Comparing Employer Attractiveness of Public Sector Organizations to Nonprofit and Private Sector Organizations: An Experimental Study in Germany and the U.S.

IF 4.2 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Jana Cordes, Rick Vogel
{"title":"Comparing Employer Attractiveness of Public Sector Organizations to Nonprofit and Private Sector Organizations: An Experimental Study in Germany and the U.S.","authors":"Jana Cordes, Rick Vogel","doi":"10.1177/0734371X211065349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sector preferences in job choice have rarely been tested empirically across different administrative systems. We address this gap and apply a between-subject experimental design to examine the attractiveness of public, private, and nonprofit employers in two countries in different administrative traditions. Respondents (n = 362) from an Anglo-Saxon (i.e., the U.S.) and continental European country (i.e., Germany) were exposed to job advertisements that only differed in the employer’s sector affiliation, with other job attributes, such as payment and working hours, held constant. Contrary to expectations, and consistently across the two country samples, respondents evaluated public sector jobs more positively compared to vacancies in the private sector. In contrast, we found no such comparative advantage of public over nonprofit employers. By providing counterevidence to the prevalence of negative attitudes toward public organizations, our study warns against overgeneralizing previous findings on negativity biases to the context of employer attractiveness.","PeriodicalId":47609,"journal":{"name":"Review of Public Personnel Administration","volume":"43 1","pages":"260 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Public Personnel Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211065349","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Sector preferences in job choice have rarely been tested empirically across different administrative systems. We address this gap and apply a between-subject experimental design to examine the attractiveness of public, private, and nonprofit employers in two countries in different administrative traditions. Respondents (n = 362) from an Anglo-Saxon (i.e., the U.S.) and continental European country (i.e., Germany) were exposed to job advertisements that only differed in the employer’s sector affiliation, with other job attributes, such as payment and working hours, held constant. Contrary to expectations, and consistently across the two country samples, respondents evaluated public sector jobs more positively compared to vacancies in the private sector. In contrast, we found no such comparative advantage of public over nonprofit employers. By providing counterevidence to the prevalence of negative attitudes toward public organizations, our study warns against overgeneralizing previous findings on negativity biases to the context of employer attractiveness.
比较公共部门组织与非营利和私营部门组织的雇主吸引力:德国和美国的实验研究
工作选择的部门偏好很少在不同的行政系统中进行实证检验。我们解决了这一差距,并应用主体间实验设计来检验两个不同行政传统国家的公共、私营和非营利雇主的吸引力。来自盎格鲁-撒克逊国家(即美国)和欧洲大陆国家(即德国)的受访者(n = 362)看到的招聘广告只在雇主所属行业方面有所不同,而其他工作属性(如薪酬和工作时间)保持不变。与预期相反,在两个国家的样本中,与私营部门的职位空缺相比,受访者对公共部门工作的评价更为积极。相比之下,我们没有发现公共雇主比非营利雇主有这样的比较优势。通过提供对公共组织普遍存在的消极态度的反证,我们的研究警告不要将之前关于消极偏见的发现过度概括到雇主吸引力的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The Review of Public Personnel Administration publishes articles that reflect the varied approaches and methodologies used in the study and practice of public human resources management and labor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信