Exploring Extrinsic and Intrinsic Work Values of British Ethnic Minorities: The Roles of Demographic Background, Job Characteristics and Immigrant Generation

Abstract

Despite the increasingly diverse ethnic composition of the British labor force, there is no research investigating whether ethnic minorities have different work values from the White British demographic (White British). Using nationally representative data (2012–2013), this article fills this gap by comparing extrinsic and intrinsic work values between White British and five ethnic minorities, while distinguishing between first and second generations. The results show that both first- and second- generation minorities have stronger extrinsic work values than White British, but the ethnic differences are more pronounced for the second generations. Compared to White British, while first-generation minorities have weaker intrinsic work values, the second generations have stronger intrinsic work values. Differences in extrinsic work values are partly explained by differences in age, education and income, while differences in intrinsic work values are largely explained by age, education and job autonomy. These results hold significant implications for understanding the career choices of ethnic minorities and labor market outcomes.

1. Introduction

Work values reflect the degree of importance employees attach to various job characteristics such as income, promotion opportunities and self-fulfillment (Gallie et al. 2012; Kalleberg and Marsden 2013). Research shows that employees whose working conditions do not fit with their work values tend toward higher turnover rates and lower job satisfaction (Brown et al. 2012; Zou 2015). In contrast, if employee work values are consistent with their job rewards, they often exhibit stronger work motivation, organizational commitment and lower turnover rates (Brown et al. 2012; Frieze et al. 2006). Moreover, work values are also shown to influence people’s career choices and their willingness to invest in work roles (Frieze et al. 2006; Johnson and Monserud 2010). Given their close connection to occupational selection and job satisfaction, work values have been a subject of considerable interest to social psychologists and sociologists of work (Johnson and Mortimer 2011; Lindsay and Knox 1984). It is also a significant area of concern for career counselors and employers wishing to promote employee career development and improve their motivation and work commitments (Damayanti et al. 2019).

An understanding of the work values of new generations of employees can portend important future transformations in a society’s corporate culture (Judge and Bretz 1992) and ethics (Dose 2011). More generally, existing research on long-term work value transformations in advanced capitalist societies has tended to focus on the effects of generational membership and major macroeconomic transitions (e.g., economic recessions) on the work values of societies (Jin and Rounds 2012; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004; Smola and Sutton 2002). By contrast, the impact of immigration flows on societal work values has been largely overlooked in this literature. This is an unfortunate gap, considering that most European societies have seen a steady rise in immigration flows over the last 70 years and have experienced considerable political and cultural changes as a result. Particularly in former colonial countries, steady postcolonial immigration flows have contributed to historically unprecedented levels of ethnic and religious diversity (Crul 2016).

From a sociological standpoint, the study of migrant minority work values is important for two main reasons. First, social mixing between migrant minorities and host country domestic populations may in itself act as an independent source of work value changes in society as a whole. This happens because host country ‘mainstream’ cultures tend to absorb elements of migrant minority cultures and values (Alba 2005). Second, multi-generational studies of work-value changes within a migrant (or an ethnic) minority group can yield important insights regarding the group’s economic and cultural integration process (Cf. Berry et al. 2002, chp. 3 and 14). This second aspect forms the present article’s principal contribution.

Occupational insertion is a key focus area of migrant integration policies and migrant integration research more generally (Gońda et al. 2020). Migrant work values can affect their capacity to obtain, retain and excel in their jobs. Migrants facing employment opportunities and working conditions that do not harmonize with their work values may feel demotivated and experience socio-cultural and psychological adaptation problems (Berry 1997; Taylor et al. 2020). From an integration policy standpoint, therefore, it becomes important to understand how migrant work values vary over time and how they are shaped by migrant cultural characteristics and social circumstances.

As pointed out, despite substantial research on work values, only a few studies from Canada and the US (Bauder 2006; Kashefi 2011; Ng and Sears 2010) have explored the association between work values and ethnic minorities. So far, there is no research exploring ethnic differences in work values in Britain, despite the share of ethnic minorities in the labor force rising from 2.1% in the 1950s to 14% in 2011 (Office for National Statistics 2011). Given the increasingly diverse ethnic composition of the British labor force and the ageing of the country’s White British population, it is increasingly important for both integration policymakers and employers to understand patterns of ethnic minority work values and determine if and how they differ from those of the White British employee population. This could help inform policy interventions and HR management practices aimed at better accommodating the different cultural backgrounds and preferences within the workplace of minorities.

As is the case with the values of entire populations (Hauff and Kirchner 2015), the ethnic work values of minorities may exhibit considerable group-level variations. Studies show that the work values of individuals change during the life course and are shaped by individual-level economic and demographic characteristics, including age, gender and socioeconomic status (Smola and Sutton 2002; Johnson et al. 2012). The more diverse an ethnic group is on these dimensions, the more heterogeneity one can expect in the values held by ethnic minority members. An important point of interest for migrant integration research are the changes in values that occur between the first and second generation of migrants within a society (Gordon 1964; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine 2015; Heath and Demireva 2014). Researchers and policymakers looking to understand the implications of growing ethnic minority participation in the labour market should not only consider work value differences between minority and majority populations, but also the changing patterns of values across different migration generations within each minority group.

Accordingly, this article contributes to the literature on work values by examining the relationship between ethnicity, migration generation and work values. The article’s analytical focus stands out in that it aims to bridge the literature on work value with that on migrant integration. Scholarship on migrant integration has traditionally been concerned with analyzing processes of cultural and economic convergence/divergence between the minority and majority ethnic populations of countries, over time (Gordon 1964; Alba 2008; Drouhot and Nee 2019). Consistent with this focus, the present article analyses patterns of work value convergence/divergence between ethnic minority and majority populations in Britain.

In more concrete terms, this article compares the work values of the White British population in Britain to those of the five biggest ethnic minority groups in the country. The comparison is guided by two principal questions. First, are differences in work values between British ethnic minorities and the majority White British population primarily derived from cultural (or ethnocultural) differences, or are they instead driven by differences in socio-demographic and job characteristics? Second, compared to first-generation ethnic minority migrants, do British-born ethnic minorities develop work value patterns that are more similar to those of the White British majority?

The first question speaks to the broader social-scientific debate on the origin of values (Hitlin and Piliavin 2004), and the relative impact of cultural versus socioeconomic (or “structural”) factors on migrant identities and values (see for example, Voas and Fleischmann 2012; Diehl et al. 2016). When it comes to work values, multiple studies have demonstrated the significant impact of education, social status and occupational attainment on the work values of individuals (Warr 2008; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004; Hauff and Kirchner 2015). On the other hand, there is also empirical scholarship showing that people’s work values are shaped by more fundamental cultural values within their countries—for example, individualist and collectivist cultural values (Kaasa 2011; Hauff and Kirchner 2015). No study to date has focused on the determinants of work values among migrant-origin populations.

The specific focus of this article is what accounts for differences in work values between the minority and majority ethnic groups in Britain. Focusing on minority-majority differences is particularly important given recent political contestations surrounding the relationship between migrant putative ‘cultural’ values and their objective economic living conditions. Right-wing populist movements in Europe have consistently opposed contemporary immigration flows into Europe with claims that value differences between ethnic minority migrants and European white-majority populations are immutable and irreconcilable (Butcher and Neidhardt 2020). Given this backdrop, it is instructive to explore the extent of differences in work values between majority and minority populations in Britain, and examine how much of these are actually down to economic and other forms of structural disparities between these groups, as opposed to ethnocultural factors.

The second research question, focusing on intergenerational value changes, aims to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between work values and migrant integration and socialization experiences. More specifically, it is concerned with identifying whether intergenerational changes in ethnic minority work values signal a convergence towards—or a divergence away from—the work values of the broader White British population. In practical terms, the article examines whether work value differences between the White British majority and each of the five ethnic minority groups considered in the empirical analysis varies as a function of the migration generation of minority respondents.

Previous studies of migrant integration in the UK have shown that the migration generation of minority groups is an important predictor of behavioral and attitudinal differences within ethnic minority groups (Heath et al. 2013; Wang 2019b; Wang and Coulter 2019). Classical assimilation theory argues that since second-generation minorities are born and socialized in the host country, they grow up to develop cultural and socioeconomic characteristics that make them more similar to the majority-ethnic population of their host country (Gordon 1964; Alba 2008). In other words, this perspective predicts a convergence in values between the ethnic majority and minority groups over successive generations.

This classical model of assimilation remains hotly debated and is subject to numerous empirical and conceptual critiques (Alba 2008; Spencer and Charsley 2021). The main counterview is that migrant cultural and socioeconomic trajectories can move in different directions, and that individual- and group-level convergence towards the majority ethnic culture is situationally contingent. In sociology, both segmented assimilation and superdiversity perspectives highlight the importance of local contexts in shaping ethnic minority identities and cultural attitudes (for a comparative discussion of these literatures, see Crul 2016).

Segmented assimilation theory highlights the ways that migrant cultural attitudes and behaviours react to environmental features including local deprivation, economic opportunities, racism and migrant reception policies (Luthra et al. 2017; Haller et al. 2011). Superdiversity theorists argue that the diversification of European cities and immigration flows over the last decades have led ethnic minority youths to develop diverse social circles and hybrid cultural behaviours and identities that defy a simple cultural convergence thesis (Foner et al. 2019; Crul 2016). They also point to the growing heterogeneity in economic, educational, and cultural characteristics and experiences found within ethnic groups (Vertovec 2007; Crul et al. 2019). Furthermore, both perspectives stress that non-assimilatory cultural identities, values and behaviours may develop among ethnic minority youths in response to racism and the threat of downward social mobility (Haller et al. 2011; Jugert 2020). In some cases, second-generation ethnic minorities may choose to actively reject the mainstream cultural values and identities of the ethnic majority and adopt more steadfast attachments to their ethnic culture than their parents (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Lee et al. 2020).

Similarly, the most well-known theory of migrant adaptation in social psychology—acculturation theory—finds that the majority of people in nearly all ethnic minority groups report that they prefer to retain their ethnic cultural identities and customs rather than adopt the culture of the host society (Berry 1997; See Robinson 2006 for a review of UK evidence). Extensions of this theoretical model have stressed the impact that broader minority-majority relations and individual experiences of social mobility and discrimination may have on the actual cultural strategies enacted by individuals (Bourhis et al. 1997; Navas et al. 2005; Padilla and Perez 2003; Lee et al. 2020). It is also argued that cultural change also depends on the cultural domain under consideration. For example, ethnic minorities are generally more willing to adopt the economic and work-related cultural elements of their host country’s culture while having a greater propensity to retain their ethnic group’s religious beliefs and family values (Sam 2006; Navas Luque et al. 2006).

Considered together, current sociological and social-psychological theories leave space for different possibilities: compared to British first-generation ethnic minorities, the work values of second-generation minorities may change towards or away from those of the White British majority. Alternatively, they may not change at all.

To examine majority-minority work value differences in Britain, the article specifically focuses on two important categories of work values: extrinsic work values, which refer to the importance attached to job features that are means to other ends or that provide more or less desirable conditions of work, such as a job’s pay or security; and intrinsic job values, which capture the importance attached to the rewarding nature of the work tasks in themselves, including opportunities for self-expression, learning, or helping others (Gallie et al. 2012; Johnson et al. 2012). Support for this two-dimensional structure of work values is based on a long series of factor-analytic analyses conducted over the last 50 years (Johnson et al. 2007).

Though previous studies have explored ethnic minority work values in North America, their findings cannot be easily generalized to the British context. First, American research focuses primarily on Black Americans and Latinos. In contrast, British ethnic minorities mainly immigrated from Caribbean, sub-Saharan African and South Asian countries, and have very different migration and cultural backgrounds from their North American counterparts. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Black Americans were born and raised in the United States for many generations. This is not the case with Britain’s major ethnic minorities, many of whom are first-generation migrants who were born, socialised, and formally educated abroad.

In sum, by clearly distinguishing first- and second-generation minorities and comparing their respective extrinsic and intrinsic work values with those of the White British population, this study contributes to scholarship on (intergenerational) cultural integration as well as to the burgeoning literature on intergenerational value changes (Inglehart et al. 2017).

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Ethnic Differences in Work Values: The Role of Cultural Socialization

Max Weber (2001) is the first to argue that the transition to a capitalist mode of economic development in Western countries was enabled by the development of a ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ (PWE) grounded in values such as hard work and frugality (Weber 2001). However, the period since the 1970s has witnessed an erosion of work centrality and PWE values in Western countries due to the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society with a greater emphasis on leisure, quality of life and values of self-actualization (Bell 1976; Parboteeah et al. 2013). Previous research shows that these factors have significant impacts on people’s health and wellbeing (Wang et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021b; Chen et al. 2020; He et al. 2020; Mak et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021). In contrast, many developing countries have undergone industrialization during that period, and consequently witnessed the broader adoption of materialist values that emphasize material affluence, hard work and monetary rewards (Arslan 2001; Furnham et al. 1993; Parboteeah et al. 2013). This suggests that people from countries at different stages of economic development may adopt different value priorities. A logical extension from this claim is that the work values of immigrants may differ by country of origin: people from developing countries are likely to put more emphasis on extrinsic job rewards (e.g., income and job security) and less emphasis on intrinsic job rewards (e.g., self-fulfillment and self-actualization) than their peers from more developed post-industrial countries.

This theory has been generally confirmed by empirical research. The model minority hypothesis in the U.S. argues that the success of Asian Americans relative to other minority groups can be largely attributed to the distinctive value system in their home countries that emphasizes educational achievement and hard work (Pettersen 1966; Zhou and Lee 2017). Prioritizing improvements in economic situation over the fulfillment of intrinsic job-related goals, these ethnic minorities often have a strong work ethic, prefer to work longer hours and are willing to take jobs that have undesirable working conditions and do not fit their personal interest (Ng and Sears 2010; Pettersen 1966). This supports the idea that the cultural socialization of Asian minorities promotes stronger extrinsic and weaker intrinsic work values than is the case among their white majority counterparts. More recently, Bauder’s (2006) and Kashefi’s (2011) research argued that ethnic minority immigrants from developing countries often tend to have strong extrinsic work values and regard work as a means for survival, while white majority employees are generally more likely to value job rewards that facilitate career development and which are potentially more intrinsically rewarding.

2.2. Ethnic Differences in Work Values: The Role of Job Characteristics and Socioeconomic Circumstances

While cultural explanations assume that people’s work values are formed during early socialization and could influence their occupational choices later in life, it is argued that work values can be shaped by job characteristics in the workplace (Kalleberg and Marsden 2013). In Britain, ethnic minorities on average have lower income and employment status than their white majority counterparts (Finney and Simpson 2009; Heath et al. 2013), and their disadvantaged labor market status is likely to affect their work values.

Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs theory illustrates how job characteristics are linked to employee work values. It is argued that income and job stability are important pre-conditions for satisfying higher level needs in the workplace such as self-fulfillment and self-actualization (Maslow 1954). In other words, employees in low-wage and unstable jobs are expected to have relatively strong extrinsic work values and weaker intrinsic work values. This theory has been supported by empirical research, which shows that income and job stability are positively associated with intrinsic work values, and negatively associated with extrinsic work values (Gallie 2007; Kalleberg and Marsden 2013; Kashefi 2011). In Britain, first generation ethnic minorities often have lower levels of income and job stability than White British, partly due to poor language proficiency, lack of bridging social networks and discrimination (Heath et al. 2013). While some ethnic minorities such as Indians and Chinese have even higher income than White British, recent research shows that after taking into account their education level and occupation, Indians and Chinese actually have lower income than their equally qualified White British counterparts, suggesting ethnic penalties within high-level occupations (Author). Thus, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, the relatively lower income of first-generation ethnic minorities means that they may have stronger extrinsic values and weaker intrinsic work values than White British.

Moreover, the occupational socialization theory (also called reinforcement theory) further demonstrates why ethnic minorities may have relatively weak intrinsic work values. The theory argues that employees tend to adapt to their existing job attributes and ‘learn to value job characteristics that they experience positively and to devalue those attributes that they are unable to obtain’ (Kalleberg and Marsden 2013, p 256). For example, in Goldthorpe’s ‘Affluent Workers’, it is argued that as a result of technological progress during the 1960s, workers tended to regard their jobs as instrumental means to satisfy aspirations outside work, since they enjoyed fewer opportunities to achieve self-fulfillment in the workplace (Goldthorpe et al. 1968). Conversely, more recent research suggests that intrinsic job rewards such as higher job autonomy and skill levels can improve employee intrinsic work values, organizational commitments, wellbeing and future career opportunities (Gallie et al. 2012; Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla 2003; Li and Wang forthcoming; Shi and Wang 2021; Wang et al. 2021a; Kamerāde et al. 2019; Balderson et al. 2021; Wang et al. forthcoming). In Britain, first-generation minorities have lower average employment status (Indians are an exception) and are more likely to engage in low-skilled jobs with less job autonomy than White British people (Finney and Simpson 2009; Heath et al. 2013 which could further weaken their already relatively weak intrinsic work values.

Overall, as most British ethnic minority immigrants come from developing countries with distinct cultural backgrounds, and have relatively lower levels of income and employment status, they are likely to have different work values than their White British counterparts. Based on the previous research, this article hypothesizes that first generation ethnic minority immigrants have weaker intrinsic work values and stronger extrinsic work values than their White British counterparts (Hypothesis 1).

2.3. Generational Differences in Work Values

Although a small number of studies from North America (Bauder 2006; Kashefi 2011; Ng and Sears 2010) have explored ethnic differences in work values, an important limitation of these studies is that they tend to treat ethnic minorities as homogenous groups, overlooking significant generational differences within ethnic minorities. The potential problem lies in essentializing certain work values of ethnic minority immigrants as their fixed characteristics, which could in turn ‘legitimate the relative success of some immigrants and justify the economic hardship of others on the basis of origin and ethnicity’ (Bauder 2006, p. 711). Yet, a rich tradition of classical assimilation theory argues that cultural values of ethnic minorities can be fluid and changing as they gradually integrate into the host society, for example by improving their language proficiency, reducing their cultural distinctiveness and residential concentration (Gordon 1964). Although such changes may be slow for immigrants, they are likely to be much more important for the second generation.

In contrast to first-generation migrants who were socialized overseas, second-generation minorities grew up in the host country and have more opportunities to interact with individuals from the majority group, potentially leading to greater convergence to majority cultural and work values such as a relatively strong intrinsic and weak extrinsic work values. Although the classical assimilation model is still debated, this claim has been echoed by recent research in Britain, which shows that the second generation has a stronger British identity, lives in more ethnically diverse areas and has more inter-ethnic friendships than first generation migrants (Finney and Simpson 2009; Heath et al. 2013). Moreover, different education levels of first- and second- generation minorities could be another reason for their different work values. Compared with the first generation, second generation minorities have much higher education levels, and are even more highly educated than White British (Heath et al. 2013; Modood 2012). It is argued that education could instill ‘an expectation of progressive self-development, leading to a desire for work that provides opportunities for continued learning and skill development’ and long-term career development rather than short-term material rewards (Gallie et al. 2012, p. 807). Thus, second-generation minorities with higher levels of education may place more emphasis on intrinsic job rewards and less on extrinsic job rewards than the first generation.

Finally, research shows that compared to the first-generation migrants, the labor market situation of second-generation minorities has greatly improved with respect to income and social class (an indicator of occupational skill level), although some second- generation minority groups such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbean men still suffer significant labor market disadvantages relative to White British (Heath et al. 2013). According to Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs theory, higher income of second- generation minorities means that they satisfy the basic material needs to a greater extent than the first generation, and thus place less emphasis on extrinsic job rewards and greater emphasis on intrinsic job rewards. Furthermore, the occupational socialization theory also suggests that the higher social class and skill level of second-generation minorities could reinforce their relatively strong intrinsic work values (Kalleberg and Marsden 2013).

In sum, as second-generation minorities are more socio-economically integrated, have higher education levels and employment status than the first generation, it is expected that ethnic differences in work values may decrease for the second generation. Thus, the second hypothesis is that ethnic differences in work values are less pronounced for the second-generation minorities as compared with their first generation counterparts (Hypothesis 2).

3. Method

3.1. Data and Sample

The data used in this study come from the fourth wave (2012–2013) of the United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS). UKHLS consists of a stratified and clustered General Population Sample (GPS) of around 40,000 households and an Ethnic Minority Boost Sample (EMBS), which was designed to yield at least 1000 respondent households for each of the five major ethnic minority groups: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Black African (Knies 2016). This article only used the fourth wave of UKHLS because the questions about work values were not asked in every wave. The response rates in this wave were 61% and 46% for the GPS and EMBS respectively. Appropriate cross-sectional weights provided by UKHLS were used to adjust for unequal non-response and selection probabilities. To construct the analytical sample, the unemployed and inactive were excluded as this article focuses on employed population. This article also excluded other ethnic minority groups due to very small sample sizes. After dropping a small number of cases with missing values (around 3%), the final sample contained 16,074 valid cases.

3.2. Measures

With regard to work values: there are two dependent variables to measure intrinsic and extrinsic work values. There are 15 questions in UKHLS that asked about an individual’s preferences for different job characteristics on a four-point scale ranging from ‘essential’ (1) to ‘not very important’ (4). Given that substantial research has explored work values using the same measurement in the UK, this article followed the previous research (Gallie et al. 2012; Zou 2015) and used four items to measure intrinsic work values (‘can use initiative’, ‘like doing the work’, ‘opportunity to use abilities’ and ‘a lot of variety in work’), and six items to measure extrinsic work values (‘good promotion prospects’, ‘good pay’, ‘good fringe benefits’, ‘security’, ‘training provision’ and ‘good physical working conditions’). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been conducted to extract two factors. The model fit statistics suggest that the model fits the data very well (for more details such as fit statistics and factor loading of each item, see the Appendix A). Further exploratory analysis reveals similar results. To facilitate interpretation, the factor score was standardized to a range between 0 and 100, with a higher score indicating stronger work values.

With regard to ethnicity: ethnicity is constructed by combining ethnic self-identification, country of birth and age of arrival in Britain. Native White British are those who identify themselves as ‘White British/English/Scottish/North Irish’. Similarly, five ethnic minorities i.e., Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indians, Black Caribbeans and Black Africans are identified. Following previous research (Heath et al. 2008), this study further distinguished between first (born overseas) and second generations (born in or arrived in Britain before the age of five).

The five groups were chosen because they represent the largest ethnic minorities in Britain according to the most recent UK census (Office for National Statistics 2018), as well because these groups have been widely studied in previous literature (Wang 2019a; Wang and Li 2019; Wang and Mak 2020; Yan et al. 2019; Liang et al. 2019). Black Caribbeans and Black Africans are arguably the most socially integrated ethnic minorities in Britain, having the highest rates of native-level English-language fluency, the highest propensity to form inter-ethnic relationships and highest inter-ethnic marriage rates. They contrast with Pakistani and Bangladeshi minorities, who are comparatively more socially isolated. Ethnic Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are less likely to speak English fluently (70% of Pakistanis and 63% of Bangladeshis, compared to 100% of Black Caribbeans and 85% of Black Africans)1, and are less likely to have inter-ethnic friendships (71% of Pakistanis have friends from another ethnic groups, compared to 67% for Bangladeshis, 83% for Black Caribbeans and 88% for Black Africans) (Wang and Morav 2021). Married Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are also considerably more likely to have a co-ethnic partner (96% of Pakistanis and 98% of Bangladeshis, versus 67% of Black Caribbeans and 90% of Black Africans) (Heath et al. 2013; see also Muttarak 2007). These patterns accord with broader research indicating that Pakistani and Bangladeshi minorities in Britain are more attached to their traditional ethnocultural values and norms compared to other minority groups in (Beishon et al. 1998; Goodwin et al. 2006). That said, residential segregation may also contribute to the more ethnocentric social characteristics of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis as they are considerably more likely to live in ethnically segregated and economically deprived neighbourhoods than other ethnic minority groups (Finney and Simpson 2009; Wang and Ramsden 2018; Harris et al. 2017), with 38% of Pakistanis and 26% of Bangladeshis reporting having mainly co-ethnic neighbours, compared to 7% of Black Caribbeans and 8% of Black Africans (Heath et al. 2013).

In Britain, all four groups compared above are racialized and experience discrimination on the basis of their skin-color (Black Caribbeans and Africans—see Heath and Di Stasio 2019; Reynolds 2007) and/or their religion (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis—see Field 2007; Khan 2006; Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2015). From a social integration perspective, ethnic Indians are positioned in between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, on the one hand, and Black Caribbeans and Black Africans, on the other. They are somewhat more likely to speak English natively (80%) and have inter-ethnic friends (78%) than the other two south Asian groups (Heath et al. 2013; Wang and Morav 2021). The co-ethnic marriage rates of Indians (94% of married Indians have a co-ethnic partner) are comparable to those of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (Heath et al. 2013).

What mostly set Britain’s Indian minority apart are the relatively high socioeconomic attainment levels of its members: of the five ethnic minority groups considered in this article, ethnic Indians have the highest levels of employment, income, and educational attainment (Cabinet Office 2017; Li and Heath 2016). They are also more likely to work in high-skill occupations, with over 40% being in “Manager, Director and Senior Official” roles or in “Professional occupations” (Cabinet Office 2017, p. 27). Heath and his colleagues report that in 2010, 56% of ethnic Indians were employed in middle class professions, whereas for other ethnic groups this rate ranged from 29% (Bangladeshis) to 39% (Black Africans)2. In fact, even the majority White British ethnic group has lower rates of middle class occupational attainment, at 52%. Likewise, whereas 41% of Indians were university graduates, the equivalent rates for other minority groups ranged from 15% (Black Caribbeans) to 33% (Black Africans) (Heath et al. 2013, Table 2.8).

Other control variables: as employee work values are related to socio-demographic and job characteristics, these variables controlled for socio-demographic characteristics, including respondent age, gender, partnership (whether respondents have a partner) and presence of dependent children under 16 years old. This article also controlled for education level, including six ordinal categories, i.e., degree, other higher, A-level, GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education), other qualification and no qualification. Job characteristics include respondent logged monthly income and job stability, which is a binary variable measuring whether the respondent thinks he/she is likely or not likely to lose his/her job over the next 12 months. This article also included respondent social class as it is an important indicator of the skill level of the respondent’s occupation over and above the level of education, especially for immigrants who acquired their education abroad. Specifically, social class is measured by the International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI), an index widely used in academia to measure one’s social position in society. ISEI ranges from 16 to 90 and scores each of 271 occupations based on income, skill level and social prestige, with a higher value indicating higher social position in society (Ganzeboom and Treiman 1996, p. 2). Finally, this article also controlled for job autonomy, which is measured by five items i.e., autonomy over job tasks, work pace, work manner, task order and work hours, with a 4-point scale ranging from ‘a lot’ (4) to ‘none’ (1). Confirmatory factor analysis is conducted to extract one factor with a score ranging from 0 to 10, where a higher score refers to higher job autonomy.

3.3. Analytic Strategy

This article used Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis to compare work values between White British and each ethnic group. Oaxaca decomposition is a method specifically designed to explain the mean difference in a continuous outcome variable between groups by dividing the difference into a component explained by group differences in observable characteristics and a residual component due to group differences in coefficients as well as other unobservable characteristics. When comparing differences between groups, the Oaxaca decomposition has several advantages over regression-based and matching-based approaches. First, it shows both raw and net group differences. While raw differences are simply averages across groups, net differences account for differences in characteristics across groups, such as education and occupation. Second, the Oaxaca decomposition also shows what proportion of the raw difference is explained by characteristics, i.e., each explanatory variable. This allows us to estimate the raw and net ethnic differences and the importance of each socio-demographic and job characteristic in explaining such differences.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics by Ethnic and Generational Group.

	White	Pakistani		Bangladeshi		Indian		Black Caribbean		Black African
	British	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.
Extrinsic work values (M)	56.56	62.27	68.13	65.3	68.32	65.95	68.81	65.49	68.12	64.64	69.47
Standard deviations	15.78	15.55	14.89	15.44	15.65	14.59	16.16	15.54	14.77	15.75	14.80
Intrinsic work values (M)	63.66	64.32	65.11	62.78	68.81	61.76	66.22	63.01	66.26	60.32	71.25
Standard deviations	16.23	15.56	15.39	16.42	15.61	14.67	15.29	15.45	15.72	16.39	15.40
Age (M)	47.32	43.17	32.26	40.46	30.78	45.46	32.01	51.78	36.60	39.53	31.74
Standard deviations	14.16	9.16	12.46	13.87	12.38	9.53	16.02	11.79	14.47	11.88	14.14
Gender (%)
Male	45.78	53.23	46.33	55.45	55.91	52.01	55.62	47.73	45.28	45.85	45.94
Partnership (%)
Yes	74.36	82.02	64.47	84.14	48.07	84.45	61.43	43.82	33.76	52.33	26.41
Children (%)
Yes	17.57	29.25	37.24	36.58	25.63	2.67	31.23	16.69	31.72	34.63	26.45
Education (%)
Degree/Other higher	34.14	27.63	37.76	23.55	24.75	49.46	5.31	25.04	45.74	5.34	55.05
A-level/GCSE/Other qual.	53.65	4.13	57.82	36.73	67.31	42.72	46.76	46.22	5.51	39.51	44.24
No qualification	11.21	32.24	4.52	39.72	8.04	7.82	2.93	28.74	3.75	1.15	.81
Income (M)	1425.84	1047.27	1212.23	1081.87	1224.60	1087.29	1428.93	1267.90	1369.29	1304.85	1365.37
Standard deviations	1232.45	878.34	1012.83	988.89	1002.74	956.29	123.28	1012.85	1063.78	1143.82	1249.32
Job stability (whether lose the job over next 12 months) (%)
Likely	9.33	17.78	11.45	18.45	13.45	19.58	10.55	13.67	12.03	16.49	13.53
ISEI (M)	45.13	41.43	45.02	41.56	47.42	4.89	51.35	42.78	45.89	4.13	47.29
Standard deviations	16.27	15.27	16.30	15.42	16.27	14.98	17.38	16.31	16.37	14.72	15.93
Job autonomy (M)	7.02	6.45	7.15	6.39	7.14	6.29	7.41	6.42	6.89	6.63	7.32
Standard deviations	2.65	2.34	2.52	2.85	2.34	2.71	2.06	2.42	2.64	2.81	2.40
Observations	14,335	153	314	128	106	224	105	319	193	102	95

M = Means, % = Proportion.

shows the descriptive statistics for White British and first- and second- generation ethnic minorities. Both first- and second- generation ethnic minorities have much stronger extrinsic work values than White British. In contrast to our expectations, all second-generation minorities have stronger extrinsic work values than the first generations. In terms of intrinsic work values, while first-generation minorities have similar or slightly weaker intrinsic work values than White British, all second-generation minorities have stronger intrinsic work values than both first-generation minorities and the White British ethnic group. These findings suggest clear generational differences in work values within ethnic minorities.

Table 1 also shows that there are clear ethnic and generational differences in socio-demographic and job characteristics. For example, ethnic minorities, and especially the second generations, are younger than White British. Ethnic minorities are also more likely to have a partner (except for Black Caribbeans and Black Africans) and children. Furthermore, while first-generation Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans have lower education levels than White British, all second-generation minorities have higher education levels than White British and their first-generation counterparts. Finally, while most first generation migrants have relatively lower levels of income, job stability, ISEI and job autonomy than White British, all second-generation minorities have more favorable labor market situations than the first generation. Decomposition methods allow us to identify to what extent differences in work values can be explained by differences in characteristics.

4.2. Oaxaca Decomposition Analysis

Extrinsic work values:

Table 2. Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Models of Extrinsic Work Values.

Ref. Group=	Pakistani		Bangladeshi		Indian		Black Caribbean		Black African
White British	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.
Difference	−6.85 ***	−12.03 ***	−9.68 ***	−1.62 ***	−8.81 ***	−12.26 ***	−8.06 ***	−9.06 ***	−7.93 ***	−14.66 ***
(SE)	(0.92)	(1.24)	(1.31)	(1.71)	(1.34)	(0.98)	(0.88)	(0.97)	(1.55)	(1.85)
Explained	−1.43 ***	−4.56 ***	−2.90 ***	−3.83 ***	−2.25 ***	−3.29 ***	−0.15	−0.32	−2.13 ***	−2.89 ***
(SE)	(0.26)	(0.33)	(0.38)	(0.40)	(0.41)	(0.28)	(0.26)	(0.32)	(0.50)	(0.59)
Unexplained	−5.42 ***	−7.47 ***	−6.78 ***	−6.79 ***	−6.56 ***	−8.97 ***	−7.91 ***	−8.74 ***	−5.80 ***	−11.77 ***
(SE)	(0.85)	(1.26)	(1.31)	(1.67)	(1.35)	(0.98)	(0.85)	(0.97)	(0.87)	(2.01)
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Age	−0.41	−4.64 ***	−1.24 ***	−3.71 ***	−1.78 ***	−3.65 ***	.40	−0.62 *	−2.16 ***	−3.98 ***
(SE)	(0.28)	(0.30)	(0.34)	(0.37)	(0.32)	(0.26)	(0.22)	(0.31)	(0.44)	(0.60)
Gender	−0.01	−0.11 *	−0.22 **	0.02	−0.31 ***	−0.05	−0.10 *	0.14 **	0.13 *	−0.03
(SE)	(0.03)	(0.05)	(0.07)	(0.06)	(0.09)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.08)
Partnership	−0.01	−0.07	0.09 *	−0.17	0.07	0.13	0.16 **	−0.18	−0.19 *	−0.20
(SE)	(0.02)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.20)	(0.05)	(0.08)	(0.06)	(0.10)	(0.08)	(0.13)
Children	0.10	0.01	−0.11	0.07	−0.12	−0.00	−0.10	−0.03	−0.06	0.05
(SE)	(0.07)	(0.02)	(0.07)	(0.05)	(0.07)	(0.02)	(0.06)	(0.02)	(0.04)	(0.04)
Education	−0.42 ***	0.57 ***	−0.47 ***	0.60 ***	0.51 *	0.73 ***	−0.40 **	0.38 ***	0.58 *	1.09 ***
(SE)	(0.11)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.18)	(0.25)	(0.11)	(0.12)	(0.11)	(0.25)	(0.18)
Job Characteristics
Log (income)	−0.71 ***	−0.31 *	−0.99 ***	−0.59 **	−0.62 **	−0.19	−0.19	−0.03	−0.33	0.03
(SE)	(0.19)	(0.13)	(0.28)	(0.19)	(0.22)	(0.16)	(0.12)	(0.16)	(0.20)	(0.31)
Job stability	−0.00	−0.02	−0.04	−0.04	−0.04	−0.00	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	−0.04
(SE)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.05)
ISEI	0.05	0.03	−0.01	−0.01	−0.06	0.09 *	−0.01	0.00	−0.20 *	0.01
(SE)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.09)	(0.06)
Job autonomy	−0.02	−0.02	0.09	−0.00	0.10	−0.09	0.10	0.03	0.11	0.18
(SE)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.07)	(0.08)	(0.06)	(0.08)	(0.05)	(0.07)	(0.11)
Observations	13,412	13,586	13,423	13,390	13,360	13,601	13,491	13,386	13,469	13,546

Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

compares extrinsic work values of White British to those of first- and second- generation ethnic minorities. The row ‘difference’ represents the predicted raw difference in extrinsic work values between White British and ethnic minorities. A negative value means that White British have weaker extrinsic work values than ethnic minorities, and vice versa. The row ‘explained’ is the part of the difference due to differences in characteristics between White British and ethnic minorities, while ‘unexplained’ is the residual. The bottom half of the table further divides the explained part, enabling us to analyze the proportion of the explained difference that each variable accounts for. Specifically, the negative/positive coefficients measure how much the extrinsic work values of ethnic minorities would decrease/increase if they had the same characteristics as White British.

In Table 2, the ‘difference’ is negative and statistically significant for all first- and second-generation ethnic minority groups, suggesting that they have stronger extrinsic work values than White British. Since the average of extrinsic work values is between 55 and 70, the differences among ethnic groups are in the magnitude of around 10%. Overall, the ethnic differences are more pronounced for all second-generation minorities, especially for Pakistani and Black Africans. This implies that second-generation Pakistani and Black Africans may have stronger extrinsic work values than the first generations. The unexplained difference can be interpreted as the difference in extrinsic work values that remains after including socio-demographic and job characteristics. Ethnic differences remain statistically significant for all ethnic minorities, indicating that other factors, not considered in this analysis, contribute to such differences. Overall, these results suggest that the second-generation minorities place more emphasis on extrinsic job rewards than White British.

Table 2 also shows that the proportion of explained difference in extrinsic work values varies substantially across groups, being about 30–38% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi, and 20–27% for Indians and Black Africans. For Black Caribbeans most of the difference remains unexplained.

Next, this article explores the extent to which socio-demographic and job characteristics could explain the ethnic differences in extrinsic work values. For all ethnic minorities except for first-generation Pakistanis and Black Caribbeans, age has negative and significant coefficients. In most of the ethnic minorities, the second generations in particular are younger than White British; these results mean that if ethnic minorities had a similar (older) age to White British, their extrinsic work values would become significantly weaker. This suggests that age is an important reason for the stronger extrinsic work values of ethnic minorities, especially for the second generations.

Education also plays an important role in explaining ethnic differences in extrinsic work values. For first generation Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans, the coefficients of education are negative and statistically significant. Given that these groups have lower education levels than White British, these results mean that if they had similar (higher) education levels to White British, they would have significantly weaker extrinsic work values. By contrast, education has statistically significant positive coefficients for all other ethnic minorities. Given their higher education levels than White British, if they had similar (lower) education levels than White British, they would have stronger extrinsic work values. In sum, this suggests that education has an important and negative influence on extrinsic work values and this contributes to explaining differences in work values between White British and ethnic minorities. Finally, income is also statistically significant in explaining ethnic differences in extrinsic work values for the three South Asian groups (except for second-generation Indians). Given that these groups have lower income than White British, this suggests that if they had a similar (higher) level of income than White British, they would have weaker extrinsic work values. Overall, this result suggests that the lower income of some ethnic minorities is a reason for their stronger extrinsic work values.

In sum, Table 2 shows that all ethnic minorities have stronger extrinsic work values than White British especially for second generations. It suggests that the stronger extrinsic work values of ethnic minorities are partly due to their younger age (especially for second generations), lower education levels (for first-generation Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans) and lower income (for the three South Asian groups, except second-generation Indians).

Intrinsic work values:

Table 3. Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Models of Intrinsic Work Values.

Ref. Group=	Pakistani		Bangladeshi		Indian		Black Caribbean		Black African
White British	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.	1st gen.	2nd gen.
Difference	0.70	−3.84 *	3.77 *	−5.31 **	3.48 *	−3.37 **	1.28	−2.61 *	3.94 *	−5.60 **
(SE)	(0.99)	(1.36)	(1.45)	(1.73)	(1.55)	(1.08)	(0.81)	(1.12)	(1.66)	(2.00)
Explained	1.23 *	−2.07 ***	1.98 **	−2.47 *	1.95 ***	−2.13 ***	1.82 *	−1.23 **	.56	−2.65 *
(SE)	(0.55)	(0.38)	(0.56)	(0.60)	(0.60)	(0.34)	(0.77)	(0.36)	(0.67)	(0.62)
Unexplained	−0.53	−1.77	1.79	−2.84	1.53	−1.24	−0.54	−1.38	3.38 *	−3.05
(SE)	(0.93)	(1.35)	(1.35)	(1.64)	(1.48)	(1.08)	(0.77)	(1.10)	(1.37)	(1.95)
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Age	0.04	−0.87 ***	−0.23 **	−1.07 ***	−0.33 ***	−0.68 ***	0.08	−0.12	−0.60 ***	−0.56 ***
(SE)	(0.05)	(0.14)	(0.07)	(0.17)	(0.08)	(0.11)	(0.04)	(0.06)	(0.12)	(0.14)
Gender	0.03	0.32 *	0.65 ***	−0.05	0.88 ***	0.13	0.27 **	−0.41 ***	−0.37 *	0.09
(SE)	(0.09)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.17)	(0.16)	(0.10)	(0.09)	(0.11)	(0.15)	(0.22)
Partnership	−0.01	−0.05	0.04	−0.11	0.05	−0.06	0.07	−0.12	−0.08	−0.14
(SE)	(0.01)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.10)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.10)	(0.07)	(0.12)
Children	−0.00	−0.04	0.13	−0.20 *	0.14	0.00	.31 ***	0.08	0.03	−0.15
(SE)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.09)	(0.08)	(0.09)	(0.04)	(0.07)	(0.05)	(0.07)	(0.09)
Education	0.52 ***	−0.69 ***	0.61 ***	−0.63 ***	0.01	−0.89 ***	0.51 **	−0.46 ***	−0.70 *	−1.32 ***
(SE)	(0.13)	(0.15)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.30)	(0.13)	(0.15)	(0.14)	(0.30)	(0.21)
Job Characteristics
Log (income)	−0.11 *	0.10	0.11	0.12	0.21	0.06	−0.06	−0.01	−0.01	0.01
(SE)	(0.05)	(0.08)	(0.07)	(0.11)	(0.13)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.07)	(0.10)
Job stability	−0.00	−0.04	−0.09	−0.07	−0.08	−0.00	−0.02	−0.03	−0.02	−0.08
(SE)	(0.01)	(0.03)	(0.06)	(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.06)
ISEI	0.16 *	−0.10	0.06	0.04	0.24	−0.31 **	0.03	−0.01	0.52 ***	−0.05
(SE)	(0.08)	(0.11)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.09)	(0.08)	(0.10)	(0.15)	(0.22)
Job autonomy	0.60 **	−0.70 *	0.70 **	−0.50 *	0.83 **	−0.38 *	0.63 ***	−0.15	0.67 *	−0.45 *
(SE)	(0.17)	(0.23)	(0.25)	(0.13)	(0.32)	(0.18)	(0.19)	(0.21)	(0.31)	(0.18)
Observations	13,412	13,586	13,423	13,390	13,360	13,601	13,491	13,386	13,469	13,546

Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

compares intrinsic work values of White British and ethnic minorities of first and second generation. All first-generation ethnic minorities have weaker intrinsic work values than White British, and the difference is statistically significant for Bangladeshis, Indians and Black Africans. By contrast, all second generation ethnic minorities have significantly stronger intrinsic work values than White British. Since the average of intrinsic work values is between 60 and 70, the differences among ethnic groups are in the magnitude of around 5% or less. The unexplained difference is not statistically significant, suggesting that the socio-demographic and job characteristics seem to explain most of the differences

Among the factors that contribute to explaining ethnic differences in intrinsic work values, age plays an important role for all ethnic minorities except for first generation Pakistanis and Black Caribbeans. If these groups had a similar (older) age to White British, they would have weaker intrinsic work values; hence more like those of White British. Education also plays a significant role in explaining ethnic differences in intrinsic work values for all ethnic minorities except for first-generation Indians. If first-generation Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans who have lower education levels than White British had similar (higher) education levels to White British, they would have stronger intrinsic work values. By contrast, if other ethnic groups who have higher education levels than White British had similar (lower) education levels to White British, they would have weaker intrinsic work values.

Finally, job autonomy also contributes to explain ethnic differences, except for second- generation Black Caribbeans. If first-generation minorities who have relatively lower job autonomy had similar (higher) job autonomy to White British, they would have stronger intrinsic work values. By contrast, if the second-generation minorities (except Black Caribbeans) who have higher job autonomy than White British had the similar (lower) job autonomy, they would have weaker intrinsic work values. This highlights the importance of job autonomy in creating strong intrinsic work values.

In sum, Table 3 shows that although first generation ethnic minorities have similar and weaker intrinsic work values than White British, the second generations have stronger intrinsic work values than White British. Importantly, the relatively strong intrinsic work values of the second generations are primarily due to their younger age, higher education levels and higher job autonomy.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In recent decades, high levels of immigration and the ageing of the White British population have led to an increase in ethnic diversity in the workplace. To help ethnic minorities identify clear career goals, improve their organizational fit and work commitment, it is important for career counselors and employers to know how minorities differ from the majority in terms of their intrinsic and extrinsic work values. There is a lack of research investigating work-value differences between ethnic minority and majority employees, and whether these differences are growing or narrowing over time. To fill this gap, this article compared the extrinsic and intrinsic work values of the majority White British population to those of Britain’s five largest ethnic minority groups. The article specifically examined whether differences in the work values of majority and minority groups vary across different migration generations. Furthermore, it analyzed the extent to which ethnic differences can be explained on the basis of majority-minority differences in various socio-demographic and job characteristics.

The first hypothesis was that first-generation ethnic minority immigrants have stronger extrinsic and weaker intrinsic work values than the White British. This hypothesis was generally supported as the results show that all first-generation minorities have significantly stronger extrinsic work values, and weaker intrinsic work values than White British (although this is only statistically significant for Bangladeshis, Indians and Black Africans). This result is consistent with the model minority hypothesis and previous research in North America (Bauder 2006; Kashefi 2011), which showed that ethnic minority immigrants from developing countries tend to place more emphasis on extrinsic job rewards, while white majority populations are more likely to value intrinsic job rewards.

The stronger extrinsic work values of first-generation immigrants relative to White British are partly due to their younger age (Bangladeshis, Indians and Black Africans), lower education level (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans) and lower income (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians). However, these characteristics do not completely explain ethnic differences. These remaining ethnic differences may be due to distinct early socialization of the first-generation immigrants (Ng and Sears 2010; Pettersen 1966). By contrast, the weaker intrinsic work values of first-generation immigrants are partly associated with their lower levels of education (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans) and lower job autonomy, supporting Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs theory and occupational socialization theory. Overall, these results suggest that, apart from cultural factors, lower levels of education and labor market status (e.g., income and job autonomy) play an important role in explaining ethnic differences in extrinsic and intrinsic work values.

The second hypothesis focused on how ethnic differences vary across generations. Based on classical assimilation theory (Gordon 1964; Alba 2005, 2008) and empirical research on ethnic integration in Britain (Finney and Simpson 2009; Heath et al. 2013), it was expected that ethnic differences in work values compared to White British would be less pronounced among the second generations. Both the extrinsic and intrinsic work values of second-generation minorities were expected to be closer to those of White British than is the case among their first-generation counterparts. In terms of extrinsic work values, however, this hypothesis was not supported, as the article found that ethnic differences are more pronounced for the second generations.

Younger age is an important reason for such stronger extrinsic work values. This is a surprising result given that most previous studies have found that extrinsic value orientations are weaker, not stronger, among young people once socioeconomic status and job-characteristics are taken into account (Johnson 2001; Jin and Rounds 2012). Nevertheless, the result is partially consistent with the ’zero in’ model of value development (Johnson 2002; Johnson and Monserud 2012). According to this model, young people at the start of their careers attach greater importance to a broad range of work characteristics, including extrinsic and intrinsic work rewards, but as they age and gain labour market experience, they adjust their work values downwards in response to a more realistic, and modest, assessment of the rewards that their careers can actually offer. An alternative explanation is that the result reflects a cohort-level effect. This would be consistent with research showing a steady increase in the importance attached to extrinsic work values across the 1976–1990 American birth cohorts (Johnson and Monserud 2012), particularly among non-white minority groups (Wray-Lake et al. 2011). Since second-generation British minorities contain a larger share of young people and people belonging to more recent birth cohorts, both of the above explanations could be applicable.

After taking into account age and other factors in connection with second-generation minorities, ethnic differences were to some extent attenuated, but the general result patterns remained. This is an unexpected result. Although extant research shows that second- generation minorities are more socio-economically integrated and have higher levels of income and employment status than the first generation (Heath et al. 2013), it is found that ethnic differences in extrinsic work values are more pronounced for the second generations. This implies that the second generation tends to place a larger emphasis on extrinsic job rewards than the first generation. Apart from younger age, another reason for the more pronounced ethnic differences in extrinsic work values for the second generation might be their different frames of reference. The first generation may have lower aspirations in terms of job rewards because their reference group are their non-migrant compatriots in the home country. By contrast, the second generation may have higher occupational aspirations as their reference group are their majority peers (Heath et al. 2013).

In terms of intrinsic work values, the results are not consistent with hypothesis two. While it was expected that ethnic differences in intrinsic work values become less pronounced across migration generations, the results show that the intrinsic work values of second-generation minorities are even stronger than those of the White British group (and also than those the first generation). The stronger intrinsic work values of the second-generation minorities are not only due to their younger age, but also due to their higher levels of education and job autonomy. In recent decades, the expansion of higher education in Britain has raised the education attainment of British ethnic minorities more so than that of the White British population. This may have in turn encouraged higher skill development among ethnic minorities and led to a greater emphasis on intrinsic job rewards (Gallie et al. 2012). Moreover, the social mobility experienced by second generation British minorities means that they tend to have higher occupational statuses, resulting in increased skill use in the workplace and, consequently, a greater emphasis on intrinsic rewards (Kashefi 2011).

These results hold significant implications for understanding the career choices of young ethnic minorities and helping them improve their labor market status. First, the significant ethnic differences in work values suggest that similar government labor marker programs may not be generalizable across different ethnic groups, and ethnic minorities may warrant specific attention on their career development. Considering the distinct work values of ethnic minorities could help career counselors gain a better understanding of their career aspirations, help them select more appropriate occupations and identify clearer career goals. Given the increasingly stronger extrinsic work values over minority generations, government employment training schemes could help improve their promotion opportunities and income by providing them skill training for specific work environment and guiding them how to protect their rights in the workplace (e.g., overtime pay) and how to deal with perceived workplace inequalities (e.g., racial discrimination). Given the increasingly stronger intrinsic work values of ethnic minorities, career counselors could help these groups find meaning in the workplace by linking their current work activities with their personal development, life goals and contribution to society. Moreover, since the strong extrinsic and intrinsic work values of ethnic minorities are partly related to their younger age, especially for the second generation, they may have over-ambitious and unrealistic expectations about their career development. Thus, relevant government employment schemes may need to help ethnic minorities to adapt workplace expectations, which could improve their job satisfaction and lower turnover rates.

These results also hold significant implications for organization and employment research. As the fit between work values and job characteristics is of great importance to employees turnover rates, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Brown et al. 2012; Frieze et al. 2006), employers need to adopt a proactive stance in job design and cross-cultural management by taking note of the distinct work-value patterns of ethnic minorities. This is especially the case for second-generation minorities, who appear to place significantly more emphasis on extrinsic and intrinsic job rewards than White British people. For extrinsic job rewards, employers could provide more flexible promotion and bonus schemes, and minimize implicit ethnic/racial discrimination in the workplace in order to improve ethnic minority work motivation and commitment. For intrinsic job rewards, employers could frame work tasks to provide employees with learning experiences and upgrading skills, which are shown to increase their organizational involvement (Frieze et al. 2006; Gallie et al. 2012).

The third and final implication of this study is the finding that the work values of ethnic minority and majority groups do not converge across generations. If anything, compared to first-generation migrants in Britain, second-generation ethnic minorities are farther apart from the White British population both in terms of extrinsic and intrinsic work values. The stronger extrinsic work values of first-generation migrants (compared to White Britons) only grow among second-generation minorities. Intrinsic work value differences also grow in the second generation, except that in this case, the direction of differences are reversed: while first-generation migrant minorities have somewhat weaker intrinsic work values than White British people, second-generation minorities have considerably stronger intrinsic work values than the same. This also holds implications for other countries with an increasing share of internal or international immigrants in the labor force (Wang and Hu 2019; Gong and Wang 2021; Gong et al. 2021; Wang 2018).

That both extrinsic and intrinsic work values are more pronounced among second-generation ethnic minorities is a novel finding, with no precedents of which the present authors are aware. A few previous studies in North America reached similar findings in comparisons that did not differentiate between different generations of ethnic minority groups (Wray-Lake et al. 2011; Ng and Sears 2010). The present findings suggest that the comparatively stronger extrinsic and intrinsic work values of ethnic minorities identified in these studies might have actually been driven by the value orientations of second-generation minorities (and possibly even subsequent migration generations). Future studies should remain attentive to this possibility and implement methodological designs that would allow for a more precise determination of the causes of work value changes across ethnic minority generations.

From an integration theory perspective, the intergenerational divergence in work values observed in the present analysis contrasts with the predictions of classical assimilation theory (Gordon 1964; Alba 2005). The latter assumes that cultural value differences between migrant minorities and ethnic majorities diminish in the second-generation. That the contrary seems to be the case in Britain suggests that work values represent a distinct psychosocial domain that develops independently from broader processes of migrant acculturation. Work values are more likely to reflect the situated working experiences and economic conditions of minorities than the degree of their socialization in the host country. In this sense, the present findings are more consistent with the segmented assimilation model of migrant integration, which emphasizes the role of discrimination, economic conditions and parental mobility strategies on the achievement motivation and value orientations of second-generation minorities. They are also broadly consonant with Esser’s (2003) model of intergenerational integration, which posits that migrant cultural (self-)investment strategies are structured by the situated economic constraints and opportunities that they encounter in the host society.

Despite significant practical implications, there are several limitations in this study, which could be the possible focus of future research. Due to limited space, this article only focuses on extrinsic and intrinsic work values. Future research could extend this article by exploring whether other work values—like flexibility, altruism or sociability—also vary by ethnic group (see Johnson and Monserud 2012). Moreover, due to small sample sizes and data limitations, the second generation in this study actually includes 1.5 and all later generations. Although these people were socialized in Britain, their degree of socialization may be different. This requires future research using other datasets to make more detailed distinctions between minority generations. It would also be instructive to more closely examine the effects of poverty and experiences of anti-immigrant discrimination on ethnic minority work values. Research on segmented assimilation has shown that life in economically deprived neighbourhoods alongside exposure to discrimination often leads disaffected minority youths to develop reactive ethnic identities and/or deviant cultural norms and values (Portes et al. 2009; Kubrin and Mioduszewski 2018). In fact, research by Johnson et al. (2012) have found that low hourly wages, low by-weekly earnings, and experiences of unemployment are each predictive of lower extrinsic work values among American youths. Finally, for most ethnic minorities our results show large unexplained residuals in extrinsic work values. This is partly because while the distribution of some characteristics contributes to the explanation of the differences, others increase the differences. As Ng and Sears (2010, p. 677) highlight, the fact that ethnic minorities in the process of acculturation ‘may alternate between the values of mainstream society and those of their parents’ culture’ makes their work values unique and difficult to predict. Future research is needed to further explore how the distinct work values of ethnic minorities are jointly shaped by their acculturation model, parental culture and labor market disadvantages.

Overall, this article shows that there are significant differences in work values across different ethnic groups and ethnic minority generations. While the differences are partly explained by differences in socio-demographic characteristics, especially age and education, and job characteristics, especially income and job autonomy, the remaining significant differences, especially in extrinsic work values, suggest that ethnicity plays an important role in patterning extrinsic and intrinsic work values, highlighting the distinct early socialization of ethnic minorities in their home countries. In other words, both pre-migration cultural factors and post-migration socioeconomic characteristics matter for ethnic minority work values. Moreover, the significant generational differences in work values highlight the need of future scholarly work and organizations to view ethnicity as changing and fluid identities rather than a fixed and essentialize d characteristic.