LDRSHP Week 3 Disc

Current Trends in Public Personnel Administration

Jon Aarum Andersen holds two

master’s degrees from Norway as well as

a doctorate from Lund University, Sweden.

He has written 13 university-level textbooks

and has a number of international research

journal publications. He is now engaged

in lecturing and tutoring at the master’s

and doctoral levels, as well as in research

on leadership and organizational issues at

Lillehammer University College, Norway,

and Linnaeus University, Sweden.

E-mail: [email protected]

Public versus Private Managers 131

Jon Aarum Andersen Lillehammer University College

Public versus Private Managers: How Public and Private Managers Diff er in Leadership Behavior

Th is article aims to fi nd out whether there are behavioral diff erences between public and private sector managers. Two groups of public managers (managers of social insurance agencies and public school principals) and a group of private managers (two samples) are investigated. Behavioral dimensions are investigated including leadership style (task, relationship, and change orientation), decision-making style (the functions of sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling), and motivation profi le (achievement, affi liation, and power motivation). An analysis of data from 459 managers in four organizations in Sweden reveal signifi cant diff erences in behavior between public and private managers. However, no signifi cant diff erences in leadership behavior are discovered among public managers. Possible explanations for such diff erences and similarities are explored.

Bower (1977) wrote that although we know enough about management in the public sector to know that it is diff erent from corporate management, we do not know nearly as much as we should. Twenty-fi ve years later, Van Wart (2003) pointed out the lack of empirical research on public leadership. A number of studies have been undertaken aimed at describing and understanding the diff erences, if any, between public and private management.

Buchanan (1975) compared public and private man- agers’ attitudes toward job involvement. Signifi cant diff erences were found between business and govern- ment managers, but the results were not as expected. Middle managers in business ascribed signifi cantly more salience to formal structure than the government group and reported signifi cantly greater job involvement. Th is study did not concern the question of managerial behavior, but rather managers’ attitudes. Rainey (1979) held that the specifi cation of empirical

diff erences between categories is fundamental to the development of sound theory.

Some scholars complain about the general scarcity of empirical studies of public management. Rainey (1982) found diff erences between public and private managers regarding reward preferences, but did not investigate diff erences in behavior. Consequently, Rainey (1989) presented a table of distinctive charac- teristics of public management and public organiza- tions, including work-related attitudes and behaviors. One of the areas for research mentioned by Rainey (1989) was a comparison of public and private manag- ers in terms of behavior. He discussed the develop- ments in research on the distinctive characteristics of public managers and the organizations in which they work. Public and private organizations and their employees often do virtually the same tasks. Th ere is no real distinction between public and private man- agement. Th e present study challenges this statement regarding managerial behavior.

It may, therefore, be valid to investigate whether managers in public agencies diff er from managers in private companies in terms of behavior. Th e study aims to isolate the behavioral patterns that guide lead- ers’ behavior. Extensive research has been undertaken on each of the variables investigated (e.g., Yukl 2002).

Th e purpose of this study is to investigate whether there are behavioral diff erences between public and private managers. Additionally, the aim is to deter-

mine whether there are behavio- ral diff erences between diff erent groups of public managers. In order to do so, managers of social insurance agencies, public school principals, and private managers in Sweden are investigated. Th e comparison of managerial behavior is based on three theoretical concepts: (1) leadership style describes the

Th e purpose of this study is to investigate whether there are

behavioral diff erences between public and private managers.

Additionally, the aim is to determine whether there are

behavioral diff erences between groups of public managers.

132 Public Administration Review • January | February 2010

behavior of the leader by task, relationship, and change orienta- tion; (2) managerial decision-making style describes the typical way in which managers solve problems and make decisions by sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling; and (3) motivation profi le captures the relative strength of managers’ achievement, affi liation, and power motivation.

Leadership Style Leadership style theories describe the behavioral patterns of leaders in terms of consideration and initiating structure (Fleishman and Harris 1962). Th e factors are found simultaneously in the behavior of leaders, but to varying degrees. Ekvall and Arvonen (1991, 1994) investigated these two behavioral factors. When analyzing data from several hundred managers in Sweden, Finland, and the United States, a third factor called changed-centered leadership style emerged. Th is factor may have developed as a result of the accelerating rate of change. Yukl (2002, 64) noted with reference to Ekvall and Arvonen (1991) that research suggests a three-dimensional model provides the most useful way to group specifi c behaviors into general catego- ries. Th e bulk of the research on leadership style has been carried out on business managers. However, Dunoon (2002) argued in favor of the learning-centered leadership approach to public management, which is associated with the transformational leadership theory. Th is approach is somewhat similar to the change-centered leadership style concept applied in this study (Arvonen 2002). Th e leadership style variables used by Hanbury, Sapat, and Washington (2004) in studying public managers are theoretically closely associated to the ones applied here, but are measured by a diff erent instrument.

Decision-Making Style Problem solving and decision making are vital components of man- agement. Jung’s typology (1921) has greatly infl uenced management research. Jung claimed that humans are guided by one of four func- tions when solving problems: sensing, which is a perception through our senses; thinking, which gives us meaning and understanding; feeling, which judges and assesses; and intuition, which tells us about the possibilities in the future (Jung 1976, 203). Th ere are two ways in which we can perceive problems, namely, by the use of sens- ing and by intuition. Th ere are only two ways to solve a problem, that is, by thinking and by feeling. According to Jung, all humans have a dominant function (which is that person’s strength) and an inferior function. If, for instance, the dominant function is think- ing, the weakest function will be feeling. Keegan (1984) adopted this theory and made it available to professionals and managers. He claimed that Jung’s typology gives a genuine insight into the question of why individuals succeed or fail in their decision making. Several scholars (e.g., Cook 1998; Hanbury, Sapat, and Washington 2004; Van Wart 2003) have underlined the importance of decision making for public managers.

Motivation Profi le McClelland (1990) performed extensive research on motivation- related behavior in managers. Every individual has, to a varying degree, a need for achievement, power, and affi liation. Th e need for achievement is defi ned as the desire to do better than others or to solve problems and master diffi cult tasks more eff ectively. Th e need for affi liation is the desire to establish and maintain close and friendly relationships with other people. Th e need for power is defi ned as the desire to control other people, to infl uence their

behavior, or to be responsible for other people and their work. Th e term “need profi le” denotes the relative strengths of the three needs. Th ree motivation profi les are used in this research tradition based on the “strongest” of the three needs, namely, the achievement motivation profi le, the affi liation motivation profi le, and the power motivation profi le. What is crucial is not the strength of any specifi c need, but rather the relative strength of the needs—the motivation profi le.

Do public and private managers diff er in their leadership styles, decision-making styles, and motivation profi les? If so, in which behavioral dimensions do they diff er? Finally, if they diff er, what might the reasons be for diff erences in leadership behavior between public and private managers?

The Organizations and Their Managers Th e National Social Insurance Board and the social insurance offi ces together administer social insurance schemes in Sweden. Th ey are responsible for the greater part of the Swedish fi nancial safety net. Th e local social insurance offi ces are given directives and tasks to perform by the National Social Insurance Board. At present, there are 200 social insurance offi ces in Sweden, each with a senior offi cer in charge.

Almost all schools in Sweden are public organizations, even though independent schools are increasing in number. Each school has a principal and at least one deputy. Th e public schools are the respon- sibility of the municipalities. Guidelines for the schools are subject to government decisions. Th e municipalities decide how to man- age the schools in their area, a fact that has led to many diff erent structures. Th e public managers taking part in this study are neither elected nor tenured.

Since the early 1970s, major changes have taken place in Swedish society, and especially within the public sector. Today, there is an imbalance between what the people demand and what the state can supply. For the social insurance agencies, the discrepancy between the need for services and the public funds available is dramatic. Consequently, a great number of changes have been introduced to cope with this quickly growing defi cit of funds. For civil servants, this has meant enormous changes to be coped with internally, as well as in relation to the demands of citizens.

Since the mid-1970s, education in Sweden has been restructured. Th e decentralization of educational decisions is now linked to economic restrictions. Local authorities have more responsibility, local initiatives are encouraged, and school leaders now experience cross-pressures between confl icting expectations. Th e state expects school leaders to be bosses with ultimate responsibility for all daily activities. Th e teachers, in turn, expect their principal to be an administrator. Th us, the role of the principal is partly that of being a manager (related to the external world) and a leader (encouraging local initiative and priorities).

Business managers are individuals in formal leadership positions in private companies. Th e responsibility for producing results and for personnel is vested in them. Attainment of (fi nancial) goals is the core of business management. In this respect, there are no diff erences between private and public managers’ tasks, as public

Public versus Private Managers 133

managers are also preoccupied with the achievement of established goals (Cook 1998).

Hypotheses Previous research indicates both diff erences and similarities between public and private managers as well as among public managers in a number of aspects. Th erefore, two general propositions are formulated: (1) there are sig- nifi cant diff erences between public and private managers in leadership behavior (leadership style, decision-making style, and motivation profi le), and (2) there are signifi cant diff erences among public managers in leadership behavior (leadership style, decision-making style, and motivation profi le).

Leadership Style Fernandez (2004) applied the term “leadership style” and described a style that gives subordinates greater discretion. Th is concept is somewhat similar to the relationship-oriented leadership style. Fern- andez reported no data on business managers. No research is found on public managers’ production-oriented style.

Regarding the change-oriented style, Roessner (1977) addressed the question of whether public organizations are inherently less innova- tive than private organizations. Empirical evidence, though limited, gives reason to doubt the hypothesis that public organizations are inherently immune to eff orts to increase innovation. He found that the available evidence indicates no particular superiority on the part of the private sector. Roessner (1977), however, did not investigate change-related behavior of managers. Rainey (1979, 1983) and Baldwin (1986) found no diff erences between middle manag- ers in public and private organizations on self-reported interest in innovation. Yet in attitude surveys, public employees and managers reported an interest in change and openness to it (Rainey 1983).

Innovative behaviors on the part of government executives show— according to Doig and Hargrove (1987)—that many assertions about rigidity in the public sector overgeneralize to a harmful degree. When describing entrepreneurial public managers in the United States, the dimensions used were management skills and commitment to program goals. Th ese are not behavioral dimen- sions, but antecedents of behavior. Rainey (1989) wrote that previ- ous research had not indicated the extent to which public managers show more initiative. Fernandez (2004) described a leadership style that actively promotes change. His concept of style may have something in common with the relationship-oriented and change- oriented styles. Any similarity between these concepts and the ones used in this study cannot be ascertained, however, as the items used to measure the styles are not given.

Nutt (2004) off ered a framework to determine when a public organization will be susceptible to change and some ways to man- age the change process. His work does not address the question of managerial behavior, but rather the structural limitations to strategic change. Nutt’s suggestions for eff ective leadership with regard to organizational change are not presented in terms of managerial behavior. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) investigated the role of pub- lic managers in the change process. However, they do not address

the issue of managers’ change behavior. In summing up previous research, we note that no study concerns change-oriented behavior. No empirical study reports diff erences between public and private managers in terms of attitudes to or interest in change.

Th e objective of the social insurance agen- cies is to provide social security for citizens according to legislation and administrative rules, in addition to providing these services as effi ciently as possible. For these logical reasons, senior offi cials in the social insur- ance agencies are expected to be predomi- nantly production oriented. As the school manager has frequent contact with pupils

and citizens and is in charge of a labor-intensive organization, we may expect public managers to have a relationship-oriented leadership style.

Previous research on business managers in Sweden shows that they have a predominantly relationship-oriented leadership style. Research gives strong indications that this style is found relatively more often among private managers than among public managers (Arvonen 2001b; Arvonen and Pettersson 1999; Sverke, Arvonen, and Lindell 1999). We expect the same pattern to emerge in the private manager sample.

H1: Managers in social insurance agencies have a predomi- nantly production-oriented leadership style, while school principals have a relationship-oriented style. Business manag- ers have a relationship-oriented style.

Decision-Making Style It is diffi cult to fi nd research on decision-making behavior in public managers. However, some studies have addressed issues of restrictions on and support for public managers regarding decision making. Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman (1995) found that public and private managers diff ered little on general questions about rule enforcement. Public managers did not diff er from business manag- ers in terms of their perceptions of organizational formalization.

Because of the high number of legal documents and formal proce- dures that characterize the social insurance sector, these managers are expected to use the sensing decision-making function. Schools are established to provide education for the younger generation. School principals are in daily contact with many individuals apart from staff . Th is includes meeting pupils and parents, among others. For these logical reasons, principals are expected to make decisions based on the feeling function. Because of the single objective of pri- vate companies (generating return on assets), private managers (as a group) are expected to use the thinking decision-making function.

H2: Managers in the social insurance sector use the sensing decision-making function. School managers make decisions based on the feeling function. Private managers use the think- ing decision-making style.

Motivation Profi le Guyot (1962) compared the motivation profi le (achievement, affi liation, and power motivation) of 247 middle managers in

Previous research indicates both diff erences and similarities

between public and private managers as well as among

public managers in a number of aspects.

134 Public Administration Review • January | February 2010

businesses and the U.S. federal government. He found that diff er- ences in achievement motivation were signifi cant between govern- ment and business managers. Th e levels of achievement motivation and affi liation motivation were higher for the public managers. No signifi cant diff erence was found between the two groups regarding power motivation. He based his work on McClelland’s theory (as in this study) and used the Th ematic Apperception Test to measure motivation factors.

Rainey (1979, 1983) and Baldwin (1986) found no diff erences between middle managers in public and private organizations on self-reported motivation. Rainey (1979) stated that the results do not necessarily indicate that government managers have lower moti- vation than business managers. Perry and Porter (1982) reviewed the motivational bases of behavior in organizational settings in public organizations. Th eir review does not address the motivation of public managers. Rainey (1983) studied public and private man- agers’ perceptions of motivation and promotion (as well as other factors), which are relevant to this study. Baldwin (1987) explored the impact of employee motivation. His study dealt with the degree of motivation of public managers, whereas this study is about the kind of motivation that public managers have (motivation profi le). Durant et al.’s (2006) study is not about managers’ motivation, but rather the motivation of subordinates.

Based on the fi ndings of Guyot (1962), achievement motivation and affi liation motivation are expected to be higher for public managers than private managers. For logical reasons, senior offi cials in the social insurance agencies are expected to be predominantly achievement motivated. Schools are “people” organizations. For this reason, principals are expected to be affi liation motivated.

As managers are primarily concerned with infl uencing other people, they are assumed to be power motivated (McClelland 1971). Harrell and Stahl (1981) found that power motivation was dominant for American executives. Contrary to Guyot’s fi ndings, we expect busi- ness managers to be more power motivated than public managers, as more recent research indicates that this might be the case.

H3: Managers in social insurance agencies are predominantly achievement motivated, while school principals are affi liation motivated. Business managers are power motivated.

Th e heads of social insurance offi ces and pub- lic school principals are in charge of diff erent organizations with quite diff erent objectives and tasks. Consequently, the second general proposition says that there are signifi cant diff erences between the two groups of public managers in leadership behavior. We note that no previous research concerns diff erences in behavior between managers in diff erent kinds of public organiza- tions. For this reason, the hypotheses formulated here are based on the logical arguments given earlier. Th e hypotheses specify the diff erences between the two groups of public managers with regard to leadership styles, decision-making styles, and motivation profi les. Table 1 summarizes the hypotheses regarding the diff erences in leadership behaviors.

Method and Instruments Rainey (1979) pointed out the importance of basing research into public management on a sound conceptual basis, building on previous research where feasible and appropriate. For this reason, the concepts, defi nitions, and instruments used in this study belong to a long and well-established tradition in leadership research (Bass 1990; Yukl 2002).

Samples and Data Collection Guyot (1962) argued that procedures and styles are more in evi- dence in the middle brackets of management. Buchanan (1975) stressed the importance of middle management for comparisons between public and private organizations. Rainey (1979, 1983) investigated middle managers in public and private organizations. Rainey (1979, 1982) defi ned the middle manager as a person in a supervisory position below the level of vice president or assistant agency head, yet with at least one supervisory position below him or her. Th e empirical defi nition of administrative leadership applied by Van Wart (2003, 216) as leadership from above the frontline super- visor to the nonpolitical head of the organization, is used in this study of public managers. Th e present investigation concerns middle managers. Th ey hold supervisory positions below the level of chief executive offi cer (or vice president), yet with at least one supervisory position below them.

Four samples constitute the basis for the comparison between formal leaders in Sweden. One sample contains data from 61

senior offi cials, constituting 31 percent of all offi cials in charge of regional social insurance offi ces. Data on senior offi cials in two regions were collected by a postal survey (response rate 95 percent) (Andersen and Månsson 2004). Th e second sample came from 176 principals and deputy principals in primary and secondary schools based on the mem- bership fi les from the two main unions for school principals. Again, the method used was a postal survey. Th e response rate was 70 percent (Hansson and Andersen 2007). Th e

data from the private sector came from two samples of managers at diff erent levels, excluding top managers (chief executive offi cers) and supervisors (lowest level). Th e third sample contained leader- ship-style data on 148 Swedish managers rated by 1,561 subordi- nates (Arvonen 2001a). Th is sample was collected in situ when the respondents were participating in management training programs. Th e fourth sample contains postal survey data on decision-mak- ing styles and motivation profi les from 222 managers (response rate 71 percent) from eight manufacturing and service companies

Table 1 Overview of Hypotheses

Behavioral Dimensions

Public Managers

Private Managers Social Insurance Managers

School Managers

Leadership style H1: Production oriented

H1: Relationship oriented

H1: Relationship oriented

Decision-making function

H2: Sensing H2: Feeling H2: Thinking

Motivation profi le H3: Achievement H3: Affi liation H3: Power

Four samples constitute the basis for the comparison between formal leaders in

Sweden. . . . [However, no] claim is made that the samples investigated are representative for all public and all private

managers in Sweden.

Public versus Private Managers 135

(Andersen 1994). Identical instruments (Swedish version) were used for all factors and samples. No claim is made that the sam- ples investigated are representative for all public and all private managers in Sweden.

Instruments for Measuring Leadership Behaviors Th e CPE (change, production, employee) instrument was pub- lished in Ekvall and Arvonen (1991). It is used to measure leader- ship style and contains 10 items for each factor on the Likert scale from 1 to 4. Th e questionnaire has been tested and found reliable and valid (Ekvall and Arvonen 1991; Skogstad and Einarsen 1999). Subordinates of the managers fi lled in the instrument in the private sample. In the public sample, a self-reporting version was applied (the same items on the Likert scale from 1 to 6). Some caution must be taken when comparing the results from subordinates’ ratings and self-reporting instruments. Th e instrument has been applied in research (e.g., Arvonen and Ekvall 1996; Arvonen and Pettersson 1999; Ekvall and Arvonen 1994; Sverke, Arvonen, and Lindell 1999).

Decision-making style is measured by the Keegan Type Indicator Form B (KTI; Keegan 1982) and published in Keegan (1984). Th e instrument contains 32 items, 24 of which are bipolar statements, and 8 of which are statements to be ranked (scale from 1 to 4). Th e instrument has acceptable face and content validity and is based explicitly on Jung’s typology. Th e KTI is a test for managers measur- ing decision-making styles based on Jung’s theory (Andersen 2000a, 57). Th e KTI instrument has been used in research (e.g., Andersen 1994, 2000a, 2004; Hansson and Andersen 2007).

Th e Andersen Motivation Profi le Indicator (AMPI) is applied to measure motivation profi le according to McClelland’s defi nitions. It is a forced-choice instrument with 24 pairs of questions and 8 pairs of items for each of the variables. Items of the AMPI instrument are found in McClelland and Steele (1972). Th e full instrument is available in English. Th e instrument has been tested for reli- ability and validity (Andersen 1991). Th e AMPI has been applied in research (e.g., Andersen 1994, 1999, 2000b; Hansson and Andersen 2001).

Analysis Two kinds of analyses are applied in order to fi nd out whether man- agers have diff erent behavioral patterns. First, theories on leadership style, decision-making style, and motivation profi le all focus on grouping leaders into categories. Th e highest scores for the three variables for leadership style, the four decision-making variables, and the three motivation variables are used to classify each respond- ent. Th e χ2 tests are used to fi nd out whether there are signifi cant diff erences in the distribution of leadership behaviors between lead- ers. Second, in order to compare the mean scores of the 10 behav- ioral variables across the categories, pairwise t-tests are applied. It is important to stress that these are two diff erent kinds of analyses.

Analysis by Respondents In order to establish whether the diff erence in distribution of leader- ship styles between public and private managers is purely random, χ2 tests are applied. A 3 x 2 χ2 test on the samples shows that the diff erence in leadership styles is signifi cant, χ2 (2, n = 361) = 22,396, p < .001. Th is result supports hypothesis 1 (see table 2a).

We also fi nd diff erences in the relative distribution of distinctive decision functions between the groups. A 4 x 2 χ2 test shows that the diff erence between public and private managers is signifi cant, χ2 (3, N = 439) = 12,603, p < .05. Th erefore, hypothesis 2 is supported.

Th ere are considerable diff erences in the distribution of distinctive motivation profi les between the two groups. A 3 x 2 χ2 test informs us that the diff erence is signifi cant, χ2 (2, N = 414) = 8,263, p < .05. Public and private managers’ motivation profi les are signifi cantly diff erent. Th is supports hypothesis 3.

Managers in social insurance agencies predominantly have the change-oriented style, and not the hypothesized production- oriented style (see table 2b). Almost half of the school principals have the change-oriented style, and not the relationship style. More than two-thirds of the business managers have the relationship- oriented style (table 2a). Th e means for these variables are also the highest (table 3a). Th ese data indicate no support for hypothesis 1 for the public managers, but do support the hypothesis for the private sector.

Th e managers in the social insurance sector are mostly intui- tive types. Th ey do not mainly use the sensing decision-making

Table 2a Distribution of Leadership Behavioral Dimensions, Public and Private Managers (N = 439)

Behavioral Dimensions Public Managers Private Managers

Leadership style N = 213 N = 148

Relationship style 46% (98) 69% (102)

Task style 4% (9) 6% (9)

Change style 50% (106) 25% (37)

Decision-making function N = 230 N = 209

Sensing 15% (34) 26% (55)

Intuition 38% (87) 32% (66)

Thinking 20% (46) 23% (49)

Feeling 27% (63) 19% (39)

Motivation profi le N = 205 N = 209

Achievement motivation 46% (95) 33% (68)

Affi liation motivation 21% (43) 26% (55)

Power motivation 33% (67) 41% (86)

Table 2b Distribution of Leadership Behavioral Dimensions, Public Managers (N = 230)

Behavioral Dimensions Social Insurance Managers School Managers

Leadership style N = 58 N = 155

Relationship style 43% (25) 47% (73)

Task style 5% (3) 4% (6)

Change style 52% (30) 49% (76)

Decision-making function N = 58 N = 172

Sensing 19% (11) 14% (23)

Intuition 37% (21) 38% (66)

Thinking 22% (13) 19% (33)

Feeling 22% (13) 29% (50)

Motivation profi le N = 53 N = 152

Achievement motivation 53% (28) 44% (67)

Affi liation motivation 7% (4) 26% (39)

Power motivation 40% (21) 30% (46)

136 Public Administration Review • January | February 2010

function, as hypothesized. Most school managers also use intui- tion when making decisions, but were expected to make decisions based on the feeling function. As a group, private managers also depend more on intuition, and less on thinking than expected. Th e means for these variables are also the highest (table 3a). Th ese data indicate no support for hypothesis 2 for any of the groups.

More than half of the managers in social insurance agencies are achievement motivated, as expected. School principals are also mainly achievement motivated and not affi liation motivated as hypothesized. Most business managers are characterized—as expected—by power motivation (table 2a). Th e means for these variables are also the highest (table 3a). Th ese data indicate support for hypothesis 3 for the social insurance and private managers, but not for the school managers.

Analysis by Variables Pairwise t-tests are performed in order to ascertain whether there are signifi cant diff erences between public and private managers

in leadership behavior (table 3a). Th ese tests show that there are signifi cant diff erences between public and private managers in terms of leadership style (all three variables), decision-making style (three out of four variables), and motivation profi le (two out of three vari- ables). Public and business managers are signifi cantly diff erent in leadership behavior.

In order to fi nd out whether there are signifi cant diff erences between the two groups of public managers in leadership behavior, pairwise t-tests are performed (table 3b). Th is analysis shows that there are no signifi cant diff erences between public managers in social insurance agencies and schools regarding change-oriented style, intuition, and achievement motivation. Th is is in accord- ance with the distribution of variables (table 2b). Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are not supported. Managers in these two diff erent public organizations do not diff er signifi cantly in leadership behavior. For behavior variables, which do not characterize public managers’ behavior, there are signifi cant diff erences in relationship and task styles, in thinking and feeling decision functions, and in affi liation and power motivation.

Table 3a Leadership Variables, Public and Private Managers, Means and t-test (N = 459)

Behavioral Dimensions

Public Managers Private Managers Pairwise Comparisons of Means

Mean Mean t-value

Leadership style N = 237 N = 148 Public versus private managers

Relationship style 4.66 4.998 –10.08**

Task style 4.31 3.968 2.76**

Change style 4.96 4.507 3.66**

Decision-making function N = 237 N = 222

Sensing 41.20 45.47 –2.26*

Intuition 49.68 46.43 3.03**

Thinking 40.26 42.09 –1.85

Feeling 44.86 42.02 2.87**

Motivation profi le N = 237 N = 222

Achievement motivation 8.99 8.31 2.33*

Affi liation motivation 6.87 6.87 0

Power motivation 8.16 8.82 –2.59**

* p <.05; ** p <.01.

Table 3b Leadership Behavioral Variables, Public Managers, Means and t-test (N = 237)

Behavioral Dimensions

Social Insurance Managers School Managers Pairwise Comparisons of Means

Mean Mean t-value

Leadership style N = 61 N = 176 Social insurance managers versus school managers

Relationship style 4.93 4.56 5.23**

Task style 4.43 4.27 1.97*

Change style 5.03 4.93 1.23

Decision-making function N = 61 N = 176

Sensing 43.26 40.49 1.80

Intuition 48.26 50.18 –1.15

Thinking 42.74 39.40 2.05*

Feeling 41.74 45.92 –2.55**

Motivation profi le N = 61 N = 176

Achievement motivation 9.36 8.82 1.47

Affi liation motivation 5.89 7.22 –3.31**

Power motivation 8.75 7.95 2.10*

* p <.05; ** p <.01.

Public versus Private Managers 137

Summary of Findings When testing whether there are diff erences in leadership behaviors, the χ2 tests yield signifi cant diff erences between public and private managers regarding leadership styles, and motivation profi les distri- butions. Public and private managers diff er signifi cantly in leader- ship behavior, but not in decision-making styles.

Senior offi cials in social insurance offi ces mostly have the change- oriented leadership style. Th ey are mostly intuitive types and have the achievement motivation profi le. Most school principals have the change-oriented style. Th ey are basically intuitive in their decision making. Th e principals are also achievement motivated. Private managers are predominantly relationship oriented. Th ey are basically intuitive when making decisions. As expected, private managers are power motivated. It is worth noting that both public and private managers use intuition most frequently when making decisions. Th is is not the case for all kinds of organizational managers (Hansson and Andersen 2001). Nutt (2006) investi- gated whether public and private managers had diff erent views of risk and adoption in decision making. Based on the Jungian func- tions, he found that public managers used the intuition and thinking styles more often than private managers. Private managers used the sensing and thinking styles more. Th ese results are not directly comparable to this study as “no analysis of individual responses was off ered” (Nutt 2006, 313). When test- ing for diff erences in behaviors, pairwise t-tests show signifi cant diff erences. Th ere are signifi cant diff erences between public and private managers in terms of leadership style and motivation profi le. Th is result supports hypotheses 1 and 3. Th is is contrary to Rainey (1989), who claimed that there is no real distinction between public and private management.

An interesting result from this study is that the public managers as a group appear to have virtually the same behavioral patterns. Public managers have the change-oriented leadership style, make decisions by use of intuition, and are achievement motivated. Th e result is contrary to Van Wart (2003), who pointed out that the diff erences between public leaders are far greater and more challenging than are the similarities. In table 4, the hypothesized diff erences as well as the diff erences and similarities found are presented. Table 5 shows the behavioral diff erences and the similarity between public and private managers.

How Can These Differences and Similarities Be Explained? Th is study shows that there are signifi cant diff erences between pub- lic and private managers in terms of leadership behavior, while pub- lic managers appear to have virtually the same behavioral patterns.

Th e purpose of this section is to interpret and contextualize these fi ndings in the light of two prominent theoretical traditions: the public– private distinctions tradition, which is prima- rily rooted in public administration, and the person– organization fi t, which draws from the larger body of scholarship on private sector management. In addition to the public–pri- vate distinction and the person– organization fi t, the criteria used when promoting employ- ees to managerial positions may also explain

the diff erences found.

Public–Private Distinction and Leadership Behavior When studying public and private organizations, two competing perspectives are found. Th e generic perspective contains the claim that no such diff erences exist. Th e public–private distinction per- spective contains the argument that there are signifi cant diff erences between public and private organizations.

Table 4 Overview of Hypotheses and Results from the Tests

Behavioral Dimensions

Public Managers

Private ManagersSocial Insurance Managers School Managers

Leadership style H1: Production oriented H1: Relationship oriented H1: Relationship oriented

R: Change oriented R: Change oriented R: Relationship oriented

Decision-making style H2: Sensing H2: Feeling H2: Thinking

R: Intuition R: Intuition R: Intuition

Motivation profi le H3: Achievement H3: Affi liation H3: Power motivation

R: Achievement R: Achievement R: Power motivation

H = Hypothesis R = Result of analysis

Table 5 Behavioral Differences and Similarities between Public and Private Managers

Public Managers Private Managers

Leadership style Change-oriented style: Offers ideas about new and different ways of doing things; pushes for growth; initiates new projects; experiments with new ways of doing things; gives thoughts and plans for the future (Arvonen and Ekvall 1999, 245)

Relationship style: Shows regard for his or her colleagues as individuals, is considerate, is friendly, trusts his/her subordi- nates, allows his/her subordinates to decide (Arvonen and Ekvall 1999, 245).

Decision-making style Intuition: Seeks to exploit the possibilities; oriented towards the future; tries to discover new possibilities and fi nd new solutions; uses imagi- nation; gets carried away with new ideas and possibilities and ignores practical realities (Jung 1971, 1976).

Motivation profi le Achievement motivation: Desires to outperform someone else, meet or surpass some self-imposed standard of excellence, do something unique, be involved over long term in doing something well (McClelland and Steele 1972, 34).

Power motivation: Desires to have impact; make an impres- sion on others; make powerful actions; exert strong positive or negative emotions in others: have concern for own reputation or position (McClelland and Steele 1972, 43).

Th is study shows that there are signifi cant diff erences between public and private managers in terms of leadership behavior, while public managers appear

to have virtually the same behavioral patterns.

138 Public Administration Review • January | February 2010

Researchers advocating the generic perspective claim that public and private organizations face similar constraints and challenges. Management in all types of organizations should be viewed as a generic process. Buchanan (1975) held that these categories are not mutually exclusive. Th ere is a continued need for clarifi cation of the public–private distinction (Rainey 1983). Th e problem of defi ning public–private distinctions is not surprising. Organizations actually range along a continuum of public–private control. Up to 1983, only a few empirical comparisons of public and private organiza- tions had been carried out.

Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman (1995) found that public and private managers diff ered little on general questions about rule enforce- ment. Th ey found no signifi cant diff erence between the public and private managers in perceived goal ambiguity. Rainey and Boze- man (2000) found that public managers do not diff er from private managers in response to such issues. Nor do public managers diff er from business managers in their perceptions of organizational for- malization. Perry and Rainey (2001) discussed the usefulness of the public–private distinction in organizational theory. In contrast to the “public-is-diff erent” view, they presented the thesis that distinct characteristics of public organizations are merely myths that need to be clarifi ed or discarded through sound research.

Vaillancourt Rosenau and Linder (2003) noted that the distinction between the for-profi t and nonprofi t sectors is being questioned. Some economists contend that the diff erences are disappearing altogether. Executives of nonprofi ts and for-profi ts agree that they face the same pressures, that they share the same incentives, and that convergence is taking place. In short, the authors suggested that recent events appear to be driving the two closer together. Many of the conventional distinctions between for-profi ts and nonprofi ts no longer apply.

Among the advocates of the public–private distinction perspective, we fi nd Rainey, Backoff , and Levine (1976), who presented a number of propositions about diff erences in public and private organizations that have implications for management. Th ey claimed that there still is a divergence between public and private organizations and their management. Analysis of similarities and diff erences between public and private organizations raises major diffi culties of classifi ca- tion and defi nition that are not readily resolved. Rainey, Backoff , and Levin (1976) stated that there are indications of a number of important diff erences between private and public organizations that cannot be ignored in management research. More importantly, there are reasons to continue public and private comparisons, not to reject a general understanding of organizations and their management but to supplement it. Th ey claimed that there are signifi cant diff erences in (1) purposes, objectives, and planning; as well as in (2) selection, management, and motivation; and fi nally in (3) controlling and measuring results between these groups of management.

Bower (1977) claimed that public management is not just diff erent in degree from corporate management, but is diff erent in quality. Th e diff erences have important implications for public managers and how they view their jobs. Rainey (1979) claimed that his study might be taken as support for the generalization that, compared to most business organizations, government organizations in the United States will operate under greater procedural constraints on

the administration of extrinsic incentives. Although Rainey (1979) did not investigate the same variables as in this study, it is possible to claim, as he did, that the enduring nature of the diff erences is related to the characteristics of public administration and private companies. Wittmer (1991) stated that previous research indicates that public employees and managers are diff erent from their private sector counterparts in terms of work-related values, reward prefer- ences, needs, and personality types. His study gave mixed results regarding hypothesized diff erences in the following work-related values: pay, job security, service ethics, and other rewards. Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman (1995) found a striking diff erence between public and private managers on personnel rules and constraints. Th is is consistent with other studies. Public agencies show sharply higher levels of formalization of certain functions such as personnel and purchasing.

Cook (1998) argued that it is the character of public administration as a political institution that should be at the center for the concep- tion of public management. What makes public administration and public management public, and thus distinctive, is that politics of the most fundamental sort are at the heart of the enterprise. Cook pointed out that diff erences in external environments help us understand how public and private organizations function and managers act.

Other studies show diff erences between these two groups in other areas. Bozeman and Rainey (1998) found—contrary to expectation and much of the literature—that managers in private organizations were more likely to prefer a greater number of rules than manag- ers in public agencies. Furthermore, Rainey and Bozeman (2000) referred to the almost universal agreement among scholars that public organizations have more complexity and ambiguity. If we conclude that there are profound diff erences between public and private organizations, these diff erences may explain the diff erences in leadership behavior reported here.

Perry and Rainey (2001) stated that the public–private distinction is a signifi cant area of organizational research that needs further analysis. Organizational and management theorists have much to contribute to this topic. Th e “public–private diff erence” stream of research concerns the roles that public and private organizations have in our society. Using this framework, researchers have found that the demands placed on public and private organizations vary to the extent that diff erent practices are recommended for each sector (Nutt 2006). Pandey and Wright (2006) noted that even though well-argued beliefs favor public organizations’ distinctive institu- tional context, much of the scholarship on organizational behavior and theory subscribes to a generic perspective on management and organizations. Public management scholarship has suggested that public organizations are fundamentally diff erent from private organ- izations as a consequence of the functions they provide to society. Pandey and Wright’s study does not make any direct public–private comparisons, but may shed some light on the potential distinctive- ness of public sector organizations and management if one assumes that public organizations are more likely to experience considerable infl uence by organized external actors. Th e fi ndings presented here may be interpreted as support for the importance of the public–pri- vate distinction as this study reports signifi cant diff erences in leader- ship behavior between public and private managers and similarities

Public versus Private Managers 139

in public managers’ behavior. If public and private organizations are diff erent in signifi cant ways, these diff erences may explain the diff er- ences found in leadership behaviors.

Person–Organization Fit, Promotion Criteria, and Leadership Behavior Person–organization fi t theories address the antecedents and conse- quences of compatibility between people and the organizations in which they work. Th ese theories often include models of person– vocation fi t and person–group fi t. Person–vocation fi t theories may predict vocational choice (Kristof 1996). O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) maintain that researchers seem to agree that culture may be an important factor in determining how well an individual fi ts into an organizational context. In studying person–organization fi t, organizational behavior researchers have often taken one of two broad paths. One has led to exploration of the interaction of indi- vidual characteristics and broad occupational attributes. Th e other studies focus on the fi t between specifi c characteristics of an organi- zation and the people in it. Th e two major theories of vocational choice referred to by O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) both postulate that an individual will select a career or occupation that is similar to or that fi ts that person’s self-concept. Th e study off ers strong support for the validity of assessment of person–organization fi t on the basis of value congruence. When investigating person– organization fi t and six independent variables, Hanbury, Sapat, and Washington (2004) found that leadership style and decision-making style (personality) were strongly correlated with years of service for city managers in the United States.

Guyot (1962) assumed that there is a particular appropriate relationship between an individual and his occupational position. Another set of theoretical questions has to do with the latitude of personal behavior that “fi ts” into a particular role. Th ere is general agreement that some sort of relationship does exist between person- alities and occupational roles. One of the explanations suggested by Buchanan (1975) relates to the person–organization fi t theory. When reviewing the motivational bases of behavior in organiza- tional settings in public organizations, Perry and Porter (1982) also applied the individual–organization fi t argument. Rainey (1983) noted that the absence of diff erences on the motivational scale failed to support the argument about the eff ect of civil service systems on motivation. Rainey (1989) asked whether diff erences in context pro- duce diff erences in managerial roles. Commenting on “individual characteristics, work-related attitudes and behaviors,” Rainey (1989) asked whether diff erences in incentive systems result in diff erent attitudes and behaviors.

Th e choice of profession and career is, according to McClelland (1990), related to the power motive. Some professions and voca- tions give people more opportunity to exercise power and exert infl uence. According to McClelland (1971), the power motive may explain why some individuals are attracted to managerial positions. Th ose who work in the social insurance sector appear to be attracted to the possibilities of working for public welfare. It is important to create and sustain confi dence among the general public in the social insurance system. People engaged in the educational sector are supposed to be characterized by a concern for other people. Th is study indicates that this is not the case for public managers. Th e dif- ferences found in work-related values may result from the personal

characteristics of those selecting public service or from socialization and organizational culture (Wittmer 1991). Individuals have diff er- ent values, orientations, and goals and make organizational choices accordingly.

Guyot (1962) suggested that the explanation for diff erences between public and private managers in terms of motivation has to do with the merit system being diff erent in these types of organizations, as well as the selection, retention and promotion criteria. Rainey (1983) commented on the promotion subscales used in his study. He stated that they appear to refl ect badly on the personnel systems and incentive structures of public organizations. Relative dis- satisfaction among public managers was perceived on promotion opportunities.

Knowledge about the diff erences in work-related values can be use- ful in, for instance, recruiting, selecting employees, and promoting managers (Wittmer 1991). As the analysis shows that there are no signifi cant diff erences between the two groups of public managers with respect to leadership behavior, an explanation is needed. Some previous research has also reported similarities based on other vari- ables (e.g., Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Rainey, Pandey, and Boze- man 1995). Th e causes of similarities in public managers’ leadership behavior need to be explored further. It may be that public organiza- tions are (1) basically similar, that (2) some individuals are attracted to public organizations rather than to private companies, and, fi nally, that (3) the criteria for promoting employees to managerial positions in public organizations are basically the same.

Swedish social insurance offi cials have often worked in the same agency for years. Th eir motivation to apply for a senior position is probably no diff erent than that of most other employees. Th e promotion criteria for senior positions are professional qualifi ca- tions, past experience, and personal abilities. School principals are academics, and academic merits are thus required. Promotion criteria in schools include educational profi ciency (degrees and teaching experience), but because staffi ng is in the hands of the local administration, promotion criteria may diff er. We must expect that promotion in companies is to some degree based on managers’ eff ectiveness.

A “public–private diff erence” stream of research initiated a study of the roles that public and private organizations play in our society. Using this framework, researchers have found that the demands placed on public and private organizations vary to the extent that diff erent practices are recommended for each sector (Nutt 2006). Even though the study by Nutt (2004) and this study are not directly comparable, empirical data suggest and support the pub- lic–private distinction. Pandey and Wright (2006) found that the political environment of organizations had an eff ect on organiza- tions and individuals working in them. Th is relationship is not only at the core of public management theory, but also can inform public management practice. Th ese three studies indicate that the leader- ship practices of public managers needs to be diff erent from those of private managers.

Conclusion From these analyses, we conclude that public and private manag- ers are diff erent in terms of two of the three leadership behavioral

140 Public Administration Review • January | February 2010

dimensions investigated. Th e public man- agers investigated in two diff erent types of organizations appear to have almost the same behavioral pattern. Managers in social insurance offi ces and school principals have the change-oriented leadership style. Th ey use mostly intuition when making decisions. Th ese public managers have the achieve- ment motivation profi le. Private managers are predominantly relationship oriented. Th ey are also intuitive when making deci- sions. Private managers are power motivated. Th ere are signifi cant diff erences in leadership behavior between public and private managers, as hypothesized. One similarity in behavior has been reported: both public and pri- vate managers are characterized by intuition as the main decision- making function. Th e theoretical implication is that the behavior dimensions of leadership style, decision-making style, and motiva- tion profi le are relevant in research of leadership behavior in public organizations.

Th ree explanations for the diff erences in leadership behavior between public and private sector managers are presented. Th e fi rst refers to organizational diff erences leading to behavioral diff erences. Th e second has to do with the choice of profession or vocation. Finally, the criteria used by the organizations for promoting people to leadership positions may present yet another explanation. Th ese explanations may cause diff erences in leadership behavior between public and private managers. Th e same factors may also explain why the two groups of public managers exhibit similarity in leadership behavior. Public and private managers may diff er in behavior, but basically they face the same challenges of achieving organizational goals with or through other people.

Acknowledgments Th e author wishes to thank Dr. Kåre Hansen, Tromsø University, Norway, and the three anonymous reviewers for their help in devel- oping this paper.

References Andersen,, Jon Aarum. 1991. Managers and Motivation—Th eory and Test of the AMPI

Instrument [Lederes motivasjon—teori og instrument; in Norwegian]. Lund, Norway: Lund University.

———. 1994. Leadership and Eff ectiveness [Ledelse og eff ektivitet; in Norwegian, summary in English]. Lund, Norway: Lund University Press.

———. 1999. Are Power Motivated Leaders More Eff ective? A Review of McClel- land’s Th eory. In Current Topics in Management, vol. 4, edited by F. Afzalue Rahim, Robert T. Golembiewski, and Kenneth D. Mackenzie, 41–59. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

———. 2000a. Intuition in Managers: Are Intuitive Managers More Eff ective? Journal of Managerial Psychology 15(1): 46–63.

———. 2000b. Th e Weight of History: An Exploration of Resistance to Change in Vicars/Managers. Creativity and Innovation Management 9(3): 147–55.

———. 2004. Managers vs. Vicars. Do Vicars Diff er from Managers in Terms of Leadership Behaviour? Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 1(2): 201–23.

Andersen, Jon Aarum, and Jonas Månsson. 2004. Försäkringskassornas eff ektivitet [Eff ectiveness of social insurance offi ces; in Swedish]. Växjö, Sweden: Växjö University.

Arvonen, Jouko. 2001a. Data File on CPE-Instrument Variables of 148 Swedish Managers Rated by 1,390 Subordinates. Stockholm: Arvonen International. ———. 2001b. Data File on CPE-Instrument Variables Rated by 37,252 Subordinates of Swedish Managers. Stockholm: Arvonen International. ———. 2002. Change, Production and Employees: An Integrated Model of Leadership. PhD diss., Stockholm University. Arvonen, Jouko, and Pär Pettersson. 1999. Leadership Profi les, Moderating Factors, and Coworker Health in the Context of Downsizing. Reports from the Department of Psychology no. 862, Stockholm University.

Arvonen, Jouko, and Goran Ekvall. 1999. Eff ective Leadership Style—Both Univer- sal and Contingent? Creativity and Innovation Management 8(4): 242–50.

Baldwin, J. Norman. 1987. Public versus Private: Not Th at Diff erent, Not Th at Consequential. Public Personnel Management 16(2): 181–93.

Bass, Bernard M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bower, Joseph L. 1977. Eff ective Public Management. Harvard Business Review 55(2): 131–40.

Bozeman, Barry, and Hal G. Rainey. 1998. Organizational Rules and the “Bureaucratic Personality.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 163–89.

Buchanan, Bruce, II. 1975. Red Tape and the Service Ethic. Administration & Society 6(4): 423–44.

Cook, Brian J. 1998. Politics, Political Leadership, and Public Management. Public Administration Review 58(3): 225–30.

Doig, Jameson W., and Edwin C. Hargrove. 1987. Leadership and Innovation: A Bio- graphical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dunoon, Don. 2002. Rethinking Leadership for the Public Sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(3): 3–18.

Durant, Robert F., Robert Kramer, James L. Perry, Debra Mesch, and Laurie Paarl- berg. 2006. Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: Th e Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration Review 66(4): 505–14.

Ekvall, Goran, and Jouko Arvonen. 1991. Change-Centered Leadership: An Exten- sion of the Two-Dimensional Model. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17(1): 17–26.

———. 1994. Leadership Profi les, Situation and Eff ectiveness. Creativity and In- novation Management 3(3): 139–61.

Fernandez, Sergio. 2004. Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework of Public Sector Leadership: Evidence from the Public Education Arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 15(2): 197–217.

Fernandez, Sergio, and Hal G. Rainey. 2006. Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review 66(2): 168–76.

Fleishman, Edwin A., and Edwin F. Harris. 1962. Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover. Personnel Psychology 15: 43–56.

Guyot, James F. 1962. Government Bureaucrats Are Diff erent. Public Administration Review 22(4): 195–202.

Hanbury, George L., Alka Sapat, and Charles W. Washington. 2004. Know Yourself and Take Charge of Your Own Destiny: Th e “Fit Model” of Leadership. Public Administration Review 64(5): 566–76.

Hansson, Per H., and Jon Aarum Andersen. 2001. Th e Swedish Vicar and Change: A Problematic Mismatch. Journal of Empirical Th eology 12(1): 43–56.

———. 2007. Th e Swedish Principal—Leadership Style, Decision-Making Style and Motivation Profi le. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 11. http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/vol11/andersen [accessed September 27, 2009].

Th ere are signifi cant diff erences in leadership behavior between public and private managers,

as hypothesized. One similarity in behavior has been reported:

both public and private managers are characterized by intuition as the main decision-

making function.

Public versus Private Managers 141

Harrell, Adrian M., and Michael J. Stahl. 1981. A Behavioral Decision Th eory Approach for Measuring McClelland’s Trichotomy of Needs. Journal of Applied Psychology 66(2): 242–47.

Jung, Carl G. 1921. Psychological Types. Vol. 6 of Th e Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971. ———. 1976. TYPOLOGI [Typologie—Zur Frage der psychologischen Typen]. Olten: Walter-Verlag, 1972; Stockholm: Berghs. Keegan, Warren J. 1982. Keegan Type Indicator Form B. New York: Warren Keegan Associates Press. ———. 1984. Judgments, Choices, and Decisions. New York: Wiley. Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology 49(1): 1–49. McClelland, David C. 1971. To Know Why Men Do What Th ey Do. Psychology Today, January, 35–75. ———. 1990. Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, David C., and Robert S. Steele. 1972. Motivation Workshops. New York: General Learning Press. Nutt, Paul C. 2004. Prompting the Transformation of Public Organizations. Public Performance and Management Review 27(4): 9–33. ———. 2006. Comparing Public and Private Sector Decision-Making Practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16 (2), 289–318. O’Reilly, Charles A., III, Jennifer Chatman, and David F. Caldwell. 1991. People and Organizational Culture: A Profi le Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-

Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal 34(3): 487–516. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public

Manager’s Role Ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(4): 511–32. Perry, James L., and Lyman W. Porter. 1982. Factors Aff ecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations. Academy of Management Review 7(1): 89–98. Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 2001. Th e Public–Private Distinction in Organization Th eory: A Critique and Research Strategy. Academy of Management Review 13(2):

182–201. Rainey, Hal G. 1979. Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform. Public Administration Review 39(5): 440–48. ———. 1982. Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of Service Ethics. American Review of Public Administration 16(4): 288–302. ———. 1983. Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentive Structure, 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., Robert W. Backoff , and Charles H. Levine. 1976. Comparing Public and Private Organizations. Public Administration Review 36(2): 233–44. 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 Th eory 10(2): 447–69. Rainey, Hal G., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Barry Bozeman. 1995. Research Note: Public and Private Managers’ Receptions of Red Tape. Public Administration Review 55(6):

567–73. Roessner, J. David. 1977. Incentives to Innovate in Public and Private Organizations. Administration & Society 9(3): 341–365. Skogstad, Anders, and Ståle Einarsen. 1999. Th e Importance of a Change-Centered Leadership Style in Four Organizational Cultures. Scandinavian Journal of Management

15(3): 289–306. Sverke, Magnus, Jouko Arvonen, and Martin Lindell. 1999. Assessing Change-, Production-, and Employee-Oriented Leadership. Reports from Department of Psychology

no. 861, Stockholm University. Vaillancourt Rosenau, Pauline, and Stephen H. Linder. 2003. Two Decades of Research Comparing for-Profi t and Nonprofi t Health Provider Performance in the United

States. Social Science Quarterly 84(2): 219–41. Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Public-Sector Leadership Th eory: An Assessment. Public Administration Review 63(2): 214–28. 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. Yukl, Gary A. 2002. Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

STAY CURRENT!

Coming Up in the March/April 2010 Issue ……

A Conversation with Elinor and Vincent Ostrom Retrospectives and Prospectives on Public Budgeting

Th eory to Practice Spotlight on Public Management at the Grassroots

Focus on Public Sector Ethics An Administrative Profi le

Book Reviews

… and MORE!

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.