Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Attributes of job satisfaction across the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors:
Survey of recent college graduates in science, engineering, and health fields*
Young-joo Lee, Ph.D.
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
University of Texas at Dallas
800 West Campbell Rd. WT 17
Richardson, Texas 75080
Meghna Sabharwal, Ph.D.
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
University of Texas at Dallas
800 West Campbell Rd. WT 17
Richardson, Texas 75080
*Notes:
This is a working paper. Please do not cite without authors’ permission.
The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions
contained in this report.
It is commonly believed that government and nonprofit workers are more satisfied with
their jobs because they gain sense of fulfillment by serving the public or those who are in need.
This romanticism and sanctification of public and nonprofit workers has been used to explain
why some of them choose to work and stay in their organization despite some of the
disadvantages of nonprofit and government jobs, including the pay gap. Research indeed
suggests that employees of public and nonprofit entities derive satisfaction from contributing to a
social cause (Borzaga and Tortia 2006; DeSantis and Durst 1996; Kumar and Achamamba 1993;
Maidani 1991; Steel and Warner 1990). However, management can do little for employees when
their high job satisfaction can be entirely explained by workers’ commitment to social cause or
public interests. However, increasing turnover rates in government and nonprofit organizations
(Nonprofit HR Solutions 2009; Selden and Moynihan 2000) suggests that willingness and
commitment to do good may not be enough to keep public and nonprofit employees satisfied.
Understanding job attributes that determine employees’ satisfaction across the sectors is
an essential task since job satisfaction has been found to have significant influence on the
motivation to stay or leave an the organization and other membership-related behaviors
(Williamson and Anderson 1991; Wright and Davis 2003). Scholarly interest in public sector job
satisfaction also increased with the New Public Management, and studies have identified
determinants of job satisfaction (DeSantis and Durst 1996); this research initiative then expanded
to the nonprofit management (Stone et al. 1999). After all, in any type of organization, enhancing
employee job satisfaction is one of the most critical tasks. Therefore, understanding what affects
job satisfaction of employees and the difference across the sectors is a very timely research topic.
Research generally finds sectoral differences in job satisfaction, and attributes them to
distinctiveness in the work context and job characteristics across the sectors (DeSantis and Durst
1996; Jung et al. 2007; Wright and Davis 2003). While comparisons between the public and
private sectors in terms of job satisfaction are available in the existing literature (DeSantis and
Durst, 1996; Jung et al. 2007), previous research has limited its focus to the dichotomous
comparison between government and business, ignoring nonprofit organizations. Existing
literature also has little to offer in terms of explaining differences in the relative importance of
various job attributes. This study examines attributes of employee job satisfaction across the
public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors, focusing on the level of relatedness between an
individual’s education and his or her job. First this study provides description of employee job
satisfaction and several job characteristics as well as worker characteristics across the sectors.
Next, this study examines how these traits affect the level of job satisfaction of employees in
each sector.
Literature Review: Employee job satisfaction and education-job match across the public,
nonprofit, and for-profit sectors
Job satisfaction has been of primary interest to researchers in both business and public
administration, and there is an extensive list of publications in various fields, including
psychology, business and public administration. Research finds that job satisfaction has
important behavioral implications including organizational citizenship, performance, and
retention (Clark 1997; Vroom 1964). As such, scholars have tried to identify motivational and
individual determinants of job satisfaction. For instance, Miller (1980) finds that various work
conditions including occupational self-direction, job pressures, organizational structure and
positions influence job satisfaction. Wright and Kim (2004) suggest primary factors in job
satisfaction are participation, task significance, job specificity, and feedback, and career-
development support.
More recently, research suggests that employee job satisfaction may differ across
different sectors of the economy (DeSantis and Durst 1996; Jung et al. 2007). Literature provides
at least two explanations for sectoral difference in job satisfaction. First, various job
characteristics differ from one sector to another. Public sector jobs differ from jobs available in
the private sector in such terms as salaries, benefits, task types, and performance criteria (Blank
1985; Rainey, Backoff, and Levine 1976). Nonprofit jobs also have unique characteristics
compared to those in the public or for-profit sectors (Kearns 1994; Lee and Wilkins 2011). The
variation in job attributes, in turn may contribute to level of job satisfaction across the sectors.
Second, research suggests motivational differences among employees in the public, nonprofit,
and for-profit sectors (Goodin 2003; Lee and Wilkins 2011; Lyons et al. 2006). Each sector has a
unique reward system in terms of monetary, non-monetary, and psychic rewards (DeSantis and
Durst 1996), workers also may select the sector based on their preference for the reward system
(Lee and Wilkins 2011). Locke (1976) views job satisfaction as resulting from the perception
that one's job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of one's important job values. Provided that these
values differ among government, nonprofit, and for-profit workers, employees in each sector
place varying levels of importance on each job attribute. Overall, while the literature suggests
distinctive patterns between different job attributes and satisfaction, little is known how these
patterns differ.
Education-job match and job satisfaction
Various job characteristics – the nature of the job or the collection of tasks that comprise
the job – affect employees’ job satisfaction (Perry and Porter 1982). Among others, the match
between employee’s education and his or her job is one of the most important attributes of job
satisfaction. Research finds that a match or a mismatch between an individual’s education and
job has significant effects on various labor market outcomes, including productivity, job
satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover (Allen and van der Velden 2001; Vila and Garcia-Mora
2005). Studies report that the match between education and job leads to equity with
compensation, puts the knowledge and skills acquired by the workers to right use, and enables
them to perform at a higher level, and consequently, increases their satisfaction with their
occupation (Allen and Van der Velden 2001; Vila and Garcia-Mora 2005).
The literature suggests the degree of match between an employee’s education and job
may vary across the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors for at least three reasons. First, each
sector is institutionally and motivationally different, and may attract individuals with distinctive
motivations and values (Goodin 2003; Lee and Wilkins 2011). The relatedness of their education
to their jobs, in this sense, may have varying levels of importance across the sectors. Employees
in the public and nonprofit sectors are believe to be motivated by intrinsic factors, i.e., the job
itself rather than by extrinsic factors, and the match between their job and education may have
more importance in their decision to accept a job. Second, management’s capability to match
employees’ education and their jobs may differ across sectors. For instance, in the nonprofit
sector, flat organizational structure may allow top-management more flexibility to design or
modify tasks in response to individual education and experience compared with other types of
organizations. On the contrary, government organizations may not have the same level of
flexibility, with more rules and regulations dictating practices. Third, each type of organization
has a distinctive job classification system, with a varying degree of specificity. Compared with
private-sector jobs, jobs in government agencies tend to be more systematically classified
according to general rules. With a more detailed classification system and job description,
individuals may be able to find a better match between job and education.
Data and Methods
This study examines various attributes on job satisfaction in the public, for-profit, and
nonprofit sectors using data from National Science Foundation’s 2006 National Survey of Recent
College Graduates (NSRCG)1. The NSRCG is designed to provide information about individuals
who recently obtained bachelor's or master's degrees in science, engineering, and health fields
from a U.S. institution, were living in the U.S. and under age 76 during the survey reference
week (between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005 for the 2006 survey). The focus of this study is
limited on paid employees in the public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. Individuals who are
self-employed or not in labor force are not included in the analysis. This study also limits its
focus to those who work 35 hours or more weekly as their reasons for participating in the labor
force, attitudes and values, or the factors influencing their job satisfaction may differ from those
of part-time workers (Conway and Briner 2002).
Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
The dependent variable is the level of job satisfaction of an employee. The NSRCG asks
respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with their job at the time of the survey in terms of
one of the four categories: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, and very
dissatisfied. We employ ordinal probit regression as the dependent variable is respondents’
overall satisfaction with their principal jobs, recorded in four-point Likert scale, with very
dissatisfied as the base category.
1 The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this
report.
Independent variables: Education-job match
The independent variable is the degree of relatedness between an individual’s college
major and principal job. Research suggests that the more related a worker’s job is to his or her
education, the greater the satisfaction is derived from performing his or her job. High job
satisfaction in the public and nonprofit sectors may be due to the higher level of education-job
match compared to the for-profit sector. Moreover, the importance of education-job match as a
determinant of job satisfaction may differ across the sectors. The NSRCG asks the respondents
to rate the extent their work is related to their highest degree with three categories of not related,
somewhat related, and closely related. The answer is dummy coded, with not related as the base
category. In the estimation, a separate equation for each sector is estimated because impact of
some of the variables as well as education-job match on job satisfaction may vary across the
sectors (DeSantis and Durst 1996).
Control variables
The model also controls for various work-related factors such as participation in work-
related training, salary, supervisory role, multi-tasking, tenure, overtime work, as well as
demographics and educational backgrounds.
Work-related training
While schooling provides general and preparatory stage for a job, employees gain more
specialized occupational skills through on-the-job training after entry into the labor force
(Mincer 1962). The purpose of job training is to promote employees’ professional development
and therefore, increase productivity. However, the content of training may differ across the
sectors. While calculating return on investments on employee training is a more common feature
deployed to make investment decisions for training programs in the for-profit sector, majority of
training program in government is offered to ensure legal compliance (Berman et al. 2010).
Nonprofit organizations seem to perform better than government agencies in recognizing the
need for training, but research finds that they are often incapable of carrying it out (Jamison
2003; Phillips 2003). The NSRCG survey includes a question on whether a respondent
participated in work-related training (1 if a respondent participated in training and 0 otherwise).
Age and tenure
Competing perspectives exist on the relationship between age and job satisfaction, and
this study is limited to test the specific age-satisfaction relationship because the survey was
conducted only on recent college graduates. Nevertheless, this study can show how level of job
satisfaction changes in employees early career across the three sectors. Respondents are
categorized into three groups depending on the years they spent in their current organization:
those who have been in the current organization less than two years, between two and four years,
and more than four years. Both an individual’s age and time spent in current organization are
included in the analysis.
Gender
Although scholars have examined the gender difference in job satisfaction, there has been
little consistency in their explanation (DeSantis and Durst 1996; Jung et al. 2007). Literature
generally suggests that female employees report higher level of satisfaction because they
compare themselves to unemployed women (rather than their male colleagues) or have low
labor-market related expectation (Clark 1997; Jung et al. 2007). Others suggest that women are
more satisfied with their jobs because they value different aspects of a job from men, such as
flexibility and family-friendly environment, which are generally available in less paying, non-
professional occupations (Martin and Hanson 1985; Bender et al. 2005). Clark (1997), on the
contrary, finds that gender difference in job satisfaction disappears among young, highly
educated, and professional employees. Provided an individual’s gender affects job satisfaction
either positively or negatively, overrepresentation of women in the nonprofit and public sectors
will affect overall job satisfaction across the sector. In addition, gender effect on job satisfaction
may differ across the sectors as women may undergo dissimilar experience in each sector
(Hakim 2000; Lee and Wilkins 2011; SHRM 2001).
Minority status
Despite policies and mandates on equity, there is no shortage of evidence that points to
the challenges minorities face in workforce regardless of sector (Selden and Selden 2001;
Verkuyten et al. 1993). Research reports that racial and ethnic minorities have a lower level of
job satisfaction compared to non-minorities (Verkuyten et al. 1993). The racial diversities within
a sector (or greater homogeneity in the nonprofit sector), therefore, may affect overall job
satisfaction within the sector. A dummy variable for being racial minority is included (white=0,
nonwhite=1) to test this relationship.
Parental status
Employers adopt various family-friendly policies such as flexible scheduling, on-site
child care, and condensed workweeks to increase employees’ job satisfaction. Public sector
prides itself in providing family-friendly work environment and business corporations have
caught up and are offering alternative work arrangement for employees with families (Ezra and
Deckman 1996; Lewis 1992; Vincola 1998). In comparison, the nonprofit sector is largely
dominated by smaller organizations, and these organizations often lack the resources to provide
such programs. An employee’s parental status is controlled (having child(ren)=1, 0 otherwise)
Multitasking
Having multiple responsibilities on the job may have different effects on job satisfaction
depending on an employee’s preferences. Public organizations strive to spread resources evenly
over affected populations (Lipsky and Smith 1989), and consequently, public sector jobs are
designed to provide clear rules and responsibilities to promote equitable treatment of citizens. On
the contrary, nonprofit organizations tend to serve more narrowly defined clienteles, and the
central policy concern is responsiveness, rather than equity (Lipsky and Smith 1989). In the for-
profit sector, the bottom line of profit requires employees to put on different hats depending on
environmental forces to achieve their goal (profit maximization). As a result, taking on multiple
tasks on the job may have different effects on employee job satisfaction the public and private
sectors. The model controls for whether an individual conducts five or more different tasks on
his or her job (1 if one does and 0 otherwise).
Supervisory role
While research on the role of supervisors on employees’ job satisfaction in both public
and private sectors is relatively abundant, little empirical research examined the effect of taking
the supervisory role on an individual’s job satisfaction across the sectors. What the little research
found is that public sector supervisors and private sector supervisors have distinctive preferences
and motivations from each other (Karl and Sutton 1998). Given the motivational differences
among supervisors in each sector, assuming a supervisory role may affect employee job
satisfaction differently. The model controls for supervisory status (supervisors=1, non-
supervisors=0).
Salary
Herzberg’s two factor theory (1959) views salary as one of the hygiene factors, which
means it does not guarantee satisfaction but its absence (or inadequate salary) causes
dissatisfaction. Importance of salary as an attribute of job satisfaction may well also vary among
the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors (Burgess and Ratto 2003). It is generally believed
that public and nonprofit workers are less likely motivated by (i.e. derive less satisfaction from)
monetary compensation than for-profit workers. Individual wages are grouped into four
categories, those who make less than $25,000, $25000-49,999, $50000-74,999, and $75000 or
more, with the first group as the base category.
Working overtime
Voluntary participation in overtime work may positively influence job satisfaction,
infusing sense of fulfillment for employees. However, involuntary, especially unpaid overtime
work may have negative impacts on job satisfaction whether it was forced implicitly or explicitly.
This model controls for whether an individual work more than 40 hours a week (1 if so, 0
otherwise).
Educational level and Undergraduate grade point average (GPA)
Research suggests that an employee’s educational attainment affects his or her job
satisfaction (Carrell and Elbert 1974). NSRCG is a survey of recent college graduates, and this
study controls for whether a person graduated with a bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree.
Studies find association between undergraduate GPA and job success (Bretz, 1989; Harrell 1970).
Common measures of job success in the literature include salary level and supervisory ratings,
but little is known about the relationship between GPA and job satisfaction. The model includes
a measure of undergraduate GPA, expressed in 4.0 scale.
Student debt
Although research has not produced consistent findings about the impact of student debt
on job satisfaction (Wells and Winter 1999), financial pressures from student debt may affect
quality of life of the newly-employed (Brown et al. 2005). These pressures may also force an
individual to take a job that he or she does not want most, and perhaps, result in lower job
satisfaction. This study controls for whether an individual has educational debt at the time of the
interview (1= still owing money, 0=otherwise).
Findings
Table 1 shows that government employees are generally more satisfied with their jobs
than employees in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors with for-profit sector employees being
least satisfied. While more than a half (50.9 percent) of public employees expressed higher level
of satisfaction with their current jobs, 46.2 percent of nonprofit workers and 44.8 percent of for-
profit workers did so. The high level of job satisfaction in general may be due the fact that
respondents are currently working (if they were dissatisfied, they would have left) and relatively
early in their careers with the vast majority having worked less than 4 years. The percentage of
employees who reported dissatisfaction with their jobs was highest in the for-profit sector (14
percent), and lowest in the public sector (8.9 percent), followed by the nonprofit sector (11.4
percent).
Considerable differences are observed in terms of the relatedness between one’s
education and job across the sectors (see Table 1). While only 30.8 percent of for-profit workers
reported high level of education-job match, public (66.6 percent) and nonprofit (63.3 percent)
employees are more than twice more likely to report high level of match. The percentage of
employees who reported education-job mismatch was higher in the for-profit sector (18.9
percent) than in the nonprofit (12.8 percent) and public (10.4 percent) sectors. On average, for-
profit employees receive higher salaries than nonprofit and government employees, with more
than half receiving $50,000 or more a year. The percentage who receive the same level of salary
was considerably smaller in government and nonprofit as 19.2 percent and 17.4 percent
respectively (see Table 1).
Table 1 here
Table 2 demonstrates regression coefficients from the ordinal probit. Education-job
match has significant effects on employees’ overall job satisfaction in all of the three sectors. As
a person’s job is more related to his or her education, he or she experiences higher level of job
satisfaction (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). Analysis reveals that when one’s education is closely related
with his or her job, an employee in the for-profit sector is 29 percent more likely to report high
job satisfaction than his or her education is not related with the job (Table 3), 24 percent more
likely in the nonprofit sector (Table 4), and 27 percent more likely in the public sector (Table 5).
Participation in work-related training increases the likelihood of high job satisfaction in
the for-profit sector while it has no significant effect in the nonprofit and public sectors (Table 2).
Table 3 indicates that for-profit employees who participated in work-related training are 5
percent more likely to report high job satisfaction than those who did not do so. This result
suggests that job training has distinctive effects on employees’ job satisfaction across the sectors.
Table 2 demonstrates that both racial minorities and women are less satisfied with their
jobs than their non-minority counterparts regardless of which sector they are employed in.
Somewhat surprisingly, the negative race and gender effect on job satisfaction was more
substantive in the public and nonprofit sectors than in the for-profit sector. While women are 3
percent less likely to report high job satisfaction in the business sector, nonprofit women are by 6
percent and government women are by 5 percent less likely to do so than their male counterpart.
Minorities working in the for-profit sector are 3.6 percent less likely to report high satisfaction
whereas this minority effect is -8.7 percent and -4.3 percent in the nonprofit and public sectors
respectively (see Tables 3,4, and 5). In the nonprofit sector, employees with children experience
lower level of job satisfaction than those without children while there is no difference in the
other two sectors. Ordinal probit results indicate that a person’s age does not have a significant
effect on one’s job satisfaction. A person with a graduate degree is less likely to be satisfied with
their jobs compared to a person with a BA in all three sectors. The higher a person’s
undergraduate GPA is, the more likely he or she is satisfied with the job in the for-profit and
nonprofit sectors, while it does not influence employee job satisfaction in the public sector.
Having multiple responsibility increases the likelihood for high job satisfaction in the for-
profit sector while it does not affect one’s job satisfaction in the other sectors. Table 2 indicates
that assuming a supervisory role in the for-profit sector increases the likelihood for high job
satisfaction in the for-profit sector, but it decreases job satisfaction in the public sector.
Employees with supervisory positions are 3 percent more likely to be very satisfied with their
jobs than those with non-supervisory positions. However, public sector supervisors are less likely
to be satisfied with their jobs than their subordinates. Although the analysis is limited to draw
any conclusion, research findings suggest that recent reforms based on corporate style
performance and outcome assessment brought negative consequences in employee’s motivation
in government (Burgess and Ratto 2003; Ingram 1993). It is possible that widespread application
of performance-based rewards and incentive structure in the public sector may have negatively
affected job satisfaction of public sector managers.
Table 2 here
Compared to those who just started, employees’ job satisfaction tends to decrease in the
for-profit sector as years go by. In the nonprofit sector, time spent in the current organization
does not influence employees’ job satisfaction. Government employees who spent 2-4 years in
the current organization report lower level of job satisfaction compared to those who just started,
but those who spent more than 4 years are not less satisfied compared to those who just started.
This difference in satisfaction depending on tenure may be due to the different perception
regarding job security across the sectors (Jung et al. 2007). For-profit employees in general have
less confidence in job security than employees in the nonprofit and public sectors, and sense of
insecurity may increases as time goes by in the for-profit sector.
Table 2 shows that level of annual compensation consistently and positively affects job
satisfaction in the for-profit and nonprofit sector, while the pattern differs in the public sector.
The average partial effects in Tables 3, 4, and 5 indicate that in the first two sectors, the higher a
person’s salary, the more likely he or she reports higher level of job satisfaction. In the for-profit
sector, employees receiving wages $25,000-49,999 are 8 percent more likely to report high
satisfaction than employees who receive $24,999 or less. Those who make $50,000-74,999 are
16 percent more likely to do so, and those who earn $75,000 or more are 21 percent more likely
to do so. The wage effect on satisfaction is less substantial in the nonprofit sector while the
pattern is identical. Compared to the reference group, $25000-49,999 group is 6 percent more
likely to, $50,000-74,999 group is 9 percent, and $75,000+ group is 18 percent more likely to
report that they are very satisfied with their jobs. In the public sector, however, only those who
receive the wage between $50,000 and $74,999 reports higher level of job satisfaction compared
to those who receive $24,999 or less a year. In other words, those who receive $49,999 or less
and those who receive $75,000 or more have same level of job satisfaction, controlling for other
job and personal characteristics.
Table 3 here
Table 4 here
Table 5 here
Conclusions
Findings of this study suggest that education-job match is a key determinant of one’s
level of job satisfaction, regardless of the sector. These results propose that high level of job
satisfaction in the public and nonprofit sector may be explained by high level of education-job
match. This may be possible in two different scenarios. First, public and nonprofit workers may
actively seek jobs that match their education. Because they are more intrinsically motivated by
the job itself than by monetary benefits associated with the job, it is possible that the education
and job match is more of a significant determinant in career choice. The other possible scenario
is that public and nonprofit employers are better able to find or design a job that matches
employees’ education. As discussed, nonprofit managers may have more flexibility to adjust
work-arrangement for their employees in order to better match education and type of job.
Government agencies may have more systematically classified occupations than private-sector
organizations, enabling job seekers to find a better match between their education and job.
Although this study is limited to providing a conclusion about which scenario is more plausible,
the findings at least suggest that employers try to better match employees’ jobs with their fields
of education in order to increase employee job satisfaction.
Findings suggest that pay has little influence on public sector workers’ job satisfaction
compared to other sectors. Contrary to common belief, nonprofit employees’ job satisfaction is
influenced by level of wages, although not as much so as in the for-profit sector. Another
interesting finding is that regardless of the sector, women and minorities report lower level of job
satisfaction. Contrary to common belief, women and minorities are much less likely to be
satisfied with their jobs in the nonprofit and public sectors than their male and non-minority
counterparts compared to the for-profit sector. This finding implies that scholars and
practitioners need to revisit policies regarding women and racial minorities in public and
nonprofit organizations.
This study contributes to demystifying workers level of job satisfaction across the sectors.
By any means, however, the findings never suggest that that public and nonprofit workers’
commitment to serving the public interest or helping the underprivileged influences their job
satisfaction. Rather, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution as this study
cannot control for some of the important factors affecting job satisfaction. Various extrinsic and
intrinsic factors can determine the level of job satisfaction, such as relationship with supervisor
and supervisees, commuting time, and commitment to organizational mission to name a few. The
low pseudo R-square values also suggest that attributes in the model provides only a partial
explanation of job satisfaction. Nevertheless, partial explanation is more useful than no
explanation, and the results of this study suggest that one should not neglect the role of job
design and management in employees’ job satisfaction.
The NSRCG survey provides information only on degree holders in science, engineering,
and health fields from U.S. institutions. The findings may not apply to graduates in other fields
and other national contexts. However, this study may provide insights on attributes affecting job
satisfaction across the sectors by limiting its focus on these fields. For instance, when a person
majored in social work, for instance, he or she is more likely to find a high education-job match
in government agencies or nonprofit organizations than in for-profit corporations.
This study examines effects of various job attributes on overall job satisfaction. However,
job satisfaction cannot be measured by one single dimension. Rather, it includes an employee’s
satisfaction of multiple aspects of his or her job, including job content, job security, and
interpersonal relationship. Future research may examine the relationship among various job
attributes and multiple dimensions of job satisfaction. Different attributes of job may also have
distinctive effects on different demographic groups. The literature will benefit from estimating
separate models for various groups, including men and women.
References
Allen, Jim, and van der Velden, Rolf. 2001. Educational mismatches versus skill mismatches:
effects on wages, job satisfaction and on-the-job search. Oxford Economic Papers
3(2001): 434-451.
Bender, Keith A., Donohue, Susan M., and Heywood, John S. 2005. Job satisfaction and gender
segregation. Oxford Economic Papers 57(3): 479-496.
Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2010). Human resource
management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems Sage Publications,
Inc.
Blank, Rebecca M. 1985. An Analysis of Worker’s Choice between Employment in the Public
and Private Sectors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 38(2): 211–24.
Borzaga, Carlo, and Tortia, Ermanno 2006. Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in
public and nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2):
225-248.
Bretz, Robert D. 1989. College graduate point average as a predictor of adult success: A meta-
analytic review and some additional evidence. Public Personnel Management 18(1):11-
22.
Brown, Sarah, Taylor, Karl, and Price Stephen W. 2005.Debt and distress: Evaluating the
psychological cost of debt. Journal of Economic Psychology 26(5): 642-63.
Burgess, Simon, and Marisa Ratto. 2003. The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and
Evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(2): 285–300.
Carrell, Michael R, and Elbert, Robert F. 1974. Some personal and organizational determinants
of job satisfaction of postal clerks. Academy of Management Journal 17(2): 368-373.
Clark, Andrew E. 1997. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour
Economics 4(4): 341-372.
Conway, Neil, and Briner, Rob B. 2002. Full-Time versus Part-Time Employees: Understanding
the links between work status, the psychological contract, and attitudes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 61(2): 279-301.
DeSantis, V. S., and Durst, S. L. 1996. Comparing job satisfaction among public and private
sector employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.
Ezra, M., and Deckman, M. 1996. Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and
child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56(2), 174-179.
Goodin, Robert E. 2003. Democratic Accountability: The Third Sector and All. Working Paper
no. 19, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hauser/PDF_XLS/workingpapers/workingpaper_19.pdf
[accessed May 11, 2011]
Hakim, Catherine. 2000. Work-lifestyle choices in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Harrell, T. W. 1970. The personality of higher earning MBAs in small business. Personnel
Psychology 23: 369-375.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Ingram, Patricia W. 1993. Of pigs in pokes and policy diffusion: Another look at pay-for-
performance. Public Administration Review 53(4): 348-356.
Jamison, I. B. 2003. Turnover and retention among volunteers in human service agencies.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 114.
Jung, Kwangho, Moon, M. Jae, and Hahm, Sung D. 2007. Do age, gender, and sector affect job
satisfaction? Results from the Korean labor and income panel data. Review of Public
Personnel Administration 27(2): 125-146.
Karl, K. A., and Sutton, C. L. 1998. Job values in today's workforce: A comparison of public and
private sector employees. Public Personnel Management 27, 515-528.
Kearns, Kevin P. 1994. The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofi t
Organizations: An Analytical Framework. Public Administration Review 54(2): 185–92.
Kumar, K.C., and Achamamba, B. 1993. A comparative study of job satisfaction and job
involvement among public and private sector employees. Psychological Studies 38 (2),
69-72.
Lee, Young-joo, and Wilkins, Vicky M. 2011. More similarities or more differences? Comparing
public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review 71(1): 45-
56.
Lewis G. B. 1992. Men and women toward the top: Backgrounds, careers, and potential of
federal middle managers. Public Personnel Management, 21(4), 473-491.
Lipsky, Michael, and Steven R. Smith. 1989. Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the
Welfare State. Political Science Quarterly 104(4): 625-648.
Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Dunnette, M. D.; Hough, L. M.. Palo Alto, C.A.: Consulting
Psychologists Press 1319 - 1328
Lyons, Sean T, Duxbury, Linda E., and Higgins, Christopher A. 2006. A comparison of the
values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees.
Public Administration Review 66(4): 605-618.
Maidani, E. A. 1991. Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction
among public and private sectors. Public Personnel Management, 20(4), 441-448.
Martin, Jack K., and Hanson, Sandra L. 1985. Sex, family wage-earning status, and satisfaction
with work.Work and Occupations 12(1): 91-109.
Miller, Joanne. 1980. Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction: A focus on
gender differences. Work and Occupations 7(3): 337-366.
Mincer, Jacob. 1962. On-the-job training: Costs, returns, and some implications. The Journal of
Political Economy 70(5): 50-79.
Nonprofit HR Solutions 2010. 2009 Nonprofit employment survey. Washington, DC.
Perry, James L, and Porter, Lyman W. 1982. Factors affecting the context for motivation in
public organizations. Academy of Management Review 7(1): 89-98.
Phillips, J. J. 2003. Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff , and Charles H. Levine. 1976. Comparing Public and Private
Organizations. Public Administration Review 36(2): 233–44.
Selden, S. C., and Selden, F. 2001. Rethinking diversity in public organizations for the 21st
century: Moving toward a multicultural model. Administration and Society, 33(3): 303-29.
Selden, Sally C., and Moynihan, Donald P. 2000. A model of voluntary turnover in state
government. Review of Public Personnel Administration 20(2): 63-74.
Society for Human Resource Management 2001. Summary of SHRM 2001 Benefits Survey.
http://www.shrm.org/hrnews/articles/default.asp?page=041801b.htm [accessed May 11,
2011]
Steel, B. S., and 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.
Stone, M., Bigelow, B., and Crittenden, W. 1999. Research on strategic management in nonprofit
organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration and Society 378-
423.
Verkuyten, M., De Jong, W., and Masson, C. M. 1993. Job satisfaction among ethnic minorities
in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: 42(2) 171-189.
Vila, L. E., and García-Mora, B. 2005. Education and the determinants of job satisfaction.
Education Economics, 13(4), 409-425.
Vincola, Ann 1998. Cultural change is the work/life solution. Workforce 77(10): 70-73.
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wells, A. and Winter, P. A. 1999. Influence of practice and personal characteristics on dental job
satisfaction. Journal of Dental Education 63(11): 805-812.
Williamson, Larry, and Anderson, Stella E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management 17(3): 601-617.
Wright, Bradely E., and Davis, B.S. 2003. Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the
work environment, American Review of Public Administration 33(1), 70-90.
Wright, Bradely E., and Kim, S. 2004. Participation’s influence on job satisfaction: The
importance of job characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration 24(1): 18-
40.
Tables
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Characteristics For-profit
(n=6614)
Nonprofit
(n=1688)
Public
(n=3199)
Job satisfaction
Very
dissatisfied 4.2% 3.3%
2.5%
Somewhat
dissatisfied 9.8% 4.1%
6.4%
Somewhat
satisfied 41.2% 42.4%
40.2%
Very
satisfied 44.8% 46.2%
50.9%
Education-job
match
Not related 18.9% 12.8% 10.4%
Somewhat
related 30.8% 23.9%
23.0%
Closely
related 30.8% 63.3%
66.6%
Racial minority 27.4% 27.1% 26.3%
Female 40.6% 64.0% 54.8%
Having child(ren) 16.0% 20.4% 23.4%
Age 27.3 yrs 28.6 yrs 29.5 yrs
Any money owed education 55.3% 60.2% 59.7%
Having a graduate degree 27.4% 37.4% 41.9%
Undergraduate GPA 3.31 3.54 3.40
Working more than 40 hours a
week 49.0% 39.4% 37.2%
Having multiple (more than 5)
responsibilities 38.9% 36.9% 33.9%
Supervisory role 26.8% 25.0% 22.4%
Work-related training 47.4% 70.5% 74.4%
Time spent in
current
organization
Less than 2
years 55.2% 50.2% 45.7%
2-4 years 34.9% 36.9% 37.7%
4 or more
years 9.9% 12.9% 16.6%
Annual wage
Less than
$25,000 8.9% 20.2% 20.3%
$25,000-
$50,000 41.0% 56.3% 56.7%
$50,000-
$75,000 39.4% 17.4% 19.2%
More than
$75,000 10.7% 6.2% 3.8%
Table 2. Ordinal probit regression results
For-profit
(n=6614)
Nonprofit
(n=1688)
Public
(n=3199)
LR Chi2(18) =1014.23 LR Chi
2(18) =178.42 LR Chi
2(18) =255.16
Prob>Chi2 =0.0000 Prob>Chi
2 =0.0000 Prob>Chi
2 =0.0000
Variables Pseudo R2 =0.0706 Pseudo R
2 =0.0509 Pseudo R
2 =0.0407
Education-job somewhat
related
0.314***
(0.042)
0.267**
(0.095)
0.339***
(0.074)
Education-job closely
related
0.819***
(0.041)
0.686***
(0.088)
0.774***
(0.068)
Being minority -0.086**
(0.032)
-0.152*
(0.064)
-0.126**
(0.047)
Being a female -0.101**
(0.029)
-0.236***
(0.060)
-0.115**
(0.043)
Having child(ren) 0.066
(0.043)
-0.176*
(0.077)
0.080
(0.054)
Age -0.004
(0.003)
0.007
(0.005)
0.004
(0.003)
Still owing money
borrowed to finance
education
-0.076**
(0.029)
-0.069
(0.059)
-0.109*
(0.043)
Having a graduate
degree
-0.097**
(0.037)
-0.148*
(0.064)
-0.126**
(0.046)
Undergraduate GPA 0.032*
(0.016)
0.089**
(0.032)
0.038
(0.023)
Working more than 40
hours a week
0.041
(0.030)
0.077
(0.060)
0.033
(0.044)
Having multiple (more
than 5) responsibilities
0.114***
(0.030)
0.115
(0.060)
0.033
(0.044)
Supervisory role 0.082*
(0.033)
-0.005
(0.066)
-0.129*
(0.050)
Work-related training 0.139***
(0.030)
0.048
(0.064)
0.014
(0.049)
2-4 years in current
organization
-0.104**
(0.031)
-0.016
(0.061)
-0.122**
(0.046)
4 or more years in
current organization
-0.143**
(0.052)
0.064
(0.095)
-0.093
(0.066)
Wage $25,000-50,000 0.226***
(0.052)
0.151*
(0.074)
0.034
(0.056)
wage $50,000-75,000 0.450***
(0.056)
0.251*
(0.097)
0.263***
(0.071)
Wage more than
$75,000
0.592***
(0.073)
0.491**
(0.147)
0.118
(0.125)
Cut1/ -0.79131 0.13199 -0.91786 0.250912 -1.37031 0.189531
Cut2/ -0.05671 0.131165 -0.22528 0.247974 -0.71655 0.186685
Cut3/ 1.285693 0.1319 1.169177 0.248921 0.684541 0.186426
Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. *p < = .05, **p < = .01, ***p < = .001
Table 3 Average partial effects – For profit sector
Variables Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
Education-job somewhat
related
-0.022***
(0.002)
-0.036***
(0.004)
-0.055***
(0.008)
0.113***
(0.013)
Education-job closely
related
-0.039***
(0.002)
-0.077***
(0.003)
-0.170***
(0.009)
0.287***
(0.010)
Being minority 0.008**
(0.003)
0.011**
(0.004)
0.012**
(0.003)
-0.031**
(0.010)
Being a female 0.009***
(0.002)
0.013***
(0.003)
0.014***
(0.003)
-0.036***
(0.009)
Having child(ren) -0.006
(0.003)
-0.008
(0.005)
-0.010
(0.006)
0.024
(0.013)
Age 0.000
(0.000)
0.001
(0.000)
0.001
(0.000)
-0.001
(0.001)
Still owing money
borrowed to finance
education
0.007**
(0.002)
0.010**
(0.003)
0.011**
(0.003)
-0.027**
(0.009)
Having a graduate degree 0.009**
(0.003)
0.012**
(0.004)
0.013**
(0.004)
-0.034**
(0.011)
Undergraduate GPA -0.003*
(0.001)
-0.004*
(0.002)
-0.005*
(0.002)
0.012*
(0.005)
Working more than 40
hours a week
-0.004
(0.002)
-0.005
(0.003)
-0.006
(0.004)
0.015
(0.009)
Having multiple (more
than 5) responsibilities
-0.010***
(0.002)
-0.014***
(0.003)
-0.017***
(0.004)
0.041***
(0.009)
Supervisory role -0.007**
(0.002)
-0.010**
(0.003)
-0.012**
(0.005)
0.029**
(0.010)
Work-related training -0.012***
(0.002)
-0.018***
(0.003)
-0.019***
(0.004)
0.049***
(0.009)
2-4 years in current
organization
0.010***
(0.003)
0.013***
(0.004)
0.014***
(0.003)
-0.037***
(0.009)
4 or more years in current
organization
0.014**
(0.005)
0.019**
(0.006)
0.018***
(0.005)
-0.050**
(0.016)
Wage $25,000-50,000 -0.017***
(0.003)
-0.027***
(0.005)
-0.038***
(0.008)
0.082***
(0.016)
wage $50,000-75,000 -0.028***
(0.003)
-0.049***
(0.005)
-0.084***
(0.010)
0.162***
(0.017)
Wage more than $75,000 -0.033***
(0.003)
-0.061***
(0.005)
-0.117***
(0.014)
0.212***
(0.021)
Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. *p < = .05, **p < = .01, ***p < = .001
Table 4. Average partial effect – Nonprofit sector
Variables Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Very satisfied
Education-job
somewhat related
-0.015***
(0.004)
-0.027***
(0.008)
-0.056**
(0.019)
0.098**
(0.030)
Education-job closely
related
-0.028***
(0.003)
-0.057***
(0.006)
-0.159***
(0.018)
0.244***
(0.023)
Being minority 0.011*
(0.005)
0.018**
(0.007)
0.027**
(0.009)
-0.056**
(0.020)
Being a female 0.017***
(0.004)
0.027***
(0.007)
0.044***
(0.009)
-0.087**
(0.019)
Having child(ren) 0.014*
(0.006)
0.021*
(0.008)
0.030**
(0.010)
-0.064*
(0.024)
Age 0.000
(0.000)
-0.001
(0.000)
-0.001
(0.001)
0.002
(0.002)
Still owing money
borrowed to finance
education
0.005
(0.004)
0.008
(0.006)
0.013
(0.009)
-0.025
(0.019)
Having a graduate
degree
0.011*
(0.005)
0.017*
(0.007)
0.026**
(0.009)
-0.054**
(0.020)
Undergraduate GPA -0.006**
(0.002)
-0.010**
(0.003)
-0.016**
(0.005)
0.033**
(0.010)
Working more than 40
hours a week
-0.005
(0.003)
-0.009
(0.006)
-0.014
(0.010)
0.028
(0.019)
Having multiple (more
than 5) responsibilities
-0.008*
(0.003)
-0.013*
(0.006)
-0.022*
(0.010)
0.043*
(0.019)
Supervisory role 0.000
(0.004)
0.001
(0.007)
0.001
(0.010)
-0.002
(0.021)
Work-related training -0.003
(0.004)
-0.005
(0.006)
-0.009
(0.010)
0.017
(0.020)
2-4 years in current
organization
0.001
(0.004)
0.002
(0.006)
0.003
(0.010)
-0.006
(0.019)
4 or more years in
current organization
-0.004
(0.005)
-0.007
(0.009)
-0.012
(0.016)
0.024
(0.030)
Wage $25,000-50,000 -0.009**
(0.004)
-0.016*
(0.006)
-0.030*
(0.014)
0.056*
(0.023)
wage $50,000-75,000 -0.014***
(0.004)
-0.026**
(0.008)
-0.052**
(0.019)
0.093**
(0.031)
Wage more than
$75,000
-0.023***
(0.004)
-0.045***
(0.009)
-0.110***
(0.031)
0.179***
(0.044)
Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. *p < = .05, **p < = .01, ***p < = .001
Table 5. Average partial effect – Public sector
Variables Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Very satisfied
Education-job
somewhat related
-0.016***
(0.003)
-0.029***
(0.005)
-0.080***
(0.016)
0.125***
(0.023)
Education-job closely
related
-0.025***
(0.003)
-0.052***
(0.004)
-0.190***
(0.013)
0.267***
(0.016)
Being minority 0.008**
(0.003)
0.013**
(0.005)
0.026**
(0.008)
-0.047**
(0.015)
Being a female 0.007**
(0.003)
0.012**
(0.004)
0.024**
(0.007)
-0.043**
(0.014)
Having child(ren) -0.005
(0.003)
-0.008
(0.004)
-0.017
(0.010)
0.030
(0.017)
Age 0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
-0.001
(0.001)
0.001
(0.001)
Still owing money
borrowed to finance
education
0.007**
(0.003)
0.011**
(0.004)
0.023
(0.008)
-0.041**
(0.014)
Having a graduate
degree
0.008**
(0.003)
0.013**
(0.004)
0.026**
(0.008)
-0.047**
(0.015)
Undergraduate GPA -0.002
(0.001)
-0.004
(0.002)
-0.008
(0.004)
0.014
(0.007)
Working more than 40
hours a week
-0.002
(0.002)
-0.003
(0.004)
-0.007
(0.008)
0.012
(0.014)
Having multiple (more
than 5) responsibilities
-0.002
(0.002)
-0.003
(0.004)
-0.007
(0.008)
0.012
(0.014)
Supervisory role 0.009**
(0.003)
0.014**
(0.005)
0.025**
(0.008)
-0.048**
(0.016)
Work-related training -0.001
(0.003)
-0.001
(0.004)
-0.003
(0.009)
0.005
(0.016)
2-4 years in current
organization
0.008**
(0.003)
0.012**
(0.004)
0.025**
(0.008)
-0.045**
(0.015)
4 or more years in
current organization
0.006
(0.004)
0.010
(0.006)
0.019
(0.011)
-0.035
(0.021)
Wage $25,000-50,000 -0.002
(0.003)
-0.003
(0.005)
-0.007
(0.011)
0.013
(0.018)
wage $50,000-75,000 -0.013***
(0.003)
-0.023***
(0.005)
-0.061***
(0.015)
0.097***
(0.022)
Wage more than
$75,000
-0.007
(0.005)
-0.011
(0.010)
-0.026
(0.025)
0.044
(0.040)
Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. *p < = .05, **p < = .01, ***p < = .001
