Changes in person-organization fit over time

Transcription

Sven Hauff und Stefan Kirchner
Match and mismatch of workplace situation and work
values in six countries from 1989 to 2005
Diskussionspapiere des Schwerpunktes
Unternehmensführung am Fachbereich BWL der
Universität Hamburg
Nr. 11
November 2012
Tor zur Welt der Wissenschaft
Nr. 11
Sven Hauff*/Stefan Kirchner**
Match and mismatch of workplace situation and work values
in six countries from 1989 to 2005
November 2012
*
Dr. Sven Hauff, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Economics and Social
Sciences, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. Email:
sven.hauff@wiso.uni-hamburg.de
**
Dr. Stefan Kirchner, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Economics and
Social Sciences, Welckerstr. 8, 20354 Hamburg, Germany. Email:
stefan.kirchner@uni-hamburg.de
Tor zur Welt der Wissenschaft
Abstract:
Little is known about the changes in person-organization fit or mismatch between workplace
situation and work values over time. This paper analyzes the transformation of the workplace
situation, work values, and mismatch in the USA, Great Britain, West Germany, Norway,
Hungary, and Israel. The empirical analysis is based on ISSP data from 1989, 1997, and 2005.
Mismatch is investigated based on five dimensions: job security, income, career opportunities,
interesting job, and independence at work. Findings show country-specific change patterns.
Changes in person-organization fit are situation driven, value driven, or a result of an interaction of both (amplification, adaption, or absorption effects).
Keywords: Person-organization fit; mismatch, social change, international comparison,
work values
Table of Contents: 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 2.1 Person-organization fit or the matching between organizations and people ............... 3 2.2 Matching workplace situation and work values over time .......................................... 5 2.3 Organizational change and change in workplace situation ......................................... 8 2.4 Work value change ...................................................................................................... 9 Empirical analysis ............................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Data, measures, and method ...................................................................................... 11 3.2 Trends of workplace situation, work values, and mismatch...................................... 12 4 Discussion and conclusion ................................................................................................ 16 5 References ......................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 26 1
1
Introduction
The question of match or mismatch between workplace situation and individual work values
can be described as a form of person-organization (P-O) fit (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008;
Kristof, 1996). While P-O fit was analyzed in numerous studies (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman,
& Johnson, 2005; Piasentin, 2006), a historical perspective on it has received little attention
so far (e.g., see Kalleberg, 2007, 2008; Reynolds & Aletraris, 2010). This is surprising, considering that organizations, as well as work values, undergo frequent and sometimes substantial changes. As for workplace situation, particularly the development toward high performance work practices promised more independent work and more interesting jobs (see, e.g.,
Appelbaum, Bailey, & Berg, 2000; Kalleberg, 2001). Yet there are also tendencies of erosion
and decline, specifically with regard to job security or income (Kalleberg, 2001, 2009, 2011;
Ashford, George, & Blatt, 2007; Osterman & Shulman, 2011). Parallel to changing work and
employment conditions, work-related values also seem to be in a process of change. Whereas
earlier studies assumed a growing emphasis on intrinsic work values (e.g., interesting work)
(Yankelovich, Zetterberg, Strümpel, & Shanks, 1985), more recent research indicates that the
importance of extrinsic values (e.g., income) has also been partially increasing (Cozma, 2011;
Ester, Braun, & Vinken, 2006).
If employees do not adapt their expectations to changing work and employment conditions,
discrepancies between individual values and the workplace situation are bound to occur, leading to an increased level of mismatch between expectations and the situation at work. In turn,
this can be expected to have negative impacts on attitudes and behavior like job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, job performance, and employee turnover (e.g., Hoffman &
Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).
The main objective of this paper is thus to analyze the change in P-O fit over time and across
countries. We conducted an internationally comparative study and investigated the effects of
organizational change along with value change on the employee level. To capture key dimensions of work life, we investigated the workplace situation, work values, and the subsequent
match or mismatch along three extrinsic aspects of work (income, security, career opportunities) and two intrinsic aspects of work (interesting job, independent work).
In Section 2 of this paper, we introduce the concept of P-O fit and discuss how mismatch develops. We highlight general trends regarding the change in working and employment conditions or work values. In Section 3, we use data from the International Social Survey Program
2
(ISSP) from three time periods (1989, 1997 and 2005), covering six countries (USA, Great
Britain, West Germany, Norway, Hungary, and Israel), to answer the above research questions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main results in Section 4.
Whereas a majority of items show continuity, our findings also indicate some significant
changes in workplace situation, work values, and mismatch in the observed countries. Changes in P-O fit may be due to changes in the workplace situation, work value change, or an interaction of both. Change patterns of interaction stem from the opposing dynamics of workplace situation and work values (amplification effect): a shift in one aspect is followed by a
shift in another (adaption effect) or a development in the same direction (absorption effect).
Finally, changes in one dimension do not necessarily alter the P-O fit in general because they
are compensated by developments in other dimensions.
2
Background
2.1 Person-organization fit or the matching between organizations and people
The match or mismatch between workplace situation and individual work values is strongly
related to the concept of person-organization (P-O) fit (Kristof, 1996; Cennamo & Gardner,
2008). The P-O fit represents a specific aspect of the comprehensive concept of personenvironment (P-E) fit, which also includes the individual’s fit with a particular job (P-J), vocation (P-V), group (P-G), or supervisor (P-S) (Hamdan, 2011; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
The P-E fit describes “the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that
occurs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005: 281).
This paper emphasizes the P-O fit. Kristof (1996: 4-5) defines it as: “the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the
other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both.” Accordingly,
P-O fit comprises two possible relationships between employees and their organization. On
the one hand, employees and organizations can fulfill each other’s needs (i.e., complementary
congruence). Thus a match occurs when an organization fulfills the expectations of its members (needs-supplies fit) or when the members meet the organization’s requirements (demands-abilities fit). On the other hand, employees and organizations can both exhibit the
same characteristics (i.e., supplementary congruence), comprising largely equivalent values
(value congruence), common goals (goal congruence), or personality (personality congruence)
(e.g., Edwards, 2008; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Verquer et al., 2003).
3
The relation between organizational change and work value change refers to a needs-supplies
perspective of P-O fit. In this perspective, work values (respectively desirable job characteristics or job orientations) are understood as a point of reference to assess an organization because values signify what people expect from work (e.g., Dose, 1997; Ros, Schwartz, &
Surkiss, 1999; Bu & Mckeen, 2001). “Work values are beliefs pertaining to desirable endstates (e.g., high pay) or behavior (e.g., working with people) […]; they refer to what a person
wants out of work in general, rather than to the narrowly defined outcomes of particular jobs”
(Ros et al., 1999: 54). As values in general serve to assess the social world, work values are
important for the evaluation of the workplace, the attitudes to specific workplace situations,
and the respective behavioral response (Ros et al., 1999; Gahan & Abeysekera, 2009).
Furthermore, referring to the concept of work values allows a multi-dimensional view of P-O
fit because two central dimensions of work values are usually distinguished (Sagie, Elizur,
Koslowsky, & Meni, 1996; Lyons, Higgins, & Duxbury, 2010). Extrinsic values (material or
instrumental values) refer to aspects such as job security, income, or career opportunities.
Intrinsic values (self-actualization or cognitive work values) relate to aspects such as the pursuit of autonomy or having an interesting job.
The common theoretical background for studies on P-O fit is Schneider’s (1987) AttractionSelection-Attrition (ASA) theory (for a comprehensive overview on P-E fit theories, see
Edwards, 2008). The model describes the mechanism of mutual adaption between people and
organizations. According to the ASA theory, organizations attract people who share an organization’s values and believe that it will support their professional ambitions and wishes. This
leads to a relatively homogeneous pool of applicants from which organizations select only
those compatible with the jobs offered by them. Through recruitment processes, organizations
ensure that employees share the same values and beliefs, even if they do not share common
competencies and skills. Finally, attrition represents the opposite of attraction. Despite mutual
screening processes, employees may not fit in the actual organizational environment and tend
to leave.
As a result of the attraction-selection-attrition process, organizations become relatively uniform in terms of personality, behavior, needs, orientations, and experience. This may result in
a reduced adaptive capacity of organizations (Schneider, 1987). However, homogeneity can
also be linked to several positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, communication, cooperation, and commitment (Edwards, 2008). Indeed, most empirical studies on P-O fit have been
done on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The overall findings of these studies are summa4
rized in several meta-analyses. Based on a meta-analysis of 21 studies, Verquer et al. (2003)
point out that the P-O fit is strongly related to turnover (ρ=-.21), job satisfaction (ρ=.21), and
organizational commitment (ρ=.31). Hoffman and Woehr (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006) extend
these findings by providing a meta-analysis on P-O fit and behavioral outcomes. Their analysis of 24 studies indicates that the P-O fit is moderately related to turnover (ρ=.26), task performance (ρ=.26), and OCB (ρ=.21). Somewhat different are the correlations revealed by the
meta-analysis of Kristof-Brown et al. (2005). They analyzed 110 studies which assessed the
nexus between P-O fit and work outcomes. According to their analysis, the P-O fit has
stronger correlations with attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction: ρ=.44, organizational commitment: ρ=.51, intent to quit ρ=−.35), and weaker correlations with measures of performance
(job performance: ρ=.07, task performance: ρ=.13, contextual performance: ρ=.27, tenure:
ρ=.03, turnover: ρ=−.14). Taken together, these findings show that there is still some uncertainty concerning the strength of the relationship, but it is clear that a poor fit between individuals and organizations may impact on attitudes and behavior.
The ASA model describes the “shining world” of neoclassical labor markets in which employees can choose the work they want. In contrast, sociological and other economic perspectives emphasize the inefficiency of labor markets. Various variables (e.g., education, gender,
information deficits, social structure) prevent employees from getting the job they want
(Reynolds & Aletraris, 2010). Accordingly, the intriguing question is to what extent the
workplace situation really matches the values of employees and whether and how this changes over time.
2.2 Matching workplace situation and work values over time
Despite the number of investigations of P-O fit, little is known so far about the development
of mismatch over time and how P-O fit dynamics relate to organizational change and work
value change. Some research has been carried out on work hour mismatch (for an overview,
see Golden, 2006). For example, Reynolds and Aletraris (2010) have recently analyzed
changes in the mismatches between actual and preferred work hours of paid work in the USA.
Using a longitudinal design, they show that the gap between actual and preferred work hours
has grown in the early 1990s and that the population of employees affected by work hour
mismatch is in flux.
More comprehensive insights can be drawn from the works of Kalleberg (2007, 2008) who
investigated how the match between people’s jobs and their needs, preferences, and abilities
has changed in recent years in the USA. He analyzed mismatch developments along seven
5
dimensions: skills and qualifications (over- and underqualification), geographical or spatial
location, temporality and time preferences (overworking and underworking), inadequate earnings and conflicts between work and family life. He reports that in recent years, mismatches
in most of these dimensions have become more common in the USA, especially with regard
to overworking and work-family conflict.
Theoretically, there are a number of different ways how mismatch develops and dissolves and
how people respond to it (see Reynolds & Aletraris, 2010). The most important analytical
types of mismatch change will be discussed briefly for the purpose of this paper (see Fig. 1).
Generally, actual changes in mismatches can be situation driven, value driven, or can be the
result of an interaction of workplace situation and work value change:
First, there is the case of either no change or the continuity of mismatch levels due to the continuity of the workplace situation and work values. Second, situation-driven mismatch changes imply changes only in the workplace situation, which can either lead to an increase or a
decrease in mismatch. For example, if work becomes more insecure but the values tied up
with job security remain the same, this will lead to a higher mismatch level. This rule applies,
third, similarly to value-driven mismatch changes where values are shifting while the workplace situation remains unchanged. Fourth, an interaction of simultaneous changes in workplace situation and work values can lead to an amplification of mismatch change. This is the
case if both underlying aspects change in opposing directions (job security decreasing or becoming more important). In contrast, an aligned change trajectory of both aspects (high income decreasing or becoming less important) can absorb a shift in mismatch levels. The decline in one aspect does not impact on the mismatch level since it is counteracted by the shift
in the other aspect. More specifically, absorption can lead to a situation where both aspects
are actually changing but the mismatch level remains constant since the changes cancel each
other out.
Finally, when investigating cross-sectional data with three or more points in time, it is possible to evaluate temporary instabilities of mismatch levels. A simple temporary mismatch can
be observed if aspects change between the first and the second observation and return to previous levels in the following period. In contrast, an adaptation process describes a temporary
mismatch in the second period that is resolved on a different level (higher or lower) in the last
period compared to the first.
6
Figure 1: Analytical types of mismatch change
Type of mismatch
change
Description
No change/
continuity
(a) Mismatch remains unchanged
because workplace situation and
values remain unchanged
Example (a)
Example (b)
(b) Match remains unchanged because workplace situation and values
remain unchanged
Situationdriven change
(a) Increase mismatch or …
Value-driven
change
(a) Increase mismatch or …
Interaction of
value and
situation
(a) Mismatch amplification (opposing directions of change increase
actual mismatch effect)
(b) Decrease mismatch due to change
in workplace situation, values remain
unchanged
(b) Decrease mismatch due to change
in values, workplace situation remains unchanged
(b) Mismatch absorption (aligned
direction of change mitigates actual
mismatch change effects)
Temporary
change
(a) Simple temporary mismatch
(observed mismatch change in one
period in workplace situation or values or both is realigned in the following period)
(b) Mismatch adaptation (temporary
difference absorbed in the following
period by an aligned shift of the respective other aspect)
Legend:
: Workplace situation;
by Reynolds and Aletraris (2010).
t1
t2
t1
t2
: Work values; Source: Own depiction. See a similar approach
We suggest that changes in P-O fit over time may result from a change in the workplace situation, work values, or simultaneous changes in both. The following subsection gives a brief
overview of the general trends in workplace situation and work values, as discussed in the
literature.
7
2.3 Organizational change and change in workplace situation
Since the 1990s, many studies have reported significant tendencies of organizational change.
This included several aspects of working and employment conditions. In order to relate these
tendencies to value change, we focus on job security and high income and career opportunities as important extrinsic aspects of work. This approach is complemented by important intrinsic aspects, namely interesting job and independent work.
Extrinsic workplace aspects: One major observable trend of the 1990s was a substantial increase in workplaces involving flexible and thus more insecure employment (Burchell,
Ladipo, & Wilkinson, 2002; Gallie, White, Cheng, & Tomlinson, 1998: 119 pp.; Kalleberg,
2009; Neumark, 2000). This shift in employment conditions changed the level of job security
for many employees. In particular, this included the introduction of temporary agency work as
well as other forms of work such as fixed-term contracts for job market entrants (Kalleberg,
2001; Ashford et al., 2007; Marsden, 2010). It is generally claimed that this development has
significantly eroded job security in several countries (see Olsen, Kalleberg, & Nesheim,
2010). The level of income is also important for determining the quality of any workplace.
The rise of insecure jobs has been accompanied by a general growth of low-wage sectors in
several countries such as Germany and the USA, combining low income with low job security
(Offe, 2002; Kalleberg, 2011; Osterman & Shulman, 2011). However, negative effects on
income have also been reported for the core workforce. For example, German employees experienced a real wage decrease throughout the 1990s (Brenke, 2009). One last important factor of extrinsic workplace aspects are career opportunities. Existing findings on this aspect
are inconclusive. While some studies have reported changes in career patterns, others have not
(see Kalleberg, 2011).
Intrinsic workplace aspects: Especially with the spread of lean management practices
(Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1991) and related concepts starting in the late 1980s, new organizational practices likely to change the workplace situation were widely introduced in several
countries (Fröhlich & Pekruhl, 1996; EPOC Research Team, 1998; Nordhause-Janz &
Pekruhl, 2000; Lorenz & Valeyre, 2005; Osterman, 2006). So-called high commitment and
high performance work practices or systems were adopted, aiming at increased performance
by shifting responsibilities to employees (see Appelbaum et al., 2000, 2002; Boxall & Macky,
2009; Giles, Murray, & Bélanger, 2002; Kalleberg, 2001, 2003, 2011). While employees’
discretion in the labor process was expected to increase, work was also expected to become
more independent and more interesting for employees. For example, stronger involvement in
8
problem-solving activities were to provide jobs with more autonomy and more challenging
tasks compared to traditional working models. However, differentiated effects of new practices of work organization have been reported (e.g., Olsen et al., 2010). This has raised doubts as
to whether or not these kinds of change in the workplace bring actual improvements in working conditions (Godard, 2004; Danford, Richardson, Stewart, Tailby, & Upchurch, 2008;
Pruijt, 2003).
2.4 Work value change
The question of a general value change received much attention in the second half of the last
century. Ever since Inglehart (1971) claimed a “silent revolution in Europe,” there has been
an intense debate about the change in values and the increasing post-materialistic demands of
the younger generations (for a critique of Inglehart’s theses, see Haller, 2002). Basically,
Inglehart assumes that societal development shifts people’s attention from physical and economic concerns to more personal interests like autonomy and self-expression. This shift is
ascribed to the economic growth and high prosperity in western societies which has reduced
the priority of basic economic and physical needs (scarcity hypothesis). Nevertheless, as values are relatively stable and a product of socialization rather than the socioeconomic environment (socialization hypothesis), value change is an intergenerational process.
Inglehart’s studies are not explicitly concerned with work life. However, in the context of this
debate, a change in work values and attitudes regarding employment and work has also been
addressed. Yankelovic (1985), for example, assumes a shift from instrumental toward expressive work orientations. Beathge (1991) established his thesis of the “normative subjectification of labor,” postulating that a general change in work values takes place so that individual
claims and ideas of work are strengthened. Accordingly, work should no longer be a heteronomous and meaningless task; instead, it became more important for employees that their work
should be gratifying and theirs in the sense of a self-responsible action (see also Honneth,
2004). Likewise, Ester et al. (Ester, Halman, & De Moor, 1994) assume that modernization
and individualization can lead to an increasing importance of work values stressing selfdetermination, self-development, and self-realization, but they also point out that individualization could have the effect that the joys of life will rather be sought outside of the world of
work, which would influence expectations toward work. Thus individualization “may also
result in preferring a work situation which is pleasant, not too demanding and exerts no pressure. In particular for those who have little chance to grow personally in a job, this is an alternative way to realize a certain quality of life” (Ester 1994: 12).
9
Several empirical studies tried to prove the assumption of the shift from extrinsic to intrinsic
work values. Research by Zanders (1994, see also Zanders & Harding, 1995), for example,
demonstrates that intrinsic values increased in the 1980s but that these changes were moderate. He used data from the European Values Study from 1981 and 1990 to test the hypothesis
of a general work value change, but a trend from extrinsic to intrinsic work values could only
be confirmed for France and Belgium. In some countries (The Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland,
Italy, and Ireland), he found an increased importance of intrinsic as well as extrinsic aspects,
indicating rising aspirations for work in general. Negative differences in both dimensions
were found in Norway and Spain.
Ester et al. (2006) extended the work of Zanders (1994) by integrating the third wave of the
European Values Study from 1999. They show that the importance of extrinsic values increased slightly in the 1980s and 1990s, while the importance of intrinsic values increased
more clearly especially in the 1990s. Apart from these general trends, there is a great variety
of country-specific developments. For example, extrinsic values became clearly more important in Italy, Ireland, and Great Britain. On the contrary, a slight decline in importance can
be observed in Denmark, West Germany and Sweden. The importance of intrinsic work values increased in the USA and most of the observed European countries but decreased in Great
Britain and West Germany.
Cozma (2011) analyzed changes in extrinsic and intrinsic work values from 1981 to 2009 in
47 countries and found no general trend. As for extrinsic work values, there were more countries where the importance decreased rather than increased. The countries with the highest
effect size change were Turkey (-.2.91), Moldova (-.2.13), France (1.83), and Macedonia (1.49). However, concerning intrinsic job aspects, there were also more countries where the
importance of the respective work values decreased rather than increased. The countries with
the highest effect size change were Turkey (-1.98), Moldova (-1.45), Spain (1.25), and Macedonia (-1.07).
Overall, the empirical data on the changes in the workplace situation and work values is ambiguous. On the one hand, there is some support that there are changes in the workplace situation, with jobs becoming more insecure and income levels declining. If these extrinsic aspects
are less important for employees, as the assumptions about work value change suggest, they
should not alter the respective P-O fit or mismatch levels. On the other hand, work is expected
to become more interesting and more independent. Given stable value orientations, mismatch
10
levels might decrease. However, a rising interest in intrinsic aspects may further increase respective mismatch levels. We tested these assumptions empirically and present them below.
3
Empirical analysis
3.1 Data, measures, and method
The analysis is based on data contained in the Work Orientation Modules from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) from 1989, 1997, and 2005. The ISSP represents an international cooperation project whose aim was to conduct attitude surveys on different topics.
The international comparability of attitudes is both a vital benefit of this program and a weak
point at the same time because attitudes are always context dependent. Thus possible differences in values and attitudes could be the result of different meanings and connotations of a
respective concept but not due to national differences (Hult, 2005; for problems related to
cross-national research on values, see Halman & De Moor, 1994). To minimize potential biases and increase the validity of the questionnaires, careful procedures have been implemented such as independent translation and thorough discussion of the questionnaires (Scholz &
Faaß, 2007).
For our analysis we included only countries which took part in all three waves. These are the
USA, Great Britain (GB), West Germany (W-GER), Norway (NO), Hungary (HU), and Israel
(ISR). Earlier studies included just a limited subset of these countries (see Olsen et al., 2010).
Our sample includes all employees (full-time, part-time, less than part-time, and helping family members) aged between 18 and 75 years. These amount to a total N of 12,513 cases (1989:
4510; 1997: 4517; 2005: 3486).
All three ISSP data sets contain five comparable items for work values as well as five items
for the workplace situation. In particular, the work value dimensions are measured by the following items: importance of job security, high income, good opportunities for advancement
(extrinsic); an interesting job, and a job allowing for independent work (intrinsic) (Scholz &
Faaß, 2007). These items closely resemble those used by Kraut and Ronen (Kraut & Ronen,
1975) and Hofstede (Hofstede, 1980) (see also Hattrup, Mueller, & Aguirre, 2007). To estimate the importance of these aspects, respondents used a five-point Likert scale anchored
from 1 for ‘not important at all’ to 5 for ‘very important.’
The importance of these work values can be related to the workplace situation because employees were asked to evaluate the respective job aspects in their everyday work. Interviewees
11
were asked to indicate their agreement with statements such as ‘My job is secure.’ Response
categories ranged from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly agree.’
To account for the interaction of work values and workplace situation, we computed a mismatch index. The Mismatch Index was calculated as Work Value minus Workplace Situation.
The answers for both variables range from “1” (= disagreement/ unimportance) to “5” (= high
agreement/ high importance). Accordingly, our initial index ranges from “4” (= total mismatch) to “-4” (= match/ oversupply) for each of the five dimensions. A zero value indicates a
match between workplace situation and value. However, the mismatch index includes instances of oversupply (a value of -1 and below). Basically, this should constitute a positive
outcome (e.g., in the case of job security or income), but it could also be a particular form of a
situation-expectation interaction (e.g., employees who do not appreciate working independently but are expected to do so). In order to provide a clear mismatch scale, all oversupply cases (values -1 and below) were coded as zero. The final mismatch indicator thus ranges
from “0” to “4” (on this method, cf. Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Kristof, 1996; similar also
Hult 2005).
To show changes across time, pooled regressions for the workplace situation and variables for
work values as well as the matching indicators were computed. Considering the ordinal scale
of all included variables, we conducted a series of Ordinal Logit regression models for each
variable and country. In all analyses, several control variables were included to capture the
socioeconomic and demographic effects in the observed time period. The respective variables
were: work status (full-time, part-time, other work status), age, gender, and number of years
of formal education.1 Weighting factors were used where this procedure is advised for the
ISSP dataset (see Scholz & Faaß, 2007).
3.2 Trends of workplace situation, work values, and mismatch
To analyze the transformation of workplace situation, work values, and mismatch over time,
we included dummy variables for the years 1997 and 2005 in the regression analysis. Using
1989 as reference category, this reveals the relative differences over time. For the purpose of
depiction, only year coefficients for 1997 and 2005 in reference to 1989 are displayed.
In a first step, we investigated the development of the workplace situation. The regression
results are depicted in Table 1. The perceived job security decreased between 1989 and 1997,
1
The ISSP data set suffers from some minor limitations. Unfortunately, occupational data is not available for
Great Britain in 1997 and Israel in 1989. For the remaining countries, information on occupations is based on
different scales in 1989 and later years. The comparability is thus questionable. If at all, this only allows for a
crude approximation. Considering the limitations, occupation was omitted from our analysis.
12
except in Norway and Israel. This trend continued until 2005 only in West Germany and
Hungary. In Norway, job security decreased in 2005. In contrast, in Great Britain and the
USA the situation improved again until 2005, even surpassing the 1989 level in Great Britain.
For Israel we found a temporary increase in job security in 1997 that did not extend to 2005.
For income we found significant and continuously negative changes in West Germany and
Norway. Career opportunities improved in Great Britain in 2005, temporarily decreased in
West Germany in 1997, and continuously decreased in Israel. Regarding the remaining two
variables for workplace situation, we found a positive trend toward more interesting work in
the USA in 2005 that absorbed a negative development in 1997. In contrast, we see a steady
decline in Great Britain and in Norway as well as a decline in 2005 in Hungary. A continuous
improvement toward more independent work can be reported for West Germany and Israel,
while again our results reveal a steady decline in Norway.
Table 1: Workplace situation by country over time
1989
vs.
USA
GB
W-GER
Job
1997
-0.27**
-0.36**
-0.64***
security
2005
0.36**
-0.58***
-0.62***
High
1997
-0.61***
-0.31***
income
2005
-0.76***
-0.30**
Career
1997
-0.61***
opportunities
2005
Interesting
1997
work
2005
Independent
1997
0.35**
-0.33***
0.41***
work
2005
0.52***
-0.50***
0.42***
NO
HU
ISR
-0.97***
0.31**
-0.64***
-0.38***
0.49***
-0.29**
0.37***
-0.52***
-0.58***
-0.55***
-0.42**
-0.76***
-0.46***
Note: Levels of significance** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Depicted numbers are regression coefficients for the ISSP
years 1997 and 2005 only if p-value levels at ** and ***. Reference category is the ISSP year 1989 – indicating
relative change between years. Dependent variables are all five variables for work values, workplace situation,
and mismatch. Control variables are included - respective coefficients are not displayed. Source: ISSP data set;
own depiction
In a second step, we considered the transformation of work values (Table 2). Employees’ expectations toward high job security temporarily increased in Great Britain in 1997. For Israel,
the USA, and West Germany we found a lasting increase until 2005. In Hungary, the importance of job security rose in 2005 while there was no significant change in Norway. Income became continuously less important in West Germany and more important in Israel as
well as temporarily more important in Hungary in 1997. The relevance of career opportunities
13
steadily decreased in Norway and increased in Israel. At the same time, we see a temporary
decline in their importance in West Germany in 1997 as well as a temporary increase in Hungary. Both interesting job and independent work gained more importance in the USA and Israel until 2005. In contrast, Norwegian employees showed a steadily lowered level of expectations toward independent work and interesting work.
Table 2: Work values by country over time
1989
vs.
USA
Job
1997
0.36***
security
2005
0.43***
High
GB
W-GER
0.51***
NO
HU
0.45***
ISR
0.96***
0.42**
0.77***
1.57***
1997
-0.65***
0.52***
0.63***
income
2005
-0.51***
Career
1997
-0.43***
opportunities
2005
Interesting
1997
work
2005
Independent
1997
work
2005
1.01***
-0.32***
0.45***
0.33**
-0.44***
0.94***
0.30**
-0.52***
0.43***
0.52***
-0.63***
1.05***
-0.26**
0.31**
-0.51***
0.70***
and mismatch. Control variables are included - respective coefficients are not displayed. Source: ISSP data set;
own depiction
In a third step, the interaction of workplace situation and work values was analyzed based on
the mismatch indexes (Table 3). For job security mismatch, we found a temporary increase in
mismatch in 1997 in the USA and Great Britain. We also found a lasting increased mismatch
level in West Germany and Hungary, while for Norway and Israel our findings reveal an increased mismatch in job security in 2005. For the mismatch in high income an increase in
West Germany and Israel in 2005 can be observed. Concerning career mismatch, we found a
temporary increase in West Germany as well as a continuous increase in mismatch in Israel.
We also observed a steady decline in Norway and a decreasing mismatch level for Great Britain. The interesting work mismatch temporarily increased in 1997 in the USA, in Great Britain, and in Hungary, whereas in Israel an increased mismatch occurred in 2005. As for independent work, our results reveal a decrease in mismatch in 2005 for West Germany and a
temporary decrease in mismatch in Israel in 1997. For the USA, our analysis shows an in-
14
creased mismatch in 2005. Overall, we found a number of significant differences, yet in several countries a considerable number of mismatch dimensions did not change at all.
Table 3: Mismatch by country over time
1989
vs.
USA
0.41***
GB
W-GER
0.57***
NO
0.91***
HU
ISR
Job
1997
security
2005
High
1997
income
2005
0.39**
Career
1997
0.31**
opportunities
2005
Interesting
1997
work
2005
0.40**
Independent
1997
-0.34**
work
2005
0.84***
-0.56***
0.48***
0.41***
0.94***
0.48***
0.86***
0.56***
0.57***
-0.36***
0.45***
-0.51***
0.84***
0.43**
0.33**
-0.53***
and mismatch. Control variables are included – the respective coefficients are not displayed. Source: ISSP data
set; own depiction
To complete our analysis, we focused on how the overall mismatch count had changed in the
observed period. Based on an index of all five dimensions, we examined whether or not mismatch counts had grown or decreased. This also allowed to test whether improvements in one
dimension had compensated a decline in other dimensions. The overall mismatch count index
was computed by creating a binary variable for each of our five mismatch variables. A match
was coded with “0,” all remaining values in excess of “0” indicating a mismatch were coded
with “1.” Finally, all five binary mismatch variables were summarized, producing the “Overall mismatch count” index that ranges from “0” = all dimensions match to “5” = all five dimensions mismatch. Similar to the regressions of single mismatch indicators above, we conducted regressions including control variables for the overall mismatch count. Since the index
represents count data, we applied the Poisson regression procedure.
The results for the year coefficients are depicted in Table 4. For the USA and Great Britain
the average total number of mismatches increased in 1997 and was no longer significant on a
p >0.01 level after 2005. This pattern appears to be the result of a temporary adaptation phase
in a period of economic turbulence. Only job security and career opportunities shifted tempo15
rarily. For Germany and Norway we found no significant change in the overall mismatch
count in the observed period. Thus for West Germany improvements in independent work
seemed to outweigh a decreasing match in terms of job security. Similarly, shifts in job security did not exceed the decline in mismatch levels in career opportunities. Hungary and Israel
both showed a lasting increase in the overall mismatch count. For Hungary it can be assumed
that this increase was predominantly due to the increased job security mismatch. For the case
of Israel we identified significant year differences in terms of security, income, and interesting
work as well as an improvement in independent work. Accordingly, the mismatch count rose
significantly between 1989 and 2005.
Table 4: Change in overall mismatch count by country over time
Overall mismatch count
1989
vs.
USA
1997
0.10***
GB
W-GER
0.09**
2005
NO
HU
ISR
0.12***
0.09**
0.07**
0.17***
Note: Levels of significance ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001. Depicted numbers are regression coefficients for the ISSP
relative change between years. Dependent variables are counts of mismatch. Control variables are included respective coefficients are not displayed. Source: ISSP data set; own depiction
4
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, the change in P-O fit was analyzed over time and across countries. We theoretically discussed and empirically evaluated the transformation of workplace situation, work
values, and mismatch. Our findings suggest that changes in mismatch levels can be due to
changes in workplace situation or work values.
The results presented above reveal significant changes in workplace situation, work values,
and mismatch in several countries. Summarizing the findings on the dynamics of workplace
situation, work values, and mismatch, we conclude that there is no universal or transnational
development trajectory. The findings also indicate a general tendency toward continuity (or at
least nonsignificant changes) – e.g., in the dimensions of high income and interesting work
and independent work. For cases of mismatch change, a mixed picture of significant decline
and improvement has emerged. The only pattern that comes close to showing a general trend
is the increase in job security mismatch in 1997. This trend was only temporary for the USA
and Great Britain, while we see a lasting effect in West Germany and Hungary. At the same
time, an increased job security mismatch was only significant for Norway and Israel in 2005.
16
Our findings do not verify any universal impacts on the workplace situation. Thus no such
effect could be attributed to new organizational practices like high performance work practices and related concepts. In fact, we found no evidence at all that promises of a more interesting work and independent work were fulfilled on an international level. Only for independent
work in Germany do we see a clearly decreasing mismatch that is due to an improved workplace situation. In the USA, the workplace situation was adapted and led to more interesting
work, but as expectations rose, this effect on mismatch levels was consumed. At the same
time, the mismatch in independent work increased due to increased expectations, while the
workplace situation remained unchanged.
The presented findings can be combined to further investigate underlying change patterns and
reveal the actual sources of mismatch change as well as the interaction of workplace situation
and work values. An overview of our interpretation results is depicted in Table 5. The first
underlying pattern we found was a situation-driven mismatch change, whereby workplace
characteristics were shifting while expectations remained constant. Along with a decrease in
career mismatch in Great Britain, we observed an increase in situation-driven mismatch also
in that country for interesting work and in Norway for job security. For independent work in
Germany a decrease in mismatch was discernible due to an improved workplace situation
while expectations did not change.
Changes in work-value-driven mismatch constitute a second pattern, where the workplace
situation did not significantly change. Especially for Israel we found that increased mismatch
levels were caused by increasing expectation levels, pointing to a substantial work value
change underlying this country-specific pattern. This applies to job security, income, and interesting work. For the USA we found that increased expectations of independent work
caused a growing mismatch. In the case of Norway, we found a decrease in career mismatch
which was exclusively due to a decrease in expectations.
In our analysis, we also found additional patterns of complex interaction between workplace
situation and work values underlying mismatch change. A third mismatch change pattern describes an amplification of mismatch shifts caused by the opposing dynamics of workplace
situation and work values and leading to increased mismatch levels. In our sample, we found
this pattern especially for job security (West Germany, Hungary and temporarily in the USA
and Great Britain). In Israel, the mismatch in career opportunities rose because the workplace
situation worsened and expectations rose at the same time.
17
Table 5: Underlying change patterns of P-O fit
Mismatch
USA
GB
W-GER
NO
HU
ISR
Job
security
Amplification
effect
(+)(T)
Amplification
effect
(+)(T)
Amplification
effect
(+)
Workplace
situation
driven
(+)
Amplification
effect
(+)
Work value
driven
(+)
Partial absorption
(+)
High
income
Workplace
situation
driven
(-)
Career
opportunities
Interesting
work
Workplace
situation
adapted
(+)(T)
Independent
work
Work value
driven
(+)
Overall mismatch count
Temporary
increase 97
Partial
absorption
(+)(T)
Workplace
situation
driven
(+)(T)
Work value
driven
(+)
Work value
driven
(-)
Complete
absorption
(n.e.)
Workplace
situation
driven
(-)
Complete
absorption
(n.e.)
No
change
No
change
Temporary
increase 97
Amplification
effect
(+)
Work value
driven
(+)(T)
Work value
driven
(+)
Work value
adapted
(-)(T)
Continuous
increase
Continuous
increase
Note: Direction of mismatch change in brackets: (+) increase; (-) decrease; (n.e.) no mismatch effect, but significant effects for workplace situation and work values; (T) temporary mismatch 1997. Source: ISSP data set; own
depiction
The fourth type of pattern we found are adaptation patterns where a shift in one aspect
(workplace situation or work values) changes the mismatch level in the first period. In the
following period, this mismatch level shift is neutralized by an adaptation of the respective
other aspect (workplace situation or work values). This was the case for interesting work in
the USA and for independent work in Israel.
The fifth pattern describes absorption effects. Comparing shifts in workplace situation, work
values, and mismatch, we see that shifts in the workplace situation that might have led to high
mismatch levels were absorbed by simultaneously lowered expectations. In the case of Germany, this led to a partial absorption regarding income and career mismatch. For Norway we
noted a decline as regards interesting work and independent work but the potential effect on
mismatch levels was absorbed by an equally lowered expectation level. Although the workplace situation in fact significantly changed for the worse, mismatch levels were not notably
18
affected. Having found this particular effect, we emphasize that a steady mismatch level is not
an indicator for a steady development of the underlying aspects.
Considering the analysis results of the overall mismatch count, we note that the USA and
Great Britain are characterized by a merely temporary shift in mismatch in 1997. Other
changes in career opportunities or interesting work appear not to have affected the overall
count. West Germany and Norway showed no significant changes. For West Germany, we
assume that to some extent improvements in independent work mismatch potentially buffered
the effect of growth in job security mismatch. A similar but more dramatic effect can be observed for Norway where the deteriorating workplace situation concerning interesting work
and independent work was absorbed by lowered work values. The value driven mismatch
change of career opportunities counteracted the increase in job security mismatch. This left
the overall mismatch count unchanged over the years, while the underlying workplace situation and expectations were significantly shifting. In contrast, we found a lasting increase in
the overall mismatch count in Hungary and Israel. For Hungarian employees, this was caused
by the job security mismatch, while for Israel significant increases were due to a high number
of mostly value-driven mismatch changes.
In summary, the analysis of the overall mismatch has revealed that changes in one dimension
do not necessarily alter the P-O fit in general. Instead, the dimensions of P-O fit are rather
independent, and decline in one dimension can be compensated by development in others.
This is crucial for the subjective assessment of job quality. If employees’ expectations are not
fulfilled in one dimension, improvements in other dimensions may compensate for that. However, a comprehensive evaluation of this result has to account for the likely differences in the
relative importance of the single dimensions.
The ISSP data allows a comprehensive analysis with representative data from many countries,
but there are limitations. The data consist of self-reported measures so that the results may
suffer from common method bias. The analysis is further based on cross-sectional data which
does not account for changes in workplace situation and work values across the life course.
Thus a causal analysis of the possible adaption of an individual’s expectations to changed
work and employment conditions cannot be conducted. Insights into the underlying changes
in the development and resolution of mismatches may also be gained by the cross-sectional
design (Reynolds & Aletraris, 2010). Finally, it should be mentioned that only a narrow set of
work aspects has been surveyed within the Work Orientation Module. It remains an open
question whether the P-O fit regarding other workplace situations and expectations is chang19
ing as well, including the importance of both qualification opportunities and balancing work
and life (Kalleberg, 2007, 2008).
This paper contributes to a historical perspective of the P-O fit. The analyses reveal the complex interaction of workplace situation and expectations underlying mismatch shifts and emphasize the importance of an integrated approach to organizational changes along with shifts
in work values. Future research needs to concentrate on longitudinal analyses in order to better understand shifts in the developing and resolving of mismatches. By the same token, it is
important to better understand how people deal with mismatches and to assess possible consequences for organizational performance.
20
5
References
Appelbaum, E. (2002). The impact of new forms of work organization on workers. In G.
Murray, J. Bélanger, A. Giles & P. Lapointe (Eds.), Work and Employment Relations
in the High-Performance Workplace (pp. 120–149). London: Continuum.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., & Berg, P. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why highperformance work systems pay off. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.
Ashford, S. J., George, E., & Blatt, R. (2007). Chapter 2: Old Assumptions, New Work - The
Opportunities and Challenges of Research on Nonstandard Employment. The
Academy of Management Annals, 1, 65 – 117.
Baethge, M. (1991). Arbeit, Vergesellschaftung, Identität - Zur zunehmenden normativen
Subjektivierung der Arbeit. Soziale Welt, 42(1), 6–19.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems:
progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal,
19(1), 3-23.
Brenke, K. (2009). Reallöhne in Deutschland über mehrere Jahre rückläufig. Wochenbericht
des DIW, 33, 550–560.
Bu, N., & Mckeen, C. A. (2001). Work goals among male and female business students in
Canada and China: the effects of culture and gender. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 12(2), 166–183.
Burchell, B., Ladipo, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2002). Job insecurity and work intensification.
London: Routledge.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.
Cozma, I. F. (2011). The relation between globalization and personal values across 53
countries and 28 years: PhD diss. Retrieved 22.02.2012, from http://trace.
tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1175
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2008). Partnership,
high performance work systems and quality of working life. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 23(3), 151–166.
Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to
organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
70, 219–240.
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-Environment Fit in Organizations: An Assessment of
Theoretical Progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 167–230.
21
EPOC Research Team. (1998). New Forms of Work Organisation. Can Europe Realise its
Potential? Dublin: European Foundation.
Ester, P., Braun, M., & Vinken, H. (2006). Eroding Work Values? In P. Ester, M. Braun & P.
P. Mohler (Eds.), Globalization, value change, and generations (pp. 89–113). Leiden ;
Boston, Mass: Brill.
Ester, P., Halman, L., & De Moor, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). The individualizing society: Value
change in Europe and North America (2. ed ed.). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Fröhlich, D., & Pekruhl, U. (1996). Direct Participation and Organisational Change,
Fashionable but Misunderstood? An Analysis of Recent Research in Europe, Japan
and the USA. Dublin/Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions.
Gahan, P., & Abeysekera, L. (2009). What shapes an individual's work values? An integrated
model of the relationship between work values, national culture and self-construal.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 126–147.
Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y., & Tomlinson, M. (1998). Restructuring The Employment
Relationship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giles, A., Murray, G., & Bélanger, J. (2002). Introduction: assessing the prospects for the
high performance workplace. In G. Murray, J. Bélanger, A. Giles & P. Lapointe
(Eds.), Work and Employment Relations in the High-Performance Workplace (pp. 1571). London: Continuum.
Godard, J. (2004). A Critical Assessment of the High-Performance Paradigm. British Journal
of Industrial Relations 42(2), 349–378.
Golden, L. (2006). Overemployment in the United States: Which workers are willing to
reduce their work-hours and income? In J. Y. Boulin, M. Lallement, J. C. Messenger
& F. Michon (Eds.), Decent working time : new trends, new issues (pp. 209–261).
Geneva: Intern. Labour Office.
Haller, M. (2002). Theory and method in the comparative study of values critique and
alternative to Inglehart. European Sociological Review, 18(2), 139–158.
Halman, L., & De Moor, R. A. (1994). Comparative Research on Values. In P. Ester, L.
Halman & R. A. De Moor (Eds.), The individualizing society (2. ed ed., pp. 21–36).
Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Hamdan, M. H. (2011). Mediators of the relationship between person-organisation fit and
individual outcomes: PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology Retrieved 19.
April 2012, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46695/1/Mahani_Haji_Hamdan_ Thesis.pdf
22
Hattrup, K., Mueller, K., & Aguirre, P. (2007). Operationalizing value importance in crosscultural research: Comparing direct and indirect measures. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 499–513.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between
person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 389–399.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Honneth, A. (2004). Organized self realization: Some paradoxes of individualization.
European Journal of Social Theory, 7(4), 463–478.
Hult, C. (2005). Organizational commitment and person-environment fit in six western
countries. Organization Studies, 26(2), 249–270.
Inglehart, R. (1971). The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in postindustrial societies. American Political Science Review, 65(4), 991–1017.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2001). Organizing Flexibility: The Flexible Firm in a new Century. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(4), 479–504.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2003). Flexible Firms and Labor Market Segmentation. Work and
Occupations, 30(2), 154-175.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2007). The mismatched worker. New York: Norton.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2008). The mismatched worker: When people don't fit their jobs. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 22(1), 24–40.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in
Transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious
Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation Publications.
Kraut, A. I., & Ronen, S. (1975). Validity of job facet importance: A multinational,
multicriteria study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 671–677.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurements, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.
23
Lorenz, E., & Valeyre, A. (2005). Organisational Innovation, Human Resource Management
and Labour Market Structure: A comparison of the EU-15. Journal of Industrial
Relations, 47(4), 424–442.
Lyons, S. T., Higgins, C. A., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Work values: Development of a new
three-dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 969–1002.
Marsden, D. (2010). The Growth of Extended ‘Entry Tournaments’ and the Decline of
Institutionalised Occupational Labour Markets in Britain. London: London School of
Economics and Political Science.
Neumark, D. (Ed.). (2000). Changes in Job Stability and Job Security: A Collective Effort to
Untangle, Reconcile, and Interpret the Evidence. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nordhause-Janz, J., & Pekruhl, U. (2000). Mangementmoden oder Zukunftskonzepte? Zur
Entwicklung von Arbeitsstrukturen und von Gruppenarbeit in Deutschland. In J.
Nordhause-Janz & U. Pekruhl (Eds.), Arbeiten in neuen Strukturen? Partizipation,
Kooperation, Autonomie und Gruppenarbeit in Deutschland (pp. 13–68). München,
Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Offe, C. (2002). Der Niedriglohnsektor und das „Modell Deutschland“. In U. Fachinger, H.
Rothgang & H. Viebrok (Eds.), Die Konzeption sozialer Sicherung. Festschrift für
Prof Dr. Winfried Schmähl zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 273–288). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Olsen, K. M., Kalleberg, A. L., & Nesheim, T. (2010). Perceived job quality in the United
States, Great Britain, Norway and West Germany, 1989-2005. European Journal of
Industrial Relations, 16(3), 221–240.
Osterman, P. (2006). The Wage Effects of High Performance Work Organization in
Manufacturing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(2), 187–204.
Osterman, P., & Shulman, B. (2011). Good Jobs America: Making Work Better for Everyone.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
Piasentin, K. A. C. D. S. (2006). Subjective person-organization fit: Bridging the gap between
conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 202–221.
Pruijt, H. (2003). Teams between neo-Taylorism and anti-Taylorism. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 24(1), 77–101.
Reynolds, J., & Aletraris, L. (2010). Mostly Mismatched With a Chance of Settling: Tracking
Work Hour Mismatches in the United States. Work and Occupations, 37(4), 476–511.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the
meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 49–71.
24
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., Koslowsky, & Meni. (1996). Work Values: A Theoretical Overview and
a Model of Their Effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 503–514.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453.
Scholz, E., & Faaß, T. (2007). ISSP 2005 Germany work orientations III ZUMA report on the
German study, ZUMA-Methodenbericht. Mannheim.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between
person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3),
473–489.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1991). The machine that changed the world: the
story of lean production (1st HarperPerennial ed ed.). New York, N.Y.: Harper
Perennial.
Yankelovich, D., Zetterberg, H., Strümpel, B., & Shanks, M. (1985). The world at work: An
international report on jobs, productivity, and human values. New York: Octagon
Books.
Zanders, H. (1994). Changing work values. In P. Ester, L. Halman & R. A. De Moor (Eds.),
The individualizing society (2. ed ed., pp. 129–153). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Zanders, H., & Harding, S. (1995). Changing work values in Europe and North America.
Continents and occupations compared. In R. d. Moor (Ed.), Values in western
societies (pp. 195–216). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
25
Appendix
A1: Variable description 1
Work values
Workplace situation
General question
“For each of the following, please tick one
box to show how important you personally
think it is in a job. How important is …”
“For each of these statements about your
(main) job, please tick one box to show how
much you agree or disagree that it applies to
your job.”
Job security
… job security
My job is secure.
High income
… high income
My income is high.
Career opportunities
… good opportunities for advancement
My opportunities for advancement are high.
Interesting job
.. an interesting job
My job is interesting.
Independent
work
… a job that allows someone to work independently
I can work independently.
Coding used*
5-item scale: 5 = Very important; 1=Not
important at all
5-item scale: 5 = Strongly agree; 1=Strongly
disagree
Note: * reversed coding from original ISSP data set. Source: ISSP data set; own depiction
26
A2: Variable description 2
No
Label
Obs.
Unique
Mean
Min
Max
1
Important: Job security
12381
5
4.56
1
5
2
Important: High income
12322
5
4.06
1
5
3
Important: Career opportunities
12254
5
3.93
1
5
4
Important: Interesting job
12348
5
4.44
1
5
5
Important: Independent work
12314
5
4.07
1
5
6
Statement: Job security
11754
5
3.73
1
5
7
Statement: High income
11833
5
2.64
1
5
8
Statement: Career opportunities
11708
5
2.64
1
5
9
Statement: Interesting job
11889
5
3.83
1
5
10
Statement: Independent work
11868
5
3.87
1
5
11
Mismatch: Job security
11667
5
0.93
0
4
12
Mismatch: High income
11710
5
1.48
0
4
13
Mismatch: Career opportunities
11546
5
1.35
0
4
14
Mismatch: Interesting job
11777
5
0.69
0
4
15
Mismatch: Independent work
11739
5
0.46
0
4
16
Year: 1989
12513
2
0.36
0
1
17
Year: 1997
12513
2
0.36
0
1
18
Year: 2005
12513
2
0.28
0
1
19
Age of respondent
12306
57
39.53
19
75
20
Gender (1= male)
12504
2
0.51
0
1
21
Full-time, main job
12513
2
0.81
0
1
22
Part-time, main job
12513
2
0.16
0
1
23
Less than part-time
12513
2
0.03
0
1
24
Helping family member
12513
2
0.01
0
1
25
Education: years in school
12047
22
12.40
1
22
26
West Germany (W-GER)
12513
2
0.14
0
1
27
Great Britain (GB)
12513
2
0.12
0
1
28
United States of America (USA)
12513
2
0.19
0
1
29
Hungary (HU)
12513
2
0.13
0
1
30
Norway (NO)
12513
2
0.27
0
1
31
Israel (ISR)
12513
2
0.15
0
1
Source: ISSP data set; own depiction
27

Changes in person-organization fit over time

Transcription

Similar documents

Cross-national differences and trends in job quality

Präsentation Expertengespräche