Anda di halaman 1dari 17

A COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGERS

DEBORA S. SCHNEIDER Community Action Safety Effort, Springfield, Missouri BOBBY C. VAUGHT Southwest Missouri State University INTRODUCTION
More than three out of every five Americans are satisfied with their jobs while only one out of every ten is dissatisfied (Linden, 1987). Work occupies a large portion of the waking hours of most people. To some it is the most important thing in their lives. How people feel about their work affects their basic feelings about themselves, their self-esteem, and their perception of themselves. Also, with today's increased technology in the workplace, greater stress is put on employees, often leading to job dissatisfaction. Since work occupies such a large part of a person's life, satisfaction with one's job is considered an important part of a person's quality of life. Interest in the study of job satisfaction and how it affects an individual's quality of life within and outside of an organization dates from the 1930s (Lawler, 1983). The 1930 studies include those by Hoppock in 1935 and the Western Electric studies that were published in 1939. The Western Electric studies "... emphasized the importance of studying the attitudes, feelings, and perceptions employees have about their jobs" and "... made the point that employees have strong affective reactions to what happens to them at work" (Ibid.). Because people are affected by numerous and varied motivators, satisfaction with one's job means different things to different people resulting in a multitude of definitions. For the purpose of this article, job satisfaction will be considered simply as a person's attitude or feeling toward his or her job. Job satisfaction continues to be one of

PAQ SPRING 1993

(69)

the most widely studied variables in the field of organizational behavior. An endless number of studies have been conducted and reports written trying to determine workers' satisfaction with their jobs and the causes of their satisfaction/dissatisfaction.^ Employee satisfaction mth their jobs is a considerable concern for public and private sector managers. Various studies have shown that employee absenteeism, turnover, and other behaviors are related to a person's satisfaction with his job and organization (Vroom, 1964; Griffin and Moorehead, 1986). Being aware of the job satisfaction of workers can enable personnel managers to take steps that will insure commitment and involvement from employees. While many of these reports and studies have been concerned with either the public sector or the private sector, very few recent studies (Mirvis and Hackett, 1983; Smith and Nock, 1980; Solomon, 1986) have compared the job satisfaction levels of these two groups of employees. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to discuss similarities and differences between public and private sector management; (2) to review research on job satisfaction in order to compare the two sectors; and (3) to compare job satisfaction between the private and public sector within a sample of managers in the state of Missouri. Implications for management, both global and specific, of the similarities and differences between the two sectors are discussed.
DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

In order to compare job satisfaction levels between workers in the public and private sectors, it may be helpful to understand some of the differences and similarities that may exist between the two. Historically, the two sectors have been viewed as different, but varying opinions have emerged concerning the existence of both similarities and differences. Similarities between the public and private sectors emphasize a commonality of general management functions (Allison, 1983; Murray, 1983). Whether public or private, management consists of establishing an organizational purpose and developing objectives; planning; selecting, managing, and motivating personnel; and controlling organizational and personnel performance. While Murray (1983) believes that there is also a convergence of other organizational processes between the public and private sectors, Allison (1983) utilizes three previously developed lists in

(70)

PAQ SPRING 1993

determining differences in the internal structure and processes between the two sectors. Common differences occurring on these lists include time perspectives, performance measurement, media relations, authority, legal and formal constraints, and personnel constraints to name a few. Differences were also found when comparing four classes of organizations. Fottler (1981) offers a comparative analysis of four organization prototypes: private for-profit, private non-profit, private quasi-public, and public. Based on his study of these four organizational types, Fottler (1981:10) states that "it would be inappropriate to conclude that the differences between the four sectors are significant; however, the public sector does appear to exhibit some significant differences in the conditions and constraints under which management processes are conducted, when contrasted to the private for-profit sector." Another perspective developed by Rainey, Backoff, and Levine (1983:5), after their review of the literature, is that the "body of existing knowledge simply does not provide clear, concise answers to support or rebut the propositions" concerning differences. A more recent critique of the literature comparing the public and private sectors concluded that various limitations existed in both theoretical and empirical research concerning the distinction between private and public organizations (Perry and Rainey, 1988). While progress has been made, those researchers concluded that the distinction between the two sectors is blurred. The three principal reasons cited include the use of multiple definitions for each sector, the "lack of comparability [in empirical studies due to] ... diverse designs, samples, and focal variables" (Ibid., 193), and the exploratory nature of many of these studies without a rigorous theoretical basis. Views vary concerning the differences and similarities between public and private organizations. While some feel that there are differences, others feel that both sectors are basically similar in their practices. The similarities between the two sectors focus mainly on the functions of management, while the differences relate to the conditions or constraints under which management is required to operate. Nevertheless, for research purposes here, most organizations fall clearly into the private or public domain (Solomon, 1986). JOB SATISFACTION STUDIES Thousands of studies have been conducted on job satisfaction

PAQ SPRING 1993

(71)

and several techniques have been developed to study people's attitude toward their work. These techniques include interviews, critical incidents, and questionnaires (sometimes called attitude or opinion surveys). Many studies review employees' satisfaction with their work in terms of the work environment and the work situation. Most of the studies concerning job satisfaction have focused on private sector employees; fewer have focused on public sector employees while even fewer have compared the two groups. The studies reviewed here and discussed below are compared in Figure 1. In two similar studies, reasons why employees stay on the job were found to differ with private sector and public sector workers. Flowers and Hughes (1973) found that low-skill manufacturing employees stay on the job because of maintenance or environmental reasons, such as benefits, personal friendships, financial pressures, and loyalty to the company. Managers and professionals stayed because of their work and work environment. The opposite was found of public sector employees by Dodson and Haskew (1976). Their findings indicated that maintenance and environmental factors or more specifically "benefits, family responsibilities, department loyalty, and concerns about locating other employment are clearly more significant as pressures for staying at the managerial level" (Ibid., 136). In another study, state employees from five states were found to be, on the whole, "fairly satisfied with their jobs, with little variation across the states" (Hopkins, 1983:33). Of these state employees, those who were most satisfied identified mostly intrinsic characteristics about their jobs in relation to the work situation and extrinsic characteristics in relation to the work environment. These findings coincide with those by Costello and Lee (1974) who determined that the public sector professionals found satisfaction with security and the social aspects of their work. Employees also considered higher order needs as important and continued to strive for these needs, in particular self-esteem, self actualization, and autonomy, A recent study of public sector professionals (Cherniss and Kane, 1987) found very little difference between job satisfaction levels of public sector professionals and blue collar workers. The other aspect of this study looked as job characteristics and aspirations for intrinsic fulfillment through work. The professionals perceived lower levels of intrinsically fulfilling characteristics in their jobs than did the blue collar workers. As for receiving intrinsic fulfillment from work, the professionals felt that work should not be a major contributor to this

(72)

PAQ SPRING 10Q3

FIGURE 1 SUMMARY OF SATISFACTION LEVELS


PUBLIC Intrinsic Lxtrinsic PRIVATE Intrinsic Lxtrinsic

Flowers and Hughes Blue collar While collar Dodsou aud Ilaskew Blue collar White collar Ilopkiiis Work situation Work environment Costello and Lee Cheruiss and Kiuie Blue collar While collar Mirvis aud Hackett Smith and Nock Blue collar White collar

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Mcd.-Low High

High Mcd.-Low

Mcd.-Low High Med.-Low High

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

High Low

Low High

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

High-Med. N/A

High Low

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

High

Mcd.-Low

Mcd.-Low

High

Low Med.-High Mcd.-Low High

Mcd.-Low Mcd.-High

Mcd.-High Mcd.-Low

PAQ SPRING 1993

(73)

need whereas the blue collar workers believed differently. These findings conflict with previous theories of job satisfaction. Private non-profit institutions are viewed as the third sector of the economy. A report by Mirvis and Hackett (1983) utilized information from the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey when comparing job satisfaction and workforce characteristics of non-profit government and private sector workers. The basic findings of this study were that "nonprofit employees get satisfaction from their work which may compensate for lower wages and benefits. This is not to say that for-profit employees are not satisfied with the work itself-only that they are less satisfied than those in other sectors" (Ibid., 8). Because of differences in the way they perceive and evaluate their job, public and private sector employees' view of their work and quality of their life were compared in a study by Smith and Nock v^Ji^P/. ^^^fpvftuilj'.ivtf wanp J^A* sva)}'sizstsCiiifJ -far JLhl<; XAttyuLrjsnn according to public or private sector employment, but by white and blue collar as well. Smith and Nock found that blue collar, public sector workers were the least dissatisfied of the groups with their job. White collar public sector workers were found to be more satisfied with extrinsic values of their work than were their counterparts in the private sector. "Public sector white collar workers are least likely to indicate that: (1) their superiors are helpful, (2) their co-workers are interested in them, and (3) they can see the results of their work" (Ibid., 70). Blue collar, private sector workers were found to be the least satisfied with respect to job security, fringe benefits, human relations items, and more. Figure 1 summarizes the level of satisfaction by public and private sector as reported by the previous studies. The intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of a person's job appear to moderate a worker's satisfaction. That is, lower skilled, public sector employees are more satisfied with the environmental or intrinsic factors of their job while public sector professionals feel that maintenance or extrinsic factors are more satisfying. For private sector employees, the opposite seems to occur. That is, white collar professionals are more satisfied with the intrinsic factors while blue collar workers stress extrinsic factors. Overall, public sector workers are more satisfied with their job based on the intrinsic aspects of their work than are workers in the private sector.

(74) METHOD

PAQ SPRING 1993

Because it is regarded as the most carefully designed and developed instrument for measuring job satisfaction (Vroom, 1964), the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was chosen for this survey. The JDI consists of subscales for pay, promotion, people, supervision, and work (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1%9). In order to provide for an overall evaluation of job satisfaction, the Job in General scale has been added to the JDI in recent years. There are a number of items within each subscale. One test of the JDI's applicability is reported by Yeager (1981). He states that over "50 percent of the articles published between 1970 and 1978 in seven leading management or management-related journals that used non-hod hoc measures of job satisfaction employed the JDI... In addition, more than 50 percent of the studies using non-ad hoc measures of job satisfaction in Tlie Proceedings of the Academy of Management since 1975 have employed the JDI" (Ibid., 206). Another study conducted by Golembiewski and Yeager (1978) found that the JDI is very applicable to workers who have different demographic characteristics. These characteristics not only include the race of the employee (black or white) but also the myriad of other demographic characteristics that workers possess and bring with them to their job. The sample chosen for this study from the private sector included every fifteenth service-oriented business selected from eleven categories in the 1987 Missouri Directory of Manufacturing and Mining. A cover letter requesting completion and return of the survey was accompanied by a copy of the JDI survey and was directed to the owner/manager or president of the firm. From the 100 surveys mailed, a total of 36 usable surveys was returned. The sample for the public sector offices was every tenth agency listing from the telephone listings of ten communities in Missouri. These communities were chosen based on their size and geographic location in the state, meaning that they were the larger communities from the north, south, east, west, and central portions of the state. Selections were made from the city, county, state, and federal government as well as social service agency listings. A cover letter and a copy of the JDI were directed to the director or supervisor of the agency. From the 100 surveys mailed, a total of 68 usable surveys were returned. A total of 104 usable surveys from both sectors were

PAQ SPRING 1993

(75)

TABLE 1 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS


l'ri\ate Stttor Public Sector

Sex Male Female Education High School Gradualc Some College College Graduate Post Gradualc Work Graduate Degree 21 8

% 72 28 % 17 21 41 7 14

# 39 26

% 60 40 % 6 22 24 26 22

tt
5 6 12 2 4

4 14 16 17 14

Average Number of Eiuploj ees Supervised Private Sector 11 Public Sector 50 Average Number of Employees Private Sector 53 Public Sector 565 Average Number of Yeiirs Employ ed Private Sector 11 Public Sector 7.4

(76)

PAQ SPRING 1993

returned, resulting in a 52 percent response rate. The JDI was accompanied with a short personal characteristics questionnaire requesting information about the respondent's sex, age, education level, number of employees he/she supervises, total number of employees at the location, and the number of years he/she had been employed at the current job. A sampling of job titles from the public and private sectors verified that those responding to the survey held comparable positions. The majority of the private sector employees stated that they were the President of their firm. Other job titles included Vice President, Branch Manager, Owner, Director, Editor, and Engineer. There was a wider variety of job titles listed for those in the public sector, but all were manager or supervisory status. They included Executive Director, Officer in Charge, District Manager, Superintendent, Deputy Director, Bureau Manager, Fire Chief, and Assistant City Manager, to name a few. RESULTS Table 1 details the personal characteristics of the respondents. A slightly higher number of public sector respondents (68%) have completed college or above as compared to the private sector respondents (62%). This is similar to afindingby Mirvis and Hackett (1983) where it was found that a greater number of non-profit and government employees held college or post-graduate degrees (42.5% and 39.5%, respectively) than did the for-profit sector employees (11.6%). On the average, the private sector employees have been employed almost 3 and one-half years longer on their current job than public sector employees. Mirvis and Hackett (1983) found little difference between years of work experience for employees in the three sectors they studied. An attempt was made to distribute the surveys to comparable size private sector businesses and public sector agencies. This was not entirely accomplished since the average number of employees per private firm was 53 and the average per public agency was 565. However, the individual responses indicate that the majority of respondents from both sectors are employed by firms with 300 or less employees (private - 96%; public - 77%). Tables 2 and 3 represent the findings on job satisfaction for public and private sector employees in Missouri by sex. A T-test was

PAQ SPRING 1993

(77)

TABLE 2 COMPARISION OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR (MALES)
Public Sector M:iles Work on Preseni Job Present Pay N = 39 x = 38.2 N=39 x = 28.2 N=36 x = 20.2 N=34 x = 39.6 N = 38 x = 42.2 N=39 x = 46.3 Private Sector Males N=21 x=37.6 N = 21 x = 35.9 N = 20 x=23.6 N=14 x = 38.1 N = 21 x = 40.1 N = 21 x = 45.1

T-Value

.54

-2.53*

Opportunities for Promotion Supervision on the Job People on Your Present Job Job in General

-.03

.56

.74

.52

(78)

PAQ SPRING 1993

TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR (FEMALES)

Public Sector FeiUiUes Work on Present Job Preseni Pay N = 26 x = 39.9 N = 26 x = 20.7 N = 25 x = 20.2

Private Sector FeiuiUes N=8 x = 41.5 N=8 x=39.5 N=7 x = 26.3

T-V:Jue

- .02

-3.60*

Opportunities for Promotion

- .66

Supervision on Ihe Job

N = 24 x = 41.5

N =5 x = 48.6

3.99*

People on Your Present Job Job in General

N = 26 x = 39.0 N = 26 x = 45.3

N=8 x=39.0 N=8 x = 49.3

-.98

PAQ SPRING 1993

(79)

TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR


Public Sector Private Sector N = 29 x=38.7 N=29 x = 39.5 N=27 x = 24.3 N=19 x = 40.1 N = 29 x = 39.8 N = 29 x=46.3 T-Value

Work on Present Job Present Pay

N = 65 x = 39.6 N = 65 x = 25.2 N = 61 x = 20.3 N = 58 x=4I.l N = 64 x = 42.3 N = 65 x=45.9

1.38

-5.50*

Opportunities for Promotion Supervision on Ibe Job People on Your Present Job Job in General

-1.25

.39
1.11

- .30

(80)

PAQ SPRING 1993

used to determine if there was any significant difference in job satisfaction levels for the two sectors. No statistically significant difference in job satisfaction levels by sex is evident between public and private sector employees concerning: Work on Their Present Job; Opportunities for Promotion; People on Their Present Job; and the Job in General. A significant difference, however, is noted with respect to pay for both males and females and to supervision for females. The mean JDI score for males reveals that the private sector employees are more significantly satisfied than their counterparts in the public sector with respect to present pay. Females in the private sector are more satisfied than public sector females with their pay and their supervision as evidenced by the mean JDI scores for these two factors. When comparing the public and private sector employees as a whole (Table 4), a significant difference is noted only with respect to pay. Although the comparison of females in both sectors revealed a significant difference in satisfaction with supervision, it was not great enough to affect the total score.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The results of this survey do not reveal any great differences in job satisfaction levels between public and private sector employees in Missouri. Although significant differences were reported between the public and private sector employees with regard to pay satisfaction, no other JDI scale was statistically dissimilar. There was, however, a difference between the female employees of the two sectors; females in the public sector were more dissatisfied with their boss than their private sector counterparts. It is also interesting to note that there was no difference in overall job satisfaction between the two sectors. This is an encouraging finding, given the history of job satisfaction research. For example, research in the l%Os indicated that public managers were much less satisfied with their jobs when compared to a similar group in business and industry (Paine et ai, 1966; Rhinehart et al, 1969). More importantly, research in 1979, utilizing the JDI, showed public sector managers scoring lower in the scales of satisfaction with promotion and satisfaction with co-workers (Rainey, 1979). Thus, it appear that public agencies are beginning to close the "gap" between the two sectors.

PAQ SPRING 1993

(81)

Generally, public sector employees have considered themselves underpaid but have stayed on the job for other factors, usually intrinsic. Although this study has shown a low level of pay satisfaction for the public sector, its overall job satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction are not significantly different from private sector employees. Another explanation is that the private sector may be doing a better job at providing more intrinsically satisfying jobs than has been the case historically. A discouraging (but not surprising) finding of the study is that public employees are underpaid with respect to the private sector. Although some progress has been made in recent years, public organizations must continue to improve wages and benefits for their employees. If the public sector is going to compete with the private sector for competent, satisfied employees, then pay
and benefits must be comparable.

It is difficult to explain the finding that females in the private sector are more satisfied with their boss than females in the public sector. More research would need to be conducted to pinpoint the exact cause. Perhaps managers in the private sector have had more human relations training in supervising female employees than managers in the public sector. Whatever the rationale, the boss is definitely a sore point with public sector female employees. Although there are several differences between the public and private sector, especially with regard to public accountability and profit orientation, they must both attract, motivate, and retain competent employees. With the notable exception of pay, this study has shown that both sectors are doing a comparable job in fostering employee satisfaction. Although pay needs improvement in the public sector, it appear that both sectors are providing a relatively intrinsically satisfying job for their employees. An expansion of this research is needed to provide a greater number of respondents, both in Missouri and across the United States. Additional research is also needed pertaining to other variables affecting public/private sector job satisfaction such as size of department, tenure/education of respondents, and level of management. It is very likely that the above variables will, to some extent, moderate the difference between public and private sector employee satisfaction.

NOTES
1, For a comprebensive summary of tbe determinants of job satisfaction, see Vroom

(82)
1964).

PAQ SPRING 1993

REFERENCES
Allison, G.T. Jr. (1983). "Public and Private Management; Are Tbey Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?" in J.L. Perry and K.L. Kraemer (eds.). PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PERSPECTIVES. Irvine, CA: Mayfield Publisbing. Cbemiss, C. and J.S. Kane (1987). "Public Sector Professionals: Job Cbaracteristics, Satisfaction, and Aspirations for Intrinsic Fulfillment Througb Work." HUMAN RELATIONS 40:125-136. Costello, J.M. and S.M. Lee (1974). "Needs Fulfillment and Job Satisfaction of Professionals. PUBLIC PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 3:454-161. Dodson, C. and B. Haskew (1976). "Wby Public Workers Stay." PUBLIC PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5:132-138. Flowers, V.S. and CL. Hugbes (1973). "Wby Employees Stay." HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 51:49-60. Fottler, M.D. (1981). "Is Management Really Generic?" ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 6:1-12. Golembiewski, R.T. and S. Yeager (1978). "Testing the Applicability of tbe JDI to Various Demographic Groupings." ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 21:514-519. Griffin, R.W. and G. Moorebead (1986). ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin. Hopkins, A.H. (1983). WORK AND JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Totowa, NJ: Rowan and AUenheld. Lawler. E.E. III (1983). "Satisfaction and Behavior," in J.R. Hackman, L.W. Porter, and E.E. Lawler III (eds.). PERSPECnVES ON BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Linden, F. (1987). "Most People Like Their Work." SPECIAL CONSUMER SURVEY REPORT. New York: Conference Board. Mirvis, P.H. and E.J. Hackett (1983). "Work and Work Force Characteristics in the Nonprofit Sector." MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 106:3-12. Murray, M.A. (1983), "Comparing Public and Private Management: An Exploratory Essay," in J.L. Perry and K.L. Kraemer (eds.). PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PERSPECTIVES. Irvine, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Paine, F.T., S.J. Carroll Jr., and B. Lecte (1966). "Need Satisfaction of Managerial Level Personnel in a Government Agency." JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 50:247-249. Perry, J.L. and H.G. Rainey (1988), "The Public-Private Distinction in Organizational Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy." ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT

PAQ SPRING 1993

(83)

JOURNAL 13:182-201. Rainey, H.G. (1979). "Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Govemment: Implications for Civil Service Reform" PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW (September/October):440-448. Rainey, H.G., R.W. Backoff, and C.H. Levine (1983). "Comparing Public and Private Organizations," in J.L. Perry and K.L. Kraemer (eds.). PUBLIC MANAGBMENT\ PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PERSPECTIVES. Irvine, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Rhinehart, J.B., R.P. Barren, A.S. DeWolfe, J.E. Griffin, and F.E. Spaner (1969). "Comparative Study of Need Satisfaction in Governmental and Business Hierarchies." JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 53:230-235. Smith, M.P. and S.L. Nock (1980). "Social Class and the Quality of Work Life in Public and Private Organizations." JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES 36:59-75. Smith, P.C, L.M. Kendall, and CL. Hulin (1969). THE MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION IN WORK AND RETIREMENT: A STRATEGY FOR THE STUDY OF ATTITUDES. Chicago: Rand McNally. Solomon, E. (1986). "Private and Public Sector Managers: An Empirical Investigation of Job Cbaracteristics and Organizational Climate." JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 71:247-259. Vroom, V.H. (1964). WORK AND MOTIVATION. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yeager, S.J. (1981). "Dimensionality of the Job Descriptive Index." ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 24:205-212.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai