- Email: [email protected]
Identifying valued work outcomes through a content analysis of personal goals
Journal of Vocational
Behavior 35, 30-45 (1989)
Identifying Valued Work Outcomes through a Content Analysis of Personal Goals LORIANN
ROBERSON, JOHN M. HOUSTON, New
York
AND MARGARET
DIDDAMS
University
Although theories of organizational behavior rely heavily on accurate and complete taxonomies of valued work outcomes, existing taxonomies are generally based on researchers’ a priori notions which may fail to comprehensively sample the outcome domain. The present study used an idiographic technique to identify employees’ work-related goals and content analyzed the responses to form a positive and negative taxonomy of work outcomes. Using data from 175 individuals employed in a variety of organizational settings, this free response approach produced results consistent with prior work. However, one important goal category reflecting workers’ self-image concerns was also found. The results support the validity of existing taxonomies and identify a new facet of work outcomes that warrants further investigation. 0 1989 Academic Press, 1~.
Researchers have long recognized the importance of taxonomies of work outcomes for developing and applying theories of organizational behavior (Lawler, 1973). Outcomes refer to those states, actions, events, or conditions valued by individuals that are present in the work environment (Elizur, 1984). These valued outcomes are believed to be important determinants of attitudes and behavior. For example, satisfaction is hypothesized to depend on the individual’s evaluation of outcomes received from the job. Individuals are more satisfied to the extent that valued outcomes have been attained (Locke, 1976). Several theories of motivation posit the value of anticipated outcomes as a critical determinant of behavior (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Feather, 1982). Expectancy-value models suggest that individuals perceive the outcomes available from their actions, and anticipate the value of obtaining them. The order of the two junior authors is randomly determined. Support for this research was provided by the University of Minnesota Graduate School and a Social Science Research Council doctoral dissertation fellowship (No. SS-27-83-12), with funds from the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The authors thank Arthur Brief, Nancy Goldberg, and Douglas Klein for their assistance with this project. Correspondence concerning this paper should be directed to Loriann Roberson, Psychology Department, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 550, New York, NY 10003. 30 OOOl-8791/89 $3.00 Copyright AU rights
0 1989 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
IDENTIFYING
WORK
OUTCOMES
31
They set goals to attain outcomes with high anticipated value (valence), which then determine behavior (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1984; Lawler, 1973). Taxonomies of outcomes attempt to identify the content or nature of those outcomes valued by individuals. These taxonomies provide a means of specifying the domain of work outcomes for motivational research (Billings & Cornelius, 1980) and constructing measures of job satisfaction. Taxonomies also facilitate comparisons and syntheses of research findings (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). Thus, a wide array of research depends on accurate and comprehensive taxonomies of work outcomes. Over the past 30 years several attempts have been made to create taxonomies of work outcomes (e.g., Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). However, a number of writers have raised serious questions about the adequacy and usefulness of these systems. In a review of the motivational literature, Campbell and Pritchard (1976) concluded that we still have very fragmentary knowledge about the outcomes for which people work. They attributed this problem to the strategies used to identify outcomes, which have not comprehensively and systematically sampled the work outcome domain. Instead, researchers have relied on a priori notions about facets of work that are important to most workers, or factor analyzed outcome items borrowed from other experimenters (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Locke, 1976). Nord, Brief, Atieh, and Doherty (1988) have also argued that reliance on these strategies has resulted in taxonomies that are construct deficient. Their review found that organizational taxonomies omit many work outcomes mentioned in philosophical and theoretical discussions on the meaning of work, which suggests that the available taxonomies do not encompass all end states valued by employees. This criticism of construct deficiency was supported empirically in a study by Scarpello and Campbell (1983). These authors found that the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), a facet measure assessing satisfaction with 20 outcomes, failed to include the range of variables influencing job satisfaction. In interview sessions, workers mentioned several factors affecting their satisfaction that were unrelated to any of the MSQ facets, yet strongly correlated with a measure of global satisfaction. Existing taxonomies are also criticized because of their vulnerability to experimenter bias (Nord et al., 1988). The use of an a priori strategy to identify work outcomes increases the probability that the experimenter’s own values and beliefs will influence decisions about the outcomes that are important to employees. Several writers have argued that the current emphasis of the organizational literature on intrinsic outcomes (e.g., autonomy, self-actualization) reflects predominantly the values of
32
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
psychologists, not those of most workers (e.g., Brief & Aldag, in press; Fein, 1976; Nord et al., 1988). Thus, although past research has identified a number of outcomes important to workers, authors suggest that there is still much to be learned. Evidence indicates that the taxonomies most often used in organizational research may omit important outcomes and distort their relative importance. More research is needed to refine our current definition of outcome categories and to identify additional valued incentives (Vroom, 1964). Continued reliance on past strategies of outcome identification is unlikely to accomplish this goal. Instead, methodological innovation is called for. Campbell and Pritchard (1976) recommended the use of free response techniques focusing on theoretical conceptions of outcomes. For example, from an expectancy-value motivational perspective, the anticipated value of outcomes determines an individual’s decisions about the level of effort to expend on a particular task or a job change (Vroom, 1964). Asking people to think of the times such decisions were made and to report the factors influencing those decisions would be an alternate way to identify important outcomes. Locke (1976) presents a similar suggestion, arguing for individual case studies of changes in satisfaction over a period of time. Again, such a strategy allows the identification of factors influencing satisfaction that may not be revealed by questionnaire research. Research strategies such as those described above guard against experimenters projecting their own beliefs about valued outcomes into results. Thus, problems of bias are minimized. In addition, issues of deficiency are addressed. By asking subjects directly about the factors influencing behavior and attitudes, a more complete picture of the outcomes considered important may be obtained (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Finally, the use of methods based on theoretical definitions of outcomes facilitates examining the validity of existing outcome taxonomies. Current taxonomies are meant to specify those factors responsible for behavior and satisfaction. Methods that directly probe the determinants of specific actions and feelings should yield results consistent with previous taxonomic work. The present study utilized a free response technique to identify work outcomes. Information on outcomes was obtained by asking subjects to list their personal goals for their job. Personal goals were broadly defined as whatever the individual seeks from the job situation: the objects or aims of action (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). This definition includes not only task-related goals, but also goals for nontask incentives. The use of goals to identify valued outcomes is based on the theoretical relationship between these two constructs that is well documented in the literature. Individuals set or become committed to goals only to attain
IDENTIFYING
WORKOUTCOMES
33
outcomes anticipated to be of personal value (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Locke & Henne, 1986). Asking subjects to report their goals for the job ensures that only valued outcomes will be reported. In addition, goals are a major influence on behavior (Locke et al., 1981) and satisfaction (Locke, 1976; Roberson, in press a). Thus, an analysis of the content of personal work goals should reveal the outcomes that people are actually working to attain, and that, if attained, will enhance their satisfaction. This study’s focus on goals also offered an opportunity to examine negative work outcomes. The method used allowed people to describe not only positive, but also negative goals (i.e., those things they want to avoid). Almost without exception, taxonomies of outcomes describe the positive end states which individuals desire, and little information on negative or aversive end states is available (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980). However, negative outcomes are also powerful controllers of behavior and contributors to satisfaction (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Roberson, in press a). An analysis of negative goals may reveal additional important incentives overlooked by the past emphasis on positive outcomes. The objectives of this study, then, were twofold. First, we describe the content of personal work goals. Although we expect the analysis of goals to yield results similar to past work, the unique methodology used here may reveal additional outcomes not previously considered. Second, we examine similarities and differences in the content of positive and negative goals. With the exception of Herzberg (1964) most theorists have assumed that the content of positive and negative outcomes are similar (Lawler, 1973). This study, in which positive and negative goals were classified separately, allowed the examination of this assumption. METHOD
Subjects Participants were a convenience sample of 175 employees working in a midwestem metropolitan area. Subjects were drawn from several sources. Twenty-five subjects were students enrolled in an evening psychology class at a university who also worked full time. The remaining subjects were drawn from a manufacturing firm, a transportation firm, and three not for profit or public agencies. Ninety-two employees were female, the remaining 69 were male (demographic information was not available for 14 individuals). The median age of the sample was 32, and the amount of education ranged from some high school to graduate school with 58% having attained at least a bachelor’s degree. According to Holland’s (1985) occupational classification system. 7% (I 1) of the individuals were employed in realistic occupations, 10% (16) in investi-
34
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND
DIDDAMS
gative occupations, 2% (3) in artistic occupations, 32% (51) in social occupations, 10% (16) in conventional occupations, and 40% (64) in enterprising occupations. The sample contained 26 of the 77 occupational codes that represent the 500 most common occupations in the United States. Median tenure in the present job was 1.4 years. Personal
Work Goals
Information on subject work goals was collected with the Work Concerns Inventory (WCI; Roberson, in press b) as part of a larger study. The WC1 is a semistructured instrument that uses an idiographic technique to identify each subject’s unique work-related goals. On the measure, subjects generated an exhaustive list of their goals in their own words. The WC1 defined goals for subjects as “things you are involved in right now, your goals or plans for the future, problems you are having right now, or activities you would like to be involved with.” To aid subjects in identifying these concerns, the instructions included a list of 15 broadly defined job content areas such as co-workers and working conditions, with examples of possible goals related to each area. This list was assembled through reference to existing taxonomies of work outcomes and was included on the WC1 to provide an example of possible goals to the subjects. The list was used to jog subject memories of goals that they were currently pursuing and to give subjects an idea of the range of possible goals that they could list on the questionnaire. However, the instructions reminded subjects that they may or may not have goals in each of these content areas, and that on the questionnaire they were only to list their own goals, regardless of whether they resembled those on the content list. Subjects were then asked to write their goals down on the answer sheet. The answer sheet consisted of 12 separate pages, each identified with a verb group used to describe the action their goals involved. One verb group was listed at the top of each page. The verb groups included were those suggested by Klinger, Barta, and Maxeiner (1981) to describe the positivity or negativity of goal objects. These groups were: (1) get, (2) keep, (3) restore, (4) do, (5) get rid of, (6) avoid, (7) prevent, (8) escape, (9) attack, (10) find out more about a positive thing, (11) find out more about a negative thing, (12) find out more about a neutral thing. Subjects were first asked to think of all their current goals involving things at work that they wanted to get (if any), and to write these things on the first page, using the “get” verb. For example, an individual might write “Get an office with a window,” and “Get some constructive feedback from my co-workers” on the first page to represent his/her goals. Once all “get” goals were listed, subjects turned to the second page and wrote down goals involving things at work they wanted to keep, using
IDENTIFYING
WORK
OUTCOMES
35
the “keep” verbs. In this way, subjects listed all their relevant goals on each page of the questionnaire. Subjects were told that they need not use all the verbs provided, but only those that were relevant to their own goals. In addition, although each page of the answer sheet held enough space for subjects to list 10 goals, subjects were instructed that they need not use all the space provided. After the goals were listed, a series of scales were used to assess the characteristics of each goal. These scales are not examined in this paper and will not be discussed here. The interested reader is referred to Roberson (in press b) for additional information. The 175 subjects listed a total of 5613 goals on the WCI. The average number of goals listed was 32, with a standard deviation of 18. Procedure All subjects voluntarily completed the WC1 as a self-assessment exercise. The instrument was offered as a way for subjects to gain information about themselves in their job, and confidential, individual feedback was promised (and given) to all participants. Thirty percent of the subjects were recruited from career development classes/workshops offered by their organization. These subjects completed the WC1 in the classroom setting. The remainder of the subjects were contacted individually by the senior author and asked to participate. Because these data were collected as part of a larger study, subjects completed the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire before the WCI. The senior author administered the WC1 to all participants, first explaining in detail the procedure for completing the measure and answering any questions. With the exception of the career development workshops, subjects completed the instrument individually or in small groups of three to four in the presence of the senior author. After receiving instructions and reviewing the WCI, some participants completed the measure at home, returning it by mail. Supervisors of the subjects were present during administration only if they were also completing the measure. In group settings, confidentiality of responses was ensured by seating subjects at a comfortable distance from each other. Content Analysis The content analysis involved a three-step process. In the initial step, the two junior authors examined a random sample of approximately 500 unique goal statements (250 positive and 250 negative) from the total sample of 5613 goal statements collected. Positive goals were defined as those written using the following verbs: get, keep, restore, do, find out more about a positive thing, and find out more about a neutral thing. Negative goals were defined as those stated using the verb groups: get rid of, avoid, prevent, escape, attack, and find out more about a negative
36
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
thing. Based on content similarity, the coders independently clustered the positive and negative goals separately to form two goal taxonomies. These coders then met to synthesize their results and come to consensus on a final set of categories and the placement of each goal statement within them. This procedure yielded 23 positive and 18 negative goal categories. A definition of each category was then written and given to another judge (advanced graduate student in industrial/organizational psychology) along with the original goal statements. This judge sorted the goals into the categories and the interrater agreement of this judge with the initial coders’ judgments was determined. For the positive goals, the K coefficient (Cohen, 1960) was .73; for the negative goals, K = .7l. Having established the discriminability of the categories, the second step of the content analysis focused on evaluating the sufficiency of this classification system. The two junior authors independently classified the remaining goal statements using the two taxonomies, meeting periodically to determine their agreement. The coders jointly examined and resolved those cases where disagreements occurred so that consensus was reached on the placement of all goal statements. During this procedure, the classification system was modified to enhance its clarity, and several new categories were added. This process resulted in a positive goal taxonomy of 24 categories, and a negative goal taxonomy of 19 categories. In the third step, the clarity of this new system was examined. A written definition of each positive and negative category was given to a fourth naive judge along with a random sample of 100 positive and 100 negative goal statements that had been previously coded by the junior authors. The naive judge was asked to classify each of the goal statements using the new category system. Interrater agreement (K) was .73 for the positive goals and .72 for negative goals. According to Landis and Koch (1977), these values indicate a substantial level of agreement. RESULTS The outcome categories identified by the content analysis of goal statements, as well as a representative goal for each category are shown in Table 1.’ Although positive and negative goals were clustered separately, similar outcome categories emerged. Table 1 shows that many of the categories, i.e., personal performance, pay/benefits, co-worker and managerial relationships, etc., appear as both positive and negative goals. The presence or favorability of these outcomes is viewed as something to gain or keep, while the absence or unfavorability of these same outcomes is described as something to avoid or escape. ’ Complete descriptions of each of the outcome categories and prototypical of goals within each category are available from the authors.
examples
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
37
This similarity in the content of positive and negative incentives is consistent with the assertions of Lawler (1973) and provides additional evidence against Herzberg’s (1964) theory. Herzberg proposed that goals for “hygiene” factors (e.g., pay, co-workers, managers) would be predominantly negative, while goals for “motivators” (e.g., growth, achieve-
TABLE 1 Work Outcome Categories Identified through Content Analysis of Work Goals Positive goal dimensions 1. Personal Performance “Continue being a top performer” 2. Professional Development “Keep qualified for a variety of jobs” 3. Pay and Benefits “Get a 3% raise” 4. Working Conditions/Resources “Obtain a bigger office space” 5. Career Advancement “Obtain a promotion” 6. Managerial Relationships “Do discuss problems with supervisor without fear of reprisal” I. Task Content “Keep interesting & unique assignments in job” 8. Co-worker Relationships “Repair a friendship with a coworker” 9. Self-Image “Maintain my sense of humor” 10. Client Relationships “Restore customer relations” 11. Positive Feedback “Get recognition for planning I’ve done on several projects” 12. Organizational Performance “Help restore company to its dominant position in the marketplace” 13. Work Schedule “Keep after hours free of meetings” 14. Co-worker Effectiveness “Get better skilled/educated staff on board” 15. Autonomy-Independence “Gain more say in daily work load”
Negative goal dimensions 1. Co-worker Relationships “Get rid of co-workers who treat you as if you are lower” 2. Administrative Policies “Find out more about staff pattern for next year” 3. Co-worker Effectiveness “Keep away from talkers and dawdlers” 4. Task Content “Avoid overabundance of paperwork” 5. Managerial Relationships “Stop power abuse by supervisor” 6. Self-Image “Avoid expressing anger” 7. Working Conditions/Resources “Escape to a quiet place where I can be alone on my break” 8. Client Relationships “Ignore rude customers” 9. Personal Performance “Stop being slipshod in preparing for one of my parenting groups” 10. Health and Safety “Find out more about alleged carelessness with radioactive isotopes” 11. Work Schedule “Escape working after 5 :00 PM” 12. Job Withdrawal “Get away from the job for awhile” 13. Negative Feedback “Avoid getting yelled at” 14. Organizational Performance “Find out more about what pressures exist in the home office” 15. Pay and Benefits “Avoid losing camp time” 16. Job Security “Avoid being laid off’
38
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
TABLE 16. Work Group Morale “Keep spirit of enthusiasm at building” 17. Job Clarity/Predictability “Do prepare for the weeks ahead” 18. Job Security “Keep a job with the company” 19. Administrative Policies “Find out more about corporate statling” 20. Authority “Gain more control over petty cash” 21. Social Events “Keep playing cards at noon for relaxation” 22. Work Pacing “Obtain busier schedule” 23. Other Organizations “Find out more about the competition” 24. Monetary Resources “Find out more about legitimate program expenses”
AND DIDDAMS
l-Continued 17. Work Pacing “Avoid sitting around with nothing to do” 18. Monetary Resources “Avoid overspending on program budget” 19. Career Advancement “Avoid staying in one place too long and deterring advancement”
ment, type of work) would be positive. The present data set does not support this proposition. Table 2 lists the outcome categories in decreasing order of frequency of mention. The frequency with which each goal type was mentioned and the corresponding percentages are displayed in columns 1 and 2. Among the most frequently mentioned positive and negative outcomes are personal performance, professional development, career advancement, type of work, pay/benefits, working conditions, manager and coworker relationships. Previous writers (Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964) have provided evidence that these facets are important to most workers. In addition, Quinn and Staines (1971) reported that at least 60% of the general U.S. population rate these factors as “very important” to them. The significance of these outcomes to workers can also be examined by looking at the percentage of individuals in the sample that mentioned each outcome category. The third and fourth columns in Table 1 present information on the number and percentage of people listing each outcome. Conclusions about goal prominence do not differ substantially; rankings using the number of people listing each goal produce results similar to those obtained using frequency of mention.
~~
Negative goals ~~~~--____ Number % of Number of % of Number % of Number of % of Category of goals goals subjects subjects Category of goals goals subjects subjects .--__ -___ 1. Personal performance 15 121 69 537 16 159 89 1. Co-worker relationships 328 2. Professional development 281 8 II6 66 2. Administrative policies 250 11 100 57 3. Pay/benefits 276 79 3. Co-worker effectiveness 10 92 53 8 138 222 4. Working conditions/resources 2.51 7 115 66 4. Type of task 217 IO 107 61 5. Career advancement 206 6 108 62 5. Managerial relationships 169 8 80 46 6. Managerial relationships 193 6 85 49 6 107 61 6. Self-image 142 7. Type of task 181 5 96 55 7. Working conditions/resources 140 6 72 41 8. Co-worker relationships 149 49 8. Client relationships 136 6 78 45 4 86 9. Self-image 139 83 47 4 80 46 9. Personal performance 131 6 IO. Client relationships II3 3 70 40 IO. Health/safety 86 4 57 33 Il. Positive feedback 100 3 69 39 11. Work schedule 62 3 48 27 12. Organizational performance 97 3 66 38 12. Job withdrawal 62 3 44 25 13. Work schedule 96 3 68 39 13. Negative feedback 57 3 38 22 14. Co-worker effectiveness 93 3 58 33 14. Organizational performance 52 2 36 21 IS. Autonomy/Independence 86 2 62 35 15. Pay benefits 50 2 44 25 16. Work group morale 86 2 61 35 16. Job security 30 I 25 14 17. Job clarity/predictability 84 2 64 37 17. Work pacing 26 I 23 I3 18. Job security 81 2 60 34 18. Monetary resources 22 I I6 09 19. Administrative policies 77 2 46 26 19. Career advancement 20 I 18 IO 20. Authority 52 2 35 20 20. Unclassified 28 1 21. Social events 45 I 37 21 Total 2230 iii6 22. Work pacing 39 1 28 I6 23. Other organizations 38 1 29 17 24. Monetary resources 31 1 22 13 25. Unclassified 2 52 Total CJ 3383 --.. --- ” Three percent loss due to rounding error.
Positive goals
TABLE 2 Frequency of Mention for Work Outcome Categories
40
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
In sum, the use of a different methodology to identify work outcomes produces results consistent with prior work. The most frequently mentioned goals involve outcomes previously identified as important to most workers. The frequency information also shows that overall, positive outcomes are mentioned more frequently than negative. Several other authors have noted a bias favoring the reporting and recall of positive things over negative (Boucher & Osgood, 1969; Feather, 1970). In a work-related context, Machungwa and Schmitt (1983) also found that individuals listed more positive motivational variables than negative. Another objective of this paper was to specify differences between the outcome categories defined here and those identified by previous writers. Does this methodology provide new information about types of valued outcomes? To answer this question we examined the major outcome taxonomies identified by Campbell and Pritchard (1976), Quinn & Cobb (1971), Lawler (1973), Vroom (1964), Dawis et al. (1968), and Herzberg et al. (1959), as well as that provided by Locke (1976). A comparison was made of the outcomes included by these authors with those yielded by our analysis of goals. We found several outcome categories appearing here that have not been discussed by the writers above. Two of these categories distinguished additional facets of work relationships. For example, relationships with clients and other organizations appears as both a positive (No. 10 and No. 23) and negative (No. 8) incentive. In addition to desiring smooth working relationships with superiors and co-workers, good relationships with clients and other organizations are also valued. The effectiveness of co-workers also emerged as a distinct category of positive (No. 14) and negative (No. 3) goals. Locke (1976) has argued that this aspect of co-worker behavior will be valued when it facilitates the individual’s goal attainment. In this sample, goals to obtain and keep effective, competent co-workers and to avoid lazy, unmotivated ones were quite common. The major difference between our results and past work is the emergence here of what we labeled “self-image” outcomes. Again, this outcome appears as both a positive (No. 9) and a negative (No. 6) incentive. To illustrate this category, Table 3 contains a representative sample of 20 positive and negative self-image goals. As shown, the outcomes associated with these categories are behaviors, feelings, or attitudes that the individual wants to achieve, e.g., maintain my sense of humor. This group differs from others in that the valued outcomes for such goals are not organizational or job facets, but appear to be positive self-evaluations from meeting personal standards. This type of outcome has received little attention in the organizational literature. In past work, only self-evaluations of task competence have been considered important in work settings (Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964). Our analysis also suggests the significance of self-perceived task com-
IDENTIFYING
A Representative
WORK OUTCOMES
41
TABLE 3 Sample of Positive and Negative Self-Image Goals
Maintain my professionalism Obtain a feeling of confidence Get back my ambition Gain more assertiveness Keep from getting upset Keep an open mind Continue on the job coolness about self Continue progress in self discipline Maintain my sense of humor Continue to be self motivated Stop assuming things Stop being repetitious Avoid such a deep sense of responsibility for everyone that it turns to guilt Change being frightened of the person who likes to gossip Get rid of my impatience Avoid buying into the bullshit Stop procrastinating Stop worrying about things getting done-who’s doing what Avoid pissing and moaning instead of doing Avoid raising my voice
petence, for goals to perform well are the most frequently mentioned. However, the self-image categories defined here do not include performance outcomes. Instead, self-image refers to other desired behaviors and attitudes that are not specifically task related. The self-image goals do not refer to what tasks or work activities individuals will be involved in, but rather how they wish to conduct themselves while at work. Finally, it is worth noting the presence of job withdrawal goals in this taxonomy (Neg. No. 12). In this category, the positive outcome is escape from the work environment. The goals include those to merely be absent for awhile, as well as those to quit the job permanently. Models of absenteeism and turnover (Mobley, 1977; Steers & Rhodes, 1978) propose that these kinds of goals are an important precursor of actual withdrawal behavior. In this sample, 25% of the workers reported withdrawal goals. DISCUSSION
This analysis of the content of personal work goals offers a way to validate past research on valued outcomes and to extend our knowledge of work incentives. The results support the validity of existing taxonomies in that the outcomes previously identified as important are those that individuals in this sample had actual goals to obtain. In general, there were few differences between the outcome categories
42
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND
DIDDAMS
found here and those identified in past work. However, this study suggests the significance of self-image outcomes in the work context. Given the previous neglect of such outcomes in discussions of work motivation and satisfaction, it is somewhat surprising to find that such goals are so frequently mentioned. Yet, nonperformance related self standards have received greater emphasis in the personality literature. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985) posits that important goals result from the discrepancies individuals perceive when comparing their “actual” self to “ideal” and “ought” self standards. These standards include the attributes which individuals either ideally want to possess or believe they should possess. Cantor, Markus, Niedenthal, and Nurius (1986) distinguished between “life task” and “possible self” goals. The former involve the problems people see themselves as working on, the commitments that organize important activities. For example, goals to gain a promotion, learn new skills at work, and make friends with coworkers would fall into their life task category. “Possible self” goals are similar to Higgins et al.‘s (1985) self standards, and refer to standards for the type of person the individual hopes to become-witty, urbane, cheerful, etc. This is the type of goal which characterized our self-image categories. While the content of such goals was highly idiosyncratic, they were similar in that they all referred to the individual’s standards for their own behavior. The prevalence of self-image goals in this sample provides evidence in agreement with Locke’s (1976) suggestion that views of the self are an important influence on job satisfaction. Thus, there may be limits to an organization’s ability to influence employee satisfaction by manipulating job outcomes, for satisfaction may depend not only on how the individual views the job, but also on how the self is perceived. Future research on satisfaction should expand to consider the influence of selfimage goals. For example, what are the affective implications for individuals who have attained all job outcome goals, but fail to meet their personal self-standards? Cantor et al. (1986) have argued that self-image goals specify the strategies for attaining job outcome goals, and this accounts for individual differences in behavior. Thus, two employees in the same job may both have a goal of attaining a promotion. However, one individual, desiring a sociable, popular self-image, may seek to achieve the promotion by expanding her/his network of influential friends and acquaintances. The other, wishing to be a “rugged individualist,” may work in solitude long hours, preferring to go it alone. Although both individuals have the same job outcome goal, behaviors in the service of that goal would differ substantially. Accurate prediction of goal-directed behavior can only occur through knowledge of both job outcome and self-image goals (Cantor et al., 1986). In our field, researchers have focused solely on job
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
43
outcome goals. Greater attention to self-image goals may increase our understanding of motivation and behavior. In interpreting these results, the limitations of this study must be kept in mind. The free response method of generating outcome information was used to decrease the susceptibility of the results to experimenter bias. However, the method we used to cluster these outcomes was clearly not free of experimenter influence. Thus, the categories and labels presented here represent our point of view regarding the structure of work outcomes. Clearly, these labels are meaningful, as naive raters could reproduce the categories with high agreement. However, their validity and generality needs to be addressed. Because a convenience sample was used in this study the results may be specific to these particular subjects. In additon, the context of data collection may have influenced the results. More data, particularly on the importance of self-image goals, must be collected across a wider and more representative sample of jobs and organizations. In such investigations, the use of experimenter independent methods for both data generation and clustering should be considered. With different samples and methods of clustering, other goal categories may emerge. However, this exploratory study demonstrates the usefulness of alternate free response methodologies in examining outcomes. The results not only support past work, but also identify a new facet of work outcomes concerning the self. Future research is needed to validate and extend the meaning of this category and to explore its importance in work settings. REFERENCES Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132. Billings, R. S., & Cornelius, E. T. (1980). Dimensions of work outcomes: A multidimensional scaling approach. Personnel Psychology, 33, 151-162. Boucher, J., &Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. JournalofVerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 8, l-8. Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (in press). The economic functions of work. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Cantor, N., Markus, H., Niedenthal, P., & Nurius, P. (1986). On motivation and the self concept. In R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook ofmotivation and cognition (pp. %-121). New York: Guilford Press. Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement,
20, 37-46.
Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A theory of work adjustment (A revision). Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation (Vol. 23). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal
of Applied
Psychology,
69, 379-389.
44
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
Feather, N. T. (1970). Balancing and positivity effects in social recall. Journal @-Personality, 38, 602-628. Feather, N. T. (1982). Human values and the prediction of action: An expectancy-value analysis. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fein, M. (1976). Motivation for work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook ofwork, organization, and society (pp. 465-530). Chicago: Rand McNally. Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies ofhuman performance: The description of human tasks. New York: Academic Press. Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1984). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese and J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: Psychological theory and research on action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Herzberg, F. (1964). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publ. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3, 51-76. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220. Klinger, E., Barta, S. Cl., & Maxeiner, M. E. (1981). Current concerns: Assessing therapeutically relevant motivation. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions. New York: Academic. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. l-35). New York: Wiley. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152. Machungwa, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (1983). Work motivation in a developing country. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 31-42. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240. Nord, W. R., Brief, A. P., Atieh, J. M., & Doherty, E. M. (1988). Work values and the conduct of organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. l-42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Quinn, R. P., & Cobb, W. (1971). What workers want: Factor analysis of importance ratings ofjob facets. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Quinn, R. P., I!?LStaines, G. L. (1971). Survey of working conditions (1969-70). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Roberson, L. (in press a). Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of personal work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Roberson, L. (in press b). Assessing personal work goals in the organizational setting: Development and evaluation of the Work Concerns Inventory. Organizatonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
45
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology,
36, 577400.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: xxii. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Received: November 9, 1988
Behavior 35, 30-45 (1989)
Identifying Valued Work Outcomes through a Content Analysis of Personal Goals LORIANN
ROBERSON, JOHN M. HOUSTON, New
York
AND MARGARET
DIDDAMS
University
Although theories of organizational behavior rely heavily on accurate and complete taxonomies of valued work outcomes, existing taxonomies are generally based on researchers’ a priori notions which may fail to comprehensively sample the outcome domain. The present study used an idiographic technique to identify employees’ work-related goals and content analyzed the responses to form a positive and negative taxonomy of work outcomes. Using data from 175 individuals employed in a variety of organizational settings, this free response approach produced results consistent with prior work. However, one important goal category reflecting workers’ self-image concerns was also found. The results support the validity of existing taxonomies and identify a new facet of work outcomes that warrants further investigation. 0 1989 Academic Press, 1~.
Researchers have long recognized the importance of taxonomies of work outcomes for developing and applying theories of organizational behavior (Lawler, 1973). Outcomes refer to those states, actions, events, or conditions valued by individuals that are present in the work environment (Elizur, 1984). These valued outcomes are believed to be important determinants of attitudes and behavior. For example, satisfaction is hypothesized to depend on the individual’s evaluation of outcomes received from the job. Individuals are more satisfied to the extent that valued outcomes have been attained (Locke, 1976). Several theories of motivation posit the value of anticipated outcomes as a critical determinant of behavior (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Feather, 1982). Expectancy-value models suggest that individuals perceive the outcomes available from their actions, and anticipate the value of obtaining them. The order of the two junior authors is randomly determined. Support for this research was provided by the University of Minnesota Graduate School and a Social Science Research Council doctoral dissertation fellowship (No. SS-27-83-12), with funds from the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The authors thank Arthur Brief, Nancy Goldberg, and Douglas Klein for their assistance with this project. Correspondence concerning this paper should be directed to Loriann Roberson, Psychology Department, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 550, New York, NY 10003. 30 OOOl-8791/89 $3.00 Copyright AU rights
0 1989 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
IDENTIFYING
WORK
OUTCOMES
31
They set goals to attain outcomes with high anticipated value (valence), which then determine behavior (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1984; Lawler, 1973). Taxonomies of outcomes attempt to identify the content or nature of those outcomes valued by individuals. These taxonomies provide a means of specifying the domain of work outcomes for motivational research (Billings & Cornelius, 1980) and constructing measures of job satisfaction. Taxonomies also facilitate comparisons and syntheses of research findings (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). Thus, a wide array of research depends on accurate and comprehensive taxonomies of work outcomes. Over the past 30 years several attempts have been made to create taxonomies of work outcomes (e.g., Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). However, a number of writers have raised serious questions about the adequacy and usefulness of these systems. In a review of the motivational literature, Campbell and Pritchard (1976) concluded that we still have very fragmentary knowledge about the outcomes for which people work. They attributed this problem to the strategies used to identify outcomes, which have not comprehensively and systematically sampled the work outcome domain. Instead, researchers have relied on a priori notions about facets of work that are important to most workers, or factor analyzed outcome items borrowed from other experimenters (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Locke, 1976). Nord, Brief, Atieh, and Doherty (1988) have also argued that reliance on these strategies has resulted in taxonomies that are construct deficient. Their review found that organizational taxonomies omit many work outcomes mentioned in philosophical and theoretical discussions on the meaning of work, which suggests that the available taxonomies do not encompass all end states valued by employees. This criticism of construct deficiency was supported empirically in a study by Scarpello and Campbell (1983). These authors found that the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), a facet measure assessing satisfaction with 20 outcomes, failed to include the range of variables influencing job satisfaction. In interview sessions, workers mentioned several factors affecting their satisfaction that were unrelated to any of the MSQ facets, yet strongly correlated with a measure of global satisfaction. Existing taxonomies are also criticized because of their vulnerability to experimenter bias (Nord et al., 1988). The use of an a priori strategy to identify work outcomes increases the probability that the experimenter’s own values and beliefs will influence decisions about the outcomes that are important to employees. Several writers have argued that the current emphasis of the organizational literature on intrinsic outcomes (e.g., autonomy, self-actualization) reflects predominantly the values of
32
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
psychologists, not those of most workers (e.g., Brief & Aldag, in press; Fein, 1976; Nord et al., 1988). Thus, although past research has identified a number of outcomes important to workers, authors suggest that there is still much to be learned. Evidence indicates that the taxonomies most often used in organizational research may omit important outcomes and distort their relative importance. More research is needed to refine our current definition of outcome categories and to identify additional valued incentives (Vroom, 1964). Continued reliance on past strategies of outcome identification is unlikely to accomplish this goal. Instead, methodological innovation is called for. Campbell and Pritchard (1976) recommended the use of free response techniques focusing on theoretical conceptions of outcomes. For example, from an expectancy-value motivational perspective, the anticipated value of outcomes determines an individual’s decisions about the level of effort to expend on a particular task or a job change (Vroom, 1964). Asking people to think of the times such decisions were made and to report the factors influencing those decisions would be an alternate way to identify important outcomes. Locke (1976) presents a similar suggestion, arguing for individual case studies of changes in satisfaction over a period of time. Again, such a strategy allows the identification of factors influencing satisfaction that may not be revealed by questionnaire research. Research strategies such as those described above guard against experimenters projecting their own beliefs about valued outcomes into results. Thus, problems of bias are minimized. In addition, issues of deficiency are addressed. By asking subjects directly about the factors influencing behavior and attitudes, a more complete picture of the outcomes considered important may be obtained (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Finally, the use of methods based on theoretical definitions of outcomes facilitates examining the validity of existing outcome taxonomies. Current taxonomies are meant to specify those factors responsible for behavior and satisfaction. Methods that directly probe the determinants of specific actions and feelings should yield results consistent with previous taxonomic work. The present study utilized a free response technique to identify work outcomes. Information on outcomes was obtained by asking subjects to list their personal goals for their job. Personal goals were broadly defined as whatever the individual seeks from the job situation: the objects or aims of action (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). This definition includes not only task-related goals, but also goals for nontask incentives. The use of goals to identify valued outcomes is based on the theoretical relationship between these two constructs that is well documented in the literature. Individuals set or become committed to goals only to attain
IDENTIFYING
WORKOUTCOMES
33
outcomes anticipated to be of personal value (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Locke & Henne, 1986). Asking subjects to report their goals for the job ensures that only valued outcomes will be reported. In addition, goals are a major influence on behavior (Locke et al., 1981) and satisfaction (Locke, 1976; Roberson, in press a). Thus, an analysis of the content of personal work goals should reveal the outcomes that people are actually working to attain, and that, if attained, will enhance their satisfaction. This study’s focus on goals also offered an opportunity to examine negative work outcomes. The method used allowed people to describe not only positive, but also negative goals (i.e., those things they want to avoid). Almost without exception, taxonomies of outcomes describe the positive end states which individuals desire, and little information on negative or aversive end states is available (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980). However, negative outcomes are also powerful controllers of behavior and contributors to satisfaction (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Roberson, in press a). An analysis of negative goals may reveal additional important incentives overlooked by the past emphasis on positive outcomes. The objectives of this study, then, were twofold. First, we describe the content of personal work goals. Although we expect the analysis of goals to yield results similar to past work, the unique methodology used here may reveal additional outcomes not previously considered. Second, we examine similarities and differences in the content of positive and negative goals. With the exception of Herzberg (1964) most theorists have assumed that the content of positive and negative outcomes are similar (Lawler, 1973). This study, in which positive and negative goals were classified separately, allowed the examination of this assumption. METHOD
Subjects Participants were a convenience sample of 175 employees working in a midwestem metropolitan area. Subjects were drawn from several sources. Twenty-five subjects were students enrolled in an evening psychology class at a university who also worked full time. The remaining subjects were drawn from a manufacturing firm, a transportation firm, and three not for profit or public agencies. Ninety-two employees were female, the remaining 69 were male (demographic information was not available for 14 individuals). The median age of the sample was 32, and the amount of education ranged from some high school to graduate school with 58% having attained at least a bachelor’s degree. According to Holland’s (1985) occupational classification system. 7% (I 1) of the individuals were employed in realistic occupations, 10% (16) in investi-
34
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND
DIDDAMS
gative occupations, 2% (3) in artistic occupations, 32% (51) in social occupations, 10% (16) in conventional occupations, and 40% (64) in enterprising occupations. The sample contained 26 of the 77 occupational codes that represent the 500 most common occupations in the United States. Median tenure in the present job was 1.4 years. Personal
Work Goals
Information on subject work goals was collected with the Work Concerns Inventory (WCI; Roberson, in press b) as part of a larger study. The WC1 is a semistructured instrument that uses an idiographic technique to identify each subject’s unique work-related goals. On the measure, subjects generated an exhaustive list of their goals in their own words. The WC1 defined goals for subjects as “things you are involved in right now, your goals or plans for the future, problems you are having right now, or activities you would like to be involved with.” To aid subjects in identifying these concerns, the instructions included a list of 15 broadly defined job content areas such as co-workers and working conditions, with examples of possible goals related to each area. This list was assembled through reference to existing taxonomies of work outcomes and was included on the WC1 to provide an example of possible goals to the subjects. The list was used to jog subject memories of goals that they were currently pursuing and to give subjects an idea of the range of possible goals that they could list on the questionnaire. However, the instructions reminded subjects that they may or may not have goals in each of these content areas, and that on the questionnaire they were only to list their own goals, regardless of whether they resembled those on the content list. Subjects were then asked to write their goals down on the answer sheet. The answer sheet consisted of 12 separate pages, each identified with a verb group used to describe the action their goals involved. One verb group was listed at the top of each page. The verb groups included were those suggested by Klinger, Barta, and Maxeiner (1981) to describe the positivity or negativity of goal objects. These groups were: (1) get, (2) keep, (3) restore, (4) do, (5) get rid of, (6) avoid, (7) prevent, (8) escape, (9) attack, (10) find out more about a positive thing, (11) find out more about a negative thing, (12) find out more about a neutral thing. Subjects were first asked to think of all their current goals involving things at work that they wanted to get (if any), and to write these things on the first page, using the “get” verb. For example, an individual might write “Get an office with a window,” and “Get some constructive feedback from my co-workers” on the first page to represent his/her goals. Once all “get” goals were listed, subjects turned to the second page and wrote down goals involving things at work they wanted to keep, using
IDENTIFYING
WORK
OUTCOMES
35
the “keep” verbs. In this way, subjects listed all their relevant goals on each page of the questionnaire. Subjects were told that they need not use all the verbs provided, but only those that were relevant to their own goals. In addition, although each page of the answer sheet held enough space for subjects to list 10 goals, subjects were instructed that they need not use all the space provided. After the goals were listed, a series of scales were used to assess the characteristics of each goal. These scales are not examined in this paper and will not be discussed here. The interested reader is referred to Roberson (in press b) for additional information. The 175 subjects listed a total of 5613 goals on the WCI. The average number of goals listed was 32, with a standard deviation of 18. Procedure All subjects voluntarily completed the WC1 as a self-assessment exercise. The instrument was offered as a way for subjects to gain information about themselves in their job, and confidential, individual feedback was promised (and given) to all participants. Thirty percent of the subjects were recruited from career development classes/workshops offered by their organization. These subjects completed the WC1 in the classroom setting. The remainder of the subjects were contacted individually by the senior author and asked to participate. Because these data were collected as part of a larger study, subjects completed the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire before the WCI. The senior author administered the WC1 to all participants, first explaining in detail the procedure for completing the measure and answering any questions. With the exception of the career development workshops, subjects completed the instrument individually or in small groups of three to four in the presence of the senior author. After receiving instructions and reviewing the WCI, some participants completed the measure at home, returning it by mail. Supervisors of the subjects were present during administration only if they were also completing the measure. In group settings, confidentiality of responses was ensured by seating subjects at a comfortable distance from each other. Content Analysis The content analysis involved a three-step process. In the initial step, the two junior authors examined a random sample of approximately 500 unique goal statements (250 positive and 250 negative) from the total sample of 5613 goal statements collected. Positive goals were defined as those written using the following verbs: get, keep, restore, do, find out more about a positive thing, and find out more about a neutral thing. Negative goals were defined as those stated using the verb groups: get rid of, avoid, prevent, escape, attack, and find out more about a negative
36
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
thing. Based on content similarity, the coders independently clustered the positive and negative goals separately to form two goal taxonomies. These coders then met to synthesize their results and come to consensus on a final set of categories and the placement of each goal statement within them. This procedure yielded 23 positive and 18 negative goal categories. A definition of each category was then written and given to another judge (advanced graduate student in industrial/organizational psychology) along with the original goal statements. This judge sorted the goals into the categories and the interrater agreement of this judge with the initial coders’ judgments was determined. For the positive goals, the K coefficient (Cohen, 1960) was .73; for the negative goals, K = .7l. Having established the discriminability of the categories, the second step of the content analysis focused on evaluating the sufficiency of this classification system. The two junior authors independently classified the remaining goal statements using the two taxonomies, meeting periodically to determine their agreement. The coders jointly examined and resolved those cases where disagreements occurred so that consensus was reached on the placement of all goal statements. During this procedure, the classification system was modified to enhance its clarity, and several new categories were added. This process resulted in a positive goal taxonomy of 24 categories, and a negative goal taxonomy of 19 categories. In the third step, the clarity of this new system was examined. A written definition of each positive and negative category was given to a fourth naive judge along with a random sample of 100 positive and 100 negative goal statements that had been previously coded by the junior authors. The naive judge was asked to classify each of the goal statements using the new category system. Interrater agreement (K) was .73 for the positive goals and .72 for negative goals. According to Landis and Koch (1977), these values indicate a substantial level of agreement. RESULTS The outcome categories identified by the content analysis of goal statements, as well as a representative goal for each category are shown in Table 1.’ Although positive and negative goals were clustered separately, similar outcome categories emerged. Table 1 shows that many of the categories, i.e., personal performance, pay/benefits, co-worker and managerial relationships, etc., appear as both positive and negative goals. The presence or favorability of these outcomes is viewed as something to gain or keep, while the absence or unfavorability of these same outcomes is described as something to avoid or escape. ’ Complete descriptions of each of the outcome categories and prototypical of goals within each category are available from the authors.
examples
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
37
This similarity in the content of positive and negative incentives is consistent with the assertions of Lawler (1973) and provides additional evidence against Herzberg’s (1964) theory. Herzberg proposed that goals for “hygiene” factors (e.g., pay, co-workers, managers) would be predominantly negative, while goals for “motivators” (e.g., growth, achieve-
TABLE 1 Work Outcome Categories Identified through Content Analysis of Work Goals Positive goal dimensions 1. Personal Performance “Continue being a top performer” 2. Professional Development “Keep qualified for a variety of jobs” 3. Pay and Benefits “Get a 3% raise” 4. Working Conditions/Resources “Obtain a bigger office space” 5. Career Advancement “Obtain a promotion” 6. Managerial Relationships “Do discuss problems with supervisor without fear of reprisal” I. Task Content “Keep interesting & unique assignments in job” 8. Co-worker Relationships “Repair a friendship with a coworker” 9. Self-Image “Maintain my sense of humor” 10. Client Relationships “Restore customer relations” 11. Positive Feedback “Get recognition for planning I’ve done on several projects” 12. Organizational Performance “Help restore company to its dominant position in the marketplace” 13. Work Schedule “Keep after hours free of meetings” 14. Co-worker Effectiveness “Get better skilled/educated staff on board” 15. Autonomy-Independence “Gain more say in daily work load”
Negative goal dimensions 1. Co-worker Relationships “Get rid of co-workers who treat you as if you are lower” 2. Administrative Policies “Find out more about staff pattern for next year” 3. Co-worker Effectiveness “Keep away from talkers and dawdlers” 4. Task Content “Avoid overabundance of paperwork” 5. Managerial Relationships “Stop power abuse by supervisor” 6. Self-Image “Avoid expressing anger” 7. Working Conditions/Resources “Escape to a quiet place where I can be alone on my break” 8. Client Relationships “Ignore rude customers” 9. Personal Performance “Stop being slipshod in preparing for one of my parenting groups” 10. Health and Safety “Find out more about alleged carelessness with radioactive isotopes” 11. Work Schedule “Escape working after 5 :00 PM” 12. Job Withdrawal “Get away from the job for awhile” 13. Negative Feedback “Avoid getting yelled at” 14. Organizational Performance “Find out more about what pressures exist in the home office” 15. Pay and Benefits “Avoid losing camp time” 16. Job Security “Avoid being laid off’
38
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
TABLE 16. Work Group Morale “Keep spirit of enthusiasm at building” 17. Job Clarity/Predictability “Do prepare for the weeks ahead” 18. Job Security “Keep a job with the company” 19. Administrative Policies “Find out more about corporate statling” 20. Authority “Gain more control over petty cash” 21. Social Events “Keep playing cards at noon for relaxation” 22. Work Pacing “Obtain busier schedule” 23. Other Organizations “Find out more about the competition” 24. Monetary Resources “Find out more about legitimate program expenses”
AND DIDDAMS
l-Continued 17. Work Pacing “Avoid sitting around with nothing to do” 18. Monetary Resources “Avoid overspending on program budget” 19. Career Advancement “Avoid staying in one place too long and deterring advancement”
ment, type of work) would be positive. The present data set does not support this proposition. Table 2 lists the outcome categories in decreasing order of frequency of mention. The frequency with which each goal type was mentioned and the corresponding percentages are displayed in columns 1 and 2. Among the most frequently mentioned positive and negative outcomes are personal performance, professional development, career advancement, type of work, pay/benefits, working conditions, manager and coworker relationships. Previous writers (Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964) have provided evidence that these facets are important to most workers. In addition, Quinn and Staines (1971) reported that at least 60% of the general U.S. population rate these factors as “very important” to them. The significance of these outcomes to workers can also be examined by looking at the percentage of individuals in the sample that mentioned each outcome category. The third and fourth columns in Table 1 present information on the number and percentage of people listing each outcome. Conclusions about goal prominence do not differ substantially; rankings using the number of people listing each goal produce results similar to those obtained using frequency of mention.
~~
Negative goals ~~~~--____ Number % of Number of % of Number % of Number of % of Category of goals goals subjects subjects Category of goals goals subjects subjects .--__ -___ 1. Personal performance 15 121 69 537 16 159 89 1. Co-worker relationships 328 2. Professional development 281 8 II6 66 2. Administrative policies 250 11 100 57 3. Pay/benefits 276 79 3. Co-worker effectiveness 10 92 53 8 138 222 4. Working conditions/resources 2.51 7 115 66 4. Type of task 217 IO 107 61 5. Career advancement 206 6 108 62 5. Managerial relationships 169 8 80 46 6. Managerial relationships 193 6 85 49 6 107 61 6. Self-image 142 7. Type of task 181 5 96 55 7. Working conditions/resources 140 6 72 41 8. Co-worker relationships 149 49 8. Client relationships 136 6 78 45 4 86 9. Self-image 139 83 47 4 80 46 9. Personal performance 131 6 IO. Client relationships II3 3 70 40 IO. Health/safety 86 4 57 33 Il. Positive feedback 100 3 69 39 11. Work schedule 62 3 48 27 12. Organizational performance 97 3 66 38 12. Job withdrawal 62 3 44 25 13. Work schedule 96 3 68 39 13. Negative feedback 57 3 38 22 14. Co-worker effectiveness 93 3 58 33 14. Organizational performance 52 2 36 21 IS. Autonomy/Independence 86 2 62 35 15. Pay benefits 50 2 44 25 16. Work group morale 86 2 61 35 16. Job security 30 I 25 14 17. Job clarity/predictability 84 2 64 37 17. Work pacing 26 I 23 I3 18. Job security 81 2 60 34 18. Monetary resources 22 I I6 09 19. Administrative policies 77 2 46 26 19. Career advancement 20 I 18 IO 20. Authority 52 2 35 20 20. Unclassified 28 1 21. Social events 45 I 37 21 Total 2230 iii6 22. Work pacing 39 1 28 I6 23. Other organizations 38 1 29 17 24. Monetary resources 31 1 22 13 25. Unclassified 2 52 Total CJ 3383 --.. --- ” Three percent loss due to rounding error.
Positive goals
TABLE 2 Frequency of Mention for Work Outcome Categories
40
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
In sum, the use of a different methodology to identify work outcomes produces results consistent with prior work. The most frequently mentioned goals involve outcomes previously identified as important to most workers. The frequency information also shows that overall, positive outcomes are mentioned more frequently than negative. Several other authors have noted a bias favoring the reporting and recall of positive things over negative (Boucher & Osgood, 1969; Feather, 1970). In a work-related context, Machungwa and Schmitt (1983) also found that individuals listed more positive motivational variables than negative. Another objective of this paper was to specify differences between the outcome categories defined here and those identified by previous writers. Does this methodology provide new information about types of valued outcomes? To answer this question we examined the major outcome taxonomies identified by Campbell and Pritchard (1976), Quinn & Cobb (1971), Lawler (1973), Vroom (1964), Dawis et al. (1968), and Herzberg et al. (1959), as well as that provided by Locke (1976). A comparison was made of the outcomes included by these authors with those yielded by our analysis of goals. We found several outcome categories appearing here that have not been discussed by the writers above. Two of these categories distinguished additional facets of work relationships. For example, relationships with clients and other organizations appears as both a positive (No. 10 and No. 23) and negative (No. 8) incentive. In addition to desiring smooth working relationships with superiors and co-workers, good relationships with clients and other organizations are also valued. The effectiveness of co-workers also emerged as a distinct category of positive (No. 14) and negative (No. 3) goals. Locke (1976) has argued that this aspect of co-worker behavior will be valued when it facilitates the individual’s goal attainment. In this sample, goals to obtain and keep effective, competent co-workers and to avoid lazy, unmotivated ones were quite common. The major difference between our results and past work is the emergence here of what we labeled “self-image” outcomes. Again, this outcome appears as both a positive (No. 9) and a negative (No. 6) incentive. To illustrate this category, Table 3 contains a representative sample of 20 positive and negative self-image goals. As shown, the outcomes associated with these categories are behaviors, feelings, or attitudes that the individual wants to achieve, e.g., maintain my sense of humor. This group differs from others in that the valued outcomes for such goals are not organizational or job facets, but appear to be positive self-evaluations from meeting personal standards. This type of outcome has received little attention in the organizational literature. In past work, only self-evaluations of task competence have been considered important in work settings (Lawler, 1973; Vroom, 1964). Our analysis also suggests the significance of self-perceived task com-
IDENTIFYING
A Representative
WORK OUTCOMES
41
TABLE 3 Sample of Positive and Negative Self-Image Goals
Maintain my professionalism Obtain a feeling of confidence Get back my ambition Gain more assertiveness Keep from getting upset Keep an open mind Continue on the job coolness about self Continue progress in self discipline Maintain my sense of humor Continue to be self motivated Stop assuming things Stop being repetitious Avoid such a deep sense of responsibility for everyone that it turns to guilt Change being frightened of the person who likes to gossip Get rid of my impatience Avoid buying into the bullshit Stop procrastinating Stop worrying about things getting done-who’s doing what Avoid pissing and moaning instead of doing Avoid raising my voice
petence, for goals to perform well are the most frequently mentioned. However, the self-image categories defined here do not include performance outcomes. Instead, self-image refers to other desired behaviors and attitudes that are not specifically task related. The self-image goals do not refer to what tasks or work activities individuals will be involved in, but rather how they wish to conduct themselves while at work. Finally, it is worth noting the presence of job withdrawal goals in this taxonomy (Neg. No. 12). In this category, the positive outcome is escape from the work environment. The goals include those to merely be absent for awhile, as well as those to quit the job permanently. Models of absenteeism and turnover (Mobley, 1977; Steers & Rhodes, 1978) propose that these kinds of goals are an important precursor of actual withdrawal behavior. In this sample, 25% of the workers reported withdrawal goals. DISCUSSION
This analysis of the content of personal work goals offers a way to validate past research on valued outcomes and to extend our knowledge of work incentives. The results support the validity of existing taxonomies in that the outcomes previously identified as important are those that individuals in this sample had actual goals to obtain. In general, there were few differences between the outcome categories
42
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND
DIDDAMS
found here and those identified in past work. However, this study suggests the significance of self-image outcomes in the work context. Given the previous neglect of such outcomes in discussions of work motivation and satisfaction, it is somewhat surprising to find that such goals are so frequently mentioned. Yet, nonperformance related self standards have received greater emphasis in the personality literature. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985) posits that important goals result from the discrepancies individuals perceive when comparing their “actual” self to “ideal” and “ought” self standards. These standards include the attributes which individuals either ideally want to possess or believe they should possess. Cantor, Markus, Niedenthal, and Nurius (1986) distinguished between “life task” and “possible self” goals. The former involve the problems people see themselves as working on, the commitments that organize important activities. For example, goals to gain a promotion, learn new skills at work, and make friends with coworkers would fall into their life task category. “Possible self” goals are similar to Higgins et al.‘s (1985) self standards, and refer to standards for the type of person the individual hopes to become-witty, urbane, cheerful, etc. This is the type of goal which characterized our self-image categories. While the content of such goals was highly idiosyncratic, they were similar in that they all referred to the individual’s standards for their own behavior. The prevalence of self-image goals in this sample provides evidence in agreement with Locke’s (1976) suggestion that views of the self are an important influence on job satisfaction. Thus, there may be limits to an organization’s ability to influence employee satisfaction by manipulating job outcomes, for satisfaction may depend not only on how the individual views the job, but also on how the self is perceived. Future research on satisfaction should expand to consider the influence of selfimage goals. For example, what are the affective implications for individuals who have attained all job outcome goals, but fail to meet their personal self-standards? Cantor et al. (1986) have argued that self-image goals specify the strategies for attaining job outcome goals, and this accounts for individual differences in behavior. Thus, two employees in the same job may both have a goal of attaining a promotion. However, one individual, desiring a sociable, popular self-image, may seek to achieve the promotion by expanding her/his network of influential friends and acquaintances. The other, wishing to be a “rugged individualist,” may work in solitude long hours, preferring to go it alone. Although both individuals have the same job outcome goal, behaviors in the service of that goal would differ substantially. Accurate prediction of goal-directed behavior can only occur through knowledge of both job outcome and self-image goals (Cantor et al., 1986). In our field, researchers have focused solely on job
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
43
outcome goals. Greater attention to self-image goals may increase our understanding of motivation and behavior. In interpreting these results, the limitations of this study must be kept in mind. The free response method of generating outcome information was used to decrease the susceptibility of the results to experimenter bias. However, the method we used to cluster these outcomes was clearly not free of experimenter influence. Thus, the categories and labels presented here represent our point of view regarding the structure of work outcomes. Clearly, these labels are meaningful, as naive raters could reproduce the categories with high agreement. However, their validity and generality needs to be addressed. Because a convenience sample was used in this study the results may be specific to these particular subjects. In additon, the context of data collection may have influenced the results. More data, particularly on the importance of self-image goals, must be collected across a wider and more representative sample of jobs and organizations. In such investigations, the use of experimenter independent methods for both data generation and clustering should be considered. With different samples and methods of clustering, other goal categories may emerge. However, this exploratory study demonstrates the usefulness of alternate free response methodologies in examining outcomes. The results not only support past work, but also identify a new facet of work outcomes concerning the self. Future research is needed to validate and extend the meaning of this category and to explore its importance in work settings. REFERENCES Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132. Billings, R. S., & Cornelius, E. T. (1980). Dimensions of work outcomes: A multidimensional scaling approach. Personnel Psychology, 33, 151-162. Boucher, J., &Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. JournalofVerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 8, l-8. Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (in press). The economic functions of work. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Cantor, N., Markus, H., Niedenthal, P., & Nurius, P. (1986). On motivation and the self concept. In R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook ofmotivation and cognition (pp. %-121). New York: Guilford Press. Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement,
20, 37-46.
Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A theory of work adjustment (A revision). Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation (Vol. 23). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal
of Applied
Psychology,
69, 379-389.
44
ROBERSON,
HOUSTON,
AND DIDDAMS
Feather, N. T. (1970). Balancing and positivity effects in social recall. Journal @-Personality, 38, 602-628. Feather, N. T. (1982). Human values and the prediction of action: An expectancy-value analysis. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fein, M. (1976). Motivation for work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook ofwork, organization, and society (pp. 465-530). Chicago: Rand McNally. Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies ofhuman performance: The description of human tasks. New York: Academic Press. Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1984). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese and J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: Psychological theory and research on action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Herzberg, F. (1964). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publ. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3, 51-76. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220. Klinger, E., Barta, S. Cl., & Maxeiner, M. E. (1981). Current concerns: Assessing therapeutically relevant motivation. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions. New York: Academic. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. l-35). New York: Wiley. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152. Machungwa, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (1983). Work motivation in a developing country. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 31-42. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240. Nord, W. R., Brief, A. P., Atieh, J. M., & Doherty, E. M. (1988). Work values and the conduct of organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. l-42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Quinn, R. P., & Cobb, W. (1971). What workers want: Factor analysis of importance ratings ofjob facets. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Quinn, R. P., I!?LStaines, G. L. (1971). Survey of working conditions (1969-70). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Roberson, L. (in press a). Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of personal work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Roberson, L. (in press b). Assessing personal work goals in the organizational setting: Development and evaluation of the Work Concerns Inventory. Organizatonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
IDENTIFYING
WORK OUTCOMES
45
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology,
36, 577400.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: xxii. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Received: November 9, 1988