MSU LIBRARIES ——. \- RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. SELF INVESTMENT IN WORK: .A STUDY IN A.MEXICAN INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY By Carlos F. Fernandez-Collado A.DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1984 3/ {Aim/f ABSTRACT Self Investment in Work: A Study in a Mexican Industrial Community by Carlos Fernandez-Collado The social fabric of Mexican culture is being altered by the increasingly rapid introduction of industry into the country. The people of Mexico traditionally have been employed in agrarian pursuits , handicrafts, and light manufacturing . These traditional roles are quickly giving way to roles characteristic of industrialized countries . Although a considerable arrount of attention has been focused upon the eccnanic and ecological impact of industrialization upon the country, very little interest in the effects of this industrial impact upon the individual Mexican worker has been demonstrated . Research findings have suggested that an employee ' s self-perception may be influenced by the nature of the work he or she is required to do while in the work environment . The precise nature of the impact of work upon an individual remains sarthat clouded, Mazever. Moreover, the degree to which an individual is willing to becane involved in his or her work role and the type of factors which influence the level of involvement are still unclear . This study was designed to help explain variation in the level of "self-investment" in work in a sample of Mexican workers . The research reported in this dissertation was conducted in Santiago Tianguistenco, Mexico . Interviews were conducted with 228 employees representing all organizational levels in twelve manufacturing firms. A variety of manufacturing technologies and organizational forms are represented in these firms . Data fran the study suggest the following relationships : 1. Individuals who found it difficult to compare the end products of their performance with that of co-workers were nore intrinsically motivated than individuals who found it easy to neke this comparison . 2 . Respondents who believed that a consensually validated hierarchy was used by co-workers to evaluate their performance were nore job-involved than were workers who did not believe such an evaluative hierarchy existed where they worked . 3 . The relationship between perceived opportunity for upward nobility and job-in olvenent appears to be scmewhat curvilinear with those who perceived it very difficult to nove up in the organization being as involved in their jobs as those who found it a little difficult to achieve upward nobility. Those respondents who perceived upward nobility to be difficult, i.e., those in the middle of the continuum, were the nost job-involved individuals . 4 . Individuals who worked in environments in which there was a high degree of legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy were nore intrinsically notivated than individuals who worked in environments where there was a medium anount of legitimation of the status hierarchy. 5 . Sane of the hypothesized relationships occur only in high-status occupations and sore only in low-status occupations . Theoretical , methodological , and heuristic implications of the study are discussed . To Ifiigo ii ACWIEIIEMEN'I‘S I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my carmittee, Dr. William Bridgeland, Dr. William A. Faunce, Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg, Dr. Philip M. Marcus and Dr. Frederick B. Waisanen, for their constant help and guidance . To Dr. William Faunce, the chairman of my committee, I extend my deep appreciation and friendship for his understanding, guidance , and friendship . He has been a constant source of intellectual inspiration and enotional support. To Dr. Bradley Greenberg I extend my friendship and thanks for his help and understanding . I feel very honored to have had the opportunity to work with him and I hope that he will never feel that the years he spent on me were wasted. To Dr . Philip Marcus I extend my appreciation and gratitude for his support and friendship. He has taught me many invaluable lessons about theory and research in sociology. A special thanks to Dr. Norman E. Fontes, who has greatly contributed not only to this dissertation, but also to my personal and intellectual growth. This dissertation was funded by a grant frcm The Ford Foundation of Mexico and Central America . My parents and brothers played a crucial role throughout my career . They gave me always unusual support that I will never forget . Finally, of course, I acknowledge the help of my wife, Pilar. My indebtedness to her goes beyond what is nore usually owed to a spouse since she has also made very substantial contributions to this study. I would also like to thank her for the love and patience which made this all worthwhile . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Theoretical.Eramework and Hypotheses Statement of the Prdblem Individual Focus Environmental Fbcus Interactionist Focus Theoretical Framework Previous Assumptions .Alternative Perspective Hypotheses Chapter II ResearCh Procedures Definitions Selection of the Researdh Site Design and Data Collection Sample Chapter III Results Factor Analyses on the Dependent Measure Tests of the Hypotheses Additional Analyses Chapter IV Discussion Theoretical Implications Methodological Implications Heuristic Implications 10 13 15 18 26 31 33 36 42 52 61 71 82 Appendices A. Interview Sohedule (EngliSh) 87 B Interview SChedule (SpaniSh) IE4 C Back Translation of Attitude Items 117 List of References 119 vi Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LIST OF TABLES Title Breakdown of Participants by Industry Industrial Affiliation of Sample Members Monthly Income of Participants Results of Lawler and Hall's Factor Analysis of the Sixteen Attitude Items Items Comprising the Self-Investment Scale Three-Factor Solution for Self-Investment TWO-Factor Solution for Self-Investment Four-Factor Solution fOr Self-Investment Two—Factor Solution for Self—Investment Three-Factor Solution for Self-Investment Four-Factor Solution fOr Self-Investment Two-Factor Solution fOr Self-Investment Items Comprising the Self-Investment Measure for this Study Bivariate Regression for JOb—Involvement and Frequency of Interaction with Individuals of Unequal Occupational Status Bivariate Regression fOr Intrinsic Motivation and Frequency Interaction with.Individuals of Unequal Occupational Status Oneéway ANOVA.for Competition and JOb—Involvement Oneéway ANOVA.for Competition and Intrinsic Motivation t Test for Comparability of End Products and JOb-Involvement t Test for Comparability of End Products and Intrinsic Motivation vii 39 40 41 45 46 47 49 49 5% 50 51 53 53 55 55 55 56 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 t Test for Consensually validated Supervisor HierarChy and JOb-Involvement t Test for Consensually validated Supervisor Hierardhy and Intrinsic Motivation t Test for Consensually validated Co-Worker Hierardhy and Job—Involvement t Test for consensually validated Coéworker Hierardhy and Intrinsic Motivation Oneéway ANOVA.for Upward MObility and Jdb—Involvement Oneéway ANOVA.for Upward MCbility and Intrinsic Motivation Oneéway ANOVA.fior Legitimation of the Occupational Status Hierardhy and JOb—Involvement Oneéway ANOVA for Legitimation of the Occupational Status HierarChy and Intrinsic Motivation Bivariate Regression for Jdb—Involvement and Comparability of End Products in High-Status Occupations Bivariate Regression fOr JOb—Involvement and Oonsensually validated Hierardhy in Low~Status Occupations Bivariate Regression fOr Job—Involvement and Organizational Legitimation of the Occupational Status HierarChy in High-Status Occupations Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Job-Involvement, Intrinsic Motivation and a Set of Demographic variables viii 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 62 62 63 65 (HAPTERI THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Statement of the Problem The social fabric of Mexican culture is being altered by the increasingly rapid introduction of industry into the country. The people of Mexico traditionally have been employed in agrarian pursuits, handicrafts, and light manufacturing . These traditional roles are quickly giving way to roles characteristic of industrialized countries. Although a considerable anount of attention has been focused upon the economic and ecological impact of industrialization upon the country, very little interest in the effect of this industrial impact upon the individual Mexican worker has been deronstrated . Research findings have suggested that an employee ' s self-perception may be influenced by the nature of the work he or she is required to do while in the work environment. The precise nature of the impact of work upon an individual remains somewhat clouded, however. Moreover, the degree to which an individual is willing to became involved in his or her work role and the type of factors which influence the level of involverent are still unclear . The uncertainty concerning this issue may be attributable to a number of problems including the use of disparate conceptual approaches by different researchers; the use of different methods of operationalizing variables germane to the level of work involvement ; and the level of abstraction at which the conceptualizations have been cast . Indeed, organizing the relevant literature into a coherent set of knowledge claims is almost an unmanageable task. A virtual laundry list of concepts has been introduced into the literature by various researchers who have investigated the issue of work commitment. These concepts include, but are not limited to the following : performance esteem; work role motivation; intrinsic motivation; job-involvetent; self—esteem: central life interest; self-image; psychological identification; identification with one ' 8 job ; the Puritan Ethic; and ego need gratification . Although these concepts traverse sure of the same theoretical terrain, there is a substantial amount of variability in their ultimate conceptual foci . Because of this conceptual variability, there exists a considerable amount of variability in the operationalizations constructed to measure these concepts . These conceptual and operational differences have produced a series of research findings that are sometimes conflicting. An overview of the conceptual approaches utilized by different researchers will help define the parameters of the problem. There are many alternatives available for organizing this type of review. It could be pursued within a chronological framework by examining conceptualizations offered during earlier decades and systematically working up to the present . A satewhat different approach would entail grouping together researchers who offered similar conceptualizations . While both of these strategies would impose some degree of organization upon literature relevant to this study, there is a more useful organizational method which provides more information that will be employed here. As mentioned earlier, different conceptual frameworks have been deveIOped by researchers to investigate work ccmmitment . Some researchers have focused primarly upon individual workers while others have concentrated upon the organizational environment . A few researchers, have pursued an approach that focuses upon the interaction between individual workers and the organizational environments in which they function . Calsequently, the relevant literature can be partitioned on the basis of three different types of foci: (1) an individual focus; (2) an environmental focus,- and (3) a focus upon the interaction between the two. Adoption of this course of action provides some insight into the type of conceptual frameworks that have been pursued during the conduct of research in this area . Individual Focus Allport (1947) was one of the earlier researchers who imposed an individual perspective on work commitment, or job-involvement, as this behavior has been popularly labeled . He viewed it as a form of ego-involverent in which the individual becomes involved as he or she "engages the status-seeking motive" (p. 123.). Dubin (1956) embraced a similar conceptual strategy but relied upon the work-related values acquired by individuals in the process of socialization as his explanatory mechanism. Specifically, he refers to a basic drift in our society away from a central life interest in work, which suggests that he is treating job involvement as a general cultural variable . Gurin, Veroff, and Feld (1966) maintained that there was a functional relationship between job-involvemnt and self-esteem. To the extent that employees ' work provided affirmation of self-esteem, they would be job-involved. Vroam (1962) presented a conceptual framework cast at a somewhat higher level of generalization which subsumed Allport's position as well as Dubin's, and to sure extent Gurin, Veroff, and Feld ' s conceptualization . Vroam believed that an individual would be ego-involved in his or her work if the performance of those tasks satisfied aptitudes and abilities central to self-concept validation . He extended this framework by concluding that an individual ' 8 level of ego-involverent in work would be a function of the worker ' 8 level of self—esteem as determined by perceived level of task performance . French and Kahn (1962) were in substantial agreement with Vroam (1962). They reasoned that self-esteem is an important dimension of human existence and, consequently, anything that influenced an individual ' s level of self—ateen would be given considerable attention . If job performance influenced an individual ' s level of self-esteem, then it would be a central activity . The more work satisfied an individual ' 8 need for self—esteem, the more ego-involved the individual would be in his or her work performance . Lodahl and Kejner (1965) increased the level of generalization of the approach offered by Vroam. 'Ihey viewed job-involverent as "the degree to which a person is identified psychologically with his work, or the importance of work in his total self-image" (p. 24). Obviously, the job-involverent concept has been cast at a relatively high level of generalization since "self-image" encompasses such a broad range of psychological variables . Hulin and Blood (1968) introduced a somewhat different perspective . They suggested that the socialization process itself would significantly influence how an individual responded to work. These investigators reasoned that blue collar workers functioning in urbanized industrial environments might perceive work solely as a means of accruing monetary resources necessary to satisfy needs outside of the work environment . If that was the case, then work itself would not be a central dimension of their self-concepts and little ego gratification would be derived from the work environment itself. Consequently, they would not be likely to be job—involved individuals . This , of course, is the opposite eid of the psychological continuum initiated by Dubin (1956) who proposed that individuals subscribing to the Protestant Ethic would be job-involved . Siegel (1969) is in agreerent with both Hulin and Blood (1968) and Dubin (1956) . He suggested that the level of job-involvement is a function of the value orientations learned and internalized during the socialization process . Sate researchers associated the concept "motivation" with job-involvement. For example, Maurer (1969) introduced the phrase "work role motivation" to investigate job-involverent . He defined work role motivation to be the "degree to which an individual's work role is important in itself, as well as the extent to which it forms the basis of self-definition, self-evaluation, and success-definition" (p. 26). In the same conceptual vein, Lawler (1969) used the term "intrinsic motivation" to account for the level of job-involverent exhibited by different erployees. Drawing upon Expectancy Theory, he conjectured that individuals becare job—involved to various degrees as a function of the different rewards or feelings they expect to obtain as a consequence of doing their job well. A "general interest" in the job construct was introduced by Patchen (1970) . This construct was operationalized using a number of different motivation indices. Wanous (1974) developed a conceptual framework that encompassed both the psychological product of an individual ' s socialization process and consideration of the type of job an individual possessed. He postulated that if an individual was socialized within a rural or urban white collar environment, he or she would more likely have a set of work norms that closely approximated the Protestant Ethic . Individuals having this type of orientation toward work activity would derive more intrinsic satisfaction from work than others who did not share in this orientation . Moreover , the sel f-esteem of individuals having work-oriented norms would be influenced by their job performance . There are a number of constructs that seem to be integrated into many of these conceptual approaches focusing upon job-involvement even though there is a considerable amount of lexical variance in terms of what they are called . These constructs include intrinsic motivation; self—esteem; and the socialization process . There is a very obvious lack of concern with environmental variables associated with jobs themselves . As a matter of fact, it appears as though few theoreticians interested in the area of job-involverent have ad0pted an environmental focus . Environmental Focus The participative managetent theorists represented by Mchegor (1960) and Argyris (1964) emphasize the role of environmental variables in the level of job-involvement exhibited by working individuals . This group of theorists maintains that the level of job-involverent is functionally related to organizational conditions under which the work is performed including the degree of participation in decision-making within the organization ; the type of work performed; compensation factors; and relationships with co-workers to name but a few. Participative managetent theorists are , however , not the only peOple who do this. There is also a sociological tradition with this emphasis exemplified'by the work of Blauner (1964) and Seeman (1967). Blauner's basic hypothesis was that when the worker lacks . freedom and control (powerlessness), when his role is so specialized that he becores a "cog" in the organization (meaninglessness), and.when he is isolated firm: a.community or network of personal relations at work (isolation), the result is that the worker ' 3 activity becores only a means rather than a fulfilling end (selfeestrangement) (p. 33). Obviously, Blauner perceived the first three coiponents as independent variables , and the last corponent (self-estrangement) as the dependent variable . Seeman (1967) embraced a. similar conceptual strategy; He argued that conditions at lower levels of the hierardhy, sudh as 1adk of ownerShip (in sore systems), routineness of work, lack of control over pace, and absence of opportunity to use fully one's Skills, are alienating. His theoretical framework for analysis of work settings is a :mnlti-dimensional conceptualization of alienation, the principal components of which are powerlessness, neaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self—estrangerent (Seeran, 1959). The quality of working life movement generally, emphasizes the effect of the work environment Lpon orientations to work. Examples of this emphasis are in Davis and Cherns (1975) and TauSky and Parke (1976). Specifically, case studies of the quality of‘working life for the most part report that increased autonomy and responsibility not only lead to more satisfaction ‘with the content of the work but to improvements in the quality of the 'work and. to 'higher productivity (Davis and Taylor, 1972; Davis and Cherns, 1975). Interactionist Focus A third grorp of researchers have explained job—involverent within a conceptual framework that has focused upon an interaction between individual and environmental variables. Iawler and Hall (1970) suggested that the most valid approach to job—involvement would conceptually enconpass the interaction between individual differences and the conditions related to jobs themselves. This framework is decidedly at a higher level of generalization than conceptualizations offered by other researchers since it subsumes both the individual focus and the environmental focus. Farris (1971) also argued that an individual ' s level of job-involverent is a function of an interaction between the individual and the environment in which he or she works . An important question merits attention at this juncture : What empirical findings have surfaced as a function of these different conceptualizations? Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) corpleted an excellent review of literature germane to this question . They reviewed 83 studies in an attempt to identify correlates of job-involvement . Twenty-two variables were reported to be positively correlated with levels of job involverent . They divided these correlates into three categories 3 (1) personal characteristics of individual workers: (2) situational characteristics of the job itself ; and (3) a category labeled "outcores" (Rabinowitz and Hall, 1977, p. 284). Correlates of job-involvement in the personal characteristics category included age; education; internal locus of control ; tenure ; corpany size ; the Protestant Ethic ; and higher order needs . Job-involverent correlates in the situational . characteristics category were participation in decision-making; specific job cl'aracteristics; and social factors . In the outcores category job satisfaction, performance , turnover rates , absenteeism, and work success were found to be correlated with job-involvenent . The magnitude of the correlations between these variables and job involverent are generally quite modest ranging from . 26 to . 59 with an average of about .36. As Rabinowdtz and Hall (1977) observe, "Much of the variance in job-involvement retains unexplained" (p. 285). Based upon their analysis , they formulated the following conclusion : AHong the personal characteristics , the strongest correlates are age and Protestant Work Ethic values . In the job environment, participatory leadership arnd job stimulation are the best predictors . The work outcomes most strongly associated with involverent are satisfaction (especially satisfaction with the work itself, supervision, and people) and turnover . Performance and absenteeism are less consistently related to involvenent. (p. 284) While these erpirical findings may be disappointing upon initial perusal , they do provide sore very useful information . First, the findings suggest that job-involvement may be a multi-dimensional construct . Second, they point to the utility of a conceptual framework which incorporates both psychological and environmental focuses . Several recent studies provide evidence that occupational experiences do influence the personality. Most notable among these is Kohn and Schooler ' s ( 1978) ten-year panel study of work experience and psychological functioning . They concluded that the features of work which protote self-directed thought have the most central psychological importance. Consistent with this position (Mortimer and Iorence, 1979a: Mortimer and Iorence, 1979b) fournd that work autonomy has positive effects on intrinsic and people-oriented occupational values . Finally, these findings suggest the need for a conceptual framework 10 cast at a higher level of generalization that can subsume the various conceptual approaches reviewed here . Theoretical Framework If a theoretical framework could be deve10ped that would enhance our understanding of the factors which influence job-involverent, serious economic problems confronting develOping countries could be systeratical 1y explored . Mexico, a developing country, is currently confronting a major economic problem grounded in a lack of productivity. Because of increasing dotestic derands without corparable increases in production, the rate of importation of goods is steadily rising . The Mexican government has becone acutely aware of this problem and is currently spending substantial sums of money to increase dorestic productivity. The government ' s strategy is nnulti-faceted and includes subsidizing small businesses ; providing capital investment loans at reduced interest rates ; providing funding for over ninety agricultural projects: and utilizing the mass media to increase worker ' s pride in Mexico ' s productive ontput . The there of the mass media campaign is interesting although pedestrian at best. The theme, "Mexico is Working, " is presented on television with documentary captions displaying Mexicans at work . The objective of this campaign is to increase Mexican pride in work and to raise the self-esteem of the worker. It is hoped that increased sel f-esteem and pride in work will produce greater productivity. The success of this mass media campaign is, of course, contingent upon there being a relationship between a worker's self esteem arnd his productivity. This investigator is not aware of any research that ‘ has 11 been corpleted in Mexico which focuses Lpon this relationship. One potential problem inhibiting research in this area may be the sensitive area of productivity. It is soretimes difficult to obtain accurate production data . A more modest, though less rigorous alternative, entails an investigation among a number of correlates of the amount of energy that workers invest in their jobs . If relationships were found among these correlates among Mexican workers , factory ownners might be more willing to provide accurate production data if they could be persuaded that pro uctivity could be increased by manipulating these correlates of job—involverent . At this stage in the research, the scope of this investigation will be limited to examining the relationship between investment of self in work and a number of psychological and environmental variable with the We of examining the effects of these variables upon productivity at sore future time . A primary variable of concern in this study is self-investment. Self-investment as conceptualized by Faunce (1972) is as follows: Self investment is conceived of here as a process through which the degree of effect of social encounters upon self esteem becores differentially distributed among social roles . It seems clear that success or failure in performance of sore social roles has nnuch greater impact upon self esteem than success or failure in others. Self investment is seen as a selective process in which the extent of investment of self in any role is dependent upon the amount of return on such investments in the past arnd the anticipated amount of return in the future. (p. 2) According to Faunce , an increase or decrease in the level of sel f-investment in work indicates a cognitive reorganization involving a change in the perceived importance of success or failure in the occupational role . Variation in the level of sel f—investnent in work 12 there fore represents variation in the extent to which success or failure in the work place influence self-esteem (Faunce and Dubin, 1975 ) . Prior research has assumed that there is a universal need among hnmrans for self-esteem and that work-related values are si .nificant factors which influence self-perceptions including self-esteem. The research discussed, utilizing Faunce's self-investment theory, also assumes that there is a need for self-esteem. However, the need for self-esteem experienced by individuals is influenced by two specific factors in the work environment . First, the frequency of evaluations will influence the peed for self-esteem. Second, the nature of the evaluations, whether they are positive or negative, will influence the _]_._e_v_§_]_._ of self-esteem (Faunce, 1982). The theoretical perspective used to develop testable hypotheses was Faunce ' s self-investment theory. This conceptual framework is somewhat different than the theoretical approaches which have been used in previous research . First, it is cast at a high enough level of generalization to subsume both individual and environmental variables that may influence individuals investnment in work. Secod, although self-esteem is a central construct in this conceptual framework, the theoretical perspective includes other salient variables that may be germane to self7investnent in work. Finally, it is conceptually ricln and suggests many plausible testable hypotheses which indicates that it is not cast at too high a level of abstraction. Before discussing Faunce ' s theoretical perspective, it would be useful to discuss alternative conceptualizations and their assumptions in order to clearly understand how Faunce ' s approach differs from other approaches . 13 Previous Assumptions Two assumptions have normally been made by previous researchers : (1) There is a universal and inherent need for self-esteem and (2) this need must be satisfied through the work role (Faunce, 1978). The assumption that there exists a generalized need for self-esteem is implicitly or explicitly articulated in the conceptual frameworks of a number of theorists (Adler, 1927; Allport, 1961; Becker, 1962: James, 1890; Kaplan, 1975; Mead, 1934: Rosenberg, 1979). Kaplan (1975) sunmmarized this assumption in the following manner: . . .the self-esteem motive is universally and characteristically (that is, under ordinary circumstances) a dcgninant motive in the individual's motivational system. (p. Given this assumption, it is reasonable to assume that an individual will behave in ways designed to prorote positive evaluation by others and will avoid behaviors that result in negative evaluations . Positive evaluations will have the effect of increasing self-esteem while negative evaluations will decrease it . Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement among social researchers concerning a valid explanation for this relationship. Kaplan (1975 ) , for example maintains that the wish for positive self-attitudes is associated with a desire for certain pleasurable or satisfying experiences developed during childhood. But other scholars, such as James (1890), consider self-esteem to be a major determinant of human thought and behavior —- a primary stimulus for sel f-actualization (for elaboration of this point, see Kaplan, 1975; Rosenberg, 1979). Whether or nnot this assumption and its supportinng explanation are valid, a large number of sociologists and social-psychologists assume 14 that work experience will exert a significant influence upon an individual '8 attitudes, values and perceptions of self. It logically follows from this assumption that successes and failures in the work environment will have important social and psychological consequences for the individual as well (Hughes, 1958; Mcnre, 1969; Mortinmer and Iorence, 1979b; VanMaanen, 1976). These effects may be generalized by the individual beyond the work place. The "spillover from wor " model, for example , suggests that deprivation of sel f-esteem in the work role will be extended by individuals into other dimensions of existence producing corresponding levels of non-work self-assesenent (Kornhauser, 1965; see also the discussion in Dowell, 1978; Faunce and Dubin, 1975). Whether or not these assumptions are valid, the idea that there is a generalized need for self—esteem and that this need must be satisfied in the work role, underlies most of the theoretical and empirical work focusing npon work-related attitudes and behaviors . Unfortunately, the widespread acceptance of these assumptions has occurred in spite of the fact that only a limited amount of research investigating the validity of these assumptions has been completed. Research in this area may have been retarded by the unniversal claims of the assumptions. Assumptions of this type are particularly probleratic because they imply the existence of a covering law concerning the relationship between level of self-esteem and satisfaction derived through performance in the work role . Deterministic assumptions of this nature tend to ignore the effects of the socialization process and the influence it can exert upon the relationship between work activities and self-esteem. More specifically, these assumptions ignore the possibility that enployees ' levels of self-esteem may be differentially 15 influenced within different cultural contexts . For this reason, a less deterministically oriented conceptual framework was selected for this research . Alternative Perspective Self-investment theory, as developed by Faunce, offers a more utilitarian perspective from which the relationship between work and self-investment can be researched . First, Faunce challennges the conventional assumption that there is a generalized need for self—esteem. He argues instead that the 'need' for self-esteem exists only under conditions that focus attention upon the self in an evaluative context (Faunce, 1982) . More specifically, Faunce does not assume that a universal- need for self-esteem exists but that it is socially determined . Faunce suggests that individuals engage in selective self-investment and he assumes that the need for self-esteem is created in recurring social situations, depending, among other things, upon the frequency with which evaluation occurs in those situations (Faunce, 1982) . Secod, he admits the possibility that peOple may or may not be concerned with occupational achievenent, challenging the conventional assrmption that work experience will necessarily lnave broad impacts on the individual ' s self-esteem. Self-investment theory, then, does not make the deterministic assumption that work has a - significant impact npon individual self-perception. Rather, it is assumed that the effects of work rpon self-perception will be socially determnined . There is sore research evidence that supports this assumption . Blauner (1964) fond that even in the autonobile industry sore workers 16 find their jobs satisfying which may mean that workers accept the necessity of work but expect little fulfillment form their specific jobs. Several organizational researchers (Allport, 1962; Katz and . Kahn, 1966: Tannennbaunm, 1968) have joined debate on the question of how much a worker actually gives of himself or herself to the organization. While a person is admittedly hired to work a " full" day and that is the organization ' s expectation, there is sore experimental data (Weick, 1969) and field data (Ford, 1969) to support the premise that employees have significantly reduced their conmitment to the organization while maintaining employment . For example, Dubin (1956) fond that for three out of every four industrial workers in his study, work and the work environment were not central life interests . Hulin and Blood '3 (1968) findings suggest that blue collar workers view their jobs as merely means to an end. That is, work to them is sonething which enables them to satisfy their primary needs off the job. Self-investment theory then, as it applies to work, rejects the conventional assumption that there is a universal and innherent need for self-esteem and trat this need must be satisfied through the work role . This theory assumes (1) that the need for self-esteem is generated, from among other things, by the frequency with which evaluation occurs in social situations, and (2) that work is not the only factor influencing self-perceptions . The basic annalytic proposition of self-investment theory that is most relevant to the research being pursued here is stated as follows : The level of self—investment in work will vary with the frequency of evaluation of occrpational achievement by self and others (Faunce, n.d.). According to this proposition, self-investment will be influenced by not only the performance evaluations given by others , but by 17 self-evaluation as well. The validity of this assumption logically derives from the existence of dynamnic social corparison processes that appear to be Operative in most areas of social interaction . The validity of this proposition is therefore not unilaterally dependent upon the existence of a formal evaluation system for job performance . For the assumption to be valid, it is only necessary that social comparison processes be operative . Consequently, the scope of the generalizability of the proposition is potentially very broad . There are other salient differences concerning job evaluation that merit attention . Sore research evidence, for example , suggests that evaluations of occrpational achievenent occur more frequently in high than in low status jobs . Individuals in high status occupations devote more time communicating about their work while performing their jobs than persons in lower status occupations (Hinrichs, 1964; Klemer and Snyder, 1972; Iarsen, 1971; Thonason, 1966) which increases the probability of evaluative activity. Mo'eover, lower status individuals find it more desirable to associate with higher status persons (Garbin and Bates, 1966) which results in differential behavior . Benoit-Smul lyan (1944) considers prestige status to be one of the three hierarchies which can be used for status differentiation, and argues that differentiation can be analyzed in terms of admiration, deference , imitation, suggestion, and attraction . A number of job involvement studies (Mannnheim, 1975; Orzack, 1959; Tannenbaum, 1966; Vroom, 1962) suggest that individuals in higher level occrpations are generally more interested and more involved in their jobs than are persons enployed in lower level occupations . In general , the higher a 18 person ' s occrpational status, the greater the level of sel f-investment in work and the greater the amount of information received confirming status claims based on occupational achievement . Relying on the preceding discussion, the next section presents the hypotheses that were tested during the course of the research to be reported here . Hypotheses In this section, a general proposition from self-investment theory will be presented . Next, specific hypotheses developed from the general proposition will be discussed. The general proposition is as follows : The greater the frequency of evaluation of occrpational achievenent, the greater will be the level of self-investment in work. Within the framework of Faunce ' s theory, it is the evaluation of achievenent rather than achievenent itself that is essential to the self-investment process . Stated more specifically, the greater the frequency of evaluation, whether favorable or unfavorable, the greater the magnitude of self-investment , in work activities . lack of evaluation at tinmes when it should be rendered in compliance with organizational rules will be taken as negative evaluation by workers . Consequently, lack of evaluation in these situations will be perceived as negative evaluation and will lead to greater self-investment . There are , however, jobs and life styles in which evaluation of occupational status or of work performance are not expected by workers and seldom occur . Many studies have investigated the importance of social interaction on the job (e.g., Lodahl and Kejner, 1965; Kornan, 197$) 19 and others (e.g., Wickesberg, 1968) have focused on the number of links that organization members must form to meet the derands of everyday situations . The assumption, however, that frequency of evaluation may increase the level of involverent in work, is unique to sel f—investment theory. Faunce (n.d. , p. 135) presents a set of job characteristics that are positively related to the evaluation of occupational achieverent by self and others. These are: (1) Interaction among persons of unequal status (2) Conpetition (3) Comparability of end products (4) Consensual validation of status assignment system (5) Cpportunity for upward mobility (6) Organnizational legitimation of status differences . Assuming that these variables positively influence the likelihood of self-evaluation, and that self-evaluation will make the occupational self-identity increasingly important for self-esteem maintenance , one wonld expect these job characteristics to positively influence the level of self-investment in work. Based upon this reasoning in conjunction with the general proposition, a number of hypotheses were develOped. Each of these will be discussed in turn including the conceptual reasoning associated with each hypothesis . Self-investment theory posits that interaction with persons of higher or lower occupational status will stimulate an evaluation of one's occupational self—identity. Faunce (n.d., p. 58) describes this behavioral phenotenon in the following mannnner : This (phenonenon) is especially likely to happen if the other person ' 8 status is higher than our om. In the former case, an evaluation by the other person has special significance because of his special conpetence as a status judge. In the latter case, the deference likely to be shown will produce self evaluation in a context which affirmns or enhances self esteem. 20 Thus, interaction with individuals possessing different occupational statuses than onr own will induce self-awareness and stimulate self-evaluations which in turn will increase the level of sel f-investment in work. There is sore limnited research evidence which supports this reasoning. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) found that "the number of people contacted per day on the job. (.39) and the interdependence of the job (necessity of working closely with others) (. 34) are both associated with high involverent, at the .61 level" (p. 31). Weissenberg and Gruenfeld (1968) also found a significant relationship between job-involvement and individuals' interpersonal contacts with their srpervisors. Pelz and Andrews (1966) identified a similar relationship in their study. They concluded that there "seems to be a consistent trend for those who exchange information with many people to perform at high levels " (p.41). These findings conbined with Faunce's reasoning suggest the following hypothesis : H1 : The greater the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occrpational status, the greater will be the self-investment in work. It is not uncomon for conpetition to develop among employees in a work environment especially if evaluations are used in the decision-making process for the dispensation of extrinsic rewards including wage increases and pronotions . Self-investment theory maintains _ that a conpetitive work environment increases the frequency of self-evaluation . This is attributable to the increased frequency of evaluations by others . Consequently, the participation in a corpetitive occrpational activity will make the occupational self-identity increasingly important for sel f-esteem maintenannce , which 21 meanns greater sel f-investnent in that activity. This relationship was tested with the following hypothesis : H2: The greater the amount of conpetition in an occupational activity, the greater will be the amount of self-investment in work. One variable closely related to competition is "comparability of end prod ." Faunce (n.d., p. 61) maintains that when the conparability of products produced can be readily assessed either or both in terms of quantity and quality, self-evaluation of occupational performance will be stimulated . Given the relationship already discussed between self-evaluation and self-investment in work, it logically follows that corparability of end products and self-investment should be related in the following manner : H3: The greater the comparability of end products, the greater will be the self-investment in work. Self-investment in work will also be influenced by the presence of a consensually validated occupational status hierarchy according to Faunce's theory. When Faunce (n.d.) uses this construct he means "that there is a clear definition of achievenent in situations to which the values producing the status hierarchy are relevant" (p. 53). Where there is a clear and consistent status hierarchy in the work en ironment, the act of evaluation of subordinates by superiors is legitimized . Moreover, the opportunity, whether implicit or explicit, for status attainment manifests itself. Attainment of additional status should, of course, produce positive evaluations and a correspoding increase in self-esteem. Also, there is likely to be more frequent evaluation of lower status individuals by higher status enployees under coditions in which the criteria to be used in such 22 evaluations are clearly identified and widely accepted as legitimate . In order to secure a pronotion, an enployee would have to deronstrate superior performance and the more clearly this is defined, the greater is the likelihood of performance evaluation and, therefore, of self-investment in work. The following hypothesis was derived given this conceptual framework : H4: Where there is a consensually validated hierarchy, there will be high self-investment in work. An additional hypothesis is also suggested by this line of reasoning . Tiere are numerous types of prorotional procedures that may be utilized by an organization. One type of promotional procedure that is not uncornon in many different cultures is based on patronage either through political affiliation or familial connections . That is, sore people are proroted because a political figure who they supported rises to power and secures a prorotion for them. In the same vein, prorotions are sonetimes granted because a relative is enployed by the sanre corpany and is able to prorote a lower rannking relative. A third type of promotional procedure is based primarily on merit. Upward mobi lity for an employee in a system of this nature is primarily determined by the performance evaluations rendered by the erployee ' s supervisors . For an employee to achieve prorotions in this type of system, he or she must have a desire to be proroted and be given positive performance evaluations . Equally important, the erployee must accept the legitimacy of the status hierarchy. Since the Opportunity to improve one ' 3 rank in the organization ' s hierarchy is contingent upon the approval of occupational srperiors, active involvenent with srperiors is necessary . Increased visibility within the organizational 23 framework will stimulate more frequent evaluation by others , both formal and informal, simply because superiors will become more aware of an enployee's desire to move up in the hierarchy (Caplow, 1954; Faunnce, n.d., ; Tannenbaum, 1974) . If the employee perceives the organization as structured in a mannner that allows for pronotion and is aware that superiors ' decisions concernning prorotions are based upon merit criteria, the employee will be motivated to self-invest in work. Research evidence exists which supports this line of reasoning . Success has been treated as an important variable in a number of studies focusing npon job-involverent (French and Kahn, 1962: Gurin, Veroff, and Feld, 1960; lawler, 1969; lodahl and Kejner, 1965; Vroom, 1962 ) . Results of these studies have generally supported the conclusion that a high level of job performance is associated with a high level of job—involverent . If recognition for achievement is an antecedent of job performance , then recognition for achieverent is also an antecedent for self-investment in work. Mannheim' s (1975) research suggests that an individual '3 self-investment in work "is strongly affected by the rewards that worker perceives on his job, i.e., the more reward he feels in all aspects of his job, the more will he think about it, prefer it above other roles, devote time and concern to it" (p. 181). Assuming that a pronotion is both recognition for achievement and rewarding, it logically follows that an individual desiring the reward and recognition will self—invest in work if he or she perceives the existence of an opportunity for upward mobility. Also, in a setting in which there is little or no chance for prorotion, a failure to advance is less likely to produce negative evaluation by self and others. This relationship was tested with the following hypothesis : 24 H5 : Tie greater the perceived opportunity for upward mobility, the greater the amount of self-investment in work . This last hypothesis suggests an important contingency. If an employee perceives that the organnizational structure is little more than a formality and does not govern the actual operation of the organization especially in the area of personnel pronotions , the degree of self-investment made by the enployee is likely to be adversely affected . To the extent that the organizational structure governs pronotional decisions, the amount of self-investment in work made by an enployee will be positively influenced. The extent to which an organization adheres to or legitimizes its ownn status hierarchy then will influence the amount of self-investment made by its .enployees in the work environment . At this juncture, it might be useful to clarify to sore degree the difference between status generally and organizationally legitinmized status . Essentially, the primary distinction arises from the existence of different social and organizational systems . Recognnition of status differences may vary from one social context to another. For example, doctors lnave higher status than farmers and also higher status than nurses in most social contexts . However, since doctors and nurses pursue their professions in the same work environments and farmers in another, only the status relationship between doctor and nurse can be organizationally legitimized. Specifically, organizational legitimation of status differences only transpires in environments where individuals are employed together . Obviously, status differences can exist in other contexts such as society as a whole and not be subject to organizational legitimation . Clearly doctors have more 25 status than farmers in most cultures and it is improbable that these types of individuals would be enployed within the same organizational setting . Consequently, organizational legitimation of their status difference is an unnlikely event. (he final point merits attention before proceeding to the presentation of the hypothesis concerning this relationship . It is possible to have an organization that does not recognnize differences in status among its employees and hence , there would be no organizational legitimation of these differences which might exist in other societal contexts. This would most likely be the case in very small organizations or in organnizations located in countries governed by political systems that discourage the development of social class and status differences . In summary, organizational legitimation of hierarchical ordering can range from no legitimation to a very high degree of y legitimation . The hypothesis tested concerning the relationship between organnizational legitimation of an occupational status hierarchy and self-investment in work is as follows : H6 : Tie greater the organizational legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy, the greater the level of employee sel f-investment in work. CHAPTERII RESEARCH PKDCEDURES Definitions In this section, conceptual and operational definitions will be presented for the following variables : (l) conparabi lity of end products (2) conpetition; (3) consensually validated hierarchy; (4) ‘0 frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occupational status ; (5) organizational legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy; (6) perceived Opportunity of upward mobility,- and (7) self-investment in work. (1) Conparability of end products was conceptualized to be the ease with which a co—worker could evaluate his /her occn.pationa1 output in terms of quality and quantity with the occupational output of other co-workers . Evaluations of this nature allow a worker to assess his /her organizational performance by utilizing the ontput of co-workers as an evaluative baseline . This variable was operationalized using an item that directed research participants to rate how "easy" it is to assess whether or not they are doing a better or worse job than their fellow workers . Srbjects provided their responses by decking one of the following response options: easy or difficult. (2) Although there has been considerable research focusing upon the interrelationship between conpetition and a multitude of other variables , it is surprising that relatively speaking, there have been few explicity articulated conceptual explicaticns of this variable . Stated simply, it cones very close to being treated as a primitive 26 27 variable in the literature . However, a few definitions have been deve10ped including those offered by Newconb (1950) and Church (1961) . Newconb defines competitive situations as "those in which two or more individuals are motivated toward the same limited goal . ' Limited' means simply that the more one of them achieves the goal the less of it there is for others " (p. 425). Church defines a competitive situation to be one in which "reinforcenent is prescribed to S, not on the basis of its behavior alone , but on the basis of its behavior relative to that of other Ss" (p. 126). Both of these definitions at least implicitly suggest that individuals conpete, when pursuing attainment of a portion or all of a finnite reward, with others in the system in which they are functioning . Moreover , the probability of one individual securing a given reward is increased when the probability of another individual securing the same reward is decreased . Consequently, conceptually it appears that conpetition between individuals is a stochastically interdependent phenomenon characterized by behaviors designed to increase the probability of securing a reward for a given actor while decreasing the probability that others in pursuit of the same reward will secure it. Conpetition was operationalized using an item which required research participants to rate how corpetitive they perceived their jobs to be by respoding to one of the following response alternnatives : very corpstitive, sonewhat conpetitive, not very conpetitive, and not conpetitive . (3) consensually validated hierarchy is the collective agreenent regarding the criteria to be used in assessing occupational status and regarding the placenent of individuals or positions in the status 28 hierarchy. where there is a clear and consistent status hierarchy in the work environment, the act of evaluation of subordinates by superiors is legitimized . Therefore , consensual validation is an organizational variable - an attribute of a collectivity. This construct was operationalized using an item that measured the percent of peOple who agreed with the criteria and the percent of people who disagreed with the criteria . This information was solicited from both workers and supervisors to facilitate separate analyses of these two groups . Breaking the sample into these conponent parts allowed for independent assessments of the effect of agreenent, or lack of agreenent, with the criteria used in assessing occupational status, and placenent of individuals or positions in the status hierarchy upon self-investment in work for both supervisors and workers . (4) Frequency of interaction of persons of unequal occupational status was defined in the following manner. McKee (1969) defined interaction to be "action among several persons , namely, the situation in which two or more persons are acting toward, and respoding to one another at the same time" (p. 59). Lundberg, et a1. (1968) conceptualized interaction to be "the mutual and reciprocal influence exerted by two or more persons or gronps, upon each other's expectations and behavior" (p. 8). Occrpational status can be conceptually defined as the relative rannking of individuals in an organizational hierarchy based rpon prestige . Utilizing elenents of these conceptual explications, frequency of interaction of persons of unequal status was considered to be the number of times within a specified time parameter reciprocal communicative exchanges between two or more individuals transpire who 29 possess differential levels of prestige . These interactions include communication designed to influence expectations and behavior; non—manipulative information exchanges; and social exchanges . The Operational definition encompassed the following procedures. Respodents were asked (1) to list the occrpations of the five people with whom they talk most often while at w_o_r;ki (2) to list the occupations of the five people with whom they interact most often outside of the work environment; and (3) to conplete two items that measured low often they generally talk (a) to people whom they regard as having high status jobs and (b) to people of different occupational status from their own, either higher or lower . These last two items enployed the following response options : 5 or 6 times a month or more; around 3 or 4 times a month or more: once or twice a month; and less than once a month . (5) Organizational legitimation of the occrpational status hierarchy was defined to be the degree to which organizations have formally developed rules, standards, policy, job descriptions, and symbols to structure and control the functioning of organizational members . This imposition of structure produces levels of professional and occrpational roles with differerntial amounts of prestige associated with them . This construct was operationalized using each participating organization ' s chart, job descriptions, and general status symbols to assess the degree of departmentalization, hierarchy, specialization, and organizational control . Given this information, organizations were divided into three gronps : high legitimation, moderate legitimation, and low legitimation . Those organizations having organizational 30 charts, well-developed job descriptions, and highly visible status symbols were assigned to the high legitimation category. Those with loosely defined job descriptions, organizational charts for administrators but not workers, and no visible status symbols below the upper nanagenent level were assigned to the moderate legitimation category. Those organnizations lacking organizational charts , job descriptions, and status symbols were assigned to the low legitimation category. (6) The conceptual definition for perceived opportunnity for upward mobility was developed through the following reasoning . Being mobile generally means that a person or object has the ability to move or be moved . There are obviously different types of mobility that can be analyzed inclnding physical and social mobility. McKee (1969) defined social mobi lity to be the "process of individuals either moving up or down the class hierarchy..." (p. 277). A primary concern in this study was the perceptions of individual workers of the Opportunities to achieve upward social mobility within the hierarchy of their respective organizations . Tre conceptualization developed for this study was the employees ' assessments of the difficulty associated with the attainment of organized promotions with concomitant increases in status . The variable was operationalized using three items in which subjects were asked to rate how difficult it was to obtain pronotions: very difficult, difficult, and a little difficult. (7) the last variable included in this study was self-investment in work. Faunnce (1982) defined this construct to be "a conmitment to an activity or attribute based rpon the relevance of that activity or attribute for self-esteem" (p. 174). 31 The self-investment connstruct was operationalized using an " intrinsic motivation" scale developed by Lawler and Hall (1970). A measure of a closely related construct, job—involvement (Iodahl and Kejner, 1965), was also included so that results could be compared to those of other researchers using this scale . The instrument (see Appendix 1) contained twenty statenents germane to self-investment in the work environment, inclnding sore additional items developed by Faunce . Respodents expressed their degree of agreenent or disagreenent with those statements by completing five-point Likert scales. When subjected to orthogonal factor analysis, the items would theoretically cluster into two known factors : (l) job—involvenent ; and (2) self-investment in work (including the intrinsic motivation items). Responses to items within these factors would be summed to obtain conposite scores for each of the workers . Selection at: the Research Site A number of potential sites were evaluated to assess both their suitability and accessibility for the execution of this research. Tne selection of the data collection site was guided by a number of practical and theoretical considerations : 1. The research had to be executed in a community setting. There are many advantages a communnity environment offers to a researcher. It has a set of established structural characteristics—clearly bounded status hierarchies , interactioal status systems, geographically circumscribed networks—that are especially appropriate for studies such as the one we were conducting. In addition, the access to small conmunities is easier, since consent from the requisite authorities to coduct research is not linked to an inflexible bureaucracy. 2 . Since we were interested in how occupatioally differentiated relationships may influence class imagery: how self-investment in work varies across different occupational 32 groups; and how self-investment is related to jobs that derand different skills and offer different bases for evaluation, we needed to select a social context highly diverse in terms of occupations . 3. We also needed a community with different kinds of industries since the study required variability in the conditions and nature of the work place . for this reason, ton-industrial and single industry communities were excluded from consideration . 4. The research site also had to be accessible to the research team. After investigating numerous potential sites, Santiago Tianguistenco was selected because it satisfied the aformentioned criteria . The city has a population of approximately 6, me people of which 2, 000 are employed by the 27 different industries located in the city. These factories range in size from very small to moderately large by Mexican industrial standards . The smallest operation employed 10 individuals and the largest 5G0 workers. A number of different production activities were represented in this sample including chemicals, plastic-related products , truck asserbly, clothing manufacturing , mushroom production, metal products production, and magnetic tape production . The community itself is located approximately 50 miles from Mexico City, and although it is very near a major urban area, it is not a hi hly urbanized city. Santiago Tianguistenco is an old town in the state of Mexico having been founded over 490 years ago as a trading center . As a matter of fact, in the Nahuatl language , "tianguis-ten—co" translates in English to mean "place at the edge of the market. " The town still maintains its comercial heritage and every Tuesday people from surrounding toms journey to the city to 33 trade goods and interact with one another . The introduction of modern industry into the co runity was a relatively recent phoneorenon. The Mexican government has adopted a policy of industrial decentralization intended to move industry out of Mexico City. As a part of this program, an inndustrial park was built in Santiago Tianguistenco which was eventually occupied by 27 different industries who found a stable labor force available for employment . Design and Data Collection The type of design selected to test the hypotheses central to this research was a survey design which relied upon face-to—face interviews with the participants included in the sample . This type of design was adopted for a number of reasons. One of the most salient problems confronting this research effort was the literacy level of the participants . It was quite probable tlat many of then could not read or write well. Consequently, a major threat to the validity of the data existed that would be circumvented by using an interview technique . Face-to—face interviews were used because telephone service in Mexico is quite eVpensive and it was quite probable that a substantial number of the research participants would not l’ave telephones in their homes . The problem retained concerning where the employees would be interviewed. 'mo locations were considered: (1) the employees ' homes and (2) their respective places of employment. Home interviews were considered because they have the potential of reducing the likelihood of bias resulting from employee concern that their employers may finnd out how they responded during the interview. Unfortunately, this 34 procedure could not be utilized for practical reasons . Mexican employees generally work until at least 8: m P.M. For security reasons, it wasn ' t advisable to rave the interviewing team visiting the hones of workers during the evening hours . The only other reasonable alternative was to conduct the interviews at the factories . Ad0ption of this course of action l'ad the potential of introducing bias into the data . The possibility existed that respondents would not provide truthful responses because of fear their employers would nave access to their responses . The workers might be concerned that truthful responses would jeOpardize their jobs if the employers found the information provided objectionable . For this reason, a number of procedures intended to reduce the potential bias were instituted . First, employers instructed employees to answer truthfully. Secod, the interviews were coducted in private rooms with only the respondent and an interviewer present . Third, respodents were told before the interview started that their annswers to the interview protocol would be kept in the strictest of confidence and would be conbined with other individuals ' responses so that no one individual ' 8 responses could be distinguished from the information provided by other. workers . Finally, nno information was solicited from the respodents which could have been used to positively identify any individnal respondent . To ensure comparability of data from different participants, an interview protocol was developed utilizing a two-stage pi lot study procedure . A sample of 96 students at Michigan State University was selected and subjected to in-depth interviews concerning the constructs contained in the hypotheses . These individuals were interviewed in a 35 conversatioal manner in a very relaxed environment in an attempt to maximize the veracity of their coments . Areas of theoretical interest pursued included issues germane to work, self-esteem, class structure, subordinate-superior communication, and status . These pi lot interviews were then content-analyzed and comnonalities in responses were isolated. This information was then utilized as an aid in the selection of appropriate conceptual and operational definitions already discussed . These results were also used to develOp the interview protocol itself that was used in the actual data collection . Once the interview protocol l'ad been finalized, the English version was translated into Spanish. It should be nnoted that there are many different dialects of Spanish spoken in Mexico so it was important to ensure trat the Spanish version of the interview protocol was linguistically appropriate for the sample that would participate in the study. Consequently, a linguistic pre-test was executed in Mexico utilizing 20 respodents representative of the sample that would actually participate in the study. During the pre—test, linguistic problems were noted and necessary modifications were made subsequently. To further ensure that the semantic content of the Spanish version was very close to the semantic content of the Ennglish version, the Spanish version was translated back into English by a bilingual individual who Tad not been exposed to the English version. The back translation was then compared to the original English version and no significant senantic inconsistencies were noted. The Spanish version of the interview protocol, the English version, and the back translation are presented in Appendices A, B, and C respectively. An interviewing team was then selected which consisted of five fenales and one male . Four members of this team had limited research 36 experience and consequently were given 12 hours of intensive interviewer training . Additionally, these individuals received 28 hours of instruction in survey research methods prior to data collection . The data collection itself was completed over a period of thirty days . Arrangements were made with each participating industry in the study to provide a room renoved from production activities in which to interview study participants . Each interviewer was limited to conducting not more than five interviews per day to reduce the probability that systenatic bias would be introduced into the data as a function of interviewer fatigue . The interviewing team was also very cautious to avoid scheduling interviews that would disrupt the production schedules of the participating industries especially those employing claim-production techniques . Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes with a range of 3G to 60 mninutes . This variance was a result of the respective educatioal levels of the interviewees themselves . The completed interviews were carefully scrutinized eacln day to ensure no systenatic interviewer bias was being introduced into the data . No problems of this nature were encountered and consequently none of the interviews tad to be replaced nor additioal interviews, other than that nnumber initially scheduled, conducted . 82212 As mentioned earlier, the sample was drawn from industrial workers employed by industries in Santiago Tianguistenco. The primary basic unit of analysis in this study was the individual worker . 37 Unfortunately, at the time the data were collective, the munnicipal government did not have a list of names of the factory employees. The only information available was a list of factories in the area . Consideration was given to surveying the individual factories and obtaining the names of the workers to form a pool of subjects from which a sample could be drawn . Limited resources precluded adoption of this course of action . Consequently, an alternative strategy was deve10ped and used . A sub-sample of one-third of the industries was randomly selected . Only those industries with more than 13% employees were selected for this study. This criterion was imposed because the larger the industry, the greater the sub-occupatioal variation within each industry and the more representative the sample would be of industry in Mexico. The ten factories selected provided an excellent cross-section of the technologies utilized by the industries located in this town. In each factory selected, a list of employees was obtained and partitioned into four occupatioal strata : managers and professioals; clerical personnel, skilled workers; and unnskilled workers. This resulted in a potential sample of 300 individuals, 30 subjects in each factory, which included 19 skilled, 10 unnskilled, 6 clerical, and 4 professioal/managerial types . Unfortunately, not all of the industries innitially selected would provide reasonable access to all of their employees which posed a threat to our projected sample size. In an effort to circumvent this problem, two more factories were included in this study. Altlough the first ten factories were selected randomly, these two additioal factories were selected on the basis of whether of not they would cooperate . Pursuance of this course of 38 action did not entirely alleviate the problem of sample size . Even though it was desirable to rave 306 subjects in the sample because of the power tlat it would add to our statistical tests, the final sample size was 228 which satisfies the assumptions of the statistical tests enployed to analyze the data. All persons selected in the sample were eventually interviewed . A number of detographic measures of the subjects were taken including age, sex, and education. These measures are particularly important sinnce Saal (1978) found that job-involverent is correlated with these variables . These findings are reasonably consistent with the findings of previous research on job-involvenent summarized by Rabinowitz and Hall (1977). The mean age of the participants was 26.50 years (N = 228; s.d. = 7.65). The sex breakdown (N = 226) of participants revealed that 68. 58% (N = 155) of the participants were males and 31.42% (N = 71) were ferales. The average number of years of education was 9.10 years (N = 228; s.d. = 3.77). Within this sanmple (N = 228), 15.35% (N = 35) were professional/managerial types; 17.98% (N = 41) were clerical workers; 33.77% (N = 77) were skilled workers; and 32.89% (N = 75) were unskilled workers. As mentioned earlier, the sample was drawn from 12 different industries . The number of subjects from each participating industry is presented in Table 1 . An overview of the type of industry members of the sample were associated with is presented in Table 2 . Information concernning the monthly incore of interviewees is arrayed in Table 3 . It should be noted, however, tlat these figures are based upon the value of the Mexican peso at the time the data were collected. The Mexican economy is currently confronting sore rather trying uncertainty 39 and the peso nas been allowed to "float" Internatioal Monetary Market . forsometimeonthe It is inevitable that it will face a rather substantial devaluation within the near future . TABLEl BREAKDGVN OF PARTICIPANTS BY INDUSTRY (N = 228) Number of Percentage of Industry Participants Total Sample Famsa 87 38. 16 Bayen 37 16. 23 Fonsa 31 13 . 60 Mayware 13 5 . 70 Tekkotex 12 5 . 26 Sonox 12 5 . 26 Electrofodicion 9 3 . 95 Proplas 8 3 . 51 Tenidos y Acabados 7 3 .67 Productora de Modas 6 2 . 63 Serva 6 2 . 63 42);--. 3.? a. it INDUSTRIAL AFFILIATION OF SAMPLE MEMBERS 40 TABLE 2 (N = 228) Type of Number of Percentage of Industry Participants Total Sample Truck Asserbly 86 37 . 72 Magnetic Tape Production 43 18.86 Chemicals 43 18. 86 Textiles 16 7 . 62 Assembly Plant 13 5.76 Paper Products 12 5 . 26 Metal By-Products and Solder 9 3 . 95 Plastics and By-Products 6 2 .63 41 TABLE 3 MONTHLY INw'IE OF PARTICIPANTS (N = 226) Number of Percentage of Pesos Dollars Participants Tbtal Sample 51,000 or more 2,318 or more 2 .88 30,001 - 50,999 1,364 - 2,317 7 3.10 20,001 - 30,000 909 — 1,363 12 5.31 15,001 - 20,000 682 - 908 11 4.87 10,001 - 15,000 455 - 681 19 8.41 5,001 - 10,000 227 - 454 59 26.11 5,000 or less 226 or less 116 51.33 CHAPTER III RESULTS Analyses of two types are reported in this section . First, factor analyses coducted on the dependent measure are presented in detail . Secod, the individual tests for the hypotheses are systenatically reviewed. Finally, additional analyses are reported . Factor Analyses 2n_ the Dependent Measure The self-investment measure employed in this study contained 20 items taken from a number of different sources . Six job-involvenent items and four intrinsic motivation items were taken from research executed by Iawler and Hall (1970). It snould be noted, however, that the job-involverent items used by Iawler and Hall were those developed by Iodahl and Kejner (1965) and the intrinsic motivation items were developed by Iawler (1969) . Ten items were developed by Faunce . Iawler and Hall's (1970) research was designed in part to determine if job-satis faction, job-involvement, and intrinsic motivation were measures focusing upon the same conceptual domain or if they focused upon conceptually distinct psychological domains. Their study focused upon the potential interrelationships among these three variables as well as the relationship of these variables to other job claracteristics in the work environment . Iawler and Hall conclLded from their study that job-satis faction, job—involverent, and intrinsic motivation were factorially independent and related differently to other job characteristics . Their results support this conclusion to a large degree although there are sore specific problems in their results 42 43 that merit careful consideration . Their measurement instrument included sixteen items, six intended to measure job-satisfaction; six designned to tap job-involverent; and four items for measurenent of intrinsic motivation. This instrument was completed by 291 subjects and then subjected to a Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation. The results of the Iawler and Hall (1970, p. 309) factor analysis are presented in Table 4. Items one through six measure job-satis faction and load together quite clearly on Factor 1 . Items 13 through 16 designed to measure intrinsic motivation load together on Factor 3 witl'out problenatic crossloadings on either Factors 1 or 2 . The loadings for the job-involverent items are sonewhat problenatic , however . while items 7, 8, 9, and 10 load on Factor 2 without substantial cross-loadings on either Factors 1 and 3, items 11 and 12 do not. Not only are they only marginally correlated with the job-involverent factor, they are cross-loaded in the intrinsic motivation factor . A decision was made to use all of the job—involvenent items in this research but to be alert to the possibility that these two items might create problems during the data analysis . The self-investment scale used in this study consisted of menty items. The items were randomly ordered in the measurement instrument to minimize potential threats to validity. The items and their respective item numbers as they appeared in the questionnaire and subsequent data analysis are presented in Table 5 . Respodents in this study expressed their degree of agreement of disagreement with these items by respoding to five-point, Likert-type scales ranging from 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; to 5 = strongly 44 TABLE4 RESULTS OF LAWLER AND HALL'S FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE SIXTEEN ATTITUDE ITEMS T I Factor Item I I 1 l 2 I 3 l l l l. The feeling of self-fulfillment a person gets from being in my position. .81 .02 -.14 2 . The opportunity, in my job, for participation in the setting of goals. .77 .11 .11 3 . The Opportunity, in my job, for participation in the determination of methods and procedures . . 70 . l0 . 03 4 . The opportunity for independent thought and action in my position. .70 .03 .07 5. The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in my position. .68 .02 -.11 6. The opportunities for personal growth and development in my position. .64 .10 -.19 7. The major satisfaction in my life cores from my job. .07 .84 -.06 8. The most important things that nappen to me involve my job. .10 .82 -.05 9. I live, eat, and breathe my job. .07 .73 .03 10. I arm not very much involved personally in my Wk. .98 055 “'0 31. 11. I'm really a perfectionist about my work. -.16 .28 -.30 12. Most things in life are more important than work. -.05 -.30 .24 13. When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. .07 .03 -.75 14. When I perfornm my job well, it contributes to my personal growth and developnent. .05 .13 -.70 15. I feel a great sense of persoal satisfaction when I do my job well. .40 .20 -.63 16. Doing my job well increases my feeling of self-esteem - . 01 - . 02 - . 63 Source: Iawler and Hall, 1970:309. disagree . The information provided by the 228 respondents was then subjected to Principal Conpcnents Factor Analyses (unities in the diagoals and eigenvalue default of 1 .0) with rotation to a varimax 45 TABLES ITED’B (IJMPRISING THE SELF-INVESTMENT SCALE Job-Involvenent Items : 44. The major satisfaction in my life cores from my job. 48. I am very much involved personally in my work. 50. The most important things tlat happen to me involve my job. 52. I live, eat and breathe my job. 54. Most things in life are more important than work. 58. I'm really a perfectionist about my work. Intrinsic-Motivation Items : 46. Doing my job well increases my feeling of self—esteem. 53. When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accotplishment. 56. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well. 62. When I perform my job well, it contributes to my personal growth and developnent . Items Developed by Faunce : 45. When I am through work at the end of the day, I lardly ever think about whether I did a good or bad job. 47. I soretimes feel uncomfortable when talking to peeple whose jobs carry more prestige tlan mine . 49. ThetypeofworkIdoisimportanttomewihenIthink about how successful I am in life. 51. I thinnk members of my family feel proud when they tell peOple wlat I do for a living. 55. I sonetimes feel ashamed to tell people wrat kind of work I do. 57. I would be lappy to lave my children do the kind of work I do. 59. Wlnen I make a mistake or do sonething badly at work, , it sonetimes bothers me for days. 60. Tome, myworkinonlyasmall part of whatIdo. 61. If I could not do my job well, I would feel tlat I was a failure as a person. 63 . I feel depressed when I fail at sorething connnnected with my job. criterion (Kaiser, 1958) . Multi-factor solutions were then forced as necessary to discern appropriate factor structures . Three criteria were established a priori to determine optimal solutions; (1) items 46 must load at a.mdnimmmnof .60 and crossload at a maximumnof .40 to be retained on a given factor; (2) items associated.with eadh factor must clearly exhibit comon meaning; and (3) a maximum number of items :meeting the prior criteria should be retained to inimize loss of information. A. three-factor solution was attempted first, since the self-investment measure employed in this study contained items taken fromnthree different sources. The results of this analysis ‘presented in Table 6 were not interpretable. There were extensive cross-loadings TABLE 6 THREE-FACTOR SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT Item. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 44 .35154 .00965 .56704 45 -.08385 -.07119 .49826 46 .38081 .02701 .00120 47 -.l9848 .40354 .24631 48 .48875 .29208 .17159 49 .53442 -.30837 .01750 50 .41643 -.06358 .25701 51 .59215 -.20228 .12286 52 .34990 .03694 .63946* 53 .66835* .18636 .00147 54 -.05481 -.24828 .51524 55 —.21447 .31727 .56856 56 .53716 .10514 -.08082 57 .16421 -.24699 .24810 58 .09611 .15248 .28827 59 —.04588 .67412* -.00619 60 -.07427 -.ll340 .43274 61 .61774* -.00769 -.l4009 62 .19224 .73045* -.l9854 63 .17000 .73562* -.08406 *Indicates acceptable loadings. across factors for many of the items . A two—factor and a four-factor 47 solution were attempted nnext . The results are presented in Tables 7 and 8 . once again, the results were not interpretable because of TABLE 7 TWO!EACTOR.SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT Itemn Factor 1 Factor 2 44 .51426 -.27123 45 .07330 -.31899 46 .35936 .03447 47 -.03927 .21394 48 .55831 .17804 49 .45368 -.25691 50 .46155 -.l7322 51 .55898 -.21803 52 .54047 -.28445 53 .65290* .18008 54 .07734 —.47876 55 .03725 -.02569 56 .49076 .14843 57 .19420 -.33395 58 .20830 -.01382 59 .06392 .48029 60 .05400 -.32134 61 .52822 .08449 62 .23187 .73462* 63 .24941 .67971* *Indicates acceptable loadings . substantial cross-loadings of many of the items. Ehramination of the results suggested that the 10 items developed'by Faunce were heavily cross-loading across all factors in the solutions attempted, This suggested that the items were intercorrelated with the jab-involvement and intrinsic .motivation items. This is not surprising. In fact, it was Faunce's intent to add some of them. to the intrinsic motivation scale, tapping sore other possible dimensions. However, this precluded identifying an acceptable factor solution and, fbr this reason, it was decided to drop the items from the analysis. n .-w1.l 48 TABLE 8 FOURHEACTOR SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT Ilene; Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 44 .02938 .02884 .75006* .15383 45 -.02490 -.03569 .08780 .56760 46 .52220 .03702 -.08062 .16951 47 -.12710 .41206 .16353 .09875 48 .46149 .30314 .23811 .11141 49 .53086 -.30458 .16948 .02422 50 .10722 -.06328 .63412* -.13121 51 .40553 -.20242 .47071 -.10553 52 .06012 .06261 .73291* .26242 53 .61124* .18561 .26647 -.08861 54 .08734 -.20631 -.00658 .69720* 55 -.22828 .35175 .16915 .52543 56 .65098* .10874 -.03110 .04826 57 .09922 -.23360 .23328 .17590 58 .04749 .16840 .20064 .21287 59 .06283 .67869* -.l7161 .08903 60 .03370 -.07912 .00029 .56619 61 .59361 -.01551 .15648 -.l7481 62 .19095 .71700* -.02959 -.24223 63 .13597 .72754* .05161 -.17026 *Indicates acceptable loadings. The remaining 10 items, four measuring intrinsic .motivation and six measuring job-involvenent, theoretically should lave grouped together in a two—factor solution. A.two—factor solution. was imposed on the data and the results are presented in Table 9. This solution appeared to be quite interpretable save for the 'pUOblems associated wdth.items 46, 54 and 58. Iteme»46 and 58 did not load at the .6 level on either factor. Item 54 was equally cross-Loaded on both factors. The first factor was a jOb—involvement dimension and the second factor was the intrinsic motivation dimension. A.decision.was made to delete the three prdblematic items. Recall that items 56 and 58 are the two Items 44 46 48 50 52 53 54 56 58 62 49 TABLE 9 TWOeEACTOR SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT Factor 1 Factor 2 .75363* .09604 .03139 .44111 .21967 .61158* .57040 .12093 .80236* .04936 .26966 .62052* 038095 -031344 .13907 .60580* .22731 .14961 -.23051 .60457* *Indicates Acceptable loadings. items tlat were probleratic in the Lawler and Hall (1970) analysis. Before deleting these items, a three factor and a four factor solution were attempted. Item 44 46 48 50 52 53 54 56 58 62 The results of these two analyses, presented in Tables TABLE 10 THREE-FACTOR SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT *Indicates acceptable loadings. l0 and 11, were not interpretable. It was quite Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 .77267* .05081 -.08649 -.l0606 .70769* -.13739 .32402 .43485 .37004 .61060* .04074 .00290 .79915* .04278 -.15733 .32526 .53300 .26388 .10943 .17320 -.733l4* .06751 .75432* .02869 .28462 .04433 .11855 .00813 .18815 .73355* clear from these Item 44 46 48 50 52 53 54 56 58 62 *Indicates acceptable loadings . Factor 1 .77190* -.07736 .27938 .69606* .77464* .26437 .06809 .06565 .06118 50 TABLE 11 FCIHtJUKIRJR SOLUTION'FCEI Factor 2 .06021 .71512* .43303 .07393 .04465 .52590 .15269 .75798* -.01405 .17216 SELF-INVESTMENT Factor 3 -.04526 -.12676 .37737 .08265 -.12908 .26161 -.76763* .03803 .02091 .70526* Factor 4 .11207 -.ll409 .15543 -.25279 .21753 .22499 .28229 -.00137 .87440* .25393 resuls that the most interpretable solution would be a two-factor solution with items 46, 54 and 58 deleted . solution interpretable and satisfies the criteria to determine Consequently, a two-factor excluding these three items was executed and is both Optimal solutions . The results from this analysis are presented in Table 12 . *Indicates acceptable loadings . Item 44 48 50 52 53 56 62 TABLE 12 TWOeEHCTOR SOLUTION FOR SELF-INVESTMENT Factor 1 .79088* .21029 .64052* .80159* .22566 .08323 "'0 22447 Factor 2 .06929 .64090* .09869 .06916 .67489* .63920* .62205* Item 48 presented another minor problem because it loaded on 51 Factor 2 which is the intrinsic motivation dimension. It should be noted that this was also the case for the two-factor solution which incltded the three items which were deleted in this analysis. Given these results, it seems reasonable to conclude that this item, at least for this sample, is a more valid measure of intrinsic motivation than job-involvenent. Consequently, the item was included in this measure of self-investment. The items tl'at corprised the two dimennsions of TABLE 13 ITENB (DMPRISING THE SELF-W MEASURE FOR THIS STUDY Factor 1: Job-Involvetent Items Item 44 The major satisfaction in my life cores from my job. 50 The most important things that happen to me involve my job. 52 I live, eat and breathe my job.* Factor 2: Intrinsic-Wtivation Items Item 48 I am very much involved persoally in my work. 53 When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. 56 I feel a great sense of persoal satisfaction when I do my job well. 62 When I perform my job well, it contributes to my persoal growth and development . *In the Spanish version of the interview schedule this item was “Yo vivo para mi trabajo, " which translates as "I live for my job." The original Iodahl and Kejner item made no sense in Spanish but the substitute is conceptually equivalent . self-investment for this study are presented in Table 13 . Since these are ortlnogoal dimensions , they were treated independently in all subsequent analyses . Each respondent ' 3 score on each factor was 52 calculated by summing across the three items in the first factor and then snmming across the four items in the second factor . The theoretic range on the first factor was 3 to 15 with lower scores representing higher levels of job involvement . The theoretic range of intrinsic motivation was 4 to 20 with lower scores representing high levels of intrinsic motivation . A Cronback's Alpl'a was computed for each factor to assess the internal consistency of the items. The internal consistency coefficient for the job-involverent items was . 63 and the coefficient for the intrinsic motivation items was . 48 . Neither of these coefficients is particularly high indicating sore degree of heterogeneity among the items that increased the error variance associated with the measures . This obviously increases the difficulty of identifying relationships that may exist among the variables contained in the hypotheses . 'I'ES'I‘QE'I‘I-IEHYPOI‘I—IESES The results of the analyses of the hypotheses tested in this study can now be presented. At the risk of being redundant, each hypothesis will be presented again in an effort to make it easier to digest the results of these analyses . The first hypothesis tested was : H1 : The greater the frequency of interaction with persons of unequal occnpatioal status, the greater will be the self-investment in work. Respodents were asked to indicate low often they interacted with individuals of higher or lower occupatioal status than themselves . This independent variable was coded in the following manner: 1= 5 or 6 times permonth:2=3or4timespermonth; 3=lor2timespermonth,- 53 and 4 - less ttan one time per month. This hypothesis was treated using two bivariate regression tests , one for the job-involvetent factor and one for the intrinsic motivation dimension of self-investment. The .05 level of significance was used for these tests as well as the tests for the other five hypothesis. The results presented in Tables 14 and 15 were not statistically significant. TABLE 14 BIVARIATE REGRESSION FOR.JOBPINVOLVEMENT AND FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION WITH INDIVIDUALS OF UNEOUAL OCCUPATIONAL STATUS Analysis of Variance ll 38. Multiple R : DF ss vs F P R2= .004 IRegression 1 5.854 5.854 I I Residual 224 1305.283 5.827 1.005 .317 l .l p... O‘ \O B TABLE 15 BIVARIATE REGRESSION FOR.INTRINSIC-MOTIVATION AND FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION WITH INDIVIDUALS OF UNEOUAL OCCUPATIONAL STATUS Analysis of Variance Multiple R = .002 I DF SS 145 F P R2 = .000 E Regression l .003 .003 I Residual 224 1170.727 5.226 .001 .980 The secod hypothesis posited the following relationship : H2: The greater the amount of competition in an occupatioal activity, the greater will be the amount of self-investment in work. Participants in the study were asked to assess tow corpetitive their respective work environments were by checking one of the following 54 response options : very conpetitive, corpetitive, and not conpetitive . This facilitated breaking the sample into three groups and executing a One-way ANOVA on each dimension of the dependent variable . Prior to executing the ANOVAs, Bartlett-Box F tests for homogeneity were computed to ensure that the F-test assumption of honogeneity of variance across treatment groups would not be violated . Tnere were no significant differences across treatment group variances . Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences for either job-involvenent or intrinsic motivation. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 16 and 17 . A relationship between comparability of end products and self-investment was proposed in the third hypothesis: H3: The greater the comparability of end products, the greater will be the self-investment in work. Respodents were asked to indicate whether it was easy or difficult to conpare the results of their work with the work results of other workers. Their responses were coded as follows : l - easy and 2 - difficult . Respondents divided themselves into two groups which facilitated execution of t-tests on both dimensions of the dependent variable . The results of the t-test for job-involvenent were not statistically significant (Table 18) . The t-test for intrinsic motivation, lowever , was significant and indicated that those respodents who found it easy to cotpare the end product of their work with the work results of other workers were less intrinsically motivated tlan those who found it difficult to make this conparison. This is the opposite of wtat was predicted. Consequently, Hypothesis 3 is not supported. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 19. 55 TABLE 16 ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR CDMPETITION AND JOB-INVOLVEMENT @7292 Very Conpetitive Competitive Not Competitive Source 9.5. Between 2 Within 220 __ Bartlett 1:] _)_(_ s.d. 8% _F_ Test 53 6.434 2.333 F = 1.122 68 6.779 2.198 p = .326 102 6.823 2.588 9.8 8.8. _F; 2 5.668 2.834 .486 .6159 1283.533 5.834 TABLE 17 ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR CDMPETITION AND INTRINSIC-WTIVATION Sirens Very competitive Conpetitive Not Conpetitive _ Bartlett N 33 s.d. Box _F_ Test 53 7.603 2.331 F = .030 68 7.852 2.261 p = .970 102 7.480 2.276 TABLE 18 t-TES'T FOR (IMPARABILITY OF END PRODUCTS AND J OB-INVOLVEMENT Group _N_ Easy to Oorpare 89 Difficult to Compare 67 X _S-do t if. E 6.595 2.199 1.19 154 . 118 6.179 2.124 56 TABLE 19 t-TESI‘ FOR (IJMPARABILITY OF END PRODUCTS AND INI‘RINSIC-NDI‘IVATION single 11. X _s-d- 1; 9f 2 Easy to Compare 89 8 . 134 2 . 385 1 . 79 154 . 037 Difficult to Compare 67 7.462 The fourth hypothesis made the following prediction : H4: Where there is a consensually validated hierarchy, there will be high self-investment in work. Individuals participating in the study were asked if a consensual 1y validated hierarchy existed in the firm which employed them. They either agreed tlat one existed or disagreed . By agreeing or disagreeing, the respodents divided themselves into two groups which facilitated executing t-tests on the measures of the dependent variable . Tke results of the t-tests for the evaluative criteria used by supervisors presented in Tables 20 and 21 were not statistically signnificant . The results of the analyses for the evaluative criteria used by co-workers identified a significant relationship between the perceived existence of a consensually validated hierarchy and job-involverent (Table 22) . Specifically, tlose workers who agreed that such a hierarchy existed at their place of employment had more job—involvenent than did those wlo perceived that a hierarchy of this kind didn't exist. The results of the analysis for intrinsic motivation (Table 23) were not significant . The results of these analyses provided partial support for Hypothesis 4. The following relationship was posited in Hypothesis 5 : 57 TABLE20 t-TEST FOR CONSENSUALLY VALIDATED SUPERVISOR HIERARCHY AND J OB-INWLVEMENT area 11 Z s-d- t; 91-: 2 Agree 194 6 . 608 2 . 299 . 54 221 . 293 Disagree 29 6. 862 2 .615 TABLE 21 t-TEST FOR CDNSENSUALLY VALIDATED SUPERVISOR HIERARCHY AND INTRINSIC-DUTIVATION Grog N 2 s.d. 1_:_ df 3 Agree 194 7 . 515 2 . 261 l . 07 221 . 143 Disagree 29 8 . 000 2 . 390 H5 : The greater the perceived opportunity for upward mobility, the greater the amount of self-investment in work. Respodents were asked to note how difficult it was to move up in the organizations that enployed them by respoding to one of the following response options : very difficult, difficult, and a little difficult. Through their responses, respodents grouped themselves into three categories which facilitated the execution of One-way ANOVAs. Althougln the results for job-involvenent approached statistical significance, neither test reached significance and consequently Hypothesis 5 was not supported . A Bartlett-Boon F test for honogeneity of variance was calculated for each analysis and neither indicated significant differences across treatment groups . The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 24 and 25 . The final hypothesis tested was as follows: 58 TABLE 22 t-TEST FOR (DNSENSUALLY VALIDATED (ID-MORKER HIERARQ-IY AND JOB-INVOLVEMENT l2 I>q mp. s-d- 3 92 2 Agree 193 6.466 2.245 2.37 213 .009 Disagree 22 7.681 2.533 TABLE 23 t-TEST FOR (DNSENSUALLY VALIDATED (D-VDRKER HIERARCI-IY AND INTRINSIC-WTIVATION Group N X s.d. t d_f 2 Agree 193 7 . 580 2 . 322 . 20 213 . 422 Disagree 22 7.681 2.169 H6: The greater the organizational legitimation of the occupatioal status hierarchy, the greater the level of self-investment in work. Based upon criteria discussed in Clapter II, organizations inclLded in this study were classified as either high, medium or low in legitimation of the organizatioal status hierarchy. One-way ANOVAs were then computed for job-involverent and intrinsic motivation after Bartlett-Box F tests indicated no significant differences in variances across treatment groups . The analysis for job-involvenent was not statistically signnificant while the test for intrinsic motivation approached significance . The results of these analyses are presented in Table 26 and 27 respectively 59 TABLE 24 ONE‘WAY'ANOVAMEOR.UPWARD MOBILITY AND JOB-INVOLVEMENT 9:253 11 Z s.d. Bartlett Box 5 Test very Difficult 135 6.829 2.244 F = 2.058 Difficult 52 5.961 1.970 p = .128 A Little [— Difficult 35 6.828 2.695 E me. if .29. as .F_ 1.2 ‘ ‘ Between 2 29.992 14.996 2.932 .055 'Within 219 1119.976 5.114 TABLE 25 ONE-WAY'ANOVA.FOR.UPWARD MOBILITY.AND INTRINSIC-MOTIVATION gm E X s .d . Bartlett Box g Test Very Difficult 135 7.666 2.259 F = .458 Difficult 52 7.442 2.219 p = .633 A.Litt1e Difficult 35 7 . 714 2 . 538 source if s_s. _m_s. E 2 Between 2 2.246 1.123 .213 .808 Within 219 1153.969 5.264 60 TABLE 26 ONE-WAY'ANOVA.FOR.LEGITIMATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS HIERARCHYUAND'JOB-DTWNJflTfiTfl? 92E High Legitimation Mediumn Legitimation Legitimation Source Wchin IZ 128 43 55 df 223 I>fl 6.742 6.976 6.436 fig 7.309 1304.996 s.d. 2.482 2.650 2.052 ‘19; 3.654 5.852 TABLE 27 Bartlett Box F Test F = 1.754 p = .174 2. I2 .624 .536 ONE-WAY’ANOVA.FOR.LEGITIMATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS HIERARCHY AND INTRINSICeMOTIVATION EEEEE Hflah Legitimation Medium Legitimation Legitimation Source wfithin IZ 128 43 55 df 223 |>fl 7.3281 7.7674 8.1091 §_8_ 24.9207 1139.2386 s.d. 2.1848 2.3283 2.3779 FE 12.4603 5.1087 Bartlett Box §_Test F = .322 p = .725 El E2 2.439 .0896 61 Additional Analyses Given the findings of the present study, additional analyses related to the objectives of this dissertation can be made. First, it may be useful to retest the hypotheses with the sample divided into two occupatioal categories (high-status and low-status occupations) since it is possible that occupatioal status level may influence the hypothesized relationships if, for example, most of the variation in the independent variables is in one or the other status category. Secod, it is important to see if variables associated with the dependent measures - job—involvenent and intrinsic motivation - in other studies, are also associated in this one . The results of the analyses for the hypotheses with the sample divided into two occupational categories were not statistically significant for intrinsic motivation . However, the results of the additioal analyses with the sample divided supported Hypotheses 3, 4, and 6 for job-involvement. At the risk of being redundant, these hypotheses will be presented again . H3 : The greater the corparability of end products, the greater will be the self-investment in work. This hypothesis was treated using two bivariate regression tests, one for the high status occupations (professional and clerical) and one for the low status occupations (skilled and unskilled workers). The .05 level of signnificance was used for these tests. The results presented in Table 28 show that the greater is the comparability of end products in high-status occupations, the greater is the job-involvenent in work . The next hypothesis made the following prediction : H4: Where ther is a consensually validated status hierarchy, there will be high self investment in work. 62 TABLE 28 BIVARIATE REBRESSION FOR JOB-INVOLVEMENT AND (DMPARABILITY OF END PKDDUCTS IN HIGH-STATUS OCCUPATIONS Analysis of Variance Multiple R — .351 l pg _S§ E g g R2 = .123 : Regression 1 24.787 24.787 B =—.196 I Residual 25 176.621 7.065 3.51 .053 TABLE 29 BIVARIATE REGREssnoN FOR JOB-INVOLVEMENT AND (DNSENSUALLY VALIDATED HIERARQ-IY IN LOW-STATUS OCGJPATIONS Analysis of Variance Multiple R = .260 l pg _S§ _Ivg g g R2 = .068 II Regression 1 31.163 31.163 B = .097 1 Residual 114 429.009 3.763 8.281 .005 This hypothesis was tested in the same way as the previous one, and the results for the bivariate regression tests are presented in Table 29 . The bivariate regression for job-involvenent was significant for the respodents in the low status occnpations , indicating that, where there is a clear and consistent agreenent about the status hierarchy in the work environment, there is higher job-involverent . If a consensually validated hierarchy means that the act of evaluation of subordinates by superiors is legitimized, this might explain the association between consensual validation of a status hierarchy and job-involvenent for persons with low status occupations . The final hypothesis for job-involvement t‘nat was supported by the data was as follows : 63 H6: The greater the organizational legitimation of the occupatioal status hierarchy, the greater the level of self-invesment in work. The results of the analysis of this hypothesis are presented in Table TABLE 36 BIVARIATE REGRESSION FOR.JOB-INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL IEEITIMATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS HIERARCHY IN HIGH-STATUS OCCUPATIONS Analysis of Variance II '3 Multiple R DF SS DB F I "U I I R2 = .162 I Regression 1 32.613 32.613 I I Residual 25 168.794 6.752 4.380 .037 30 . The results of the bivariate regression test for job—involvement and organizational legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy were significant for the high status occupations . So, to the extent tIat an organization adheres to or legitimizes its own status hierarchy, then it influences the amount of job-involvement of its high status employees in the work environment . Although the implications of these findings are discussed in the next chapter, sore contents about the retest of the hypotheses should be spelled out here . In the theoretical framework it was considered tlat a set of job cnaracteristics are positively related to self-invesment. These are: (1) Interaction among persons of unequal status (2) lepetition (3) Comparability of end-products (4) Consensual validation of status assignment systems (5) Opportunity of upward nobility 64 (6) Organizational legitimation of status differences . In the retest of the hypotheses, the sample was divided into two occupational categories , because of the possibility tlat occupational status level might influence the hypothesized relationships . The additioal analyses, support some of the initial predictions. In Hypothesis 3, there was a statistically significant finding for job—involverent and comparability of end products in high status occupations. In occupations of this kind there is usually an easily identified end product of individual effort that can be cormpared with flat of others as evidence of skill . In hypothesis number four, there was a statistically significant finding for job-involverent and the consensual validation of status assignment systems in lower status occupations. This finding is not really an unexpected one, since there is likely to be more frequent evaluation of lower status individuals by higher status employees to determine who deserves certain rewards. In order to secure these rewards - in work environments where a status assignment system is clear - a worker mild lave to demonstrate a commitment to the job. In hypothesis number “six, there was a statistically significant finding for job-involverent and organizatioal legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy in high-status occupations . A possible explanation is that individuals in these occupations deal more frequently with darts, job descriptions and general status symbols to assess the degree of departmentalization, hierarclny, specialization annd organizatioal control . Even dividing the sample into two occupational categories, there are not statistically significant findings for sore job-mvolverent relationships and none for the intrinsic motivation dimension . For 65 this reason, it is interesting to examine the relations between job-involveIent, intrinsic motivation and sore demographic variables such as occupation, education, age and gender. Table 31 contains the correlations between job—involvetent, intrinsic-motivation and a set of TABLE 31 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN JOB-INVOLVEMENT, INTRINSICFMOTIVATION AND A.SET OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 31 A 31 B a I_M. r N p r N P Occupation .31 228 .001 -. 12 228 .04 Education . 44 228 . 001 - . 12 228 . 03 Age . 09 228 . $8 - . 13 228 . 03 Gender - . 01 228 ns - . 02 228 ns demographic variables . In Table 31a one can observe that the correlation for occupation and education were found to be statistically significant and not very high but in line with the coefficients typically encountered with this type of data. The correlations with age was found to be very low. The evidence from previous research is mixed between studies showing insignificant differences among age groups and those t‘rat found increases in job-involverent as individuals get older . The correlation with sex was found not to be statistically significant . In Table 31b the reader finds that the correlations for occupation, education and age were statistically significant and unexpectedly low. It is peculiar when comparing Tables 31a and 31b T" _——I 66 that in these three variables the sign is different for the correlations of job-involverent and intrinsic-motivation and the intrinsic-motivation correlations are much smaller . These are findings one could lave not anticipated on the basis of previous research and some sort of explanation needs to be provided here , although additioal implications of these findings are considered in the concluding clapter . Jcb—involverent and intrinsic-motivation do not necessarily have to be associated in the same direction with the derographic variables because as Moch (1980) pointed out, job-involverent is distinct from internal motivation in that it does not have necessary implications for performance . People may take their identity from their positions or roles without raving to perform well on the job. Internally motivated employees on the other hand , reward themselves for successful performance. They feel a sense of personal satisfaction or self-esteem from performing well. It is possible, therefore, that the Mexican employees in our sample who have higher occupatioal status, more years of education and who are older, achieve a sense of self-esteem and identity from their positions or roles in the organization rather than by performing well , wtatever the job. The emfiasis on roles and positions over performance can be explained in cultural terms. In Mexico high performance is seldom the basis for social recognition while high positions and important roles are always rewarded with status and esteem. The data in Table 31 suggest an actual rejection of performance evaluation as a basis for self-esteem by sore persons with high status . 67 The correlation found in the present study between job-involverent and intrinsic-motivation (. 17) provides support for the argument that involverent and intrinsic-motivation are distinctly different - in sore cases pernaps alternative - responses to organizational life. CHAPI'ERIV Discussion The results of this research should be evalnated on at least three dimensions which include the theoretical implications, the methodological implications, and the heuristic implications . In order to accomplish this objective, a brief summary of the results will be presented followed by a more detailed discussion of the test(s) for each hypothesis. Hypotheses l and 2 were not supported by the data. Hypothesis 3 was not supported although there was a statistically significant finding for intrinsic-motivation . This finding was contrary to that predicted by Hypothesis 3. Mnen retesting this hypothesis with the sample divided into two occupational categories (high-status and low-status occupations) the hypothesis was statistically significant in the predicted direction for job-involverent in high status occupations . Hypothesis 4 was partially supported by a significant finding for job—involvement, and when dividing the sample, the hypothesis was statistically significant for job—involveIent in low status occupations . The findings for Hypothesis 5 did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, Hypothesis 6 was not supported although the finding for intrinsic-motivation approached statistical significance . However , with the sample divided into two occupational categories, the hypothesis was statistically significant for job-involverent in high-status occupations . Theoretical Implications The pattern of findings in this study support the conceptual position that the sel f—investment measure employed is multidimensioal . 68 69 Moreover, the findings in this research support Faunce ' 8 basic premise tlat there is not a universal need for self-esteem based on work related values . Self-investment in work, a construct that could be translated into higher levels of job-involverent and intrinsic—motivation at the work place , rave in the light of these findings relatively low scores . As pointed out in Ctapter I , Faunce suggests that self-investment is a selective activity: Individuals who suffer a deprivation of self—esteem in the work role might, but do not necessarily invest themselves in other dimensions (of existence producing corresponding levels of non-work sel f-investment . In this study non-work activities were not considered, although it is interesting that when respondents were asked how much they agreed with the statetent "most things in life are more important than work" almost 50% of the sample disagreed with this statement . The statistical tests for Hypotheses 3, 4 and 6 provided evidence deronstrating that the intrinsic motivation items have face validity as a measure of sel f-investment . These findings provide a degree of support for the conceptual framework that was presented in Crapter l for the self-investment construct. Obviously, the magnitude and credibility of this support would have been far greater if the research hypotheses lad been more decisively supported . However, in the additional analyses, when the sample was divided into two occupatioal categories, Hypotheses 3, 4 and 6 were supported for the job-involvement factor . This adds support to self-investment theory in the sense that it denoustrated flat the hypothesized relationships obtain for at least sore segnent of the sample. Also, it should be borne in mind tlat this was the first time tlat this theoretical framework was used in the 7O coduct of research in Mexico. We will return to this issue in a later section of this clapter . Since the job-involverent and intrinsic motivation scales lave a definite social-psychological focus , it might be useful to develop independent belaviorally oriented measures to include in instruments measuring sel f-investment . Measurements of this nature would include items that focused upon absenteeism from work; the number of suggestions made by a worker to superiors to improve the productivity of the organization ; the number of times an employee is late for work; an employee ' s attendance at social functions sponsored by his /her organization ; the number of times an employee nas been formally reprimanded by the organization for failure to corply with an organization ' 8 operating policy; and the number of prorotions an enployee Ias been awarded by the organization to name but a few items. Certainly items of this type which are more belaviorally oriented might constitute indicannts of the degree to which - an employee is self-invested in his or her job. However, it should be considered that there is a more corplex relationship between beravior and an attitudinal measure such as self-investment . For example, a person with high self-investment might attempt to change work routines in ways tlat would be upsetting to him or her supervisor. Ttat is, these belavioral measures might not always be associated with self—investment in work. As a matter of fact it is frequently noted in job attitudes literature tlat there is little evidence tlat erployees ' attitudes are strongly related to performance at the job. However, the behavioral measures suggested here would provide broader ways for studying attitudes , since the knowledge of attitudes will help us to understand belaviors . 71 Finally, the examination of the relationships between job-involvement, intrinsic-motivation and sore detographic variables such as education, occupation, age and gender, provided evidence that job-involverent is distinct from intrinsic-motivation, in that intrinsic-motivation unlike job-involvement, is inextricably tied to performance: in fact, job-involvement (Iodahl and Kejner items) almost all refer to the importance of work, and self-investment in work is only one reason why work might be seen as important. In this sense, job—involverent is a more inclusive variable than self-investment. Also, the intrinsic—motivation items might be a more valid measure of self-investment. In this sense, self—invested employees might feel a sense of personal satisfaction or self-esteem for performing well . Methodological Implications The methodological implications of this study must be divided into measurement issues and the tests for the research hypotheses included in the study. A number of single-item measures were used in this study including frequency of interaction with individnals of unequal occupational status; prescribed amonnnt of cotpetition in an occupatioal activity ; comparability of end products ; existence of a consensually validated hierarchy; and perceived opportunity for upward mobility. It is a well-documented methodological fact that single item measures are generally not reliable and can militate against the rigorous test of hypotheses in which they are used. An equally well-documented fact is that if an item Ias face validity, it will generally be a reliable measure . Given the nature of the population and subsequent sample erployed in this study, it was desirable to 72 ' employ measures that were simple because the literacy rate for a good portion of the sample was very low. Consequently, simple measures l'aving face validity were employed whenever possible . Unfortunately, it is quite probable that these measures did not have the degree of face validity they were assumed to lave and may not l'ave been very reliable . Assessing their reliability, of course, is problenatic because they are single items. If sore of these items had low validity and reliability as is suspected from looking at the pattern of subjects' responses, the research hypotheses were not subjected to the most rigorous tests possible . Future research in this area should take this into account and utilize multiple item measures for these variables. This will be a recurring observation as the results of tests for each hypothesis are discussed. The results of the analyses for Hypothesis 1 failed to support the prediction for both job-involvement and intrinsic-motivation . Two observations merit consideration . First, the frequency of interaction with individuals of unequal occupational status was measured with a single item. Operationalizations of this nature should inclLde multiple items to facilitate assessment of the reliability of the measure . Secod, measuring a variable such as this by asking respodents to recall their communication behavior over a period of a month may be problematic . Since communicative interaction is such a cannon form of benavior, it might be extrerely difficult for an individual not only to remember accurately who s/he talked to during a 30 day period, but how often interactions took place between specific individnals as well. In retrospect, it is conceivable that this measure of the independent variable was not very valid . If this is the at-) 73 case, Hypothesis 1 did not receive a very rigorous test. Even though the null hypothesis must be accepted here, it must be accepted with caution . Future research should correct the problem identified and test the relationship again . The data failed to support Hypothesis 2 as well. Only 24.09% of the sample thought they were in very competitive job environments, 30.19% thought they were in competitive environments, while 46.36% felt t‘rat they were not in corpstitive environments. It is interesting to note that marly nalf of the respondents did not perceive that their respective organizational environments were competitive in nature . This is not surprising when evaluated within the context of data germane to Hypothesis 5 which focused upon the relationship between perceived opportunity for upward mobility and self-investment in work. The majority of the respodents, 60. 18% of the sample, found it 1911 difficult to move up in the organization suggesting the possibility tlat the work environments for these respodents were indeed corpetitive or, alternatively, indicating that the organizations surveyed were family-type companies where positions were given by close-tied relationships, either to friends or relatives . However, almost half of the sample did not perceive that their environments were corpetitive . It would appear that hopes for upward mobility are not very realistic and consequently employees become resigned to the positions they hold. If this is the case, it logically follows that the work environments would not be conpetitive because there is nothing to compete for. If this is indeed the case, acceptance of the null hypothesis given a Mexican organizatioal context would be warranted, since self-investment theory states that if an individual perceives 74 that his /her dances for upward mobility are very low, he / she might withdraw self-investment from a corpetitive activity, that is, he / she will not invest themselves in work. Also, we could expect that the hypothesis - as stated here - may be valid within other oganizational contexts which are more conpetitive . The operationalization of the perceived competitiveness could be improved as well . The measurement technique employed in this research asked respondents to indicate whether their respective work environments were very corpetitive, competitive, or not cotpetitive . This measure may nave truncated the variance in perceptions of environmental competitiveness which potentially could mask the relationship between this variable and self-investment . Future research should employ a more continuous, multi-item measure for perceived conpetitiveness . Although Hypothesis 3 was not supported, there was a statistically significant finding for the intrinsic-motivation dimension of self-investment, and when dividing the sample into two occnpatioal categories - high and low status occupations - the hypothesis was statistically significant for the first sample category. The results of the first analysis indicated that the individuals who found it difficult to compare the end products of their work with that of other workers were more intrinsically motivated than were individuals who found it easy to make this conparison. This relationship was the opposite of that predicted . However, for high status occupations the relationship was positive . Additionally, the analysis for job-involvenent approached statistical significance (p = .1185) and the same pattern of results energed . Those individuals who found it do.) IfJIJ I..l J .411! .3 '..-) V3! .3, .I ‘.n.: .2.) " :i'J'-)..i-.‘.:" 75 difficult to compare their work with that of others were more job-involved tran individuals who found it easy to make this type of comparison . While these findings were sorewhat surprising initially, there is a plausible explanation for them. Individuals who can easily assess the work of others may regulate their work performance so tl'at it is relatively congruent with tlat of co-workers . Adoption of this course of beravior would provide some degree of job security since everyone would be performing at relatively the same level . Stated differently, it would be difficult to terminate any one enployee for unnsatisfactory performance if most of the workers were performning at the same level . If this conclusion is valid, than the individuals would exhibit relatively the same degree of intrinsic-motivation and job-involverent . For example, in one plant, an informal rule for a worker might be don ' t produce more than X units per day despite a piece-rate system, because workers ' fear that if they produce more managerent would raise standards. This type of bel'avior is quite generalized in Mexico. It has been noted by educatioal psychologists tlat even at an elerentary level of school, pupils will adapt academic performance so that it is relatively congruent with the rest of the group. Persons in higher status jobs, who were more likely to lave high self-investment, obviously could not use co-workers ' performance as a benchmark to guide their own output if they found it difficult to conpare their work with that of others . As a consequence, they might feel the need to self-invest in their jobs more to ensure that not only would their jobs be secure, but that they share in the extrinsic rewards offered to productive enployees by the organization . In other 76 words, these employees must perform as well as possible in an effort not to be cut-produced by competitors seeking the sanme extrinsic rewards within the organization (economical , better positions , management recognnition, etc . ) . Mexico is currently experiencing serious production problems . If easy conparability of end products does influence the degree to which workers self-invest in their jobs, one potential avenue for increasing productivity suggests itself here . Role-models could be introduced, from upper managerent into the production system. Specifically, middle and upper managers could periodically work on production lines (a strategy employed by Japanese managers) to encourage subordinates to invest more of themselves in their jobs. This, of course, would only be effective in those contexts in which it is easy for workers to compare output . Once again a corment concerning operatioalization is merited here . If these two variables were curvilinearly related, the dichotomous measurenent technnique enployed for the independent variable would preclude identifying it . Further, the variance associated with this variable may have been truncated as well . Studies executed in the future should enploy a more continuous measure for this variable . The findings for Hypothesis 4 partially supported it. This partial support enanates from the statistically significant finding for the relationship between job-involverent and the perceived agreenent of a consensually validated hierarchy used by co-workers to evaluate one another. Respodents who believed that a consensually validated hierarchy. was used by co—workers to evaluate their performance were more job-involved than were workers who did not agree that there was 77 such an evaluative hierarchy. This finding - when dividing the sample into two occupatioal categories - was significant for the low status occupations, indicating that where there is a clear and consistent agreenent about the status hierarchy in the work environment, the act of evaluation of subordinates by superiors is legitimized , and job-involvenent is increased . The intrinsic-motivation analysis for evaluative criteria employed by superiors approached statistical significance (p = . 143 ) . Those individuals who agreed tlat a consensually validated hierarchy existed where they worked were more intrinsically motivated than those individuals who did not agree on a hierarchy. These two findings taken together suggest the importance of clearly articulated, consensually validated levels of an organization . It is quite conceivable that enployee self-investment can be increased by making erployees aware through training sessions of what types of criteria will be used during evaluation proceedings . Poorly articulated criteria might give employees the impression that managenent is not very concerned abort enployee productivity. Without dwelling on the issue, the diclnotorous measurenent procedure used for the independent variable could be improved . It prohibits identification of a curvilinear relationship should one exist between the independent and dependent variable . Moreover, a continuous measure ttat assessed the degree of existence of a consensually validated hierarchy would facilitate a more precise test of this relationship. Even though Hypothesis 5 was not supported, the One-way ANOVA for job-involvenent approached statistical significance (p > .05, < .06 ) . 78 The relationship between perceived Opportunity for upward mobility and job—involvenent appears to be sonewhat curvilinear with those who perceived it very difficult to move up in the organization being as involved in their jobs as those who found it a lttle difficult to achieve upward mobility. Those respondents who perceived upward mobility to be difficult, i.e., those individnals in the middle category of the independent variable , were the most job-involved individuals. It is worth noting that 60.81% of the sample perceived it v_e§y difficult to move upward in their organizations while 23.42% found it to be difficult. Onnly 15.77% found it a little difficult to achieve upward mobility. It may be the case that respodents who did not perceive upward mobility difficult to achieve felt that they "tad it made" and consequently were not very self-invested in their jobs . Individuals who perceived it very difficult to achieve upward mobility may not be very self—invested because they don ' t thinnk there are any realistic opportunities for pronotion. Those respondents who found it difficult to move upward may perceive realistic opportunities for pronotion which are contingent upon above average occupational performance . If this is indeed the case, these respodents would self-invest more in their respective jobs . The apparent relationship between perceived opportunity for upward mobility and job-involverent suggests a rather obvious strategy for increasing employee sel f—investment in work . 4 A hierarchy could be established that would facilitate the pronotion of enployees . This hierarchy could contain a considerable number of steps similar to those employed by military organnizations . Employees could then be made aware 79 of the performance level required to obtain a prototion for each respective level in the hierarclny. The criteria for pronotion would, of course, rave to be realistic . Moreover, individuals would nave to be pronoted so other co-iworkers would perceive that promotions were indeed obtainable goals . At the risk of being needlessly redundant, the Operationalization for the independent variable merits a brief corment . While it was continuous enough to facilitate identification of what appears to be a curvilinear relationship, if it were more continuous and nmulti-item it would constitute a stronger measure of the independent variable for reasons already discussed. The last hypothesis, Hypothesis 6, was not supported by the data. However , the analysis for intrinsic-motivation approached statistical signnificance (p > .05, < .10). Individuals who worked in environments in which there was a high degree of legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy were more intrinsically motivated than individuals who worked in environments where there was a medium amount. of legitimation of the status hierarchy. Those individuals raving the least intrinsic motivation worked in organnizations in which there was a low degree of legitimation of the occnpatioal status hierarchy. ‘Ihe results for job-involvenent were signficant for the high status occupations . So to the extent to which an organization adlneres to its own status hierarchy, then it influences the amounnt of job—involvenent among its high status enployees . It is quite plausible that orgaznizations which legitmize their status hierarchy attract individuals who are intrinsically motivated and self-invested in work and therefore nave a desire to increase their 80 own status . This could only be achieved in an organization raving defined status hierarchies. It is equally likely that organizations not having well—defined status hierarchies would attract individuals who are not concerned about status and/ or do not have the requisite skills that would enable them to secure high status positions within an organization . These types of individuals would be less intrinsically motivated than those concerned with status . A probable explanation for the fact that Hypothesis 6 was only partially supported by the data is that there was not a sufficient number of cases representing each organizational category (high, medium and low legitimation of the organizatioal status hierarchy). For comparison purposes it is worth noting that only 19% of the sanmple are in organizations with medium status hierarchies . If this is a valid interpretation of these data, a strategy for influencing intrinsic-motivation and hence, sel f-investment in work, is obvious . Organizations should establish, at least in Mexico, a well-defined status hierarchy which erployees and potential employees are made aware of . This strategy will attract employees who are intrinsically motivated and perhaps enhance the degree of intrinsic motivation possessed by employees who already work for the organization . To summarize, although none of the hypotheses were clearly snpported by the data, the findings did at least suggest the potential validity of the following relationships : 1. Individuals who found it difficult to conpare the end products of their performance with that of co-workers were more intrinsically motivated than individuals who found it 81 easy to make this comparison. This appeared to be the case for job-involvenent as well but only for persons with high status occupations . Respondents who believed tlat a consensually validated hierarchy was used by co-workers to evaluate their performance were more job—involved than were workers who did not agree that such an evaluative hierarchy existed where they worked . Individnals in low status occupations in a consensually validated hierarchy were more job-involved than respodents who did not agree that such a hierarchy existed . The relationship between perceived opportunity for upward mobility and job-involverent appears to be somewhat curvilinear with those who perceived it very difficult to move up in the organization being as involved in their job as those who found it a little difficult to achieve upward mobility. Those respodents who perceived upward mobility to be difficult, i.e., those in the middle of the continuum, were the most job-involved individuals . Individuals who worked in environments in which there was a high degree of legitimation of the occupatioal status hierarchy were more intrinsically motivated than individuals who worked in environments where there was a mediurm amount of legitimation of the status hierarchy. This was especially the case for individuals working in high status occupations . Those respodents raving the lowest intrinsic motivation worked in organizations in which there was a low degree of legitimation of the occupational status hierarchy. 82 This set of admittedly tentative findings warrant the following suggestions to organizations desiring to increase the self-investment of employees in their jobs : l . Where corparability of end products can easily be made by workers, have middle and upper managers funnction as role models on production lines as a means of increasing self-investment . 2 . Organizations should have clearly articulated performance criteria for evaluation of enployee performance . Employees should be made thoroughly aware of these criteria . 3 . Organnizations should have a clearly defined hierarchy for promotions . The pronotioal hierarchy should encorpass unskilled, skilled, and managerent erployees . The criteria tlat govern pronotioal decisions should be clearly stated and the employees must be made aware of them. Most importantly, the possibility for pronotion must be realistic and plausible . 4. Organnizations should have well-legitimized status hierarchies that employees and potential employees are made aware of . Heuristic I_mplioations These findings nave to be discussed in more detail in this section . They clearly suggest the need for additional research in this area . Onne area of researcln tlat merits substantial attention is that of the measurerent of the variables germane to this theory. The reliability coefficients for both job-involvement and intrinsic-motivation were somewtat low. It may be the case that the 83 items contained in these measures might nave limited cross-cultural validity. Additionally, items tlat focus upon belavicral indicants of self-investment should be developed and included in the measure. In short, while it appears tlat self-investment is a very corplex construct, the items used to measure it in the Mexican culture may need to be modified to increase their validity and reliability. Discussing cultural variables, it is clear that in the community under study, industrialization has had an impact on the occupatioal structure . Santiago Tianguistenco, now an industrial town, had been in the past a small city where the main occupations were related to agricultural activities and the comrerce of handcrafted products (sweaters, baskets, blankets). However, in the last ten years the authorities of the State of Mexico decided it was an ideal place for an industrial development, since the town is between two major industrial cities : Mexico City and IIIoluca, the capital of the State of Mexico. In the communnity under study the development of an industrial work force nas been slow, and, although the industrialization of this town has attracted past artisans and peasants to the factory, many continue to do sone agricultural work. For instance, when the subjects under study were asked "Do you actually do agricultural work?" 33% of the sample annswered "yes" . This finding tells us that for many workers, their work in the factory is only one of their jobs, perhaps one tlat is perceived as less important tlan the other. Inkeles (1960) showed tnat industrial work, independent of cultural and national differences tends to produce similarities in experience, and values among those sharing a factory work experience, so he suggested that work values are determined by the industrial work situation . Tl'e dissertation presented here could be 84 seen as an attempt to explain the impact of industrialization on the individual worker. More specifically, it is an attempt to explain the frequently noted relationship between occupatioal status and job-involverent, intrinsic-motivation and self-investment measures . Having examined these relationships guided by the testing of several hypotheses, it seems flat the degree to which an individual is willing to becone invested in his job is unclear. Perhaps Inkeles (1960) underestimated the influence of sore cultural and environmental variables upon the work values of the worker . Authors reviewed in the theoretical frame of this dissertation (Dubin, 1956; Hulin and Blood, 1968; Siegel, 1969) state that the level of job-involvenent is a function of the value orientations learned and internalized during a socialization process that leads to a set of values similar to the "protestant ethic". These individuals, they argue, will be ego-involved in their work. Another area that requires work is the operatioalization of the independent variables . The effort made in this stLdy to acconodate the restricted literacy level of many of the respodents by employing simple items that possessed face validity was not conpletely successful . It is painfully obvious that multi-item continuous measures would be more valid and reliable in this type of research and would do a more adequate job of capturing the behavioral variance being stndied . The operatioalizations employed for the indepedent variables in this study quite possibly militate against rigorous tests of the research hypotheses . Another problem could be related to the sample . Tine sample in this study consisted mostly of industrial workers and maybe a broader range of occupations is required for testing the theory. 85 The findings also suggest sore alternative research designs for testing self—investment theory. For example, self-investment theory could be tested using different occupations as has been done in other studies analyzing job-involverent . It could be very useful to apply self-investment measures to scientists, engineers , nurses, physicians, middle managers , military employees , musicians , etc . This strategy would provide us with very interesting information about self-investment in work in this broader range of occupations , work environments , and job cultures . Another research strategy could consist of measuring self-investment in both work and non-work environments . Too many studies nave been centered in the work setting, ignoring the fact that a greater part of an individnals ' life is outside the work organization . In this study, sore consideration was given to this non-work aspect of life (e.g., interaction with people outside work hours). However, future research might include variables related to leisure , family activities, and interactions with significant others . As Faunce ' s self-investment theory states, individuals who suffer a deprivation of self—esteem in these various roles, might invest themselves in other dimensions of existence, e.g., the work itself, the family, football, etc. An additioal strategy is the following : An organization could be selected that lad the following characteristics : l . (lo-workers in the organization can easily corpare the end products of their performance with one another . 2 . No consensually validated hierarchy exists or at least it is poorly defined . 3 . The perception of the opportunity for upward mobility among workers within the organization is that pronotions are very 86 difficult to secure . 4. The organization has a status hierarchy which has not been highly legitimized . Such organnizations do exist in Mexico and could be accessed. A pretested measure of self-investment could be taken prior to implerenting the four intervention strategies suggested earlier . After the strategies had been effectively implenented, a post-test measure of self-investment could be taken to ascertain if the degree of self-investment exhibited by employees lad increased . Other, perhaps less ambitious, research strategies are suggested as well . The strategies could be tested independently in different organizations using the same pre—test/post—test approach . Tre alternative research strategies available are only limited by the creativity of the researchers wwho pursue this area of human behavior . It can only be roped that this study has made sore small contribution to the continuing development of self-investment theory and will prove useful to the development and execution of future research in this area 0 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (SPANISH) ENCUESTA SOBRE §L_TRABAJO [_LA_COMUNIDAD Buenos dias. Mi nombre es _____, Soy estudiante y estqy trabajando en un estudio que serviri para elaborar una tesis profesiona1.. Estamos interesados en 10 que Ios empleados de Ia industria piensan de su trabajo, su comunidad y Ia sociedad en general. Estudios como este se ham realizado en Ias Industrias de otros pai§es y de otras ciudades, y nosotros como estudiantes mexicanos estamos interesados en Ias opiniones de 105 empIeados industriaIes en este pai§. Quisiéramos pedirIe que nos ayude, contestando a unas preguntas. No IIevarSn mucho tiempo, y permitame decirle que sus respuestas serén confidenciales y an6nimas, es decir, e1 cuestionanio no Ilevara su nombre. Las personas que serSn entrevistadas, no fueron seIeccionadas por su nombre sino por numero. Mire usted, como no podemos entrevistar a todo aqueI que trabaja en la industria, seIeccionamos aI azar a 30 empleados de esta fabrica que también previamente escogimos al azar. De esta manera obtendremos personas de todo tipo y clase de ocupaciones. Las opiniones de estas personas. seran sumarizadas y reportadas en la tesis profesiona]. Nunca se reportaran mi industrias, m1 personas particulares. No hay respuestas correctas, mi Incorrectas, simpIememte estamos interesados en saber c6mo Ia gente que trabaja en industria opina sobre ciertas cosas como Io son 81 trabajo, Ia comunidad y Ia sociedad, 1e rogamos pues su coopenacion. 87 88 Primero quisiera hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su ocupacidm y experiencia de trabajo. 1.(1.)* zCual es actualmente su ocupacidn? Titulo del Trabajo 2.(1.b) LQue es lo que hace en este trabajg? Es decir, gCuales son algunas de las labores que desempena en este trabajo? 3.(1.d) aCuanto tiempo lleva en este puesto o trabajo? Escribir numero de meses o afibs. 4.(2.) gEn que trabajaba antes de este empleo? Titulo del Trabajo 5. gEn ddnde tenia ese trabajo? 1 Campo-Industria 2 Autoempleo-Ind. 3 Comercio-Imd. 4 Industria-Ind. 5 Servicios-Ind. 6.(2.d) gCuanto tiempo estuvo em ese puesto o trabajo? Escribir numero de Meses o ahos * Numbersirnparentheses are the question numbers in the English interview schedule from which the question was translated. See Appendix B. 89 7. aAparte de su trabajo actual en esta industria, hace usted labores agropecuarias en el campo? 1 5 9 Quisiera ahora hacerle unas preguntas sobre su situacion de trabajo. 8.(23.) Em esta industria, aHay otras personas haciendo exactamente la misma labor 0 actividad que usted hace? I 51 (ir a prehunta 9) N0 (ir a pregunta 11) 1 ‘ 5 ‘_I 9.(23.b) En la clase de trabajo que usted y otros hacen, aHay diferencias en el desempehb de ese trabajo, o todos le hacen igual? ’ 1 ‘Hay diferencias, umds ‘ 5 ‘ No hay diferencia, hacen el trabajo mejor , todos hacen el que otros - trabajo igual 10.(23.a) zQue tam facil es comparar e1 trabajo que ud. hace, con el que otros en su misma posicion estam haciemdo en el lugar de trabajo? 1 Es facil hacer 5 Es difiéil hacer comparaciones comparaciones 11.(24.) aQue tan a menudo le checa su trabajo la persona que . supervisa su trabajo? __l;__Muy a menudo __2__ A menudo ___3__ A veces __jL__ Rara Vez __jL__ Muy rara vez 90 12.(25.) Y entre compafieros de trabajo, ; que tan a menudo se evalfian y comparam su trabajo emtre ustedes mismos? __}___Muy a menudo __g___A menudo _3_ A veces __41___Rara vez _5__ Muy rara vez I 13.(26.) Cuando el supervisor o jefe immediato checa su trabajo, ' acree usted que lo evalua justamente? 1 SI ir a pregunta 15 5 N0 ir a pregunta 14 9 NA ir a pregunta 15 14. , a.(26.b) aQue es lo que toma em cuenta el supervisor o jefe inmediato para evaluar su trabajo? b.(26.a) aQue cree usted que deberié de tomar en cuenta su supervisor o jefe inmediato para evaluar su trabajo justamente? c.(26.c) aQue tan dificil serié lograr que el supervisor o jefe inmediato cambiara de criterio para evaluar su trabajo .justamente? 1 Seria muy dificil lograrlo 2 Seria difitil lograrlo 3 Serié algo dificil de lograr 91 15.(27.) Y las personas con las que usted trabaja, acree usted que evaluan Justamemte su trabajo? 1 SI ir a pregunta 17 5 N0 ir a pregunta 16 9 NA ir a pregunta 17 16. ,. a.(27.a) aQue es lo que tomam en cuenta sus compafieros de trabajo para evaluar su trabajo? . b.(27.a) aQue cree usted que ellos deberian de tomar em cuenta para evaluar justamemte su trabajo?- c.(27.b) aQue tan difiéil seria lograr que sus compaheros de trabajo ~ se guiaran de um justo criteria para evaluar su trabajo? 1 Seria muy difitil lograrlo 2 Seria_difitil lograrlo 3 Sari; algo difioil de lograr 92 17. aQué,tan satisfecho esta usted con su trahajo? Por ejemplo, diria usted que en su presente empleo esta: 1 Muy satisfecho 2 Satisfecho 3 No esta satisfecho 18.(28.). aQue tan cgmpetitivo considera usted su actual trabajo? (Lo describiria usted como "a ver quien gana y lo hace mejor") l Muy competitivo 2 Competitivo No competitivo 19.(29.) aPiensa usted quedarse en su actual puesto o trabajo hasta que se retire? l SI [(ir a la l NO '(ir a la pregunta _pregunta 22) _20) ' 1 5 20.(29.a) 5A que puesto o trabajo piensa cambiarse? Titulo del trabajo 21.(29.b)‘gPor que piensa usted hacer este cambio? 22.(30.) .gDiria usted que el trabajo que actualmente tiene es el mejor que ha temido en su Vida? SI (ir a pregunta 25) N0 (ir a la pregunta 23) 1 5 NA 9 93 23.(30.) aQue puesto o trabajo fue major? Tfnuno del trabajo 24.(30.) zQue era lo que hacid que ese trabajo fuera mejor? 25.(3l.) aQue tendria que pasarle, para que usted se sintiera mas exitoso (0 para que triunfara) en su trabajo? 26.(32.a) gQue tan difitil,es que usted sea promovido (escendido) en esta organization donde trabaja? 3 My difiéil 2 Dificil 1 Algo difitil 27.(32.b) Si fuese promovidp a un puesto,o trabajo mas arriba del que ahora tiene, gque trabajo seria este? Titulo del trabajo 28.(32.c) aQue'tan seguro esta usted de las oportunidades que tiene de ser promovido 0 de subir en su trabajo? _1_ Muy seguro __g___Seguro __§__ Algo seguro __11__ Inseguro __§___ Muy inseguro 94 29.(32.d) gQue'tam importante es para usted subir de posicidh en el 30.(38.) 31.(34.) trabajo? 1 Muy importante Es importante 2 3 Es mediamamemte importante 4 No es importante zQue tam satisfecho se encuentra usted con la experiencia de trabajo que durante su vida ha temido? gHa realizado lo que se propomifi? aHay cosas que aum le gustarian hacer? gEm fim, que tam satisfecho se siemte? 1 Me siento muy satisfecho 2 Me siento satisfecho 3 Me siento disatisfecho 4 Me siento muy disatisfecho Ahora voy a leerle unas opiniomes acerca de lo que algunas personas sienten por el trabajo. Trate por favor ge pensar comp si usted estuviera dando estas opiniomes y digame que tam de acuerdo o que tam em desacuerdo esta com ellas. Yo leere las opiniomes y usted me dice el numero que su opinion representa. Para el numero basese en esta tarjeta que le voy a dar la tarjeta dice: el umo quiere decir "estoy muy de acuerdo com esta opimidm", el dos sigmifica "estoy de acuerdo", el tres es "mi de acuerdo mi em desacuerdo" y el cuatro sigmifica "estoy em desacuer.do"y, por u’l timo, el cimco sigmifica "estoy muy en desacuerdo." Ahora le leere cada una de estas opiniomes. Por favor piemse cuidadosamemte em ellas antes de responder. 595 1 2 3 4 5 Muy de De acuer- Ni acuerdo Desacuer- Muy em acuerdo do mi desacuerdo do desacuerdo a.(34.a) La mayor satisfaccidh en mi vida provieme de mi trabajo b.(34.b) Al final de um dii, yo mumca me pomgo a pensar si hice biem 0 mal mi trabajo c.(34.c) Cuando yo hago mi trabajo biem mi autoestima (Jo que . piemsgade mi misma) umem d.(34.d) Algumas veces cuamdo hablo com gemtes que tiemem trabajos de mayor prestigio que el mio, me siento muy imcomodo e.(34.e) Yo personalmemte estoy muy imvolucrado (metido) in mi trabajo f.(34.f) Cuando ye pomgo a pensar en el exito que temgo. el tipo de trabajo que yo hago es,muy importan- te para mi g.(34.g) Las cosas mik importam-’ tes ’que me sucedem a mi, estam relaciomadas con mi trabaJo h.(34.h) Creo que muchos mdembros de mi familia se sienten orgullosos cuamdo le dicem a le gemte lo que yo hago para gamarme la vida i.(34.i) Yo vivo para mi trabajo J.(34.J) Cuando hago biem mi trabajo siento que he cumplido com alga importante 965 l 2 3 4 5 May de De acuer- Ni acuerdo Desacuer- Muy en acuerdo do ni desacuerdo do desacuerdo k. (34. k) La mayoria de las cosas en la vida son mas importantes que el trabajo l.(34.l) Algunas veces siento verguenza de decirle a la gente la clase de trabajo que yo hago m.(34.m) Cuando desempeflb bien mi trabajo siento una gran satisfaccion personal n.(34.n) Yo estaria contento de tener a mis hiJos haciendo el mismo trabajo que yo hago o.(34.o) Con respeto a mi trabajo yo soy un perfecci onista p.(34.p) Cuando cometo on error 0 hago algo mal en el trabajq estoy molesto por dias enteros q.(34.q) Para mi el trabajo, es tan solo una peque parte de las cosas que hago en la vida r.(34.r) Si no pudiera desempeflar bien mi trabajo me sentir a que como persona soy un fracaso s.(34.s) Cuando yo desempefio bien mi trabajo siento que yo contribuyo a mi crecimiento y desarrollo personal t.(34.t) Cuando fracaso en algo relacionado con mi traba- Jo me siento deprimido 97 Las siguentes opiniones no son necesariamente sobre el trabajo. 1.(34.1) Yo siento que soy una persona de valer’, por lo memos comparandome con otrps desde un mismo angulo 2.(34.2) Yo siento que tengo un cierto numero de buenas cualidades 3.(34.3) Hoy por hoy. me siento inclinado a decir que soy un fracaso 4.(34.4) Como muchas otras personas. yo puedo hacer las cosas muy bien hechas 5.(34.5) Creo que no he hecho muchas cosas por las que pueda sentirme orgulloso 6.(34.6) Yo tengo una actitud positiva hacia mi’ mismo 7.(34.7) En general me siento satisfecho conmigo mismo 8.(34.8) Desearia tener, mas respeto por mi mismo 9434.10) A veces pienso que soy un bueno para nada l Huy de acuerdo 2 De acuer- do 3 Ni acuerdo Desacuer- ni desacuerdo 4 do 5 May en desacuerdo 98 Hemos terminado las preguntas que se refieren a experiencias de trabajo. Quisiera preguntarle ahora sobre personas conlas que usted trabaja. Por ejemplo, quisiera preguntarle: 32.(8.) aQué'ocupaciones tienen las cinco personas con las que usted habla mas seguido en el trabajo? No quiero saber 'sus nombres sino sus ocupaciones. TITULO DEL TRABAJO (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 33. En un tipico dia de trabajo, aque tan a menudo habla usted con sus compaWEFos de trabajo? ___1_ 5 o .6-3.- veces al (115 __2_ 3 o 4 veces al (115 __£1__ 1 o 2 veces al dia __fl;__menos de una vez al dia 34.(9.) En un tipico gj§_de trabajo,;qué'tan a menudo habla usted con su supervisor o jefe inmediato? ___1__ 5 o 6 veces al dia __g__ 3 o 4 veces al dia __j;__ 1 o 2 veces al dia __fl___menos de una vez a la semana 35.(10.) En una tipica ggmggg_de trabajo, acomo cuantas veces habla usted con una persona o personas de puestos mas altos que su supervisor o jefe inmediato? __J___5 o 6 veces a la semana __J;__ 3 o 4 veces a la semana __;1__ 1 o 2 veces a la semana g menos de una vez a la semana 99 36. Para todos nosotros hay personas con las que nos sentimos muy a gusto; personas que nos caen bien y que respetamos. En fin, personas que influyen en nuestras actitudes porque a nosotros nos importan sus opiniones. aQue tanto le importan las opiniones de sus compaheros de trabajo? .__1___Son muy importantes __g___Son importantes6 _3__ Son poco importantes __5___no me importan 37. gQue tanta confianza tiene usted en la labor que realiza su jefe dentro de esta empresa? .__;___Tengo mucha confianza 2 Tengo algo de oonfianza __§___Tengo poca confianza — 4 Nada de confianza Muy bien. Hemos terminado con la seccion de preguntas que se refieren a su experiencia en el trabajo. Quisiera ahora hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su comunidad. 38. aEn que comunidad o localidad vive? 1 Rural 2 Ciudad pequéha 3 Ciudad grande 39. (Cual es su lugar de origen? 1 Rural 2 Ciudad pequeWa 3 Ciudad grande 40. ZCuantos afios ha vivido en ? Escribir numero de ahos 41. 100 Y en la comunidad donde viva (nombre que dio el entrevistado a la comunidad donde actualmente vive), aque tan bien se lleva con sus habitantes? __l_ _3__ _3__ __1L__ Me llevo bastante bien con todos. Me llevo solamente con algunos Me llevo con muy pocos habitantes de esta comunidad Casi no me llevo con nadie en la comunidad donde vivo Ahora quisjera preguntarle las ocupaciones de las cinco personas con las que mas frecuentemente se reune fuera del trabajo. 42.(11.) a. c.(6.a) 5Cuales son las ocupaciones de aquellas cinco personas con las que usted mas frecuentemente se reune en sus horas de descanso? (fuera de su familia) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5Cual es 0 cual fue la principal ocUpacion de su padre durante la mayor parte de su vida? TITULO DEL TRABAJO ’ Titulo de ocupacion aCual es la principal ocupacion de su esposa? Ti’tulo d,e ocupacion 101 d.(7.a.b) £Cuales son las ocupaciones de sus hermanos o hermanas que trabajan? TITULO DEL TRABAJO (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 43. En general, aque tan a menudo se reune con sus compaWeros de trabajo, fuera de las horas de trabajo? Es decir durante los fines de semana, en las tardes y dias de fiesta. 1 5 o 6 veces al mes 2 3 o 4 veces al mes 3 1 o 2 veces al mes 4 menos de una vez al mes 44.(16.) En general, aque tan a menudo habla usted con personas que tienem ocupaciones de mucho prestigio? (Que tienen ocupaciones importantes, que desempehan trabajos que en esta comunidad se consideran de gran prestigio y importancia) 1 5 o 6 veces al mes 2 3 o 4 veces al mes 3 l o 2 veces al mes 4 menos de una vez al mes 45.(17.) En general, ¢que tan a menudo habla o platica con personas cuya ocupacion es diferente de la de usted? Y sea de mas prestigio 0 de menos prestigio que la ocupacion que usted tiene? 1 5 o 6 veces al mes 2 3 o 4 veces al mes 3 1 o 2 veces al mes 4 menos de una vez al mes 102 For ultimo quisiera preguntarle algunos datos personales 52.(35.) aCuai es su edad? 53. Sexo M F 54.(36.) 5Cuantos allos- de escuela termino’ usted ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8‘ 9~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MA 57. Digame usted si pertenece a alguna de las siguientes organizaciones 1 5 Si (ir a pregunta 58) No Religiosas Profesionales De la comunidad Del vecindario Sindicales PARTIDOS POLITICOS 58. Sindicato (1) CTM (2) Compafiia (3) otro Partido politico (1) PPS (2) PRI (3) PARM (4) PAN (5) otro 59. Aproximadamente, zCuafito dinero gana al mes? 60. INDUSTRIA: (1) CAPITAL NACIONAL (2) CAPITAL MIXTO 61. Grado de Legitimizacion Organizacional 62. 63. 64. 65. 103 Categoria Ocupacional (1) Profesional/Administrativo (2) Secretarial (3) Obrero Calificado (4) Obrero no Calificado 'Numero de empleados en esta industria Tipo de teCnologia Comentarios. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (ENGLISH) M. S .U . Occupational Survey Hello, my name is . I am working on a survey being done by the Department of Sociology at Michigan State . The survey is part of a study of occupations in which people all over the United States will be interviewed. You are one of the people here in Lansing who have been selected to be interviewed. The procedure for selecting people is a scientific one designed to produce a representative sample so we really need your cooperation . It wil not take much of your time . Your answers will be strictly confidential and, in fact, you name won't even be put on the answer sheet. l.(1)* First of all, we would like some information about your job and work experience. What is your present job? (GET SPECIFIC JOB TITLE) a . (30b Title) b.(2) “hat do you do on that job? What are some of your duties? d.(3) How long have you been in that job? (GET YEAR AT WHICH CDNTINUOUS mPIDYMEN'I' ON THIS JOB BEEAN) Year 2.(4) What was the full-time job you had just before the one you have now? a . Uob Title) d.(6) During what years were you in that job? Years * Nunbers in parentheses are question numbers in the Spanish translation of the interview schedule . See Appendix A. 104 105 6.a.(42c) Is your wife employed? (1) Yes (1) What kind of job does she have? (job Title) 7. (42d) How about the other members of your family? Do you have any (ASK ABOUT EACH RELATIVE BELOW) who are employed full time? (IF YES) a. What kind of job does he (she) work at most of the time? (Job Title) b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE) A. Brothers who are employed? (1) Yes (2) No (Go to B.) Job Title Probe (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) B. (42d) Sisters who are employed? (1) Yes (2) No (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8.(32) (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 9.(34) 10.(35) 106 Job Title Probe Now I would like to have you think about the five people with when you talk most often while you are at work. I don't want to know their names, but I would like to know their occupa- tions . What jobs do they have? Job Title Probe During a typical day on the job how often do you talk to your immediate supervisor? (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER) (l) 5 or 6 times a day or more. (2) around 3 or 4 times a day. (3) once or twice a day. (4) less than once a day. During a typical week on the job how often do you talk to persons _a_bgyg your—anediate supervisor? (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER) (l) 5 or 6 times a week or more. (2) around 3 or 4 times a week. (3) once or twice a week. (4) less than once a week. 107 ll.(42) Now please think about the five people outside your family with when you most often get together socially during evenings or weekends. a. What are their jobs? If any are not employed, I would like to know that, too. 16. (44) In general, how often do you talk to people whcm you regard as having high status jobs? (ACCEPTABLE SYNONYIVB FOR HIGH STATUS JOBS ARE "HIGH PRESTIGE JOBS" OR "JOBS GIVEN HIGH STANDING IN THE: WHY"). Would you say it was? (READ RESPONSE (DDE AND CIRCLE ANSWER) (l) 5 or 6 times a month or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a month (3) once or twice a month (4) less than once a month 17. (45) How often do you talk to people whose occupational status is any different from Burs - either higher or lower? Would you say it was : (READ RESPONSE (IDDE AND CIRCLE ANSWER) (l) 5 or 6 times a month or more (2) around 3 or 4 times a month (3) once or twice a month (4) less than once a month Now we have a few more questions about your experiences at work. 23. (8) Are there others where you mrk who have more or less the same job as yours? (1) Yes (2) No (Go to B.) 108 a.(lfl) Is it easy to tell whether or not you are doing a better or worse job than they do? That is, is it easy or hard to compare your work and the work of others? CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Easy (2) Hard 24.(ll) 25.(12) 26.(13) Are there differences in how well peOple do your job or is everyone ' s performance about the same? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Differences (2) About the same How often are evaluations of Tm well you do your job made by the person who supervises your work? Would you say that happens: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very often (2) Often (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Very seldom How about the peOple you work with? How often do you compare or evaluate each other ' 8 work? Would you say that happens : (FEAD AND CIRCLE) (1) Very often (2) Often (3) Saretimes (4) Seldom (5) Very seldom Do you think your supervisor uses the right criteria or the right basis when he evaluates your work? That is, does he evaluate you on the right things? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Go to 27) (2) No 109 (IF NO) a. (14b) What criteria or basis should he use? b.(l4a) What criteria or basis does he use? c.(14c) How hard would it be to get him to use the right criteria? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very hard to do (2) Hard to do (3) Sarewhat hard to do 27. (15) How about the people you work with? Do they use the right criteria or the right basis when they evaluate your work? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Got028) (2) No (IF NO) a.(16ab) Wnat is wrong with the criteria or basis they use? 110 b.(l6c) How hard would it be to get them to use the right criteria? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very hard to do (2) Hard to do I I I I I I I I : (3) Sarewhat hard to do 28. (18) Would you describe your job as a competitive one? That is, would you say it was: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very competitive (2) Sarewhat competitive (3) Not very competitive (4) Not at all competitive 29. (19) Do you plan to stay in the job you have now until you retire? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Goto30) (2) No (IF NO) a.(20) What job do you plan to change to? (Job Title) I I | l : b.(21) Why do you want to make this change? I I 3fl.(22) Would you say the job you have now is the best job you ever had? (CIRCLE RESPONSE) (1) Yes (Goto3l) (2) No 111 (IF NO) |_I23) What job was better? (Job Title) What made it better? 31.(25) 32.(26) What would have to happen for you to feel that you were more successful at work? PROBE: Anything else? How hard would you say it would be for you to get promoted or to move up in the organization where you work? Would you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE) a. 1. Very hard to do 2. Hard to do 3. Somewhat hard to do b.(27) Meat would the next step be? (job Title) (NOTE: FOR PERSONS ALREADY AT TOP OF ORGANIZATION, ASK, "IS THERE ANY'IHD‘ETHATWOUIDREPRESEN'I‘AS‘I'EPUP'IOYOU?” c.(28) How certain do you feel about your chances of moving up? Would you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very certain (2) Certain (3) Somewhat certain (4) Uncertain (5) Very uncertain . ‘ 33.(3fl) 34.(31) 112 d.(29) How important is it to you to move up? Would you say it was: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) Very important (2) Somewhat important (3) Slightly important (4) Not at all important In general would you say you have already achieved most of the goals you set for yourself in your work life or are there still things you feel it is important for you to accomplish? How satisfied are you with what you have accomplished? Would you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE) (1) (2) (3) (4) Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Now we would like to know how much you agree or disagree with some statements about mrk. Please try to think about your responses as though you were giving them yourself rather than to me or to anyone else. Here is a card with numbered responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. I will read the staterent and you tell me which number on the card represents your response . While all of the statements are somewhat similar, each contains something different. Please think about the statements carefully before responding. (PUT CHECKS IN SPACES) 2113 1 2 3 4 5 Neither Strongly Agree nor . Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree a.(31a) The major satisfaction in my life comes from my Job- b.(31b) Nhen I am through work at the end of the day. I hardly ever think about whether I did a good or a bad Job. c.(31c) Doing my job well increases my feeling of self esteem. d.(31d) I sometimes feel uncomfortable when talking to people whose jobs carry more prestige than mine. e.(31e) I am very much involved personally in my work. f.(31f) The type of work I.do is important to me when I think about how successful I am in life. g.(319) The most important things that happen to me involve my Job. h.(31h) I think members of my family feel proud when they tell people what I do for a living. i.(3li) I live, eat and breathe my Job. ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ i.(3li) When I do my work well, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. k.(31k) Most things in life are more important than work. i.(3ll) I sometimes feel ashamed to tell people what kind of work I do. m.(3lm) I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my Job well. 114’ 1 2 3 4 5 Neither Strongly Agree nor Strongly Agree Agree Disagree - Disagree Disagree m.(3lm) I would be happy to have my children do she kind of work I o. ' o.(3lo) I'm really a per- fectionist about my' work. p.(31p) Nhen I make a mistake or do somethink badly at work, it sometimes bothers me for days. o.(3lo) To me, my work is only a small part of what I o. r.(31r) If I could not do my Job well. I would feel that I was a failure as a person . s.(3ls) When I perform my Job well, it contributes to my personal growth and development. t.(31t) I feel depressed when I fail at something connected with my job. The following statements do not necessarily refer to work. 1.(31.1) I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. 2.(31.2) I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3.(31.3) All in all. I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 4.(3l.4) I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5.(31.5) I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6.(31.6) I take a positive attitude toward myself. '115 l 2 3 4 5 Neither Strongly Agree nor Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree 7.(31.7) 0n the whole, I am . satisfied with myself. 8.(31.8) I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10.(31.9) At times I think I am no good at all. 116 Now, to finish up, we need a little more information about you. 35.(52) How old were you on your last birthday? (WRITE IN YEARS) Years 36. (54) How many years of school did you have? (CIRCLE) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 M.A. Ph.D. APPENDIX C BACK TRANSLATION OF ATTITUDE ITEMS (Item 31. in Spanish version, Item 34. in English version) 31. (Spanish version) 34. (English version) The greatest satisfaction in my life comes from my job. At the end of a work day, I never stop to think if I did my work well or badly. When I do my (job) work well, my self esteem increases. Sometimes, when I talk with people with better jobs than mine, I feel very uncomfortable. I am personally very involved in my job. When I stop to think of how successful I am in life, the kind of job I do is very important to me. The most interesting things that happen to me are related to my work. I believe that many of my family members are proud when they tell people what I do to earn my living. I live through my job. When I do my work well I feel I have accomplished. Most of the things in life are more important than the job. Sometimes I am ashamed to tell people the kind of job I do. When I perform my work well I feel a great personal satisfaction. I would be happy to have my children doing the work I do . I am a perfectionist in everything related to my job. When I make a mistake or I do something wrong at work, I remain angry for several days . For me, the job is only a small part of the things I do in life. If I could not perform well in my job I would feel I am a failure as a person. men I perform my job well this helps my growing and personal development . When I fail in sorething related to my work, I feel depressed . 117 118 I feel I am a worthy person, at least comparing myself to others from a same angle. I feel I have a certain number of good qualities. I feel the need to say that I am a failure. I can do things as well as many other persons. I feel like I do not have too much to be proud of . I have a positive attitude towards myself. I feel satisfied about myself in all senses. I wish I had more respect for myself. At times I feel I'm a good for nothing. LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Adler, A. The Practice and Thwa of Individual Psychology. 1927 New York: Harcourt. Allport, F.H. A Structuronic Conception of Behavior; Individual and 1962 Collective. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64:3-30. Allport, G.W. The Psychology of Participation. Psychological 1947 Review, 52:117-132. 1961 Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Argyris, C. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. 1964 New York: Wiley. Becker, E. The Birth and Death of PEEL-129..- A Perspective in 1962 Psychiatry and AnthropologL New York: Free Press . Benoit-Smullyan, E. Status, Status Types and Status Interrelations . 1944 American Sociological Review, 9: 151-161. Blauner, R. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: The University of 1964 Wicago Press. Caplow, T. The Sociology of Work. Minnesota: University of 1954 Minnesota Press. Church, R.M. Effects of a Competitive Situation on the Speed of 1961 Response . J__o____urnal of Oorparative Physioloical Psychology. 54: 162-166 . Davis, L.E., and A.B. Cherns. The Quality of; Working Life. 1975 New York: Free Press. Davis, L.E., and J.C. Taylor. Desig 9£Jobs. Baltimore: 1972 Penguin. Dowell, B.E. Coitributions of Work Satisfaction and Nonwork 1978 Satisfaction to Life Satisfaction. In A.R. Negandhi, and B. Wilpert (eds. ) , Work Organization Research: American and European Perspectives . Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press . Dubin, R. Industrial Workers' Worlds. - A Study of the "Central Life 1956 Interests" of Industrial Workers. Social Problems, 3. 131-142 . Farris, G.F. A Predictive Study of Turnover . Personnel Psychology, 1971 24:311-328. 119 120 Faunce, W.A. Self Investment in the Occupational Role. Paper 1972 presented at meetings of the Southern Sociological Association. Faunce, W.A. , and R. Dubin. Individual Investment in Work and Living. 1975 In L.E. Davis and A.B. Cherns (eds.), The Quality of Working Life. New York: Free Press, 299-316. Faunce, W.A. Self Investment in Work- and Non-Work Related Roles . 1978 Paper presented at meetings of the North Central Sociological Association . 1982 The Relations of Status to Self Esteem: Chain Saw Sociology at the Cutting Edge. Sociological Focus, 15: 163-177. n.d. Work, Status and Self Esteem. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Ford, R. Motivation Through Work Itself. New York: American 1969 Managerent AssociaHon. French, J., and R. Kahn. A Programmatic Approach to Studying the 1962 Industrial Environment and Mental Health. Journal of; Social Issues, 18:1-47. Garbin, A.D., and F.L. Bates. Occupational Prestige and Its 1966 Correlates: A Re-Examination. Social Forces, 44: 295-362. Gurin, G., J. Veroff, and S. Feld. Americans View Their Mental 1960 Health. New York: Basic Books. Hinrichs, J .R. Communications Activity of Industrial Research 1964 Personnel . Personnel Psychology, 17 : 193-264. Hughes, E.C. Men and Their Work. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. 1958 Hulin, C.L., and M.R. Blood. Job Enlargement, Individual Differences, 1968 and Worker Responses. Psychological Bulletin, 69: 41-65. Inkeles, A. Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, 1966 Perception, and Value. American Journal 93 Sociology, 6631-31 0 James, W. Principles of Pchhology. New York: Henry Holt. 1890 Kaiser, H.F. The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor 1958 Analysis. Psychoretrika, 23:187-266. 121 Kaplan, H.B. Self Attitudes and Deviant Behavior. Pacific 1975 Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing. Katz, D. and R. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations. 1966 New York: John Wiley and Sons. Klemer, E. , and F. Snyder. Measurement of Time Spent Communicating. 1972 Journal _o_f_ Oormunication, 22:142-158. Kohn, M.L., and C. Schooler. The Reciprocal Effects of the 1978 Substantive Complexity of Work and Intellectual Flexibility: A Longitudinal Assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 84:24-52. Korman, A.K. Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior. Journal (_3_: 197% Applied Psychologh 54:31—41. Kornhauser, A.W. Mental Health _o_f the Industrial hbrker: A 1965 DetroIt Studh New York: John Wiley and Sons. Larsen, K.S. Dogmatism and Socioretric Status as Determinants of 1971 Interaction in a Small Group. Psychological Records, 29:449-456. Lawler, B.E. III. Job Design and Employee Motivation. Personnel 1969 Psychology, 22 :426-435. Lawler, E.E. III, and D.T. Hall. Relationship of Job Characteristics 1976 to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: Lodahl, T.M. and M. Kejner. The Definition and Measurement of Job 1965 Involvetent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49: 24-33. Lundberg, G., C., Shrag, O. Larsen, and W. Catton, Jr. Sociology. 1968 New York: Harper and Row. Mannheim, B. A Comparative Study of Work Centrality, Job Rewards 1975 and Satisfaction. Sociology _o_f Work and Occupa— tions, 2:79-102. Maurer, J .6. Work Role Involvement _of Industrial Supervisors. 1969 East Ianging, MI: MSU Business Studies. McGregor , D . The Human Side _o_f Enterprise . New York : McGraw- 1960 Hill . McKee, J. Introduction 2°. Sociology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1969 and Winston. Mead, G.H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1934 122 Moore, W.E. Occupational Socialization. In D.A. Goslin (ed.), Hand- 1969 book of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Nbrtimer, J .L., and J. Lorence. Work Experience and Occupational Value 1979a Socialization: A Longitudinal Study. American Journal _o_f_ Sociology: 84:1361-1385. 1979b Occupational Experience and the Sel f—Concept: A Longitudinal Study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42 : 307-323. Newcomb, J .M. Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 1950 Patchen, M. Participation, Achieverent and Involvetent on th_e_ 1976 Job. Englewood Cliffs, N. J .. Prentice-Hall. Pelz, D.C., and F.M. Andrews. Scientists in Organizations. New 1966 York: Wiley. Orzack, L.H. Work as a Central Life Interest of Professionals. 1959 Social Problems, 7:73-84. Rabinowitz, S., and D.T. Hall. Organizational Research on Job 1977 Involvement. Pchhological Bulletin, 84:265-288. Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books. 1979 Saal, F.W. Job Involvement: A Multivariate Approach. Journal _o_f_ 1978 Applied Psychology. 63:53-61. Seeman, M. On the Meaning of Alienation. American Sociological 1959 Review, 24:783-791. 1967 On the Personal Consequences of Alienation from Work. American Sociological Review, 32:273-285. Siegel, L. Industrial Psychology. Homewood, IL: Irwin. 1969 Tannenbaum, A.S. Social Psyghology of the Work Organization. 1966 Belmont, California: Brooksfiole. 1968 Control _in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1974 Hierarchy _i£1_ Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Tausky, C., and E.L. Parke. Job Enrichment, Need Theory and 1976 Reinforcement Theory. In Dubin, R. (ed. ) Handbook _o_f hbrk, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. 123 Thomason, G.F. Managerial Work Roles and Relationships-Part I. 1966 Journal 9_f_ Managerent Studies, 3:276-284. VanMaanen, J. Breaking-In: Socialization to Work. In R. Dubin (ed.), 1976 Handbook _o_f Work, Organization and Societh Chicago: Rand McNally. Vroom, V.H. Ego-Involvement, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. 1962 Personnel Psychology, 152:159-177. Wanous, J .P. Individual Differences and Reactions to Job 1974 Characteristics. Journal _o_f Applied Psyghology, 59:616-622. Weick, K. The Social Pchhology _o_f_ Organizing. Reading, Mass.: 1969 Addison Wesley. Weissenberg, P., and L.W. Gruenfeld. Relationship Between Job 1968 Satisfaction and Job Involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52:469—473. Wickesberg , A. D. Cotmunications Networks in the Business Organization 1968 Structure. Acadgy of Management Journal, 11:253-262.