HRM and job satisfaction in the Dutch public sector

dr. Bram Steijn associate professor of Labour and HRM Department of Public Administration P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam e-mail: Steijn@fsw.eur.nl

First draft

Abstract for the EGPA-Conference in Potsdam, study group on Public Personnel Policies, 4 7 September 2002

Introduction In most industrial countries, the public sector has in the last decades seen substantial turmoil (Pollit & Bouckaert, 1999). Concepts as New Public Management and Reinventing Government have substantially contributed to changes in ideas and practices of governance. Clearly, the scope, organisation and managing of the public services have changed dramatically since the 1970s (Farnham & Horton 1996). The introduction of new organisational forms (f.i. teamworking), restructuring, reorganizations and privatisations have all contributed to these changes. Clearly, these kinds of changes are not limited to the public sector only. Companies in the private sector have also been under constant pressure to adapt to increasing turbulence in their environment (compare Hammer & Champy 1993). Like the Weberian bureaucracy in the public sector, its counterpart in the private sector (the traditional Fordist organisation) is under pressure. Many popular concepts in public management (f.i. project management, performance management) are in fact borrowed from developments that are taking place in the private sector. One major difference between the discussion in the public and the private sector seems to be the attention devoted to the HRM-concept. Clearly, HRM is big in business administration as is proved by the enormous number of books and articles on HRM. One would expect that HRM in the public sector is also a big issue. Indeed, many of the changes promoted by New Public Management or other initiatives to revitalise the public sector do have important consequences for the organisation of work and the employees involved (compare Kellough 1999). Some will even argue that the public sector of the 21st century needs a new type of workers compared to the public sector of the welfare states in the second half of the 20th century, which if true would have important consequences for hiring and appraisal practices of public sector organisations. Notwithstanding the important changes of the last decades, important differences between the public and the private sector still exist. In most countries public sector employees still have a different judicial labour relation often their job security is higher compared to private sector employees. Many public sector workers seem also to have a different job motivation and different work values. There is still a public spirit among many public sector workers often induced by a feeling that one wants to contribute to society (compare Ting 1997; Karl & Sutton 1998; Pfiffner 1999). Notwithstanding the above, HRM in the public sector seems not be very prominent in the academic field of Public Administration. Although books and journals are devoted to the subject, HRM in the public sector is a bleak subject compared to the attention devoted to it in the private sector. It appears mainstream Public Administration authors are often forgetting that management is always people management; many seem to think that people will automatically adapt to new ways of management and new organisational structures. An important lesson of the HRM-literature, e.g. that people are the key of organisational success is often forgotten at least this seems to be the situation in the academic discussion in the Netherlands1.

This observation can probably partly explain why American and British newspapers recently are reporting about decreasing job satisfaction among public sector workers.2 In the British newspaper it is even noted that job satisfaction has dropped dramatically in the public sector in the 90s. In both articles it is noted that work stress of public sector workers has increased significantly in that period. Working in the public sector has become less enjoyable compared to a decade earlier which probably at least partly can be attributed to changes in the organisation of work and management. A Canadian study (Barrows & Wesson, 2000) also concludes that downsizing is adversely affecting morale of workers in the public sector. One cannot ignore these signals. If job satisfaction is going down among workers in the public sector, it will have negative effects on the quality of the services. Not only because lesser motivated workers will deliver services of a lower quality, but also because it will make the public sector less attractive as an employer. This certainly will have adverse repercussions in a tight labour market. These problems were recently recognised by the Dutch government. In the next chapter we will give a short outline of their attempts to deal with it. Next, we will discuss the results of a large survey held among Dutch workers in the public sector. We will focus on the determinants of job satisfaction and will especially pay attention to the effects (good) personnel policies can have on this satisfaction. Public sector personnel policies in the Netherlands After years of reorganisations, reductions and savings on salaries and other expenses, in early 2000 the Dutch government began to realise they had neglected the workers in the public sector, which was beginning to have adverse effects. A committee was formed under the Managing Director of the Department of Management and Personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs3 (the committee Van Rijn). This report was published in 2001 and had a huge impact. In fact, the recommendations were adopted by the Dutch Cabinet though it has to be seen whether the recently elected new centre-right government will continue to do this. The report of the committee concluded that the labour market in the collective sector is becoming increasingly tight partly due to the economic situation (which is changing now!), but also to demographically changes. The report (2001: 5) stated that increasing problems are visible to find and maintain qualified personnel. It is also stated that without further steps the quality of public services in the near future can no longer be guaranteed. These problems are partly related to the personnel policies implemented in earlier years in order to make cuts and reductions. As a consequence the composition of the workforce is skewed with relatively few young workers. Moreover, the year to year cuts has also made the public sector less visible on the labour market. Due to expected labour shortages in the near future, the report pertains that measures are necessary to make the public sector a more attractive employer. Although it is argued that the public sector in the Netherlands is generally an attractive employer, the report also noted some problems. Based on research of the ministry itself among mobile workers, it is argued that quality of management (i.e. lack of) is the most important factor for workers to look for 3

another job. Lack of career possibilities is another important factor to leave a job in the Dutch public sector. The report contains a lot of recommendations. With respect to the long run, they can be divided into three clusters: 1) management and control; it is argued that it is necessary to invest in managerial qualities and also to change the way public organisations are managed more performance-related agreements, benchmarking, customer-satisfaction studies, etc.; 2) the use of ict; the report promoted a better use of ict in order to create a better quality and efficiency in the public sector; 3) HRM; the report explicitly recognize the importance of the human factor. In this respect we can cite the report (2001: 65): satisfied workers are more productive and creative. Moreover, they will attract new talent and they remain longer motivated. When the organisation is interested in career opportunities of their workers and the organisational climate provides for a situation where everyones talents are being used, people will be proud of their working environment. In other words: a good personnel management with an open eye for human values and future possibilities contributes significantly to a higher production and a better imago of the public sector as an employer. As a consequence the position on the labour market will also be strengthened. A textbook on HRM will hardly be able to state it more clearly. It is clear that the report recognize the importance of the human factor in the public organisation. Again, however, it remains to be seen whether this will hold in an era of governmental cuts that seems to be very near. The report was partly based on empirical research done by the ministry itself. In the following part of the paper I will discuss one of the surveys they used more extensively. Based on my own analyses of the data, I will report more in detail about job satisfaction in the Dutch public sector and the factors determining it.

Job satisfaction of public workers in the Netherlands background The next part of this paper will focus on the effects personal policies have on the job satisfaction of workers in the Dutch public sector. Job satisfaction is an often researched subject, as it is generally believed a higher job satisfaction is associated with increased productivity, lower absenteeism and lower employee turnover (Hackman & Oldman 1980). It is however not possible to give a full outline of the literature on this subject, as already by 1993 there were 6,247 articles or dissertations on job satisfaction in the PSYCINFO computer database (Jayaratne, 1993). There is also a growing number of articles on job satisfaction in the public sector. To name a few: in recent years Ting (1996; 1997) using a survey of 56.767 workers looked at determinants of job satisfaction of US federal government employees. Reiner and Zhao (1999) looked at the job satisfaction of US Air Force Security Police and Barrows and Wessen (2000) made a comparison between the job satisfaction of professionals in the public and private sector. 4

Karl and Sutton (1998) illustrated the importance to look separately at workers in the private sector. Comparing job values of workers in the public and private sector they concluded that whereas private sector workers rank good wages as highest in importance, public sector workers ranked interesting work as highest. Models to explain differences in job satisfaction are abundant. Often two different types of variables are distinguished. In the first place in most studies individual characteristics of the workers are included. This includes variables as race, gender, educational level and age. Although, these variables seem to have some effect on job satisfaction, the explained variance is often not very high. Reiner and Zhao (1999) reported only a significant effect of age, whereas Ting (1997) also reported mixed results with significant effects for age and race, but not for education and gender. Also other variables are added to these individual characteristics. Reiner and Zao (1999) with partial success included the type of job or work assignment within these individual characteristics whereas Ting (1997) without a significant result included the degree of public spirited motivation. Many studies have shown that variables linked to the job content and organisational context are better able to explain differences in job satisfaction. Ting (1997) reported that variables related to the job content and the organisation are more important determinants of job satisfaction. He reported significant effects of pay satisfaction, lack of promotional opportunity, task clarity, the utilization of skills and the meaningfulness of the task. He also reported significant effects of organisational commitment4 and the relationships with supervisors and co-workers. Herzberg (1966) is one of the first who noted the importance of the work environment as the primary determinant of employee job satisfaction. Building upon his work Hackman and Oldham have built a famous model to identify key factors in the work environment determining job satisfaction. Using their model Reiner and Zao (1999) have looked at the importance of five dimensions of the work environment skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Their study clearly shows that these variables are far more important than individual characteristics in their study task variety being the most important determinant. In this paper we will look explicitly at the effects of variables related to personnel practices. I have not found other studies that have done so, but certainly authors that are referring to the work environment as an important determinant of job satisfaction will at least implicitly assume that such an effect does exist: in fact, personnel management practices can (and do!) change the work environment. Generally, personnel management practices can therefore be seen as an element of the organisational context though I will isolate them here. Data and operationalisation In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs held a large survey among public sector workers. This survey is part of a larger project that started in 1999. Since then, each year a large sample of workers are interviewed. In 1999, 2000 and also 2002, the focus was on

mobile workers, but in 2001 job attitudes of public workers in general were object of study job satisfaction being an important topic. In total, 14,212 workers were interviewed in 2001. The ministry tried to make the sample as representative as possible and in fact, workers of nearly all public sectors are included only the health sector is absent. We will use the following variables for our analysis: Individual characteristics. As in the research mentioned above we will use several demographic characteristics of the respondents: age, gender, ethnicity (a dummy variable which differentiates minority groups from the dominant culture) and educational level (a quasi-interval variable with nine categories ranging form educational level 1 (only basis schooling) to 9 (university degree). Job characteristics. This includes the following variables: income (measured as the monthly income before taxes), supervisory position (measured as a dummy variable), working full-time (a dichotomous variable differentiating those with a full time job from those with a part time job), permanent job (a dichotomous variable differentiating those with a permanent position the overwhelming majority from those with a non-permanent position) and skill-utilization (also measured by a dichotomous variable, differentiating those saying their skills are underutilized from other workers). Finally, also the sector the workers work in, is included in the analysis. This variable is nominal and includes the following categories: Government (including most workers on the ministries), Judicial workers (like judges, prosecutors), military, education, police, municipalities, provincial workers, research institutes, and water boards. The educational sector is by far the biggest sector in the survey (5758 workers), whereas the judicial sector (356 workers) is the smallest also the research institutes (390) and the water boards (423) are however small sectors. Work environment. Unfortunately, variables measuring aspects of the work environment are not measured independently from satisfaction with that aspect. The survey contains a list of 17 work-related items. On each item the workers were asked to evaluate their satisfaction on a 5-point Likertscale. We do therefore not know how the objective work environment is, but only the satisfaction of the workers with that aspect. We will nevertheless use several of these partial satisfactions as proxies of the work environment itself and look at their effect on overall satisfaction. Besides we will also use the satisfaction with these aspects of work situation as dependent variables. Using this list of work-related items, we made several scales as indicators of the (satisfaction with) the work environment5: - satisfaction with management. This scale consists of three items (satisfaction with the personnel management, satisfaction with the overall policy of the organisation, and satisfaction with the way management operates). The Cronbachs alpha of this scale is 0,85;

satisfaction with the tasks. This scale also consists of three items (satisfaction with the tasks in the job, satisfaction with future tasks, and satisfaction with degree of autonomy). The Cronbachs alpha of this scale is 0,73; - satisfaction with pay. According to Ting (1997) this variable was an important determinant of job satisfaction. We therefore included a two-item index, containing the satisfaction with two items, e.g. satisfaction with pay itself, and the satisfaction with financial prospects in the future. The correlation between these separate two items is 0,60. - Satisfaction with the work load. As work stress is becoming more important (compare the articles in the journals cited in chapter 1), it was decided to include this variable as a 1-item scale. For comparability, all four scales were converted to new 5-points-scales; a higher score implying a higher satisfaction with the aspect. Personnel management practices. The survey contains several possibilities to evaluate the personnel policies in the organisation the workers belong to. We will use two variables: - extent of HRM-policies. The survey contains a question about the personnel policy practices that are used in the organization. This list contains nine items: the existence of appraisal interviews, personal development plans, career plans, functional and task roulations, individual coaching, competence management, age-conscious personnel management, and mobility policies. We decided to use this list as an indicator of the degree HRM-management is being used in the organisation. We simply counted the number of practices present, assuming that the existence of more practices will result in better HRM.6 It is interesting to look at the distribution of this variable: 0 practices: 13,8%; 1-2 practices: 47,1%; 3-4 practices: 22%; more: 17%. - Satisfaction with career support. The survey also includes the question how the worker evaluated the career support provided by the employer. This item (measured by a 5point Likert-scale) was not included in the list of 17 work related items used above, and will be used to measure this aspect of HRM-management Overall satisfaction As said above we will use the satisfaction with the four work aspect mentioned above as dependent variables. However, we will also look at the overall satisfaction. The survey contained a simple question to do that, as the workers were asked how satisfied are you taking everything into account with your job?. Their answers ranged on a 5-point Likertscale, and will be used in the analysis as a measure of their overall satisfaction. Results We will first look at the differences in satisfaction between workers in the several public sectors we discerned. Table 1 gives the mean satisfaction scores with respect to the overall satisfaction and with respect to the four aspects of satisfaction.

Table 1 Satisfaction in various public sectors

Overall Satisfaction Satisfaction with management 2.62 2.78 2.41 2.70 2.51 2.71 2.86 2.60 2.88 2.66 0.12 (13,831) Satisfaction with tasks Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with workload

Government Judiciary Military Education Police Municipalities Provinces Research Institutes Water Boards Mean eta2 and (N) ** p < 0.01

3.50 3.94 3.39 3.55 3.59 3.62 3.71 3.56 3.70 3.56 0.09 (14,101)

3.59 4.16 3.56 3.64 3.60 3.70 3.79 3.72 3.76 3.66 0.12 (13,651)

2.84 3.21 2.70 2.75 2.84 2.96 3.09 2.67 2.90 2.82 0.12 (13,783)

2.83 2.44 2.99 2.38 2.85 2.72 2.83 3.04 2.88 2.65 0.22 (13,871)

Several conclusion can be drawn from this table. In the first place, we can see that on each dimension of satisfaction significant sector differences are visible they are highest with respect to work load, and lowest with respect to the overall satisfaction. With respect to the overall satisfaction, it can be concluded that job satisfaction of Dutch public workers is not very high. When we compare the mean score of 3.56 to scores of other studies that have used about the same question to measure job satisfaction, this score seems to be mediocre. A Dutch study among over 71.000 health workers reported a mean job satisfaction of 3.82, whereas Ting (1997) reported a mean satisfaction score of US federal workers of 3,83, but of course it difficult to compare scores from different studies directly. Looking at the various sectors, it can be concluded that judiciary workers are most satisfied whereas military workers have the lowest satisfaction. The score of governmental workers is at the same time also relatively low. Comparing the scores on the four aspects of satisfaction, it has to be noticed that the satisfaction with the tasks is relatively high. On average Dutch public workers rate their tasks as 3.66, with the highest score for judiciary workers and lowest scores for military and governmental workers. Compared to this, the scores on the other three aspects is substantially lower in fact as these scores are below the theoretical mean of the scale (3), it can be concluded that Dutch public workers on these aspects are relatively dissatisfied7. With respect to workload it is interesting to observe that educational and judicial workers (who are generally the most satisfied!) have the lowest score on this aspect. Workers in research institutes and military workers (the latter having a relatively low general satisfaction) have a relatively high satisfaction score on this aspect. Dutch public workers are relatively dissatisfied with the way their organisation is managed. In all sectors the average satisfaction score on this aspect is below 3. The mean scores are particularly low among military and police personnel, and comparatively higher within water boards and provinces. Finally, satisfaction with pay is also relatively low, with (again) a relatively higher score for judiciary workers and a relatively lower score for workers in research institutes.

Next we turn to the HRM-practices within the several sectors. Table two contains the mean scores on the two HRM-variables that are discerned. Table 2. HRM policies in various public sectors
HRMpractices Government Judiciary Military Education Police Municipalities Provinces Research Institutes Water Boards Mean eta2 and (N) ** p < 0.01 3.14 2.82 2.10 2.06 2.88 2.45 3.59 2.08 2.19 2.44 0.23 (14,212) Satisfaction with career support 2.70 2.94 2.45 2.77 2.44 2.76 2.97 2.70 2.81 2.71 0.13 (14,066)

Table 2 shows that significant differences with respect to the use of HRM-practices between the public sectors do exist. This use is highest in the provincial sector (on average 3.59 practices are used their), followed by workers in the governmental sector (3.14 practices), the use of HRM-practices is lowest within the educational sector (2.06), the research institutes (2.08), and the military sector (2.10). Overall, the data suggest that on average 2.44 HRM practices are used (out of a total of 9), suggesting that the use of HRM-practices within the various public organisations is not very high at least in the perception of the workers. Moreover, the evaluation of career support is also relatively low. On average the workers rate this career support at 2.71, which is below the theoretical scale mean (3). Comparatively, satisfaction with career support is highest among provincial and judicial workers and lowest among police and military workers. One has to be careful to attribute sector differences with respect to satisfaction and HRMpractices to the sectors as such. Organisational types and the composition of the workforce, undoubtedly play an important role in the shaping of these differences. To explain differences in overall job satisfaction it is necessary to perform a multivariate analysis. I have done so using an UNIANOVA-procedure (SPSS11.0). This makes it possible to include both nominal variables (like sector) and (linear) covariates simultaneously in the analysis. The results, however, are comparable with an OLS-regression analysis. Following the discussion of relevant variables in the literature, the analysis is performed in several steps. In the first step (model 1) only individual characteristics are included in the analysis. In model 2 job characteristics are added, whereas in model 3 work environment variables are added. Finally, in the last model also HRM-related variables are included. Sector is included as a variable in all steps. Table 3 gives the results of this analysis.

Table 1: Results of UNIANOVA analyses (dependent variable: overall job satisfaction)

Model I Model II Model III Model IV

(b)eta Covariates Gender (1= Man) Age Ethnicity (1 = Dutch) educational level Permanent position (1=yes) Full time (1=yes) Supervisory position (1 = yes) income Skill utilization (1 = underutilized) Satisfaction with management Satisfaction with tasks Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with workload Extend of HRM practices Satisfaction with career support factor variables sector R2 and (N) ** p < 0.01 -0.04 ns 0.03 ns

(b)eta -0.03 0.03 Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns -0.15

(b)eta ns ns 0.03 ns ns ns ns ns -0.03 0.25 0.43 0.12 0.11

(b)eta ns ns 0.03 ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.18 0.42 0.10 0.11 ns 0.13 0.04 44.7% (12.230)

0.09 1.1% (13,952)

0.08 3.9% (13.166)

0.04 43.6% (12.304)

Model 1 suggests that individual characteristics do not play a very important role in the shaping of job satisfaction. Overall explained variance is quite low (1.1%), whereas only two variables (gender and ethnicity) contribute significantly. This suggests that women and Dutch public workers are somewhat more satisfied with their job than men and workers belonging to an ethnic minority. The effect of sector on job satisfaction is comparatively higher. Adding job characteristics does not chance much, though it must be noted that skill utilization has a relatively high effect on job satisfaction in fact it is the only job characteristic variable that has a significant effect. On its own, it contributes to the rise in explained variance to 3.9% - though that of course is still quite low. Things change when we add the work environment variables. Certainly, one has to be careful interpreting this, as our work environment variable is only a proxi and one must realise that a relation between an aspect of satisfaction and overall satisfaction seems quite logical. Nevertheless, scores on aspects of satisfaction do give some indication of the actual work environment, and it also shows which aspects of work environment are especially important in determining overall job satisfaction. Therefore, although one has to be cautious the rise in explained variance (from 3.9 to 43.6%) is quite spectacular. It supports studies cited earlier suggesting work environment is more important than individual characteristics. All four work environment variables contribute significantly to the results. Nevertheless, the results clearly show that satisfaction with the tasks (eta .42) is the most important determinant of overall job satisfaction. The effects of satisfaction with management (eta .18), work load (.11) and pay (.10) are also significant, but by far to a lesser extend. 10

In a way, organisations in the public sector are lucky with this results. Table1 has shown to us, that public workers are relatively dissatisfied with especially the latter three aspects of their work environment. The satisfaction with their tasks is by comparison relatively high, and this is likely an important reason why overall job satisfaction is still above the theoretical scale mean. If, the public workers would attribute a greater significance to the other factors, their overall job satisfaction would probably be lower. It however also suggests that public organisations need to invest in the attractivity of the work to keep their workers happy. In the last model, the HRM-variables are added. This does not chance the results very much, although satisfaction with career support does have an independent effect on job satisfaction. Workers who rate this support higher, show a higher satisfaction with their job. However, the extend HRM-practices are used by organisations seems not be important with respect to job satisfaction. The effects of all four work environment variables remain significant, but of the other variables only sector and ethnicity still have a significant effect on overall job satisfaction. This does not mean these variables are not important for job satisfaction. The absence of a direct relationship does not exclude the existence of an indirect association between the variables in our model and overall job satisfaction. Table 4 illustrates this. In this table we have performed a similar analysis as in table 3. However, this time the four partial satisfaction variables are used as dependent variables. Also, all independent variables are at the same time included in the analysis. Table 4. Unianova analysis with aspect of work environment as dependent variables
Satisfaction with management covariates Gender (1= Man) Age Etnicity (1 = Dutch) educational level Permanent position (1=yes) Full time (1=yes) Supervisory position (1 = yes) income Skill utilization (1 = underutilized) Extend of HRM practices Satisfaction with career support factor variables sector R2 and (N) ** p < 0.01 ns 0.03 ns ns ns ns 0.03 ns - 0.07 0.12 0.53 0.08 33.7% (12,840) ns ns ns 0.03 ns ns 0.05 ns - 0.18 0.05 0.35 0.09 19.8% (12,697) -0.07 -0.03 Ns Ns Ns -0.08 Ns 0.14 -0.09 0.05 0.31 0.12 17,1% (12,810) 0.03 -0.05 ns ns -0.05 ns ns -0.03 0.03 ns 0.19 0.18 10,1% (12,875) Satisfaction with tasks Satisfaction with pay Satisfaction with workload

The results show that important indirect effects on overall job satisfaction do exist. The individual characteristics remain relatively unimportant, as their effects remain insignificant or quite low. Only with respect to pay satisfaction, gender is an important exception. Women

11

are more satisfied with their pay than man which is especially interesting as in this analysis the effect of actual income is held constant! In general, four variables seem to have relevant indirect effect. Especially satisfaction with career support is an important variable: the association between this variable and management satisfaction is substantial (eta .53!). The effect of the extend of HRM-practices is substantial lower, though with respect to management satisfaction a relatively important effect does exist: the availability of more HRM-practices does lead to a higher satisfaction with management, and to a lesser extend also to a (somewhat) higher task and pay satisfaction a relationship with work load however does not exist. The other two important variables are skill utilization and sector. Clearly, workers who feel their skills are under-utilized are less satisfied with their tasks, with management and with their pay. There is a significant positive effect on workload though. This, however, is not surprising it seems logical that workers who feel they can do more are having fewer problems with their workload. Finally, it is interesting to note that sector is a relevant variable in all four cases, but especially with management and task satisfaction. A final note however must be added to this, as still another indirect effect must be taken into account. Table 5 holds the results of an analysis with the satisfaction with career support as a dependent variable. Table 5. UNIANOVA analysis with satisfaction career support as dependent variable
Satisfaction with career support Covariates Gender (1= Man) Age Ethnicity (1 = Dutch) Educational level Permanent position (1=yes) Full time (1=yes) Supervisory position (1 = yes) income Skill utilization (1 = underutilized) Extend of HRM practices factor variables sector R2 and (N) ** p < 0.01 0.03 Ns Ns 0.03 Ns Ns Ns Ns - 0.14 0.19 0.12 7,9% (13,141)

Although overall explained variance is quite low, two important effects must be noted. Firstly, the extend HRM-practices are used, is a relatively important determinant of career support satisfaction. When more HRM-practices are available according to the respondents, their satisfaction with career support will rise. This result strongly suggests HRM-practices are related to overall job satisfaction. Not directly, but indirectly especially through the career support employers provide and through the positive effect the existence of HRM-practices have on management satisfaction.

12

Skill utilization also has a clear significant effect on career support satisfaction. Not surprisingly, workers who feel they are under-utilized, are less satisfied with career support. This shows this variable also is an important indirect contributor to overall job satisfaction. Finally, sector differences remain also important. It is interesting to note sector is a significant variable in all analysis suggesting it plays both directly and indirectly a relatively important part as determinant of job satisfaction. Meso-research (within the sectors) is probably needed to ascertain why sector differences remain important notwithstanding the inclusion of many relevant other variables. Conclusion Commitment and participation of workers in the public sector is related to their job satisfaction. The idea that motivated and committed workers are an essential condition for the success of an organisation is a kernel of HRM-theory. In this respect reports indicating that job satisfaction of public sector workers is on the decline, is worrying. It is an empirical question to what extend reforms in the public sector has contributed to this decline. The former Dutch Cabinet, however, has acknowledged the problems associated with it, and has formulated recommendations to counter the adverse consequences. In this paper determinants of job satisfaction of workers in the Dutch public sector have been analysed. In this respect four types of independent variables were discerned: individual characteristics, job characteristics, work environment variables, and variables related to HRM-practices. Compared to other research, overall job satisfaction of Dutch public workers seems to be not particularly high. With respect to partial satisfaction of aspects of their work environment, workers seem especially dissatisfied with management of the organisation, their workload, and their pay. They are more positive about their tasks. Overall satisfaction is mainly determined by workers satisfaction with their work environment. The direct effect of individual and job characteristics is limited though a small effect of ethnicity and gender does exist. HRM-related variables do also have some effect, though only satisfaction with career support has a significant direct effect on job satisfaction. Interestingly, sector differences are also relevant. In general, satisfaction with work tasks is by far the most important determinant of overall satisfaction. This is a good thing for organisations in the public sector, as this is also the element of work environment Dutch public workers are most positive about. Even after all the other independent variables are taken into account, sector still has a significant effect on overall job satisfaction. Further research to investigate why this is happening is necessary research on meso (sector) -level would probably be most relevant to provide these answers. Although the extent of use of HRM-practices does not have a direct effect on overall job satisfaction, it does have important indirect effects. More use of HRM-practices is especially related to a higher satisfaction with management of the organisation and with

13

career support. To a lesser extend it is also positively associated with task and pay satisfaction. With respect to the other variables, skill utilization is especially indirectly associated with overall job satisfaction. Workers who feel under-utilized are dissatisfied with management, career support and their tasks; through these variables overall satisfaction is therefore also adversely influenced. The results give some clues how management can influence the job satisfaction of public sector workers. Their main attention should undoubtedly go towards the (organization of) tasks. Seen from this perspective, the introduction of new work forms that are associated with higher worker autonomy can be evaluated positively. To a lesser extend they have to focus on the way management is organized and workers are directed. Turning to HRM-practices will not be a panacea to solve problems with job satisfaction, but it will certainly help. Investing in career support programs will also help (provided workers will evaluate these positively), whereas investing in a systematic HRMprogramme will also be helpful. At least, the latter is suggested by the fact that more use of HRM-practices is positively related with the satisfaction of several aspects of the work environment. This finding also illustrates the need for Public administration academics and practitioners to include more HRM in their theories and policies. Literature Barrows, D. & T. Wesson (2000), A Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction Among Public and Private Sector Professionals, in: The Innovation Journal. 5 (1) http://www.innovation.cc/volumes&issues/vol5_iss1.htm Farnham, D. & S. Horton (1996), Managing People in the Public Services, Houndmills: MacMillan. Hackman J.R. & G.R. Oldham (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, in: Journal of Applied Psychology 60, pp. 159-170. Hackman J.R. & G.R. Oldham (1980),Work redesign, Reading: AddisonWesley. Hammer, M & J. Champy (1993), Reengeneering the Corporation. A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins. Herzberg (1966), Work and the Nature of Man. Ohio: World Publishing. Jayaratne, S.T. (1993), The antecedents, consequences, and correlates of job satisfaction, in: R.T. Golembiewski (ed), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp 111-134. Karl, K.A. & C.L. Sutton, Job values in todays workforce: A comparison of public and private sector employees, in: Public Personnel Management 27 (4) 515-527. Kellough, J.E. (1999), Reinventing public personnel management: Ethical implications for managers and public personnel systems, in: Public Personnel Management 28 (4) 655-671.

14

Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2001), De arbeidsmarkt in de collectieve sector. Investeren in mensen en kwaliteit. [The labour market in the collective sector. Investment in people and quality]. Den Haag. Pfiffer, J.P. (1999), The public service ethic in the new public personnel systems, in: Public Personnel Management Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (1999). Public Management Reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press Reiner, M.D. & J. Zhao (1999), The determinants of job satisfaction among United States Air Force Security Police, in: Review of Public Personnel Administration 19 (3) 5-18. Ting Y. (1996), Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-collar working force: Findings from the Survey of Federal Employees, in: American Review of Public Administration. 26 4399-456 Ting, Y. (1997), Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees, in Public Personnel Management 26 (3), 313-334
To illustrate this, it can be noted that within the Dutch Public Administration Departments no chairs are devoted to HRM in the public administration. 2 Compare Civil Servants Report Less Job Satisfaction, an article in the Washington Post from 26 June 2002 (http:// ) and Job Satisfaction falls for Public Workers in the Guardian from 22 March 2001 (http:// ) 3 The Ministry of Internal Affairs has a coordinating function with respect to personnel affairs in the Netherlands. They have to follow labour relations and conditions of employment in general, and are more specifically responsible for the negations with the unions about a collective agreement for the governmental sector. 4 However, it is not clear whether organisational commitment determines job satisfaction or they other way round. 5 We only use a part of the variables included in the list, as the Cronbachs alpha of other scales was to low, and including more separate variables would make the analysis to complicated. 6 Although we did not want to use this list as a real scale, it is interesting to note that the Cronbachs alpha of the resulting index is 0,75 suggesting that the use of these practices are linked; organisations that use one aspect, do more often also use another aspect. 7 A score of 3 in the survey means that the respondent answered neutral to the question whether he was dissatisfied or satisfied with a certain aspect.
1

15