What Matters in a Job? A Multi-Level Study of Job Preference Orientations and the Intrinsic Quality of Work in 25 Societies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Argument
2.1. Job Preference Orientations and the Intrinsic Quality of Work
2.2. Comparative Frameworks: VoC and PRT
3. Hypotheses
4. Data
5. Methods
6. Variables
6.1. Dependent Variable
6.2. Independent Variables at the Individual Level
6.3. Independent Variables at the Country Level
7. Results
7.1. Country Differences
7.2. Individual-Level Regression Results
7.3. Country-Level Regression Results
8. Discussion and Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Job Preferences | Factor Loadings | ||
---|---|---|---|
Social Orientation | Intrinsic Orientation | Extrinsic Orientation | |
High income | −0.19 | −0.02 | 0.78 |
Advancement opportunities | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.51 |
Job security | 0.10 | −0.08 | 0.43 |
Work independently | −0.10 | 0.92 | −0.12 |
Interesting job | 0.11 | 0.42 | 0.08 |
Decide hours/days of work | 0.03 | 0.41 | 0.02 |
Useful to society | 0.85 | −0.06 | 0.00 |
Help others | 0.80 | 0.07 | −0.07 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.80 | 0.58 | 0.57 |
Observations | Mean | Standard Deviation | Range | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||||
Job preference orientation score | 18,390 | −0.10 | 0.75 | 8 (−4 to 4) |
Individual-level independent variables | ||||
Woman | 18,957 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1 (0–1) |
Age | 18,898 | 43.59 | 12.40 | 69 (17–86) |
Education | 18,697 | 13.69 | 3.61 | 58 (0–58) |
Part-time | 18,062 | 0.11 | 0.31 | 1 (0–1) |
Self-employed | 18,644 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 1 (0–1) |
Supervising | 18,529 | 0.27 | 0.44 | 1 (0–1) |
Union membership | 18,566 | 0.26 | 0.44 | 1 (0–1) |
Skill specificity | 17,791 | 1.17 | 0.68 | 3.63 (0.48–4.11) |
Income | 18,318 | 2.82 | 1.09 | 4 (1–5) |
Job security | 18,255 | 3.78 | 1.11 | 4 (1–5) |
Job quality | 17,977 | 2.63 | 1.29 | 4 (0–4) |
Country-level independent variables | ||||
Job quality | 18,957 | 2.61 | 0.51 | 1.62 (1.74–3.35) |
Median tenure | 18,957 | 6.70 | 1.47 | 5 (5–10) |
Skill specificity 2 | 18,957 | 1.19 | 0.12 | 0.46 (1.01–1.47) |
Union density | 18,957 | 26.02 | 19.68 | 64.1 (4.5–68.6) |
Bargaining coverage | 18,957 | 48.09 | 31.54 | 92.9 (5.6–98.5) |
Country | N | Job Preference Orientation | Job Quality (0–4) | Median Tenure (years) | Skill Specificity (0.48–2.97) | Bargaining Coverage (%) | Union Density (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austria | 594 | −0.06 | 2.91 | 7 | 1.10 | 98.00 | 27.40 |
Belgium | 989 | 0.10 | 2.85 | 8 | 1.10 | 96.00 | 54.20 |
Croatia | 221 | −0.48 | 2.08 | 8 | 1.17 | 48.20 | 26.70 |
Czechia | 670 | −0.11 | 2.54 | 6 | 1.29 | 46.30 | 12.00 |
Denmark | 543 | 0.44 | 3.31 | 6 | 1.01 | 84.00 | 68.60 |
Estonia | 611 | −0.15 | 2.38 | 6 | 1.33 | 18.60 | 4.50 |
Finland | 528 | 0.32 | 3.15 | 10 | 1.17 | 89.30 | 66.50 |
France | 538 | −0.11 | 2.77 | 8 | 1.10 | 98.50 | 7.90 |
Germany | 780 | 0.11 | 3.18 | 8 | 1.16 | 56.80 | 17.60 |
Hungary | 515 | −0.46 | 1.95 | 6 | 1.34 | 22.80 | 9.40 |
Israel | 514 | −0.18 | 2.61 | 6 | 1.06 | 26.10 | 25.00 |
Japan | 667 | −0.29 | 1.81 | 10 | 1.08 | 16.80 | 17.40 |
Latvia | 524 | −0.08 | 2.36 | 5 | 1.36 | 14.80 | 12.60 |
Lithuania | 437 | −0.28 | 2.31 | 6 | 1.33 | 7.10 | 7.90 |
Norway | 718 | 0.21 | 3.11 | 6 | 1.09 | 67.00 | 52.50 |
Poland | 695 | −0.30 | 1.80 | 5 | 1.47 | 17.20 | 12.10 |
Russia | 637 | −0.44 | 1.76 | 6 | 1.27 | 22.80 | 30.50 |
Slovakia | 459 | −0.20 | 2.41 | 6 | 1.24 | 24.40 | 11.20 |
Slovenia | 442 | 0.05 | 2.92 | 10 | 1.31 | 67.50 | 25.10 |
Spain | 760 | −0.14 | 2.54 | 7 | 1.35 | 76.90 | 13.90 |
Sweden | 600 | 0.25 | 3.19 | 6 | 1.05 | 90.00 | 67.00 |
Switzerland | 693 | 0.26 | 3.35 | 6 | 1.08 | 49.20 | 15.70 |
Turkey | 375 | −0.33 | 1.74 | 5 | 1.23 | 5.60 | 8.00 |
United Kingdom | 806 | −0.18 | 2.87 | 6 | 1.12 | 27.90 | 24.70 |
United States | 847 | −0.40 | 3.00 | 5 | 1.18 | 11.80 | 10.60 |
References
- Esser, I.; Lindh, A. Job preferences in comparative perspective 19892–015: A multidimensional evaluation of individual and contextual influences. Int. J. Sociol. 2018, 48, 142–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gesthuizen, M.; Verbakel, E. Job preferences in Europe: Tests for scale invariance and examining cross-national variation using EVS. Eur. Soc. 2011, 13, 663–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldthorpe, J.H.; Lockwood, D.; Bechhofer, F.; Platt, J. The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behaviour; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Mackinnon, M.H. Work instrumentalism reconsidered: A replication of Goldthorpe’s Luton project. Br. J. Sociol. 1980, 31, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berglund, T. Work orientations in Western Europe and the United States. In Commitment to Work and Job Satisfaction: Studies of Work Orientations; Furåker, B., Håkansson, K., Karlsson, J.C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 47–66. [Google Scholar]
- De Witte, H.; Halman, L.; Gelissen, J. European work orientations at the end of the Twentieth Century. In European Values at the Turn of the Millennium; Arts, W., Halman, L., Eds.; BRILL: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 255–279. [Google Scholar]
- Ester, P.; Mohler, P.; Vinken, H. Eroding work values? In Globalization, Value Change, and Generations. A Cross-National and Intergenerational Perspective; Ester, P., Braun, M., Mohler, P., Eds.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 89–113. [Google Scholar]
- Kalleberg, A.L.; Marsden, P.V. Changing work values in the United States, 1973–2006. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013, 42, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalleberg, A.L.; Stark, D. Career strategies in capitalism and socialism: Work values and job rewards in the United States and Hungary. Soc. Forces 1993, 72, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parboteeah, K.P.; Cullen, J.B.; Paik, Y. National differences in intrinsic and extrinsic work values: The effects of post-industrialization. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 2013, 13, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halaby, C.N. Where job values come from: Family and schooling background, cognitive ability, and gender. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 68, 251–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, M. Gender, Work orientations and job satisfaction. Work Employ. Soc. 2015, 29, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallie, D. Welfare regimes, employment systems and job preference orientations. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2007, 23, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalleberg, A.L. Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1977, 42, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalleberg, A.L. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, A.E. Your money or your life: Changing job quality in OECD countries. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2005, 43, 377–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallie, D.; Felstead, A.; Green, F. Job preferences and the intrinsic quality of work: The changing attitudes of British employees 19922–006. Work Employ. Soc. 2012, 26, 806–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallie, D. Direct participation and the quality of work. Hum. Relat. 2013, 66, 453–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, T.J. Sociology, Work and Industry; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mortimer, J.T.; Lorence, J. Work experience and occupational value socialization: A longitudinal study. Am. J. Sociol. 1979, 84, 1361–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.K. Job values in the young adult transition: Change and stability with age. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2001, 64, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.K. Change in job values during the transition to adulthood. Work Occup. 2001, 28, 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyris, C. Integrating the Individual and the Organization; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.K.; Amber Sage, R.; Mortimer, J.T. Work values, early career difficulties, and the U.S. economic recession. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2012, 75, 242–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, M.K.; Mortimer, J.T. Reinforcement or compensation? The effects of parents’ work and financial conditions on adolescents’ work values during the Great Recession. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015, 87, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esser, I.; Olsen, K.M. Perceived job quality: Autonomy and job security within a multi-level framework. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2012, 28, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edlund, J.; Grönlund, A. Class and work autonomy in 21 countries. A question of production regime or power resources? Acta Sociol. 2010, 53, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallie, D. Production regimes and the quality of employment in Europe. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007, 33, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage; Hall, P.A., Soskice, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 21–27. [Google Scholar]
- Kalleberg, A.L. Precarious Lives: Job Insecurity and Well-Being in Rich Democracies; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Korpi, W. Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: Protagonists, consenters, and antagonists. World Polit. 2006, 58, 167–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalleberg, A.L.; Nesheim, T.; Olsen, K.M. Is participation good or bad for workers? Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway. Acta Sociol. 2009, 52, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallie, D. Task discretion and job quality. In Employment Regimes and Quality of Work; Gallie, D., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 105–136. [Google Scholar]
- Gallie, D. Production Regimes, Employee Job Control and Skill Development. Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, 2011. Available online: http://www.llakes.ac.uk/sites/default/files/31.%20Gallie.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2020).
- ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV—ISSP 2015, ZA6770 Data File Version 2.1.0. GESIS Data Archive: Cologne 2017. Available online: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12848 (accessed on 24 January 2020).
- Jutz, R.; Scholz, E.; Braun, M.; Hadler, M. The ISSP 2015 Work Orientations IV module. Int. J. Sociol. 2018, 48, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Finch, W.H.; Bolin, J.E.; Kelley, K. Multilevel Modeling Using R; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hox, J.J. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, M.L.; Jenkins, S.P. Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2016, 32, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stegmueller, D. How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Am. J. Political Sci. 2013, 57, 748–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Enders, C.K.; Tofighi, D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A New Look at an Old Issue. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelman, A. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat. Med. 2008, 28, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rammstedt, B.; Beierlein, C. Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. J. Individ. Differ. 2014, 35, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallie, D. The quality of working life: Is Scandinavia different? Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 19, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iversen, T.; Soskice, D. An asset theory of social policy preferences. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2001, 95, 875–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cusack, T.; Iversen, T.; Rehm, P. Risks at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2006, 22, 365–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estevez-Abe, M.; Iversen, T.; Soskice, D. Social protection and the formation of skills: A reinterpretation of the welfare state. In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage; Hall, P.A., Soskice, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 145–183. [Google Scholar]
- Culpepper, P.D. Small states and skill specificity. Austria, Switzerland, and interemployer cleavages in coordinated capitalism. Comp. Political Stud. 2007, 40, 611–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurofound. European Working Conditions Survey Integrated Data File, 1991–2015, [Data Collection], 7th ed.; UK Data Service: Colchester, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, T.W.; Davern, M.; Freese, J.; Morgan, S.L. General Social Surveys, 1972–2018, [Machine-Readable Data File]; NORC: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- JGSS Research Center Osaka University of Commerce. Japanese General Social Survey 2012 (JGSS 2012), ZA6427 Data File Version 2.0.0; GESIS Data Archive: Cologne, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESS. ESS Round 5: European Social Survey Round 5 Data, Data File Edition 3.4. NSD—Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC 2010. Available online: https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS5-2010 (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- The Role of Unions in the Twenty-First Century: A Report for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti; Boeri, T.; Brugiavini, A.; Calmfors, L. (Eds.) Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Labour Organization. ILOSTAT Database; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Twenge, J.M. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | Job preference orientations have also been examined according to the terms “job preferences” [1,2], “work orientations” [3,4,5,6] and “work values” [7,8,9]. In this paper, these four terms are used interchangeably, but the term “job preference orientations” is predominantly used. While these different concepts are sometimes associated with slightly different definitions, they all essentially refer to the same phenomena, i.e., to the characteristics of jobs that workers find important and desirable [5,6,8,10]. |
2 | |
3 | With cross-sectional data, it is not possible to determine the causal ordering of job preferences and job characteristics. While there is a possibility that the relationship can be affected by self-selection, the study follows previous research and assumes that workers’ ability to choose and shape their jobs is more limited than the effects that jobs have on them [8,13,20]. |
4 | These countries were: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the US. |
5 | See Table A1 in the Appendix A. |
6 | Cronbach alpha values below the 0.7 cut-off point are frequently reported for scales with only a few items and do not always properly reflect the internal reliability of such short scales. See Rammstedt and Beierlein [43] (p. 214). |
7 | The survey also included two items measuring the importance of the social dimension of job preferences (the items “useful to society” and “help others”), which were interpreted in some previous studies as indicators of intrinsic orientations [1,10]. However, if intrinsic orientation is understood in terms of the valuation of continuous personal development [7] and the use of one’s abilities [13], it is clear that the items fail to reflect the individualistic aspect of self-realization implied by the concept. |
8 | The measure of relative skill specificity of an occupation is mathematically defined as s/(s + g), where “s” represents a measure of specific skills and “g” is a measure of general skills. Following the approach of Soskice and Iversen [45], Cusack et al. [46] derived the measure from information relating to the level and specialization of skills contained in the ISCO-88 classification of occupations. Firstly, an absolute average skill specificity of an occupation (corresponding to the numerator “s”) is calculated, as a share of unit groups in the higher-level occupational class to which the occupation belongs, and divided by the share of the labor force in that class [46] (p. 371). The value is high when there is a disproportionately high share of unit groups in the occupational class and a low share of the labor force employed in that class. Secondly, in order to transform this absolute measure into a relative index, it is divided by a measure of occupational skill level, a proxy for the total level of skills of an occupation “(s + g)”. ISCO-88 distinguishes four such skill levels, which are defined for all major occupational classes. Values of the resulting relative skill specificity index are high when an individual is in a very specialized occupation, but her level of skills is relatively low. Values are low when the occupation is not particularly specialized, while the level of skills is high [46] (p. 371). |
9 | See Table A2 in Appendix A for descriptive statistics of all individual-level variables. |
10 | Rather than being two categories of a dichotomous schema, CMEs and LMEs are ideal types constituting a continuum along which all national capitalist systems can be arranged [29]. The skill variation expected by VoC is therefore captured by continuous, and not by categorical, variables. |
11 | |
12 | Descriptive statistics for all country-level characteristics can be found in Table A3 in the Appendix A. |
Predictors | A1 | A2 |
---|---|---|
Estimates | Estimates | |
Woman | 0.04 *** | |
Age | 0.13 *** | |
Education | 0.12 *** | |
Part-time | 0.07 *** | |
Self-employed | 0.20 *** | |
Supervising | −0.07 *** | |
Union membership | −0.05 *** | |
Skill specificity | −0.02 | |
Income | −0.02 | |
Job security | −0.05 *** | |
Job quality | 0.26 *** | |
Random Effects Variances | ||
Individual level | 0.50 | 0.46 |
Country level | 0.07 | 0.07 |
ICC | 0.12 | 0.13 |
N | 25 | 25 |
Observations | 15,163 | 15,163 |
Deviance | 32,520.074 | 31,270.034 |
Predictors | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimates | Estimates | Estimates | Estimates | Estimates | |
Job quality | 0.29 *** | ||||
Median tenure | 0.09 | ||||
Skill specificity | −0.19 * | ||||
Bargaining coverage | 0.27 *** | ||||
Union density | 0.30 *** | ||||
Random Effects Variances | |||||
Individual level | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
Country level | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
ICC | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
N | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Observations | 15,163 | 15,163 | 15,163 | 15,163 | 15,163 |
Deviance | 31,262.972 | 31,278.863 | 31,274.508 | 31,266.574 | 31,262.218 |
Predictors | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimates | Estimates | Estimates | Estimates | |
Skill specificity | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.06 | |
Union density | 0.28 *** | 0.20 ** | 0.22 *** | |
Job quality | 0.27 *** | 0.18 ** | 0.21 ** | |
Random Effects Variances | ||||
Individual level | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.46 |
Country level | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
ICC | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
N | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Observations | 15,163 | 15,163 | 15,163 | 15,163 |
Deviance | 31,262.177 | 31,262.970 | 31,253.230 | 31,252.460 |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kozák, M. What Matters in a Job? A Multi-Level Study of Job Preference Orientations and the Intrinsic Quality of Work in 25 Societies. Societies 2020, 10, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030062
Kozák M. What Matters in a Job? A Multi-Level Study of Job Preference Orientations and the Intrinsic Quality of Work in 25 Societies. Societies. 2020; 10(3):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030062
Chicago/Turabian StyleKozák, Michal. 2020. "What Matters in a Job? A Multi-Level Study of Job Preference Orientations and the Intrinsic Quality of Work in 25 Societies" Societies 10, no. 3: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030062