teams.

The sense of mission, that drive to do meaningful work, is a powerful force in public administration. Gailmard writes that PSM is “a means to an end,” recognizing that, while it can attract talented, mission-driven folks, too much of it can create value conflicts and intensify the politics inside agencies. We see the upside: dedication, integrity, a willingness to serve. We also see the downside, when overzealousness leads to ethical compromises or burnout. This mapping of motivation to the inverted U framework makes sense—there is a point where going harder doesn’t make you better, it just takes you over the top and back down the other side.

Linos: Rethinking How We Attract a Diverse Public Workforce

Elizabeth Linos researches how public organizations recruit and retain people, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds.

Her Big Idea: The Power of Recruitment Messages

• Linos tested different job ads to see which attracted the most diverse applicants.

• She found that jobs pitched with a focus on tangible benefits (like pay or advancement) brought in a wider range of candidates than ads focused only on the “help others” mission.

• This shows that overemphasizing public service motivation in recruitment might actually narrow the field.

Why It Matters:

• Her work ties back to the inverted U idea—balancing motivation and practical benefits can help build stronger, more diverse teams in public service.

Linos takes the inverted U thinking even further into the realm of diversity in public service recruitment. Her fieldwork finds that recruitment messages focusing on tangible job benefits, rather than just appeals to help the community, are more effective in boosting workforce diversity. This fits beautifully with the inverted U model. Pushing public service motivation too hard in recruiting may filter out qualified candidates who don’t fit the stereotype of the “public servant,” narrowing, rather than widening, your talent pool.

How These Ideas Connect

• The Theme of Moderation:
  Grant & Schwartz give us the “inverted U,” reminding us that balance leads to better outcomes than extremes.

• Using Motivation Wisely:
  Gailmard’s research shows that while motivation is crucial, too much (and the wrong kind) creates issues in public agencies.

• Smarter Recruitment:
  Linos demonstrates that a “one-size-fits-all” approach doesn’t attract the best mix of candidates, and balance in recruitment messaging is key.

The rest of the research in the area of PSM draws similar boundaries around the “do more” mentality. The curvilinear, or inverted U, relationship between leader charisma and effectiveness echoes this exact pattern. A dash of charisma? Essential. Too much? Suddenly, you’ve got a charismatic leader who overshadows operational detail or enables blind spots on the team—effectiveness plummets once the balance tips. The same goes for benevolent leadership. One recent study reveals that benevolence boosts employee initiative up to a point, but then the effect reverses and initiative drops when benevolence becomes excessive.

What these thoughts and the main findings of their research all reinforce is that moderation isn’t mediocrity…it’s mastery. The best organizations do not just crank their positive traits to “11.” Instead, they calibrate policy and personnel practices to hit that optimal point, hiring for both skill and mission, and promoting leaders who know when to inspire and when to steady the ship.

For me, the takeaways are clear and practical:

• Stay alert to the risk of “too much of a good thing.”

• Don’t overengineer motivation: it can come with hidden costs.

• Recognize that diverse, healthy teams are built not by overplaying a single message but by striking a balance between mission, benefits, and fit.

• Remember the inverted U when evaluating leadership, recruitment, or even your own work habits- sometimes, scaling back is exactly what’s needed for lasting success.

References
Frontiers in Psychology. (2022). Examining the Inverted U-Shaped Relationship Between Benevolent Leadership and Employees’ Work Initiative: The Role of Work Engagement and Growth Need Strength. Volume 13.

Gailmard, S. (2010). Politics, principal-agent problems, and public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 13(1), 35-45.

Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61-76.

Linos, E. (2018). More than public service: A field experiment on job advertisements and diversity in the police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 67-85.