An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector Organizations Author(s): Marc Buelens and Herman

Van den Broeck Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2007), pp. 65-74 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marc Buelens Herman Van den Broeck Ghent University

in WorkMotivation An Analysis of Differences between Essayson Work Motivation and Sector PublicandPrivate Organizations the Workplace

to ourunderstanding of the studycontributes This work between the in motivation publicand differences Data a sectors. of3,314 private private from survey in Belgium sector and 409 publicsector employees research thatpublic previous showing strongly confirm are sector less motivated. extrinsically employees in hierarchical levelaremoreimportant Differences thansectoral determinants of workmotivation can In addition,mostobserved differences. differences injob be wholly orpartiallyexplained bydifferences ispresented to not bythesector content, itself Evidence can showthatmotivational be bya explained differences balance. choice of work-life positive

literature reveal that Reviews of therelevant

work motivation among public sector employees and managers is very different from that of their private sector counterparts (Ambrose and Kulik 1999; Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Wittmer 1991; Wright 2001). However, most researchon the subject devotes limited attention to the relative importance of the causes of these differences (Baldwin 1991; Boyne 2002). For example, compared to factors such as age or gender, how important is the sector that an employee works in? In particular, the hierarchical level at which an employee works cannot be neglected. In comparing public sector and private sector employee motivation, strong interaction effects have been found between work motivation and management level (Baldwin 1987; Jurkiewicz and Massey 1997; Karl and Sutton 1998; Moon 2000; Rainey and Bozeman 2000). In addition, most of the researchfails to control for relevant explanatory variables, often because of very small sample sizes (Baldwin 1991; Boyne 2002). Sometimes, when samples of private sector and public sector employees contain too many differences in gender, age, education, job content, or hierarchical level, differences in work motivation can be explained simply by these demographic or organizational

worthwhileserviceto society(Rainey1982). Theyare motivatedby a strongdesireto servethe publicinterest (Boyne2002; Perry2000; Perryand Wise 1990), by a senseof serviceto the communitythat is not found amongtheirprivatesectorcounterparts (Gabris and Simo 1995; Houston 2000), and by an urgeto promotethe publicinterest(Box 1999). Publicsectoremployeesshow a stronger serviceethic than privatesectoremployees(Wittmer1991). Public servicemotivationcomprises elementssuch as the an to have on publicaffairs, comimpact opportunity mitmentto servingthe publicinterest,and an interest in achievingsocialjustice(Naffand Crum 1999; Perry1996, 1997; PerryandWise 1990). This choice of the "goodcause" is certainly not the only choice that publicsectoremployeesmake.Most workers constantlymakechoicesbetweenworkand family. Some opt for a morebalancedlife with lessworkothersshow high degreesof familyconflict,whereas work commitmentand organizational citizenship behavior, puttingin extratime and effort.Can some of the observed differences betweenpublicsectorand sector be private employees explainedby such a positive choice,addingto a furtherunderstanding of the in workmotivationbetweenpublicsector differences and privatesectoremployees? The purposeof this articleis threefold: First,we aim to test some classichypotheses on the differences in motivationbetweenpublicsectorand privatesector organizations (hypotheses1-4). Second,we attempt to comparethesedifferences to potentialmoderator variables 5-6). Third,test a choice-based (hypotheses to workmotivation-that is, does working approach for the publicservicealso imply choicesthat areinfluenced by issuesunrelated to work (hypothesis 7).

MarcBuelensisa professor of atboth Ghent and management University theVlerick Leuven Gent Management inBelgium. School His research focuses onworkaholism, decision and making, He advises on organizations negotiation. between art and business building bridges and acts asa consultant toanethical Hehaspublished investment fund. books inDutch, and French, English. E-mail: marc.buelens@vlerick.be. HermanVanden Broeckisprofessor oforganizational behavior atboth Ghent and Leuven theVlerick Gent University inBelgium. School His Management research oncognitive focuses styles, and nonprofit management, change acts asanadviser He tothe management. inpublic Hehas government management. onschool the published management, and learning cognitive organization, styles. E-mail: herman.vandenbroeck@vlerick.be.

factors.
Motivation is certainly not a passive notion. Employees in the public sector often make a choice to deliver a

Differencesin WorkMotivationbetween PublicSectorand PrivateSectorEmployees

The research has consistently found that privatesector and value economicrewards employees managers more highlythan do publicsectoremployeesand managers (Cacioppeand Mock 1984; Crewson1997;
Differences in Work Motivation 65

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Houston 2000; Karland Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993; Rainey1982; Rawls,Ulrich,and Nelson 1976; Schuster, Colletti,and Knowles1973; Solomon 1986; Wittmer 1991). Directeconomicbenefitsareless importantfor publicsectoremployeesthan for those in the privatesector(Newstrom,Reif,and Monczka motivatorfor private 1976). Payis a much greater sectoremployees,supervisors and (Jurkiewicz, Massey, Brown1998), and managers than it 1993) (Khojasteh is for theirpublicsectorcounterparts. Unlikeprivate arenot sectormanagers, publicsectormanagers (Moon 2000). stronglymotivatedby pay expectancy Basedon an analysis of 34 empirical studies,Boyne (2002) found supportfor only 3 out of 13 hypotheses betweenpublicsectorand aboutthe differences sector studywas not a real private management. T-his it because however, meta-analysis, gaveequalweight other to all studiesincludedand may haveoverlooked we that differences. Although acknowledge significant this might lead to a slightlyskewedpicture,the fact that one of threepositiveresultsindicatedless materialismin publicmanagers previous largelycorroborates Forexample,basedon an analysis of assumptions. 14 nationalsurveys,Crewson(1997) concludesthat aremost importantto private economicrewards sectoremployees. havefound no significant Only a few researchers in the oppositedirection. or differences differences differGabrisand Simo (1995) found no significant the encesfor 20 motivational needs,including need Crewson(1997) found similar for monetaryrewards. resultswhen datawerelimitedto one occupational Maidani(1991) even group,namely,engineers. concludesthat publicsectoremployeesrateextrinsic factors,such as pay,as moreimportantthan do privatesectoremployees.Lewisand Frank(2002) who value found a subtledifference: Respondents are more to income likely preferpublicsector high but less likelyto workfor the public employment we can formulate our sector.Basedon this overview, firsthypothesis: H : Compared to privatesectoremployees, publicsectoremployeesareless motivatedby extrinsicmonetaryrewards. Thereis a broadconsensusthat publicsectoremploymotivated.Leete(2000) ees aremoreintrinsically found that nonprofitorganizations relydisproportionThisalso motivated on employees. ately intrinsically seemsto be the casein the publicsector.Most studies areless haveconcludedthat publicsectorworkers motivated more hence and intrinsically extrinsically (Cacioppeand Mock 1984; Crewson1997). Public sectoremployeesaremoremotivatedby job content, autonomy,interesting recognition, self-development, work,and the chanceto learnnew things (Houston and Brown1998; Karland 2000; Jurkiewicz, Massey,
66 Public Administration Review * JanuarylFebruary 2007

Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993; Newstrom,Reif,and Monczka1976). Only a minorityof studiesreport findingsthat publicsectoremployeesshowweaker internalworkmotivationthan theirprivatesector leadsto our (Aryee1992). Thisanalysis counterparts secondhypothesis: H2:Comparedto privatesectoremployees, aremoremotivatedby publicsectoremployees intrinsicfactors,such as responsibility and self-development. When it comes to the motivational impactof a the literature on supportive workingenvironment, differences betweenthe publicand privatesectorsis silent.Althoughthereis a largebody of studies dealingwith the link betweenmotivationand job the findingsoften areconflicting(Baldwin security, 1987, 1991; Cacioppeand Mock 1984; Crewson 1997; Hammerand VanTassell1983; Houston 2000; and Brown1998; Karland Sutton Jurkiewicz, Massey, 1998; Khojasteh1993; Lewisand Frank2002; and Porter Newstrom,Reif,and Monczka1976; Perry 1982; Rawls,Ulrich,and Nelson 1976; Wittmer 1991). The generalpictureis that, all else beingequal, publicsectoremployeesarestronglymotivatedby and Brown securityand stability(Jurkiewicz, Massey, 1998). Job securityrefersto workers' abilityto retaina to refers the desirable durationof the job;job stability matchbetweena workerand a job. Most studies, not job stability. dealwith job security, however, Job stabilityis a conceptthat is closerto job content or which has more to do workingstylethanjob security, with external economicconditions.Being motivated reflectsfeelings by a supportive workingenvironment et al. 2003), which is of safetyin one'srole (Kihlgren It also encompasses a broader conceptthan stability. the need to workin a friendly, harmonious, respectful Thereis some evidencethat federal atmosphere. executives considertheircoworkers, government moreimportant and bosses significantly colleagues, and Schmidt than do businessexecutives(Posner seem to and 1996), respondmore publicemployees a to stylethan favorably people-oriented leadership do privateemployees(Zeffane1994). Hence, we our thirdhypothesisas follows: formulate to privatesectoremployees, H,: Compared publicsectoremployeesaremoremotivatedby a supportive workingenvironment. commitment on workand organizational The research Buchanan offersmixedresults.Earlyresearch by the beliefthat public (1974a, 1974b, 1975) reinforced havea lowerlevel of organizational sectormanagers Similar commitmentthan businessexecutives. by Rainey(1989). In a findingshavebeen reported of 474 Australian publicsectoremployees comparison and 944 privatesectoremployees,Zeffane(1994)

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

found highercommitmentamongthe latter.Moon havea (2000) found that publicsectormanagers commitmentthan do lowerlevelof organizational in termsof their especially privatesectormanagers, willingnessto expendextraeffort.Goulet and Frank commitment (2002) reportthe lowestorganizational in a sector and employees managers amongpublic of and nonprofit, public sampleconsisting for-profit, sectoremployeesand managers. a higher havereported Some otherstudies,however, levelof commitmentamongpublicsectormanagers or no difference (Rainey1983). Farid(1997), for the organizational commitmentof example,compared frompublicsectorand 54 and 43 middlemanagers and found respectively, privatesectororganizations, no significant differences. Most studiesreportinconandWechsler clusiveor inconsistentfindings(Balfour and Perry(1996) concludethat, 1991). Steinhaus to an industrytypology,a dichotomous compared sectordistinctionis not very publicsector/private in commitment. usefulin explainingdifferences In a criticalreviewof the empirical literature-and in an effortto "debunk negativestereotypes"-Baldwin (1991) concludesthat privatesectorand publicsector employeesareequallymotivated.However,Baldwin's tablemakesclearthat most of the cited summary not streetstudiesdealwith publicsectormanagers, levelpublicsectoremployees.Baldwin's conclusionof only for equalmotivation,then, maybe relevant and not for other managers employees. Differentorganizational (Klineand Peters1991) or nationalcultures(Cho and Lee2001) can explain the fact that public Nevertheless, manydifferences. sectormanagers haveweakerorganizational commitmentthan theirprivatesectorcounterparts is one of the threehypotheses by Boyne's supported overviewof 34 empirical studies(Boyne2002). Balfourand Wechsler(1991) found different correlations betweenpublicsectoremploymentand several dimensionsof commitment.The only consistent betweenpublicsector findingis a negativecorrelation employmentand the willingnessto expendextra effort.Thisdimension,"willingness to exertconsiderableeffort," is one of the threefactorsassociated with commitment(Steinhaus and Perry1996, 278). Workermotivationis often definedas workinglong and intensehours(Baldwin1990). Thisanalysis leads to our fourthhypothesis: H4:Comparedto privatesectoremployees, publicsectoremployeesreportfewerworking hoursand lesswillingnessto exertconsiderable efforton behalfof the organization. Workmotivationis dependentnot only on the sectorof employmentbut also on factorssuch as

2000; Mathieuand Zajac1990; age (Jurkiewicz Wittmer 1991), gender(Kacmar, Sheehy1995; Carlson,and Brymer1999; Lefkowitz1994; Mathieu and Zajac1990), education(Crewson1997; Mathieuand Zajac1990;Wittmer 1991), and level (Jurkiewicz and Massey especially management 1997; Karland Sutton 1998; Moon 2000). When thesedemographic factorsareexamined,the literature seemsto imply that they areless importantthan sectoraldifferences. (Themajorexceptionmight be this basis,we can formulate hierarchical On our level.) fifth and sixthhypotheses: levelis at leastas importantas H,: Hierarchical in the sectorof employmentin differences differences. explainingmotivational H6: Sectorof employmentis moreimportant than demographic datasuch as gender,age, or educationin explaining motivational differences. in hypothesis4 and indicatedby some of As reflected the foregoingstudieson commitment,publicsector employeesreportfewerworkinghoursthan their We hypothesize that this privatesectorcounterparts. is a positivechoice, not a lackof dynamism.If this will hypothesisis true,then publicsectoremployees more time their with families less and spend report we formulate our work-familyconflict.Therefore, seventhhypothesisas follows: to privatesectorworkers,public H,: Compared sectorworkers lesswork-family experience conflict.

Results
Table1 reportsthe betavaluesof seven simultaneous analyses.(Theresearch regression in the and design methodologyaredescribed appendix.) We assumedthat civil servants areless extrinsically motivated(hypothesis1). Our findingson motivation Civil by salary largelyconfirmedthis assumption: servants weresignificantly less motivatedby salary (t= -11.84,p < .001). Thiswas the highestt valuefor sectoraldifferences. Hypothesis2 is not confirmedby the data;rather, the oppositeseemsto be true.Civil servants wereless motivatedby self-development -1.93, (t= p= .053) and slightlylessmotivatedby responsibility (t=-1.38, in self-development were p=.17). Differences marginally significant, supportingthe positionof some researchers that publicsectoremployeesare lessmotivatedby challengeand personalgrowth and Brown1998). (Jurkiewicz, Massey,
Differences in Work Motivation 67

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1 BetaValues forSevenSimultaneous Table Analyses Regression Variable Dependent hours Working

Totalcommitment Motivationby salary Motivatedby workingin a supportiveenvironment Motivationby self-development Motivationby responsibility

Gendera -.10***
.01 -.16*** .04* .02 -.00

Ageb -.03
.05** -.05** .10*** -.01 -.07***

Educationc Leveld .00

.05** -.16*** -.21*** -.06** .05**

Sectore -.13***
-.11*** -.19*** .06*** -.03 -.02

R2

.39***
.37*** .12*** -.13*** .28*** .33***

.19***
.17*** .09*** .09*** .07*** .12***

conflict Work-family

.05**

.03

.00

.10***

-.07***

.02**

thatwomenscored on thisvariable. aApositive signindicates higher on thisvariable. scored bA positive thatolderrespondents signindicates higher on thisvariable. that more educated scored cApositive indicates respondents higher highly sign levels on thisvariable. thatthosewithhigher scored dA positive higher signindicates on thisvariable. servants scored thatcivil eA positive signindicates higher
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

by the data.Our Hypothesis3 is partially supported motivated scalemeasuring by a supportive "being clear had a environment" loadingon working a proxyfor be considered could and "certainty" were Public sector workers "motivation by stability." morestronglymotivatedby the desireto workin a workingenvironment(t= 3.45;p < .001). supportive Hypothesis4 is stronglysupported.Publicsector fewerworkinghours workersreported significantly (t= -8.94; p < .001). The samewas truefor "total were for which publicservants commitmentto work," committed(t= -7.28, p < .001). less unconditionally levelwas even more hierarchical Forboth variables, < .001 and t= 21.76; p < .001), important(t= 23.18; p view that hierarchical to the lendingstrongsupport in comparing variable level is a strongmoderator publicsectorand privatesectoremployees. The most pronounced findingconfirmshypothesis5: Hierarchical levelseemsto be the most important in motivation.Hierarfactorin explainingdifferences for all variables, chicallevelwas highlysignificant and as commitment variables such for all especially related variables. or closely responsibility for Table1 also showsthat genderwas also significant in as other data as well The hours. literature, working our surveythat arenot reported here,showsthat women workfewerhoursin the office.However, they morehoursat home, globally worksignificantly enjoyingless freetime than men. It is clearfrom for motivationby table1 that genderwas significant Age was salaryand motivationby good relationships. Theseresultsare for a numberof variables. significant Olderemployeeshavea lesser easyto interpret: want to workin a the organization, to leave tendency motivatedby are less and environment, supportive seems level important especially salary. Management in explaining workinghoursand commitmentto work,lendingstrongsupportto Baldwin(1987) and Moon Karland Sutton (1998), and contradicting

The patternof resultsin table1 does not support of employment" hypothesis6. Only once was "sector the variable with the highestexplanatory powergender,age, and educationseem to be at leastas important. betweenthe differences How can the motivational Sectormay be publicand privatesectorsbe explained? linkedto job content,which, in turn, may determine it is not motivational patterns.Perhaps respondents' in the public the sectoritselfbut the jobs available sectorthat lackmotivational appeal(Wrightand Davis 2003). Manyjobs in largebureaucraciesprivatesectoror publicsector-lack motivating or task such as skillvariety, characteristics feedback, differthe observed identity(Aryee1992). Perhaps encesbetweenthe sectorsarebetterexplainedby 2 showsthat both in job content.Table differences on that different samplesweredramatically dimension. of The privatesectorhas a much higherpercentage and salesfunctions,and the publicsector marketing of administrative has a much higherpercentage in represented functions.Giventhe largedifferences betweenboth functions,the observeddifferences in to differences attributable sectorsmay be (partially) in of sector to not differences content, employjob the verysmallnumberof ment. Unfortunately, commercial employeesin the publicsectormakesit statistically impossibleto correctfor this difference. we Therefore, appliedtwo indirectmethods.First,we functions and administrative commercial compared both we sector. within the private Second, compared The results functionsonly. sectorsfor administrative in table3. arepresented The patternof resultsin table3 is veryclear.Differencesbetweenthe privateand publicsectorsare betweenadminisin the differences directlymirrored functionswithin the private trativeand commercial sector.Thereseemsto be a generalmotivational with administrative jobs, be patternthat is associated

(2000).
68 Public Administration Review * JanuaryIFebruary2007

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Function Table2 Differences between the Private andPublic Sectors

25 percentfor work-familyconflict,and almostzero for motivationby salary.

Sector Public Private Sector that publicsectoremployeesaremoti(percent) (percent) Emphasizing General management andpurchasing Logistics Administrative Salesandmarketing Finance andaccounting Personnel Information communications andtechnology Technical support Other (R&D, etc.) engineering,

vatedby a "goodcause" may explainwhy they areless motivatedby money.However,it offersno explanation as to why they consistently reportfewerworking hoursand less total commitmentto work,even when differences in job content aretakeninto account. for Working the good causemay also require long Public workinghoursor pose greater challenges. sectoremployeesmay makefundamental choicesand 6 7 to a more lead life. balanced prefer 24 26 Perhaps they invest more in theirprivatelivesand simplydo not want to Research on the relationship join the "ratrace." it in the privatesectoror in the publicsector.Follow- between workinghoursand healthshowsa link model (Hackman betweenhoursof workand ill healthand between ing the lines of the job characteristic and Oldham 1980), administrative jobs seem to hold with work-familyconflictand lackof satisfaction lowermotivatingpotentialthan commercial jobs, a et al. 1997). Do public one'spersonallife (Sparks fact that may be reflected in the aspectsof skillvariety, sector employeestry to escapethis vulnerability? taskidentity,tasksignificance, autonomy,and Is work-familybalancea motivational factor? feedback. and Saltzstein (Saltzstein, 2001). Ting,
11 4 10 30 8 5 6 10 1 31 2 8 9 4

On the otherhand, table3 also showsthat most differences betweenthe publicsectorand the private sectorremained evenwhen the type of job significant was held constant.Forexample,civil servants reported about five fewerworkinghoursthan theirprivate sectorcounterparts. Foradministrative jobs only, this difference was reducedto two hoursand a quarter of an hour,respectively. Thisdifference, was however, still statistically verysignificant. Can we estimatethe relative of sectorand importance function?Differentanalyses of variance show that, to sectoraldifferences, the importance of compared in function (administrative differences versus nonadministrative in jobs)varieswidely.Differences functionexplainalmost 100 percentof the observed differences for self-development and responsibility, 75 percentfor motivationby respect,50 percentfor workinghoursand total commitmentto the job,

Table1 showsthat, as predictedin hypothesis7, lesswork-family publicsectoremployeesreported conflict (t= -4.09; p < .001). Otherdatain the survey (not stronglysupportthis view.Other analyses in table show that also 1) reported they reported with familylife (t= 4.21; p < .001), highersatisfaction morehoursfor privatetime (t= 6.80; p < .001), and even longersleepinghours(t= 1.96;p= .05). This patternof resultsclearlysupportsa positive choice approach. Publicsectoremployeesareless motivatedby money and workchallengeand less committedto long workinghoursthan theirprivate sectorcounterparts, for the simplereasonthat they are moremotivatedby leadinga balanced life.

Discussion
Table1 demonstrates that, with the exceptionof motivationby salary, hierarchical levelseemsto matter

Associated withBetaValues in SevenSimultaneous Effect of Function andSector Table3 t Values Regression Analyses: Difference between Difference betweenPrivate and Difference betweenPrivate and Administrative andCommercial Public Administrative Public AllFunctions Sector, Sector, Private Sectora Functions Functions, (SeeTable Onlyb 1)c -3.73*** -1.55 -2.50* 1.22 -1.49 -3.48*** -2.00* -2.98** -4.92*** -4.35*** 1.92(p=.06) -.79 -.23 -2.17* -8.94*** -7.28*** -11.84*** 3.45*** -1.93 -1.38 -4.09***

Variable Dependent hours Working Total commitment Motivation bysalary Motivated ina byworking environment supportive Motivation byself-development Motivation byresponsibility conflict Work-family

aApositive thatinthe private signindicates administrative functions scored thancommercial functions on thisvariable. sector, higher bA positive thatcivil servants scored on thisvariable. signindicates higher cApositive thatcivil servants scored on thisvariable. signindicates higher
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Differences in Work Motivation 69

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in sector.Thisresultcorrobomore than differences ratesthe findingsof research showingthat motivafor higher-and tionalpatternsdiffersignificantly The formerare lower-level publicsectoremployees. moreprivatesector-like,with high commitment,high and smallergapsbetweenwhat theywant satisfaction, and Massey1997). and what they get (Jurkiewicz variable. Job content is also a verystrongmoderator Once again,motivationby salaryseemsto be the importantexception.On the otherhand, differences in internalmotivation(self-development and motivaseem to be completelythe tion by responsibility) in job content. Commitmentto resultof differences the job (Leeand Olshfski2002) is at leastas imporor to the tant as commitmentto the organization the we can understand interest. Hence, public with much of the of our nature conflicting findings literature.

worksectorwereeven moremotivatedby a balanced in hierarchidifferences However, familyrelationship. cal leveland in the percentage of part-time versus full-timeworkers differexplainmanyof the observed ences.Because we could not find theoretical or we set up a empirical supportin the extantliterature, research program dealingwith this questionof sectoral in work-familybalance.Preliminary differences evidencefromthis program, specifically dealingwith areindeed that question,suggeststhat civil servants moremotivatedby balancingthe workand family The lackof empirical studiesin this fieldspheres. or our positive whethersupporting disconfirming choicehypothesis-is certainly striking.Considering the manygapsthat remainto be filled,furtherefforts in this areaarelikelyto constitutea fruitfulavenueof research.

Our resultscontributeto the debateon the new in the publicsector(Box 1999; managerialism exhibit VanGramberg on the Our resultsconfirmmost of our hypotheses 2000). Publicsectormanagers that is similar to in workmotivationbetweenpublicsector a motivational differences privatesector profile at a lower level. to and privatesectoremployees,and they maypoint However, managers management havefound conflicting reasons manyof the conceptsintroducedby the New Public why otherresearchers movementareaimedat higher-level in workmotivation results.Forexample,differences Management or total can be stronglyconfoundedby factorssuch as gender, profiles: entrepreneurship, empowerment, not This commitment. new level. If are or hierarchical content, may samples languagesimply age, job in or if the to civil servants matchedon thosevariables, not carefully positions. appeal many managerial out in the statistical effectsarenot partialed analyses, Justas tax officersor prisonguardshavethe greatest in perceiving theirtargetgroupsas clients, differences can be easilyexplainedby such difficulties unexpected in the civil service variables. may not easilyperceive managers confounding as newmanagers. The new management themselves total often of differences the our observed Do commitment,a price techniques require support stereotype that manypublicsectoremployeesmay not be ready Are fewerworkinghours,even the lazybureaucrat? when job content is controlledfor,and weakeroverall to pay. of a negative commitmentto workreflections working References do publicsectoremployees attitude? Alternatively, makea positivechoiceby choosinga well-balanced Ambrose,MaureenL., and CarolT. Kulik. 1999. New Faces: MotivationResearch Old Friends, life?Our datasupportthe latterview.Publicsector in the for do not make choices. 1990s. 25(3): Journal ofManagement They opt positive employees 231-92. the ratrace.Theywant respectfor theirown working Sector Aryee,Samuel.1992. Publicand Private rhythms,theirpersonallives,theirqualitytime, and of A Their Professionals: seems to this idea theirfamilypriorities. Study Comparative Although and Work Perceived we could with casual Experience. Group observation, identify correspond 17(1): 72-85. Management Organization only a singlestudyshowingthat publicsectoremployNot versusPrivate: Norman Public 1987. Baldwin, J. ees aremorestronglymotivatedby work-family Public ThatDifferent,Not ThatConsequential. balance: Theyareless inclinedthan privatesector 16(2): 181-93. to relocatetheirfamilyfor a betterjob PersonnelManagement managers - . 1990. Perceptions of PublicversusPrivate (Posnerand Schmidt1996). Of course,manyother and InformalRedTape:Their SectorPersonnel as partof a larger remainopen. Therefore, alternatives Review American ofPublic Impacton Motivation. contract,we set studyof the so-calledpsychological Administration 7-28. 20(1): from the 462 workers a similar public study (with up - . 1991. Public versus Private Employees: sectorand 3,407 fromthe privatesector)to deal In that this Stereotypes. Review ofPublic Personnel with Debunking study, finding. directly unexpected Administration 11(1-2): 1-27. motiare what asked to were degreethey respondents L., Balfour, Danny and BartonWechsler.1991. vatedby a morebalanced work-familyrelationship.
The results indicate that public sector employees are
in and Productivity Commitment,Performance, and PublicProductivity PublicOrganizations.
Management Review 14(4): 355-67.

workmoremotivatedby a balanced significantly from the nonprofit Respondents familyrelationship.

70 Public Administration Review * JanuaryIFebruary2007

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Likea C. 1999. RunningGovernment Box, Richard Administration Business: for Public Implications American Review Theoryand Practice. ofPublic Administration 19-43. 29(1): Boyne,GeorgeA. 2002. Publicand Private What'sthe Difference? Journalof Management: Studies 39(1): 97-122. Management Buchanan,Bruce.1974a. BuildingOrganizational in of Managers Commitment:The Socialization Science WorkOrganizations. Administrative 509-32. 19(4): Quarterly . 1974b. Government Business Managers, and Organizational Commitment. Executives, Public Administration Review 34(4): 339-47. . 1975. RedTapeand ServiceEthic:Some betweenPublicand UnexpectedDifferences & Society Private Administration 6(4): Managers. 423-44. Cacioppe,Ron, and PhilipMock. 1984. A in of the Qualityof WorkExperience Comparison Human Government and Private Organizations. Relations 37(11): 923-40. Cho, Kyung-Ho,and Seok-HwanLee.2001. Another Lookat Public-Private Distinctionand A Cultural Commitment: Organizational International Explanation. of Journal 9(1): 84-102. Analysis Organizational Cohen. 1983. Applied Cohen,Jacob,and Patricia for theBehavioral Multiple Regression/Correlation Sciences. Erlbaum. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Crewson,PhilipE. 1997. PublicServiceMotivation: Evidenceof Incidenceand BuildingEmpirical Research Effect. JournalofPublicAdministration and 7heory 499-518. 7(4): Farid,MamadouhI. 1997. Job Characteristics, and Organizational Commitment Leadership, as Perceived in the Egyptian by Managers Publicand Private Sectors. Academy of Strategic and Organizational Journal1(1): Leadership 20-31. Gabris,GeraldT., and GloriaSimo. 1995. Public SectorMotivationas an Independent Variable AffectingCareerDecisions.PublicPersonnel 24(1): 33-51. Management L. Frank.2002. Goulet, Laurel R., and Margaret CommitmentacrossThreeSectors: Organizational PublicPersonnel Public,Non-Profit,and For-Profit. 31(2): 201-10. Management Richard Hackman, J., and GregOldman. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley. Hammer,Eliot R., and Dick VanTassell.1983. On the Issueof Publicvs. Private SectorMotivation: Have the Stereotypes Been Debunked? Public Personnel 12(3): 282-89. Management Heckman,JamesJ. 1979. SampleSelectionBiasas a Error. Econometrica 47(1): 153-61. Specification Houston, DavidJ. 2000. PublicServiceMotivation: A Multivariate Test.Journal ofPublicAdministration Research and ?heory 10(4): 713-27.

X and the CaroleL. 2000. Generation Jurkiewicz, PublicEmployee.PublicPersonnel Management 29(1): 55-76. CaroleL., andTom K. Massey, Jr. Jurkiewicz, 1997. What MotivatesMunicipalEmployees: A Comparison vs. Studyof Supervisory Personnel. Public Non-Supervisory Personnel 26(3): 367-76. Management CaroleL., Tom K. Massey, Jurkiewicz, Jr.,and RogerG. Brown.1998. Motivationin Public A Comparative and Private Study. Organizations: PublicProductivity and Management Review 21(3): 230-50. MicheleK., Dawn S. Carlson,and Kacmar, RobertA. Brymer.1999. Antecedents and of Commitment: Consequences Organizational A Comparison of Two Scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(6): 976-94. Karl,Katherine A., and CynthiaL. Sutton. 1998. Job A Comparison Valuesin Today's Workforce: of Public Publicand PrivateSectorEmployees. Personnel 27(4): 515-27. Management Mak. vs. 1993. Khojasteh, Motivatingthe Private PublicSectorManagers. PublicPersonnel 22(3): 391-401. Management AnnicaL., Ingegerd Kirsti Kihlgren, Fagerberg, and Mona Kihlgren. 2003. Referrals Skovdahl, from Home Careto Emergency HospitalCare: Basisfor Decisions.Journalof ClinicalNursing 12(1): 28-36. H. Peters.1991. Kline,CathyJ., and Lawrence Behavioral CommitmentandTenureof New A Replication and Extension. Employees: Academy 34(1): 194-204. ofManagementJournal Lee, Seok-Hwan,and DorothyOlshfski.2002. It'sMy EmployeeCommitmentand Firefighters: 62: Review Job. Specialissue,PublicAdministration 108-14. 2000. WageEquityand Employee Leete,Laura. Motivationin Nonprofitand For-Profit and Behavior JournalofEconomic Organizations. 43(4): 423-46. Organization Differences in Job Joel. 1994. Sex-Related Lefkowitz, Attitudesand Dispositional Now You Variables: See Them, ... Academy ofManagement Journal 37(2): 323-49. Lewis,GregoryB., and SueA. Frank.2002. Who Wantsto Workfor the Government? Public Administration Review 62(4): 395-404. A. 1991. Comparative Maidani,Ebrahim Studyof Two-Factor Theoryof Job Satisfaction Herzberg's Sectors.PublicPersonnel amongPublicand Private 20(4): 441-48. Management Mathieu,John E., and Dennis M. Zajac.1990. A Reviewand Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, and Consequences of Organizational Correlates, Commitment.Psychological Bulletin108(2): 171-94.

Differences in Work Motivation 71

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Commitment Moon, M. Jae.2000. Organizational Revisitedin New PublicManagement: Motivation, and Level. Culture, Organizational Managerial PublicPerformance andManagement Review 24(2): 177-94. Naff, Katherine C., andJohn Crum. 1999. Working forAmerica: Does PublicServiceMotivationMake a Difference? Review ofPublicPersonnel Administration 19(4): 5-16. Newstrom,JohnW., WilliamE. Reif,and RobertM. Monczka.1976. Motivatingthe PublicEmployee: Factvs. Fiction.PublicPersonnel 5(1): Management 67-72. PublicService JamesL. 1996. Measuring Perry, An Assessment Motivation: of Construct and Validity. JournalofPublic Reliability Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5-22. of PublicService 1997. Antecedents Motivation. JournalofPublicAdministration Research and Theory 7(2): 181-97. a . 2000. BringingSocietyIn:Toward Motivation. Journalof Theoryof Public-Service PublicAdministration Research and Theory 10(2): 471-88. JamesL., and LymanW. Porter.1982. Factors Perry, Affectingthe Contextfor Motivationin Public Review Organizations. Academy ofManagement 7(1): 89-98. JamesL., and LoisR. Wise. 1990. The Perry, Motivational Basesof PublicService.Public Administration Review50(3): 367-73. H. Schmidt. 1996. The Posner,BarryZ., andWarren Valuesof Businessand Federal Government MoreDifferentThanAlike.Public Executives: Personnel 25(3): 277-89. Management G. Hal Reward Preferences 1982. Rainey, among In Searchof the Publicand Private Managers: Review ServiceEthic.American ofPublic Administration 16(4): 288-302. Firms: . 1983. PublicAgenciesand Private Roles. IncentiveStructures, Goals,and Individual Administration & Society15(2): 207-42. RecentResearch 1989. PublicManagement: on the PoliticalContextand Managerial Roles, and Behaviors. Structures, JournalofManagement 15(2): 229-50. Bozeman.2000. Rainey,Hal G., and Barry Private and Public Organizations: Comparing Research and the Powerof the A Priori. Empirical Research and Journalof PublicAdministration 10(2): 447-69. Theory Rawls,JamesR., RobertA. Ulrich,and OscarT. of Managers Nelson. 1976. A Comparison the Profitand Nonprofit Enteringor Reentering

Sectors. Academy ofManagement Journal18(5): 616-62. StevenG., andAlexandra Rogelberg, Luong. 1998. A to Mailed Surveys: Reviewand Nonresponse Guide. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(2): 60-65. Alan L, Yuan Saltzstein, Ting, and GraceH. Saltzstein. 2001. Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: TheImpactof Family-Friendly Policieson Attitudesof Federal Government Public Administration Review 61(4): Employees. 452-66. A. Colletti,and L. Knowles. Schuster, JayR., Jerome betweenPerceptions 1973. The Relationship of Payand Perceived ConcerningMagnitudes Utility of Pay:Publicand Private Organizations Behavior and Human Compared.Organizational 9(1): 100-19. Performance Sheehy,Gail. 1995. New Passages: Life MappingYour across Time.New York: RandomHouse. and PublicSector Solomon,EstherE. 1986. Private An of Job Managers: Empirical Investigation Characteristics and Organizational Climate. 71(2): 247-59. JournalofApplied Psychology Yitzhak Kate,CaryCooper, Fried,andArie Sparks, Shirom.1997. The Effectsof Hoursof Workon Review. Health:A Meta-Analytic Journal of and Organizational 70(4): Occupational Psychology 391-408. Steinhaus,Carol,andJamesL. Perry.1996. Commitment:Does SectorMatter? Organizational PublicProductivity andManagement Review19(3): 278-88. in Van Gramberg, Bernadine. 2000. Managerialism LocalGovernment-Victoria,Australia. International Management JournalofPublicSector 13(5):476-92. Wittmer,Dennis. 1991. Servingthe Peopleor Serving for Pay:Reward Preferences amongGovernment, Public HybridSector,and BusinessManagers. Review14(4): andManagement Productivity 369-83. E. 2001. Public-Sector Work Wright,Bradley A Reviewof the CurrentLiterature Motivation: and a RevisedConceptualModel.Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory 11(4): 559-86. E., and BrianS. Davis.2003. Job Wright,Bradley in the PublicSector-The Role of the Satisfaction American Review WorkEnvironment. ofPublic Administration 33(1): 70-90. of Organizational Zeffane,Rachid.1994. Patterns Commitmentand Perceived Management Style:A of Publicand Private Sector Comparison HumanRelations 47(8): 977-1010. Employees.

72

Public Administration Review * JanuarylFebruary2007

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Appendix:Methodologyand Research Design

Data Collection Datawerecollectedin Belgiumthrougha large-scale which Vacature, surveyin the Flemishnewspaper in recruitment communication and job specializes as a supplementto four and is distributed advertising nationalnewspapers and two magazines. Respondents titled "HowHardDo the could replyto the survey, FlemishWork?" on paperor on the Internet.Respondentsanswered 125 questionsdealingwith the numberof hoursspenton work,leisuretime, sleep,and family;otherquestionsdealtwith workmotivation, complaints, job and life satisfaction, psychosomatic and intentionto leavethe job. Ten questionsdealt with biographical data,includingsectorof employment.

To dealwith outliers,a straightforward policywas errors werecorrected and adopted.Typographical other datawererespected as much as possible.The numberof workinghourswas 120. highestreported that the person Inspectionof this caserevealed four hours only per night, did not reportedly slept investin familylife, and took only one hour off perweek. About 1 percentof respondents total activireported ties that required morethan 168 hoursperweek. In those cases,we limitedthe reported off-worktime so that the maximumof 168 was not surpassed.

The Problem of Autoselection Our sampleis clearlyautoselective. This can cause and Luong validity(Rogelberg problemsof external solutionfor problemsof 1998). The only meaningful autoselection is to determinethe variable by which autoselect themselves and respondents incorporate Sample, Missing Values, and Outliers this variable into the finalanalysis(Heckman1979). The sampleof 5,853 respondents was moreor less In practice,this variable is seldomknown. If this of the professional representative workingpopulation, in surveys, variable hypothetical (e.g., interested with overrepresentation of males(73 percent)and a distributed reading widely newspaper, higher workers(only 1 percent (white-collar) professional in the analysis-in Differentage groups,educational socioeconomicclass)is introduced blue collarworkers). analysis- the onl, regression maritalstatuses,sectorsof employment, our case,a simultaneous backgrounds, that must be made is of thi assumption independence levelswerewell educationlevels,and management variable and our focal variable hypothetical dummy In orderto comparemotivational represented. (publicsectoremployeeversusprivatesector).This variables and workinghours,only answers from is certainly realistic. It is difficultto full-timeworkers wereanalyzed. Out of 5,853 respon- assumption conceive of a variable that would be an important dentsworkingfull time, 3,314 could be identifiedas determinant of autoselection at the sametime, and, workingin the privatesectorand 409 in the public correlates with the difference betweenthe sector.An additional782 respondents belongedto the strongly and sectors and does not private public strongly so-calledhybridsector(Wittmer1991). A total of with the othervariables correlate in the model.To pui 424 wereemployedin educationand 358 in health it differently, even if such an autoselection variable care.Finally,1,258 respondents such replied"other," its be influence would small becaus existed, extremely as the unemployed, and farmers, students, lawyers, most its of be influence would absorbed the other by retiredpersons; did not answerthe 90 respondents such as age, gender,or hierarchical levelvariables, question. variables that aremuch morelikelyto be influenced Of course,if our analyses werebasec by autoselection. Private and publicsectoremployeesdid not differ on comparing meansand standard deviations with an on gender(both groupshad about26 statistically absolutenormor with averages fromotherstudies,th percentfemalerespondents), reported management conclusionscould be verymisleading. We would level (on a five-pointscalerangingfromemployeeto means and standard deviations of report respondents seniormanager), education,and maritalstatus.The we primarily However, readyto answera survey. difference was age: only statistically significant In thesecases,autoselection is a reportdifferences. The public sector group was significantly older much lowerthreatto external validity. than the privatesectorgroup(average agewas 39 for and 36 for privatesector publicsectorrespondents selectionby the researcher Furthermore, (e.g., "alarge t= 5.73;p < .001). respondents; midwestern the most common municipality"), resultsin exactlythe practicein this kind of research, sameproblem.Researchers haveto assumeindepenAny large-scale surveyis hinderedby the problem dence of the selectionvariable and the criterion of missingvalues.The shareof missingvalueswas 1.19 percent,rangingfrom 0.35 percentto 0.50 In practice,this is often questionable. variable. One for has access on to the "local administration" and and percent questions gender,age group, easy educationto 4 percenton morepersonalquestions. difficultaccessto the companyor vice versa.The These figures are well below the 5 percent that is collectionperiodin both organizations is different, considered and the distribution of questionnaires within both (Cohenand Cohen 1983). acceptable
Differences in Work Motivation 73

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

followsdifferent Nevertheless, patterns. organizations is sometimesquestionable, if even this assumption seem to acceptit and even seem to most publications of rangefollowingfrom acceptthe clearrestriction this research design.

* "Aquietworkingatmosphere is importantto me." * "Certainty is importantto me."

The validityof this scalecan only be inferred from our own data:Olderpeopleandwomen weremore motivatedby workingin a supportive working Scale Development and for higher-educated environment; respondents a surveyin a well-known,widelydistribthose at higherhierarchical levels,it was less imporPublishing a large of reaching has the advantage uted magazine tant. The highestscoreswerein healthcareand numberof respondents. in our more However,therearealso some education(followedby "public sector," it is Available constraints. were the lowest scores restricted limited, sense); space making reported to collectdatathroughexistingscalesthat in consultancy, and construction. distribution, impractical based arewidelystudiedbut alsolengthy.Therefore, with measureThe scalealso correlated moderately a numberof shorter mentsof soft behaviors on existingscales,we constructed with such as satisfaction A total of dealt Likert scales. 23 questions five-point colleagues. with workmotivationand commitment.Basedon four motivational we constructed factoranalysis, The scalefor totalworkcommitment(Cronbach's scales:motivationby salary(Cronbach's alpha=.69) the alpha= .76) had sevenitemsdescribing had threeitems (e.g., "Ahigh salaryis important total commitment-for example,"If employee's for selfto me");motivationby opportunities I workhard,it is becausemy job is my life,"or alpha=.70) had fouritems development(Cronbach's "Mostof the time, I am preoccupied by my work." it is becauseI can develop I work hard, "If very (e.g., Itemsweretakenfromexistingscalesmeasuring myselfcompletelyin my job");motivationby andworkdrive. citizenshipbehavior organizational (Cronbach's alpha=.78) had threeitems The scale responsibility reflects the willingnessto exert primarily is importantto me"); responsibility (e.g., "Assuming efforton behalfof the organization considerable and motivationby workingin a supportive working and Perry1996, 278). Work-family (Steinhaus environment(Cronbach's alpha=.72) had four items. conflict (Cronbach's alpha=.70) had two items, betweenthe scalesrangedfrom Intercorrelations "How often did you experience of was which one .11 to .36. conflictsbetweenworkand family?" to widelyknown The firstthreescalescorrespond measurements. motivational Manyobservations point Method to validityhere:Forexample,the scorefor motivation We performed regression multiplesimultaneous four seven for in the hotel and was analyses dependentvariables: catering by salary highest in motivation lowest educain and scales,reported business,veryhigh banking, workinghours,total to and for commitment work, tion, and the scorefor motivationby opportunities work-familyconflict. were the sectorof employment variables low in the transport was extremely Independent self-development versus business. private),gender,age, education,and (public level. Forour focus, the most important management was to ensurethat other concern The scalefor motivationby workingin a supportive methodological a when discussing werekept quite separate variables had four items: workingenvironment differences that motivational so variable, particular * "Respect betweenemployeesfrom privatesectorand public workrhythmis imporfor everybody's tant to me. could not be explainedby sectororganizations * "Agood understanding in age, gender,education,or differences is with colleagues level. organizational importantto me."

74

Public Administration Review * Januaryl February2007

This content downloaded from 175.111.90.100 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:30:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions