‘ but , ~ V. .4 ,. , ,. , , . ¢ . -- . , ,. . , ‘ ‘ , . . - _ _ ~._‘,,,‘... ‘ ‘ 3' ‘ . ‘ . nn:A:.,.1.1.:“. ' LIBRA R Y _. Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled INFLUENCE AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE OCCUPATIONAL GOALS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS presented by l Richard Alan Steinberg ‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts degeein Psychology Pee/24:4”; Major professor 0—7 639 INFLUENCE AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE OCCUPATIONAL GOALS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS BY Richard Alan Steinberg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1978 ABSTRACT INFLUENCE AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE OCCUPATIONAL GOALS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS BY Richard Alan Steinberg This study was designed primarily as an exploratory investigation of the interrelationships and dynamics among occupational goals. In addition, two hypotheses regarding importance ratings of occupational goals were tested: first, that "receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" and "getting challenging tasks on the job" would be considered most important by business majors, and second, that signi- ficant sex differences would be found in certain importance ratings. One hundred undergraduate business majors were asked to rate the importance of ten occupational goals, as well as the perceived influence that each goal had on each of the others. Analysis of variance techniques and cross-support analysis were utilized. The first and second hypotheses were only partially supported. In addition, it was shown that business majors perceive occupational goals to influence each other. Richard Alan Steinberg The possibility of using the cross-support methodo- logy for individual analysis, as well as implications for employers were discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though it is undeniably an overused cliché, the truth is that "I really couldn't have done this without the help of a lot of people." Special thanks are in order for Angela Gandolfo and Jeannette Seibly, who not only did most of the very monotonous "data processing," but also found time to actually show interest in what I was doing. I am indebted to Len Bianchi, who proved without fail that there is always one more way to analyze the data. Grateful appre- ciation is due the members of my committee for displaying incredible patience with me: Drs. Ralph Levine (chairper- son), Eileen Thompson, and Frederic Wickert. Finally, let it be known to all that the members of my family have indeed been my main source of inspiration, and pride, not only through my years of graduate study, but rather throughout all of my years. The attitude of "do whatever you want to do with your life as long as you're happy doing it" has always been present in my house. Well, I'm doing it, and I am. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Literature Relationships Among Goals . Hypotheses and Objectives . METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . Design . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance Ratings . . . . . Intercorrelations Among Importance Influence Ratings . . . . . Influenceability Ratings . . Cross-Support Matrix . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . Importance Ratings . . . . . Influence Ratings . . . . . "Importance" vs. "Influence" Influenceability Ratings . . Sex Differences in Influence ability Ratings . . . . . O and USE OF THE CROSS-SUPPORT METHODOLOGY INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS . . . . . IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS . . . iii 9 0 Influence- Ratings 0 Page vi 18 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 28 28 3O 31 34 34 41 47 48 51 55 59 Page APPENDICES Appendix A. Occupation Goals Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 61 B. Cross-Support Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C. Intercorrelation Matrix for Importance Ratings of Occupational Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Occupational Goals Cross-Support Matrix . . . . 26 2. Means of Male and Female Subjects for Aggre- gate Importance, Influence, and Influence- ability Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Analysis of Variance on Importance Ratings . . 27 4. Analysis of Variance on Influence Ratings . . . 29 5. Analysis of Variance on Influenceability Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Goals Cross-Support Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Goal Influence Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 vi INTRODUCTION Life goals and values have been studied by numerous researchers both within (Rokeach, 1973; Maslow, 1964; Smith, 1969) and outside of (Williams, 1968; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1967) the field of psychology. In the field of psychology alone, values research has been conducted in at least four areas: developmental, social, counseling, and industrial/organizational psychology. Although there has been little applied values research in the area, values and goals probably play a role in work life, and it is a typical assumption that they have a very strong influence on one's choice of a career. Since most adults in our culture spend a substantial proportion of their lives at work, it was considered of interest by this researcher to find out what the occupational goals of this population are--what do people value in a work set- ting?1 Further, how do these goals or values affect one another, if at all? This research is concerned with the occupational goals of college students--specifically, business students. The college years are often a time when one's occupational goals (i.e., what one wants from his or her job) become more focussed. It was felt that the occupational goals of busi- ness students, in particular, would be somewhat crystal- lized, due to a partial commitment that they seemingly have made in their careers: i.e., the decision to major in busi- ness typically means that one plans eventually to work in an organization in some business-related capacity. Thus, the occupational goals of business majors should be rela- tively stable, and easier to tap than many other segments of the college and general population. They have a general idea of what they want in their careers (i.e., their goals and values), and their next step after college will typi- cally be a job in an organization in the "real world" where they may or may not get a start toward fulfilling their goals. Two considerations must be kept in mind throughout this research: First, the occupational goals of the general population may differ from those of college students; and second, that occupational goals of the college population as a whole might differ from those of students who major in business. Overview of the Literature Considering the vast amount of research that has been conducted on life goals and values, the amount of occupational goal research has paled in comparison. Wickert (1940a) developed a scale of "personal goal-values" in a work setting which was used to measure an individual's "general preferences" of a vocational nature among 100 male university students. Later, using a sample of 304 upper- level male students from the schools of Business, Law, Medicine and Arts and Sciences, he measured the interrela— tionships among the goal-values, which included freedom, helpfulness, new experience, power, recognition, response (enjoying friendship and fellowship and intimate personal contacts), security, submission (following along with the crowd), and workmanship (Wickert, 1940b). He found them to be relatively independent of each other, except for the relationship between "freedom" and "new experience,I two values which Wickert suggested were not very different from each other. Other than Wickert's studies, there has been a paucity of research concerned with the interrelationships among occupational goals, and there has been but a handful of studies concerned with the importance of occupational goals (generally referred to as "occupational values" or "work values" in the literature). Two studies in particular were concerned with the idea of group differences in work values. First, Saleh and Singh (1973) investigated work values as a function of socioldgical background. Their work values were divided into intrinsic (achievement and accomplishment, chances for promotion, chances for experience and growth in skill, nature of work, recognition, and responsibility) and extrinsic (working conditions, security, relationships among employees, status, salary, and supervision). The authors hypothesized that for their subjects (more than 3,000 white collar employees) that (1) there would be a positive relationship between the skill level of the subjects' fathers' occupation and intrinsic work values, and (2) assuming that job complexity was positively related to intrinsic orientation, employees in larger communities (where the more complex jobs tended to be) would be more intrinsically oriented than those in smaller communities. Results showed that in the low-salaried group (under $10,000) employees whose fathers held primarily unskilled jobs were less intrinsically oriented than employees whose fathers held primarily technical jobs, who, in turn, were less intrinsically oriented than employees with professional fathers. Further, the authors found a positive relationship between intrinsic job orientation and community size in the low-salaried group. In the high- salaried group, the authors found no differences in job orientation as a function of either father's occupation or community size. Saleh and Singh offered two possible explanations for the results. The first contended that intrinsic orientation increased along the unskilled-technical- professional job dimension. The present results were to be expected, then, if the work values were transmitted from the father to the children and remained relatively intact. The second explanation pertained to the influence of social class. The authors contended that since middle class work values were assumed to be influenced by the Protestant ethic (i.e., the intrinsic value of hard work), and lower- class work values by their relative economic deprivation, the emphasis of the middle class would be on the intrinsic aspects of the job, while the lower class would emphasize external aspects. For the high salaried group, the authors suggested that their high paying jobs--which are assumed to reward intrinsic values--may have overridden any early sociali- zation effects. The significant community size effect was explained in terms of the higher education level in the larger communities influencing the work values of subjects in these communities toward being more intrinsic. In another study concerning work values and back- ground variables, Saleh, Toye, and Sievert (1975) compared upper-middle and lower-middle managers in Canadian indus- trial organizations, and majors and captains in the Canadian military. They hypothesized that there would be no signi- ficant differences in general intrinsic orientation found between the majors and the upper-middle managers, or between the captains and the lower—middle managers (majors and upper-middle managers were matched, i.e., thought to be at the same managerial level, as were captains and lower-middle managers). They further postulated that high level groups would show more intrinsic job orientation than low level groups, regardless of the environment (civilian or mili- tary). The intrinsic values were achievement, responsibi- lity, recognition, advancement, nature of work, and growth in skill. Extrinsic factors were working conditions, salary, status, security, organizational policy, super- vision, and interpersonal interactions. Both hypotheses were supported. The authors reasoned that if a job is rich and complex enough to provide opportunity for challenge, achievement, and the other in- trinsic values, (i.e., the jobs of majors and upper-middle managers), those who held such jobs would tend to be more intrinsically oriented than those holding a less complex job (i.e., a lower level job like captain or lower—middle manager). In addition to the above findings, it was found that the military samples were significantly more concerned with advancement, security, status, and family needs (salarywise) than the civilian samples, while the civilian groups were more concerned with achievement, supervision and relationships. These differences were explained in terms of the different emphasis placed on certain values (both intrinsic and extrinsic) in the military as opposed to a civilian organization. For example, the authors state, The emphasis on status and advancement by the military group may reflect the clear distinction of formal rank and the power associated with the higher rank in their environment. Moreover, the defined and clear authority associated with each rank would be expected to reduce the problems in the relationships between subordinates and supervisors, in the military environment. The concept of work values has also been studied in the context of vocational maturity.2 Walls and Gulkus (1974) examined this in a sample consisting of vocational rehabilitation clients and graduate students. They hypo- thesized, first, that the graduate students would show greater vocational maturity than the vocational rehabili- tation clients. Second, it was felt that individuals who considered such values as: (a) making use of your own abilities, (b) getting a feeling of accomplishment, (c) trying out your own ideas, (d) doing work without feeling it is morally wrong, (e) having steady employment, (f) independence, (9) security, (h) opportunity to use special talents, (i) challenge, and (j) self-satisfaction--important should be more vocationally mature. Further, those who con- sidered such values as (a) telling other workers what to do, (b) having the position of "somebody" in the community, and (c) prestige--to be important might be lower in voca- tional maturity. The results generally supported the hypo- theses, suggesting that occupational values may be used to represent or estimate one's rate or degree of vocational development. The authors reasoned that if one's work attitudes and behaviors develop over time through growth and learning processes, then their behaviors should become more and more oriented towards reality. It was to be expected, then, that individuals who had limited learning opportunities would have basic concerns such as high salary, prestige, and telling others what to do. Those who had learned to meet the characteristic demands of vocational development tasks, and thus had developed an extensive behavioral repertoire, were able to seek personal rather than public accomplishment, and to use their special talents so that they might gain the feelings associated with successfully meeting a challenge. There have been relatively few studies concerned with behavioral, and more specifically, occupational values of college students. This is surprising in light of the fact that college students make up a substantial part of our population when compared to only a few years ago, and the apparent premium placed on finding a "good" job by many of these students. McKinney (1973) was interested in uncover- ing the behavioral values of college students and describing the subjective organization of the values. Using factor analysis, he found that the three factors which accounted for the largest percentage of the total variance were an academic achievement factor (emphasizing the products of achievement), an interpersonal factor, and a general competence or accomplishment factor (emphasizing the experience of achievement rather than the goal) respectively. The author noted that these three factors appeared to be the same as those arrived at by Friedlander (1963), who examined factors contributing to job satisfaction: "recog- nition through advancement, social environment, and intrin- sic self-actualizing work." In a study based on the responses of some 1800 graduating college seniors, Gottlieb (1975) found that the students saw themselves as being extensively different from their parents in terms of occupational values. Stu- dents saw themselves as being much less concerned with earnings and security than their fathers, as well as much more concerned with the nature and purpose of the work. The students stressed the more altruistic and intrinsic aspects of the job. Indeed, they sought interesting work that was useful to society and of benefit to others, that would allow them to express individuality, and that would enhance individual growth. The author stressed that a critical finding of the research was that the majority of college seniors (class of 1972) did hold positive attitudes toward work, having high career expectations. However, they saw work as a great deal more than a means to earn money and attain prestige, i.e., they strongly believed that work must be individually satisfying as well as of value to society. Fretz (1972) conducted a study to determine whether occupational values differed among male students in the 10 following preprofessional groups: education, law, medicine, engineering, and business. He did find that the five groups differed significantly on their rankings of the values. Of the eleven occupational values used, five were identified as significant discriminants: pay received, advancement, working conditions, fringe benefits, and prestige. Examination of the group means revealed that on three of the five significantly discriminating variables (pay, advancement, and fringe benefits), business had the lowest means of all the groups and medicine had the highest of all the groups, with lower means indicating higher ratings. For business students Specifically, "pay," "advancement," "self-satisfaction," "challenge," and "security" were the highest rated values. The primary conclusion of the author was that the five groups of specialized preprofessional students did vary significantly on occupational values. He makes an additional important point, however, concerning a major semantic-conceptual problem with which occupational values (occupational goals) research must deal. The author correctly states that what are often called occupational values (or work values, occupational goals, career goals, etc.) in career values research are referred to as jOb satisfiers" in career satisfaction research. There seems to be a rather obvious lack of unanimity concerning the proper terminology. Wanous and Lawler (1972) proceed even 11 further by distinguishing between job satisfaction and job facet satisfaction, with "job facets" being notably similar to "occupational values." They state that "The reader should keep in mind the distinction between overall job satisfaction (JS) and satisfaction with a particular facet of one's job, job facet satisfaction (JFS) . . . Overall job satisfaction is the sum of job facet satisfaction across all facets of a job." The six facets used predominantly in their study were self-esteem, opportunity for growth, feeling of security, social aspects, autonomy and pay. One major difference, of course, between occupa- tional values research and jOb facet satisfaction research is that studies of occupational values have often dealt with people prior to their entering an occupation (e.g., college students), whereas job or job facet satisfaction studies have been concerned almost exclusively with people employed at the time of the study. The similarity in concept, however, should be noted. The last three studies to be discussed used either business students (De Salvia & Gemmill, 1971; Ondrack, 1973), or recent college graduates just entering a business career (Manhardt, 1972). De Salvia and Gemmill (1971) compared differences in the values of 225 business students and 1,072 businessmen. The data from the businessmen sample was obtained from a previous study (England, 1967). The authors found that the two groups shared certain values 12 and differed considerably on others. Of greater operative significance for students than managers were important con- cepts like individuality, dignity, achievement, success, money, prestige, power, influence, and security. Values concerning groups of people--co-workers, customers, sub- ordinates--were more Operative for the businessmen. In general, then, it seemed that students appeared to be more oriented toward personal goals, while the businessmen appeared to be more oriented to group and organizational goals. When discussing the implications of the study, the authors note that an organization's recruiting program might do well to emphasize opportunities for personal achievement and early influence rather than the need for teamwork and corporate identity. This type of recruiting effort, the study indicates, would be more likely to be favored by students. One possible problem with this study dealt with the comparison of data from students and managers. Not only were the data collected by different researchers, but the data collection for the two groups was separated by appro- ximately four years (i.e., the late 19605 and early 19703-- a time of great social change). The results, therefore, must be considered in this context. The results of this study appear to be at odds with other studies (e.g., Gottlieb, 1975) in which students 13 placed less emphasis on values such as prestige, money, influence, power, etc., and more emphasis on values like social welfare. One might think that, given the time periods that the two studies were conducted, the values of the students should be reversed, i.e., the DeSalvia and Gemmill (1971) study was conducted when there was still quite a bit of anti-business and pro-social welfare feeling on college campuses, while the Gottlieb (1975) study was conducted when the anti-business, anti-establishment feeling on the campuses had diminished somewhat. Sex differences, as well as importance of job char- acteristics (occupational goals), were of primary importance in a study conducted by Manhardt (1972) using 365 male and 301 female recent college graduates newly appointed by a business organization. The study was addressed to the question of whether women and men who had accepted employ- ment on similar jobs in business also had similar orienta- tions to their jobs (i.e., similar occupational goals). In order to minimize sex differences in job orientation which might have been related to differing occupational choices, the sample included men and women appointed to similar jobs, at the same level, and which lead to careers in the same occupational area. The subjects completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to rate 25 job characteristics on the basis of importance. Although the men and women in the sample had accepted employment on similar jobs, significant sex l4 differences in job orientation at the .01 level of proba- bility were found in 11 of these characteristics. By using a principal components factor analysis of the job charac- teristics, the researcher ascertained that the differences were closely related to a three factor structure. Men gave the highest rating to characteristics contained in a factor related to long-range career objectives which were generally descriptive of a successful career in business, i.e., ad- vancement, supervising others, important problems, income, and risks. These ratings were significantly higher than those of the women, who gave higher ratings to job char- acteristics contained in a comfortable work environment factor: work conditions, routine (i.e., job variety) leisure time, rules, and associates. The third factor contained characteristics which were related to autonomy and self-actualization and were classified as intrinsic: own methods, intellectually stimulating, creativeness, and independence. Small and mixed sex differences were found in the characteristics of this factor. Manhardt accounted for the sex differences by suggesting the existence of a sub- group of women who did not "expect a career to be a signi- ficant factor in their lives and for whom aspects of a job related to long-range career success are essentially irre- levant since they may not expect to be working for more than a few years." The author speculates that these women may have as strong a desire as men to achieve and be suc- cessful, but not necessarily in the business world. He 15 speculates that given equal perceived importance of a career and probability of continued employment, women would probably value success in business and show as much "desire to get ahead" as men. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that if the female sample were restricted to only those who had rated a career in business as a major life goal, the sex differences would, in all likelihood, diminish. Though Manhardt raised some important issues in his study regarding sex differences in job orientation, he did not sufficiently emphasize one interesting finding in his data. Both the male and female groups, despite the signi- ficant differences in mean importance ratings on 11 of the characteristics, still identically ranked some of the job characteristics. Both groups ranked "provides a feeling of accomplishment," "encourages continued development of knowledge and skills," and "is intellectually stimulating," first, second, and third, respectively. Furthermore, of the 25 characteristics, both groups ranked "permits a regular routine in time and place of work,‘ and "has clear cut rules and procedures to follow" next to last and last, respectively. Thus, from the results of this study one perceives not only sex differences in ratings of certain important job characteristics, but agreement across sexes on what characteristics are most important and which are least important. These ratings may have changed in the 16 five years since the study was conducted, and certainly deserve a further look. In a study conducted by Ondrack (1973), occupational values of subjects from previous research studies (Kil- patrick et al., 1964; Manhardt, 1972) were compared to those from a sample of 125 business administration students. Subjects were asked to imagine an ideal occupation and then to list factors which would make the occupation ideal for them. The results showed that the six highest ranked goals were challenge in work, good salary, quality of peers, opportunities for achievement, independence, and individual responsiblity. These occupational goals differed from the previous samples by an increased concern with quality of co-worker peers, as well as an increased desire for inde- pendence. In terms of concern for individual responsibi- lity, challenge in work, and opportunities for achievement, the occupational goals seemed to have remained relatively stable. Goals such as status and opportunity for advance- ment experienced a decline. Ondrack summarizes his findings about the nature of the shift in occupational goals by stating, contemporary students are no longer interested in con- ventional careers working their way through the admini- strative hierarchy of an organization, especially a bureaucratic organization. They reject authoritarian supervision and instead have a strong preference for a consultive-participative relationship with their supervisor. They reject narrow, closely defined jobs and prefer work situations which allow a strong sense of independence, individual responsibility, achievement, and recognition. Finally, they prefer to work with l7 co-workers with skill and competence equal to theirs in a cooperative team relationship or as a group of colleagues rather than in an interpersonal competitive relationship. It is apparent from this review of research that there are questions about what people value in work that still need to be answered. Some of these points are dis- cussed below. First, what are the important occupational goals, particularly of students enrolled in business courses? The reviewed studies present some overlapping and some con- flicting results. For example, the DeSalvia and Gemmill (1971) study showed that students placed great emphasis on power, influence, and prestige whereas other studies (Gott— lieb, 1975; Manhardt, 1972; Ondrack, 1973) showed less student emphasis on these, and more emphasis on interper- sonal and social welfare goals. Are the goals of business students today closer to the former or the latter, or are they vastly different from either? Second, what is the extent of sex differences in importance ratings of occupational goals? A follow-up on the Manhardt (1972) study would seem to be in order, since sex differences in occupational goals have been virtually ignored in occupational values literature. Most likely, the prevailing assumption was that "the world of business is dominated by males, thus only studies dealing with males are relevant." For a case in point, it is noted that Ondrack (1973), when referring to the Manhardt (1972) study, 18 completely ignored the fact that almost 50 percent of Man— hardt's subjects were female. Ondrack stated, "(Manhardt's) study surveyed 365 college graduates . . ." Manhardt did sample 365 male college graduates, but he also sampled over 300 female graduates. Throughout his discussion of Man- hardt's study, Ondrack referred to the rankings of the "occupational values of college students," but neglected to mention first, that the rankings were those of only the males in the Manhardt study, and second, that there were some substantial sex differences in the rankings in that study. In point of fact, finding sex differences, if they existed, was the main purpose of the Manhardt study. Needless to say, greater concentration of effort is needed in this area. Relationships Among Goals Though the idea of interrelationships among occu- pational goals is one that has been virtually non-existent in past literature (with perhaps the exception of the Wickert (1940b) study), some writing has been done and research conducted dealing with the interrelationships among values, as well as goals. An important tenet upon which this research is based is that occupational goals are not totally independent entities (i.e., that they can influence each other). In- deed, it is believed that a hierarchy of occupational goals may be present for each individual, with some goals seen as 19 means for reaching other goals, while other goals may act as ends in themselves. Fallding (1965), in discussing values, was in a sense discussing how subgoals and goals may relate to each other when he wrote, This ordering of ends into a hierarchy means that a person will desire not only one thing, but everything he believes its attainment depends upon . . . There is a world of divergence between two persons who desire the same things, if an end which is instrumental for one is self-sufficient to another. Along the same line, Rokeach (1973), having defined an "instrumental value" as an idealized mode of behavior and a "terminal value" as an idealized end-state of existence, points out that, "It may well be that one terminal value, so defined, is instrumental to another terminal value or that one instrumental value is instrumental to another instrumental value" (even though he did believe that it was safest to assume that "all values concerning modes of be- havior are instrumental to the attainment of all the values concerning end-states.") The major point that both of these authors make, however, is that values and/or goals can indeed affect other values or goals. Interrelationships among goals in a different con- text have been studied and utilized with some degree of success by Cetron and Connor (1972), among others. They discuss a method called cross-support analysis, which has been used in the past as a management tool for planning and assessing national policies and goals in order to improve the quality of life (see Figure l and Appendix B). The 20 cross-support analysis technique provides a framework for investigating the impact that one goal may have on another. It utilizes rating techniques which can be applied at both the individual and aggregate level of analysis. One great advantage of this type of matrix methodology, according to Cetron and Connor, "is in its facility to organize infor- mation in a formal and consistent manner, (and) structuring thinking for reproducible results . . ." Thus a cross- support matrix can facilitate the determination of the interrelationships among goals. It also leaves open the possibility of determining mutual influence and feedback effects in a system, i.e., where a correlational analysis can describe the degree of association between two vari- ables, A and B, a cross-support analysis can separately determine the effects of A on B and B on A, which can facilitate the identification of feedback processes. The exclusion of the relationships among occupa- tional goals from the literature is surprising. Intui- tively, it would seem to make sense that all occupational goals are not uncorrelated, though they might be concep- tually different. For example, "receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" and "getting challenging tasks on the job" would seem to be correlated to some degree, if it is believed that one will receive a feeling of achieve- ment from a job if he or she receives (and completes) chal- lenging tasks. Nevertheless, one would be hard-pressed to show that the two goals were conceptually the same. 21 9]. 92 93 g4 -- -- gn 91 a12 a13 a14 gln 92 a21 a23 a24 92n 93 a31 a32 g3n I 94 . u I I I I I I I I I I I I gn 1 gnl 91 = goal 1 a12 = magnitude of contribution of goal 1 to goal 2 Figure 1. Goals Cross-Support Matrix The importance of the interrelationships (i.e., correlations, influence patterns) among occupational goals should not be underestimated. If relationships among these goals were shown to be present, certain questions might be raised. For example, if certain goals are highly corre- lated, does this mean they are tapping the same concept, or does it mean that the goals are sequentially related in some 22 way (i.e., having obtained one goal is a prerequisite for attaining another)? The previous research (mentioned above) using cross-support analyses has demonstrated, and common sense dictates, that national goals can affect each other. Can the methodology be extended to show that occupational goals also can influence each other? Hypotheses and Objectives The proposed research will, first and foremost, be exploratory in nature. It will attempt to examine the interrelationships and dynamics among occupational goals, both at an aggregate and individual level of analysis, looking for perceived compatibilities and incompatibilities among these goals. Based on the questions that have evolved from the reviewed research, the following hypotheses are to be tested in the present study: 1. "Receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" and "getting challenging tasks on the job" will be considered most important by the sample as a whole. 2. Significant sex differences will be found in the ratings of "receiving good pay" (males higher), "attaining good relations with others on the job" (females higher), "performing a variety of duties" (females higher), and "obtaining the opportunity for advancement" (males higher). METHOD Subjects Subjects were one hundred students enrolled in upper-level business courses at a large, midwestern uni- versity. Access to these classes was gained through per— mission of the instructors. As previously mentioned, it was believed that the occupational goals of students enrolled in upper-level (junior-senior year) business courses would be somewhat more stable than those of the general university student population, particularly under— classmen. Materials Materials consisted solely of a seven page ques— tionnaire (See Appendix A). The questionnaire was divided into two main parts. The first part, entitled "Importance of Goals," consisted of a 10—point rating scale to determine the importance rating for each of ten occupational goals. The goals were: receiving a feeling of achievement from the job; getting challenging tasks on the job; receiving good pay; attaining good relations with others on the job; getting a feeling of independence on the job; attaining job 23 24 security; performing a variety of duties; obtaining the opportunity for advancement; obtaining the opportunity to benefit society through your work; and, getting prestige on the job.3 The second part was entitled "Influence of Goals." The first page of the section included instructions for determining the influence ratings for each of the goals, as well as examples. The instructions involved asking the sub- jects to estimate the degree to which each goal influenced each of the other goals, by placing a representative number above an arrow linking the two goals. The next four pages included the ninety possible goal-influencing-goal combina— tions. Procedure The experimenter paraphrased the instructions, and discussed the examples. Subjects were then asked to com- plete the questionnaire, making sure that they read the instructions fully. After the questionnaires were com— pleted, the subjects were debriefed, i.e., the research hypotheses were delineated. Design There were two factors in the present study: a sex factor (two levels) and an occupational goal factor (10 levels-~one for each goal) producing a 2 (sex) x 10 (goals) design with repeated measures on the occupational goal factor. RESULTS Importance Ratings Subjects were asked to rate each of the occupational goals independently. Means and standard deviations for the importance ratings are shown in Table 1, while the impor- tance ratings broken down into sex differences are included in Table 2. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences between occupational goals, F (9,882) = 32.92, p < .001 (See Table 3). Hypothesis 1. It was predicted that "receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" and "getting challen- ging tasks on the job" would be considered most important by the sample as a whole. Results show that "achievement" ranked first but "challenge" ranked fourth out of the ten occupational goals. A Tukey post-hoc analysis (p < .05) showed that "achievement" is rated significantly greater than all of the other occupational goals with the exception of "obtaining the opportunity for advancement," which is ranked second in importance for the overall sample. "Chal— lenge" is ranked significantly below "achievement" and "opportunity for advancement," and not significantly different from "attaining good relations with others on the 25 26 m02~9EHAHm.H vo.H on.a Hm.H mm.~ oo.a mm.H mm.H om H~.H mo.~ vm.m vm.~ om.~ ma.m o¢.m no.m. on.m mm.m x vn.~ Nn.m mm.n av.m mm.m mH.m mh.~ mv.~ oo.~ >uwfiuom ufiuocmm do.a HH.N mm.H ~®.~ vm.H NH. av. N>.~ 0H.m o~.~ mw.m 0» .uuommo o~.~ va.m hm.m v~.m mo.m Hm.m mm.~ om.~ Hm.~ wwwuso oo.~ vm.~ on. vm.~ oo.m HV.A om.~ mv.v mv.~ mh.n mm.v uo >umaum> ~h.~ no.m o~.n mm.m mm.~ oa.m mm.m Hm.~ mm.m oo.H v~.v mm.~ om.~ om.m mh.v Av.m m>.v o~.m mo.m hm.m wqaumwum bm.~ -.m wo.m Ah.m vw.~ om.m ma.m hm.m vn.m oo.~ mo.H no. mm.H mm.m 0H.H vv.a vo.m 00.: hm.m om.v wucmpcwmwch m w~.~ wm.m Hm.~ Nm.m oo.m mm.m ma.~ mm.n vo.~ m U oo.d om.~ 00. mo. hm.~ hH.m Hm.m -.H mN.m hm.m om.n >uwusumm non w M mo.~ om.N vo.m Nv.m w~.m NH.m mm.~ om.m va.m H D om.a em.~ av. am. mm.v hv.~ Hm.m om.~ ma. mn.~ mm.v >mm @000 M A ~v.~ vm.n mm.~ ow.m c~.m om.~ ow.~ mm.N om.~ m “ mo.~ mv.m mm.~ mm.m m~.v hN.m mo.a oh.m No.H Av.m mh.w macadamnu H H¢.N hm.~ oa.m mh.~ ~m.~ NN.N mv.~ mm.~ mm.~ muw£u0\3 mm.~ mo.~ mm. mn.~ wo.m v~.r m~.~ mv.H ov.H h>.m hH.v .mamu c000 hm.~ mm.m mo.~ mm.m H0.~ mn.m nm.~ va.m hm.~ ucmEoucm>Ud hn.~ Hh.v on.a mh.n mo.@ mo.v h~.m m~.o oa.o mm.~ ow.o How .uuommo mm.m o~.m vo.m vH.m mm.~ mo.m nm.m mo.m vm.m mh.a mm.m oo.~ o~.~ m®.m m~.v H¢.N v~.m hv.v Ho.m vh.v unwEw>oflco< mm m. oo.~ oo.~ mm.a ah.H mh.H ov.H H~.H ®~.H NH.H vo.H om mo.m v~.m 0v.o mm.® mh.o ma.» ov.h mv.h 00.0 NN.m M 1.0 D.A d I P 9 3 M 9 V O V . .0 nm my. a w. m m m n 0 mm m 1...: S 8 D. T. up D. T. S J a a 3 d S .l U 1 a O . s .4 T. a a d a o H D 3 A D A 6 U D D. U 3 8 am a 1.3 a D. n .A 6 HT. m m 9 O O 3 I a 8 P a . 3 3. 1: U I. J . U U .A q 3 3 S .4 3 3 a a 'A O u 1 a.. '1 'Ihdnpill IIIIIHIIIUNIIII‘LFII‘I FHhu '- .xfiuumz uuommsmummOuU mamow HmCOMummsouoau.H wanma 27 Table 2.--Means of Male and Female Subjects for Aggregate Importance, Influence, and Influenceability Ratings. IMPORTANCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCEABILITY E E h F. E .11". Achievement 8.00 8.44 3.05 3.74 4.73 5.74 Opportunity for Advancement 8.16 8.00 4.28 5.14 3.46 3.94 Good relations with others 7.26 7.70 1.74 2.31 1.87 2.26 Challenge 7.12 7.68 3.26 3.61 3.04 3.89 Good pay 7.32 7.04 2.35 2.74 2.89 3.38 Job security 6.88 6.68 2.17 2.94 2.51 2.67 Independence 6.32 6.86 1.65 2.19 2.34 3.33 Prestige 6.66 6.32 3.89 4.58 3.46 3.62 Variety of duties 5.70 6.78 2.72 2.96 1.86 2.31 Opportunity to benefit society 5.86 5.44 2.12 2.09 1.05 1.18 Table 3.-—Analysis of Variance on Importance Ratings. Source _s_§ d_f_ ms 3 Groups (sex) 6.89 l 6.89 .95 Subject within Groups 712.69 98 7.27 Goals 595.31 9 66.15 32.92** Goals x Groups 57.98 9 6.44 3.29* Goals x Subject within Groups 1772.01 882 2.01 TOTAL 3144.88 999 * p < .005 ** 2 < .001 28 job," "receiving good pay," or "attaining job security." Thus, Hypothesis 1 has been only partially supported. Hypothesis 2. It was predicted that significant sex differences would be found in the ratings of "receiving good pay" (males higher), "attaining good relations with others on the job" (females higher), "performing a variety of duties" (females higher) and "obtaining the opportunity for advancement" (males higher). As can be seen in Table 3, overall sex differences were not significant. Regarding the predicted differences, A PRIORI TESTS showed that although all of the differences between means were in the predicted direction, only the importance rating for "performing a variety of duties" was significantly different for females and males (t = 2.00, df = 98, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. Intercorrelations Among Importance Ratings Appendix C displays the correlations among the impor- tance ratings. The largest intercorrelation was between "receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" and "getting challenging tasks on the job." Influence Ratings4 Across Goals. Table 1 includes the influence ratings of the occupational goals. The row totals summarize the overall influence of each of the goals. With respect to these totals, a repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant differences between the influence ratings 29 of the goals, F (9,882) = 44.60, p < .001 (See Table 4). On a scale ranging from -9 (Strongly interferes with) through 0 (has no effect) through +9 (strongly facilitates), "obtaining the opportunity for advancement" had the greatest overall influence rating (and for both males and females). Table 4.--Analysis of Variance on Influence Ratings. Source .52 a: 131.8. 2 Groups (sex) 64.52 1 64.52 4.41* Subject within Groups 1433.93 98 14.63 Goals 811.06 9 90.12 44.60** Goals x Groups 16.51 9 1.84 .91 Goals x Subject within Groups 1782.06 882 2.02 TOTAL 4108.08 999 * p_ <.05 ** p_< .001 This was not significantly above "getting prestige on the job," which had the second highest overall (and male and female) influence rating. Substantially below that were "getting challenging tasks on the job" and "receiving a feeling of achievement on the job." Last (having the least influence on the other goals) was "getting a feeling of independence on the job." Sex Differences. Table 2 displays the influence ratings broken down into sex differences. Results showed significant sex differences among the influence ratings of 30 the occupational goals, F (9,882) = 4.41, p < .05 (See Table 4). Females rated every goal except one ("obtaining the opportunity to benefit society through your work") as having a stronger influence than did males. Table 4 also indicates that there was not a signi- ficant sex by goal interaction, F (9,882) = .91, p > .05. Influenceability Ratings5 Across Goals. Table 1 includes the influenceability ratings of the occupational goals. The column totals summarize the overall influenceability of each of the goals. With respect to these totals, a repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant differences among the influenceability ratings of the goals, F (9,882) = 93.28, p < .001 (See Table 5). On a scale ranging from -9 (strongly interferes with) through 0 (has no effect) through +9 (strongly facilitates), "receiving a feeling of achieve- ment from the job" had the greatest overall influenceability rating (and for both males and females). This was signifi- cantly above all of the other goals. "Obtaining the oppor- tunity for advancement" had the second highest overall influenceability rating, but was not significantly different from "getting prestige on the job" or "getting challenging tasks on the job." Last (having the least susceptibility to influence from the other goals) was "obtaining the Oppor- tunity to benefit society through your work." 31 Table 5.--Analysis of Variance on Influenceability Ratings. Source 2 E 51.5. 5 Groups (sex) 64.51 1 64.51 4.41* Subject within Groups 1433.96 98 14.63 Goals 1146.52 9 127.39 93.28** Goals x Groups 25.00 9 2.78 2.03* Goals x Subject within Groups 1204.53 882 1.37 TOTAL 3874.51 999 *p < .05 **p_ < .001 Sex Differences. Table 2 displays the influence- ability ratings broken down into sex differences. Results showed significant sex differences among the influence- ability ratings of the occupational goals, F (9,882) = 4.41, p < .05. (See Table 5.) Females rated every goal as having a greater degree of influenceability than did males. There was also a significant sex by goal inter- action, : (9,882) = 2.03, p < .05. Cross-Support Matrix (See Table l) Table 1 is a modification of the original cross- support matrix (Ralph, 1971). (See Appendix B.) Because the correlations between the unweighted and weighted in- fluence and influenceability ratings were extremely high (generally above .95), only the unweighted ratings are reported here. Thus, the traditional method of utilization 32 of the cross-support matrix was not totally employed in the present analysis. The matrix in Table 1 includes the ninety possible goal-influencing-goal combinations. The matrix presents what the respondents see as the perceived causal relation- ships between the occupational goals. Each of the ninety cells can be examined in terms of either an "influence" or "influenceability" process. Through examining the cells in the matrix rows, it appears that obtaining the opportunity for advancement, as previously noted, seems to have the greatest influence on obtaining the other goals. "Opportunity for advancement" has four of the five highest influence ratings in the matrix. The respondents seem to feel that if they have "obtained the Opportunity for advancement," this will help them "receive a feeling of achievement from the job," help them to "get challenging tasks on the job," aid them in "receiving good pay," and help them in "getting prestige on the job." To a lesser degree, the respondents feel that having the opportunity to advance in an organization will assist them in "attaining job security," and also "getting a feeling of independence on the job." Having attained prestige on the job also seems to aid the subjects in reaching other occupational goals, particularly "attaining job security," "receiving chal- lenging tasks on the job," "obtaining the opportunity for 33 advancement,‘ "receiving a feeling of achievement" from work, and "receiving good pay." Overall, it seems that "Opportunity for advancement" and "prestige" have the greatest amount Of influence on reaching the other occupational goals, while "attaining job security," "attaining good relations with others on the job," "getting a feeling of independence on the job," and "Obtaining the Opportunity to benefit society through your work" have the least influence. An inspection of the cells in the matrix columns reveals that "receiving a feeling of achievement from the job" seems to have the greatest degree Of influenceability Of all the goals, being particularly susceptible to influence from "Obtaining the Opportunity for advancement," "getting challenging tasks," "getting prestige on the job," and "Obtaining the opportunity to benefit society through your work." "Getting challenging tasks on the job" tends to be seen as being influenced to a lesser but still large extent, while "Obtaining the Opportunity to benefit society through your work" appears to be barely susceptible tO influence from any Of the other occupational goals. DISCUSSION This section is written with two main purposes in mind. First, it includes a comparison of findings Of this study regarding importance ratings with those Of previous research. Hypotheses l and 2 address this issue. Second, it attempts to put the results Of this research into an occupational goal-structure framework by examining the perceived influence relationships among goals--something that appears to be totally lacking in the literature to date. Importance Ratings Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1, which predicted that "feeling Of achievement" and "challenging tasks" would be considered most important by the sample as a whole, was only partially supported: "feeling Of achievement" was rated highest, but not significantly different from "Opportunity for advancement." Furthermore, though "challenging tasks" was highly ranked, it was still signi- ficantly below "feeling Of achievement" and "Opportunity for advancement." The fact that "feeling of achievement" was regarded most important by the sample as a whole is not really much Of a surprise. Receiving a feeling Of 34 35 achievement was consistently seen as being important in the previously reviewed literature and has been emphasized in the psychological literature for years (e.g., Maslow's (1943) esteem and self-actualization needs, Alderfer's (1969) growth needs, McGregor's (1960) Theory Y assump- tions). The high rating Of "feeling Of achievement" is also not surprising when considering its intrinsic nature. Saleh and Singh (1973) contended that intrinsic orientation increases with job level. It might be expected, then, that college students who are desiring and/or expecting jobs of a reasonably high level, want a feeling Of achievement, and an Opportunity to advance (possibly to contribute to, or give them, that feeling of achievement). They are looking for intrinsic rewards. "Challenging tasks," another intrinsic goal, though significantly different from "feeling Of achievement" and "Opportunity for advancement," was still seen as important. The students don't want to be stagnant on the job, which is in line with McGregor's Theory Y assumption that people will extend themselves to assume genuinely demanding responsibilities (i.e., challenging tasks on the job). Three Of the tOp six rated goals were Of an ex- trinsic nature, showing that intrinsic rewards are not all that counts. For example, "good relations with others" is increasingly being recognized as extremely important on the job. 36 The rating of "good pay" is difficult to interpret in light Of previous conflicting results. In the Gottlieb (1975) study, which sampled a wide range Of college stu- dents, respondents were less concerned with earnings, and concerned with more altruistic and intrinsic aspects of the job: they sought interesting work which was useful to society, and which would enhance individual growth. In those studies that dealt with business students or graduates who had just entered a job in an organization, good pay was generally seen as extremely important, on a par with "achievement" (or similarly, "self-satisfaction" in Fretz, 1972), "challenge," and others, depending on the study (Ondrack, 1973; Fretz, 1972). Interpretation of "good pay" is also difficult because though it was rated significantly lower than "feeling of achievement" and "opportunity for advancement," it is not significantly different from "good relations," "challenging tasks," "job security," and "feeling Of inde- pendence." But a mean rating of 7.19 on a scale from -9 to +9 is hard to classify as a low rating, or a rating of low importance. A similar situation exists for the importance rating of "opportunity to benefit society," Though it has the lowest rating (5.65) Of the ten occupational goals, it would be wrong to say that business students don't rate the Opportunity to benefit society through their work as 37 important: first, its rating of 5.65 is not remarkably low, and furthermore, "Opportunity to benefit society" was chosen by this researcher as one Of only ten goals which had been mentioned frequently in the past literature. If more than ten occupational goals had been included, "Opportunity to benefit society" may have fallen in the middle Of the pack, instead Of at the end. Furthermore, the possibility always exists that college students other than those majoring in business may have rated "opportu- nity tO benefit society through your work" higher in impor- tance than those in this sample (e.g., students with social science majors). Hypothesis 2. Manhardt (1972), in his study, found significant sex differences regarding the perceived importance of Opportunity for advancement. The present study found no such differences. This is surprising when it is considered that Of the twenty-five job characteri- stics in his study, "advancement" displayed the largest sex difference (males higher). The "good pay" characteri- stic in his study ("provides the Opportunity to earn a high income") only showed significant differences (males higher) in one of his subsamples, so the non-significant sex difference in the present study wasn't quite as surprising. It's apparent that women in college, particularly those with business orientations, have reached the point where a well-paying job, and one that provides an Opportunity to 38 advance, means as much to them as it does to men--they want to be mobile, and not stagnate at one occupational level. Also surprising, in light of the significant dif- ferences found in the Manhardt study and others (Centers & Bugental, 1966), is the lack of significant differences found in this study in "attaining good relations with others" (similar to Manhardt's "involves working with con— genial associates"). Previously, it has been believed that women business majors, more than men Of the same major, are concerned with a comfortable work environment and pleasant interpersonal relationships (Bartol, 1976). The fact that men and women both rated it so highly might indicate that this goal hasn't lost importance in the work place for women business majors, but instead has gained importance for men-—perhaps due tO the influx Of literature (and college-level courses) stressing the importance of good interpersonal skills in the workplace. The fact that "performing a variety Of duties" is significantly higher in importance for females than males does not lend itself to easy explanation. A possible line Of reasoning may revolve around Manhardt's principle components factor analysis performed on the correlation matrix of his twenty-five job charac- teristics. He found three distinct, interpretable factors, as mentioned previously. Women tended to give higher ratings to those characteristics in Factor II, which was 39 concerned with a comfortable work environment: work condi- tions, routine (i.e., job variety), leisure time, rules, and associates. Women's higher ratings of "variety" in the present study would then be accounted for, but the apparent contradiction regarding a non-significant differ— ence in "attaining good relations with others" (discussed above) would not. The results regarding these two goals, if Manhardt's factors were to be used as an explanation, would be at Odds with each other. Further, this study's results also are at Odds with Manhardt's Factor I which supposedly related to long-range career Objectives which were generally descriptive of a career in business, e.g., advancement, income, etc., and which were generally rated higher by the males in his study. In this study, signifi- cant sex differences weren't found in the importance of "advancement" and "pay." Because of these limitations, using Manhardt's three factor structure, particularly Factor II's comfortable work environment and pleasant interpersonal relationships, to explain the significant sex differences in "performing a variety of duties," is not feasible.6 Another possible explanation deals with the job levels that males and females have traditionally assumed. Previous research has shown that job variety is strongly related to satisfaction with work at lower occupational levels, but that it is generally unrelated to satisfaction with work at higher (administrative) levels (Sims & 40 Szilagyi, 1976). Traditionally in our society, males have been placed in most high level jobs, while females have been relegated to lower level jobs, and have had a diffi- cult time breaking into higher level jobs. "Variety" may be seen as highly related to satisfaction for lower occu— pational levels, where most working women still find them— selves, because workers at this level generally perceive lesser environmental complexity (i.e., job variety) and seem to seek greater stimulation from the work environment. Males, on the other hand, have traditionally occupied higher level jobs, which probably contain a good deal more enviornmental complexity already, and are not generally seen as needing much more of it. The women in the present study, who, by the nature of their college major (pre— dominantly business) may be very much interested in higher job levels than society has previously allowed, may indeed be reacting to womens' traditionally low-complexity jobs by now seeking a good deal of variety in their work, found in the high-level jobs. The males in this sample, on the other hand, having been socialized into believing that men occupy all high level positions (which contain variety), and having no reason to believe that they won't eventually be one Of these men, seem to take job variety for granted and don't consider it particularly important, when compared to the other occupational goals. (In fact, males rated "job variety" lowest in importance of the ten goals.) 41 A possible argument could be raised, however, which would concern itself with why significant sex dif- ferences weren't found in some of the other goals also tra- ditionally denied females because Of lack of placement in higher-level jobs (e.g., Opportunity for advancement, prestige, good pay, etc.). A rebuttal might be that these other goals are not really taken for granted as much as "variety" and thus, were ranked highly by both males and females. Influence Ratings One purpose Of this study, in addition to measuring the perceived importance of the occupational goals to the subjects, was to Obtain information pertaining tO the rela- tionships that the subjects perceived between occupational goals. There may be a number of factors which determine importance which may reflect very little about the rela- tionships between the goals, i.e., how goals influence each other in a dynamic sense. It appears that "Obtaining the Opportunity for advancement" and "getting prestige on the job" are the keys which Open the door for the other occu- pational goals. It is interesting that while both "Oppor- tunity for advancement" and "getting prestige" are seen as having a great deal of influence on attaining other occu— pational goals, they were not seen as that close to each other in terms Of importance, with "advancement" ranking second and "prestige" eighth. Though the two concepts are 42 related in the sense that advancing in an organization would seem to bring more prestige with it, the respondents may have felt that it wasn't as socially desirable to say that prestige is all that important to them, while there are really no socially undesirable aspects Of wanting to advance in an organization. The respondents feel that advancing to higher level jobs will, besides bringing more prestige, mean that these jobs will be more challenging and better paying--not unrealistic expectations. Further, the idea of having Ob- tained the Opportunity to advance elicits a great feeling Of achievement or accomplishment—-"a job well done," if you will. To a lesser extent, the higher level jobs advanced to are seen as having more security--i.e., "once I've advanced this far in the organization, I'm not quite as expendable." Also, the advancement to higher levels is seen as leading to an increased feeling of independence. The respondents feel that this increased autonomy will mean that they will be making more Of the decisions affecting them, i.e., will have more control over their situation at work. "Prestige" tends to influence the same goals as "advancement" (with the exception Of "independence"). This is probably because of its Obvious relationship to higher level jobs (i.e., the higher level jobs tend to be accorded prestige). The smaller amount Of influence of "prestige" when compared to "advancement" may occur because 43 people see the Opportunity to advance to higher level jobs as having a direct influence on these goals, but "prestige," because it is in a sense only "attached" to or a byproduct of higher level jobs, may only exert an indirect influence. "Receiving good pay" does not have a great deal of overall influence relative to the other goals, though it does have an influence on the attainment of the two goals that it might be expected to affect: getting prestige and receiving a feeling Of achievement. Pay is still Obviously regarded as a major criterion of success, whether success is measured by extrinsic (prestige) or intrinsic (feeling Of achievement) means. Although there is a relatively high correlation in importance between "opportunity for advancement" and "good pay (r = .58) (See Appendix C), Table 1 indicates that there is basically only a one-way influence--having Ob- tained the Opportunity for advancement influences re- ceiving good pay, not the other way around to any great extent. Figure 2 shows a representation Of some possible linkages between occupational goals, based upon the most prominent relationships found in the cross—support matrix (Table 1). Only influence ratings greater than a certain level, with 4.00 being the arbitrary choice, are included in this model. 44 unmso OOGOSHMCH Hmow .N musmflm ham poow mmflumwum woawp ICOQOOCH mumwoom mm.m acme 8 Imocm>p< no A. name mmcmaam: Im>mflnod mn.m hv.v . A ova MW. h mmauso mo >umflum> 45 This type Of display may facilitate the analysis Of the causal structure Of occupational goals and could conceivably lead to a path analysis among the goals. This may, in addition, help to generate numerous influence possibilities from the data. For example, one such potentiality would be the following: though having the "Opportunity for advancement" can have a direct effect on reaching many of the other goals as indicated in Figure 2, it also may serve as the first in a causal chain Of occu- pational goals, i.e., have an indirect effect on reaching goals. Using the example of “receiving good pay," having the opportunity for advancement may directly cause a feeling of achievement in a person, or directly increase their prestige-~but it may also directly lead to an increase in a person's pay, and the increased pay may then directly (at a moderate level) cause a person's prestige to increase and directly (again at a moderate level) give that person a feeling of achievement. The Opportunity for advancement, then, in this case, indirectly influenced prestige and a feeling Of achievement through "good pay," which served as a moderator. Figure 2 also permits the examination of other influence possibilities. For example, though the above mentioned advancement-good pay-prestige chain is a possibi- lity, so too is an advancement-prestige-gOOd pay chain. Advancement, instead of influencing prestige through good pay, might instead influence good pay through prestige. In 46 other words, when someone advances through an organization, they may gain prestige, and the acquired prestige would have an influence on receiving good pay. Thus, there is an Obvious mutual influence pattern, not only between good pay and prestige, but, as can be shown in Figure 2, between other goals as well.7 More (and less) complex possibilities are also as- certainable from Figure 2. For example, having the Oppor- tunity to advance may have a strong, direct influence on receiving a feeling of achievement, or, it may have a strong direct effect on a person getting more challenging tasks on the job, which would have a moderate effect on increasing the person's prestige. This increased prestige for the person might then have a moderate influence on getting higher pay (to complement the higher prestige that this person is being accorded). And, of course, the good pay that the person is now receiving would have an influence (albeit, only a moderate one) on receiving a feeling of achievement. True, the effect that one goal may have On another through moderators, a diluted effect if you will, will probably never be as strong as its direct effect (as in this example), but the point that Figure 2 makes is that these indirect influences, as well as the strong direct influences, can, and do, exist. 47 "Importance" vs. "Influence" The results in this study suggest that the subjects are distinguishing between importance and influence ratings. "Getting prestige on the job" provides an example Of this. Overall, "getting prestige" rated eighth out of ten goals in importance. Perhaps this is because it may not be parti- cularly socially desirable, as mentioned previously, to display the desire for prestige or status, even though they may indeed fgpl the desire. It is particularly noteworthy that the correlation between the importance ratings Of "getting prestige" and "receiving a feeling of achievement" was lower than any other correlation in the entire matrix: r = -.02 (See Appendix C). On the other hand, as can be shown in Table 1, "getting prestige" had the second highest overall influence rating (4.24) of all the occupational goals. Though it didn't exert any extraordinarily high degrees Of influence on individual goals, it still exerted a fairly strong influence on "receiving a feeling Of achievement" (5.97), which it was not correlated with in terms of importance. It is apparent here that the respondents are separating the concepts Of "importance" and "influence." Though the respondents may have rated the importance of "getting prestige" as relatively low based on social desirability factors, they were still able to say, appa— rently without contradiction, that "getting prestige," 48 which is something that is bestowed by others (extrinsic in nature), has a great deal Of influence on their other goals. Thus the students might rationalize that though prestige isn't as important to them as most Of the other goals, if it was "handed" to them, it would still have a large influence on their attaining other goals, i.e., good pay, a feeling of achievement, etc. Even if the relatively low importance rating of "getting prestige" was not based on social desirability factors, i.e., if the respondents really don't feel that getting prestige is as important to them as the other goals, it is still feasible for them to believe that, if they were provided with prestige, it might have an influence on their attainment of other occupational goals. Influenceabilitnyatings "Receiving a feeling Of achievement from the job" showed the greatest degree Of influenceability of all the occupational goals. This makes sense considering that if one reaches a goal they may have set in just about any endeavor, then a feeling of having achieved something would be present. Though the students felt that virtually all of the goals led to a feeling of achievement, they felt parti- cularly strongly that the Opportunity for advancement and doing challenging work would produce that sense of accom- plishment. Further, along the lines of reasoning used with the influence ratings, it appears by looking at Figure 2 49 that besides being directly influenced to a great extent by the opportunity for advancement, "a feeling Of achieve- ment" may also be indirectly influenced by "Opportunity for advancement" through a moderator, "challenging tasks," i.e., "advancement" has a strong influence on "getting challen- ging tasks" which in turn has a great influence on "re- ceiving a feeling Of achievement." Though "Opportunity for advancement," "getting prestige," and "getting challenging tasks" all have signi- ficantly less influenceability than "receiving a feeling Of achievement," they are not significantly different from each other. Figure 2, which looks at specific rather than general relationships, might be more appropriate to con— sider at this point. It shows that "getting challenging tasks" is influenced (above a 4.00 level) by four other occupational goals, more than each of the others, with the exception Of "achievement." "Having the Opportunity tO advance" has the highest degree of influence on "getting challenging tasks" which lends support tO the previously- mentioned assumption that the students feel that higher level jobs in organizations will contain more challenging tasks. While "Obtaining good relations with others," "opportunity to benefit society" and "performing a variety Of duties" each has some influence, particularly on a "feeling Of achievement," they don't appear to be suscep- tible to influence. Good relations and the Opportunity to 50 benefit society are goals that even "having the Opportunity to advance" can't provide access to. In other words, ad— vancing to higher levels in an organization won't assure good relations or the chance to make a societal contribu- tion. Getting along with others and contributing to society, being two "human relations" goals, were perhaps the only two occupational goals of the ten that one doesn't necessarily have more of as he/she advances to higher level jobs. In other words, human relations aspects are important in all levels Of jobs, thus "good relations" and the "oppor- tunity to benefit society" were not particularly influenced by the other occupational goals, in which high levels Of the concept (e.g., good pay, prestige, independence, etc.) typically are associated with higher level jobs. The lack Of influenceability Of a "variety of duties,’ especially by the "Opportunity for advancement," is surprising in light of the widely held belief of an asso— ciation of advancement to higher level jobs with more variety in those jobs. This confusing result is consistent, however, with the previously mentioned lack of correlation between "Opportunity for advancement" and "variety of duties" in this study (r = .095). Perhaps the students feel that it is not necessarily a variety Of tasks that they seek in their jobs, but rather that whatever tasks they dO have be challenging ones. This would also be consistent with the importance ratings of these two goals (See Table l). 51 Sex Differences in Influence and Influenceabilipy Ratings There does not seem to exist a solid, empirically based explanation for females giving higher influence and influenceability ratings than males. Some avenues for speculation do exist, however. First, there is a possibility that the females in the study felt that, compared tO men, women have been denied many of the occupational goals (e.g. Obtaining the opportu- nity for advancement, good pay, job security, etc.). So they may have been, consciously or unconsciously, trying to counteract this relative deprivation Of occupational goals by rating their influence and influenceability higher than males. A major drawback with this line Of reasoning, how- ever, is that if this "counteracting" was present for the influence and influenceability ratings, there's no reason why it shouldn't have been present for the importance ratings as well. It wasn't, as shown by the lack of signi- ficant overall sex differences. A second, and perhaps more applicable, explanation considers possible differences in cognitive structure that may have caused the sex differences in influence and influenceability ratings. People tend to order their cog- nitions in a variety of cognitive structures, each with its separate domain and subdomains (Phillips & Thompson, 1977). If two or more elements are in the same cognitive structure 52 (i.e., the same domain), there is a greater tendency to attribute causal connections between them than if they were in different cognitive structures. Traditionally, males have been socialized into thinking in terms of making choices between jobs (e.g., from "What are you going to be when you grow up?" as a child to "SO, what line Of business are you going into?" for college males enrolled in business courses). Thus, under the domain "career," men have been trained to make choices among careers--Career A, Career B, Career C, etc. Society has tended to present fewer Options for females, however. Females typically have not been Offered a choice between Career A, Career B, and Career C, but instead have chosen between a career" and "no career." SO for women, the subdomains Of "career" are typically "career-yes" and "career-no." Men, when considering what occupation they want after college might have a variety of occupations to con- sider, and each occupation will probably Offer different degrees Of the occupational goals. For example, Occupation A might Offer great Opportunities for advancement, good pay, excellent Opportunities for attaining good relations with others, and provide Opportunities for getting a feeling of independence on the job, but not really provide much Opportunity for reaching the other goals. Occupation B might Offer great Opportunities for attaining job security, prestige, and getting challenging tasks, yet not provide the 53 chance to attain the goals stressed in Occupation A. Occu- pation C might provide a great chance to benefit society, perform a variety of duties, and get a feeling of achieve- ment, but provide little Opportunity for the others. Males will consider each of these occupational cate- gories to be separate domains, each category containing some, but generally not all, of the occupational goals. They might then choose which occupational goals are most important to them, i.e., choose which domain they would place themselve into. (They would match themselves as closely as possible to one Of the domains, seeing where they would fit the best.) Because relatively few occupa- tions typically contain high degrees of all of the occupa- tional goals, the Opportunities for causal connections are more limited for males than for females. Females, instead of having Occupations A, B, and C, etc. and their associated goals as subdomains Of the "Occu- pation" domain, typically have been socialized into con- sidering "full-time," "part-time,‘ and "not working" as the subdomains of "Occupation." It is the "full-time" sub- domain of "Occupation" that would contain all of the occu- pational goals for females. Thus, because they are all included in the same subdomain (unlike the males), the Opportunities for causal connections (i.e., influence and influenceability ratings) are greater. Even though the women in this study were predomi- nantly business majors who would probably be closer than 54 most females to the stage where they would make choices between careers as opposed to a choice between having and not having a career, it appears that the prior socialization effects were still sufficiently strong to cause sex differences. Research to test this hypothesis may be warranted. USE OF THE CROSS-SUPPORT METHODOLOGY FOR INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS The possibility exists that the measuring instru- ment used in this research, besides being used for aggregate analysis, might also be utilized at individual levels of analysis, i.e., possibly serve as a goal clarification tool. Other instruments have attempted to measure impor- tance ratings Of occupational goals (e.g., Rosenberg, 1957), but none of them has attempted to examine career paths in organizations in terms Of how the occupational goals might influence each other. With the importance ratings of the occupational goals considered along with influence and influenceability ratings, it is conceivable that tentative career plans might be charted for individuals. The first step in such an endeavor would be to determine which occupational goals the individual sees as most important. A person's desire for reaching these particular goals (measured by the importance ratings of the goals) should be fitted as closely as possible to the per- ceived opportunities to reach these goals in various occu- pations. This is something that would be particularly important prior to entry into an organization--e.g., career 55 56 counseling at the high school and college levels. For example, if a person feels that getting prestige is ex- tremely important to them, they would most likely want to avoid a career as a garbage collector (sanitation engineer), even though this job may Offer challenge, good pay, etc. A college student who feels that performing a variety Of duties and attaining good relations with others are most important might think twice before accepting a job which almost exclusively requires feeding data to a computer, despite the great opportunities for advancement that may exist. Goal clarification can be aided by the determina— tion Of the influence patterns fOr an individual's occupa- tional goals. There are at least two ways in which the influence ratings might be used. First, an entire matrix Of goals for an individual, similar to the one in Table 1, including importance, influence, and influenceability ratings can be filled in based on the Occupational Goals Questionnaire (Appendix A). Secondly, a Goal Influence Chart (Figure 2) at an individual level can be derived from the Cross-Support Matrix. Either way, by knowing the perceived strength as well as the direction Of influence, along with knowing the importance Of these goals, this person might be helped to see where he/she stands now in relation to those occupational goals, where he/she wants tO be in the future and, perhaps with some guidance, the best way to get there. 57 It is particularly important that organizational realities be made as explicit as possible to individuals, i.e., they should be given a realistic assessment of the possibilities of reaching their occupational goals and of their perceptions Of "how to get there" (as shown by their goal-influence chart). This might be done by comparing their chart with a chart representing "organizational realities"--realities regarding possible and probable goal-influence paths in the organization. Information of this nature might be Obtained from either perceptions of individuals within the organization about influence paths, and/or an influence path analysis of careers of people successful in the organization. This information might be provided in a formal setting (e.g., in a job interview at the pre-entry stage, or in a career-path planning program after organizational entry) or an informal setting (e.g., talking to "veterans" of the organization, etc.). It is perhaps unrealistic to think that all of these students who, by way Of questionnaire, indicated what they are looking for in their work careers, will find what they want at first. It's not probable that they will get this "perfect" job initially. Furthermore, it may be a misconception to believe that, once in an organization, the perceived importance Of goals and perceptions Of work life (i.e., how one goal affects others in an organization) won't change from what one perceived while still a business student in college. However, this researcher believes that 58 the use of this methodology can still be fruitful, not only for college students to, perhaps, aid them in choosing their first "real" job through clarification Of their occupational goals, but also for persons already employed in the "real world," to determine whether their occupational goal "structure" meshes with the Opportunities for goal realization on their present job. IMP LI CAT I ONS FOR EMPLOYERS Potential employers Of college graduates, particu- larly of those graduates with a business background, would do well tO keep the results of this study in mind when con- sidering the recruiting efforts, orientation and socializae tion processes, and reward and career-planning systems Of their organizations. Recruitment efforts might stress Opportunities for personal achievement and advancement rather than assuming that a well-paying job is first in the minds Of college graduates. Organizations might institute programs to make their managers aware Of the values and occupational goals of students so that the transition from student tO employee is an easier one to make. Training programs in this area might make the new employees' organizational orientation and socialization processes less costly and more beneficial for both the new employee and the organization. Instead of just "being aware" Of the new employees' occupational values but still having them adjust to "the way things are around here,‘ perhaps a mutual adjustment can take place-- the organization can "adjust" to the new employees' goals as well--by providing jobs that allow them, from the start, 59 60 Opportunities tO achieve personal goals. This may even entail the altering of certain jobs and work settings in such a manner that these goals can be realized. Finally, organizations might utilize both the overall Goal Influence Chart (Figure 2), which takes into account the perceptions of business-oriented students, and the individual influence charts for employees. Knowing how these goals influence each other for students concen- trating in business might aid in the determination of improved reward, evaluation, and other systems for the organization. Furthermore, knowing the perceived impor- tance ratings and influence patterns for individual employees would certainly facilitate mapping out a reali- stic, albeit tentative, career path plan for the employee. Perhaps the most important benefit Of all would be the employees' awareness that the organization cares enough to consider all of these factors. This awareness would help to foster their trust in the organization-— something that is at a low level in quite a few organiza— tions at this point in time. APPENDICES APPENDIX A OCCUPATIONAL GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A OCCUPATIONAL GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I Importance Of Goals The ten values listed below could be considered to be occupational values or work goals. These are attributes or qualities that we consider to be desirable in our work careers, i.e., they are career goals. Indicate how impor- tant you feel each Of these goals is for you personally. Use the 10-point rating scale listed next to each goal for recording your personal judgment. For example, if a parti- cular goal is "very important" to you, circle the number "9" next to the goal. Conversely, if you feel a particular goal is "very unimportant" to you, circle the number "0." Very Unimportant Very important to you personally to you personally 1. receiving a feeling Of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 achievement from the job 2. getting challenging tasks 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 on the job 3. receiving good pay 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. attaining good relations 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 with others on the job 5. getting a feeling Of indepen- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dence on the job 6. attaining job security 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7. performing a variety Of duties 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. Obtaining the Opportunity for 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7.8 9 advancement 9. Obtaining the Opportunity to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 benefit society through your work 10.getting prestige on the job 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 61 62 Are there any other occupational values that you feel are particularly important to your career? If yes, describe. Influence of Goals Instructions Listed on the next few pages are the career goals that you dealt with on the previous page. In this section Of the booklet, I am interested in your perceptions Of the degree to which these career goals influence each other. In other words, how does the achievement of one career goal contribute to the achievement Of another career goal? TO aid you in determining this, I ask that you use the following scale: strongly has strongly interferes with no effect facilitates -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 Examples: 1) Suppose you have attained job security, and you feel that it brings you a bit closer to attaining good relations with others on the job. Then you might put down the following: having job security 3 : attaining good relations with others on the job 2) Suppose you have attained good relations with others on the job, but you feel that it has no effect on attaining job security. Then you might put down the following: having good relations with others on the job 0 > attaining job security 3) Suppose you have a variety Of duties on the job, and you feel that it strongly interferes with getting prestige on the job. Then you might put down the following: having a variety Of duties -9 getting prestige on the job '—‘€> 63 64 having a feeling of achievement ——€> having challenging tasks on the job llllll ll llllll ill getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety Of duties Obtaining the oppor- tunity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu— nity to benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job receiving a feeling of achievement receiving good pay .attaining gOOd rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety of duties Obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity tO benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job having good pay having good relations with others on the job 65 llllll lll l llllllll receiving a feeling Of achievement getting challenging tasks attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety of duties Obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity to benefiILSOOiety. through your work getting prestige on the job receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety Of duties obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement obtaining the opportu- nity to benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job having a feeling Of independence having job security 66 lllll llll lllll llll receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job attaining job security getting a variety Of duties Obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity to benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others On the job getting a feeling of independence getting a variety of duties obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity tO benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job having a variety Of duties having the Opportunity for advancement 67 lllllllll llltlllll receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security Obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity to benefit society through your work getting prestige on the job receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety of duties - Obtaining the Opportu— nity to benefitsociety through your work getting prestige on the job 68 having the Opportunity to benefit society through your work receiving a feeling of achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling of independence attaining job security getting a variety of duties obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement getting prestige on the job hav1ng prestige on the 30b receiving a feeling 0f achievement getting challenging tasks receiving good pay attaining good rela- tions with others on the job getting a feeling Of independence attaining job security getting a variety of duties Obtaining the Opportu- nity for advancement Obtaining the Opportu- nity tO benefitsociety through your work lllll ll/ll lllll llll 69 (OPTIONAL) MAJOR AGE SEX RACE: Caucasian Black Asian Mexican-American or American Indian Other RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND: RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE: AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS SERVICES: Protestant Catholic Jewish Other (specify: None Protestant Catholic Jewish Other (specify: None Never Less than once/year About once/year About once/3 months About once/month About twice/month About once/week Twice/week or more 70 APPROXIMATE YEARLY FAMILY INCOME: Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $24,999 Over $25,000 PARENT'S EDUCATION: FATHER MOTHER Less than 4 years of High school graduate Some college College graduate Post-graduate high school APPENDIX B CROSS-SUPPORT ANALYSES APPENDIX B CROSS-SUPPORT ANALYSES The following steps are incorporated in the cross- support analysis (Cetron and Connor, 1972, pp. 6-11). The specific applications to the present study are in paren- theses. Step 1. The major (occupational) goals are listed. The goals are then weighted (by the subjects on a lO-point scale) based on their importance. Step 2. The goals are transcribed on the left- hand margin Of the matrix (See Table 1). Step 3. The goals and their associated weights are also transcribed across the tOp of the matrix. This completes the basic structure of the goal-to-goal cross- support matrix. Step 4. Having developed the goal-to-goal cross- support matrix, the next step in the methodology is to determine the degree to which goals influence each other, that is, how does the achievement Of one goal contribute to the achievement of all other goals. This is done by con- sidering the effect one goal has on each of the others, separately, and then summing these separate contributions 71 72 to Obtain a total. The "contribution" that one goal may have on another can be either beneficial (positive) or detrimental (negative) (See Figures 1 and 2). In looking at Figure l, we have, mathematically, the value (G) for each of n goals (g), which can be given by: n 2 where the aij are the assigned contributions of gi to gj (+9 through 0 through -9). This means that for each goal (gi) there is an associated number (Gi) which indicates the degree to which that goal affects the others. The assigned contributions are then placed in the upper-half of the bisected matrix cells. The assigned contribution Of gi to gj is then multiplied for the weighted ratings by the weight Of gj in order to Obtain the weighted contribution which gi has on gj in that particular intersecting matrix cell. (This multiplicative procedure was not carried out on the unweighted ratings.) The resulting product (contri- buting weight) is then inserted in the lower half of the matrix cell. It is, of course, essential that the proce— dure be completed in precisely the same manner for Ob- taining each goal-to-goal contributing weight in the cross- support matrix. Step 5. When the lower part Of all cells is com- plete, sum horizontally (and/or vertically, depending on 73 whether the influence ratings of the goals or the influence- ability ratings Of the goals are desired) and place the total in the column (or row) headed Total Cross-Support. Based on the above methodology, four primary Objec- tives were to be Obtained from the cross-support analysis in this study: first, the mean influence rating for each goal (Obtained by horizontally summing influence ratings across goals for each subject, obtaining the mean of those ratings, then Obtaining the mean of the means across all subjects); second, the same procedure except by vertically summing the influenceability ratings across goals for each subject; third, the weighted influence ratings (Obtained by multiplying the influence ratings in each cell for each subject by the importance rating for that goal, summing horizontally across goals, and Obtaining the mean of sums across subjects); and fourth, the same procedure except by vertically summing across goals in order to Obtain weighted influenceability ratings. Thus, we were presented with an unweighted and weighted "influence" rating, as well as an unweighted and weighted "influenceability" rating for each occupational goal. APPENDIX C INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR IMPORTANCE RATINGS OF OCCUPATIONAL GOALS 74 vma. mmv. aha. mom. mvo. ona. mvm. omo. mmo.| mmaummum mumaoom vma. mmo. mam. nmm. mam. mmo. mmm. oma. uawmcmm on apacsuuommo ucmfiwocm>p¢ mmo. vow. Ohm. vna. mwm. oom. ovo. How wuacduuommo vma. mom. boa. moo. mOm. mmm. mmausa mo >uwaum> mav. amm. omv. voa. baa. xuausomm non aaa. oma. mmm. wma. mocmpcmmmpca mumau0\z mam. vow. moa. mGOHHMaOm OOOO mam. maa. mam @000 How. mmcmaamgo pawsw>mano¢ mmau muwaoom .wocm>p¢ mmauso mpauso mocmp mumnu0\2 ham magma ucwfi Immnm .cmm on you mo now now Icmmmch mcoauMal poow Iamcu Im>ma£0¢ .Mommo .Hommo >umauw> OH @000 muéow A