INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND
BEHAVIOR, 9 (2), 147-173
SUMMER 2006
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES: UNITED STATES,
CANADA, AND JAPAN
Patrick E. Connor, Boris W. Becker,
Larry F. Moore, and Yoshiju Okubo*
ABSTRACT. This paper reports an investigation of the personal-values
systems of 567 public-sector managers from the U.S., Canada, and Japan.
The results of this research indicate that, despite some specific differences,
there is an overarching, coherent North American public-sector managerial
values systems. Moreover, it is similar in some ways to that of its Japanese
counterparts. However, these values systems – North American and
Japanese – are clearly distinct.
INTRODUCTION
“The study of values has special importance to the field of public
administration today because of the unusual level of change under
way in the political-administrative system. The system is currently
experiencing policy shifts ..., as well as organizational adjustments
stemming from those systemic shifts” (Wart, 1998, p. 164). If Van
--------------------------------* Patrick E. Connor, Ph.D., is Professor, Atkinson Graduate School of
Management, Willamette University. His research interests center on two
themes, managers' personal value systems and organizational change.
Boris W. Becker, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor, College of Business, Oregon
State University. His research interests focus on values as theoretical
construct and empirical variable in managerial and consumer behavior.
Larry F. Moore, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor, Sauder School of Business,
University of British Columbia. His research interests are in work motivation
and workforce diversity in organizations. Yoshiju Okubo, B.Eng., is Associate
Professor, Graduate School of Management and Economics, Aomori Public
College, Aomori, Japan. His research interests are in high-tech human
resource development and software engineering.
Copyright © 2006 by PrAcademics Press
148
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
Wart is right, the values of those working in the public sector bear
examining. And if he is right about policies changing, then the values
of public-sector managers seem especially worthy of study. Since it is
fair to say that every country has a "public sector," our inquiry was
guided by the question, "Are the personal-values systems of publicsector managers similar or different when compared across
countries?" The purpose of this article is to report our findings
relative to this question, with specific reference to the U.S., Canada,
and Japan.
Interest in questions such as this – that is, interest in human
values systems – dates back many years (Allport, 1937; England,
1967; Guth & Tagiuri, 1965; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Lewin,
1935; Postman, Bruner & McGinnes, 1948). That interest increased
with the publication of Milton Rokeach's landmark Beliefs, Attitudes
and Values (1968), leading to a substantial growth in the conceptual
and empirical literature on personal values. Contributions in the past
two-plus decades have ranged from attempts to integrate the values
concept into middle-range theories (e.g., Gutman, 1982), to massive
empirical studies (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman,
& Gupta, 2004; Kahle, 1984; Posner & Schmidt, 1984, 1992; PrinceGibson & Schwartz, 1998; Schwartz, 1992). Reviews can be found in
Agle & Caldwell (1999), Burgess (1992), Connor and Becker (1994),
England and Lee (1974), House et al. (2004), Rokeach (1979),
Stackman, Pinder & Connor (2000).
With all the work being done, a reasonably consensual definition
of "values" has emerged over the past several decades. Kluckhohn
(1951, p. 398), from an anthropological perspective, defined values
as "a conception, explicit or implicit . . . of the desirable which
influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of
action." England (1967, p. 54) viewed values as composing "a
relatively permanent perceptual framework which shapes and
influences the general nature of an individual's behavior." For
Williams (1968; 1979, p. 16), the core phenomenon is that values
serve as "criteria or standards of preference." And, in his elaboration
of Kluckhohn's concepts, psychologist Rokeach (1968, p. 124)
defined values as "abstract ideals, not tied to any specific object or
situation, representing a person's belief about modes of conduct and
ideal terminal modes . . .." Values therefore are global beliefs that
"transcendentally guide actions and judgments across specific
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
149
objects and situations" (Rokeach, 1968, p. 160). Schwartz and Bilsky
(1987, p. 551) summarize the literature by specifying that "… values
are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable end states or
behaviors, (c) that transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or
evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative
importance."
As a point of clarification, we note that values are distinct from
attitudes, which do focus on specific objects and situations: "An
attitude is an orientation towards certain objects (including persons –
others and oneself) or situations . . . . [A]n attitude results from the
application of a general value to concrete objects or situations"
(Theodorson & Theodorson, 1969, p. 19). Values therefore may be
conceptualized as global beliefs about desirable end-states or modes
of behavior that underlie attitudinal processes and behavior.
Behavior is the manifestation of one's fundamental values and
corresponding attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fazio, 1986); as
Adler (2002, p. 17) notes, "individuals express their culture and its
normative qualities through the values that they hold about life and
the world around them."
RESEARCH QUESTION AND BACKGROUND
It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine the social,
economic, technological, and other contextual variables that affect
acculturation processes. We can say, however, that two broad lines
of reasoning have been advanced, historically, in such comparative
research as we report here (Tan, 2002). A number of scholars have
investigated personal values systems of people around the world,
finding them to support a divergence line of reasoning – that is, to
find that they differ substantially across countries [see, for example,
Connor, Becker, Kakuyama & Moore (1993), Dubinsky, Kotabe, Lim
and Wagner (1997), England (1975), Glazer and Beehr, (2002),
House et al. (2004), Sagiv and Schwartz (2000), Schwartz (1992),
Schwartz and Bardi (2001)]. With specific reference to managers,
Americans are said to prize achievement, whereas Japanese prefer
ascribed status more (House et al. 2004), as well as hierarchy and
harmony (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000) and respect (Connor et al., 1993).
For their part, Canadian managers have been described as regarding
harmony and egalitarianism more highly than their American
150
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
counterparts do (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). These various differences
are held to reflect fundamental differences in cultural values as
between Canada and the U.S. (Hardin, 1974; House et al. 2004;
Lipset, 1990). Accordingly, based on this perspective, it follows that
the values of American, Japanese, and Canadian public-sector
managers should be significantly different from each other.
On the other hand, a good case may be made for there being a
significant relationship between individuals' personal values and their
occupation [see, for example, Becker and Connor (1996), Glazer and
Beehr (2002), Rokeach, Miller and Snyder (1971)]. Schneider (1987)
and Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith (1995) have postulated an
"Attraction-Selection-Attrition" dynamic, by which people are attracted
to, selected by, and remain with an occupation in which their
personality, attitudes, and values match those of their occupation
(Glazer and Beehr, 2002, p. 187). This is a convergence line of
reasoning (Tan, 2002), and may well apply to those who participate in
the "public administration" occupation, with its putative universal
emphasis on responsiveness, performance, accountability and
responsibility, social equity, due process, openness, financial
conservatism, standards of fairness to employees, and notions of
contribution to the common good (Behn, 1999; Van Wart, 1998).
Based on this perspective, it follows that the values of American,
Japanese, and Canadian public-sector managers should be
substantially the same.
Research Question
The research literature does not provide a resolution of these two
competing lines of reasoning. In examining the "public-is-different"
viewpoint, Perry and Rainey (1988) ask whether it is rooted in myth,
or whether in fact there are unique qualities that characterize the
public sector. They conclude that a clear empirical answer is elusive,
owing to a diversity of study designs, samples, and focal variables.
The same sorts of concerns pertain to values research, as Connor
and Becker (1994) found in attempting to answer their question,
"what do we know about personal values systems, and why don't we
know more?"
Consequently, the present investigation was designed to
determine if the values systems of public-sector managers are
country-specific or universal – whether they diverge or converge.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
151
Specifically, the question here is whether public-sector managers
from the U.S., Canada, and Japan hold significantly different, or
essentially similar, personal values.1
Background
Of the limited research that has been conducted on public-sector
managers' personal-values systems, U.S. managers have received the
lion's share. Sikula (1973), for example, reported U.S. federal
executives as holding most highly values such as family security, selfrespect, accomplishment, and being responsible and capable.
Schmidt and Posner (1987) investigated the values preferences of
California city managers and U.S. federal executives. Both groups
especially valued honesty, responsibility, and capability. More
recently, Boyne (2002) has found American public-sector employees
to be rather non-materialistic in their values preferences.
In her review of the values of American public-sector managers,
deLeon (1994) noted that city managers, city planners, federal
government executives, and public-management graduate students
have given consistently high rankings to values such as self-respect,
family security, accomplishment, and honesty, responsibility, and
capability.
In a rare study of the values of Canadian public-sector managers,
Becker and Connor (2005) found that they ranked highly the values
of being helpful and loving, together with having inner harmony and
wisdom.
As under-examined as Canadian public-sector managerial values
are, we found no literature at all describing the personal-values
systems of Japanese public-sector managers.
METHOD
Samples
The American sample of 161 respondents are State-government
managers, from a western state, who attended a management
development workshop as a part of the annual meeting of their State
Management Association. Males constituted 61.5 percent of the
152
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
sample, females 38.5 percent, with an average age of 43.3 years
(s.d. 9.68, range 20-63).
The Canadian sample consists of 232 managers who were
participants in a number of university-sponsored management
workshops and executive-development programs in western Canada.
55.6 percent were males and 44.4 percent were females, with an
average age of 40.8 years (s.d. 7.76, range 24-61). All serve at the
Provincial level of government.
Finally, the Japanese sample comprises 174 managers, all of
whom serve at the Prefectural level of government in the north of
Honshu Island. Of the 171 who reported their gender, all but ten
were males (94.2 percent and 5.8 percent, males and females
respectively), with an average age of 46.5 years (s.d. 6.40, range 3360). A word here about male and female percentages: We were
startled at the small number of females in our Japanese sample, and
were concerned that we had erred in drawing it. After some
investigation however, we realized that 5.8 percent is actually
representative of female managers in the Japanese public sector:
Across the 47 Japanese prefectures, the proportion of prefecturalgovernment female managers ranges from 3.9 to 6.7 percent, with
an average of 5.4 percent (Japan Statistics, 2003).
The three samples' respondents neatly fit Perry and Rainey's
(1988) typology of organizations, which is based on ownership,
funding, and mode of social control. Our managers function at
comparable levels of government (State, Province, Prefecture), and
can be described as participating in "Bureau" organizations,
characterized by public ownership, public funding, and polyarchical
social control, "involving a pluralistic political process in which
multiple governmental authorities, interest groups, and other political
actors contest the nature and application of [rules and directives]"
(Perry & Rainey, 1988, p. 193).
Instrument
Values were measured by means of the Rokeach Value Survey
(RVS), Form D (Rokeach, 1973). The RVS is one of the most popular
structured instruments for measuring values systems, reflecting the
Rokeachian concept of values described above.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
153
The RVS is composed of two sets of values, Terminal and
Instrumental, as shown in Table 1. "Terminal" values describe
desirable conditions, or that which one might wish to have, such as
TABLE 1
Terminal and Instrumental Values
Terminal
A Comfortable Life (a prosperous life)
An Exciting Life (a stimulating, active
life)
A Sense of Accomplishment (lasting
contribution)
A World at Peace (free of war and
conflict)
A World of Beauty (beauty of nature
and the arts)
Equality (brotherhood, equal
opportunity for all)
Family Security (taking care of loved
ones)
Freedom (independence)
Happiness (contentedness)
Instrumental
Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)
Broadminded (open-minded)
Capable (competent, effective)
Cheerful (lighthearted, joyful)
Clean (neat, tidy)
Courageous (standing up for your
beliefs
Forgiving (willing to pardon
others)
Helpful (working for the welfare of
others)
Honest (sincere, truthful)
Inner Harmony (freedom from inner
conflict)
Mature Love (sexual and spiritual
intimacy)
National Security (protection from
attack)
Pleasure (an enjoyable life)
Imaginative (daring, creative)
Salvation (saved, eternal life)
Loving (affectionate, tender)
Self-Respect (self-esteem)
Social Recognition (respect,
admiration)
True Friendship (close
companionship)
Wisdom (a mature understanding of
life)
Obedient (dutiful, respectful)
Polite (courteous, well-mannered)
Source: Rokeach (1973, p. 28)
Independent (self-reliant, selfsufficient)
Intellectual (intelligent, reflective)
Logical (consistent, rational)
Responsible (dependable, reliable)
Self-controlled (restrained, welldisciplined)
154
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
family security, equality, or salvation. "Instrumental" values describe
desirable modes of conduct, or that which one might wish to be, such
as independent, loving, or honest. Each set consists of a list of 18
distinct values; within each set, the individual arranges the 18 values
in order of his or her preference. Respondents, therefore, report two
sets of 18 ranked values. Standard procedures were employed in the
administration of the instrument. Form D of the RVS uses gummed
labels, by which the respondent physically arranges his or her values
in the preferred priority ranking.
Japanese translations were those used in Calista's research, in
which the "double-back technique" was employed (1984, p. 552):
The instrument's translation began with two Japanese
professors, who were on research leaves in the United States,
successively translating from English to Japanese and then
each version back into English. A third English-language
professor in Japan negotiated the few remaining differences
in Japanese; it was then translated back into English by two
Japanese professors who are holders of American doctorates
in linguistics; the result was a one-to-one agreement with the
original English.2
The same translations were used in the research reported by
Connor, et al. (1993), and as an additional check the English-fluent
Japanese coauthor of that article translated the instrument into
English, again with one-to-one agreement with the original.
Analysis
Since the RVS produces ranked – and therefore ordinal – data,
differences between groups of individuals are measured using
medians, rather than means. Consequently, the nonparametric chisquare statistic is used to test whether a value is evaluated at a
difference that is statistically significant as between the groups being
compared (Siegel & Castellan, 1988).3 Extensive evidence on the
validity, reliability, and factorial structure of the RVS is available in
Rokeach (1973). As Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach (1989, p. 776) have
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
155
noted, "Test-retest reliability has been assessed separately for each
of the 36 values and also for the two sets of values systems (Terminal
and Instrumental) . . . . Employing a 14- to 16-month time interval,
the median reliability of the values system considered as a whole is
0.69 for Terminal values systems and 0.61 for Instrumental value
systems."
Because of its relevance to this paper's analysis, the factorial
structure of the RVS merits some further discussion. Although
intercorrelations among the 36 values have been shown by Rokeach
and others to be minimal (Rokeach, 1973), his factor analysis of a
national sample of adult Americans (n = 1,409) indicates that the
values are not altogether independent of one another: "For the total
sample . . . we have been able to identify seven bipolar factors by
varimax rotation . . ." (Rokeach, 1973, emphasis added). Table 2
presents those factors, together with the loadings of their contributing
values.4
The factorial structure displayed in Table 2 is both relatively
robust (Crosby, Bitner & Gill 1990; Frederick & Weber 1987;
McCarrey et al., 1984) and analytically valuable (Rokeach 1973). In
addition to the individual values themselves, the factors are useful for
examining differences in value systems among respondent groups.
The way in which this is done can best be explained by an
example. Consider the first factor depicted in Table 2; as Rokeach
found, it is a bipolar dimension, with Immediate Gratification at one
end and Delayed Gratification at the other.
If a particular respondent not only ranks highly all those values
that load positively, but also ranks highly all those that load
negatively, that person may be thought of as being relatively neutral
with respect to that particular factor. He or she prefers neither pole
to the other.
Similarly, if another respondent ranks none of those eight values
either high or low, we can say that individual also is expressing no
strong orientation with respect to the factor. On the other hand, a
third respondent who ranks all four positive-loading values high, and
all four negative-loading values low, obviously values Immediate,
rather than Delayed, Gratification.
156
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
To measure the degree to which an individual values one pole or
another for a particular factor, two additional elements must be taken
into account. First is the relative loading weights of the individual
values shown in Table 2. An extreme ranking (high or low) of a
TABLE 2
Factor Analytic Structure of Personal Values
Factorial Dimension
Highest Positive
Loadings
Highest Negative
Loadings
Immediate vs.
Delayed Gratification
A comfortable life (.69)
Pleasure (.62)
Clean (.47)
An exciting life (.41)
Logical (.53)
Imaginative (.45)
Intellectual (.44)
Independent (.43)
Obedient (.52)
Polite (.50)
Self-controlled (.37)
Honest (.34)
A world at peace (.61)
National security (.58)
Equality (.43)
Freedom (.40)
A world of beauty (.58)
Equality (.39)
Helpful (.36)
Imaginative (.30)
Social recognition (.49)
Self-respect (.32)
Courageous (.70)
Independent (.33)
Wisdom (-.56)
Inner harmony (-.41)
Logical (-.34)
Self-controlled (-.33)
Forgiving (-.64)
Salvation (-.56)
Helpful (-.39)
Clean (-.34)
Broadminded (-.56)
Capable (-.51)
Competence vs.
Conscience
Self-Constriction vs.
Self-Expansion
Social vs. Personal
Orientation
Societal vs. Family
Security
Respect vs. Love
Inner- vs. OtherDirected
True friendship (-.49)
Self-respect (-.48)
Family security (-.50)
Ambitious (-.43)
Responsible (-.33)
Capable (-.32)
Mature love (-.68)
Loving (-.60)
Polite (-.34)
Source: Rokeach (1973).
heavily-weighted value suggests more strongly that a respondent
values the pole than would a similar ranking of a lightly-loading value.
Second is the total number of value weights available for the
factor. For instance, it is obvious from Table 2 that respondents
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
157
stand a greater chance of ranking (either high or low) a value that
contributes to the Immediate/Delayed Gratification factor than one
that contributes to the Inner-/Other-Directed factor: Eight values, ∑
|total loadings| = 3.83, are available for the former, whereas only
three, ∑ |total loadings| = 1.37, are available for the latter.
Thus, the relative high or low ranking of its contributing values,
weighted by the individual value loadings, and standardized by the
total weightings available, provides a sense of the "distance" an
individual's value orientation is away from neutral toward either pole
of a given factor dimension. The procedure for calculating these
"distances" for individuals and for groups is detailed in Connor et al.
(1993), and Connor and Becker (2003).
RESULTS
Comparisons of the personal values systems of the managers
investigated in the present study are developed in the accompanying
tables and figure.
U.S. – Canadian
As Table 3 shows, there are a number of dissimilarities in the
values of our U.S. and Canadian public-sector managers. Of 36
possibilities, eleven are significantly as different as between our two
samples.5 Despite these differences, Table 3 also shows – and this is
consistent with the findings of Adler and Graham (1987) and Connor,
et al. (1993) – that there are many (25) similarities in the values of
our U.S. and Canadian respondents as well. Most tellingly, the
strong Spearman's Rank correlations for both Terminal and
Instrumental values (0.93 and 0.94, respectively) suggest that these
two samples come from highly similar populations.
TABLE 3
Personal Values of U.S., Canadian, and Japanese Public-Sector
Managers
Value
A Comfortable Life
US
Median
(Rank)
11.29
Canada Japan
Chi-Square
Median Median USUS-Japan Canada(Rank) (Rank) Canada
Japan
10.42
7.26
0.42
20.88a
8.97a
158
An Exciting Life
Accomplishment
A World at Peace
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
(11)
11.73
(12)
6.91
(6)
11.04
(10)
(11)
10.06
(10)
7.31
(7)
12.86
(15)
(5)
8.25
(8)
14.07
(17)
7.64
(6)
4.00b
18.03a
6.29b
0.19
99.9 a
80.72a
4.47 b
9.22 a
19.36a
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
159
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Value
A World of Beauty
Equality
Family Security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner Harmony
Mature Love
National Security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self-respect
Social Recognition
True Friendship
Wisdom
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
US
Median
(Rank)
13.53
(15)
12.54
(13)
5.21
(2)
6.44
(5)
7.41
(7)
6.38
(4)
8.45
(8)
15.04
(18)
13.61
(16)
14.79
(17)
4.11
(1)
13.38
(14)
9.32
(9)
5.66
(3)
9.65
(10)
8.44
(6)
6.13
(3)
11.38
(15)
14.94
(17)
9.22
(9)
10.13
(12)
Canada Japan
Chi-Square
Median Median USUS-Japan Canada(Rank) (Rank) Canada
Japan
13.40
(16)
12.45
(13)
3.27 (1)
7.17 (6)
6.59 (3)
6.62 (4)
7.63 (9)
16.50
(17)
12.75
(14)
17.44
(18)
5.17
(2)
12.21
(12)
7.50
(8)
7.00
(5)
8.71
(8)
8.42
(6)
6.06
(3)
10.75
(13)
15.30
(17)
8.50
(7)
11.56
(14)
13.00
(14)
8.00
(7)
2.54
(1)
6.33
(4)
5.87
(3)
8.43
(9)
13.50
(16)
12.93
(13)
5.50
(2)
17.68
(18)
9.64
(11)
13.08
(15)
9.70
(12)
8.77
(10)
9.57
(9)
6.83
(3)
10.75
(14)
9.45
(8)
14.10
(16)
7.23
(4)
7.50
(5)
0.02
0.80
0.58
0.00
19.46 a
26.19a
10.37 a
23.66 a
3.47
0.64
0.07
1.48
2.22
7.84 a
2.10
0.06
8.39 a
7.81a
0.85
51.22 a
59.22a
9.07 a
3.61
30.85a
2.14
103.47 a
76.67a
14.92 a
25.18 a
5.10b
5.97 b
75.09 a
69.89a
3.53
0.06
1.70
7.86 a
0.49
13.14a
6.04b
12.07 a
5.45b
0.10
0.00
0.92
0.01
2.88
3.42
0.08
33.87 a
38.84a
0.56
5.50b
2.91
0.51
1.89
3.86b
0.47
3.58
1.63
5.79b
13.57 a
21.45a
160
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Value
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
Intellectual
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Polite
Responsible
Self-controlled
US
Median
(Rank)
Canada Japan
Chi-Square
Median Median USUS-Japan Canada(Rank) (Rank) Canada
Japan
10.09
(11)
2.81
(1)
11.05
(14)
7.21
(4)
9.00
(8)
8.87
(7)
7.82
(5)
17.53
(18)
13.77
(16)
4.58
(2)
10.33
(13)
9.96
(11)
2.78
(1)
9.79
(10)
6.87
(4)
9.06
(9)
10.12
(12)
7.25
(5)
17.19
(18)
13.00
(16)
4.41
(2)
12.91
(15)
9.97
(11)
5.14
(2)
8.14
(6)
10.10
(13)
9.72
(10)
14.17
(17)
10.07
(12)
15.63
(18)
13.23
(15)
4.03
(1)
9.26
(7)
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.02
12.41 a
11.74a
1.97
11.01 a
5.24b
0.18
9.01 a
13.58a
0.05
0.53
0.22
4.58b
48.38 a
32.37a
0.43
2.85
6.15 b
1.68
20.38 a
15.17a
1.16
0.50
0.05
0.11
0.64
0.20
8.66 a
1.35
25.02a
Terminal Values Rank Correlation: U.S.-Canada (0.93, t = 10.28)a, U.S.Japan (0.26, t = 1.09), Canada-Japan (0.35, t = 1.49)
Instrumental Values Rank Correlation: U.S.-Canada (0.94, t = 10.64)a, U.S.
Japan (0.39, t= 1.69), Canada-Japan (0.50, t = 2.30)b
Notes: a p ≤ 0.01; b p ≤ 0.05.
Considering factor scores, both differences and similarities again
obtain. Canadian managers value Competence and a Personal
Orientation more, and Delayed Gratification less, than do their
American counterparts (Table 4). That said, however, preferences of
the respondents are in the same direction for the two samples and
there are no significant differences for the remaining four factors.
This pattern is evident in Figure 1, which illustrates graphically the
value profiles for all three samples.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
161
FIGURE 1
Value Profiles of American, Canadian, and Japanese Public-Sector
Figure 1. Value Profiles ofManagers
American, Canadian, and Japanese PublicSector Managers
Immediate
100
Gratification
Competence
Delayed
Conscience
Inner-
Self-
Social
Societal
Constriction
Orientation
Security
Respect
Family
Love
Directed
75
50
25
Neutral
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
Gratification
U.S. (n=161)
Self-
Personal
Epansion
Orientation
Canada (n=232)
Security
OtherDirected
Japan (n=174)
U.S. – Japanese
Table 3 tells an even more striking story regarding the U.S. –
Japanese comparison. Our U.S. and Japanese managers express
significantly different preferences on a large number of values – more
than half of them (21 of 36), in fact. In contrast to the Americans,
Japanese managers especially prefer the values of a comfortable life,
equality, pleasure, and being cheerful, forgiving, and imaginative. For
their part, our U.S. respondents ranked especially higher a sense of
accomplishment, mature love, self-respect, wisdom, and being
capable, independent, logical, and loving. The rank correlations for
both Terminal and Instrumental values (0.26, 0.39) are among the
lowest we have ever seen as between groups hypothesized to be
similar.
Considering factor scores, Table 4 indicates that in contrast to the
Americans, who value Delayed Gratification, a Personal Orientation,
and Love, the Japanese managers prefer Immediate Gratification, a
162
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
Social Orientation, and Respect. Both groups value Self-Expansion
and Family Security, although the Americans do more so, and both
value Competence and being Inner-Directed. As noted, the respective
value profiles are portrayed in Figure 1.
TABLE 4
Factor Scores of U.S., Canadian, and Japanese Public-Sector
Managers
Immediate
(+) vs.
Delayed (-)
Gratification
Competence
(+) vs.
Conscience
(-)
SelfConstriction
(+) vs. SelfExpansion
(-)
Social (+)
vs.
Personal (-)
Orientation
Societal (+)
vs.
Family (-)
Security
Respect (+)
vs.
Love (-)
Inner- (+) vs.
Other- (-)
Directed
Mean* (SD)
Mean* (SD)
-31.99 35.10 -20.28 34.16
Z Factor
CanadaJapan
(SD)
Japan
(n = 174)
US-Japan
Mean*
Canada
(n = 232)
US-Canada
US
(n = 161)
8.63 36.33 -3.29 a -10.41 -8.14 a
a
13.11
41.82 21.87
30.56
30.98 -29.98 33.62 -14.79 36.84 -0.18
-25.17
37.48 -34.15 36.27
-34.91
34.77 -36.39 32.32 -23.83 25.08
0.43
-3.32 a -4.41 a
-12.31
44.33 -14.73 45.99
-3.45 a 4.24 a
23.68
50.3
23.16
7.12
8.59 34.27 -2.14b
4.85
1.08 3.73a
-4.25 a -4.27 a
44.68 2.37 b -6.68 a -9.42 a
4.55
44.97
0.52
54.71 21.53
57.18
0.10
0.37
0.29
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
163
Notes: a p ≤ 0.01; b p ≤ 0.05.
Canadian – Japanese
Comparing Canadian and Japanese managers yields conclusions
similar to those immediately above. Table 3 reveals statistically
significant differences on more than one-half (23) of the 36 values. In
contrast to the Japanese, Canadian managers especially prefer the
values of a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, and of being
capable, independent, and loving. Japanese managers, however,
ranked comparatively higher those of a comfortable life, pleasure,
and of being forgiving and self-controlled. Rank correlations for both
Terminal and Instrumental values (0.35, 0.50) are nearly as low as
for the American-Japanese comparison.
Factor-score results as shown in Table 4 are almost identical to
the American-Japanese comparison: As with the U.S. respondents,
the Canadian managers value Delayed Gratification, a Personal
Orientation, and Love. In contrast, the Japanese managers prefer
Immediate Gratification, a Social Orientation, and Respect. Both
groups value Competence, Self-Expansion, and Family Security,
although the Canadians do more so, and both value being InnerDirected. Again, the respective value profiles are portrayed in Figure
1.
Summary of Findings
Although there are some significant values differences between
them, as Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 1 indicate, both sets of North
American managers prefer values of Delayed Gratification,
Competence, Self-Expansion, a Personal Orientation, Family Security,
Love, and being Inner-Directed. So too, do our Japanese managers
value competence, self-expansion, family security, and being innerdirected. However, they also prefer Immediate Gratification, a Social
Orientation, and Respect; and they differ on more than one-half of the
individual values from each of their North American counterparts.
In short, many similarities were found in the values of U.S.,
Canadian, and Japanese managers. Conversely, a remarkable
number of important differences also were illuminated, especially
between the North American and Japanese.
164
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As with many investigations, some precautions need to be
considered in interpreting the results of this research and in drawing
any generalizations. We begin with those limitations and conclude
with some implications.
Limitations and Extensions
A couple of precautions seem especially worth noting. First, our
participants were not randomly drawn from their country's publicsector managerial population. In common with most empirical work
on values and organizational phenomena, even large-scale endeavors
such as that of Hofstede (2001), we rely on convenience samples.
Each sample resulted from a set of opportunities for access that we
were able to develop for each country.
Second, we described above the care taken to employ a valid and
tested translation of the RVS. As Howard, et al. (1983: 896) have
pointed out, however, words may translate accurately, while
meanings may not: "For example, most Japanese are not familiar
with Christian concepts like 'salvation,' and would not interpret
'equality' in light of 'equality between races or sexes.'" Of course, this
weakness of ethnocentrism is not peculiar to the RVS; the ability of
any Western instrument to capture Eastern values – or vice-versa – is
unclear. Some items may be irrelevant for non-Western respondents,
while other more relevant ones may be missing (Hofstede & Bond,
1988).
Future research can overcome the kinds of shortcomings noted
here, but not with ease. While drawing a random sample of all
managers in a nation's public sector strikes us as daunting in the
extreme, overcoming the problem of inherent meaning in research
instruments seems especially critical – and formidable. It is not,
however, completely intractable. As exemplified by Hofstede's work,
one or two very large organizations could be the basis of values
research, if their organizational units are sufficiently well-articulated.
More broadly, however, a multiple effort probably is required. In
addition to developing instruments that are less ethnocentric, a
massive collaborative, "triangulation" strategy could fruitfully be
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
165
effected. House's GLOBE project (House, et al., 2004) is one recent
serious example of this strategy.
He and his multi-nation
collaborators surveyed some 17,000 managers in 62 countries, and
demonstrated that the use of truly cross-nationally relevant
instruments is in fact possible.
Implications and Future Direction
This research reveals two important findings with respect to
public-sector managerial values. First, despite some differences
between our U.S. and Canadian public-sector managers, their overall
similarity cannot be ignored. As noted above, (a) the direction of their
value preferences is identical in all factor-dimension cases (see Table
4 and Figure 1), and (b) despite the individual value differences
shown in Table 3, the rank correlations for both Terminal and
Instrumental values are extremely high (0.93 and 0.94, respectively).
Again, we take these correlations as evidence of highly similar – not
fundamentally different – populations (see Stackman, Connor, &
Becker, in press, regarding a "public-sector ethos" common to the
U.S. and Canada).
The second important values-systems finding uncovered in our
work is that there are as many significant differences as between the
values of both American and Canadian versus Japanese public-sector
managers. Again, though, we caution against overemphasizing the
differences; there still exist some clear similarities. As Figure 1
illustrates, all three sets of managers favored those values oriented
toward Competence (versus Conscience), Self-Expansion (versus SelfConstriction), Family (versus Societal) Security, and being Innerversus Other-Directed.
To be sure, the relative strengths of their preferences are not
identical. For example, Canadians assigned a higher importance to
Competence than did the Americans, who assigned it more
importance than did the Japanese, but even the Japanese managers
came down on the Competence (as opposed to Conscience) end of
the spectrum. The same sort of patterns is obtained for the other
three dimensions. In short, for our purpose, Figure 1 suggests that
their values differences on these dimensions are in degree, not kind.
Where the values differences between our North American and
Japanese public-sector managers clearly show up are in the other
166
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
three dimensions. The Japanese value Immediate Gratification, a
Social Orientation, and Respect, whereas both the American and
Canadian managers are oriented toward Delayed Gratification, a
Personal Orientation, and Love.
What all this means regarding managing in the public sector is
intriguing. In a five-cohort survey of 1,000 alumni of thirteen U.S.
graduate public-sector programs, Light (1999) reports that a public
service ethic – "making a difference in the world" – does in fact exist.
Respondents, moreover, overwhelmingly would choose a career in the
public sector if given the chance again. Whether his findings would
be replicated in Japan, we can say that in general the manager's role
in public organizations is becoming more complex (Van Wart, 1998;
Tompkins, 2005). For one thing, as Kelman (2005) points out in his
recent examination of the federal procurement system, the
successful public-sector manager must navigate waters that roil with
conflicting interests from the top, the bottom, the private sector,
unaffiliated parties with their own interests, as well as other agencies.
Moreover, no longer is he or she necessarily even a government
employee, as contractors from private firms and governmental civil
servants often perform the same duties, often in the same office,
often at the same time.
This complexity is increased when one considers public-sector
managers, particularly North American and Japanese managers,
interacting across national borders. Future research will be useful in
revealing whether they are aware of their values similarities and
differences, and whether that awareness is reflected in their
interactions, for example in trade negotiations.
CONCLUSION
So, what is the answer to our research question as to countryspecific vs. universal values systems – that is, as to divergence vs.
convergence? Putting it another way, is there a "public-sector
managerial values system?" Our answer is consistent with a third line
of reasoning, crossvergence, in which values systems emerge as
unique configurations, or patterns, somewhere between the polar
extremes of divergence or convergence (Ralston, Holt, Terpstra & Yu,
1997; Tan, 2002). The pattern that emerges from the present
research indicates that (1) yes, despite some specific differences
there is an overarching, coherent North American public-sector
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
167
managerial values system. Moreover, it is similar in some ways to its
Japanese counterpart. However, (2) those values systems, North
American and Japanese, are also clearly distinct. Figure 1 illustrates
these two points clearly.
Given the multidimensional nature of values and their correlates,
and the significance of values as influences on subsequent attitudes
and behavior, it is evident that much research remains to be done.
For example, there is a need for values-based research on other than
convenience samples. These are often obtained by gaining access to
organizations to which the researcher is consulting, or to data
collected in the course of a management-development program. It
could be argued, not entirely perversely, that the kinds of
organizations that allow researchers to investigate their managers'
values are not representative of all organizations.
There is also a need to investigate whether the crossvergence
pattern revealed here for state/provincial/prefectural managers
holds for other levels of public management. As noted above,
personal values systems of city- and federal-level public managers
have been studied (deLeon, 1994; Sikula, 1973; Schmidt & Posner,
1987). However, it remains to conduct such investigations in nations
other than the U.S.
Future research should not stop at identifying differences
between and among groups of people. As we implied at the outset of
this paper, there is additional value in studying, and coming to
understand, how individuals' values systems affect their attitudes,
their actual behavior, including interactions with others, and
ultimately their organizations' performance.
NOTES
1. Thanks go to Mike Manuel for his software skills and to Katy
Durant for her sensible (to her) coding system, as well as myriad
other assistance. Thanks also to Steven Nord for all of the
excellent support in preparing this manuscript for publication.
2. We are grateful to Professor Donald J. Calista, Marist College, for
providing his Japanese RVS instrument to us.
168
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
3. We should acknowledge the minor, albeit ongoing, controversy
regarding the use of rankings versus ratings in the measurement
of values (Agle and Caldwell, 1999: 367-68). Alwin and Krosnick
(1985) had clarified the conceptual distinction between rankings
and ratings of values, suggesting that each may have its use.
While we recognize the greater statistical tools available to
analyze rating data (commonly assumed to be interval-scaled), we
believe with Rokeach (1973: 33-34, 42-43; 1979: 132) that
rankings are more in keeping with the "priority" nature of values:
although a number of values may be rated as a "1," or most
important, only one value may be ranked #1.
4. We employed Rokeach's factor analysis owing to the superiority of
his sample size (1,409 vs. 567) – see Kim and Mueller (1978:
53-59). We were encouraged by the fact that the analysis of
McCarrey, et al. (1984) produced identical factors to Rokeach's.
Note too that our labeling of the second factor, Competence vs.
Conscience, follows that of McCarrey, et al., Connor, et al. (1993),
and Connor and Becker (2003); Rokeach (1973) labeled this
factor Competence vs. Religious Morality. Finally, note that
Rokeach's description of the Inner- vs. Other-Directed dimension
in his text (1973, p. 48) differs from his table (p. 47). We believe
that the text, and not the table, is correct.
5. Differences between groups that seem trivial (for example, family
security and obedient in Table 3) are statistically significant
because of the distribution of preferences among the
respondents in the samples.
REFERENCES
Adler, N.J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Adler, N.J., & Graham, J.L. (1987). “Business Negotiations: Canadians
Are Not Just Like Americans.” Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 4: 211-238.
Agle, B.R., & Caldwell, C.B. (1999). “Understanding Research on
Values in Business.” Business and Society, 38 (3): 326-387.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
169
Ahmed, S.A. (1990). “Impact of Social Change on Job Values: A
Longitudinal Study of Quebec Business Students.” Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7: 12-24.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: a Psychological Interpretation. New
York: Henry Holt.
Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J.A. (1985). “The Measurement of Values in
Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings.” Public Opinion
Quarterly, 49: 535-552.
Apasu, Y., Ichikawa, S., & Graham, J. (1987). “Corporate Culture and
Sales Force Management in Japan and America.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 7: 51-62.
Becker, B.W., & Connor, P.E. (1996). “Dentists' Personal Values: An
Exploratory Investigation.” Journal of the American Dental
Association, 127: 503-509.
Becker, B.W., & Connor, P.E. (2005). “Self-Selection or Socialization
Of Public- and Private-Sector Managers? A Cross-Cultural Values
Analysis.” Journal of Business Research, 58 (1): 111-113.
Behn, R.D. (1999). “The New Public-Management Paradigm and the
Search for Democratic Accountability.” International Public
Management Journal, 1 (2): 131-165.
Boyne, G.A. (2002). “Public and Private Management: What's the
Difference?” Journal of Management Studies, 39 (1): 97-122.
Burgess, S.M. (1992). “Personal Values and Consumer Research: An
Historical Perspective.” Research in Marketing, 11: 35-79.
Calista, D.J. (1984). “Postmaterialism and Value Convergence: Value
Priorities of Japanese Compared with their Perceptions of
American Values.” Comparative Political Studies, 16: 529-555.
Cochrane, R., Billig, M., & Hogg, M. (1979). “British Politics and the
Two-Value Model.” In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding Human
Values: Individual and Societal (pp. 179-191). New York: The Free
Press.
170
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
Connor, P.E., & Becker, B.W. (1994). “Personal Values and
Management: What Do We Know and Why Don't We Know More?”
Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (1): 67-73.
Connor, P.E., & Becker, B.W. (2003). “Personal Value Systems and
Decision-Making Styles of Public Managers.” Public Personnel
Management, 32: 155-180.
Connor, P.E., Becker, B.W., Kakuyama, T., & Moore, L.F. (1993). “A
Cross-National Comparative Study of Managerial Values: United
States, Canada, and Japan.” Advances in International
Comparative Management, 8: 3-29.
Crosby, L.A., Bitner, M.J., & Gill, J.D. (1990). “Organizational Structure
of Values.” Journal of Business Research, 20: 123-134.
deLeon, L. (1994). “The Professional Values of Public Managers,
Policy Analysts and Politicians.” Public Personnel Management,
23 (1): 135-152.
Dubinsky, A.J., Kotabe, M., Lim, C.U., & Wagner, W. (1997). “The
Impact of Values on Salespeople’s Job Responses: A CrossNational Investigation.” Journal of Business Research, 39 (3):
195-208.
England, G.W. (1967). “Personal Value Systems of American
Managers.” Academy of Management Journal, 10 (1): 53-68.
England, G.W. (1975). The Manager and his Values. New York:
Ballinger.
England, G.W., & Lee, R. (1974). “The Relationship between
Managerial Values and Managerial Success in the United States,
Japan, India and Australia.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59:
411-419.
Fazio, R.H. (1986). “How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?” In R.M.
Sorrentino, and E.T. Higgins, (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition: Foundation of Social Behavior (pp. 204-243). New
York: Guilford.
Feather, N.T. (1979). “Assimilation of Values in Migrant Groups.” In
M. Rokeach, (Ed.), Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal (pp. 97-128). New York: The Free Press.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
171
Frederick, W.C., & Weber, J. (1987). “The Values of Corporate
Managers and their Critics: An Empirical Description and
Normative Implications.” Research in Corporate Social
Performance and Policy, 9: 131-152.
Glazer, S., & Beehr, T.A. (2002). “Similarities and Differences in
Human Values between Nurses in Four Countries.” International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2: 185-202.
Guth, W.D., & Tagiuri, R. (1965). “Personal Values and Corporate
Strategies.” Harvard Business Review, 43: 123-132.
Gutman, J. (1982). “A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer
Categorization Processes.” Journal of Marketing, 46: 60-72.
Hardin, H. (1974). A Nation Unaware: The Canadian Economic
Culture. Vancouver, Canada: J.J. Douglas.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M.H. (1988). “The Confucius Connection: From
Cultural Roots to Economic Growth.” Organizational Dynamics,
16: 4-21.
House, R.J, Hanges, P.J, Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Howard, A., Shudo, K., & Umeshima, M. (1983). “Motivation and
Values among Japanese and American managers.” Personnel
Psychology, 36: 883-898.
“The Appointment Status of Women to Local Government
Management” (2003). In Japan Statistics. [Online] Available at
http://www.gender.go.jp/2003statistics/2-2-4.pdf.
[Retrieved
Feb. 4, 2006].
Kahle, L.R. (1984). Social Values and Adaptation to Life in America.
New York: Praeger Publishers.
Kamakura, W.A., & Mazzon, J.A. (1991). “Values Segmentation: A
Model for the Measurement of Values and Value Systems.”
Journal of Consumer Research, 18: 208-218.
172
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational
Renewal in Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Kim, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods
and Practical Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). “Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of
Action.” In T. Parsons, and E. Shils (Eds.). Toward a General
Theory of Action (pp. 388-433). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Kluckhohn, C., & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variation in Value
Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Light, P. (1999). The New Public Service. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Lipset, S.M. (1990). Continental Divide. New York: Routledge,
Chatman and Hall.
McCarrey, M.W., Gasse, S., & Moore, L. (1984). “Work Value Goals
and Instrumentalities: A Comparison of Canadian West-Coast
Anglophone and Quebec City Francophone Managers.”
International Review of Applied Psychology, 33: 291-303.
Perry, J.L., and Rainey, H.G. (1988). “The Public-Private Distinction in
Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy.” Academy
of Management Review, 13: 182-201.
Posner, B.Z. & Schmidt, W.H. (1984). “Values and the American
Manager: An Update.” California Management Review, 26:
202-216.
Posner, B.Z., & Schmidt, W.H. (1992). “Values and the American
Manager: An Update Updated.” California Management Review,
34 (3): 80-94.
Postman, J.J., Bruner, S., & McGinnis, E. (1948). “Personal Values as
Selective Factors in Perception." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 43: 142-154.
Prince-Gibson, E., & Schwartz, S.H. (1998). “Value Priorities and
Gender.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 61: 49-67.
PUBLIC-SECTOR MANAGERIAL VALUES:
AND JAPAN
UNITED STATES, CANADA,
173
Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H., & Yu, K.C. (1997). “The
Impact of National Culture and Economic Ideology on Managerial
Work Values: A Study of the U.S., Russia, Japan, and China.”
Journal of International Business Studies, 18: 107-177.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The
Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (Ed.). (1979). Understanding Human Values: Individual
and Societal. New York: The Free Press.
Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). “Stability and Change in
American Value Priorities 1968-1981.” American Psychologist,
44: 775-784.
Rokeach, M., Miller, M.G., and Snyder, J.A. (1971). “The Value Gap
between Police and Policed.” Journal of Social Issues, 27: 155–
171.
Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S.H. (2000). “A New Look at National Culture:
Illustrative Applications to Role Stress and Managerial Behavior.”
In N.M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),
Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate (pp. 417-435).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, W.H., & Posner, B.Z. (1987). “Values and Expectations of
City Managers in California.” Public Administration Review, 47:
404-409.
Schneider, B. (1987). “The People Make the Place.” Personnel
Psychology, 40: 437-453
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W., and Smith, D.B. (1995). “The ASA
Framework: An Update.” Personnel Psychology, 48: 747-773.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). “Universals in the Content and Structure of
Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20
Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 165.
174
CONNOR, BECKER, MOORE & OKUBO
Schwartz, S.H., & Bardi, A. (2001). “Value Hierarchies across
Cultures: Taking a Similarities Perspective.” Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology, 32: 268-290.
Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). “Toward a Universal
Psychological Structure of Human Values.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53: 550–562.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for
the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sikula, A.F. (1973). “The Values and Value Systems of Governmental
Executives.” Public Personnel Management: 16-22.
Stackman, R.W., Pinder, C.C, & Connor, P.E. (2000). “Values Lost:
Redirecting Research on Values in the Workplace.” In N.M.
Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderon, and M.E. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook
of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 37-54). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stackman, R.W., Connor, P.E., & Becker, B.W. (Forthcoming).
“Sectoral Ethos: An Investigation of the Personal-Values Systems
of Female and Male Managers in the Public and Private Sectors.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Tan, B.L.B. (2002). “Researching Managerial Values: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison.” Journal of Business Research, 55: 815-821.
Theodorson, G.A., & Theodorson, A.G. (1969). A Modern Dictionary of
Sociology. New York, Cromwell.
Tompkins, J.R. (2005). Organization Theory and Public Management.
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Van Wart, M. (1998).
Garland.
Changing Public Sector Values. New York:
Williams, R. (1968). “The Concept of Values.” In D. L. Sills (Ed.),
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York:
Macmillan and the Free Press.
Williams, R. (1979). “Change and Stability in Values and Value
Systems: A Sociological Perspective.” In M. Rokeach (Ed.),
Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal (pp. 1546). New York: The Free Press.