Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study theoretically and empirically tests a Publicness Perceptions Scale (PPS). Our goal is to understand the dimensions of publicness as interpreted by individuals working within different types of organizations, and the extent to which these perceptions vary across sectors. A two-study design with independent samples is used. Based on a literature review supported by an expert’s survey and original empirical data, the PPS is constructed and validated. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated the PPS is composed of five reliable factors: (1) perceived ownership, funding, and political control; (2) perceived market control; (3) perceived legality and equity; (4) perceived accountability, and (5) perceived transparency. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggests a second-order single PPS factor. Study 2 also demonstrates the scale’s convergent, discriminant, and incremental validities. The paper concludes with theoretical, empirical, and practical advantages of the new PPS scale.

Keywords

Publicness scale development public values organizational citizenship behavior publicness perceptions scale

Introduction

The concept of publicness within organizations has undergone a significant transformation. It has moved from a seemingly straightforward notion of “public” being distinct from “private” based on ownership, funding, and control (e.g., Andrews et al., 2011; Bozeman, 1987; Goodsell, 2017), to a multifaceted construct including values and societal impact (e.g., Andrews et al., 2011; Boyne, 2002; Bozeman, 2007; Fukumoto and Bozeman, 2019; Min and Yang, 2023; Moulton, 2009). This transition, incorporating complex notions of publicness, has left significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical gaps in studies on publicness at the individual and organizational levels.

This study tries to contribute to the development and understanding of this concept through the unexplored territory of individual perceptions. We suggest the Publicness Perceptions Scale (PPS) as a useful tool that may illuminate how individuals experience and interpret the publicness of their organizations. By examining this perceptual dimension of publicness, our study has two major goals. First, to illuminate the multifaceted nature of publicness based on wide literature accumulated over the years (e.g., Bozeman and Moulton, 2011; Feeney and Welch, 2012; Goodsell, 2017; Meynhardt and Jasinenko, 2021; Min and Yang, 2023; Oberfield and Incantalupo, 2021; Ritz et al., 2023, to name only few). In addition, we will try to suggest a new scale for the measurement of this multifaceted concept and validate it in several ways.

In building the Public Perception Scale (PPS) we use the Neo-Institutional Theory (Scott, 2001) which, according to Scott (2001) defines institutions as “social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. They are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative and regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life” (p. 48). We argue that publicness functions as an informal institution, influencing behavior through norms and expectations (normative element) (Moulton, 2009). This perspective contrasts with prior research that heavily relied on formal rules (regulative element) to measure publicness, such as ownership status or government funding (Andrews et al., 2011; Bozeman and Bretschneider, 1994). We will maintain that the PPS offers a more comprehensive approach by capturing employees’ values and perceptions regarding public service (cultural-cognitive element) (Moulton, 2009; Walker et al., 2013). This alignment with the cultural-cognitive dimension of institutions allows for a deeper understanding of how publicness may shape employee attitudes and outcomes within organizations (Moulton, 2009).

The PPS which will be developed and detailed later in this paper, has the potential to serve as a valuable tool for researchers to explore how legal ownership, funding, control, and public values are perceived by individuals (e.g., employees, citizens, and policymakers), beyond objective constraints, and influences their attitudes and behaviors. More specifically, we will argue that decisions, behaviors, and attitudes related to the public interest (i.e., the communal good; Bozeman, 2007) are likely shaped by unique perceptual sets (i.e., ownership, funding, control, and public values), distinct from those driven by non-public values and considerations (e.g., profitability). This aligns with existing research emphasizing the importance of a perceptual approach (e.g., Bright, 2021; Min and Yang, 2023; Ritz et al., 2023; Tuna et al., 2016). The paper proceeds as follows. First, we will set the theoretical ground for better understanding publicness based on a variety of approaches. Next, we will focus on the perceptual approach and on its contributions. These will be followed by a detailed explanation of our two-study design and the presentation of the PPS. Finally, a discussion and summary are suggested to demonstrate the advantages of our study, alongside limitations and recommendations for future studies.

The elusive nature of publicness

The concept of organizational publicness (i.e., whether organizations are attentive to the public, Goodsell, 2017) has been extensively explored across diverse disciplines, often employing a tripartite typology categorizing organizations as public, private, or non-profit (Bozeman, 1987): (1) public organizations which are owned and funded by the government; (2) private organizations which are business firms owned by private individuals and funded through sales; and (3) hybrid/not-for-profit organizations which include service-oriented professional organizations that deliver quasi-public goods and exist under both public and/or private ownership. Yet the conventional writing on publicness is usually in relation to the first category of public organizations and much less in relation to the other categories (e.g., Lan and Rainey, 1992).

Publicness has thus been studied by a variety of scopes and approaches. Among them are the generic approach (Murray, 1975), the legal-core approach (Rainey, Backoff, and Levine, 2000), the dimensional approach (Bozeman, 1987), and the realized publicness approach (Moulton, 2009). Along these lines, studies compared public and private organizations, mainly based on ownership and/or funding dimensions, exploring the differences in goal setting (Bozeman and Bretschneider, 1994), goal complexity and ambiguity, organizational structure, personnel, procurement, budgeting and accounting, and work-related attitudes (e.g., satisfaction and motivation) (Andrews et al., 2011).

Studies also point to discrepancies in the actual manner public and private organizations are compared (e.g., Rainy and Bozeman, 2000). These discrepancies may stem from misinterpretations of the situations involved (contextual factors) and from inherent limitations within the models used for comparison (e.g., biases inherent in model specifications). These biases can stem from cultural elements, organizational levels of respondents, and other intervening factors. Moreover, scholars utilizing neo-liberal principles (e.g., deregulation, privatization, etc.) have challenged earlier understandings of publicness (Clarke, 2004), advocating for their replacement with business-oriented values like profitability, efficiency, and competitiveness (Haque, 2001). Consequently, the definition of publicness has increasingly been framed as an antidote to the influence of neo-liberalism and market forces across sectors, by emphasizing the role of normative dimensions (Bozeman, 2007; Moulton, 2009). Yet it seems that such studies suffer from either theoretical shortcomings or methodological weaknesses (e.g., Rainy and Bozeman, 2000), leading some scholars to ponder whether it is time to call a halt to publicness studies altogether (e.g., Anderson, 2013).

However, some remedies to difficulties in the study of publicness in modern societies may be found by shifting the focus to the perceptual level. The perceived publicness approach reflects the blurring of boundaries between public and private organizations and may enable answering fundamental questions such as: (1) Is publicness a fixed-generic term or can it be viewed as a subjective concept with multiple meanings in the eyes of individuals? (2) What does publicness mean in the eyes of different stakeholders? (3) Can perceived publicness contribute to existing knowledge about the borders between the public and the private and in what way? (4) Can we find a tipping point where the employee publicness perceptions move the entire organization towards publicness? These are only few questions that deserve consideration.

The public values theory (Fukumoto and Bozeman, 2019) may help in better understanding these questions. Public values (e.g., equity, transparency, and accountability) are emerging as a crucial but complex dimension in understanding publicness (Moulton and Feeney, 2010). Defined as normative consensuses based on emotions and cognition (Lippmann, 1955), public values offer an ethical compass beyond market-oriented perspectives (Bozeman, 2007). Moreover, neo-institutional theory (Scott, 2001) suggests that employees interpret their organization’s public service mission through the lens of institutional pressures driven by societal norms and expectations. Hence, a normative approach may contribute both a theoretical mechanism to explain publicness effects and balance the dominance of economic theory in publicness studies, traditionally focused on legal ownership or funding sources (Andrews et al., 2011).

As such, it may be useful to view publicness as a continuum, shaped by employee perceptions of both their organization’s values and its legal structure (ownership, funding, control). Yet this approach does not specify which public values fully capture the normative dimension (Fukumoto and Bozeman, 2019; Jørgensen and Bozeman, 2007; Min and Yang, 2023; Moulton and Feeney, 2010). No consensus has been reached on which public values are most important for more accurately assessing publicness (Meynhardt and Jasinenko, 2021; Min and Yang, 2023; Ritz et al., 2023). To overcome such disagreements our study takes an integrative approach, acknowledging potential differences in how individuals perceive publicness (Moulton, 2009), and using these to construct a comprehensive scale to measure perceived publicness.

Shifting the focus to perception: Theoretical and empirical advantages

Given the challenges of defining publicness objectively, we propose an alternative subjective perceptual approach. This approach emphasizes how individuals (e.g., employees, customers, citizens, politicians, etc.), interpret and experience publicness within their specific organizational context (Lewin, 1936). This subjectivity acknowledges the diverse interpretations individuals hold regarding the organization’s relationship with different spheres (e.g., political, social, and economic) and its commitment to public values (Min and Yang, 2023).

Based on Scott (2001), perceived publicness reflects an employee’s interpretation of the institutions, processes, and outcomes embedded in their workplace. Employees are expected to internalize the organization’s values and attitudes, not just due to their duties or roles, but also because the workplace shapes the meaning they assign to their work activities. Therefore, perceived publicness provides an interpretation of life within the organization, offering insights into how employees understand their organization’s relationship with the political, social, and economic arenas, as well as with communities and other organizations. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived publicness can enhance individuals’ sense of self-confidence about the meaning of their jobs and motivate them to invest in the organization’s growth and progress. By subscribing to the values embedded in perceived publicness, individuals may attach greater meaning to their roles, justifying their responsibilities, existence, and significance as contributors to a larger societal good. This, in turn, likely translates into a sense of value and significance, potentially impacting their prosocial behavior and performance.

Moreover, individual perceptions of the organization’s publicness extend beyond explicit pronouncements, encompassing subtle cues embedded within organizational symbols and artifacts (Scott, 2001). These include branding elements like logos, work environments, uniforms, or dress codes, as well as operational processes like service models, procurement procedures, performance evaluations, and training programs (e.g., Andrews et al., 2011; Moulton, 2009). These elements can indirectly influence how employees perceive various aspects of the organization’s publicness, including its legal status (i.e., whether the organization is public, private, or non-profit), its funding sources (i.e., whether it receives funding from the government, private investors, or a combination of both), its level of control (i.e., whether it operates under political influence, market forces, or a combination of both) and its commitment to public values (i.e., the extent to which the organization prioritizes values like equity, transparency, and accountability). For instance, a non-profit healthcare organization’s use of uniforms and ranking structures can subtly suggest a sense of public service and hierarchy, influencing how employees perceive its publicness. Conversely, a private airline incorporating the national flag into its logo might lead employees to perceive a broader societal impact, despite its private ownership. These diverse elements, often operating implicitly, highlight the multifaceted nature of publicness perception within organizations.

Studies suggest that employees hold diverse views of publicness, regardless of their organization’s type (e.g., Bullock et al., 2015). For example, within the same organization, employees might perceive the transparency and accountability of mechanisms distributing public goods and services differently. Publicness perceptions also differ across organizations due to the increasing complexity of organizational structures, leading to diverse interpretations of even classical attributes like legal ownership or funding (Bullock et al., 2015). Building upon Bozeman’s (1987) definition of empirical publicness, we propose perceived publicness as the way organizational stakeholders perceive the organization’s constraints arising from a mix of political authority, market authority, and public funding, while reflecting a set of specific public values.

Several studies clearly support the perceptual approach to publicness. For example, Amirkhanyan (2010) and Walker et al. (2013) identify sectoral differences in publicness perceptions. Yeo et al. (2018) examined subway employee perceptions of organizational and service characteristics as indicators of publicness, finding that publicness perceptions influence employee attitudes and performance. More recently, Min and Yang, 2023 explored the meaning of “public” organizations from the perspective of public officials, revealing connections to cultural/ethical and external environment issues. Similarly, Ritz et al., 2023 found positive correlations between public value perceptions and employer attractiveness. Meynhardt and Jasinenko (2021) developed a scale to measure public value perceptions for publicness evaluation, distinguishing it form adjacent constructs such as Corporate Social Responsibility or reputation. Finally, Hafer & Bing (2022) adopted a citizen perspective of willingness to pay taxes to shift public administration towards public-value-driven governance.

Thus, the perceptual approach to publicness becomes more prevalent in recent years and offers a promising avenue for advancing our understanding of this concept. First, as mentioned above, it accounts for why individuals across various sectors hold diverse views on their organization’s publicness, even within the same legal classification (Van der Wal et al., 2008). Second, it suggests new explanations for why employees from diverse backgrounds (e.g., educational, professional, socio-economic, and functional) may share a common set of public values within their organizational context (Moulton, 2009). This suggests that regardless of individual differences, employees may find common ground in their understanding and commitment to the organization’s public values, fostering a sense of collective purpose. Third, it adds to better understanding on seemingly contradictory employee behavior. It suggests that employees may prioritize actions aligned with their perception of the organization’s public values, even if those actions appear to conflict with personal interests. For instance, an employee might dedicate extra time due to the perceived publicness, sacrificing personal convenience.

In the next sections we will move from the theoretical discussion to the empirical stage of developing an alternative scale for publicness perceptions, Study 1 will set the ground for the theoretical formation and construction of the scale while study 2 will test the new scale validity and reliability in various ways.

Study 1: Conceptual formation of the Publicness Perceptions Scale (PPS)

Method

The theoretical foundation of the new scale was developed in three-step: (1) initial item development, (2) expert review, and (3) a pilot study. This process is described in detail in the following sections.

(1) Item development. Our initial item development phase began by identifying key dimensions of publicness established in prior research. Bozeman (1987) laid the groundwork for such dimensions including legal ownership, funding, political control, and market control. We included these first four dimensions as part of our measure, wording the items in a perceptual manner. The dimensions relating to public values, however, presented a challenge due to the vast number of values identified in studies like Jørgensen and Bozeman’s study (2007) which listed up to 72 public values. To address this, we focused on two core public values that reflect an organization’s relationship with the citizens it serves, that is legality and equity (Jørgensen and Bozeman, 2007). Legality, as they define it (p. 366), refers to the “fundamental idea that the relationship between public administration and the citizens should be regulated by law.” Equity, on the other hand, signifies fairness, professionalism, and reasonableness. Frederickson (1990, p. 231) further clarifies that organizations high in equity strive to “improve the conditions of the least advantaged...while sustaining democratic government and the viable market economy.” Therefore, both legality and equity were deemed crucial aspects of publicness for our scale development.

Our initial item development resulted in a pool of 29 items encompassing six dimensions of publicness: ownership, funding, market control, public control, legality, and equity (sources for these items are detailed in Appendix B). Each dimension was captured by 3–6 items. To ensure clarity, five independent reviewers with expertise in public administration (two professors and three doctoral students) evaluated the initial pool. Their review identified ambiguous wording, double-barreled items (referring to two concepts in one question), and redundancies. Based on their feedback, 8 items were rephrased and 2 were removed entirely, resulting in a refined pool of 27 items for the subsequent external survey stage, which will be discussed in more detail below.

(2) External experts’ survey. Our next step involved external validation of the scale’s content and face validity. We approached 37 leading public administration scholars, seeking feedback on the 27 survey items developed in the first stage. With a 27% response rate (10 scholars), the feedback proved valuable. The expert review questioner began with an open-ended question prompting them to define the essence of organizational publicness and its key dimensions. We then presented our multidimensional construct and the initial 27 items and asked them to report whether they agree that the dimensions characterize the publicness of organizations, and that the items we have worded can fully indicate the level of employee’ perception for each dimension. Finally, the experts were asked to indicate whether the dimension and/or items should be included in a publicness perceptions measure, and whether in their view the items capture the dimension. Based on their responses, 10 items were rephrased for clarity and seven were removed entirely.

Interestingly, all 10 experts confirmed and validated our initial six-dimension structure for publicness. However, they also suggested adding transparency and accountability as crucial public values. This recommendation aligns with the public values inventory developed by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). We incorporated this feedback by adding three new items for transparency and three new items for accountability, resulting in a final scale of 26 items.

Accountability regards the responsible use of authority and privilege within organizations delivering public services (Haque, 2001). Transparency regards fostering a “culture of openness” (Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer, 2014). Transparency allows stakeholders to gain insights into an organization’s internal dynamics, its openness towards its environment, and the ability for public oversight of activities and decisions (Evans and Campos, 2013). An open organization allows stakeholders to form informed opinions about its effectiveness and fosters a fair and just culture (Vigoda-Gadot and Mizrahi, 2008). Consequently, both transparency and accountability are recognized as key public values influencing trust and legitimacy (Hood and Heald, 2006; Perry and Vandenabeele, 2015).

Given their importance, we incorporated these dimensions into the scale, each represented by three items. Sample items include “The organization I work for is responsive to the freedom of information law” (perceived transparency) and “The public expects my organization to manage its services responsibly” (perceived accountability). Following the expert review, the final scale comprised of 26 Perceived Publicness Scale (PPS) items representing eight dimensions of publicness. These dimensions included perceived ownership, funding, market control, public control, legality, equity, transparency, and accountability. Respondents indicated their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 = not at all like my organization” to “5 = completely like my organization” (see Appendix A for the scale and Appendix B for the item sources).

(3) Pilot study: Analysis and Findings: We assessed the reliability and validity of the 26-item scale using a pilot sample of 299 participants recruited through Prolific.co (Palan and Schitter, 2018; Peer et al., 2017). This online platform currently samples participants primarily from the USA (n = 147) and UK¹ (n = 152). Participants received a small financial incentive (€1.5) for completing the questionnaire. While we recognize the value of face-to-face surveys, for this study, Prolific.co provided an efficient solution to achieving a large, diverse participant pool (Albert and Smilek, 2023). In addition, it enabled us to control over sample characteristics (e.g., gender and work-sector), reduce potential social desirability bias often resulting from face-to face surveys conducted in organizations, all contributing to the study’s internal validity and data quality (Douglas et al., 2023; Simcox and Fiez, 2014).

The sample comprised of individuals working² in government (n = 105), hybrid (non-profit) (n = 84), and private (for-profit) (n = 110) organizations. We aimed for a sample size sufficient to allow for robust exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the PPS. Participants were geographically distributed across the USA (n = 147) and UK (n = 152). Demographic characteristics included gender (148 men and 151 women), age (M = 36.4 years, SD = 10.7 years, range 18–63 years), organizational size (17% employed by organizations with 35–50 employees, 9.5% with 50–100 employees, 22% with 100–500 employees, and 52% in larger organizations), tenure (19% with 1–2 years, 29% with 2–5 years, 28% with 5–10 years, and 24% with over 10 years), and professional level (53% qualified professionals and 30% junior/mid-level managers). Educational attainment included 49% holding a bachelor’s degree and 19% holding a master’s degree. Notably, no significant demographic differences were found in the mean item scores.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to explore the underlying structure of the PPS (see Table 1). We initially aimed to capture eight distinct factors based on our item development. However, the EFA results revealed a five-factor structure.

Table 1.

PPS loadings for the exploratory factor analysis item pool in Study 1.

Items	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
F1 Combined ownership, source of funding, and political control
As far as I know, the organization where I work is owned by the state	.836	.016	.076	.015	.126
The organization where I work is public by law	.731	.137	.103	.207	.081
I see myself as a civil servant	.657	.213	.215	.198	−.013
The organization where I work is a public organization	.782	.163	.174	.225	.121
Our organization’s budget is set by the national government or the local authority	.898	.037	.104	.110	.125
As far as I know, my based salary is paid by the state or the local authority and not from any private sources	.880	.016	.168	.130	.086
My salary is funded by taxes the state collects from citizens	.866	.050	.152	.145	.050
The government is the one that decides about the budget of my organization	.885	.114	.154	.108	.089
The government or local authority exercises a great deal of supervision over the operations of our organization	.733	.081	−.027	.344	.063
The main goals of the organization where I work are set by the government, and we as employees of this organization can’t change them	.838	.089	.046	.243	.032
National or local government sets the goals of the organization I work for	.878	.147	.076	.178	.116
F2 Market control
Performance in my organization cannot be assessed by a financial “one bottom line”	.335	.548	.172	.327	.171
Economic measures could not fully evaluate performance in my organization	.283	.641	.291	.209	.181
In the organization for which I work we view all our products as rightfully owned by the public	.043	.720	−.035	−.011	−.144
F3 Legality and equity
In general, all citizens have a basic right to be served by us	.242	.003	.561	.535	−.139
The organization where I work makes an effort to adjust its services to the special needs of all the members of our society	.147	.111	.589	.506	.165
Those who are politically connected do not receive preferential treatment in my organization	−.008	.061	.826	.026	.041
Members of the upper class of society do not receive preferential treatment in my organization	.186	.073	.812	−.021	.187
All recipients of service from the organization where I am employed are equal citizens	.145	.070	.736	.177	.102
F4 Accountability
In the organization I work for, citizens have a right to be served by us	.302	.011	.510	.570	−.052
In the organization I work for, failures or mistakes tend to draw public attention	.282	.168	−.057	.664	.096
The public expects my organization to manage its services responsibly	.164	.048	.190	.735	.153
The organization I work for is accountable before the public	.507	.229	.164	.553	.246
F5 Transparency
The organization I work for is responsive to the freedom of information law	.192	.082	.078	.063	.847
In the organization I work for, we handle most requests for information from the public or others openly	.171	−.165	.336	.307	.625
Eigenvalues	8.25	1.52	3.29	2.84	1.47
Percentage of variance explained	33.00	6.06	13.17	11.35	5.88

One item, “In the organization I work for, we owe answers to the public about our performance levels,” displayed negative factor loadings, indicating participants did not interpret it as a transparency item like the others. This item was subsequently removed. All of the remaining items loaded substantially on one of five factors. The five-factor solution was supported by the Scree plot, the Kaiser–Guttman criterion (eigenvalues exceeding 1), and the factors’ theoretical meaningfulness and explained 69% of the variance. Interestingly, items intended to measure the three dimensions of publicness proposed by Bozeman (1987)—ownership, funding, and political control—loaded onto a single factor rather than the three separate factors anticipated. Similarly, equity and legality loaded onto a single factor as these concepts were interpreted similarly by participants.

The first factor, explaining 11.44% of the variance, comprised 11 items: ownership, funding, and political control. These dimensions were interpreted as a single construct by participants. The second factor, explaining 1.16% of the variance, contained three items related to market control. This factor captured the perceived extent to which the organization is driven by market forces and financial objectives. The remaining three factors focused on normative aspects of publicness. Factor 3 (eigenvalue = 1.42) included three items related to the combined concepts of perceived legality and equity. Factor 4 (eigenvalue = 2.95) comprised six items measuring perceived accountability, and Factor 5 (eigenvalue = 1.03) contained 2 items capturing perceived transparency.

The overall reliability of the 25-item scale (after removing the negatively loaded item) was high (Cronbach’s alpha = .93). However, sub-factor reliability varied, with all sub-scales except transparency demonstrating satisfactory alpha values (see Table 2). Notably, the transparency sub-scale’s reliability appeared contingent on the organizational sector. A separate analysis within each sector revealed a low alpha (0.28) for transparency in the private sector, a moderate alpha (0.61) in the hybrid sector, and a good alpha (0.73) in the public sector. This suggests transparency may be a more complex construct to measure within private organizations. It is worth noting that Study 2, which excluded the private sector, demonstrated high reliability for all dimensions, including transparency.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations among variables in Study 1.

	n	Mean	S.D.	Cronbach alpha	1	2	3	4
Ownership, source of funding, and political control	299	3.94	2	.957	-	-	-	-
Market control	299	5.12	1.58	.75	.502***	-	-	-
Legality and equity	299	5.35	1.19	.86	.456***	.484***	-	-
Accountability	299	5.69	1.2	.74	.442***	.428***	.588***	-
Transparency	299	5.29	1.06	.58¹	.361***	.294***	.433***	.362***

***p < 0.001.

¹Cronbach Alpha in private organizations: .28, Cronbach Alpha in government organizations: .61, Cronbach Alpha in hybrid organizations: .73.

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the PPS sub-factors across sectors, categorized by objective ownership (public, hybrid, and private). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted for each sub-scale and the combined PPS score. As shown in Table 3, all ANOVAs revealed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). Post-hoc analyses further indicated that employee perceptions of the sub-scales and the overall PPS score differed significantly between public and private organizations. This finding supports the scale’s content validity, as public organizations were perceived as exhibiting higher levels of publicness. Interestingly, standard deviations across all sectors highlight substantial variability within the PPS, particularly within private organizations. This suggests that factors beyond objective ownership contribute to the perception of publicness.

Table 3.

Mean, Standard Deviations, and ANOVA results of PPS Sub-factors across Sectors in Study 1.

	Government organizations N = 105 (49 USA, 56 UK)		Hybrid organizations N = 84 (46 USA, 38 UK)		Private organizations N = 110 (52 USA, 58 UK)
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	F (2, 296)
Ownership, source of funding, and political control	5.99	.83	3.48	1.4	2.32	1.38	247.29***
Market control	5.83	1.16	5.77	1.23	3.95	1.49	69.12***
Legality and equity	5.89	.93	5.42	1.09	4.79	1.25	27.17***
Accountability	6.12	.71	5.67	.81	4.81	1.24	56.67***
Transparency	5.70	1.11	5.44	1.22	4.79	1.10	18.1***
Total PPS	5.93	0.66	5.16	0.71	4.14	0.9	146.33***

***p < 0.001.

Study 2: Quantitative examination of the PPS and its validity

Method

To further assess the scale’s validity, we conducted a field study involving 346 employees across four organizations in Israel.³ This sample size was constrained by the number of volunteer participants within the organizations we collaborated with (the response rate was 54%). Participants were either radiology technicians (n = 65) working in two hospitals (one public, one non-profit) or highly skilled security personnel (n = 281) working for a government agency and an energy firm. These professions are both regulated,⁴ and employees across the sectors are expected to operate according to similar professional protocols when serving the public. In addition, each profession is trained according to similar skill requirements regardless of organizational affiliation.

Participants completed a paper questionnaire after providing informed consent. The questionnaire included: The 26-item PPS scale, with a revised transparency item replacing the one with negative loading in Study 1. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all like my organization, 5 = completely like my organization). Several additional measures were relevant to the study hypotheses, and control variables including gender, age, and tenure.

The participant demographics distribution revealed that 76% of the sample was male (reflecting the predominance of males in security professions), 82% held academic degrees, mean age in the radiology technicians sample was 32.7 years (SD = 10.26), and in the security personnel sample was 27.7 years (SD = 5.6). Mean tenure in the in the radiology technicians sample was 6.45 years (SD = 7.53), and in the security personnel sample was 3.53 years (SD = 5.02). No significant differences in mean item scores were found based on gender, age, or tenure.⁵

Analysis and Findings

Building on DeVellis (2021), our validation process involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the instrument’s validity and reliability, convergence validity, and discriminant validity (Mohamad et al., 2019). Using AMOS software, we first conducted a CFA testing a five-factor model based on the structure identified in Study 1. While the model achieved modest fit (χ2 (265) = 1080.04, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.85; RMSEA = 0.09), key fit indices (CFI <0.90, RMSEA >0.08) fell short of conventional benchmarks (Beauducel and Wittmann, 2005; Byrne, 2009; Hu and Bentler, 1999). To refine the model, we re-ran an EFA on the 26-item scale using the new sample, following Schmitt et al.’s (2018) recommendation to explore misspecifications when CFA models require substantial modification (p. 4). This resulted in a five-factor structure with two cross-loading items. Thus, we removed these items, yielding a revised 24-item scale presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Final Publicness Perception Sub-Scale Item structure based on Study 2.

Ownership

1. As far as I know, the organization where I work is owned by the state

2. The organization where I work is public by law

3. I See myself as a civil servant

4. The organization where I work is a public organization

Source of funding

5. Our organization’s budget is set by the government or the local authority

6. As far as I know, my salary is paid by the state or the local authority and not from any private sources

7. My salary is funded by taxes the state collects from citizens

8. The government is the one that decides about the budget of my organization

Political control

9. The government or local authority exercises a great deal of supervision over the operations of our organization

10. The main purposes of the organization where I work are set by the government, and we as employees of this organization can’t change them

11. National or local government sets the goals of the organization I work for

Market control

12. Performance in my organization cannot be assessed by a financial “one bottom line”

13. Economic measures could not fully evaluate performance in my organization

Legality

14. In general, all citizens have a basic right to be served by us

15. In the organization I work for, citizens have a right to be served by us

16. The organization where I work makes an effort to adjust its services to the special needs of all the members of our society

17. In the organization where I work we try to adhere to the public’s changing needs

Transparency

18. The organization I work for is responsive to the freedom of information law

19. In the organization I work for, we handle most requests for information from the public or others openly

20. All our services are provided to the public according to ethical and professional standards

Accountability

21. In the organization I work for, failures or mistakes tend to draw public attention

22. The public expect my organization to manage its services responsibly

Equity

23. Those who are politically connected do not receive preferential treatment in my organization

24. Members of the upper class of society do not receive preferential treatment in my organization

We then conducted several CFAs on the revised scale. The initial five-factor model again showed modest fit (χ2 (220) = 760.65, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.084), with the RMSEA exceeding the 0.08 threshold for acceptable fit. We subsequently tested alternative models combining the normative factors in various ways. Among these, a six-factor model emerged as the best fit, where: One factor combined perceived ownership, funding, and political control; One factor included the two market control items; and the remaining four factors represented distinct normative dimensions: perceived equity, legality, accountability, and transparency. This six-factor model exhibited good fit (χ2 (215) = 694, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08) with all factor loadings exceeding 0.50 (Hair et al., 2019). This model is presented in Appendix C. We compared this six-factor model to alternative models, including a two-factor model distinguishing ownership/funding/political control/market control from all normative dimensions (χ2 (229) = 1123.49, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.83; RMSEA = 0.11) and a one-factor model representing the entire PPS as a single construct (χ2 (230) = 1758.53, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.72; RMSEA = 0.14). The six-factor model demonstrated significantly better fit than these alternatives, supporting its validity.

A second-order CFA confirmed that the six first-order factors loaded onto a second-order construct of perceived publicness, with good fit indices (χ2 (218) = 697.70, p ≤ .001; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08). This suggests the PPS is a second-order construct measured by six components. The overall PPS scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93. Fit indices for the PPS CFA in Study 2 are presented in Table 5. Means and SDs of the six sub-scales and the overall PPS scale for both public and hybrid organization employees are presented in Table 6, Hair et al. (2019) suggest that average variance extracted (AVE) exceeding 0.50 and construct reliability (CR) exceeding 0.60 provide evidence of convergent validity. AVE reflects the shared variance among items within a construct, while CR measures the internal consistency of the construct’s measures. As shown in Table 7, all CRs were above 0.6, and all AVEs exceeded 0.50 except for perceived equity (AVE = 0.46). While perceived equity’s AVE fell below the 0.50 threshold, its factor loadings were above 0.50 and its CR exceeded 0.6. Additionally, it met the Fornell–Larcker criterion for discriminant validity, which requires the square root of a construct’s AVE to be greater than its correlations with other constructs (Rasoolimanesh, 2022). As shown in Table 7, this criterion (square root of AVE in brackets) held for all factors, including perceived equity. Furthermore, no combination of perceived equity items with other public-value-based items resulted in a model demonstrating better fit than the proposed six-factor model. Based on these considerations, we retained perceived equity as part of the overall PPS.

Table 5.

PPS’ CFA Fit indexes in Study 2.

PPS model	Factors included	χ²	df	p	RMSEA	CFI
6 factors	1. Ownership, funding and political control 2. Market control 3. Legality 4. Equity 5. Accountability 6. Transparency	694.1	215	≤0.001	.080	.91
5 factors	1. Ownership, funding, and political control 2. Market control 3. Legality and equity 4. Accountability 5. Transparency	760.65	220	≤0.001	.084	.90
5 factors	1. Ownership, funding, and political control 2. Market control 3. Equity 4. Legality 5. Accountability and transparency	819.98	220	≤0.001	.089	.89
4 factors	1. Ownership, funding, and political control 2. Market control 3. Equity 4. Accountability, legality, and transparency	950.61	224	≤0.001	.097	.87
4 factors	1. Ownership, funding, and political control 2. Market control 3. Equity and legality 4. Accountability, and transparency	855.51	224	≤0.001	.093	.88
2 factors	1. Ownership, funding political control, and market control 2. Equity, legality, accountability, and transparency	1123.49	229	≤0.001	.11	.83
Single factor		1758.53	230	≤0.001	.14	.72
Second-order single factor	Six factors combined into one second-order factor	697.70	218	≤0.001	.080	.91

Table 6.

Mean and standard deviations of PPS sub-factors across sectors in Study 2.

	Government organizations N = 238		Non-government organizations N = 108
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Ownership, source of funding, and political control	4.17	.48	2.64	.61
Market control	3.77	1.00	2.54	1.09
Legality	4.51	.58	3.34	1.27
Transparency	4.27	.64	3.55	.96
Accountability	3.36	1.07	3.21	1.19
Equity	4.04	1.02	3.56	1.08
Total PPS	4.17	.48	2.64	.61

Table 7.

Reliability, AVEs, CRs, and correlations among variables in Study 2.

	Mean	S.D.	Cronbach alpha	CR	1	2	3	4	5	6
Ownership, source of funding, and political control	3.52	1.25	.95	.95	(.63) [.79]	-	-	-	-
Market control	3.39	1.18	.803	.80	.53***	(.67) [.82]	-	-	-
Legality	4.14	1.01	.88	.88	.63***	.41***	(.66) [.81]	-	-
Transparency	4.04	.82	.75	.75	.49***	.31***	.58***	(.505) [.71]	-
Accountability	3.31	1.11	.76	.76	.19***	.05	.38***	.39***	(.61) [78]
Equity	3.89	1.06	.60	.62	.33***	.17***	.41***	.44***	.24***	(.46) [.68]

Notes: Average variance extracted (AVE) for each PPS factor are presented in round parentheses, the root of AVE is in square brackets for use of the Fronell–Larcker criterion.

*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Finally, the Cronbach Alpha for women was 0.89 and for men was 0.95, for the radiology technicians 0.84 and for the security personnel .95. In all cases, these are high reliability indicators and differences result from the small sample sizes for women and radiology technicians. Hence, this study refines the PPS by establishing a six-factor model with good construct validity and reliability (Zinbarg et al., 2005). The six factors represent distinct yet interrelated dimensions of perceived publicness, providing a nuanced understanding of how employees perceive their organizations’ publicness orientation.

In the next section we examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the PPS scale, assessing its relationships with theoretically relevant and unrelated constructs.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity demonstrates that the PPS relates positively to constructs expected to be similar in meaning. Three such constructs were examined:

1. Universalism: This value reflects a desire to understand, appreciate, and protect the welfare of all people and nature. We measured universalism using the PVQ-RR Value Scale (Schwartz et al., 2017) (α = 0.86). As expected, a positive correlation (r = 0.26, p ≤ .001) was found between PPS and universalism.

2. Public Service Motivation (PSM): This refers to an individual’s desire to serve the public. We used the shortened PSM Scale (Perry et al., 2008) (α = 0.70) and found a positive correlation with PPS (r = 0.24, p ≤ .001). This correlation was slightly stronger in government organizations (r = 0.30, p ≤ .002), supporting the notion that PSM is a characteristic feature of public administration.

3. Organization Type: Legal ownership often serves as a measure of publicness. We found a strong positive correlation (r = .80, p ≤ .001) between PPS and organization type (public/governmental = 1, non-governmental/hybrid = 0). Additionally, an independent samples t test confirmed significantly higher PPS scores in government organizations (t [168.60] = 22.85, p ≤ .001), suggesting public organizations are perceived as more public.

Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity establishes that the PPS is distinct from theoretically unrelated constructs. The constructs examined were as follows:

1. Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POP): This reflects the perceived extent of self-interested behaviors within organizations. We used the shortened POPS scale (Kacmar and Carlson, 1997) (α = 0.85). As expected, the correlation between POP and PPS was not significant (r = −0.07), indicating these constructs are distinct.

2. Stress: This refers to job-related pressures. We operationalized stress as emotional exhaustion and measured it using the MBI-ES (Maslach et al., 1996) (α = 0.85). The correlation between emotional exhaustion and PPS was also not significant (r = 0.01), supporting the discriminant validity of the PPS.

3. Extraversion/Introversion: These personality traits are not theoretically linked to organizational publicness. We used the Big-Five Inventory (John et al., 1991) to measure these traits. Neither extraversion (α = 0.70, r = 0.08) nor introversion (α = 0.62, r = −0.06) showed significant correlations with PPS, further supporting its distinction from these traits.

Discussion

This study aims to extend our understanding of the meaning of publicness by both enriching its theoretical discussion and methodological tools for use in future studies. By using a perceptual approach to publicness we develop and validate a new scale titled the Publicness Perceptions Scale (PPS). Our study follows Scott’s (2001) view of organizations as multifaceted institutions with diverse public meanings (i.e., ownership, funding, control, and public values). Thus, the PPS reflects this view by focusing on employees’ perceptions, and demonstrates how the scale integrates various publicness dimensions (legal ownership, funding, and control) with public values (legality, equity, transparency, and accountability) into a single construct based on individual perceptions. We believe that this line of study sets the ground for future research who may be interested in exploring the meaning of publicness in other contexts, and also in establishing firmer relationships between publicness and performance at the individual level.

Our two studies support the proposed multidimensional structure of publicness, enabling a nuanced understanding across organizations. Notably, “objective” dimensions like ownership, funding, and political control were combined in a single factor in our sample, while market control stood as a distinct factor. These findings largely challenge past findings about the separate and independent standing of theses dimensions (e.g., Andrews et al., 2011; Boyne, 2002; Bozeman, 2007; Moulton, 2009).

Furthermore, our study underscores the significance of integrating normative aspects (public values) within the construct of publicness (e.g., Moulton, 2009), alongside formal aspects (ownership, funding, and control; Bozeman and Moulton, 2011). This approach recognizes public values as a fundamental dimension of the PPS, on par with its traditional components. We believe that this approach is likely to explain employee behavior beyond formal duties, including “going above and beyond” (Organ, 1988) within and outside the workplace. It also aligns with existing research linking the PPS to employees’ engagement and their prosocial behaviors (Dryzin-Amit et al., 2022). Hence, we propose that the PPS scale may contribute to publicness theory by suggesting new avenues for understanding both informal and formal performance in diverse organizational settings.

Variations in PPS scores across sectors demonstrate publicness’ relevance beyond government organizations and highlight the importance of publicness in non-public and hybrid organizations. The PPS may thus offer a valuable tool for understanding publicness’ antecedents and consequences in diverse contexts. Interestingly, we observed higher standard deviations among non-governmental organizations, pointing towards a greater diversity in publicness perceptions within hybrid and private sectors (Van der Wal et al., 2008). Furthermore, the positive correlation between the PPS and legal ownership type in both studies supports the scale’s face and content validity, aligning with its theoretical grounding (Min and Yang, 2023; Scott, 2001). As expected, employees in government organizations generally reported higher publicness perceptions. However, ownership type only explained 53% of the variance in PPS, suggesting significant influence from other factors beyond objective ownership (e.g., Boyne, 2002). This reinforces the conclusion that publicness is highly relevant across all organizational types, not just the public sector.

Theoretical and managerial implications

This study tried to rationalize the need to use a more perceptual approach to the study of publicness. The distinction between public and private organizations was in the heart of our theoretical concern, methodological design and empirical effort. We have built on substantial differences between the sectors (e.g., ownership, funding, and control), and further argued that publicness is important as it impacts performance (Bozeman, 1987, 2007).

The suggested PPS captures perceptions of publicness dimensions (ownership, funding, and control) and public values (legality, equity, etc.) as a single construct. Building on neo-institutional theory (Scott, 2001), we argued that individual perceptions of publicness are shaped by the institutional pressures organizations face. These pressures, driven by societal norms and expectations (i.e., normative and cultural-cognitive elements) lead to variations in how employees interpret their organization’s publicness.

We maintained that publicness perception may act as a mediator between objective characteristics of individuals and organizations, and a variety of outcomes and performance indicators. While both objective and subjective measures of publicness have considerable limitations, they may be included together in future studies of the field.

Another implication of our study is that expanding definitions of publicness to include public values and perceptions are increasingly relevant (Wise, 2010) due to the growth of complexity in organizations (e.g., hybrid sector) and the generational gap. For example, Ertas’ (2016) research on Millennials' volunteerism across sectors suggests a rising generation with a strong prosocial orientation, potentially influencing organizations towards publicness.

Our findings also support the assumption that publicness is not just about objective characteristics (ownership, funding) but also shaped by subjective interpretations (e.g., Min and Yang, 2023). Understanding how employees’ perceptions of publicness influence their commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction can equip researchers and leaders with valuable insights. While publicness inherently extends beyond individual perceptions (Bozeman, 2007), the PPS may serve as a useful tool to explore the collective impact of publicness. It could potentially identify a “tipping point” where shared employee preferences regarding publicness influence a shift towards a more or less public-oriented organizational mission.

Beyond theoretical contributions, this study also suggests some practical implications for organizational leaders. The PPS can serve as a tool to measure employee perceptions of publicness within organizations to examine their alignment with the organization’s intended values (i.e., legality, equity, transparency, and accountability). Furthermore, exploring the potential link between the PPS and indicators of efficiency, effectiveness, and public policy evaluations can shed light on whether organizations prioritizing publicness reap tangible benefits. The PPS could also be incorporated into employee performance evaluations, allowing for the recognition and assignment of employees who align with public values and hence may be more suitable for leading high-public-impact projects.

Practitioners can utilize the PPS in interventions (e.g., surveys and workshops), both as a measurement tool and discussion points based on its dimensions. Such interventions may want to include educating managers and employees on publicness theory (Merritt et al., 2018), and its connection to public outcomes, improve internal collaboration between organizational units to better public service provision, mapping actions to strengthening organizational reputation and public trust. Similarly, the PPS can further be utilized in interventions within non-governmental organizations (e.g., corporates and NGOs) to increase societal impact, foster Shared Values (Porter and Kramer, 2019), and enhance Corporate Social Responsibility (Matten and Moon, 2008), raising awareness of jobs’ societal impact (Vogel and Willems, 2020). Consequently, such practical actions cultivate prosocial behaviors and publicness orientation (Merritt, 2019; Merritt et al., 2018).

By addressing these future research and practical avenues, this study tried to contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of publicness perception and its implications for various stakeholders. It empowers researchers, managers, and practitioners with actionable insights for fostering a more meaningful and impactful organizational landscape by harnessing the power of publicness.

Limitations and future research

This study entails several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the sample in Study 1, drawn solely from the USA and UK, limits generalizability to other nations and non-Western cultures. Replication with diverse populations and conducting Measurement Invariance Testing (MIT) across groups would strengthen the understanding of the PPS’s consistency across cultures. Future studies should also employ larger and more diverse samples across sectors, demographics, and sampling methods (e.g., random sampling and broader populations) to further confirm the scale’s generalizability and robustness. Alternative data collection methods (e.g., face-to-face and MTurk) might address some limitations but have their own drawbacks. Therefore, future studies should explore alternative approaches to overcome the limitations of Prolific.co.

Second, Study 2 lacked private sector employee participation from professions identical to those in the hybrid or public sectors. Future studies should aim for broader samples encompassing all three sectors. Additionally, Study 2’s focus on only two professions (radiology technicians and security personnel) limits the PPS’s predictive power. Future research should utilize more diverse samples, particularly professions where public servants hold authority over citizens (e.g., police officers vs private security, tax collectors vs private tax advisors). In such contexts, publicness perceptions might have a significant influence on upholding the public interest.

Third, the current PPS incorporates four public values (legality, equity, transparency, and accountability). Future studies could explore the inclusion of additional values, acknowledging the potential trade-off between comprehensiveness and scale length (Van der Wal et al., 2016). Additionally, considering the multifaceted nature of values (e.g., accountability defined as “answering for decisions” [Tun et al., 2021] vs fulfilling public interest [Haque, 2001]), future research may examine whether items based on different definitions or derived values exhibit similar behavior within the PPS. Fifth, Study 1 revealed a low Cronbach Alpha for transparency in the private sector. Future studies should investigate whether this reflects the chosen definition of transparency or sector-specific interpretations of the concept. Finally, understanding the interplay between objective and value-based dimensions is crucial for addressing complex societal and organizational challenges. Future studies could incorporate objective measures alongside the PPS to further validate its subjective dimensions.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Unveiling the spirit of publicness: Conceptualization and validation of a publicness perceptions scale

Supplemental Material for Unveiling the spirit of publicness: Conceptualization and validation of a publicness perceptions scale by Yinnon D Amit, Dana R Vashdi, and Eran Vigoda-Gadot in Journal of General Management

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The Authors thank the scholars, R. Andrews, K. Meier, R. Vogel , T. Christensen, J. Perry, H. Rainey, S. Van de Walls, W. Van Dooren, R. Walker & B. Bozeman, who have participated in the expert survey and kindly offered their thoughtful insights to this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yinnon D Amit

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Albert

Smilek

(2023) Comparing attentional disengagement between Prolific and MTurk samples. Scientific Reports 13(1): 20574.

Amirkhanyan

(2010) Monitoring across sectors: examining the effect of nonprofit and for profit contractor ownership on performance monitoring in state and local contracts. Public Administration Review 70(5): 742–755.

Amit

(2020) Unveiling the spirit of publicness: scale validation and an empirical examination of perceived publicness’s relationship with employees’ engagement and performance. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa (Israel)).

Anderson

(2013) The end of publicness? public and private healthcare organizations are alike in all important respects. International Journal of Public and Private Healthcare Management and Economics (IJPPHME) 3(3): 44–61. DOI: 10.4018/ijpphme.2013070104.

Andrews

Boyne

Walker

(2011) Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(suppl_3): i301–i319.

Beauducel

Wittmann

(2005) Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural equation modeling 12(1): 41–75.

Boyne

(2002) Public and private management: what’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 97–122.

Bozeman

(1987) All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

Bozeman

(2007) Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Georgetown University Press.

10.

Bozeman

Bretschneider

(1994) The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: a test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4(2): 197–224.

11.

Bozeman

Kingsley

(1998) Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review 58(2): 109–118. DOI: 10.2307/976358.

12.

Bozeman

Moulton

(2011) Integrative publicness: a framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(suppl_3): i363–i380.

13.

Brewer

Brewer Jr

(2011) Parsing public/private differences in work motivation and performance: an experimental study. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(suppl_3): i347–i362.

14.

Bright

(2021) Does perceptions of organizational prestige mediate the relationship between public service motivation, Job satisfaction, and the turnover Intentions of federal employees? 3rd ed. Public Personnel Management, 50, 408–429.

15.

Bullock

Stritch

Rainey

(2015) International comparison of public and private employees’ work motives, attitudes, and perceived rewards. Public Administration Review 75(3): 479–489.

16.

Byrne

(2009) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. 2nd edn. Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Chun

Rainey

(2005) Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(4): 529–557.

18.

Clarke

(2004) Dissolving the public realm? the logics and limits of neo-liberalism. Journal of Social Policy 33(01): 27–48.

19.

DeVellis

(2021) Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.

20.

Douglas

Ewell

Brauer

(2023) Data quality in online human-subjects research: comparisons between MTurk, prolific, CloudResearch, qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0279720. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279720.

21.

Dryzin-Amit

Vashdi

Vigoda-Gadot

(2022) The publicness enigma: can perceived publicness predict employees’ formal and prosocial behavior across sectors? Plos One 17(2): e0262253.

22.

Ertas

(2016) Millennials and volunteering: sector differences and implications for public service motivation theory. Public Administration Quarterly 40(3): 517–558.

23.

Evans

Campos

(2013) Open government initiatives: challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(1): 172–185.

24.

Feeney

Welch

(2012) Realized publicness at public and private research universities. Public Administration Review 72(2): 272–284.

25.

Frederickson

(1990) Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review 50(2): 228–237.

26.

Fukumoto

Bozeman

(2019) Public values theory: what is missing? The American Review of Public Administration 49(6): 635–648.

27.

Goodsell

(2017) Publicness. Administration & Society 49(4): 471–490.

28.

Grimmelikhuijsen

Meijer

(2014) Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(1): 137–157.

29.

Hafer

Ran

(2022) Exploring the influence of attitudes and experience on valuation of state forest lands via contingent valuation. Public Performance & Management Review 45(6): 1461–1486.

30.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2019) Multivariate Data Analysis. 8th edn. Harlow: Cengage Learning.

31.

Haque

(2001) The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review 61(1): 65–82.

32.

Heinrich

Fournier

(2004) Dimensions of publicness and performance in substance abuse treatment organizations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23(1): 49–70.

33.

Hood

Heald

(eds) (2006) Transparency: The Key to Better Government? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

34.

Jørgensen

Bozeman

(2007) Public values: an inventory. Administration & Society 39(3): 354–381.

35.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling. a multidisciplinary journal 6(1): 1–55.

36.

John

Donahue

Kentle

(1991) The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54 [Technical Report]. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

37.

Kacmar

Carlson

(1997) Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management 23(5): 627–658.

38.

Lan

Rainey

(1992) Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid organizations: more evidence on frequent assertions about differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(1): 5–28.

39.

Lee

(2017) Understanding higher education institutions’ publicness: do public universities produce more public outcomes than private universities? Higher Education Quarterly 71(2): 182–203.

40.

Lewin

(1936) Principles of Topogical Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

41.

Lippmann

(1955) The Public Philosophy. London, England: Hamish Hamilton.

42.

Maslach

Jackson

Leiter

(1996). MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory. Sunnyvale (CA): CPP, Incorporated.

43.

Matten

Moon

(2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2): 404–424.

44.

Merritt

(2019) What makes an organization public? Managers’ perceptions in the mental health and substance abuse treatment system. The American Review of Public Administration 49(4): 411–424.

45.

Merritt

Farnworth

Kienapple

(2018) Developing organizational leaders to manage publicness: a conceptual framework. Journal of Public Affairs Education 24(2): 216–233.

46.

Meynhardt

Jasinenko

(2021) Measuring public value: scale development and construct validation. International Public Management Journal 24(2): 222–249. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2020.1829763.

47.

Micco

Panizza

Yanez

(2007) Bank ownership and performance. Does politics matter? Journal of Banking & Finance 31(1): 219–241.

48.

Min

Yang

(2023) Toward a micro-level perspective of organizational publicness: felt organizational publicness in the eyes of state government employees. Public Administration, 101(4), 1247–1271.

49.

Mohamad

Afthanorhan

Awang

, et al. (2019) Comparison between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: testing and confirming the Maqasid Syariah quality of life measurement model. The Journal of Social Sciences Research 5(3): 608–614. DOI: 10.32861/jssr.53.608.614.

50.

Moulton

(2009) Putting together the publicness puzzle: a framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review 69(5): 889–900.

51.

Moulton

Feeney

(2010) Public service in the private sector: private loan originator participation in a public mortgage program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 547–572.

52.

Murray

(1975) Comparing public and private management: an exploratory essay. Public Administration Review 35(4): 364–371.

53.

Nutt

Backoff

(1993) Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3(2): 209–231.

54.

Oberfield

Incantalupo

(2021) Racial discrimination and street level managers: performance, publicness, and group bias. Public Administration Review 81(6): 1055–1070.

55.

Organ

(1988) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.

56.

Palan

Schitter

(2018) Prolific. ac—a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17: 22–27, ‏.

57.

Peer

Brandimarte

Samat

, et al. (2017) Beyond the turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70: 153–163, ‏.

58.

Perry

Rainey

(1988) The public-private distinction in organization theory: a critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13(2): 182–201.

59.

Perry

Vandenabeele

(2015) Public service motivation research: achievements, challenges, and future directions. Public Administration Review 75(5): 692–699.

60.

Perry

Brudney

Coursey

, et al. (2008) What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 68(3): 445–458.

61.

Porter

Kramer

(2019) Creating shared value. In: Lenssen

Smith

(eds) Managing Sustainable Business. Dordrecht: Springer, 323–346.

62.

Rainey

Bozeman

(2000) Comparing public and private organizations: empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 447–470.

63.

Rasoolimanesh

(2022) Discriminant validity assessment in PLS-SEM: a comprehensive composite-based approach. Data Anal Perspect J 3: 1–8.

64.

Ritz

Weißmüller

Meynhardt

(2023) Public value at cross points: a comparative study on employer attractiveness of public, private, and nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(3), 528–556.

65.

Schmitt

Sass

Chappelle

, et al. (2018) Selecting the “best” factor structure and moving measurement validation forward: an illustration. Journal of Personality Assessment 100(4): 345–362.

66.

Schwartz

Cieciuch

Vecchione

, et al. (2017) Value tradeoffs and behavior in five countries: validating 19 refined values. European Journal of Social Psychology 47(3): 241–258.

67.

Scott

R (2001) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oak.

68.

Simcox

Fiez

J. A.

(2014) Collecting response times using amazon mechanical turk and adobe flash. Behavior research methods 46: 95–111.

69.

Tun

SKT

Lowatcharin

Kumnuansilpa

, et al. (2021) Considering the responsiveness, accountability and transparency implications of hybrid organization in local governance: a comparison of public service provision approaches in Myanmar and Thailand. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 21(2).

70.

Tuna

Ghazzawi

Yesiltas

, et al. (2016) The effects of the perceived external prestige of the organization on employee deviant workplace behavior: the mediating role of job satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28(2): 366–396.

71.

Van der Wal

(2016) Public values research in the 21st century: where we are, where we haven’t been, and where we should go. International Journal of Public Administration 39(1): 1–5.

72.

Van der Wal

De Graaf

Lasthuizen

(2008) What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration 86(2): 465–482.

73.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2022) Public management: the rise, progress and future of a dynamic research field. In: Schedler

(ed). Elgar Encyclopedia of Public Management. Edward Elgar Publishing. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 43–48.

74.

Vigoda-Gadot

Mizrahi

(2008) Public sector management and the democratic ethos: a 5-year study of key relationships in Israel. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(1): 79–107.

75.

Vogel

Willems

(2020) The effects of making public service employees aware of their prosocial and societal impact: a microintervention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30(3): 485–503.

76.

Walker

Brewer

Bozeman

, et al. (2013) An experimental assessment of public ownership and performance: comparing perceptions in East Asia and the United States. Public Management Review 15(8): 1208–1228.

77.

Wise

(2010) Organizations of the future: greater hybridization coming. Public Administration Review 70: 164–166.

78.

Yeo

Lee

Ryu

(2018) Effect of publicness on government control and organizational citizenship behavior: an empirical study from public organizations in Korea and Japan. International Review of Public Administration 23(4): 203–218.

79.

Zinbarg

Revelle

Yovel

, et al. (2005) Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika 70: 123–133.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB