- Email: [email protected]
Dimensions of threshold work experience for high school graduates and dropouts: A factor analysis
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 221-231 (1973)
Dimensions of Threshold Work Experience for High School Graduates and Dropouts: A Factor Analysis1 RENE V. DAWISZ and MERLE E. ACE3 University of Minnesota
Data on 19 threshold work experience variables were obtained by interview from 183 high school graduates and 90 dropouts 1% years after leaving school. Factor analyses of these data showed strikingly similar factor structures for both groups. Seven variables were found to represent the factor dimensions adequately: Number of Jobs Held; Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs; Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs; Average Hours Worked Weekly; Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs; Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance; and Employment Status. These variables, representing “objective success” were found to correlate only slightly with job satisfaction variables (Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs; Job Satisfaction, Present Job), thereby supporting the conceptualization of job satisfactoriness and job satisfaction as relatively independent sets of variables.
One of the areas most overlooked by vocational psychologists in their study of vocational behavior is the area of work experience. A survey of the last decade (1960-1971) of publication in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Occupational Psychology has turned up fewer than 40 articles which have included work experience or work history variables in the research reported. Fewer still are the articles devoted primarily to work experience. It appears that vocational psychologists have allowed economists and sociologists to preempt the study of work experience. Yet it is practically self evident that work experience and work history are important aspects of vocational behavior. Perhaps one of the difficulties that vocational psychologists have with work experience data is the multiplicity of specific detail in these data, much of which is nonpsychological in origin or conception. The impression created 1Research upon which this article is based was conducted under Contract No. 81-22-01 for the Manpower Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, with H. G. Heneman, Jr. and R. V. Dawis as principal investigators. Contributions of the following individuals to the research project are gratefully acknowledged: M. E. Ace, R. E. Carlson, T. E. Carroll, G. B. Graen, and D. J. Weiss. 2 Reprints may be obtained from: Rene V. Dawis, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 3Now at the University of British Columbia.
221 Copyright @ 1973 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
222
DAWIS AND ACE
by this multiplicity of detail is one of lack of structure or dimensionality in the data, making interpretation and explication quite problematical. The present article is intended to help alleviate this difficulty. The present study provides information on the dimensional structure of threshold work experience (the first years of full-time work experience) for a group of young workers. The study was part of a research project investigating the influence of work attitudes on the threshold work experience of young workers (Heneman and Dawis, 1968). Part of the project involved the follow-up of a sample of high school graduates and high school dropouts who had entered the labor market. The findings from that follow-up provided the data for this article.
METHOD Sample. Seven high schools that participated in the standardization of the Youth Opinion Questionnaire (Graen and Dawis, 1971) provided lists of high school graduates and dropouts. Approximately 1800 names of graduating high school seniors were obtained. For various reasons (e.g., incomplete address, uncertain identification) the list was reduced to approximately 1500 names. Each of these 1500 young persons was contacted by mail. A total of 1039 responses were received (a response rate of 69%). Of those responding, 588 (56%) indicated they were in college, 125 (13%) were in the service, 26 (3%) were in vocational-technical school, 16 (2%) were housewives, one was deceased, and (of primary interest to this study) 283 (or 27%) were in the labor force (i.e., employed, or unemployed and looking for work). An additional 20 names were added to the list of labor force participants, provided by an eighth high school that had conducted a follow-up of its own graduates. This brought the number of high school graduates in the (labor force participant) sample to 303. The eight schools also furnished a list of names and addresses for 281 dropouts known to have entered the labor market. These two samples constituted the target samples for the study. Data collection. Follow-up interviews with sample members were conducted by six experienced, trained, and carefully supervised interviewers. A standardized interview schedule was used, designed to obtain data on work experience (both while in school and after leaving school), job satisfaction, perceived job satisfactoriness, description of present job, self-evaluation on a variety of dimensions, and biographical characteristics. The work experience section of the schedule asked for data on employment status, kind of job, pay rate, hours, and job-finding experiences. An interview took between 60 and 90 min to complete. Locating sample members and persuading them to participate in the study proceeded with great difficulty. The young people were very active socially and were reluctant to “waste an evening” on an interview.
THRESHOLD
WORK EXPERIENCE
223
Many of them, especially those of lower socioeconomic status backgrounds, were suspicious of the interviews and/or interviewers, often not showing up for scheduled appointments. Several, especially among the dropouts, could not be reached, having moved without leaving forwarding addresses. In addition to the interview data, ratings of employee satisfactoriness were obtained from the supervisors of employed interviewees. Complete data were obtained for 273 persons (or 46%) of the target samples. These included 183 who were graduates and 90 who were dropouts. Of these, 171 graduates and 73 dropouts were employed at the time of the interview. Table 1 summarizes other characteristics of the two groups. Proportion differences between the two groups tested by the pooled estimates z test (Guilford, 1965), were significant at the .Ol level for all comparisons except marital status. The differences were all in the expected direction (i.e., dropouts were more predominantly male, urban, lower socioeconomic status, in blue-collar occupations and unemployed). Analysis. Summary statistics (means, standard deviations) and frequency distributions were calculated for each group. Since the larger project called for a reduction of the variables describing threshold work experience, the variables were intercorrelated and the intercorrelation matrices were factor analyzed. The principal components method was used to extract factors, using unities in the diagonals and the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue of 1.00) for number of factors to extract (Harman, 1967). An orthogonal rotation of factors was carried out to a varimax criterion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and medians for 18 variables that quantitatively described the threshold work experience of the two groups. (A 19th variable was Employment Status, data for which are shown in Table 1.) It can be seen from Table 2 that the graduate group fared better than the dropout group. It is also rather clear, from Table 2, that neither graduate nor dropout group fared particularly well in the labor market. According to Table 2, the average graduate reported having held only two jobs by the time of the interview (15-18 months after graduation). He reported working 40 hr a week on his first job, earning $36 per week in take-home pay, and staying in the job for only a short time (7 weeks). The average graduate was quite satisfied with his first job (a rating of 3 on an 11-point scale, the lower rating being satisfaction, the higher rating, dissatisfaction). On his present job, the average graduate in the study reported earning $75 a week and having held the job for more than 40 weeks. He expressed an even higher level of satisfaction than on his past job, but his
224
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE Characteristics
of the Young-Worker
1
Participants
in the Study, by Group
Graduates Variable 1 Sex:
Male Female
Dropouts
N
%
N
%
123 60
67 33
83 7
92 8
2 Residencea:
Urban Suburban Rural
II 42 64
42 23 35
18 3 9
81 3 10
3 Socioeconomic
stat&: Middle Lower Middle Lower
52 51 80
28 28 44
11 4 75
12 4 83
Single Married
148 35
81 19
78 12
87 13
5 Occupation:
White Collar Blue Collar
123 60
61 33
39 51
43 57
6 Employment
status: Employed Unemployed
171 12
93 I
73 17
81 19
4 Marital
status:
OAccording to Census definition. bllliddle: $8,000 income and above (Urban); $8,500 and above (Suburban); $7,400 and above (Rural). Lower: $6,000 and below (Urban); $7,000 and below (Suburban); $5,600 and below (Rural).
supervisor ratings tended to be average (4 on a scale of 7) on the following scales: Dependability, Alertness, Skill in Dealing with People, Planning, and Know-how and Judgment, (the exception being Alertness, on which he was rated 5 or above average). On the 9-point scales, Present Level of Performance and Expected Level of Performance, the typical graduate was rated above average (a rating of 7 on a scale of 9). The average dropout in the study likewise reported having held only two jobs by the time of the interview. However, by his report he earned more on his first job than his graduate counterpart did, and stayed on it for a slightly longer period. (There is some hint in these data that the attraction of a “good-paying job” might have been a factor in inducing young persons to drop out of school; the fact is, the dropouts reported doing much better than the graduates on their first jobs.) In contrast, on his present job, the average dropout’s reporting earnings were less than those of his graduate counterpart.
225
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Medians for Threshold Work Experience Variables, by Group Dropouts
Graduates Variable 1 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present JobQ 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job” 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Joba 12 Supervisor Rating, Dependabilitya 13 Supervisor Rating, Altertnesg 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with PeoplcQ 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning0 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgmenta 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performancd 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performancea
Mdn
x
SD
4.7
11.86 2.55 1.18
1 1
1.5 1.9
2
13.4 20.25
x
SD
Mdn
1 1
I (ii1-i2)
2.1
4.41 4.48 1.86
2
2.44* 0.34 3.54**
7
16.8
20.29
10
1.33
1.3 2.64 37.2 10.53
1 40
1.6
6.05 12.66
1
38.8
40
0.54 1.06
33.6
34.05
36
47.0
33.75
53
3.06**
3.0
3.18
3
3.8
3.21
4
1.83
39.2
25.52 34.80
43
76.9
15
24.7 51.2
37.84 40.12
8 61
3.13** 4.17**
2.6
2.04
2
2.6
2.97
2
0.23
4.1
2.21
4.7
2.21
4 5
2.9 3.1
2.57 2.78
3 3
4.04** 4.88**
3.7 3.8
2.06 2.17
4 4
2.4 2.8
2.25 2.41
2 3
4.57** 3.56**
4.2
1.99
4
2.8
2.36
3
4.99**
6.3
2.49
1
4.3
3.41
5
5.35**
6.2
2.58
7
4.5
3.38
5
4.65**
2.1 2.0
avariables 9 through 18 pertain to present job, hence only employed graduates (IV = 171) and employed dropouts (A’ = 13) are compared *p of no difference in population < .05. **p of no difference in population < .Ol.
He also reported having held the job for a much shorter period of time. The average dropout was given lower ratings by his supervisor, in comparison with his graduate counterpart. He was rated below average (3 or lower) on the 7-point scales. On Present Level of Performance and Expected Level of Performance, he was given average ratings (5 on a scale of 9).
226
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE 3 Varimax Factor Structure of 19 Variables of Threshold Work Experience for the Graduate Group (N = 183) Factor
Variable 1 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past lobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present Job 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Job 12 Supervisor Rating, Dependability 13 Supervisor Rating, Alertness 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with People 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgment 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performance 19 Employment Status Contribution of factor Proportion of total variance
I
II
-.04 .07 .02
-.09 -.03 JJ
.07
IV
V
h2
-.36 -L 75 .08
.*
-.05 -.02
-.I1 -.lO
.56 -.58 .53
-.05
.12
.05
.41
-.Ol -.02
-.78 -.22 -.13
.09 -.75 -.19
.62 .63 .I1
-.12
.06
.70
III
-.I0
.09 .Ol
.06 -.os ,g
-.os
.g
.oo
-.12 -.12 .07
L- 63 .09 -.14
&I .z .g
.04 .08 .07
-.27 -.24 .25
.68 .67 .48
-.91 -.91
-.03 .03
.Ol .08
-.04 .0.5
.02 .Ol
84 .83
-.75 -.90
-.08 -.04
.Ol .Ol
.06 -.02
.57 .81
-.05
$2
-.Ol -.Ol
.Ol
.06
-.03
.02
.82
-.95
-.Ol
.06
.Ol
.03
.90
-.94 -.06
.OO -.14
.03 .g
.03 -.07
.02 -.07
.89 .73
5.69 .30
2.77 .15
1.89 .lO
1.42 .07
1.25 .07
13.02 .69
-2
These generalizations notwithstanding, Table 2 also shows that the threshold work experience of both of these groups was characterized by wide variability within the group. To give some examples: weekly pay on present job ranged from $25 to $250 for graduates, $10 to $145 for dropouts; satisfaction ratings ranged from 1 to 11 (the whole range) for both groups; supervisor ratings of Present Level of Performance ranged from 1 to 9 (also the whole range) for both groups; number of employers visited ranged up to
227
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 4 Varimax Factor Structure of 19 Variables of Threshold Work Experience for the Dropout Group (N = 90) Factor Variable 11 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present Job 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Job 12 Supervisor Rating Dependability 13 Supervisor Rating, Alertness 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with People 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgment 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performance 19 Employment Status Contribution of factor Proportion of total variance
I .14 -.18 -.04
II -.19 .08
.lO
III
.oo
IV
-a
V
-.16 -.85
-2 .07
.28 -.23 .12
VI
h2
.02 .oo -.04
.49 .45 .75
.g
.69
.02 .g
.80 .57 .83
.14
-.04
-.02
.06
.02
.06
-.15
.Ol -.Ol
.lO -.13
-.05 -.06 -.60
-.05 .E .18
-.o 1
-.03
.Ol
-.68
-.25
-.15
.ll
.56
.08
.37
.Ol
.z
.18 .34 .04
-48 L .12 .02
2--41 -.30 .43
.62 .80 .75
-88 -L--
.02
.OY
-.I2
JJ
.21 -.36 .20
.z .2
-.07 -.02
-.03 .07
.06 .04
-.19
-.08
-.lO
-.Ol
.87 .80
.g
.06 -.06
.07 .06
-.06 .06
.ll
.z
-.04
.03 .04
.72 .82
.z
.Ol
.02
.oo
.09
.ll
.84
.s
-.03
-.04
-.Ol
.07
.03
.86
.z -.02
-.04 .z
.oo -.08
.05 .02
-.03 .02
.04 -.17
.85 .85
5.70 .30
2.03
1.82
1.51
.ll
.lO
.08
1.25 .07
1.60 .08
13.90 .73
15 for graduates and 30 for dropouts; number of jobs held ranged up to 7 for graduates and 9 for dropouts. Without exception, each variable produced a wide range of observations for both groups. It is quite clear that for both groups average statistics do not adequately reflect the difficulties, disappointments, and discouraging aspects of threshold work experience. The larger project, of which the present study was a part, required a more concise description of threshold work experience, one utilizing fewer
228
DAWIS AND ACE
variables than the 19 on which data were obtained. It was for this reason that the data were submitted to factor analysis. The results of the factor analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4, for the graduate and dropout groups, respectively. These results are for 19 variables (with the addition of Employment Status). Five factors were extracted from the graduate group data, accounting for 69% of the total variance. The first factor was a “supervisor rating” factor, best represented by Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance, with a loading of -.95. The second factor was a “past jobs” factor, best represented by Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, with a loading of .85. Factor III was a “present job” factor, with Employment Status having the highest loading (.83). Factor IV was a “job finding” factor, with Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs having the highest loading (-.78). The fifth factor was a bipolar factor with one pole representing time to find jobs and the other pole representing time on the jobs. The factor was represented best by Average Hours Worked Weekly (-.75 loading). Because of their high factor loadings, these five variables (Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance; Average Pay, Past Jobs; Employment Status; Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs, and Average Hours Worked Weekly) could be taken to represent the factor structure of the domain of threshold work experience for the graduate group. The factor- analysis for the dropout group yielded six factors. Factor I was a “ supervisor rating” factor, best represented by Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance (loading of .92). Factor II was a “present job” factor, best represented by Employment Status (loading of .90). Factor III was a “past jobs” factor, best represented by Number of Jobs Held (loading of -.85). Factor IV was the bipolar “time to find jobs vs time on the jobs” factor, best represented by Average Hours Worked Weekly (loading of .74). Factor V was a “job finding” factor-, best represented by Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs (loading of -.88). These five factors were identical in definition to the five factors extracted for the graduate group and, with only one exception, are represented best by the same variables found for the graduate group (the lone exception being Number of Jobs held instead of Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, to represent the “past jobs” factor). A sixth factor was extracted for the dropout group. This factor is best identified as a bipolar “past jobs vs present job” factor, and is best represented by Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs (with a loading of .81). Possibly because of the sixth factor, the factor analysis for the dropout group accounted for more variance (73% vs 69% for the graduate group). The similarity between the two factor analyses is striking, since it contrasts sharply with the level (mean) differences reported earlier. This similarity provides a measure of generalizability to the factor structures thus uncovered. It strongly suggests that a single factor structure can represent the underlying dimensions of threshold work experience, given the 19 variables originally used to define the domain.
229
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 5
Intercorrelations Among Seven Selected Variables of Threshold Work Experience, by Group Variable Graduate Group 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Job 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance Employment Status Dropout Group 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 7 Employment Status
.20 -.05 .04 SO
.oo -.07 .45
.03 .09
.13
-.09 -.12
.06 -.02
-.12 .ll
-.03 .Ol .43
.02 -.Ol .41
-.06 .Ol
.19
.oo
.13 -.08
.02 -.lO
.Ol .06
.oo -.ll
-.05 .14
.08
.os -.21
-.04
.04
.17
Rather than pool the data for the two groups for a total group factor analysis, it was felt that the seven variables which best represented factors in either factor analysis constituted a parsimonious set of variables that adequately defined the domain of threshold work experience. This set of variables provided coverage of past and present jobs, and of such matters as pay, tenure, job finding, hours, supervisor rating, and current employment status. It is worth noting that these variables are for the most part “objective” measures of employment “success.” It is also worth noting that job satisfaction is not included in the set. (A perusal of Tables 3 and 4 shows that the job satisfaction variables loaded highly on the “present job” and “past job” factors, respectively, but in both instances some other variable loaded even higher.) It might be said, therefore, that the seven variables “selected” by the factor analyses best describe the “objective success” side of threshold work experience. Table 5 shows the intercorrelatzons of these seven variables for both graduate and dropout groups. With a few exceptions, these correlations are close to zero, thus demonstrating that these seven measures constitute a set of relatively independent variables.
230
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE 6 Correlations of Job Satisfaction Variables with Seven Selected Variables of Threshold Work Experience, by Group Graduate Group
Variable 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 7 Employment Status 8 Job Satisfaction, Present Job
Past JSa
Present JSb
Dropout group Past JSO Present JSb
.50 .38
-.07 -.13
.36 -.Ol
-.07 .07
.ll --.12 64
-.06 -.04 -.14
.04 -.05 .37
-.14 .I8 .07
.04 -.12 .14
.Ol .32
-.04 -.Ol .oo
-.12 .43
aAverage Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs. bJob Satisfaction, Present Job.
Some final observations on job satisfaction are in order. From the factor analyses (Tables 3 and 4) one might expect that job satisfaction and pay would be highly related (both variables loaded on the same factors). A check of the intercorrelation matrices disconfirms this expectation. Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, and Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs, correlated .64 for the graduates and .37 for the dropouts; while Average Weekly Pay, Present Job, and Job Satisfaction, Present Job, correlated .19 for both groups. Furthermore, for the graduate group, the highest correlations of Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs (in addition to .64 with pay) was SO with Number of Jobs Held, .38 with Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs, and -.42 with Number of Weeks on Present Job. For the dropout group, Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs, correlated .36 with Number of Jobs Held and .37 with pay. For Job Satisfaction, Present Job, the highest correlations were .32 with Employment Status, and .25 with Number of Weeks on Present Job, for the graduate group, and .43 with Employment Status, for the dropout group. All other correlations with both job satisfaction variables for both groups were below .20. It would appear from these data that job satisfaction variables contribute significant and unique information about threshold work experience. Table 6, which lists the correlations between the job satisfaction variables and the seven representative variables selected by the factor analyses, confirms this conclusion. Thus, the relative independence of job satisfactoriness and job satisfaction variables as asserted by the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964; Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss,
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE
231
1968) is once again supported by empirical data, as it has been since Brayfield and Crockett (1955) first called attention to what was then an unexpected finding. REFERENCES Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 396-424. Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1964, No. XV. Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H.; & Weiss, D. J. A theory of work adjustment. A revision. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1968, No. XXIII. Graen, G. B., & Dawis, R. V. A measure of work attitudes for high-school-age youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1971, 1, 343-353. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Heneman, H. G., Jr., & Dawis, R. V. Youth unemployment: Frictions in the threshold of the work career-An exploratory probe. Final Report. U. S. Department of Labor Research Contrast No. 81-22-01, December, 1968. Received: May 4,1972
Dimensions of Threshold Work Experience for High School Graduates and Dropouts: A Factor Analysis1 RENE V. DAWISZ and MERLE E. ACE3 University of Minnesota
Data on 19 threshold work experience variables were obtained by interview from 183 high school graduates and 90 dropouts 1% years after leaving school. Factor analyses of these data showed strikingly similar factor structures for both groups. Seven variables were found to represent the factor dimensions adequately: Number of Jobs Held; Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs; Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs; Average Hours Worked Weekly; Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs; Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance; and Employment Status. These variables, representing “objective success” were found to correlate only slightly with job satisfaction variables (Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs; Job Satisfaction, Present Job), thereby supporting the conceptualization of job satisfactoriness and job satisfaction as relatively independent sets of variables.
One of the areas most overlooked by vocational psychologists in their study of vocational behavior is the area of work experience. A survey of the last decade (1960-1971) of publication in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Occupational Psychology has turned up fewer than 40 articles which have included work experience or work history variables in the research reported. Fewer still are the articles devoted primarily to work experience. It appears that vocational psychologists have allowed economists and sociologists to preempt the study of work experience. Yet it is practically self evident that work experience and work history are important aspects of vocational behavior. Perhaps one of the difficulties that vocational psychologists have with work experience data is the multiplicity of specific detail in these data, much of which is nonpsychological in origin or conception. The impression created 1Research upon which this article is based was conducted under Contract No. 81-22-01 for the Manpower Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, with H. G. Heneman, Jr. and R. V. Dawis as principal investigators. Contributions of the following individuals to the research project are gratefully acknowledged: M. E. Ace, R. E. Carlson, T. E. Carroll, G. B. Graen, and D. J. Weiss. 2 Reprints may be obtained from: Rene V. Dawis, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. 3Now at the University of British Columbia.
221 Copyright @ 1973 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
222
DAWIS AND ACE
by this multiplicity of detail is one of lack of structure or dimensionality in the data, making interpretation and explication quite problematical. The present article is intended to help alleviate this difficulty. The present study provides information on the dimensional structure of threshold work experience (the first years of full-time work experience) for a group of young workers. The study was part of a research project investigating the influence of work attitudes on the threshold work experience of young workers (Heneman and Dawis, 1968). Part of the project involved the follow-up of a sample of high school graduates and high school dropouts who had entered the labor market. The findings from that follow-up provided the data for this article.
METHOD Sample. Seven high schools that participated in the standardization of the Youth Opinion Questionnaire (Graen and Dawis, 1971) provided lists of high school graduates and dropouts. Approximately 1800 names of graduating high school seniors were obtained. For various reasons (e.g., incomplete address, uncertain identification) the list was reduced to approximately 1500 names. Each of these 1500 young persons was contacted by mail. A total of 1039 responses were received (a response rate of 69%). Of those responding, 588 (56%) indicated they were in college, 125 (13%) were in the service, 26 (3%) were in vocational-technical school, 16 (2%) were housewives, one was deceased, and (of primary interest to this study) 283 (or 27%) were in the labor force (i.e., employed, or unemployed and looking for work). An additional 20 names were added to the list of labor force participants, provided by an eighth high school that had conducted a follow-up of its own graduates. This brought the number of high school graduates in the (labor force participant) sample to 303. The eight schools also furnished a list of names and addresses for 281 dropouts known to have entered the labor market. These two samples constituted the target samples for the study. Data collection. Follow-up interviews with sample members were conducted by six experienced, trained, and carefully supervised interviewers. A standardized interview schedule was used, designed to obtain data on work experience (both while in school and after leaving school), job satisfaction, perceived job satisfactoriness, description of present job, self-evaluation on a variety of dimensions, and biographical characteristics. The work experience section of the schedule asked for data on employment status, kind of job, pay rate, hours, and job-finding experiences. An interview took between 60 and 90 min to complete. Locating sample members and persuading them to participate in the study proceeded with great difficulty. The young people were very active socially and were reluctant to “waste an evening” on an interview.
THRESHOLD
WORK EXPERIENCE
223
Many of them, especially those of lower socioeconomic status backgrounds, were suspicious of the interviews and/or interviewers, often not showing up for scheduled appointments. Several, especially among the dropouts, could not be reached, having moved without leaving forwarding addresses. In addition to the interview data, ratings of employee satisfactoriness were obtained from the supervisors of employed interviewees. Complete data were obtained for 273 persons (or 46%) of the target samples. These included 183 who were graduates and 90 who were dropouts. Of these, 171 graduates and 73 dropouts were employed at the time of the interview. Table 1 summarizes other characteristics of the two groups. Proportion differences between the two groups tested by the pooled estimates z test (Guilford, 1965), were significant at the .Ol level for all comparisons except marital status. The differences were all in the expected direction (i.e., dropouts were more predominantly male, urban, lower socioeconomic status, in blue-collar occupations and unemployed). Analysis. Summary statistics (means, standard deviations) and frequency distributions were calculated for each group. Since the larger project called for a reduction of the variables describing threshold work experience, the variables were intercorrelated and the intercorrelation matrices were factor analyzed. The principal components method was used to extract factors, using unities in the diagonals and the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue of 1.00) for number of factors to extract (Harman, 1967). An orthogonal rotation of factors was carried out to a varimax criterion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and medians for 18 variables that quantitatively described the threshold work experience of the two groups. (A 19th variable was Employment Status, data for which are shown in Table 1.) It can be seen from Table 2 that the graduate group fared better than the dropout group. It is also rather clear, from Table 2, that neither graduate nor dropout group fared particularly well in the labor market. According to Table 2, the average graduate reported having held only two jobs by the time of the interview (15-18 months after graduation). He reported working 40 hr a week on his first job, earning $36 per week in take-home pay, and staying in the job for only a short time (7 weeks). The average graduate was quite satisfied with his first job (a rating of 3 on an 11-point scale, the lower rating being satisfaction, the higher rating, dissatisfaction). On his present job, the average graduate in the study reported earning $75 a week and having held the job for more than 40 weeks. He expressed an even higher level of satisfaction than on his past job, but his
224
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE Characteristics
of the Young-Worker
1
Participants
in the Study, by Group
Graduates Variable 1 Sex:
Male Female
Dropouts
N
%
N
%
123 60
67 33
83 7
92 8
2 Residencea:
Urban Suburban Rural
II 42 64
42 23 35
18 3 9
81 3 10
3 Socioeconomic
stat&: Middle Lower Middle Lower
52 51 80
28 28 44
11 4 75
12 4 83
Single Married
148 35
81 19
78 12
87 13
5 Occupation:
White Collar Blue Collar
123 60
61 33
39 51
43 57
6 Employment
status: Employed Unemployed
171 12
93 I
73 17
81 19
4 Marital
status:
OAccording to Census definition. bllliddle: $8,000 income and above (Urban); $8,500 and above (Suburban); $7,400 and above (Rural). Lower: $6,000 and below (Urban); $7,000 and below (Suburban); $5,600 and below (Rural).
supervisor ratings tended to be average (4 on a scale of 7) on the following scales: Dependability, Alertness, Skill in Dealing with People, Planning, and Know-how and Judgment, (the exception being Alertness, on which he was rated 5 or above average). On the 9-point scales, Present Level of Performance and Expected Level of Performance, the typical graduate was rated above average (a rating of 7 on a scale of 9). The average dropout in the study likewise reported having held only two jobs by the time of the interview. However, by his report he earned more on his first job than his graduate counterpart did, and stayed on it for a slightly longer period. (There is some hint in these data that the attraction of a “good-paying job” might have been a factor in inducing young persons to drop out of school; the fact is, the dropouts reported doing much better than the graduates on their first jobs.) In contrast, on his present job, the average dropout’s reporting earnings were less than those of his graduate counterpart.
225
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Medians for Threshold Work Experience Variables, by Group Dropouts
Graduates Variable 1 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present JobQ 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job” 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Joba 12 Supervisor Rating, Dependabilitya 13 Supervisor Rating, Altertnesg 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with PeoplcQ 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning0 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgmenta 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performancd 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performancea
Mdn
x
SD
4.7
11.86 2.55 1.18
1 1
1.5 1.9
2
13.4 20.25
x
SD
Mdn
1 1
I (ii1-i2)
2.1
4.41 4.48 1.86
2
2.44* 0.34 3.54**
7
16.8
20.29
10
1.33
1.3 2.64 37.2 10.53
1 40
1.6
6.05 12.66
1
38.8
40
0.54 1.06
33.6
34.05
36
47.0
33.75
53
3.06**
3.0
3.18
3
3.8
3.21
4
1.83
39.2
25.52 34.80
43
76.9
15
24.7 51.2
37.84 40.12
8 61
3.13** 4.17**
2.6
2.04
2
2.6
2.97
2
0.23
4.1
2.21
4.7
2.21
4 5
2.9 3.1
2.57 2.78
3 3
4.04** 4.88**
3.7 3.8
2.06 2.17
4 4
2.4 2.8
2.25 2.41
2 3
4.57** 3.56**
4.2
1.99
4
2.8
2.36
3
4.99**
6.3
2.49
1
4.3
3.41
5
5.35**
6.2
2.58
7
4.5
3.38
5
4.65**
2.1 2.0
avariables 9 through 18 pertain to present job, hence only employed graduates (IV = 171) and employed dropouts (A’ = 13) are compared *p of no difference in population < .05. **p of no difference in population < .Ol.
He also reported having held the job for a much shorter period of time. The average dropout was given lower ratings by his supervisor, in comparison with his graduate counterpart. He was rated below average (3 or lower) on the 7-point scales. On Present Level of Performance and Expected Level of Performance, he was given average ratings (5 on a scale of 9).
226
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE 3 Varimax Factor Structure of 19 Variables of Threshold Work Experience for the Graduate Group (N = 183) Factor
Variable 1 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past lobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present Job 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Job 12 Supervisor Rating, Dependability 13 Supervisor Rating, Alertness 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with People 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgment 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performance 19 Employment Status Contribution of factor Proportion of total variance
I
II
-.04 .07 .02
-.09 -.03 JJ
.07
IV
V
h2
-.36 -L 75 .08
.*
-.05 -.02
-.I1 -.lO
.56 -.58 .53
-.05
.12
.05
.41
-.Ol -.02
-.78 -.22 -.13
.09 -.75 -.19
.62 .63 .I1
-.12
.06
.70
III
-.I0
.09 .Ol
.06 -.os ,g
-.os
.g
.oo
-.12 -.12 .07
L- 63 .09 -.14
&I .z .g
.04 .08 .07
-.27 -.24 .25
.68 .67 .48
-.91 -.91
-.03 .03
.Ol .08
-.04 .0.5
.02 .Ol
84 .83
-.75 -.90
-.08 -.04
.Ol .Ol
.06 -.02
.57 .81
-.05
$2
-.Ol -.Ol
.Ol
.06
-.03
.02
.82
-.95
-.Ol
.06
.Ol
.03
.90
-.94 -.06
.OO -.14
.03 .g
.03 -.07
.02 -.07
.89 .73
5.69 .30
2.77 .15
1.89 .lO
1.42 .07
1.25 .07
13.02 .69
-2
These generalizations notwithstanding, Table 2 also shows that the threshold work experience of both of these groups was characterized by wide variability within the group. To give some examples: weekly pay on present job ranged from $25 to $250 for graduates, $10 to $145 for dropouts; satisfaction ratings ranged from 1 to 11 (the whole range) for both groups; supervisor ratings of Present Level of Performance ranged from 1 to 9 (also the whole range) for both groups; number of employers visited ranged up to
227
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 4 Varimax Factor Structure of 19 Variables of Threshold Work Experience for the Dropout Group (N = 90) Factor Variable 11 Number of Weeks before Finding a Job 2 Number of Employers Visited 3 Number of Jobs Held 4 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 5 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 6 Average Hours Worked Weekly 7 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 8 Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs 9 Number of Weeks on Present Job 10 Weekly Pay, Present Job 11 Job Satisfaction, Present Job 12 Supervisor Rating Dependability 13 Supervisor Rating, Alertness 14 Supervisor Rating, Skill in Dealing with People 15 Supervisor Rating, Planning 16 Supervisor Rating, Know-how and Judgment 17 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 18 Supervisor Rating, Expected Level of Performance 19 Employment Status Contribution of factor Proportion of total variance
I .14 -.18 -.04
II -.19 .08
.lO
III
.oo
IV
-a
V
-.16 -.85
-2 .07
.28 -.23 .12
VI
h2
.02 .oo -.04
.49 .45 .75
.g
.69
.02 .g
.80 .57 .83
.14
-.04
-.02
.06
.02
.06
-.15
.Ol -.Ol
.lO -.13
-.05 -.06 -.60
-.05 .E .18
-.o 1
-.03
.Ol
-.68
-.25
-.15
.ll
.56
.08
.37
.Ol
.z
.18 .34 .04
-48 L .12 .02
2--41 -.30 .43
.62 .80 .75
-88 -L--
.02
.OY
-.I2
JJ
.21 -.36 .20
.z .2
-.07 -.02
-.03 .07
.06 .04
-.19
-.08
-.lO
-.Ol
.87 .80
.g
.06 -.06
.07 .06
-.06 .06
.ll
.z
-.04
.03 .04
.72 .82
.z
.Ol
.02
.oo
.09
.ll
.84
.s
-.03
-.04
-.Ol
.07
.03
.86
.z -.02
-.04 .z
.oo -.08
.05 .02
-.03 .02
.04 -.17
.85 .85
5.70 .30
2.03
1.82
1.51
.ll
.lO
.08
1.25 .07
1.60 .08
13.90 .73
15 for graduates and 30 for dropouts; number of jobs held ranged up to 7 for graduates and 9 for dropouts. Without exception, each variable produced a wide range of observations for both groups. It is quite clear that for both groups average statistics do not adequately reflect the difficulties, disappointments, and discouraging aspects of threshold work experience. The larger project, of which the present study was a part, required a more concise description of threshold work experience, one utilizing fewer
228
DAWIS AND ACE
variables than the 19 on which data were obtained. It was for this reason that the data were submitted to factor analysis. The results of the factor analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4, for the graduate and dropout groups, respectively. These results are for 19 variables (with the addition of Employment Status). Five factors were extracted from the graduate group data, accounting for 69% of the total variance. The first factor was a “supervisor rating” factor, best represented by Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance, with a loading of -.95. The second factor was a “past jobs” factor, best represented by Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, with a loading of .85. Factor III was a “present job” factor, with Employment Status having the highest loading (.83). Factor IV was a “job finding” factor, with Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs having the highest loading (-.78). The fifth factor was a bipolar factor with one pole representing time to find jobs and the other pole representing time on the jobs. The factor was represented best by Average Hours Worked Weekly (-.75 loading). Because of their high factor loadings, these five variables (Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance; Average Pay, Past Jobs; Employment Status; Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs, and Average Hours Worked Weekly) could be taken to represent the factor structure of the domain of threshold work experience for the graduate group. The factor- analysis for the dropout group yielded six factors. Factor I was a “ supervisor rating” factor, best represented by Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance (loading of .92). Factor II was a “present job” factor, best represented by Employment Status (loading of .90). Factor III was a “past jobs” factor, best represented by Number of Jobs Held (loading of -.85). Factor IV was the bipolar “time to find jobs vs time on the jobs” factor, best represented by Average Hours Worked Weekly (loading of .74). Factor V was a “job finding” factor-, best represented by Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs (loading of -.88). These five factors were identical in definition to the five factors extracted for the graduate group and, with only one exception, are represented best by the same variables found for the graduate group (the lone exception being Number of Jobs held instead of Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, to represent the “past jobs” factor). A sixth factor was extracted for the dropout group. This factor is best identified as a bipolar “past jobs vs present job” factor, and is best represented by Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs (with a loading of .81). Possibly because of the sixth factor, the factor analysis for the dropout group accounted for more variance (73% vs 69% for the graduate group). The similarity between the two factor analyses is striking, since it contrasts sharply with the level (mean) differences reported earlier. This similarity provides a measure of generalizability to the factor structures thus uncovered. It strongly suggests that a single factor structure can represent the underlying dimensions of threshold work experience, given the 19 variables originally used to define the domain.
229
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE TABLE 5
Intercorrelations Among Seven Selected Variables of Threshold Work Experience, by Group Variable Graduate Group 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Job 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance Employment Status Dropout Group 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 7 Employment Status
.20 -.05 .04 SO
.oo -.07 .45
.03 .09
.13
-.09 -.12
.06 -.02
-.12 .ll
-.03 .Ol .43
.02 -.Ol .41
-.06 .Ol
.19
.oo
.13 -.08
.02 -.lO
.Ol .06
.oo -.ll
-.05 .14
.08
.os -.21
-.04
.04
.17
Rather than pool the data for the two groups for a total group factor analysis, it was felt that the seven variables which best represented factors in either factor analysis constituted a parsimonious set of variables that adequately defined the domain of threshold work experience. This set of variables provided coverage of past and present jobs, and of such matters as pay, tenure, job finding, hours, supervisor rating, and current employment status. It is worth noting that these variables are for the most part “objective” measures of employment “success.” It is also worth noting that job satisfaction is not included in the set. (A perusal of Tables 3 and 4 shows that the job satisfaction variables loaded highly on the “present job” and “past job” factors, respectively, but in both instances some other variable loaded even higher.) It might be said, therefore, that the seven variables “selected” by the factor analyses best describe the “objective success” side of threshold work experience. Table 5 shows the intercorrelatzons of these seven variables for both graduate and dropout groups. With a few exceptions, these correlations are close to zero, thus demonstrating that these seven measures constitute a set of relatively independent variables.
230
DAWIS AND ACE TABLE 6 Correlations of Job Satisfaction Variables with Seven Selected Variables of Threshold Work Experience, by Group Graduate Group
Variable 1 Number of Jobs Held 2 Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs 3 Average Number of Weeks to Find Jobs 4 Average Hours Worked Weekly 5 Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs 6 Supervisor Rating, Present Level of Performance 7 Employment Status 8 Job Satisfaction, Present Job
Past JSa
Present JSb
Dropout group Past JSO Present JSb
.50 .38
-.07 -.13
.36 -.Ol
-.07 .07
.ll --.12 64
-.06 -.04 -.14
.04 -.05 .37
-.14 .I8 .07
.04 -.12 .14
.Ol .32
-.04 -.Ol .oo
-.12 .43
aAverage Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs. bJob Satisfaction, Present Job.
Some final observations on job satisfaction are in order. From the factor analyses (Tables 3 and 4) one might expect that job satisfaction and pay would be highly related (both variables loaded on the same factors). A check of the intercorrelation matrices disconfirms this expectation. Average Weekly Pay, Past Jobs, and Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs, correlated .64 for the graduates and .37 for the dropouts; while Average Weekly Pay, Present Job, and Job Satisfaction, Present Job, correlated .19 for both groups. Furthermore, for the graduate group, the highest correlations of Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs (in addition to .64 with pay) was SO with Number of Jobs Held, .38 with Average Tenure in Weeks, Past Jobs, and -.42 with Number of Weeks on Present Job. For the dropout group, Average Job Satisfaction, Past Jobs, correlated .36 with Number of Jobs Held and .37 with pay. For Job Satisfaction, Present Job, the highest correlations were .32 with Employment Status, and .25 with Number of Weeks on Present Job, for the graduate group, and .43 with Employment Status, for the dropout group. All other correlations with both job satisfaction variables for both groups were below .20. It would appear from these data that job satisfaction variables contribute significant and unique information about threshold work experience. Table 6, which lists the correlations between the job satisfaction variables and the seven representative variables selected by the factor analyses, confirms this conclusion. Thus, the relative independence of job satisfactoriness and job satisfaction variables as asserted by the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964; Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss,
THRESHOLD WORK EXPERIENCE
231
1968) is once again supported by empirical data, as it has been since Brayfield and Crockett (1955) first called attention to what was then an unexpected finding. REFERENCES Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 396-424. Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1964, No. XV. Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H.; & Weiss, D. J. A theory of work adjustment. A revision. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 1968, No. XXIII. Graen, G. B., & Dawis, R. V. A measure of work attitudes for high-school-age youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1971, 1, 343-353. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Heneman, H. G., Jr., & Dawis, R. V. Youth unemployment: Frictions in the threshold of the work career-An exploratory probe. Final Report. U. S. Department of Labor Research Contrast No. 81-22-01, December, 1968. Received: May 4,1972