- Email: [email protected]
Values as second-order needs in the theory of work adjustment
Journal of Vocational Behavior 12, 12-19 (1978)
Values as Second-Order Needs in the Theory of Work Adjustment LLOYD
H. LOFQUIST AND RENB V. DAWIS University
of Minnesota
Values, as importance dimensions, are conceptualized in the context of the theory of work adjustment as reference dimensions for the description of needs. Factor analyses of Minnesota Importance Questionnaire data are presented to operationalize this conceptualization. Six value dimensions: Safety, Comfort, Aggrandizement, Altruism, Achievement, and Autonomy are identified. These six value dimensions are organized further in terms of broader classes of reinforcement preferences (related to external environment, people, and self) and approach to the work situation (as competitive or noncompetitive).
The topic of values has occupied a prominent place in the study of personality despite the problem of lack of agreement on definition. For example, Rokeach (1973: p. 5) defines a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” On the other hand, Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1970) equate values with “basic interests or motives” and “evaluative attitudes.” Smith (1969: p. 102) sees values as “a special kind of attitude, functioning as standards by which choices are evaluated.” To England (England & Lee, 1974: p. 412) values provide “a relatively permanent perceptual framework which shapes and influences the general nature of an individual’s behavior. Values are similar to attitudes but are more ingrained, permanent, and stable in nature: they are also more general and less tied to any specific referrent than is the case with many attitudes.” According to Super (1973: pp. 189-190) “Traits, values, and interests derive from needs. . . . Traits are ways of acting to meet a need in a given situation. Values are objectives that one seeks to attain to satisfy a need. Interests are specific activities and objects through which values can be attained and needs met.” Holland (1973) treats values as one of several characteristics, including, e.g., interests and competencies, that create a characteristic disposition or personality type. Locke (1976) disRequests for reprints should be sent to Rene V. Dawis, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. OOOl-8791/78/0121-0012$02.00/O Copynght @ 1978 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form rewrved.
12
VALUES
IN WORK
ADJUSTMENT
13
tinguishes the concept of value from the concept of need. His concept of need refers to “those conditions which are required to sustain the life and well being of a living organism” (Locke, 1976: p. 1303). Locke (1976: p. 1304) defines a value as “what a person consciously or subconsciously desires, wants, or seeks to attain.” To Locke, needs are “objective” and “innate (inborn),” while values are “subjective” and “acquired (learned).” Katzell (1964: p. 346) defines a value as “that magnitude of a stimulus or job characteristic which evokes a relatively high level of satisfaction.” Katzell’s definition of values is quite similar to the authors’ concept of needs in their theory of work adjustment (Lofquist & Dawis, 1969).Needs are preferences for reinforcers expressed in terms of the relative importance of each reinforcer to the individual. Reinforcers are defined as stimulus conditions that follow upon and are associated with the maintenance of responding, i.e., work behavior. To operationalize the concept of needs a paired-comparison instrument, the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ: Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971), was developed. The MIQ focuses on the relative importance to an individual of 20 work reinforcers, which had been previously identified as contributing to satisfaction in work. This focus on importance is the same focus by Super (1970) in his Work Values Inventory and by Rokeach (1973) in his rank-order measure of values. As values are operationalized by Super and Rokeach, it is the dimension of importance that defines values. The present authors, however, use this dimension of importance to define needs. It seemed reasonable to assume that, if needs could be grouped according to their underlying commonalities, it might be possible to identify and define these commonalities in terms of more basic dimensions that may then be called Values. An obvious method of proceeding is through the factor analysis of needs wherein the factors which define the underlying commonalities are the basic value dimensions. Values, therefore, may be defined as reference dimensions for the description of needs. Values bear the same relationship to needs as abilities do to skills, if one sees abilities as reference dimensions for the description of skills. In the same way that the concept of abilities as reference dimensions provides an economical and efficient way of describing many skills, the concept of values as reference dimensions facilitates the description of many reinforcer preferences. An individual has preferences for reinforcers that may be represented as a set of values. Conversely, an individual’s set of values may be used to reconstruct the individual’s reinforcer preferences. Reinforcer preferences can be observed; values are inferred from these preferences. In the Theory of Work Adjustment, the counterpart of needs in the work personality is the set of reinforcers in the work environment. The reference dimensions for the several reinforcers in a work environment
14
LOFQUIST
AND DAWIS
may be called Reinforcer Factors. These reinforcer factors are the counterparts of values. It is possible, therefore, to describe individuals and work environments in comparable terms, i.e., in terms of needs and reinforces, or values and reinforcer factors. The use of values and reinforcer factors is more parsimonious, more manageable, and more generalizable across people and jobs. The concept of values as reference dimensions was developed from studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ). The MIQ was designed to measure 20 vocational needs. The 20 vocational needs were selected to reflect the range of work reinforcers found to be important in studies of job satisfaction (Scott, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1960; Herzberg, Mausner, & Peterson, 1957). The MIQ provides a standardized rubric for the assessment of an individual’s expressed preferences for work reinforcers in terms of their relative importance in an ideal job situation. The reliability and validity of the MIQ are described in the MIQ Manual (Gay et al., 1971) and compare favorably with similar instruments. Studies of the factor structure of the MIQ show that needs can be organized around six dimensions. Four factor analyses of MIQ data were prepared for 1621 vocational rehabilitation clients, 3033 employed workers, 419 college students, and a heterogeneous group of 5358 individuals which included the three groups above plus 285 vocational-technical school students (Gay et al., 1971). A principal factor solution was used, with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal, and orthogonal rotation to a varimax criterion. Similar results were obtained for each of the four groups. The factor structure for the largest group is summarized in Table 1. Factor I appears to represent the importance of safety in a predictable work environment. Factor II reflects the importance of autonomy. Factor III appears to describe a preference for comfort in the work environment. Factor IV reflects the importance of opportunities for altruism. Factor V indicates preferences for an environment that permits achievement and accomplishment. Factor VI appears to describe the importance of opportunities for self aggrandizement.
Factor VII is meaningless in terms of content and is a residual factor. In an effort to determine the generalizability of this MIQ factor structure, a second series of factor analyses was performed using MIQ data for 9377 vocational rehabilitation clients (Seaburg, Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1976). The total group of subjects was divided into eight subgroups defined by sex-group membership and the age groups of 16-18, 19-25, 26-45, and 46-71 years. The same factor analysis procedures as those
G
o Data from Gay et al. (1971). * N = 5358.
Ability utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Company policies and practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral values Recognition Responsibility Security Social service Social status Supervision-human relations Supervision-technical Variety Working conditions Contribution of factor Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance
MIQ scale
.25 .14
2.11
-.21 -.64 -.49 - .22 -.lO -.16 - .22 -.33 -.ll -.44 - .03 -.14 -.74 -.70 -.I33 -.49
.OJ
- .2J -.3J
.33 .54 .14 .13 .05 .77 .22 .08 .28 .79 -.09 .18 .21 .21 .13 .34 -.oo 2.26 .21 .11
.38 .28
II
-.16 -.18
I
-.12 -.58 .03 -.19 - .20 -.42 - .28 -.23 -.12 - .24 -.56 -.41 2.03 .19 .lO
- .3J
- .09 -.20
-.lJ
-.21 - .20 -.67 -.08
III
-.16 -.12 1.16 .lO .06
-.lJ
-.25 - .34 -.14 .03 -.04 -.33 .Ol -.44 -.19 -.Ol -.47 - .05 -.I3 - .03 -.51 -.13 -.18
IV
Factor
TABLE 1 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Group”**
-.22 - .05 - .05 -.32 -.19 - .20 - .22 -.12 - .05 -.12 - .05 -.I6 1.21 .11 .06
-.OJ
- .02 -.12 - .09
-.41
-.56 -.56 -.19
V
-.25 1.28 .12 .06
-.lJ
- .28 - .05 -.12 -.oo -.45 -.14 - .26 -.06 -.55 -.lO -.I1
-.OJ -34
-.40
-.3J
-.ll
-.lJ
-.ll
VI
.02 .Ol
.2J
SKI -.03 .04 -.I2 36 - .09 - .29 -36 - .02 -.04 -.04 -.05 - .03 - .23 .ll -.OO .05 .14 .Ol - .24
VII
.45 56 .63 .49 .58 10.91 1.00 .51
.J5 .54 44
.43 .28 .54
.JO
ho .61 .59 .58 .53 .58 .50 .46
h2
16
LOFQUIST AND DAWIS
described above were used. The resulting factor structures were similar for age groups within sex, but differed slightly between the sexes in each age group. Two additional factor analyses were completed for 1609 males and 1674 females, including in each sex group at least 400 individuals for each of the original four age groups. The results of these analyses are shown in Tables 2 and 3. These factor structures were very similar to that shown for the earlier study in Table 1. The negative loadings in Factors I, III, IV, V, and VI in Table 1 are an artifact of the analysis and can be reversed by reflecting the dimension to obtain positive loadings. The size of the factor loadings, positive or negative, provide the significant information about the identification of the factor dimensions. Six dimensions in Tables 1, 2, and 3 appear to provide adequate description of the organization of the 20 MIQ needs. These six dimensions may be regarded as value dimensions following the definitions presented above. The availability of value dimensions as reference dimensions provides a TABLE 2 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Male Group”& MIQ Scale
Factor I
Ability utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Company policies and practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral values Recognition Responsibility Security Social service Social status Supervision-human relations Supervision-technical Variety Working conditions Contribution of factor Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance
.21 .16 .28 .41 .I6 .7l .4l .31 .04 .I2 .18 .17 .lO .52 .08 .08 .7/ .70 .04 54 2.77 .24 .14
a Data from Seaburg et al. (1976). b N = 1609.
II .31 .17 .06 .22 .45 .lO .04 .06 .78 .24 .09 .21 .78 -.13 .24 .13 .I9 .08 .38 -.02 2.00 .18 .10
III
IV
v
VI
.14 .I3 .66 .08 .13 .04 .20 .31 .I1 .60 -.lO .15 .21 .43 .21 .17 .07 .24 .5/ .4/ 1.83 .16 .09
.22 .35 .07 -.14 .03 .36 -.07 .42 .23 .Ol S-O .06 .15 -.16 .59 .I7 .26 .I9 .I3 .Ol 1.36 .12 .07
.60
.16 .27 .12 .51 .47 .ll .53 .33 .07 .14 .oo .60 .21 .28 .Ol .68 .19 .I1 .20 .34 2.17 .I9 .ll
.62 .20 .37 .03 .I1 .05 .03 .23 .03 .09 .35 .17 .19 .I8 .I1 .12 .13 .02 .06 1.27 .I1 .06
h*
.59 .66 .58 .64 .47 .66 .50 .48 .73 .45 .31 .59 .77 .62 .49 .55 .66 .62 .46 .58 11.40 1.00 .57
17
VALUES IN WORK ADJUSTMENT TABLE 3 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Female Groupad MIQ Scale
Factor I
II
III
IV
v
VI
h*
Ability utilization .22 Achievement .24 Activity .08 Advancement .I8 Authority .I3 Company policies and practices .71 Compensation .25 Co-workers .22 Creativity .I6 Independence .06 Moral values .4/ Recognition .I2 Responsibility .I2 Security .I6 Social service .I1 Social status .04 Supervision-human relations .72 Supervision-technical .6/ Variety -.04 Working conditions .33 Contribution of factor 2.04 .I9 Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance .I0
.35 .25 .I4 .I8 .5/ .I0 .06 .I0 .76 .34 .08 .24 .78 -.I1 .I9 .I8 .I3 .06 .42 .Ol 2.16 .20 .ll
.22 .09 .67 .30 .I1 .20 .26 .I8 -.05 .44 -.I6 .08 .09 .6/ .I3 .I5 .I4 .34 .32 .49 1.87 .I7 .09
.I1 .24 .28 -.07 .I0 .03 .05 .58 .12 .II .I4 .I0 .I1 .05 SO .27 .05 .07 .39 .I4 1.08 .I0 .05
.58 .56 .I7 .27 -.Ol .I3 -.04 -.02 .23 .07 .07 .30 .I7 .06 .26 .lI .07 .12 .05 .05 1.06 .lO .OS
.I7 .32 .15 .58 .42 .22 .62 .32 .03 .I6 -.05 .65 .17 .44 -.Ol .57 .23 .21 .I5 .43 2.51 .23 .13
.59 .61 .6l 56 .47 .63 .52 53 .68 .35 .23 .60 .71 .61 .38 .46 .62 56 .46 .56 10.72 .99 .53
a Data from Seaburg er al. (1976). b N = 1674.
more parsimonious approach to the description of the reinforcer preferences of the individual. The factor analyses show convincingly that six dimensions are all that are needed to describe the common variance represented in the 20 MIQ need dimensions. They also specify basic areas of need commonality that may suggest areas of importance, beyond those assessed by the MIQ, that are associated with, or indicative of, a particular value. As an example, the safety value as assessedby the MIQ touches on the importance of company policies and practices and of immediate supervision, but the more complete assessment of the safety value might lead to consideration of other reinforcers in the job situation that contribute to a predictably safe environment for the individual, such as stability of management, size and reputation of the company, and position of the company in the marketplace over the years. Furthermore, the six values suggest the categorization of reinforcer preferences into the following three classes: (a) preferences related to the external environment: safety and comfort values; (b) preferences related
18
LOFQUIST
AND DAWIS
to reinforcement provided by otherpeople: aggrandizement and altruism; (c) preferences related to intrinsic or serf reinforcement: achievement and autonomy. These classes may be further subdivided to describe how an individual may view work in terms of a competitive versus a noncompetitive approach, as follows: Competitive values
Noncompetitive values
Safety Aggrandizement Achievement
Comfort Altruism Autonomy
Conceptualizing values as second-order needs has been shown to result in a potentially useful descriptive system for organizing preferences for work reinforcers. Preferences for the 20 work-reinforcer dimensions represented in the MIQ can be described in terms of six value dimensions. These value dimensions, in turn, can be further organized in two ways: in terms of broader classes of reinforcement by the external environment, other people, and self; and, in terms of reinforcement in the work situation that is seen as competitive or as noncompetitive. Looking at reinforcer preferences through the more parsimonious concept of values should result in better organized, more integrated, and less fragmented approaches to both the assessment of individuals and the description of work environments. It also may contribute to the feasibility of developing a manageable taxonomy of work. REFERENCES Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. Manual: Study of values. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. England, G. W., & Lee, R. The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 411-419. Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1971, 28 (Bulletin No. 54). Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh, 1957. Holland, J. L. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Katzell, R. A. Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In H. Borow (Ed.), Man in a world at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964. Locke, E. A. The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. Adjustment to work. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1969. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973. Scott, T. B., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. A definition of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1960, 10 (Bulletin No. 30).
VALUES IN WORK ADJUSTMENT
19
Seaburg, D. J., Rounds, J. B., Jr., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. Values as second order needs. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 1976. Smith, M. B. Social psychology and human values. Chicago: Aldine, 1%9. Super, D. E. Work values inventory manual. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. Super, D. E. The work values inventory. In D. G. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973. Received January 13, 1977.
Values as Second-Order Needs in the Theory of Work Adjustment LLOYD
H. LOFQUIST AND RENB V. DAWIS University
of Minnesota
Values, as importance dimensions, are conceptualized in the context of the theory of work adjustment as reference dimensions for the description of needs. Factor analyses of Minnesota Importance Questionnaire data are presented to operationalize this conceptualization. Six value dimensions: Safety, Comfort, Aggrandizement, Altruism, Achievement, and Autonomy are identified. These six value dimensions are organized further in terms of broader classes of reinforcement preferences (related to external environment, people, and self) and approach to the work situation (as competitive or noncompetitive).
The topic of values has occupied a prominent place in the study of personality despite the problem of lack of agreement on definition. For example, Rokeach (1973: p. 5) defines a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” On the other hand, Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1970) equate values with “basic interests or motives” and “evaluative attitudes.” Smith (1969: p. 102) sees values as “a special kind of attitude, functioning as standards by which choices are evaluated.” To England (England & Lee, 1974: p. 412) values provide “a relatively permanent perceptual framework which shapes and influences the general nature of an individual’s behavior. Values are similar to attitudes but are more ingrained, permanent, and stable in nature: they are also more general and less tied to any specific referrent than is the case with many attitudes.” According to Super (1973: pp. 189-190) “Traits, values, and interests derive from needs. . . . Traits are ways of acting to meet a need in a given situation. Values are objectives that one seeks to attain to satisfy a need. Interests are specific activities and objects through which values can be attained and needs met.” Holland (1973) treats values as one of several characteristics, including, e.g., interests and competencies, that create a characteristic disposition or personality type. Locke (1976) disRequests for reprints should be sent to Rene V. Dawis, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. OOOl-8791/78/0121-0012$02.00/O Copynght @ 1978 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form rewrved.
12
VALUES
IN WORK
ADJUSTMENT
13
tinguishes the concept of value from the concept of need. His concept of need refers to “those conditions which are required to sustain the life and well being of a living organism” (Locke, 1976: p. 1303). Locke (1976: p. 1304) defines a value as “what a person consciously or subconsciously desires, wants, or seeks to attain.” To Locke, needs are “objective” and “innate (inborn),” while values are “subjective” and “acquired (learned).” Katzell (1964: p. 346) defines a value as “that magnitude of a stimulus or job characteristic which evokes a relatively high level of satisfaction.” Katzell’s definition of values is quite similar to the authors’ concept of needs in their theory of work adjustment (Lofquist & Dawis, 1969).Needs are preferences for reinforcers expressed in terms of the relative importance of each reinforcer to the individual. Reinforcers are defined as stimulus conditions that follow upon and are associated with the maintenance of responding, i.e., work behavior. To operationalize the concept of needs a paired-comparison instrument, the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ: Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1971), was developed. The MIQ focuses on the relative importance to an individual of 20 work reinforcers, which had been previously identified as contributing to satisfaction in work. This focus on importance is the same focus by Super (1970) in his Work Values Inventory and by Rokeach (1973) in his rank-order measure of values. As values are operationalized by Super and Rokeach, it is the dimension of importance that defines values. The present authors, however, use this dimension of importance to define needs. It seemed reasonable to assume that, if needs could be grouped according to their underlying commonalities, it might be possible to identify and define these commonalities in terms of more basic dimensions that may then be called Values. An obvious method of proceeding is through the factor analysis of needs wherein the factors which define the underlying commonalities are the basic value dimensions. Values, therefore, may be defined as reference dimensions for the description of needs. Values bear the same relationship to needs as abilities do to skills, if one sees abilities as reference dimensions for the description of skills. In the same way that the concept of abilities as reference dimensions provides an economical and efficient way of describing many skills, the concept of values as reference dimensions facilitates the description of many reinforcer preferences. An individual has preferences for reinforcers that may be represented as a set of values. Conversely, an individual’s set of values may be used to reconstruct the individual’s reinforcer preferences. Reinforcer preferences can be observed; values are inferred from these preferences. In the Theory of Work Adjustment, the counterpart of needs in the work personality is the set of reinforcers in the work environment. The reference dimensions for the several reinforcers in a work environment
14
LOFQUIST
AND DAWIS
may be called Reinforcer Factors. These reinforcer factors are the counterparts of values. It is possible, therefore, to describe individuals and work environments in comparable terms, i.e., in terms of needs and reinforces, or values and reinforcer factors. The use of values and reinforcer factors is more parsimonious, more manageable, and more generalizable across people and jobs. The concept of values as reference dimensions was developed from studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ). The MIQ was designed to measure 20 vocational needs. The 20 vocational needs were selected to reflect the range of work reinforcers found to be important in studies of job satisfaction (Scott, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1960; Herzberg, Mausner, & Peterson, 1957). The MIQ provides a standardized rubric for the assessment of an individual’s expressed preferences for work reinforcers in terms of their relative importance in an ideal job situation. The reliability and validity of the MIQ are described in the MIQ Manual (Gay et al., 1971) and compare favorably with similar instruments. Studies of the factor structure of the MIQ show that needs can be organized around six dimensions. Four factor analyses of MIQ data were prepared for 1621 vocational rehabilitation clients, 3033 employed workers, 419 college students, and a heterogeneous group of 5358 individuals which included the three groups above plus 285 vocational-technical school students (Gay et al., 1971). A principal factor solution was used, with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal, and orthogonal rotation to a varimax criterion. Similar results were obtained for each of the four groups. The factor structure for the largest group is summarized in Table 1. Factor I appears to represent the importance of safety in a predictable work environment. Factor II reflects the importance of autonomy. Factor III appears to describe a preference for comfort in the work environment. Factor IV reflects the importance of opportunities for altruism. Factor V indicates preferences for an environment that permits achievement and accomplishment. Factor VI appears to describe the importance of opportunities for self aggrandizement.
Factor VII is meaningless in terms of content and is a residual factor. In an effort to determine the generalizability of this MIQ factor structure, a second series of factor analyses was performed using MIQ data for 9377 vocational rehabilitation clients (Seaburg, Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1976). The total group of subjects was divided into eight subgroups defined by sex-group membership and the age groups of 16-18, 19-25, 26-45, and 46-71 years. The same factor analysis procedures as those
G
o Data from Gay et al. (1971). * N = 5358.
Ability utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Company policies and practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral values Recognition Responsibility Security Social service Social status Supervision-human relations Supervision-technical Variety Working conditions Contribution of factor Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance
MIQ scale
.25 .14
2.11
-.21 -.64 -.49 - .22 -.lO -.16 - .22 -.33 -.ll -.44 - .03 -.14 -.74 -.70 -.I33 -.49
.OJ
- .2J -.3J
.33 .54 .14 .13 .05 .77 .22 .08 .28 .79 -.09 .18 .21 .21 .13 .34 -.oo 2.26 .21 .11
.38 .28
II
-.16 -.18
I
-.12 -.58 .03 -.19 - .20 -.42 - .28 -.23 -.12 - .24 -.56 -.41 2.03 .19 .lO
- .3J
- .09 -.20
-.lJ
-.21 - .20 -.67 -.08
III
-.16 -.12 1.16 .lO .06
-.lJ
-.25 - .34 -.14 .03 -.04 -.33 .Ol -.44 -.19 -.Ol -.47 - .05 -.I3 - .03 -.51 -.13 -.18
IV
Factor
TABLE 1 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Group”**
-.22 - .05 - .05 -.32 -.19 - .20 - .22 -.12 - .05 -.12 - .05 -.I6 1.21 .11 .06
-.OJ
- .02 -.12 - .09
-.41
-.56 -.56 -.19
V
-.25 1.28 .12 .06
-.lJ
- .28 - .05 -.12 -.oo -.45 -.14 - .26 -.06 -.55 -.lO -.I1
-.OJ -34
-.40
-.3J
-.ll
-.lJ
-.ll
VI
.02 .Ol
.2J
SKI -.03 .04 -.I2 36 - .09 - .29 -36 - .02 -.04 -.04 -.05 - .03 - .23 .ll -.OO .05 .14 .Ol - .24
VII
.45 56 .63 .49 .58 10.91 1.00 .51
.J5 .54 44
.43 .28 .54
.JO
ho .61 .59 .58 .53 .58 .50 .46
h2
16
LOFQUIST AND DAWIS
described above were used. The resulting factor structures were similar for age groups within sex, but differed slightly between the sexes in each age group. Two additional factor analyses were completed for 1609 males and 1674 females, including in each sex group at least 400 individuals for each of the original four age groups. The results of these analyses are shown in Tables 2 and 3. These factor structures were very similar to that shown for the earlier study in Table 1. The negative loadings in Factors I, III, IV, V, and VI in Table 1 are an artifact of the analysis and can be reversed by reflecting the dimension to obtain positive loadings. The size of the factor loadings, positive or negative, provide the significant information about the identification of the factor dimensions. Six dimensions in Tables 1, 2, and 3 appear to provide adequate description of the organization of the 20 MIQ needs. These six dimensions may be regarded as value dimensions following the definitions presented above. The availability of value dimensions as reference dimensions provides a TABLE 2 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Male Group”& MIQ Scale
Factor I
Ability utilization Achievement Activity Advancement Authority Company policies and practices Compensation Co-workers Creativity Independence Moral values Recognition Responsibility Security Social service Social status Supervision-human relations Supervision-technical Variety Working conditions Contribution of factor Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance
.21 .16 .28 .41 .I6 .7l .4l .31 .04 .I2 .18 .17 .lO .52 .08 .08 .7/ .70 .04 54 2.77 .24 .14
a Data from Seaburg et al. (1976). b N = 1609.
II .31 .17 .06 .22 .45 .lO .04 .06 .78 .24 .09 .21 .78 -.13 .24 .13 .I9 .08 .38 -.02 2.00 .18 .10
III
IV
v
VI
.14 .I3 .66 .08 .13 .04 .20 .31 .I1 .60 -.lO .15 .21 .43 .21 .17 .07 .24 .5/ .4/ 1.83 .16 .09
.22 .35 .07 -.14 .03 .36 -.07 .42 .23 .Ol S-O .06 .15 -.16 .59 .I7 .26 .I9 .I3 .Ol 1.36 .12 .07
.60
.16 .27 .12 .51 .47 .ll .53 .33 .07 .14 .oo .60 .21 .28 .Ol .68 .19 .I1 .20 .34 2.17 .I9 .ll
.62 .20 .37 .03 .I1 .05 .03 .23 .03 .09 .35 .17 .19 .I8 .I1 .12 .13 .02 .06 1.27 .I1 .06
h*
.59 .66 .58 .64 .47 .66 .50 .48 .73 .45 .31 .59 .77 .62 .49 .55 .66 .62 .46 .58 11.40 1.00 .57
17
VALUES IN WORK ADJUSTMENT TABLE 3 Varimax Factor Loading Matrix for Total Female Groupad MIQ Scale
Factor I
II
III
IV
v
VI
h*
Ability utilization .22 Achievement .24 Activity .08 Advancement .I8 Authority .I3 Company policies and practices .71 Compensation .25 Co-workers .22 Creativity .I6 Independence .06 Moral values .4/ Recognition .I2 Responsibility .I2 Security .I6 Social service .I1 Social status .04 Supervision-human relations .72 Supervision-technical .6/ Variety -.04 Working conditions .33 Contribution of factor 2.04 .I9 Proportion of common variance Proportion of total variance .I0
.35 .25 .I4 .I8 .5/ .I0 .06 .I0 .76 .34 .08 .24 .78 -.I1 .I9 .I8 .I3 .06 .42 .Ol 2.16 .20 .ll
.22 .09 .67 .30 .I1 .20 .26 .I8 -.05 .44 -.I6 .08 .09 .6/ .I3 .I5 .I4 .34 .32 .49 1.87 .I7 .09
.I1 .24 .28 -.07 .I0 .03 .05 .58 .12 .II .I4 .I0 .I1 .05 SO .27 .05 .07 .39 .I4 1.08 .I0 .05
.58 .56 .I7 .27 -.Ol .I3 -.04 -.02 .23 .07 .07 .30 .I7 .06 .26 .lI .07 .12 .05 .05 1.06 .lO .OS
.I7 .32 .15 .58 .42 .22 .62 .32 .03 .I6 -.05 .65 .17 .44 -.Ol .57 .23 .21 .I5 .43 2.51 .23 .13
.59 .61 .6l 56 .47 .63 .52 53 .68 .35 .23 .60 .71 .61 .38 .46 .62 56 .46 .56 10.72 .99 .53
a Data from Seaburg er al. (1976). b N = 1674.
more parsimonious approach to the description of the reinforcer preferences of the individual. The factor analyses show convincingly that six dimensions are all that are needed to describe the common variance represented in the 20 MIQ need dimensions. They also specify basic areas of need commonality that may suggest areas of importance, beyond those assessed by the MIQ, that are associated with, or indicative of, a particular value. As an example, the safety value as assessedby the MIQ touches on the importance of company policies and practices and of immediate supervision, but the more complete assessment of the safety value might lead to consideration of other reinforcers in the job situation that contribute to a predictably safe environment for the individual, such as stability of management, size and reputation of the company, and position of the company in the marketplace over the years. Furthermore, the six values suggest the categorization of reinforcer preferences into the following three classes: (a) preferences related to the external environment: safety and comfort values; (b) preferences related
18
LOFQUIST
AND DAWIS
to reinforcement provided by otherpeople: aggrandizement and altruism; (c) preferences related to intrinsic or serf reinforcement: achievement and autonomy. These classes may be further subdivided to describe how an individual may view work in terms of a competitive versus a noncompetitive approach, as follows: Competitive values
Noncompetitive values
Safety Aggrandizement Achievement
Comfort Altruism Autonomy
Conceptualizing values as second-order needs has been shown to result in a potentially useful descriptive system for organizing preferences for work reinforcers. Preferences for the 20 work-reinforcer dimensions represented in the MIQ can be described in terms of six value dimensions. These value dimensions, in turn, can be further organized in two ways: in terms of broader classes of reinforcement by the external environment, other people, and self; and, in terms of reinforcement in the work situation that is seen as competitive or as noncompetitive. Looking at reinforcer preferences through the more parsimonious concept of values should result in better organized, more integrated, and less fragmented approaches to both the assessment of individuals and the description of work environments. It also may contribute to the feasibility of developing a manageable taxonomy of work. REFERENCES Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. Manual: Study of values. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. England, G. W., & Lee, R. The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 411-419. Gay, E. G., Weiss, D. J., Hendel, D. D., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1971, 28 (Bulletin No. 54). Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh, 1957. Holland, J. L. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Katzell, R. A. Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In H. Borow (Ed.), Man in a world at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964. Locke, E. A. The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. Adjustment to work. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1969. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973. Scott, T. B., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. A definition of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1960, 10 (Bulletin No. 30).
VALUES IN WORK ADJUSTMENT
19
Seaburg, D. J., Rounds, J. B., Jr., Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. Values as second order needs. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 1976. Smith, M. B. Social psychology and human values. Chicago: Aldine, 1%9. Super, D. E. Work values inventory manual. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. Super, D. E. The work values inventory. In D. G. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973. Received January 13, 1977.