JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE:

The Effects of Public Service Motivation, Workplace Attributes and Work Relations

Taylor, J. and J. Westover. 2011. ‘Job Satisfaction in the Public Service: The Effects of Public Service Motivation, Workplace Attributes and Work Relations’, Public Management Review, 13, 4, 731-751.

Dr Jeannette Taylor

Political Science and International Relations (M259)

School of Social and Cultural Studies

University of Western Australia

35 Stirling Highway

Crawley

Western Australia 6009

Australia

Tel: (61-8) 6488 2087

Fax: (61-8) 6488 1060

Email: jeannette.taylor@uwa.edu.au

Jonathan H. Westover

Woodbury School of Business

Utah Valley University

800 W. University Parkway, MS-119

Orem, UT  84058-5999

Tel: 801-863-8215Fax: 801-863-7218

jonathan.westover@ uvu .edu

1

JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE:

The Effects of Public Service Motivation, Workplace Attributes and Work Relations

ABSTRACT

What satisfies a public servant? Is it the money? Or is it something else, like an interesting and

autonomous job, or serving the public interest? Utilizing non-panel longitudinal data from the

International Social Survey Programme on Work Orientations across different countries for 1997

and 2005, this article examines the effects of a selection of antecedents that are commonly

related to job satisfaction. The respondents from different countries were found to share

similarities in terms of what satisfy them in their jobs. The emphasis placed on these factors was

however found to vary for some countries.

Keywords: Job satisfaction, work preferences, public service motivation, work relationships.

2

INTRODUCTION

Since Happock’s seminal work on job satisfaction in 1935, job satisfaction has continued to

generate interest across disciplines, from psychology (Argyle 1989) and sociology (Hodson

1985), to economics (Hamermesh 2001), management sciences (Hunt and Saul 1975), and public

administration (Wright and Kim 2004). The interest in job satisfaction, as much for researchers

as for practitioners, is due to several reasons. Satisfied workers are more productive (Appelbaum

and Kamal 2000), deliver higher quality of work (Tietjen and Myers 1998), and improve a firm's

competitiveness and success (Garrido et al. 2005). Conversely, unsatisfied workers are more

frequently late for work, absent from work, and motivated to leave the firm (Lee 1998).

This drive to better understand and explain job satisfaction is particularly important for the

public sector workforce. Government workers have been reported to show some distinctive

motives and work preferences, which can affect their job satisfaction levels. Individuals who see

government employment as a calling, and respond to this calling usually want their efforts to

make the world a better place. They are said to have high levels of public service motivation

(PSM). Research generally show that public employees tend to have higher levels of PSM than

private sector employees (Perry and Hondeghem 2008). But not every government employee can

be expected to have high levels of PSM (Schein 1996). People seek public sector employment

for various reasons; some intrinsic, some extrinsic, and some by chance. On this basis, the public

sector workforce may have different levels of PSM, which may then reflect on their job

satisfaction levels.

3

Government workers are also commonly reported to have a preference for specific workplace

attributes which can affect their job satisfaction. Compared to their private sector counterparts,

government workers are reported to be motivated more by the intrinsic aspects of their work,

such as an interesting job, and less by the extrinsic features, such as high pay (Rainey 1982;

Buelens and van den Broeck 2007). Government workers may also encounter different work

experiences. Like their private sector counterparts during this period of financial constraints,

government workers have to do more with less. They, however, typically have to undertake their

tasks in a highly political and even politicized work environment that is subject to relatively rigid

accountability mechanisms, and intense public and media scrutiny. Given the multitude of

factors that can impact on government employees in the workplace, it is important to find out

what factors really contribute to their job satisfaction.

It is the aim of this article to examine and compare the effects of a selection of antecedents

that are commonly related to job satisfaction in government workers: PSM, intrinsic workplace

attributes, extrinsic workplace attributes, and work relations with superiors and co-workers. This

investigation is conducted across seven countries – Great Britain, USA, Canada, France,

Denmark, Norway, and Germany – and over two time periods – 1997 and 2005. Prior studies on

job satisfaction have analyzed its association with personal characteristics (e.g., gender), job

characteristics (e.g., job autonomy), organizational characteristics (e.g., work relationship with

managers), and PSM (Judge and Church 2000; Haley-Lock 2008), but not many have

investigated a combination of these factors on job satisfaction. Yet, if we are to improve our

understanding of what actually satisfy government workers, we need to incorporate variables that

are likely to be present in a typical public sector workforce and work environment. They include

4

internal factors, such as PSM, and external factors, such as their work relations with managers

and co-workers. This cross-country study will permit us to distinguish whether government

employees across the countries examined share universal views in terms of what satisfy them in

their job, or whether their attitudes vary by country. The findings can help to inform HRM

practices that are most relevant for satisfying the public sector workforce in these countries.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Job satisfaction, which is defined as the ‘pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from

the appraisal of one’s job or job experience’ (Locke 1976: 1300), represents an interaction

between workers and their work environment in that the workers gauge the congruence between

what they want from their jobs and what they perceive they receive (Wright and Kim 2004).

Indeed, job satisfaction is commonly explained using the person-environment fit paradigm or

needs-satisfaction model (Davis and Newstrom 1999; Hamermesh 2001). The more a job fulfils

the workers’ needs, the higher should be their job satisfaction levels (Kristof-Brown 1996).

Empirical evidence of factors affecting job satisfaction in the public sector has pointed to

various aspects. One of these is the personal characteristics of employees. For example, Traut et

al. (2000) found that older workers in a fire rescue department were less satisfied with their jobs

than their younger counterparts. Another factor that is reported to be closely linked to job

satisfaction in the public sector is the employee’s PSM. Studies on PSM have shown that public

employees who are motivated to serve the public interest are more satisfied with their job (Naff

and Crum 1999; Pandey and Stazyk 2008). There have also been studies that link job and

organizational factors to job satisfaction. Using a large survey of US municipal employees,

5

Ellickson (2002) found significant effects for various environmental factors, such as availability

of opportunities for promotion and supervisory relationships, but almost none for demographic

variables. Similarly, drawing on secondary data covering more than 14 000 Dutch public

employees, Steijn (2004) found that the effect of individual characteristics on job satisfaction is

at best small, whereas job and organizational characteristics are more important, particularly the

intrinsic aspects of the work situation. In their study of Australian police officers, Noblet and

Rodwell (2009) found that respondents who were provided with more decision-making latitude

or independence in their job and support from supervisors and co-workers were more satisfied

with their jobs.

The relationship between job satisfaction and its determinants should also make allowances

for the national work context. This is particularly relevant in cross-country comparisons. In their

comparisons of PSM between UK and Germany, Vandenabeele et al. (2006) found differences in

the elements of PSM between the two countries, which led them to suggest that the values,

beliefs and attitudes concerning public service are not the same in both countries. Institutional,

cultural, and socio-political and economic differences are some of the reasons that can account

for country variances in the relationship between job satisfaction and its antecedents.

Institutions are important because government workers ‘are not free-floating and

unencumbered but … [they] … operate within an institutional context that at least in part

determines their behavior’ (Howlett 2004: 319-320). Vandenabeele et al. (2006: 29) defined

institutions as ‘formal or informal, structural, societal or political phenomena that surpass the

individual level and are based on more or less common values’. Although individuals, groups,

6

and states can have their distinct interests, they pursue them within the context of existing formal

organizations, and rules and norms that shape expectations about appropriate behavior and affect

the possibilities of their realization. The rules and norms influence people differently, partly

because the social and cultural mechanisms that transmit institutional content, particularly public

content, vary across societies (Perry and Vandenabeele 2008).

In sum, the job satisfaction of government workers across different countries is likely to be

an abstract of a variety of components: PSM, workplace attributes, work relationships, and even

the country’s environment. These are elaborated in the subsequent sub-sections.

Public service motivation

A factor that is reported to affect job satisfaction in the public sector is an employee’s PSM level

(Pandey and Stazyk 2008). PSM, which is defined as ‘an individual’s predisposition to respond

to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations’ (Perry and

Wise 1990: 368), has been likened to an intrinsic motivator reflective of public sector work.

Public institutions are expected to aim for a set of democratic and societal values that are distinct

from the more managerially oriented private sector (Perry and Vandenabeele 2008). PSM affects

job satisfaction because it may provide the lens through which workers view their work and

interpret their work experience. Steijn (2008) defined PSM as a special ‘need’ that must be met

by the job or organization. To the extent that encounters with work accord with their public

service motives related to work, workers are expected to feel more satisfied, as well as enjoy

other positive attitudes about employment. In other words, assuming that government work

provides various opportunities for individuals to exercise and fulfill their altruistic motives,

7

government workers whose motives are anchored in needs for pursuing the common good are

likely to be satisfied with their jobs. In the US, Haley-Lock (2008) found that dedication to a

cause is significantly and positively correlated with job satisfaction among both newly arrived

employees and those who have remained with the organizations for a longer time period. The

link between PSM and job satisfaction among public employees is also observed in other

countries, such as Australia (Taylor 2007, 2008), Asia (Kim 2005), and Europe (Cerase and

Farinella 2006; Steijn 2006). This leads to our first hypothesis that

H1: PSM is positively and significantly related to job satisfaction in the public sector.

Workplace attributes

Herzberg (1966) and his team (Herzberg et al. 1959) was one of the first who noted the

importance of the work environment as a primary determinant of job satisfaction. He developed

the two-factor model to describe the motivational aspects of a job in intrinsic and extrinsic terms.

The intrinsic factors contain features that relate to job content and task, such as job content and

variety, and contribute to worker’s motivation and satisfaction. The extrinsic factors are more

contextual elements, such as pay and job security, and can contribute to worker’s dissatisfaction.

In his own words, ‘One cluster of factors relates to what the person does and the other to the

situation in which he does it’ (Herzberg 1966: 74). This distinction is adopted in this study on

workplace attributes.

Comparative public sector-private sector research commonly report that government workers

value the intrinsic over the extrinsic elements of their workplace (Frank and Lewis 2004;

8

Buelens and van den Broeck 2007). Unlike their private sector counterparts, who are usually

reported to rank ‘high income’ as the most important aspect of a job, government employees

generally place a higher value on important work (which provides an opportunity to have an

impact on public affairs/public policy), autonomy, interesting work, and the chance to learn new

things (Frank and Lewis 2004). In their review of past studies, Schneider and Vaught (1993)

concluded that government workers are more satisfied with their jobs compared to their private

sector counterparts primarily because of the intrinsic aspects of their work. The results of various

studies indicate that the attributes of a task, particularly factors related to work enrichment, such

as autonomy and significance, would significantly affect the job satisfaction of government

workers (Cunningham and MacGregor 2000). We would expect a priori that workers will be

more satisfied if their tasks are high on the intrinsic attributes, such as higher autonomy (Garrido

et al. 2005).

H2: Intrinsic workplace attributes are positively and significantly related to job satisfaction in

the public sector.

There is also the importance of providing adequate extrinsic motivational factors . For many

people, government workers included, employment means working for money. Pay can entice

individuals to join and remain within an organization (Bloom and Michel 2002). Due to its

association with complementary training programs, pay rises, higher professional status, and the

like, promotion opportunity is normally used to motivate and satisfy government workers

(Garrido et al. 2005). Using data from the 1989 and 1998 General Social Surveys, Lewis and

Frank (2002) found that those with a strong desire for job security were significantly more likely

9

to prefer government jobs. Employer-provided benefits, such as paid leave and pensions, which

tend to be provided more in the public sector than private sector, may play an important role in

the security associated with government work (Feeney 2007).

H3: Extrinsic workplace attributes are positively and significantly related to job satisfaction in

the public sector.

Work relations

According to social information processing theory, workers’ attitudes are formed through social

interaction with other members in the organization (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). Positive work

relations with co-workers (Kalleberg 1977) and supervisors/managers (Harrick et al. 1986;

Reiner and Zhao 1999) have been reported to raise job satisfaction. There is some empirical

evidence that, compared to private sector employees, government workers show a stronger desire

to work in a supportive working environment (Buelens and Van den Broeck 2007); place a

higher importance on their co-workers and superiors (Posner and Schmidt 1996); and respond

more favorably to a people-oriented leadership style (Zeffane 1994).

Although work relations with managers and co-workers both influence job satisfaction, they

can affect job satisfaction to different degrees. In their longitudinal study, Sargent and Terry

(2000) found that co-worker support was more strongly related to job satisfaction than

managerial support. Accordingly, work relations with managers and colleagues are differentiated

into the fourth and fifth hypotheses respectively.

10

H4: Work relations with management are positively and significantly related to job

satisfaction in the public sector.

H5: Work relations with co-workers are positively and significantly related to job satisfaction

in the public sector.

In terms of determining the most salient factor among the antecedents of job satisfaction,

prior research on job satisfaction have produced conflicting findings. DeSantis and Durst (1996)

reported that personal characteristics, and external and internal workplace attributes are the

primary determinants of job satisfaction. In contrast, Wright and Kim (2004) found workplace

characteristics, such as task significance and career development support, to be the main

determinants. In their review of studies on the job satisfaction of public and private sector

workers, Schneider and Vaught (1993) concluded that government workers are more satisfied

with their jobs based on the intrinsic aspects of their work than private sector workers. This

finding is supported by Steijn’s (2004) research on Dutch government employees, in which

individual characteristics were reported to have a minor impact on job satisfaction, whereas the

intrinsic aspects of the work appear to be the most important determinant.

H6: Intrinsic workplace attributes are more significantly related to job satisfaction than PSM,

extrinsic workplace attributes, and work relations with managers and co-workers in the

public sector.

11

Country differences

The next question that must be asked is whether the salient influence of intrinsic workplace

attributes will be observed across the seven countries studied. Research on the public sector have

drawn attention to the explanatory effect of geographical boundaries (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004;

Bouckaert 2007). Vandenabeele and Van de Walle (2008) reported the lowest PSM levels in

Europe (with the exception of Southern Europe), higher levels in the American regions and

Southern Europe, with Australasia and Asia somewhere in between. Adopting an institutional

approach to explain PSM variance, they suggested that the high PSM levels in some countries

are a result of the integration of communities by religious- or secular-based institutions, which

lead to the internalization of, and identification with, moral values. They attributed the lower

PSM scores in Western European countries partly to the intense New Public Management

(NPM) reforms, which have been reported to undermine PSM among the civil service (Pratchett

and Wingfield 1996). They did however point out that the NPM explanation cannot hold in the

case for the US and Canada.

Country variances in the relationship between job satisfaction and its antecedents may also

be due to the influence of national culture. Given that the countries studied scored relatively high

on a global scale on Hofstede’s (2001) individualism dimension, one would expect their workers

to rate intrinsic workplace attributes, such as job autonomy, fairly high as a determinant of job

satisfaction. On the other hand, the fact that the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway

are reported to have considerably lower scores on the power-distance dimension than other

countries in this study (a group power distance index of 21 compared to the other group’s

average of 41; http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php) would suggest that

12

their workers are better able to relate to one another as equals regardless of formal positions.

Their job satisfaction is thus likely to be shaped more by a good working relationship with

management than other countries in this research.

But from a socio-political and economic point of view, the fact that the countries examined

are western industrialized nations would suggest that they share similar trends in their

relationship between job satisfaction and its antecedents. The Post-Ford theory argues that the

overall quality of jobs for most workers in the western industrialized world has increased in the

last 20 years, particularly in terms of intrinsic rewards, and this trend is expected to continue

(Amin 1994). In contrast, the Neo-Fordist framework argues that the overall quality of jobs for

most workers in the western industrialized world has declined in the last 20 years, particularly in

terms of extrinsic material rewards and work pace, and this trend is expected to continue, as a

result of employer efforts to reduce labor costs. According to the world-system theory, resources

are extracted from the periphery of poor, underdeveloped states and flow towards the centre of

wealthy states in order to sustain the core’s economic growth and wealth (Acemoglu 2002).

Working conditions and job satisfaction levels are worse in the periphery and semi-periphery

than those in the core nations. Job satisfaction is proposed to be more closely linked to extrinsic

workplace attributes and other workplace conditions for nations in the periphery and semi-

periphery, but more closely linked to intrinsic workplace attributes and workplace relationships

for countries in the core.

Hypothesizing on whether the former sixth proposition applies across the seven countries is

difficult because of lack of empirical evidence. On one hand, the socio-political and economic

13

perspective, notably the fact that the countries in this study are all western industrialized nations

would lead to an expectation of similar trends in the relationship between job satisfaction and its

antecedents. On the other hand, the variability of institutions and cultures across societies would

make allowances for some country differences on the relative significance of the above factors

on job satisfaction. The fact that similarities shared by countries are assumed to contribute to

similar trends in the study relationships, and differences are assumed to lead to variations in

these trends leads to an expectation of a country influence.

H7: The salient influence of intrinsic workplace attributes on job satisfaction does not apply

to the public sector across the seven countries.

METHOD

Sample

This study utilizes the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP): Work Orientations data

set for two periods – 1997 and 2005. Since this study focuses on job satisfaction, only the

respondents who participated in the labor market were taken into account. They consisted of

individuals who were engaged in full-time employment, part-time employment, and casual

employment. The final number of such respondents was 4595. This is further divided into 2707

respondents for the 1997 wave, and 1888 respondents for the 2005 wave. The seven

industrialized countries in the ISSP data set chosen for this study were as follows: USA, Canada,

Great Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, and Norway. The numbers of respondents were

respectively 1042, 492, 290, 468, 616, 753, and 934. The demographic profile of the respondents

by country are not presented but can be obtained from the first author upon request.

14

Measures

Several survey items were used to construct the study variables. The independent variables in

this study are PSM, extrinsic workplace attributes, intrinsic workplace attributes, work relations

with managers, work relations with co-workers, and personal characteristics. The dependent

variable is job satisfaction. The items are shown in the Appendix.

Unlike the other variables, work relations and job satisfaction are measured by a single-

itemed global measure. Constructs formulated from multiple items are generally preferred,

particularly in meeting validity and reliability standards. Although global measures of overall job

satisfaction are not always unreliable (Scarpello and Campbell 1983), the fact that single items

are used to develop this construct as well as those on work relations is noted as a limitation of

this study. The responses for each scale are averaged to obtain an overall score. A high score on

the scales suggests high PSM level, plenty of workplace attributes measured, good work

relations, and high job satisfaction.

Personal characteristics consist of: gender (1 = male; 0 = female); age (in years); marital

status (1 = married; 2 = widowed; 3 = divorced; 4 = separated; 5 = single); employment status (1

= full time; 2 = part time; 3 = casual); education (1 = none; 2 = some primary; 3 = primary

completed; 4 = some secondary; 5 = secondary completed; 6 = some university; 7 = university

completed; 8 = other); hours worked; wave (1 = 1997; 2 = 2005); and country (1 = USA; 2 =

Canada; 3 = Great Britain; 4 = Germany; 5 = France; 6 = Denmark; 7 = Norway).

15

RESULTS

The mean values of the main variables are reported in the Appendix. On average, the

respondents from the seven countries were ‘fairly satisfied’ with their jobs, and considered it

‘important’ to have a job that allows them to help others and is useful to society. In terms of

intrinsic workplace attributes, they, on average, ‘agreed’ that their job is interesting and provides

some independence and autonomy. They, however, were less agreeable when it came to extrinsic

workplace attributes. They ‘neither disagreed nor agreed’ that their job provides high income,

high job security, and high prospects for advancement. On average, they described their work

relations with their co-workers and managers to be ‘quite good’, although their relations with the

former appeared to be better than the latter.

Table 1 presents the intercorrelations of the variables. Job satisfaction is found to be

significantly related to the independent variables: PSM, extrinsic workplace attributes, intrinsic

workplace attributes, work relations with managers, and work relations with co-workers. The

relationships of the variables appear to be in the anticipated direction.

<Table 1 here>

<Table 2 here>

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is next conducted to control for country variations in the

relationship between job satisfaction and the main independent variables. The results in Table 2

show a significant linear relationship between the country variable and each of the independent

variables, with the exception of PSM and work relations with co-workers. The respondents’

16

country appears to account for a small part of the explained variance in the relationships. After

adjusting for country differences, a significant relationship is found between job satisfaction and

each of its antecedents.

Table 3 presents the hierarchical regression results. Model 1 shows a significant association

between PSM and job satisfaction, supporting the first hypothesis. The subsequent models also

show a significant relationship between each of the independent variables and job satisfaction.

Model 2 supports the second hypothesis of a significant association between intrinsic workplace

attributes and job satisfaction, model 3 on the third hypothesis of a significant association

between extrinsic workplace attributes and job satisfaction, model 4 on the fourth hypothesis of a

significant relationship between work relations with managers and job satisfaction, and model 5

on the fifth hypothesis of a significant relationship between work relations with co-workers and

job satisfaction. The last model (model 6) shows that intrinsic workplace attributes had the

largest beta coefficient value (.362) among the independent variables, followed by work relations

with managers (.242). The salient impact of intrinsic workplace attributes is also observed from

the large change in R2 value for model 2. The findings support the sixth hypothesis of the

dominant effect of intrinsic workplace attributes on job satisfaction compared to the other

independent variables.

<Table 3 here>

<Table 4 here>

17

The regression results by country in Table 4 show five distinct features. First, PSM was not

found to be a significant factor on job satisfaction. Second, the rest of the independent variables

were found to be significantly related to job satisfaction. Third, when it came to workplace

attributes, intrinsic attributes were found to be more important than extrinsic attributes in

influencing satisfaction levels. Fourth, the most salient factor on job satisfaction was determined

to be intrinsic workplace attributes. The Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway were

exceptions; work relations with managers were found to play a more dominant role.

Fifth and finally, the next most salient factor on job satisfaction was work relations with

managers. Again, there were a few exceptions. The Danish and Norwegian respondents, whose

job satisfaction was dominantly shaped by work relations with managers, had intrinsic workplace

attributes as the second most salient factor. This confirms the seventh hypothesis of country

variances on the salient factor. After the dominant effect of intrinsic workplace attributes, the job

satisfaction levels of the Canadian respondents were equally affected by both work relations with

managers and work relations with co-workers. The satisfaction levels of the British respondents,

after the dominant effect of intrinsic workplace attributes, were strongly associated with work

relations with co-workers, but not that with managers.

DISCUSSION

This research confirms earlier findings on the significant roles of PSM, workplace attributes and

work relations on the job satisfaction of government workers. It appears that government

workers who had higher levels of PSM; experienced higher levels of intrinsic workplace

18

attributes, notably an interesting and autonomous job, and extrinsic workplace attributes, in the

form of higher pay, more promotion prospects and better job security; and enjoyed better work

relations with their managers and co-workers, were more satisfied with their jobs than their

counterparts with lower levels of PSM, fewer intrinsic and extrinsic workplace attributes, and

poor work relations with their managers and co-workers.

The more salient predictors of the government respondents’ job satisfaction for most

countries were intrinsic workplace attributes and work relations with managers. It supports the

job satisfaction literature on the powerful influence of job characteristics (Glisson and Durick

1988) and organizational characteristics (Mikkelsen et al. 2000) on workers’ satisfaction. It

confirms the finding by Glisson and Durick (1988) that the characteristics of job tasks are the

best predictors of job satisfaction, at least for the American, Canadian, British, German and

French respondents. Their satisfaction levels were affected most by whether their jobs were

interesting and autonomous, followed by the state of their working relationships with their

managers. The findings suggest that all parties, from workers, to the government agencies’ senior

managers and politicians, stand to benefit from strategies aimed at giving government workers

enriched jobs and greater autonomy in their daily tasks. However, the implementation of such

strategies could prove problematic in government organizations that tend to be better associated

with descriptions, such as mundane work, red tape, and centralization. A major challenge facing

government organizations is to provide their members with the decision-making freedom to

execute their roles effectively, but simultaneously accommodate the demands and scrutiny

required by external stakeholders, such as politicians.

19

There were two countries in the group which deviated from the predominant impact of

intrinsic workplace attributes on job satisfaction. According to the Danish and Norwegian

respondents, a good working relationship with their managers had the most capacity to satisfy

them, followed by the adequacy of intrinsic workplace attributes. Cultural and institutional

differences could account for this finding. Unlike France and Germany (and Italy), which are

considered to be the most legalistic states in Europe (Kickert 2005), the Scandanavian nation of

Norway has relatively strong collectivistic and egalitarian values, and is consensus-oriented

(Laegreid et al. 2007). From a comparative perspective, Norway’s political-administrative

system is characterized by high levels of mutual trust and shared attitudes and norms among

political and administrative leaders and within the public sector (Christensen and Laegreid

2005). This relatively strong emphasis on collectivism and consensus in Norway may explain the

importance placed on working relationship with managers as a primary determinant of the

Norwegian government respondents’ job satisfaction. Another explanation can be gleaned from

the two Scandinavian countries’ reported low mean score of 21 on Hofstede’s (2001) power-

distance index compared to the higher mean score of 41 in other nations in the study. Further,

compared to the respondents from other countries, the Danish and Norwegian respondents

showed the two lowest coefficient values for extrinsic workplace attributes. This finding could

be partly explained by the fact that Denmark and Norway have two of the most comprehensive

and universal welfare states in the world. Workers may be relatively less concerned about

extrinsic factors, like job security, when the state allows for substantial safety-net provisions for

workers who may lose their jobs.

20

On one hand, the fact that the relationships between job satisfaction and its antecedents were

found to be significant, even after controlling for country variances, suggest that government

respondents in the seven countries shared some universal preferences in terms of what satisfy

them in their job. On the other hand, there were some country variations in terms of the order of

importance placed on these antecedents. Sources of these country variations should be examined

through further research.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

There are a few limitations in this study. One limitation pertains to self-reported data. Although

the respondents’ job satisfaction may depend more on their perceptions of the actual working

conditions than the objective conditions (Schyns and Croon 2006), it is possible that their

perceptions of working conditions are inaccurate. Another limitation relates to the use of pre-

existing dataset, notably the limited number of items. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values of the

two workplace attributes were below the recommended coefficient of 0.70 (Carmines and Zeller

1979). The limited number of items in these multi-item measurement scales do not allow for

improvements to be made through item deletion. Single-item measurement scales, such as job

satisfaction and work relations, are also problematic. Further, there is the problem of non-panel

longitudinal nature of the data. The use of two waves of cross-sectional data implies that the

direction of causality between the variables cannot be examined as easily as might be possible

with panel longitudinal data. This study also assumes that cross-country similarities in the

relationship between job satisfaction and its antecedents are partly due to the respondents coming

from ‘core’ countries. However, without any data on peripheral countries, this assumption is

difficult to validate and represents a limitation of this study. Caution should be exercised in

21

applying this study’s findings outside the context in which the data were collected. Further

research should be conducted with stronger and established measures before the findings can be

discussed with confidence.

The regression analyses on PSM produced conflicting findings. When analysed separately,

PSM was significantly related to job satisfaction. This finding was obtained when the seven

countries were analysed as a group in Table 3, and when country influences were removed from

the relationship between PSM and job satisfaction in Table 2. It was only when PSM was

combined with the other independent variables in Table 4 that it was determined to play an

insignificant and smaller role. One possible interpretation of the findings is that although the

respondents’ PSM level was considerably associated with their satisfaction level (Perry and Wise

1990; Taylor 2007), when compared to the effects of workplace attributes and work relations, its

impact on satisfaction is small.

An alternative explanation is that rather than having a direct impact on job satisfaction, PSM

may shape job satisfaction as a mediator or moderator. In his relational job design framework,

Grant (2007) described how prosocial motives can mediate the relationship between job

characteristics and employees’ actions and identities. Drawing from the person-organization fit

and person-job fit literature, Steijn (2008) came up with the PSM-fit construct to indicate the

extent to which employees’ need for PSM are met by their organization. He and others (e.g.,

Taylor 2008) found that government employees whose needs for PSM are fulfilled by their job

are more satisfied with their job. Given the multitude of factors to consider in this study, it is

beyond the scope to detect for these indirect and additional influences. Nevertheless, these

22

possibilities remain. Future research could examine the various modes through which they

influence job satisfaction, directly and/or indirectly. Future research could also determine the

presence of any curvilinear effects on job satisfaction. Noblet and Rodwell (2009) suggest that

the relationship between job satisfaction and support from managers and co-workers do not

follow a straight line. Although they found that higher support from work-based sources (namely

supervisor, co-workers and subordinates) can enhance the satisfaction of government employees,

they also reported about some degree of diminishing returns to the benefits that can be gained

from these supportive sources.

CONCLUSION

Given an increasingly mobile and ageing general labor force, and a young generation of workers

who appeared to show a preference for private sector jobs over public sector ones (Taylor 2005),

governments need to be more vigilant in keeping their workers satisfied with their jobs. This

study on a selection of antecedents of job satisfaction suggests that government workers’

satisfaction is not determined merely by extrinsic workplace attributes, but is also affected

positively by the opportunity of workers to act autonomously in their work, and a good working

relationship with their managers and co-workers. Even the public spirited nature of the

workforce can make a positive contribution to their satisfaction levels. When it comes to

satisfying the government workforce in this study, there seems to be merit in taking into account

an array of factors, ranging from workplace attributes to working relationships. Although the

emphasis placed on the factors may vary to some extent across the seven countries, all these

factors appear to be significantly linked to the respondents’ job satisfaction.

23

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J.A. (2002) ‘Growth in the Long-Run’ in P. Aghion

and S.N. Durlauf (eds) The Handbook of Economic Growth, North Holland: Amsterdam.

Amin, A., Ed. (1994) Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Appelbaum, S. and Kamal, R. (2001) An Analysis of the Utilization and Effectiveness of Non-

Financial Incentives in Small Business. Journal of Management Development, 19:9 pp733-63.

Argyle, M. (1989) The Social Psychology of Work, 2nd, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bloom, M. and Michel, J.G. (2002) The Relationships Among Organizational Context, Pay

Dispersion, and Management Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 45:1 pp33-42.

Buelens, M. and Van den Broeck, H. (2007) An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation

between Public and Private Sector Organizations. Public Administration Review, 67:1 pp65-74.

Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications.

Cerase, F., and Farinella, D. (2006) Exploration in public service motivation: The case of the

Italian revenue service. Paper presented at the annual European Group of Public

Administration Conference 2006, Milan, September.

Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2005) Trust in Government - the Relative Importance of

Service Satisfaction, Political Factors and Demography. Public Performance & Management

Review, 28 pp487-511.

Cunningham, J. and McGregor, J. (2000) Trust and the Design of Work: Complementary

Constructs in Satisfaction and Performance. Human Relations, 53:12 pp1575-92.

Davis, K. and Newstrom, J. (1999) Comportamiento Humano en el Trabajo: Comportamiento

Organizaciona 10th ed., Mexico: McGraw-Hill.

DeSantis, V.S. and Durst, S.L. (1996) Comparing Job Satisfaction among Public- and Private-

Sector Employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26:3 pp327-39.

Durst, S.L., and DeSantis, V.S. (1997) The Determinants of Job Satisfaction among Federal,

State, and Local Government Employees. State and Local Government Review, 29:1 pp7-16.

Ellickson, M.C. (2002) Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Municipal Government Employees.

Public Personnel Management, 31:3 pp343-58.

Feeney, M. (2008) Sector Perceptions among State-Level Public Managers. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 18:3 pp465–94.

24

Frank, S.A., and Lewis, G.B. (2004) Government Employees—Working Hard or Hardly

Working? American Review of Public Administration, 34 pp36–51.

Garrido, M.J., Perez, P., and Anton, C. (2005) Determinants of Sales Manager JobSatisfaction:

An Analysis of Spanish Industrial Firms. International Journal of Human Resource

Management 16:10 pp1934-54.

Glisson, C. and Durick, M. (1988) Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment in Human Service Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 33 pp61-81.

Grant, A.M. (2007) Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Pro-social Difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32:2 pp393-417.

Hamermesh, D.S. (2001) The Changing Distribution of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Human

Resources, 36:1 pp1-30.

Happock, R. (1935) Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Haley-Lock, A. (2008) Happy Doing Good? How Workers' Career Orientations and Job

Satisfaction Relate in Grassroots Human Services. Journal of Community Practice 16:2

pp143-63.

Harrick, E.J., Vanek, G.R., and Michlitsch, J.F. (1986) Alternative Work Schedules,

Productivity, Leave Usage and Employee Attitudes: A Field Study. Public Personnel

Management, 15 pp159-69.

Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. (1959) The Motivation to Work. New York:

Wiley.

Hodson, R. (1985) Workers Comparisons. Social Science Quarterly, 66 pp266-80.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and

Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Howlett, M. (2004) Administrative Styles and Regulatory Reform: Institutional Arrangements

and their Effects on Administrative Behavior. International Public Management Journal, 7:3

pp317-333.

Hunt, J.W. and Saul, P.N. (1975) The Relationship of Age, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction in

Males and Females. Academy of Management Journal, 18 pp690-702.

25

Judge, T. A., and Church, A. (2000) ‘Job Satisfaction: Research and Practice’ in C. L. Cooper

and E. A. Locke (eds) Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory with

Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jung, K.H., Moon, M.J., and Hahm, S.D. (2007) Do Age, Gender, and Sector Affect Job

Satisfaction? Results From the Korean Labor and Income Panel Data. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 27: 2 pp125-46.

Kalleberg, A.L. (1977) Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job Satisfaction. American

Sociological Review, 42 pp124-43.

Kickert, W. J. M. (2005) Distinctiveness in the Study of Public Management in Europe. Public

Management Review, 7:4 pp537-563.

Kim, S. M. (2005). Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government

Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15:2 pp245–61.

Kristof-Brown, A.L. (1996) Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its

Conceptualizations, Measurement and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49:1 pp1-49.

Lægreid, P., Roness, P.G., and Rubecksen, K. (2007) Modern Management Tools in State

Agencies: The Case of Norway. International Public Management Journal, 10:4 pp387-413.

Lee, T. (1998) Job Satisfaction Leads to Turnover. Journal of Business and Psychology 2 pp263-

71.

Lewis, G.B. and Frank, S.A. (2002) Who Wants to Work for the Government? Public

Administration Review, 62: 4 pp395-404.

Locke, E. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Naff, K.C. and Crum, J. (1999) Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a

Difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19:4 pp5-16.

Noblet, A.J. and Rodwell, J.J. (2009) Identifying the Predictors of Employee Health and

Satisfaction in an NPM Environment: Testing a Comprehensive and Non-LinearDemand-

Control-Support Model. Public Management Review, 11:2 pp 663-83.

Pandey, S.K. and Stazyk, E.C. (2008) Antecedents and Correlates of Public Service Motivation,

in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (Eds), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public

Service (pp. 101-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26

Perry, J. L.  (1997) Antecedents of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 7:2 pp181–97.

Perry, J.L. and Hondeghem, A. (2008). Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public

Service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J.L. and Vandenabeele, W. (2008) Behavioral Dynamics: Institutions, Identities, and

Self-Regulation, in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (Eds), Motivation in Public Management:

The Call of Public Service (pp. 56-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perry, J.L. and Wise, L.R. (1990) The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public

Administration Review, 50:3 pp367-73.

Posner, B.Z., and Schmidt, W.H. (1996) The Values of Business and Federal Government

Executives: More Different Than Alike. Public Personnel Management, 25:3 pp277-89.

Pratchett, L. and Wingfield, M. (1996) Petty Bureaucracy and Woolly-Minded Liberalism? The

Changing Ethos of Local Government Officers. Public Administration, 74:4 pp639–56.

Rainey, H.G. (1982) Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the

Service Ethic.” American Review of Public Administration, 16:4 pp288-302.

Reiner, M.D and Zhao, J. (1999) The Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among United States Air

Force Security Police: A Test of Rival Theoretical Predictive Models. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 19:5 pp5-18.

Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978) A Social Information Processing Approach to Job

Attributes and Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: pp224-53.

Sargent, L. D. and Terry, D. J. (2000) The Moderating Role of Social Support in Karasek's Job

Strain Model. Work and Stress, 14 pp243-61.

Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J. (1983) Job Satisfaction: Are All the Parts There? Personnel

Psychology, 36 pp577-600.

Schein, E. (1996) Career Anchors Revisited: Implications for Career Development in the 21st

Century. Academy of Management Executive, 10:4 pp80-8.

Schyns, B. and Croon, M.A. (2006) A Model of Task Demands, Social Structure, and Leader-

Member Exchange and Their Relationship to Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 17:4 pp602-15.

Steijn, B. (2004) Human Resource Management and Job Satisfaction in the Dutch Public Sector.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24 pp291-303.

27

Steijn, B. (2008) Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation. International Public

Management Journal, 11:1 pp13-27.

Taylor, J. (2005) The Next Generation of Workers in Australia: Their Views on Organizations,

Work and Rewards. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16:10 pp1919-33.

Taylor, J. (2007) The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A

Comparative Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Public Administration, 85:4 pp931-59.

Taylor, J. (2008) Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Outcomes: An

Australian Study. International Public Management Journal, 11:1 pp67-88.

Tietjen, M. and Myers, R. (1998) Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Management Decision, 36:4

pp226-31.

Traut, C.A., Larsen, R., and Feimer, S.H. (2000) Hanging on or Fading Out? Job Satisfaction

and the Long-Term Worker. Public Personnel Management, 29:3 pp343-51.

Vandenabeele, W., Scheepers, S. and Hondeghem, A. (2006) Public Service Motivation in an

International Comparative Perspective: The UK and Germany. Public Policy and

Administration, 21:1 pp13 – 31.

Vandenabeele, W. and Van de Walle, S. (2008) International Differences in Public Service

Motivation: Comparing Regions Across the World, in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (Eds),

Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service (pp. 223-244). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Wright, B.E., & Kim, S. (2004) Participation's Influence on Job Satisfaction: The Importance of

Job Characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24:1 pp18-40.

Zeffane, R. (1994) Patterns of Organizational Commitment and Perceived Management Style: A

Comparison of Public and Private Sector Employees. Human Relations, 47:8 pp977-1010.

28

Table 1: Intercorrelations of study variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131. Job satisfaction2. PSM .137**

3. Extrinsic workplace attributes .310** .075**

4. Intrinsic workplace attributes .502** .191** .267**

5. Relations with managers .438** .067** .166** .262**

6. Relations with co-workers .370** .074** .113** .238** .465**

7. Gender .012 .135** -.113** -0.015 .029 .053**

8. Age .044** .021 -.013 .042** .027 -.011 -.041**

9. Marital status -.059** .015 -.044** -.067** -.040** -.001 .027 -.320**

10. Education -.002 -.004 .103** .069** -.009 .028 -.028 -.108** .01411. Employment status .035* .031* -.112** -.015 .075** .018 .202** -.030* -.016 -.073**

12. Working hours .008 .004 .029 .030* .000 .006 -.047** .011 .011 .030* -.033*

13. Country .003 -.109** -.114** .087** -.061* .067** .083** .027 -.018 -.077** -.007 -.059**

14. Year -.002 .058** -0.012 .063** -.041** -.011 .034* .141** -.006 -.529** -.015 -.037* .171**

Level of significance: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001.

29

Table 2: ANCOVA results of the main relationships

Sum of squares df F Partial eta squaredCountry 2.924 1 2.364 .001PSM 128.433 8 12.982* .023Error 5487.148 4437Adjusted total 5615.941 4446R-square .023

Country 8.002 1 8.486** .002Intrinsic workplace attributes 1459.803 8 193.522*** .259Error 4173.357 4426Adjusted total 5633.377 4435

.259

Country 10.284 1 8.973** .002Extrinsic workplace attributes 558.477 12 40.606*** .099Error 5064.736 4419Adjusted total 5623.418 4432R-square .099

Country 5.178 1 5.074* .001Work relations with managers 1094.898 4 268.254*** .994Error 4556.060 4465Adjusted total 5651.044 4470R-square .194

Country 2.092 1 1.908 .000Work relations with co-workers 772.306 4 176.096*** .137Error 4857.179 4430Adjusted total 5629.642 4435R-square .137

Level of significance: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001.

30

Table 3: Hierarchical regression results

Variable Base model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6Gender .008 (.034) -.009 (.036) .000 (.030) .038 (.033)** .000 (.031) -.010 (.032) .006 (.029)Age .031 (.001) .027 (.001) .022 (.001) .043 (.001)** .020 (.001) .031 (.001)* .024 (.001)Marital status -.048 (.010)** -.050 (.010)** -.017 (.009) -.031 (.010)* -.034 (.009)* -.048 (.009)** -.008 (.008)Education .001 (.013) -.006 (.013) -.072 (.011)*** -.047 (.013)** .015 (.012) -.008 (.012) -.071 (.010)***Employment status .035 (.038)* .033 (.038)* .036 (.033)** .061 (.037)*** .004 (.034) .028 (.036)* .029 (.030)*Working hours .012 (.000) .011 (.000) -.006 (.000) .009 (.000) .009 (.000) .007 (.000) -.005 (.000)Country .003 (.008) .027 (.008) -.034 (.007)* .043 (.007)** .029 (.007)* -.020 (.007) .005 (.006)Year -.006 (.041) -.020 (.041) -.070 (.036)*** -.042 (.039)* .016 (.037) -.001 (.038) -.057 (.033)***PSM .141 (.023)*** .026 (.019)*Intrinsic workplace attributes .513 (.019)*** .362 (.019)***Extrinsic workplace attributes .331 (.021)*** .162 (.019)***Work relations with managers .439 (.016)*** .242 (.016)***Work relations with co-workers .372 (.021)*** .157 (.020)***

R-squareChange in R-square (from base model)

.006-

.025

.019.261.255

.109

.103.195.189

.142

.136.406.400

F 3.156** 12.497*** 173.327*** 60.389*** 120.199*** 81.489*** 225.894***

Notes for tables 3 and 4: Beta values, followed by standard error values in parentheses.

Level of significance: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001

31

Table 4: Regression results by country

Variable U.S.A. Great Britain Canada Germany France Denmark NorwayGender .013 (.065) .014 (.139) .027 (.083) .017 (.082) .019 (.077) -.027 (.073) -.023 (.058)Age .058 (.003)* .026 (.006) .036 (.002) -.019 (.004) -.021 (.004) .044 (.003) .025 (.003)Marital status -.032 (.020) .031 (.041) -.110 (.024)** .000 (.022) .023 (.019) -.001 (.020) .044 (.017)Education -.041 (.039) -.183 (.041)** -.061 (.038) -.103 (.025)* -.104 (.030)* -.037 (.022) -.114 (.021)***Employment status .027 (.073) .050 (.132) .045 (.097) -.001 (.087) .060 (.094)* -.003 (.066) .081 (.092)*Working hours .031 (.000) -.057 (.001) -.036 (.001) -.018 (.001) -.016 (.003) .009 (.001) .016 (.004)Year -.051 (.096) -.128 (.153) -.030 (.105) -.070 (.099) -.189 (.101)*** -.059 (.074) -.036 (.063)PSM .042 (.046) .036 (.081) .001 (.057) .052 (.053) .000 (.046) .010 (.047) .044 (.038)Intrinsic workplace attributes .329 (.047)*** .449 (.093)*** .407 (.058)*** .384 (.058)*** .427 (.043)*** .304 (.054)*** .264 (.046)***Extrinsic workplace attributes .222 (.046)*** .130 (.085)* .177 (.054)*** .141 (.053)** .227 (.047)*** .076 (.042)* .130 (.043)***Relations with managers .234 (.042)*** .115 (.068)* .186 (.043)*** .210 (.056)*** .229 (.042)*** .350 (.036)*** .289 (.030)***Relations with co-workers .124 (.050)*** .168 (.096)** .186 (.057)*** .082 (.068) .189 (.048)*** .125 (.049)*** .237 (.041)***

R-square .427 .374 .443 .356 .496 .399 .389F 57.175*** 12.546*** 30.205*** 20.067*** 46.746*** 39.027*** 46.528***

32

Appendix

Measurement instruments: Items, reliabilities, means and standard deviations

Public service motivation (Cronbach’s alpha = .77; mean (S.D.) = 4.02 (.74))

For each of the following, please tick one box to show how important you personally think it is in a job.

A job that allows someone to help other people.

A job that is useful to society.

Response scale: ‘not at all important’ (1), ‘not important’ (2), ‘neither unimportant nor important’ (3),

‘important’ (4), and ‘very important’ (5).

Workplace attributes

For each of these statements about your main job, please tick one box to show how much you agree or

disagree that it applies to your job.

Extrinsic workplace attributes (Cronbach’s alpha = .53; mean (S.D.) = 3.04 (.77))

My job is secure.

My income is high.

My opportunities for advancement are high.

Intrinsic workplace attributes (Cronbach’s alpha = .53; mean (S.D.) = 4.03 (.77))

My job is interesting.

I can work independently.

Response scale: from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5).

Work relations

In general, how would you describe relations at your workplace

Between management and employees? Mean (S.D.) = 3.74 (.95)

Between workmates/colleagues? Mean (S.D.) = 4.17 (.76)

Response scale: ‘very bad’ (1), ‘quite bad’ (2), ‘neither bad nor good’ (3), ‘quite good’ (4), and ‘very

good’ (5).

Job satisfaction Mean (S.D.) = 5.32 (1.12)

How satisfied are you in your (main) job?

Response scale: ‘completely dissatisfied’ (1), ‘very dissatisfied’ (2), ‘fairly dissatisfied’ (3), ‘neither

dissatisfied nor satisfied’ (4), ‘fairly satisfied’ (5), ‘very satisfied’ (6), and ‘completely satisfied’ (7).

33