Asian Social Science; Vol. 12, No.

1; 2016
ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Impact of Innovation on Job Satisfaction: Evidence from U.S.

Federal Agencies
Soyoung Park1, Yinglee Tseng1 & Sungchan Kim2
1
School of Public and International Affairs, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, USA
2
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State,
USA
Correspondence: Sungchan Kim, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Mississippi State
University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA. Tel: 404-940-3777. E-mail: sk1315@msstate.edu

Received: August 26, 2015 Accepted: September 28, 2015 Online Published: December 22, 2015
doi:10.5539/ass.v12n1p274 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n1p274

Abstract
Organizational innovation has been commonly considered as the strategic means for performance improvement
in an organization. However, there is little research regarding how innovative practices influence individual work
satisfaction in public organizations. Thus, this paper aims to examine how innovative practices will affect public
employees’ job satisfaction using the results of the 2013 U.S. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). The
findings indicate that organizational practice toward innovation has a positive impact on job satisfaction. On the
other hand, supervisors, underrepresented groups such as females and ethnic minorities, and older employees
perceive that innovation has a negative impact on job satisfaction. However, employees with a higher level of
work experience and payment grade believe that innovation leads to more job satisfaction. Moreover, employees
in regulatory agencies perceive that innovation is negatively related to job satisfaction, while employees in
distributive agencies perceive that innovation is positively related to job satisfaction.
Keywords: innovation, job satisfaction, incentive structure, human resource management (HRM)
1. Introduction
Innovation has been commonly considered as one of the strategic means for advancing efficiency and
performance in an organization (Damanpour & Evan, 1984; Loof & Heshmati, 2006). However, innovation is
considered to relate to private organizations more than the public sector (Hull & Lio, 2006), since the
government has been stereotyped as the strict-structured, change-resistant, and less inventive organization.
Accordingly, organizations in the public sector have been predisposed as less efficient and less innovative than
those in the private sector. This might be because innovation seems to conflict with the traditionally perceived
bureaucratic structure of the public sector. The bureaucratic structure in the public sector could require public
institutions to adopt fewer new practices. Moreover, the pressure to meet the innovative obligation in the
organization can adversely cause employee job dissatisfaction or employee wellbeing.
Promoting job satisfaction has been recognized as one of the significant influences in improving work
performance (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). The managerial innovation practice is one of the motivating
means of enhancing in private sector. However, it is still questionable if organizations in the public sector use an
innovative approach as one of the motivating means of enhancing employee satisfaction as well as producing
efficiency. This is because innovation function under particular organizational contexts is different in the public
sector than it is in the private sector. The relationship between innovation and job satisfaction is worth
exploration.
Innovation has been recognized as a strategic approach to advance organizational efficiency, performance, and
growth. Promoting innovation in the public sector, in terms of public administration, has flourished in recent
decades (Behn, 1994; Borins, 1998, 2008; Cohen & Eimicke, 1998). How innovative practices affect
organizations and individuals in the public sector has been increasingly discussed. There are a large number of
previous studies on organizational innovation and performance from an organizational perspective (Damanpour
& Evan, 1984; Loof & Heshmati, 2006); however, there has been relatively little research regarding how
innovation practices in the organization influence individual work satisfaction (Bryson, Dale-Olsen, & Barth,

274
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

2009).
This study attempts to explore the relationship between the employees’ perception of innovation practice and job
satisfaction in the public sector. Specifically, this study seeks to examine if organizational innovation leads to job
motivation from an employee’s perception. It is meaningful to explore whether an innovative approach can
provide incentives for motivating public employees, as other extrinsic rewards, such as money or promotion, and
intrinsic rewards of achievement contribute to organizational enhancement. This study will also examine whether
individual characteristics such as demographic features are interrelated with innovation, and whether innovation
influences job satisfaction as well. To investigate the relationship, this research constructed an ordinary least
square (OLS) regression model by using the results of the 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and adding
interaction terms such as age, gender, race, payment grade, supervisory status, agency category, and the length of
work experience, which would affect the perception of innovation, to determine the impacts of innovation on job
satisfaction in federal agencies.
2. Literature Review
This section contains two primary theoretical components of innovation and job satisfaction. Innovation includes
the examination of innovation in the public sector, barriers to innovation, and organizational practices related to
innovation. Job satisfaction is discussed with the two-factor theory related to motivation in the public sector.
2.1 Innovation in the Public Sector
Following the productive definitions of innovation since Schumpeter (1934), innovation has referred to a wider
range of innovative approaches, from social innovation to organizational, institutional, and political perspectives
more recently (Halvorsen, Hauknes, Miles, & Røste, 2005, p. 2). In terms of innovation, the definitions of
innovation seem similar in many dimensions such as products, services, processes (Hartley, 2005) or business
models (Birkinshaw, Bessant, & Delbridge, 2007) in both the public and private sectors. However, increasingly,
studies have examined the effects of innovation on the performance or program outcomes in the public sector
during the past two decades. For example, the distinctive differences in forms of innovation in the public sector
are implemented to achieve extensive improvements in governance, service performance (Salge & Vera, 2012),
and efficiency in order to increase public value (Moore, 1995).
Nevertheless, until recently, fit seems there has been no commonly agreed-upon definition of innovation in the
public sector (Perry, 2010). Innovation emphasizes inventiveness through “introducing new processes and
practices, or by creating new goods or services, or adopting a new pattern of intra- or inter-organizational
relationships, including the delivery of goods and services” (Green, Howells, & Miles, 2001, p. 9). Another
definition of innovation emphasizes that the creation and implementation of new processes or services should
bring about significant improvement and efficiency (Albury, 2005).
According to Hartley (2005), “some writers reserve the notion of innovation for ‘radical’ or ‘breakthrough’
novelty, while others emphasize a spectrum of innovation, from large-scale, dramatic, ‘headline-making’
innovations to small-scale, incremental changes” (p. 27). Innovation can change the decision-making mechanism
for policies and resources in public organizations, which would affect public personnel at work as well (Hartley,
2005; Moore & Hartley, 2008; Voß, 2007). For example, employees in the public sector have resisted the
innovation because they fear the change (risks), and thus, it can influence employees’ welling negatively. Thus,
when public organizations undertake innovation practice, they consider a broad public domain from a public
perspective (Hartley, 2012).
2.2 Barriers to Innovation in the Public Sector
Public organizations face several challenges from both organizational and individual perspectives when
organizations implement innovation practices because innovation practices affect their employees. It is
commonly observed that innovation has not helped public institutions achieve their goals as expected due to
various reasons, including the multi-layered structure, the lack of economic motivations, divided administrative
governance, and the complex and strict rules and regulations (Halvorsen et al., 2005). There are particular
organizational barriers, such as hierarchy and cultural constraints, for example, and the risk-averse culture would
limit the development of innovation in public organizations and discourage employees from participating in the
innovation (Bommert, 2010). In addition, innovation in the public sector would usually be stalled due to lack of
competition and less monetary incentives for improvement (Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013). The shortages of human
resources with relevant skills could also impede the implementation of innovation. Overall, public organizations
are normally cautious of carrying out changes that might cause some unexpected adverse outcomes for
employees and operators (Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013).

275
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

Besides the organizational factors affecting innovative results in the public sector, individuals’ favorability or
reaction to innovation or changes would be another major stream affecting the innovative development of work
(Wittig, 2012). Witting (2012) found that employees’ reactions, including resistance and acceptance, would be
significant factors that affect organizational innovation. In particular, employees’ resistance on the innovation
could be the leading cause for the failure of initiatives (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Knowing the benefits of
innovation to the organization, public employees may feel stressed but not satisfactory toward managerial
practices of encouraging innovative tasks from the organization. For example, some public employees don’t
want to acquire new knowledge or technology necessary for advanced development due to the lack of capability
when compared with other peers or specific personal considerations in the organization. The innovation cannot
be the incentive for employees to cooperate in particular with the public institution (Wittig, 2012). For these
reasons, innovation can be considered less favorably in organizational management from an employee’s
perspective in the public sector.
2.3 Organizational Practice toward Innovation
Even thoudh there are some barriers to innovation, innovation undertaken by public organizations can still bring
in efficiency through organizational commitment, such through the establishment of a direct reward method or
personal recognition for any creativity and innovation to enhance performance (Eisenberger, Fasolo, &
Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Organizational commitment to innovation practices has been the focus in the study of
organizational and individual performance over the past several decades (i.e. Agarwala, 2010; Calantone,
Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002). An examination of those factors that would affect organizational commitment, such as
employee characteristics and job features, can improve innovation in the public sector (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
Similarly, organizations can find factors influencing employees’ decisions about whether to engage in innovative
behavior for application to new changes or innovation at work. The study found that individuals’ innovativeness
was affected by their expectations of positive outcomes from the action, so that an organization can adopt
strategies to encourage employee participation, such as identifying what employees perceive as positive
performance outcomes, as mentioned above (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Employees in public organizations are
more likely to engage in innovative behavior if they expect to receive benefits in their work. Similarly,
employees would be hesitant to engage in innovative behavior if they perceive a negative expectation (Yuan &
Woodman, 2010). Organizations can explore factors that affect employee expectation, such as perceived
organizational support for innovation, in order to influence the engagement of public innovation.
Some scholars suggest that the organization can apply it not only to human resources management (HRM)
(Guest, 1987), but should also focus on encouraging employees to display innovative behavior more often (Karin,
Matthijs, Nicole, Sandra, & Claudia, 2010). Currently, organizations in the public sector provide the rewards as
the incentive for innovative practice to employees, which promote them towards innovation (Cankar &
Petkovšek, 2013). Similarly to this, agency heads make a supportive climate for the innovation by mentoring
staff, establishing formal rewards and informal acknowledgment for innovators (Borins, 2002). Thus,
organizational practice toward innovation can influence the employee’s work attitude and job satisfaction
through these motivators (Barth, Bryson, & Olsen, 2009).
2.4 Importance of Job Satisfaction
Promoting job satisfaction has been recognized as one of the significant influences in improving work
performance (Jacobs & Solomon, 1977; Ochwarter, Perrewé, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999; Wright & Cropanzano,
2000). There are various definitions of job satisfaction or employment satisfaction. For instance, job satisfaction
represents how satisfied individuals are with their job, or under which perspective they like their job: the nature
of the work or the management (Spector, 1997). Much of previous the literature has indicated that job
satisfaction involves an individual’s psychological responses to the job on a multidimensional level (Hulin &
Judge, 2003) or based upon an employee’s individual well-being at work (Judge & Klinger, 2007). Locke (1976)
presented the most accepted definition of job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304).
Numerous studies have yielded evidence that job satisfaction is positively correlated with organizational
outcomes. For example, the higher the level of job satisfaction, the more workers are likely to have a positive
attitude toward their job (Wang & Feng, 2003), and the more they can commit to the organization (Brown &
Peterson, 1993). The interrelation between job satisfaction and different managerial practices in the public sector
has been discussed at length (Khan, Ghauri, & Akram, 2012; Sokoya, 2000). In order to increase satisfaction of
public employees, many public sector organizations have emphasized the development of motivational strategies
to enhance employees’ satisfaction for performance efficiency as well. Therefore, job satisfaction has become a

276
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

central topic in many theories as an incentive to improve organizational efficiency and performance (Akintoye,
2000; Judge & Klinger, 1992; Luthans, 1998).
The preferences and incentive structures of public employees are likely more intricate and individual-oriented so
that the work attitude of public workers is not necessarily motivated by monetary incentives (Borzaga & Tortia,
2006). Hence, jobs in the public sector should serve to offer numerous opportunities with both monetary and
non-monetary incentives so that employees can realize their distinctive goals (Kaiser, 2014). Theoretically,
public workers likely become more satisfied when their motives match their performance and achievement
(Kaiser, 2014). According to Kaiser (2014), public organizations should provide an encouraging job environment
and managerial practices so that they can respond to employees’ needs, as well as drives that enhance employees’
job satisfaction (Kaiser, 2014). Innovation practices are considered as one of the motivating means. Creativity, as
one component of innovation, is discussed with the importance of intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger & Shanock,
2003). Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) argue that “creativity is commonly assumed to be enhanced by perceived
self-determination and reduced by perceived constraints on autonomy, including reward. It is because employees”
(Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003, p. 122). Therefore, the two-factor theory can be applied to explain the motivators
of employees related to innovation practice. 2.3.2 Measures and Covariates
Include in the Method section information that provides definitions of all primary and secondary outcome
measures and covariates, including measures collected but not included in this report. Describe the methods used
to collect data (e.g., written questionnaires, interviews, observations) as well as methods used to enhance the
quality of the measurements (e.g., the training and reliability of assessors or the use of multiple observations).
Provide information on instruments used, including their psychometric and biometric properties and evidence of
cultural validity.
2.5 Two-Factor Theory with Innovation
The two-factor theory has been widely applied to job satisfaction, suggesting two independent aspects of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell, 1957). It represents hygiene factors
and motivators. Hygiene factors refer to extrinsic incentives, including external rewards such as salary and
organizational environment. Extrinsic factors may directly affect individual job satisfaction, although they
cannot enhance the degree of satisfaction, but can prevent dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1959). For example, in
innovation practice, public sector organizations have attempted to provide some incentives or rewards in order to
boost the organizational practice of innovation for employees’ acceptance or participation. Thus, employees
perceive some extrinsic rewards may be provided if they actively participate in innovation practice in the
organization (Amabile, 1997). This organizational commitment may reduce employees’ dissatisfaction related to
organizational change or innovation practice.
In addition, intrinsic factors increase the level of motivation (MacDonald, 1996; O'Toole, 1980; Rainey, 2014).
These motivators or intrinsic factors include a sense of achievement, fulfillment, and growth from the job, which
represent higher-level needs of human beings (Rainey, 2014; Amabile, 1997). In innovation practice, the
common objectives for innovation in the public organization are improved efficiency, improved quality of
service, and an improved user satisfaction (Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013). Therefore, it is important that employees
experience achievement and fulfillment from attaining the goals of innovation, and contribute their commitments
to the innovation in order to achieve organizational enhancement (Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013). As a result, “the
primary organization-wide supports for innovation appear to be mechanisms for developing new ideas; open,
active communication of information and ideas; reward and recognition for creative work; and fair evaluation of
work—including work that might be perceived as a "failure."” (Amabile, 1997, p. 52).
Regarding how the organization can make the job more interesting and satisfy the workers’ needs for
achievement and growth, Herzberg’s propositions have received attention from motivation theory (Rainey, 2014).
The two factors are considered contributive when we discuss organizational motivation with innovation practice.
Overall, intrinsic factors, based upon interest, and extrinsic factors, relying on their importance, are both related
to satisfaction in the workplace (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 356). However, in the public sector, intrinsic motivators
play a more prominent role compared to extrinsic motivators (Kaiser, 2014). Job satisfaction, particularly
regarding individual well-being at work, is a very substantial topic in organizational management (Judge, 1992;
Judge & Klinger, 2007). Thus, employees should identify values in their work and workplace environment
related primarily to their intrinsic motivation (Perry & Vandenabeele, 2008). Innovation practice in the
organization is an intrinsic motivator in terms of fulfillment from attaining the goals of innovation and the
contribution of employees’ commitments to the innovation in order to enhance organizational performance
(Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013).

277
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

3. Hypotheses
Based on the literature, the study will test some assumptions empirically in this analysis. The first hypothesis to
draw from the literature is that a more positive perception of innovation practice in the organization will lead to a
higher level of job satisfaction in the organization. When employees think that innovation practice is well
executed, they recognize that the innovation practice is resulting in rewards (incentives), task achievements, and
organizational enhancement from innovation (Amabile, 1997; Petkovšek & Cankar, 2013). Thus, innovation
practice in an organization has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1: A higher level of innovation practice in the public organization will increase employees’ job
satisfaction.
The second hypothesis pertains to the relationship between perceptions of innovation practice of the organization
and job satisfaction based on employees’ gender, race, and age. Employees’ perceptions of fairness are related to
innovation practice (Warr, 2007). It is because innovations may lead to perceptions of justices (both distributive
and procedural) depending upon the distributions of rewards and the procedure of the innovation practice
(Bryson, Dale-Olsen, & Barth, 2009). Thus, employees who are categorized into an underrepresented group
perceive the innovation practice of a public organization differently. In addition, the innovation practice can be
implemented in more open organizations. Female and minority employees might prefer the innovative
organizational practice. However, older employees favor innovation less because they are less receptive to newly
adopted policies. Thus, the innovation practice of the organization can be perceived differently based on the
employees’ individual characteristics.
3.1 Statistics and Data Analysis
Analysis of data and the reporting of the results of those analyses are fundamental aspects of the conduct of
research. Accurate, unbiased, complete, and insightful reporting of the analytic treatment of data (be it
quantitative or qualitative) must be a component of all research reports. Researchers in the field of psychology
use numerous approaches to the analysis of data, and no one approach is uniformly preferred as long as the
method is appropriate to the research questions being asked and the nature of the data collected. The methods
used must support their analytic burdens, including robustness to violations of the assumptions that underlie
them, and they must provide clear, unequivocal insights into the data.
Hypothesis 2-1: Female employees will feel that the innovation practice results in a higher level of job
satisfaction more than males.
Hypothesis 2-2: Ethnic minority employees will feel that the innovation practice results in a higher level of job
satisfaction more than whites.
Hypothesis 2-3: Older employees will feel that the innovation practice results in a lower level of job satisfaction
more than younger employees.
The third hypothesis pertains to the relationship between the perception of organizational innovation and job
satisfaction based on employees’ job characteristics, such as work experience, payment grade, and supervisor
status. In the public sector, innovations are considered to be started by middle managers and front-line staff
(Borins, 2001). Moreover, the public sector is regarded as by “asymmetric incentives that punish unsuccessful
innovations much more severely than they reward successful ones, by the absence of venture capital to seed
creative problem solving, and by adverse selection by innovative individuals against public service
careers”(Borins, 2001, p. 310). Employees who are non-supervisors, have less experience, and have a lower
payment grade are more willing to devote time toward the innovation because innovation can provide rewards
and make them experience achievement through innovation. This study assumes that employees can perceive
that the innovation practice of organization may result in job satisfaction differently when employees work in the
public sector for a long time or if they are supervisors and are able to recognize the importance of innovation.
Hypothesis 3-1: Employees with more work experience will feel that the innovation results in a lower level of job
satisfaction compared to those with less experience.
Hypothesis 3-2: Employees in a higher payment grade will feel that the innovation leads to a lower level of job
satisfaction compared to those in the lower grade.
Hypothesis 3-3: Supervisors will feel that the innovation results in a lower level of job satisfaction compared to
employees in the nonsupervisory groups.
As we consider innovation practices, agency characteristics can influence job satisfaction with innovation. Thus,
agency categories are included as follows in order to examine job attributes: distributive, regulatory,

278
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

redistributive, and constituent agencies (Joaquin & Park, 2009; Lowi, 1985; Newman, 1994). Distributive
agencies have attributes that include “professional and occupational norms, promotion of specialists rather than
generalists, limited due process requirements, relatively wide fields of discretion, and limited sensitivity to
discriminatory practices” (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002, p. 414). Regulatory agencies work with policies for
“formulating or implementing rules, imposing obligations on individuals, and sanctioning noncompliance (Lowi,
1985, p. 85). Redistributive agencies try to balance resources between the poor and the wealthy in order to
address social inequity (Lowi, 1985). Finally, constituent agencies, according to Lowi (1964), “carry out a
residual group of policies that do not fit among the other three: serving government in general or the nation as a
whole” (Joaquin & Park, 2009, p. 10).
Hypothesis 4-1: Employees in the distributive agency category will feel that the innovation leads to more job
satisfaction in a work unit more than those in the constituent agency category.
Hypothesis 4-2: Employees in the regulatory agency category will feel that the innovation leads to more job
satisfaction in a work unit less than those in other agency categories.
4. Data and Methodology
4.1 Data and Measurement
In our analysis, we use a data set from the 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) provided by the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The FEVS is one of the best administrative to representative
samples to study regarding management of human resources in federal organizations, with more than 376,000
employees in 57 subagencies under executive branch agencies that participated in the survey. In order to test the
hypotheses in our study, a series of ordinary least square (OLS) regression models is used to provide a
coefficient and measures of significance in using a continuous variable as a dependent variable.
4.2 Dependent Variable
In our analysis, we use job satisfaction as a dependent variable in order to examine whether employees think that
they are satisfied with their job based upon answers to the following two questions: (1) “Considering everything,
how satisfied are you with your job?”; and (2) “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your
organization?” Answers are rated on a Likert scale from 1, representing “very dissatisfied” to 5, representing
“very satisfied.” By using a factor analysis, these items are combined with one index variable. According to
results from the factor analysis, the initial eigenvalue is 1.773, and the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.820, which means
that the factor is sufficient to be reliable.
4.3 Independent Variable
The key independent variable is the perception of innovation practice in the organization. The extent to which
employees perceive innovation in an organization is reflected by responses to the following survey question:
“Creativity and innovation are rewarded.” Respondents answer each statement with a value from 1 (strong
disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement) based on a Likert scale.
4.4 Control Variable
In our analysis, resource variables for job satisfaction and seven control variables are considered, in reference to
Pitts (2009). First of all, the resource variable accounts for “the influence of resource munificence on outcomes
and then job satisfaction” (e.g., Fernandez, 2005; O’Toole & Meier, 1999; Pitts, 2005) (Pitts, 2009, p. 13). Six
survey questions are included as values of resources for organizational performance. This is reflected based on
the responses to the following questions: (1) “My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills;” (2) “I
have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done;” (3) “My workload is
reasonable;” (4) “Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the
workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well;” (5) “How satisfied are you with the training you receive
for your present job?” and (6) “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” While the
questions are related to one another indirectly, they reflect an underlying reliability on factor analysis. The initial
eigenvalue is 2.788, and the Cronbach’s alpha for these items is 0.766, indicating that the factor is reasonably
reliable.
Second, we include demographic variables in the analysis based on supervisory status, gender, ethnic minority,
payment grade, the length of work experience, and age as a dummy or a series of dummy variables. On the
ground of much of the previous literature, demographic backgrounds of respondents prove to affect the
innovation and job satisfaction in an organization as well. Thus, in order to reflect the impact of the demographic
variables, this study sets a dummy variable that is coded 1 if the respondent is a supervisor or manager, a female

279
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

group, or in an ethnic minority group, respectively. In terms of age, payment category, and work experience, on
the other hand, we contain the respondents’ characteristics by using a series of dummy variables. Third, this
study includes dichotomous variables of agency categories to examine the relationship between agency
characteristics and job satisfaction, as well as between agency category with innovation and job satisfaction.
According to Lowi (1985) and Newman (1994), we include three dichotomous agency categories: distributive,
regulatory, and redistributive agency categories, setting constituent agency as a base group in this analysis
(Miller, Kerr, & Reid, 1999). Table 1 describes the general characteristics and the number of each agency
category in the federal organizations.

Table 1. Description of distributive, regulatory, and redistributive agencies

Agency N Example
Distributive Agencies 14 Department of Air Force, Army, or Navy
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Regulatory Agencies 19 Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Redistributive Agencies 9 Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Service
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Constituent Agencies 15 Residual group of agencies
Total 57

4.5 Model Specification

In this analysis, the model of innovation and job satisfaction categorizes the independent variables into three
steps and places them in the following order: (1) the basic effect of control variables (Model 1: model with
control variables), (2) the effect of the innovation practice (Model 2: model with innovation and control
variables), and (3) the full effect of innovation with interactions of gender, supervisory status, ethnic minority
groups, age, payment grade, duration of employees’ work experience, and agency categories (Model 3: Full
model of innovation with its interaction terms). The basic descriptive statistics are listed in Table 2, and survey
questions and factor analysis results are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
Variables Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Unit
Supervisor 0.18 0.39 0 1 Supervisor or manger=1
Female 0.44 0.50 0 1 Female=1, Male=0
Minority 0.30 0.46 0 1 Minority=1
Ages 40-49 0.25 0.43 0 1 Ages 40 to 49=1
Ages 50-59 0.33 0.47 0 1 Ages 50 to 59=1
Age 60 or older 0.12 0.33 0 1 Age 60 or older=1
GS 7-12 0.39 0.49 0 1 Pay category/grade from GS 7 to 12=1
GS 13-15 0.36 0.48 0 1 Pay category/grade from GS 13 to 15=1
6-14 years 0.29 0.45 0 1 Work experience for 6 to 14 years=1
Over 15 years 0.42 0.49 0 1 Work experience for more than 15 years=1
Distributive 0.44 0.50 0 1 Distributive agency=1
Regulatory 0.25 0.43 0 1 Regulatory agency=1
Redistributive 0.14 0.35 0 1 Redistributive agency=1
Job Satisfaction 0 0.93 -2.29 1.30 Factor score
Innovation 3 1.17 1 5 Likert Scale from 1 to 5
Resource 0 0.89 -2.36 1.89 Factor score
Note. n=376.577

280
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

Table 3. Factor analysis results

Variables Factor Loading
(1) Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? 0.879
(2) Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? 0.879
Job Satisfaction Initial Eigenvalue 1.773
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.820

(1) My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. 0.627
(2) I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job 0.746
done.
(3) My workload is reasonable. 0.660
(4) Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in 0.460
the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well.
(5) How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? 0.623
(6) Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? 0.452
Resource Initial Eigenvalue 2.788
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.766

5. Results
The results of each model in the regression are provided in Table 4. The first model uses only control variables as
independent variables. It proves that the resources, supervisor, female, older, and high level of payment grade
groups are positively related to job satisfaction, and all of them are statistically significant at the level of 1
percent. However, work experience and ethnic minority group have a negative impact on job satisfaction. They
show that more experienced federal employees feel less satisfied with their job than less experienced employees,
and minority federal employees are less satisfied with their job than white employees. In addition, employees in
the distributive, redistributive, and regulatory agency categories are more satisfied with their job than those in
the constituent agency category. According to the results of the second model (Model 2), the innovation variable
has a positive impact on job satisfaction, and it is statistically significant at the 1 percent level. In terms of
control variables, resources, supervisor, female, and age variables are positively related to job satisfaction, and
all of them are statistically significant at the 1 percent level. However, the variables of payment grades are not
statistically significant if the innovation variable is considered in the second model. Job experience and
minorities are negatively related to job satisfaction. Additionally, when controlling the innovation variable,
employees in the distributive, redistributive, and regulatory agency categories are more satisfied with their job
than those in the constituent agency category.
Finally, the full model (Model 3), which includes an innovation variable and its interaction terms between the
innovation practice and other demographic variables, shows more specific relationships between innovation and
job satisfaction. First of all, the innovation variable has a positive impact on job satisfaction, and it is statistically
significant at the level of 1 percent. Supervisors, female, minority, and older employees are less satisfied with the
innovation practice than are non-supervisors, male, white, and young employees. They are statistically
significant at the level of one percent. However, employees with more work experience and higher payment
grades show a higher level of job satisfaction with the innovation practice, and all are statistically significant at
the 1 percent level. Finally, employees in a distributive agency are more satisfied with innovative practice than
those in a constituent agency. However, employees in a regulatory agency are less satisfied with innovative
practice than those in a constituent agency.
Interestingly, female employees show different attitudes toward their job satisfaction with interaction with
innovation. For example, they feel more satisfied with their job but are less satisfied with their job if we interact
with the effects of innovation in the model. Moreover, federal employees with a high level of payment grade
show negative job satisfaction when compared with those from other payment grade groups in Model 3. They, on
the other hand, perceive positive effects of innovation toward job satisfaction. If we consider innovation and its
interaction terms with individual demographic characteristics and agency categories, federal employees in the
supervisory, female, ethnic minority, and older groups feel that innovation is negatively related to job satisfaction,
while employees in a higher level of payment grade and work experience, on the other hand, believe that

281
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

innovation makes them more satisfied with their job. In terms of agency categories, employees in the distributive
agency category regard innovation as a positive tool for better job satisfaction. On the contrary, those in the
regulatory agency category think that innovation is negatively related to job satisfaction.

Table 4. Regression model results for job satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
Coefficient Std. Err. Coefficient Std. Err. Coefficient Std. Err.
Resource 0.703 *** 0.001 0.483 *** 0.002 0.485 *** 0.002
Supervisor 0.204 *** 0.003 0.100 *** 0.003 0.121 *** 0.009
Female 0.027 *** 0.002 0.022 *** 0.002 0.092 *** 0.006
Minority -0.039 *** 0.003 -0.029 *** 0.002 0.069 *** 0.007
Ages 40-49 0.040 *** 0.003 0.041 *** 0.003 0.049 *** 0.009
Ages 50-59 0.077 *** 0.003 0.073 *** 0.003 0.105 *** 0.009
Age 60 or older 0.104 *** 0.004 0.099 *** 0.004 0.158 *** 0.011
GS 7-12 0.006 * 0.003 -0.005 0.003 -0.014 * 0.008
GS 13-15 0.035 *** 0.003 -0.004 0.003 -0.108 *** 0.008
6-14 years -0.058 *** 0.003 -0.038 *** 0.003 -0.067 *** 0.008
Over 15 years -0.072 *** 0.003 -0.063 *** 0.003 -0.102 *** 0.009
Distributive 0.025 *** 0.003 0.013 *** 0.003 -0.040 *** 0.009
Regulatory 0.062 *** 0.004 0.053 *** 0.004 0.073 *** 0.010
Redistributive 0.045 *** 0.004 0.037 *** 0.004 0.026 ** 0.011
Innovation (Inn) 0.287 *** 0.001 0.286 *** 0.004
Inn×Supervisor -0.007 *** 0.003
Inn×Female -0.023 *** 0.002
Inn×Minority -0.032 *** 0.002
Inn×Ages 40-49 -0.003 0.003
Inn×Ages 50-59 -0.011 *** 0.003
Inn× Age 60 or older -0.020 *** 0.004
Inn×GS 7-12 0.003 0.003
Inn×GS 13-15 0.034 *** 0.003
Inn×6-14 years 0.010 *** 0.003
Inn× Over 15 years 0.013 *** 0.003
Inn×Distributive 0.018 *** 0.003
Inn×Regulatory -0.006 ** 0.003
Inn×Redistributive 0.004 0.003
R2 0.681 0.741 0.742
Note. ***, **, and * indicate significance at the level of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.

6. Conclusion and Discussion

There are several findings that warrant highlighting according to the results of this study. First of all, innovation
generally has a positive impact on job satisfaction, and these findings reveal that federal employees regard
innovation as necessary for a more satisfactory job. This confirms the two factor theory related to the innovation
in that employees expect the external rewards or realize the fulfillment from attaining the goals of innovation.
However, we find changes in the perception of job satisfaction based on the respondents’ demographic
characteristics. Underrepresented groups perceive that the innovation practice has a negative impact on their job
satisfaction. This might be justice in the innovation process (both distributive and procedural) in that the
distributions of rewards and the procedure of the innovation practice are not perceived fairly by underrepresented
groups. Future research should further investigate why these groups feel less satisfied with innovation practice.
In addition, employees in the higher level of payment grade and work experience pursue innovation and think

282
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

that innovation is positively related to their job satisfaction. Supervisors are resistant to change and it is because
they concern about the punishment of unsuccessful innovations. But, employees with high salaries pursue
innovation more frequently owing to asymmetric incentives in order to attain stronger performance and job
satisfaction in the end.
Regarding agency categories, employees in the distributive agency category are in pursuit of innovation because
the distributive agencies concentrate on professional norms. As a result, they need to consistently evolve.
However, employees in the regulatory agency category are resistant to changes, and, related to this, they seem
pessimistic about innovation as well. Innovation reminds employees of the same image that changes engender.
Even though it is not statistically proven, employees in the redistributive agency are open to change or
innovation and the results show a positive relationship. According to the work characteristics, employees are
more likely to support underrepresented groups and pursue equity, and so they pursue new changes or innovation
practices.
Previous studies explain that innovation results in either positive or negative impacts on job satisfaction (Bryson,
Dale-Olsen, & Barth, 2009). For example, using private sector data, Bryson et al. (2009) show the effects of
innovations are negatively related to workers’ well-being. On the other hand, our research shows that innovation
practice in the public sector is positively associated with workers’ job satisfaction. It is because two studies are
conducted from different contexts. Even though that, it implies that public organizations should implement
diverse innovation practices in order to improve the job satisfaction of employees.
Moreover, our results claim a “contingency perspective” on public sector innovation and provide implications.
Procedure and distributive justice should be conditioned in order for public organizations to get benefits from
their innovative practice. Because a positive sense of innovation in the work is important for employee’s
expectation of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, it is necessary to promote people to work that expanses their
creatives through well designed innovation practice. Managerial practices in innovation should be considered to
increase intrinsically motivating aspects. In addition, this study suggests that public organizations should exhibit
a strong innovation-oriented context through the whole organization.
Even though we identified some meaningful results in this study, there are also some limitations. First of all,
innovation does not account for only one question from the survey, and job satisfaction is not built solely on
innovation itself. In order to achieve greater generalization, multifaceted dimensions of characteristics of
innovation must be studied: the work process in decision making or interpersonal relationships. Moreover, in this
analysis, we merely analyze the relationships between innovation and job satisfaction under control of some
demographic characteristics. In future research, a wide array of organizational characteristics should necessarily
be considered.
References
Akintoye, I. R. (2000). The place of financial management in personnel psychology. In A Paper Presented as
Part of Personnel Psychology Guest Lecture Series. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University
of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Albury, D. (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 51-56.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Amabile, T. (1997) Motivating Creativity in Organisations. California Management Review, 40, 39-58.
Behn, R. D. (1994). Leadership Counts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Birkinshaw, J., Bessant, J., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Finding, Forming and Performing: Creating networks for
discontinuous innovation. California Management Review, 49(3), 67-83.
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review,
11(1), 15-33.
Borins, S. (1998). Innovation with Integrity: How Local Heroes Are Transforming American Government.
Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector. Journal of intellectual capital, 2(3), 310-319.
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23(8), 467-476.
Borins, S. (2008). Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition, and Replication. Washington, D.C:

283
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

Brookings Institute.
Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and nonprofit social
services. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 35(2), 225-248.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective
processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction:
Meta-analysis and Assessment of Causal Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 63-77.
Bryson, A., Dale-Olsen, H., & Barth, E. (2009). How does innovation affect worker well-being? Retrieved from
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27781/1/dp0953.pdf
Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (1998). Tools for Innovators: Creative Strategies for Manageing Pubic Sector
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of
"organizational lag". Administrative science quarterly, 392-409.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of applied psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual
and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 121-130.
Fernandez, S. (2005). Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership: Evidence
from the public education arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 197-217.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(3), 331-362.
Guest, D. E. (1987). Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24,
503-521,
Green, L., Howells, J., & Miles, I. (2001). Services and innovation: dynamics of service innovation in the
European Union. PREST and CRIC, University of Manchester.
Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I., & Røste, R. (2005). On the differences between public and private sector
innovation. Publin Report D, 9.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public money and
management, 25(1), 27-34.
Hartley, J. (2012). Public value through innovation and improvement. In J. Benington, & M. Moore (Eds.),
Public Value: Theory and Practice (pp. 171-184). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job Attitudes: Review of Research and
Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. ligen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational Psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hull, C. E., & Lio, B. H. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and
financial considerations. Journal of Change Management, 6(1), 53-65.
Joaquin, M. E., & Park, S. M. (2009). A Topography of federal employees and agencies: Examining and
evaluating organizational effectiveness and performance. Paper presented at the 67th Midwest Political
Science Association Conference. Retrieved from http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sea_fac_articles/274
Judge, T. A. (1992, August). Job satisfaction and subjective well-being as determinants of job adaption. In
Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1992, No. 1, pp. 222-226). Academy of Management.
Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2007). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid, & R. Larsen (Eds.).
The Science of Subjective Well-being (pp. 393-413). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Karin, S., Matthijs, M., Nicole, T., Sandra, G., & Claudia, G. (2010). How to support innovative behaviour? The
role of LMX and satisfaction with HR practices. Technology and Investment, 1(1), 59-68.
Kaiser, L. C. (2014). Job Satisfaction and Public Service Motivation (No. 7935). IZA Discussion Paper.
Kerr, B., Miller, W., & Reid, M. (2002). Sex‐Based Occupational Segregation in US State Bureaucracies, 1987–

284
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

97. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 412-423.

Khan, I., Ghauri, T. A., & Akram, K. (2012). Relationship between Job Satisfaction and HR Practices, an
Empirical Research of Different Sectors of University Teachers in Pakistan. International Journal of
Learning and Development, 2(3), 25-33.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lööf, H., & Heshmati, A. (2006). On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 317-344.
Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World politics, 16(4),
677-715.
Lowi, T. J. (1985). The state in politics: the relation between policy and administration. In R. Noll (Ed.),
Regulatory Policy and the social sciences (pp. 67-105). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Luthans, F. (1998). Organisational Behaviour (8th ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
MacDonald, R. (1996). Labours of love: Voluntary working in a depressed economy. Journal of Social Policy,
25(1), 19-38.
Miller, W., Kerr, B., & Reid, M. (1999). A national study of gender-based occupational segregation in municipal
bureaucracies: persistence of glass walls? Public Administration Review, 59(3), 218-230.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3-20.
Newman, M. (1994). Gender and Lowi’s Thesis: Implications for Career Advancement. Public Administration
Review, 54(3), 277-284.
O'Toole, A. (1980). Work in an era of show economic growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
16(4), 277-330.
O'Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural
context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(4), 505-526.
Perry, J. L. & Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Behavioral dynamics: Institutions, identities, and self- regulation. In J. L.
Perry, & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 56-73).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perry, K. (2010). Innovation in the Public Sector: Putting it into Perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.rucsdigitaleprojektbibliotek.dk/bitstream/1800/7424/1/Working_Paper_on_ICE_Website_May_
2010.pdf
Petkovšek, V., & Cankar, S. S. (2013). Public Sector Innovation in the European Union and Example of Good
Practice. In Active Citizenship by Knowledge Management & Innovation: Proceedings of the Management,
Knowledge and Learning International Conference 2013 (pp. 1329-1336). ToKnow Press.
Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public
organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 615-631.
Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from US federal agencies.
Public Administration Review, 69(2), 328-338.
Rainey, H. G. (2014). Understanding and Managing Public Organization. John Wiley & Sons.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Sokoya, S. K. (2000). Personal predictors of job satisfaction for the public sector manager: implications for
management practice and development in a developing economy. Journal of business in developing nations,
4(1).
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.

285
www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 12, No. 1; 2016

Voß, J. P. (2007). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy
instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329-343.
Wang, H. M., & Feng, W. W. (2003). Review on employee job satisfaction. Commercial Research, China, 9,
43-45.
Warr, P. (2007). Searching for happiness at work. PSYCHOLOGIST-LEICESTER, 20(12), 726.
Wittig, C. (2012). Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change. OD Practitioner, 44(2), 23-28.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image
outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

286