how are employees of the nonprofit sector motivated? a research need

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 16, no. 2, Winter 2005 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 191

How Are Employeesof the Nonprofit

Sector Motivated?A Research Need

Catherine Schepers, Sara De Gieter,Roland Pepermans, Cindy Du Bois,

Ralf Caers, Marc JegersThis article reviews research on motivation of employees in thenonprofit sector, with a major emphasis on the motivation ofteachers and hospital nursing staff. Although both areas arewidely researched in the nonprofit sector, empirical motivationresearch conducted in schools and hospitals is certainly notextensive. Nevertheless, based on these limited research findings,we derive potential hypotheses for future research in schools andhospitals.

THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES the necessity of nonprofit specifications inthe existing motivation theories. Most motivation-related non-profit research concentrates on existing and well-documented

motivation theories stemming from the for-profit sector. Three basicthemes have received most attention in this respect: the two-factor theoryby Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1957), the job characteristicsmodel by Hackman and Oldham (1980), and the expectancy-valencemotivation theory by Vroom (1964). These theories, which representeither a content approach or a process approach to motivation, domi-nate the research agenda. Content theories of motivation emphasize thereasons that elicit behavior, that is, what causes it and what its intendedpurpose is. A content theory explains behavioral aspects in terms ofspecific human needs, specific values, or other factors that drive behaviorand act as motives. Process theories of motivation focus on how themotives create arousal of a certain intensity, leading to a particularbehavior, or how a person comes to act in a certain way. There is lessemphasis on the specific factors that cause behavior (Tosi, Mero, andRizzo, 2000; Foster, 2000).

While the two-factor theory focuses on the motivation content,that is, the now classic duality between extrinsic and intrinsicfactors that respectively decrease or increase motivation, the

192 SC H E P E R S , DE GI E T E R, PE P E R M A N S, DU BO I S , CA E R S , JE G E R S

expectancy-valence motivation theory covers the motivationprocess: How do motives affect people’s willingness to work or theirpersistence at work? This approach mainly covers the cognitive pro-cesses involved in motivation. The job characteristics model canbe seen as between the two-factor theory and the expectancy-valence motivation theory on a continuum, with the contentapproach at one end and the process approach at the other. Theoriginal job characteristics (skill variety, task significance, taskidentity, autonomy, and feedback) may be considered intrinsicmotives that drive employees to do certain tasks, thus relating tocontent theories of motivation. The model explains how thesemotives may produce not only job satisfaction and intrinsic moti-vation, but also higher production and less absenteeism andpersonnel turnover, through critical psychological states, thus elab-orating on the motivational process. Although there exist other the-ories of motivation (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo, 2000), our attention willbe directed at studies that apply these most popular work motiva-tion theories. Also the discussion of motivation-related conceptssuch as organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, Ahearne,and MacKenzie, 1997) or organizational commitment (Meyer andAllen, 1991) is beyond our scope here.

Two major impetuses have prompted this review. First, whiletheoretical developments on work motivation may have declinedin recent years, the work environment has changed dramatically.Organizations are both downsizing and expanding. The workforceis characterized by increased diversity with highly divergentneeds and demands. New organizational forms are now common-place, and globalization, as well as the challenges of managingacross borders, is now the norm instead of the exception. Thesechanges undoubtedly have an impact on how organizations attemptto motivate their employees (Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro, 2004),thus requiring the investigation of a possible update of commonmotivation theories. Second, it can be argued that at least thesituation and the employees in the nonprofit sector differ from afor-profit environment, and doubts may arise as to whether theclassic motivation approaches accurately represent employees’motivation in the nonprofit sector. Three arguments can bepresented to support the latter point.

First, using the structural-operational definition, as suggestedby Salomon and Anheier (1992), nonprofit organizations share someimportant characteristics (Morris, 2000):

Formal—institutionalized to some degree in terms of their organi-zational form or system of operation

Private—institutionally separate from governmentNonprofit-distributing—not returning any profits generated to their

owners or directors but plowing them back into the basic missionof the organization (the nondistribution constraint)

Doubts mayarise as to

whether theclassic motivation

approachesaccuratelyrepresent

employees’motivation inthe nonprofit

sector

Self-governing—equipped with their own internal apparatus forgovernance

Voluntary—frequently a major participation of voluntary employeesin the operation or the management of the organization’s affairs(Rudney, 1987)

A for-profit organization, in contrast, can distribute profits to itsowners, is able to give account to its stakeholders, is hierarchicallystructured, and is not characterized by the participation of voluntaryemployees. Moreover, nonprofit organizations are often less hierar-chical (Barnabé and Burns, 1994). These differences in features indi-cate that a nonprofit environment creates a different work situationin which employees have to perform, thus possibly requiring a dif-ferent work attitude and motivation. Moreover, even if these featurescharacterize nonprofit organizations in general, the heterogeneity ofthe sector (Hansmann, 1987) may necessitate some subsector speci-fications as well. Therefore, we believe that all too often, motivationtheories with a for-profit inheritance are too easily applied as a gen-eral framework for nonprofit applications. Consequently, the inves-tigation of the specific motives of employees in various nonprofitsectors represents a significant gap in motivation research.

Second, socioeconomic factors also emphasize the discrepanciesbetween the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. The latter is moredetermined by a sociopolitical agenda. The challenge of finding finan-cial resources is often controlled by external interests, and nonprofitorganizations can often be characterized as open systems (Young andSteinberg, 1995; Herman and Heimovics, 1991). Moreover, nonprofitorganizations are often less hierarchical (Barnabé and Burns, 1994).They respond to different economic pressures (Hansmann, 1987)and have a different competitive place in the market (Young andSteinberg, 1995; Herman and Heimovics, 1991). A commonapproach in the economic literature is to model the behavior of for-profit, nonprofit, and government service providers separately.Typically researchers assume that for-profit firms wish to maximizeprofits and then derive and evaluate their competitive behavior fromthis assumption (Steinberg, 1987). Based on these insights, onewould expect nonprofit specifications for profit-oriented motivationtheories, since the work environment is quite different from thefor-profit sector.

Third, there are indications that employees in the for-profit andnonprofit sectors differ in personality, values, and behavioraldimensions. Some time ago, it was shown that individuals wantingto enter nonprofit organizations were more people oriented thanthose who wanted to enter for-profit firms (Rawls and Nelson,1975; Rawls, Ullrich, and Nelson, 1975). Wittmer (1991) observedthat nonprofit employees cared more about serving the publicneeds than about extrinsic rewards like a sizable income. In addi-tion, nonprofit managers seemed to display a stronger commitment

HO W AR E EM P L O Y E E S O F T H E NO N P R O F I T SE C T O R MO T I VAT E D? 193

We believe thatall too often,motivation

theories with afor-profit

inheritance aretoo easily applied

as a generalframework for

nonprofitapplications

to the philosophy of their organization and were more helpful andforgiving, in contrast to the more ambitious for-profit managerswho sought high salaries (Handy and Katz, 1998).

These findings suggest that different motives might be at stakein both sectors, thus supporting our interest in nonprofit motivationresearch.

There is reason to believe that nonprofit subsectors may requirealternative motivation insights. We have chosen two sectors forreviewing existing motivation-related studies: educational and hos-pital environments. These settings seem to provide the mostresearch on motivation, perhaps because of their relatively easyaccess for empirical research. Furthermore, both are interesting tostudy because hospitals bear some resemblance to for-profit orga-nizations (for example, they have a hierarchical structure; Carney,2004; Marmor, Schlesinger, and Smithey, 1987) and schools haveless of a resemblance. In this way, some significant variation can beobserved, especially in testing the applicability of managerial toolswith a for-profit origin. As will become clear, existing researchabout the motivation of employees in the nonprofit sector puts amajor emphasis on studies of teaching and hospital nursing staff.Therefore, this review concentrates on studies of these employeesin an attempt to develop some hypotheses and suggestions forfurther study in view of our knowledge of work motivation innonprofit organizations.

Work Motivation of TeachersBarnabé and Burns (1994) noted that teachers may be motivatedquite differently from business workers because education systemsdiffer in many respects from business systems. Teachers work in aflat, craft-style organization structure; they work primarily withstudents; they are physically isolated from the continuous interac-tions with other adults that characterize most business work; andthey are faced with qualitatively based, subjective judgments ofeffectiveness. Business workers, in contrast, work mainly in a hier-archical organization structure, have continuous contacts with otheradults, and receive judgment of individual competence frommanagement (Miner, 1993). Clearly, the work environment in edu-cational settings presents employees with specific challenges thatcan be expected to result in different motivational forces (forexample, an urge for feedback).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in EducationalSettingsMiskel (1982) emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation forteachers, although intrinsic motivation is also receiving attentionin for-profit studies. Since the work of Herzberg, Mausner, andSnyderman (1957), the concept of intrinsic motivation has been


Teachers may bemotivated quitedifferently from

business workersbecause

educationsystems differ inmany respectsfrom business

systems

elaborated on; it can be considered a force that brings someone to doan activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separateconsequence. An intrinsically motivated individual is moved to actfor the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external prods,pressures, or rewards (Ryan and Deci, 2000). According to Hackman,Oldham, Janson, and Purdy (1975), intrinsic motivation occurs whenan individual is “turned on to one’s work because of the positive inter-nal feelings that are generated by doing well, rather than being depen-dent on external factors (such as incentive pay or compliments of theboss) for the motivation to work effectively” (p. 58).

In a British study, affiliation and altruism as well as personalgrowth were seen as important motives for teaching staff (Dinhamand Scott, 1997). Affiliation and altruism are particularly neglectedin motivation theories coming from the for-profit sector. Scott, Cox,and Dinham (1999) conducted a further study with 609 Englishteachers and school administrators to examine and benchmark teach-ers’ occupational motivation, satisfaction, and health and to test amodel of teacher satisfaction developed in Australia in a previousresearch phase. For the majority of teachers in the English sample,the most popular reason for entering teaching was similar to theirAustralian counterparts: “always having wanted to teach” (p. 296).They scored highest on those aspects of commitment that suggesteda preference for working with and for people, which supports find-ings on the differences between for-profit and nonprofit employees(Wittmer, 1991; Handy and Katz, 1998). Personal growth indicatedthat the English teachers and their Australian peers valued their owncontinuing development as human beings (Scott, Cox, and Dinham,1999). A more extensive study by Scott, Stone, and Dinham (2001)on the career motivation and satisfaction of more than three thou-sand teachers in four countries (Australia, New Zealand, England,and the United States) revealed that teachers everywhere enter theprofession to serve children. They are motivated by altruism andactivism and seek to make a difference by aiding individual children.However, teachers complain about students who are extremely emo-tionally and socially needy or who have serious self-discipline prob-lems. In addition, they are demotivated by the expansion of externalassessments, requiring the production of more written documents ingreater detail, causing an increase in paperwork.

In a Belgian qualitative study, Dierynck and others (1998) inter-viewed forty-three teachers with at least fifteen years of educationalexperience about their work motivation. Three factors contributedto their motivation: personal biography, job characteristics, and workconditions. Personal biography refers to information about the moti-vation to start teaching (for example, they enjoy working withpupils) and the career and family context (for example, teachers’ pri-vate life situations influenced their performance). The fact that theseauthors suggest a particular set of motives when choosing the careercan also be seen as an indication of the potential dynamic construct


Three factorscontributed to thework motivation

of teachers:personal

biography, jobcharacteristics,

and workconditions

that motivation may be, in contrast to the long-standing trait-relatedapproach (Locke and Latham, 2004). The second category, job char-acteristics, refers to the relationships with pupils, the perception ofachieving results with pupils, innovation in class, and, similar to theBritish studies, teaching itself. The last category, work conditions, con-tains information about the relationship with the principal, theautonomy of teachers, participation in extracurricular decisions, andpossibilities for professional development.

Although the methodology of Dierynck and others (1998) canbe critiqued (for example, this was a sample of exclusively highlymotivated teachers, and there was lack of clarity about the researchmethod), these authors point out, as Scott, Cox, and Dinham (1999)did, that teachers may be highly motivated by intrinsic rewards, butextrinsic factors are relevant as well.

Older studies (Garbarino, 1975; McLaughlin and Marsh, 1978;Spuck, 1974) have indicated that although financial incentives canpromote specific behaviors (such as accepting difficult teachingassignments) and direct teachers’ efforts toward measurable goals(such as achieving higher test scores among their pupils), they areless promising as tools to improve general teaching performance(Moore, 1986). There seems to be extensive evidence that teachersregard professional efficacy, not money, as the primary motivator intheir work (Scott, Cox, and Dinham, 1999; Dierynck and others,1998; Garbarino, 1975; McLaughlin and Marsh, 1978; Spuck, 1974).There is even some evidence that the prospect of extrinsic rewardsmay diminish the potential of intrinsic rewards (Moore, 1986). Thesefindings are in line with a meta-analysis conducted by Deci, Ryan,and Koestner (1999) confirming that virtually every type of expectedtangible reward made contingent on task performance does in factundermine intrinsic motivation.

Interesting in this regard are the career ladders for teachers,which aim at improving teacher performance by increasing theopportunities for teacher incentives (Luce, 1998). These ladders aredesigned to generate intrinsic rewards such as recognition, chal-lenges, and opportunities for growth. Career ladders have beenimplemented in some schools across the United States to improveteacher motivation and expand teachers’ contributions to the effec-tiveness of their schools (Luce, 1998). Teachers are evaluated accord-ing to defined competencies, and their roles may be modifiedaccording to their evaluation. Professional development needs, asdetermined by individual assessment, can be addressed in this way.More capable teachers assume responsibilities as peer coaches ormentors for those with less competence or less experience. In recog-nition of these new responsibilities, teachers receive additional com-pensation over and above their scheduled salary, which is usuallybased on years of experience and educational preparation (as is thecase in many countries). These career ladders do not emphasize ashift to different work: teaching remains the main responsibility


There seems tobe extensiveevidence that

teachers regardprofessionalefficacy, not

money, as theprimary

motivator intheir work

(Luce, 1998). Career ladders are especially interesting in flatorganization structures such as schools, because they allow changesin the rather flat careers of teachers; furthermore, continued learn-ing may get rewarded in the future (Sels, 2003).

This review of previous research leads us to hypothesize thatteaching in itself is motivating. This is in contrast to most other pro-fessions where executing the basic professional activities is seldomconsidered as motivating in itself. Often activities are motivatingbecause they serve another intrinsic or extrinsic purpose, such as theneed for variation in tasks or to get a promotion. The questionremains, of course, which essential characteristics make teachingitself motivating and whether these account for all individuals in allsituations.

The Two-Factor Theory in Educational SettingsThe interviews of seventy-one teachers by Sergiovanni (1967) and offifty-seven teachers who resigned by Dinham and Scott (1997) aretwo examples of studies showing that the factors giving rise to satis-faction and dissatisfaction are largely mutually exclusive. In bothstudies, responses from the teachers tended not to differ. Whileintrinsic aspects of teaching like student achievement and teacherself-growth were found to be uniformly satisfying, extrinsic factorsof teaching, such as poor interpersonal relations and administrativeresponsibilities, uniformly generated dissatisfaction. In other words,dissatisfiers (extrinsic aspects of teaching) were perceived as detract-ing from or militating against the core business of teaching students.The results of these studies (Sergiovanni, 1967; Dinham and Scott,1997) may be seen as supporting Herzberg’s two-factor theory(Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1957), insofar as the factorsgiving rise to teacher satisfaction and teacher dissatisfaction are con-sidered different and thus not arranged at the opposite ends of thesame continuum. Dinham and Scott (2000) observed that the majordissatisfiers are not located within the school (that is, within the con-ditions of work) but within the broader social context and environ-ment in which each school operates. These dissatisfiers were largelyout of the control of teachers and schools and found within the widerdomain of society, government, and the employing body (Dinhamand Scott, 2000).

It is known that most studies using the Herzberg methodologysupport the two-factor theory, while a different research method doesnot (King, 1970; Soliman, 1970; Janssen, Nijhuis, Peeters, and deJonge, 1996). Indeed Sergiovanni (1967) and Dinham and Scott(1997) used the critical incidents interview approach and contentanalysis procedures, as did Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman(1957), and supported the two-factor theory. Similar problems aboutthe empirical divide between intrinsic and extrinsic motives havealso been encountered in for-profit sector research (King, 1970;Grigaliunas and Weiner, 1974; Janssen, Nijhuis, Peeters, and


de Jonge, 1996). However, to our knowledge, the method depen-dency of these findings has not been systematically tested yet in anonprofit environment.

Moreover, there is a lack of conceptual clarity as a result of theHerzberg legacy. As Edgar (1999, p. 15) noted, “. . . Many of the arti-cles on job satisfaction appeared to be measuring aspects of motiva-tion.” This also seems to be the case in several studies in educationalsettings discussed here (Dinham and Scott, 1997; Scott, Cox, andDinham, 1999; Dinham and Scott, 2000), but arises in work moti-vation studies in the for-profit sector as well (for example, Kovach,1987; Maidani, 1991). However, the problem may be less funda-mental for our purpose if one considers satisfaction as the attitude(or emotional state) that results from meeting the motives, and sincethe concept “refers generally to a variety of aspects of the job”(Arnold, 2005, p. 255), then satisfaction studies indeed provide infor-mation as to what factors energize work behavior. As long as researchdoes not concentrate only on the correlates of the attitude itself, “atti-tudes and attitude measurement [are] seen as pathways to uncover-ing motivational keys” (Landy and Conte, 2004, p. 343). In hiscognitive value theory of job satisfaction, Locke (1976) concentrateson certain job aspects (motives) that influence the employee’s workbehavior. Alternatively, Warr (1987) suggested, more from a contentpoint of view, nine job factors that might energize or restrain behav-ior (although still concentrating on for-profit settings). Therefore,conceptual clarity remains a requirement for identifying the variablesthat are investigated.

Finally, and as a suggestion for further studies, the traditionalprofit-oriented distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivesmay need refinement for nonprofit purposes. Although the Dinhamstudies, given the methodology constraints, generally supported theimportance of the distinction, the meaning of extrinsic motivesseemed to be narrower than what has been found in profit studies;that is, extrinsic demotivators are not necessarily part of the teach-ers’ conditions of work as they are often in profit research. Whetherthis finding also holds in other teaching environments or in othernonprofit settings may be put on the research agenda.

The Expectancy-Valence Motivation Theoryin Educational SettingsInvestigations in educational organizations based on expectancytheory were mainly published in the 1970s and the beginning of the1980s. Mowday (1978) found that school principals with highermotivation were more active in attempting to influence district deci-sions. In a study of secondary and higher education teachers, Miskel,De Frain, and Wilcox (1980) found motivation to be significantlyrelated to job satisfaction and perceived performance for both groups,which supports the original Vroom hypotheses. Using a longitudinalapproach, Miskel (1981, 1982) suggested that teachers’ motivation


The traditionalprofit-oriented

distinctionbetween extrinsic

and intrinsicmotives may need

refinement fornonprofitpurposes

was positively related to student achievement, student and teacherattitudes, and communication among educators.

Although these studies emphasized a process approach, somesupport is found for the earlier reported outcomes about the nar-rower meaning of extrinsic motives in a teaching environment.Communication among educators is not exactly an intrinsic factor,yet it seemed to increase teachers’ motivation.

The Job Characteristics Model in Educational SettingsBarnabé and Burns (1994) investigated whether the Job DiagnosticSurvey (JDS), a questionnaire filled out by employees to measure thevariables at stake in the Job Characteristics Model (JCM), providedsupport for the propositions of the model in educational settings,similar to the findings in business settings. The basic proposition ofthe JCM (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) is that favorable work out-comes such as motivation arise from five characteristics of jobs thatcreate critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness,experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results). The results ofBarnabé and Burns (1994) provided preliminary support for the the-ory. They revealed that while recognizing its limitations, schooladministrators can use the JCM to diagnose the need for redesigningthe work of teachers. JDS data can be useful in determining whetherimprovement is needed and what particular changes may be required.If the JDS is useful for both diagnosis and evaluation, school admin-istrators will have better information on which further changes canbe based. But as we have noted, we cannot assume that only struc-tural or monetary changes will enhance teacher motivation (Moore,1986; Scott, Cox, and Dinham, 1999; Dierynck and others, 1998).Moreover, the actual status of the five job characteristics is not fullyclear yet. Can they be seen as job-related motivators for employeeswith a growth need, and which role do the critical psychologicalstates play? It may even be suggested that the latter can be consid-ered a motivational force as well, since the need for a responsible job(according to the model, influenced by autonomy in the job) mayenergize work behavior as well. Therefore, although the JCM is awell-researched topic in the for-profit sector, questions remain as toits application in a nonprofit setting.

SummaryTeachers express a preference for working with and for people (forexample, they enjoy working with pupils). Important motivesfor teaching are affiliation, altruism, and personal growth. Also,teachers experience student achievement as uniformly satisfying.Furthermore, the studies revealed that it is not high salary but pro-fessional efficacy that is very important to teachers, a conclusion inline with studies revealing differences in motivation betweenfor-profit and nonprofit employees. According to Wittmer (1991),nonprofit employees care more about serving public needs than


We cannotassume that only

structural ormonetary

changes willenhance teacher

motivation

about extrinsic rewards like income. In addition, nonprofit managersdisplay a stronger commitment to the philosophy of their organiza-tion and are more helpful and forgiving, in contrast to more ambi-tious for-profit managers who are seeking a high income (Handy andKatz, 1998).

As the research of Dinham and Scott (2000) indicated, research isneeded on the application of the two-factor theory in educational set-tings. Dinham and Scott also suggest a third domain of teacher dis-satisfaction: the broader societal context and the environment inwhich each school operates. More extensive research is needed aswell on the personality differences between teachers and employeesin the for-profit sector. As work by Dinham and Scott (1997), Scott,Cox, and Dinham (1999), and Scott, Stone, and Dinham (2001) indi-cated, one would expect that teachers would score higher on affilia-tion and would be less competitive and money oriented than theircounterparts working in the for-profit sector. But how stable is thisfinding, given some varying working conditions?

Work Motivation of NursesAlthough the literature specifically directed to motivation of nursesis scarce, some interesting results should be considered.

The Job Characteristics Model in Hospital SettingsKivimäki, Voutilainen, and Koskinen (1995) tested the JCM by inves-tigating whether the level of job satisfaction and work motivationis higher in more enriched jobs on primary nursing wards than in lessenriched jobs on wards with functional nursing. Work motivation wasassessed through a scale developed by Philips (1988; see alsoKivimäki, Voutilainen, and Koskinen, 1994). The scale included threeitems on willingness of the staff to do their best at work and to be heldaccountable for their work performance. Job satisfaction was mea-sured by a six-item scale that dealt with one’s job, the people in one’swork group, the supervisor, the hospital, one’s professional progressat the current workplace, and the chances for getting ahead in theorganization in the future (Taylor and Bowers, 1972; see alsoKivimäki, Voutilainen, and Koskinen, 1994). The results revealed thatnursing jobs on the primary nursing wards were clearly more enrichedthan those on the functional nursing wards. Furthermore, the resultsindicated that the motivation of the nursing staff on primary nursingwards was stronger than on the functional wards. The staff expectednurses on primary wards more often to do their best and to beaccountable for their work outcomes. Kivimäki, Voutilainen, andKoskinen (1994) supported the relationship between work motiva-tion, job satisfaction, and job enrichment as presented in the JCM butthis time in a nonprofit environment. This is in line with the findingson work allocation by Mäkinen and others (2003), which also corre-spond to Hackman and Oldham’s hypotheses (1976) on the associa-tions among autonomy, work motivation, and job satisfaction.


The motivation ofthe nursing staff

on primarynursing wards

was stronger thanon the functional

wards

Similar support has been found in a Dutch study by Janssen, deJonge, and Bakker (1999) with 156 Dutch general hospital nurses.Three important reactions to stress could be identified: diminishedintrinsic work motivation, occupational burnout, and an inclina-tion to leave the job. In this research, conceptually integrated mea-sures were used. Intrinsic work motivation, for example, wasmeasured with six items derived from a scale developed by Warr,Cook, and Wall (1979). The study also revealed that intrinsic workmotivation is clearly and positively related to the quality of the jobcontent, that is, to elements of the job that make the work chal-lenging and worthwhile, such as skill variety, autonomy, social con-tacts, and opportunities to learn. Management can clearly focus onthese work content elements when trying to improve nurses’ intrin-sic motivation. Yet studies to date concentrate on the existingprofit-originated JCM.

In an attempt to look at nonprofit specifications, Edgar (1999)investigated the relationship between motivation, job satisfaction,and job characteristics in nursing care delivery systems. For the pur-pose of this study, the JCM was modified by adding four componentsthat were found in the literature to influence nurses’ work life (Baggsand others, 1992; O’Brien-Pallas and Baumann, 1992): autonomy andits supports, informal and formal communication, preference for thedivision of tasks, and the patient environment. The research samplein this study consisted of more than four hundred nurses whoworked in four Canadian hospitals. The data collection instrumentconsisted of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham,1976), as well as a questionnaire identifying nursing practices thatare conceptually related to the outcomes of motivation and demo-graphic information. While the addition of the four attributes seemedhelpful in identifying specific areas of the nursing work that con-tribute to satisfaction, these additional components did notcontribute directly to the explanation of internal work motivation. Itappears that support for autonomy may be the aspect of the nursingwork environment that, together with the core job characteristicsfrom the JCM, contributes significantly to work motivation througha psychological state related to self-esteem (Edgar, 1999).

Most research in this area starts with the JCM to investigate workmotivation in hospital environments and concludes that expectedintrinsic rewards are by far more rewarding than extrinsic rewards.However, knowing that the duality between intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation may be somewhat too general, a more differentiatedapproach seems worth exploring. The JCM should not be neglected,but perhaps nonprofit specifications are worth exploring further. Theadditional characteristics that Edgar (1999) introduced did not proveto be significant. But one wonders whether that is all there is. Giventhat this is the only study so far that did not just transfer the JCM toa nonprofit environment, an effort could be made to study work moti-vation based on nonprofit employees instead of starting with motiva-tion theories that originate mainly from the for-profit sector. Perhaps


other characteristics will be observed if one starts with in-depth inter-views that could be used to reconceptualize work motivation innonprofits from a grounded theory approach (Hayes, 1997).

SummaryThe investigation of motivation of nursing staff is not only scarce butseems to concentrate heavily on testing the JCM. As Edgar (1999,p. 15) mentioned, “There is a sparsity of nursing literature specifi-cally directed to motivation; besides . . . many of the articles on jobsatisfaction appeared to be measuring aspects of motivation.” Sincehospitals bear a greater resemblance to for-profit organizations thanto schools in terms of their hierarchical structure (Carney, 2004;Marmor, Schlesinger, and Smithey, 1987), most researchers seem toassume that classic motivation theories are applicable in hospitalsettings. This may explain why schools are more popular for doingalternative motivation research. Nevertheless, the work environmentof hospitals is totally different from that of a for-profit organization;their patient-related work constitutes a unique client relationshipwith an atypical product orientation: health. In nonprofit hospitals,generating income has a different emphasis, which has an impact onthe rewarding potential of these organizations. We consider botharguments to be reason enough to suggest that nurses may have dif-ferent work motivators and that the application of work motivationtheories based on insights from for-profit organizations can bequestioned and requires more empirical fieldwork.

The literature review of the occupational motivation of nursesreveals that they were more motivated in more enriched nursing jobsthan in less enriched nursing jobs. This general statement is indeedin line with findings from for-profit organizations. Also, the intrinsicwork motivation of nurses proved to be determined primarily by ele-ments of the job that make the work challenging and worthwhile,such as skill variety, autonomy, social contacts, and opportunities tolearn, thus confirming hypotheses based on the JCM. Although someattempts have been made to extend this model for nonprofit purposesthrough motives such as social contacts and opportunities to learn,more extensive research is required on issues as to what motivatesnurses to do their job, to what extent extrinsic motivators play a role,whether nurses also have an unconditional preference for workingwith and for people, and how different nurses are from employees infor-profit organizations. Furthermore, the emphasis on one motiva-tion theory in this nonprofit setting led us to ask whether othertheories should be considered.

Concluding RemarksThe dominant research paradigm used in nonprofit motivationresearch concentrates on testing the validity of the two-factor theory(Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1957), the job characteristics


The applicationof work

motivationtheories [to

nursing] basedon insights from

for-profitorganizations canbe questioned and

requires moreempiricalfieldwork

model (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), and the expectancy-valencemotivation theory (Vroom, 1964) in a nonprofit environment. Sincethe results of these efforts in most cases lead to the acceptance ofthese applications, researchers agree that these profit-oriented theo-ries can also be applied to nonprofit environments. At the same time,most studies assume that workers are motivated by the same motives,whether they are working in the for-profit sector, nonprofit organi-zations, or the public sector (Silverthorne, 1996).

We have offered some arguments to emphasize the differencesbetween for-profit and nonprofit environments, which may haveconsequences for nonprofit work motivation. Our review revealssome empirical evidence showing that compared to employeesworking in for-profit organizations, employees in the nonprofitsector may be motivated by different factors—for example, pref-erences for working with and for people, altruism, personalgrowth, social contacts, opportunities to learn versus more ambi-tion, and intrinsic rewards versus extrinsic rewards like incomeand money. Further empirical attention to these topics is impor-tant. In addition, as Locke and Latham (2004) recommended,there is a general need to address the issue of motivational statesas being readily manipulated constructs rather than stable traits.Therefore, it is important to investigate whether there are differ-ences between for-profit and nonprofit employees considering thestability of motivational states.

As a result of this review, we believe that the completeness of theexisting motivation theories when applied to a nonprofit environ-ment and to nonprofit employees is questionable. Moreover, weemphasize that there is little recent motivation research on the non-profit sector. Consequently, various suggestions have been made andhypotheses can be formulated to create a research agenda.

Of course, it is possible that the existing motivation theories canbe applied to the nonprofit sector, but as we have indicated, thesetheories may be adapted, extended, or even reformulated in severalways given the specific nonprofit constraints. We do realize that onlytwo nonprofit sectors have been reviewed in this article, but we arequite confident that looking at other sectors would not have alteredour conclusions. Hence, this article serves as a call for more empiri-cal research about employees and their work behavior in nonprofitenvironments.

CATHERINE SCHEPERS is a doctoral research student in the Department ofWork, Organizational and Economic Psychology, Vrije Universiteit,Brussels, Belgium.

SARA DE GIETER is a doctoral research student in the Department of Work,Organizational and Economic Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels,Belgium.


ROLAND PEPERMANS is a professor in the Department of Work, Organiza-tional and Economic Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium.

CINDY DU BOIS is a doctoral research student in the Department ofMicroeconomics for the Profit and the Nonprofit Sectors, Vrije Universiteit,Brussels, Belgium.

RALF CAERS is a doctoral research student in the Department of Micro-economics for the Profit and the Nonprofit Sectors, Vrije Universiteit,Brussels, Belgium.

MARC JEGERS is a professor in the Department of Microeconomics for theProfit and the Nonprofit Sectors, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium.

References

Arnold, J. Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior in theWorkplace. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2005.

Baggs, J. G., and others. “The Association Between InterdisciplinaryCollaboration and Patient Outcomes in Medical Intensive Care.”Heart and Lung, 1992, 21, 18–24.

Barnabé, C., and Burns, M. “Teachers’ Job Characteristics and Moti-vation.” Educational Research, 1994, 36 (2), 171–185.

Carney, M. “Middle Manager Involvement in Strategy Developmentin Not-for-Profit Organizations: The Director of Nursing Perspec-tive: How Organizational Structure Impacts on the Role.” Journalof Nursing Management, 2004, 12 (1), 13–21.

Deci, E. L. Intrinsic Motivation. London: Plenum, 1976.Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., and Koestner, R. “A Meta-Analytic Review

of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewardson Intrinsic Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin, 1999, 125 (6),627–668.

Dierynck, R., and others. Motivatie van leerkrachten: een onderzoeknaar de factoren die de motivatie beïnvloeden van leerkrachten met15 jaar en meer onderwijservaring [Teachers’ motivation: An inves-tigation of the factors influencing teachers’ motivation with anexperience of fifteen years or more]. Leuven, Belgium: KatholiekeUniversiteit, Centrum voor Onderwijsbeleid en Vernieuwing, 1998.

Dinham, S., and Scott, C. “A Three Domain Model of Teacher andSchool Executive Career Satisfaction.” Journal of EducationalAdministration, 1997, 36 (4), 362–374.

Dinham, S., and Scott, C. “Moving into the Third, Outer Domain ofTeacher Satisfaction.” Journal of Educational Administration, 2000,38 (4), 379–396.

Edgar, L. “Nurses’ Motivation and Its Relationship to the Character-istics of Nursing Care Delivery Systems: A Test of the Job Charac-teristics Model.” Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 1999,12 (1), 14–22.


Foster, J. F. “Motivation in the Workplace.” In N. Chmiel (ed.), Workand Organizational Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Garbarino, J. “The Impact of Anticipated Reward upon Cross-AgeTutoring.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32,421–428.

Grigaliunas, B., and Weiner, Y. “Has the Research Challenge toMotivation-Hygiene Theory Been Conclusive? An Analysis ofCritical Studies.” Human Relations, Dec. 1974, pp. 839–871.

Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. “Motivation Through the Devel-opment of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 1976, 16, 250–279.

Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. Work Redesign. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1980.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson R., and Purdy, K. “A NewStrategy for Job Enrichment.” California Management Review,Summer 1975, pp. 57–71.

Handy, F., and Katz, E. “The Wage Differential Between NonprofitInstitutions and Corporation: Getting More by Paying Less?”Journal of Comparative Economics, 1998, 26 (2), 246.

Hansmann, H. “Political Theories of Nonprofit Organizations.” InW. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.

Hayes, N. Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology. London: Taylor &Francis, 1997.

Herman, R. D., and Heimovics, D. R. Executive Leadership in NonprofitOrganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. The Motivation toWork. New York: Wiley, 1957.

Janssen, P.P.M., de Jonge, J., and Bakker, A. B. “Specific Determinantsof Intrinsic Work Motivation, Burnout and Turnover Intentions: AStudy Among Nurses.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1999, 29 (6),1360–1369.

Janssen, P.P.M., Nijhuis, F.J.N., Peeters, M.C.W., and de Jonge, J.“Intrinsieke werkmotivatie: Een heroriëntatie op het begrip en eenverklaring vanuit de motivatie- en taakkenmerken benadering.”Gedrag en Organisatie, 1996, 9 (5), 290–304.

King, N. “Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory ofJob Satisfaction.” Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 18–31.

Kivimäki, M., Voutilainen, P., and Koskinen, P. “Job Enrichment, WorkMotivation, and Job Satisfaction in Hospital Wards: Testing the JobCharacteristics Model.” Journal of Nursing Management, 1995, 3,87–91.

Kovach, K. A. “What Motivates Employees? Workers and SupervisorsGive Different Answers.” Business Horizons, 1987, 30 (5), 58–65.

Landy, F. J., and Conte, J. M. Work in the Twenty-First Century.New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Locke, E. A. “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction.” In M. D.Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1976.


Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. “What Should We Do About Moti-vation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-FirstCentury.” Academy of Management Review, 2004, 29 (3), 388–403.

Luce, J. A. “Career Ladders: Modifying Teachers’ Work to SustainMotivation.” Education, 1998, 119 (1), 15–19.

Maidani, E. A. “Comparative Study of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theoryof Job Satisfaction Among Public and Private Sectors.” Public Per-sonnel Management, 1991, 20 (4), 441–448.

Mäkinen, A., and others. “Organization of Nursing Care as a Deter-minant of Job Satisfaction Among Hospital Nurses.” Journal ofNursing Management, 2003, 11, 299–306.

Marmor, T., Schlesinger, M., and Smithey, R. “Nonprofit Organizationsand Health Care.” In W. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: AResearch Handbook. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.

McLaughlin, M. W., and Marsh D. D. “Staff Development and SchoolChange.” Teachers College Record, 1978, 80 (1), 69–94.

Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. “A Three Component Conceptualizationof Organizational Commitment.” Human Resource Management,1991, 1, 61–87.

Miner, J. B. Role Motivation Theories. London: Routledge, 1993.Miskel, C. “The Impact of Structural Coupling and Expectancy Climate

on Cooperative Planning for Students with Learning Disabilities:Final Report.” Lawrence, Kans.: Learning Disabilities Institute,University of Kansas, 1981.

Miskel, C. G. “Motivation in Educational Organizations.” EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 1982, 18 (3), 65–88.

Miskel, C. G., De Frain, J. A., and Wilcox, K. “A Test of ExpectancyMotivation Theory in Educational Settings.” Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly, 1980, 16 (3), 70–92.

Moore, J. S. “Incentives for Teachers: What Motivates, What Matters.”Educational Administration Quarterly, 1986, 22 (3), 54–79.

Morris, S. “Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Some Lessons from His-tory.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and NonprofitOrganizations, 2000, 11 (1), 25–43.

Mowday, R. T. “The Exercise of Upward Influence in Organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 137–156.

O’Brien-Pallas, L., and Baumann, A. “Quality of Nursing WorklifeIssues: A Unifying Framework.” Canadian Journal of NursingAdministration, 1992, 5 (2), 12–16.

Philips, W. “The Organizational-Health Survey.” In J. W. Pfeiffer (ed.),The 1988 Annual: Developing Human Resources. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1988.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., and MacKenzie, S. B. “OrganizationalCitizenship and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Perfor-mance.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82 (2), 262–270.

Rawls, J. R., and Nelson, O. T., Jr. “Characteristics Associated withPreferences for Certain Managerial Positions.” PsychologicalReports, 1975, 36, 911–918.


Rawls, J. R., Ullrich, R. A., and Nelson, O. T., Jr. “A Comparisonof Managers Entering or Reentering the Profit and the Non-profit Sectors.” Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18 (3),616–626.

Rudney, G. “The Scope and Dimensions of Nonprofit Activity.” In W.W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.

Ryan, M. R., and Deci, E. L. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations:Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 2000, 25, 54–67.

Salomon, L. M., and Anheier, H. K. “In Search of the NonprofitSector. The Question of Definitions.” Voluntas: InternationalJournal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1992, 3 (2),125–151.

Scott, C., Cox S., and Dinham, S. “The Occupational Motivation,Satisfaction and Health of English School Teachers.” EducationalPsychology, 1999, 19 (3), 287–308.

Scott, C., Stone, B. and Dinham, S. “‘I Love Teaching But . . .’:International Patterns of Teacher Discontent.” Education PolicyAnalysis Archives, 2001, 9 (28), 1–7.

Sels, L. “Rewarding.” Presentation at the University of Antwerp Man-agement School, Antwerp, Belgium, 2003.

Sergiovanni, T. “Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfac-tion of Teachers.” Journal of Educational Administration, 1967, 5 (1),66–81.

Silverthorne, C. “Motivation and Management Styles in the Public andPrivate Sector in Taiwan and a Comparison with the United States.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996, 26 (20), 1827– 1837.

Soliman, H. M. “Motivation-Hygiene Theory of Job Attitudes: AnEmpirical Investigation and an Attempt to Reconcile Both the One-and Two Factor Theories of Job Attitudes.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1970, 54, 452–461.

Spuck, D. W. “Reward Structures in the Public High School.” Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 1974, 10, 22–42.

Steers, M. R., Mowday, R. T., and Shapiro, D. L. “The Future of WorkMotivation Theory.” Academy of Management Review, 2004, 29 (3),379–387.

Steinberg, R. “Nonprofit Organizations and the Market.” In W. W.Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.

Taylor, J. C., and Bowers, D. G. “Survey of Organization: A MachineScored Standardized Questionnaire Instrument.” Ann Arbor:University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1972.

Tosi, H. L., Mero, N. P., and Rizzo, J. R. Managing OrganizationalBehavior. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Vroom, V. Work Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.Warr, P. B. Work, Unemployment and Mental Health. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1987.


Warr, P. B., Cook, J. C., and Wall, P. B. “Scales for the Measurementof Some Attitudes and Aspects of Psychological Well-Being.”Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1979, 52 (2), 129–148.

Wittmer, D. “Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Prefer-ences Among Government, Hybrid Sector and Business Managers.”Public Productivity and Management Review, 1991, 14 (4), 369.

Young, D. R., and Steinberg, R. Economics for Nonprofit Managers.New York: Foundation Center, 1995.


For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.

how are employees of the nonprofit sector motivated? a research need

Documents