LESSONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP FORMOTIVATING PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES

Robyn Morris: Queensland University Of Technology, Bunbury, Wa, Australia

∼

Contact: Robyn Morris, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Graduate School ofBusiness, PO Box 2130, 6231 Bunbury, WA, Australia, (T) 08 9792 4090, Email:

robyn@careconsulting.com.au

ABSTRACT This paper addresses the question of what can public sector organizations learn from corporate entrepreneurship to create a more motivating work environment to foster discretionary work effort of employees. A new measurement scale of key non-monetary working conditions (called net perquisites) is developed. This study empirically tests the factor structure of the two dimensions of net perquisites, perks and irks. It postulates that perks and irks each have at least four factors. The findings suggest that perks has five dimensions and irks three dimensions, similar to those suggested in the literature. It was also determined that net perquisites is a higher order construct comprised of perks and irks.

INTRODUCTION What makes people work hard interests employers and business researchers. It is argued that a motivated workforce is a critical strategic asset and a hard-to-copy resource of high-performance firms. Thus, by creating highly motivational work environments, leaders can inspire employees to attain high levels of performance (Steers et al., 2004, Dubinsky and Skinner, 2002, Isaac et al., 2001, O'Reilly and Pfeffer, 2000). Work effort, an employee’s tendency to work long and hard in his/her job (Brown and Leigh, 1996), is a key component of performance (Kanfer, 1992). Katz (1964) identifies two essential work behaviours for organizational effectiveness: i) having workers dependably carry out their specific role requirements (minimal effort); and ii) inducing people to engage in innovative and spontaneous activities beyond their prescribed roles (discretionary work effort). Discretionary work effort (DWE) is an important sub-component of work effort. This phenomenon appears in several literatures including organizational behaviour (OB) and entrepreneurship under multiple labels including extra-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, contextual performance, proactive behaviour, personal initiative, and creative and innovative behaviours. There is no general agreement about what stimulates (or inhibits) DWE. Work motivation literature is concerned with work behaviours and what managers might do to motivate employees to work harder. A growing volume of OB literature identifies a range of environmental antecedents of discretionary work behaviours. It is often suggested that entrepreneurship requires hard work and that entrepreneurs work longer hours and harder than employees (Snir and Harpaz, 2004, Scott et al., 1997, Bird and Jellinek, 1988, Schein, 1987, Machlowitz, 1980, Hofer, 1976). Hard work requires DWE. Amabile (1996) notes that more innovative firms have employees with higher job satisfaction, work motivation and job involvement. Thus, to advance our understanding of DWE it would be instructive to consider what motivates a person to become an entrepreneur and the nature of the internal corporate environment that fosters entrepreneurial behaviours. This paper identifies what are some essential non-monetary working conditions that influence public sector employees to contribute DWE. The research uses data collected from 585 employees in 12 local governments. The paper proceeds as follows. Firstly an overview of relevant literature is presented. Secondly, the methodology and research findings are outlined. Here the development of a new measurement scale for assessing net perquisites that influence employee DWE is described and its measurement properties assessed. Lastly the implications of the findings, the research limitations and future research directions are discussed.

AGSE 2007

1365

LITERATURE REVIEW Entrepreneurship and the Public Sector Public sector organizations internationally are facing greater environmental turbulence and community demands and are perhaps in greater need of corporate renewal than their private sector counterparts (Zerbinati and Souitaris, 2005, Morris and Jones, 1999, OECD, 1995, Teske and Schneider, 1994). These organizations often experience difficulties in attracting and retaining talented staff, especially entrepreneurially minded individuals. Some researchers attribute this to bureaucracy (Kanter, 1985, Pinchott, 1985). Tight fiscal constraints, competitive pressures, rising public demands and tight labour markets are creating the need for new approaches to delivering better quality public services, attracting and retaining talented employees, and gaining the most from all employees. Entrepreneurship as an alternative management framework has been a suggested response although this has attracted considerable debate. While the relevance of corporate entrepreneurship to the public sector has been questioned (Frederickson, 1997, Du Gay, 1996, Terry, 1993), the need for a more entrepreneurial approach is also espoused (Morris and Jones, 1999, Bellone and Goerl, 1992, Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). This study supports the view that valuable lessons can be learned from corporate entrepreneurship in assisting public organizations to be more responsive and to foster higher motivation and entrepreneurial behaviours amongst its employees. Public entrepreneurship, “the process of creating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities” (Morris and Jones, 1999, p.74), is an emerging area of entrepreneurship. It involves actors inside a public sector corporate setting. This literature focuses on the relevance and applications of entrepreneurship to the public sector and, like prior corporate entrepreneurship research, concentrates on the organization, executives and managers. Perspectives of non-management employees are not considered yet how employees perceive their work environment has an important influence on work behaviours. Principal-agent theory recognises the impact of autonomy and risk sharing on work effort supplied (Douglas, 1989). Eisenhauer (1995) and Douglas and Shepherd (2000) acknowledge the importance of working conditions or “net perquisites” in motivating individuals to become self-employed. These authors argue that individuals make employment decisions based on expected utility. Independence, risk and “other working conditions” however are the extent to which they articulate what constitutes net perquisites. Building on this extant literature, Morris and Douglas (2005) develop a conceptual model of work effort in which the motivating role of net perquisites (what they call net perks) in promoting DWE is highlighted. Net perks are the non-monetary rewards/costs that the employee associates with his/her job, and equal the utility-generating non-monetary aspects of the job (called perks) minus the disutility-generating non-monetary aspects of the job (called irks). Zerbinati & Souistaris (2005) argue that the nature of the non-monetary rewards that motivate public sector entrepreneurs needs to be examined. This study investigates public sector employee perceptions of those non-monetary factors typically found in entrepreneurial organisations, with a view to better understanding what is commonly perceived as perks and irks. As the emphasis of the study is on individual level behaviour, it follows a similar approach to corporate entrepreneurship as used by Hornsby and others (Hornsby et al., 1999, Hornsby et al., 2002) viz: the “initiative from below” definition of corporate entrepreneurship (Vesper, 1984). This emphasises the individual employee undertaking something new. This is consistent with Damanpour’s (1991) view of innovation which focuses on re-energising and enhancing an organisation’s ability to acquire innovative skills and capabilities and with O’Reilly & Pfeffer’s (2000) perspective on creating a work environment that enables an organization to tap the latent energies and skills of employees.

Non-monetary Working Conditions and Discretionary Work Effort The importance of DWE on organizational performance and success has attracted considerable attention. The influence of contextual factors on work behaviour is well documented in both the entrepreneurship literature (Amabile et al., 1999, Hornsby et al., 2002, Hamel, 2000a, Kanter, 1992, Kuratko et al., 1990) and the OB literature (Organ et al., 2005, Motowidlo, 2000, Lynch et al., 1999, Morrison and Phelps, 1999, Podsakoff et al., 1996a, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). As managers play a crucial role in creating the work environment, an improved understanding of the critical factors that motivate effort will improve their capacity to influence DWE. There is no agreement on what factors matter most in motivating (inhibiting) DWE. The influences are numerous but those identified in the entrepreneurship and OB literatures appear to fall into four main categories viz: personal factors, job factors, social-interpersonal factors and

AGSE 2007

1366

organizational factors. Subsumed under these are several sub-components. The latter three influences relating to the work environment are the main concern for this study. The first element relates to job characteristics. A work environment conducive to peak effort requires opportunity for individual growth and skill development, challenge, meaningful work, autonomy, and where the end results of one’s work is seen (Skinner, 2000, Hamel, 2000b). Work design theory advocates jobs that are meaningful, interesting and challenging (Parker et al., 2001, Hackman and Oldham, 1980) as this enhances employee satisfaction. It gives employees a greater sense of control, achievement, growth and recognition which generates higher levels of motivation (Rainey, 2001, Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Parker, Wall & Cordery (2001) also note the positive influence of opportunities for skill acquisition, problem-solving and social contact, and the negative influence of role conflict, and physical and emotional demands, although they argue that greater autonomy might enable an employee to limit these negative influences. Individuals with a higher desire for challenge and personal development are more responsive to job enrichment (Parker et al., 2001). Autonomy and challenging work are also key stimulants of corporate entrepreneurship ( Hornsby et al., 2002, Hornsby et al., 1999, Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990) and motivators of entrepreneurship. Empirical research supports the positive impact of intrinsically motivating job characteristics on job satisfaction and motivation (Parker and Wall, 1998). Job characteristics are amongst the least researched factors affecting discretionary behaviours. Task feedback, task routinization and intrinsically interesting tasks are a few significant antecedents reported (Podsakoff et al., 2000, Podsakoff et al., 1996a). Intrinsically motivating work encourages personal initiative (Frese et al., 1996) and more proactive role orientations (Parker et al., 1997). In contrast resource constraints inhibit corporate entrepreneurship (Hornsby et al., 2002, Hornsby et al., 1999, Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990). Access to sufficient resources is a stimulant to creativity and workload pressures/time constraints an inhibitor (Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990), Similarly, resource constraints (both materials and time) is an inhibitor of entrepreneurial activities (Hornsby et al., 2002, Hornsby et al., 1999). This factor parallels the negative influence of physical and emotional demands posited by Parker et al (2001). The preceding discussion suggests that intrinsically motivating work (i.e. autonomy, challenge, interesting and meaningful) is a potential perk, and workload and resource pressures is a possible irk. The second element of social/interpersonal influences has two sub-components, leaders and co-worker behaviours. Leadership refers to the “ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals” (Robbins, 2001). Leader behaviours have an important direct and indirect influence on employee attitudes, perceptions and behaviours as they affect the functioning of the organization and shape the internal work environment that fosters discretionary effort (Podsakoff et al., 1996b). Leadership literature suggests that organizational leaders display three main forms of influence: transactional, transformational and directive (Aranson, 2001). Kotter (1990) advocates leading rather than managing and emphasizes that leadership is critical for high performance. He argues that transformational leadership, which is similar to Stevenson’s promoter managerial behaviour and entrepreneurial leadership (Gupta et al., 2004), holds the most promise for unleashing discretionary effort.. Stevenson (1983) asserts that entrepreneurship is a management approach that can be equally applied within established organizations. Gupta et al (2004) contend that entrepreneurial leadership evokes superordinate performance by appealing to employee higher order needs. An important role of all managers is to build a climate that creates a mind-set and collective spirit of conscious creativity and innovative behaviour (Gupta et al., 2004, Amabile, 1996). A supportive work environment requires direction setting, alignment and successful motivation. Kotter (1990) argues that people are energized to overcome obstacles if they can satisfy basic human needs viz: the need for achievement; a sense of belonging; recognition; self-esteem; the ability to live up to one’s ideals; and feeling in control. This can be achieved through: 1) the articulation of a vision making work meaningful; 2) regular involvement giving a sense of control; 3) support through coaching, feedback and role modelling to help them grow professionally and enhance their self-esteem; and 4) recognition and reward for success giving a sense of accomplishment, belonging and being cared about. Strong management support and an effective system of recognition and reward are key internal conditions for corporate entrepreneurship ( Hornsby et al., 2002, Hornsby et al., 1999, Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990). Podsakoff et al (1990) report transformational leaders behaviours as a significant influence on discretionary behaviours. Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson and Spangler (1995) identify transactional leadership with its emphasis on contingent reward, as effective in enhancing employee affective and behavioural responses.

AGSE 2007

1367

In contrast to these positive leader behaviours, Flamholtz (1990) depicts directive leadership as a continuum ranging from autocratic to laissez-faire. The autocratic leader distorts organizational goals, abuses the use of resources for self-interest and gains subordinate support through threats and force. Aranson (2001) describes such behaviours as unethical. They do not create favourable perceptions to earn the confidence and loyalty of subordinates, thus would not inspire employees to strive towards greater efficiency and effectiveness. These literatures suggest that the supportive leader behaviours apparent in transformational and transactional leadership is a perk, and autocratic leader behaviours is an irk. The second sub-component of social/interpersonal influences is co-worker behaviours. Entrepreneurial firms are often lauded for their teamwork. Workgroup support is a key stimulant to creative and innovative behaviours (Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990). Similarly, group cohesiveness and reciprocity are co-worker behaviours identified as significant positive antecedents of discretionary behaviours ( Podsakoff et al., 2000, Podsakoff et al., 1996a, Podsakoff et al., 1996b). Group cohesiveness helps employees to better recognize the interdependencies between their own and co-worker tasks. This encourages them to maintain contact with others on matters affecting them (Podsakoff et al, 1996b). Reciprocity, embedded in social exchange theory (Deckop et al., 2003, Van Dyne et al., 1994), reflects the mutual support co-workers provide each other in a supportive team environment. One factor not yet investigated in the discretionary behaviour literature is the impact of perceived co-worker shirking on employee effort. Alchian and Demsetz (1972) contend that employees have more incentive to shirk in team or work group situations and this is usually addressed through monitoring. A recent development in shirking research is consideration of perceptions of social loafing (i.e. providing less effort than they could in a group situation) on group perceptions and performance (Mulvey and Klein, 1998, Comer, 1995, George, 1992). Perceived loafing is the perception that one or more group members contribute less effort than others (Comer, 1995). Equity and justice theory suggest that perceptions of the rewards an individual receives for the effort contributed compared to referent others impacts work behaviours. Thus, if a co-worker/s is perceived as contributing less effort than others and yet receives similar rewards, this creates feelings of injustice and negatively affects motivation. There is some empirical evidence for individuals reducing their own effort in such situations (Mulvey and Klein, 1998). It therefore seems reasonable to argue that co-worker support might be considered a perk and co-worker shirking an irk. The third element of influence on DWE is organizational factors (organizational culture/climate, structure and systems). Organizational culture refers to the values, beliefs, work styles and relationships of an organization that give it a certain feel. Employees form perceptions of these and this may in turn influence employee attitudes and behaviours (Appelbaum et al., 2004). Alvesson (2002) suggests that culture is certain to have an impact on many actions within organizations. It facilitates goal alignment and has a positive, motivating effect on employees. Much DWE literature emphasises the importance of creating a supportive work environment to unleash employees’ talent, skills and creativity (Overell, 2003, Dubinsky and Skinner, 2002, O'Reilly and Pfeffer, 2000, Skinner, 2000) The OB literature suggests that an adaptive culture as found in entrepreneurial firms is the key to good performance. Entrepreneurial firms are characterized by risk-taking, trust, proactivity, teamwork, and a positive performance environment that encourages and inspires creative and innovative behaviours (Hamel, 2000a, Kanter, 1992). Recognizing the high performance outcomes of entrepreneurial firms, many managers seek to create this same spirit, culture, challenge and rewards in their own organizations (Hisrich and Peters, 1998). While perceived organizational support and rewards outside leader control are significant antecedents of discretionary behaviour (Podsakoff et al., 1996a, Podsakoff et al., 1996b, Podsakoff et al., 2000), few systematic investigations have been undertaken of the effect of organizational culture (Stamper and Van Dyne, 2003, 2001, Karambayya, 1990). Stamper and Van Dyne (2001) examined the effect of bureaucracy and found higher discretionary behaviours displayed in less bureaucratic organizations. Karambayya (1990) contrasted a security culture (conservative, conventional, centralized decision-making with severe sanctions placed on failure and non-conformity) with a satisfaction culture (participative decision-making and encouragement of supportive interpersonal relations and risk-taking) and found that a security culture has a significant negative effect on personal industry. Kanter (1987) maintains that innovative behaviour is fostered by leadership that encourages rational risk-taking, provides open communication and constructive feedback, recognizes creative work, provides access to resources for creative problem solving and provides participative and collaborative management. The key stimulants to creativity include support for new ideas; risk

AGSE 2007

1368

orientation; autonomy; encouragement, feedback and recognition; a sense of challenge and urgency; and adequate resources (Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990). Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra (2002) similarly identify management support, work discretion, organizational boundaries, rewards/reinforcement and time availability as key factors for corporate entrepreneurship. Semco’s CEO adds flexibility and value placed on work-life balance as additional key factors of organizational support (Shinn, 2004). Key inhibitors include organisational impediments and workload pressures. A focus on the status quo, political problems, negative criticism, inappropriate feedback systems and behaviours aimed at protecting territory are organisational impediments that stifle creativity (Amabile, 1999, Burnside, 1990). The traditional corporate work environment is highly bureaucratic with a reward system that promotes conservative decision-making, maintains the status quo, and avoids risk and failure. A bureaucratic work climate is typical of most large organizations and the public sector. In contrast, a supportive entrepreneurial climate develops a strong vision, encourages new ideas and experimentation, encourages people to take responsibility and ownership, rewards high performance, and fosters trust and close working relationships. This literature therefore suggests that the latter work climate might be considered a perk and the former an irk. This paper addresses the core question of “what work environment factors do public sector employees perceive to be perks and irks.” With this objective in mind the following propositions are formulated. Proposition 1: Public sector employees commonly perceive i) intrinsically satisfying work; ii) leader

support; iii) co-worker support; and iv) organizational support as perks. Proposition 2: Public sector employees commonly perceive i) workload and resource pressures; ii)

autocratic leadership; iii) co-worker shirking; and iv) a bureaucratic work climate as irks.

Proposition 3: Net perks is a higher order factor comprised of two dimensions, perks and irks. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual ideas driving this research. Monetary and non-monetary rewards an employee associates with his/her job influences his/her DWE. Employee perceptions of the rewards/costs associated the his/her job determines the utility (satisfaction) derived and thus his/her willingness to contribute DWE. This model highlights the need to identify what work environment factors employees perceive as perks and irks in the context of the DWE decision. In understanding these factors, the stage is set for testing how variations in these translate into differences in DWE.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

METHODOLOGY This study involved conducting three analyses. Firstly, qualitative research involving 35 individual interviews and one focus group was conducted. The findings from this study and the literature were used to design of a survey instrument for assessing employee perceptions of perks and irks. Secondly, this instrument was tested on a sample of 2288 employees from 12 local governments. An exploratory factor analysis was then conducted to determine the factor structure of perks and irks, and the higher order construct net perks. Thirdly, the reliabilities of each resulting factor were determined and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted to assess differences amongst sample sub-groups. Participants The target population was local government employees excluding CEOs. Data was collected from two samples, one for the qualitative study and the other for the quantitative study, Firstly, employees from four local governments were invited to volunteer for an individual interview or focus group and asked to provide information on a range of personal characteristics for screening purposes. To gain diverse perspectives in the data generated, a ‘relevant range sampling’ technique was employed. A diverse group of managerial, professional, administrative, clerical and blue-collar workers were selected. The interviewing process continued until a point of saturation seemed to have been reached (Mason, 2002). Secondly, all employees from 12 capital city and regional local

AGSE 2007

1369

governments were invited to participate in the survey. Of the 2288 questionnaires distributed, 585 usable responses were received giving a 26% response rate. The sample demographics are summarised in Table 1. The demographic mix is similar on most characteristics for both studies. There is a noticeable lack of young employees in both samples. This is indicative of the age composition of local government in Western Australia generally.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE Data Collection Procedure This research commenced with a qualitative study. An interview guide was designed around the key themes drawn from the literature. All interviews were conducted during work time at a location chosen by the participants and were one to two hours in length. Participants were asked to relate examples of work situations in which they felt energised and wanted to contribute high work effort into their job and examples of experiences where they felt that they would only contribute minimum effort (or less). Feelings and circumstances surrounding these experiences were explored. The focus group of six people was used to test for the diversity of voices and group member responses to others’ views, and to see if synergistic group dynamics stimulated any different perspectives. A measurement instrument comprising 141 items around the core themes was then designed. Where possible items were taken from existing scales and adapted as required. New items were also developed from data gathered in the interviews. The items were formatted on a 7-point Likert scale with (1) representing very negative (an irk), (4) representing neutral and (7) representing very positive (a perk). The items were grouped into job characteristics (15 intrinsically motivating work, and 12 workload and resource pressure items), leader behaviours (20 supportive and 13 autocratic leader behaviours), co-worker behaviours (14 supportive and 15 shirking behaviours) and organisational factors (38 organizational support and 14 bureaucratic work climate items). The quantitative data was collected via a self-administered questionnaire. These were distributed through a combination of face-to-face meetings and internal distribution channels. All questionnaires had a cover letter explaining the study, giving assurances of confidentiality and anonymity and a reply-paid envelope in which to return the forms directly to the researcher. Two follow-up reminders were provided. Analyses All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic analysis employing NVivo software. An a priori coding scheme was designed around the factors drawn from the literature and subsequently modified as new themes emerged. This process aimed to confirm core themes drawn from the literature and to test their relevance to public sector employees. The survey data was analysed in several steps. Firstly, a Q-sort type procedure was utilised to classify items as a perk or an irk, employing pre-established criteria for acceptance as guided by the literature (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994, MacKenzie et al., 1991, Chatman, 1989). The “experts” (those with a good understanding of the construct/s of interest) were the survey participants. This step aimed to ensure content validity of the constructs.

Secondly, items meeting the criteria were subjected to exploratory factor analysis firstly for the individual dimensions and then for the two sets of perks items retained and the irks items retained. For the individual analysis only items with a factor loading of at least 0.7 (considered excellent) were retained {Tabachnick, 1996 #396 p.677}. If however an individual factor had less than three items with a factor loading of 0.7, and the factor was deemed important as guided by the literature and qualitative interviews, these items were momentarily retained. A second exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation was then conducted on each of the groups of perk items and irks items to assess their factor structure, and convergent and discriminant validities. As it was anticipated that the resulting factors would be correlated, oblique rotation was used to provide a more interpretable result (Hinkin, 1995). In interpreting the results, only factors with an eigenvalue greater than one and a factor loading of 0.5 or above, reflecting a good to very good factor loading, were retained. Items loading significantly on more than one factor were deleted. Internal reliabilities were calculated for each factor.

Thirdly, a second-order (hierarchical) factor analysis was conducted on the scale scores for the perks and irks factors determined to assess the factor structure of net perks and the convergent and discriminant validities of the resulting factors. Scale scores were calculated using the average score for each factor. Internal reliabilities for the resulting second-order factors were calculated. Finally, respondents were asked to provide demographic information identified as possible factors affecting

AGSE 2007

1370

discretionary effort. ANOVAS were conducted for each factor using Scheffe’s tests to determine specific differences for the sample sub-groups.

This approach was guided by those used in prior corporate entrepreneurship and organisational behaviour studies in which new measures are developed (Blau and Ryan, 1997, Hornsby et al., 2002) and the absence of any theoretical or empirical basis for clearly specifying a prior the number of factors (Nunnaly, 1978).

RESULTS The following discussion focuses on the findings of the quantitative study as this aspect of the research is central to testing the propositions. Content analysis of the qualitative data assisted in the development of the instrument required. The core themes that emerged largely mirrored those drawn from the literature. Figure 2 provides a summary of the principal themes. One new theme is external factors. External factors identified as perks are positive feedback from external stakeholders, and the community’s location and lifestyle. External factors identified as irks are unwarranted public complaints, and negative community attitudes and lack of support. Being external to the organization, this theme was not included in the instrument designed.

INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE First Order Analysis The first step of quantitative data analysis involved classifying the survey items into two groups perks and irks. This process reduced the initial set of 141 items to 89. Employing the established criteria, 52 items were classified as perks and 37 items as irks. At this point no items measuring workload and resource pressures met the prescribed criteria so were removed from any further analysis. The exploratory factor analyses conducted on the two groups of perks and irks items yielded five significant factors for perks and three for irks (see Tables 2 and 3). Each factor was labelled based on the items that comprised them. The five factors for perks are team-oriented leadership (12 items), challenging work (7 items), co-worker support (9 items), flexibility (3 items) and performance orientation (4 items). These factors accounted for 43%, 10%, 5%, 5% and 3% variance respectively. Their associated reliabilities are 0.94, 0.91, 0.94, 0.73 and 0.87 respectively, thus exceed the minimum acceptable level for a new measure (Nunnaly, 1978). These results partially confirm Proposition 1. The research yielded five dimensions of perks instead of the four postulated and had some variation from the proposed factors. Challenging work emerged as the core characteristic of intrinsically satisfying work. Autonomy was an important characteristic in the qualitative interviews and a potential second dimension in the factor analysis but did not meet the criteria for retention. Leader support items related mostly to team building and personal consideration thus is labelled team-oriented leadership. Organizational support emerged as two factors viz: flexibility and performance orientation (including reward for good performance).

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE The three factors for irks are co-worker shirking (11 items), autocratic leadership (5 items) and power orientation (5 items). These factors account for 49%, 10%, 6% variance respectively. Their associated reliabilities are 0.85, 0.95, and 0.84 respectively. These results partially confirm Proposition 2. The research yielded a three factor solution for irks instead of the four postulated. Workload and resource pressures was not a commonly perceived irk. A power orientation, reflecting inequity of access to resources, power is used to control behaviours and rule by fear and abuse of power (Harrison and Stokes, 1992), emerged as a more accurate title for this dimension than a bureaucratic work climate which relates more to conservatism, formal rules and procedures and an emphasis on the status quo.

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE Second Order Analysis The second-order factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution, perks and irks (see Table 4). All factor scores loaded on the predicted dimensions. Factor 1 (perks) accounts for 52% variance and factor 2 (irks) accounts for 13% variance. The factor reliabilities are 0.80 and 0.81 respectively. All factor scores have a factor loading greater than 0.5 except for flexibility although this is only

AGSE 2007

1371

marginally below 0.5 and within the acceptable level for retention. These results support Proposition 3.

INSERT TABLE 4 HERE The final analysis involved conducting ANOVAS to determine what significant differences exist on each factor for selected demographics viz: gender, age, tenure, management status, job status and worker type. Across the eight factors comprising perks and irks, significant differences exist on all factors for gender and worker type. Females consistently had scores significantly higher for perks and lower for irks than males. This suggests that females place greater value on the non-monetary rewards/costs associated with their job than do males. Worker type was defined according to the percentage of time spent working outdoors. Those spending more than 75% of their time working outdoors, which is indicative of a blue collar worker, consistently had scores significantly lower for perks and higher for irks than the other worker types. This suggests that blue-collar workers place lower value on the non-monetary rewards/costs associated with their job than do white-collar and professional employees. The differences between other sub-samples are less consistent. No significant differences exist for employees of different job status. For management status, only challenging work is significantly different with middle and senior managers having higher scores than non-management and middle managers. For tenure, a significant difference exists on four factors, challenging work, flexibility, performance orientation and autocratic leadership. Generally, long-term employees view flexibility and performance orientation as less of a perk and those with 6-10 years tenure view challenging work as less of a perk than others. For age, significant differences exist on three factors, team oriented leadership, flexibility and co-worker support. Generally younger (under 30 years) and older (60+ years) employees have significantly higher scores on these factors than those in the mid-range age groups.

DISCUSSION AND IMLICATIONS Drawing on the corporate entrepreneurship and organizational behaviour literatures, this study postulates that public sector employees will commonly perceive intrinsically motivating work, leader support, co-worker support, and organizational support as perks, and workload and resource pressures, autocratic leader behaviours, co-worker shirking and a bureaucratic work climate as irks. The study postulates that the factor structure of a motivating work environment reflects these key dimensions, and that there is a higher order factor called net perks comprised of perks and irks. These propositions are tested with local government employees. The empirical results partially support these propositions. Perks were determined to have a five-factor structure comprised of challenging work, team-oriented leadership, co-worker support, flexibility, and performance orientation. Irks were determined to have a three-factor structure comprised of co-worker shirking, autocratic leadership and power orientation. All factors had acceptable reliabilities ranging from 0.73 to 0.95. Net perks was determined to have a two-factor structure comprising of perks and irks with all dimensions loading on their predicted factor. These factors accounted for up to 66% variance and represent a parsimonious description of some key working conditions that public sector employees perceive as perks and irks. Workload and resource pressures did not emerge as an important dimension of irks as postulated. Also rather than a bureaucratic work climate being perceived as irksome, the destructive aspects of a power culture emerged as a dimension of irks. While the qualitative data supported autonomy as an important element of intrinsically motivating work, this was not empirically confirmed. Further, organizational support emerged as two factors of flexibility and performance orientation. This study contributes to the field of entrepreneurship in a number of ways. From a theoretical perspective it provides an important step towards better understanding what constitutes net perks. It develops a parsimonious measurement scale for assessing the non-monetary work environment that motivates employees to contribute discretionary work effort. It also sheds light on an area of relevance of corporate entrepreneurship for the public sector. As such it extends the under-researched area of public entrepreneurship. From a practical perspective, these findings have important implications for public sector management by identifying some key areas in which public sector managers might develop strategies for transforming their entities into better performing organizations by creating a more highly motivated workforce.

AGSE 2007

1372

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This research is largely exploratory and has a number of limitations. Firstly, the factor structure of the constructs of interest has only been tested on a single sample. These results need to be confirmed with additional independent samples. Secondly, the data was collected from a single sector of the public service, local government, thus would benefit from being tested with a broader range of public sector institutions. Undertaking a comparison of different classes of public sector institutions would be useful in assessing the extent to which these findings can be generalised and so is an area for future research. Thirdly, the sample of organizations included in this study was not selected randomly. As such this limits the ability to extrapolate the results to the industry generally. Finally, the dimensions determined in this study are not exhaustive. Many other factors may well exist which provides another avenue for future research. The ex-post model presented in Figure 3 is still to be fully tested. This research only addresses the box labelled net perks. The next step therefore is to test the relationships between the various factors depicted in the full model.

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed (Ex-Ante) Model

MONETARYREWARDS

NET PERKS

Perks•Intrinsically motivating work•Leader support•Co-worker support•Organizational support

Irks•Workload & resource pressures•Autocratic leadership•Co-worker shirking•Bureaucratic work climate

UtilityDiscretionary

WorkEffort

Employee Attitudes

Table 1: Research Participant Demographics

Qualitative Study Sample Quantitative Study Sample

Participant Characteristics Individual Interviews (n = 35)

Focus Group

(n = 6)

Survey

(n = 585) Gender:

Male Female

63% 37%

50% 50%

52% 48%

Age: Under 30 years 30 – 39 years 40 – 49 years 50 – 59 years 60+ years

9%

20% 34% 31%

6%

0%

17% 67%

0% 17%

13% 23% 33% 27%

4% Tenure with organization:

Under 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16+ years

3%

17% 37% 34%

3% 6%

17% 33% 50%

0% 0% 0%

20% 18% 24% 19%

9% 10%

Management Status: Non-management Management

69% 31%

83% 17%

58% 42%

AGSE 2007

1373

Figure 2: Qualitative Study - Themes Relating to Perks and Irks

Perceived Perks Perceived Irks 1. Job Factors A. Intrinsically motivating work –

freedom, flexibility, interesting & meaningful, challenging, doing complete job, feedback from job, customer contact

B. Extrinsic rewards – e.g., job security, good superannuation, flexible hours, work car, travel allowance, gainsharing

A. Workload pressures B. Lack of role clarity C. Routine & boring tasks D. No opportunity for personal growth &

development E. Accountability without authority F. Insufficient autonomy

2. Social & Interpersonal Factors

a. Leader

Behaviours

A. Leader support – respect, being valued, genuine concern, mutual trust & loyalty, fairness, role model, flexible, approachable & accessible, open to ideas, empowers staff

B. Recognition & Reward C. Intellectual stimulation –

encourages me to improve & find better ways of doing things

A. Autocratic leader behaviours – inflexible, controlling, no confidence in staff, divisive, staff not valued, gatekeeper, harsh response to mistakes & non-conformity, obstructive/interfering, unreasonable expectations, shirk responsibilities & accountability, negative feedback, no recognition for good performance

B. Poor leadership abilities – indecisive or poor decisions, lacks skills, lacks understanding, lacks vision, unclear expectations, lacks professionalism

C. Maintains status quo – critical of new ideas, procrastinates, no interest in improvements

D. Tolerance of low performance b. Co-worker

Behaviours A. Team support – talented co-

workers, supportive & helpful, team synergy from collective action

A. Co-worker shirking – poor standard of work & job neglect, social loafing, giving less than 100% effort

3. Organizational Support Factors

A. Supportive organizational climate – people-oriented, encourages teamwork, work-life balance, trains/develops staff, professionalism, encourages & rewards high performance, participative decision-making, work a place to like & enjoy

B. Extrinsic organizational rewards –staff functions, recreation centre membership, good staff amenities

C. Lurks – limited personal use of organization’s equipment or time

A. Bureaucratic work environment - unsupportive, sterile & negative, reactive, conservative, departmentalised, short-term planning focus

B. Inadequate resources

4. External Factors

A. Positive feedback from external stakeholders

B. Community location & lifestyle

A. Unwarranted public complaints B. Negative community attitudes & lack

of support

AGSE 2007

1374

Table 2: First Order Factor Analysis – Rotated Factor Structure for Perks

PERKS MEASUREMENT SCALE ITEMS Mean s.d. Factor Loadings

Factor 1:Team Oriented Leadership 1. A manager/supervisor who makes me feel like a valued member of the team. 6.34 0.93 0.860 2. A manager/supervisor who willingly shares his/her knowledge & expertise with me. 6.31 0.91 0.854 3. A manager/supervisor who gives me a clear understanding of where we are going. 6.22 1.00 0.789 4. A manager/supervisor who builds a team spirit and attitude amongst members in our work

area. 6.30 0.97 0.755

5. A manager/supervisor who acknowledges improvements in the quality of my work. 6.12 1.00 0.725 6. A manager/supervisor who inspires members of our work group with his/her plans for the

future.

6.06

1.08

0.722 7. A manager/supervisor who always gives me positive feedback when I perform well. 6.11 1.14 0.708 8. A manager/supervisor who is someone that I can respect. 6.38 1.01 0.690 9. A manager/supervisor who encourages everyone in my work area to be a team player 6.14 1.08 0.588 10. A manager/supervisor who leads by example providing me with a good role model. 6.30 1.01 0.561 11. A manager/supervisor who treats me with respect and integrity. 6.61 0.80 0.549 12. A manager/supervisor who encourages me to find new and better ways of doing things. 6.07 0.97 0.527

Eigenvalue 15.053 % Variance 43.009

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.942 Factor 2: Challenging Work 1. I have the chance to be creative & use my own initiative. 5.90 1.26 0.853 2. The job allows me to make full use of my skills and abilities. 5.72 1.53 0.799 3. I have opportunities to tackle new problems or do different things. 5.66 1.30 0.794 4. The work gives me opportunities to learn new things. 5.80 1.37 0.752 5. I find the work personally interesting or I feel passionate about it. 6.10 1.17 0.742 6. The work stretches my abilities and brings out the best in me. 5.56 1.40 0.708 7. I am allowed to experiment and discover new things. 5.64 1.41 0.683

Eigenvalue 3.587 % Variance 10.250

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.907 Factor 3: Co-worker Support 1. Co-workers who work well together as a team. 6.49 0.75 -0.834 2. Co-workers who have a good blend of skills and talents. 6.31 0.78 -0.829 3. Co-workers who go out of their way to help each other out when needed. 6.41 0.79 -0.803 4. Co-workers who are committed to the work we are doing. 6.30 0.84 -0.793 5. Co-workers who trust each other. 6.40 0.83 -0.690 6. Co-workers who encourage me to look for new and different ways of doing things. 6.10 0.93 -0.675 7. Co-workers who freely share information that helps me do my job better. 6.40 0.83 -0.629 8. Co-workers who are energetic and inspiring. 6.17 0.93 -0.620 9. Co-workers who value the contributions I make to our work area. 6.17 0.89 -0.614

Eigenvalue 1.794 % Variance 5.124

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.939 Factor 4: Flexibility 1. Having the opportunity to trade-off some of my own time (e.g. lunch break) so I can do some

personal things during work time (e.g. attend school functions, finish work early).

5.94

1.23

0.742 2. Having access to flexible work arrangements that accommodate my needs to take care of

personal matters during work time as long as I get my work done.

5.94

1.22

0.723 3. Having the opportunity to work from home for personal reasons (e.g. to care for a family

member) if needed rather than having to take a sick day or personal day off.

5.56

1.51

0.525 Eigenvalue 1.714 % Variance 4.898

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.735 Factor 5: Performance Orientation 1. An organisation that recognises outstanding performance. 6.25 0.93 0.640 2. An organisation where people with good ideas for improving things get time to develop

them.

5.95

1.07

0.605 3. An organisation that provides opportunities for advancement for good performance. 6.35 0.87 0.586 4. An organisation that invests in the development of its people (e.g. provides opportunities to

go to conferences, seminars, training courses).

6.19

1.05

0.554 Eigenvalue 1.009 % Variance 2.883

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.869

AGSE 2007

1375

Table 3: First Order Factor Analaysis – Rotated Factor Structure for Irks

Mean s.d. Factor Loadings

IRKS MEASUREMENT SCALE ITEMS Factor 1: Co-worker Shirking 1. Co-workers who take more breaks than they should. 1.99 1.10 0.868 2. Co-workers who put in less effort than other members of the work group. 2.18 1.10 0.862 3. Co-workers who just do the minimum work required of them. 2.12 1.11 0.862 4. Co-workers who contribute less effort when others are around to do the work. 1.84 1.07 0.789 5. Co-workers who do poor quality work. 1.79 1.04 0.778 6. Co-workers who try to look busy but waste time on non-work activities (e.g. social chat,

personal calls) 1.91 1.15 0.773

7. Co-workers who leave jobs unfinished for others to do. 1.63 1.01 0.711 8. Co-workers who fail to report work related problems when they see them. 2.10 1.15 0.686 9. Co-workers who show no interest or commitment to their job. 1.78 1.15 0.679 10. Co-workers who don’t meet deadlines or deliver on promises. 2.03 1.05 0.671 11. Co-workers who stand around watching other team members do the work. 1.62 1.04 0.660

Eigenvalue 10.393 % Variance 49.490

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.852 Factor 2: Autocratic leadership 1. A manager/supervisor who frequently takes over or interferes in the work I am doing. 1.76 1.19 0.775 2. A manager/supervisor who focuses on my mistakes rather than recognising any of the

good things I do. 1.78 1.35 0.742

3. A manager/supervisor who does not communicate information that affects me or my job. 1.70 1.24 0.695 4. A manager/supervisor who controls everything I do and how I do it. 1.79 1.28 0.695 5. A manager/supervisor who ridicules anyone who offers suggestions for improving things. 1.48 1.06 0.600

Eigenvalue 2.079 % Variance 9.902

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.949 Factor 3: Power Orientation 1. An organisation where people play political or power games. 1.49 0.91 0.779 2. An organisation where there is poor communication. 1.54 0.94 0.744 3. An organisation where people try to shift their responsibilities or blame onto other (buck

pass)

1.48

0.87

0.696 4. An organisation where all decisions are made by management without consulting staff. 1.96 1.15 0.640 5. An organisation where people are critical of any new ideas. 1.79 1.14 0.593

Eigenvalue 1.252 % Variance 5.962

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.837 Table 4: Second Order Factor Analysis Results for Net Perquisites

Factor Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2

COMPOSITE SCALE SCORE MEASURES FOR PERKS & IRKS

Scale Score Mean

Scale Score s.d.

Scale Score Reliabilities

Perks Irks 1. Co-worker support (9 items) 6.31 0.69 0.939 0.794 2. Team Oriented Leadership (12 items) 6.25 0.78 0.942 0.766 3. Performance orientation (4 items) 6.19 0.82 0.855 0.765 4. Challenging Work (7 items) 6.03 0.85 0.907 0.552 5. Flexibility (3 items) 5.81 1.07 0.735 0.491 6. Power orientation (5 items) 1.65 0.79 0.837 0.818 7. Autocratic Leadership (5 items) 1.70 0.97 0.949 0.728 8. Co-worker Shirking (11 items) 1.91 0.86 0.852 0.727 Eignvalue 4.197 1.046 % Variance 52.460 13.080 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.799 0.808

AGSE 2007

1376

Figure 3: Revised (Ex-Post) Model

MONETARYREWARDS

NET PERKS

Perks•Challenging work•Team-oriented leadership•Co-worker support•Performance orientation•Flexibility

Irks•Autocratic leadership•Co-worker shirking•Power orientation

UtilityDiscretionary

WorkEffort

Employee Attitudes

REFERENCES

Alchian, A. A. and Demsetz, H. (1972). “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization.” American Economic Review, Vol. 57, December, pp. 777-795.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. SAGE Publications, London. Amabile, T. M. (1999) "Managing for Creativity." In The Entrepreneurial Venture, 2nd Ed. (Ed, Bhide, A.)

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 521-536. Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B. and Kramer, S. J. (2004). “Leader Behaviors and the Work

Environment for Creativity: Perceived Leader Support.” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 5-32. Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., Girard, C. and Serroni, C. (2004)

“Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Case Study of Culture, Leadership and Trust.” Management Decision, Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 13-40.

Aranson, E. (2001). “Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 244-256.

Bellone, C. J. and Goerl, G. F. (1992). “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 130-134.

Bird, B. and Jellinek, M. (1988). “The Operation of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 21-29.

Blau, G. J. and Ryan, J. (1997). “On Measuring Work Ethic: A Neglected Work Commitment Facet.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 435-448.

Brown, S. P. and Leigh, T. W. (1996). “A New Look at Psychological Climate and Its Relationships to Job Involvement, Effort, and Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 358-368.

Burnside, R. M. (1990). "Improving Corporate Climates for Creativity." In Innovation and Creativity at Work. (Ed, Farr, J. L.) John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, NY.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). 'Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 333-349.

Comer, D. R. (1995). “A Model of Social Loafing in Real Work Groups.” Human Relations, Vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 647-667.

Damanpour, F. (1991). “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 355-390.

Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C. and Andersson, L. M. (2003). “Doing Unto Others: The Reciprocity of Helping Behaviour in Organizations.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 101-113.

Douglas, E. J. (1989). “The Simple Analytics of the Principal-Agent Incentive Contract.” Journal of Economic Education, Winter 1989, pp. 39-51.

Douglas, E. J. and Shepherd, D. A. (2000). '”Entrepreneurship as a Utility Maximizing Response.” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 231-251.

Du Gay, P. (1996). "Organising Identity: Entrepreneurial Governance and Public Management." In Questions of Cultural Identity (Ed, Du Gay, P.) Sage, London.

Dubinsky, A. J. and Skinner, S. J. (2004). High Performers: Recruiting and Retaining Top Employees. Thomson South-Western, USA.

Dubinsky, A. J. and Skinner, S. J. (2002). “Going the Extra Mile: Antecedents of Salespeople's Discretionary Effort.” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 589-598.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A. and Spangler, W. D. (1995). 'Transformational Leadership: An Initial Investigation in Sales Management.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 17-31.

AGSE 2007

1377

Eisenhauer, J. G. (1995). “The Entrepreneurial Decision: Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer 1995, pp. 67-79.

Flamholtz, E. G. (1990). Growing Pains: How to Make the Transition from Entrepreneurship to a Professionally Managed Firm. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The Spirit of Public Administration. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Frese, M., Kring, W., Snoose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996). “Personal Initiative at Work: Differences between East

and West Germany.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 37-63. George, J. M. (1992). “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Origins of Perceived Social Loafing in Organizations.” Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 191-202. Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C. and Surie, G. (2004). “Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developing and Measuring a

Cross-Cultural Construct.” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19, pp. 241-260. Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). "Work Redesign." Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School Press, MA. Harrison, R. and Stokes, H. (1992). Diagnosing Organizational Culture. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). “A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations.” Journal of

Management, Vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 967-988. Hisrich, R. D. and Peters, M. P. (1998). Entrepreneurship. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Hofer, C. W. (1976). “Research on Strategic Planning: A Survey of Past Studies and Suggestions for Future

Efforts.” Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 261-287. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F. and Montagno, R. V. (1999). “Perception of Internal Factors for Corporate

Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Canadian and U.S. Managers.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter 1999, pp. 9-24.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F. and Zahra, S. A. (2002). “Middle Managers' Perception of the Internal Environment for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Assessing a Measurement Scale.” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, pp. 253-273.

Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J. and Pitt, D. C. (2001). “Leadership and Motivation: The Effective Application of Expectancy Theory.” Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 212-226.

Kanfer, R. (1992). "Work Motivation: New Directions in Theory and Research." In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 7 (Ed, Robertson, I. T.) John Wiley & Sons Lt., pp. 1-53.

Kanter, R. (1992). Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. Routledge, London. Kanter, R., Ingols, C., Morgan, E. and Seggerman, T. (1987). “Driving Corporate Entrepreneurship.”

Management Review, Vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 14-16. Kanter, R. M. (1985). “Supporting Innovation and Venture Development in Established Companies.” Journal of

Business Venturing, Vol. 1, pp. 47-60. Karambayya, R. (1990). “Contextual Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” The Academy of

Management Proceedings, pp. 221-225. Katz, D. (1964). “The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behaviour.” Behavioural Science, Vol. 9, pp. 131-

146. Kotter, J. P. (1990). “What Leaders Really Do.” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, May-Jun, pp. 17-31. Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V. and Hornsby, J. S. (1990). “Developing an Intrapreneurial Assessment

Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 49-58.

Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (1999). “Perceived Organizational Support: Inferior Versus Superior Performance by Wary Employees.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 467-483.

Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with Them, Working with Them. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P. and Fetter, R. (1991). “Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Objective

Productivity as Determinants of Managerial Evaluations of Salesperson Performance.” Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. Vol. 50, October, pp. 123-150.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. Sage Publications, London. Morris, M. J. and Jones, F. F. (1999). “Entrepreneurship in Established Organizations: The Case of the Public

Sector.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Fall, 1999, pp. 71-91. Morris, R. and Douglas, E. J. (2005) “Motivating Employee Performance: Lessons from Entrepreneurship.” In

Second Annual Regional Entrepreneurship Research Exchange Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Swinburne, Melbourne, VIC.

Morrison, E. W. and Phelps, C. C. (1999). “Taking Charge at Work: Extrarole Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 403-419.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). “Some Basic Issues Related to Contextual Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Human Resource Management.” Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 115-126.

Mulvey, P. W. and Klein, H. J. (1998). “The Impact of Perceived Loafing and Collective Efficacy on Group Goal Processes and Group Performance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 62-87.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. OECD. (1995). Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. OECD, Paris. O'Reilly, C. A. and Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden Value: How Great Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results with

Ordinary People. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.

AGSE 2007

1378

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and McKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents and Consequences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. A. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Overell, S. (2003). “On the Scent of the Right Reward.” Financial Times, pp. 14. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D. and Cordery, J. L. (2001). “Future Work Design Research and Practice: Towards an

Elaborated Model of Work Design.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 413-440.

Parker, S. K. and Wall, T. D. (1998). Job and Work Design: Organizing Work to Promote Well-Being and Effectiveness. Sage, San Francisco, CA.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D. and Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That's Not My Job: Developing Flexible Employee Work Orientations.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 899-929.

Pinchott, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York. Podsakoff, N. P. and MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). 'Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Sales Unit

Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, August, pp. 351-363. Podsakoff, N. P., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). “Transformational Leader Behaviours

and Their Effects on Followers, Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours.” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H. (1996a). “Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Kerr and Jermier's Substitutes for Leadership and Employee Job Attitudes, Role Perceptions, and Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 380-399.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H. (1996b). “Transformational Leader Behaviours and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours.” Journal of Management, Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000). “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research.” Journal of Management, Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 513-563.

Rainey, H. (2001). "Work Motivation." In Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. (Ed, Golembiewski, R. T.) Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 19-39.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schein, E. H. (1987). "Individuals and Careers." In Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Ed, Lorsch, J.)

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 155-171. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S. and Miceli, M. P. (1997). “An Exploration of the Meaning and Consequences of

Workaholism.” Human Relations, Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 287-314. Shinn, S. (2004). “The Maverick Ceo.” BizEd, Vol. III, no. 2, pp. 16-21. Skinner, S. J. (2000). “Peak Performance in the Sales Force.” The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37-42. Snir, R. and Harpaz, I. (2004). “Attitudinal and Demographic Antecedents of Workaholism.” Journal of

Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 520-536. Stamper, C. L. and Van Dyne, L. (2003). “Organizational Citizenship: A Comparison between Part-Time and

Full-Time Service Employees.) Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 33-42.

Stamper, C. L. and Van Dyne, L. (2001). “Work Status and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: A Field Study of Restaurant Employees.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 22, no. August, pp. 517-536.

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Shapiro, D. L. (2004). “The Future of Work Motivation Theory.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 379-387.

Stevenson, H. H. (1983). A Perspective on Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Case 384-131. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. Harper Collins, New York, NY. Terry, L. D. (1993). “Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship

with Democracy.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 393-395. Teske, P. and Schneider, M. (1994). “The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: The Case of City Managers.” Public

Administration Review, Vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 531-540. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct

Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 765-802.

Vesper, K. H. (1984). "Three Faces of Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Pilot Study." In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. (Ed, Vesper, K. H.) Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 294-320.

Zerbinati, S. and Souitaris, V. (2005). “Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector: A Framework of Analysis in European Local Governments.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 17, pp. 43-64.

AGSE 2007

1379