Job Satisfaction In The Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment

http://arp.sagepub.com/The American Review of Public Administration

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/70The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0275074002250254

2003 33: 70The American Review of Public AdministrationBradley E. Wright and Brian S. Davis

Job Satisfaction In The Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

can be found at:The American Review of Public AdministrationAdditional services and information for

http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/70.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on July 12, 2014arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on July 12, 2014arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://arp.sagepub.com/

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/70

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aspanet.org

http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/70.refs.html

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/70.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



10.1177/0275074002250254 ARTICLEARPA / March 2003Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

JOB SATISFACTIONIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

The Role of the Work Environment

BRADLEY E. WRIGHTUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte

BRIAN S. DAVISState University of New York at Albany

This study examines the influence of the work environment on public employee feelings of job satisfac-tion, linking characteristics of the work context perceived to be more prevalent in public organizationswith specific job characteristics that serve as important antecedents of job satisfaction. In particular,this study analyzes the effects of three components of the work context—organizational goal conflict,organizational goal specificity, and procedural constraints—and four job characteristics—job specific-ity, routineness, feedback, and human resource development—faced by public employees. Building onprevious research, a causal model of job satisfaction was tested in a covariance analysis (LISREL) usingdata from a survey of state government employees. The model explained two thirds of the variation inemployee job satisfaction and suggests that the work context may not only be important in distinguishingbetween public and private sector employment but also may be at the root of any sector differences in jobsatisfaction.

Keywords: job satisfaction; job characteristics; work context; organizational behavior

Defined as the “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisalof one’s job or job experience” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300), job satisfaction representsan interaction between employees and their work environment by gauging the con-gruence between what employees want from their jobs and what employees feelthey receive. Job satisfaction has long been expected to have important implicationsfor organizational productivity. It is assumed that the benefits that employeesreceive from their organization influences the effort, skill, and creativity thatemployees are willing to provide their employer.

More specifically, job satisfaction has often been linked to two work-relatedbehaviors of interest to organizations identified by Barnard (1938): (a) the motiva-tion to join and stay in the organization and (b) the motivation to work hard and wellwithin the organization. Support for these assertions, however, is mixed. Although

Initial Submission: October 5, 2001Accepted: January 24, 2002

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 33 No. 1, March 2003 70-90DOI: 10.1177/0275074002250254© 2003 Sage Publications

70

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on July 12, 2014arp.sagepub.comDownloaded from


a review of published studies suggests that the empirical evidence fails to supportthe assertion that job satisfaction has a direct effect on productivity (Iaffaldano &Muchinsky, 1985; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kahn & Morse, 1951; Mitchell, 1979;Vroom, 1964; Wechsler, Kahane, & Tannenbaum, 1952), job satisfaction has beenfound to be related to retention and other membership-related behaviors. Job satis-faction has been found to have an important, albeit indirect, influence on organiza-tional productivity by reducing costs associated with abject employee behaviorssuch as absenteeism and turnover (Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Heneman, Schwab,Fossum, & Dyer, 1983; Lawler, 1994; Spector, 1997).

As early as 1989, concern was raised regarding the ability of public sector orga-nizations to recruit and retain qualified employees. The National Commission onPublic Service (Winter Commission) highlighted a number of important issues forpublic management. Interrelated issues such as low morale and underinvestment inskill development seemingly place the public sector at great disadvantage in com-peting against the private sector for talented labor. This competition involves morethan just the ability to attract talented employees; equally important is the ability ofthe public sector to retain their employees. To retain employees organizations mustcreate a work environment that keeps their employees happy or satisfied.

Heeding the call from the Winter Commission for research that delves moredeeply into the causes and effects of the health of public management, this studyexamines the influence of the public sector work environment on public employeeworkplace experiences and feelings of job satisfaction. Although there is a greatdeal of debate on whether fundamental differences should exist between the publicand private sectors, there is general agreement that differences currently do exist(Fottler, 1981; Meyer, 1982; Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Rainey,Backoff, & Levine, 1976; Whorton & Worthley, 1981). The study of the role thatthe public sector work environment plays in determining employee job satisfactionmay provide valuable insight into whether any of these sector differences have aneffect on a likely antecedent of effective public sector performance, employee jobsatisfaction.

PUBLIC SECTOR JOB SATISFACTION

Public employees have been viewed generally as more dissatisfied with theirjobs than their private sector counterparts (Baldwin & Farley, 1991; Rainey, 1989;Steel & Warner, 1990). One purported cause of this dissatisfaction has been thatwhereas public organizations have missions that often provide greater opportuni-ties for employees to achieve altruistic or higher order needs, the very structure ofthese organizations—purportedly characterized by greater red tape and conflict—hinders the realization of these opportunities. This conflict between purpose andstructure may be illustrated by some apparent inconsistencies found in publicadministration research. For example, although many studies have shown that pub-lic employees are generally more satisfied (DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Maidani,

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 71



1991; Steel & Warner, 1990) or as satisfied (Emmert & Taher, 1992; Gabris &Simo, 1995; Lewis, 1991) as private sector employees, others have found publicemployees to be less satisfied than their private sector counterparts with respect tospecific aspects of their work, including the fulfillment of their esteem, autonomy,and self-actualization needs (Paine, Carroll, & Leete, 1966; Porter & Mitchell,1967; Rhinehart, Barrell, DeWolfe, Griffin, & Spaner, 1969; Solomon, 1986). Infact, although a considerable amount of empirical evidence of public versus privatesector differences in specific facets of job satisfaction has been found, the strengthand direction of these differences has varied (Wright, 2001). A coherent interpreta-tion of these findings has been hindered, however, as this research has tended tofocus more on the existence than on the origins of these differences.

Currently, many public sector organizations are focusing on strategies intendedto achieve enhancements to employee satisfaction. Although much is known aboutthe process or mechanism of job satisfaction in private sector organizations, less isknown about how aspects of the public sector work environment, and their subse-quent influence on important characteristics of employees’ jobs, may affectemployee job satisfaction.

The work environment is made up of two components: job characteristics andwork context. Job characteristics describe how aspects of an employee’s job or taskresponsibilities contribute to important psychological states, such as themeaningfulness of work, that affect the employee’s spirit, growth, and develop-ment. Work context variables, on the other hand, pertain to characteristics of theorganizational setting—such as the organization’s reward systems, goals, or degreeof formalization—in which the employee is expected to perform his or her duties.Together, job characteristics and the work context represent the factors external tothe employee and, therefore, more easily influenced by the organization that help toshape employee job satisfaction.

If sector differences in job satisfaction exist, they should be at least partiallyattributable to specific sector differences in work context and job characteristics.Although previous research (DeSantis & Durst, 1996) has demonstrated the impor-tant role that work context and job characteristics play in determining job satisfac-tion, little has been done to operationalize the interaction between the two. Thisstudy attempts to link aspects of the work context that are perceived to be moreprevalent in public organizations with specific job characteristics known to serve asimportant antecedents of job satisfaction. In particular, this study analyzes theeffects of three components of the work context—organizational goal conflict,organizational goal specificity, and procedural constraints—and four job character-istics—job specificity, routineness, feedback, and human resource development(HRD)—faced by public employees. These variables are not only important in dis-tinguishing between public and private sector employment but also may be at theroot of any sector differences in job satisfaction. Each component of the public sec-tor work environment is discussed, starting with job characteristics as the directantecedents of employee job satisfaction.

72 ARPA / March 2003



Job Characteristics

Direct links between job characteristics and job satisfaction have been exploredthroughout the literature on job satisfaction, most recently in a comparison of jobsatisfaction between public and private sector employees (DeSantis & Durst,1996). Job characteristics can be considered to be “what a person does at work—that is, the nature of the job or the collection of tasks that comprise the job” (Perry &Porter, 1982) and are the primary determinants of employee job satisfaction. Ofparticular interest are those job characteristics that not only serve as antecedents ofjob satisfaction but also distinguish between the public and private sectors in somefashion. Four such job characteristics were identified and included in this study.Three of these job characteristics are posited to have a direct effect on job satisfac-tion: routineness, specificity, and HRD. One job characteristic, feedback, isexpected to have an indirect effect on job satisfaction through its effect on HRD andjob specificity. Each job characteristic, and its purported relationship to job satis-faction, is discussed in turn.

Routineness. As a job characteristic, routineness concerns the degree of pre-dictability an employee confronts on a daily basis. In other words, are theemployee’s daily tasks the same every day or do they instead provide for a vari-ety of experiences and require a variety of skills? Research suggests that work-ers who experience a greater variety of tasks, allowing workers to apply a varietyof skills to an array of new and different work challenges, also experience lesstedium and enhanced job satisfaction (Stimson & Johnson, 1977). As employeesperceive their job becoming more routine, their corresponding level of job satis-faction will decrease, all else being equal.

Consistent with this rationale, it is expected that

Hypothesis 1: The extent of routineness in an employee’s job will have a direct, negativeeffect on employee job satisfaction.

Job specificity. Job specificity deals with worker perceptions regarding theclarity with which job duties and their relative importance are defined as well asthe ability for the employee to clearly evaluate their success and failure in per-forming these duties. Previous research has supported the positive effect thatrole or task clarity plays in determining worker job satisfaction (Daley, 1986;Ting, 1996). As employees understand more clearly what is expected of them intheir jobs, tension associated with role ambiguity decreases and the likelihoodof successfully completing their responsibilities increases. The resulting com-fort level translates into a higher degree of job satisfaction. Therefore, it isexpected that

Hypothesis 2: The degree of specificity in an employee’s job will have a direct, positiveeffect on employee job satisfaction.




Human Resource Development. HRD concerns worker perceptions of oppor-tunities in the organization for training, future career growth, and general skilldevelopment. HRD programs address morale maintenance and turnover issuesby increasing the likelihood that employees successfully complete their tasksand by helping employees see their future intertwined with that of their currentorganizations (Sherman & Bohlander, 1992). Consequently, in addition toimproving organizational productivity directly by building the workforce’s abil-ity to perform their jobs (Budd & Broad, 1996), HRD programs play an impor-tant role in influencing employee job satisfaction by reducing work stress or dis-satisfaction by reducing skill-related impediments to job performance. Statedanother way, as individuals sense a long-term role within the organization’s goalachievement, especially one that involves their own individual growth, their jobsatisfaction will be enhanced. Thus, it is expected that

Hypothesis 3: The amount of HRD opportunities perceived to be available at anemployee’s job will have a direct, positive effect on employee job satisfaction.

Feedback. Employees receive job-related feedback from supervisors,coworkers, and even customers who directly communicate information toemployees regarding their individual job performance. From an organizationalperspective, much of this feedback is often expected to occur through hands-oncoaching or periodic formative or summative performance evaluations that mayhelp to define and clarify job performance expectations. Such feedback not onlyprovides a mechanism to guide action but also develops the necessary skills orjudgments specific to an employee’s job. In other words, feedback serves as on-the-job training. As a result, feedback may serve an important dual function indefining the employee’s relationship with the organization. Feedback can definethe employee’s current responsibilities in obtaining the organization’s goals aswell as whatever potential roles the employee may be able to play in the future.Therefore, the following two hypotheses were identified:

Hypothesis 4: The level of feedback employees receive on the job will have an indirect,positive effect on employee job satisfaction through its influence on job specificity.

Hypothesis 5: The level of feedback employees receive on the job will have an indirect,positive effect on employee job satisfaction through its influence on the availability ofHRD opportunities.

The Role of Public Sector Work Context

In contrast to job characteristics that have an immediate and direct effect on theemployee, the work context refers to characteristics of the overall organizationalsetting, such as the organization’s goals or degree of formalization, in which theemployee must perform the work. Although factors in the organizational contextmore commonly have been investigated because of their presumed relationship to




organizational outcomes, a relationship also has been expected between the work-ing conditions provided by the organization and work-related employee attitudesand behaviors. Work context factors such as an organization’s structure and goalsmay not have a direct influence on employee attitudes and behaviors, however, butan indirect influence through their implications for the design of an employee’s joband ensuring job experiences. Therefore, the key to understanding any potentialsector differences in employee job satisfaction is to consider ways in which the pub-lic sector work context differs from that of the private sector. Three aspects of thework context—organizational goal conflict, organizational goal specificity, andprocedural constraints—may be of particular interest due to their special relevanceto public sector organizations.

Organizational goal conflict. Although relatively little research has focusedon the relationship between work context and job characteristics, the work con-text of public sector organizations has been commonly perceived as fundamen-tally different from organizations in the private sector (Baldwin & Farley, 1991;Fottler, 1981; Rainey, 1989; Whorton & Worthley, 1981). Such differences oftenhave been attributed to the differing functions each sector serves in society. Pub-lic organizations normally address complex social functions, providing goodsand services that cannot be easily packaged for exchange in economic markets(Baldwin, 1987; Rainey, 1983). Consequently, narrowly drawn economic indi-cators of efficiency such as prices and profits are often muddled or even unavail-able to assess performance. Furthermore, because public programs are fundedlargely by individuals who do not receive the direct benefit of these programs,there are continual demands for equity, accountability, and responsiveness inaddition to economic efficiency from the general public. As a result of theabsence of market information and incentives, and due to the presence of greaterinfluence of external forces, public organizations are frequently seen as havingmultiple and even conflicting goals. Such conflict may make organizational per-formance expectations appear ambiguous and often culminate in greater exter-nally imposed procedural constraints on employee action (Baldwin, 1984;Buchanan, 1975; Fottler, 1981; Perry & Rainey, 1988). It is easier to identifywhat employees should not do than it is to identify what they should do (Behn,1995; Whorton & Worthley, 1981). Differences in organizational goal conflict,therefore, may drive sector differences in organizational goal specificity andprocedural constraints. Organizations experiencing greater goal conflict mayrespond by instituting procedural constraints (or red tape) in an effort to limitactions or decisions that could negatively affect their standing in the eyes of con-stituents or parts of the organization adversely influenced by decisions made inother parts of the organization. Similarly, as the organization experiencesgreater degrees of goal conflict, uncertain as to which goals to strive toward oreven how to achieve them, workers will perceive confusion of priorities and agreater ambiguity of the direction and objectives of the organization. Therefore,




consistent with previous studies cited above, the following hypotheses wereidentified:

Hypothesis 7: Organizational goal conflict will have a direct, negative effect on organiza-tional goal specificity.

Hypothesis 6: Organizational goal conflict will have a direct, positive effect on proce-dural constraints.

Procedural constraints. Procedural constraints reflect the extent to whichpublic employees feel constrained by organizational rules (Buchanan, 1975).Higher degrees of procedural constraints may have a number of important impli-cations for the antecedents of job satisfaction previously identified. Organiza-tions concerned predominantly with rules and administrative details, for exam-ple, may limit workers’ creativity in how they complete their work assignments,causing workers to perceive their jobs as relatively more routine. Proceduralconstraints may also have an important influence on job specificity. Although ithas been suggested that public employees may perceive their performanceobjectives as clear because these objectives are defined in terms of conformity tospecified means and procedures (Meyer, 1982; Rainey, 1983), if establishedorganizational policies or procedures hinder or diverge from assigned perfor-mance objectives, then employees may be uncertain as to what performance isactually desired of them. Therefore, it is expected that

Hypothesis 8: Procedural constraints will have an indirect, adverse effect on employeejob satisfaction through its influence on the degree of routineness found in anemployee’s job.

Hypothesis 9: Procedural constraints will have an indirect, adverse effect on employeejob satisfaction through its influence on the degree of specificity found in anemployee’s job.

Organizational goal specificity. Organizational goal specificity representsthe degree to which employees believe that they understand or can explain thedirection, purpose, and performance measures of the organization. Similar toprocedural constraints, organizational goal specificity may also have importantimplications for the antecedents of job satisfaction previously identified. Clearknowledge of the organizational goals, for example, may allow supervisors andpeers to be more able and, therefore, more likely to provide a useful summativeor formative evaluation of an employee’s work. Similarly, the more clearly spec-ified the organization’s objectives and priorities, the more likely the organiza-tion will have a clear development strategy for its workforce as it attempts toachieve these goals. This will manifest itself in targeted training and skill devel-opment that helps prepare workers for new opportunities in their careers with theorganization, enhancing employee perceptions that the organization is inter-ested in their personal development. Therefore, it is expected that




Hypothesis 10: Organizational goal specificity will have an indirect, positive effect onemployee job satisfaction through its influence on the degree of feedback anemployee receives on the job.

Hypothesis 11: Organizational goal specificity will have an indirect, positive effect onemployee job satisfaction through its influence on amount of HRD opportunities per-ceived to be available at an employee’s job.

Each of these hypotheses is depicted visually in Figure 1.

METHOD

The sample for this study consisted of 385 New York State employees drawnfrom a two-stage cluster sampling procedure. First, a sample of state agencies wasgenerated, with 11 of the 72 state agencies in New York selected at random, withtheir probability for inclusion determined by the number of agency employees. Ofthese 11 agencies, 5 provided a current list or telephone directory. Employee listsfrom the 7 remaining agencies were taken from the most recent New York StateOffice of General Services telephone directory. In the second stage, 35 employeeslocated in the state capital were selected at random from each of the 11 agencies. Tomaximize the survey’s response rate (Dillman, 1978, 1991), questionnaires werecoded for tracking purposes, and nonrespondents received two additional mailings:a postcard follow-up sent 10 days after the questionnaire and a third, personallyaddressed and signed letter and replacement questionnaire survey mailed 21 daysafter the original mailing.


Satisfaction

HRD

ProceduralConstraints

Feedback

Routineness

Organizational Goal Conflict

Organizational Goal

Specificity

Job GoalSpecificity

–

+

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

+

+

Figure 1: Hypothesized ModelNOTE: HRD = human resource development.



Study Measures

All participants received a self-administered survey instrument designed toinvestigate employee perceptions of their work context and job characteristics, aswell as their job attitudes. Each of eight study variables was measured using multi-ple items (see appendix), with items measured on either a 6-point strength of agree-ment (strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, gener-ally agree, and strongly agree) or a 5-point frequency of occurrence (almost never/never, rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always/always) scale. To accommodatethe differences in response scales, composite scale scores for each measure werecomputed as the sum of the standardized item scores.

ANALYSIS

Survey Respondents

Of the 385 questionnaires mailed, 30 were returned uncompleted because theselected participant was no longer employed by the agency. From the reduced sam-ple of 355, a total of 267 usable questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of75.2%. Response rates by agency ranged from a low of 64.5% from the Office ofMental Health to a high of 83.9% from the Department of Labor.

A brief demographic overview of the 267 survey respondents is provided inTables 1 and 2. Comparisons between the demographics of the sample respondentswith characteristics of state employees as reported by the 1999 New York StateWorkforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service, 1999)revealed more similarities than differences. For example, the study sampleappeared comparable to the state employee population in terms of gender, with51% male and 49% female (p < .05). The average age of the sample was 47 years,whereas the state average was 45 years. The length of service to the organizationwas also comparable; on average, the survey respondents had been in their currentorganization for 16 years, whereas the average organizational tenure for all stateemployees was nearly 15 years. Statistical tests comparing the age and length ofservice of the sample with the state workforce population suggested that the samplewas significantly older and with longer tenure than the population. These differ-ences were no longer significant, however, if adjustments are made to take intoaccount that the data regarding the state workforce were collected more than 1 yearprior to the collection of the sample data.

Although the study sample appeared comparable to the population of state gov-ernment employees in terms of gender, age, and tenure, they differed in terms of sal-ary grade and ethnicity. Approximately three quarters of all New York Stateemployees are Salary Grade 17 or below, with nearly half below Grade 14. In con-trast, employees at a higher organizational level are overrepresented in the studysample, with two thirds at or above Salary Grade 18. The sample and population




also diverged with regard to ethnicity. Although the majority of state employees(71.8%) were reported to be White, the sample was even more dominated by thepresence of White employees (89.5%). Given the relatively high response rate(75.2%) and the limitations of the available sample frame,1 it seems likely that thesedifferences were characteristic of the sample and not just of the survey respondents.

Psychometric Properties of the Measures

Checks of internal reliability for the eight measures (corresponding to the con-structs depicted in Figure 1) intended for use in this study were encouraging. Reli-ability estimates (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha) ranged from .69 to .80 (seeTable 4). Although any threshold of acceptability for reliability coefficients issomewhat arbitrary, all eight measures were at or near the .70 level of reliability


TABLE 1: Characteristics of Survey Respondents

Frequency Percentage

EthnicityAsian 4 1.6Black 6 2.3Hispanic 8 3.1Native American 3 1.2White 230 89.5Other 6 2.3

GenderFemale 137 51.3Male 130 48.7

EducationSome high school 2 0.8High school diploma 33 12.5Some college/technical school 67 25.3B.A., B.S., or other college degree 70 26.4Some graduate work 36 13.6M.A., M.S., or other graduate degree 52 19.6Doctorate 5 1.9

Nature of positionClerical/support 61 23.1Professional/technical 132 50.0Manager 56 21.2Senior manager/executive 15 5.7

Salary gradeSalary Grades 1-5 0 0.0Salary Grades 6-13 49 18.5Salary Grades 14-17 39 14.7Salary Grades 18-25/M1 127 47.9Salary Grades 26-31/M2-3 37 14.0Salary Grades 32-35/M4 13 4.9



suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for measures used in predictive vali-dation research.

Univariate Analysis of Measures

Table 3 shows the univariate statistics for each measure prior to standardization.2

The potential range of values for each scale varied depending on the number ofitems and number of response categories per item. An analysis of the data providesa description of public sector employment that in many ways may differ from whatis commonly expected. For example, respondents, on average, reported relativelyhigh degrees of goal specificity at both the job and organization levels, as well asonly a moderate amount of organization goal conflict. Similarly, respondents per-ceived their public sector jobs to have somewhat low levels of routineness and pro-cedural constraints. Although the respondents did not report extremely highdegrees of job satisfaction, they did indicate a fair level of satisfaction with a meanscore a third higher than the midpoint. Perhaps as expected, however, the respon-dents did perceive their public sector jobs to have somewhat low levels of feedbackand HRD, with both measures scored slightly below their midpoints.

Bivariate Relations

Table 4 provides the reliability estimates for each of the eight study measuresincluded in the final analysis, as well as the zero-order correlations among them.Nearly all the correlations (25 of 28) were statistically significant at p < .05. In addi-tion to the interrelatedness of the study measures, the prevalence of significant rela-tionships may be a function of characteristics of the study itself, specifically thesample size and source effects. The sample size used in the study was large enoughto be sensitive to small effects (Cohen, 1988), finding statistically significant rela-tions where only 1.5% of variance is shared. The prevalence of significant correla-tions among measures may also be a product of monomethod bias. The measuresmay have been correlated over and above the true variance of the underlying latentvariables due to shared systematic or source errors associated with collecting self-report data at a single point in time (Sullivan & Feldman, 1979). Nonetheless, themeasures appeared to be relatively distinct, the largest bivariate correlation—betweenorganizational goal conflict and organizational goal specificity—was –.57, suggesting


TABLE 2: Age and Tenure of Survey Respondents

StandardMinimum Maximum Mean Median Deviation

Age 21 71 47.1 48.0 7.8Years in current position 1 34 7.8 5.0 6.4Years in agency 1 37 15.9 15.0 8.5Years in state government 1 41 20.9 21.0 8.1



that no measure shared greater than one third of its variance with any other measure.Although the proportion of shared variance between these two measures was .32,the estimated ratio of true-score variance to observed-score variance (Cronbach’salpha) for each measure was substantially higher: .74 and .73, respectively.

Multivariate Analysis

The analysis of these data was conducted in covariance structure analysis usingLISREL version 8.30. The hypothesized relationships among the endogenous vari-ables and between these variables and the exogenous variables were tested in a sin-gle indicator structural equation model incorporating measurement error (Hayduk,1987). To test this model, the composite scores of the multiple-item measures wereused as single indicators (represented as squares) of their respective latent variable(represented as circles). This recognizes that the observed value of each measurewas expected to have a relationship with the true score of the corresponding theoret-ical construct. To adjust for measurement error, the error variance for each measurewas set by constraining the values associated with the measure in the theta delta ortheta epsilon matrices equal to the variance of the measure multiplied by 1 minusthe reliability (Hayduk, 1987; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1992).3 This fixed the path fromthe latent variable to the measured indicator as equal to the square root of the mea-sure’s reliability.4

In addition to the eight variables and 11 paths hypothesized earlier, we controlledfor the effects of education, age, tenure in position, and salary grade level in order toisolate the influence of the job characteristics on job satisfaction. Although theseemployee characteristics may influence job satisfaction, they are not of primaryinterest in this study because they cannot serve as viable leverage points for theorganization to increase job satisfaction. In addition to modeling the effects of thesefour variables on job satisfaction, it was assumed that salary grade level would


TABLE 3: Measure Univariate Statistics

Observed ObservedPotential Minimum Maximum

Scale Range Midpoint M SD Score Score

Job satisfaction 3-22 12.5 15.32 4.21 3 22Job goal specificity 3-22 12.5 17.24 3.34 4 22Feedback 2-20 11.0 9.65 4.24 2 20Routineness 2-20 11.0 9.08 3.61 2 20Human resource

development 2-16 9.0 8.63 3.20 2 16Procedural constraints 3-26 14.5 13.27 4.31 4 26Organizational goal

specificity 2-16 9.0 11.34 2.92 2 16Organizational goal

conflict 3-22 12.5 12.68 3.94 3 22



influence routineness and job specificity. Higher salary grades are usually reservedfor positions with greater decision making and planning responsibilities that are, bytheir very nature, more ambiguous and less routine.

The overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model was tested using sixfit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996). Five of the six indices wereconsistent with a good model fit. The p value test for close fit (.11) was not statisti-cally significant, consistent with good model fit. The root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) was 0.064, and the standardized root mean square resid-ual (standardized RMR) was 0.05, both at or below the thresholds generally consid-ered necessary for a satisfactory model fit (0.08 and 0.05, respectively). The Com-parative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.96, and the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) was 0.95,both indices greater than the 0.90 value used to suggest good model fit. Of the sixtests, only the maximum likelihood chi-square, χ2(39) = 77.93, p < .05, was incon-sistent with good model fit. This particular fit index, however, is sensitive to samplesize, with larger samples inflating the chi-square and decreasing the likelihood ofachieving a good model fit (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). Despite the statisticallysignificant chi-square, the results appeared to point to a good model fit, suggestingthat the theoretical model accurately captured the pattern of relationships suggestedby the data. Five fit indices were consistent with good model fit, and the t tests for all11 specified paths were statistically significant (p < .05). Figure 2 presents theparameter estimates for the structural model expressed as standardized regressionweights.

All 11 hypotheses were supported, with each path statistically significant and inthe predicted direction. Support was found for the three hypothesized antecedentsof job satisfaction, concomitantly explaining 67% of the variance in job satisfac-tion.5 All three predicted antecedents were found to have roughly equal influenceon job satisfaction. As the degree of routineness increased in the job, job satis-


TABLE 4: Measure Correlations and Reliabilities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Job satisfaction (.80)2. Job specificity .47* (.73)3. Feedback .47* .44* (.78)4. Routineness –.38* –.03 –.18* (.76)5. Human resource

development .47* .40* .55* –.08 (.76)6. Procedural

constraints –.38* –.44* –.30* .24* –.35* (.69)7. Organizational

goal specificity .47* .38* .45* .21* .51* –.36* (.73)8. Organizational

goal conflict –.41* –.36* –.37* .11 –.56* .48* –.57* (.74)

NOTE: Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses.*p < .05.



faction decreased (standardized coefficient –.42). Conversely, as job specificity andHRD increased, job satisfaction also increased (standardized coefficients .38 and.35, respectively). Of the four employee characteristics control variables, only edu-cational level was found to be related to job satisfaction (p < .05). Although the sat-isfaction that public employees found in their jobs decreased as the level of theemployees’ formal education increased, this effect was small relative to the influ-ence the three job characteristics had on job satisfaction (standardized coefficient –.15).6

Support was also found for the hypothesized antecedents of the four job charac-teristics. Procedural constraints was found to be related to the degree of routinenesson the job. As procedural constraints increased, so too did routineness. Togetherwith salary grade level, procedural constraints explained 29% of the variance inroutineness. Just over half of the variance in job specificity could be explained bythree antecedents, procedural constraints, feedback, and salary grade level (R2 =0.54). Although procedural constraints and salary grade level decreased job speci-ficity, feedback acted to increase job specificity. Feedback, however, was found tobe associated with organizational goal specificity. The amount of feedback thatpublic employees received on the job increased as organizational goal specificityincreased. In fact, a third (34%) of the variance in feedback was explained by orga-nizational goal specificity alone. Feedback and organizational goal specificity were


0.38*

0.53*

0.40*

0.31

0.58*

0.33

-0.83*

-0.46* 0.67*

0.54

0.39*

-0.42*

Satisfaction

HRD

ProceduralConstraints

E

Feedback

E

E

0.35*

Routineness


Organizational Goal

Specificity

Specificity

0.71E

0.31

0.66E

0.46E

0.33*

SalaryGrade

Age Job Tenure

Education

-0.45*

0.04

-0.19*

0.00 0.03

-0.15*

Figure 2: Model ResultsNOTE: The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights.*p < 0.05.



found to have a direct, positive influence on the final job characteristic, HRD,which in combination explained just over two thirds (69%) of the variance.

The hypothesized relationships among the organizational context variableswere also supported. Organizational goal conflict was found to have a positiveinfluence on procedural constraints and a negative influence on organizational goalspecificity. Organizational goal conflict alone explained a considerable amount ofthe variance in procedural constraints and organizational goal specificity: 0.46%and 0.69%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this study add credence to the belief that the specific job charac-teristics and work context commonly associated with the public sector significantlyaffect employee job satisfaction. The model suggests that approximately two thirdsof the variance in employee self-reports of job satisfaction can be explained by onlythree job characteristics—routineness, job goal specificity, and HRD. Furthermore,the results of this model suggest that public organizations interested in enhancingtheir employees’ job satisfaction should take into consideration how the work envi-ronment may influence their employees’perceptions and experiences on the job. Ifpublic sector organizations do tend to experience greater goal conflict and proce-dural constraints, as well as less organizational goal specificity, then the findings ofthis study suggest that such differences may have an important detrimental effect onpublic sector employee job satisfaction. Specifically, conflicts concerning an orga-nization’s goals can translate into worker confusion over their role within the orga-nization and their job responsibilities and produce a generalized sense of ennui dueto frustrations over red tape or a lack of variety on the job.

The findings of this study suggest at least three strategies that public organiza-tions may choose to consider if they wish to enhance job satisfaction among theiremployees. First, public organizations may discover that increased communicationwith employees about job responsibilities, in conjunction with a sincere effort tolimit procedural constraints, may lead to enhanced levels of employee job satisfac-tion by increasing employee perceptions of job specificity.

Two aspects of the work context purported to differ across employment sec-tors—namely, organizational goal specificity and procedural constraints—seem tobe particularly relevant to job goal specificity and its effect on job satisfaction. Theclarity of organizational goals may allow supervisors and peers to provide asummative evaluation of how an employee’s performance supports such goals.Such an evaluation of an employee’s work is critical, because it helps to improvejob satisfaction by clarifying job performance expectations. If public sector goalsare, indeed, ambiguous, then the adverse effects of this ambiguity may be partiallymitigated by programs designed to improve the quantity and quality of feedbackthat employees receive from a variety of sources including their supervisors, theirclients, and their own performance of the tasks themselves. Organizations may




have a significant effect on the level of job satisfaction of their employees by usingcustomer service or supervisor training programs to increase the quality and quan-tity of feedback employees receive on the job.

The results of this study also indicate that procedural constraints may have anindirect relationship with job satisfaction through its influence on job goal specific-ity. When the established organizational policies or procedures hinder or divergefrom assigned performance objectives, employee job satisfaction may decline ifemployees are uncertain as to what performance is desired or how they are contrib-uting to the mission of the organization. Although this may suggest that stepsshould be taken to reduce the procedural constraints found in public organizations,one of the primary goals of the National Performance Review, it should be recog-nized that such rules and regulations may serve an important function in public sec-tor organizations. The proliferation of procedural constraints often stems from theneed to protect citizens and to insure an appropriate use of public resources.Although such procedural constraints may either be necessary or outside the orga-nization’s control, public sector organizations may be able to partially alleviatepotential conflict and confusion caused by procedural constraints throughimproved communication. Employee job satisfaction may improve if public sectororganizations provide employees with the rationale behind policies and proceduresso that employees can understand the necessity of such regulations and how theyare expected to coexist with their particular performance expectations.

Second, we feel that public organizations can leverage the positive effects ofgreater employee job satisfaction by developing clear strategies that embrace theHRD needs of their employees. Training programs that focus on skill development,specific strategies for enhancing career development, and providing formativefeedback to employees may be particularly useful. One important conclusion of ourmodel is that more than two thirds of the variance in employee job satisfaction canbe explained by factors other than monetary rewards. Public service employeesseem to be motivated by a range of factors, including opportunities for skill devel-opment and indications of organizational attention to their long-term careers.Unfortunately, although the importance of HRD programs in improving organiza-tional productivity in the public sector has recently been recognized (Budd &Broad, 1996), the work of the National Commission on Public Service (WinterCommission) correctly highlighted the public sector’s tendency to underinvest inworkforce development. Public sector organizations and public administrationscholars would be wise to increase their investments in and study of employee train-ing and development programs, including the expansion of informal developmentopportunities provided by such activities as supervisory feedback.

Last, we recommend that public sector organizations pay greater attention to thevariety of their employees’ job duties. As the findings of this study suggest, thedegree of routine in an employee’s job has a direct, adverse effect on employee jobsatisfaction. The more mundane and routine the tasks and responsibilities thatworkers confront, the more they approach their jobs with negative feelings of malaiseand ennui. Public organizations should embrace recent studies calling for a reinvig-




oration of the public spirit of administration (Frederickson, 1997) and find ways tofree the creative mind of its capable employees, embracing success while notunduly fearing failure. Achieving this goal will take a sincere effort on the part ofpublic sector management to change its overall mindset, reducing excessive proce-dural constraints and allowing employees to try out and learn from untested solu-tions to problems, both old and new.

Although this study identifies a number of important antecedents to job satisfac-tion relevant to public sector organizations, the importance of job satisfaction itselfmay require future attention. Many scholars continue to believe that “a basic andstrong correlation exists between job satisfaction and job productivity” (Steel &Warner, 1990), that a happy employee is a productive employee. Unfortunately, thisrelationship is not as simple as one might expect. In fact, considerable empiricalevidence fails to support an assertion of a strong, direct relationship between jobsatisfaction and productivity (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Kahn & Morse,1951; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Mitchell, 1979; Vroom, 1964; Wechsler et al., 1952).Although at first glance this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that employ-ees can be satisfied with a job that pays well but requires them to do very little(Lawler, 1986). This, however, does not mean that job satisfaction is completelyunrelated to productivity. Some more recent research suggests that performancemay influence satisfaction rather than satisfaction influencing performance(Lawler, 1994). Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990) found that employees are more satis-fied when they perform well, but that matching employee abilities to job require-ments moderates this relationship. This adds credence to the findings of this study,particularly the importance of HRD. Although it was found that HRD improves jobsatisfaction, this finding may be a result of a relationship between job performanceand job satisfaction not captured by the current model. Alternatively, job satisfac-tion may also have an important indirect influence on organizational productivityby reducing costs associated with employee absenteeism and turnover (Farrell &Stamm, 1988; Heneman et al., 1983; Lawler, 1994; Spector, 1997). Such costs mayoften be hard to quantify but are, nonetheless, real. Future research should attemptto clarify the importance of job satisfaction both in terms of organization perfor-mance and the physical or psychological well-being of its members.

APPENDIX

Job Satisfaction

I am very satisfied with the kind of work that I do.At least for now, my current position is well suited to my needs.I would not recommend working here to others. (R)I think about getting a different job.* (R)




Job Specificity

My responsibilities at work are very clear and specific.I understand fully which of my job duties are more important than others.It is difficult to evaluate success or failure on my job. (R)I know exactly what I am supposed to do on my job.*

Job Feedback

My last performance evaluation assisted me in improving my work.I get coaching from my supervisor to help me do a better job.I get helpful information from others about how well I am performing at my job.*I receive useful evaluations of my strengths and weaknesses at work.*

Job Routineness

The performance of my job requires a variety of skills. (R)Day after day my on-the-job tasks are almost the same.I get an opportunity to do new and different things at work.* (R)My daily work routine is very predictable.*

Human Resource Development

This organization places the right emphasis on career development.Employees are not being kept up to date in important work skills.This organization provides good opportunities for job-related training.*

Procedural Constraints

I have the authority to change my work processes to get the job done. (R)This organization seems much more concerned that I follow procedures than that I do a

good job.I always must check with my boss before making important decisions.Rules, administrative details, and “red tape” make it difficult for new ideas to receive

attention.*In my job even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer.*


To satisfy some people, this organization will inevitably upset others.This organization has been given conflicting priorities.This organization seems to be working at cross-purposes.Success in parts of this organization undercuts the success of others.*




Organizational Goals Specificity

I can clearly explain to others the direction (vision, values, mission) of this organization.This organization has objectives that are specific and well defined.There is a clear understanding of organizational priorities.*

*Responses on a 5-point frequency scale coded 0 (almost never/never) through 4 (almost always/always), all other items coded on a 6-point agree/disagree scale coded 1 (strongly disagree) through 6(strongly agree).(R) = Reverse worded.

NOTES

1. The 1998 New York State Office of General Services telephone directory, used to select a sam-ple for 7 of the 11 state agencies, only lists the most frequently called state employees. Employeesassigned dedicated phone lines may be more likely to be at the higher levels of the organization.

2. Although composite scale scores for each measure used were computed as the sum of the stan-dardized item scores to accommodate the differences in response scale across items, the meaning ofsuch scores are difficult to interpret. For this reason, the sum of the raw item scores was used todescribe the sample in terms of the eight study measures.

3. Error variances associated with the indicators (e) are equal to 1 minus the indicator’s reliabil-ity estimate.

4. This path can be interpreted as the factor loading of the observed indicator on the conceptualvariable it was intended to measure.

5. Coefficients of determination for endogenous variables can be calculated from Figure 2 as 1minus the error term for the latent variable (E).

6. To determine if the controls, as a collective set, had any impact, the model was first run with thecontrol variables included. Then the model was run a second time constraining the paths from thecontrol variables to job satisfaction to 0. A nested chi-square test comparing the two models sug-gested that the controls contributed little explanatory power to the model.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, J. N. (1984). Are we really lazy? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4(2), 80-89.Baldwin, J. N. (1987). Public versus private: Not that different, not that consequential. Public Personnel

Management, 16(2), 181-193.Baldwin, J. N., & Farley, Q. A. (1991). Comparing the public and private sectors in the United States: A

review of the empirical literature. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of comparative and develop-ment public administration (pp. 27-39). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Behn, R. D. (1995). The big questions of public management. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 313-

324.Buchanan, B. (1975). Government managers, business executives, and organizational commitment.

Public Administration Review, 34(4), 339-347.Budd, M. L., & Broad, M. L. (1996). Training and development for organizational performance. In J. L.

Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 424-439). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648-657.




Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Daley, D. M. (1986). Humanistic management and organizational success: The effect of job and workenvironmental characteristics on organizational effectiveness, public responsiveness and job satis-faction. Public Personnel Management, 15(2), 131-142.

DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private sectoremployees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17,225-249.

Emmert, M. A., & Taher, W. A. (1992). Public sector professionals: The effects of public sector jobs onmotivation, job satisfaction and work involvement. American Review of Public Administration,22(1), 37-48.

Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates of employee absence. Human Rela-tions, 41(3), 211-227.

Fottler, M. D. (1981). Is management really generic? Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 1-12.Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career

decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-51.Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press.Heneman, H. G. I., Schwab, D. P., Fossum, J. A., & Dyer, L. D. (1983). Personnel/human resource man-

agement. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression (Sage

University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-114). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1992). LISREL VIII: Analysis of linear structural relations.Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

Kahn, R. L., & Morse, N. C. (1951). The relationship of productivity to morale. Journal of Social Issues,7, 8-17.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass.Lewis, G. B. (1991). Pay and job satisfaction in the federal civil service. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 11(3), 17-31.Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.Maidani, E. A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among

public and private sectors. Public Personnel Management, 20(4), 441-448.Meyer, M. W. (1982). Bureaucratic vs. profit organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior (pp. 89-126). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 243-281.New York State Department of Civil Service. (1999). 1999 New York State workforce management plan.

Albany: Author.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Paine, F. T., Carroll, S. J., & Leete, B. A. (1966). Need satisfactions of managerial level personnel in a

government agency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 247-249.




Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations.Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organizational theory: A critiqueand research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182-201.

Porter, L. W., & Mitchell, V. F. (1967). Comparative study of need satisfactions in military and businesshierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2), 139-144.

Rainey, H. G. (1983). Private agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals and individual roles.Administration & Society, 15(2), 207-242.

Rainey, H. G. (1989). Public management: Recent research on the political context and managerialroles, structures and behaviors. Journal of Management, 15(2), 229-250.

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations.Public Administration Review, 36(2), 182-201.

Rhinehart, J. B., Barrell, R. P., DeWolfe, A. S., Griffin, J. E., & Spaner, F. E. (1969). Comparative studyof need satisfactions in governmental and business hierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology,53(3), 230-235.

Sherman, A. W., Jr., & Bohlander, G. W. (1992). Managing human resources. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.

Solomon, E. E. (1986). Private and public sector managers: An empirical investigation of job character-istics and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 247-259.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and consequences. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Steel, B. S., & Warner, R. L. (1990). Job satisfaction among early labor force participants: Unexpectedoutcomes in public and private sector comparisons. Review of Public Personnel Administration,10(3), 4-22.

Stimson, J., & Johnson, T. (1977). Tasks, individual differences, and job satisfaction. Industrial Rela-tions, 3, 315-322.

Sullivan, J. L., & Feldman, S. (1979). Multiple indicators: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Ting, Y. (1996). Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-collar work force: Findings from the

survey of federal employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(4), 439-456.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Wechsler, I. R., Kahane, M., & Tannenbaum, R. (1952). Job satisfaction, productivity and morale: A

case study. Occupational Psychology, 26, 1-14.Whorton, J. W., & Worthley, J. A. (1981). A perspective on the challenge of public management: Envi-

ronmental paradox and organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 357-361.Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised concep-

tual model. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 11(4), 559-586.

Bradley E. Wright is an assistant professor of political science at the University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte. His research focuses on how the characteristics of the organizationalwork environment may influence employee attitudes and performance.

Brian S. Davis received his master’s degree in economics from George Mason University and iscurrently working on his doctoral dissertation in the State University of New York at Albany’sDepartment of Public Administration and Policy. His current research interests include an orga-nizational analysis of the international regulatory regime for the financial services industry.




Documents

Job Satisfaction In The Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment