a comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector...

A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public Sector, and ParapublicSector EmployeesAuthor(s): Sean T. Lyons, Linda E. Duxbury and Christopher A. HigginsSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2006), pp. 605-618Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3843945 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 13:46

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:46:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3843945?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Motivation and

Performance

Sean T. Lyons St. Francis Xavier University Linda E. Duxbury Carleton University Christopher A. Higgins University of Western Ontario

A Comparison of the Values and Commitment

of Private Sector, Public Sector, and Parapublic Sector

Employees

Sean T. Lyons is an assistant professor at the Gerald Schwartz School of Business and Information Systems at St. Francis Xavier University (Canada). His research focuses on generational differences in basic human values and work values, work-family conflict, and work attitudes in the public service. Lyons holds a doctorate in management and a master's in public administration. He has worked and consulted extensively in Canadian federal government organizations. E-mail: [email protected].

Linda E. Duxbury is a professor at the Sprott School of Business, Carleton University (Canada). Her research focuses on work-family conflict, supportive work environments, and stress. She was appointed to the Fryer Commission on Labor-Management Relations in the Canadian federal government and was awarded the Public Service Citation from the Association of Public Service Executives for her work on supportive work environments. E-mail: [email protected].

Chris A. Higgins is a professor of manage? ment science and information systems at the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario (Canada). His research focuses on the impact of technology on individuals, including computerized performance monitoring in the service sector; champions of technologi? cal innovation; office information systems; alternative work arrangements; and, most recently, work and family issues and their impact on individual organizations. E-mail: [email protected].

This study investigated differences in general values, work values and organizational commitment among 549private sector, public sector, andparapublic sector

knowledge workers. No differences in general values were observed across sectors, although five significant work value differences were revealed: parapublic employees value work that contributes to society more than public servants, who value it more than private sector employees; parapublic employees value opportunities for advancement less than both public and private sector employees; public servants value intellectually stimulating and

challenging work more than parapublic employees; and

private sector employees value prestigious work more than

public servants. Private sector employees displayedgreater organizational commitment than the employees in the other two sectors. Overall, the findings suggest only lim? ited value differences among employees ofthe various sec? tors. The finding ofsome work value differences between

employees in the public and parapublic sectors suggests that these two groups merit separate consideration in

comparative studies such as this one.

The

nature and extent of differences between

employees and organizations of the public and

private sectors has long been a topic of academic debate. Although much of the debate has centered on structural differences between public and private organizations, there has also been a long- standing interest in the differences between public and

private sector employees. During the past decade, the New Public Management (NPM) movement (Barzelay 2001; Osborne and Gaebler 1992) has downplayed sectoral distinctions through its implicit suggestion that "management is management," regardless of sec? tor. The NPM paradigm has its roots in the business

concepts of customer service and total quality management and in

public-choice theory, a branch of economics that views individuals as self-interested and rational decision makers who primarily seek to maximize their personal utility (Argyriades 2003; Borins

2002). Consequently, career choices are viewed as the outcome of rational and self-interested job seekers' choice between the competing options of public and

private sector jobs in order to obtain the maximum set of personal rewards (Argyriades 2003; Perry and Wise

1990). This perspective implies that sectoral distinctions are becoming increasingly irrelevant to job seek?

ers, that is, a job is a job, regardless ofthe sector in which the organization operates.

The contrasting view, espoused by proponents of

public-service motivation (e.g., Frederickson and Hart

1985; Perry and Porter 1982; Perry and Wise 1990), is that individuals are drawn to careers in public service

primarily by a unique set of altruistic motives such as

wanting to serve the public interest, effect social

change, and shape the policies that affect society. This

perspective views public service as a distinct profession or calling to which certain types of people are morally compelled. This implies that job seekers do not neces-

sarily view private sector and public sector jobs as

competing options; an individual who is drawn to a career in public service would choose a public sector

job even if the economic rewards were not competitive with comparable jobs in the private sector.

The opposition of these two perspectives begs the

question of whether there is a unique set of values that differentiates individuals who choose public service careers from those who elect to work in the private sector. Our knowledge of the existence and nature of such sectoral value differences has important implica? tions for public sector organizations. With a work? force that is aging faster than the labor force in general (Lowe 2001), public organizations face the challenge

of attracting and retaining young people in public-service careers to replace the aging baby boom cohort as it approaches retire- ment (Lewis and Frank 2002).

Knowing what types of people are most drawn to careers in

public service is an important

Knowing what types of people are most drawn to careers in

public service is an important

step in recruiting and retaining new public servants.

A Comparison of Values and Commitment 605



step in recruiting and retaining new public servants. If NPM theorists are correct, then public organizations will need to find ways to compete with the extrinsic rewards offered by private sector organizations in order to recruit talent. If, however, individuals are drawn to the public sector by a motivation to serve the public interest, public organizations will need to focus their recruitment efforts on the challenges and rewards of service for the public good. If this is the

case, public organizations will be able to attract high- quality employees despite their inability to compete with the economic rewards offered by private sector

organizations (Alonso and Lewis 2001).

The goal of this study is to investigate whether there are identifiable sectoral differences in the general values, work values, and organizational commitment of employees. This article makes three unique contri- butions to the literature on value differences across sectors. First, by importing established constructs from the fields of organizational behavior and social

psychology, we hope to bring a new perspective to this important topic. To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated sectoral differences in both

general values and work values. Second, unlike past studies, which have included widely varied occupations within their definition of public service, we focus exclusively on knowledge workers.1 Limiting the sample to knowledge work occupations helps to control for a number of variables that are related to the type of work one does (e.g., education, income, and general socioeconomic status), which may con- found observed value differences. Third, past re? search has varied widely in its definition of the

public sector. Some researchers have limited public sector samples to employees of government agencies (e.g., Alonso and Lewis 2001; Blank 1985; Rainey 1979; Young, Worchel, and Woehr 1998), whereas others have included such professions as education and health care within their definitions of public service (e.g., Karl and Sutton 1998).2 This disparity in the definitions of the public sector makes com?

parison between samples difficult. The present study is unique in that it considers public administrators

(i.e., people employed directly by government agen? cies) separately from employees in the parapublic sector3 (i.e., those employed in the extended public service, including publicly funded education and health care) and investigates differences between these groups.

The article begins with an overview of the concepts of

interest?general values, work values, and organiza? tional commitment?and a review of past findings concerning sectoral differences on these variables. We then describe the sample and methodology for the

present study and discuss our findings. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and directions for future research.

Theoretical Framework Our objective in this article is threefold: First, we seek to determine whether there are significant differences in the general values held by public servants, parapublic-sector employees and private sector employees. This will give us an indication of whether individuals

working in the public service hold a value set that differs from their private sector counterparts. Second, we seek to determine whether public sector, parapublic-sector, and private sector employees differ in what

they seek from their work. This will provide some indication of whether people are drawn to one sector or the other on the basis of their work values. Third, we seek to determine whether employees in the three sectors differ with respect to their level of commit? ment to their organizations. Including this attitudinal outcome in the study will allow us to determine whether public sector, parapublic-sector, and private sector organizations vary in their ability to engender feelings of dedication and involvement in their em?

ployees. Each of these concepts is explored in greater detail in the following sections.

General Values A value can be defined as an "enduring belief that a

specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is

personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence"

(Rokeach 1973, 5). Values are goals or criteria that we use to determine the desirability of certain actions or motives in our lives. Values may be considered cogni- tive expressions of human needs, but they also have an affective component, evoking strong emotion when

they are contravened (Bilsky and Schwartz 1994; Locke 1976; Rokeach 1973). Unlike attitudes, which are specific to some target object, such as a person, activity, or thing, general values transcend specific contexts (Rokeach 1973). The general nature of values

places them at the core of one's psychological identity (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach and Grube 1984; Bilsky and Schwartz 1994). Thus, values are an integral compo? nent of our understanding of an individuals motiva- tions (Locke 1991). If there are fundamental

psychological differences between public sector, parapublic sector, and private sector employees, we would

expect to find these differences in their general value sets. We use the term general values here to distinguish them from the concept of work values, which is dis? cussed later.

Although there are many conceptions and typologies of general values, two models and their correspondent measures have gained prominence in academe. The first was developed by Milton Rokeach, whom many consider to be the seminal contributor to the modern

study of values. Rokeach (1973) identified two broad

categories of values: instrumental values, which are beliefs about the desirability of different modes of

conduct, and terminal values, which are beliefs about

606 Public Administration Review ? July | August 2006



the desirability of different end goals of existence. He

developed the Rokeach Value Survey, a popular value measure that requires respondents to rank order lists of 16 instrumental and 16 terminal values.

More recently, Schwartz (1992) developed a model of

general values that classifies values on the basis of their motivational content. Building on past research, nota?

bly that of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz and colleagues (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Schwartz and Sagiv 1995) identify 10 types of values (see table 1), each motivated by a unique combination of human needs. Schwartz's 10 value types and the in? strument that measures them (the Schwartz Value

Survey) have gained widespread support among values researchers over the past decade.

Sectoral Differences in General Values Since the mid-1980s, increasing attention has been

paid to the role of values in the disciplines of business and public administration. However, the roles of values in these two fields have been quite different. Business theorists view values as a means of attaining organizational performance and excellence (e.g., Peters and Waterman 1982). This interest is evidenced by the proliferation of management literature concerning "corporate culture" and "values-based management," which suggests that professional employees are best

governed by a strong set of overarching values rather than by policies, procedures, and structures (Anderson 1997; Peters and Waterman 1982; Schein 1992). Public administration theorists, on the other hand, see values as a means of strengthening the decision

making and ethics of public servants and enabling them in their role as stewards ofthe public interest (e.g., Kernaghan 2000, 2003; Tait 1997; Van Wart 1998).

Relatively few studies have examined general value differences between employees in different sectors. One notable study was conducted by Rawls, Ullrich, and Nelson (1975), who assessed psychological differences between business school graduate students electing to

enter the private and nonprofit (including the public) sectors. They found the two groups differed signifi? cantly on 8 of 16 values taken from the Rokeach Value

Survey. The nonprofit group ranked three values higher than the private sector group: cheerful (light-hearted),

forgiving (willingness to pardon others), and helpful (working for the welfare of others). The private sector

group ranked five values higher than the public sector

group: comfortable life (prosperous life), ambitious

(aspiring), clean (neat, tidy), obedient (dutiful), and

responsible (dependable). It is somewhat surprising,

given these findings, that little subsequent investigation of value differences among sectors has occurred.

Given the lack of extant theory and research on gen? eral value differences between public, parapublic, and

private sector employees, it is difficult to surmise a

priori what value differences, if any, might be found.

Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hl: There will be no significant difference in

the general values (achievement, benevolence,

conformity, hedonism, power, self-direction,

security, stimulation, tradition, and universal-

ism) of employees in the private, public, and

parapublic sectors.

Work Values Work values can be defined as generalized beliefs about

the desirability of certain attributes of work (e.g., pay, autonomy, working conditions), and work-related outcomes (e.g., accomplishment, fulfillment, prestige). Like general values, work values act as the criteria that

an individual uses in selecting appropriate work-related

behaviors and goals. Past research has suggested that

general values and work values are separate but related

constructs (Elizur and Sagie 1999; Sagie and Elizur

1996); work values are derived from broader general values (George and Jones 1997; Roe and Ester 1999).

Although a wide variety of work value typologies have

been proffered, there appears to be a consensus on at

Table 1 Definitions of Value Types

Value Type Definition

Achievement Benevolence

Conformity

Hedonism Power Self-direction Security Stimulation Tradition

Universalism

Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent

personal contact Restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social

expectations or norms Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources

Independent thought and action?choosing, creating, and exploring Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships and of self Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or

religion provide Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature

Source: Schwartz (1992).




least two fundamental types of work values: intrinsic work values, which pertain to the inherent psychologi? cal satisfactions of working, such as interesting work,

challenge, variety, and intellectual stimulation, and extrinsic work values, which relate to the material

aspects of work, such as pay, benefits, and job security (Dagenais 1998; Elizur 1984; Herzberg, Mausner, and

Snyderman 1959; Ros, Schwartz, and Surkiss 1999;

Zytowski 1970). There is less consensus on other work values, but a number of researchers have sug? gested the following: social work values, which pertain to relations with coworkers, supervisors, and other

people (Elizur 1984; Pryor 1979; Ros, Schwartz, and Surkiss 1999; Super 1970); altruistic work

values, which involve the desire to help others and to make a contribution to society (Dawis and Lofquist 1984; Super 1970); andprestige values, which relate to status, influence, and power (Dawis and Lofquist 1984; Pryor 1979; Ros, Schwartz, and Surkiss 1999;

Super 1970).

Sectoral Differences in Work Values The basic theory concerning values and occupational choice dictates that individuals seek occupations that fit with their individual work values (Dawis and

Lofquist 1984; Judge and Bretz 1992; Schwarzweller 1960; Simpson and Simpson 1960; Super 1953). This

implies that individuals whose values match those of

public-service organizations will elect to work in the

public service, whereas those who value what the

private sector has to offer will seek employment in that sector. Thus, we would expect to find distinct sets of work values evident in the respective sectors.

In this section, we review the theoretical and empirical evidence concerning the relationship between work values and sector of employment. Each of the five

types of work values mentioned previously (extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, prestige, and social) are discussed in turn.

Extrinsic Work Values Two common stereotypes of

public sector employees suggest that they are more concerned with job security and less concerned with

pay than their private sector counterparts. It is assumed that people who value pay will seek employ? ment in the private sector, which is generally perceived to pay more than the public or parapublic sectors for

comparable jobs (Lewis and Frank 2002). Similarly, because public sector employment is considered rela-

tively secure by comparison to the private sector, it is assumed that people who value security and are rela-

tively risk averse will seek work in the public sector

(Baldwin 1991; Bellante and Link 1981).

Previous research has consistently found that private sector employees do indeed value high salaries signifi? cantly more than do public sector employees (Frank and Lewis 2004; Karl and Sutton 1998; Khojasteh

1993; Lewis and Frank 2002; Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976; Rainey 1982; Rawls, Ullrich, and Nelson 1975). However, contrary to the stereotype, previous empirical studies have repeatedly found no sectoral difference in the importance of job security (Frank and Lewis 2004; Karl and Sutton 1998; Lewis and Frank 2002; Rawls, Ullrich, and Nelson 1975). In fact, Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka (1976) and

Khojasteh (1993) found that public servants value

security less than private sector employees. Karl and Sutton (1998) argue that the inconsistency of these

findings is a function of the labor market conditions in the period during which the research was con? ducted. They argue that public servants, having faced massive layoffs over the past decade, now place as

great an emphasis on job security as do their private sector counterparts. These findings regarding extrinsic work values lead us to the following hypotheses:

H2: Private sector employees will place greater importance on pay and benefits than will para? public or public sector employees.

H3: There will be no difference among private sector, public sector, and parapublic-sector employees in the importance placed on job security.

Intrinsic Work Values Intrinsic work values include

aspects related to the nature of one's work, such as intellectual stimulation, creativity, and challenge. The

theory of occupational choice suggests that people who value intrinsic rewards highly will seek employment in the sector that best fulfills that value. Because we have no theoretical reason to presume that one sector is perceived to offer greater intrinsic rewards than the others, we would expect to find limited dif? ferences in the intrinsic work values of employees from the various sectors.

Unfortunately, relatively few studies have considered sectoral differences in intrinsic work values, and those studies have considered a small range of intrinsic variables. For example, Khojasteh (1993) found that

public sector managers place greater value on achievement than do their private sector counterparts. Research has also found that public servants value

interesting work more than private sector employees (Frank and Lewis 2004; Karl and Sutton 1998; Lewis and Frank 2002).

With the exception of Khojasteh (1993), whose

sample included only managers, previous studies have included a wide range of professions from blue-collar to managerial positions. The fact that none of these studies made an attempt to control for variations in work type begs the question of whether the observed differences are attributable to variations in work type among sectors. This point is especially salient with




respect to the intrinsic aspects of work, which vary significantly between blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Given our focus on knowledge workers in the present study, we would expect to find relatively little differ? ence between the sectors on the importance placed on intrinsic work values, inviting the following hypothesis:

H4: There will be no significant difference in the intrinsic work values (e.g., interesting work,

intellectually stimulating work, creativity, chal?

lenge, etc.) of employees in the private, public, and parapublic sectors.

Altruistic Work Values A key tenet of the notion of

public-service motivation (Perry and Wise 1990) is that people who seek work in the public sector are

fundamentally motivated to serve the public interest. Given the altruistic focus of parapublic-sector organi? zations, this tenet can be extended to parapublic employees as well. Past research that has examined altruistic work values has consistently found that

public servants value helping others and making a contribution to society more than private sector

employees (Frank and Lewis 2004; Karl and Sutton

1998; Lewis and Frank 2002). Therefore, we offer the

following hypothesis:

H5: Employees in the public and parapublic sectors will place greater importance on making a contribution to society than will private sector

employees.

Prestige Work Values The only prestige work value to be included in prior research is advancement

opportunities. Unfortunately, the results have been

contradictory. Frank and Lewis (2004) found that

private sector employees value advancement opportu? nities more than public sector employees, whereas

Khojasteh (1993) found that public sector managers value advancement opportunities significantly more than private sector managers. Karl and Sutton (1998) found no significant difference between employees of the two sectors on this value. Because findings with

respect to this value item have been contradictory and there is no theoretical evidence to argue for a directional hypothesis, we

propose that no significant differ? ences will be found.

H6: There will be no signifi? cant difference among private sector, public sector, and

parapublic-sector employees with respect to the importance placed on prestige values (e.g., prestigious work, influence over organizational outcomes, opportunities for advancement, etc).

Social Work Values Social work values were examined in only two studies reviewed for this article. Rawls, Ullrich, and Nelson (1975) found that nonprofit- sector employees (which include both public sector and parapublic-sector employees) place greater impor? tance on personal relations than did private sector

employees. More recently, Khojasteh (1993) found no

significant difference between public sector employees and private sector employees with respect to the im?

portance they place on interpersonal relations. Given the lack of theoretical evidence and the contradictory results on social values, we propose the following hypothesis:

H7: There will be no significant difference

among private sector, public sector, and

parapublic-sector employees with respect to the

importance placed on social work values (e.g., coworker relations, a fun workplace).

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment relates to the strength of one's identification with and involvement in a particu? lar organization. It is manifest in (1) a strong belief in

and acceptance of the organization's goals and values;

(2) a willingness to exert a considerable amount of effort on behalf ofthe organization; and (3) a desire to remain within the organization (Porter et al. 1974,

603). Organizational commitment has long been a

topic of interest for management researchers, and it

has been linked to performance (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1974; Porter, Crampon, and Smith 1976), lower employee absenteeism (Blau and Boal 1987;

Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1974), and lower turnover

(Hom, Katerberg, and Hulin 1979; Porter et al. 1974; Steers 1977; Tett and Meyer 1993).

In the context of the present study, organizational commitment provides an important link between the values of the individual employee and those of his or her organization. In the case of public and parapublic

organizations, which promote values related to public service and the greater good of society, it is particu? larly imperative that employees have high levels of

commitment to these values if

organizations are to fulfill their

purposes. However, the few studies that have directly com?

pared levels of organizational commitment between public sector employees and private sector employees have consis?

tently shown private sector

employees to demonstrate higher levels of organizational commit? ment than public servants

(e.g., Buchanan 1974; Liou and

Nyhan 1994; Perry and Rainey 1988; Rainey 1979; Zeffane 1994). It has been argued that this relative

In the case of public and

parapublic organizations, which

promote values related to public service and the greater good of

society, it is particularly imperative that employees have high levels of commitment to these

values if organizations are to

fulfill their purposes.




lack of organizational commitment in the public service presents a crisis and therefore merits further attention (Liou and Nyhan 1994; Staats 1988).

Zeffane (1994) argues that organizational commit? ment is largely affected by management style. He found significant differences between the public and

private sectors in the degree to which managers were

perceived as emphasizing two management styles: (1) flexibility and adaptation (greater in the private sector) and (2) rules and regulations (greater in the

public sector). Both of these management styles had significant positive associations with organiza? tional commitment. The net effect of these relation?

ships was greater organizational commitment in the

private sector.

Buchanan (1974) argues that the relative lack of orga? nizational commitment among public sector managers is the result of the weak performance-outcome link in

public management. Because the goals of public agen? cies are broad and diffuse rather than specific and

tangible, managers in the public sector are less able to

gauge the value of their efforts in meeting overall

organizational requirements. Because public managers must often focus on process rather than outcomes,

they identify less with the broader goals of their orga? nization and more with their immediate work. This leads them to be less committed to the organization's higher-level goals.

The extant theoretical and empirical evidence con-

cerning sectoral differences in organizational commit? ment leads us to the following hypothesis:

H8: Organizational commitment will be higher for private sector employees than for public sector and parapublic-sector employees.

Methodology

Participants The research participants included 549 knowledge workers employed in large Canadian organizations (500 or more employees). The sample was restricted to knowledge workers to control for the effects of the type of work performed by the participants (i.e., blue-collar jobs versus white-collar jobs). Participants were classified as knowledge workers and included in the sample if they identified themselves as

employed in managerial, professional, technical, or administrative positions. Clerical, manual, retail,

production, and other workers were not included in the sample.

Participants were categorized into sectors based on the nature of the organizations for which they worked. Private sector organizations included firms from a number of industries, including retail, financial

services, telecommunications, information technology, hospitality, transportation, and insurance. Previous research comparing the private and public sectors has varied widely in its definition of public sector

employees. To avoid confusion related to the breadth of our definition of the public service, we split the broader public service into two categories: public administration (referred to here as public servants) and the parapublic sector. Public servants were

directly employed by departments and agencies of

federal, provincial, and municipal governments. Parapublic organizations included such employers as

universities, schools, hospitals, and long-term care

facilities, all nonprofit organizations that receive

government funding but are not directly operated by any level of government. Public servants represented 42 percent of the total sample, private sector employ? ees composed 22 percent, and parapublic-sector employees made up 36 percent.

Past research has shown that one's preference for

public-service work is affected by age, educational

level, and gender (e.g., Blank 1985; Lewis and Frank

2002). To control for the confounding effects of these

variables, all three were included as covariates in the

analyses performed in this study. Educational level was coded as a dichotomous variable. Participants who had at least a university or college degree were

placed in one category, and those with less education were placed in another. Gender was coded as a cat-

egorical variable, and age was included as a continu- ous variable. The sample was 35 percent male and

65 percent female.

Measures

General Values The general values of respondents were measured using the Schwartz Value Survey, a

popular instrument that coincides with Schwartz's

(1992) model of 10 general values. Although the

original version ofthe survey (Schwartz 1992) con- tained 56 items, a more parsimonious 44-item ver?

sion, suggested by Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), was used here. Respondents were asked to rate the impor? tance of 44 value items "as a guiding principle in my life" on a nine-point scale as follows: -1 = opposed to

my values; 0 = not important; 1,2 = unlabeled; 3 = im?

portant; 4,5 = unlabeled; 6 = very important; 7 = of

supreme importance. In accordance with Schwartz's

(1992) instructions, responses for the 44 individual items were used to generate 10 value-type scores cor-

responding to 10 ten value types of the Schwartz model. The value-type scores were calculated as the summed average of the scores for items corresponding to each value type as given by Schwartz.

Work Values Work values were measured using items from the comprehensive work value survey developed by Lyons (2003). The items in this measure represent




a wide variety of work aspects selected through a review of established work value measures. Lyons factor analyzed the measure's 31 items and found that 22 items loaded on the following five factors: intrinsic work values (nine items), extrinsic work values (three items), prestige work values (five items), altruistic work values (three items), and social work values (two items). These 22 items, grouped according to the factor structure obtained by Lyons, were utilized in the present study. In order to compare our results to

previously reported findings, we analyzed the indi? vidual items rather than creating indexes for each of the five work value types.

A factor analysis of these 22 items produced minor

changes from the factor structure obtained previously. Five clusters of variables were found. In particular, there were six intrinsic work value items (cluster 1), four items related to prestige aspects ofthe job (clus? ter 2), three items related to altruistic work values

(cluster 3), three items related to the extrinsic aspects of work (cluster 4), and two items pertaining to the social environment of work (cluster 5). Four items

(work variety, accomplishment, fulfilling work, and travel opportunities) did not load as expected and were not included in the five clusters of work values that were analyzed. Respondents were asked to indicate the value they placed on each item by rating its importance "with respect to work" according to the same rating scale employed in the Schwartz Value Survey.

Organizational Commitment Respondents' levels of

organizational commitment were measured using the nine-item version of Porter et al.'s (1974) Organiza? tional Commitment Questionnaire. This instrument contains a number of statements related to individu? als' attitudinal commitment to their organization. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree. The nine items were then averaged to calculate an overall organizational commitment score. The reliability coefficient

(Cronbach's alpha) was .90, which is consistent with

previous published findings (Cook et al. 1981).

Analyses Sectoral differences in general values and work values were investigated using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). For general values, a one-way (sector) MANCOVA was computed with the 10 value

types measured by the Schwartz Value Survey as the

dependent variables and age, gender, and level of education as covariates. For work values, separate between-subject MANCOVAs were computed for each of the five work value variable clusters, with the relevant work value items as the dependent variables and age, gender, and educational level as covariates.

Type III sum of squares was used to accommodate the

imbalance in cell counts across sectors (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001).

Where significant sectoral differences were observed

on the omnibus tests, protected .F-tests were employed to examine sectoral differences on the individual

general value and work value variables. For individual

variables that showed significant sectoral differences,

post hoc Bonferroni tests were conducted to examine

pair-wise differences between the private, public, and

parapublic-sector groups.

We tested for sectoral differences in organizational commitment using a one-way (sector) analysis of

covariance (ANCOVA), with organizational commit?

ment as the dependent variable and gender, age, and

educational level as the covariates.

Results

General Values The mean general value scores and standard errors for

each ofthe three sectoral groups are given in table 2.

The omnibus F-test for the general values MAN-

COVA revealed that general values did not differ

significantly by sector, .F(20, 992) = 1.56,/> = .054 for

Wilks's lambda, controlling for the effects of age, educational level, and gender. Thus, as hypothesis 1

suggested, there were no significant sectoral differ? ences in general values. Each ofthe covariates had a

significant effect on values (p < .001 for education and

age and/> < .05 for gender).

Work Values The results of the five work value MANCOVAs and

the follow-up F-tests are presented in table 3, along with the mean work value importance scores and the standard errors for the three sectors.

Extrinsic Work Values MANCOVA 1 involved three

extrinsic work value items: salary, job security, and benefits. The multivariate test showed no significant sectoral differences in this set of items, F(6, 974) = 2.05,

p = ,057 for Wilks's lambda). Thus, contrary to

hypotheses 2 and 3, no significant differences were

observed among sectors with respect to the impor? tance of job security, pay, or benefits.

Intrinsic Work Values MANCOVA 2 incorporated six intrinsic work value items: intellectually stimulat-

ing work, challenging work, interesting work, con-

tinuous learning at work, creativity in work, and using one's abilities at work. The omnibus F-test indicated that this set of items varied significantly between

sectors, F(12, 960) = 2.53,/> < .003 for Wilks's lambda. The control variables of gender and age were

significant while educational level was not. Thus,

contrary to hypothesis 4, significant differences were




Table2 Mean General Value Scores and Standard Errors

observed among the three sectors with respect to intrinsic work values.

Follow-up F-tests for the six individual intrinsic work values revealed significant sectoral differences (p < .05) on two ofthe six intrinsic work values: intellectually stimulating work and challenging work. Post hoc tests revealed that public sector employees placed more importance on intellectually stimulating work

(mean = 5.44) than did parapublic-sector employees

(mean = 5.10). Challenging work was also more

important to public servants (mean = 5.36) than to

parapublic-sector employees (mean = 5.00)

Altruistic Work Values The dependent variables in MANCOVA 3 were the altruistic work value items: work that makes a contribution to one's society, work that is consistent with one's moral values, and fairness in the application of policies and programs. The F-test for this analysis revealed significant sectoral

MANCOVA 1: Extrinsic work values

Having benefits (e.g., vacation pay, health/dental insurance, pension plan, etc.) that meet your personal needs

Having the assurance of job security Doing work that affords you a good salary MANCOVA 2: Intrinsic work values

Doing work that is intellectually stimulating Working on tasks and projects that challenge your abilities Doing work that you find interesting, exciting, and engaging Having the opportunity to continuously learn and develop

new knowledge and skills Doing work that involves creativity and original thought Doing work that allows you to use the abilities you have

developed through your education and experience MANCOVA 3: Altruistic work values

Doing work that makes a helpful contribution to society; makes a difference

Doing work that is consistent with your moral values Working in a setting where policies and programs are

administered with fairness and impartiality MANCOVA 4: Prestige work values

Having the authority to organize and direct the work of others

Doing work that is prestigious and regarded highly by others Having the ability to influence organizational outcomes Having the opportunity for advancement in your career

MANCOVA 5: Social work values

Working in an environment that is lively and fun Working with agreeable and friendly coworkers with

whom you could form friendships

5.29 .10 5.60 .14 5.40 .11

.06

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

612 Public Administration Review ? July|August 2006



differences, F(6, 972) = 5.07,/> < .001 for Wilks's lambda. Gender and age were significantly associated with these two items (p < .01), but level of education was not.

Follow-up F-tests revealed significant sectoral differ? ences in the importance of work that makes a contribution to society (p < .001). Post hoc tests showed

that, as hypothesis 5 suggested, work that makes a contribution to society was valued more by both

parapublic-sector employees (mean = 5.46) and by public servants (mean = 5.00) than by private sector

employees (mean = 4.50). Interestingly, parapublic- sector employees valued making a contribution to

society significantly more than public servants, a

finding that was not proposed a priori.

Prestige Work Values MANCOVA 4 included the four prestige work value items: authority, prestigious work, influence, and opportunities for advancement. The omnibus .F-test revealed significant sectoral differ? ences on this set of work value items, F(8, 966) =4.08,

p < .001 for Wilks's lambda. The effect of age on these items was significant (p < .05), but the effects of gen? der and education were not. Thus, contrary to hy? pothesis 6, there were significant differences among the sectors with respect to prestige values.

Follow-up F-tests revealed significant sectoral differ? ences in the importance of two of the four prestige work values: prestigious work (p < .05) and opportu? nities for advancement (p < .001). Post hoc tests revealed that parapublic employees placed significantly less importance on advancement (mean = 3.86) than did both public servants (mean = 4.41) and private sector employees (mean = 4.82). Prestigious work was significantly more important to private sector

employees (mean = 3.46) than to public servants

(mean = 2.86).

Social Work Values MANCOVA 5 involved two social work value items: friendly coworkers and a fun work environment. The multivariate i^test showed that employees in the various sectors did not vary significantly on these items, F(4, 97'8) = \A2,p = .345 for Wilks's lambda. Thus, as hypothesis 7 suggested, there were no significant differences among the sectors with respect to social work values.

Organizational Commitment The results of the organizational commitment ANCOVA indicated a significant sectoral difference

(p < .000). Gender was the only significant covariate

(p < .05). Post hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that

private sector employees reported significantly higher levels of organizational commitment (mean = 3.79) than did either public servants (mean = 3.41,/? < .01) or parapublic employees (mean = 3.49,p < .01). The difference between public servants and parapublic

employees was not significant. Thus, as hypothesis 8

suggested, both parapublic employees and public servants were less committed to their organizations than were private sector employees.

Discussion This study asked whether there is a unique value set

that differentiates public sector, parapublic-sector, and

private sector employees. On the whole, the results of

this study suggest that the answer is a qualified no, as there were limited overall differences in the values of

employees from the various sectors. No significant sector differences were observed in any of the 10 value

types proposed by Schwartz's (1992) value model when the effects of age, gender, and educational level

were controlled for. Because all three of these demo-

graphic variables were significantly related to general values, it appears that each better differentiated people on the basis of their values than did sector. This find?

ing suggests there is no fundamental value predisposi- tion that guides people into careers in one sector or another. Perhaps the most notable finding is that

employees in the public and parapublic sectors are no more altruistic and no less self-interested than em?

ployees in the private sector. This calls into question the argument for public sector motivation, which

suggests that public and parapublic employees are

following a unique calling that is not evident in

private sector employees.

The findings with respect to work values are somewhat more revealing. Even after the impacts of age, gender, and educational level were controlled for, employees from the various sectors differed significantly in the

importance they placed on 5 of the 18 work value items that were analyzed. As expected, there were sectoral differences in the importance of making a contribution to society. Employees of the broadly defined public service (i.e., both the public and para?

public sectors) valued contributing to society more than employees in the private sector. The importance of making a contribution was significantly higher for

parapublic employees than for public servants. Given the types of "nurturing" jobs found in the parapublic sector (i.e., education and health care), this finding is not surprising.

The findings regarding contribution to society lend some support to the notion of a public-service moti?

vation, as they suggest that people motivated by altruistic goals are more likely to be found in public sector or parapublic sector jobs. It is impossible in a cross-sectional study such as this one to attribute

causality to these relationships. However, it seems most plausible that individuals who place importance on contributing to society are drawn to public and

parapublic service. The reverse implies that individuals who opt to work in the public and parapublic sectors are somehow socialized within their organizations




to place importance on these values. The latter

explanation is possible, but it is less consistent with the theoretical link between work values and stable

general values.

Private sector employees were found to value presti? gious work more than employees in either of the other sectors. Our finding suggests that prestige-seeking individuals are drawn more to the private sector than to the parapublic and public sectors. This may reflect a decline in citizen's esteem for

public institutions over recent decades (Volcker 1989; Zussman

1997), which, in turn, may be

drawing prestige seekers to the

private sector. Alternatively, in

light of the poor reputation of

public institutions, public servants may rationalize their employment in the public sector by downplaying the importance of prestige in reporting their work values. Clearly, further research is needed to explore the nature of this value difference.

Previous research by other authors did not look specifically at the work values of parapublic employees. The results of the present study indicate some interest-

ing differences that may have been averaged out in

past research that combined these sectors as a single group. Specifically, we found that employees in the

parapublic sector placed significantly less importance on advancement than did private or public employees. This coincides with Frank and Lewis s (2004) finding that private sector employees value advancement

opportunities more than public servants. One expla? nation for this finding lies in the nature of parapublic professions: For many parapublic employees, such as nurses and teachers, the opportunities for upward career advancement are relatively limited. It is possible that people who greatly value advancement opt out of

parapublic professions. It is also possible that people in parapublic professions rationalize their lack of advancement opportunities by downplaying their

importance. Qualitative data are required to gain a fuller understanding of this phenomenon.

We also found that parapublic employees placed significantly less importance on intellectually stimu-

lating work and challenging work than did employees in the public sector. The overall pattern suggested by these findings is that parapublic employees appear to be less interested in at least some of the intrinsic

aspects of work than are their public-service col-

leagues. Given the findings regarding the importance of making a contribution to society, it appears that the true reward for employees in the parapublic sector is the altruistic nature of their work rather than the intrinsic benefits of the work itself. Again, quali? tative research is needed to better explain the nature of these differences.

Despite the interesting sectoral differences discussed

previously, there were no significant sectoral differ? ences in 13 of the 18 work value items we analyzed. A number of these nonsignificant findings are notable in light of past research. There was no significant difference in the importance of job security among employees from the three sectors. This corroborates

past empirical findings and lends further opposition to the stereotype of public servants as obsessed with

job security.

Contrary to past findings, there were no significant sectoral dif? ferences in the importance of

salary. It is possible that this contradiction of past findings is the result of limiting our sample

to knowledge workers, who include the highest-paid employees of each sector. For such workers, it is con-

ceivable, if not likely, that pay is of relatively little immediate concern, as they are relatively well paid. Had we included clerical and manual laborers, we

may have found greater differences.

Finally, past research has consistently shown that

private sector employees demonstrate greater commit? ment to their organizations than do public sector

employees. Our results support this finding: Both

public sector and parapublic-sector employees re?

ported significantly lower levels of organizational commitment than did private sector employees. This

suggests that relative to private sector employees, fewer public sector and parapublic-sector employees feel that their personal goals and values are compatible with those of their organizations.

Zeffane (1994) noted a lack of clear theoretical explanation for the lower relative organizational commit? ment among public sector employees. One

explanation lies in potential variations in what consti- tutes "the organization." Although organizational commitment in the private sector is easily construed as commitment to one's "firm," the target of one's commitment is less obvious in the public sector. It is

possible that public servants direct their commitment at the institution of government as a whole rather than the specific department or agency in which they work. It is reasonable to assume that a public servant

may be dedicated to serving the public without being particularly dedicated to any specific public organiza? tion. Future research on commitment in the public service should broaden the concept to include com? mitment to public service in general.

Three limitations of the present study merit consideration in future research. First, although this study is

unique in looking at the parapublic sector as an inde?

pendent group, we did not consider the values of other types of nonprofit employees, such as those

Private sector employees were

found to value prestigious work

more than employees in either

ofthe other sectors.




working in voluntary organizations, charities, and other nongovernmental organizations. Our intent was to give separate consideration to employees working in the extended public sector, apart from those em?

ployed directly by government. It has been argued that the nonprofit sector (the so-called third sector) will become increasingly important in the modern

economy as governments continue to focus on fiscal restraint and educated employees continue to seek

meaningful work that affects society (Rifkin 1995). Therefore, it is important that this sector be given consideration in future research. Perhaps the inclusion of this sector in research of this type will reveal a fuller

picture of value patterns that correspond to the degree of publicness of various organizations.

Second, our study included only Canadian employees. Though there are undoubtedly similarities between Canadians and citizens of other developed countries, the nature of public and private organizations and the

relationships between the sectors is unique to a given national context. Although Canadians may be expected to share a wide variety of values with their American neighbors, the nature of Canada's Westmin-

ster-style parliamentary system and the ubiquitous public fund?

ing of parapublic organizations in Canada may affect the sectoral differences observed here. This research merits repetition in other national contexts to better estab? lish the nature of sectoral value differences.

Third, the sample for this study was restricted to

knowledge workers. This allowed us to control for a

variety of confounding influences, such as socioeconomic status and occupational choice (apart from the choice of sector). However, this restriction diminishes the generalizability of the results to other types of

occupations. Because both the public and private sectors include employees from a wide variety of oc?

cupations, ranging from unskilled labor to knowledge work, it would be useful to examine the relationship between work type and individual values and commit? ment in the context of sectoral differences. It might be

asked, for example, whether the work value differences observed in this study are evident between blue-collar workers in other sectors as well.

Although this study identified differences in the work values of employees in different sectors, qualitative research is needed to fully interpret and explain the nature and causes of these differences. Of particular interest is the issue of causality. It is important to know whether work value differences among employ? ees in different sectors are the result of occupational choices based on existing work values or the product

of socialization and rationalization once the occupational choice is made.

Furthermore, Lewis and Frank (2002) note that hold-

ing a public-service job does not directly constitute an endorsement of public-service values and rewards, as one's preference for a job in a particular sector does not ensure that one is available. It is likely that there are individuals in both the public and private sectors who would prefer to be employed in the opposite sector if the opportunity were available to them. We do not know to what extent this mismatch is present in the workforce. The measurement of participants' preferences for work in one sector or another may be a

better determinant of sectoral differences than the actual sector of employment.

Conclusion On the whole, the results of this study suggest there are limited differences between private sector employ? ees and public sector employees with respect to the three constructs measured. The finding of no system-

atic differences in the general values of public sector employees and private sector employees suggests that, at the most general psychological level, employees in both sectors are highly similar when demographic differences are considered. The fact that

public servants were no more altruistic and no less self- interested than private sector

employees will likely come as a disappointment to

proponents ofthe "unique public-service motivation." In their recruitment efforts, public sector organiza? tions cannot rest on the assumption that public service attracts a different breed of person.

The work value findings suggest that employees in the

parapublic sector place less emphasis on advancement

opportunities and intrinsic work vales than do public servants and private sector employees. Instead, they value the contribution that their work makes to soci?

ety and the personal fulfillment they derive from their work. Health care and educational institutions would do well to emphasize the altruistic motives of this type of work as a means of attracting and retaining people in these professions. This is an important finding, as

public administration research often lumps parapublic employees within the spectrum of public service. Our results provide a strong indication that this sector merits its own attention, particularly where work values are concerned. It must not be presumed that

public-service motivation applies equally to employees across the parapublic and public sectors.

This study added further support to the common

finding that private sector employees are more

The fact that public servants

were no more altruistic and no

less self-interested than private sector employees will likely

come as a disappointment to

proponents of the "unique

public-service motivation."




committed to their organizations than public sector

employees. Our results further indicate that

parapublic-sector employees are less committed to their organizations than private sector employees. The

implication of this finding is that employees in the

public and parapublic sectors do not identify as

strongly with the values and goals of their organiza? tions as do private sector employees. This is a serious issue that public and parapublic organizations must address. As noted previously, organizational commit? ment is antecedent of a number of other important work outcomes, such as performance, reduced absen-

teeism, and employee turnover. Furthermore, com? mitted employees are critical to the fulfillment of

organizational mandates, particularly in the realm of

knowledge work, where employees are not easily inter-

changeable. The trend toward values-based manage? ment necessitates, more than ever, a workforce that is motivated and committed to organizational goals. Romzek (1990) argues that government organizations are at risk of dropping below a critical threshold of dedicated employees. The results of this study punctu- ate her warning.

Acknowledgment This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Notes 1. Peter Drucker (1999) defines knowledge work as

work perfbrmed by highly skilled workers that is

complex, cyclical in nature, and involves process- ing and using information to make decisions.

2. Although Frank and Lewis (2004) and Lewis and Frank (2002) did run separate analyses with a

narrowly defined public sector (just public admin?

istrators) and a broadly defined public sector

(including parapublic employees), they did not look at the parapublic sector as a unique group.

3. We use the term parapublic service rather than the more common term, nonprofit sector. This distinction is meant to distinguish organizations that are publicly funded but not operated by government agencies (e.g., public schools and

hospitals) from private nonprofit organizations such as voluntary organizations, charities, and other nongovernmental organizations, which were not included in our study.

References

Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector. American Review of Public Administration 31(4): 361-80.

Anderson, Carl. 1997. Values-Based Management. Academy of Management Executive 11(4): 25-46.

Argyriades, Demetrios. 2003. Values for Public Service: Lessons Learned from Recent Trends and

the Millennium Summit. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(4): 521-33.

Baldwin, J. Norman. 1991. Public versus Private

Employees: Debunking Stereotypes. Review of Public Personnel Administration 11(1/2): 1-27.

Ball-Rokeach, SandraJ., Milton Rokeach, and Joel W. Grube. 1984. The Great American Values Test:

Influencing Behavior and Belief through Television. New York: Free Press.

Barzelay, Michael. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bellante, Don, and Albert N. Link. 1981. Are Public Sector Workers More Risk Averse Than Private Sector Workers? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 34(3): 408-12.

Bilsky, Wolfgang, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 1994. Values and Personality. European Journal of Personality 8(3): 163-81.

Blank, Rebecca M. 1985. An Analysis of Workers' Choice of Employment in the Public and Private Sectors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review

38(2): 211-24.

Blau, Gary, and Kimberly B. Boal. 1987.

Conceptualizing How Job Involvement and

Organizational Commitment Affect Turnover and Absenteeism. Academy of Management Review

12(2): 288-300.

Borins, Sandford. 2002. Transformation of the Public Sector: Canada in Comparative Perspective. In Handbook of Canadian Public Administration, edited by Christopher Dunn, 3-17. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press Canada.

Buchanan, Bruce. 1974. Government Managers, Business Executives and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration Review 34(4): 339-47.

Cook, John D., Susan J. Hepworth, Toby D. Wall, and Peter B. Warr. 1981. Experience of Work: A

Compendium and Review of249 Measures and their Use. New York: Academic Press.

Dagenais, Fred. 1998. Super's Work Values Inventory Scales as Intrinsic or Extrinsic Constructs.

PsychologicalReports83(2): 197-98.

Dawis, Rene V, and Lloyd H. Lofquist. 1984. A

Psychological Theory ofWork Adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Drucker, Peter. 1999. Knowledge Worker

Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review 41 (2): 79-94.

Elizur, Dov. 1984. Facets of Work Values: A Structural

Analysis of Work Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 69(3): 379-89.

Elizur, Dov, and Abraham Sagie. 1999. Facets of Personal Values: A Structural Analysis of Life and Work Values. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(1): 73-87.

Frank, Sue A., and Gregory B. Lewis. 2004. Government Employees: Working Hard or Hardly




Working? American Review of Public Administration

34(1): 36-51. Frederickson, H. George, and David K. Hart. 1985.

The Public Service and the Patriotism of Benevolence. Public Administration Review 45(5): 547-53.

George, Jennifer M., and Gareth R. Jones. 1997.

Experiencing Work: Values, Attitudes, and Moods. Human Relations 50(4): 393-416.

Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 1959. The Motivation to Work. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

Hom, Peter W, Ralph. Katerberg, Jr., and Charles L. Hulin. 1979. Comparative Examination of Three

Approaches to the Prediction of Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3): 280-90.

Judge, Timothy A., and Robert D. Bretz, Jr. 1992. Effects of Work Values on Job Choice Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3): 261-71.

Karl, Katherine A., and Cynthia L. Sutton. 1998. Job Values in Today's Workforce: A Comparison of Public and Private Sector Employees. Public Personnel Management 27(4): 515-27.

Kernaghan, Kenneth. 2000. The Post-Bureaucratic

Organization and Public Service Values. International Review of Administrative Sciences

66(1): 91-104. -. 2003. Integrating Values into Public Service:

The Values Statement as Centerpiece. Public Administration Review 63(6): 711-19.

Khojasteh, Mak. 1993. Motivating the Private vs. Public Sector Managers. Public Personnel

Management 22(3): 391-401. Lewis, Gregory B.} and Sue A. Frank. 2002. Who

Wants to Work for the Government? Public Administration Review 62(4): 395-404.

Liou, Kuo-Tsai, and Ronald C. Nyhan. 1994. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment in the Public Sector: An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration Quarterly 18(1): 99-118.

Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In Handbook oflndustrial and

Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin D. Dunnette, 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.

-. 1991. The Motivation Sequence, the Motivation Hub, and the Motivation Core.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 288-99.

Lowe, Graham S. 2001. Employer of Choice? Workplace Innovation in Government. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Lyons, Sean T. 2003. An Exploration of Generational Values in Life and at Work. PhD diss., Carleton

University, Ottawa, Canada.

Mowday, Richard T, Lyman W. Porter, and Richard M. Steers. 1974. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment and Absenteeism and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Newstrom, John W, William E. Reif, and Robert M. Monczka. 1976. Motivating the Public Employee: Fact vs. Fiction. Public Personnel Management 5(1): 67-72.

Osborne, David, andTed Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. New York: Penguin Books.

Perry, James L., and Lyman W Porter. 1982. Factors

Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public

Organizations. Academy of Management Review

7(1): 89-98.

Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 1988. The Private-Public Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy. Academy of Management Review 13 (2): 182-201.

Perry, James L., and Lois R. Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50(3): 367-73.

Peters, Tom, and Robert Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best-Run

Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Porter, Lyman W, William J. Crampon, and Frank J. Smith. 1976. Organizational Commitment and

Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15(1): 87-98.

Porter, Lyman W, Richard M. Steers, Richard T.

Mowday, and Paul V. Boulian. 1974.

Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 56(5): 603-9.

Pryor, Robert G.L. 1979. In Search ofa Concept: Work Values. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly 27(2): 250-58.

Rainey, Hal G. 1979. Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform. Public Administration Review

39(5): 440-48. -. 1982. Reward Preferences among Public and

Private Managers: In Search ofthe Service Ethic. American Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288-302.

Rawls, James R., Robert A. Ullrich, and Oscar Tivis

Nelson, Jr. 1975. A Comparison of Managers Entering or Reentering the Proflt and Nonprofit Sectors.

Academy of Management Journal 18(3): 616-23.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1995. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn ofthe Post- Market Era. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Roe, Robert A., and Peter Ester. 1999. Values and Work: Empirical Findings and Theoretical

Perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(1): 1-21.

Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Romzek, Barbara S. 1990. Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That Bind. Public Administration Review 50(3): 374-82.

Ros, Miriam, Shalom H. Schwartz, and Shoshana Surkiss. 1999. Basic Individual Values, Work




Values, and the Meaning of Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(1): 49-71.

Sagie, Abraham, and Dov Elizur. 1996. The Structure of Personal Values: A Conical Representation of

Multiple Life Areas. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 17(6): 573-86.

Schein, Edgar. 1992. Organizational Culture and

Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the Content

and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and

Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in

Experimen tal Social Psychology 25(1): 1-65. Schwartz, Shalom H., and Wolfgang Bilsky. 1987.

Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 53(3): 550-62. Schwartz, Shalom H., and Lilach Sagiv. 1995.

Identifying Culture-Speciflcs in the Content and Structure of Values. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology 26(1): 92-116.

Schwarzweller, Harry K. 1960. Values and

Occupational Choice. Social Forces 39 (\): 126-35.

Simpson, Richard L., and Ida Harper Simpson. 1960. Values, Personal Influence, and Occupational Choice. Social Forces 39(1): 116-25.

Staats, Elmer B. 1988. Public Service and the Public Interest. Public Administration Review 48(2): 601-5.

Steers, Richard M. 1977. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly 22(1): 46-56.

Super, Donald E. 1953. A Theory of Vocational

Development. American Psychologist 8(4): 185-90.

-. 1970. Work Values Inventory. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 2001.

Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tait, John. 1997. A Strong Foundation: Report ofthe Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics

(A Summary). Canadian Public Administration

40(1): 1-22.

Tett, Robert P, and John P Meyer. 1993. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intention and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-Analytical Findings. Personnel

Psychology 46(2): 259-93. Van Wart, Montgomery. 1998. ChangingPublic Sector

Values. New York: Garland.

Volcker, Paul A. 1989. Leadership for America:

Rebuilding the Public Service (Report of the National Commission on the Public Service).

Washington, DC: National Commission on the

Public Service.

Young, Brian S., Stephen Worchel, and David J. Woehr. 1998. Organizational Commitment among Public Service Employees. Public Personnel

Management 27'(3): 339-48.

Zeffane, Rachid. 1994. Patterns of Organizational Commitment and Perceived Management Style: A Comparison of Public and Private Sector

Employees. Human Relations 47(8): 977-1010.

Zussman, David. 1997. Do Citizens Trust their Governments? Canadian Public Administration

40(2): 234-54.

Zytowski, Donald G. 1970. The Concept of Work Values. Vocational Guidance Quarterly 18: 176-86.

We Invite Your Feedback

The PAR editorial team is in the process of designing an interactive, web-based accessory to the journal to

facilitate dialogue and exchange on the printed content.

In the meantime, we invite thoughtful comments in the form of letters. E-mail to: [email protected].

Conventional mail: Public Administration Review, GSPA, University of Colorado at Denver and Health

Sciences Center, 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80204.

Selected letters will be reproduced in future issues!




a comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector...

Documents