The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1012-8255.htm

ARLA
31,2 Job satisfaction among senior
managers and employees
A comparative analysis of the public and
410 private sectors in Spain
Received 29 June 2016
Revised 15 December 2016
3 March 2017
7 April 2017
29 May 2017
Satisfacción laboral de los
Accepted 29 October 2017
directivos y los empleados
Análisis comparado sector público-sector
privado en España
Jose Manuel Lasierra
Department of Applied Economics,
Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – Using selected personal and job-related variables, the purpose of this paper is to analyse job
satisfaction among public sector senior managers and employees and then compare both cohorts with
private-sector managers and employees.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors apply a General Linear Univariate Model with
interactions that allows us to detect the influence of the independent variables based on the baseline
reference value.
Findings – Results indicate that public employees differ considerably from employees in the private sector,
while public sector managers’ behaviour and preferences are very similar to those of private-sector managers.
Research limitations/implications – One main conclusion is that the management function of senior
managers is basically the same, whether they are in the public or private sectors, and, thus, private
management techniques, such as new public management (NPM), can be applied to the public sector.
The main shortcoming of the study is that a qualitative analysis does not allow us to observe the impact of
ethical aspects that could guide value-oriented management.
Practical implications – Difficulties in management by public-sector managers may arise from public
employees’ perceptions regarding the application of private management practices.
Social implications – High job-satisfaction ratings by public managers may indicate that, in spite of their
lower wages compared to the private sector, there is no reason to conclude that a suboptimal staffing of public
managers might occur that would jeopardise public services.
Originality/value – The authors are unaware of precedents that analyse differences between the public and
private sectors in comparing employees and senior managers. Uniquely, the authors use a very large sample
to draw conclusions. This paper can guide public senior managers who work in public administration.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Public policy, Personnel management, Labour management,
Public sector labour markets
Paper type Research paper

Academia Revista
Resumen
Latinoamericana de Propósito – Se analiza la satisfacción laboral de los directivos y de los empleados públicos en contraposición
Administración
Vol. 31 No. 2, 2018 a los directivos y empleados privados a partir de determinadas variables de tipo personal y laboral.
pp. 410-425
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1012-8255
DOI 10.1108/ARLA-06-2016-0185 JEL Classification — J28, J45, J48, M12, M54
Metodología – Aplicación de un Modelo Lineal General Univariante con Interacciones que nos permiten ver Public and
la influencia de las variables independientes a partir del valor base de referencia.
Resultados – Los resultados señalan que los empleados públicos difieren notablemente de los empleados del private sectors
sector privado mientras que los directivos públicos expresan comportamientos y preferencias muy similares a in Spain
los directivos del sector privado.
Limitaciones/Implicaciones – La implicación general es que la gestión pública de los directivos no se
diferencia mucho de la gestión privada por lo cual es susceptible de aplicar las técnicas de gestión privada
como el New Public Management. La limitación fundamental es que el análisis cuantitativo no permite
observar la incidencia de aspectos éticos susceptibles de orientar la gestión con valores. 411
Implicaciones prácticas – Las dificultades en la gestión de los directivos públicos pueden venir de la
propia percepción que tienen los empleados públicos de la aplicación de prácticas de gestión privada.
Implicaciones Sociales – La elevada Satisfacción laboral de los directivos públicos señalaría que a pesar
de que sus remuneraciones son inferiores a las del sector privado no tiene por qué producirse una dotación
subóptima de gestores públicos que pudiera perjudicar los servicios públicos.
Originalidad y valor – No conocemos precedentes de analizar la diferencia entre los sectores público y
privado al comparar empleados y directivos. Utilizamos una muestra elevada. El trabajo permite orientar la
gestión pública de los directivos públicos.
Palabras clave Satisfacción laboral, Políticas públicas, Gestión de personal, Directivos, Empleo público
Tipo de papel Trabajo de investigación

1. Introduction, objectives and justification of the investigation

In this paper, we endeavour to analyse job satisfaction ( JS, hereinafter) of public and private
employees and senior managers in Spain.
The reasons for studying this double classification are: senior managers and employees are
two clearly differentiated cohorts in companies; and a priori , the public sector has many
aspects that differentiate it from the private sector. In terms of the former reason, traditionally,
the relationship between senior management and employees is characterised rather more by
conflict than cooperation. Further, the psychology, attitudes and roles of both cohorts are also
different. In traditional organisational schemes, managers design, plan, and give orders, and
others carry them out. In terms of sectorial characteristics, in Spain and more generally in
Europe, a clear difference exists in how regulations for organising work are applied. Normally,
labour regulations in the private sector are applied to protect the weaker component in the
employment relationship, i.e., the worker. In the public sector, however, rules are implemented
to ensure that the interface of public administrations with their employees follows established
guidelines in terms of equity and transparency.
Traditionally, the public and private spheres in countries with a Weberian public
administration, such as continental Europe, have presented significant differences. Yet, since
the last third of the twentieth century, there have been, first, a series of changes in the structure
and function of economic organisation, both at a micro- and macro-economic level. Second,
important transformations have occurred in the management of human resources and the rise
and design of high-performance organisations, based on principles and practices that differ
from traditional methods, both in the public and private sectors. Third, there have also been
important changes in how, in content and practice, the public sector interfaces with civil society.
This leads us to posit a principal objective of this paper: examine the differences and
similarities of both cohorts, i.e., senior managers and employees, in both sectors, public and
private. In other words, public employees vis-à-vis private employees and public senior
managers in relation to private senior managers. In a future paper, we shall analyse
relations between managers and employees in their respective sectors (i.e. public
managers-public employees and private managers-private employees.) We shall analyse JS
and some of its determinants and aspects related to how work is organised, from which
some insights for management may be tapped.
There is plenty of literature about JS among worker cohorts (Rico, 2012; Gamero, 2005), but
we have found little regarding JS among senior managers in general, even less about JS of
public vs private senior managers, and few studies that compare employees and managers.
ARLA Therefore, we believe that one justification for this paper is its contribution of new information
31,2 for academic analysis of the subject.
The substance of this paper extends beyond its topic. We believe that the methodology
employed here is pertinent for discussion and knowledge of the topic. In spite of numerous
papers on senior management and entrepreneurs, we have yet to find studies based on a
large sample that clearly distinguish the possible differences between private and public
412 senior managers. Nutt (2006) focusses on middle managers, Buelens and Van den Broeck
(2007) compare employees and managers, and Jurkiewicz et al. (1998) differentiate between
employees and supervisors. Nowell (2009) compares public and private first-line
supervisors. Solomon (1986) compares 60 top public managers and 60 private managers,
based on a significantly smaller sample than the one studied herein. In the specific case of
Spain, an analysis by Congregado et al. (2008) focusses on the demographic and educational
profiles solely of private managers. Lastly, Rainey and Bozeman (2000) have criticised
empirical studies that distinguish between public and private organisations, insofar as they
contain serious formal flaws stemming from the size (Solomon, 1986) and representativeness
of the sample, as well as the nature of the questionnaires.
In our case, without using an ad hoc survey to analyse differences between public and
private organisations, we feel that the data examined herein resolve some of the latter
deficiencies in terms of sample size and the number of explanatory variables. Certainly, the
newness of the topic and the procedure developed here are two further justifications for
this investigation.
Subsequent to this introduction, the paper is structured as follows: in the second section,
we review the literature on JS for employees and public and private managers and establish
the hypotheses to be verified. In the third section, we discuss the data, variables, and
methodology used for empirical analysis. In the fourth section, we set out the results that, in
the fifth section, are analysed and discussed. Lastly, we summarise the investigation,
discuss the main conclusions and implications for management, and finish by suggesting
areas for follow-up research.

2. Review of the literature and working hypothesis

Bozeman (1987, 1994) delineates three facets of the public sphere that have clear
consequences in terms of organisational and managerial aspects. The first involves property
rights: if there are no proprietors, managers’ incentives diminish and overall results are less
efficient. The second feature of the public sphere has to do with financing of organisations.
Public choice stipulates that those organisations that receive external funding are
the focus of depredatory interests of agents concerned with the functioning of a particular
institution. The third facet refers to managerial control. Thus, the public sphere “belongs” to
the political power and can be a potential source of conflict among the various managerial
levels and affected agents, i.e., citizens who receive services, taxpayers, politicians,
managers and bureaucrats-employees. Nonetheless, if the market functions as it ought,
these problems cease to exist, since market mechanisms exercise discipline and control
inefficient behaviour.
According to Boyne (2002), these three characteristics cannot be synthesised into a single
overall factor, which leads him to view the differences between the public and private sectors as
merely an empirical question. An insight derived from the previous idea states that both types of
organisation are equally efficient: it merely depends on how they are managed.
Rainey and Bozeman (2000) underscore the scarce differences that exist at a practical level.
For example, with respect to the clearness of objectives, Rainey et al. (1995) and Pandey and
Rainey (2006) point out that public managers have a high degree of knowledge of their
organisations’ objectives that is undistinguishable from private managers. In terms of
whether public organisations have an important bureaucratic component, Rainey et al. (1995)
do not find a major difference between the two sectors. In terms of personnel management Public and
procedures, Rainey and Bozeman (2000) indicate that they are generally stricter and more private sectors
formally defined in public administrations. Further, Rainey and Bozeman (2000) review the in Spain
extensive literature on work attitudes and values but fail to find results that clearly
differentiate one sector from the other in terms of JS, commitment to the organisation or wages
as a motivating work factor.
These factors related to how organisations work (including commitment to the 413
organisation, intrinsic or extrinsic compensation, bureaucracy, autonomy, work-related
values, stress), can be identified and quantified based on several questions posed in the
Survey of Living and Working Conditions (ECVT, Spanish acronym for Encuesta de
Condiciones de Vida y de Trabajo, see Table AI). JS is addressed in a subjective question that
has a 0 to 10 rating in the survey: “How much satisfaction do you have at your current job?”
The most accepted approximation to a definition of JS is Locke (1976) who defines it as a
positive and enjoyable emotional state that arises from a person’s subjective job
experiences. Judge et al. (2001) describe aspects that shape this emotional state, such as
satisfaction with wages, opportunities for promotion, relationships with fellow employees
and supervisors and the job itself. Tietjen and Myers (1998) indicate that motivational
factors, such as the job itself, achievements, possibilities of personal and professional
development, produce JS. JS is recognised in numerous studies as a variable that affects how
efficiently an organisation is run. Similarly, JS is influenced by several personal variables
(age, level of studies) and others related to the running of the organisation: satisfaction with
the knowledge of organisational objectives, with the activity being carried out, wages, level
of stress at work, social relationships at work, job stability and the workday. These
variables vary in importance in each sector (public vs private) and in each cohort (managers
vs employees).
Furnham (1992) classifies factors that produce JS into three groups: organisational
policies (remuneration, supervision, workday, job stability), responsibilities or
characteristics of the job itself (workload, training required, autonomy, professional level,
relationship environment), and diverse personal aspects (age, satisfaction in how one’s life is
developing or the responsibilities being carried out, level of training). Further, we note that
our study analyses characteristics of public senior managers vis-à-vis private managers,
excluding proprietors from the latter group[1]. For the purposes of this study, we compare,
first, attitudes of public employees compared to their private counterparts in terms of
several variables that influence JS, and, second, we repeat the exercise with managers in
both sectors.
Debate has arisen on whether differences between workers within a particular sector or
between managers in both sectors have an influence on how an organisation is managed.
For example, Boyne (2002) indicates that there are only three substantial differences: public
organisations are more bureaucratic; public managers are less materialistic; and public
managers are less committed to their organisation than private managers. Boyne states that
there are many parameters on which these hypothetical differences can be established, but
that the latter are scarce. This opinion contrasts with other authors, such as Sayre (1953),
who maintain, “public and private organisations are basically the same in all non-important
aspects”. This idea leads Allison (1979, 2008) to point out that, since both types of
organisations are substantially different, applying private-sector management techniques to
the public sector, such as, for example, new public management (NPM), is of little use and
can even be counterproductive. Our first hypothesis states that managerial
professionalisation ought to be similar in both sectors, public and private, regardless of
the previously mentioned differences. If this hypothesis holds, management techniques that
include features from private management, such as NPM, ought to be applied and scaled up.
If, on the other hand, the hypothesis does not hold, we should analyse why and even what
ARLA effects or consequences ensue from applying private management techniques to the public
31,2 sector. The NPM is a public management paradigm characterised by professionalised
management systems that emphasise performance supervision based on using standards
that measure variables and results, promote competition among units and apply private
management styles (Stoker, 2006; Kolthoff et al., 2007). Existing information does not allow
us to analyse underlying management values in either of the two sectors, such as what is
414 available from the public value management (PVM, hereinafter) paradigm (O’Flynn, 2007;
Stoker, 2006), or other ethical approximations, or other values that have long existed in the
literature of organisations, such as philosophy, politics, sociology and, more recently,
management (Van der Wal et al., 2008).
The NPM recognises the specificity of the public sector but also considers that there are
management factors that can be perfectly assimilated into private management, which leads
to our first hypothesis:
H1. Given that public organisations are relatively similar to private ones, according to
one segment of the literature reviewed, public senior managers are not substantially
different from their private counterparts.
In terms of certain aspects of work, Demoussis and Giannakopoulos (2007), referring to
Greek workers, find that public employees enjoy greater JS than private-sector employees in
matters such as hours at work, the workday, remunerations and job stability. Ghinetti (2007)
analyses the differences in JS among Italian public and private workers in terms of six
non-pecuniary matters. The author states that public employees have greater JS in terms of
greater job security, admiration by work colleagues and work-related health aspects.
Yet, Desmarais and Abord de Chatillon (2008) find very few differences among employees in
these two sectors. In the case of Spain, public workers are better off than their private
counterparts in terms of the workday and stability, as established by labour regulations and
collective labour agreements. When the economy is growing, private workers enjoy greater
JS than public ones in terms of wage levels. Luechinger et al. (2010) observe a similar
phenomenon: employees’ JS increases as the unemployment rate drops. Thus, in countries
where unemployment is very low, differences in JS among public and private employees are
not substantial. Given the persistence of unemployment in Spain, our second hypothesis is:
H2. Certain working conditions, such as the level of stress, the workday, or job stability
are better in the public sector than in the private sector and so should contribute to
greater JS among public employees.
In referencing remunerations, Lucifora and Meurs (2006) note that in countries with more
regulations, lower-level public employees enjoy a wage “premium”, given the lesser salary
difference among the different wage grades due to greater regulation at public workplaces.
That difference among professional levels negatively affects managers, both with respect to
lower professional grades and to private managers. Moon (2006), however, places less
importance on remunerations (extrinsic aspect) in determining JS of public employees.
The variable we use is Satisfaction with one’s wages. We believe that this type of subjective
variable is more representative of JS than the wage level that is also given by the ECVT, due
to the criteria of equity that are usually used to compare wage levels. In tandem with
remunerations, we should also consider non-wage compensations (Woodbury, 1983).
We located an approximate variable in the ECVT, “Satisfaction with one’s lifestyle”, which
includes aspects having to do both with these matters and with social and professional
status, as well as with an individual’s personal accomplishments:
H3. Remunerations produce greater JS in public-sector employees than their private
counterparts, while the opposite is true of managers.
Guinot et al. (2014) note that job demands, lack of support, or a poor relationship Public and
environment, increase stress and negatively affect motivation and JS. There is abundant private sectors
literature regarding organisational commitment (Williams et al., 2012), a sense of public in Spain
service (O’Flynn, 2007; Jurkiewicz et al., 1998), and the role of organisational support for
achieving best results (Abdul et al., 2015; Baarspul, 2009). Our data do not allow us more
in-depth analysis. We use three variables to measure aspects related to organisational
commitment and the characteristics of the job itself: level of stress, adequacy of training to 415
the tasks being performed, and satisfaction with work organisation. These three factors
influence the degree of motivation and, thus, JS as well. Moon (2000) notes that the
motivation level is positively correlated with the level of hierarchy. Solomon (1986) comes to
a similar conclusion with respect to top managers. Bogg and Cooper (1995) observe that
these factors produce less JS in public managers than in private ones. Wright and Davis
(2003), in their analysis of aspects such as knowledge of the organisation’s objectives,
characteristics of the organisation, compensation schemes, procedures and formalisation of
how the job is executed, find that differences in JS are not conclusive:
H4. According to the literature, commitment to the organisation and job-related
characteristics are apparently not more significant in one sector than the other.
Given, however, that better working conditions exist in the public sector, we believe
that these factors should contribute to greater JS among public workers.
In terms of factors related to personal and job-related relationships at the worksite, Ghinetti
(2007) finds that an environment of stability, confidence, and social cohesion can improve
productivity. Wright and Davis also find that as performance improves employees find
greater JS. In addition, lower salary differences among employees within the public sector
create a less conflictive setting that improves performance and JS. Lucifora and Meurs
(2006) and Buelen et al. (2007) include factors related to a lifestyle that is compatible with the
pace of work. They specifically mention balancing work and family duties. Relationships
with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates are important factors when evaluating job
well-being and, thus, JS and attitudes towards work. These non-monetary aspects can be
very important at work:
H5. The public sector has a work setting that is less competitive, gives workers the
feeling of greater stability and confidence, and offers greater respect of labour rights,
such as reconciling work and family, thus creating greater JS.
An organisational culture that includes aspects such as autonomy of its agents, clear
objectives, and empowerment of its employees strengthens commitment and, thus,
performance and JS (Moon, 2000). Rainey and Bozeman (2000) note that there is less
possibility of climbing a career ladder in the public sector, possibly leading to feelings of
less personal and professional fulfilment. In the case of Spain, this is the case of high-
ranking professionals. Rainey and Bozeman also find greater bureaucracy and less
autonomy among public employees, leading to diminished JS. Cambré et al. (2012) point out
that a specific post should be analysed within the organisation’s entire structure. Thus, a job
might be either good or bad depending on the setting in which it is discharged and the
factors that frame and accompany it. Interestingly, these authors fail to find relevance in the
nature of personal and work-related relationships that occur in the work setting:
H6. The organisational culture and management procedures in the public sector restrain
individuals’ autonomy thus leading to reduced JS among public employees.
Summarising these many variables, we note that: according to most of the literature,
intrinsic factors exert greater influence on public employees (Moon, 2000; Karl and Sutton,
1998; Van der Wal et al., 2008); smaller salary differences in the public sector help ensure a
ARLA less conflictive relationship setting; and knowledge about the organisation and its objectives
31,2 is greater in the public sector than in the private sector. Therefore, these variables are the
most important in generating JS. In contrast: bureaucracy; inflexibility in established
procedures; and reduced autonomy of managers and employees are also factors that are of
greater importance in the public sector than in the private sector but that lead to less JS
among employees.
416
3. Data and methodology
Data used herein come from ECVT 2006–2010 and were compiled until the latter year by the
Ministry of Labour and Immigration (methodology and questionnaire from the Ministry’s
website)[2]. These are five series in cross-section, gathered in a single statistical file in order
to obtain representative samples.
We selected both public and private managers from a National Job Classification
(Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-94))[3] table and from the National Statistics
Institute among individuals classified from 102 to 113, i.e., corresponding to senior
management. The sample size of employees was 30,925 and that of senior managers was
835, broken down as 127 public managers and 708 private managers. This study could not
carry out yearly cut-offs because to do so would have created a statistically unusable
subsample of public senior managers.
Given the size of the sample (total employees) and the subsample (senior management)
included in the sample, as well as the content of the questionnaire, we believe that we have
accessed a source of information that overcomes some of the deficiencies mentioned by Rainey
and Bozeman (2000). We also note that the questionnaire consists of subjective-response
questions, without objective-response variables. Yet, as previously mentioned, in
Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Frijters (2004), the subjectivity of measuring JS does not invalidate
results, especially when the sample is as large as the one used herein.
To verify our six hypotheses, we apply a univariate general linear model (GLM) with
interactions. The interactions act on the initial base value, which in this case, is the private
sector. Given the structure of the ECVT, we believe the GLM to be the most relevant because
it measures the direct influence of the explanatory variables and the interactions quantify
the influence of the differences between public and private. We also feel that the GLM is
more appropriate than the Orderet Probit undertaken by Ghinetti (2007), given that we have
a quantitative response variable, with values between 0 and 10. Given the features of
the survey, we do not feel it is appropriate to apply the structural equations system in the
manner of Guinot et al. (2014) or Wright and Davis (2003). Lastly, we note that the model
that corresponds to the total sample of employees acts as a base model and another model is
constructed for the subsample of senior management.
The model is expressed as follows:

Y ¼ bT X þe
With interaction factor pupri ¼ (1 ¼ public; 0 ¼ private):

Y ¼ bT X þ bp T X UI ðpupri ¼ 1Þþe

The analysis on the effects of the factor pupri corresponds to study the effects β p.
For example, if an X covariate is considered, the model would be:
Y ¼ b0 þb1 UI ðpupri ¼ 1Þþb2 X þb3 X UI ðpupri ¼ 1Þþe
With the significant effects of pupri ( β1 ≠ 0) and the interaction of pupri and the
independent variable X ( β3 ≠ 0), the equations of the model would be:
 Y ¼ β0+β2Χ+ε for the Private sector and Y ¼ β0+β1+( β2+β3)X+ε for the Public Sector. Public and
The analysis of differences in differences is included in this model, given that the hypothesis private sectors
test for H0: β3 ¼ 0 refers to the question regarding mid-level differences between the public in Spain
and private sectors.
With respect to the application of the statistical model: first, given the high number of
data, the statistical techniques are robust and results show no problems of
heteroscedasticity; second, there are no problems of collinearity. If we apply the 417
variance inflation factor, the result is 2.37 for employees and 2.08 for senior managers,
which only becomes a problem when the value reaches 10, Lin et al. (2011); and third, with
respect to the possible problem of endogeneity, it is our understanding that the database
itself, the ECVT, is prepared in such a way so as to emphasise the value of the JS
dependent variable, which we seek to explain with a high number of specific questions
acting as covariables.

4. Results
We recall that the reference base is the private sector. A first approximation to results
indicates the following (see Tables I and II).
Focussing on the base model, of the model’s 12 independent variables, including the one
that interacts, i.e., public-private, only four appear as non-significant in the subsample of
senior managers and only two in the subsample of employees.
Yet the interaction points to mixed results: only four variables indicate differences
between public and private senior managers, while seven variables point to differences

Senior managers Employees

Parameter β β

Interceptation 2.429*** (−0.448) 2.898*** (−0.067)

Public-private −0.057 (−1.21) 0.967*** (−0.148)
Age 0.009** (−0.004) 0 (−0.001)
Level of studies −0.056* (−0.027) −0.001 (−0.004)
Level of stress −0.007 (−0.015) −0.022*** (−0.003)
Knowledge of the organisation’s objectives 0.088*** (−0.026) 0.012*** (−0.003)
Satisfaction with the workday 0.096*** (−0.019) 0.140*** (−0.004)
Satisfaction with stability 0.162*** (−0.023) 0.114*** (−0.004)
Satisfaction with the work organisation 0.275*** (−0.027) 0.194*** (−0.004)
Good labour and social relationships at the workplace 0.151** (−0.06) 0.315*** (−0.01)
Adequacy of training for the post −0.104 (−0.058) −0.148*** (−0.014)
Satisfaction with the lifestyle pursued −0.02 (−0.025) 0.058*** (−0.005)
Satisfaction with the wage 0.138*** (−0.023) 0.169*** (−0.004)
Int × Age 0.003 (−0.011) −0.011*** (−0.002)
Int × Level of studies 0.140* (−0.07) −0.023*** (−0.008)
Int × Level of stress 0.005 (−0.04) 0.001 (−0.006)
Int × Knowledge of the organisation’s objectives −0.142** (−0.065) 0.017* (−0.007)
Int × Satisfaction with the workday −0.009 (−0.058) 0.021** (−0.009)
Int × Satisfaction with stability −0.087 (−0.051) −0.054*** (−0.007)
Int × Adequacy of training for the post 0.015 (−0.144) −0.017 (−0.029)
Int × Satisfaction with the lifestyle pursued 0.152** (−0.07) 0.002 (−0.01)
Int × Satisfaction with the wage 0.016 (−0.052) −0.024*** (−0.008)
Int × Satisfaction with the work organisation −0.10 (−0.07) 0.01 (−0.009)
Int × Good labour and social relationships at the workplace 0.550*** (−0.125) 0.039* (−0.02)
N 835 3.0864 Table I.
2
R 0.56 0.52 Dependent variable:
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *po 0.05; **p o0.03; ***p o0.01 job satisfaction
ARLA Senior managers Employees
31,2 β2 β3 β2+β3 β2 β3 β2+β3

Age 0.009** 0.003 0.013 −0.001 −0.011*** −0.012***

Level of studies −0.056* 0.14* 0.083* −0.001 −0.023*** −0.024***
Level of stress −0.007 0.005 −0.002 −0.022*** 0.001 −0.021
Knowledge of the organisation’s
418 objectives 0.088*** −0.14** −0.055** 0.012*** 0.017*** 0.029***
Satisfaction with the workday 0.096*** −0.009 0.087 0.140*** 0.021*** 0.161***
Satisfaction with stability 0.162*** −0.087 0.075 0.114*** −0.054*** 0.059***
Adequacy of training for the post −0.104 0.015 −0.089 −0.148*** −0.017 −0.165
Satisfaction with the work
organisation 0.275*** −0.102 0.172 0.058*** 0.009 0.067
Good labour and social relationships
at the workplace. Factor 0.151*** 0.55*** 0.701*** 0.169*** 0.039*** 0.208***
Satisfaction with the lifestyle
Table II. pursued −0.02 0.15** 0.132** 0.194*** 0.002 0.196
Summary of Satisfaction with the wage 0.138*** 0.016 0.155 0.315*** −0.024 0.291***
parameters Notes: *po 0.5; **p o0.03; ***p o0.01

between public and private employees. According to this data, public senior managers are
very similar to private senior managers, while public employees bear little resemblance to
private employees. There is, therefore, a clear labour duality in terms of employees in Spain.
The values of the most important covariables in terms of their contribution to JS among
employees are satisfaction with the lifestyle pursued, good labour and social relationships at
the workplace, satisfaction with the workday and the wage. Neither age nor the level of
studies is significant.
In the case of senior management, the most relevant variables are satisfaction with the
work organisation, stability, satisfaction with the salary and the workday.
When variables interact, results indicate that public employees differ from their private
counterparts in seven aspects, mainly in the assessment of stability, the workday, job-related
and social relationships and the wage. The four variables that do not differentiate have a
rather small β.
With respect to senior management, there are 4 differentiating variables, two of which
change signs but with a small β and the two that do not change sign have a very large β.
These variables are good job-related and social relationships and individuals’ satisfaction
with their lifestyles.
We also see that public top management and employees especially value good job-related
and social relationships, as opposed to their private counterparts.
Lastly, the variable that interacts between public and private indicates that public
employees are more satisfied than their private counterparts are, while the opposite occurs
with senior management, but with a non-significant value.

5. Interpretation of results
In interpreting results, we should clarify that: first, all variables, except three (Table AI), vary
from 0 to 10. Thus, our interpretation of the coefficients takes into account this scale, i.e., the
coefficient associated with a covariable indicates the change in the dependent variable due to a
one-point increase in the respective covariable. The β coefficients should therefore be
interpreted as marginal variations. Second, in this study, we used certain statistical techniques
that we reasoned were more appropriate compared to other studies, which makes statistical
comparison of numerical results difficult. Nonetheless, in formulating the hypotheses to be
tested, we referred to the results from studies on which this paper is based, and our results Public and
either confirm or reject those previous results, as we shall see below. private sectors
First, our results confirm this paper’s first hypothesis (H1), i.e., senior managers in in Spain
the public and private sectors are very similar. In Table I, the variable that interacts between
public and private in top management is not significant, while it is very significant for
employees. In other words, this variable does not indicate differences among senior
management but it does for employees. 419
We are aware that a measurement such as JS cannot be directly transposed to
management models of organisations and companies while differentiating the public and
private spheres. Yet some of the literature reviewed above indicates that the differences in
management between public and private organisations are more an empirical matter than a
theoretical one, which allows us to cautiously posit that the JS levels of senior management
have to do with certain similarities in their management duties.
The second hypothesis (H2) indicates that, in different job-related aspects, public employees
are better off than their private counterparts. Yet we find that those variables contribute more
to private employees’ JS than to that of public employees, with the exception of the workday.
We base our interpretation on the theories of Herzberg et al. (1959) regarding the relation
among the so-called hygiene factors and the motivational factors. If hygiene factors are absent,
they are missed, but if they are present, they are not valued. In our opinion, the favourable
working conditions of public employees, in contrast to private employees, are hygiene factors:
They are known and are assumed implicitly. They are not motivational factors and thus
exercise no stimulating effect on JS. In terms of variables that embody these aspects, Table II
summarises a variable in which public senior managers are different from their private
counterparts, while there are three in the case of employees and with larger βs.
In terms of remunerations (H3), although there are differences between public- and
private-sector wages, the coefficients for private wages are larger, confirming this
hypothesis regarding the greater importance given to extrinsic factors in the private sector.
We explain the non-significance of this variable in the cohort of public top managers by
alluding to their greater feeling of public service as compared to the private sector.
We believe that the greater weight given to the job’s intrinsic aspects, as noted by most of
the literature reviewed, can also be explained by the contribution to JS of the “satisfaction
with one’s lifestyle” variable, which we shall discuss again below.
In terms of the fourth hypothesis (H4), regarding commitment to the organisation,
neither level of stress nor adequacy of training for the post indicates differences among senior
managers in both sectors. Yet, in public employees, knowledge of the objectives of
their organisation is valued, which, according to advanced managerial theories, is a good
indicator of the worker’s positive predisposition towards the company, which should lead to
better results. To put it differently, if it were only a matter of this factor, public administration
would be a more modern organisation than its private equivalent. Nonetheless, we are unable
to interpret this variable’s negative coefficient in the case of public senior managers.
Turning to the fifth hypothesis (H5), the public sector has a less competitive environment
and is a better guarantor of rights, which significantly contributes to JS in both employees
and top management. The coefficient of the good job-related and social relationships
variable is particularly high for public employees and senior management. Seen from the
private sector, we might ponder that these matters, i.e., relations among top managers and
employees, could be a source of tension and conflict that lowers JS for both senior managers
and employees. Good work-related and social relationships contribute to JS among the four
cohorts, but, in the case of senior management, the change is quantitatively very important
and significant. For private senior managers, β ¼ 0.15 and is significant. Yet for their public
counterparts, it rises to 0.70, meaning that it more than quadruples its contribution to JS
(see Table II).
ARLA The sixth hypothesis (H6) indicates that a bureaucratic organisation restricts its agents’
31,2 initiative, thus generating some professional and personal dissatisfaction. This, however, is
not what we observe with public senior management. Quite the opposite: the “satisfaction
with one’s lifestyle” variable turns out to be very relevant and differentiates both
top-management cohorts. For private senior management, its β ¼ −0.20 negative, i.e., the
variable reduces JS but is not significant, while for public senior management, β ¼ 0.13,
420 i.e., it not only substantially increases its value but also contributes positively to JS, in other
words, the greater the satisfaction with one’s lifestyle, the greater the JS. This is the second
most important variable contributing to JS among public senior management and differs in
its sign to the JS of private top management. In counterposition to the latter, we believe that
private top managers, in keeping with popular beliefs and even backed by some data,
receive higher material compensation but also have more intense work schedules and
devotion to duty than their public-sector counterparts. The data herein seem to be pointing
to that difference in top management in both sectors. In any event, this difference in no way
hinders the adoption of private management techniques, such as NPM. Although this is a
significant variable, it is less important among employees.
Spain’s public administration pursues personnel management along the lines of the
administrative and legal characteristics of the Weberian-style public function of continental
Europe. Some researchers have dealt with the limited material recognition of good
management, particularly at the higher end of the public sector (López Casanovas and Garcia
Cestona, 1995), which would suggest a need to find better ways of economically and
professionally compensating outstanding service. Our results do not indicate dissatisfaction
among public senior managers. uite the contrary, as discussed previously. In this regard, PVM
appeals to a notion of public service that inspires many public employees. Our data hinders us
from investigating the influence of matters that have ethical, philosophical, and even economic
considerations for public senior management and employees. Yet in keeping with the results of
this study, we believe that generally public employees and, particularly, public senior
managers must have some sense of service to the community.
In this regard, to posit an excessively “mercantilist” view of public management, by
widening the salary range, could produce undesirable outcomes. A decision might be made
in the public sector, under the guise of good administration, to hire away private-sector
managers, or encourage the flow of senior managers from one sector to the other (depicted
by the “revolving-door syndrome” whereby managers come and go from the public sector
mostly for material reasons). Yet, a possible ensuing result could be, in keeping with PVM
theories, that the previously discussed values within the public sector, especially in terms of
public senior managers’ attitudes and predisposition, would be eroded. One outcome could
be a suboptimal level of public managers, who are unable to aspire to the material
compensation currently available in the private sector. Nonetheless, results here do not
allow us to venture that the public sector in Spain might be suffering from a suboptimal
supply of senior managers, given the high value they place on their current lifestyle and the
similar degree of JS that both public and private managers enjoy.
Summarising, we posit that, in carrying out their duties, senior managers, working
either in the private or public sector, address matters of resource allocation that reflect an
overall economic problem: the efficient allocation of resources. Therefore, public senior
managers might easily accept to adapt the NPM model to the public sector, but could face
serious challenges in translating it to the daily tasks of public employees. An example to
illustrate: a prison warden might view his administrative division as an economic unit, like
a company, not much different from a hotel. Yet a prison official might not view an inmate
as a client, while a hotel employee certainly would. In other words, public managers
in many areas will have problems extending NPM principles and practices to lower
management levels.
6. Summary, policy implications, further research Public and
In this paper, we have analysed the JS of employees and senior managers based on the idea private sectors
that greater JS improves output performance. We examined JS among public employees, in Spain
compared it to private employees, and then compared the same factor among public and
private senior managers. In keeping with the variables chosen, results indicate that public
employees are noticeably different from their private counterparts, but both cohorts of
senior managers are quite similar. 421
Further, we have indicated that, as per the literature, public organisations are not so
different from private ones. Merging both analyses, we come to the (perhaps rather bold)
conclusion that it is perfectly feasible for a public administration to use private criteria, as
NPM recommends. Addressing the link between JS and the management function in terms
of tasks, responsibilities, results, and rewards, researchers could complement an empirical
approximation that uses classical variables, such as personal and work-related ones, to
measure JS. We are unable to directly relate such variables with the type of organisation
or with corresponding management tasks, given the limitations of the ECVT data we
have used.
According to the results obtained in this study, the adoption of private management
practices by public senior managers, given the assimilation we have undertaken, may bring
some problems in terms of the perceptions of other public employees. For example, tasks
might be carried out poorly or conflicts could erupt between management and subordinates.
This may be a consequence of deficient implementation arising from an incompatibility of
management, whose education and criteria are rooted in economics, trying to mesh with a
bureaucratic administration[4].
Avoiding these potential problems calls for, first, a previous analysis of the extent to
which public administration is applicable to a specific task and, second, what personnel
management policies should be developed to reduce a potential conflict between
management and employees. From the onset, we noted that some authors have not seen
differences between public and private organisations, indicating that this was rather more
an empirical matter. We believe the latter to be so and thus each case must be examined on
its own merits.
In terms of the managerial function, our results do not support the concern regarding
management-employee conflict in the public sector, which, a priori, gives public
organisations an advantage over private ones. As previously noted, a less differentiated
wage scale might contribute to a lower level of conflict. Yet, as mentioned previously, in
Spain criticism has been voiced regarding the gap in wages earned by private-sector top
posts and senior managers and those earned by their cohorts in the public sector.
Our results do not indicate a significant influence of this situation on JS among senior
managers. Thus, to apply a wage policy similar to that of the private sector, besides the legal
and/or political considerations thereof, would sidestep the matter that the literature values:
the mollifying role on labour relations of an equitable wage scale. Appealing to ethical
values of public service, accompanied by measures that value public service, such as
limiting or more severely curtailing the “revolving-door syndrome” (moving between one
sector and the other and taking advantage of privileged information and contacts), may help
reduce the hypothetical disincentive that the current wage scale might entail, sometimes
mentioned but not emphasised in this study.
Currently, the ECVT fails to provide sufficient information to undertake this analysis. As a
continuation of this study, we are considering implementing microeconomic analyses and even
case studies once the NPM is implemented, complemented perhaps by a qualitative study.
The second difference between public and private senior managers refers to their
respective lifestyles. Unravelling the motives of well-being in public senior managers and
potential malaise in private-sector managers (perhaps due to the greater pressure faced by
ARLA the latter), would also be an interesting research project that could guide the managerial
31,2 function in both sectors.
It would also be worthwhile to provide an in-depth description of the objectives
of the organisations and the tasks carried out, their progress, assignment to employees and
their implementation. Our data generate coefficients with certain signs that we are unable
to interpret.
422 Finally, two potential subjects that we suggest for further research are the organisational
and administrative relationships established among senior managers, high and mid-level
personnel, and employees in general, and potential conflicts; and, second, performance and
productivity benchmarks and their relation to possible innovative incentive mechanisms for
public employees in general.

Notes
1. In previous studies, proprietary managers had a profile that was clearly differentiated from both
public and private senior management. To avoid extending this paper to unwieldly lengths, we left
out a differential analysis between proprietary managers and salaried managers. Proprietary
managers are clearly differentiated from the other two cohorts.
2. www.empleo.gob.es/estadisticas/ecvt/ecvt2010/
3. www.ine.es/clasifi/cnoh.htm
4. The May 2012 CIS benchmark indicated that civil society had a critical opinion, though not
excessively so, of Spain’s public administrations. Yet in terms of this same benchmark, when the
public was asked if they had had some personal contact with government officials in the past year,
73 per cent had a very or somewhat favourable impression.

References
Allison, G.T. (2008), “Public and private management: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant
respects?”, Proceedings for the Public Management Research Conference, November 19-20, 1979,
Office of Personnel Management, 0PM Document 127-53-1, Washington, DC, pp. 27-38.
Allison, G. (1979), “Public and private management: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant
respects?”, in Shafritz, J. and Hyde, A. (Eds), Classics of Public Administration, Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA, 1992.
Baarspul, H.C. (2009), “Do employees behave differently in public- vs. private-sector organizations?
A state-of-the-art review”, Thesis, University of Twente and Mimeo.
Bogg, J. and Cooper, C. (1995), “Job satisfaction, mental health, and occupational stress among senior
civil servants”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 327-341.
Boyne, G.A. (2002), “Public and private management: what’s the difference?”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 97-122.
Bozeman, B. (1987), All Organizations Are Public, Jossey-Bass, London.
Buelens, M. and Van den Broeck, H. (2007), “An analysis of differences in work motivation between
public and private sector organizations”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Cambré, B., Kippers, E., van Veldhoven, M. and De Witte, H. (2012), “Jobs and organisations”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 200-215.
Congregado, E., Hernández, L., Millán, J. M. and Salas, V. (2008), El capital humano y los emprendedores
en España, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, Ivie, Valencia.
Demoussis, M. and Giannakopoulos, N. (2007), “Exploring job satisfaction in private and public
employment: empirical evidence from Greece”, Labour, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 333-359.
Desmarais, C. and Abord de Chatillon, E. (2008), “Are there still differences between private and public
managers’ jobs?”, paper presented at the IRSPM XII Conference, Brisbane, pp. 26-28.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. and Frijters, P. (2004), “How important is methodology for the estimates of the Public and
determinants of happiness?”, Economic Journal, Vol. 114, pp. 641-659. private sectors
Furnham, A. (1992), Personality at Work: the Role of Individual Differences in the Workplace, Routledge, in Spain
London.
Gamero, C. (2005), “Análisis microeconómico de la satisfacción laboral”, Consejo Económico y Social,
Madrid.
Ghinetti, P. (2007), “The public–private job satisfaction differential in Italy”, Labour, Vol. 21 No. 2, 423
pp. 361-388.
Guinot, J., Chiva, R. and Roca-Puig, V. (2014), “Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: an
empirical study”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 96-115.
Herzberg, F., Maunser, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Jurkiewicz, C.L., Massey, T.K. and Brown, R.G. (1998), “Motivation in public and private organizations:
a comparative study”, Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 230-250.
Karl, K.A. and Sutton, C.L. (1998), “Job values in today’s workforce: a comparison of public and private
sector employees”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 515-527.
Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L. and Van Den Heuvel, H. (2007), “The ethics of new public management:
integrity at stake?”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 399-439.
Lin, D., Dean, P.F. and Ungar, L.H. (2011), “VIF-regression: a fast regression algorithm for large”,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 106 No. 493, pp. 232-247.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.
López Casanovas, G. and Garcia Cestona, M.A. (1995), “Bases para una reforma de las políticas
salariales y de empleo en el sector público”, Una aproximación al sistema sanitario público,
Fundación BBVA, Madrid.
Lucifora, C. and Meurs, D. (2006), “The public sector pay gap in France, Great Britain and Italy”, Review
of Income and Wealth Series, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Luechinger, S., Meier, S. and Stutzer, A. (2010), “Why does unemployment hurt the employed? evidence
from the life satisfaction gap between the public and the private sector”, The Journal of Human
Resources, pp. 998-1045.
Moon, M.J. (2000), “Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: motivation,
organizational culture, sector, and managerial level”, Public Performance & Management
Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 177-194.
Nowell, G. (2009), “Public vs private managers: a new perspective”, Journal of Business & Economics
Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Nutt, P.C. (2006), “Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 289-318.
O’Flynn, J. (2007), “From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and
managerial implications”, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 353-366.
Pandey, S.K. and Rainey, H.G. (2006), “Public managers’ perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity:
analyzing alternative models”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 85-112.
Rainey, H.G. and Bozeman, B. (2000), “Comparing public and private organizations: empirical research
and the power of the a priori”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 447-469.
Rainey, H., Pandey, S. and Bozeman, B. (1995), “Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, pp. 567-574.
ARLA Rico, P. (2012), “Satisfacción laboral de los asalariados en España”, Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos
31,2 para la economía y la empresa, 14, pág. 137 a 158.
Sayre, W. (1953), “Premises of public administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 18,
pp. 102-103.
Solomon, E.E. (1986), “Private and public sector managers: an empirical investigation of job
characteristics and organizational climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2,
424 pp. 248-259.
Stoker, G. (2006), “Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance?”, American
Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. (1998), “Motivation and job satisfaction”, Management Decision, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 226-231.
Van der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G. and Lasthuizen, K. (2008), “What’s valued most? Similarities and
differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector”, Public
Administration, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 465-482.
Williams, H.M., Rayner, J. and Allinson, C.W. (2012), “New public management and organisational
commitment in the public sector: testing a mediation model”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 13, pp. 2615-2629.
Woodbury, S. (1983), “Substitution between wage and nonwage benefits”, American Economic Review,
pp. 166-182.
Wright, B.E. and Davis, B.S. (2003), “Job satisfaction in the public sector”, American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 70-90.

Further reading
Bozeman, B. and Bretschneider, S. (1994), “The publicness puzzle in organization theory: a test of
alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations”, Journal of
Public Administration Theory and Research, Vol. 4, pp. 197-223.
Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. and Joris van der, V. (2014),
“The management of change in public organizations: a literature review”, Public Administration,
Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Madsen, K.B. (1974), Modern Theories of Motivation, Halsted Press, New York, NY.
Maidani, E.A. (1991), “Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among
public and private sectors”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-448.
Young, B.S., Worchel, S. and Woehr, D.J. (1998), “Organizational commitment among public service
employees”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 339-348.
Zumrah, A.R. and Boyle, S. (2015), “The effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction
on transfer of training”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 236-254.
Appendix Public and
private sectors
in Spain
Employees Senior managers
N Mean Std N Mean Std

Age Private 23,047 40.5551 10.6757 708 43.2740 8.97449

Mín: 18, 425
Max: 70 Public 7,927 43.9186 10.0345 127 47.7795 9.31283
Level of studies: Private 23,047 5.3145 2.04902 708 7.8941 1.39663
1: Illiterate
9: Phil Doctor Public 7,927 6.7097 2.14610 127 8.1102 1.40988
Job satisfaction Private 23,047 7.1833 1.82146 708 7.8037 1.40504
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 7.5038 1.68948 127 7.7165 1.62763
Knowledge of the organisation’s Private 23,047 6.8921 2.92440 708 8.6893 1.58923
objectives
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 7.3955 2.51152 127 8.5354 1.75389
Satisfaction with the work organisation Private 23,047 6.7982 2.31360 708 7.2938 1.85274
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 6.7636 2.18293 127 7.2992 1.68238
Level of stress Private 23,047 5.4591 3.09125 708 7.0636 2.43273
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 5.6863 2.96780 127 6.9055 2.38525
Satisfaction with the workday 0: Min; 10 private 23,047 6.9602 2.29594 708 6.9407 2.18763
Max Public 7,927 7.6247 1.99957 127 7.5276 1.77651
Satisfaction with stability Private 23,047 7.1723 2.56281 708 8.1059 1.79306
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 7.9801 2.47447 127 8.4331 2.06863
Adequacy of training for the post Private 23,047 1.3068 0.62572 708 1.2599 0.64066
1: Strongly agree
4: Nothing agree public 7,927 1.2628 0.57622 127 1.2913 0.71392
Satisfaction with the lifestyle pursued, private 23,047 7.4641 1.89700 708 7.7782 1.55893
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,927 7.6613 1.68305 127 7.8583 1.48391
Satisfaction with the wage Private 22,976 5.9065 2.29562 706 7.1416 1.72911
0: Min; 10 Max Public 7,909 6.3115 2.16394 127 6.9055 2.10228
Good labour and social relationships at Private 23,047 −0.020394 1.02163 708 0.058515 0.77672886
the workplace, Factor: α Public 7,927 −0.078748 0.982545 127 0.003933 0.94766149
Cronbach ¼ 0.82 Table AI.
0: Min; 10 Max. Descriptives

Corresponding author
Jose Manuel Lasierra can be contacted at: jmlasie@unizar.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.