The American Review of Public Administration

http://arp.sagepub.com

Job Satisfaction In The Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment
Bradley E. Wright and Brian S. Davis
The American Review of Public Administration 2003; 33; 70
DOI: 10.1177/0275074002250254
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/70

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

Additional services and information for The American Review of Public Administration can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/1/70

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

ARTICLE

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

JOB SATISFACTION
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
The Role of the Work Environment
BRADLEY E. WRIGHT
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
BRIAN S. DAVIS
State University of New York at Albany

This study examines the influence of the work environment on public employee feelings of job satisfaction, linking characteristics of the work context perceived to be more prevalent in public organizations
with specific job characteristics that serve as important antecedents of job satisfaction. In particular,
this study analyzes the effects of three components of the work contextorganizational goal conflict,
organizational goal specificity, and procedural constraintsand four job characteristicsjob specificity, routineness, feedback, and human resource developmentfaced by public employees. Building on
previous research, a causal model of job satisfaction was tested in a covariance analysis (LISREL) using
data from a survey of state government employees. The model explained two thirds of the variation in
employee job satisfaction and suggests that the work context may not only be important in distinguishing
between public and private sector employment but also may be at the root of any sector differences in job
satisfaction.
Keywords: job satisfaction; job characteristics; work context; organizational behavior

Defined as the pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal
of ones job or job experience (Locke, 1976, p. 1300), job satisfaction represents
an interaction between employees and their work environment by gauging the congruence between what employees want from their jobs and what employees feel
they receive. Job satisfaction has long been expected to have important implications
for organizational productivity. It is assumed that the benefits that employees
receive from their organization influences the effort, skill, and creativity that
employees are willing to provide their employer.
More specifically, job satisfaction has often been linked to two work-related
behaviors of interest to organizations identified by Barnard (1938): (a) the motivation to join and stay in the organization and (b) the motivation to work hard and well
within the organization. Support for these assertions, however, is mixed. Although
Initial Submission: October 5, 2001
Accepted: January 24, 2002
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 33 No. 1, March 2003 70-90
DOI: 10.1177/0275074002250254
2003 Sage Publications

70

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

71

a review of published studies suggests that the empirical evidence fails to support
the 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 been
found to be related to retention and other membership-related behaviors. Job satisfaction has been found to have an important, albeit indirect, influence on organizational productivity by reducing costs associated with abject employee behaviors
such 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 organizations to recruit and retain qualified employees. The National Commission on
Public Service (Winter Commission) highlighted a number of important issues for
public management. Interrelated issues such as low morale and underinvestment in
skill development seemingly place the public sector at great disadvantage in competing against the private sector for talented labor. This competition involves more
than just the ability to attract talented employees; equally important is the ability of
the public sector to retain their employees. To retain employees organizations must
create a work environment that keeps their employees happy or satisfied.
Heeding the call from the Winter Commission for research that delves more
deeply into the causes and effects of the health of public management, this study
examines the influence of the public sector work environment on public employee
workplace experiences and feelings of job satisfaction. Although there is a great
deal of debate on whether fundamental differences should exist between the public
and 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 that
the public sector work environment plays in determining employee job satisfaction
may provide valuable insight into whether any of these sector differences have an
effect on a likely antecedent of effective public sector performance, employee job
satisfaction.

PUBLIC SECTOR JOB SATISFACTION

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

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

72

ARPA / March 2003

1991; Steel & Warner, 1990) or as satisfied (Emmert & Taher, 1992; Gabris &
Simo, 1995; Lewis, 1991) as private sector employees, others have found public
employees to be less satisfied than their private sector counterparts with respect to
specific 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). In
fact, although a considerable amount of empirical evidence of public versus private
sector differences in specific facets of job satisfaction has been found, the strength
and direction of these differences has varied (Wright, 2001). A coherent interpretation of these findings has been hindered, however, as this research has tended to
focus more on the existence than on the origins of these differences.
Currently, many public sector organizations are focusing on strategies intended
to achieve enhancements to employee satisfaction. Although much is known about
the process or mechanism of job satisfaction in private sector organizations, less is
known about how aspects of the public sector work environment, and their subsequent influence on important characteristics of employees jobs, may affect
employee job satisfaction.
The work environment is made up of two components: job characteristics and
work context. Job characteristics describe how aspects of an employees job or task
responsibilities contribute to important psychological states, such as the
meaningfulness of work, that affect the employees spirit, growth, and development. Work context variables, on the other hand, pertain to characteristics of the
organizational settingsuch as the organizations reward systems, goals, or degree
of formalizationin which the employee is expected to perform his or her duties.
Together, job characteristics and the work context represent the factors external to
the employee and, therefore, more easily influenced by the organization that help to
shape employee job satisfaction.
If sector differences in job satisfaction exist, they should be at least partially
attributable to specific sector differences in work context and job characteristics.
Although previous research (DeSantis & Durst, 1996) has demonstrated the important role that work context and job characteristics play in determining job satisfaction, little has been done to operationalize the interaction between the two. This
study attempts to link aspects of the work context that are perceived to be more
prevalent in public organizations with specific job characteristics known to serve as
important antecedents of job satisfaction. In particular, this study analyzes the
effects of three components of the work contextorganizational goal conflict,
organizational goal specificity, and procedural constraintsand four job characteristicsjob specificity, routineness, feedback, and human resource development
(HRD)faced by public employees. These variables are not only important in distinguishing between public and private sector employment but also may be at the
root of any sector differences in job satisfaction. Each component of the public sector work environment is discussed, starting with job characteristics as the direct
antecedents of employee job satisfaction.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

73

Job Characteristics
Direct links between job characteristics and job satisfaction have been explored
throughout the literature on job satisfaction, most recently in a comparison of job
satisfaction 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. Of
particular interest are those job characteristics that not only serve as antecedents of
job satisfaction but also distinguish between the public and private sectors in some
fashion. 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 satisfaction: routineness, specificity, and HRD. One job characteristic, feedback, is
expected to have an indirect effect on job satisfaction through its effect on HRD and
job specificity. Each job characteristic, and its purported relationship to job satisfaction, is discussed in turn.
Routineness. As a job characteristic, routineness concerns the degree of predictability an employee confronts on a daily basis. In other words, are the
employees daily tasks the same every day or do they instead provide for a variety of experiences and require a variety of skills? Research suggests that workers who experience a greater variety of tasks, allowing workers to apply a variety
of skills to an array of new and different work challenges, also experience less
tedium and enhanced job satisfaction (Stimson & Johnson, 1977). As employees
perceive their job becoming more routine, their corresponding level of job satisfaction will decrease, all else being equal.
Consistent with this rationale, it is expected that
Hypothesis 1: The extent of routineness in an employees job will have a direct, negative
effect on employee job satisfaction.

Job specificity. Job specificity deals with worker perceptions regarding the
clarity with which job duties and their relative importance are defined as well as
the ability for the employee to clearly evaluate their success and failure in performing these duties. Previous research has supported the positive effect that
role or task clarity plays in determining worker job satisfaction (Daley, 1986;
Ting, 1996). As employees understand more clearly what is expected of them in
their jobs, tension associated with role ambiguity decreases and the likelihood
of successfully completing their responsibilities increases. The resulting comfort level translates into a higher degree of job satisfaction. Therefore, it is
expected that
Hypothesis 2: The degree of specificity in an employees job will have a direct, positive
effect on employee job satisfaction.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

74

ARPA / March 2003

Human Resource Development. HRD concerns worker perceptions of opportunities in the organization for training, future career growth, and general skill
development. HRD programs address morale maintenance and turnover issues
by increasing the likelihood that employees successfully complete their tasks
and by helping employees see their future intertwined with that of their current
organizations (Sherman & Bohlander, 1992). Consequently, in addition to
improving organizational productivity directly by building the workforces ability to perform their jobs (Budd & Broad, 1996), HRD programs play an important role in influencing employee job satisfaction by reducing work stress or dissatisfaction by reducing skill-related impediments to job performance. Stated
another way, as individuals sense a long-term role within the organizations goal
achievement, especially one that involves their own individual growth, their job
satisfaction will be enhanced. Thus, it is expected that
Hypothesis 3: The amount of HRD opportunities perceived to be available at an
employees 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 to
employees regarding their individual job performance. From an organizational
perspective, much of this feedback is often expected to occur through hands-on
coaching or periodic formative or summative performance evaluations that may
help to define and clarify job performance expectations. Such feedback not only
provides a mechanism to guide action but also develops the necessary skills or
judgments specific to an employees job. In other words, feedback serves as onthe-job training. As a result, feedback may serve an important dual function in
defining the employees relationship with the organization. Feedback can define
the employees current responsibilities in obtaining the organizations goals as
well 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 of
HRD opportunities.

The Role of Public Sector Work Context

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

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

75

organizational outcomes, a relationship also has been expected between the working conditions provided by the organization and work-related employee attitudes
and behaviors. Work context factors such as an organizations structure and goals
may not have a direct influence on employee attitudes and behaviors, however, but
an indirect influence through their implications for the design of an employees job
and ensuring job experiences. Therefore, the key to understanding any potential
sector differences in employee job satisfaction is to consider ways in which the public sector work context differs from that of the private sector. Three aspects of the
work contextorganizational goal conflict, organizational goal specificity, and
procedural constraintsmay be of particular interest due to their special relevance
to public sector organizations.
Organizational goal conflict. Although relatively little research has focused
on the relationship between work context and job characteristics, the work context of public sector organizations has been commonly perceived as fundamentally different from organizations in the private sector (Baldwin & Farley, 1991;
Fottler, 1981; Rainey, 1989; Whorton & Worthley, 1981). Such differences often
have been attributed to the differing functions each sector serves in society. Public organizations normally address complex social functions, providing goods
and services that cannot be easily packaged for exchange in economic markets
(Baldwin, 1987; Rainey, 1983). Consequently, narrowly drawn economic indicators of efficiency such as prices and profits are often muddled or even unavailable to assess performance. Furthermore, because public programs are funded
largely by individuals who do not receive the direct benefit of these programs,
there are continual demands for equity, accountability, and responsiveness in
addition to economic efficiency from the general public. As a result of the
absence of market information and incentives, and due to the presence of greater
influence of external forces, public organizations are frequently seen as having
multiple and even conflicting goals. Such conflict may make organizational performance expectations appear ambiguous and often culminate in greater externally imposed procedural constraints on employee action (Baldwin, 1984;
Buchanan, 1975; Fottler, 1981; Perry & Rainey, 1988). It is easier to identify
what 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 and
procedural constraints. Organizations experiencing greater goal conflict may
respond by instituting procedural constraints (or red tape) in an effort to limit
actions or decisions that could negatively affect their standing in the eyes of constituents or parts of the organization adversely influenced by decisions made in
other parts of the organization. Similarly, as the organization experiences
greater degrees of goal conflict, uncertain as to which goals to strive toward or
even how to achieve them, workers will perceive confusion of priorities and a
greater ambiguity of the direction and objectives of the organization. Therefore,

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

76

ARPA / March 2003

consistent with previous studies cited above, the following hypotheses were
identified:
Hypothesis 7: Organizational goal conflict will have a direct, negative effect on organizational goal specificity.
Hypothesis 6: Organizational goal conflict will have a direct, positive effect on procedural constraints.

Procedural constraints. Procedural constraints reflect the extent to which

public employees feel constrained by organizational rules (Buchanan, 1975).
Higher degrees of procedural constraints may have a number of important implications for the antecedents of job satisfaction previously identified. Organizations concerned predominantly with rules and administrative details, for example, may limit workers creativity in how they complete their work assignments,
causing workers to perceive their jobs as relatively more routine. Procedural
constraints may also have an important influence on job specificity. Although it
has been suggested that public employees may perceive their performance
objectives as clear because these objectives are defined in terms of conformity to
specified means and procedures (Meyer, 1982; Rainey, 1983), if established
organizational policies or procedures hinder or diverge from assigned performance objectives, then employees may be uncertain as to what performance is
actually desired of them. Therefore, it is expected that
Hypothesis 8: Procedural constraints will have an indirect, adverse effect on employee
job satisfaction through its influence on the degree of routineness found in an
employees job.
Hypothesis 9: Procedural constraints will have an indirect, adverse effect on employee
job satisfaction through its influence on the degree of specificity found in an
employees job.

Organizational goal specificity. Organizational goal specificity represents

the degree to which employees believe that they understand or can explain the
direction, purpose, and performance measures of the organization. Similar to
procedural constraints, organizational goal specificity may also have important
implications for the antecedents of job satisfaction previously identified. Clear
knowledge of the organizational goals, for example, may allow supervisors and
peers to be more able and, therefore, more likely to provide a useful summative
or formative evaluation of an employees work. Similarly, the more clearly specified the organizations objectives and priorities, the more likely the organization will have a clear development strategy for its workforce as it attempts to
achieve these goals. This will manifest itself in targeted training and skill development that helps prepare workers for new opportunities in their careers with the
organization, enhancing employee perceptions that the organization is interested in their personal development. Therefore, it is expected that

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Procedural
Constraints

77

Routineness

Organizational
Goal
Conflict
Job Goal
Specificity

Satisfaction

+
Organizational
Goal
Specificity

Feedback
+

+
+

HRD

Figure 1: Hypothesized Model

NOTE: HRD = human resource development.

Hypothesis 10: Organizational goal specificity will have an indirect, positive effect on
employee job satisfaction through its influence on the degree of feedback an
employee receives on the job.
Hypothesis 11: Organizational goal specificity will have an indirect, positive effect on
employee job satisfaction through its influence on amount of HRD opportunities perceived to be available at an employees job.

Each of these hypotheses is depicted visually in Figure 1.

METHOD
The sample for this study consisted of 385 New York State employees drawn
from a two-stage cluster sampling procedure. First, a sample of state agencies was
generated, with 11 of the 72 state agencies in New York selected at random, with
their probability for inclusion determined by the number of agency employees. Of
these 11 agencies, 5 provided a current list or telephone directory. Employee lists
from the 7 remaining agencies were taken from the most recent New York State
Office of General Services telephone directory. In the second stage, 35 employees
located in the state capital were selected at random from each of the 11 agencies. To
maximize the surveys response rate (Dillman, 1978, 1991), questionnaires were
coded for tracking purposes, and nonrespondents received two additional mailings:
a postcard follow-up sent 10 days after the questionnaire and a third, personally
addressed and signed letter and replacement questionnaire survey mailed 21 days
after the original mailing.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

78

ARPA / March 2003

Study Measures
All participants received a self-administered survey instrument designed to
investigate employee perceptions of their work context and job characteristics, as
well as their job attitudes. Each of eight study variables was measured using multiple items (see appendix), with items measured on either a 6-point strength of agreement (strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, and strongly agree) or a 5-point frequency of occurrence (almost never/
never, rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always/always) scale. To accommodate
the differences in response scales, composite scale scores for each measure were
computed as the sum of the standardized item scores.

ANALYSIS
Survey Respondents
Of the 385 questionnaires mailed, 30 were returned uncompleted because the
selected participant was no longer employed by the agency. From the reduced sample of 355, a total of 267 usable questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of
75.2%. Response rates by agency ranged from a low of 64.5% from the Office of
Mental Health to a high of 83.9% from the Department of Labor.
A brief demographic overview of the 267 survey respondents is provided in
Tables 1 and 2. Comparisons between the demographics of the sample respondents
with characteristics of state employees as reported by the 1999 New York State
Workforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service, 1999)
revealed more similarities than differences. For example, the study sample
appeared comparable to the state employee population in terms of gender, with
51% 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 organization
was also comparable; on average, the survey respondents had been in their current
organization for 16 years, whereas the average organizational tenure for all state
employees was nearly 15 years. Statistical tests comparing the age and length of
service of the sample with the state workforce population suggested that the sample
was significantly older and with longer tenure than the population. These differences were no longer significant, however, if adjustments are made to take into
account that the data regarding the state workforce were collected more than 1 year
prior to the collection of the sample data.
Although the study sample appeared comparable to the population of state government employees in terms of gender, age, and tenure, they differed in terms of salary grade and ethnicity. Approximately three quarters of all New York State
employees are Salary Grade 17 or below, with nearly half below Grade 14. In contrast, employees at a higher organizational level are overrepresented in the study
sample, with two thirds at or above Salary Grade 18. The sample and population

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

79

TABLE 1: Characteristics of Survey Respondents

Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
Other
Gender
Female
Male
Education
Some high school
High school diploma
Some college/technical school
B.A., B.S., or other college degree
Some graduate work
M.A., M.S., or other graduate degree
Doctorate
Nature of position
Clerical/support
Professional/technical
Manager
Senior manager/executive
Salary grade
Salary Grades 1-5
Salary Grades 6-13
Salary Grades 14-17
Salary Grades 18-25/M1
Salary Grades 26-31/M2-3
Salary Grades 32-35/M4

Frequency

Percentage

4
6
8
3
230
6

1.6
2.3
3.1
1.2
89.5
2.3

137
130

51.3
48.7

2
33
67
70
36
52
5

0.8
12.5
25.3
26.4
13.6
19.6
1.9

61
132
56
15

23.1
50.0
21.2
5.7

0
49
39
127
37
13

0.0
18.5
14.7
47.9
14.0
4.9

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 the
presence 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 these
differences 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 constructs depicted in Figure 1) intended for use in this study were encouraging. Reliability estimates (Cronbachs coefficient alpha) ranged from .69 to .80 (see
Table 4). Although any threshold of acceptability for reliability coefficients is
somewhat arbitrary, all eight measures were at or near the .70 level of reliability

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

80

ARPA / March 2003

TABLE 2: Age and Tenure of Survey Respondents

Age
Years in current position
Years in agency
Years in state government

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Median

Standard
Deviation

21
1
1
1

71
34
37
41

47.1
7.8
15.9
20.9

48.0
5.0
15.0
21.0

7.8
6.4
8.5
8.1

suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for measures used in predictive validation 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 of
items and number of response categories per item. An analysis of the data provides
a description of public sector employment that in many ways may differ from what
is commonly expected. For example, respondents, on average, reported relatively
high degrees of goal specificity at both the job and organization levels, as well as
only a moderate amount of organization goal conflict. Similarly, respondents perceived their public sector jobs to have somewhat low levels of routineness and procedural constraints. Although the respondents did not report extremely high
degrees of job satisfaction, they did indicate a fair level of satisfaction with a mean
score a third higher than the midpoint. Perhaps as expected, however, the respondents did perceive their public sector jobs to have somewhat low levels of feedback
and HRD, with both measures scored slightly below their midpoints.
Bivariate Relations
Table 4 provides the reliability estimates for each of the eight study measures
included 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 addition to the interrelatedness of the study measures, the prevalence of significant relationships may be a function of characteristics of the study itself, specifically the
sample size and source effects. The sample size used in the study was large enough
to be sensitive to small effects (Cohen, 1988), finding statistically significant relations where only 1.5% of variance is shared. The prevalence of significant correlations among measures may also be a product of monomethod bias. The measures
may have been correlated over and above the true variance of the underlying latent
variables due to shared systematic or source errors associated with collecting selfreport data at a single point in time (Sullivan & Feldman, 1979). Nonetheless, the
measures appeared to be relatively distinct, the largest bivariate correlationbetween
organizational goal conflict and organizational goal specificitywas .57, suggesting

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

81

TABLE 3: Measure Univariate Statistics

Job satisfaction
Job goal specificity
Feedback
Routineness
Human resource
development
Procedural constraints
Organizational goal
specificity
Organizational goal
conflict

SD

Observed
Minimum
Score

Observed
Maximum
Score

15.32
17.24
9.65
9.08

4.21
3.34
4.24
3.61

3
4
2
2

22
22
20
20

9.0
14.5

8.63
13.27

3.20
4.31

2
4

16
26

2-16

9.0

11.34

2.92

16

3-22

12.5

12.68

3.94

22

Potential
Scale Range

Midpoint

3-22
3-22
2-20
2-20

12.5
12.5
11.0
11.0

2-16
3-26

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 (Cronbachs
alpha) for each measure was substantially higher: .74 and .73, respectively.
Multivariate Analysis
The analysis of these data was conducted in covariance structure analysis using
LISREL version 8.30. The hypothesized relationships among the endogenous variables and between these variables and the exogenous variables were tested in a single indicator structural equation model incorporating measurement error (Hayduk,
1987). To test this model, the composite scores of the multiple-item measures were
used as single indicators (represented as squares) of their respective latent variable
(represented as circles). This recognizes that the observed value of each measure
was expected to have a relationship with the true score of the corresponding theoretical construct. To adjust for measurement error, the error variance for each measure
was set by constraining the values associated with the measure in the theta delta or
theta epsilon matrices equal to the variance of the measure multiplied by 1 minus
the reliability (Hayduk, 1987; Jreskog & Srbom, 1992).3 This fixed the path from
the latent variable to the measured indicator as equal to the square root of the measures reliability.4
In addition to the eight variables and 11 paths hypothesized earlier, we controlled
for the effects of education, age, tenure in position, and salary grade level in order to
isolate the influence of the job characteristics on job satisfaction. Although these
employee characteristics may influence job satisfaction, they are not of primary
interest in this study because they cannot serve as viable leverage points for the
organization to increase job satisfaction. In addition to modeling the effects of these
four variables on job satisfaction, it was assumed that salary grade level would

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

82

ARPA / March 2003

TABLE 4: Measure Correlations and Reliabilities

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Job satisfaction
Job specificity
Feedback
Routineness
Human resource
development
6. Procedural
constraints
7. Organizational
goal specificity
8. Organizational
goal conflict

(.80)
.47*
.47*
.38*

(.73)
.44*
.03

(.78)
.18*

(.76)

.47*

.40*

.55*

.08

.38*

.44*

.30*

.24*

.35*

(.69)

.47*

.38*

.45*

.21*

.51*

.36*

(.73)

.41*

.36*

.37*

.11

.56*

.48*

.57*

(.76)

(.74)

NOTE: Cronbachs alpha in parentheses.

*p < .05.

influence routineness and job specificity. Higher salary grades are usually reserved
for positions with greater decision making and planning responsibilities that are, by
their very nature, more ambiguous and less routine.
The overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model was tested using six
fit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996). Five of the six indices were
consistent with a good model fit. The p value test for close fit (.11) was not statistically significant, consistent with good model fit. The root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) was 0.064, and the standardized root mean square residual (standardized RMR) was 0.05, both at or below the thresholds generally considered necessary for a satisfactory model fit (0.08 and 0.05, respectively). The Comparative 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 six
tests, only the maximum likelihood chi-square, 2(39) = 77.93, p < .05, was inconsistent with good model fit. This particular fit index, however, is sensitive to sample
size, with larger samples inflating the chi-square and decreasing the likelihood of
achieving a good model fit (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). Despite the statistically
significant chi-square, the results appeared to point to a good model fit, suggesting
that the theoretical model accurately captured the pattern of relationships suggested
by the data. Five fit indices were consistent with good model fit, and the t tests for all
11 specified paths were statistically significant (p < .05). Figure 2 presents the
parameter estimates for the structural model expressed as standardized regression
weights.
All 11 hypotheses were supported, with each path statistically significant and in
the predicted direction. Support was found for the three hypothesized antecedents
of job satisfaction, concomitantly explaining 67% of the variance in job satisfaction.5 All three predicted antecedents were found to have roughly equal influence
on job satisfaction. As the degree of routineness increased in the job, job satis-

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

E
E

0.54

0.71

83

Job
Tenure

Age

0.33*
Routineness

Procedural
Constraints

-0.45*

0.00

Salary
Grade

-0.46*
0.67*

0.03

-0.42*
0.04
-0.19*
0.38*

Organizational
Goal
Conflict

E 0.46
E

0.66

Satisfaction

0.33
E

Specificity

0.39*

-0.83*
0.35*
0.58*

-0.15*

Feedback

Organizational
Goal
Specificity

0.40*
Education

0.31
0.53*

HRD

E
0.31

Figure 2: Model Results

NOTE: The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights.
*p < 0.05.

faction decreased (standardized coefficient .42). Conversely, as job specificity and

HRD increased, job satisfaction also increased (standardized coefficients .38 and
.35, respectively). Of the four employee characteristics control variables, only educational level was found to be related to job satisfaction (p < .05). Although the satisfaction that public employees found in their jobs decreased as the level of the
employees formal education increased, this effect was small relative to the influence the three job characteristics had on job satisfaction (standardized coefficient
.15).6
Support was also found for the hypothesized antecedents of the four job characteristics. Procedural constraints was found to be related to the degree of routineness
on the job. As procedural constraints increased, so too did routineness. Together
with salary grade level, procedural constraints explained 29% of the variance in
routineness. Just over half of the variance in job specificity could be explained by
three antecedents, procedural constraints, feedback, and salary grade level (R2 =
0.54). Although procedural constraints and salary grade level decreased job specificity, feedback acted to increase job specificity. Feedback, however, was found to
be associated with organizational goal specificity. The amount of feedback that
public employees received on the job increased as organizational goal specificity
increased. In fact, a third (34%) of the variance in feedback was explained by organizational goal specificity alone. Feedback and organizational goal specificity were

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

84

ARPA / March 2003

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 variables
were also supported. Organizational goal conflict was found to have a positive
influence on procedural constraints and a negative influence on organizational goal
specificity. Organizational goal conflict alone explained a considerable amount of
the 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 characteristics and work context commonly associated with the public sector significantly
affect employee job satisfaction. The model suggests that approximately two thirds
of the variance in employee self-reports of job satisfaction can be explained by only
three job characteristicsroutineness, job goal specificity, and HRD. Furthermore,
the results of this model suggest that public organizations interested in enhancing
their employees job satisfaction should take into consideration how the work environment may influence their employees perceptions and experiences on the job. If
public sector organizations do tend to experience greater goal conflict and procedural constraints, as well as less organizational goal specificity, then the findings of
this study suggest that such differences may have an important detrimental effect on
public sector employee job satisfaction. Specifically, conflicts concerning an organizations goals can translate into worker confusion over their role within the organization and their job responsibilities and produce a generalized sense of ennui due
to frustrations over red tape or a lack of variety on the job.
The findings of this study suggest at least three strategies that public organizations may choose to consider if they wish to enhance job satisfaction among their
employees. First, public organizations may discover that increased communication
with employees about job responsibilities, in conjunction with a sincere effort to
limit procedural constraints, may lead to enhanced levels of employee job satisfaction by increasing employee perceptions of job specificity.
Two aspects of the work context purported to differ across employment sectorsnamely, organizational goal specificity and procedural constraintsseem to
be particularly relevant to job goal specificity and its effect on job satisfaction. The
clarity of organizational goals may allow supervisors and peers to provide a
summative evaluation of how an employees performance supports such goals.
Such an evaluation of an employees work is critical, because it helps to improve
job satisfaction by clarifying job performance expectations. If public sector goals
are, indeed, ambiguous, then the adverse effects of this ambiguity may be partially
mitigated by programs designed to improve the quantity and quality of feedback
that employees receive from a variety of sources including their supervisors, their
clients, and their own performance of the tasks themselves. Organizations may

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

85

have a significant effect on the level of job satisfaction of their employees by using
customer service or supervisor training programs to increase the quality and quantity of feedback employees receive on the job.
The results of this study also indicate that procedural constraints may have an
indirect relationship with job satisfaction through its influence on job goal specificity. When the established organizational policies or procedures hinder or diverge
from assigned performance objectives, employee job satisfaction may decline if
employees are uncertain as to what performance is desired or how they are contributing to the mission of the organization. Although this may suggest that steps
should be taken to reduce the procedural constraints found in public organizations,
one of the primary goals of the National Performance Review, it should be recognized that such rules and regulations may serve an important function in public sector organizations. The proliferation of procedural constraints often stems from the
need to protect citizens and to insure an appropriate use of public resources.
Although such procedural constraints may either be necessary or outside the organizations control, public sector organizations may be able to partially alleviate
potential conflict and confusion caused by procedural constraints through
improved communication. Employee job satisfaction may improve if public sector
organizations provide employees with the rationale behind policies and procedures
so that employees can understand the necessity of such regulations and how they
are expected to coexist with their particular performance expectations.
Second, we feel that public organizations can leverage the positive effects of
greater employee job satisfaction by developing clear strategies that embrace the
HRD needs of their employees. Training programs that focus on skill development,
specific strategies for enhancing career development, and providing formative
feedback to employees may be particularly useful. One important conclusion of our
model is that more than two thirds of the variance in employee job satisfaction can
be explained by factors other than monetary rewards. Public service employees
seem to be motivated by a range of factors, including opportunities for skill development and indications of organizational attention to their long-term careers.
Unfortunately, although the importance of HRD programs in improving organizational productivity in the public sector has recently been recognized (Budd &
Broad, 1996), the work of the National Commission on Public Service (Winter
Commission) correctly highlighted the public sectors tendency to underinvest in
workforce development. Public sector organizations and public administration
scholars would be wise to increase their investments in and study of employee training and development programs, including the expansion of informal development
opportunities provided by such activities as supervisory feedback.
Last, we recommend that public sector organizations pay greater attention to the
variety of their employees job duties. As the findings of this study suggest, the
degree of routine in an employees job has a direct, adverse effect on employee job
satisfaction. The more mundane and routine the tasks and responsibilities that
workers confront, the more they approach their jobs with negative feelings of malaise
and ennui. Public organizations should embrace recent studies calling for a reinvig-

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

86

ARPA / March 2003

oration of the public spirit of administration (Frederickson, 1997) and find ways to
free the creative mind of its capable employees, embracing success while not
unduly fearing failure. Achieving this goal will take a sincere effort on the part of
public sector management to change its overall mindset, reducing excessive procedural constraints and allowing employees to try out and learn from untested solutions to problems, both old and new.
Although this study identifies a number of important antecedents to job satisfaction relevant to public sector organizations, the importance of job satisfaction itself
may require future attention. Many scholars continue to believe that a basic and
strong correlation exists between job satisfaction and job productivity (Steel &
Warner, 1990), that a happy employee is a productive employee. Unfortunately, this
relationship is not as simple as one might expect. In fact, considerable empirical
evidence fails to support an assertion of a strong, direct relationship between job
satisfaction 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 employees 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 completely
unrelated to productivity. Some more recent research suggests that performance
may influence satisfaction rather than satisfaction influencing performance
(Lawler, 1994). Caldwell and OReilly (1990) found that employees are more satisfied when they perform well, but that matching employee abilities to job requirements moderates this relationship. This adds credence to the findings of this study,
particularly the importance of HRD. Although it was found that HRD improves job
satisfaction, this finding may be a result of a relationship between job performance
and job satisfaction not captured by the current model. Alternatively, job satisfaction may also have an important indirect influence on organizational productivity
by reducing costs associated with employee absenteeism and turnover (Farrell &
Stamm, 1988; Heneman et al., 1983; Lawler, 1994; Spector, 1997). Such costs may
often be hard to quantify but are, nonetheless, real. Future research should attempt
to clarify the importance of job satisfaction both in terms of organization performance 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)

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

87

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.*

Organizational Goal Conflict

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.*

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

88

ARPA / March 2003

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 sample for 7 of the 11 state agencies, only lists the most frequently called state employees. Employees
assigned 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 standardized item scores to accommodate the differences in response scale across items, the meaning of
such scores are difficult to interpret. For this reason, the sum of the raw item scores was used to
describe the sample in terms of the eight study measures.
3. Error variances associated with the indicators (e) are equal to 1 minus the indicators reliability estimate.
4. This path can be interpreted as the factor loading of the observed indicator on the conceptual
variable it was intended to measure.
5. Coefficients of determination for endogenous variables can be calculated from Figure 2 as 1
minus 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 the
control variables included. Then the model was run a second time constraining the paths from the
control variables to job satisfaction to 0. A nested chi-square test comparing the two models suggested 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 development 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), 313324.
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., & OReilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648-657.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

Wright, Davis / JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

89

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Daley, D. M. (1986). Humanistic management and organizational success: The effect of job and work
environmental characteristics on organizational effectiveness, public responsiveness and job satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 15(2), 131-142.
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private sector
employees. 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 on
motivation, 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 Relations, 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 management. 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). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, 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 Herzbergs 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.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009

90

ARPA / March 2003

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 critique
and 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 business
hierarchies. 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 managerial
roles, 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 study
of 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: SouthWestern Publishing.
Solomon, E. E. (1986). Private and public sector managers: An empirical investigation of job characteristics and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 247-259.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steel, B. S., & Warner, R. L. (1990). Job satisfaction among early labor force participants: Unexpected
outcomes 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 Relations, 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: Environmental 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 conceptual 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 North

Carolina at Charlotte. His research focuses on how the characteristics of the organizational
work environment may influence employee attitudes and performance.
Brian S. Davis received his masters degree in economics from George Mason University and is
currently working on his doctoral dissertation in the State University of New York at Albanys
Department of Public Administration and Policy. His current research interests include an organizational analysis of the international regulatory regime for the financial services industry.

Downloaded from http://arp.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009