An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation

between Public and Private Sector

Organization: Effect of Innovative Practices

Professor Dr. Ghulam Abid

Arshia Baig (MS-MGT-2016-010)

Uzma Naeem (MS-MGT-2016-034)

Faizan Ahmed (MS-MGT-2016-030)

Rana Ghuyyor ul Islam (MS-MGT-2016-032)

MS Management 2016

Institute of Business Administration

University of Engineering and Technology Lahore
Abstract

Motivation and motivating is complicated phenomenon. Motivation at Workplace is of primary

interest for both employer and employees. The aim of this research was to differentiate

and identify the factors that influence employees’ motivation in public and private sector

organizations and major what is moderating role of introducing “innovative practices” on

them. Moreover, a further investigation is also made about the changing motivation levels

(diminishing or incremental). A survey questionnaire method was designed to collect data from

3000 individuals (1500 each from public and private sector organizations). The 20 organizations

are selected for study and 10 each from public and private sector organizations. Various means

of data collection were used, including hand written questionnaire, email, online surveys and by

mail, to maximize data collection. Results indicated that employees’ motivation was greatly

affected by the various work related factors.

Keywords:Workplace Motivation, Private Sector Organizations, Public Sector Organizations,

Innovative Practices, Pakistan

Introduction
Amongst the primary responsibilities of a manager is to motivate his subordinates in the

organization to perform well (Steers & Porter, 1987). The manager’s effectiveness, productivity

maximization, performance enhancement, and advancing towards the notion of organizational

accountability, is greatly dependent upon the manager’s ability to understand the motivational

factors of its employees and subordinates (Chemiss& Kane, 1987). It is generally assumed that

manager spent at least 10% their time on developing motivational tactics (Hise, 1993), and it is

still believed that managers do not have an exact know-how about what really motivate their

employees (Medcof&Hausdorf, 1995;Kovach, 1995; Lovio-George, 1992; Tulgan, 1995). This

study tries to contribute the knowledge of and understanding about the differences in work

motivation amongst the public and private sector organizations. Moreover, research also tried

to differentiate motivation levels when employees start their career and what happens when

they get along the career and what is affect of introducing “Innovative Practices” on the

motivation levels of employees. Further deep the distinctions between supervisory and

nonsupervisory employees can also be examined which offer very valuable insights on

enhancing effectiveness with respect to multilevel management.

Research Objectives and Rationale

It is hard to justify the further research on the topic of motivation, especially when comparing

public and private sectors. However, a little work has been done to identify the diminishing

motivation levels in both private and public sector organizations with the time passed and

secondly when investigating about the reasons or underlying differences, there is lacking of

relating the purpose or type of organization and subsequently alignment of individual goals

with the organizational goals. It necessarily means that the name exposes the purpose of any

public organization is to serve the general public. So, a person who has the ambition or

motivation to serve the public will definitely join a public sector organization.Moreover, It was

astonishing to see the research paper statistics regarding population or research focused

departments is Pakistan. These were mostly found in academic and health care sectors, with

banking sector at third number. It may be due to the fact that these researches found easy to

conduct the research within the institute or university from which one belongs to. So, a

comprehensive and longitudinal research has to e sought to serve the purpose.

Literature Review

To start with the earliest researches,a longitudinal study of private sector managers and

subordinates expanding up to fifty years, Kovach (1995)established that managers in 1995,

showed a very little devianceas compared to managers in 1946 regarding what did they

perceived about motivation of their employees. The ranking (of 1995 study) by managers for

ten most affecting motivating factors with order from most to least were as under;
1. Good wages (5th)

2. Job security (4th)

3.Promotion and growth in the organization (6th)

4. Good working conditions (7th)

5. Interesting work (lst)

6.Personal loyalty to employees (8th)

7. Tactful discipline (9th)

8. Full appreciation of work done (2nd)

9. Sympathetic help with personal problems (10th)

10. Feeling of being in on things (3rd)

There are many interesting outcomes about the above study that is managers' assessment of

above mentioned motivating factors has remained the same for 50 years, but the rank of these

factors has changed very dramatically, assigned by the employees. The results shows, of this

study of 1,000 employees and their respective managers,confirmed a great deal of disparity

between what employees’ really motivation considerations and what their managers’ believe

about motivation. For example, excessive compensation packages and incentive programs are

purely misconceptions, making a study of dual sector employee motivation both timely and

prudent. The literature on motivational differences and satisfaction levels between public and

private sector employees is mixed. However, various studies confirmed that public sector

employees as being motivated by job security and stability, teamwork, and worthwhile service
to society, while hesitant towards autonomy, prestige,monetary rewards, and the desire for

challenge(Hartman & Weber, 1980; Kilpatrick, Cummings, & Jennings, 1964; Newstrom, Reif,

&Monckza, 1976; Rawls, Baldwin, 1987; Clark & Wilson, 1961; Ullrich, & Nelson, 1975; Schuster,

1974). Similarly, private sector employees are jointlydescribed as motivated by opportunity to

advance,status, autonomy, and high pay, while being un-attracted by worthwhile contributions

to society and job security. The above finding contradicted in few researches which were largely

due to turbulent economic environment and public sector cutbacks(Rainey 1982).When talking

about the reasons or difference in underlying, there is lacking of following unidentified issues;

i) Purpose or type of organization.

ii) Alignment of individual goals with the organizational goals.

It necessarily means that for example as the name depict that the purpose of any public

organization is to serve the public. So, a person which has the ambition or motivation to serve

the public will definitely join a public sector organization. He or she cannot serve this purpose

by going in private sector organization. So, there is a strong relationship between motivational

aspects and the type of organization. Similarly, a high salary can be given in only a private firm

whose main objective or purpose is to earn maximum profits. This objective of profit

maximization cannot be adopted in basic strategy of a public sector organization. So, all of

activities are aligned with the main objective of any organization. The basic findings in Perry

and Wise's (1990)public sector motivations that a desire to benefit society should definitely

differentiate public sector from private sector workers and such an evidence of motivation
would further distinguish the effective from the in-effective public sector worker. It is very

important to know the relevant dimensions of employee motivation is valuable for

organizational performance (Locke, 1991), and the ability to make objective evaluationabout of

what staff and workersdesire from their jobs and their feelingabout getting it (Blumberg &

Pringle, 1982; Scully, 1994).

Theoretical Framework

Different researches consistently confirmed that private sector employees and managers most

value economic rewards more highly than do public sector employees and managers (Houston

2000; Cacioppe and Mock 1984; Crewson 1997; Karl and Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993; Rainey
1982;Schuster, Colletti, and Knowles 1973; Wittmer 1991). Moreover, direct financial benefits

are less valuable and important for public sector employees than for employees in the private

sector (Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976). Salary and monetary benefits are of much greater

motivation for private sector managers (Khojasteh 1993), employees, and supervisors

(Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998), than it is for their public sector organizations. Unlike

private sector managers, public sector managers are not strongly motivated by pay expectancy

(Moon 2000). Boyne (2002)had found support for only 3 out of 13 hypotheses about the

differences between public sector and private sector management, based on an analysis of 34

empirical studies. Although it may be acknowledgedthe results or conclusion of these mata-

analysis, might lead to a slightly skewed image, about the fact that one of three positive results

indicated less materialism in public managers largely validates previous assumptions. For

example, on the grounds of an analysis of 14 surveys, Crewson (1997) that economic rewards

are most important to private sector workforce.

To get the basic insight before the comprehensive research, 10 informal interviews were

conducted for each of different public and private sector employees. Following were basic

questions asked;

1. What motivates you to join the current job?

2. What were your aims and ambitions?

3. How many years of service you made?

4. Do you have achieved your goals and ambitions?

5. What factors have changed your objectives (if so)?

6. Do, modern and innovative techniques can change the environment?

First of all, the motivation factors concluded form these informal interviews are about the same

as discussed above for both private and public sectors employees, except the discovery of a

new public sector motivation factors, stated by 2 of public sector employees i.e. they started

their job due the pressure or orders of their parents. It clearly did not fit in the previously

established factors, however, it may loosely associated with “chance to benefit society”.

Moreover, overwhelmingly majority of public sector respondents weighted in favour of “high

prestige and social status” and “job security”.

Secondly, the question number two was to aid the question number 1, which were translated /

transformed into the subsequent motivational factors e.g. if some has the aim of getting some

monetary reward, it was considered high salary.

Thirdly, job duration of stated by 20 respondents, 10 from each sector given figures from 5

years to 18 years, with exception of 1 public sector employee who was serving for more than 28

years.
The analysis of fourth question is mix and resulted in almost 50% success ratio, with exception

of public sector respondents averaging more (satisfaction ratio) than their private sector

counterparts.

The fifth question analysis revealed not a much clear version of the answers, however non-

conducive environment and lack of supervisory support (especially in public sector), and lack of

managerial coaching and grit (especially in private sector) caused hurdles in achieving the

personal aims and objectives. It was also observed that serious non-alignment of organizational

objectives with personal objectives is also key factor in public sector organization.

The sixth and final question, which was also of our primary interest, was whether or not

introduction of “innovative and modern practices” at workplace will change the motivation of

employees. The overwhelmingly positive response came from public sector employees. It may

be due to the fact that public sector rules of business are usually conservative and

unadventurous in nature. Six out of ten respondents from private sector organizations

answered positively, while 2 said that are already practicing such things, 1 replied in no and 1

gave in neutral.

The purpose of these pilot interviews was to refine and streamline the research according to

Pakistani perspective, which was fully realized and inculcated.

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), is the most widely admired and accepted explanations of

motivation, and particularly suited as a basis for our research. Its basic premise is that
motivation depends on how much an individual wants (the strength of the valence) something

relative to other things and in return the effort/reward prospects (expectancy) that they will

obtain (Arnold, 1981). This necessarily means that the transaction is an economic, and it is

supposed that individuals have preferences and expectations about the rewards they will

receive in return for their efforts of time and resources (Parker & Dyer, 1976) and that they

understand that, this criterion of selection among varuispossible behaviors. Moreover,

expectancy theory explains and helps in our understanding of why some workers are not much

motivated on their jobs and just do the minimum to get the things done (House, Shapiro, &

Wahba, 1974), whereas many others, who look forward for desired output for their

performance, will apply themselves (Reinharth & Wahba, 1975). Its basic belief proposes

customizing the study of motivation to the individual with keeping in mind of differences

(Muchinsky, 1977a). Moreover, the theory also recognizes that no universal code can be

established for explaining everyone's motivations and the estimated outcomes may be

positive, negative, or neutral. These facts and figures are applicable and demonstrated to both

public and private sector workers, have been well indentified and documented (Gabris & Simo,

1995; Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990). The investigation of what employees desire

from their jobs and match up to it to what they are getting disclosed the need deficit that

initiated aim-directed behavior (Kovach, 1995; Vroom, 1964; Schneider, 1987), which in return

show the way to productivity and performance (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1988). In

either case, individuals can consider it that if an imbalance is there for an individual, then the
individual will be motivated to counter that inequity at the cost of being motivated toward a

particular company objective (Mowday, 1987). The balancing point, then prevails when an

individual consider in exchange to be a balanced one, when his or her "wants"-and-"gets" are

matched, and presumably their attention and channelizing of energies will be toward the

organization's objectives which will further satisfy the individual's personal ones. The degree

balance is determined by the individual's perception of the situation, as opposed to some

measure of objective criteria. What is established from the researches is that organizational

commitment greatly dependent upon on the alignment of employees want from their jobs and

what getting from them (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990, Flynn & Tannenbaum, 1993). To evaluate that

if a disequilibrium state exists, it is essential to know the value positioned on a set of expected

achievable outcomes by the employees in the workplace. In addition, it is essestial to evaluate

the comparative attractiveness to the expected rewards decided or given in return for the job

completion (Sims, Szilagyi, &McKemy, 1976). The greater the combined inequality among an

employee's "wants"-and-"gets," greater the likelihood for unnecessary turnover, absenteeism,

performance issues, suppressed productivity, and in-subordination (Bogg& Cooper, 1995;

Muchinsky, 1977b; Shaw & Oldham, 1978; Stephens & Burroughs, 1978; Steers & Rhodes,

1978;). The extent to which "wants" and "gets", matched for an employee, it is a key factor in

evaluating long-term employer success (Kovach, 1995) as a one of organizational function, i.e.

productivity. We can sum, as this information offers a depiction of the general culture or

subculture of an atmosphere of the organization (Heimovics& Brown, 1976).

List of Indentified Fifteen Work-Related Motivational Factors

1. A stable and secure future

2. Chance to benefit society

3. Chance to learn new things

4. Chance to engage in satisfying leisure activities (e.g., recreational, cultural)

5. Chance to exercise leadership

6. Chance to use my special abilities

7. Chance to make a contribution to important decisions

8. Freedom from supervision

9. Freedom from pressures to conform both on and off the job

10. Friendly and congenial associates

11. High prestige and social status

12. High salary

13. Opportunity for advancement

14. Variety in work assignments

15. Working as part of a team

Source. School of Administrative Science, Yale University as reported in Heimovics and Brown

(1976).

Innovative Practices
There are two concepts when we refer the term innovation, i) Some researchers have used the

this term to refer for the process of bringing new products, equipment, programs or systems

into use (Damanpour, 1991) while some other researchers have used it to denote to the object

of the innovation process, that is, the new product, equipment, program or system (Rogers,

1983). We have adopted the latter term, in our research, and Wolfe (1995) who defined

innovative human resource practices as any ideas, programs, practices or systems, which are

related to the human resource function. A few researchers consider objective newness to be an

important principle, while others consider an innovation to be a product, program or system

which is new to the embracing organization, arguing that any new idea is objectively, can

matters little so far as human behaviour is concerned (Rogers, 1983).

References