MGMT501 Research Methods paper-APA style

 

The topic of interest is job motivation. Summarize what you glean from the case studies as it relates to your topic of interest (450-600 words).

Use the following outline in your summary (in APA format with a Title page and References page):

1) Identify the business problems of each of the cases

2) Rank-order the critical issues stated in the cases

3) Evaluate the proposed solutions. Are the solutions valid? Why or why not?

4) Submit recommendations you propose beyond what is already stated in the cases.

5) State how the solutions will be communicated in each case. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I need by Saturday night 2/16.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest
February 13 2013 12:31
_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1

  • An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector Organizations
  • Author: Buelens, Marc; Van den Broeck, Herman
    Publication info: Public Administration Review 67. 1 (Jan/Feb 2007): 65-74.
    ProQuest document link
    Abstract: This study contributes to our understanding of the differences in work motivation between the public
    and private sectors. Data from a survey of 3,314 private sector and 409 public sector employees in Belgium
    strongly confirm previous research showing that public sector employees are less extrinsically motivated.
    Differences in hierarchical level are more important determinants of work motivation than sectoral differences. In
    addition, most observed differences can be wholly or partially explained by differences in job content, not by the
    sector itself. Evidence is presented to show that motivational differences can be explained by a positive choice
    of work-life balance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
    Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
    Full Text: Headnote Essays on Work Motivation and the Workplace This study contributes to our understanding
    of the differences in work motivation between the public and private sectors. Data from a survey of 3,314 private
    sector and 409 public sector employees in Belgium strongly confirm previous research showing that public
    sector employees are less extrinsically motivated. Differences in hierarchical level are more important
    determinants of work motivation than sectoral differences. In addition, most observed differences can be wholly
    or partially explained by differences in job content, not by the sector itself. Evidence is presented to show that
    motivational differences can be explained by a positive choice of work-life balance. Reviews of the relevant
    literature reveal that work motivation among public sector employees and managers is very different from that of
    their private sector counterparts (Ambrose and Kulik 1999; Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Wittmer 1991; Wright
    2001). However, most research on the subject devotes limited attention to the relative importance of the causes
    of these differences (Baldwin 1991; Boyne 2002). For example, compared to factors such as age or gender,
    how important is the sector that an employee works in? In particular, the hierarchical level at which an employee
    works cannot be neglected. In comparing public sector and private sector employee motivation, strong
    interaction effects have been found between work motivation and management level (Baldwin 1987; Jurkiewicz
    and Massey 1997; Karl and Sutton 1998; Moon 2000; Rainey and Bozeman 2000). In addition, most of the
    research fails to control for relevant explanatory variables, often because of very small sample sizes (Baldwin
    1991; Boyne 2002). Sometimes, when samples of private sector and public sector employees contain too many
    differences in gender, age, education, job content, or hierarchical level, differences in work motivation can be
    explained simply by these demographic or organizational factors. Motivation is certainly not a passive notion.
    Employees in the public sector often make a choice to deliver a worthwhile service to society (Rainey 1982).
    They are motivated by a strong desire to serve the public interest (Boyne 2002; Perry 2000; Perry and Wise
    1990), by a sense of service to the community that is not found among their private sector counterparts (Gabris
    and Simo 1995; Houston 2000), and by an urge to promote the public interest (Box 1999). Public sector
    employees show a stronger service ethic than private sector employees (Wittmer 1991). Public service
    motivation comprises elements such as the opportunity to have an impact on public affairs, commitment to
    serving the public interest, and an interest in achieving social justice (Naff and Crum 1999; Perry 1996, 1997;
    Perry and Wise 1990). This choice of the “good cause” is certainly not the only choice that public sector
    employees make. Most workers constantly make choices between work and family. Some opt for a more
    balanced life with less workfamily conflict, whereas others show high degrees of work commitment and
    organizational citizenship behavior, putting in extra time and effort. Can some of the observed differences

    http://search.proquest.com/docview/197174625?accountid=8289

    http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=An%20Analysis%20of%20Differences%20in%20Work%20Motivation%20between%20Public%20and%20Private%20Sector%20Organizations&title=Public%20Administration%20Review&issn=00333352&date=2007-01-01&volume=67&issue=1&spage=65&author=Buelens,%20Marc;Van%20den%20Broeck,%20Herman

    between public sector and private sector employees be explained by such a positive choice, adding to a further
    understanding of the differences in work motivation between public sector and private sector employees? The
    purpose of this article is threefold: First, we aim to test some classic hypotheses on the differences in motivation
    between public sector and private sector organizations (hypotheses 1-4). Second, we attempt to compare these
    differences to potential moderator variables (hypotheses 5-6). Third, test a choice-based approach to work
    motivation-that is, does working for the public service also imply choices that are influenced by issues unrelated
    to work (hypothesis 7). Differences in Work Motivation between Public Sector and Private Sector Employees
    The research has consistently found that private sector employees and managers value economic rewards
    more highly than do public sector employees and managers (Cacioppe and Mock 1984; Crewson 1997;
    Houston 2000; Karl and Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993; Rainey 1982; Rawls, Ulrich, and Nelson 1976; Schuster,
    Colletti, and Knowles 1973; Solomon 1986; Wittmer 1991). Direct economic benefits are less important for
    public sector employees than for those in the private sector (Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976). Pay is a
    much greater motivator for private sector employees, supervisors (Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998), and
    managers (Khojasteh 1993) than it is for their public sector counterparts. Unlike private sector managers, public
    sector managers are not strongly motivated by pay expectancy (Moon 2000). Based on an analysis of 34
    empirical studies, Boyne (2002) found support for only 3 out of 13 hypotheses about the differences between
    public sector and private sector management. This study was not a real meta-analysis, however, because it
    gave equal weight to all studies included and may have overlooked other significant differences. Although we
    acknowledge that this might lead to a slightly skewed picture, the fact that one of three positive results indicated
    less materialism in public managers largely corroborates previous assumptions. For example, based on an
    analysis of 14 national surveys, Crewson (1997) concludes that economic rewards are most important to private
    sector employees. Only a few researchers have found no significant differences or differences in the opposite
    direction. Gabris and Simo (1995) found no significant differences for 20 motivational needs, including the need
    for monetary rewards. Crewson (1997) found similar results when data were limited to one occupational group,
    namely, engineers. Maidani (1991) even concludes that public sector employees rate extrinsic factors, such as
    pay, as more important than do private sector employees. Lewis and Frank (2002) found a subtle difference:
    Respondents who value high income are more likely to prefer public sector employment but less likely to work
    for the public sector. Based on this overview, we can formulate our first hypothesis: H^sub 1^: Compared to
    private sector employees, public sector employees are less motivated by extrinsic monetary rewards. There is a
    broad consensus that public sector employees are more intrinsically motivated. Leete (2000) found that
    nonprofit organizations rely disproportionately on intrinsically motivated employees. This also seems to be the
    case in the public sector. Most studies have concluded that public sector workers are less extrinsically and
    hence more intrinsically motivated (Cacioppe and Mock 1984; Crewson 1997). Public sector employees are
    more motivated by job content, self-development, recognition, autonomy, interesting work, and the chance to
    learn new things (Houston 2000; Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998; Karl and Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993;
    Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976). Only a minority of studies report findings that public sector employees
    show weaker internal work motivation than their private sector counterparts (Aryee 1992). This analysis leads to
    our second hypothesis: H^sub 2^: Compared to private sector employees, public sector employees are more
    motivated by intrinsic factors, such as responsibility and self-development. When it comes to the motivational
    impact of a supportive working environment, the literature on differences between the public and private sectors
    is silent. Although there is a large body of studies dealing with the link between motivation and job security, the
    findings often are conflicting (Baldwin 1987, 1991; Cacioppe and Mock 1984; Crewson 1997; Hammer and Van
    Tassell 1983; Houston 2000; Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998; Karl and Sutton 1998; Khojasteh 1993;
    Lewis and Frank 2002; Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka 1976; Perry and Porter 1982; Rawls, Ulrich, and Nelson
    1976; Wittmer 1991). The general picture is that, all else being equal, public sector employees are strongly
    motivated by security and stability (Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998). Job security refers to workers’ ability

    to retain a desirable job; job stability refers to the duration of the match between a worker and a job. Most
    studies, however, deal with job security, not job stability. Job stability is a concept that is closer to job content or
    working style than job security, which has more to do with external economic conditions. Being motivated by a
    supportive working environment reflects feelings of safety in one’s role (Kihlgren et al. 2003), which is a broader
    concept than stability. It also encompasses the need to work in a friendly, harmonious, respectful atmosphere.
    There is some evidence that federal government executives consider their coworkers, colleagues, and bosses
    significantly more important than do business executives (Posner and Schmidt 1996), and public employees
    seem to respond more favorably to a people-oriented leadership style than do private employees (Zeffane
    1994). Hence, we formulate our third hypothesis as follows: H^sub 3^: Compared to private sector employees,
    public sector employees are more motivated by a supportive working environment. The research on work and
    organizational commitment offers mixed results. Early research by Buchanan (1974a, 1974b, 1975) reinforced
    the belief that public sector managers have a lower level of organizational commitment than business
    executives. Similar findings have been reported by Rainey (1989). In a comparison of 474 Australian public
    sector employees and 944 private sector employees, Zeffane (1994) found higher commitment among the
    latter. Moon (2000) found that public sector managers have a lower level of organizational commitment than do
    private sector managers, especially in terms of their willingness to expend extra effort. Goulet and Frank (2002)
    report the lowest organizational commitment among public sector employees and managers in a sample
    consisting of for-profit, nonprofit, and public sector employees and managers. Some other studies, however,
    have reported a higher level of commitment among public sector managers or no difference (Rainey 1983).
    Farid (1997), for example, compared the organizational commitment of 54 and 43 middle managers from public
    sector and private sector organizations, respectively, and found no significant differences. Most studies report
    inconclusive or inconsistent findings (Balfour and Wechsler 1991). Steinhaus and Perry (1996) conclude that,
    compared to an industry typology, a dichotomous public sector/private sector distinction is not very useful in
    explaining differences in commitment. In a critical review of the empirical literature-and in an effort to “debunk
    negative stereotypes”-Baldwin (1991) concludes that private sector and public sector employees are equally
    motivated. However, Baldwin’s summary table makes clear that most of the cited studies deal with public sector
    managers, not street-level public sector employees. Baldwin’s conclusion of equal motivation, then, may be
    relevant only for managers and not for other employees. Different organizational (Kline and Peters 1991) or
    national cultures (Cho and Lee 2001) can explain many differences. Nevertheless, the fact that public sector
    managers have weaker organizational commitment than their private sector counterparts is one of the three
    hypotheses supported by Boyne’s overview of 34 empirical studies (Boyne 2002). Balfour and Wechsler (1991)
    found different correlations between public sector employment and several dimensions of commitment. The only
    consistent finding is a negative correlation between public sector employment and the willingness to expend
    extra effort. This dimension, “willingness to exert considerable effort,” is one of the three factors associated with
    commitment (Steinhaus and Perry 1996, 278). Worker motivation is often defined as working long and intense
    hours (Baldwin 1990). This analysis leads to our fourth hypothesis: H^sub 4^: Compared to private sector
    employees, public sector employees report fewer working hours and less willingness to exert considerable effort
    on behalf of the organization. Work motivation is dependent not only on the sector of employment but also on
    factors such as age (Jurkiewicz 2000; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Sheehy 1995; Wittmer 1991), gender (Kacmar,
    Carlson, and Brymer 1999; Lefkowitz 1994; Mathieu and Zajac 1990), education (Crewson 1997; Mathieu and
    Zajac 1990; Wittmer 1991), and especially management level (Jurkiewicz and Massey 1997; Karl and Sutton
    1998; Moon 2000). When these demographic factors are examined, the literature seems to imply that they are
    less important than sectoral differences. (The major exception might be hierarchical level.) On this basis, we
    can formulate our fifth and sixth hypotheses: H^sub 5^: Hierarchical level is at least as important as differences
    in the sector of employment in explaining motivational differences. H^sub 6^: Sector of employment is more
    important than demographic data such as gender, age, or education in explaining motivational differences. As

    reflected in hypothesis 4 and indicated by some of the foregoing studies on commitment, public sector
    employees report fewer working hours than their private sector counterparts. We hypothesize that this is a
    positive choice, not a lack of dynamism. If this hypothesis is true, then public sector employees will spend more
    time with their families and report less work-family conflict. Therefore, we formulate our seventh hypothesis as
    follows: H^sub 7^: Compared to private sector workers, public sector workers experience less work-family
    conflict. Results Table 1 reports the beta values of seven simultaneous regression analyses. (The research
    design and methodology are described in the appendix.) We assumed that civil servants are less extrinsically
    motivated (hypothesis 1). Our findings on motivation by salary largely confirmed this assumption: Civil servants
    were significantly less motivated by salary (t = -11.84, p <.001). This was the highest t value for sectoral differences. Hypothesis 2 is not confirmed by the data; rather, the opposite seems to be true. Civil servants were less motivated by self-development (t=-1.93, p =.053) and slightly less motivated by responsibility (t=-1.38, p = .17). Differences in self-development were marginally significant, supporting the position of some researchers that public sector employees are less motivated by challenge and personal growth (Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown 1998).

    Hypothesis 3 is partially supported by the data. Our scale measuring “being motivated by a supportive working
    environment” had a clear loading on “certainty” and could be considered a proxy for “motivation by stability.”
    Public sector workers were more strongly motivated by the desire to work in a supportive working environment
    (t= 3.45; p <.001). Hypothesis 4 is strongly supported. Public sector workers reported significantly fewer working hours (t=-8.94; p <.001). The same was true for "total commitment to work," for which public servants were less unconditionally committed (t=-7.28, p <.001). For both variables, hierarchical level was even more important (t=23.18; p <.001 and t=21.76; p <.001), lending strong support to the view that hierarchical level is a strong moderator variable in comparing public sector and private sector employees. The most pronounced finding confirms hypothesis 5: Hierarchical level seems to be the most important factor in explaining differences in motivation. Hierarchical level was highly significant for all variables, especially for all variables such as commitment and responsibility or closely related variables. Table 1 also shows that gender was also significant for working hours. The literature, as well as other data in our survey that are not reported here, shows that women work fewer hours in the office. However, they work significantly more hours at home, globally enjoying less free time than men. It is clear from table 1 that gender was significant for motivation by salary and motivation by good relationships. Age was significant for a number of variables. These results are easy to interpret: Older employees have a lesser tendency to leave the organization, want to work in a supportive environment, and are less motivated by salary. Management level seems especially important in explaining working hours and commitment to work, lending strong support to Baldwin (1987) and Karl and Sutton (1998), and contradicting Moon (2000). The pattern of results in table 1 does not support hypothesis 6. Only once was "sector of employment" the variable with the highest explanatory power-gender, age, and education seem to be at least as important. How can the motivational differences between the public and private sectors be explained? Sector may be linked to job content, which, in turn, may determine respondents' motivational

    patterns. Perhaps it is not the sector itself but the jobs available in the public sector that lack motivational appeal
    (Wright and Davis 2003). Many jobs in large bureaucracies-private sector or public sector-lack motivating
    characteristics such as skill variety, feedback, or task identity (Aryee 1992). Perhaps the observed differences
    between the sectors are better explained by differences in job content. Table 2 shows that both samples were
    dramatically different on that dimension. The private sector has a much higher percentage of marketing and
    sales functions, and the public sector has a much higher percentage of administrative functions. Given the large
    differences in represented functions, the observed differences between both sectors may be (partially)
    attributable to differences in job content, not to differences in sector of employment. Unfortunately, the very
    small number of commercial employees in the public sector makes it statistically impossible to correct for this
    difference. Therefore, we applied two indirect methods. First, we compared commercial and administrative
    functions within the private sector. Second, we compared both sectors for administrative functions only. The
    results are presented in table 3. The pattern of results in table 3 is very clear. Differences between the private
    and public sectors are directly mirrored in the differences between administrative and commercial functions
    within the private sector. There seems to be a general motivational pattern that is associated with administrative
    jobs, be it in the private sector or in the public sector. Following the lines of the job characteristic model
    (Hackman and Oldham 1980), administrative jobs seem to hold lower motivating potential than commercial jobs,
    a fact that may be reflected in the aspects of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and
    feedback.

    On the other hand, table 3 also shows that most differences between the public sector and the private sector
    remained significant even when the type of job was held constant. For example, civil servants reported about
    five fewer working hours than their private sector counterparts. For administrative jobs only, this difference was
    reduced to two hours and a quarter of an hour, respectively. This difference, however, was still statistically very
    significant. Can we estimate the relative importance of sector and function? Different analyses of variance show
    that, compared to sectoral differences, the importance of differences in function (administrative versus
    nonadministrative jobs) varies widely. Differences in function explain almost 100 percent of the observed
    differences for self-development and responsibility, 75 percent for motivation by respect, 50 percent for working
    hours and total commitment to the job, 25 percent for work-family conflict, and almost zero for motivation by

    salary.

    Emphasizing that public sector employees are motivated by a “good cause” may explain why they are less
    motivated by money. However, it offers no explanation as to why they consistently report fewer working hours
    and less total commitment to work, even when differences in job content are taken into account. Working for the
    good cause may also require long working hours or pose greater challenges. Public sector employees may
    make fundamental choices and prefer to lead a more balanced life. Perhaps they invest more in their private
    lives and simply do not want to join the “rat race.” Research on the relationship between working hours and
    health shows a link between hours of work and ill health and between work-family conflict and lack of
    satisfaction with one’s personal life (Sparks et al. 1997). Do public sector employees try to escape this
    vulnerability? Is work-family balance a motivational factor? (Saltzstein, Ting, and Saltzstein 2001). Table 1
    shows that, as predicted in hypothesis 7, public sector employees reported less work-family conflict (t=-4.09; p
    <.001). Other data in the survey strongly support this view. Other analyses (not reported in table 1) show that they also reported higher satisfaction with family life (t=4.21; p <.001), more hours for private time (t=6.80; <.001), and even longer sleeping hours (t= 1.96;p) = .05). This pattern of results clearly supports a positive choice approach. Public sector employees are less motivated by money and work challenge and less committed to long working hours than their private sector counterparts, for the simple reason that they are more motivated by leading a balanced life. Discussion Table 1 demonstrates that, with the exception of motivation by salary, hierarchical level seems to matter more than differences in sector. This result corroborates the findings of research showing that motivational patterns differ significantly for higher- and lower-level public sector employees. The former are more private sector-like, with high commitment, high satisfaction, and smaller gaps between what they want and what they get (Jurkiewicz and Massey 1997). Job content is also a very strong moderator variable. Once again, motivation by salary seems to be the important exception. On the other hand, differences in internal motivation (self-development and motivation by responsibility) seem to be completely the result of differences in job content. Commitment to the job (Lee and Olshfski 2002) is at least as important as commitment to the organization or to the public interest. Hence, we can understand the conflicting nature of our findings with much of the literature. Our results confirm most of our hypotheses on the differences in work motivation between public sector and private sector employees, and they may point to reasons why other researchers have found conflicting results. For example, differences in work motivation can be strongly confounded by factors such as gender, age, job content, or hierarchical level. If samples are not carefully matched on those variables, or if the effects are not partialed out in the statistical analyses, unexpected differences can be easily explained by such confounding variables. Do our observed differences support the stereotype of the lazy bureaucrat? Are fewer working hours, even when job content is controlled for, and weaker overall commitment to work reflections of a negative working attitude? Alternatively, do public sector employees make a positive choice by choosing a well-balanced life? Our data support the latter view. Public sector employees make positive choices. They do not opt for the rat race. They want respect for their own working

    rhythms, their personal lives, their quality time, and their family priorities. Although this idea seems to
    correspond with casual observation, we could identify only a single study showing that public sector employees
    are more strongly motivated by work-family balance: They are less inclined than private sector managers to
    relocate their family for a better job (Posner and Schmidt 1996). Of course, many other alternatives remain
    open. Therefore, as part of a larger study of the so-called psychological contract, we set up a similar study (with
    462 workers from the public sector and 3,407 from the private sector) to deal directly with this unexpected
    finding. In that study, respondents were asked to what degree they are motivated by a more balanced work-
    family relationship. The results indicate that public sector employees are significantly more motivated by a
    balanced workfamily relationship. Respondents from the nonprofit sector were even more motivated by a
    balanced workfamily relationship. However, differences in hierarchical level and in the percentage of part-time
    versus full-time workers explain many of the observed differences. Because we could not find theoretical or
    empirical support in the extant literature, we set up a research program dealing with this question of sectoral
    differences in work-family balance. Preliminary evidence from this program, specifically dealing with that
    question, suggests that civil servants are indeed more motivated by balancing the work and family spheres. The
    lack of empirical studies in this fieldwhether supporting or discontinuing our positive choice hypothesis-is
    certainly striking. Considering the many gaps that remain to be filled, further efforts in this area are likely to
    constitute a fruitful avenue of research. Our results contribute to the debate on the new managerialism in the
    public sector (Box 1999; Van Gramberg 2000). Public sector managers exhibit a motivational profile that is
    similar to private sector managers at a lower management level. However, many of the concepts introduced by
    the New Public Management movement are aimed at higher-level profiles: entrepreneurship, empowerment, or
    total commitment. This new language simply may not appeal to many civil servants in managerial positions. Just
    as tax officers or prison guards have the greatest difficulties in perceiving their target groups as clients,
    managers in the civil service may not easily perceive themselves as new managers. The new management
    techniques often require total commitment, a price that many public sector employees may not be ready to pay.
    References References Ambrose, Maurecn L., and Carol T. Kulik. 1999. Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation
    Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management 25(3): 231-92. Aryee, Samuel. 1992. Public and Private Sector
    Professionals: A Comparative Study of Their Perceived Work Experience. Group and Organization
    Management 17(1): 72-85. Baldwin, Norman J. 1987. Public versus Private: Not That Different, Not That
    Consequential. Public Personnel Management 16(2): 181-93. _____. 1990. Perceptions of Public versus Private
    Sector Personnel and Informal Red Tape: Their Impact on Motivation. American Review of Public
    Administration 20(1): 7-28. _____. 1991. Public versus Private Employees: Debunking Stereotypes. Review of
    Public Personnel Administration 11(1-2): 1-27. Balfour, Danny L., and Barton Wechsler. 1991. Commitment,
    Performance, and Productivity in Public Organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review 14(4): 355-
    67. Box, Richard C. 1999. Running Government Like a Business: Implications for Public Administration Theory
    and Practice. American Review of Public Administration 29(1): 19-43. Boyne, George A. 2002. Public and
    Private Management: What’s the Difference? Journal of Management Studies 59(1): 97-122. Buchanan, Bruce.
    1974a. Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations.
    Administrative Science Quarterly 19(4): 509-32. _____. 1974b. Government Managers, Business Executives,
    and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration Review 34(4): 339-47. _____. 1975. Red Tape and
    Service Ethic: Some Unexpected Differences between Public and Private Managers. Administration &Society
    6(4): 423-44. Cacioppe, Ron, and Philip Mock. 1984. A Comparison of the Quality of Work Experience in
    Government and Private Organizations. Human Relations 37(11): 923-40. Cho, Kyung-Ho, and Seok-Hwan
    Lee. 2001. Another Look at Public-Private Distinction and Organizational Commitment: A Cultural Explanation.
    International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9 (1) : 84-102. Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1983.
    Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Crewson, Philip E. 1997. Public Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect.

    Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499-518. Farid, Mamadouh I. 1997. Job
    Characteristics, Leadership, and Organizational Commitment as Perceived by Managers in the Egyptian Public
    and Private Sectors. Academy of Strategic and Organizational Leadership journal 1(1): 20-31. Gabris, Gerald
    T., and Gloria Simo. 1995. Public sector Motivation as an Independent Variable Affecting Career Decisions.
    Public Personnel Management 24(1): 33-51. Goulet, Laurel R., and Margaret L. Frank. 2002. Organizational
    Commitment across Three Sectors: Public, Non-Profit, and For-Profit. Public Personnel Management 31(2):
    201-10. Hackman, Richard J., and Greg Oldman. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Hammer, Eliot R., and Dick Van Tassell. 1983. On the Issue of Public vs. Private Sector Motivation: Have the
    Stereotypes Been Debunked? Public Personnel Management 12(3): 282-89. Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample
    Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47(1): 153-61. Houston, David J. 2000. Public Service
    Motivation: A Multivariate Test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 713-27.
    Jurkicwicz, Carole L. 2000. Generation X and the Public Employee. Public Personnel Management 29(1): 55-
    76. Jurkiewicx, Carole L., and Tom K. Massey, Jr. 1997. What Motivates Municipal Employees: A Comparison
    Study of Supervisory vs. Non-Supervisory Personnel. Public Personnel Management 26(3): 367-76. Jurkiewicz,
    Carole L., Tom K. Massey, Jr., and Roger G. Brown. 1998. Motivation in Public and Private Organizations: A
    Comparative Study. Public Productivity and Management Review 21(3): 230-50. Kacmar, Michele K., Dawn S.
    Carlson, and Robert A. Brymer. 1999. Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment: A
    Comparison of Two Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(6): 976-94. Karl, Katherine A., and
    Cynthia L. Sutton. 1998. Job Values in Today’s Workforce: A Comparison of Public and Private Sector
    Employees. Public Personnel Management 27(4): 515-27. Khojasteh, Mak. 1993. Motivating the Private vs.
    Public Sector Managers. Public Personnel Management 22(3): 391-401. Kihlgren, Annica L., Ingegerd
    Fagerberg, Kirsti Skovdahl, and Mona Kihlgren. 2003. Referrals from Home Care to Emergency Hospital Care:
    Basis for Decisions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 12(1): 28-36. Kline, Cathy J., and Lawrence H. Peters. 1991.
    Behavioral Commitment and Tenure of New Employees: A Replication and Extension. Academy of
    Management Journal 34(1): 194-204. Lee, Seok-Hwan, and Dorothy Olshfski. 2002. Employee Commitment
    and Firefighters: It’s My Job. Special issue, Public Administration Review 62: 108-14. Leete, Laura. 2000. Wage
    Equity and Employee Motivation in Nonprofit and For-Profit Organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and
    Organization 43(4): 423-46. Lefkowitz, Joel. 1994. Sex-Related Differences in Job Attitudes and Dispositional
    Variables: Now You See Them,… Academy of Management Journal 37(2): 323-49. Lewis, Gregory B., and Sue
    A. Frank. 2002. Who Wants to Work for the Government? Public Administration Review 62(4): 395-404.
    Maidani, Ebrahim A. 1991. Comparative Study of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction among
    Public and Private Sectors. Public Personnel Management 20(4): 441-48. Mathieu, John E., and Dennis M.
    Zajac. 1990. A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational
    Commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108(2): 171-94. Moon, M. Jae. 2000. Organizational Commitment Revisited
    in New Public Management: Motivation, Organizational Culture, and Managerial Level. Public Performance and
    Management Review 24(2): 177-94. Naff, Katherine C., and John Crum. 1999. Working for America: Does
    Public Service Motivation Make a Difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5-16.
    Newstrom, John W., William E. Reif, and Robert M. Monczka. 1976. Motivating the Public Employee: Fact vs.
    Fiction. Public Personnel Management 5(1): 67-72. Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation:
    An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1):
    5-22. _____. 1997. Antecedents of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and
    Theory 7(2): 181-97. _____. 2000. Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation. Journal of
    Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 471-88. Perry, James L., and Lyman W. Porter. 1982.
    Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations. Academy of Management Review 7(1): 89-
    98. Perry, James L., and Lois R. Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration
    Review 50(3): 367-73. Posner, Barry Z., and Warren H. Schmidt. 1996. The Values of Business and Federal

    Government Executives: More Different Than Alike. Public Personnel Management 25(3): 277-89. Rainey, Hal
    G. 1982. Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic. American
    Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288-302. _____. 1983. Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentive
    Structures, Goals, and Individual Roles. Administration &Society 15(2): 207-42. _____. 1989. Public
    Management: Recent Research on the Political Context and Managerial Roles, Structures, and Behaviors.
    Journal of Management 15(2): 229-50. Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. Comparing Public and
    Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the A Priori. Journal of Public Administration
    Research and Theory 10(2): 447-69. Rawls, James R., Robert A. Ulrich, and Oscar T. Nelson. 1976. A
    Comparison of Managers Entering or Reentering the Profit and Nonprofit Sectors. Academy of Management
    Journal 18(5): 616-62. Rogelberg, Steven G., and Alexandra Luong. 1998. Nonresponse to Mailed Surveys: A
    Review and Guide. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(2): 60-65. Saltzstein, Alan L, Yuan Ting, and
    Grace H. Saltzstein. 2001. Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies
    on Attitudes of Federal Government Employees. Public Administration Review 61(4): 452-66. Schuster, Jay R.,
    Jerome A. Colletti, and L. Knowles. 1973. The Relationship between Perceptions Concerning Magnitudes of
    Pay and Perceived Utility of Pay: Public and Private Organizations Compared. Organizational Behavior and
    Human Performance 9(1): 100-19. Sheehy, Gail. 1995. New Passages: Mapping Your Life across Time. New
    York: Random House. Solomon, Esther E. 1986. Private and Public Sector Managers: An Empirical
    Investigation of Job Characteristics and Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2): 247-59.
    Sparks, Kate, Cary Cooper, Yitzhak Fried, and Arie Shirom. 1997. The Effects of Hours of Work on Health: A
    Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70(4): 391-408. Steinhaus,
    Carol, and James L. Perry. 1996. Organizational Commitment: Does Sector Matter? Public Productivity and
    Management Review 19(3): 278-88. Van Gramberg, Bernadine. 2000. Managerialism in Local Government-
    Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Public sector Management 13(5): 476-92. Wittmer, Dennis. 1991.
    Serving the People or Serving for Pay: Reward Preferences among Government, Hybrid Sector, and Business
    Managers. Public Productivity and Management Review 14(4): 369-83. Wright, Bradley E. 2001. Public-Sector
    Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model. Journal of Public
    Administration Research and Theory 11(4): 559-86. Wright, Bradley E., and Brian S. Davis. 2003. Job
    Satisfaction in the Public Sector-The Role of the Work Environment. American Review of Public Administration
    33(1): 70-90. Zeffane, Rachid. 1994. Patterns of Organizational Commitment and Perceived Management Style:
    A Comparison of Public and Private Sector Employees. Human Relations 47(8): 977-1010. AuthorAffiliation
    Marc Buelens Herman Van den Broeck Ghent University AuthorAffiliation Marc Buelens is a professor of
    management at both Ghent University and theVlerick Leuven Gent Management School in Belgium. His
    research focuses on workaholism, decision making, and negotiation. He advises organizations on building
    bridges between art and business and acts as a consultant to an ethical investment fund. He has published
    books in Dutch, French, and English. E-mail: marc.buelens@vlerick.be. Herman Van den Broeck is professor of
    organizational behavior at both Ghent University and the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School in Belgium.
    His research focuses on cognitive styles, nonprofit management, and change management. He acts as an
    adviser to the government in public management. He has published on school management, the learning
    organization, and cognitive styles. E-mail: herman.vandenbroeck@vlerick.be. Appendix Appendix: Methodology
    and Research Design Data Collection Data were collected in Belgium through a large-scale survey in the
    Flemish newspaper Vacature, which specializes in recruitment communication and job advertising and is
    distributed as a supplement to four national newspapers and two magazines. Respondents could reply to the
    survey, titled “How Hard Do the Flemish Work?” on paper or on the Internet. Respondents answered 125
    questions dealing with the number of hours spent on work, leisure time, sleep, and family; other questions dealt
    with work motivation, job and life satisfaction, psychosomatic complaints, and intention to leave the job. Ten
    questions dealt with biographical data, including sector of employment. Sample, Missing Values, and Outliers

    The sample of 5,853 respondents was more or less representative of the professional working population, with
    overrepresentation of males (73 percent) and professional (white-collar) workers (only 1 percent blue collar
    workers). Different age groups, educational backgrounds, marital statuses, sectors of employment, education
    levels, and management levels were well represented. In order to compare motivational variables and working
    hours, only answers from full-time workers were analyzed. Out of 5,853 respondents working full time, 3,314
    could be identified as working in the private sector and 409 in the public sector. An additional 782 respondents
    belonged to the so-called hybrid sector (Wittmer 1991). A total of 424 were employed in education and 358 in
    health care. Finally, 1,258 respondents replied “other,” such as the unemployed, farmers, lawyers, students,
    and retired persons; 90 respondents did not answer the question. Private and public sector employees did not
    differ statistically on gender (both groups had about 26 percent female respondents), reported management
    level (on a five-point scale ranging from employee to senior manager), education, and marital status. The only
    statistically significant difference was age: The public sector group was significantly older than the private sector
    group (average age was 39 for public sector respondents and 36 for private sector respondents; t=5.73; p
    <.001). Any large-scale survey is hindered by the problem of missing values. The share of missing values was 1.19 percent, ranging from 0.35 percent to 0.50 percent for questions on gender, age group, and education to 4 percent on more personal questions. These figures are well below the 5 percent that is considered acceptable (Cohen and Cohen 1983). To deal with foutliers, a straightforward policy was adopted. Typographical errors were corrected and other data were respected as much as possible. The highest reported number of working hours was 120. Inspection of this case revealed that the person reportedly slept only four hours per night, did not invest in family life, and took only one hour off per week. About 1 percent of respondents reported total activities that required more than 168 hours per week. In those cases, we limited the reported off-work time so that the maximum of 168 was not surpassed. The Problem of Autoselection Our sample is clearly autoselective. This can cause problems of external validity (Rogelberg and Luong 1998). The only meaningful solution for problems of autoselection is to determine the variable by which respondents autoselect themselves and incorporate this variable into the final analysis (Heckman 1979). In practice, this variable is seldom known. If this hypothetical variable (e.g., interested in surveys, reading a widely distributed newspaper, higher socioeconomic class) is introduced in the analysis-in our case, a simultaneous regression analysis- the only assumption that must be made is independence of this hypothetical variable and our focal dummy variable (public sector employee versus private sector). This assumption is certainly realistic. It is difficult to conceive of a variable that would be an important determinant of autoselection and, at the same time, strongly correlates with the difference between the private and public sectors and does not strongly correlate with the other variables in the model. To put it differently, even if such an autoselection variable existed, its influence would be extremely small because most of its influence would be absorbed by the other variables, such as age, gender, or hierarchical levelvariables that are much more likely to be influenced by autoselection. Of course, if our analyses were based on comparing means and standard deviations with an absolute norm or with averages from other studies, the conclusions could be very misleading. We would report means and standard deviations of respondents ready to answer a survey. However, we primarily report differences. In these cases, autoselection is a much lower threat to external validity. Furthermore, selection by the researcher (e.g., "a large, midwestern municipality"), the most common practice in this kind of research, results in exactly the same problem. Researchers have to assume independence of the selection variable and the criterion variable. In practice, this is often questionable. One has easy access to the "local administration" and difficult access to the company or vice versa. The collection period in both organizations is different, and the distribution of questionnaires within both organizations follows different patterns. Nevertheless, even if this assumption is sometimes questionable, most publications seem to accept it and even seem to accept the clear restriction of range following from this research design. Scale Development Publishing a survey in a well-known, widely distributed magazine has the advantage of reaching a large number of respondents. However, there are also some constraints. Available

    space is limited, making it impractical to collect data through existing scales that are widely studied but also
    lengthy. Therefore, based on existing scales, we constructed a number of shorter five-point Likert scales. A total
    of 23 questions dealt with work motivation and commitment. Based on factor analysis, we constructed four
    motivational scales: motivation by salary (Cronbach’s alpha= .69) had three items (e.g., “A high salary is
    important to me”); motivation by opportunities for selfdevelopment (Cronbachs alpha = .70) had four items (e.g.,
    “If I work very hard, it is because I can develop myself completely in my job”); motivation by responsibility
    (Cronbachs alpha = .78) had three items (e.g., “Assuming responsibility is important to me”); and motivation by
    working in a supportive working environment (Cronbachs alpha = .72) had four items. Intercorrelations between
    the scales ranged from .11 to .36. The first three scales correspond to widely known motivational
    measurements. Many observations point to validity here: For example, the score for motivation by salary was
    highest in the hotel and catering business, very high in banking, and lowest in education, and the score for
    motivation by opportunities for self-development was extremely low in the transport business. The scale for
    motivation by working in a supportive working environment had four items: * “Respect for everybody’s work
    rhythm is important to me.” * “A good understanding with colleagues is important to me.” * “A quiet working
    atmosphere is important to me.” * “Certainty is important to me.” The validity of this scale can only be inferred
    from our own data: Older people and women were more motivated by working in a supportive working
    environment; for higher-educated respondents and those at higher hierarchical levels, it was less important. The
    highest scores were in health care and education (followed by “public sector,” in our more restricted sense); the
    lowest scores were reported in consultancy, distribution, and construction. The scale also correlated moderately
    with measurements of soft behaviors such as satisfaction with colleagues. The scale for total work commitment
    (Cronbach’s alpha= .76) had seven items describing the employee’s total commitment-for example, “If I work
    hard, it is because my job is my life,” or “Most of the time, I am preoccupied by my work.” Items were taken from
    existing scales measuring organizational citizenship behavior and work drive. The scale primarily reflects the
    willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization (Steinhaus and Perry 1996, 278). Work-
    family conflict (Cronbachs alpha = .70) had two items, one of which was “How often did you experience conflicts
    between work and family?” Method We performed multiple simultaneous regression analyses for seven
    dependent variables: four motivation scales, reported working hours, total commitment to work, and work-family
    conflict. Independent variables were the sector of employment (public versus private), gender, age, education,
    and management level. For our focus, the most important methodological concern was to ensure that other
    variables were kept quite separate when discussing a particular variable, so that motivational differences
    between employees from private sector and public sector organizations could not be explained by differences in
    age, gender, education, or organizational level.
    Subject: Studies; Motivation; Comparative analysis; Employee attitude; Public sector; Private sector; Behavior
    Classification: 9130: Experimental/theoretical, 9175: Western Europe, 9550: Public sector, 2500: Organizational
    behavior
    Publication title: Public Administration Review
    Volume: 67
    Issue: 1
    Pages: 65-74
    Number of pages: 10
    Publication year: 2007
    Publication date: Jan/Feb 2007

    Year: 2007
    Publisher: American Society for Public Administration
    Place of publication: Washington
    Country of publication: United States
    Journal subject: Public Administration
    ISSN: 00333352
    CODEN: PBARBM
    Source type: Scholarly Journals
    Language of publication: English
    Document type: Feature
    Document feature: References;Tables
    ProQuest document ID: 197174625
    Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/197174625?accountid=8289
    Copyright: Copyright American Society for Public Administration Jan/Feb 2007
    Last updated: 2012-03-19
    Database: ProQuest Research Library,ABI/INFORM Global

  • Bibliography
  • Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

    Buelens, M., & Herman Van, d. B. (2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and
    private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65-74. Retrieved from
    http://search.proquest.com/docview/197174625?accountid=8289;
    http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=An+Analysis+of+Differences+in
    +Work+Motivation+between+Public+and+Private+Sector+Organizations&title=Public+Administration+Review&i
    ssn=00333352&date=2007-01-
    01&volume=67&issue=1&spage=65&author=Buelens%2C+Marc%3BVan+den+Broeck%2C+Herman

    _______________________________________________________________
    Contact ProQuest
    Copyright  2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions

    http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport

    http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

      An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between Public and Private Sector Organizations
      Bibliography

    _______________________________________________________________

    _______________________________________________________________

    Report Information from ProQuest
    February 13 2013 12:32
    _______________________________________________________________

    Document 1 of 1

  • Motivation of working women in the Greek retail sector: an empirical analysis
  • Author: Giannikis, Stefanos K; Mihail, Dimitrios M
    Publication info: International Journal of Manpower 31. 1 (2010): 4-20.
    ProQuest document link
    Abstract: A significant trend in the retail sector is women’s over-representation in part-time work. Given the
    feminisation and adverse working conditions of part-time employment, the purpose of this paper is to enhance
    understanding of the motivation of female sales employees. Initially, a theoretical framework is presented with
    the aim of stipulating the research hypotheses. Empirical evidence was obtained from 349 Greek female sales
    employees using a structured questionnaire. Analyses of covariance and hierarchical regression analyses were
    conducted with the aim of exploring the research hypotheses. It was found that part-time and full-time female
    employees are similar in designating the job motivators that they find important in the workplace. However,
    surprisingly, results indicated that female part-timers are more optimistic about receiving intrinsic rewards.
    Further analysis provided evidence on how the work status (part-time/full-time) and the individual characteristics
    of employees have an impact on the reported importance of work motivators and on the expectations of
    receiving these rewards. The findings provide retail firms with significant guidelines on how to develop a flexible
    motivational plan that fits the needs of their employees. In addition, the results of the paper provide retail
    managers with a profile of motivated, full-time and part-time female employees. Given the dearth of empirical
    research on employee motivation in Greece, the results of the paper provide the wider academic community
    with new empirical evidence on how the motivation of employees is differentiated by work status.
    Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
    Full Text: 1. Introduction Over the last two decades there has been a growing body of literature concerning the
    differences in attitude between full-time and part-time employees. The animus for this research interest resides
    in the international proliferation of part-time employment. According to official statistics, part-time work
    represents approximately 18 per cent of the total employment in EU countries ([4] Eurostat, 2007) and 19.1 per
    cent of the US workforce ([2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). What is also notable is that this expansion of
    part-time work affects women especially. Labour statistics clearly reveal the feminisation of part-time
    employment. Specifically, at the end of 2006 the part-time workforce accounted for 31.3 per cent for women but
    only 7.7 per cent for men in the EU ([4] Eurostat, 2007). In addition, women’s over-representation in part-time
    employment is more evident if we focus on the retail sector. According to the Labour Force Survey, women
    accounted for 61 per cent of the workforce in retail trade across the EU in 2005. In addition, 30 per cent of
    people employed were working part-time, 75 per cent of whom were women ([33] Urbanski, 2007). Since the
    early 1990s, Feldman has suggested that research on part-time labour is critical for at least two reasons other
    than the increasing numbers of part-timers. First, retail trade relies most heavily on part-time workers, and,
    second, part-time work is an important labour opportunity for women. Not surprisingly, past studies of part-time
    employment have focused on the retail sector, and the sample units included major retail firms. However,
    special attention should be given to the nature and quality of part-time employment in the retail sector. Previous
    research has indicated that part-time workers and retail sales workers are more likely to be concentrated in the
    “secondary labour market” in low-level jobs ([31] Tilly, 1992; [1] Barker, 1993; [7] Freathy, 1993; [3] Dickens,
    1996; [10] Jenkins, 2004; [35] Walsh, 2007). Employees in the “secondary labour market” face low
    compensation, low training levels, minimal skill levels, little job security and a low level of demarcation between
    jobs. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of empirical research focusing on the motivation of part-time, female
    employees in such a demanding and stressful work environment. In addition, it is important to shed light on

    http://search.proquest.com/docview/231912394?accountid=8289

    http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Motivation%20of%20working%20women%20in%20the%20Greek%20retail%20sector:%20an%20empirical%20analysis&title=International%20Journal%20of%20Manpower&issn=01437720&date=2010-01-01&volume=31&issue=1&spage=4&author=Giannikis,%20Stefanos%20K;Mihail,%20Dimitrios%20M

    motivation, because of its link with job performance ([25] Oldham, 1976; [23] Mitchell, 1982) as well as with job
    satisfaction ([12] Lam and Zhang, 2003; [15] Linz, 2003) and organisational commitment of employees ([20]
    Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; [12] Lam and Zhang, 2003; [16] Linz, 2004). Furthermore, replicating previous
    research on employee motivation will allow us to draw comparisons across countries. The results of this survey
    study contribute to the existing employee motivation research that utilises data ([28] Silverthorne, 1992; [9]
    Huddleston and Good, 1999; [14] Linz, 2002, [15], [16] 2003, 2004) from the US, China, Russia and Poland.
    Moreover, to our knowledge, there are no updated studies that examine the motivation of employees by work
    status for the Greek case. Since the rate of Greek female part-time work is more than three times that of the
    Greek males (10.2 and 2.8 per cent, respectively) ([4] Eurostat, 2007), clearly it would be valuable to shed light
    on the behaviour of the part-time female employees in the Greek retail sector. Focusing on women in retail
    trade, we identify the job rewards part-time employees find important in the workplace when compared to those
    of full-time salespeople. In addition we explore their expectations of receiving such rewards. Furthermore, this
    article enhances researchers’ understanding of motivation by exploring the relationship between individual
    characteristics of employees and their perceptions of whether they receive what they deem as important in the
    workplace. In particular, apart from the actual working conditions, we enquire whether there are any subjective
    factors that may influence employees’ perceptions with regard to rewards. 2. Research hypotheses Previous
    studies have demonstrated how motivational factors may differ across cultures, job level (managers compared
    to workers), age, and gender ([28] Silverthorne, 1992; [9] Huddleston and Good, 1999; [14] Linz, 2002, [15], [16]
    2003, 2004; [26] Parsons and Broadbridge, 2006). Much of this research was based on the expectancy theory
    developed by [34] Vroom (1964). According to this theory, employee motivation is related to the valence, which
    is the intensity of the desire for extrinsic (e.g. pay, promotion, benefits etc.) or intrinsic (e.g. self-satisfaction, skill
    development, learning etc.) rewards, and to the expectation of receiving these rewards. In particular, [9]
    Huddleston and Good (1999) examined, first, what work characteristics motivate employees of Russian and
    Polish retail firms and, secondly, employees’ expectations of receiving these rewards. Results indicated that for
    both Russian and Polish sales employees the most important work motivators were pay, the friendliness of co-
    workers, and the opportunity they have to do something important for themselves. Nonetheless, this study also
    presented the finding that in both countries sales employees’ expectations about receiving these important
    rewards were lower than the importance ratings of the rewards. In another empirical study, [16] Linz (2004)
    extended the research of Huddlestone and Good by taking into account job level (managers compared to
    workers), gender, and age differences of employees. Gender comparisons based on mean values showed that
    women are more likely than men to report that specific motivators (i.e. pay, the chance to do something that
    makes them feel good, job security, praise from supervisor, respect and friendliness of co-workers) are more
    important in the workplace. However, further analysis showed that women consistently reported lower
    expectations of receiving a desired reward despite the quality of their work. Associating motivation theory and
    work status (full-time/part-time) of employees is especially widespread in studies that explore attitudinal
    differences at work. In particular, this association is evident in studies concerning the job satisfaction of
    employees. Job satisfaction is defined as a positive state that depends not only on the quality of the
    employment but also on the job experience ([17] Locke, 1976). In particular, job satisfaction results from the
    comparison between the expectations of rewards that should be received and perceptions of actual rewards
    received ([13] Lawler, 1973): the greater the gap between the two, the greater the level of job dissatisfaction.
    Studies that reported part-timers to be more satisfied than their full-time counterparts hypothesised that this
    outcome may be an indication that part-timers hold different expectations about work and have different
    motivation than do full-timers ([18] Logan et al. , 1973; [36] Wortuba, 1990; [6] Fenton-O’Creevy, 1995). It was
    hypothesised that part-time employees may give a lower priority to pay and advancement and a higher priority
    to the flexibility of working hours than full-time employees do. Based on this rationale, it was suggested that
    when the initial expectations of part-timers were lower, their reactions to a similar workplace would be more

    positive. Thus, not surprisingly, they are more easily satisfied and tend to report greater levels of job satisfaction
    ([36] Wortuba, 1990; [6] Fenton-O’Creevy, 1995). Nevertheless, empirical research revealed a different picture.
    [27] Shockey and Mueller (1994) found that female full-time and part-time employees enter the work experience
    with similar orientations, expectations, and perceptions. Hence, the authors suggest that it is the less rewarding
    conditions for part-time female employees that influence later negative responses to work. In another study, [11]
    Kalleberg (1995) found that part-time and full-time employees are similar in both the work roles and the
    characteristics they find important in a job. Nevertheless, differences exist in the rewards that these two groups
    receive. Part-timers receive lower pay and fringe benefits, while male part-timers exercise lower job autonomy
    and have fewer opportunities for advancement than do full-time workers. Similarly, recent studies indicate that
    part-time employment is associated with adverse working conditions. Part-timers are not satisfied with the
    variety of tasks or opportunities for occupational mobility ([32] Tomlinson, 2006), are allocated to unfavourable
    tasks, are treated as inferior and “second class” ([35] Walsh, 2007), and enjoy less job autonomy ([8] Harley
    and Whitehouse, 2001). Focusing on the retail sector, the literature supports the contention that part-time
    workers are indeed less involved in organisational functioning, have shorter tenure, and spend fewer hours in
    the workplace ([36] Wortuba, 1990; [29] Sinclair et al. , 1999; [10] Jenkins, 2004). More specifically, [10] Jenkins
    (2004) found that part-timers in the retail sector (i.e. supermarkets) are either “peak” or “ancillary” employees.
    “Peak” part-timers are employed to cover surges in demand across the working day and week and undertake a
    wide diversity of tasks, while “ancillary” part-timers are characterised by the routinised nature of work (e.g. stock
    replenishment), which they undertake outside normal working hours. Consequently, based on previous findings,
    we would expect full-time and part-time female sales employees to be similar in the work motivators (rewards)
    that they find important in retail firms. However, taking into account the poor working conditions of part-time
    work in the retail sector, it is suggested that for part-timers the expectations of receiving the desired rewards are
    significantly lower: H1 . Part-time and full-time female sales employees are similar in the work motivators that
    they find important in the workplace. H2 . In comparison with their full-time female counterparts, part-time
    female sales employees hold lower expectations of receiving the desired work motivators in the workplace.
    Previous research exploring the attitudes of employees also developed indicators of the “fit” of job rewards ([11]
    Kalleberg, 1995; [12] Lam and Zhang, 2003; [15] Linz, 2003). These indicators were constructed by subtracting
    the expectations for rewards from the importance (perceptions) that the respondents attached to them. A
    positive gap implies that there is a gap in motivation and that employees do not receive what they perceive as
    important. [11] Kalleberg (1995) indicated that full-timers overall expressed greater gaps with regard to having a
    job that provides flexible working hours, while full-time men expressed greater gaps with regard to job security.
    In another study, [15] Linz (2003) reported that the biggest gap between the “importance” of rewards and the
    “likelihood” of receiving intrinsic rewards occurred for the opportunity to learn new things, the sense of freedom,
    and the development of skills. For extrinsic rewards, the greatest gaps appeared for the amount of pay and the
    chances of receiving a promotion. Likewise, [12] Lam and Zhang (2003) showed that in the fast-food industry
    there is a significant difference between expectations and perceptions of rewards among new employees.
    Nevertheless, past research has not elaborated on the factors predicting the development of these gaps in
    motivation. Apart from the working conditions and the actual rewards provided by an employer (objective
    factors), are there any subjective factors that affect employees’ perceptions of the importance of work
    motivators and their expectations of receiving rewards? Previous studies suggest that demographic (gender,
    age, marital status etc.) and work-related characteristics of individuals (tenure, experience with unemployment,
    number of jobs held etc.) should be considered when attempting to explain attitudes and behaviours of part-time
    employees. In particular, [5] Feldman (1990, p. 107), argued that: … demographic groups might weight facets of
    part-time work differently when they assess their overall job satisfaction or motivation. A thorough examination
    of the demographic heterogeneity of part-time employees has been provided by [29] Sinclair et al. (1999), [21]
    Maynard et al. (2006) and [19] Martin and Sinclair (2007). These researchers remarked that part-time workers

    are not a homogenous workforce, but instead differ not only from full-timers but also from each other. In
    particular, they identified different subgroups of part-timers based on demographic profiles, on the reasons for
    taking up part-time work, and on “life-circumstances” (for instance, “moonlighters”, “supplementers”, “primaries”,
    “students”, “caretakers”, etc). These studies underline the significant demographic differences of the part-time
    subgroups and indicate how these groups differ from each other with regard to job attitudes and behaviours.
    Hence, based on the above findings, one would expect that demographic and work-related characteristics of
    part-time employees have a significant impact on employees’ perceptions of the importance of work motivators
    as well as their expectations of receiving rewards. For instance, part-time employees with the burden of care for
    dependents (“caretakers” based on [21] Maynard et al. , 2006, p. 152) may place greater importance on the
    motivators of flexibility of work schedule and of having more leisure time. On the other hand, part-time
    employees that earn over 50 per cent of their total family income (“primaries” based [29] Sinclair et al. , 1999, p.
    343; [19] Martin and Sinclair, 2007) may place a greater importance on the motivators of pay and job security:
    H3 . For part-time compared with full-time female sales employees, the demographic and work-related
    characteristics of individuals have a significant impact on the reported importance of work motivators and the
    expectations of receiving these rewards. 3. Method 3.1 Procedure and participants Data were collected from
    349 female sales employees from 15 retail firms in Northern Greece. The questionnaires were hand-delivered
    by the researchers to the sales employees, and, prior to the completion, participants were informed of the
    purpose of the study and the fact that all identities would be kept completely confidential. The function of this
    preface was to set the participants at ease, so they would express their unmet job expectations more openly.
    Completed questionnaires were handed back to the researchers. The sample consisted of 186 full-time and 163
    part-time employees. Of the 186 full-timers, 133 (71.5 per cent) had at least a high school diploma, 94 (50.5 per
    cent) provided care to a dependant (i.e. childcare, eldercare, dependents with disabilities), and 95 (51.0 per
    cent) had tenures of one to 24 months. Similarly, of the 163 part-timers, 112 (68.7 per cent) had at least a high
    school diploma, 103 (63.2 per cent) were responsible for the care of dependents, and 107 (65.6 per cent) had
    tenures of no more than two years. This trend reflects the high turnover of part-timers. 3.2 Measures Work
    motivators were measured with the instrument developed by [9] Huddleston and Good (1999). The specific
    instrument was developed to measure the importance and the likelihood of receiving work motivators in retail
    firms. This methodology has also been applied by [14], [15], [16] Linz (2002, 2003, 2004). Specifically, six
    extrinsic and five intrinsic work motivators are evaluated. The extrinsic motivators include pay, promotion, job
    security, praise from supervisor, friendliness, and respect of co-workers. The intrinsic motivators include self-
    satisfaction, skill development, learning, accomplishment, and freedom. Initially, participants were asked to rate
    the importance of each of the total eleven motivators on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1=not important and
    5=extremely important). For example, “How important is the amount of pay you get?”. After the completion of
    this set of 11 questions concerning their perceptions of what is important, a second series of 11 questions was
    given asking respondents about their expectations of receiving these 11 motivators. The design of the questions
    was as follows: “how likely is it that you would get a bonus or pay increase if you performed your job extremely
    well?” Once again the questions used a five-point Likert scale, with 1=not at all likely and 5=extremely likely.
    The “motivation gap” variables used in this analysis were calculated by subtracting the “likelihood” mean values
    from the “importance” mean values. A positive value score for each of the eleven variables implies that unmet
    expectations regarding motivation exist. In other words, a positive value implies that even if they performed their
    jobs extremely well, respondents were not likely to receive what they perceived as important. Furthermore, a
    number of demographic variables were considered as controlled variables. In order to secure a high response
    rate of female employees, instead of using an open-ended question to assess age, we provided a closed
    question based on six age groups. However, because 21.2 per cent of the respondents were less that 24 years
    old and 76.8 per cent were 25 to 54 years old, age was treated as a dummy variable (AGE 0=18-24 years old,
    1=older than 25 years old). Similarly, previous research has shown that there is a relatively large proportion of

    part-timers in the young age group (<25 years old). In addition, we obtained information regarding the educational level of the participants (EDUC, 0=at least high school diploma, 1=Bachelor's degree or higher) and whether they provided care to dependent people - childcare, eldercare, dependents with disabilities - (CARE, 0=No, 1=Yes). Finally, information on work-related characteristics was obtained. Tenure in an organisation was measured in months (TENURE). Data concerning experience with unemployment, number of jobs held at the time of survey, and number of times they had changed employers in the last five years were obtained adopting the questions applied by [15] Linz (2003). Experience with unemployment was obtained with the following question: "in the last five years, have you been unemployed, that is without work for more than two weeks, when you wanted to be working?" (UNEMPLOY, 0=No, 1=Yes). Also, respondents were asked to report the number of jobs held at the time of survey (NJOBS, 0=Two or more regular jobs for pay, 1=This is the only regular job that I have), as well as to report the number of times they had changed employers in the last five years (CHJOBS). 4. Research findings Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the variables in the study. It shows that no high correlations between the independent variables exist, thus multicollinearity does not seem to be a problem. To assess more rigorously the relationships between predictors included in the analysis, a more sophisticated collinearity statistic was estimated: the variance inflation factor (VIF). The value of the statistic for each single independent variable was much lower than the critical value of two ([22] Miles and Shelvin, 2001, pp. 127-132), indicating that the predictors of the study can be included in regression analyses. With the aim of ensuring that any reported differences in motivation across groups are indeed attributed to the work status of employees, it is essential to use covariates. A series of analyses of variance of demographic and work-related characteristics by work status were conducted. Not surprisingly, according to the theoretical background of working women, part- time female employees are more likely to care for dependents (F=5.717, p ≤0.05), to have experienced unemployment (F=65.944, p ≤0.001), to have shorter job tenure (F=32.310, p ≤0.001), and to have changed more jobs in the last five years (F=150.796, p ≤0.001). As a result, the coded variables of CARE, UNEMPLOY, TENURE and CHJOBS were retained as control variables in this study. First, in order to evaluate the effect of work status (full-time/part-time) on the importance of all of the 11 work motivators (H1 ), 11 separate analyses of covariance were conducted. The results are presented in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The independent variable was work status, and the dependent variables were the reported importance of pay, promotion, job security, praise from supervisor, friendliness of co-workers, respect of co-workers, self- satisfaction, skill development, learning, accomplishment, and freedom. Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows that statistically significant differences between full-time and part-time employees are observed in five of the 11 work motivators. Full-timers exhibit a preference for extrinsic motivators while part-timers a preference for intrinsic motivators. Specifically, full-timers find the extrinsic rewards of respect (F=6.393, p ≤0.05) and friendliness of co-workers (F=5.747, p ≤0.05) most desirable. Conversely, part-time salespeople express a preference for the intrinsic rewards of opportunities for learning new things (F=5.560, p ≤0.05), of accomplishment of something worthwhile (F=5.724, p ≤0.05), and the development of skills (F=15.578, p ≤0.001). Therefore, the ANCOVAs results indicate that H1 is partially supported. In more than half of the cases, full-time and part-time female sales employees are similar in the work motivators that they find important in the workplace. In addition, it is noteworthy that the relative ranking of work motivators indicates that both part-time and full-time female employees believe that the rewards of pay, friendliness of co-workers, and job security are the three most important motivators in the workplace. Next, in order to explore possible differences between full- time and part-time female employees with regard to their expectations of receiving the desired motivators (H2 ), a second series of 11 univariate ANCOVAs was conducted. Again, the work status of employees was introduced as the independent variable, while the dependent variables included the likelihood of retail employees to receive the 11 extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the findings of the univariate ANCOVAs. It is evident that part-timers are more optimistic in their

    expectations of receiving the desired rewards. Statistically significant differences in expectations of rewards are
    observed in four of the 11 total work motivators. Contrary to H2 , part-time retail employees report not lower but
    higher expectations of receiving rewards. Specifically, part-timers are more optimistic about receiving the
    rewards of promotion (F=3.854, p ≤0.05) and the intrinsic rewards of skill development (F=6.505, p ≤0.05),
    learning (F=6.685, p ≤0.01) and the feeling of accomplishment (F=12.452, p ≤0.001). Thus, H2 is not supported.
    Furthermore, the relative ranking of the likelihood of receiving the desired work motivators is quite diverse. Both
    full-timers and part-timers indicated that they are likely to experience the feeling of self-satisfaction through their
    job. Apart from this common point, full-timers reported that they are more likely to receive the extrinsic rewards
    of friendliness and respect of co-workers as well as praise from the supervisor. On the other hand, part-timers
    reported that they are more likely to receive intrinsic rewards and, in particular, the feeling of accomplishment,
    skill development, and learning. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the combined results of Tables II and III [Figure
    omitted. See Article Image.] reveal that both part-time and full-time female employees do not receive the
    desired rewards in retail firms. Clearly there is a significant discrepancy between what retail employees desire
    and what they expect to receive in the workplace. It is remarkable that while Table II [Figure omitted. See Article
    Image.] shows that part-time employees mostly desire the motivators of pay, job security, and friendliness of co-
    workers, Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] indicates that for these three work motivators employees
    express the lowest expectations of receiving them in the workplace (11th, 10th and 9th relative rank position,
    respectively). Similarly, while Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows that full-time employees mostly
    desire the motivators of pay and promotional opportunities, Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]
    indicates that these sales employees least expect to receive these two motivators (11th and 10th relative rank
    position, respectively). Consequently, for female employees in the retail sector, despite the quality of their work,
    there is a considerable gap between what employees perceive as important and what they expect to receive.
    With the purpose of identifying how individual characteristics of employees may impact the reported importance
    of work motivators and the expectations of receiving these rewards (H3 ), a series of separate hierarchical
    regression analyses was conducted by work status (full-time/part-time). Dependent variables included the 11
    “motivation gaps”. For each analysis, step 1 is comprising of the demographic variables of age (AGE),
    education (EDUC), and care for dependents (CARE). Step 2 evaluated the amount of variance explained by
    work-related characteristics after controlling for demographics. Work-related variables included experience with
    unemployment (UNEMPLOY), number of jobs held at the time of the survey (NJOBS), length of tenure
    (TENURE), and number of job changes in the last five years (CHJOBS). The results of these hierarchical
    regression analyses for full-time and part-time employees are summarised in Tables IV and V [Figure omitted.
    See Article Image.], respectively. Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows that for full-time
    employees the initial entry of the demographic variables is significant for all of the reported gaps at the level of p
    ≤0.001, apart from the gap regarding pay (F=2.764), p >0.05). Furthermore, demographic characteristics jointly
    explain 12.2 to 23.3 per cent of the variance of motivation gaps. The entry of work-related characteristics (step
    2) indicated that for all of the eleven models the variance explained (R2 ) is significant at the level of 0.001.
    However, the change of R2 is quite low, ranging from 1 to 10.8 per cent, and is statistically significant only for
    the gap of pay (F change=5.689, p ≤0.001), the gap of friendliness of co-workers (F change=2.701, p ≤0.05),
    and the sense of self-satisfaction (feel good) (F change =2.590, p ≤0.05). It is worth mentioning that the
    development of gaps in motivation is strongly related to the age (negative relationship) and particularly to the
    educational level of employees (positive relationship). In other words, the greater the age of employees, the
    smaller the reported gap between expectations of receiving rewards and the importance attached to them;
    furthermore, the higher the level of education, the greater the gap in motivation. Accordingly, Table V [Figure
    omitted. See Article Image.] shows that for part-time employees the gap variables in step 1 are all significant at
    the level of p ≤0.001. The variance explained (R2 ) for the significant regressions ranged from 15.6 to 30 per
    cent. The entry of the work-related characteristics (step 2) improved the R2 for all of the motivation gaps.

    Specifically, the change of R2 ranged from 1.8 to 20.7 per cent and was statistically significant for all of the
    dependent variables apart from the gap with pay (F change=0.446, p >0.05). Therefore, Tables IV and V [Figure
    omitted. See Article Image.] provide support for H3 . For part-time female sales employees, the demographic
    and work-related characteristics of individuals have a significant impact on the reported importance of work
    motivators and the expectations of receiving these rewards. Specifically, for part-time employees it is evident
    that the development of motivation gaps has a strong and negative relationship with the age of employees. The
    greater the age of employees, the smaller the gap between the perceptions of an important reward and the
    expectation of receiving this reward. Furthermore, the findings reveal that part-time employees report smaller
    gaps in motivation when they care for dependents, have experienced unemployment, have changed several
    jobs in the last five years, and currently hold one regular job. 5. Discussion The aim of this paper was to
    compare the motivation of part-time and full-time female employees in the Greek retail sector. Initially, we
    examined which work motivators part-time and full-time employees find important. We sought to answer the
    question of whether these groups of employees value things differently in their work environment. Findings
    revealed that both part-timers and full-timers feel that the rewards of pay, friendliness of co-workers, and job
    security are the three most valuable motivators. These results are in accordance with the previous findings of [9]
    Huddleston and Good (1999) and [14], [16] Linz (2002, 2004). In particular, these studies showed that both
    Russian and Polish employees report these motivators to be among the most valuable ones. In addition, we
    found that full-timers were more responsive to extrinsic rewards, while part-timers expressed a preference for
    intrinsic rewards. Specifically, full-timers valued the motivators of respect and friendliness of co-workers highest.
    On the other hand, part-time female salespeople expressed a preference for opportunities to learn new things,
    develop skills, and feel a sense of accomplishment. Furthermore, for both part-time and full-time employees we
    investigated their expectations of receiving the rewards that they find important in the workplace, asking
    whether there are any differences in their expectations of rewards even when they perform their jobs extremely
    well. Previous studies of motivation provided evidence that there is a considerable gap between what
    employees perceive as important and what they expect to receive ([11] Kalleberg, 1995; [9] Huddleston and
    Good, 1999; [12] Lam and Zhang, 2003; [16] Linz, 2004). In line with these past findings regarding different
    countries, we found that for both full-time and part-time Greek female employees there is significant discrepancy
    between what employees desire and what they actually expect to receive in the workplace. Nevertheless,
    contrary to our hypothesis, results indicated that part-timers are more optimistic about receiving intrinsic
    rewards. Part-timers indicated that they are more likely to receive promotions, develop skills, learn new things,
    and feel a sense of accomplishment in the workplace. Manifestly, the literature review suggests that employers
    are not in fact likely to act in favour of part-timers. Therefore, we speculate that female part-timers who are
    involuntary (could not find a full-time job) or part-timers who try to balance work with family, education, or other
    personal obligations may feel that part-time work at that stage of their life-cycle is just a transient phase. In this
    phase, part-time employment is a means to develop skills, learn new things, and perhaps be promoted to a full-
    time position. Indeed, Greek Law 2639/1998 established that part-timers have priority in filling full-time openings
    that occur in their occupational categories. Given this regulation and taking into account the continued
    phenomenon of high unemployment in Greece, we suggest that part-time work may be regarded by some
    employees as a valuable opportunity to acquiring intrinsic rewards and as a “stepping stone” to better full-time
    jobs. On the other hand, permanent full-time salespeople may have developed a more realistic picture of the
    adversities of the labour market. Hence, compared with part-timers, they express lower expectations of
    accomplishment and promotional opportunities. As a practical implication, these results provide retail firms with
    significant guidelines on how to develop a flexible motivational plan. Retail firms that seek to retain a highly
    satisfied and motivated workforce should provide incentives plans such as commissions or bonuses, ensure job
    security, and foster a friendly climate among co-workers. Furthermore, since full-time and part-time workers
    value rewards differently, it is suggested that employers should provide a variety of rewards that fit the needs of

    both full-time and part-time employees. Because full-timers are more likely to be involved in the functioning of
    the organisation, have greater tenure and spend more hours in the work environment ([36] Wortuba, 1990; [29]
    Sinclair et al. , 1999), employers should pursue the development of a congenial working environment that
    promotes friendliness and mutual respect among co-workers. On the other hand, with regard to part-timers,
    retail firms should make training programs such as seminars and workshops available, with the aim of
    enhancing skills and knowledge. The working environment would thereby support the development of part-time
    employees and would provide a “stepping stone” towards better job positions. In addition, this study contributes
    new empirical evidence regarding how individual characteristics of employees may impact the reported
    importance of work motivators and the expectations of receiving these rewards. In other words, we have
    identified subjective factors that influence whether salespeople perceive that they receive what is desired and
    ranked important in the workplace. For full-time employees, unmet expectations with regard to rewards are
    more likely to develop when employees are young and have high educational qualifications. The findings may
    be viewed in light of the high unemployment rate in Greece (8.9 per cent), and in particular the high
    unemployment rate for females (13.6 per cent) compared to males (5.6 per cent) in 2006 ([24] National
    Statistical Service of Greece, 2007). It is speculated that due to the lack of alternatives, young, female university
    graduates are currently compelled to accept employment in retail sales positions that are characterised by less
    competitive pay, low training, low job security, and a low level of demarcation between jobs. Nevertheless, not
    surprisingly, they feel overqualified and disappointed about not making the best of their higher educational
    qualifications. On the other hand, for part-time workers, the reported gaps in motivation decrease when
    employees experience personal and occupational hardships. In particular, female part-timers express limited
    unmet expectations with regard to rewards when they are older, have the burden of care for dependants, and
    have faced an unstable employment status characterised by periods of unemployment and frequent jobs
    changes. We suggest that these “life-stressed” employees have to make compromises and settle on the
    employment options of the “secondary labour market”. Therefore, because of this disadvantaged position, they
    are more likely to express the opinion that they receive the desired rewards through part-time employment in
    the retail sector. It is proposed that female employees stressed by factors such as age (older employees), care
    (e.g. mothers), and poor employment background (i.e. unemployment and/or many changes of jobs) consider
    that part-time work is a source of learning and of developing skills as well as of accomplishing something
    worthwhile. For these groups of employees, it may be difficult to attend school or seminars or to find a full-time
    job. Therefore, they are more likely to indicate that they receive the desired rewards, as these rewards are
    fulfilled through part-time employment. The conclusion, that a variety of individual characteristics should be
    considered when assessing the motivation of employees, can provide retail managers with a profile of the
    motivated full-time and part-time female employees. In the context of the demanding retail sector, this profile
    can be used in the recruiting process with the aim of identifying candidates that are most suitable for an
    available full-time or part-time position. Female employees with specific personal characteristics appear to
    balance the importance of work motivators and their expectations of receiving rewards, while other employees
    develop greater unmet expectations. In order to gain a more complete understanding of the motivation of retail
    employees, future research should investigate the motivation of employees both by work status and by gender.
    Comparisons between full-time and part-time and between female and male employees would provide a holistic
    picture of motivation in the retail sector. In addition, further qualitative research is needed to explore both
    employees’ and employers’ attitudes and opinions, such as whether employers actually treat and reward full-
    timers and part-timers differently or whether employees hold different points of view and frames of reference
    ([30] Thorsteinson, 2003). This research was supported by the European Commission (75 per cent) and the
    Greek Secretariat for Research and Technology (25 per cent), 3rd Community Support Programme – Measure
    8.3. References 1. Barker, K. (1993), “Changing assumptions and contingent solutions: the costs and benefits
    of women working full- and part-time”, Sex Roles, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 47-71.

    2. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, US Department
    of Labor, Washington, DC.
    3. Dickens, P. (1996), “Human services as service industries”, The Service Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp.
    82-91.
    4. Eurostat (2007), Labour Force Survey Results, Statistical Office of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
    5. Feldman, D.C. (1990), “Reconceptualizing the nature and consequences of part-time jobs”, The Academy of
    Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 103-12.
    6. Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (1995), “Moderators of differences in job satisfaction between full-time and part-time
    female employees: a research note”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 75-82.
    7. Freathy, P. (1993), “Developments in the superstore labour market”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 13
    No. 1, pp. 65-79.
    8. Harley, B. and Whitehouse, G. (2001), “Women in part-time work: a comparative study of Australia and the
    United Kingdom”, Labour and Industry, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 33-59.
    9. Huddleston, P. and Good, L.K. (1999), “Job motivators in Russian and Polish retail firms”, International
    Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 383-92.
    10. Jenkins, S. (2004), “Restructuring flexibility: case studies of part-time female workers in six workplaces”,
    Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 306-33.
    11. Kalleberg, A.L. (1995), “Part-time work and workers in the United States: correlates and policy issues”,
    Washighton and Lee Law Review, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 771-98.
    12. Lam, T. and Zhang, H.Q. (2003), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the Hong Kong fast
    food industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 214-20.
    13. Lawler, E.E. (1973), Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks Cole, Monterey, CA.
    14. Linz, S.J. (2002), “Motivating Russian workers: analysis of age and gender differences”, William Davidson
    Institute working paper No. 466.
    15. Linz, S.J. (2003), “Job satisfaction among Russian workers”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 24 No.
    6, pp. 626-52.
    16. Linz, S.J. (2004), “Motivating Russian workers: analysis of age and gender differences”, Journal of Socio-
    Economics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 261-89.
    17. Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
    Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-349.
    18. Logan, N., O’Reilly, C.A. III and Roberts, K.H. (1973), “Job satisfaction among part-time and full-time
    employees”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
    19. Martin, J.E. and Sinclair, R.R. (2007), “A typology of the part-time workforce: differences on job attitudes
    and turnover”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 301-19.
    20. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review of the meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
    consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-94.
    21. Maynard, D., Thorsteinson, T.J. and Parfyonova, N.M. (2006), “Reasons for working part-time: subgroup
    differences in job attitudes and turnover intentions”, Career Development International, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 145-
    62.
    22. Miles, J. and Shelvin, M. (2001), Applying Regression and Correlation, Sage Publications, London.
    23. Mitchell, T.R. (1982), “Motivation: new directions for theory, research, and practice”, The Academy of
    Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 80-8.
    24. National Statistical Service of Greece (2007), “Labour force survey”, press release (ESYE): Athens (in
    Greek).
    25. Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Job characteristics and internal motivation: the moderating effect of interpersonal
    and individual variables”, Human Relations, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 559-69.

    26. Parsons, E. and Broadbridge, A. (2006), “Job motivation and satisfaction: unpacking the key factors for
    charity shop managers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 121-31.
    27. Shockey, L.M. and Mueller, W.C. (1994), “At-entry differences in part-time and full-time employees”, Journal
    of Business and Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 355-64.
    28. Silverthorne, C.P. (1992), “Work motivation in the United States, Russia, and the Republic of China
    (Taiwan): a comparison”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 20, pp. 1631-9.
    29. Sinclair, R.R., Martin, E.J. and Michel, R.P. (1999), “Full-time and part-time subgroup differences in job
    attitudes and demographic characteristics”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 337-57.
    30. Thorsteinson, J.T. (2003), “Job attitudes of part-time vs full-time workers: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of
    Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 151-77.
    31. Tilly, C. (1992), “Dualism in part-time employment”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 330-47.
    32. Tomlinson, J. (2006), “Part-time occupational mobility in the service industries: regulation, work commitment
    and occupational closure”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 66-86.
    33. Urbanski, T. (2007), Main Features of the Services Sector, Eurostat, Statistics in Focus.
    34. Vroom, V. (1964), Work and Motivation, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY.
    35. Walsh, J. (2007), “Experiencing part-time work: temporal tensions, social relations and the work-family
    interface”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 155-77.
    36. Wortuba, T.R. (1990), “Full-time vs part-time salespeople: a comparison on job satisfaction, performance,
    and turnover in direct selling”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
    Appendix About the authors Stefanos K. Giannikis is a PhD candidate in the Department of Business
    Administration, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics
    from Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece. He holds an MSc in Marketing from the University of
    Birmingham, UK and an MBA in Human Resource Management from the University of Macedonia. His current
    research interests include flexible work arrangements, part-time work, gender issues and employee attitudes.
    Dimitrios M. Mihail is Professor and the Head of the MBA program at the University of Macedonia, Greece. He
    holds a PhD in Economics. Department of Economics, The Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research,
    New York, USA. His current research focuses on labour market flexibility, career development and student and
    women employment issues. Dimitrios Mihail is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
    mihail@uom.gr AuthorAffiliation Stefanos K. Giannikis, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece Dimitrios
    M. Mihail, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece Illustration Table I: Means, standard deviations (SD),
    and correlations Table II: ANCOVAs tests on the importance of motivators on the effect of work status Table III:
    ANCOVAs tests on the likelihood of receiving rewards for the effects of work status Table IV: Hierarchical
    regression results for full-time female employees Table V: Hierarchical regression results for part-time female
    employees
    Subject: Studies; Motivation; Psychological aspects; Retailing industry; Part time employment; Female
    employees; Working conditions; Statistical analysis; Human resource management; Management development
    Location: Greece
    Classification: 9130: Experimental/theoretical, 9176: Eastern Europe, 1220: Social trends&culture, 8390:
    Retailing industry, 6100: Human resource planning, 2200: Managerial skills
    Publication title: International Journal of Manpower
    Volume: 31
    Issue: 1
    Pages: 4-20

    Publication year: 2010
    Publication date: 2010
    Year: 2010
    Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited
    Place of publication: Bradford
    Country of publication: United Kingdom
    Journal subject: Business And Economics–Labor And Industrial Relations
    ISSN: 01437720
    Source type: Scholarly Journals
    Language of publication: English
    Document type: Feature
    Document feature: References;Tables
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031667
    ProQuest document ID: 231912394
    Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/231912394?accountid=8289
    Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2010
    Last updated: 2010-07-17
    Database: ABI/INFORM Global

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031667

  • Bibliography
  • Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

    Giannikis, S. K., & Mihail, D. M. (2010). Motivation of working women in the greek retail sector: An empirical
    analysis. International Journal of Manpower, 31(1), 4-20. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031667

    _______________________________________________________________
    Contact ProQuest
    Copyright  2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions

    http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport

    http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

      Motivation of working women in the Greek retail sector: an empirical analysis
      Bibliography
    Still stressed with your coursework?
    Get quality coursework help from an expert!