buelens van debrock

8/14/2019 Buelens Van Debrock

1/11

An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector

OrganizationsAuthor(s): Marc Buelens and Herman Van den BroeckSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2007), pp. 65-74Published by: Wileyon behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4624541.

Accessed: 18/04/2013 02:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

WileyandAmerican Society for Public Administrationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4624541?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4624541?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/11

Essays nWorkMotivation ndtheWorkplace

AnAnalysis f DifferencesnWorkMotivation etweenPublicandPrivate ectorOrganizations

Marc BuelensHerman Van den Broeck

Ghent University

Thistudy ontributeso ourunderstandingfthedifferencesn workmotivation etween hepublicandprivate ectors. atafroma survey f3,314 privatesector nd409publicsectoremployeesn Belgiumstronglyonfirmrevious esearchshowinghatpublicsectoremployeesre essextrinsically otivated.Differencesn hierarchicalevelare moreimportantdeterminantsofworkmotivationhansectoraldifferences.n addition,mostobserveddifferencesanbewholly rpartially xplained ydifferencesnjobcontent, otbythesectoritselfEvidencespresentedoshow hat motivationaldifferencesanbeexplained yapositive hoiceofwork-lifebalance.Reviewsof therelevantiteratureevealhat

work motivation among public sector employ-ees and managersis very different from that oftheir privatesector counterparts (Ambrose and Kulik1999; Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Wittmer 1991;Wright 2001). However, most research on the subjectdevotes limited attention to the relativeimportance ofthe causes of these differences (Baldwin 1991; Boyne2002). For example, compared to factors such as ageor gender, how important is the sector that anemployee works in? In particular,the hierarchical levelat which an employee works cannot be neglected. Incomparing public sector and private sector employeemotivation, strong interaction effects have been foundbetween work motivation and management level(Baldwin 1987; Jurkiewiczand Massey 1997; Karland Sutton 1998; Moon 2000; Rainey and Bozeman2000). In addition, most of the research fails to con-trol for relevantexplanatoryvariables,often because ofvery small sample sizes (Baldwin 1991; Boyne 2002).Sometimes, when samples of private sector and publicsector employees contain too many differences ingender, age, education, job content, or hierarchicallevel, differences in work motivation can be explainedsimply by these demographic or organizationalfactors.Motivation is certainlynot a passivenotion. Employeesin the public sector often make a choice to deliver a

worthwhile ervice o society (Rainey1982).Theyaremotivatedbya strongdesire o serve hepublic nter-est (Boyne2002; Perry 000; Perry nd Wise 1990),by a senseof service o the community hat is notfoundamongtheirprivate ectorcounterpartsGabrisand Simo 1995;Houston2000), andbyan urge opromote hepublic nterest Box 1999).Publicsectoremployees howa stronger ervice thicthanprivate ectoremployees Wittmer1991). Publicservicemotivationcomprises lements uch as theopportunityo haveanimpacton publicaffairs, om-mitment to serving hepublic nterest,and an interestin achieving ocialjustice(Naffand Crum1999;Perry1996, 1997;PerryandWise 1990).This choiceof the goodcause scertainlynot theonlychoicethatpublicsectoremployeesmake.Mostworkersconstantlymakechoicesbetweenwork andfamily.Someopt for a morebalanced ife with lesswork-familyconflict,whereas thersshowhighdegrees fwork commitmentandorganizationalitizenshipbehavior, utting n extra imeand effort.Can someof the observeddifferences etweenpublicsectorandprivate ectoremployeesbe explainedbysuch a posi-tivechoice,adding o afurtherunderstandingf thedifferencesn workmotivationbetweenpublicsectorandprivate ectoremployees?Thepurposeof this article s threefold:First,we aimto testsomeclassichypotheses n the differencesnmotivationbetweenpublicsectorandprivate ectororganizationshypotheses -4). Second,we attemptto compare hese differenceso potentialmoderatorvariables(hypotheses -6). Third, est a choice-basedapproacho workmotivation-that is, doesworkingforthepublicservicealsoimplychoices hat are nflu-encedbyissuesunrelated o work(hypothesis ).Differences nWorkMotivationbetweenPublicSectorandPrivateSectorEmployeesTheresearch asconsistentlyound thatprivate ectoremployeesandmanagersalueeconomicrewardsmorehighlythando publicsectoremployees ndmanagersCacioppeandMock 1984;Crewson1997;

MarcBuelens saprofessorfmanagementtbothGhent niversityndtheVlerickeuvenentManagementSchoolnBelgium.is esearchocusesonworkaholism,ecisionaking,ndnegotiation.e dvisesrganizationsnbuildingridgesetweenrt nd usinessand cts s a consultanto anethicalinvestmentund.HehaspublishedooksinDutch,rench,ndEnglish.E-mail:[email protected] Broeck sprofessoroforganizationalehaviort bothGhentUniversityndheVlerickeuvenentManagementchoolnBelgium.isresearchocusesncognitivetyles,nonprofitanagement,nd hangemanagement.e cts sanadvisero hegovernmentnpublic anagement.ehaspublishedn choolmanagement,helearningrganization,nd ognitivetyles.E-mail: [email protected].

DifferencesinWorkMotivation 65

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

Houston2000; Karland Sutton1998;Khojasteh1993;Rainey1982;Rawls,Ulrich,and Nelson 1976;Schuster,Colletti,andKnowles1973;Solomon1986;Wittmer1991). Direct economicbenefitsare essimportant orpublicsectoremployeeshan for thosein theprivate ector Newstrom,Reif,and Monczka1976). Pay s a muchgreatermotivator orprivatesectoremployees, upervisorsJurkiewicz,Massey, ndBrown1998), andmanagers Khojasteh 993) than itis fortheirpublicsectorcounterparts. nlikeprivatesectormanagers, ublicsectormanagers renotstronglymotivatedby pay expectancyMoon 2000).Basedon an analysis f 34 empirical tudies,Boyne(2002) foundsupport oronly3 out of 13 hypothesesaboutthedifferences etweenpublicsectorandprivate ectormanagement.T-histudywasnot a realmeta-analysis,owever,because t gaveequalweightto all studies ncludedandmayhaveoverlooked thersignificantdifferences.Althoughwe acknowledgehatthismightlead to a slightly kewedpicture, he factthat one of threepositiveresults ndicatedessmateri-alism n publicmanagersargely orroboratespreviousassumptions.Forexample,basedon ananalysis f14 nationalsurveys,Crewson 1997) concludes hateconomicrewards remostimportanto privatesectoremployees.Onlya few researchersavefoundno significantdifferences r differencesn theoppositedirection.GabrisandSimo(1995) foundno significantdiffer-encesfor20 motivational eeds, ncluding he needformonetary ewards.Crewson 1997) found similarresultswhen datawere imited to one occupationalgroup,namely, ngineers.Maidani 1991) evenconcludes hatpublicsectoremployees ateextrinsicfactors, uchaspay,asmoreimportanthan doprivate ectoremployees.Lewisand Frank 2002)founda subtledifference:Respondentswho valuehighincomearemorelikely o preferpublicsectoremploymentbut less ikelyto work for thepublicsector.Basedon thisoverview,we canformulate urfirsthypothesis:

H : Comparedo private ectoremployees,publicsectoremployees re ess motivatedbyextrinsicmonetary ewards.

There s a broadconsensus hatpublicsectoremploy-ees aremore ntrinsicallymotivated.Leete(2000)foundthatnonprofitorganizationselydisproportion-atelyon intrinsicallymotivated mployees.This alsoseemsto be thecase n the publicsector.Moststudieshaveconcluded hatpublicsectorworkers re essextrinsicallyndhencemore ntrinsicallymotivated(Cacioppeand Mock 1984;Crewson1997). Publicsectoremployees remoremotivatedbyjobcontent,self-development,ecognition, utonomy, nterestingwork,and the chance o learnnewthings(Houston2000;Jurkiewicz,Massey, nd Brown1998;Karland

Sutton1998;Khojasteh 993;Newstrom,Reif,andMonczka1976). Onlya minorityof studiesreportfindings hatpublicsectoremployees howweakerinternalworkmotivation hantheirprivate ectorcounterpartsAryee1992).Thisanalysiseads o oursecondhypothesis:

H2:Comparedo private ectoremployees,publicsectoremployees remoremotivatedbyintrinsic actors, uch asresponsibilityndself-development.

When it comesto the motivationalimpactof asupportiveworkingenvironment,he literature ndifferences etween he publicandprivate ectors ssilent.Although here s a largebodyof studiesdealingwith the link betweenmotivationandjobsecurity,hefindingsoften areconflicting Baldwin1987, 1991;Cacioppeand Mock 1984;Crewson1997;HammerandVanTassell1983;Houston2000;Jurkiewicz,Massey, nd Brown1998;KarlandSutton1998;Khojasteh 993;Lewisand Frank 002;Newstrom,Reif,andMonczka1976;Perry ndPorter1982; Rawls,Ulrich,and Nelson 1976;Wittmer1991).Thegeneralpicture s that,all elsebeingequal,publicsectoremployees restronglymotivatedbysecurityandstability Jurkiewicz,Massey, nd Brown1998).Jobsecurity efers o workers'ability o retainadesirablejob;job stability eferso thedurationof thematch betweena workerand ajob. Moststudies,however,dealwithjob security, ot job stability. obstabilitys a conceptthat is closer o jobcontent orworking tylethanjobsecurity,whichhas moreto dowith external conomicconditions.Beingmotivatedbya supportiveworkingenvironment eflectsfeelingsof safety n one'srole(Kihlgren t al. 2003), whichisa broader onceptthanstability. t alsoencompassesthe need to work n a friendly, armonious, espectfulatmosphere.There s some evidence hat federalgovernment xecutives onsider heircoworkers,colleagues, nd bossessignificantlymoreimportantthando business xecutives Posner nd Schmidt1996), andpublicemployees eem to respondmorefavorablyo a people-orientedeadershiptylethando private mployees Zeffane1994). Hence,weformulate ur thirdhypothesisas follows:

H,: Comparedo private ectoremployees,publicsectoremployees remore motivatedbya supportiveworkingenvironment.The research n work andorganizationalommitmentoffersmixedresults.Earlyresearch y Buchanan(1974a, 1974b, 1975) reinforcedhe beliefthatpublicsectormanagers avea lower evel of organizationalcommitment hanbusiness xecutives.Similarfindingshavebeenreportedby Rainey 1989). In acomparison f 474 Australian ublicsectoremployeesand944 private ectoremployees,Zeffane 1994)

66 PublicAdministration Review * JanuarylFebruary2007



4/11

foundhighercommitmentamongthelatter.Moon(2000) foundthatpublicsectormanagers avealower evel of organizationalommitment han doprivate ectormanagers,speciallyn termsof theirwillingnesso expendextraeffort.GouletandFrank(2002) report he lowestorganizationalommitmentamongpublicsectoremployeesandmanagersn asampleconsistingof for-profit,nonprofit,andpublicsectoremployeesandmanagers.Some otherstudies,however,havereported higherlevelof commitmentamongpublicsectormanagersor no differenceRainey1983). Farid 1997), forexample, omparedheorganizationalommitmentof54 and43 middlemanagersrompublicsectorandprivate ectororganizations,espectively,nd foundno significantdifferences.Moststudiesreport ncon-clusiveor inconsistentfindings Balfour ndWechsler1991). Steinhaus ndPerry 1996) conclude hat,comparedo anindustry ypology,a dichotomouspublicsector/privateectordistinction s notveryuseful n explainingdifferencesn commitment.In a critical eviewof the empiricaliterature-and inan effort o debunknegative tereotypes -Baldwin(1991) concludes hatprivate ectorandpublicsectoremployees reequallymotivated.However,Baldwin'ssummaryablemakesclear hat most of the citedstudiesdealwithpublicsectormanagers, ot street-levelpublicsectoremployees.Baldwin's onclusionofequalmotivation, hen,maybe relevantonlyformanagers nd not for otheremployees.DifferentorganizationalKlineand Peters1991) ornationalcultures ChoandLee2001) canexplainmanydifferences.Nevertheless,he fact thatpublicsectormanagers aveweakerorganizationalcommitment hantheirprivate ectorcounterpartssone of the threehypotheses upportedby Boyne'soverview f 34 empirical tudies Boyne2002).Balfourand Wechsler 1991) founddifferent orrela-tions betweenpublicsectoremploymentand severaldimensionsof commitment.Theonlyconsistentfinding s a negative orrelation etweenpublicsectoremploymentand thewillingnesso expendextraeffort.Thisdimension, willingnesso exertconsider-ableeffort, s one of the three actorsassociatedwithcommitment Steinhaus ndPerry1996, 278).Workermotivation s oftendefinedasworking ongand intensehours(Baldwin1990).Thisanalysiseadsto our fourthhypothesis:

H4:Comparedo private ectoremployees,publicsectoremployees eport ewerworkinghoursand lesswillingnesso exertconsiderableefforton behalfof theorganization.Workmotivation s dependentnot onlyon thesectorof employmentbut also on factors uch as

age (Jurkiewicz000; MathieuandZajac1990;Sheehy1995;Wittmer1991),gender Kacmar,Carlson,andBrymer1999;Lefkowitz1994;MathieuandZajac1990),education Crewson1997;MathieuandZajac1990;Wittmer1991), andespeciallymanagementevel(JurkiewiczndMassey1997;Karland Sutton1998;Moon 2000). Whenthesedemographicactorsareexamined, heliteratureseemsto implythattheyare essimportant hansectoraldifferences.Themajorexceptionmightbehierarchicalevel.)On thisbasis,we can formulate urfifthand sixthhypotheses:

H,: Hierarchicalevel s at leastasimportantasdifferencesn the sectorof employmentnexplainingmotivational ifferences.H6: Sectorof employments moreimportantthandemographic atasuchasgender,age,oreducation n explainingmotivationaldifferences.

As reflectedn hypothesis andindicatedbysomeofthe foregoing tudieson commitment,publicsectoremployees eport ewerworkinghours han theirprivate ectorcounterparts.Wehypothesizehatthisis a positivechoice,not a lack of dynamism. f thishypothesiss true,thenpublicsectoremployeeswillspendmore timewiththeirfamiliesandreportesswork-familyconflict.Therefore,we formulate urseventhhypothesisas follows:

H,: Comparedo private ectorworkers,publicsectorworkersexperienceesswork-familyconflict.ResultsTable1 reportshe betavaluesof sevensimultaneousregressionnalyses. Theresearchdesignandmethodologyaredescribedn theappendix.)Weassumed hat civil servants re essextrinsicallymotivated hypothesis1). Ourfindingson motivationby salaryargely onfirmed hisassumption:Civilservantsweresignificantlyess motivatedby salary(t= -11.84,p < .001). Thiswas thehighestt valueforsectoraldifferences.Hypothesis2 is not confirmedbythedata;rather,the oppositeseems o be true.Civilservantswere essmotivatedbyself-developmentt=-1.93, p= .053)andslightly essmotivatedbyresponsibilityt=-1.38,p=.17). Differences n self-development eremarginally ignificant, upporting hepositionofsomeresearchershatpublicsectoremployeesarelessmotivatedbychallenge ndpersonal rowth(Jurkiewicz,Massey, nd Brown1998).




5/11

Table BetaValuesorSevenSimultaneousegressionnalysesDependent ariable Gendera Ageb Educationc Leveld Sectore R2Workingours -.10*** -.03 .00 .39*** -.13*** .19***Total ommitment .01 .05** .05** .37*** -.11*** .17***Motivationbysalary -.16*** -.05** -.16*** .12*** -.19*** .09***Motivatedby working n a supportive nvironment .04* .10*** -.21*** -.13*** .06*** .09***Motivationby self-development .02 -.01 -.06** .28*** -.03 .07***Motivationby responsibility -.00 -.07*** .05** .33*** -.02 .12***Work-familyonflict .05** .03 .00 .10*** -.07*** .02**

aApositive ign ndicateshatwomen coredhigher n thisvariable.bApositiveign ndicateshatolder espondentscoredhigher nthisvariable.cApositiveign ndicateshatmorehighlyducated espondentscoredhigher n thisvariable.dApositiveign ndicateshat hosewithhigherevelscoredhigher n thisvariable.eA positiveign ndicateshatcivil ervantscoredhigher nthisvariable.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Hypothesis3 is partiallyupportedby thedata.Ourscalemeasuring beingmotivatedbya supportiveworkingenvironment ad a clearloadingon

certainty ndcouldbe considered proxy ormotivationbystability. ublicsectorworkersweremorestronglymotivatedbythe desire o work n asupportiveworkingenvironmentt=3.45;p < .001).Hypothesis4 is strongly upported.Publicsectorworkers eported ignificantlyewerworkinghours(t=-8.94; p < .001). The samewas true for totalcommitment o work, or whichpublicservantswerelessunconditionallyommitted t=-7.28, p < .001).For bothvariables, ierarchicalevelwas evenmoreimportant t=23.18;p < .001 and t=21.76;p < .001),lendingstrongsupport o theview that hierarchicallevel s a strongmoderator ariablen comparingpublicsectorandprivate ectoremployees.The mostpronounced indingconfirmshypothesis5:Hierarchicalevelseemsto be the mostimportantfactor n explainingdifferencesn motivation.Hierar-chical evelwashighlysignificantorallvariables,especiallyor allvariables uchas commitmentandresponsibilityrcloselyrelated ariables.Table1 alsoshowsthatgenderwas alsosignificantorworkinghours.Theliterature, s wellas otherdata noursurvey hatarenot reportedhere,shows hatwomenwork fewerhours n the office.However,heyworksignificantlymore hoursathome,globallyenjoying ess freetimethan men. It is clear romtable1 thatgenderwassignificantor motivationbysalary ndmotivationbygood relationships. gewassignificantor a numberof variables.Theseresultsareeasy o interpret:Olderemployeeshavea lessertendency o leave heorganization,wantto work n asupportive nvironment, ndare essmotivatedbysalary.Managementevelseemsespeciallymportantin explainingworkinghoursandcommitment owork, endingstrongsupport o Baldwin 1987) andKarlandSutton(1998), andcontradictingMoon(2000).

Thepatternof resultsn table1 does not supporthypothesis6. Onlyonce was sector f employmentthe variablewith thehighestexplanatory ower-gender,age,and education eem to be at leastasimportant.How can the motivational ifferences etween hepublicandprivate ectorsbe explained? ectormaybelinkedto jobcontent,which,in turn,maydeterminerespondents'motivationalpatterns.Perhapst is notthe sector tselfbut thejobsavailablen thepublicsector hat lackmotivationalappeal WrightandDavis2003). Many obsin largebureaucracies-private ectororpublicsector-lack motivatingcharacteristicsuch asskillvariety,eedback, r taskidentity(Aryee1992). Perhapshe observeddiffer-ences between hesectorsarebetterexplainedbydifferencesn job content.Table showsthat bothsamplesweredramaticallyifferent n thatdimension.Theprivate ectorhasa muchhigherpercentage fmarketing ndsales unctions,andthepublicsectorhasa muchhigherpercentage f administrativefunctions.Giventhelargedifferencesn representedfunctions, he observeddifferences etweenbothsectorsmaybe (partially) ttributableo differencesnjob content,not to differencesn sectorof employ-ment.Unfortunately,heverysmallnumberofcommercialemployeesn the publicsectormakes tstatisticallympossibleo correct orthis difference.Therefore,we applied wo indirectmethods.First,wecompared ommercial nd administrativeunctionswithin theprivate ector.Second,we comparedbothsectors oradministrativeunctionsonly.The resultsarepresentedn table3.Thepatternof resultsn table3 isveryclear.Differ-encesbetween heprivateandpublicsectorsaredirectlymirroredn the differences etweenadminis-trativeand commercialunctionswithintheprivatesector.There eems o be a generalmotivationalpattern hatis associatedwithadministrativeobs,be

68 PublicAdministration Review * JanuaryIFebruary2007



6/11

Table2 DifferencesnFunction etween he Privatend PublicSectors

Privateector Public ector(percent) (percent)

Generalmanagement 11 10Logisticsndpurchasing 4 1Administrative 10 31Sales ndmarketing 30 2Finance ndaccounting 8 8Personnel 5 9Informationommunications 6 4

and echnologyTechnicalupport 6 7OtherR&D,ngineering,tc.) 24 26

it in theprivate ectoror in thepublicsector.Follow-ing the lines of thejob characteristic odel (HackmanandOldham1980), administrativejobsseem to holdlowermotivatingpotential hancommercialjobs,afact thatmaybe reflectedn the aspectsof skillvariety,taskidentity, asksignificance, utonomy,andfeedback.On the otherhand,table3 also showsthat mostdifferences etween he publicsectorandtheprivatesectorremainedsignificant ven when the typeof jobwas held constant.Forexample, ivil servantsreportedabout five fewerworkinghoursthan theirprivatesectorcounterparts. oradministrativejobs only,thisdifferencewas reduced o twohoursand a quarter fan hour,respectively.hisdifference, owever,wasstillstatisticallyerysignificant.

Can we estimate herelativeimportance f sectorandfunction?Differentanalyses f variance howthat,comparedo sectoraldifferences,he importance fdifferencesn function(administrativeersusnonadministrativejobs)varieswidely.Differencesnfunctionexplainalmost 100percentof theobserveddifferences orself-developmentndresponsibility,75 percent ormotivationbyrespect,50 percent orworkinghoursand totalcommitment o thejob,

25 percent orwork-familyconflict,and almostzerofor motivationby salary.Emphasizinghatpublicsectoremployees remoti-vatedbya goodcause mayexplainwhy theyare essmotivatedbymoney.However,t offersno explana-tion as to why theyconsistently eport ewerworkinghoursand less total commitment o work,evenwhendifferencesn jobcontent are aken nto account.Working orthegoodcausemayalsorequireongworkinghoursorposegreater hallenges.Publicsectoremployeesmaymakefundamentalhoicesandprefer o leada morebalancedife.Perhaps heyinvestmore n theirprivateives andsimplydo not wanttojoin the rat ace. Research n the relationshipbetweenworkinghoursand healthshowsa linkbetweenhoursof workand ill healthand betweenwork-familyconflictand lackof satisfactionwithone'spersonalife (Sparks t al. 1997).Do publicsectoremployeesryto escape hisvulnerability?Iswork-familybalancea motivationalactor?(Saltzstein, ing,and Saltzstein 001).Table1 showsthat,aspredictedn hypothesis7,publicsectoremployees eportedesswork-familyconflict(t=-4.09; p < .001). Otherdata n thesurveystrongly upport his view. Otheranalysesnotreportedn table1) showthattheyalsoreportedhighersatisfactionwith family ife (t=4.21;p < .001),morehours orprivate ime (t=6.80;p < .001), andevenlongersleepinghours(t= 1.96;p= .05).Thispatternof resultsclearly upportsa positivechoiceapproach.Publicsectoremployeesare essmotivatedby moneyand workchallengeand lesscommitted o longworkinghours hantheirprivatesectorcounterparts,or the simplereason hattheyaremoremotivatedby leadinga balanced ife.DiscussionTable1 demonstrateshat,with the exceptionofmotivationbysalary, ierarchicalevel seemsto matter

Table3t ValuesAssociated ithBetaValuesnSevenSimultaneousegression nalyses: ffect f FunctionndSectorDifferenceetween DifferenceetweenPrivatend DifferenceetweenPrivatend

AdministrativendCommercial Public ector, dministrative Publicector,AllFunctionsDependent ariable Functions,rivateectora Functionsnlyb (SeeTable)cWorkingours -3.73*** -2.98** -8.94***Totalommitment -1.55 -4.92*** -7.28***Motivationysalary -2.50* -4.35*** -11.84***Motivatedyworkingn a 1.22 1.92(p= 06) 3.45***supportivenvironmentMotivationyself-development -1.49 -.79 -1.93Motivationyresponsibility -3.48*** -.23 -1.38Work-familyonflict -2.00* -2.17* -4.09***

aApositiveign ndicateshat ntheprivateector, dministrativeunctionscoredhigherhancommercialunctions nthisvariable.bApositiveign ndicateshatcivilervantscoredhigher n thisvariable.cApositiveign ndicateshatcivilervantscoredhigher n thisvariable.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.




7/11

more than differencesn sector.Thisresultcorrobo-rates he findingsof researchshowing hat motiva-tionalpatternsdiffersignificantlyorhigher-andlower-level ublicsectoremployees.The formeraremoreprivate ector-like,withhighcommitment,highsatisfaction, nd smallergapsbetweenwhattheywantand whattheyget (JurkiewiczndMassey1997).

Jobcontent s alsoaverystrongmoderator ariable.Onceagain,motivationbysalary eems o be theimportant xception.On the otherhand,differencesin internalmotivation self-developmentndmotiva-tion by responsibility)eemto be completelyheresultof differencesn job content. Commitment othejob (LeeandOlshfski2002) is at leastasimpor-tantas commitment o theorganizationr to thepublic nterest.Hence,we can understandheconflictingnatureof ourfindingswith much of theliterature.Our results onfirmmostof ourhypotheses n thedifferencesn work motivationbetweenpublicsectorandprivate ectoremployees, ndtheymaypointtoreasonswhyotherresearchersavefoundconflictingresults.Forexample,differencesn workmotivationcanbe strongly onfoundedbyfactors uch asgender,age,job content,or hierarchicalevel. If samplesarenot carefullymatchedon thosevariables, r if theeffectsarenot partialed ut in the statistical nalyses,unexpecteddifferences anbe easilyexplainedbysuchconfoundingvariables.Do our observeddifferencessupport hestereotype fthe lazybureaucrat?re fewerworkinghours,evenwhenjob content s controlledor,andweakeroverallcommitment o workreflections f a negativeworkingattitude?Alternatively,o publicsectoremployeesmakea positivechoiceby choosinga well-balancedlife?Our datasupport he latterview. Publicsectoremployeesmakepositivechoices.Theydo not opt forthe rat race.Theywantrespect or theirownworkingrhythms, heirpersonalives,theirquality ime,andtheirfamilypriorities.Although his ideaseems ocorrespondwith casualobservation,we couldidentifyonlya singlestudyshowing hatpublicsectoremploy-ees aremorestronglymotivatedbywork-familybalance:Theyare ess inclined hanprivate ectormanagerso relocate heirfamily or a better ob(Posner nd Schmidt1996). Of course,manyotheralternatives emainopen.Therefore,spartof a largerstudyof theso-calledpsychologicalontract,we setup a similar tudy(with462 workers rom thepublicsectorand3,407 from theprivate ector) o dealdirectlywiththisunexpectedinding.In thatstudy,respondentswereasked o whatdegree heyaremoti-vatedbya more balancedwork-familyrelationship.The results indicate that public sector employees aresignificantlymoremotivatedbya balancedwork-familyrelationship.Respondentsromthenonprofit

sectorwereeven more motivatedbya balancedwork-familyrelationship.However,differencesn hierarchi-cal level andin thepercentage f part-time ersusfull-timeworkersexplainmanyof the observeddiffer-ences.Becausewe could not find theoretical rempirical upport n the extant iterature,we setup aresearchprogram ealingwiththisquestionof sectoraldifferencesn work-familybalance.Preliminaryevidence rom thisprogram, pecifically ealingwiththatquestion, uggests hatcivil servants re ndeedmore motivatedbybalancingheworkandfamilyspheres.Thelack of empirical tudies n this field-whethersupporting r disconfirmingurpositivechoicehypothesis-is certainly triking.Consideringthemanygapsthat remain o be filled,further ffortsin this areaarelikely o constitutea fruitfulavenueofresearch.Our results ontribute o the debateon the newmanagerialismn thepublicsector Box1999;VanGramberg000). Publicsectormanagersxhibita motivationalprofile hat is similar o private ectormanagers t a lowermanagementevel.However,manyof theconcepts ntroducedbythe New PublicManagementmovementareaimedathigher-levelprofiles: ntrepreneurship,mpowerment, r totalcommitment.Thisnewlanguage implymaynotappeal o manycivil servantsn managerial ositions.Justas tax officers rprisonguardshave thegreatestdifficultiesn perceivingheirtargetgroupsasclients,managersn the civil servicemaynot easilyperceivethemselves snewmanagers. he newmanagementtechniques ftenrequireotalcommitment,a pricethatmanypublicsectoremployeesmaynot be readyto pay.ReferencesAmbrose,MaureenL.,and CarolT. Kulik.1999.

Old Friends,New Faces:MotivationResearchin the 1990s.Journal fManagement 5(3):231-92.

Aryee,Samuel.1992.Publicand Private ectorProfessionals: Comparative tudyof TheirPerceived Work Experience. GroupandOrganizationManagement 7(1):72-85.

Baldwin,NormanJ. 1987.PublicversusPrivate:NotThatDifferent,Not ThatConsequential. ublicPersonnelManagement6(2):181-93.

- . 1990. Perceptions f PublicversusPrivateSectorPersonnel nd InformalRedTape:TheirImpacton Motivation.AmericanReview fPublicAdministration0(1):7-28.

- . 1991. Public versus Private Employees:Debunking Stereotypes. Review ofPublic PersonnelAdministration1(1-2): 1-27.

Balfour,DannyL.,andBartonWechsler. 991.Commitment,Performance,ndProductivitynPublicOrganizations. ublicProductivityndManagement Review 14(4): 355-67.

70 PublicAdministration Review * JanuaryIFebruary2007



8/11

Box,RichardC. 1999. RunningGovernmentLikeaBusiness:Implicationsor PublicAdministrationTheoryandPractice.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration9(1): 19-43.

Boyne,GeorgeA. 2002. Publicand PrivateManagement:What's he Difference?ournal fManagement tudies 9(1):97-122.

Buchanan,Bruce.1974a.BuildingOrganizationalCommitment:TheSocialization f ManagersnWorkOrganizations. dministrativecienceQuarterly 9(4):509-32.

. 1974b.GovernmentManagers,BusinessExecutives,ndOrganizational ommitment.PublicAdministration eview 4(4):339-47.

. 1975.RedTapeandServiceEthic:SomeUnexpectedDifferences etweenPublicandPrivateManagers. dministration Society (4):423-44.

Cacioppe,Ron,andPhilipMock. 1984.AComparison f theQualityofWorkExperiencenGovernment nd PrivateOrganizations.HumanRelations7(11):923-40.

Cho, Kyung-Ho,and Seok-HwanLee.2001. AnotherLookat Public-PrivateDistinctionandOrganizational ommitment:A CulturalExplanation.nternationalJournal fOrganizationalnalysis (1): 84-102.

Cohen,Jacob,andPatriciaCohen. 1983.AppliedMultipleRegression/Correlationor theBehavioralSciences.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Crewson,PhilipE. 1997. PublicServiceMotivation:BuildingEmpiricalEvidence f IncidenceandEffect. ournal fPublicAdministration esearchand 7heory (4):499-518.Farid,Mamadouh . 1997.JobCharacteristics,Leadership,ndOrganizational ommitmentasPerceived y Managersn theEgyptianPublicand Private ectors.Academy f StrategicandOrganizational eadershipournal1 1):20-31.

Gabris,GeraldT., and GloriaSimo. 1995.PublicSectorMotivationas an IndependentVariableAffectingCareerDecisions.PublicPersonnelManagement4(1):33-51.

Goulet,LaurelR., andMargaretL. Frank. 002.Organizational ommitmentacrossThreeSectors:Public,Non-Profit,and For-Profit. ublicPersonnelManagement1(2):201-10.

Hackman,Richard ., andGregOldman. 1980. WorkRedesign. eading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Hammer,EliotR., and Dick VanTassell.1983. Onthe Issueof Publicvs. PrivateSectorMotivation:Have theStereotypes een Debunked?PublicPersonnelManagement 2(3):282-89.

Heckman,James . 1979. SampleSelectionBiasas aSpecificationError.Econometrica7(1): 153-61.

Houston,DavidJ. 2000. PublicServiceMotivation:A Multivariate est. ournal fPublicAdministrationResearchnd ?heory 0(4):713-27.

Jurkiewicz,CaroleL.2000. GenerationX and thePublicEmployee.PublicPersonnelManagement29(1):55-76.

Jurkiewicz,CaroleL.,andTom K.Massey, r.1997.WhatMotivatesMunicipalEmployees:A Comparison tudyof Supervisorys.Non-Supervisoryersonnel.PublicPersonnelManagement6(3): 367-76.

Jurkiewicz,CaroleL.,Tom K. Massey, r.,andRogerG. Brown.1998. Motivationn Publicand PrivateOrganizations: Comparative tudy.PublicProductivityndManagement eview 1(3):230-50.

Kacmar,MicheleK., DawnS. Carlson,andRobertA. Brymer. 999.Antecedents ndConsequencesf Organizational ommitment:A Comparison f TwoScales.EducationalandPsychological easurement9(6):976-94.

Karl,KatherineA., andCynthiaL. Sutton.1998.JobValuesnToday'sWorkforce: Comparison fPublicand PrivateSectorEmployees.PublicPersonnelManagement7(4): 515-27.

Khojasteh,Mak.1993.Motivatinghe Private s.PublicSectorManagers. ublicPersonnelManagement2(3):391-401.

Kihlgren,AnnicaL., IngegerdFagerberg, irstiSkovdahl, nd MonaKihlgren. 003. Referralsfrom Home Care o EmergencyHospitalCare:Basis or Decisions. ournal fClinicalNursing12(1):28-36.

Kline,CathyJ., andLawrenceH. Peters.1991.BehavioralCommitmentand Tenureof NewEmployees:A Replication nd Extension.AcademyofManagementJournal4(1): 194-204.

Lee, Seok-Hwan, ndDorothyOlshfski.2002.EmployeeCommitmentandFirefighters:t'sMyJob.Specialssue,PublicAdministrationeview 2:108-14.

Leete,Laura. 000. WageEquityandEmployeeMotivationn Nonprofitand For-ProfitOrganizations.ournal fEconomic ehavior ndOrganization3(4):423-46.

Lefkowitz,oel.1994. Sex-RelatedDifferences nJobAttitudesandDispositionalVariables: ow YouSeeThem, .. Academy fManagementournal37(2):323-49.

Lewis,GregoryB., and SueA. Frank. 002. WhoWants o Work or the Government? ublicAdministration eview 2(4):395-404.

Maidani,EbrahimA. 1991. Comparative tudyofHerzberg's wo-Factor heoryof JobSatisfactionamongPublicand PrivateSectors.PublicPersonnelManagement0(4):441-48.

Mathieu,JohnE.,and Dennis M. Zajac.1990.A ReviewandMeta-Analysisf theAntecedents,Correlates, ndConsequencesf OrganizationalCommitment.Psychologicalulletin108(2):171-94.

Differences in WorkMotivation 71



9/11

Moon, M.Jae.2000. Organizational ommitmentRevisitedn New PublicManagement:Motivation,Organizational ulture,andManagerial evel.PublicPerformancendManagement eview 4(2):177-94.

Naff,KatherineC., andJohnCrum.1999. WorkingforAmerica:Does PublicServiceMotivationMakea Difference?ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration9(4):5-16.

Newstrom,JohnW.,WilliamE. Reif,and RobertM.Monczka.1976. Motivatinghe PublicEmployee:Factvs. Fiction.PublicPersonnelManagement(1):67-72.

Perry, amesL. 1996.Measuring ublicServiceMotivation:AnAssessment f ConstructReliability ndValidity.ournal fPublicAdministration esearchnd Theory(1): 5-22.

1997.Antecedents f PublicServiceMotivation. ournal fPublicAdministrationResearchnd Theory(2): 181-97.

. 2000. BringingSocietyIn:TowardTheoryof Public-ServiceMotivation. ournal fPublicAdministrationesearchnd Theory0(2):471-88.

Perry, amesL.,andLymanW. Porter.1982. FactorsAffecting he Context or Motivation n PublicOrganizations. cademy fManagement eview7(1): 89-98.

Perry, amesL.,and LoisR. Wise. 1990.TheMotivationalBasesof PublicService.PublicAdministration eview 0(3):367-73.

Posner,BarryZ., and WarrenH. Schmidt.1996.TheValuesof Business nd FederalGovernmentExecutives:More DifferentThanAlike.PublicPersonnelManagement5(3):277-89.

Rainey,Hal G. 1982.RewardPreferencesamongPublicand PrivateManagers:n Search f theServiceEthic.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration6(4):288-302.

. 1983. PublicAgenciesandPrivateFirms:IncentiveStructures,Goals,andIndividualRoles.Administration&Society15(2):207-42.

1989. PublicManagement:RecentResearchon the PoliticalContextandManagerialRoles,Structures,nd Behaviors.ournal fManagement15(2):229-50.

Rainey,Hal G., andBarryBozeman.2000.ComparingPublicand PrivateOrganizations:EmpiricalResearch nd the Powerof theA Priori.Journal fPublicAdministrationesearchndTheory0(2):447-69.

Rawls,JamesR., RobertA. Ulrich,andOscarT.Nelson. 1976.A Comparison f ManagersEntering r Reenteringhe ProfitandNonprofit

Sectors.Academy fManagementournal18(5):616-62.Rogelberg,StevenG., andAlexandraLuong.1998.

Nonresponseo MailedSurveys: ReviewandGuide. Current irectionsn Psychologicalcience7(2):60-65.

Saltzstein,AlanL,YuanTing,and GraceH.Saltzstein. 001. Work-FamilyBalance ndJobSatisfaction: heImpactof Family-FriendlyPolicieson Attitudesof FederalGovernmentEmployees.PublicAdministrationeview 1(4):452-66.

Schuster, ayR.,JeromeA. Colletti,andL.Knowles.1973.TheRelationship etweenPerceptionsConcerningMagnitudes f Payand PerceivedUtilityof Pay:Publicand PrivateOrganizationsCompared.Organizational ehavior nd HumanPerformance(1): 100-19.

Sheehy,Gail. 1995. NewPassages: appingYourLifeacrossTime.New York:RandomHouse.

Solomon,EstherE. 1986. Private nd PublicSectorManagers: n Empirical nvestigationf JobCharacteristicsndOrganizational limate.Journal fApplied sychology1(2):247-59.

Sparks,Kate,CaryCooper,YitzhakFried,andArieShirom.1997. TheEffectsof Hoursof WorkonHealth:A Meta-Analytic eview. ournal fOccupationalnd Organizational sychology0(4):391-408.

Steinhaus,Carol,andJamesL.Perry. 996.Organizational ommitment:Does SectorMatter?PublicProductivityndManagement eview19(3):278-88.

VanGramberg,Bernadine. 000. ManagerialismnLocalGovernment-Victoria,Australia.InternationalJournal fPublicSectorManagement13(5):476-92.

Wittmer,Dennis. 1991.Serving he PeopleorServingforPay:RewardPreferencesamongGovernment,HybridSector,and BusinessManagers. ublicProductivityndManagement eview14(4):369-83.

Wright,BradleyE. 2001. Public-SectorWorkMotivation:A Reviewof the CurrentLiteratureand a RevisedConceptualModel.Journal fPublicAdministration esearchnd Theory1(4):559-86.

Wright,BradleyE., andBrianS. Davis.2003.JobSatisfactionn the PublicSector-The Role of theWorkEnvironment.AmericanReview fPublicAdministration3(1):70-90.

Zeffane,Rachid.1994.Patterns f OrganizationalCommitmentand PerceivedManagement tyle:AComparison f Publicand Private ectorEmployees.HumanRelations7(8): 977-1010.




10/11

Appendix:MethodologyandResearchDesignData CollectionDatawerecollected n Belgium hrougha large-scalesurvey n theFlemishnewspaperVacature,hichspecializesn recruitmentommunication ndjobadvertisingndis distributed s a supplemento fournationalnewspapersndtwo magazines.Respondentscouldreply o thesurvey, itled HowHardDo theFlemishWork? n paperoron the Internet.Respon-dents answered 25 questionsdealingwith the num-ber of hoursspenton work, eisure ime,sleep,andfamily;otherquestionsdealtwith workmotivation,joband lifesatisfaction, sychosomaticomplaints,andintentionto leave hejob.Tenquestionsdealtwithbiographicalata, ncluding ectorofemployment.Sample, Missing Values,and OutliersThesampleof 5,853 respondentswas more or lessrepresentativef the professionalworkingpopulation,withoverrepresentationf males(73 percent)andprofessionalwhite-collar)workers(only1 percentblue collarworkers).Differentagegroups,educationalbackgrounds,marital tatuses, ectorsof employment,educationevels,andmanagementevelswerewellrepresented.n order o comparemotivationalvariables ndworkinghours,onlyanswers romfull-timeworkerswereanalyzed.Out of 5,853 respon-dentsworking ulltime,3,314 couldbe identifiedasworking n theprivate ectorand409 in thepublicsector.An additional 82 respondents elonged o theso-calledhybrid ector Wittmer1991).A total of424 wereemployedn educationand358 in healthcare.Finally,1,258 respondentseplied other, uchas the unemployed,armers,awyers, tudents,andretiredpersons; 0 respondents id not answer hequestion.Private ndpublicsectoremployeesdid not differstatisticallyn gender bothgroupshadabout26percent emalerespondents),eportedmanagementlevel (on a five-point caleranging romemployee oseniormanager), ducation,and marital tatus.Theonlystatistically ignificantdifferencewasage:The public sector group was significantly olderthan theprivate ectorgroup (average gewas39 forpublicsectorrespondents nd36 forprivate ectorrespondents;= 5.73;p < .001).

Any large-scale urveys hinderedbytheproblemof missingvalues.The shareof missingvalueswas1.19 percent,ranging rom0.35 percent o 0.50percent orquestionson gender,age group,andeducation o 4 percenton morepersonalquestions.These figuresare well below the 5 percent that isconsidered cceptableCohenand Cohen 1983).

To dealwithoutliers,a straightforwardolicywasadopted.Typographicalrrorswere corrected ndother datawererespected s muchaspossible.Thehighestreportednumberof workinghourswas 120.Inspectionof thiscaserevealed hat the personreportedly leptonlyfour hourspernight,didnotinvest n family ife,and tookonlyone hour offperweek.About 1 percentof respondents eportedotal activi-ties thatrequiredmore than 168 hoursperweek. Inthosecases,we limited the reported ff-work ime sothat the maximumof 168 was not surpassed.The Problem of AutoselectionOursample s clearly utoselective. hiscancauseproblemsof external alidity Rogelberg ndLuong1998).Theonlymeaningful olutionforproblemsofautoselection s to determine he variablebywhichrespondents utoselect hemselves ndincorporatethis variablento the finalanalysisHeckman1979).In practice,his variable s seldomknown.If thishypothetical ariable(e.g., interestedn surveys,reading widelydistributednewspaper, ighersocioeconomic lass) s introducedn the analysis-inourcase,a simultaneousregressionnalysis- theonl,assumptionhat must be made s independence f thihypothetical ariable nd our focaldummyvariable(publicsectoremployeeversusprivate ector).Thisassumptions certainly ealistic. t is difficult oconceiveof a variable hatwould be an importantdeterminant f autoselection nd,at thesametime,strongly orrelateswiththe difference etween heprivateandpublicsectorsand doesnotstronglycorrelatewiththe othervariablesn themodel.Topuiit differently,ven f such an autoselection ariableexisted, ts influencewouldbe extremelymallbecausmostof its influencewouldbe absorbedby the othervariables,uch asage, gender,orhierarchicalevel-variables hat aremuchmore ikelyto be influencedby autoselection.Of course, f ouranalyseswerebasecon comparingmeansand standard eviationswith anabsolutenorm or with averagesrom otherstudies, hconclusions ould beverymisleading.We wouldreportmeansandstandard eviations f respondentsready o answera survey.However,we primarilyreportdifferences.n thesecases,autoselection s amuch lower hreat o external alidity.Furthermore,electionby the researchere.g., a argemidwesternmunicipality ),he most commonpracticen this kind of research,esults n exactly hesameproblem.Researchersaveto assume ndepen-dence of the selectionvariable nd the criterionvariable.n practice, his is oftenquestionable.Onehaseasyaccess o the localadministration nddifficultaccess o the companyorvice versa.Thecollectionperiod n bothorganizationss different,and thedistribution f questionnaires ithin both




11/11

organizationsollowsdifferentpatterns.Nevertheless,evenif thisassumptions sometimesquestionable,mostpublicationseemto accept t andeven seemtoaccept he clearrestriction f range ollowing romthis researchdesign.Scale DevelopmentPublishing surveyn awell-known,widelydistrib-utedmagazinehas theadvantage f reaching largenumberof respondents.However,herearealso someconstraints.Availablespace s limited,making timpracticalo collectdatathroughexisting cales hatarewidelystudiedbutalsolengthy.Therefore, asedon existing cales,we constructed numberof shorterfive-pointLikert cales.A total of 23 questionsdealtwith workmotivationandcommitment.Basedonfactoranalysis,we constructedour motivationalscales:motivationbysalary Cronbach'slpha= 69)hadthree tems(e.g., Ahighsalarys importantto me );motivationby opportunitiesorself-developmentCronbach'slpha= 70) hadfour tems(e.g., IfI workveryhard, t is because candevelopmyselfcompletelyn myjob );motivationbyresponsibilityCronbach'slpha= 78) hadthree tems(e.g., Assumingesponsibilitys importanto me );andmotivationbyworking n a supportiveworkingenvironmentCronbach'slpha= 72) had four tems.Intercorrelationsetween he scalesranged rom.11 to .36.Thefirst hreescalescorrespondo widelyknownmotivationalmeasurements.Manyobservationspointto validityhere:Forexample, hescore or motivationby salarywashighest n the hotel andcateringbusiness,veryhighin banking,andlowest n educa-tion, andthescore ormotivationbyopportunitiesorself-development asextremelyow in the transportbusiness.Thescale ormotivationbyworking n a supportiveworkingenvironment ad four tems:

* Respectoreverybody's orkrhythm s impor-tant to me.* Agoodunderstanding ithcolleaguessimportant o me.

* Aquietworkingatmospheres importanto me.* Certaintys important o me.Thevalidityof this scalecanonlybe inferred romourown data:Olderpeopleand womenweremoremotivatedbyworking n a supportiveworkingenvironment;orhigher-educatedespondents ndthoseathigherhierarchicalevels, t was lessimpor-tant. Thehighestscoreswere n healthcareandeducation followedby public ector, n our morerestrictedense); he lowestscoreswerereportedin consultancy, istribution, nd construction.The scalealso correlatedmoderatelywith measure-ments of softbehaviors uch as satisfactionwithcolleagues.The scale ortotalworkcommitment Cronbach'salpha=.76) had seven temsdescribingheemployee'sotalcommitment-for example, IfI workhard, t is becausemyjob is mylife, or

Mostof the time, I ampreoccupied y mywork.Itemsweretaken romexisting calesmeasuringorganizationalitizenshipbehavior ndworkdrive.Thescaleprimarilyeflects hewillingnesso exertconsiderablefforton behalfof the organization(Steinhaus ndPerry1996, 278). Work-familyconflict(Cronbach'slpha= 70) had two items,one of whichwas How often didyou experienceconflictsbetweenwork andfamily?MethodWeperformedmultiplesimultaneousregressionanalysesorsevendependentvariables:ourmotivation cales,reportedworkinghours, otalcommitment o work,andwork-familyconflict.Independent ariableswere thesectorof employment(publicversusprivate), ender,age,education,andmanagementevel. Forourfocus,the mostimportantmethodologicaloncernwas to ensure hat othervariableswerekept quiteseparatewhendiscussingparticularariable,o that motivational ifferencesbetweenemployeesromprivate ectorandpublicsectororganizationsouldnot be explainedbydifferencesn age, gender, ducation,ororganizationalevel.


buelens van debrock

Documents