Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are We Really on the Same Page? An Empirical Examination of Value Congruence Between Public Sector and Nonprofit Sector Managers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much attention has recently been paid to comparative work in the public and private sectors looking at work values, motivations, and the impact of government reform movements in organizations. Several studies have compared the public and private sectors in the dimension of values; but none have questioned the popular assumption that nonprofit and public managers share the same or a similar set of values or the value expectations they have for each other. This paper reports on the results of an empirical survey of public and nonprofit managers that compares their individual democratic, ethical, and professional values. In brief, the results lend strong support to the assumption that nonprofit employees share the same value set as their public sector counterparts; but their value sets do have statistically significant differences in the perceived level of importance of altruism, generosity, and individualism.

Résumé

Une grande attention est récemment accordée à des travaux comparatifs dans les secteurs public et privé, consacrés aux valeurs de travail, aux motivations, et aux conséquences des mouvements de réforme du gouvernement dans les organisations. Plusieurs études ont comparé les secteurs public et privé sous l’aspect des valeurs. Mais aucune n’a remis en question l’hypothèse répandue selon laquelle les responsables dans les secteurs à but non lucratif et public partagent les mêmes valeurs, ou ensemble de valeurs similaires, ou attentes de valeurs qu’ils ont l’un envers l’autre. Ce document présente les résultats d’une étude empirique des responsables dans les secteurs à but non lucratif et public qui compare leurs valeurs démocratiques, éthiques et professionnelles. Pour résumer, les résultats étayent fortement l’hypothèse que les employés dans le secteur à but non lucratif partagent les mêmes valeurs que leurs homologues du secteur public, mais que leurs valeurs ont des différences statistiquement significatives dans le niveau perçu de l’importance de l’altruisme, de la générosité et de l’individualisme.

Zusammenfassung

In letzter Zeit schenkte man der vergleichenden Arbeit im öffentlichen und privaten Sektor, bei der Arbeitswerte, Motivationen und die Auswirkungen von Initiativen zur Führungsreform in Organisationen betrachtet werden, viel Aufmerksamkeit. Mehrere Studien haben den öffentlichen und den privaten Sektor hinsichtlich ihrer Werte verglichen; doch keine der Studien hinterfragte bislang die verbreitete Annahme, dass Manager gemeinnütziger und öffentlicher Organisationen die gleichen oder ähnlichen Werte bzw. die gegenseitigen Werterwartungen teilen. Dieser Beitrag veranschaulicht die Ergebnisse einer empirischen Umfrage von Managern öffentlicher und gemeinnütziger Organisationen, im Rahmen derer die jeweiligen demokratischen, ethischen und professionellen Werte verglichen werden. Kurz gesagt unterstützen die Ergebnisse die Annahme, dass Mitarbeiter gemeinnütziger Organisationen die gleichen Werte teilen wie ihre Gegenstücke im öffentlichen Sektor; doch weisen ihre Werte sehr wohl statistisch bedeutende Unterschiede in der wahrgenommenen Bedeutung von Altruismus, Großzügigkeit und Individualismus auf.

Resumen

Se ha prestado mucha atención recientemente al trabajo comparativo en los sectores público y privado contemplando los valores laborales, las motivaciones y el impacto de los movimientos de reforma del gobierno en las organizaciones. Varios estudios han comparado los sectores público y privado en la dimensión de los valores; pero ninguno ha cuestionado la suposición popular de que los gestores públicos y los de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro comparten un conjunto de valores similares o el mismo o las expectativas de valor que tienen mutuamente. El presente documento informa de los resultados de una encuesta empírica de gestores públicos y de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que compara sus valores democráticos, éticos y profesionales individuales. En resumen, los resultados aportan un fuerte apoyo a la suposición de que los empleados de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro comparten el mismo conjunto de valores que sus contrapartes del sector público; pero sus conjuntos de valores tienen diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el nivel de importancia percibido del altruismo, la generosidad y el individualismo.

摘要

近年来很多关注都放在了组织的公共和私人部分对于工作价值,动机和政府改革对其的影响的比较性研究上。一些研究比较了公共和私人部分价值方面的不同。然而并没有研究对非盈利和公共机构管理者们共享相同或相似的价值体系或互相的价值期待这一普遍的假设提出质疑。这篇文章报道了对公共和非盈利机构管理者们的个人民主价值,道德观和职业观进行比较的实证调查结果。总而言之,研究结果强有力的支持了非盈利组织员工和其公共部分的员工共享一套相同的价值体系这一假设。然而,在对于利他主义,慷慨和个人主义重要性的认知水平,两者价值观又有着极大的统计学差异。

ملخص

قد تم مؤخرا˝ إعطاء الكثير من الإهتمام للعمل المقارن في القطاعين العام والخاص للبحث في أهمية العمل، الدوافع، وتأثير حركات الإصلاح في مؤسسات الحكومة. العديد من الدراسات قارنت القطاعين العام والخاص في بعد الأهمية؛ لكن لا شيء شكك الإفتراض الشائع بأن المديرين الذين لا يسعون للربح والعامة يشاركون مثل أو مجموعة مماثلة من القيم الأخلاقية أو توقعات القيم الأخلاقية لديهم لبعضهم البعض. هذاالبحث ينص على أن نتائج الإستطلاع التجريبي للمديرين الذين لا يسعون للربح و العامة الذي يقارن قيمهم الديمقراطية ٬ الأخلاقية ٬ والمهنية. بإختصار، فإن النتائج تضفي دعم قوي لإفتراض أن الموظفين الذين لا يسعون للربح تتقاسم نفس القيم الأخلاقية مثل نظائرهم في القطاع العام؛ لكن مجموعات قيمهم لديها فروق ذات دلالة إحصائية في مستوى إدراك أهمية الإيثار٬ الكرم، والفردية.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Young (2000) postulates that this framework can be extended internationally, finding that the relationship between government and nonprofit organizations as multi-layered, dynamic, and contingent on cross-cultural differences and the heterogeneity of citizen preferences.

  2. There are more than 1.9 million tax-exempt organizations in the United States, which has doubled over the past 30 years (Independent Sector 2011) and from 1998 to 2008, the number of nonprofit organizations registering with the IRS grew 60 % (Wing et al. 2010). In 2009, the number of individuals employed in the nonprofit sector was 13.5 million individuals, approximately 10 % of the US workforce. Giving in the same year exceeded $303 billion and volunteering surpassed 8 billion hours (Independent Sector 2011).

  3. Lyons et al. (2006) define “parapublic” as publicly funded education and healthcare nonprofit organizations in contrast to this study which is broadly inclusive of the different subfields of 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organizations.

  4. The demographic composition of the sample is similar to the demographics of the Hampton Roads region. The majority of residents in the region are female (51 %) and white non-Hispanic (62 %), and the largest age category is 40–49 years of age (US Census Bureau 2014).

  5. The differences in length of tenure are interesting, and suggest that there is a higher level of turnover in the nonprofit sector than in the public sector. However, we are unsure of the reason for this. It is possible that employment in the nonprofit sector is generally less stable and more stressful. It is also possible that the differences are an artifact of the data and the non-random nature of our sample. While full analysis of this issue is ripe for further investigation, the question is beyond the scope of the present research. We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue.

  6. We compared nonprofit managers who had never worked in the public sector with nonprofit managers who had never worked in the public sector (with similar comparisons for local government managers); we also examined the time each group reported working in the private sector.

  7. Furthermore, we might note that our findings are relevant to questions about the best “home” for programs in nonprofit administration within the university setting. If the value sets of the public and nonprofit sectors are indeed much alike, then to link programs in public administration and nonprofit administration might make more sense than to partner nonprofit administration programs with business schools, for instance.

References

  • Agranoff, R. (2012). Collaborating to manage: A primer for the public sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J., & Nank, R. (2009). Public-nonprofit partnership: Realizing the new public service. Administration and Society, 41(3), 364–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Public Administration. (2006). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_codeofethics.cfm.

  • Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 679–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antos, J., & Brimson, J. (1994). Activity-based Management for Service Industries, Government, and Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attaran, A., & Sachs, J. (2001). Defining and refining international donor support for combating the AIDS pandemic. Lancet, 357(9249), 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Maryland: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, D. A., Duncan, C. M., Keller, C. D., & Morris, J. C. (2002). Welfare reform, Mississippi style: Temporary assistance for needy families and the search for accountability. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruijn, H., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, R. (1992). Survival of the nonprofit spirit in a for-profit world. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadwallader, E. H. (1980). The main features of value experience. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 14(3), 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canada. (1996). A strong foundation: Discussion paper on values and ethics in the public service, Deputy ministers’ task force on public service values and ethics. Privy Council Office, Ottowa. Retrieved from http://www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca/publications.html.

  • Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2002). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, J. D. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dropkin, M., Halpin, J., & La Touche, B. (1998). The budget building book for nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1992). Managing the nonprofit organization: Principles and practices. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eadie, D. C., & Schrader, A. (1997). Changing by design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firstenberg, P. (1996). The 21st century nonprofit: Remaking the organization in the post-government era. New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, S. A., & Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees working hard or hardly working? The American Review of Public Administration, 34(1), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the nonprofit human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrow, E. E. (2011). Receipt of government revenue among nonprofit human service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. F. (1990). Value and justification: The foundations of liberal theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gellermann, W., Frankel, M. S., & Ladenson, R. F. (1990). Values and ethics in organization and human systems development: Responding to dilemmas in professional life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gert, B. (1973). The moral rules: A New Rational Foundation for Morality. New York: Harper Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. E. (1959). The framework of administrative responsibility. Journal of Politics, 21(3), 373–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gortner, H. F. (2001). Values and ethics. Public Administration and Public Policy, 86, 509–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss, R. P. (2003). What ethical conduct expectations do legislators have for the career bureaucracy? Public Integrity, 5(2), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque, M. S. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, J. G., & Johnson, G. W. (1992). The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D. (1985). Board functions and board-staff relations in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 14(4), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herranz, J., Council, L., & McKay, B. (2011). Tri-value organization as a form of social enterprise: The case of Seattle’s farestart. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 829–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Independent Sector. (2011). Scope of the Sector. Retrieved from http://www.independentsector.org/scope_of_the_sector.

  • Jørgensen, T. B. (1999). The public sector in an in-between time: Searching for new public values. Public Administration, 77(3), 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, T. B. (2007). Public values, their nature, stability and change: The case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 365–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl, K. A., & Sutton, C. L. (1998). Job values in today’s workforce: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 515–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(1), 1059–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, K. (1978). Changing concepts of power and responsibility in the Canadian public service. Canadian Public Administration, 21(3), 389–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, K. (1994). The merging public service culture, values, ethics, and reform. Canadian Public Administration, 37(4), 614–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, K. (2000). The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 711–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (1988). Government by Proxy: (Mis)managing federal programs. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century america. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. (1994). Will public management drive out public administration. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBer, M. J., & Branzaei, O. (2010). Towards a critical theory of value creation in cross-sector partnerships. Organization, 17(5), 599–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Wilkins, V. M. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in Neurosis. Psychoanalytics, 58(3), 419–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and values. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. A. (2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, F. (2012). Human service delivery in a multi-tier system: The subtleties of collaboration among partners. Journal of Health and Human Service Administration, 35(1), 109–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. C., Gibson, W. A., Leavitt, W. M., & Jones, S. C. (2013). The case for grassroots collaboration: Social capital and ecosystem restoration at the local level. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omurgonulsen, U., & Oktem, M. K. (2009). Is there any change in the public service values of different generations of public administrators? The case of Turkish governors and district governors. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. (2013). Local Government in an Era of Creative Destruction. Retrieved September 17, 2014 from http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/col-local-government-creative-destruction-challenges-leadership.html.

  • Ott, J. S. (2001). The nature of the Nonprofit Sector. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palidauskaite, J. (2006). Value profile of Lithuanian Public Service. In EGPA Annual Conference 2006, Study Group on Ethics and Integrity of Governance, 6–9 September 2006, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.

  • Pappas, A. T. (1995). Reengineering your Nonprofit Organization. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1996). The values of business and federal government executives: More different than alike. Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prall, D. W. (1918). A study in the theory of value. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pynes, J., & Schrader, A. (1997). Human Resource Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1969). Introduction to value theory. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J., & Milofsky, C. (2006). The centrality of values, passions, and ethics, and ethics in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 17(2), 137–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Resilient Sector: The state of Nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., et al. (1999). Civil society in comparative perspective. In L. M. Salamon, H. K. Anheier, S. Toepler, & S. W. Sokolowski (Eds.), Associates Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. New York: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public–private partnerships. New York: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclar, E. D. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R., & Likpsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in an age of contracting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stackman, R. W., Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (2006). Sectoral ethos: A comparison of the personal values systems of female and male managers in the public and private sectors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 577–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (1997). A strong foundation: Report of the task force on public service values and ethics (a summary). Canadian Public Administration, 40, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Global Fund. (2008). The global fund becomes a fully autonomous international financing institution. Retrieved from http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/ifi/?lang=en.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American community survey. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from http://www.hrpdcva.gov/uploads/docs/Demographic%20Characteristics.pdf

  • Van Der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wal, Z., Huberts, L. W. J. C., Van Den Heuvel, J. H. J., & Kolthoff, E. W. (2006). Central values of government and business: Differences, similarities and conflicts. Public Administration Quarterly, 30(3), 314–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wart, M. (1998). Changing Public Sector values. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventriss, C. (1997). Toward a public philosophy of public administration: a civic. International Journal of Public Administration, 20(4), 1041–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virginia.org. (2013). Coastal Virginia—Hampton roads. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.org/regions/hamptonroads/

  • Walraven, G. (1994). Business thinking for Not-for-Profit Organizations. New York: Jones and Barlett Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). The voluntary Nonprofit Sector. Lexington: DC Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, J. R. (2009). Measuring social values in philanthropic foundations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(3), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, K. T., Roegar, K. L., & Pollak, T. (2010). The Nonprofit Sector in brief 2010. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, T. (1990). Managing a Nonprofit Organization. New York: Fireside Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. R. (1999). Complementary, supplementary or adversarial: A theoretical and historical examination of government-nonprofit relations in the U.S. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steurele (Eds.), Government and Nonprofit Organizations: The challenges of Civil Society. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban Studies and Public Administration, School of Public Service, Old Dominion University, 2084 Constant Hall, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Katrina Miller-Stevens & John C. Morris

  2. Department of Political Science, School of Public and International Affairs, James Madison University, 91 E. Grace St., MSC 7705, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Jennifer A. Taylor

Authors
  1. Katrina Miller-Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer A. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John C. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrina Miller-Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller-Stevens, K., Taylor, J.A. & Morris, J.C. Are We Really on the Same Page? An Empirical Examination of Value Congruence Between Public Sector and Nonprofit Sector Managers. Voluntas 26, 2424–2446 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9514-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9514-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation