Employee Motivation: Two Measurement Issues

Blunt, Barrie

doi:10.1177/0734371x8700800105

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this finding may be counter to general public employee stereotypes, it is consistent with previous studies that found the work motivation of public sector employees to be similar to their private sector counterparts (Baldwin 1984; Emmert and Taher 1992; Posner and Schmidt 1982; Rainey 1979, 1983). This finding may be suspect, however, because of the potential for social desirability bias (Rainey 1993) or the subjectivity inherent in self‐reported motivation (Blunt 1987). A second finding of interest is that the degree of mission valence and extrinsic rewards that public employees experience at work is consistent with expectations regarding the relative availability of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in the public sector.…”

Section: Results and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?

Wright¹

2007

Public Administration Review

305

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study advances our understanding of employee work motivation and performance in the public sector by reinterpreting the literature on public service motivation within the psychological framework of goal theory. An empirical test of this new framework suggests that goal theory provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the independent contributions of task, mission, and public service to employee work motivation and performance. The importance of an organization’s mission increases employee work motivation in the public sector by making the job more important, even after controlling for the effect of performance‐related extrinsic rewards.

show abstract

Section: Results and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?

Wright¹

2007

Public Administration Review

305

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study by Blunt (1987) concerning the measurement of motivation has shown that subordinates are not consistently reporting high levels of motivation while supervisors differ in their ratings of subordinate motivation. This indicator contributes to a company's success and profitability as well as staff self-concept (Edvinsson and Malone 1997;Shamir 1991).…”

Section: Motivational Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Human Capital Measures: From Corporate Executives and Investors

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study compared the perceptions of executives and investors in terms of the importance to disclose human capital measures and their knowledge of those measures. Design/methodology/approach Forty-nine senior-level executives (41 % response rate) from service-oriented, public-listed companies in Australia and 33 investors (47% response rate) from various fund management companies responded to our survey. Findings The investors indicated the importance to disclose certain human capital measures more than the executives. The executives appeared to show a better understanding than the investors on indicators such as staff satisfaction index, staff capacity, motivational index, workforce stability, and workforce competence profile. Implications To date, researchers have explored human capital from a piecemeal perspective. A more integrated and multifaceted measure of human capital has the potential to benefit fund managers and executives. (full-time, contract, or temporary), staff turnover, average years of experience, and average age of management and operational staff would shed some light on investment decisions for fund managers. Executives could utilize the measures to reflect on an assortment of human capital issues that are relevant to their organizations and stakeholders, especially the investment community. Originality/value This study proposed a more inclusive measure of human capital by integrating traditional measures of human capital and non-accounting measures (e.g., educational level, experience, and motivation). A comparison of the perspectives of executives and investors revealed preferences for certain information, which can help to improve the perception of transparency and accountability.

show abstract

Perceptions of Public versus Private Sector Personnel and Informal Red Tape: Their Impact on Motivation

Baldwin

1990

The American Review of Public Administration

115

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the findings from a survey of public and private sector managers' perceptions of the formal and informal red tape encountered in their organizations. Formal red tape is perceived to be the result of personnel procedures, whereas the informal red tape is perceived as the constraint caused by the informal influence of the media, public opinion, political parties, and public officials. The article thereby also provides a partial test of the voluminous traditional literature containing assertions that public organizations experience more red tape than private organizations and the contemporary literature containing assertions that private organizations experience equivalent or greater red tape than public organizations. Going beyond typical public-private comparisons that do not consider the consequences of sector differences, the impact of personnel and informal red tape on a significant dependent variable-worker motivation-also is explored in this article.

show abstract

Employee Motivation: Two Measurement Issues

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?

Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?

Perceptions of Human Capital Measures: From Corporate Executives and Investors

Perceptions of Public versus Private Sector Personnel and Informal Red Tape: Their Impact on Motivation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About