Organizational factors and work involvement

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES 35, 382-396 (1985)

Organizational Factors and Work Involvement

N. A. JANS

Australian Regular Army

The aim of this paper is to describe a study which investigated the influence of organizational factors on job involvement and specialization involvement. It was hypothesized that rank, self-expression, participation in decision making, and career factors affect job and specialization involvement. The independent variables were chosen by considering an extension of Schein’s (1971, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401-426) “career cone” concept. The hypotheses were tested using a sample of Australian Army officers (N = 384) in a questionnaire survey. The results showed that job involvement is associated primarily with self-expression, although the latter is influenced in turn by participation in decision making, and that specialization involvement is associated with both self-expression and career factors. Rank does not affect either involvement variable. It was concluded that Schein’s concept is a useful guide to theory and research on career attitudes. The results support the proposition that job and specialization involvement are distinct constructs. Implications for organizations are discussed. D 1985 ACT-

demic Press, Inc.

The aim of this paper is to describe a study which investigated the influence of organizational factors on two dimensions of work involvement. A person who is involved in his/her work takes the work seriously, will be affected emotionally and significantly by work experience, and will be mentally preoccupied with the work role (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld 1960; Locke, 1976). Involvement with the job and the employment specialization of which that job is a part is different from involvement with work in general (Jans, 1982; Kanungo, 1982), from involvement with the organization (Gould & Hall, 1979), and from commitment to the organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). However, job involvement (psychological identification with the job or position occupied at that time) is different from specialization involvement (psychological identification with the specialization or employment area of which the job is part) (Jans, 1982). Thus it might be expected that different organizational factors will have different effects on those two attitudes. If so,

The views herein are the writer’s and should not be construed as Australian Army policy. Valuable assistance in data preparation and analysis was rendered by Major E. J. E. Lewis and Sergeant Tyrone Andrews, for which, my thanks. Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author at 15 Brinsmead St., Pearce, ACT 2607, Australia.

382 0749-5978185 $3.00 Copyright 0 1985 by Academic Press, Inc. AlI rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS 383

it would be helpful for personnel policy makers to be aware of these differences since decline in either attitude could contribute to a decline in performance or in a decision to leave the organization.

Schein’s (1971, 1978) “career cone” concept provides the basis for choosing independent variables representing factors which may affect work involvement in organizations. Schein used the cone model to assist in the explanation and study of career movement within the organization, especially in regard to transitions across certain boundaries (Schein, 1978, p. 38). He postulated that career transitions could be described in terms of movement along three dimensions of the cone: a hierarchical or vertical dimension, experienced by changes in rank, authority, and pay; a horizontal or circumferential dimension, expressed by the functional or technical field the person could work in; and a radial dimension, experienced by movement toward or away from the inner core or “axis of power/ influence” of the cone (see Fig. 1).

As Schein points out, it is possible, in principle, for a person to move along any of the three dimensions without changing his/her position on the other two, except that vertical movement usually produces some radial movement; i.e., in a cone, increased rank brings greater influence and proximity to the axis of power.

As described by Schein (1978), the present form of his model is adequate for describing movement within an organizational career, but the dimensions require extension or refinement to be appropriate to a study of reactions or attitudes to one’s career, as opposed to movement. Let us take each dimension in turn.

The most obvious representation of the vertical dimension is rank, a particularly easy variable to measure in the military. Increased rank could lead to increased work involvement (Porter & Lawler, 1968). However, since potential for vertical movement has also been found to be associated with work attitudes (see reviews by Herzberg, Mausner, Pe- terson, & Campbell, 1957; Locke, 1976; Vroom, 1964), factors such as perceived fairness of promotion policies and opportunity for advancement should also be included as part of the vertical dimension of the career cone. With regard to the radial dimensions, a large number of studies have shown that work attitudes (including job involvement) are related to a person’s participation in decision making (e.g., Hall & Foster, 1977; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Ruh, White, & Wood, 1975; Siegal & Ruh, 1973; Steers, 1976). In considering the horizontal or functional dimension, one must consider not only what a person’s job or specialization is but also how “congruent” that person is with that job/specialization. As research as shown (Hall & Hall, 1976; Hall & Schneider, 1973; McKelvey & Se- karan, 1977; and perhaps most importantly, Holland, 1973) it is not so much the work per se but the tit between the work function and the

N. A. JANS

Radial dimansion- centrality or inclusion

Vertical dimension -rank or authority

Functional dimension

FIG. 1. The career cone model (adapted from Schein, 1971).

worker’s personality, interests, and self-image which affects how he/she feels about the job, specialization, and/or career (Super, 1957). Many of these studies have measured congruence by the use of a variable similar to that which Lawler and Hall (1970) called “opportunity for self-expression”: the individual’s assessment of how much his/her work gave the chance to do things he/she felt best at and the extent to which the job was appropriate to his/her abilities.

Although many studies have used variables such as those mentioned above, none has explicitly used a development of Schein’s career cone dimensions to select variables of theoretical relevance. A more serious limitation is that few have used variables representative of all three dimensions. Even fewer have suggested that attitudes to the job could differ


from those towards wider aspects of the career (such as the functional specialization). Intuitively, it seems that this could be the case. For ex- ample, two engineers doing similar jobs in a production department may have equal levels ofjob involvement yet, because one sees his future as being oriented toward engineering per se and the other hopes to move into general management, they will have different levels of specialization involvement, i.e., with the engineering specialization.

The study described incorporates both these features. It was hypothesized that both job and specialization involvement would be related to the three dimensions of Schein’s career cone.

The study used, as a research population, a single occupational group: officers in the Australian Regular Army. While there are some drawbacks in using an analysis of a single occupational group, in that one cannot be sure that results are not due to idiosyncracies of the population, there are also advantages associated with this particular population. Army officers have a well-structured career, with clear differentiation between different ranks and different employment areas; while they have an op- erational, or regimental, specialization to which much of their training and experience is directed, they also spend time in nonregimental staff work; and they are strongly career conscious and have clear expectations about what their careers should offer. They are, thus, a good group to study to assess attitudes about both jobs and careers when one is trying to distinguish between these.

METHOD

Sample

The sample comprised officers of the Australian Regular Army, in the rank range second lieutenant to lieutenant colonel inclusive. It was drawn from the population in 65 separate units in five functional employment areas: technical and materiel staff, and training, infantry, supply, and warehousing officers. The jobs in each employment area were seen as being part of a military career specialization. Of the population of 612, 384 usable responses were derived for analysis (62%). Comparison of expected with actual rank distributions within each of the five subsamples suggested that each was an adequate representation of the population (Table 1). There were 10 women officers in the sample.

Missing values reduced the sample to 360. This was then randomly divided into two subsamples (N = 257 and 103): the smaller was used for comparison purposes.

Variables

Dependent variables. The two dependent variables were job involvement (psychological identification with the job or position occupied at

386 N. A. JANS

TABLE 1 RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRES BY RANK

Rank Subpopulation Subsample % of subpopulation

size size included

Lieutenant colonel and major 220 136 62 Captain 229 145 63 Lieutenant and second lieutenant 163 96 59 Unspecified - 7 -

Total 612 384

that time) and specialization involvement (psychological identification with the specialization or employment area of which that job was a part). Details of scale construction are given in Jans (1982). The scales had (Y coefficient values of .78 and .81, respectively, and, as a test of criterion validity, it was shown that a person’s score on each was associated with his/her degree of preference for future employment in that specialization (Jans, 1982, p. 64).

Independent variables. As noted earlier, four variables were chosen to represent the three dimensions of the career cone: rank and career factors (vertical dimension), participation in decision making (radial dimension), and self-expression (circumferential dimension). With the exception of rank, scales were developed from questionnaire items to measure these variables. Some of these items were identified by literature search, others from group interviews with Army officers across a range ofjobs and ranks (52 male officers were interviewed in groups of 4 to 8). Interviewees were first given a simple questionnaire, which invited them to list satisfactory and unsatisfactory facets of their jobs and specializations; these were then discussed. This allowed identification of facets which seemed to tap the variables. The variables are defined as follows:

Rank: the person’s worn rank in the Army. Careerfactors: the person’s perception that certain career rewards,

including advancement, satisfying senior appointments, fairness of advancement policies, and opportunity to participate in one’s career planning, are associated with present and continued participation in the specialization of which his/her job is a part (such facets are thus indicators of the person’s assessment of his/her likelihood of future vertical movement in the “specialization slice” of the career cone).

Self-expression: the person’s assessment of the degree of fit between the job function and his/her interests, abilities, background and opportunities for growth.

Purticipution in decision making: the person’s assessment of how much say he/she had in decisions which affect his/her job and work group.


The items used in the scales to measure dependent and independent variables are shown in Table 2.

At first glance, there may appear to be some overlap in the items in the job involvement and self-expression scales: the first and third items in the former deal with “abilities” and the third and fifth items in the latter deal with “utilized expertise” and “doing things you are best at.” However, Saleh and Hosek (1976) showed that the items representing the two variables loaded on different factors in their factor analysis (ortho- gonal rotation) of the responses of two samples (245 undergraduates and 313 businessmen) to a questionnaire with Likert-type items. The job involvement items used in the study reported here were included in a factor which Saleh and Hosek called “importance of performance with valued self”: other items in their study which loaded on this factor included “how well I perform in my job is extremely important to me” and “quite often I feel like staying home from work instead of coming in.” These items are consistent with the general definition of work involvement given in the second paragraph of this paper (that by Gurin, et al., 1960), especially with the notion of emotional attachment to the job, i.e., they are affective reactions to the job. The self-expression items in the study reported here were taken from a factor which Saleh and Hosek called “ac- tive participation”: other items which they found loaded on this factor included “how much chance do you get to try out your own ideas?” and “in general, I have much say and influence about what goes on in my job.” These items are more descriptive. or cognitively based reactions to the job. Thus the items in these two scales represent different types of reactions to the job, reactions which are consistent with the psychological constructs they are intended to measure; and it is justifiable to see these two scales as different constructs, even though (as is hypothesized) they are highly correlated (1. = 0.60-see Table 3).

The variables were measured by items in different questionnaires which were included in a wider study of Army officers’ work attitudes in 1978. About half the subjects were contacted in a mail survey; the remainder were personally visited. The data were put on punched cards and analyzed using the SPSS suite of programs (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Brent, 1975). The main program used was multiple regression.

A problem in multiple regression is assessing the relative contribution of each independent variable to the variance of the dependent variable. Except in the rare (for the behavioural sciences) case, where independent variables are unrelated, the B coefficient is not a precise indicator of this contribution (Kerlinger, 1973). However, if a hierarchical model is used- where variables or sets of variables are deliberately entered in steps-

388 N. A. JANS

TABLE 2 ITEMS Usmm SCALES

Scale Items comprising scale

Job involvement0 The performance of my present job is a good test of my skill and ability.

Other kinds of work in the Army are more important to me than the kind I do in my present job.6

I am able to utilize abilities I value in the performance of my present job.

Specialization involvementa

I am very much involved personally in the kind of work I do in my present job.

Getting ahead in my present employment area is important in my ideas about my future Army career.

The most important things that happen to me in my Army career involve the work in my present employment area.

My present employment area plays only a small part in my ideas about my future Army career.b

If I were to accomplish or achieve something in my Army career, I would prefer that it be connected with the kind of work done in my present employment area.

Career factorsC How personally rewarding do you think the more senior jobs in this employment area would be for you?

To what extent do you think experience in this employment area enhances an officer’s long-term prospects?

How confident are you that, if you made this employment area a major part of your career, you would advance in it as rapidly as your interest and ability warranted?

To what extent is the work in your employment area consistent with your personal interests as a member of the “Profession of Arms?”

Generally speaking, how much importance does the Army appear to attach to the work done in your employment area?

How much opportunity is there for you to participate in your personal career planning?

How much confidence do you have that there is actually a “career plan” for you?

Participation in decision makingC

How much autonomy do you have in your present job (e.g., in deciding whar objectives to tackle or when or how)?

To what extent do you participate in the determination of methods and procedures in your work group?

How much opportunity do you have in your present job to contribute to high-level policy associated with your employment area or unit policy?

How much say do you have in important decisions that are made in your work group?

How much say do you have in important decisions that are made in your unit?


TABLE 2-Continued

Scale

Self-expressionc

Items comprising scale

To what extent does the type of work you do in your present job allow you to follow your basic interests and work at things you like to do?

How much opportunity does your present job give you to develop your professional or personal competence?

To what extent, in your present job, do you utilize expertise or knowledge you have gained by formal training or education?

How much does your present job allow you to be creative: to produce new products or ideas or original solutions to problems?

How much opportunity does your present job give you to do the things you are best at?

a Item responses: Strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, strongly disagree. b Reverse scored. c Item responses: 5-point scale anchored by bipolar statements, e.g., “a good deal” to

“very little.”

the increment in variance can be calculated for each step and the relative contribution of each independent variable can, thus, be assessed (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). The parameter F to test the statistical significance of the size of an increment in variance was calculated using the formula in Nie et al. (1975, p. 339).

RESULTS

General

Table 3 shows the intercorrelations among variables for the larger sample. Table 4 shows the distributions of the variables between the two subsamples. Members of the samples (taken in total) had been in their present jobs (positions) between 3 and 25 or more months (mean 19

TABLE 3 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES

Variable I 2 3 4 5

1. Job involvement C.781 2. Specialization involvement .51 c.81) 3. Self-expression .60 .38 t.78) 4. Participation in decision making .34 .I0 .46 t.731 5. Career factors .30 .42 .49 .I6 t.741 6. Rank - .02 - .20 - .02 .23 - .20

Note. N = 257. The figures in parentheses, across the diagonal, are the (Y coefficient for each of the variables measured by Likert-type scales.

390 N. A. JANS

TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTIONS OF VARIABLES

Variable

Subsample 1 (N = 257)

M SD

Subsample 2 (N = 103)

M SD

Job involvement 7.67 0.95 7.67 0.85 Specialization involvement 7.22 1.00 7.01 1.03 Self-expression 3.45 0.83 3.51 0.83 Participation in decision making 13.37 0.77 13.25 0.87 Career factors 3.17 0.75 3.09 0.67 Rank 3.08 1.03 2.93 0.88

months). They had been army offkers between 18 months and 25 years (mean 11 years). Median age was 28.7 years.

Factors Associated with Job Involvement

The hierarchical entry of variables allows an assessment of the influence of each independent variable (or set thereof) by examination of the size and significance of the increment in variance associated with that

TABLE 5 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES-JOB INVOLVEMENT

Analysis

Entry Variables” p coefficient after step

order Step entered R2 F(tota1) F(addition) 1 2 3 4

A 1 Rank 2 PDM 3 SE 4 CF

B 1 Rank CF PDM 2

c 1

2

D 1

2

Rank PDM CF

Rank SE PDM

.oo 0

.13 18..51*

.36 48.27%

.36 36.06*

.09 12.45*

.18 18.31*

.13 18.51*

.18 18.31*

.36 70.50*

.36 48.27*

- - .02 -.lO -.05 - .05 37.ao* - .37* .lO .lO 90.92* - - .55* .55*

0 --- 0

.04 .04 - .30* .24*

21.77* - .31*

-.lO .04 - .37* .24*

15.43s - .31*

- .03 -.05 - .60* .55* 0 - .lO

Note. N = 257. * PDM, participation in decision making; SE, self-expression; CF. career factors. *p < .Ol.


TABLE 6 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES-SPECIALIZATION INVOLVEMENT

Analysis

Entry p coefficient after step

orde; Step Variable” R2 F(total) F(addition) 1 2 3 4

A 1 Rank .04 10.62** - - .20** -.23** -.20** -.15* 2 PDM .06 8.57** 5.40** - .15* - .04 - .03 3 SE .19 19.65** 40.60** - - .40** .27** 4 CF .24 19.5.5** 16.58** - - - .26**

B 1 Rank - .23** - .14* PDM .06 10.62** .15* .08

2 CF .19 19.98** 40.60** - .37**

c 1 Rank -.21** -.15* SE .19 29.34** .39** .26**

2 CF .24 26.08** 16.64** - .26**

D 1 Rank -.12* CF .19 29.07** .39**

Note. N = 257. ” PDM, participation in decision making; SE, self-expression; CF. career factors.

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

variable. Table 5 shows three orders of variable entry for the larger subsample.

Rank has no influence on job involvement (JI). Participation in decision making (PDM) and career factors (CF) both appear to have a significant relationship with JI but these relationships are subsumed by the entry of the self-expression (SE) factor into the equation. Neither PDM nor CF adds anything to the variance accounted for when they are added to SE (and rank) in the equation (entry order D in Table 5), although each adds something to that accounted for by the order when SE has not been entered (entry orders B and C).

As might therefore be expected, SE is the only variable whose l3 coefficient is significant when all variables are in the equation. When the smaller subsample was analyzed, B coefficients were Rank .05, PDM .15, SE .46 (p < .Ol), and CF .26 @ < .Ol); 56% of the variance in JI was accounted for. Thus, while SE’s p coefficient remains large and significant across the two subsamples, that of CF actually increases and be- comes highly significant in the smaller subsample. There is plainly some instability in the relationship for smaller samples, although the JI-SE relationship can be said to be fairly stable.

392 N. A. JANS

Factors Associated with Specialization Involvement

This part of the analysis used the same approach as that reported above. The results for the larger subsample are shown in Table 6.

SE and CF are of about equal importance in explaining SI: they account for the same amount of variance, separately and when each is added to the other in the regression equation.

Examination of the B coefficients when all variables are entered (Table 6 entry order A) gives the impression that rank is significant even when its relationship with CF is accounted for; but more systematic examination of the increments in variance for different entry orders shows this to be misleading. Rank does add significantly to the variance explained by SE (F = 11.69, p < .Ol) but not to that explained by CF. (The addition to explained variance by rank over SE is probably due to the relationship between rank and CF.)

When the smaller subsample was analyzed, the l3 coefficients were Rank .03, PDM .17, CF .17, and SE .37 (p < .Ol); 24% of the variance in SI was accounted for. This shows the instability of the relationship between rank and SI. Note also that while the p coefficient of CF is statistically insignificant, it remains quite large.

DISCUSSION

There are two main points of theoretical importance from the above. The first relates to the usefulness of Schein’s career cone concept in research on organizational careers, the second to the enhancement of our understanding of work involvement.

The Career Cone Concept

Schein’s career cone concept was shown to be useful in a number of ways. Because the model includes vertical, radial, and horizontal factors, it encourages comprehensiveness as well as parsimony in the selection of independent variables. Moreover, by suggesting that the combined, as well as the separate, effects of the independent variables are important, the model encourages the use of multivariate analysis. (Thus we are able to see that for one of the dependent variables the variance explained by circumferential and vertical factors taken together is greater than that which would result if they were analyzed separately.)

Another benefit of using multivariate analysis is that it enhances understanding of the interrelationships among the independent variables. The most interesting of these is that between self-expression and participation in decision making. This relationship may be due to the following factors. First, the opportunity to participate in decision making not only allows a person to make a contribution to group problems but also may allow him/her to make this contribution on the basis of his/her particular


expertise, thus giving scope for self-expression. Second, opportunity for such participation may be an indicator of the person’s autonomy and opportunity to structure his/her job so as to increase the chance to use this expetise. Third, participation may engender a general feeling that one is a competent and respected human being, thus enhancing self-esteem. Fourth, for the population under study, the very act of helping to make decisions (especially when one is the sole participant) makes an officer feel more like an officer; i.e., it is a “task content” factor as well as “task context” factor.

This latter point is illustrated by the way in which self-expression dom- inates participation in decision making in the regression equation. The same feature, however, suggests that there is more to self-expression than having influence over what is going on. Were this not so, both variables would tend to be multicollinear and cancel each other out in multiple regression analysis. That part of self-expression not explained by participation in decision making is, most plausibly, due to the work content of the job, i.e., the tasks done, or one’s functional location in the career cone.

Job and Specialization Involvement

In terms of the career cone, it has been shown that, while there are similarities in the factors associated with job and specialization involvement, there are also differences. This helps to explain why these two attitudes are separate dimensions of the general construct of work involvement (Jans, 1982).

Job involvement is influenced essentially by the circumferential dimension of the organizational career. That is, this attitude is dependent on the congruence between the person and his/herfunctionaf location in the organization, i.e., to task content factors.

Vertical location (present or potential) and proximity to the axis of power within the organization do not affect job involvement (except that self-expression and participation in decision making are related, as discussed above).

Specialization involvement, on the other hand, is affected by vertical as well as circumferential factors. It is not present vertical location which is important but the potential for upward vertical movement. Note, however, that for this sample this potential is connected with the circumferential dimension, since potential for upward movement depends partly on opportunities associated with or provided by the kind of work done. That is, people will perceive that, for them at any rate, some kinds of work are likely to lead to promotion faster than others.

These results are interpreted as follows. When a person is doing a job where he/she can express his/her self-image, he/she tends to become “in-

394 N. A. JANS

volved” in that job. This job involvement influences feelings about the wider specialization of which that job is a part, enhancing specialization involvement. At the same time, and somewhat independently of this pro- cess, the person assesses career planning in the organization to see, first, if it is done at all and, second, whether nontask rewards, such as advancement, are likely to accrue from continued association in the specialization. The result of this assessment is an additional influence on specialization involvement.

Vertical location in the career cone, i.e., rank, adds to the variance explained in specialization involvement, but the relationship is neither strong nor stable. However, the negative relationship between specialization involvement and rank is intriguing. More senior officers feel less involved with their specialization. This could be due to two factors. First, the senior officers could be anticipating their future jobs to be of a “general management” type, whereas junior officers are aware that they will remain as specialists for some time. Second, the more junior officers may, in a peacetime army, have more meaningful work (e.g., as platoon com- manders who are directly responsible for the soldiers in their platoons).

It must be emphasized, of course, that this research was conducted using a single and somewhat unusual population. Army officers have a well-structured career with clear rules about promotion and employment patterns. Different populations may exhibit different relationships between the relevant variables. Further research is needed, not only on different populations but in incorporating longitudinal as well as cross- sectional designs.

Implications for Organizations

Assuming that the relationships discussed above are reflected in other populations (this will need to be tested by research), this study has the following implications for organizations. People will tend to become involved in their jobs if they can participate in decision making in their work group and if they are doing work which matches their self-images. This requires managers who are willing and able to share authority with their subordinates, and personnel procedures which direct people to appropriate work areas, i.e., where they can do work which is consistent with their interests and abilities.

Job involvement seems to contribute to specialization involvement, but the latter can be further enhanced by the development of personnel policies which create optimism about future work in different jobs in that organization, e.g., about the chances of being fairly assessed for promotion.

These results offer some insight to the phenomenon known as “career plateauing,” where a manager reaches a career point beyond which he/ she is told he/she will not be promoted (Ference, Stoner, & Warren, 1977).


In terms of the model used above, this would result in a decline in the career factors attitude (i.e., pessimism about future prospects) and a con- sequent decline in specialization involvement. However, this could be partly checked if the person was placed in a job which was particularly suited to his/her interests and talents. The enhancement in self-expression would contribute to high job involvement which could have a flow-on to specialization involvement and organizational commitment. On the other hand, using this person as a “stop gap” in various parts of the organization (not uncommon with passed-over managers) is likely to adversely affect the person’s opportunity for self-expression, leading to decline in work involvement. The organization would then probably lose the manager, either in the physical sense (resignation) or the psychological sense (staying on with reduced enthusiasm for the work). Either way, an in- vestment in human resources would be not realized, either partly or fully.

REFERENCES

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple reRressionlcorrelution ana1ysi.s for the hehavioural sciences. New York: Wiley.

Ference, T. P., Stoner, J. A. F., & Warren, E. K. (1977). Managing the career plateau. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 602-612.

Gould, S., & Hall, D. T. (1979). Organizutionul involvement: An integrcuion. Unpublished paper, personal communication.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, J. (1960). Americnns vielo their mental health. New York: Basic Books.

Hall. D. T., & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals. performance and attitudes. Academy of Management Journul, 20, 282-290.

Hall, D. T., & Hall, F. S. (1976). The relationship between goals, performance, success. self-image, and involvement under different organizational climates. Jortrnrrl of‘ Voctr- tionnl Behavior. 9, 267-278.

Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1973). Organizational climates and cureers: The ~9o1.k /~IKY of priests. New York: Seminar Press.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. D., & Campbell, D. E (1975). Job attitudes: Ke- view qf reseurch and opinion Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.

Holland, J. L. (1973). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Jans, N. A. (1982). The nature and measurement of work involvement. Journal of Occ~tc-

pationul Psychology, 55, 56-67. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61, 341-349. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behaviord reseurch. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston. Lawler. E. E., III, & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involve-

ment, satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Journal qf Applied Psychology. 54, 305 - 312.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.). Handbook of industrial and organizationul psychology. (pp. 1297- 1350). Chicago: Rand McNally.

McKelvey, B., & Sekaran, V. (1977). Toward a career-based theory of job involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 281-305.

396 N. A. JANS

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Brent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., III (1968). Managerial arritudes and performance. Home- wood, IL: Irwin.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Ruh, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. (1975). Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 300-312.

Saleh, S. D., & Hosek, J. (1976). Job involvement: Concepts and measurements. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 213-224.

Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization and the career: A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401-426.

Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics. Sydney: Addison-Wesley. Siegal, A. L., & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Job involvement, participation in decision making,

personal background and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 9, 318-327.

Steers, R. M. (1976). Factors affecting job attitudes in a goal-setting environment. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 6- 16.

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work motivation. New York: Wiley.

RECEIVED: October 25, 1982

Organizational factors and work involvement

Documents