- Email: [email protected]
Meaning of working profiles of various occupational groups
Journal
of Vocational
Behavior
26, 25-40
(1985)
Meaning of Working Profiles of Various Occupational Groups ITZHAK Departments
of
Economics
HARPAZ
and Sociology,
of
University
Haifa,
Hu$u,
Israel
Three major profiles of the meaning of working emerged in this study. The most salient profile, representing more than 40% in a population consisting of 10 target groups (N = 896), was one with high levels of work centrality. The social norm of obligation to society in this leading profile was low. while the norm of opportunities provided by society and organizations was ranked relatively high; concurrently intrinsic work orientation in this profile was relatively high. Some implications of this and other emerging working patterns are briefly discussed. %
IYBC
Academic
Prc\\.
Inc
Systematic study of meanings people attach to work is essential for increased understanding of work as a life role. That work is indeed a central life role may be gleaned from the time commitment individuals make to work, the initiative taken by individuals and groups to restructure their jobs and work institutions, and the social and economic consequences of work to organizations and society. The importance of work to people is further supported by studies using, in one form or another, the socalled “lottery question”: “Image that you won a lottery or inherited a large sum of money and could live comfortably for the rest of your life without working, do you think you would work anyway or not?” The originators of this question (Morse & Weiss, 1953, in their classic study on the function and meaning of work, found that 80% of the employed men would continue to work even without economic need. Similar results and even higher percentages have been reported in studies such as those by Jakubowski (1968) on middle managers, Tausky (1960) on a national sample of blue-collar workers, Kaplan and Tausky (1974) on “hard-core” This research was supported by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF). Jerusalem, Israel. The author expresses his appreciation to the members of the MOW international research team, especially to G. W. England, who were very instrumental in the various stages of this study, to T. Mahoney, M. Weinberg, D. Johnson. J. Gordon, J. Bartunek, P. Fell, and H. Miller for their helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of the paper, and to B. Nachmani for the computational analysis. The paper was revised with funds provided through the School of Management at Boston College, while the author spent his sabbatical there. Requests for reprints should be sent to ltzhak Harpaz, Department of Economics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31999. Israel. 25 WI-8791:85 C’opynght All
npht\
‘t of
rcprduc~on
1985
hy
Academac nn any
$3.00 Prc\s.
form
rcrcrved
Inc
26
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
unemployed, Mannheim & Cohen (1978) on a national sample of Israeli males, and Harpaz (1983) on a national sample of the Israeli labor force. The lowest percentage reported is of data collected by the National Opinion Research Center in the mid 1970s: 72% of a national sample of adult working males indicated that they wished to continue working (Vecchio, 1980). The significance of work is also reflected in the impact of unemployment and retirement on people who have been productive and active all their lives (Friedman & Havighurst, 1954). If the retired person cannot find some other kind of involvement, such as part-time work or a hobby, the effects of inactivity are often demoralizing. Working, then, is important to the individual in both an economic and a sociopsychological sense, and study of work meanings must include these aspects. Having established that economic considerations usually play a secondary role in the meaning of work, the task remains to identify the forces that cause adults to expend their life’s energies on the pursuit of work. Certainly, working means different things among different groups and individuals. Moreover, the meaning of work is expected to change with changes in social conditions. For example, the recent changes in legal and societal conceptions of the “working rights” of women, racial minority groups, protected age categories, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups have substantially altered employment policies and practices. It seems likely that these legislated changes and the accompanying costs and benefits have had an impact on the meaning attached to working by various segments of the population. Furthermore, the rise in educational levels and technological development in most industrialized countries has probably had an impact on the meaning and significance of working (Katzel, 1979; Levitan & Johnson, 1982). Conversely, the “work meanings” found among individuals and groups may in turn affect organizations and society in areas such as mobility, conflict, dropping out, modifying organizations, and creating new ones. It is for this reason that an understanding of this concept may provide a window into the future. The “meaning of working” (MOW) is a central issue in the further development of the socioeconomic structures of societies in the postindustrial era. This study is part of a larger effort by an international team of researchers in eight countries engaged in a comparative study of the major patterns of meanings attached to working (MOW-International Research Team 1981). The overall goals of the project are (a) to understand the variety of meanings which individuals and groups attach to working in industrial societies; (b) to understand how these meanings develop within and across national/cultural systems; and (c) to understand the consequences of different work meanings for individuals, organizations, and societies. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to fully describe the MOW project and its theoretical conceptualization. It is, however. useful to
WORKING
27
PROFILES
give a brief description of the research model. The model is based on a vast array of literature from the participating countries. It enumerates five central work-related domains. These are influenced by personal and family situations, present job and career history, and the macrosocioeconomic environment. The five domains in turn have been used to generate meaning of working profiles or patterns. The purpose of constructing MOW profiles is to try to identify different MOW patterns that may characterize the population under study. It may be used for classification of occupational groups, as an indication of the prevailing profiles in a given society, as well as for comparisons among countries. The present study is based only on Israeli samples and it seeks to answer the following questions: (a) What major MOW patterns or profiles emerge from the five central MOW domains in the model? (b) What are their characteristics? (c) How are they distributed among major occupational METHOD Measurement
of Meaning
of Working
The meaning of working has been conceptually defined in terms of five major domains: (a) centrality of working as a life role, (b) societal norms about working, (c) valued work outcomes, (d) importance of work goals, and (e) work role identification. These five domains were measured by means of 39 variables. The same 39 variables were also instrumental in the development of six central MOW indices which were employed in constructing the MOW profiles. The relationships between the MOW domains and the indices are illustrated in Fig. I. Figure I shows that some of the indices are derived from variables composed of only one MOW domain while others draw from a number of domains. The rationale, derivation, and operationalization of the central MOW domains has been described in detail in MOW-International Research Team (1981). Briefly. the domains and indices were derived as follows: 1. Centrality oJ‘ work as a ifi role. This domain examines the importance of the role of work in a person’s life compared with other life roles, as well as in absolute terms. The development of this domain was based on the series of “Central life interest” studies originated by Dubin (1956) and further researched by others (Dubin, Champoux, & Porter, 1975; Dubin, Headley, & Taveggia. 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Orzack, 1959; Parker, l%S). One index was developed from the centrality of work domain and was termed work centrality. This index was composed of two measures. The first is an absolute or a scaled centrality measure: “How important and significant is working in your total life?” One of the least important things
I
2
3
4
5
6
One of the 7 most important things
28
ITZHAK
Centrality as a Life
Valued
Work FIG. the
study
1.
Mxk
Pole
Meaning of meaning
HAKPAZ
of Work Role
m
Work
centrality
Cutames
Identification of work domains and of working profiles.
the
indices
which
were
derived
from
them
for
The second is a relative measure comparing work to other activities or roles in life. It was obtained by asking respondents to assign a total of 100 points to indicate how important the following five areas are in their lives: (1) leisure, (2) community, (3) work, (4) religion, and (5) family. In previous studies, work has been found to be of “average” importance relative to other areas in one’s life (Robinson, 1977); however, the importance of work seems to vary with occupation (Dubin, 1956; Dubin et al, 1976; Kornhauser, 1965; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Orzack, 1963; Parker, 1971). 2. Societal norms abour working. These are a set of normative statements about work and working in terms of what one should expect from working (opportunities or entitlements) and in turn what one should expect to
WORKING
PROFILES
29
contribute through working (obligations). The societal norm statements presented in this section are based on the work of Triandis (1972) on subjective culture. An example of a norm dealing with obligations is “It is the duty of every able-bodied citizen to contribute to society by working.” An example of a norm concerning opportunities from work is, “If a worker’s skills become outdated, his/her employer should be responsible These statements were rated on a for retraining and re-employment.” four-point scaie ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” An original set of 42 societal norm statements about working was reduced through international pilot testing, into 10 statements utilized in the present study, five forming an Obligations index and five an Opportunities index. 3. Vulued work outcomes. This domain examines the general outcomes sought from working and the relative importance of each. The valued work outcomes measure of working was based upon the typology of six general meanings of working developed by Kaplan and Tausky (1974). To determine relative importance, respondents were asked to assign a total of 100 points to the following work outcomes. Work provides (I) status and prestige, (2) needed income, (3) interesting contacts, (4) keeps one occupied, (5) serves society, and (6) work is interesting and satisfying. 4. Importance of work goals. This domain examines the relative importance to the individual of various goals or aspects of working (e.g., good interpersonal relations, considerable autonomy, convenient working hours, good pay). The relevant literature for making work goats operational is extensive and covers the job satisfaction, work values, and work needs literature. The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire development and validation techniques (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist. 1964) as well as the more recent review ofjob satisfaction by Locke (1976) were heavily utilized, as were items from studies by Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell (1957), Porter (1964), Quinn (1971), and Quinn and Cobb (1971). Respondents were presented with a list of the following I I work goals, which was adopted after pilot experimentation with several formats: opportunity to learn, interpersonal relations, promotional opportunities, convenient work hours, variety, interesting work, job security, match between job requirements and abilities, pay, working conditions, and autonomy. Respondents were asked to rank these items by first selecting the most important item, then the least important, until all I1 work goals were finally ranked. The intrinsic rating index draws upon domains 3 and 4. It was made up of three intrinsic items (variety, interesting work, autonomy) from the importance of work goals domain, and of a fourth item (work is interesting and satisfying) taken from the valued work outcomes domain. 5. Work role identiJcution. This domain examines the extent to which persons define and identify working in terms of various roles. Role theory (Turner, 1956) and attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) provided the conceptual
30
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
rationale for development of work role identification notions. Here, respondents were asked to rank six work roles in the order of their importance to them. These roles were (a) task roles, (b) company or organizational roles, (c) product or service roles, (d) role of co-workers, (e) occupational or professional roles, and (f) role of money received from work. The economic or extrinsic index utilizes items from domains 3 through 5. From the domain of work role identification, it takes the item “role of money;” from valued work outcomes it takes “work provides you with income;” and from importance of work goals, it utilizes “the importance of good pay.” The final MOW index used for profile construction was Contacts. It is composed of three items dealing with people or contacts with others as being perceived as an important work related aspect to the respondent. These items were taken from the Work Role Identification “type of people one works with,” Valued Work Outcomes “interesting contacts with other people” and from the Importance of Work Goals domain “good interpersonal relations.” In sum, six MOW indices were formed from which to develop MOW patterns or profiles. These were Work Centrality, Obligations, Opportunities, Intrinsic Rating, Economic, and Contacts. Samples and Data Collection
Structured interviews, containing more than 80 items dealing with various work related aspects, were conducted with about 90 individuals in each of 10 target groups in Israel. Groups were chosen by their degree of participation in the labor force (preparation for employment, partially employed, fully employed, unemployed, retired from employment) and by the nature of work and/or career (skill levels and occupations/professions). While career development per se was not a prime concern of this study, the decision to cover the major adult career stages in selecting target groups and stratifying within groups was suggested by the research and theory of Super (1957, l978), Erikson (l963), Levinson, Darrow, Klien, Levinson and McKee (1974), and Hall (1976). The following IO target groups were selected: 1. Students. These were 90 final-year students in vocational-technical high schools planning to enter directly into employment after training. Although possibly working part-time, they were primarily students. Fortyfive were males studying mechanical or machine trades and 45 were females studying clerical or secretarial occupations. 2. Temporary workers. This group consisted of 90 females doing clerical work, nonskilled to low skill levels, who had been assigned to temporary work by either private or governmental employment agencies. 3. Self-employed businessmen.This group consisted of 90 males operating commercial, service, and crafts-related businesses with less than eight employees. The sample did not include professionals such as lawyers,
WORKING
physicians
PROFILES
31
or dentists.
The intent was to sample “small shopkeepers.” These were 88 male graduates of university level training and currently doing professional chemical work (not managers) in organizations of more than 200 employees. Chemical engineers employed in food or pharmaceutical companies were not included in the sampling frame. 5. Teachers. These were 90 females teaching 9- to IO-year olds in situations where they had the main teaching assignments for a whole class as opposed to teaching only one subject to many classes. Teachers were selected from both private and public schools in approximate proportion to their relative frequency in the area from which data were collected. 6. Tool and die makers. These were 91 males representing a highskilled blue-collar group which was selected from the electrical/appliances, metal, and related industries. 7. White-collar employees. These consisted of 45 males and 45 females. The intent was to select low to semiskilled or lower service function employees whose occupations were being influenced by automation and technology. The sample was selected from the banking and insurance sectors. 8. Textile workers. Fifty-eight were males and 30 were females, in low or semiskilled jobs such as “weaver,” or “cutter.” 9. Unemployed. These were 45 males and 45 females of medium to low skill levels, all unemployed for at least the past 6 months. 10. Retired. These were 44 males and 45 females consisting of former teachers, low-skilled white-collar employees, and chemical engineers of normal retirement age (65 for males and 62 for females) and not presently working. The total sample size was 896, with 501 males and 395 females. All respondents were interviewed by professional interviewers through a national surveying agency. Samples were drawn randomly from lists of members supplied by the appropriate unions, associations, employment agencies, and from a previous national opinion survey carried out by the surveying agency. Interviews were conducted primarily at respondents’ work settings and also at their homes and in schools (for students). The mean age was 39.8. Education was distributed as follows: 23% were at the primary school level, 42% were graduates of vocational or high schools, 20% had some college vocational training below university level, and 15% held university degrees. Further details concerning sampling methods and descriptions of demographic as well as frequency distributions may be found in Harpaz (1983). 4. Chemical
Measurement
engineers.
Procedures
As an empirical validation procedure for the indices developed from the five MOW domains, the 39 variables consitituting these domains
32
ITZHAK HARPAZ
were submitted to a factor analysis (varimax) procedure. The latter yielded 14 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.O, which accounted for 62.2% of the total variance. More than 50% (50.3) of the total variance was accounted for by six of the indices employed in the present study. Consequently, these results support the validity of the extracted indices. (A detailed description of the factor analysis procedure may be found in Harpaz, 1983.) MOW profiles were obtained through a cluster analysis method (“cluster” and “profile” are used interchangeably in this paper). Cluster analysis categorizes variables or objects (persons) into subsets or clusters. The multidimensional hierarchical clustering method proposed by Hartigan (1975) was utilized in the present study. It is based on the assumption that given variables, objects, and people will form into groups or categories which are more similar or closer to each other than they are to variables outside or in another cluster. RESULTS Results of cluster solutions, F ratios, and means are presented in Table 1. In order to eliminate scaling differences, indices were constructed in a standardized form with a mean equal to 50. The F ratio compares the variance within a cluster to the overall variance. The smaller the F ratio, the more likely a “true” or stable cluster was obtained (i.e., the distances among points within a cluster are smaller than the distances among points between clusters). Clusters/Profiles 6 and 3 were the dominant ones in the overall population. They included 40.5 and 22.7%. respectively, of our respondents. Cluster 6 (n = 363, 40.5%) represented the MOW profile of persons who viewed work centrality as being of high importance to them. They showed relatively high instrinsic orientation while putting low emphasis on economic or extrinsic propensity. Opportunities was another item of relatively high importance, while obligation was low. Cluster 3 ranked second in its size (n = 204, 22.7%) and was composed of individuals who were ranked highest on the economic index (extrinsic orientation). They still saw work centrality as prominent but slightly less so than individuals in Cluster 6. However, intrinsic predispositions were quite low in this group. Cluster 2 was the third dominant profile of MOW patterns (n = 101, 11.3%). It was composed of persons with low work centrality, and low intrinsic orientation. The remaining profiles/clusters were less important in this population and were composed of about 25% of the remaining sample. Cluster 1 (n = 79, 8.8%) was composed of persons with low emphasis on work centrality, intrinsic orientation, and economic tendencies. On the other hand, contacts with other people was an important characteristic of this cluster. Cluster 7 (n = 64, 7.1%) included persons with very low obligation
Opportunity
n
rating
” F ratio: the smaller b x = index mean.
92
Contacts
Economic
Intrinsic
of index
centrality
Obligations
Work
Meaning working
the F ratio
F x F x F 2 F x F x
5
the more
79 8.8
1.01 45.18 I.17 49.77 1.41 50.18 1.55 45.10 I .05 46.76 1.16 50.59
I
stable
Meaning
an index
101 II.3
I.31 45.12 I .03 52.01 1.07 50.96 0.57 46.55 .93 48.25 1.22 50.04
2 --
of Working
is for a specific
204 22.8
0.66 51.40 0.99 51.00 0.93 40.16 I.01 41.43 0.74 51.77 0.91 48.48
3
TABLE I Clusters/Profiles
cluster.
39 4.4
. 1.43 49.77 1.57 51.46 1.22 49.77 1.57 53.29 1.23 47.51 0.91 48.34
-.
4
Cluster/profile
of IO Target
46 5.1
1.18 44.22 0.88 52.49 0.70 52.88 I .22 5 I .88 0.73 41.05 I.15 50.91
5
Groups
363 40,s
0.79 51.65 0.65 50.71 0.90 52.41 0.78 51.37 0.89 47.39 0.92 50.37
6
64 7.1
so.15
896 100
49.87
48.32
50.67
ii WJ
2 0 2
E 52 cl
49.84
s3.40 I.15 47.80 1.09 50.53
s
49.94
Grand mean
43.59 0.78
49.55 0.65 31.87 0.92
0.98
7
34
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
to society; at the same time they also did not want much from it (low on opportunity). Work centrality in this group was found to be moderate, Cluster 5 and 4 each consisted of about only 5% of the sampled population (n = 46 and n = 39, respectively). Both showed a moderate to low propensity toward work centrality and were high on both obligations and opportunities. Table 2 presents the distribution of the 10 target groups along the resulting seven MOW clusters/profiles. The most notable observation from this table was the inclusion of 58% of the chemical engineers, 48% of tool and die makers, 48% of self-employed and 36% of the teachers in the most dominant cluster (Cluster 6), while textile workers dominated (45%) the second cluster (Cluster 3). DISCUSSION Three significant MOW profiles which represent approximately 75% of the sampled population have emerged: (1) individuals who have high levels of work centrality, an intrinsic work orientation, and obligations to organizations and society; (2) individuals with high work centrality and a strong extrinsic inclination; (3) people with low work centrality and low intrinsic tendencies. The leading and most dominant profile, comprising more than 40% (n = 363) of the sample population, was that of individuals with high levels of work centrality and high intrinsic work orientation. These individuals relatively strongly emphasize opportunities while deemphasizing obligations. In other words, they showed a greater tendency to receive from society and one’s work place than to contribute to it. This trend has been noted by other writers and seems to occur globally in western TABLE Distribution
of Target
Groups
within
2
the
Meaning
of Working
Clusters/Profiles
Cluster/profile Target
group
I
2
3
4 8 IO
9 IO 8
29 I9 IO
I 9 3 4
7 7 9 I4
Textile workers Unemployed
3 22
IO I7
15
IO
5
II
31
6
90
n
79
IO1
204
39
46
363
64
896
8.8
II.3
22.8
4.4
5.1
40.5
7.1
100
Students Temporary Self-employed Chemical Teachers Tool and White-collar
workers engineers die
makers
5% Nore.
x2 =
173.03,
P i
,001.
5
6
I 6 5
2 5 8
37 34 43
17 6 24 26
5 6 4 2
2 9 3 2
49 41 44 35
45 I6
2 3
0 4
27 22
12
4
7
Total
8 8 6
90 90 90
7 4 7
88 89 91 90
I 6
88 90
II
WORKING
PROFILES
35
societies (Levitan & Johnson, 1982; Rotenstrich, 1980). Such state of affairs may prevail as a result of their growing affluence, which has had a pervasive influence on attitudes toward work (Levitan & Johnson, 1982), and their desire to attain personal rewards (opportunities) for efforts and contributions (obligations) they make to their organizations and society (Rotenstrich, 1980). Furthermore, some authors have noted that an individual’s inability to determine or control sociopolitical and economic events may contribute to a person’s sense of powerlessness (Levin, 1960; Middleton, 1963; Neal & Rettig, 1963; Seeman, 1975). This in turn may be an additional factor affecting the erosion in individual obligations to society. Considering the specific target groups, eight groups had most of their members concentrated in Cluster 6-the dominant profile. Most notable were the chemical engineers, tool and die makers, self-employed,and teachers; all of these belong to occupations with relatively higher prestige, status, pay, and professionalism within our total sample. The second leading MOW profile (Cluster 3) resembles the dominant one (Cluster 6) in the emphasis that individuals put on work centrality. Here, however, work centrality appears to be associated with an extrinsic orientation. These workers value economic factors but attach low importance to intrinsic factors. This contrasts the orientation of the dominant profile (Cluster 6) where centrality is a link to intrinsic factors rather than to an economic index. Hence, although work centrality is quite important in both clusters, it could probably be attributed to different sources. Considerable attention has been given in the literature to the relationship between work centrality/involvement and intrinsic orientation, while little is reported about research on the relationship between the former and extrinsic orientation (Kanungo, 1982; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). Kanungo (1982) suggests that this situation exists because researchers have ignored extrinsic needs due to their belief that intrinsic, and not extrinsic, orientation is a necessary condition for work centrality/involvement. The present study shows that, in fact, there are situations or circumstances in which work centrality could be associated with extrinsic factors. It is quite conceivable that workers with extrinsic need orientation may perceive a work setting to have a potential for providing them with the fulfillment of such need; therefore, work would assume a central role in the lives of such persons. Dominating this profile are textile workers (51%), who are low or semiskilled laborers, and are employed at entry level positions in their organizations. Other groups associated with this profile (although more of their co-workers are classified in the dominant work pattern) are whitecollar employees (2%) who are low and semiskilled and also hold positions which are low service functions. A third group represented in this category are tool and die makers (26%) who are highly skilled blue-collar employees.
36
ITZHAK HARPAZ
The common denominator for these target groups is their being either manual workers and/or situated in low-level positions in their organizations. Also part of this MOW pattern are students not active yet in the labor force but who are preparing to enter the world of work. The two profiles may have different implications for organizations. If organizations wish to create or maintain environments favorable to their employees, they should try to find out what factors may be related to high work centrality and thus try to provide them for their employees. To maintain or create high work centrality for each type, organizaions should make specific and appropriate provisions for their members who value extrinsic rewards and different ones for those favoring intrinsic ones. Determining what type of work setting is most appreciated by employees could occur through an evaluation of the present work force or during the selection process for new employees (Lawler, 1973). The third noticeable profile (Cluster 2) is composed of people with low work centrality levels. These individuals attach low importance to the intrinsic aspects which work provides, having a moderate to high inclination toward an extrinsic orientation. This relatively small group of workers (1 I .3%) is formed mainly by individuals belonging to lowand semiskilled groups such as unemployed, white-collar, textile workers, temporary workers, and retirees. It is clearly not a significant group in this sample (in terms of its size) and probably will not be of great concern for policy makers. The data suggest that work has a central role in the lives of more than 63% of the sampled population. Additional support for the centrality of work in this sample may be implied from the response to the “lottery question” administered to this sample. (The “lottery question” may be considered an inferred measure of work centrality; England & Harpaz, 1983.) More than 90% of the respondents indicated that they would continue to work in the hypothetical event of winning in a lottery or inheriting a large sum of money even if it would enable them to stop working. Within a context of labor discontent and changes in values and attitudes toward work in the industrialized world which have occurred over the past few decades (Kerr, 1979; Levitan, Mangum, & Marshall, 1981; Ritzer, 1977; Special Task Force, 1973; Yankelovich, 1979), policy makers and employing organizations should view these positively. The results seem to contradict some recent reports of a decline in the importance of work (Bacon 1975; Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1980; Robinson, 1977; Vecchio. 1980). The prevalence of high work centrality should be viewed as encouraging to employing organizations and policy makers because of its relationship to desired outcomes. Work centrality, often used interchangeably with other terms (e.g., central life interest, job involvement, ego involvement,
WORKING
37
PROFILES
job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, work role involvement, etc., Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), was associated with some important organizational variables. For example, researchers such as Aldage and Brief (1975). Hall, Schneider, and Nygren (1970), Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Kanungo (1982), Mannheim (l981), Saal (1978), and Schuler (1975) have found a positive correlation between work centrality and job satisfaction. Other findings showed that more involved workers tend to spend more time and effort on the job than workers who are less involved (Hall & Foster, 1977; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz, & Morgan, 1978). Beehr and Gupta (1978), Farris (197l), Koch and Steers (1978). and Siegel and Ruh (1973) assert that participation in decision making was found to be positively related to work centrality. Finally, there are also some indications pointing to the relationship between job involvement and performance (Hall et al, 1978); Vroom, 1962). If possible, then, employers and organizations should provide employees with work settings that will lead to high work centrality levels. Such settings might consider amount of autonomy, control, and influence a person has on the job (Bass, 1965; Tannenbaum 1966; Vroom, l%2), the feeling that one is making important contributions to organizational success (Bass, 1965), a chance to utilize one’s abilities (Lawler & Hali, 1970), work challenge (Hall, 1971). and opportunities for the satisfaction of the individual’s achievement, belonging, and selfesteem needs (Patchen, 1970). In sum, work centrality seems to assume a central role for the major part of this population. This was viewed favorably and is encouraging in relation to the reports of the decline in the work ethic. In light of previous findings on work centrality, it appears that maintaining or establishing high levels of work centrality would be beneficial to organizations and workers alike. REFERENCES Aldag,
R. J., & Brief, A. F. (1975). Psychoiogy, 60, 757-760. Bacon, A. W. (1975). Leisure and
Some the
correlates
alienated
of work worker:
values.
A critical
Journul
of Applied
reassessment
of three
radical theories of work and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 7, 179-190. Bass, B. M. (1%5). Organizofionul pychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawal. Orgunizo~ionul Behavior und Human Performance, R. (1956). Industrial workers’ worlds: A study industrial workers. So&l Problems, 3, 131-142. Dubin, R., Champoux, J., & Porter, L. (1975). Central
Dubin,
commitment 41 I-421. Dubin,
R., (Ed.),
of blue
Headley. Hundbook
McNally. England, G. W.. in cross-national 49-59.
collar
and
clerical
R. A., & Taveggia, of‘ work. organizution &
workers.
21, 73-79. of the central life
interests
Admini.ytrufive
T. C. (1976). Attachment and sociery. (pp.
Harpaz, I. (1983). Some methodological and comparative research. Journul of lnrernational
life and
Science
interests
of
organizational Quarterly,
to work. In R. 281-341). Chicago: analytic considerations Business Studies,
20, Dubin Rand
14,
38
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
Erikson, E. H. (1%3). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Fanis, G. F. (1971). A predictive study of turnover. Personnel Psycho/ogy, 24, 31 I-328. Friedman, E., & Havighurst, R. (1954). The meaning of work and reriremenr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Gannon, M. J., & Hendrickson. D. H. (1973). Career orientation and job satisfaction among working wives. Journal uf Applied Psycho/ogy. 57, 339-340. Hall, D. T. (1971). A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6, 50-76. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D. T., & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals, performance and attitudes. Academy of ManaXemenl Journal, 20, 290. Hall, D. T., Goodale, J. G., Rabinowitz, S., & Morgan, M. A. (1978). Effects of top-down departmental and job change upon perceived employee behavior and attitudes: A natural field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 62-72. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quurrerly. 15, 176-190. Harpaz. I. (1983). Meaning of working: Ifs nature and consequences. Haifa: University of Haifa (A final report to the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation. Hartigan. J. A. (1975). Clustering a/gorirhms. New York: Wiley. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Jakubowski, T. (1968). Meanings of wzork among middle-managers. Amherst: University of Massachsuetts. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation. New York: Praeger. Kaplan, H. R., & Tausky, C. (1974). The meaning of work among the hard-core unemployed. Pacific Sociological Revient, 17, 185-198. Katzell, R. A. (1979). Changing attitudes toward work. In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.). Work in Americu: The decade ahead. New York: Van Nostrand. Kelley, H. H. (1974). The process of causal attribution. American Psycho/o&r. Xl, lO7128. Kerr, C. (1979). Introduction: Industrialism with a human face. In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.), Work in America. the decude uhead (pp. ix-xxvii). New York: Van Nostrand. Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocurional Behavior. 12, 119-128. Kornhauser, A. (1965). Mental health of the indusrriul tc,orkers. New York: Wiley. Lawler, E. E. III (1973). Morivution in npork orgunizafions. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lawler, E. E. Ill, & Hall. D. T. (1970). Relationship ofjob characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction. and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psycholog.~, 54, 305-312. Levitt, M. (1960). The olienuted t’o/er. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C.. Klien, E., Levinson. M., & McKee, B. (1974). The psychological development of man in early adulthood and the mid-life transition. In D. T. Ricks. A. Thomas, & M. Roff (Eds.). L(fe spun research in psychopathology (Rep. No. 3). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Levitan, S. A., & Johnson, C. M. (1982). Second rhou,qhrs on *Jerk. Kalamazoo. Ml: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Levitan, S. A., Mangum, G. L.. & Marshall. R. (1981). Humun resources and labor markets (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row. Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizuional psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner. M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal
of Applied
Psychology.
49.
24-33.
Mannheim, B. (1981). Job satisfaction, work role centrality and work place preference of male and female industrial workers. BehuvioruI Sciences Mimeograph Series (Rep.
WORKING
No. 30). Haifa: Technion of Man at Work.
Research
39
PROFILES
& Development
Foundation.
Center
Mannheim, B.. & Cohen, A. (1978). Multivariate analysis of factors of occupational categories. Human Relations 31, 525-533. Middleton, 973-977. Morse, N.
R. (1963). C.,
& Weiss,
Americun MOW
Alienation, R.
Sociological
International Weiermair
race, C.
(1955).
Review,
Research
and The
Team
(1981).
The
Management under perspectives in a changing
Gruyter. Neal, A.. & Rettig.
S. (1963).
function
and
work
Sociological
meaning
Study
centrality
Revie\cv.
of work
and
28.
the
job.
20, 191-198.
(Eds.),
economical
affecting
American
education.
for the
Dimensions
meaning
dgferenr tvorld
of working.
vulue (pp.
In Cr. Dlugos
sysrem.s:
Politic&.
565-630).
of alienation
Berlin/New
among
manual
workers
& K.
sociul
und
York:
de
and
non-
manual workers. American Sociological Review. 28, 599408. Near, J. P., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). The relationship between work and nonwork domains: A review of empirical research. Academy of Management Review,, 5, Orzak,
415-429. L. H.
(1959).
Work
as a ‘central
life
interest’
Sociul
of professionals.
Problems
7,
73-84. Orzak.
L.
H.
leisure. Parker,
(1%3). Work as a central life interest. Haven: College and Univ. Press.
In
E. 0.
Smigel
Work
and
Review:.
13,
(Ed.),
New
S. R.
(l%S).
Work
and
non-work
in three
So&logical
occupations.
65-75. Parker, Patchen, Ann 41).
S. (1971). M. Arbor: l-70.
Patchen, Cliffs,
M.
The future of tvork und leisure. Some quesrionnaire meusrrres
(1965).
University
of Michigan.
(1970). Purricipation, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
London:
Institute
for
uchiel,emenr
MacGibbon
of employee Social
Research
und invo/vemenf
L. W. (1964). Orgunizarionul patterns of managerial American Foundation for Management Research. Quinn, R. P. (1971). What workers HIant: The relative imporrunce Porter,
tvorkers. Quinn.,
R. rurings
Rabinowitz,
Ann
Arbor: & Cobb,
P.,
of job fucets. S.,
&
Hall.
University W. (1971). Ann Arbor: D.
of Michigan
What
workers
University
T. (1977).
everyday Rotenstrich, Tel Aviv: Ruh, R. A..
J. P.
(1977).
hehuvior. N.
(1980). Am-Oved. & White,
(2nd
ed.).
J. K.
(1974.
on
current
September).
times
Job
facets
unalysis
of importance
Research
on job
involvement. Cliffs,
NJ:
psychological
the
involvemenr:
York:
ro Americun
Survey
Englewood
and
New
Center.
Factor
A social
(No.
Englewood
attitudes.
ofjob
research
How Americans use rime: New York: Praeger. [Perspectives
job
Research
want:
and morule. Monograph
on /he job.
of Michigan,
Organizational
chologicol Bulletin. 83, 265-288. Ritzer, G. (1977). Working: Conflicr ond change Hall. Robinson,
Survey
& Kee.
motivation
Israeli
society] A cons/rucr
Center.
PsyPrentice-
unulysis (Hebrew). tdidity.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. Saal, F. E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied P.~ycho/ogy, 63, S3-61. Schuler. R. S. (1975, August). Deferminunrs ofjob involvement, individuul vs. orgunizuliona/:
An exfension
of the lirerurure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans. Seeman. M. (1975). Alienation studies. Annuul Review of Sociology, I, 91-123. Siegel, A. L.. & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Job involvement, participation in decision making. personal background and job behavior. Orgunizurionul Behavior ond Human Performance, 9. 318-327.
of
40
ITZHAK
Special Super, Super,
HARPAZ
Task Force (1973). Work in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT D. E. (1957). The psychology of ~LITPPTS. New York: Harper D. E. (1978). Career development: Exploration and Planning
Psychology,
29,
Press. & Row. Annua/
Review
of
333-372.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1966). Social psychology of the work organization. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tausky, C. (1960). Meaning of Work among blue collar men. Pacific Sociological Review. 12,. 49-55. Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective culrure. New York: Wiley. Turner, R. H. (1956). Role taking, role standpoint and reference-group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316-328. Vecchio, R. P. (1980). The function and meaning of work and the job: Morse and Weiss (1955) revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 361-367. Vroom, V. H. (I%Z). Ego involvement, job satisfaction, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 15, 159-177. Weiss, D. J., Dawis. R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Consrruct validufion srudies of the Minnesota importance questionnaire. (Bulletin No. 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. White, J. K., & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Effects of personal values on the relationship between participation and job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly. 18, 506-514. Yankelovich, D. (1979). Work, values, and the new breed (pp. 3-26). In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.), Work in America, the decade ahead. New York: Van Nostrand. Received:
February
6, 1984.
of Vocational
Behavior
26, 25-40
(1985)
Meaning of Working Profiles of Various Occupational Groups ITZHAK Departments
of
Economics
HARPAZ
and Sociology,
of
University
Haifa,
Hu$u,
Israel
Three major profiles of the meaning of working emerged in this study. The most salient profile, representing more than 40% in a population consisting of 10 target groups (N = 896), was one with high levels of work centrality. The social norm of obligation to society in this leading profile was low. while the norm of opportunities provided by society and organizations was ranked relatively high; concurrently intrinsic work orientation in this profile was relatively high. Some implications of this and other emerging working patterns are briefly discussed. %
IYBC
Academic
Prc\\.
Inc
Systematic study of meanings people attach to work is essential for increased understanding of work as a life role. That work is indeed a central life role may be gleaned from the time commitment individuals make to work, the initiative taken by individuals and groups to restructure their jobs and work institutions, and the social and economic consequences of work to organizations and society. The importance of work to people is further supported by studies using, in one form or another, the socalled “lottery question”: “Image that you won a lottery or inherited a large sum of money and could live comfortably for the rest of your life without working, do you think you would work anyway or not?” The originators of this question (Morse & Weiss, 1953, in their classic study on the function and meaning of work, found that 80% of the employed men would continue to work even without economic need. Similar results and even higher percentages have been reported in studies such as those by Jakubowski (1968) on middle managers, Tausky (1960) on a national sample of blue-collar workers, Kaplan and Tausky (1974) on “hard-core” This research was supported by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF). Jerusalem, Israel. The author expresses his appreciation to the members of the MOW international research team, especially to G. W. England, who were very instrumental in the various stages of this study, to T. Mahoney, M. Weinberg, D. Johnson. J. Gordon, J. Bartunek, P. Fell, and H. Miller for their helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of the paper, and to B. Nachmani for the computational analysis. The paper was revised with funds provided through the School of Management at Boston College, while the author spent his sabbatical there. Requests for reprints should be sent to ltzhak Harpaz, Department of Economics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31999. Israel. 25 WI-8791:85 C’opynght All
npht\
‘t of
rcprduc~on
1985
hy
Academac nn any
$3.00 Prc\s.
form
rcrcrved
Inc
26
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
unemployed, Mannheim & Cohen (1978) on a national sample of Israeli males, and Harpaz (1983) on a national sample of the Israeli labor force. The lowest percentage reported is of data collected by the National Opinion Research Center in the mid 1970s: 72% of a national sample of adult working males indicated that they wished to continue working (Vecchio, 1980). The significance of work is also reflected in the impact of unemployment and retirement on people who have been productive and active all their lives (Friedman & Havighurst, 1954). If the retired person cannot find some other kind of involvement, such as part-time work or a hobby, the effects of inactivity are often demoralizing. Working, then, is important to the individual in both an economic and a sociopsychological sense, and study of work meanings must include these aspects. Having established that economic considerations usually play a secondary role in the meaning of work, the task remains to identify the forces that cause adults to expend their life’s energies on the pursuit of work. Certainly, working means different things among different groups and individuals. Moreover, the meaning of work is expected to change with changes in social conditions. For example, the recent changes in legal and societal conceptions of the “working rights” of women, racial minority groups, protected age categories, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups have substantially altered employment policies and practices. It seems likely that these legislated changes and the accompanying costs and benefits have had an impact on the meaning attached to working by various segments of the population. Furthermore, the rise in educational levels and technological development in most industrialized countries has probably had an impact on the meaning and significance of working (Katzel, 1979; Levitan & Johnson, 1982). Conversely, the “work meanings” found among individuals and groups may in turn affect organizations and society in areas such as mobility, conflict, dropping out, modifying organizations, and creating new ones. It is for this reason that an understanding of this concept may provide a window into the future. The “meaning of working” (MOW) is a central issue in the further development of the socioeconomic structures of societies in the postindustrial era. This study is part of a larger effort by an international team of researchers in eight countries engaged in a comparative study of the major patterns of meanings attached to working (MOW-International Research Team 1981). The overall goals of the project are (a) to understand the variety of meanings which individuals and groups attach to working in industrial societies; (b) to understand how these meanings develop within and across national/cultural systems; and (c) to understand the consequences of different work meanings for individuals, organizations, and societies. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to fully describe the MOW project and its theoretical conceptualization. It is, however. useful to
WORKING
27
PROFILES
give a brief description of the research model. The model is based on a vast array of literature from the participating countries. It enumerates five central work-related domains. These are influenced by personal and family situations, present job and career history, and the macrosocioeconomic environment. The five domains in turn have been used to generate meaning of working profiles or patterns. The purpose of constructing MOW profiles is to try to identify different MOW patterns that may characterize the population under study. It may be used for classification of occupational groups, as an indication of the prevailing profiles in a given society, as well as for comparisons among countries. The present study is based only on Israeli samples and it seeks to answer the following questions: (a) What major MOW patterns or profiles emerge from the five central MOW domains in the model? (b) What are their characteristics? (c) How are they distributed among major occupational METHOD Measurement
of Meaning
of Working
The meaning of working has been conceptually defined in terms of five major domains: (a) centrality of working as a life role, (b) societal norms about working, (c) valued work outcomes, (d) importance of work goals, and (e) work role identification. These five domains were measured by means of 39 variables. The same 39 variables were also instrumental in the development of six central MOW indices which were employed in constructing the MOW profiles. The relationships between the MOW domains and the indices are illustrated in Fig. I. Figure I shows that some of the indices are derived from variables composed of only one MOW domain while others draw from a number of domains. The rationale, derivation, and operationalization of the central MOW domains has been described in detail in MOW-International Research Team (1981). Briefly. the domains and indices were derived as follows: 1. Centrality oJ‘ work as a ifi role. This domain examines the importance of the role of work in a person’s life compared with other life roles, as well as in absolute terms. The development of this domain was based on the series of “Central life interest” studies originated by Dubin (1956) and further researched by others (Dubin, Champoux, & Porter, 1975; Dubin, Headley, & Taveggia. 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Orzack, 1959; Parker, l%S). One index was developed from the centrality of work domain and was termed work centrality. This index was composed of two measures. The first is an absolute or a scaled centrality measure: “How important and significant is working in your total life?” One of the least important things
I
2
3
4
5
6
One of the 7 most important things
28
ITZHAK
Centrality as a Life
Valued
Work FIG. the
study
1.
Mxk
Pole
Meaning of meaning
HAKPAZ
of Work Role
m
Work
centrality
Cutames
Identification of work domains and of working profiles.
the
indices
which
were
derived
from
them
for
The second is a relative measure comparing work to other activities or roles in life. It was obtained by asking respondents to assign a total of 100 points to indicate how important the following five areas are in their lives: (1) leisure, (2) community, (3) work, (4) religion, and (5) family. In previous studies, work has been found to be of “average” importance relative to other areas in one’s life (Robinson, 1977); however, the importance of work seems to vary with occupation (Dubin, 1956; Dubin et al, 1976; Kornhauser, 1965; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Orzack, 1963; Parker, 1971). 2. Societal norms abour working. These are a set of normative statements about work and working in terms of what one should expect from working (opportunities or entitlements) and in turn what one should expect to
WORKING
PROFILES
29
contribute through working (obligations). The societal norm statements presented in this section are based on the work of Triandis (1972) on subjective culture. An example of a norm dealing with obligations is “It is the duty of every able-bodied citizen to contribute to society by working.” An example of a norm concerning opportunities from work is, “If a worker’s skills become outdated, his/her employer should be responsible These statements were rated on a for retraining and re-employment.” four-point scaie ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” An original set of 42 societal norm statements about working was reduced through international pilot testing, into 10 statements utilized in the present study, five forming an Obligations index and five an Opportunities index. 3. Vulued work outcomes. This domain examines the general outcomes sought from working and the relative importance of each. The valued work outcomes measure of working was based upon the typology of six general meanings of working developed by Kaplan and Tausky (1974). To determine relative importance, respondents were asked to assign a total of 100 points to the following work outcomes. Work provides (I) status and prestige, (2) needed income, (3) interesting contacts, (4) keeps one occupied, (5) serves society, and (6) work is interesting and satisfying. 4. Importance of work goals. This domain examines the relative importance to the individual of various goals or aspects of working (e.g., good interpersonal relations, considerable autonomy, convenient working hours, good pay). The relevant literature for making work goats operational is extensive and covers the job satisfaction, work values, and work needs literature. The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire development and validation techniques (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist. 1964) as well as the more recent review ofjob satisfaction by Locke (1976) were heavily utilized, as were items from studies by Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell (1957), Porter (1964), Quinn (1971), and Quinn and Cobb (1971). Respondents were presented with a list of the following I I work goals, which was adopted after pilot experimentation with several formats: opportunity to learn, interpersonal relations, promotional opportunities, convenient work hours, variety, interesting work, job security, match between job requirements and abilities, pay, working conditions, and autonomy. Respondents were asked to rank these items by first selecting the most important item, then the least important, until all I1 work goals were finally ranked. The intrinsic rating index draws upon domains 3 and 4. It was made up of three intrinsic items (variety, interesting work, autonomy) from the importance of work goals domain, and of a fourth item (work is interesting and satisfying) taken from the valued work outcomes domain. 5. Work role identiJcution. This domain examines the extent to which persons define and identify working in terms of various roles. Role theory (Turner, 1956) and attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) provided the conceptual
30
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
rationale for development of work role identification notions. Here, respondents were asked to rank six work roles in the order of their importance to them. These roles were (a) task roles, (b) company or organizational roles, (c) product or service roles, (d) role of co-workers, (e) occupational or professional roles, and (f) role of money received from work. The economic or extrinsic index utilizes items from domains 3 through 5. From the domain of work role identification, it takes the item “role of money;” from valued work outcomes it takes “work provides you with income;” and from importance of work goals, it utilizes “the importance of good pay.” The final MOW index used for profile construction was Contacts. It is composed of three items dealing with people or contacts with others as being perceived as an important work related aspect to the respondent. These items were taken from the Work Role Identification “type of people one works with,” Valued Work Outcomes “interesting contacts with other people” and from the Importance of Work Goals domain “good interpersonal relations.” In sum, six MOW indices were formed from which to develop MOW patterns or profiles. These were Work Centrality, Obligations, Opportunities, Intrinsic Rating, Economic, and Contacts. Samples and Data Collection
Structured interviews, containing more than 80 items dealing with various work related aspects, were conducted with about 90 individuals in each of 10 target groups in Israel. Groups were chosen by their degree of participation in the labor force (preparation for employment, partially employed, fully employed, unemployed, retired from employment) and by the nature of work and/or career (skill levels and occupations/professions). While career development per se was not a prime concern of this study, the decision to cover the major adult career stages in selecting target groups and stratifying within groups was suggested by the research and theory of Super (1957, l978), Erikson (l963), Levinson, Darrow, Klien, Levinson and McKee (1974), and Hall (1976). The following IO target groups were selected: 1. Students. These were 90 final-year students in vocational-technical high schools planning to enter directly into employment after training. Although possibly working part-time, they were primarily students. Fortyfive were males studying mechanical or machine trades and 45 were females studying clerical or secretarial occupations. 2. Temporary workers. This group consisted of 90 females doing clerical work, nonskilled to low skill levels, who had been assigned to temporary work by either private or governmental employment agencies. 3. Self-employed businessmen.This group consisted of 90 males operating commercial, service, and crafts-related businesses with less than eight employees. The sample did not include professionals such as lawyers,
WORKING
physicians
PROFILES
31
or dentists.
The intent was to sample “small shopkeepers.” These were 88 male graduates of university level training and currently doing professional chemical work (not managers) in organizations of more than 200 employees. Chemical engineers employed in food or pharmaceutical companies were not included in the sampling frame. 5. Teachers. These were 90 females teaching 9- to IO-year olds in situations where they had the main teaching assignments for a whole class as opposed to teaching only one subject to many classes. Teachers were selected from both private and public schools in approximate proportion to their relative frequency in the area from which data were collected. 6. Tool and die makers. These were 91 males representing a highskilled blue-collar group which was selected from the electrical/appliances, metal, and related industries. 7. White-collar employees. These consisted of 45 males and 45 females. The intent was to select low to semiskilled or lower service function employees whose occupations were being influenced by automation and technology. The sample was selected from the banking and insurance sectors. 8. Textile workers. Fifty-eight were males and 30 were females, in low or semiskilled jobs such as “weaver,” or “cutter.” 9. Unemployed. These were 45 males and 45 females of medium to low skill levels, all unemployed for at least the past 6 months. 10. Retired. These were 44 males and 45 females consisting of former teachers, low-skilled white-collar employees, and chemical engineers of normal retirement age (65 for males and 62 for females) and not presently working. The total sample size was 896, with 501 males and 395 females. All respondents were interviewed by professional interviewers through a national surveying agency. Samples were drawn randomly from lists of members supplied by the appropriate unions, associations, employment agencies, and from a previous national opinion survey carried out by the surveying agency. Interviews were conducted primarily at respondents’ work settings and also at their homes and in schools (for students). The mean age was 39.8. Education was distributed as follows: 23% were at the primary school level, 42% were graduates of vocational or high schools, 20% had some college vocational training below university level, and 15% held university degrees. Further details concerning sampling methods and descriptions of demographic as well as frequency distributions may be found in Harpaz (1983). 4. Chemical
Measurement
engineers.
Procedures
As an empirical validation procedure for the indices developed from the five MOW domains, the 39 variables consitituting these domains
32
ITZHAK HARPAZ
were submitted to a factor analysis (varimax) procedure. The latter yielded 14 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.O, which accounted for 62.2% of the total variance. More than 50% (50.3) of the total variance was accounted for by six of the indices employed in the present study. Consequently, these results support the validity of the extracted indices. (A detailed description of the factor analysis procedure may be found in Harpaz, 1983.) MOW profiles were obtained through a cluster analysis method (“cluster” and “profile” are used interchangeably in this paper). Cluster analysis categorizes variables or objects (persons) into subsets or clusters. The multidimensional hierarchical clustering method proposed by Hartigan (1975) was utilized in the present study. It is based on the assumption that given variables, objects, and people will form into groups or categories which are more similar or closer to each other than they are to variables outside or in another cluster. RESULTS Results of cluster solutions, F ratios, and means are presented in Table 1. In order to eliminate scaling differences, indices were constructed in a standardized form with a mean equal to 50. The F ratio compares the variance within a cluster to the overall variance. The smaller the F ratio, the more likely a “true” or stable cluster was obtained (i.e., the distances among points within a cluster are smaller than the distances among points between clusters). Clusters/Profiles 6 and 3 were the dominant ones in the overall population. They included 40.5 and 22.7%. respectively, of our respondents. Cluster 6 (n = 363, 40.5%) represented the MOW profile of persons who viewed work centrality as being of high importance to them. They showed relatively high instrinsic orientation while putting low emphasis on economic or extrinsic propensity. Opportunities was another item of relatively high importance, while obligation was low. Cluster 3 ranked second in its size (n = 204, 22.7%) and was composed of individuals who were ranked highest on the economic index (extrinsic orientation). They still saw work centrality as prominent but slightly less so than individuals in Cluster 6. However, intrinsic predispositions were quite low in this group. Cluster 2 was the third dominant profile of MOW patterns (n = 101, 11.3%). It was composed of persons with low work centrality, and low intrinsic orientation. The remaining profiles/clusters were less important in this population and were composed of about 25% of the remaining sample. Cluster 1 (n = 79, 8.8%) was composed of persons with low emphasis on work centrality, intrinsic orientation, and economic tendencies. On the other hand, contacts with other people was an important characteristic of this cluster. Cluster 7 (n = 64, 7.1%) included persons with very low obligation
Opportunity
n
rating
” F ratio: the smaller b x = index mean.
92
Contacts
Economic
Intrinsic
of index
centrality
Obligations
Work
Meaning working
the F ratio
F x F x F 2 F x F x
5
the more
79 8.8
1.01 45.18 I.17 49.77 1.41 50.18 1.55 45.10 I .05 46.76 1.16 50.59
I
stable
Meaning
an index
101 II.3
I.31 45.12 I .03 52.01 1.07 50.96 0.57 46.55 .93 48.25 1.22 50.04
2 --
of Working
is for a specific
204 22.8
0.66 51.40 0.99 51.00 0.93 40.16 I.01 41.43 0.74 51.77 0.91 48.48
3
TABLE I Clusters/Profiles
cluster.
39 4.4
. 1.43 49.77 1.57 51.46 1.22 49.77 1.57 53.29 1.23 47.51 0.91 48.34
-.
4
Cluster/profile
of IO Target
46 5.1
1.18 44.22 0.88 52.49 0.70 52.88 I .22 5 I .88 0.73 41.05 I.15 50.91
5
Groups
363 40,s
0.79 51.65 0.65 50.71 0.90 52.41 0.78 51.37 0.89 47.39 0.92 50.37
6
64 7.1
so.15
896 100
49.87
48.32
50.67
ii WJ
2 0 2
E 52 cl
49.84
s3.40 I.15 47.80 1.09 50.53
s
49.94
Grand mean
43.59 0.78
49.55 0.65 31.87 0.92
0.98
7
34
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
to society; at the same time they also did not want much from it (low on opportunity). Work centrality in this group was found to be moderate, Cluster 5 and 4 each consisted of about only 5% of the sampled population (n = 46 and n = 39, respectively). Both showed a moderate to low propensity toward work centrality and were high on both obligations and opportunities. Table 2 presents the distribution of the 10 target groups along the resulting seven MOW clusters/profiles. The most notable observation from this table was the inclusion of 58% of the chemical engineers, 48% of tool and die makers, 48% of self-employed and 36% of the teachers in the most dominant cluster (Cluster 6), while textile workers dominated (45%) the second cluster (Cluster 3). DISCUSSION Three significant MOW profiles which represent approximately 75% of the sampled population have emerged: (1) individuals who have high levels of work centrality, an intrinsic work orientation, and obligations to organizations and society; (2) individuals with high work centrality and a strong extrinsic inclination; (3) people with low work centrality and low intrinsic tendencies. The leading and most dominant profile, comprising more than 40% (n = 363) of the sample population, was that of individuals with high levels of work centrality and high intrinsic work orientation. These individuals relatively strongly emphasize opportunities while deemphasizing obligations. In other words, they showed a greater tendency to receive from society and one’s work place than to contribute to it. This trend has been noted by other writers and seems to occur globally in western TABLE Distribution
of Target
Groups
within
2
the
Meaning
of Working
Clusters/Profiles
Cluster/profile Target
group
I
2
3
4 8 IO
9 IO 8
29 I9 IO
I 9 3 4
7 7 9 I4
Textile workers Unemployed
3 22
IO I7
15
IO
5
II
31
6
90
n
79
IO1
204
39
46
363
64
896
8.8
II.3
22.8
4.4
5.1
40.5
7.1
100
Students Temporary Self-employed Chemical Teachers Tool and White-collar
workers engineers die
makers
5% Nore.
x2 =
173.03,
P i
,001.
5
6
I 6 5
2 5 8
37 34 43
17 6 24 26
5 6 4 2
2 9 3 2
49 41 44 35
45 I6
2 3
0 4
27 22
12
4
7
Total
8 8 6
90 90 90
7 4 7
88 89 91 90
I 6
88 90
II
WORKING
PROFILES
35
societies (Levitan & Johnson, 1982; Rotenstrich, 1980). Such state of affairs may prevail as a result of their growing affluence, which has had a pervasive influence on attitudes toward work (Levitan & Johnson, 1982), and their desire to attain personal rewards (opportunities) for efforts and contributions (obligations) they make to their organizations and society (Rotenstrich, 1980). Furthermore, some authors have noted that an individual’s inability to determine or control sociopolitical and economic events may contribute to a person’s sense of powerlessness (Levin, 1960; Middleton, 1963; Neal & Rettig, 1963; Seeman, 1975). This in turn may be an additional factor affecting the erosion in individual obligations to society. Considering the specific target groups, eight groups had most of their members concentrated in Cluster 6-the dominant profile. Most notable were the chemical engineers, tool and die makers, self-employed,and teachers; all of these belong to occupations with relatively higher prestige, status, pay, and professionalism within our total sample. The second leading MOW profile (Cluster 3) resembles the dominant one (Cluster 6) in the emphasis that individuals put on work centrality. Here, however, work centrality appears to be associated with an extrinsic orientation. These workers value economic factors but attach low importance to intrinsic factors. This contrasts the orientation of the dominant profile (Cluster 6) where centrality is a link to intrinsic factors rather than to an economic index. Hence, although work centrality is quite important in both clusters, it could probably be attributed to different sources. Considerable attention has been given in the literature to the relationship between work centrality/involvement and intrinsic orientation, while little is reported about research on the relationship between the former and extrinsic orientation (Kanungo, 1982; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). Kanungo (1982) suggests that this situation exists because researchers have ignored extrinsic needs due to their belief that intrinsic, and not extrinsic, orientation is a necessary condition for work centrality/involvement. The present study shows that, in fact, there are situations or circumstances in which work centrality could be associated with extrinsic factors. It is quite conceivable that workers with extrinsic need orientation may perceive a work setting to have a potential for providing them with the fulfillment of such need; therefore, work would assume a central role in the lives of such persons. Dominating this profile are textile workers (51%), who are low or semiskilled laborers, and are employed at entry level positions in their organizations. Other groups associated with this profile (although more of their co-workers are classified in the dominant work pattern) are whitecollar employees (2%) who are low and semiskilled and also hold positions which are low service functions. A third group represented in this category are tool and die makers (26%) who are highly skilled blue-collar employees.
36
ITZHAK HARPAZ
The common denominator for these target groups is their being either manual workers and/or situated in low-level positions in their organizations. Also part of this MOW pattern are students not active yet in the labor force but who are preparing to enter the world of work. The two profiles may have different implications for organizations. If organizations wish to create or maintain environments favorable to their employees, they should try to find out what factors may be related to high work centrality and thus try to provide them for their employees. To maintain or create high work centrality for each type, organizaions should make specific and appropriate provisions for their members who value extrinsic rewards and different ones for those favoring intrinsic ones. Determining what type of work setting is most appreciated by employees could occur through an evaluation of the present work force or during the selection process for new employees (Lawler, 1973). The third noticeable profile (Cluster 2) is composed of people with low work centrality levels. These individuals attach low importance to the intrinsic aspects which work provides, having a moderate to high inclination toward an extrinsic orientation. This relatively small group of workers (1 I .3%) is formed mainly by individuals belonging to lowand semiskilled groups such as unemployed, white-collar, textile workers, temporary workers, and retirees. It is clearly not a significant group in this sample (in terms of its size) and probably will not be of great concern for policy makers. The data suggest that work has a central role in the lives of more than 63% of the sampled population. Additional support for the centrality of work in this sample may be implied from the response to the “lottery question” administered to this sample. (The “lottery question” may be considered an inferred measure of work centrality; England & Harpaz, 1983.) More than 90% of the respondents indicated that they would continue to work in the hypothetical event of winning in a lottery or inheriting a large sum of money even if it would enable them to stop working. Within a context of labor discontent and changes in values and attitudes toward work in the industrialized world which have occurred over the past few decades (Kerr, 1979; Levitan, Mangum, & Marshall, 1981; Ritzer, 1977; Special Task Force, 1973; Yankelovich, 1979), policy makers and employing organizations should view these positively. The results seem to contradict some recent reports of a decline in the importance of work (Bacon 1975; Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1980; Robinson, 1977; Vecchio. 1980). The prevalence of high work centrality should be viewed as encouraging to employing organizations and policy makers because of its relationship to desired outcomes. Work centrality, often used interchangeably with other terms (e.g., central life interest, job involvement, ego involvement,
WORKING
37
PROFILES
job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, work role involvement, etc., Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), was associated with some important organizational variables. For example, researchers such as Aldage and Brief (1975). Hall, Schneider, and Nygren (1970), Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Kanungo (1982), Mannheim (l981), Saal (1978), and Schuler (1975) have found a positive correlation between work centrality and job satisfaction. Other findings showed that more involved workers tend to spend more time and effort on the job than workers who are less involved (Hall & Foster, 1977; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz, & Morgan, 1978). Beehr and Gupta (1978), Farris (197l), Koch and Steers (1978). and Siegel and Ruh (1973) assert that participation in decision making was found to be positively related to work centrality. Finally, there are also some indications pointing to the relationship between job involvement and performance (Hall et al, 1978); Vroom, 1962). If possible, then, employers and organizations should provide employees with work settings that will lead to high work centrality levels. Such settings might consider amount of autonomy, control, and influence a person has on the job (Bass, 1965; Tannenbaum 1966; Vroom, l%2), the feeling that one is making important contributions to organizational success (Bass, 1965), a chance to utilize one’s abilities (Lawler & Hali, 1970), work challenge (Hall, 1971). and opportunities for the satisfaction of the individual’s achievement, belonging, and selfesteem needs (Patchen, 1970). In sum, work centrality seems to assume a central role for the major part of this population. This was viewed favorably and is encouraging in relation to the reports of the decline in the work ethic. In light of previous findings on work centrality, it appears that maintaining or establishing high levels of work centrality would be beneficial to organizations and workers alike. REFERENCES Aldag,
R. J., & Brief, A. F. (1975). Psychoiogy, 60, 757-760. Bacon, A. W. (1975). Leisure and
Some the
correlates
alienated
of work worker:
values.
A critical
Journul
of Applied
reassessment
of three
radical theories of work and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 7, 179-190. Bass, B. M. (1%5). Organizofionul pychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawal. Orgunizo~ionul Behavior und Human Performance, R. (1956). Industrial workers’ worlds: A study industrial workers. So&l Problems, 3, 131-142. Dubin, R., Champoux, J., & Porter, L. (1975). Central
Dubin,
commitment 41 I-421. Dubin,
R., (Ed.),
of blue
Headley. Hundbook
McNally. England, G. W.. in cross-national 49-59.
collar
and
clerical
R. A., & Taveggia, of‘ work. organizution &
workers.
21, 73-79. of the central life
interests
Admini.ytrufive
T. C. (1976). Attachment and sociery. (pp.
Harpaz, I. (1983). Some methodological and comparative research. Journul of lnrernational
life and
Science
interests
of
organizational Quarterly,
to work. In R. 281-341). Chicago: analytic considerations Business Studies,
20, Dubin Rand
14,
38
ITZHAK
HARPAZ
Erikson, E. H. (1%3). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Fanis, G. F. (1971). A predictive study of turnover. Personnel Psycho/ogy, 24, 31 I-328. Friedman, E., & Havighurst, R. (1954). The meaning of work and reriremenr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Gannon, M. J., & Hendrickson. D. H. (1973). Career orientation and job satisfaction among working wives. Journal uf Applied Psycho/ogy. 57, 339-340. Hall, D. T. (1971). A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6, 50-76. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D. T., & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals, performance and attitudes. Academy of ManaXemenl Journal, 20, 290. Hall, D. T., Goodale, J. G., Rabinowitz, S., & Morgan, M. A. (1978). Effects of top-down departmental and job change upon perceived employee behavior and attitudes: A natural field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 62-72. Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quurrerly. 15, 176-190. Harpaz. I. (1983). Meaning of working: Ifs nature and consequences. Haifa: University of Haifa (A final report to the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation. Hartigan. J. A. (1975). Clustering a/gorirhms. New York: Wiley. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Jakubowski, T. (1968). Meanings of wzork among middle-managers. Amherst: University of Massachsuetts. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation. New York: Praeger. Kaplan, H. R., & Tausky, C. (1974). The meaning of work among the hard-core unemployed. Pacific Sociological Revient, 17, 185-198. Katzell, R. A. (1979). Changing attitudes toward work. In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.). Work in Americu: The decade ahead. New York: Van Nostrand. Kelley, H. H. (1974). The process of causal attribution. American Psycho/o&r. Xl, lO7128. Kerr, C. (1979). Introduction: Industrialism with a human face. In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.), Work in America. the decude uhead (pp. ix-xxvii). New York: Van Nostrand. Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocurional Behavior. 12, 119-128. Kornhauser, A. (1965). Mental health of the indusrriul tc,orkers. New York: Wiley. Lawler, E. E. III (1973). Morivution in npork orgunizafions. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lawler, E. E. Ill, & Hall. D. T. (1970). Relationship ofjob characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction. and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psycholog.~, 54, 305-312. Levitt, M. (1960). The olienuted t’o/er. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C.. Klien, E., Levinson. M., & McKee, B. (1974). The psychological development of man in early adulthood and the mid-life transition. In D. T. Ricks. A. Thomas, & M. Roff (Eds.). L(fe spun research in psychopathology (Rep. No. 3). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Levitan, S. A., & Johnson, C. M. (1982). Second rhou,qhrs on *Jerk. Kalamazoo. Ml: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Levitan, S. A., Mangum, G. L.. & Marshall. R. (1981). Humun resources and labor markets (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row. Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizuional psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner. M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal
of Applied
Psychology.
49.
24-33.
Mannheim, B. (1981). Job satisfaction, work role centrality and work place preference of male and female industrial workers. BehuvioruI Sciences Mimeograph Series (Rep.
WORKING
No. 30). Haifa: Technion of Man at Work.
Research
39
PROFILES
& Development
Foundation.
Center
Mannheim, B.. & Cohen, A. (1978). Multivariate analysis of factors of occupational categories. Human Relations 31, 525-533. Middleton, 973-977. Morse, N.
R. (1963). C.,
& Weiss,
Americun MOW
Alienation, R.
Sociological
International Weiermair
race, C.
(1955).
Review,
Research
and The
Team
(1981).
The
Management under perspectives in a changing
Gruyter. Neal, A.. & Rettig.
S. (1963).
function
and
work
Sociological
meaning
Study
centrality
Revie\cv.
of work
and
28.
the
job.
20, 191-198.
(Eds.),
economical
affecting
American
education.
for the
Dimensions
meaning
dgferenr tvorld
of working.
vulue (pp.
In Cr. Dlugos
sysrem.s:
Politic&.
565-630).
of alienation
Berlin/New
among
manual
workers
& K.
sociul
und
York:
de
and
non-
manual workers. American Sociological Review. 28, 599408. Near, J. P., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). The relationship between work and nonwork domains: A review of empirical research. Academy of Management Review,, 5, Orzak,
415-429. L. H.
(1959).
Work
as a ‘central
life
interest’
Sociul
of professionals.
Problems
7,
73-84. Orzak.
L.
H.
leisure. Parker,
(1%3). Work as a central life interest. Haven: College and Univ. Press.
In
E. 0.
Smigel
Work
and
Review:.
13,
(Ed.),
New
S. R.
(l%S).
Work
and
non-work
in three
So&logical
occupations.
65-75. Parker, Patchen, Ann 41).
S. (1971). M. Arbor: l-70.
Patchen, Cliffs,
M.
The future of tvork und leisure. Some quesrionnaire meusrrres
(1965).
University
of Michigan.
(1970). Purricipation, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
London:
Institute
for
uchiel,emenr
MacGibbon
of employee Social
Research
und invo/vemenf
L. W. (1964). Orgunizarionul patterns of managerial American Foundation for Management Research. Quinn, R. P. (1971). What workers HIant: The relative imporrunce Porter,
tvorkers. Quinn.,
R. rurings
Rabinowitz,
Ann
Arbor: & Cobb,
P.,
of job fucets. S.,
&
Hall.
University W. (1971). Ann Arbor: D.
of Michigan
What
workers
University
T. (1977).
everyday Rotenstrich, Tel Aviv: Ruh, R. A..
J. P.
(1977).
hehuvior. N.
(1980). Am-Oved. & White,
(2nd
ed.).
J. K.
(1974.
on
current
September).
times
Job
facets
unalysis
of importance
Research
on job
involvement. Cliffs,
NJ:
psychological
the
involvemenr:
York:
ro Americun
Survey
Englewood
and
New
Center.
Factor
A social
(No.
Englewood
attitudes.
ofjob
research
How Americans use rime: New York: Praeger. [Perspectives
job
Research
want:
and morule. Monograph
on /he job.
of Michigan,
Organizational
chologicol Bulletin. 83, 265-288. Ritzer, G. (1977). Working: Conflicr ond change Hall. Robinson,
Survey
& Kee.
motivation
Israeli
society] A cons/rucr
Center.
PsyPrentice-
unulysis (Hebrew). tdidity.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. Saal, F. E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied P.~ycho/ogy, 63, S3-61. Schuler. R. S. (1975, August). Deferminunrs ofjob involvement, individuul vs. orgunizuliona/:
An exfension
of the lirerurure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans. Seeman. M. (1975). Alienation studies. Annuul Review of Sociology, I, 91-123. Siegel, A. L.. & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Job involvement, participation in decision making. personal background and job behavior. Orgunizurionul Behavior ond Human Performance, 9. 318-327.
of
40
ITZHAK
Special Super, Super,
HARPAZ
Task Force (1973). Work in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT D. E. (1957). The psychology of ~LITPPTS. New York: Harper D. E. (1978). Career development: Exploration and Planning
Psychology,
29,
Press. & Row. Annua/
Review
of
333-372.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1966). Social psychology of the work organization. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tausky, C. (1960). Meaning of Work among blue collar men. Pacific Sociological Review. 12,. 49-55. Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective culrure. New York: Wiley. Turner, R. H. (1956). Role taking, role standpoint and reference-group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316-328. Vecchio, R. P. (1980). The function and meaning of work and the job: Morse and Weiss (1955) revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 361-367. Vroom, V. H. (I%Z). Ego involvement, job satisfaction, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 15, 159-177. Weiss, D. J., Dawis. R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Consrruct validufion srudies of the Minnesota importance questionnaire. (Bulletin No. 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. White, J. K., & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Effects of personal values on the relationship between participation and job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly. 18, 506-514. Yankelovich, D. (1979). Work, values, and the new breed (pp. 3-26). In C. Kerr & J. M. Rosow (Eds.), Work in America, the decade ahead. New York: Van Nostrand. Received:
February
6, 1984.