Milestone 3NameInstitutional AffiliationCourseDate

Article 3: Motivational differences? Comparing private, public, and hybrid organizations
Hypothesis
The researchers formulated two hypotheses for the study. First, they hypothesized that the
level of extrinsic motivation among leaders in hybrid organizations is higher compared to that
among those in “pure” public organizations but is almost similar to the level of extrinsic
motivation among managers in “pure” private organizations (Jacobsen, 2021). The researchers
also hypothesized that prosocial motivation is almost similar among managers in both “pure”
private organizations and hybrid organizations, but differs significantly from that among
managers in “pure” public organizations.
Participants
The study targeted a sample of 3000 managers from different organizations in Norway.
The sample was drawn from 1716 different organizations (Jacobsen, 2021). 2910 managers
responded. Among these managers, several belonged to voluntary organizations, trade
associations, and foundations, and these were not the target group. Thus, a total of 2488
managers took part in the study.
A brief overview of methods
The researchers sent out a mail survey to 4108 leaders in different Norwegian
organizations. A total of 2910 responded, and this was a response rate of about 71%. Four types
of organizations were studied (Jacobsen, 2021). These were “pure” private organizations or those
businesses that are privately owned, “pure” public organizations referring to those organizations

that are public, publicly owned organizations referring to businesses owned by the local and state
government, and organizations with shared ownership referring to those owned by both private
and public sector. The indicators of motivation sed in the study were based on 12 items
measuring motivation, each comprising of four items measuring each motivation type (Jacobsen,
2021).
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. The researchers first entered
prosocial motivation, then intrinsic and extrinsic motivation followed. The result from the EFA
was a three-component one, and it was validated by confirmatory factor analysis, which gave a
good model fit (RMSA=0.057, CFI=0.969) (Jacobsen, 2021). The results were indicative of good
discriminant validity. Further, the items measuring motivation, alpha intrinsic=0.89,
prosocial=0.86, and extrinsic=0.83, were all indicative of a strong internal consistency
(Jacobsen, 2021). One-way ANOVA was used. Mean differences were determined. The values
for the three types of motivation, intrinsic, extrinsic, ad prosocial, were logarithmically
transformed to get indexes that were somewhat normally distributed.
A brief overview of results and discussion
The researchers determined that the publicness of an organization had a negligible effect
on the level of motivation. Factors such as personal attributes and, to a lesser extent, the features
of tasks performed by individuals were the most influential factors in explaining various levels of
motivation among managers in the different types of motivation. Based on the results obtained, it
is evident that no single type of motivation is exclusive to managers in the public sector. Results
also revealed an inclination for managers in the public sector to demonstrate low levels of
extrinsic motivation compared to their counterparts in the “pure” private organizations.

However, when compared to managers in hybrid and shared ownership organizations, the
difference was negligible.
From the article, it is clear that managers, whether in the private, public, or hybrid
sectors, all have similar motives when it comes to dispensing their duties. The variation in the
correlations revealed in the results is mainly associated with other factors, such as the fact that
the different managers working in these different organizations all have different educational and
even cultural backgrounds. For example, from the study, it was evident that most managers in
“pure” public organizations were older, female, and had educational qualifications that leaned
more towards the social and health care humanities and social sciences. The researchers
identified that all these are factors that are highly associated with prosocial motivation and
intrinsic motivation. These factors are, however, negatively correlated with extrinsic motivation,
and this explains why managers in this type of organization had the lowest level of extrinsic
motivation.
Therefore, although managers in “pure” public organizations have varying levels of
motivation compared to those in the other three types of organizations, the variation is not
characterized by the degree of publicness (Jacobsen, 2021). Publicness does not have a direct
effect on the level of motivation. However, there are other indirect effects that can be
characterized by the methods used to select managers in “pure” public organizations as well as
recruitment practices.
Relevance of the article
The article is relevant to the topic at hand. It explores issues related to motivation among
managers. It, however, stands out and complements the other articles explored in Milestones one

and two because it does not focus on employees in general but rather on managers. Managers
tend to have a trickle-down effect on employees or subordinates. A motivated manager may
consecutively motivate the employees within his or her team. The other articles explored
motivation that is rather extrinsic or related to pay and other rewards at the organization. This
article, however, explores motivation that is not related to these external factors only but also
looks at prosocial and intrinsic motivation.
Further, the article is meaningful because it explores something not explored in other
articles. It looks at prosocial motivation. Intrinsic motivation is concerned with the joy and/ or
challenges that one finds at work. It is related to the work or task itself. Thus, intrinsic
motivation may vary depending on the task being handled. Extrinsic motivation, on the other
hand, leans more on the outcome of a task and the reward associated with such an outcome.
Therefore, these two types of motivation deal with the outcome of a task as well as the feelings
associated with completing the task. The article shifts focus by exploring prosocial motivation,
which is more interested in the benefits derived from completing a task.
Besides, the article is relevant because it sheds light on certain factors that may affect
levels of motivation among managers in different types of organizations. The researchers found
that some variations in the results were not associated with the publicness of an organization.
This was in response to the fact that managers in “pure” public organizations demonstrated low
levels of extrinsic motivation. The article explains that the differences have no direct relationship
with the type of organization but are rather attributed to other factors such as the individual
characteristics of the managers working in these organizations. Some of these factors include
gender, educational background, and age.

In the future, the findings of this article will guide researchers in seeking why most
“pure” public organizations prefer managers with educational backgrounds in humanities, social
and health care, and social sciences. While this may seem unrelated to motivation, there is a
connection because this is one of the factors that lead to low levels of extrinsic motivation among
managers in “pure” public organizations.
Reflection
Overall, I have learned quite a lot while completing the three milestones. First, this article
contributes to my collective understanding of the topic. It explores unique factors in the private
sector that are not present in other types of organizations and that have a direct effect on
motivation. This article also introduces another type of organization, hybrid organizations. It
provides wide and comprehensive coverage of the topic at hand and has thus widened my scope
of understanding in connection to motivation in different types of organizations. I now
understand that motivation relates not only to the outcome and feeling associated with
completing a task but also to the benefits of completing the said task. Prosocial motivation
focuses on the benefits of a task, and depending on the extent to which a task is beneficial; then
one may have a high or low motivation to complete it.
All the articles have contributed to my understanding of the topic. For instance, I know
that extrinsic motivation is high among employees working in private organizations. These
employees are more motivated by monetary compensation as opposed to non-monetary
incentives. Therefore, a promotion position may not matter much to an employee in a private
organization if it does not imply an increased salary. On the contrary, employees in public
organizations have prosocial motivation because they derive their interests from serving the
people. Thus, their motivation is associated more with the benefit as opposed to the monetary

rewards associated with it. In conclusion, all four articles seem to be complementing each other.
Each provides information that fills the gaps in the other. The main conclusion from the articles
is that each type of organization has some peculiar attributes that directly or indirectly impact the
level and type of motivation among its employees. If one is interested in this topic, one should
look at how each of the unique attributes of the different types of organizations affects the
employees’ level of motivation.