CSR Communication in the Public Sector:
The Effects of Constraints on Job Performance
By Sifra Lagendijk
10487344
In Partial Fulfillment for the Master’s Program Corporate Communication of the University of Amsterdam
Supervised by Christine Liebrecht
Abstract
This study examines whether CSR managers working in the public sector experience
constraints in implementing and executing CSR policies. The purpose of this article is to
analyze to what extent these constraints have an effect on their job autonomy, job satisfaction
and job performance. It also examines whether intrinsic or extrinsic motivation influence the
relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction. This study presents the results of a
cross-sectional self-report questionnaire study of 62 CSR managers working in government
and semi-government organizations. The results indicate that provision of government budget
is related to job autonomy. It was also found that CSR managers feel more dependent on
others because government policy constraints them in designing and implementing CSR
policies on their own. This result is confirmed by the finding that autonomy was found to be
positively related to both job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, being
intrinsically motivated accounts for more job satisfaction. This study also confirms that job
satisfaction leads to a better job performance. Furthermore, it was found that government
organizations are more restricted by government laws and procedures than semi-government
organizations. CSR managers working in semi-government agencies also feel more satisfied
with their job, rate their own job performance better and are more intrinsically and
extrinsically motivated than their counterparts in government organizations. Future research
should therefore make a distinction between government and semi-government. The
government is recommended to focus more on the organizational structure to remove red tape
in order to create a more engaging work environment for CSR managers working in
government organizations.
Keywords: constraints, corporate social responsibility, extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, public sector, job autonomy, job satisfaction, job performance
CSR Communication in the Public Sector:
The Effects of Constraints on Job Performance
In recent years, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly
important for organizations to ensure legitimacy (Cornelissen, 2011). Nowadays,
governments throughout the world are expected to take the lead in promoting the philosophy
of CSR, according to Vallentin and Murillo (2012). The decisions made by the government
regarding CSR policies need to be executed by public organizations (Alford, 2001), which
implies that public managers have less autonomy in designing and implementing CSR
policies than their counterparts in the private sector. Public organizations also need to deal
with governmental actions that influence different actors with major consequences (Gelders,
Bouckaert & Van Ruler, 2007). Consequently, the question arises what implications these
constraints of the public sector could have for the job performance of CSR managers working
in government organizations.
Previous research show that employees with a high level of job autonomy tend to
increase their commitment (Dex & Scheibl, 1999) and show improved performance
(Langfred, 2005). Although there is a considerable amount of research carried out into the
constraints of the public sector (e.g. Boyne, 2002; Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011; Gelders
et al., 2007; Nieto Morales, Wittek & Heyse; 2013), few studies have directly examined the
effects of the constraints on the job performance of CSR managers. Therefore, this study will
be guided by the following research question: How do constraints of the Dutch public sector
play a role in the job performance of CSR managers in executing CSR communication? The present study offers insights into the effects of the constraints of the public sector
on job autonomy, job satisfaction and the job performance of CSR managers. Furthermore, it
satisfaction. This research thus makes a theoretical contribution to an understanding of the
execution of CSR communication in public organizations.
This article starts by developing a theoretical framework and defining the central
concepts used in this study. Then the methods used are described after which the outcome of
the questionnaire is presented. In the subsequent section the relationships between the
variables are discussed. In the final section, the research findings are interpreted, followed by
implications for theory and practice.
Theoretical Background
Corporate Social Responsibility
Although there are different perspectives on CSR, the main goal of CSR is to contribute
to society by economic development, improving workforce and quality of life and the world’s environment (Cornelissen, 2011). These are also denominated as the three P’s: people, planet and profit. The overall aim of CSR is to build and maintain strong relationships with the
community in which the company operates (Cornelissen, 2011; Steurer, 2010). Cornelissen
(2011) also explains that organizations traditionally were expected to make profits and be
accountable to themselves and their shareholders, but that a shift has taken place towards
accountability to all stakeholders with whom it interacts. Furthermore, he argues that over the
years the social legitimacy of organizations have been questioned, since organizations mainly
focused on the organization’s business goals and did not align community relations. This shift
introduced expectations of communities to which the organization needs to respond.
Nowadays, the idea is that businesses do not only pursue economic profits, but also serve as
social and environmental ends (Steurer, 2010).
However, many organizations do not yet regard CSR as their core business (Steurer.
complement” to law regulations and as “a voluntary business contribution to sustainable development” (p. 50). In the present study, a distinction will be made between CSR as a strategic driver of businesses (Baron, 2001; Graafland & Van de Ven, 2006; Werther &
Chandler, 2006) and CSR as a moral obligation towards society (Graafland & Van de Ven,
2006).
The Public and Private Sector
According to Vallentin and Murillo (2012) the government needs to stimulate
organizations to be active in solving social and environmental issues. In particular, public
organizations are responsible for implementing the policies made by the government (Alford,
2001), including CSR policies. The public sector comprise two different institutions:
government organizations and semi-government organizations (Nieto Morales, Wittek &
Heyse, 2012). Government organizations include, for example, municipalities and the national
police. Semi-government organizations are located in sectors that concern, for example,
energy, public transport, education and health care. Semi-government agencies are founded
by private groups or individuals in which the government takes part by providing capital
(Boyne, 2002). By means of this financial dependence the government can monitor and
influence these organizations. The public sector is the counterpart of the private sector, that
consists of institutions that are established by private groups or individuals and which are not
controlled by the government (Boyne, 2002).
Due to these organizational structural differences, public managers encounter more
barriers in formulating and practicing their external communication policies than their
counterparts in the private sector. First, public organizations are funded largely by taxation
whereas private enterprises are paid by their customers (Boyne, 2002; Niskanen, 1971;
system rather than the economic system. Second, public organizations have to deal with a
variety of stakeholders that places demands and constraints on public managers (Boyne, 2002;
Gelders et al., 2006). Whereas private agencies can pursue their own objectives, public
organizations are obliged to meet the requirements of different actors. Third, Boyne (2002)
states that public organizations are easily influenced by external changes and events. He
argues that public managers need to protect the organizational boundaries in order to meet the
expectations of the public. Fourth, public agencies face more bureaucracy due to
governmental rules and procedures (Boyne, 2002; Gelders et al., 2006). Finally, public
managers are less autonomous in designing and implementing policies compared to managers
in the private sector (Boyne, 2002).
The present study will focus on the aforementioned constraints of the public sector:
limited budget, demands of different actors, (inter)national pressure, governmental rules and
procedures and less autonomy. These will be applied in particular to the field of corporate
social responsibility. This study predicts that these constraints influence the job autonomy, job
satisfaction and job performance of CSR managers, respectively. The proposed hypotheses
are depicted in Figure 1. In the following sections the expected relationships will be
discussed.
Figure 1. Conceptual model for predicting the effects of constraints on job performance
Constraints and Job Autonomy
In a study that has been conducted by Federici (2011) to examine the self-efficacy of
participation, municipal authority, and national evaluation programs are negatively related
with job autonomy. Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates (2013) define job autonomy as “the
ability to exercise a degree of control over the content, timing, location and performance of
activities” (p. 2). Although public managers are limited in their autonomy to design and
implement policies on their own (Boyne, 2002), autonomy is regarded as salient to complex
and uncertain work (Freidson, 1984; Scott & Meyer, 1991; Wallace, 1995). Moreover,
autonomy offers many advantages to managers such as control over their work and the
freedom to make decisions with minimal interference (Mazmanian, Orlikowski & Yates,
2013). Despite these advantages, it might be argued that, in certain circumstances, managers
prefer to limit their autonomy in response to the demands of a job (Covaleski, 1998; Dirsmith,
Heian & Samuel, 1998; Deetz, 1997; Perlow, 1998). However, in the long run, it is likely that
the constraints of the public sector have negative consequences for the job autonomy, job
satisfaction and job performance of CSR managers (Federici, 2011). Therefore, this study
proposes that the various constraints of the public sector are likely to have a negative impact
on the job autonomy of CSR managers.
Hypothesis 1. Constraints of the public sector will negatively influence job autonomy.
Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is believed to be associated with job autonomy, because employees
have more freedom to determine their work effort and work schedule. Studies found that
satisfaction for the need for autonomy is essential for employee outcomes (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Furthermore, a study conducted by Humphrey et al. (2007)
found evidence that job autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction, performance,
commitment and intrinsic motivation. Moreover, it is argued that employees will put more
2004). Therefore, limited possibilities in the external communication are likely to have an
effect on the job satisfaction of communication managers. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier,
Federici (2011) found that self-efficacy and perceived job autonomy were positively related to
job satisfaction and negatively related to contextual constraints. Therefore, this study proposes
that more job autonomy will positively influence the job satisfaction of CSR managers.
Hypothesis 2. Job autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction and Job Performance
From the 1930s on, a considerable amount of research has studied the relationship
between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono and Patton, 2001).
According to Judge et al. (2001) many of these studies found that people perform better when
they are also more satisfied with their job. Moreover, research also found that autonomy
enables employees to better deal with job demands (Karasek, 1989). Furthermore, employees
that experience a high degree of autonomy tend to increase their job commitment (Dex &
Scheibl, 1999) and show improved job performance (Langfred, 2005). However, Boyne
(2002) argues that the organizational commitment of public managers is lower than managers
who work in the private sector because of the weak link between performance and rewards.
Pandey and Garnett (2006) also argue that the influence of red tape negatively influences
internal communication performance. Therefore, it is important to study the relationship
between job satisfaction and job performance since a positive relationship between these two
concepts could lead to numerous positive outcomes like a low turnover rate and increased
productivity (Eaton, 2003). Thus, this study predicts that job satisfaction is positively related
to a better job performance.
Mediation by Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction
If the aforementioned hypotheses are confirmed, analyses can be conducted to test
whether the effects of the constraints of the public sector on job satisfaction can be explained
by job autonomy. A research into the motivation, satisfaction and performance of volunteers
by Millette and Gagné (2008) found that autonomous motivation mediates the relationship
between job characteristics and job satisfaction. They concluded that job tasks need to be
redesigned to increase their job satisfaction. Most importantly, they found that external
regulations drove this effect and therefore argue that satisfaction is not only about enjoying
one’s work but also a function of not being driven by external pressure and rewards. This finding supports the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985), which states that
working out of pressure decreases job satisfaction. Moreover, in the study by Federici (2011)
that has been mentioned before, it was found that contextual constraints were negatively
related to job autonomy, which in turn leads to less job satisfaction. Therefore, it may be
assumed that job autonomy mediates the relationship between the constraints in CSR
communication experienced by CSR managers working in the public sector and their job
satisfaction.
Moreover, if the aforementioned hypotheses are confirmed, this study may also test
whether the effects of job autonomy on job performance can be explained by job satisfaction.
Concretely, this study will explore the mediation effect of job satisfaction on the relationship
between job autonomy and job performance. As mentioned earlier, studies have found that job
autonomy positively influences job satisfaction. In addition, much research has found a
positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (e.g. Judge et al., 2001;
Eaton, 2003). Therefore it may be assumed that autonomy leads to a better performance due
to its positive effect on job satisfaction. Thus, this study will examine whether mediation
Hypothesis 4. The constraints in CSR communication is expected to affect job satisfaction through its effect on job autonomy.
Hypothesis 5. Job autonomy is expected to affect job performance through its effect on job satisfaction.
Motivation and Corporate Social Responsibility
Perry and Wise (1990) introduced the theory of Public Service Motivation (PSM).
In subsequent research Vandenabeele (2007) defines PSM as “the beliefs, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger
political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate” (p. 547). Previous research studied the effects of PSM on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and job performance (Leisink & Steijn, 2009; Kim, 2004; Ritz, 2009). These
studies found that motivation is positively related to job satisfaction.
With regard to the motivation for CSR efforts, Graafland and Van de Ven (2006)
distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They examined whether the strategic
motive or the moral motive matters in pursuing CSR policies. They defined intrinsic
motivation for CSR as a moral duty of companies towards society, whereas the extrinsic
motivation holds that CSR contributes to the financial success of the company in the long run
(Graafland & Van de Ven, 2006). It was found that the intrinsic motive induces a stronger
involvement in CSR than the extrinsic motive. Therefore, the present study will examine what
influence intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to work in the field of CSR has on the relationship
between job autonomy and job satisfaction. This can be translated in the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6. Intrinsic (moral) motivation will have a stronger positive influence on the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction than extrinsic (strategic) motivation.
Research Design
In order to answer the research question to what extent constraints of the Dutch public
sector play a role in the job performance of CSR managers, a quantitative study was
conducted by means of an online questionnaire. It was considered most adequate since the
aim of this study is to verify the presence of constraints of the public sector and job-related
concepts and to generalize the relationships between these concepts. Since the research
focuses on how the communication managers themselves experience the constraints in the
public sector and whether these constraints have an influence on their job performance, the
CSR managers will report on their own job autonomy, job satisfaction and job performance.
Sample
The online questionnaire was distributed among communication managers working in
public organizations. A total of 213 Dutch participants participated in the survey, of which 62
completed the survey. In the final sample, 69,4% were male and 30,6% were female (43 male
and 19 female). All participants were adults in the age range of 26 – 65 years. The mean age
of the participants was 48,1 (SD = 9,9) years. The participants worked in government (N = 48)
and semi-government organizations (N = 14). Most of them (N = 33) have been working for
1-5 years in the field of corporate social responsibility (53,2%).
Procedure
Participants were invited through the researcher’s own personal network and LinkedIn,
but most of the participants were invited by email. An invitation to the online survey was send
to communication managers working in different types of public organizations (e.g. police,
ministries, DUO, municipalities, health care, education). A question was added if the
semi-government organizations. Upon arrival at the online questionnaire, the participants were told
that the study was designed to investigate the experiences of CSR managers in public
organizations. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Measures
Corporate Social Responsibility. Two questions from Graafland and Van de Ven (2006) were included to provide background information on the organization’s view of corporate
social responsibility. These questions examined what kind of CSR activities the
communication managers are engaged in and how the organization defines CSR. The first
question asked what corporate social responsibility means for the organization: 1) meeting
legal obligations that law prescribes, 2) moving beyond what law prescribes (e.g. concluding
covenants that concern the ‘core business’ of your company), 3) providing extra contribution to social problems, that goes beyond the ‘core business’ of your company. The second question is an open question that asked for three concrete examples of CSR activities of their
company.
Constraints of CSR communication. Constraining factors of CSR communication were measured using 10 items on 5-point likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree) using seven items (e.g. “Our company is independent in designing and implementing CSR communication without prescriptions from government”; α = .33). No standardized scale was used to measure these constraints. When the item “The final responsibility for the public
sector rests with the government and therefore I don’t experience any hindrance of government policies” was added in the reliability analysis, the Cronbach’s alpha did not improve: α = .30. A principal components factor analysis (PCA) showed that the items load
on five factors. The factors explained the different constraints employees encounter in
20.03% of total variance with a varimax rotation. Therefore, analyses were conducted to test
the effect for each of the items. Throughout the article, numbers will be used to indicate a
positive or a negative formulation in order to preserve a good overview of the various
constraints. Number 1 will denote a negative formulation and number 2 a positive formulation
(e.g. Budget1, Budget2). An overview of the formulations of the items with their
corresponding denotations can be found in the appendix.
The experience of these constraints was also measured on a 5-point likert scale (1 = less
than once per month or never to 5 = a few times per day) using four items to answer the question “How often do you find it difficult or impossible to perform well because of 1) government regulations, procedures and law; 2) limited budget; 3) the pressure on public
organizations for executing corporate social responsibility; 4) limited degree of autonomy in
executing your work?”; α = .82.
Job Autonomy. Job autonomy was measured using four items (e.g. “I can determine the content of my own work”; α = .64). PCA shows that the items load on two factors. When analyzing these two factors it is found that these two factors measure autonomy and
dependency. The first component measures to what extent people experience autonomy in
doing their work (e.g. “I can determine the content of my work on my own”; α = .69) and the second component measures to what extent people are dependent on other people in doing
their work (e.g. “I am dependent on others when performing my work tasks; α = .70).
Job Satisfaction. Job Satisfaction was measured using items that were developed by De Witte (2000). These include six items (e.g. “My job gives me the feeling that I have done
something valuable”; α = .85). A PCA shows that the six items form a uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.60). All items correlate
what I am worth” has the strongest association (factor loading .90). Therefore, it may be assumed that the scale measures job satisfaction.
Perceived Job Performance. Job performance was measured using seven items of which four items are adapted from Bolino and Turnley (2003; e.g. “I fulfill my duties and
responsibilities effectively”; α = .85). Three other items were added (e.g. “I always finishes my work on time”, see Appendix 2). A PCA shows that the seven items load on two factors. The first component measures people’s performance (e.g. “I am known as someone who performs very well”; α = .86) and the second component measures the employee efficiency (e.g. “I fulfill my duties and responsibilities effectively”; α = .76). Although job performance consists of two factors, the entire construct is used in analyses since the Cronbach’s alpha is
reliable (α = .85).
Motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured using two separate items from Graafland and Van de Ven (2006). Intrinsic motivation was measured using the item
“Corporate Social Responsibility is a moral obligation towards society” and extrinsic motivation was measured using the item “Corporate social responsibility may cost the
company not more than it pays”. The present study will use some of their scales to measure whether the intrinsic or extrinsic motive moderates the relationship between autonomy and
job satisfaction. All of the scales are rated on 5-point likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 5
= strongly agree). Since the questionnaire was administered in the Netherlands, a Dutch
version of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix.
Results
To answer hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, regression analyses were conducted to test a direct
effect of the constraints of the public sector on the various dependent variables. To test
satisfaction function as mediators. To answer hypothesis 6, a moderation analysis is
conducted to examine whether the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction
changes under the influence of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. In addition, analyses were
conducted to see whether the impact of constraints of the public sector differs between
government and semi-government organizations. To gain insight into the participants’ scores
on the variables, an overview of the scores on the different items of constraints of the public
sector and other variables is presented (see Table 1 and Table 2). As can be observed, the
standard deviations of the separate items and the variable job satisfaction are relatively high,
which indicates that the answers were not homogeneous. This may be explained by the low
response rate.
Tabel 1. Descriptive Statistics of Constraints in CSR Communication (N = 62)
Variables Mean SD
I am unable to perform my job well because government provides limited budget for CSR activities 3.42 .92
I personally am not affected by government rules and procedures in designing and implementing CSR policy 3.37 .89
I don’t feel a pressure in doing my work when serving the interests of different actors 3.45 .84
Because CSR is internationally regarded as more important, I feel more freedom in developing CSR activities 3.50 .86
Government acknowledges the importance of CSR and sets budget available to develop CSR activities 2.87 .84
Taking into account the interests of different actors constraints me in developing CSR activities 3.53 .67
Laws and procedures set by the government cause me to feel restricted in developing CSR activities 3.42 .80
Government gives much responsibility in the hands of public organizations 3.42 .84
Because CSR is internationally regarded as more important, I feel pressure in performing my job 3.55 .80
Government policy constraints me in implementing and executing CSR policy on my own 3.80 .77
The final responsibility for the public sector rests with the government and therefore I don’t experience any hindrance of government policies
2.69 .93
Tabel 2. Descriptive Statistics of Variables (N = 62)
Variables Mean SD Job Autonomy 3.30 .55 Subscale Autonomy 3.80 .60 Subscale Dependency 2.56 .86 Job Satisfaction 3.88 .49 Job Performance 3.77 .45 Intrinsic Motivation 4.00 .72 Extrinsic Motivation 3.90 .72
Hypothesis 1 proposed that CSR communication managers working in public
organizations would experience constraints in implementing and executing CSR
communication. Furthermore, it was predicted that these constraints would be negatively
related to job autonomy. The PCA shows that there is no internal consistency between the
items and the Cronbach’s alpha (α = .33) shows that the scale is not reliable. Therefore, to test this hypothesis, separate regression analyses were conducted for each of the items with
job autonomy as dependent variable. As previously mentioned, a negative and positive
formulation of a constraint will be indicated with (1) and (2), respectively.
Table 3 presents the results of the regression models. Results of a linear regression
analysis with job autonomy as dependent variable show that the item “Budget(2)” accounts
for an increase in job autonomy. Since PCA shows that the construct of job autonomy loads
on two factors, namely autonomy and dependency, separate linear regression analyses were
conducted for the various constraints as independent variables and these two different factors
as dependent variables. The results show again that “Budget(2) has a significant, moderately
strong association with autonomy.
To test the effects of constraints on dependency, again separate linear regression
analyses were conducted. Results show that “Autonomy(1)” has as negative significant but
moderate association with dependency. However, since only one item is used as predictor, the
strength of the prediction is weak (R² = .12). To summarize, budget is found to be related with
job autonomy and when CSR managers feel restricted in designing and implementing CSR
policies on their own they are more dependent on others. Hypothesis 1 can therefore be
partially supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that job autonomy would positively influence job satisfaction.
Three linear regression analyses were conducted including job autonomy and its subscales
autonomy and dependency. Table 3 presents the results of these analyses. A linear regression
analysis including the entire construct job autonomy shows that the model is not significant, p
> .05. Thus, the entire construct of job autonomy does not have an effect on job satisfaction.
However, results show that the regression model with the subscale autonomy as independent
variable is significant, p = .024. This subscale can therefore be used to predict job satisfaction.
However, the strength of the prediction is weak since only a subscale of the entire construct
job autonomy is used (R² = .08). No significant effect was found for dependency on job
satisfaction, p < .05. Therefore, the hypothesis is partially supported since only the subscale
autonomy was found to be significant related to job satisfaction.
Effects of Job Satisfaction on Job Performance
Hypothesis 3 predicted that job satisfaction would positively influence job performance.
Again, a linear regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis. Table 3 presents the
results of this analysis. Results show that the regression model is significant, p < .001. This
model can therefore be used to predict the job performance on the basis of job satisfaction.
Therefore, the hypothesis can be confirmed.
Table 3. Results of Linear Regression Analyses (N = 62)
Dependent and Predictor Variables B Standard Error
F(df) p
Regression Model 1 Dependent Variable: Job Autonomy Predictors: Government acknowledges the importance of CSR and sets budget available to develop CSR activities – Budget(2)
0.19 0.08 5.29(1) .025
Constant 2.77 0.24 .000
Regression Model 2 Dependent Variable: Subscale Autonomy Predictors: Government acknowledges the importance of CSR and sets budget available to develop CSR activities – Budget(2)
0.20 0.09 5.26(1) .025
Constant 3.21 0.26 .000
Regression Model 3 Dependent Variable: Subscale Dependency Predictors: Government policy constraints me in
implementing and executing CSR policy on my own – Autonomy(1)
-0.39 0.14 8.43(1) .005
Constant 4.05 0.52 .000
Regression Model 4 Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Predictors: Job Autonomy 0.19 0.11 2.82(1) .098
Constant 3.26 0.38 .000
Regression Model 5 Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Predictors: Subscale Autonomy 0.24 0.10 5.39(1) .024
Constant 2.99 0.39 .000
Regression Model 6 Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Predictors: Subscale Dependency 0.02 0.07 0.09(1) .768
Constant 3.83 0.20 .000
Regression Model 7 Dependent Variable: Job Performance
Predictors: Job Satisfaction 0.55 0.09 34.17(1) .000
Constant 1.65 0.37 .000
Mediation by Job Autonomy
Hypothesis 4 predicted a mediation by job autonomy between the constraints in CSR
communication and job satisfaction. To test whether the interaction between the constraints
and job autonomy results in a significant effect, the effects of the different relationships
between the constraints, job autonomy and job satisfaction were first tested in separate linear
regression analyses.
First of all, regression analyses were conducted including the entire construct of job
autonomy. Each constraint was separately included as a predictor variable. It was found that
“Budget(2)” is significantly related to the proposed mediator (Job autonomy; R = .285, F(1,60) = 5.29, p = .025), but not with the outcome variable job satisfaction; R = .116, F(1,60) = 0.82, p = .370. However, the item “Variety of Actors(2)” is negatively significantly related
to job satisfaction (p = .040), but not with the proposed mediator (Job autonomy; R = .135,
F(1,60) = 1.11, p = .279). No significant relationship was found between job autonomy and job satisfaction (p = .098). Therefore, it could not be tested whether the relationship between
the constraints and job satisfaction is mediated by job autonomy.
Mediation by Subscale Autonomy
Since job autonomy loads on the two factors autonomy and dependency, regression
analyses were conducted with these factors as mediating variables. First, each constraint was
separately included as a predictor variable and autonomy as mediating variable. It was found
that the item “Budget(2)” was significantly related with the proposed mediator autonomy; R =
.284, F(1,60) = 5.26, p = .025, but not with the outcome variable job satisfaction; R = .116,
F(1,60) = 0.82, p = .370. Moreover, a significant relationship was found between the subscale autonomy and job satisfaction (R = .287, F(1,60) = 5.39, p = .024). However, since not all
Mediation by Subscale Dependency
Linear regression analyses were conducted with each constraint separately included as
predictor variable and the subscale dependency as mediator in order to test for mediation. It
was found that the item “Autonomy(1)” is negatively significantly related with the proposed
mediator dependency; R = .351, F(1,60) = 8.43, p = .005, but not with the outcome variable
job satisfaction; R = .007, F(1,60) = 0.00, p = .956. However, it was found that the item
“Variety of Actors(2)” is negatively significantly related to job satisfaction (R = .261, F(1,60) = 4.40, p = .040). No significant relationship was found between the subscale dependency and
job satisfaction (R = .038, F(1,60) = 0.09, p = .768). Therefore, the relationship between the
constraints and job satisfaction is not mediated by job autonomy or the subscales autonomy
and dependency.
Mediation by Job Satisfaction
Hypothesis 5 proposed that job satisfaction would function as a mediator between job
autonomy and job performance. To test whether the interaction between job autonomy and
job satisfaction results in a significant effect, the effects of the different relationships between
job autonomy, job satisfaction and job performance were tested in separate regression
analyses. First of all, regression analyses were conducted including the entire construct of job
autonomy. No significant effect was found for job autonomy on job satisfaction (p = .098).
Although a significant effect (b = .55, p < .001) was found for job satisfaction on job
performance (R = .602, p = < .001), but no significant direct effect was found for job
autonomy on job performance (p = .506). Since not all direct paths are statistically significant,
no mediation analysis could be conducted. Thus, job satisfaction does not mediate the
Regression analyses were also conducted with the subscales autonomy and dependency
as independent variables. A significant effect (b = .24, p = .024) was found for the subscale
autonomy on job satisfaction (R = .287, p = .024), but no significant effect was found for
autonomy on job performance (p = .391). Moreover, no significant effects were found on job
satisfaction (p = .768) and job performance (p = .869) with the subscale dependency as
independent variable. Thus, job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between the job
autonomy or its subscales and job performance.
Moderation by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Hypothesis 6 proposed that the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction
would be influenced by motivation and that intrinsic motivation would have a stronger
positive influence on the relationship than extrinsic motivation. Before conducting moderation
analyses, regression analyses were conducted to see whether the different variables have a
direct effect on each other.
First of all, regression analyses were conducted including the entire construct of job
autonomy. No significant effect was found for the relationship between job autonomy and
intrinsic motivation (p = .108) and no significant effect was found for job autonomy on
extrinsic motivation (p = .653). However, a significant effect (b = 0.21, p = .013) was found
for intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction (R = .32, p = .013), but no significant effect for
extrinsic motivation on job satisfaction (p = .406). Furthermore, no significant effect was
found for job autonomy on job satisfaction (p = .098). Since job autonomy loads on the two
factors autonomy and dependency, regression analyses were conducted with these factors as
independent variables. A significant effect (b = 0.31, p = .048) was found for autonomy on
intrinsic motivation (R = .25, p = .048), but no significant effect was found for autonomy on
for autonomy on job satisfaction (R = .29, p = .024). No significant effects were found for
dependency on intrinsic motivation (p = .613), extrinsic motivation (p = .206) and job
satisfaction (p = .768).
To test for moderation, separate moderation analyses were conducted with, respectively,
the entire construct job autonomy, autonomy and dependency as independent variables. Table
4 presents the results of these analyses. These findings show that intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation do not moderate the effects of job autonomy on job satisfaction since the
interaction effects are not significant. Therefore, hypothesis 6 cannot be confirmed.
Table 4. Results of Moderated Regression Analyses for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (N = 62)
b* Standard Error F(df) p
Job Autonomy/Intrinsic Motivation 3.06(3,58) .035
Constant 0.06 .000
Job Autonomy 0.11 0.07 .415
Intrinsic Motivation 0.31 0.06 .018
Job Autonomy/Intrinsic Motivation 0.13 0.05 .320
Job Autonomy/Extrinsic Motivation 1.30(3,58) .282
Constant 0.06 .000
Job Autonomy 0.19 0.07 .185
Extrinsic Motivation 0.11 0.06 .376
Job Autonomy/Extrinsic Motivation 0.07 0.06 .627
Subscale Autonomy/Intrinsic Motivation 3.66(3,58) .017
Constant 0.06 .000
Autonomy 0.19 0.06 .146
Intrinsic Motivation 0.27 0.06 .034
Subscale Autonomy/Intrinsic Motivation 0.12 0.06 .333
Subscale Autonomy/Extrinsic Motivation 2.00(3,58) .124
Constant 0.06 .000
Autonomy 0.28 0.06 .029
Extrinsic Motivation 0.09 0.06 .491
Subscale Autonomy/Extrinsic Motivation 0.06 0.05 .642
Subscale Dependency/Intrinsic Motivation 2.57(3,58) .063
Constant 0.06 .000
Dependency -0.03 0.06 .834
Intrinsic Motivation 0.35 0.06 .009
Subscale Dependency/Intrinsic Motivation 0.14 0.06 .286
Subscale Dependency/Extrinsic Motivation 0.90(3,58) .449
Constant 0.06 .000
Dependency 0.02 0.07 .859
Extrinsic Motivation 0.10 0.06 .458
Subscale Dependency/Extrinsic Motivation 0.18 0.05 .186
R² = 0.14; 0.06; 0.16; 0.09; 0.12; 0.04 Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
Differences between Government and Semi-Government
Additionally, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to examine to what extent
government and semi-government organizations differ from each other. The groups were not
equally distributed: 48 managers working in government organizations and 14 managers
working in semi-government organizations participated in this study. First, independent t-tests
were performed to compare the mean consistency scores for government and
semi-government organizations for the various constraining factors in the public sector. Results
indicate that semi-government (M = 3.79, SD = 0.89, N = 14) score higher on the item
“Governmental Rules and Procedures(2)” than government (M = 3.25, SD = 0.86, N = 48), t(20.63) = -1.99, p = .047, two-tailed. Moreover, it was found that government organizations (M = 2.69, SD = 0.85, N = 48) score higher on the item “Governmental Rules and
Procedures(1)” than semi-government (M = 2.21, SD = 0.43, N = 14), t(44.49) = 2.82, p =
.007, two-tailed.
Second, results from an independent samples t-test indicate that CSR managers working
in semi-government organizations (M = 4.23, SD = 0.36, N = 14) feel more satisfied with their
job than individuals working in government organizations (M = 3.78, SD = 0.48, N = 48),
t(60) = -3.17, p = .002, two-tailed. Third, it was found that people working in semi-government organizations (M = 3.95, SD = 0.18, N = 14) score higher on job performance
than people working in government organizations (M = 3.72, SD = 0.49, N = 48), t(56,14) =
-2.64, p = .011, two-tailed. Finally, independent samples t-tests were performed to examine to
what extent people working in both semi-government and government organizations are
differently motivated to work in the field of corporate social responsibility. It was found that
individuals working in semi-government organizations (M = 4.43, SD = 0.51, N = 14) are
more intrinsically motivated than those in government organizations (M = 3.88, SD = 0.73, N
to be more extrinsically motivated than CSR managers working in government organizations
(M = 3.79, SD = 0.71, N = 48), t(60) = -2.35, p = .022, two-tailed. No significant difference
was found between the groups for job autonomy.
Conclusion and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine how constraints of the Dutch public sector
play a role in the job performance of communication managers in executing CSR
communication. In relation to other studies measuring the job performance and motivation of
managers in the public sector, this study includes possible constraints with regard to CSR
policy. A conceptual model was established regarding possible constraints in the public
sector, based on existing literature (Boyne, 2002; Gelders et al., 2007). The model predicts
that constraints at work would yield negative consequences for job-related outcomes such as
job autonomy, job satisfaction and job performance. Moreover, it proposed that intrinsic
motivation for CSR would positively influence the relationship between job autonomy and
job satisfaction. To test this model, an online questionnaire was distributed among CSR
managers working in the Dutch public sector.
The findings fully confirm the relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance (Judge et al., 2001). When the participants are more satisfied with their job, they
perceive themselves as good job performers. The results also show that being autonomous in
deciding the content of their own work is important to feel more satisfied, which is consistent
with previous research (Federici, 2011; Humphrey et al., 2007). It was also found that
intrinsic motivation accounts for more job satisfaction. Thus, it may be argued that intrinsic
motivation is a prerequisite to work in the field of CSR, which supports the study by
Graafland and Van de Ven (2006). Despite these significant results, the findings indicate that
and Gelders et al. (2007). They argue that managers also experience constraints due to a
variety of stakeholders. It could be explained that managers do not experience this as a
constraint since it is inherent to the public sector. However, the results do confirm that CSR
managers are still restricted by governmental laws and procedures, despite reforms in the
Dutch public sector (Nieto Morales et al., 2012). CSR managers are also more dependent on
others when they are restricted by government policy to conduct CSR activities on their own.
Obviously, dependency and feeling restricted by government policy cannot be seen in
isolation from one another. Moreover, budget is positively related with autonomy, which
supports the prediction of the present study. It could be suggested that CSR managers have
more freedom in designing and executing CSR activities when they are not limited by budget.
Furthermore, it was found that government organizations are more restricted by
governmental laws and procedures than semi-government organizations, which supports
previous research (Boyne, 2002; Gelders et al. (2007). CSR managers working in
semi-government agencies also feel more satisfied with their job, rate their own job performance
better and are more intrinsically and extrinsically motivated than their counterparts in
government organizations. These findings may be due to the fact that managers working in
government agencies face more constraints than managers in semi-government agencies
(Nieto Morales, Wittek & Heyse, 2012). Moreover, no mediation was found by job autonomy
and job satisfaction. Finally, as opposed to the expectations, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
do not moderate the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction, which
contradicts the study by Graafland and Van de Ven (2006).
Limitations
This study demonstrated that there is a relation between constraints of the public sector
addressed. Firstly, research has only been conducted among CSR managers working in Dutch
government and semi-government agencies. Thus, the results cannot be generalized to other
sectors or countries. One of the participating organizations could therefore have caused some
specific differences, which may be explained by the differences in government and
semi-government organizations. In the survey, no questions were asked about the specific type of
organization (e.g. police, hospital, municipality, media). Therefore it was not possible to
provide insight into the possible differences between the individual participants.
Another limitation of this study is that the sample size was rather small. CSR managers
in the public sector were hard to reach, despite great efforts to reach a sufficient number of
respondents. Calls for participation on LinkedIn did not directly reach the target group.
Therefore, e-mails were send to general e-mail addresses to increase the sample size. These
needed to be send forward to the relevant persons. Moreover, there was no possibility to
switch back and forth between the pages, since participants were forced to answer nearly all
questions. These could be some of the reasons for the low response rate and the high drop-out
rate of 74%.
Moreover, a few comments need to be made concerning the scales used in the survey.
First, no standardized scale was used to measure the constraints of the public sector. It was
found that the scale was not reliable and therefore conclusions could only be drawn from the
results of the individual items. Since the scale included various constraints of the public
sector, it can be concluded that the scale did not measure a homogenous construct. It might
also be argued that the sample consisted of various subgroups which could account for the
different factor structures. Moreover, each constraint was measured with only two items.
Consequently, participants might have given an answer which they normally would not
choose. To reduce this bias, future studies could provide a few open questions so that
Secondly, factor analysis shows that the construct job autonomy loads on two factors,
namely autonomy and dependency. Although the items reliably measured job autonomy, these
two factors may provide further insight in how individuals perceive the differences between
autonomy and dependency. The subscale autonomy, reflecting the degree to which individuals
feel autonomous in doing their work, displays a positive relationship with job satisfaction
while the subscale dependency is not related to job satisfaction. The results indicate that being
dependent on others or not does not lead to less or more job satisfaction. Although the items
that measure dependency also reflect a certain degree of autonomy, the findings suggest that
individuals relate these items primarily to external forces (Boyne, 2002). In further research,
separate scales could be included to study the differences between autonomy and dependency
in depth. Third, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured with only one item,
according to a study conducted by Graafland and Van de Ven (2006). This could explain why
no moderation effects were found by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the relationship
between job autonomy and job satisfaction. In further research, separate scales need to be
used for both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to ensure reliability.
Finally, one of the limitations of this study is that the findings are based on a
cross-sectional analysis. Maxwell and Cole (2007) note that the results based on cross-cross-sectional data
may be biased relative to results based on longitudinal data because they cannot test for
autoregressive effects of the mediators and dependent variables. Another limitation of this
study is that it is a self-reported study. Participants were asked to rate themselves, which
means that their answers do not necessarily correlate with reality. Although a self-reported
study can provide interesting insights into the perception of CSR managers, it could have been
a threat to the internal validity of the study. Future research could therefore include their
Theoretical Implications
Aside from confirming the reliability and the validity of the scale, the data presented in
this study regarding constraints in the public sector may provide some theoretical insights
which may have implications for further research. Although constraints of the public sector
have been investigated in several qualitative studies, no empirical research has been
conducted to study the direct relationship of constraints of the public sector on job-related
outcomes. In future research, empirical research could be extended to study separately the
effects of the five constraints explored in this single study. Moreover, further research should
conduct interviews or use focus groups to examine the reason behind the given answers in
depth.
These studies would then require a development of the scales used in this study. For
example, the constraints of the public sector cannot be seen as a single construct, but should
be studied separately to provide an accurate picture of the constraints present in both
government and semi-government agencies. In addition, job autonomy should be divided in
autonomy and dependency to provide a sharper distinction between the influences of these
two on job satisfaction. Because of the differences between the impact of constraints of the
public sector, the study should also be tested in government and semi-government
organizations. Finally, given the complexity of this study, different disciplines such as public
administration, political science or human resource management should join in research. This
may lead to a more accurate picture of how CSR managers experience the constraints in both
government and semi-government organizations.
Practical Implications
The present study also has practical implications for organizations in the public
organizations more autonomy in developing and implementing CSR policies, they will
probably be more satisfied. By stimulating more independency in developing CSR policy, the
government would create a more engaging work environment for managers working in
government organizations. When this condition has been met, it is also likely that they would
rate their own job performance better. Second, CSR managers working in government
organizations feel restricted because of government regulations and prescriptions. If the
government wants to increase the autonomy of CSR managers they need to decrease the red
tape in the organizational structure of government agencies. These suggestions add to the
practical implications described in the study of Pandey and Garnett (2006).
CSR managers also need to get more intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to work in
the field of corporate social responsibility. Realistic goals need to be set to improve their
organizational performance and by giving rewards based on their own performance (Boyne,
2002; Millette & Gagné, 2008). To increase their intrinsic motivation, government should
give them more freedom in designing CSR policy in order to build and maintain relationships
with their stakeholders (Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011). Finally, government should
continually stress the importance of corporate social responsibility to keep them intrinsically
motivated.
References
Alford, J. (2001). The implications of “publicness” for strategic management theory. In G.
Johnson, & K. Scholes (Eds.), Exploring public sector strategy. London: Prentice-
Hall.
Baron, D.P. (2001). Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Integrated Strategy.
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(1), 7-45.
likeability, and performance ratings: the use of intimidation in an organizational
setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 237-250.
Boyne, G.A. (2002). Public and Private Management: What is the Difference? Journal of
Management Studies, 39, 97-122.
Christensen, L.T. & J. Cornelissen (2011). Bridging Corporate and Organizational
Communication: Review, Development and a Look to the Future. Management
Communication Quarterly, 25, 383–414.
Cornelissen, J.P. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. Sage
Publications Ltd.
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, J.B. & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the
avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public
accounting
firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 43(2), 293–327.
Deetz, S. (1997). Discursive formations, strategized subordination and self-surveillance. In
McKinley, A.S., Starkey, K.P. (Eds.) Foucault, Management and Organization Theory,
151–172, London: Sage.
Dex, S. & Scheibl, F. (1999) Business performance and family-friendly policies. Journal of
General Management, 24, 22-37.
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment and
perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145-167.
Edwards, C. & Robinson, O. (2004). Evaluating the business case for part-time working
amongst qualified nurses. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(1), 167-183.
Federici, R.A. (2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: relations with job autonomy, job satisfaction, and contextual constraints. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1),
Freidson, E. (1984). The changing nature of professional control. Annual Review of
Sociology, 10, 1-20.
Gagné, M. & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G. & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public
sector: Consequences for public communication about public intentions. Government
Information Quarterly, 24, 326-337.
Graafland, J.J. & van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22(13), 111-123.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D. & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332- 1356.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction – job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Karasek, R. (1989). Control in the workplace and its health related aspects. In Sauter, S.L.,
Hurrell, J.J.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), Job Control and Worker Health. London: Wiley,
pp. 129-159.
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government
Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2),
245-261.
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating
effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513-529.
Leisink, P. & Steijn, B. (2009) Public service motivation and job performance of public sector
35-52.
Maxwell, S.E. & Cole, D.A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal
mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23-44.
Wielenga-Meijer, E.G.A., Taris, T.W., Wigboldus, D.H.J. & Kompier, M.A.J. (2011). Costs
and Benefits of Autonomy When Learning a Task: An Experimental Approach. Journal
of Social Psychology, 151(3), 292-313.
Mazmanian, M. A., Orlikowski, W.J. & Yates, J. (2013). The Autonomy Paradox: The
Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals. Organizational
Science, 24(5), 1337-1357.
Nieto Morales, F., Wittek, R. & Heyse, L. (2013). After the Reform: Change in Dutch Public
and Private Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
23,735–754.
Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldin
Atherton.
Pandey, S.K., Garnett, J.L. (2006). Exploring Public Sector Communication Performance:
Testing a Model and Drawing Implications. Public Administration Review. 66(1),
37-51.
Perlow, L.A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a
high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2):328–357.
Perry, J.L. (1997). Antecedents of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181-197.
Perry J.L. & Vandenabeele W. (2008). Behavioral Dynamics: Institutions, Identities, and Self
Regulation in J.L. Perry and A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in Public Management:
The Call of Public Service, 203–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perry, J.L. & Wise, L.R. (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public
Administration Review 50(3): 367–73.
Ritz, A. (2009). Public service motivation and organizational performance in Swiss federal
Government. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 75(1), 53-78
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Scott, W.R. & Meyer, J.W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors. In Powell, W.W. &
DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 108-140.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sommerfeldt, E.J. & Taylor, M. (2011). A social capital approach to improving public
relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints in external communication. Public Relations Review. 37, 197-206.
Steurer, R. (2010). The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: Characterising
public policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Sciences. 43(1), 49-72.
Vallentin, S. & Murillo, D. (2012). Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization.
19(6), 825-843.
Vandenabeele, W. (2007), Toward a Theory of Public Service Motivation: an Institutional
Approach. Public Management Review. 9(4), 545-556.
Wallace, J.E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and
nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 228–255.
Walmsley, G. & Zald, M. (1973). The Political Economy of Public Organizations. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Werther W.B. & Chandler D. (2006). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders
in a Global Environment. Sage Publications: New Delhi.
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: metingen en gevolgen voor welzijn,
effects on well-being, satisfaction, and commitment]. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H.
De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van Groep naar Gemeenschap (pp. 325–350). Leuven,
Appendix 1. Denotations of Five Constraints of the Public Sector
Item Denotation
(1 = negative formulation; 2 = positive formulation)
Limited Budget
I am unable to perform my job well because government provides limited budget for CSR activities
Budget(1)
Government acknowledges the importance of CSR
and sets budget available to develop CSR activities Budget(2)
Demands of a Variety of Actors
Taking into account the interests of different actors
constraints me in developing CSR activities Variety of Actors(1) I don’t feel a pressure in doing my work when
serving the interests of different actors Variety of Actors(2)
(Inter)national pressure
Because CSR is internationally regarded as more
important, I feel pressure in performing my job (Inter)national pressure(1) Because CSR is internationally regarded as more
important, I feel more freedom in developing CSR activities
(Inter)national pressure(2)
Governmental Rules and Procedures
Laws and procedures set by the government cause me
to feel restricted in developing CSR activities Governmental Rules and Procedures(1) I personally am not affected by government rules and
procedures in designing and implementing CSR
policy Governmental Rules and Procedures(2)
Less Autonomy
Government policy constraints me in implementing
and executing CSR policy on my own Autonomy(1)
Government gives much responsibility in the hands
of public organizations Autonomy(2)
The final responsibility for the public sector rests with the government and therefore I don’t experience any hindrance of government policies
Appendix 2. Dutch Questionnaire
Geachte heer/mevrouw,
In het kader van mijn masterscriptie voor de studie Corporate Communicatie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam doe ik onderzoek naar CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) ofwel MVO (Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen) in publieke organisaties.
Graag nodig ik u uit om mee te doen aan mijn onderzoek. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 10 minuten duren. Vanwege het type vragen en het doel van het onderzoek, is het alleen mogelijk om de vragenlijst in te vullen wanneer u verantwoordelijk bent voor de CSR binnen uw organisatie.
In de vragenlijst zullen het begrip maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen en de afkorting MVO worden gebruikt.
De door u verstrekte informatie wordt anoniem, en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld. Wanneer resultaten weergegeven worden, is dit alleen op groepsniveau. Uw gegevens zijn dus nooit naar u als persoon te herleiden.
Voor het slagen van het onderzoek is het belangrijk dat u alle vragen invult. Als u twijfelt over een antwoord, dan vraag ik u alsnog een keuze uit de gegeven mogelijkheden te maken.
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst.
Met vriendelijke groet, Sifra Lagendijk
Persoonlijke kenmerken
De vragenlijst start met een aantal algemene vragen. 1. Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man o Vrouw
2. Wat is uw leeftijd? o Leeftijd
3. In welk land bent u opgegroeid? o Land
4. Wat is het land van herkomst van uw vader? o Land
5. Wat is het land van herkomst van uw moeder? o Land
