mesner & stebe

8/8/2019 Mesner & Stebe

1/29

Introduction

There is a significant tradition in cross cul-tural research to examine the relationshipbetween values and work attitudes (Bennett,1999). Deeply held, culturally derived valueshave a powerful influence on the specificcognition and behaviours that employeesdevelop (Hofstede, 1980), but the literaturealso suggests that situational variables includ-ing the employees daily activities and work

experiences also influence work attitudes.The present study examines the commitmentof employees in an organization from a com-parative perspective. We are particularlyinterested in values (mainly those related towork), work experiences and job security;and to see how these factors influenceemployee commitment in different culturaland institutional settings. Which of these fac-tors have a stronger impact on different typesof commitment? The present study presumes

Multinational Perspectives onWork Values and Commitment

Dana Mesner Andols ek and Janez S tebeUniversity of Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to show how different factors influence thecommitment of employees in an organization from an international comparativeperspective. Commitment is studied as affective and continuance commitment. Personalcharacteristics, organizational and environmental factors are included as predictors thathave an impact on commitment. The role of values and insecurity is also examined. It isproposed that these factors do not have the same impact on the two types of commitment indifferent countries and that this might have important practical implications. The study,

which compared West Germany, East Germany, Japan, Hungary, Slovenia, the UK andthe USA, was performed using the data from Work Orientations II, gathered by theInternational Social Survey Programme group (ISSP). The dataset is from 1997. The studyfinds that there are some predictors that are universal, but their configurations dependmainly on cultural background.

KEY WORDS employee commitment insecurity multinational perspective organization values

Copyright 2004 SAGE Publicationswww.sagepublications.com

DOI: 10.1177/1470595804044749

CCM International Journal of

Cross Cultural

Management2004 Vol 4(2): 181209
http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


2/29

that only comparative research can answerthese questions. There were seven countriesincluded in the analysis: East Germany,Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, the UK, the USA

and West Germany. All of them are differentwith regard to their historical and institu-tional developments, cultural traditions, andpolitical and economic circumstances. Indifferent cultural settings (individualistic, col-lectivistic) culturally driven values will play adifferent role. Institutional arrangement suchas industrial relations (conflictual, consen-sual) could heighten or mitigate the influenceof the different predictors on commitment.

Changes in economic systems (transitional,non-transitional) can strengthen predictorsthat were previously unimportant. Thepresent study tries to shed light on theserelations.

When clarifying the issue of commitment,most researchers agree that organizationalcommitment is a complex phenomenon(Steers, 1977; Angle and Perry, 1981;OReilly and Caldwell, 1981; Mottaz, 1988;Meyer and Allen, 1997). OReilly et al.(1991) speak about the multidimensionalnature of commitment in the form of compli-ance or identification with, or even internal-ization of, organizational values. Meyer and

Allen (1997) accept a definition that excludescompliance from commitment because of itsnegative consequences. In their view, com-mitment is divided into individual compo-nents, such as affective commitment thatrelates to emotions of adherence, identifica-tion and inclusion in an organization; contin-uance commitment that relates to awarenessconcerning the costs associated with leavingan organization; and finally normative com-mitment that relates to the feeling of duty of an individual to keep on working for anorganization.

For our purposes, we have defined com-mitment as an employees orientation to-wards an organization, which influences heror his involvement in its current and futureoperations. This orientation toward an orga-

nization is multidimensional. Although thereare different focuses that this orientation canbe directed toward (toward the top manage-ment, working unit, work team, etc.) the

present study considers commitment to theorganization as a whole. We accepted Meyerand Allens (1997) conceptualization of com-mitment as composed of three dimensions:affective commitment (AC), continuancecommitment (CC) and normative commit-ment (NC). The dataset that was available forthis study included measures of only two of these dimensions: AC and CC.

The study that follows tries to go beyond

the premise that a universal set of experi-ences exists that employees find rewardingand to which they will respond similarly.The premise is implicit in the literatureon antecedents of commitment. Indeed, thisbody of research suggests some themes thatmight describe what people generally need inorder to become committed. The universalapproach, however, does not explain all the

variance in commitment. The present analy-sis emphasizes the international perspective,and could support the assumption that thecultural dimension is important in the forma-tion of commitment. First, in the sense that itcan be expected that predictors will play adifferent role in different countries and,second, that the nature of commitment candiffer from one country to another. Anattempt is made to find out what type of commitment is stronger in individualisticcultures in comparison to collectivistic ones.For example, is it more an affective or a con-tinuance commitment and what configura-tions of predictors are dominant in differentcultures?

When comparing predictors of AC andCC, special attention is given to the effect of

values, mainly those relating to work, andemotions, such as job insecurity, which weconsider as a distinct category separate fromthe larger category of quality of work andother situational factors like working condi-tions. Additional environmental factors that

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4(2)182


3/29

may influence the development of commit-ment were introduced. Among them weretypes of industrial relations (Reed et al.,1994), processes of economic transition or

changes in economic systems and nationalculture (Hofstede, 1980) and unemploymentrate (Meyer and Allen, 1997). The purpose of the analysis was to gather a survey of predic-tors that proved to be universally importantin the countries included in the study. A com-parative perspective was important to findout if culture is a significant dimension indeveloping commitment and if economicsituations and institutional arrangements

play a role in the developing process of com-mitment. The cultural dimension is assumedto be important in developing AC buteconomic circumstances should be morepowerful regarding CC. The configurationsof AC and CC predictors should differamong the countries and our study shouldreveal which type of commitment is more of a unified concept.

Why is the question of commitmentimportant? Research that measured per-formance in an objective manner and on thebasis of self-perception has proven thatemployees who are committed to their orga-nization in an affective way achieve the bestresults in terms of efficiency and citizenshipbehaviour, and also show the least dysfunc-tional behaviour (Meyer and Allen, 1997).

According to Barbalet (1996) the significanceof commitment for an organization increaseswhen performance (efficiency) of an organi-zation decreases and trust in an organizationis less likely. He argues that people may feelcommitted to a person, a relationship or aninstitution even in the absence of their feelingconfident about themselves, and even in theabsence of trust in those they rely on. It isprecisely the feeling of commitment thatmaintains relationships when they mightotherwise collapse, and which assumes,implicitly, that irrespective of present circum-stances, the thing to which one is committedwill be viable in the future (Barbalet, 1996).

The present analysis also has practicalimplications. In the global economy manage-ment needs to be aware of cultural differ-ences, economic circumstances and the

impact of institutional arrangements toproperly design HRM policies and practicesthat can accelerate or hinder the develop-ment of commitment. Literature showedthat employees with strong AC are the most

valuable members of organization withregard to their efficiency and citizenshipbehaviour. Our study draws attention tofactors that are relevant in specific situationand might exert an influence in the process of

managing for commitment.

Antecedences ofCommitment

Most research on commitment so far hasbeen based on a measure developed byPorter et al. (1974) Organizational Com-mitment Questionnaire (OCQ). But thismeasure has been criticized mainly becauseof the overlap between some of its items withdesired organizational outcomes such asturnover and performance (Cohen, 1996). Asa result, new trends have emerged in thedefinitions and measurements. OReilly andhis colleagues (1991) argued that the psycho-logical bond between an employee and anorganization could take three distinct forms:compliance, identification and internaliza-tion. They combined the identification andinternalization items to form a measure of what they called normative commitment.Meyer and Allen (1984) first proposed a two-dimensional concept of commitment (ACand CC) and then developed a multi-dimensional construct (AC, CC and NC).OReillys concept of normative commit-ment corresponded more closely to AC inMeyer and Allens model. After the middle of the 1990s Meyer and Allens conceptualiza-tion received considerable attention fromboth academics and practitioners.

The literature on antecedence is rich and

Mesner Andols ek & S tebe: Multinational Perspectives on Work Values and Commitment 183


4/29

bears witness that a lot of research has dealtwith the problem of how to develop commit-ment in an organization. Steers (1977) cate-gorized different factors in two categories of

antecedents. He defined personal character-istics as variables concerning an individual(e.g. age, sex, race, personality and attitude).

Among the situational ones, he includedorganizational atmosphere, culture and envi-ronment. Much research that analysed theimpact of personal characteristics provedtheir weak influence (the absolute values of the coefficients of the correlation did notexceed 0.15) (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987),

except perhaps age and tenure. Meta-analytic studies (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990)showed that these weak influences couldhardly be interpreted in just one manner(Meyer and Allen, 1997). Meta-analytic evi-dence suggests that age and AC are signifi-cantly, albeit weakly, related (Mathieu andZajac, 1990). Moreover this relation existseven when variables that are often con-founded with age (e.g. tenure) are controlled(Meyer and Allen, 1997). It is difficult tointerpret this relation as unequivocal evi-dence that growing older influences ones ACbecause it might be a result of differencesamong the particular generational cohortsthat have been studied. Additionally, olderemployees might actually have more positivework experiences than do younger em-ployees. The same goes for positive relationsbetween organizational tenure and AC(Mathieu and Zajac, 1990).

Among the situational variables, researchhas most often dealt with organizationalatmosphere and human resource practices,and less often with organizational structure(DeCotiis and Summers, 1987) and organiza-tional environment (Meyer and Allen, 1997).The latter is supposed to have an impact onlyon CC and even this only through the per-ception of employees concerning differentemployment possibilities (marketability of employee skills). However it has been deter-mined that the perception of insecurity of

employment has negative effects on AC(Ashford et al., 1989). We included in a single

variable both cognitive (e.g. subjective evalu-ation of personal job security) and emotional

(e.g. fear or worry about the possibility of losing the job) aspects of job insecurity. In thepresent study we are concerned with jobinsecurity and try to test the followinghypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Increased feelings of job insecurityperceptions and emotions will have a negativeimpact on affective commitment and positiveimpact on continuance commitment.

Most research reveals that job satisfactionhas astrong influence on commitment (Steers,1977; Marsh and Mannari, 1977; DeCotiisand Summers, 1987; Gunz and Gunz, 1994;Meyer and Allen, 1997; Arciniega andGonzalez, 2002; Jernigan et al., 2002). Weare concerned with the effect of satisfactionon AC and CC and test this hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The higher the level of job satisfaction, the higher the affective commitment

and continuance commitment.

Most of the studies were oriented tothe set of variables that we can call workexperience, such as scope of work, level of autonomy (Steers, 1977; DeCotti andSummers, 1987; Mottaz, 1988), participationin decision-making and support from man-agement (Stafford, 1991; Ongwela, 1986;Zaffane, 1994). A wide range of studies hasfocused on the impact of task characteristicsthat were conducive to subjective well-being(Hackman and Oldman, 1980). It has beenseen that there is remarkable consensusabout the importance of the quality of work :

variety of tasks, level of personal initiative,degree of participation at work, and theextent to which the job permits personal self-development. More recently this has beencomplemented by a growing emphasis on theimportance of the opportunities for careerdevelopment (training and promotion) and of

job security (Gallie, 2003), but there are rela-



5/29

tively rare examples of comparative researchthat did point to important societal and cul-tural effects with respect to both work andlabour-market structures (Gallie, 2003).

The present study draws on a dataset thatprovides at least some information relevantto different dimensions of work quality. Thequality of work is composed of three distinctdimensions of subjective evaluation regard-ing the job: (1) job quality, materialistic (repre-sented by a single item of high income as aperceived characteristic of respondents job,and opportunities for advancement), (2) jobquality, individual (an item about interesting

work as a characteristic of ones job), and(3) job quality, post-materialistic (an index of twoitems of job characteristics: helping otherpeople, usefulness of the job to society). Seealso Brauns analysis of the impact of workcharacteristics and work values on job satis-faction (Braun, 2000). Another dimension of quality of work was measured as job experi-ences with the work environment (Sirgy etal., 2001: 250): job exhaustion, hard work,and dangerous work. Thus we propose thefollowing:

Hypothesis 3: Job quality(in all dimensions) has apositive impact on affective commitment andcontinuance commitment.

Hypothesis 4: Bad conditions at work (exhaus-tive, hard, dangerous work) have a negativeimpact on affective commitment and continu-ance commitment.

Perception of justice proved to be a pre-

dictor of commitment (Steers, 1977; Meyerand Allen, 1997; Otto, 1993) with regard toindividual procedures, policies and awards inan organization. Most of this research estab-lished that previously mentioned variableshave an important additional impact on thedevelopment of AC (Mathieu and Zajac,1990). Attitudes on meritocratic principles of distributive justice could be used as indirectmeasures of perception. For the present

study, we propose:

Hypothesis 5: A positive perception of distributive justice (support for justice, pay for job perform-ance and education) is positively correlated toaffective commitment and continuance com-mitment.

The literature on commitment speaks infavour of the explanation that claims thatsituational variables are more important andtherefore better predictors of commitmentthan personality characteristics of employees.Nevertheless, some research has shown thatindividual differences are important and inparticular, values (Meyer and Allen, 1997;Kidron, 1978), which were better predictors

of AC than CC. Values are presumed toembody the aspirations of individuals andsociety: they pertain to what is desirable, todeeply engrained standards that determinefuture directions and justify past actions(Robinson et al., 1991). Putti et al. (1989)found out that values concerning work areconnected to commitment, yet this connec-tion is stronger for intrinsic values thanextrinsic ones. The idea here is that if

employees have intrinsic orientation towardwork they will develop AC toward the orga-nization. On the other hand, CC refers to theemployees awareness that costs are asso-ciated with leaving the organization.Employees who have strong CC stay with theorganization because they believe they haveto do so. Conceptually CC can develop as aresult of any action or event that increasesthe costs of leaving the organization, pro-

vided that the employees recognize that theyhave invested themselves in this way.Because CC is about a rational calculation of the investment an individual makes in anorganization and of the alternatives anemployee has on the labour market (Meyerand Allen, 1997), the idea is that values(intrinsic motivation toward work) cannotincrease CC, or might even lessen it. Putti etal. (1989) also revealed that values are con-

nected with commitment not only in westernindustrial countries but also in the Asian con-text. Nevertheless, the majority of studies



6/29

that analysed the effect of work value on thedevelopment of commitment (Meyer et al.,1998; Elizur, 1996) report low or moderateinfluence. Thus:

Hypothesis 6: Intrinsic orientationtoward work andefficiency orientationincrease affective commit-ment and have no impact on continuancecommitment or even lessen it.

The vast majority of the research that hasbeen done in North America implicitly sug-gests there are general needs which peoplemust fulfil in order to become effectivelycommitted to the organization. This univer-sal approach, however, does not explain allthe variance in commitment. Given thatindividuals differ in various ways (e.g. per-sonality, values, needs, expectations), it seemslikely that these differences will have implica-tions for which workplace experiences em-ployees would find particularly rewarding orfulfilling. Recently some comparative per-spectives analysing values and their relation-ship to commitment have emerged (Bae andChung, 1997; Black, 1999; Vandenberghe etal., 2001) and, in particular, Black (1999)found that values are among the predictorsand have a particular impact on AC.

Ingleharts (1999) conceptualizations of social values give us another perspective on

values. At one pole are the materialistic values that arise in response to a need foreconomic and physical security. The otherpole is defined by post-materialistic valuesconcerned with social and self-actualizingneeds. These values include quality of life concerns such as life style issues, self-expression and environmental protection.During the period since World War II,advanced industrial societies have attainedmuch higher real-income levels than everbefore. Coupled with the emergence of thewelfare state, this has brought about ahistorically unprecedented situation: in thesesocieties most of the population no longerlives in conditions of economic insecurity.This has led to a gradual shift in values in

which needs for belonging, self-expression,nonmaterial quality of life and a participantrole in society become more prominent.Prolonged periods of prosperity tend to

encourage the spread of post-materialistic values and discourage the importance of eco-nomic and physical security. These changesin values should also leave traces on the work

values and commitment of employees.We thus differentiate materialistic (high-

income) value orientation, individualistic (mod-ern) value orientation (work independently)and post-materialistic value orientation (havinga job that allows helping others, being useful

to society), respectively. This conceptualiza-tion overlaps with the differentiation of extrinsic, intrinsic and social aspects of valuesand job characteristics (e.g. Braun, 2000).We reserved these terms for a related conceptof intrinsic orientationtoward work (job notmoney). The final aspect of job-related valueswas efficiency orientation(doing the best work).Thus:

Hypothesis 7: (a) Materialistic value orientation

decreases affective commitment and increasescontinuance commitment; (b) individualistic value orientation increases affective commit-ment and continuance commitment; (c) post-materialistic value orientation increases affectivecommitment and decreases continuous com-mitment.

International Perspective

This cross cultural study is more orientedtoward the structure of commitment or itsnomological network in multiple cultures,and its design follows this type of compara-tive research. We observe how much theresults obtained in an individual country canbe generalized and confirmed throughnational and cultural contexts of differentcountries. Most of the selected countries (theUS, the UK, West Germany and EastGermany) are developed western industrial-ized countries, except Japan, Hungary andSlovenia. Among the western countries,



7/29

however, there are differences in culturaltraditions, value orientations and politicalsystems. Although East Germany is groupedwith western countries, we feel that it is

important to treat it separately from WestGermany because of its 50 years of socialismand because social research also considers itseparately. The design of the present analysisgenerally follows the Ragin (1994) approachto studying diversity using comparativemethods. The goal of our study was toexplain diversity within a particular set of predictors. It should be mentioned that weadopted Ragins approach and carried out

his procedures to the extent that matchedour goals: comparing configurations of predictors in each country to establish thedifferences between two types of commit-ment. In cases when we come across differ-ences among the countries in observing theconfiguration of different factors, we try tounderstand them in the sense that we exten-sively search for sensible explanations on thebasis of the special features of each country(see Ragin, 1994).

National environments may conditionthe appearance of commitment in differentdimensions. We included broader value ori-entations in our research; transitional pro-cesses experienced by some of the formersocialist countries, the unemployment rate(flexibility of the labour market) and thenature of industrial relations. Among thesebroader value orientations we included onlythose factors that are directly and moststrongly related to commitment.

In the first section, we proceeded fromHofstedes definition of individualism versuscollectivism. Individualism assumes a socialframework in which people primarily onlytake care of themselves and their own family.

A closely connected social framework is acharacteristic of collectivism. In collectivisticcultures, people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups, and expect an orga-nization to take care of them. In exchange forsuch care, employees owe their organization

complete group solidarity and adherence(Hofstede, 1980). A sensible use of Hofstedesclassification brings us to the following classi-fication: (1) the US, Great Britain and

Germany (East and West) were categorizedamong the countries with a high level of individualism; (2) we included Japan, Slovenia(Konrad et al., 1997) and Hungary in thecategory of the countries with mostly collec-tivist orientations. Thus we propose:

Hypothesis 8: In individualistic countries, indi-vidualistic values and quality of work will have animportant effect on affective commitment andcontinuance commitment, but this will not bethe case in collectivistic ones.

In an atmosphere of insecurity, commit-ment will also be more dependent on rationalcalculations than on the emotional attach-ment of an individual to a collective. Thus wealso have to take into consideration theprocess of transition and the changes inthe value orientations connected with it(Mesner Andol Sek and S tebe, 2001). Accord-ing to the second criterion, Slovenia,Hungary and East Germany are classified inthe category of transitional societies, andthe remaining ones in the group of non-transitional societies. It can be expected thattransitional processes in the first three coun-tries will have an unfavourable impact on ACas the economic and social position of theemployees has worsened, but here importantdifferences among transitional countriesshould be noticed. In Slovenia, for example,the transition process has never developedthe strong liberal connotation that it did inHungary. Trade unions have kept a strongposition in companies and are influentialsocial partners in negotiating on the societallevel, which is not the case with Hungary.Insecurity in Slovenia may in this sense bemore bearable. The collectivistic orientationin Slovenia is gaining a more rational basis,but also individualistic value orientationis becom-ing stronger, especially among the youngergenerations. In such circumstances it isunderstandable that emotional attachment



8/29

will weaken or perhaps even acquire negativecomponents. Therefore, contextual informa-tion is also important in commitment, par-ticularly the rate of unemployment, although

we cannot count this as a direct predictor(Meyer and Allen, 1997).The unemployment rate can influence

commitment through employees percep-tions and their understanding concerningtheir possibilities in the labour market. Theperception of job insecurity is connectedwith feelings of insecurity (Ashford et al.,1989; Barbalet, 1998). As we mentioned inHypothesis 1, job insecurity was negatively

connected to AC (Ashford et al., 1989). Onthe other hand, an employed person whobelieves that he or she has better alternativeemployment options will have a weaker CC.

A high unemployment rate may thus raisethe value of the present job.

From the 1980s, with the greater turbu-lence of labour markets in developed coun-tries, there was increasing concern about thestability of employment. Looking at the un-employment percentage rates: US 4.4, Japan4.7, the UK 6.3, Slovenia 7.7, Germany 9.0,East Germany 18.1 and Hungary 9.7 in 1997(OECD, 2003; Economist Intelligence Unit,US, Germany, 1998) confirms that the situa-tion continued throughout the 1990s. Thisreceived its clearest theoretical formulationin the labour-market segmentation theory(Berger, cited in Piore, 1980), which devel-oped the notion of the primary job sector,where jobs were of good quality, includingopportunities for career development and jobsecurity, and the secondary job sector, con-sisting of low-paid jobs with a high unem-ployment risk.

The nature of the present study is essen-tially exploratory. It seeks to detect whetherthe above-described factors from the self-reported assessment of work characteristicsof representative samples of employees indifferent countries have an impact on com-mitment. In non-transitional countries jobinsecurity should be the result of greater

flexibility in the labour market, and in transi-tional countries insecurity has two majorcauses: the introduction of a market econ-omy and also greater flexibility in the labour

market. That is why job insecurityis treatedseparately from other aspects of work quality.Perception of job insecurity and its relationwith commitment was further explained bythe level of unemployment in each country.Thus we propose that a high unemploymentrate can strengthen the effect of job insecur-ity on continuance commitment, predomi-nantly in transitional economies.

The nature of industrial relations may

also influence commitment, and the role of trade unions is particularly interesting in thisrespect. The meta-analytical study of doublecommitment (Reed et al., 1994) showed thatcorrelation between commitment and anorganization and commitment and tradeunions is about three times higher in coun-tries that have consensual industrial relationsin comparison with countries that haveadversarial or conflictual industrial relations.In this regard, the role of trade unions isseen as a predictor of commitment. The US,United Kingdom and Hungary have beenincluded in the category with the adversarialtype of industrial relations, and Japan, Eastand West Germany, and Slovenia in thecategory with a consensual type of industrialrelations (Wheeler and McClendon, 1998;Stanojevic et al., 1998). Thus we propose:

Hypothesis 9: Membership in a trade unionhas a

positive influence on affective commitmentand continuance commitment in the countrieswith consensual industrial relations.

The hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

Method

Participants

The analysis was performed based on thedata from Work Orientations II, Interna-tional Social Survey Programme (ISSP, 1997)from the collaborative research carried out by



9/29


10/29

reached around 50% in each country (Table1; see details in ZA, 2001).

Measurement

Measures of AC and CC, except the changework item, are selections from Mowday etal.s (1982) longer Organizational Commit-ment Questionnaire that was used in anothercomparative study (see Kalleberg andMastekaasa, 1994 for details). In the presentstudy we assumed that the considered vari-ables are of an interval nature. In cases wherethe content and empirical coherence of theindividual indicators allowed us, we com-bined the variables into indexes. For bothdependent variables, AC and CC, we alsoperformed confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) in order to test discriminant validity.This analysis allowed us to test if the twodimensions could be proved empirically. Theresults in each country showed that 2 for thetwo-factor solution with each factor meas-ured by two separate indicators obtained a

superior fit compared to a one-factor solutionmeasured by four separate indicators. Forexample, in West Germany the two-factorsolution yielded 2 = 1.933 ( p = .164) andRMSEA = 0.0357 compared to 2 = 24.442( p = .000) and RMSEA = 0.124 for the one-factor solution. Fit statistics for other coun-tries are available on request from theauthors. CFA supported the use of separate

AC and CC indexes, even if reliability ratesestimated by Cronbachs alpha did not reachthe generally acceptable level of above 0.6 forthe AC in West Germany and Japan.

Although typically above 0.7 is the minimumthreshold, the threshold of alpha = 0.6 isgenerally acceptable in situations where onlya few indicators are used for measuring eachconstruct, and where the survey is conductedon a general population in selected countries.Lower reliability of AC could be furtherexplained by the fact that inverse answeringscales were used. While they reduce theacquiescence bias of a measure and therefore


Table 1 Means of demographic variables, general and employed population sample sizes, andresponse rates by country (Source: ISSP, 1997)

West East Great

Variables Germany Germany Britain USA Hungary Slovenia JapanGeneral population sample means

Gender (1 = Male) .53 .49 .43 .41 .46 .48 .44 Age (years) 45.7 47.4 46.3 45.3 45.7 43.2 48.1Education (years) 11.3 11.8 11.7 13.3 10.3 10.9 11.8Employed (1 = Yes) .61 .54 .57 .70 .42 .54 .63General population sample N 1215 531 1087 1228 1496 1005 1226

Employed population sample means Trade union membership .23 .23 .29 .09 .20 .50 .20Working for private company .68 .64 .73 .54 .42 .84Work, supervise .45 .40 .27 .14 .29 .22Employed population sample N 744 289 628 865 637 538 783Response rate (%) a 51 47 50 67 81 72 73

a Calculated as a ratio of achieved general population sample size divided by eligible sample size(Source: ZA, 2001).


11/29

increase its validity, they also usually tend tolower reliability estimates.

For the independent variables, we per-formed exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

(varimax rotation) separately for each coun-try (the results are not shown, but can beobtained on request). By doing so, wereduced the complexity of the analysis,obtained the reliability estimates of measur-ing individual concepts, and avoided thepossible collinearity among the predictors inthe regression equation. As shown in Table2, all variables considered in the analysis areenumerated, with the corresponding coeffi-

cient of reliability, Cronbachs alpha. Thesame threshold of alpha = 0.6 was used toselect the items for indexes. We kept onlyindexes that achieved a threshold alpha valuein all the countries. Where this could not beachieved, we selected only one of the indica-tors to represent the construct, arguing thatit was too specific to form a scale. The jobinsecurity index was an exception to thatrule, again due to inverse answering scales.High loading of two items on the same factor(around 0.7, results not shown) in most of thecountries did not warrant the differentiationof two aspects of job insecurity, cognitive andemotional, even if this might be theoreticallysound (Borg and Elizur, 1992).

In order to allow the comparison of theresults, the variables and indicators chosen inour analysis were the same in every country.Measurement equivalence rests mainly onthe face validity of the same wording of ques-tions for single item measures and provisionalstructural invariance of the dimension thatfollows from the preliminary EFA. One goalof translation was to achieve procedurallyequivalent measures, but this could not pre-

vent culturally specific misunderstandings,which was probably the reason for lower reli-ability of some indexes in the case of Japan.

A formal test of measurement equivalence of variables in an international setting is beyondthe scope of the present analysis.

The analyses were carried out separately

for every country for both the dependent variables, thereby testing the construct valid-ity of both of them in the specific conditionsof each country. We used simple analytical

techniques such as correlation and OLSregression. The final regression equationtook into consideration all the factors at thesame time and therefore showed the directeffect of an individual factor, independent of the other factors. In this last model itbecomes evident which are the strongest pre-dictors and how many independent variablesthere are in the total sum of the jointlyexplained variance. Hierarchical stepwise

regression technique was used separately foreach country. At first, demographic controlfactors were included in the analysis, fol-lowed by the rest of the independent

variables. Only variables that satisfied theinclusion or exclusion criteria to enter theequation (change on the F -statistics andtolerance criterion) were kept in.

Results and Discussion

From the descriptive survey of the results(Tables 2(a)2(g)) we can conclude that thehighest value of AC is in the US (7.87), withSlovenia next (7.41) and then Japan (7.28).Results should be interpreted cautiouslybecause measurement equivalence withregard to cultural differences in understand-ing of scaling units is not established (seeSmith and Mohler, 1997). 1 For Japan andthe US, analysis shows high commitment of employees (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990).The highest level of AC is in the US and thesecond highest is in Slovenia, although thedifference is not very big. Such results werenot expected, especially because of the factthat Slovenia is a country in transition wherethe insecurity of the employees and thegeneral difficulty of living conditions in com-parison with the past have a strong influenceon commitment. Slovenia has at the sametime one of the highest levels of AC and thelowest level of CC (5.24). From this point of



12/29

c o un t r i e s .T om ak e a c om p ar i s on ,T a b l e s

2 ( a ) 2 ( g ) c on t ai n Cr on b a ch s al ph a ,m e an s ,

s t an d ar d

d e vi a t i on s an d t h e v al u e s of t h e

c or r el a t i on c o ef f i ci en t s o b t ai n e d b y b i v ar i a t e

an al y s i s .A l l t h e o t h e r p r e d i c t o r s s u r p a s s e d t h e d e m o g r a p h i c

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h ei r i m p or t an c e c on c er ni n g

t h e p or t i on of t h e ex pl ai n e d v ar i an c ei n C C .

H o w e v er , d em o gr a ph i c ch ar a c t er i s t i c s

h a v e

a p ar t i c ul ar l y s t r on gi m p a c t wi t h r e g ar d t o

C Ci n J a p an ( 1 5 % ) an d H un g ar y ( 7 % ) an d

ar e al m o s t wi t h o u t i m p a c t onA Ci n t h e U S .

I n J a p an ,

a g e ( r = . 3 5 ) an d p o s i t i o n i n a n o r g a n i -

z a t i o n ( s u p e r v i s o r y w o r k ) ( r = . 2 2 ) al s o s t an d o u t ,

a s i s t h e c a s ei nH un g ar y ( r = . 2 1 ) .Th e s i z e

of R 2 f or t h ei n d i vi d u al s e t s of pr e d i c t or s of

A C s h o w s t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n an d q u a l i t y o f w o r k

h a v e a s i gni f i c an t i m p a c t e v er y wh er e . W e

c o ul d s a y t h a t b o t h s e t s of s i t u a t i on al v ar i -

a b l e s ar e uni v er s al l yi m p or t an t pr e d i c t or s of

c ommi t m en t a s t h e y al s o ex pl ai nm o s t of t h e

v ar i an c ei n C C .

V a l u e s a s pr e d i c t or s of A C t ak e

onl y

f o ur t h pl a c e a c c or d i n g t o t h e s h ar e of t h e

ex pl ai n e d v ar i an c e . V al u e s d r o p p e d

e v en

l o w er i n t h ei r i m p a c t on C C .Th i s c an b e

ex pl ai n e d i n s u ch a w a y t h a t , wi t h C C , t h e

q u e s t i on of b en ef i t s t h a t ani n d i vi d u al h a s i s

em ph a s i z e d m or ei n t h e c a s e wh enh e or s h e

d e ci d e s t ol e a v e an or g ani z a t i on , wh i ch i s

a c c or d i n g t oh i s or h er ex p e c t a t i on s , an d

i n d e p en d en t of an y v al u e s .Th ei n s e c ur i t y

f a c t or ex pl ai n s onl y a s m al l s h ar e of t h e

v ar i an c e of A C .Th i s f a c t or a d d s w ei gh t t o

a c c or d i n g t o d i f f er en t c o un t r i e s f or A C an d

C C wi t h r e g ar d t o al l t h ef a c t or s c om b i n e d .

Th em o d el ex pl ai n s m o s t of t h e v ar i an c e of

A Ci n t h e UK ( 3 5 % ) an d i nH un g ar y ( 3 8 % ) ,

t h enf ol l o w W e s t G er m an y ( 2 9 % ) , t h e U S

( 2 8 % ) an d J a p an ( 3 4 % ) . S l o v eni ai s i nl a s t

pl a c e , wh er e t h em o d el ex pl ai n s onl y1 9 % of

t h e v ar i an c e .Th e gr e a t e s t t o t al v ar i an c e of

C Ci s s h o wni n t h e U

K ( 3 3 % ) , wi t h 2 6 %i n

t h e U S , 3 2 %i n J a p an , 3 1 %i nH un g ar y ,

2 8 %i n W e s t G er m an y an d 2 0 %i n S l o v eni a .

Th em o d el s h o w s t h en e t i m p a c t of e a ch

i n d i vi d u al v ar i a b l e onA C an d C Ci n e a ch

c o un t r y b y t ak i n gi n t o a c c o un t t h ei m p a c t of

al l t h er em ai ni n g v ar i a b l e s i n t h em o d el .I t

s h o w s u s t h em o s t i m p or t an t v ar i a b l e s t h a t

w or k a s pr e d i c t or s i n

e a ch i n d i vi d u al c o un-

t r y .Th u s w e ar e a b l e t om ak e a pr of i l e of

c ommi t m en t t h a t i s d e t er mi n e d b y t h em o s t

i m p or t an t pr e d i c t or s ( e . g . s i gni f i c an c e< . 0 5 )

f or e a ch c o un t r yr e s p e c t i v el y .I n s e c u r i t y i s a

s i gni f i c an t f a c t or i nf l u en ci n g C Ci n al m o s t al l

c o un t r i e s ex c e p t t h e U S an d S l o v eni a .Th e

i m p a c t i s n e g a t i v e , wh i ch m e an s t h eh i gh er

t h e p er c ei v e d i n s e c ur i t y t h e s m al l er t h e C C .

H o w e v er , i n s e c u r i t y l o s t m o s t of i t s i m p a c t

onA Ci nn e ar l y al l t h e c o un t r i e s , ex c e p t f or

H un g ar y an d t h e U S .Th i s i s al s o e vi d en t

f r om t h e c on cl u s i on t h a t t h en e g a t i v e or i en-

t a t i on of t h ei m p a c t of i n s e c ur i t yi n t h e pr e-

vi o u s d e s cr i p t i v e ex ami n a t i on of c o ef f i ci en t s

c an pr o b a b l y b e ex pl ai n e d t h r o u gh t h e

m a t r i x of t h e p er f or m

an c e of t h er em ai ni n g

f a c t or s of c ommi t m en t .


13/29

Table 2 Cronbachs alpha, means, standard deviations (diagonal) and correlation coefficient for variables in an(a) West Germany (minimal pairwise, N = 568)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Affective commitment

index .65 6.98 1.562 Continuance commitment

index .51 5.90 .40** 1.883 Insecure job (job loss,

job insecure) .73 4.51 .07 .24** 2.264 Satisfaction scale

(management, colleagues) .63 8.21 .31** .28** .24** 1.295 Job quality, work

independently .... 4.13 .23** .33** .19** .25** .866 Job quality, high income ... 2.82 .21** .25** .31** .11** .20** 1.027 Job quality, post-material

(help, useful) .79 6.98 .06 .16** .14** .09* .22** .06 2.108 Job experience (exhausted,

physical, danger) .62 10.61 .02 .18** .16** .10** .01 .21** .06 2.409 Efficiency (best work) .. . 2.46 .29** .20** .05 .09* .22** .09* .09* .03 .6310 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.60 .21** .19** .02 .10* .09** .09* .08* .15** .17** .9911 Job value, high income ... 3.83 .12** .13** .07* .03 .02 .09** .13** .09** .04 .08* .7512 Job value, work

independently ... 4.35 .03 .05 .02 .04 .25** .09** .10** .04 .15** .11** .11** .6813 Job value, post-material .72 7.25 .05 .01 .00 .07 .07 .04 .42** .09* .07* .01 .04 .16** 1.6714 Just pay (job

performance) ... 4.27 .17** .07 .11** .07* .15** .12** .07* .02 .13** .11** .19** .19** .04 .6815 Just pay (education) ... 2.79 .09* .04 .00 .10** .03 .02 .10** .00 .05 .08* .11** .01 .21** .02 16 Gender (1 = Male) ... .59 .00 .02 .02 .03 .04 .15** .03 .13** .02 .10** .02 .01 .13** .05 17 Age (years) ... 40.73 .05 .13** .02 .00 .09* .13** .11** .07* .14** .02 .03 .01 .07* .02 18. Education (years) ... 11.76 .05 .05 .13** .02 .03 .29** .13** .34** .02 .18** .02 .05 .05 .02 19 Trade union membership ... .23 .12** .07 .00 .06 .01 .04 .01 .11** .01 .17** .03 .01 .03 .08* .020 Working for private

company ... .68 .14** .07 .19** .02 .06 .00 .31** .11** .07 .01 .05 .00 .17** .07* 21 Work supervise ... .45 .21** .12** .08* .08* .19** .23** .06 .05 .20** .11** .07* .07* .04 .12**

* p < .05; ** p < .01


14/29

Table 2 cont . (b) East Germany (minimal pairwise, N = 211)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Affective commitmentindex .71 7.06 1.51

2 Continuance commitmentindex .65 5.62 .52** 2.01

3 Insecure job (job loss, job insecure) .70 6.31 .04 .24** 2.22

4 Satisfaction scale(management, colleagues) .64 8.04 .38** .31** .04 1.30

5 Job quality, workindependently ... 3.99 .24** .26** .09 .34** .95

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.32 .14* .16* .27** .06 .17** .977 Job quality, post-material

(help, useful) .80 7 .27 .26** .25** .05 .24** .17** .17** 1.988 Job experience (exhausted,

physical, danger) .62 10.01 .02 .05 .16* .07 .03 .18** .08 2.479 Efficiency (best work) ... 2.61 .19** .16* .10 .15* .02 .02 .22** .01 .60

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.65 .17** .16* .07 .07 .10 .12 .00 .20** .20** .9611 Job value, high income ... 4.03 .06 .01 .14* .06 .10 .03 .00 .17** .08 .13* .6412 Job value, work

independently ... 4.20 .15* .15* .18** .10 .30** .05 .03 .01 .02 .12* .02 .7313 Job value, post-material .68 7.31 .18** .04 .00 .12 .04 .09 .34** .12 .13* .06 .00 .20** 1.5914 Just pay (job performance) ... 4.43 .04 .12 .02 .09 .21** .01 .02 .04 .08 .04 .18** .22** .07 .6115 Just pay (education) .. . 3.16 .03 .06 .06 .00 .00 .07 .12* .01 .03 .13* .17** .03 .06 .06 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .54 .02 .00 .06 .16** .02 .01 .02 .33** .15** .19** .05 .01 .07 .07 17 Age (years) ... 41.52 .15* .24** .04 .07 .01 .07 .12* .08 .00 .04 .05 .05 .03 .01 18 Education (years) ... 12.84 .04 .02 .04 .07 .11 .26** .02 .41** .06 .16** .02 .06 .10 .06 19 Trade union membership ... .23 .05 .05 .05 .04 .10 .00 .05 .03 .02 .02 .07 .18** .00 .00 .020 Working for private

company ... .64 .03 .07 .03 .05 .05 .09 .34** .10 .10 .08 .05 .02 .17** .05 21 Work supervise .. . .40 .21** .21** .13* .04 .22** .16** .10 .00 .13* .01 .05 .14* .10 .11*

* p < .05; ** p < .01


15/29

Table 2 cont. (c) Great Britain (minimal pairwise N = 537)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



3 Insecure job (job loss, job insecure) .62 4.91 .09* .22** 2.12

4 Satisfaction scale(management, colleagues) .66 8.21 .42** .38** .18** 1.48

5 Job quality, workindependently ... 3.92 .28** .25** .04 .19** .88

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.44 .25** .29** .27** .15** .13** .997 Job quality, post-material

(help, useful) .80 7.32 .23** .27** .10* .18** .29** .03 1.848 Job experience (exhausted,

physical, danger) .60 10.20 .13** .07 .17** .17** .06 .09* .05 2.489 Efficiency (best work) .. . 2.33 .29** .22** .14** .06 .15** .06 .06 .07 .66

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.30 .27** .26** .02 .16** .10* .09* .10* .10* .20** 1.0811 Job value, high income ... 3.86 .00 .08* .00 .00 .06 .09* .04 .08* .08* .08* .7612 Job value, work

independently ... 3.85 .15** .04 .05 .05 .17** .09* .08* .05 .01 .06 .12** .7913 Job value, post-material .75 7.62 .14** .00 .04 .00 .00 .01 .34** .02 .00 .13** .08 .33** 1.4414 Just pay (job performance) ... 4.25 .14** .01 .00 .10* .09* .04 .03 .00 .09* .05 .15** .15** .07 .7715 Just pay (education) ... 3.00 .04 .03 .06 .01 .06 .08* .12** .10** .03 .02 .19** .16** .23** .08* 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .47 .06 .03 .08* .13** .12** .07 .09* .25** .03 .13** .07 .00 .15** .01 17 Age (years) ... 39.42 .18** .13** .05 .03 .05 .07 .15** .04 .26** .01 .13** .04 .06 .11**18 Education (years) ... 12.26 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .05 .05 .12** .06 .13** .07 .03 .05 .00 19 Trade union membership ... .29 .08* .07 .01 .19** .13** .01 .18** .12** .00 .07 .01 .01 .07 .12** .20 Working for private

company ... .73 .03 .02 .00 .01 .00 .03 .38** .09* .08* .09* .10* .00 .16** .00

21 Work supervise .. . .27 .08 .04 .04 .08* .01 .17** .02 .05 .14** .05 .02 .07 .06 .03

* p < .05; ** p < .01


16/29

Table 2 cont. (d) USA (minimal pairwise, N = 737)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



3 Insecure job (job loss, job insecure) .62 4.03 .19** .20** 1.86


5 Job quality, workindependently ... 3.98 .26** .25** .14** .22** .92

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.74 .27** .22** .27** .12** .20** 1.027 Job quality, post-material

(help, useful) .82 7.91 .27** .24** .18** .14** .23** .13** 1.648 Job experience (exhausted,

physical, danger) .63 10.07 .07* .19** .15** .14** .13** .06 .01 2.539 Efficiency (best work) ... 2.46 .22** .13** .00 .02 .06 .04 .12** .02 .64

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.48 .14** .08* .02 .03 .11** .03 .17** .03 .04 1.0311 Job value, high income ... 3.98 .03 .14** .05 .08* .04 .11** .00 .16** .01 .05 .7612 Job value, work

independently ... 4.09 .02 .00 .00 .00 .11** .02 .09** .01 .02 .00 .21** .7513 Job value, post-material .74 8.13 .18** .08* .02 .05 .09* .00 .38** .02 .03 .14** .08* .39** 1.4614 Just pay (job performance) ... 4.43 .11** .02 .02 .04 .10** .06 .07* .10** .08* .00 .15** .11** .13** .6115 Just pay (education) ... 3.60 .03 .01 .04 .11** .03 .01 .11** .08* .05 .01 .13** .10** .17** .15** 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .45 .02 .04 .04 .07* .01 .13** .09** .19** .01 .05 .06 .02 .15** .04 17 Age (years) ... 40.48 .08* .23** .00 .02 .01 .03 .03 .16** .16** .00 .11** .02 .03 .02 18 Education (years) ... 13.74 .04 .07* .00 .06 .03 .14** .12** .23** .08* .04 .07* .02 .07* .13** 19 Trade union membership ... .09 .00 .05 .00 .01 .11** .00 .05 .12** .01 .03 .02 .01 .03 .04 .20 Working for private

company ... 21 Work supervise ...

* p < .05; ** p < .01


17/29

Table 2 cont. (e) Hungary (minimal pairwise, N = 574)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14





5 Job quality, workindependently ... 3.84 .30** .27** .25** .22** .93

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.33 .24** .29** .34** .18** .25** .917 Job quality, post-material

(help, useful) .80 7 .77 .37** .25** .21** .17** .35** .06 1.588 Job experience (exhausted,

physical, danger) .61 9.22 .04 .03 .13** .07 .11** .11** .02 2.869 Efficiency (best work) .. . 2.24 .25** .19** .02 .04 .14** .04 .19** .07* .63

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.53 .27** .17** .03 .00 .17** .06 .21** .06 .15** 1.0411 Job value, high income ... 4.51 .05 .12** .04 .00 .06 .01 .00 .17** .02 .08* .6012 Job value, work

independently ... 4.05 .10** .07 .00 .03 .21** .11** .08* .11** .07 .12** .08* .8913 Job value, post-material .73 7.97 .20** .09* .03 .10** .07 .03 .38** .08* .13** .17** .11** .30** 1.5214 Just pay (job performance) ... 4.38 .01 .04 .07 .01 .11** .02 .15** .04 .07 .07 .05 .13** .07 .7515 Just pay (education) .. . 3.45 .04 .04 .04 .01 .04 .00 .02 .01 .07 .02 .05 .00 .14** .03 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .56 .02 .04 .09* .04 .02 .11** .00 .25** .04 .02 .03 .00 .11** .02 17 Age (years) ... 37.50 .10* .11** .07 .08 .06 .05 .08* .11** .17** .18** .08* .13** .11** .08* 18 Education (years) ... 11.72 .16** .15** .15** .01 .20** .19** .10** .35** .08* .19** .17** .21** .03 .12**19 Trade union membership ... .20 .02 .03 .10* .09* .02 .07* .10* .06 .04 .07* .01 .03 .09* .08* 20 Working for private

comapny ... .54 .07 .03 .08* .07 .20** .28** .08* .04 .02 .05 .03 .07 .14** .10**

21 Work supervise .. . .14 .17** .20** .09* .06 .15** .18** .00 .10** .08* .12** .10** .11** .02 .04

* p < .05; ** p < .01


18/29

Table 2 cont. (f) Slovenia (minimal pairwise, N = 474)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



3 Insecure job (job loss, job insecure) .53 5.05 .11* .20** 2.27


5 Job quality, workindependently ... 3.99 .13** .19** .25** .20** 1.06

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.95 .24** .31** .31** .31** .22** 1.127 Job quality, post-material


physical, danger) .56 10.10 .11** .14** .19** .21** .20** .20** .02 2.649 Efficiency (best work) ... 2.43 .15** .10* .02 .01 .08 .04 .13** .02 .69

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 2.92 .12** .13** .06 .06 .09* .13** .03 .08 .06 1.3211 Job value, high income ... 4.43 .04 .13** .07 .00 .11* .15** .03 .15** .02 .16** .6512 Job value, work

independently ... 4.40 .13** .04 .11* .01 .20** .01 .15** .07 .05 .03 .12** .7413 Job value, post-material .66 8.45 .18** .06 .05 .00 .06 .04 .39** .07 .10* .03 .21** .36** 1.3814 Just pay (job performance) ... 4.48 .06 .02 .04 .03 .02 .08 .03 .04 .06 .07 .19** .11** .17** .6915 Just pay (education) ... 3.71 .04 .05 .02 .07 .00 .07 .08 .10* .03 .02 .13** .08* .15** .13** 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .54 .04 .05 .10* .01 .02 .12** .02 .16** .01 .19** .01 .00 .10* .04 17 Age (years) ... 36.64 .14** .15** .03 .10* .00 .01 .18** .02 .12** .05 .06 .12** .15** .00 18 Education (years) ... 11.86 .09* .13** .15** .05 .14** .20** .05 .30** .07 .10* .23** .07 .12** .00 19 Trade union membership ... .50 .04 .04 .01 .15** .07 .14** .13** .03 .04 .03 .01 .03 .12** .03 .20 Working for private

company ... .42 .03 .00 .01 .14** .04 .07 .16** .00 .03 .01 .05 .03 .12** .04 21 Work supervise .. . .29 .18** .17** .14** .04 .15** .23** .14** .06 .12** .00 .05 .10* .01 .02

* p < .05; ** p < .01


19/29

Table 2 cont. (g) Japan (minimal pairwise, N = 644)

Variables Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14





5 Job quality, workindependently ... 2.82 .10** .14** .04 .05 1.56

6 Job quality, high income ... 2.59 .20** .17** .22** .12** .08* 1.227 Job quality, post-material


physical, danger) .64 10.51 .00 .08* .07* .18** .06 .00 .06 2.479 Efficiency (best work) .. . 1.91 .25** .07* .02 .07 .00 .08* .16** .09* .67

10 Intrisic (job not money) ... 3.97 .15** .18** .00 .06 .10** .05 .11** .04 .09* 1.2811 Job value, high income ... 3.92 .01 .11** .02 .03 .01 .01 .02 .11** .01 .08* .7912 Job value, work

independently ... 3.21 .07 .07* .04 .01 .34** .07 .04 .08* .07 .01 .05 .9513 Job value, post-material .77 7.63 .31** .19** .14** .07 .07* .07* .43** .07* .15** .13** .06 .16** 1.3814 Just pay (job performance) ... 3.97 .15** .00 .06 .06 .07 .05 .01 .05 .03 .01 .13** .10** .03 .8115 Just pay (education) .. . 2.46 .00 .03 .03 .05 .09** .02 .06 .02 .01 .08* .07* .09* .02 .05 16 Gender (1 = Male) .. . .53 .18** .06 .03 .02 .02 .05 .03 .18** .09** .07* .05 .04 .00 .11** 17 Age (years) ... 44.84 .15** .35** .12** .07 .21** .01 .24** .11** .04 .17** .05 .11** .17** .01 18 Education (years) ... 12.39 .12** .09* .05 .00 .20** .05 .03 .06 .12** .03 .08* .16** .01 .06 19 Trade union membership ... .20 .01 .06 .05 .14** .17** .07* .05 .06 .00 .10** .03 .09* .02 .08* .20 Working for private

company ... .84 .04 .03 .06 .08* .06 .05 .05 .08* .00 .03 .08* .04 .11** .08*

21 Work supervise .. . .22 .23** .22** .10** .14** .07* .09* .08* .06 .10** .04 .08* .02 .05 .06

* p < .05; ** p < .01


20/29

Table 3 OLS stepwise regression coefficients of predictors on affective and continuance commitment (Source:

Affective commitment ContinuWest East Great West East Gr

Variables Germany Germany Britain USA Hungary Slovenia Japan Germany Germany Britain

Constant .939* .735 .350 2.172** .628 1.514* 2.094** .609 2.923** 1.650Insecure job (job loss,

job insecure) ... ... ... ... .117** ... ... 0.091* .179* .121*Satisfaction scale(management, colleagues) .362** .355** .302** .250** .290** .241** .241** .294** .441** .29

Job quality, workindependently ... ... .172* .182** ... ... ... .442** ... .19

Job quality, high income .194** ... .270** .267** .175* .281** .175** .220** ... .35 Job quality, post-material(help, useful) ... ... .086* ... .235** ... .166** ... ... .1

Job experience (exhausted,physical, danger) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.087* ... ...Efficiency (best work) .596** .489** .530** .404** .453** ... .338** .280* ... .4Intrisic (job not money) .194** .273** .182** .123** .300** .138* .157** ... ... .26

Job value, high income ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Job value, work independently ... ... ... .179* ... ... ... ... ... ... Job value, post-material ... .145* ... .182** .104* .212** .226** ... ... ... Just pay (job performance) ... ... ... ... .262** ... .235** ... ... ... Just pay (education) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Gender (1 = Male) ... ... ... ... ... ... .474** ... ... ...

Age (years) ... ... .014** 0.0063 ... 0.025** 0.005 0.014* ... 0.01Education (years) ... ... ... ... 0.049 ... .107** ... ... ...Trade union membership ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Working for private company .449** ... ... ... ... ... ... .170 ... ...Work supervise .205 .675** ... ... .495** .354* .692** 0.05 .653* ...R 2 .287** .334** .355** .277** .382** .190** .337** .272** .176** .

* p < .05; ** p < .01


21/29

Here, we would particularly like to pointout the situational variables associated withemployment, work experience and relationto work. It is shown that satisfactionand quality

of work (material, high income)have universalimpact; they are significantly and stronglyconnected to AC everywhere. Two of thecomponents of quality of work , namely job qual-ity, work independently, have a significant impactonly in the UK and the US, while job quality,

post-material is significant in Hungary and Japan and also has a significance in Slovenia,although it is somewhat lower. It is interest-ing that among the three countries that we

originally classified as collectivistic, the post-materialistic component shows an indepen-dent impact that does not diminish throughthe remaining variables. We can ask our-selves if different work ethics are involvedhere, for which it is not so important howmuch one earns by doing the job, but if andhow much one can contribute to the com-mon welfare (offer assistance to others andgive a useful contribution to the whole).Work experiences do not demonstrate anyespecially strong impact that would be con-sistent among the countries. The exceptionswe notice cannot be interpreted by any of thepoints written in the introduction.

Values are universally important only inthe dimension of efficiency motivation,which is positive everywhere and is mostlysignificant. This holds true for the orientationtowards work (these results are expectedaccording to previous research). The orienta-tion toward autonomy at work significantlyinfluences AC only in the US, while theorientation towards the post-materialisticnature of work is significant in Japan,Slovenia, Hungary and, surprisingly, the US(but there the influence is not strong ( r = .19).Black (1999: 401) found the same result.However, distributive justice (just pay)proved tobe an important predictor in Hungary (ACand CC), and to a certain extent also in

Japan (AC). People in the US expect to berewarded for their commitment to a com-

pany (although the influence is weak). Demo- graphic characteristics have a different impact on AC in individual countries and this can besummarized as follows: only in the UK are

managers equally emotionally attached toan organization as other employees, whilein Japan they adhere more emotionally to anorganization, which again can be a sign of cultural differences. An important factorinfluencing AC in Slovenia, the US, Japanand the UK was age.

Age , satisfactionand quality of work (material dimension)proved to be the universal predic-tors for CC. The significance of age is some-

what remarkable it should be understood asa positive predictor of commitment, which isprobably connected with tenure. This expla-nation is in accordance with literature andresearch (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Also, astronger significance of autonomy at work (work independently)in individualistic countries isexpected. Autonomy at work as a condition of CC is important in all individualistic coun-tries, while good post-materialistic conditionsfor the development of CC are only impor-tant in the UK, the US, Hungary and Japan.

Autonomy at work (work independently)is animportant element in the calculation of theadvantages that employment brings for anindividual in comparison with the accessiblealternatives on the labour market. In Japanand Hungary, the possibility that employeescan offer assistance to others at their work-place and that they feel the benefit thatthis work brings to society, means a lot tothem.

Work experiences have a negative influenceon CC in Hungary, West Germany and theUS. Values have an impact on CC, particu-larly in West Germany. Employees rely onthe realization of their materialistic expecta-tions and demand autonomy at work. If anorganization meets these expectations, suchemployees will establish a correct relation-ship with this organization, especially thoseemployees who are intrinsically orientedtowards work. The value of autonomy (job value,



22/29

AC = Affective commitment; CC = continuance Commitment

Figure 2 Summary of results

No. Hypothesis AC Country CC

1 Job insecurity Hungary, US

2 Higher job satisfaction + ALL +

3 Job quality:Material, + ALL +

individual, + UK, US +post-material + Hungary, Japan, Slovenia +

4 Bad work conditions

5 Positive perception of distributive justice + Hungary, Japan +

6 Value orientation toward work:Intrinsic orientation (job not money) + ALL +

Efficiency orientation (best work) + ALL (not Slovenia) +

7 Job related value orientation:Materialistic +

Modern (individualistic) + US +Post-materialistic + Japan, Hungary, Slovenia, US,

East Germany

8 Individual values & quality of work + US, UK +

9 Membership of trade union + +

Demographics: Age + US, Slovenia, Japan, UK +

Work supervise + Japan


23/29

work independently)shows an impact especiallyin the UK and the US.

The value of distributive justice (just pay)proved similarly as before to be an important

predictor of CC in Hungary and Japan.Employees in Hungary are convinced thatfair payment does not mean that payment isaccording to merit. Or, in other words, wecould say that merit is not the criterion of

justice for those who have developed themost CC towards their organization. SeeFigure 2 for a summary of the results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can confirm that eachcountry has developed some special predic-tors of commitment, and three of them areuniversal: good quality of work , satisfactionwithan organization and intrinsic orientation toward work . However, in most countries, these threefactors do not explain the whole story.

Material quality of work ( job quality, high income ) isimportant predominantly in individualisticcountries, while in collectivistic countries

post-material quality of work is decisive. Also inthese countries, the development of ACprobably conditions some specific work ethic,which gives employees the feeling that theirwork is important for the community andthey also feel that through it, they can con-tribute to the community in a meaningfulway. If this can be realized on the job, indi-

viduals are emotionally attached to an orga-nization with all the positive consequencesthat such attachment creates. An individual-istic perspective, be it in the form of quality of work or as the value, is absent in collectivisticcountries. In the countries with a mostly indi-

vidualistic orientation, the experience that anindividual has with an organization is moreimportant. If this is positive (especially in thesense of material remuneration and level of autonomy), the employee will be prepared todevelop the feeling of attachment while

values do not play an essential role here, theUS may be an exception. However, an indi-

vidual will not become committed to anorganization if it does not meet his or hermaterial expectations. Material expectationsalso play a certain role as the hygienist with

regard to commitment.Insecurity was shown to be the predictorof AC only in Hungary and the US, but notin any other transitional country (Slovenia orEast Germany) as we had assumed. Insecur-ity is significant as a predictor of CC innearly all countries, except for the US andSlovenia. This is congruent with the seg-mentation theory of the flexible market. Thestudy showed a negative impact of insecurity

on CC and AC, which is congruent with theliterature. People with higher job insecurityare less committed (AC and CC) and they donot appreciate their present job any morebecause of the job loss threat. The regressionequation that we used in the research ex-plained a considerable part of the total vari-ance of commitment in the UK, Hungary,West Germany and Japan. However, ithas an insignificant explanatory value forSlovenia where we have one of the highestlevels of commitment but the lowest level of explained variance. In Slovenia there areprobably very strong predictors of AC, whichwe did not include in this model. 2

The purpose of the analysis was to gathera survey of the predictors of commitmentthat proved to be universally important in thecountries included in the study. We can askourselves if we can talk about a universalmodel of commitment at all. Commitment ispresent in all the countries but its level, itscontent and the factors that influence itsappearance differ substantially.

A comparative perspective in the studywas important in order to find out if cultureis an important dimension in developingcommitment (AC predominantly). It wasimportant to show whether the economicsituation can affect the formation of com-mitment (AC and CC). Culture (collectivistor individualistic) will impact how people areoriented in their evaluation of quality of work



24/29

and what is important for them in developingfeelings of adherence to their organizations.Economic circumstances are important inthe understanding of why people are less

committed to an organization in spite of thefact that they have fewer chances in thelabour market. Economic transition meansgreater insecurity, but also changes in valueorientations toward greater instrumentality(weaker CC). The present study showed thateconomic circumstances unify commitmentconfigurations in different countries (CC);there are more similarities observed in pre-dictors influencing CC across different

countries. The study also showed that CC isa more unified concept than AC, while cul-ture (values) on the other hand diversifiescommitment configurations (AC) acrosscountries.

Notes1 ANOVA (Bonferroni test) showed that mean

differences were statistically significant.2 The model was more successful in the

explanation of CC, but this portion is still thelowest of all. It does not say much about thenature of commitment in this country. Onepossible explanation goes in the directionthat currently, a high level of commitment ismore a consequence of contingent impactsand should these be absent, the AC canrapidly erode. In this case, managementcannot count on the support of employees incritical situations, which, of course, is not

very promising for the future.

References Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981) An Empirical

Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness . Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity.

Arciniega, L.M. and Gonzalez, L. (2002) Whatis the Influence of Work Values Relative toother Variables in the Development of Organisational Commitment?, paperpresented at 8th bi-annual conference of ISSWOV (June), Warsaw.

Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1989)

Content, Causes, and Consequences of JobInsecurity: A Theory-based Measure andSubstantive Test, Academy of Management

Journal 32: 80329.Bae, K. and Chung, C. (1997) Cultural Values

and Work Attitudes of Korean IndustrialWorkers in Comparison with those of the USand Japan, Work and Occupation24(1): 8097.

Barbalet, J.M. (1996) Social Emotions:Confidence, Trust and Loyalty, International

Journal of Sociology and Social Policy16(9/10):7596.

Barbalet, J.M. (1998) Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure. A Macrosociological Approach .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, R.H. (1999) The Relative Effects of Situational Practices and Culturally

Influenced Values/Beliefs on Work Attitude,International Journal of Commerce and Management 9(1/2): 84102

Black, B. (1999) National Culture and HighCommitment Management, Employee Relations 21(4): 389404.

Borg, I. and Elizur, D. (1992) Job Insecurity:Correlates, Moderators and Measurement,International Journal of Manpower 13: 1326.

Braun, M. (2000) The Effects of Disparitybetween Work Values and Job Characteristicson Overall Job Satisfaction, paper presented

at 7th bi-annual conference of ISSWOV(June), Jerusalem.Cohen, A. (1996) On the Discriminant Validity

of the Meyer and Allen Measure of Organizational Commitment: How does it Fitwith the Work Commitment Construct?,Educational and Psychological Measurment 56(3):494504.

DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P. (1987) APath Analysis of a Model of the Antecedentsand Consequences of OrganizationalCommitment, Human Relations 40(7): 44570.

Economist Intelligence Unit, US, Germany(1998) London: EIU.Elizur, D. (1996) Work Values and

Commitment, International Journal of Manpower 17(3): 2530.

Gallie, D. (2003) The Quality of Working Life:Is Scandinavia Different?, European Sociological Review 19(1): 6179.

Gunz, H.P. and Gunz, S.P. (1994)Professional/Organizational Commitmentand Job Satisfaction for Employed Lawyers,Human Relations 47(7): 80128.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldman, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences:



25/29

International Differences in Work-Related Values .London: Sage Publications.

Inglehart, R. (1999) Globalisation andPostmodern Values, The Washington Quarterly23(1): 21528.

ISSP International Social Survey Program(1989) International Social Survey Programme. Work Orientations I , ISSP 1989 (data file); Cologne,Germany: Zentralarchiv fr EmpirischeSozialforschung, 1991 (production); Cologne,Germany: Zentralarchiv fr EmpirischeSozialforschung, 1992 (distribution); Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium forPolitical and Social Research, 1992(distribution).

ISSP International Social Survey Program(1997) International Social Survey Programme. Work

Orientations II , ISSP 1997 (computer file);Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv frEmpirische Sozialforschung and Ljubljana,

Arhiv dru Zboslovnih podatkov (distributors),http://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/.

ISSP Secratariat (2003) ISSP General Information,available at http://www.issp.org.

Jernigan, I.E., Beggs, J.M. and Kohut, G.F.(2002) Dimensions of Work Satisfaction asPredictors of Commitment Type, Journal of

Managerial Psychology17(7): 56479.Kalleberg, A.L. and Mastekaasa, A. (1994) Firm

Internal Labor Market and OrganizationalCommitment in Norway and the UnitedStates, Acta Sociologica 37: 26986.

Kidron, A. (1978) Work Values andOrganizational Commitment, Academy of

Management Journal 21: 11928.Konrad, E., Sabadin, A. and Brenk, K. (1997)

Implikacije kulturnih orientacij za razvojznanosti, Globe, unpublished.

Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1990) Culture,Control, and Commitment: A Study of Work Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States

and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H. (1977)

Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A Predictive Study, Administrative Science Quarterly22: 5775.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D. (1990) A Reviewand Meta-analysis of the Antecedents,Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment, Psychological

Bulletin108: 17194.Mesner Andol Sek, D. and S tebe, J. (2001)

Commitment from a ComparativePerspective. V, in Proceedings of HumanResources Global Management Conference:

Comparative HRM Learning from Diversity,Barcelona, 1922 June 2001. Barcelona:Cranet/Esade.

Meyer, J.N. and Allen, N.J. (1984) Testing theSide Bet Theory of Organizational

Commitment: Some MethodologicalConsiderations, Journal of Applied Psychology69:3728.

Meyer, J.N. and Allen, N.J. (1997) Commitment inthe Workplace. Theory Research, and Application.London: Sage Publications.

Meyer, J.N., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. (1998)Examination of the Combined Effects of ROK Values and Early Work Experiences onOrganizational Commitment, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 2552.

Mottaz, C. (1988) Determinants of

Organizational Commitment, Human Relations 41(6): 46782.Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M.

(1982) EmployeeOrganizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover . New York: Academic Press.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2003)Standardised Unemployment Rates for the Other OECD Countries , available athttp://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00030000/M00030784.pdf, 6 February 2003.

Ongwela, T.A. (1986) Relationship of UniversityFaculty Loyalty and Faculty Perceptions of Department Chairperson Leadership Style .Michigan: Western Michigan UniversityDigital Dissertations.

OReilly, C.A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1981) The Commitment and Job Tenure of New Employees: Some Evidence of Postdecisional Justification.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

OReilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F.(1991) People and Organizational Culture: AProfile Comparison Approach to Assessing

PersonOrganization Fit, Academy of Management Journal 34: 487516.Otto, C.A. (1993) The Relationship between

Transformational Leadership and Employee Loyalty,Employee Commitment, and Employee Perceptions of Organizational Justice . Michigan: MichiganState University Digital Dissertations.

Piore, M. (1980) Dualism and Discontinuity inIndustrialised Societies . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. andBoulian, P.V. (1974) OrganizationalCommitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnoveramong Psychiatric Technicians, Journal of

Applied Psychology59: 6039.



26/29

Putti, J.M., Aryee, S. and Liang, T.K. (1989)Work Values and OrganisationalCommitment: A Study in the Asian Context,Human Relations 42(3): 27588.

Ragin, C.C. (1994) Constructing Social Research. The

Unity and Diversity of Method . Thousand Oaks,CA: Pine Forge Press.Reed, C.S., Young, W.R. and McHugh, P.P.

(1994) A Comparative Look at DualCommitment: An International Study,Human Relations 47(10): 126993.

Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman,L.S. (1991) Measures of Personality and Psychological Attitudes , Vol. 1. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel P. and Lee, D.J.

(2001) A New Measure of Quality of Work

Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction andSpillover Theories, Social Indicators Research ,Kluwer Academic Publishers, 55: 241302.

Smith, Tom W. and Mohler, Peter P. (1997)The NORC-ZUMA Research Project onResponse Scale Expressions, paper presentedat the Annual ISSP Research Conference,The Hague, May.

Stafford, J.L. (1991) A Path Analysis of Transformational Leadership, Communication of Supervisors, and Organizational Commitment inThree Organizations . Kansas: University of

Kansas Digital Dissertations.Stanojevi C, M., Jan CiC, Z., Kanjuo-Mr Cela, A.

and Mesner Andol Sek, D. (1998) Regulacija industrijskih odnosov in strates ka sposobnost slovenskih

podjetij . Ljubljana: IDV, FDV.

Steers, R.M. (1977) Antecedents and Outcomesof Organizational Commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly22: 4656.

Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K.and Delahise, T. (2001) An Examination of the Cross-cultural Validity of aMultidimensional Model of Commitment inEurope, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology32(3): 32247.

Wheeler, H.N. and McClendon, J.A. (1998)Employment Relations in the United States,in G.J. Bamber and R.D. Lansbury (eds)

International and Comparative Employment Relations , pp. 6388. London: Sage.ZA Zentralarchiv fr Empirische

Sozialforschung (2001) International Social SurveyProgramme. Work Orientations II, ISSP 1997.Codebook. ZA Study 3090 . Cologne:Zentralarchiv fr Empirische Sozialforschung.

Zaffane, R. (1994) Patterns of OrganizationalCommitment and Perceived ManagementStyle: A Comparison of Public and PrivateSector Employees, Human Relations 47(8):9771010.


Appendix: Variables Used in the Analysis with Indicators andEnglish Question Text

The following variables are in the format:Variable name [values range] (indicators)Question text

Affective commitment index [2 . . . 10] (work harder for firm)

I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help the firm or organization I workfor to succeed. [Inverse scale: 1 Strongly agree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]+ (proud to work for firm)I am proud to be working for my firm or organization. [2 . . . 10]

Continual commitment index [2 . . . 10] (change work)Given the chance, I would change my present type of work for something different. [1Strongly agree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]+ (stay with organization)I would turn down another job that offered quite a bit more pay in order to stay with this

organization. [Inverse scale: 1 Strongly agree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]


27/29


Insecure job index [2 . . . 9] (job loss)To what extent, if at all, do you worry about the possibility of losing your job? [Inverse scale:1 I worry a great deal, 2 I worry to some extent, 3 I worry a little, 4 I dont worry at all]+ (job insecure)

How much do you agree or disagree that it applies to your job. My job is secure. [1 Stronglyagree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]Satisfaction index [2 . . . 10] (management)In general how would you describe relations at your workplace . . . between management andemployees. [Inverse scale: 1 Very good, 2 Quite good, 3 Neither good nor bad, 4 Quite bad,5 Very bad]+ (colleagues)In general how would you describe relations at your workplace . . . between workmates/col-leagues. [2 . . . 10 ]

Job quality, material [1 . . . 5] (high income)

How much do you agree or disagree that it applies to your job. My income is high. [Inversescale: 1 Strongly agree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]

Job quality, individual [1 . . . 5] (work independently)I can work independently. [1 . . . 5]

Job quality, post-material index [2 . . . 10] (help others)I can help other people. [2 . . . 10 ]+ (useful)My job is useful to society. [2 . . . 10]

Job experience index [3 . . . 15] (exhausted)How often . . . do you come home from work exhausted. [1 Always, 2 Often, 3 Sometimes, 4Hardly ever, 5 Never]+ (physical) [1 . . . 5]. . . do you have to do hard physical work. [1 . . . 5]+ (danger) [1 . . . 5]. . . do you work in dangerous conditions. [1 . . . 5]

Efficiency(best work) [1 . . . 3]What best describes feelings about job. In my job [1 I only work as hard as I have to, 2 I workhard, but not so that it interferes with the rest of my life, 3 I make a point of doing the bestwork I can, even if it sometimes does interfere with the rest of my life]

Intrinsic (job not money) [1 . . . 5]I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money [Inverse scale: 1 Stronglyagree, 2 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree]

Job value, material [1 . . . 5] (important: high income). . . high income [Inverse scale: 1 Essential, 2 Important, 3 Neither important nor unimpor-tant, 4 Not important, 5 Not important at all]

Job value, autonomy[1 . . . 5] (important: independent work). . . a job that allows someone to work independently. [1 . . . 5]

Job value, post-material index [2 . . . 10] (important: help others). . . a job that allows someone to help other people. [2 . . . 10]

+ (important: useful). . . a job that is useful to society. [2 . . . 10]


28/29

DANA MESNER ANDOLS EK is an AssistantProfessor, University of Ljubljana, KardeljevaploScad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.[email: [email protected]]

JANEZ S TEBE is an Assistant Professor in theFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva plo SCad 5, 1000 Ljubljana,Slovenia.[email: [email protected]]


Just pay, job[1 . . . 5] (job performance)In deciding on pay for two people doing the same kind of work, how important should be. . . how well the person does the job. [1 . . . 5]

Just pay, education[1 . . . 5] (education & qualifications)

. . . the persons education and formal qualifications. [1 . . . 5]Gender [1 . . . 0][1 Male/0 Female]

Age (years)Respondent: Age

Education(years)Respondent: Years in school

Trade union membership[1 . . . 0][1 Member/0 Not a member]

Working for private company[1 . . . 0][1 Private/0 Other]

Work, supervise [1 . . . 0][1 Yes, supervise/0 No, do not supervise]

Source: ISSP (1997).

Rsum

Perspectives multinationales sur les valeurs associes au travail et surlengagement professionnel (Dana Mesner Andols ek and Janez S tebe)Le but de cet article est de montrer, partir dune perspective internationale comparative,comment diffrents facteurs influencent lengagement des employs dans une organisation.Lengagement est tudi sous langle affectif et de la continuit. Les caractristiques

personnelles, les facteurs organsiationnels et environnementaux sont pris en compte commeprdicteurs qui impactent sur lengagement. Le rle des valeurs et de linscurit est aussitudi. Les auteurs proposent que ces facteurs nont pas le mme impact sur les deux typesdengagement dans diffrents pays, et que cela peut avoir des implications managrialesimportantes. Ltude compare lAllemagne de lOuest, lAllemagne de lEst, le Japon, laHongrie, la Slovnie, le Royaume Uni et les USA en utilisant les donnes du Work OrientationII collectes par le groupe de recherche International Social Survey Programme group (ISSP)en 1997.Les rsultats montrent que certains prdicteurs sont universels, mais que leur configurationdpend principalement du contexte culturel.


29/29


Dana Mesner Andol Sek and Janez S tebe

mesner & stebe

Documents