Work values and work experiences in the Dutch public and private sector. Paper for the EGPA-Conference in Llubljana, study group on Public Personnel Policies (theme: “Identity and Public Servants”) Bram Steijn & Peter Smulders

Draft version: not to be cited!

Correspondence dr. A.J. Steijn Associate professor of Labour and HRM Department of Public Administration P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Three research questions are central to this paper: 1) What are the similarities and differences in work values between workers in the Dutch public and private sector; 2) In what respect do these similarities and differences reflect the work experiences of these workers? 3) How is the job satisfaction of these workers influenced by their work values and work experiences? Using a Dutch survey – provided by TNO Work and Employment – these questions are dealt with. With respect to the first question, earlier findings suggesting differences in work values between public and private sector workers are confirmed. However, two important notes have to be made. In the first place, a further refinement of the public sector (differentiating health and educational workers from public administration workers) is strongly suggested as both groups of workers have diverging work values. In the second place, although we do find (small) differences in work values between the three sectors, these differences point to a different direction compared to other empirical studies. With respect the second question, we also find differences in work experiences between the three sectors. Looking in more detail at (possible) discrepancies between work values and work experiences, we especially find such discrepancies with regard to health and educational workers: given their scores on work values, their work experiences are rather low. This is an important finding given a theoretical assumption derived from theory. Norris (1993) has suggested job satisfaction is as a relative concept reflecting the congruence between prior motivational values and subsequent employment experiences. Given this assumption, we tested the hypothesis that job satisfaction of health and educational workers is lowest compared to both other groups. This hypothesis, however, is refuted by the data. A limited multivariate analysis shows no significant differences between the three sectors. A more complex analysis (with the inclusion of work values and work experiences) does suggest differences: with a lower job satisfaction for private sector workers. Further research is needed to find out which factors are influencing the fact that – everything equal – job satisfaction in the public sector appears to be higher compared to the private sector.

1

1. Introduction: work values in the public and private sector The study of work values is a classic research theme that already for a considerable time period has drawn interest from organisational studies, occupational and industrial psychology, the sociology of the workplace, economics, management studies, etcetera (Norris, 2003; Wright, 2001). A famous example is the classic study of the affluent worker of Goldthorpe et al (1968). This study dealt from a social stratification perspective with the attitudes of manual workers. According to the study (see also Goldthorpe et al, 1969) manual and white-collar workers differ in several dimensions. One of these explicitly deals with attitudes towards work [the white collar worker is supposed to be an ‘organisational men’ oriented towards his organisation and his career whereas the manual worker is less interested in the job (and more in the money); hence the latter is more extrinsic and the former more intrinsic oriented]. Another traditional important difference deals with the fact that the white-collar worker has an individualistic orientation towards the future [i.e. his career], whereas the manual worker is less interested in his career and puts more emphasis on (collectivistic) industrial action. Based on empirical research, the study rejected the ‘embourgeouisement thesis’, which had put forward the idea that industrial attitudes of manual workers were converging with those of the middle class. The research showed that although the attitudes of manual workers had indeed changed, they still differed substantially from middle class workers. One main finding was that manual workers did not subscribe to the intrinsic work values of the middle class, in stead their work values can be described as instrumental – or in the words of Goldthorpe et al (1969): “in stead of aspiring in white collar fashion to make a good career within their firms these men hoped to gain a good level from their firms.” In present day empirical research into the relationship between work values and class theory is marginal at best. The interest in work values seems to stem from another perspective: it is linked to the assumption that work values are related to organizational performance. This assumption has at least two different aspects (compare Norris, 2003): 1) an organization needs to attract qualified and competent workers in order to perform. Employers therefore need to take account of the work values of potential workers in order to attract these workers; 2) work values are related to job satisfaction and commitment; therefore organisations need to monitor whether or not the job environment is ‘in balance’ with the work values; if this is not the case intervention is needed in order to prevent dissatisfaction and declining commitment (with adverse effects on organizational performance). In the latter aspect job satisfaction is linked to two antecedent variables determining it (compare Norris, 2003): 1) motivational values that people bring to the job; 2) their subsequent experience of employment. In that sense job satisfaction can be understood “as a relative concept reflecting the congruence between prior motivational values and subsequent employment experiences” (Norris, 2003). Taking account of the diverging work values of workers therefore helps to understand why people in the same job and with the same employment experiences can experience different levels of job satisfaction. People clearly differ in their motivational values towards work. Herzberg (1966) has done famous research in this respect. His research suggested the existence of the extrinsic-intrinsic dimension of work values mentioned above. Intrinsic attitudes have to do with the job itself: people are motivated to do their job because they like things in this job, for instance the autonomy it gives them, the responsibility, the possibility it gives to use the skills one has, etc. Extrinsic motivational factors lie outside the job: in that case someone works for the money or the security it provides. In other words: the behaviour of extrinsic motivated workers is entirely fuelled by external incentives or rewards. Herzberg also suggested that the intrinsic aspects work as motivators (people derive satisfaction from it), whereas the extrinsic aspects can be seen as hygiene factors (people get dissatisfied when they are lacking or insufficient). The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction has been proved valid in many empirical studies (compare Vandenabeele, Hondeghem, Steen, & Parys, 2001), although the model is at the same time widely criticized. An important question in this respect is whether or not the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction tells the whole story. Many researchers certainly do not believe so, as often different or more extended

2

distinctions are used in empirical research. Norris (2003), for instance, relates motivational values to three different types of rewards: materialistic benefits (such as pay or good working conditions), social benefits (such as occupational status or the access to social networks or social capital) and idealistic (i.e. the desire to help other people) rewards. We do not believe this distinction is necessarily better than the classic intrinsic-extrinsic distinction, but it does bring to the fore a point which is also made in other research. Berting and De Sitter (1971), for instance, make a difference between egocentric and sociocentric work values. When we cross these with the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction, four different types of work values arise (see figure 1). This distinction is also used by Van der Parre (1996). Figure 1: four different work values Intrinsic and egocentric Intrinsic and sociocentric

Extrinsic and egocentric Extrinsic and sociocentric

An example can stipulate the importance of this distinction. If we only use the extrinsic/intrinsic distinction both workers who only work for the money as those who work to help other people will be characterised as extrinsic: the second egocentric/sociocentric distinction makes it possible to make a difference between the work values of these two types of workers – which – as we will see – is especially important when we are going to compare workers in the private and public sector. Many studies have focused on the explanation of differences in work values. The study of Goldthorpe et al, mentioned above, is a clear example of this. Many others, however, have done the same. Karl and Sutton (1998), for instance, pointed to the fat that work values are changing over time. As a consequence of more favourable economic circumstances and the rising percentage of workers with postsecondary education, interesting work has become more important to workers, whereas pay and job security were more important in the past (compare also Jurgersen, 1978). Other studies have pointed at the relationship between work values and variables such as age, gender and – last but not least – work context. It must be noted that many researchers pointed out that the relationship between work context and work values is not one-sided. Although it is possible that the work values of a worker are shaped by his work context, it can also be the other way round as people can also choose a job and a work context which they like; in other words their work values can also influence the work context they work in. In this sense a “self-selection” on the labour market is going on (Parre, 1996; Wright, 2001) with workers ending up in jobs and organisations they like. A special case concerns the work values of workers in the public sector. Over time several studies have been done towards these work values (f.i. Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Perry, 1996; Rainey, 1982). A main expectation in this regard is that “the composition of the public workforce … [reflects] the nature of work in the public sector, attracting employees who desire greater opportunities to fulfil higher-order needs and altruistic motives” (Wright, 2001: 565). Indeed, several authors (Crewson, 1997; Karl and Sutton, 1998 Houston, 2000) reported significantly different job values of public workers compared to private sector workers. These studies suggest that public sector workers are more likely to place a higher value on intrinsic work aspects (including the desire to serve the public interest which can provide feelings of accomplishment), whereas private sector workers place a higher value on extrinsic factors. Interestingly, Karl and Sutton’s study suggested also that job values of public sector workers are changing because of organizational changes: as downsizing also threatens the jobs of public sector workers, they place – in contrast to earlier research reported by them – a similar importance to job security as workers in the private sector. Notwithstanding the results reported by Karl and Sutton, Wright (2001: 565) showed in his literature review that empirical research provides only mixed support for the expectation that job values of public and private sector workers differ. He stated: “In sum, the research on sector differences in employee motives should be viewed with some caution” (2001: 566).

3

Perry (Perry, 1996, 1997, 2000; Perry & Porter, 1982) has clearly a different view and strongly defends the position that public employees are different from employees in other sectors of (American) society. He has developed the concept of ‘Public Service Motivation’, defined as an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions (Perry, 1997: 182). This construct is further refined with four dimensions: attraction to public policy making, commitment to the public interest and civic duty, compassion and self-sacrifice. According to Perry (2000: 481) there is empirical support for the existence of Public Service Motivation. Likewise, in a recent study Norris (2003) – who based herself on an international dataset – suggested that some differences in work values between public and private sector workers do (still?) exist. Citing Wright, she acknowledged the fact that her data showed many similarities in work values of public and private sector workers. However, she also pointed out some marked differences, which she related to the different work context in both sectors, especially the fact that private sector workers seem to experience more independence and autonomy in their work. In contrast, “public sector workers prove especially satisfied in experiencing work that contributed towards society or helped other people, far more so than the private sector” (Norris, 2003: 11). In this respect Norris makes clear in this respect not only experience work of these workers differ, but also the value they adhere to this ‘altruistic’ work motive. In this sense, Norris answers the question implicated in the title of her chapter (Still a Public Service Ethos?) with a clear “yes”. The above outlines the theoretical framework for this paper. Here we will focus on work values of Dutch public and private sector workers. Recently, such studies towards (possible) differences in work values have been scarce in the Netherlands and unfortunately, surveys that use (elements of) Perry’s ‘Public Service Motivation’ are not available in the Netherlands. We are not only interested in these work values as such, but also in the relationship between these values and work experiences workers in these sectors have; moreover, we are also interested in the relationship between work experience and work values on the one hand and job satisfaction on the other hand. This interest stems from the earlier cited finding that job satisfaction can be understood “as a relative concept reflecting the congruence between prior motivational values and subsequent employment experiences” (compare page 1). So, it is very well possible that levels of job satisfaction of public and private sector workers differ, whereas their work experiences and work values diverge. This leads to the following research questions: 1) What are the similarities and differences in work values between workers in the Dutch public and private sector? 2) In what respect do these similarities and differences reflect the work experiences of these workers? 3) How is the job satisfaction of these workers influenced by their work values and work experiences? Several preliminary notes have to be made. In the first place, the distinction between the ‘public’ and ‘private’ sector seems to crude to us. Certainly, this is partly acknowledged in empirical research which also takes account the effect of hierarchical position; i.e. it is assumed that work values of supervisors or managers in the public sector may differ from ‘ordinary’ employees ((Norris, 2003; Schneider & Vaught, 1993). However, the sector distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ seems also (far) to crude to us, as it seems logical to assume work values and experiences of workers in central administration (for instance responsible for developing new policies) will differ from workers in health and education who more directly feel the needs of the people they deliver services to. Therefore, we will use a somewhat more refined sector classification in our analysis: private employees, employees within the (central and local) administration, and health and educational workers. An important point, also made by Karl and Sutton and Norris, concerns the changes that are taking place within the public sector itself. Clearly, the introduction of elements of New Public Management (compare Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000) has had substantial consequences for the work experiences of workers in the (Dutch) public sector. Very probably this had – and probably still has – its effect on work values and job satisfaction of Dutch public sector workers. Unfortunately, we are not able to research this as we are lacking the longitudinal data to analyse changes in work values over

4

time. A second best option – analyse work values of workers in (former) public sector organisations that has experience elements of NPM to the fullest1 – is also impossible as the dataset we will use to analyse our research questions does not include variables to identify these organisations. The outline of this paper is as follows. In the next section a short outline of our dataset will be presented and the main variables will be operationalized. Section three contains the main results of our analysis; the findings will be further discussed in section four, which also contains the concluding remarks. 2. Data and operationalisation The dataset we used is provided by TNO Work & Employment. Every two years TNO Work & Employment in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, carries out a survey amongst a representative sample of 8000 employees and self-employed persons in The Netherlands. The first survey took place in October-November 2000. The second survey was carried out in October 2002. The main purpose of the TNO Work Situation Survey is to gather information to enable monitoring of time trends in the work situation of Dutch workers. This is also important for the Netherlands’ Ministry of Social Affairs that is collaborating in this Survey. Second, the Survey makes it possible to carry out branch or profession-oriented benchmarking studies. Finally, the survey data is used to analyse special topics in the field of work, working conditions, work relations, personnel management, work & health, etc. The questions in the survey questionnaire have all been tested before in previous TNO or Census Bureau questionnaires. Questions were also used from Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Twofactor Questionnaire, Karasek’s Job Content Questionnaire, the Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work, Kristensen & Borg’s Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, Schaubruck & Jones’ Emotional Labor Questionnaire, and Schaufeli’s Utrecht Burnout Questionnaire. In 2000 and 2002 respectively 4334 and 4009 respondents were interviewed. In the following we will mainly use the most recent 2002-survey as this is better suited to answer our research questions, though at some places the 2000 dataset is also referred to. The measurement of the main concepts will be discussed in the next chapter when discussing the main results of our analysis. One main variable, however, will be introduced here. The economic sector of the respondents was determined using a straightforward item in the survey. Respondents indicating they were working for the public administration were scored as public workers, respondents in health, education or the cultural sector (museums etc) were scored accordingly, whereas the other respondents were scored as private sector workers. The distribution of the respondents with respect to these three economic sectors was as follows: private: 2557 (2000) and 2393 (2002), public 326 (2000) and 275 (2002), health& education 792 (2000) and 751 (2002). 3. Analysis: work values, work experiences and job satisfaction in the Dutch public and private sector work values We will first look at the work values of the workers in the 2000 and 2002 survey. First, we will investigate how important the employees value their work in relation to other life activities. In 2000 the employee were asked to rank four life activities (free time, ‘society’ (i.e. volunteer work for church, union, community), work and family life). They could allocate in total 100 points over each of these four activities. Table 1 holds the mean allocation over these activities per economic sector. To adjust for differences in the composition of the workforce, we controlled for age, gender and educational level of the respondents.

1

In this respect it would be a good idea to study the work values of workers in ‘quango’s’ (compare (van, 2000) as these type of public organisations have many ‘private sector’ characteristics. 5

Table 1: Importance given to several life activities by economic sector in 2000 (mean number of given points per activity), controlled for age, gender and educational level. Free time ‘Society’ work Family life (Volunteer activities, etc) Private 24.24 6.26 30.41 39.09 Health & education 23.97 8.31 30.77 36.95 Administration 23.62 7.01 31.22 38.15 Total 24.13 6.76 30.56 38.55 N and 3395 3395 3395 3395 Eta (** p < 0.01) 0.00 ns 0.14 p < 0.01 0.03 ns 0.16 p < 0.01 Several conclusions can be derived from table 1. In the first place it appears the overall mean ranking of the four different life activities is exactly the same in each economic sector. Each time, family life is highest valued, followed by work, free time, and – far behind – societal activities. At the same time, it also appears there are nevertheless some small, albeit significant, differences between employees in the three economic sectors, these especially show up with respect to ‘society’ and ‘family life’: workers in the private sector give somewhat more importance to family life, whereas both categories of public sector workers puts a somewhat higher value on societal activities. Although the effect is small, this is in line with the research discussed in section 1. An analysis on the 2002 data confirms these conclusions, although the relevant question was put forward differently. The employees could not attribute points to each activity, but had to evaluate each activity separately on a four-point scale. Table 2 gives the results of the analysis - for the simplicity of the analysis the score ‘not very important’ is weighted as ‘4’, the score ‘somewhat important’ as ‘3’, the score ‘moderately important’ as ‘2’ and the score ‘very important’ as ‘1’. Table 2: Importance given to several life activities by economic sector in 2002 (mean score on scale), controlled for age, gender and educational level Free time ‘Society’ work Family life (Volunteer activities, etc) 1.42 1.90 3.16 1.74 Private 1.37 1.85 3.16 1.72 Health & education 1.61 1.95 3.01 1.68 Administration 1.42 1.89 3.15 1.73 Total N=3336 N=3331 N=3302 N=3366 N and ns 0.07 p < 0.01 ns 0.04 p < 0.05 Eta (** p < 0.01) Notwithstanding the differences in measurement, the results are comparable to the 2000 data. The differences in importance given to the several life activities between workers in the several sectors appears to be rather small. With respect to ‘free time’ and ‘work’ no significant differences between the sectors exist; with respect to society, however, a small effect does exist: workers in the administration value this life activity somewhat higher than workers in both the private and health and educational sector. At the same time, workers within the administration value their family life a little less. The differences are rather small, but the results are in line with the empirical studies mentioned above suggesting public sector workers have a higher interest in serving the society (compare Perry’s public service motivation concept). Overall the conclusion rises however that employees in the public sector (administration and social service) value different life activities in a comparable way to other employees, with only some modest differences especially in regard to activities directed to ‘society’. The above says nothing about what employees value in their work. Therefore, we now turn to this aspect using another question in the survey. In 2002 the employees were asked to evaluate 15 different

6

job aspects. These list is based on the list used by Herzberg for his “Motivator-Hygiene Two-factor Theory”, though it also includes “new” items added by TNO Work and Employment. It must be noted that items measuring “real” public service motivation (like: ‘doing something for society’) is missing on the list of job aspects, so we can not investigate whether or not the workers in the survey differ in this respect. As is usual in this type of research we performed a factor analysis to look for dimensions of work values (compare VandenAbeele, 2001). Table 3 gives the result of this factor-analysis (for readability only factor scores above .30 are included in the table) Table 3: Factor-analysis on 15 different work-aspects in 2002 survey (varimax-rotation) item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 recognition .45 Interesting work .60 Having responsibility .56 Achieving something .41 .66 Possibilities to learn and develop .84 Good colleagues .78 Good management .76 Good working conditions .51 .59 Good income .74 Security .72 autonomy .75 Variation in work .63 Promotion chances .44 .71 Pleasant working times .56 Work that fits knowledge .62 4.42 (29,5%) 1.95 (13,0%) 1.11 (7,3%) 1.01 (6,7%) eigenvalue At first sight, the results are in line with the classic Herzberg study: clearly factor 1 (which is also a ‘dominant’ factor) can be seen as an intrinsic factor, whereas factor 2 can easily be interpreted as an extrinsic dimension of work values. However, it is also interesting to look at factors 3 and 4. Three items load high on factor 3: achieving something, possibilities to learn and develop and promotion chances. At first sight these are also intrinsic work values, but it appears of a different kind compared to those belonging to factor 1. Together these items appear to be measuring future job aspects: what can I learn from my job and how can I grow in the future. The items belonging to factor 1 appear to measure the present fulfilment a job gives. We will therefore interpret factor 1 as the direct intrinsic work motivation and factor 3 as the future-oriented work motivation. Factor 4 clearly relates to yet another dimension: with especially ‘good colleagues’ and ‘good management’ loading on this dimension, it appears this dimension can be interpreted as the sociocentric aspect of work motivation mentioned in section 1. The crucial question is whether or not respondents working in the three economic sectors we have distinguished score differently on each of these four dimensions. Table 4 gives the results of a multivariate analysis on the 2002 survey to find this out, again this analysis is controlled for age, gender and educational level. We not only looked for statistically significant effects, but we also looked whether or not the mean scores of each of our three groups differ significantly from each other (using a Scheffe test).

7

Table 4. Analysis of variance on four work values, controlling for age, gender and educational level. Private Heath & Education Public Eta and p Work value Direct intrinsic -0.04 0.15 -0.13 0.08 p < -0.01 -0.07 -0.02 0.01 extrinsic -0.00 0.03 0.13 0.00 ns Future oriented intrinsic -0.13 0.20 -0.06 0.03 ns sociocentric 0.08 p < N = 3291 0.01 The results are remarkable in several respects. 1. In the first place the results seem to support earlier findings about differences in work values between the public and private sector. At the same time, however, the usual finding that public workers are more intrinsic oriented and private sector workers are more extrinsic oriented is not reproduced. 2. To the contrary on the direct intrinsic work value scale, public administration workers score lower than private sector workers, whereas on the scale measuring extrinsic work values no statististically significant differences exist. However, differences do exist with respect to the future oriented dimension. Although the overall association between economic sector and the scores on this dimension is not significant, a Scheffe test shows that public administration workers score significantly higher on this dimension than private sector workers. It appears therefore that (Dutch) public administration workers do not so much appreciate the direct intrinsically motivating aspects of a job, but are more interested in the long-term benefits. 3. Finally, our inclusion of health and educational workers as a separate category pays of: it certainly makes sense to differentiate this category from ‘ordinary’ public sector workers. They have a higher score on the direct intrinsic work value scale compared to both public administration as private workers, a lower future oriented intrinsic work value score compared to public sector workers and are clearly (far) more sociocentric oriented compared to both public and private sector workers. So with respect to these work values, they indeed are a separate group with distinctive work values.

Work experiences and job satisfaction We now turn to work experiences. Our second research question deals with the relationship between work values and work experiences. We can of course select an endless list of work experiences, but we will limit ourselves to only four: one for each dimension of work values. We have chosen respectively the variables autonomy, satisfaction with the income policy in the organisation, satisfaction with the career policy and the support experienced from colleagues. Each variable directly relates to one of the four work value dimensions. The variable autonomy is measured by five Likert-items. Each indicating an aspect of autonomy (like ‘I can myself decide the sequence in my job’). Each item had four answer categories (ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’). The five items formed a scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. The items were summed up, with a higher score indicating a higher degree of autonomy. Satisfaction with income policy and satisfaction with career policy are both measured by one item ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Support by colleagues is measured by a scale consisting of five items like ‘my colleagues help me to finish a task’. These five items form a scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .75. Table 5 provides the mean scores of the workers in each of the three sectors.

8

Table 5. Work experiences of Dutch employees in 2002 by economic sector (controlled for gender, age and educational level) Eta** Private Health & Public Education Administrat ion autonomy 2.83 2.81 2.73 0.04 p < 0.05 Satisfaction with income 3.31 3.17 3.45 0.07 p < 0.01 policies Satisfaction with career 3.23 3.13 3.22 0.04 p