Exploring the Job Satisfaction of Public and Private
Employess in Romania
MATEI ANI, FATACIUNE (BADALAN) MIRELA-NICOLETA
Faculty of Public Administration
National School of Political Studies and Public Administration
30A, Expozitiei Street, 4th floor, district 1, 012104, Bucharest
ROMANIA
Abstract:- Satisfaction at work is one of the most studied organizational variables and many studies
show that it is extremely important for organizations. Closely related to work motivation and
performance, satisfaction is an important factor for many attitudes such as absenteeism or intention to
resign.
The aims of the present study is to measure the degree of job satisfaction of public and private
employees in Romania and to analyze the differences between the two sectors.
In the present study participated a total of 120 full-time employees of various private enterprises and
public organizations. The Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985) was used to collect data.
The survey results indicate a moderate degree of work satisfaction of respondents across most
analyzed dimensions of job satisfaction. Two of the analyzed dimensions, one intrinsic (nature of
work) and one extrinsic (communication) registered a high score of job satisfaction in both sectors.
Instead, the biggest differences are found on dimensions "supervision" and the "co-workers" (both
extrinsic factors) private sector employees showing a higher degree of job satisfaction than those in
the public sector.
To enhance employee motivation, public-sector managers in Romania should improve their
employees' extrinsic job satisfaction and help unsatisfied employees transfer to jobs they find more
satisfying.
Key-Words: job satisfaction, public sector, private sector, two-factor theory, Job Satisfaction Survey
1. Introduction
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied variables
in organizations (Spector, 1997). Although the job
satisfaction phenomenon has been extensively
researched, results are often different and even
contradictory. At a first glance at the literature,
diversity of results originates in the lack of a
universally accepted definition of the concept of job
satisfaction.
Spector (1997) describes job satisfaction as the way
“people feel about their job and other issues related
to the work they perform. It is the extent to which
employees like or dislike their job” [1]. Locke
claims that job satisfaction can be defined as
“anything that may positively influence the
employee in relation to his job and work conditions”
[2].
Weiss (2002) states that job satisfaction is an
attitude, as other resent research define it as
behavior. Nevertheless, job satisfaction is the
positive or negative evaluation of an employee
regarding his job/work and work conditions.
Another problem in the study of this concept is the
existence of many measuring instruments. In 1983,
Locke emphasized that researchers had published
approximately 3500 studies on job satisfaction
without reaching a clear common ground [3].
However, job satisfaction continues to play an
important part in recent research. Different ways of
measuring job satisfaction illustrate different ways
of defining it. Some studies use only two or three
dimensions to measure it, such as:
In general, I like working here.
Next year I intend to look for another job
outside of this organization.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
17
Volume 2, 2022
The main goal of this study is to research job
satisfaction among employees of the public and
private sector in Romania.
2. Theoretical framework
For the purpose of this research, a specific
theoretical framework and a methodological
instrument were selected.
To build the theoretical approach, we have chosen
the two-factor theory, also known as Herzberg’s
motivation-hygiene theory, because it is one of the
most specific and complete theories for
understanding job satisfaction. Throughout the ‘60s
and ‘70s several studies were conducted regarding
job satisfaction [4]. These studies were based on
theories attempting to explain the sources and
causes of job satisfaction in Herzberg’s two-factor
theory. Also, Hackman and Oldham’s Job
Characteristics Model is one of the theories most
specialized in understanding Herzberg’s theory [5].
Based on Maslow’s theory, Herzberg turned the
two-factor theory into a comprehensive theory of
motivation based on the concept of job satisfaction
[6].
After completing a thorough literature
review comprising over 2000 studies related to job
satisfaction, Herzberg noticed that variables that
contributed to satisfaction seemed to differ from
those that contributed to dissatisfaction [7].
Herzberg and his associates have tried to answer the
question of what it is that influences the behavior of
an employee. After a series of studies, Herzberg and
his collaborators have developed two separate lists
of factors [8]. Authors referred to factors
influencing job satisfaction as “motivating factors”
and to factors causing dissatisfaction as “hygiene
factors”. Motivators include: achievement,
recognition, responsibility, work itself, promotion
and personal development. On the other hand,
hygiene factors include: company policy and
administration, interpersonal relationships, work
conditions, status, security and salary.
According to Herzberg, the basic distinction
between motivating factors and hygiene factors is
that “factors causing job satisfaction (and
motivation) are separate and distinct from factors
leading to dissatisfaction.” They emphasize that
these separate factors must not be considered as
opposites, but, like House and Wigdor [9],
considered “two distinct continuums (constants)”.
Moreover, Herzberg clarifies that “the opposite of
job satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather non
job satisfaction, and similarly, the opposite of job
dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but non job
dissatisfaction” [10].
Herzberg’s theory had a great impact on business
administration practice, providing many novel ideas
[11]. However, it was also heavily criticized, mainly
for its methodology [12]. On the one hand, research
using Herzberg’s theory confirms the duality of the
theory; on the other hand, studies based on different
methodologies show different results. Many
researchers have criticized Herzberg’s methodology
[13], assuming it is methodologically bound [14]
and biased to be supported [15].
As a result, this theory was used in this
study to understand the dual nature of satisfaction
and motivation in the workplace. According to this
theory, the specific dimensions of job satisfaction
analyzed were divided into extrinsic factors
(hygiene) and intrinsic factors (motivation).
3. Methodology
The methodological instrument is the “Job
Satisfaction Survey – JSS”, developed by Paul
Spector [16]. This instrument was chosen because it
is a common instrument in various studies, and, as
Spector indicates, “it was specially designed for
human service, public sector and non-profit
organizations, although it is applicable to other
types of organizations” [17]. Based on the above,
researchers evaluate it as an adequate instrument for
measuring job satisfaction in the public sector.
The most important reason was, however,
was the attribution of nine facets of the JSS
questionnaire, which make up job satisfaction
together with a part of extrinsic factors (hygiene)
and intrinsic factors (motivation), proposed by
Hertzberg. Therefore, there is a reasonable
connection between the theoretical framework and
the methodological instrument in the study of job
satisfaction.
The above distinction was made in order to
determine, by evaluating facets, which of the
extrinsic factors (hygiene) or intrinsic factors
(motivation) have high or low scores for extrinsic
and intrinsic satisfaction, respectively.
The questionnaire includes 9 subscales and 36 items
and the answers were obtained on a Likert scale
from 1 to 6 (1-Strongly disagree, 6-Strongly agree).
Internal consistency coefficient of the questionnaire
proved to be very satisfactory, given that the
Cronbach reliability indicator was 0.91 (max.1).
In this study 120 full time employees have
participated from various organizations in the
private and public sector in Romania. The research
sample included 60 employees from the public
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
18
Volume 2, 2022
sector and 60 from the private sector, of which 68
women and 52 men (Figure 1). Throughout the
entire research sample, respondents’ age groups are
distributed as follows: 4% are aged between 18 and
24, 76% are aged between 25 and 34, 18% between
35 and 44, and 2% aged over 44 (Figure 2). In terms
of seniority in the organization, respondents fall into
the following categories: 34% have a seniority of
less than 3 years in the organization, 40% have a
seniority of 3 to 9 years, and 26% have a seniority
of over 9 years (Figure 3).
Fig. 1 Identification by gender
Fig. 2 Identification by age
Fig. 3 Identification by seniority
The questionnaire aimed to evaluate the following
job satisfaction dimensions: pay, promotion,
supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards,
operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work and
communication.
Scores corresponding to the 4 questions for each of
the 9 dimensions were added up, and scores
obtained for satisfaction related to each work
component were interpreted according to the
author’s instructions (Spector, 1991) as follows:
Table 1. Satisfaction scores
Between 4 and 12
points
DISSATISFIED
Between 12 and 16
points
AMBIVALENT
Between 16 and 24
points
SATISFIED
Given the differentiation made by Herzberg between
motivating extrinsic and intrinsic factors in an
organization, the 9 items analyzed are grouped as
follows:
Table 2: List of motivating factors
Motivating extrinsic
factors
Motivating intrinsic
factors
4. Research Results
The main objective of the study is to identify the
total job satisfaction, as well as in terms of each of
its components regarding employees in the public
and private sectors, respectively.
4.1 Job satisfaction of employees in the
public sector
The first observation is that employees in the public
sector were ambivalent or moderately satisfied with
their job (as shown in Table 3). In terms of the
individual dimensions tested, it is noticed that
“nature of work” got the highest score, respondents
being most satisfied intrinsically with the work they
perform. The other intrinsic factors, “contingent
rewards” and “promotion” are situated very
differently, indicating that employees are rather
dissatisfied with promotion opportunities,
appreciation – work recognition and rewards for a
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
19
Volume 2, 2022
well-done job. In terms of extrinsic factors of
satisfaction pertaining to “hygiene factors”, it is
noticed that the “relationship with co-workers”
dimension gained the most points.
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of various
dimensions of job satisfaction in the public sector
Dimensions of job
satisfaction and total
satisfaction
M
SD
Pay
9.73
4.82
Promotion
11.82
3.62
Supervision
14.73
5.19
Fringe benefits
10.91
4.65
Contingent rewards
12.23
5.02
Operating
conditions
13.32
2.66
Coworkers
15.82
4.34
Nature of work
18.14
4.94
Communication
15.55
4.32
Total satisfaction
122.33
26.38
The “supervision” dimension follows, both
indicating a moderate extrinsic degree of job
satisfaction. In contrast, it is noticed that the lowest
score is for pay – 9.73 followed by fringe benefits,
understood both as financial benefits (money) –
bonuses, meal vouchers – and non-financial benefits
(medical insurance, life insurance, private pension,
disability protection, holidays, free access or
discounts to various service) – 10.91.
Fig. 4. Dimensions of job satisfaction in the public
sector
Employees appreciate the payment and benefits
system provided by the organization as
unsatisfactory, which rises two frequent issues of
the public institutions in Romania: a poor pay
system, extremely low wages, that does not
encourage the access of highly trained people to
public administration, and on the other hand there is
a certain subjectivity of hierarchical superiors in
giving bonuses and incentives etc. in public
institutions, in the absence of criteria that would
lead to a correct rewarding of the work performed
and therefore encouraging effort and a job well
done.
4.2 Job Satisfaction of Employees in the
Private Sector
According to the table below, the score obtained for
total job satisfaction indicates that employees from
the private sector are moderately satisfied with their
workplace. As for the hygienic factors, the
“coworkers” dimension scored the highest level of
extrinsic satisfaction (18.45). It is followed by the
“supervision” dimension, which indicates a high
level of extrinsic satisfaction (17.86).
Table 4. Mean and standard deviation of the various
dimensions of job satisfaction in the private sector
Dimensions of job
satisfaction and
total satisfaction
M
SD
Pay
12.33
6.01
Promotion
13.59
3.29
Supervision
17.86
5.30
Fringe benefits
12.73
4.89
Contingent
rewards
14.45
5.07
Operating
conditions
13.68
3.46
Coworkers
18.45
4.03
Nature of work
18.09
5.18
Communication
16.18
3.97
Total satisfaction
137.05
31.14
The communication component is also among the
factors that generate a high job satisfaction score for
employees from the private sector (16.18). Aside
from the two above-mentioned dimensions that
obtained a high job satisfaction score and that
belong to the “hygiene factors” (extrinsic factors),
the only “reason” (intrinsic factor) that generates a
high score for intrinsic satisfaction turns out to be
the “nature of work” (18.09). The “promotion”
component is located at a significant distance. Here,
the lowest scores are obtained by pay and fringe
benefit satisfaction.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
20
Volume 2, 2022
Fig. 5. Dimensions of job satisfaction in the private
sector
4.3 Differences between the two sectors
As noticed in Figure 6, employees from the private
sector express a high level of satisfaction with most
of the analyzed dimensions. As for the operating
conditions – the operational procedures, employees
from the private sector and those from the public
sector expressed a similar score, being neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with their existence and the
impact of the rules and work procedures imposed by
the organization on their activity. We know that
unlike many organizations from the private sector,
organizations from the public sector have a complex
bureaucratic machine, subjected to constraints that
consist of various objectives, according to the
governing program, increased control and
monitoring measures, less autonomy and more
formalization.
Fig. 6 The distribution of scores according to job
satisfaction between the two sectors
However, for this study, the very close scores
between the two sectors are explicable: most of the
respondents from the private sector work for a
multinational company, which has a complex
bureaucratic structure, a well-defined hierarchy
similar to that of public institutions. The nature of
work is invariably the strongest encouraging factor
of the job for both categories of employees. A
similar score is noticed for the two sectors as far as
the “communication” component is concerned, both
categories of employees being relatively satisfied
with communication within the organization, the
clarity of the tasks they have to fulfill or the level of
knowledge of the organization’s objectives.
To identify if there is a real difference between the
scores obtained for every dimension between the
two sectors, we applied the T test (statistical).
Tabel 3: Dimensions of satisfaction by motivating
factors
Dimensions
of satisfaction
T Test for
Equality of
Averages
t
df
p
Average
differen
ce
Pay
-1.384
42
.17
4
-2.273
-1.384
40.122
.17
4
-2.273
Promotion
-1.700
42
.09
7
-1.773
-1.700
41.621
.09
7
-1.773
Supervision
-1.982
42
.04
9
-3.136
-1.982
41.982
.04
9
-3.136
Fringe
benefits
-1.264
42
.21
3
-1.818
-1.264
41.892
.21
3
-1.818
Contingent
rewards
-1.464
42
.15
1
-2.227
-1.464
41.997
.15
1
-2.227
Operating
conditions
-.391
42
.69
8
-.364
-.391
39.430
.69
8
-.364
Coworkers
-2.088
42
.04
3
-2.636
-2.088
41.777
.04
3
-2.636
Nature of
work
.030
42
.97
6
.045
.030
41.905
.97
6
.045
Communicati
on
-.509
42
.61
4
-.636
-.509
41.711
.61
4
-.636
There is a statistically significant difference as far as
the satisfaction of employees in the two sectors is
concerned, when we refer to the dimensions
“supervision” (p=0.049) and “coworkers” (=0.043).
The differences between the scores obtained for
every sector are visible in the table above as well.
Employees from the private sector are much more
satisfied with the relation with their direct
supervisor, with their competence level and the
treatment applied to the subordinates, with the
availability and interest expressed for the problems
of the employees.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
21
Volume 2, 2022
Employees from the private sector turn out to be
much more satisfied with the relation with their
coworkers than those from the public sector, which
indicates more harmony in the team, a compatibility
of characters and personalities in the team, and a
low frequency of tensions and conflicts in the team.
As for the pay satisfaction, the chart above (Figure
4) indicates a difference between the scores. If
employees from the public sector are dissatisfied
with their salary (9.73), those from the private sector
turn out to be moderately satisfied with their salary
(12.33).
We expected the differences between the two
sectors to be much higher. However, the low scores
obtained in the two sectors are not correlated with
the salary. One or more employees from the private
sector who do the same job as the interviewed
employees from the public sector can obtain a much
higher salary than the latter and say they are as
dissatisfied with their salary. This aspect is
explicable, on one hand, through the fact that
employees from the private sector make a
comparison, when saying if the salary is satisfactory
or not satisfactory, between them and their
colleagues from organizations of the same sector,
renowned organizations that are among those that
offer the maximum salary for the same position on
the market. Employees from the public sector, on
the other hand, are perhaps accustomed to the idea
that salaries in the public sector have always been
non-competitive and lower than those from the
private sector, so they think about an average salary
for the same position from the private sector.
The Pearson correlation coefficients were
used to study the relations between the individual
dimensions of satisfaction in the workplace for the
two sectors.
From the results of the indicators, a statistically
significant correlation for p<0.01 was identified for
the following dimensions:
Pay and promotion: if the employee is
satisfied with his salary, he will also be
satisfied with the promotion opportunities.
It is debatable and it requires additional
investigations.
Pay and supervision: Satisfaction with the
relation with the direct supervisor
influences greatly the level of satisfaction
with the pay. If the direct supervisor is
competent, he gets involved actively in
solving the various activity issues faced by
the employee, treating them with fairness
and equality, the subordinates will express a
high level of satisfaction with supervision,
implicitly expressing a higher level of
satisfaction with the pay.
Pay and benefits – pay and contingent
rewards: one of the strongest correlations
identified. It is explicable, as a satisfactory
system of financial benefits involves
economic satisfaction with the pay. If the
contingent rewards, such as the payment of
performance, are used, satisfaction with the
pay increases.
Promotion and fringe benefits
Supervision and contingent rewards
Contingent rewards and operating
conditions
5. Conclusions of the study
The first objective of this research was to measure
the level of professional satisfaction of employees
from the public sector, namely the private one, and
its different dimensions. For both sectors, the
average level of satisfaction at the workplace of the
participants was found.
The nature of work is invariably the strongest
encouraging (intrinsic) factor of the job for both
categories of employees. A similar score is noticed
for the two sectors, in the “communication”
component, both categories of employees turning
out to be relatively satisfied with the communication
within the organization, with the clarity of the tasks
they have to fulfill or the level of knowledge of the
organization’s objectives. More precisely, as far as
the nature of work is concerned, high levels of
satisfaction were found among the employees in
similar surveys from abroad (Steijjn, 2004; Peklar,
2010). In USA, public employees are those who are
motivated more by factors related to the nature of
work because it seems interesting work is an
important stimulant for those who choose to work in
a certain sector.
On the other hand, it is noticed that the lowest score
obtained in the public sector is related to the salary –
9.73, followed by fringe benefits, understood both
as financial benefits (in money) – bonuses, food
vouchers, and non-financial benefits (medical
insurance, life insurance, private pension, protection
for invalidity, vacations, free access or discounts to
various services) – 10.91. The employees say the
system of remuneration and benefits offered by the
organization is not satisfactory, a result that raises
two frequent issues of public institutions from
Romania: a scarce remuneration system, extremely
low salaries, which do not encourage the access of
persons who are very well-trained in public
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
22
Volume 2, 2022
administration, and on the other hand, we can talk
about a certain subjectivity of the hierarchal
superiors in offering bonuses, incentives etc. in
public institutions, in the absence of criteria that
leads to a fair reward for the work and, therefore,
encourages the effort and job well done.
From the things described throughout the
analysis of the data, several recommendations for
the management of the organization in the public
sector are drawn.
• Given the limited financial possibilities of the
public institutions to ensure a satisfactory pay raise
for their employees, it is useful for the management
of these organizations to focus on techniques to
increase satisfaction and motivation regarding other
aspects of the work. Building a balanced system of
benefits, comparable to the one used in
organizations from the private sector, could involve:
1. Offering gifts for holidays, birthdays or
important events from the life of the employee
(marriage, childbirth).
2. Benefitting from free medical services (in
addition to those offered by the medical
insurance) offered by medical institutions that
service the public organization
3. Organizing entertainment programs for the
children of the employees during the winter
holidays, etc.
To consolidate the relation with coworkers,
create a spirit of collaboration and understanding in
the team and consolidate the organizational culture,
team-buildings can be made, the team can go out on
various occasions, the employees can get involved
in group projects, etc.
Private companies, active on a competitive market,
guided by the logic of profit, understand to a greater
extent the importance of human resources and their
potential in the organization. They have several
financial means to extrinsically motivate their
employees, to invest in their training and
development and to offer them the benefits that
ensure an economic comfort.
References:
[1] Locke, E. A. “The Nature and Causes of Job
Satisfaction” in M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 1983 apud. Rainey, 2009,
op.cit, p.299
[2] Kantas, 1998;
[3] Statt, 1994;
[4] Stanton, 1987;
[5] Herzberg et al., 1957;
[6] Herzberg et al., 1959;
[7] House, Wigdor, 1967, pag: 370;
[8] Herzberg, 1987, pag: 9;
[9] Kantas, 1998;
[10] Behling et al., 1968;
[11] Ewen et al., 1966;
[12] House and Widgor, 1967;
[13] Sachau, 2007;
[14] Spector, P.E. (1985), “Measurement of Human
Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey”, American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 694;
[17] Idem, p.698.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2022.2.3
Matei Ani, Fataciune (Badalan) Mirela-Nicoleta
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
23
Volume 2, 2022