UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Comparative analysis of involvement and central life interest Epps, R. Timothy 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A4_5 E66.pdf [ 3.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101941.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101941-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101941-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101941-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101941-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101941-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101941-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101941-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101941.ris

Full Text

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INVOLVEMENT AND CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST by R. TIMOTHY EPPS B.I.E., GENERAL MOTORS INSTITUTE, 1 9 6 9 A THESIS IN COMMERCE SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April* 1970 ) In presenting this thesis i n partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the IJhiversity of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of British Columbia Vancouver #, Canada Date April 17, 1970 ABSTRACT This study was designed to increase understanding of the commitment of an individual to his job or position within an organization. Based on the test instrument designed and evaluated in Lodahl and Kejner's The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement, an empirical study of job involvement was made. Concurrently, the central l i f e interests of the respondents were measured by means of the question-naire battery used by Dubin i n Industrial WorkerIs Worlds: A Study of The "Central Life Interests?.,ofIndustrial Workers. The investigation was conducted by means of a questionnaire that combined the involvement and central l i f e interest instruments. The data were obtained from 25# randomly selected employees at three levels of the organizational hierarchy: 104 unskilled employees, 8$ skilled tradesmen, and 66 foremen. These individuals worked i n a medium-light automotive manufacturing company with plants at two geographical locations that were separated by a distance of several miles. The objectives of the study were essentially threefold. The job involvement instrument was used to determine the extent of job involvement displayed by the sample. Analysis was also conducted to study the effect of job level, age, and job seniority on the degree of involvement. The central l i f e interest instrument was used i n a similar fashion, to observe l i f e interest influences i i i resulting from biographical differences with the sample. In both of the above cases comparative data were available from earlier studies in which the instruments had been used, thus providing an additional facet for analysis. Finally the evidence from the study was evaluated to test the general hypothesis, that for any given level of job responsibility, job involvement i s i n actuality a measure of the "centrality" of l i f e interest in that job. The general conclusion reached in this investigation found that for the present sample, job involvement exists as points distributed across a continuum. A pure work orientation on the one hand, and a preference for the social relationships occurring in the workplace on the other, provide two inversely related extremes. The socially oriented individual i s l i k e l y to view work as boring and generally unimportant. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS . i V LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Historical Perspective 1 Concepts, and Definitions . . . 3 Hypotheses 4 II METHODOLOGY 7 Questionnaire Description . . . 7 Test Site and Sample 10 Sta t i s t i c a l Procedures 12 III STUDY RESULTS 13 Job-involvement . 13 Central Life Interest 15 Hypothesis One 20 Hypotheses Two and Three 21 IV DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 25 Job-Involvement 25 Central Life Interest 31 V CONCLUSIONS . . • 35 V PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY 39 APPENDIX A _ WORK ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE 41 APPENDIX B - FACTOR ANALYSIS-INVOLVEMENT 51 APPENDIX C _ INVOLVEMENT-LIKERT SCORE 57 APPENDIX D - FACTOR ANALYSIS.CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST . . 63 APPENDIX E - CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES 69 APPENDIX F - VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q 75 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Questionnaire Return Rates 12 II Factor Analysis-Involvement Section 14 III Central Life Interest-Over-all Analysis 16 IV Correlation Matrix - Central Life Interest Code #1 and Codes #1 & #2 22 V " t n Tests for Differences in Means 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis, and my education at the University of British Columbia have been assisted financially with a General Motors Fellowship granted by General Motors of Canada Limited. This report i s due, in no small part, to Dr. V. Mitchell and his advice and guidance throughout. For this contribution I owe special thanks. To Dr. L. Moore, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Dr. M. Miessner, Associate Professor of Sociology and H. Pold, Research Assistant, a debt of gratitude for their advice, recommendations and help i n preparing the report. Finally, to my wife Stella, I express my appreciat-ion for both typing the report, and for her criticism and suggestions during the study. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For some years writers in the f i e l d of management have maintained that positive job attitude in each employee is an important contribution to the success of any business organization. Only recently however, have empirical and theoretical studies been designed and directed toward establishing a validated description of positive job attitude. Lawler and Hall (1969) suggested that there are three distinct types of job attitude: involvement, intrinsic motivation, and satisfaction. The investigation reported here focused on the f i r s t of these attitudes, job-involvement, in an effort to further explain and understand i t s relevance in the workplace. Historical Perspective The study of involvement in the job developed as a concern of psychologists near the end of the war years (McGregor 1944). Allport (1947) defined involvement as the situation i n which the person "engages the status-seeking motive" i n his work. Wickert (1951) saw involvement as the opportunity to make decisions on the job and to have a feeling of contributing to the success of the organization. In a study by Gurin, Veroff and F e l d (i960) i t was found that individuals with a higher level of involvement are more 2 frequently at the extremes of job satisfaction depending on the job environment and job design. On the other hand, Vroom ( 1 9 6 2 ) proposed that job-involvement was best described as the extent to which self-esteem was affected by perceived level of performance. Similarly French and Kahn ( 1 9 6 2 ) saw involvement as the extent to which job performance was "central" to a person where centrality was the degree to which an a b i l i t y affects self-esteem. In the most recently reported study of this construct, Lawler and Hall ( 1 9 6 9 ) concurred with a definition proposed by Lodahl and Kejner ( 1 9 6 5 ) in regarding involvement as the degree of psychological identification with one*s work. Lawler and Hall were careful to note however, that the definitions relating performance to self-esteem actually referred to intrinsic motivation rather than job-involvement. That i s , when an individual uses job performance to satisfy his needs (self-esteem or any of the other types of need), reference i s being made to his intrinsic motivation rather than to his job-involvement. A parallel stream of evolution of the concept of involvement has also occurred in the discipline of sociology. The study of "emotional involvement" has i t s roots largely i n the efforts of Robert Dubin (1955, 1958, 1961). In pursuing a sociological phenomenon which he called "social participation" Dubin (1961) defined emotional involvement as: 3 "The" internalization of values about" the goodness"of work or the importance of work in the worth "of the person - and perhaps i t thus measures the ease, with which the person can be further socialized into an organization?? Clearly then, Dubinfs definition was not designed to apply specifically-to the work situation, this quite intentionally so. As a section of his analysis of social participation in the many areas of l i f e , Dubin has conducted several studies of "central l i f e interest" (Dubin 1955). Central l i f e interest was defined as the "expressed preference for a given locale or situation in carrying out an activity" (Dubin 1955). In later articles, Dubin alluded to the fact that centrality of l i f e interest is a reflection of the degree of emotional involvement characterizing the individual in a given locale or situation (Dubin 1961). Thus, i t would appear that the two streams of research proceeding within the disciplines of psychology and sociology, are essentially differing approaches to definition and measurement of the same phenomenon: job-involvement . Concepts and Definitions As interpreted by Lawler and Hall (1969), Lodahl and Kejner regard job-involvement as the degree to which a person i s psychologically identified with work, or the extent to which work i s important i n his perceived self-image. Psychological identification, as used in this definition, refers essentially to the comparison of one's individual values and attitudes with those of others. Any of these values and attitudes that are seen as desirable are adopted by the individual, and thereafter affect both his behavior and his self-image. Gn the other hand, Dubin views involvement as the internalization of values, or the acceptance of values into the personal behavior system. Although both definit-ions are stated in slightly different terms, they seem to refer to the formation of motives and to their effect on behavior. Hypotheses The two aspects of the present study represented efforts to replicate previous investigations by Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Lawler and Hall (1969) and Dubin (1955). More important however, was the attempt to establish the relationship between job-involvement and the centrality of the workplace as a l i f e interest. Accordingly i t was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1: Involvement, as measured by the 70b-involvement section of the questionnaire w i l l bear a close p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to the measure of centralitv of l i f e i n t e r e s t . Clearly this would be the case i f both instruments do reflect job-involvement. Further provisions were made in the study design to view the effects on involvement of increased responsibility on the job, age of the individual, and length of employment. Hypothesis 2: Involvement w i l l be positively-related to .job responsibility. This hypothesis extends from the premise that the acceptance by an individual of an increased degree of responsibility acknowledges his willingness to give additional time, effort, energy, and psychological commitment. Hypothesis 3- With reference to the temporal element, the effe c t s on involvement of both age and seniority w i l l be similar. Throughout the working l i f e of an individual, i t i s suggested that job-involvement prevails to a lesser degree during the more complicated middle years of l i f e when many more activ i t i e s vie for individual attention. Clearly then relative involvement would best be described as a flattened "u" shaped curve over the period of working l i f e . It might well be that individual job-involvement would be at i t s highest level just before retirement. the analysis of the data was directed towards detecting evidence in support of these hypotheses. An additional step foresaw a degree of inter-marriage between the two instruments in the creation of a third, more effective measure. 7 CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The instrument used in this study was, except for minor modifications, a direct combination of that portion of the Lodahl and Kejner ( 1 9 6 5 ) measure of involvement that was utilized by Lawler and Hall ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and Dubinfs Central Life Interest Questionnaire (Dubin 1 9 5 5 ) . For this reason the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data, at least in the i n i t i a l stages, were prescribed by those used in the previous studies that employed the component instruments. Questionnaire Description A series of six questions designed to measure job-involvement was taken from a larger Job Attitude Questionnaire used by Lawler and Hall (1969) to evaluate a subset of factors which comprise job attitudes. These six questions together with seven point Likert-type response scales formed the f i r s t section of the questionnaire. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agree-ment or disagreement with each of the following statements: 1. The major satisfaction in my l i f e comes from my job. 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. a 3. I l i v e , eat, and breathe my job. 4. I am very much involved personally in my work. 5. I*m really a perfectionist about my work. 6 . Most things in l i f e are more important than work. In a l l but one of these questions (item 6 ) , answers which reflected strong agreement were interpreted as indicating a higher degree of involvement. For the interested reader, the entire questionnaire is appended as Appendix A. The second section of the questionnaire was comprised of Dubin*s forty question Central Life Interest measure. Each question consisted of a partial statement, with a choice of three phrases to complete the reply. Inherent in the respondents' choice of a reply was the selection of a job-oriented, passive, or non-job-oriented connotation for that question. The code indicating the mode of each of the reply selections has been included with the appended copy of the questionnaire. The instrument yields several sub-catagories, in addition to an over-all measure, which focus on four specific classes of human relationships. These sub-categories, and the number of questions comprising each are as follows: 9 1. General- Relations: (nine-questions) which concentrates on reflecting the respondents1 perception of work centered activity as a generally valuable social experience. (Dubin predicted that this would be low.) 2. Informal Relations; (fourteen questions) which tests the importance of relationships established between individuals that are not a product of the formal hierarchy of the organization. (Dubin predicted that the importance of these relationships would be perceived as low.) 3. Formal Relations: (seven questions) which measures the job attitude of individuals with regard to their l i f e experiences with formal organizations. (Dubin predicted that the job w i l l be the most dominant area of experience with formal organizations.) 4. Technical Relations: (ten questions) which refer specifically to the preferences of individuals towards the technical aspects of the environment. (Dubin predicted that a high number of individuals would be job-oriented in this regard.) 10 The third section of the survey e l i c i t e d demographic data to be used in validating the investigation and to provide for the study of intra-sample relationships. Test Site and Sample The study was conducted at a large automotive manufacturing complex, which consisted-of two f a c i l i t i e s approximately seven miles apart. The two plants employ a total of approximately 7,000 hourly workers, a l l of whom are members of The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Additionally approximately 1,800 non-union salaried employees also work at the two plants. The tasks performed at the f a c i l i t i e s vary from heavier foundry and forge work to light and medium light automotive component machining and assembly. A l l of the individuals in the sample worked either in the production aspects of the system, or in service and supervisory capacities. The individuals to be surveyed were selected from three levels of the organizational hierarchy. At the lowest level, 300 unskilled employees were randomly selected from payroll l i s t s . The jobs of these men are characterist-i c a l l y of the elementary physical variety within the production and secondary service departments. 11 Approximately 200 skilled tradesmen were also selected at random to participate. These men possess journeyman qualifications in normally recognized trades, and work regularly at their respective trades. Typical tasks performed by these men include machine maintenance, tooling control and service, plant maintenance and upkeep. These jobs require a far greater degree of s k i l l and technical knowledge than those characterized by the unskilled classifications. The third echelon represented in the study i s that of foremen. Of the total of approximately 340 foremen, a • • • ^ sample of 150 was selected. The responsibilities of these men closely parallel those of the traditional shop foreman. They supervise and direct the efforts of the employees under them, and they are responsible for discipline, production records, efficiency and equipment in their areas. The foremen supervise employees in the skil l e d and unskilled classifications, and are not members of the union. The demographic data that were obtained indicated that six of the unskilled employees were working on a shortened shift basis, and three were on layoff. A l l other respondents to the questionnaire were employed on a f u l l time basis at the time of the survey. The questionnaire was mailed to a total of 650 individuals choosen from the three levels of the organizational 12 structure together with a stamped envelope for their' convenience in replying. The envelope was pre-addressed to the investigator at the University. T able 1 reflects the response rates that were obtained. Unskilled Skilled Foremen Total TABLE I . Questionnaire Return ftatea Sent Out 300 2 00 1 5 0 6 50 Returned 1 0 4 88 66 258 Return Rate 3 4 . 5 % 4 3 . 9 % 4 4 . 0 % 3 9 . 7 % S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures As has been mentioned earlier, the i n i t i a l analytical procedures were drawn largely from those used in preceeding applications of the test instruments (Dubin ( 1 9 5 5 ) , Lodahl and Kejner ( 1 9 6 5 ) , Lawler and Hall ( 1 9 6 9 ) ) . These techniques were supplemented by factor analyses, means tests, correlational analysis and tests for association among variables as the analysis proceeded. 13 CHAPTER III STUDY RESULTS Before presenting the results of the several tests to which the hypotheses of the study were subjected, i t is necessary to describe some of the preliminary analyses that were made and the findings that were obtained. Job-Involvement In the involvement section the data were tested by means of factor analyses using the method of principal components with rotation to the varimax criterion (Kaiser 195#). This method of evaluation was used primarily as a test of the Lawler and Hall (1969) measure of job-involvement. Calculations were made on both a two factor and three factor solution, the results of which are presented in Table II. Upon evaluation, i t was determined that three distinct and interpretable factors existed within the involvement scales. The f i r s t factor consists of scales one, two, and three. Factor two was identified as consisting of scale five and the third factor as consisting of scale six. Scale four, involvement personally in my work, was discarded from the analysis since this scale loads ambiguously on both factors one and two. 14 -TABLE. II Factor Analysis of Involvement Scales (n=253) Variable Two Factor Solution 1 2 1 Job is major satisfaction 0.323 0.247 2 Important happenings involve job 0.363 0.029 3 Live, eat, breath job 0.745 0.034 4 Involved personally i n work 0.425 0.654 5 Perfectionist about work -0.139 0.900 6 Most things more important than work -0.370 0.022 Three Factor Solution 1 2 3 1 Job i s major satisfaction 0.326 0.206 -0.141 2 Important happenings involve job 0.366 -0.016 -0.117 3 Live, eat, breath job 0.739 0.037 0.030 4. Involved personally i n work 0 .423 0.639 -0.167 5 Perfectionist about work -0.034 0.904 0.063 6 Most things more important -0.094 -0.020 0.935 than work 15 In order to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of this factor structure, factor analyses were performed on both the data from the total sample and on a l l sub-categories as broken down by demographic class. The pattern of three factors and the distribution of factor loadings extracted from the aggregate data were well reproduced in the factor analyses of the demographic sub-categories. These several analyses are presented as Appendix B of this study. central Life interest I n i t i a l l y the data from the central l i f e interest section of the questionnaire were scored according to a tandem decision rule designed by Dubin (1955). This procedure entailed summarizing the data on an individual basis and then making a judgement in each case of the degree of the respondent's job-orientation. Under Dubin Ts procedure, a person was described as job-oriented i f he qualified under either of the following two decision rules: 1. The sum of the job-oriented answers (Code 1) comprised at least 50% of the questions in the category. or 2. The sum of the job-oriented and passive answers (Codes 1 and 2) comprised at least 70% of the Questions in the category. 16 Scores were obtained by this means for the over-all measure of centrality of the job as a l i f e interest and for each of the four sub-categories. The results of the over-all analysis of the data i s recorded in T able III. The corresponding analyses for the biographical sub-sections are appended in Appendix D. TABLE III Central Life Interest - Over-all Analysis (n=25#) Rule Rule" % of Si #2 Tp.tal SjamjOa Over-all 6 151 157 60.3 General Relations 9 110 119 46.2 Informal Relations 2 73 30 31.0 Formal Relations 36 162 243 96.2 Technical Relations 91 32 173 67.0 *Z0.1 out of 23 possible code 2 answers was the average Rule 1 » the sum of the job-oriented responses i s equal to or greater than 50$ of the category responses Rule 2 - the sum of the job-oriented and passive responses is equal to or greater than 70% of the category responses 17 As the analysis of the central l i f e interest data proceeded, the appropriateness of Dubin*s two decision rules came under serious question. As can be seen in Table III the majority of the job-oriented individuals were classified as such on the basis of decision rule two. That i s , a preponderance of passive responses by a particular respondent were interpreted under the decision rule as evidence of job-orientation. In one case the 70% response requirement (rule 2) was satisfied entirely by code two answers (passive). Clearly any suggestion that such a pattern of responses i s evidence of job-orientation is open to question. At this point, i t seemed appropriate to proceed with an analysis that recognized only the job-oriented replies in evaluating the job-orientation of the respondents. Accordingly, this method was used to investigate demographic sub-categories within the sample, and in the analysis of the relationship between central l i f e interest and job-involvement . Further, an attempt was made to justify the structural relationship among the four subsections of the central l i f e questionnaire (general, informal, formal and technical relations). Since factor analysis was s t a t i s t i c a l l y impossible because of the response format of this instrument, a tool measuring variable association was used (Goodman and Kruskall 1954). The reply codes were dichotomized (ie. code 1 vs. codes 2 & 3) and then a l l questions i n each subsection were compared with one another in bivariate tables. The following i l l u s t r a t i o n exemplifies the technique: Question #14 0 1 0 219 7 1 30 2 where 0 represents the number of job-oriented replies and 1 represents the passive and non-job-oriented replies 19 This bivariate table was reduced to a single number (Yule*s Q) representing the degree of association between the two variables (i.e. between questions #11 and Yule's Q » ad - be (range -1 t o + l ) ad + be when the table i s in the form a b c d Therefore for the example: Yule's Q = 21Q (2) - 7 ("30) » . 35 219 ( 2 ) + 7 ( 3 0 ) Where the variables being compared are associated, a pattern of high Q values (-1 to + l ) would occur in each subsection. However, no such pattern was found to exist 20 (Appendix F) indicating a lack of variable association within the various sub-sections. . . . . . . The investigator thus was l e f t with no alternative basis for proceeding with the analysis but to accept the construct validity of the several sub-sections of the central l i f e interest measures as posited by Dubin (1955). It must be noted, however, that the content validity of the sub-sections was judged as reasonably high. Hypothesis One It w i l l be recalled that hypothesis one predicted that job-involvement would bear a close positive relation-ship to the measure of centrality of l i f e interest. In order to test this hypothesis the inter-relationship between the two sections of the questionnaire was tested by means of a correlational analysis. In total, eight variables were correlated. These variables were established as follows: 1. F actor one comprising involvement scales one, two and three. 2. Factor two consisting of involvement scale five. 3. Factor three consisting of involvement scale six. 4. Total score on the Central Life Interest measure. 5. General Relations 6. Informal Relations 7. Formal Relations 8. Technical Relations. 21 Crude factor scores were computed for each respond-ent by summing (or using) the response values checked for the scales or scale comprising the factor. The correlational analysis was calculated twice allowing for the two scoring methods used in the central l i f e interest section. I n i t i a l l y the individual scores i n each section consisted of his total of job-oriented answers. The second calculation used the total of job-oriented and passive answers for the score according to the method used by Dubin (1955). Table IV presents the results of these correlational analyses. These results failed to find support for the hypothesis, and i n fact indicated that just the opposite relationship existed. Hypotheses Two and Three As discussed earlier i n this study, hypotheses two and three predicted that increasing job responsibility would vary positively with job-involvement, and that job-involvement would evolve in a "u" shaped pattern as both age and seniority increased. These hypotheses were both tested in a similar fashion. For the involvement section a mean Likert score and standard deviation were calculated in each demographic class; for each of the six items*. 22 . .TABLE IV . Correlation Matrix Central Life Interest - Code #1 only-Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Factor One 1 . 0 0 2 Factor T wo 0.05 1 . 0 0 3 Factor Three - 0 . 2 0 * 0 . 0 1 1 . 0 0 4 Total -0.45*-0.18 * *0.28* 1 . 0 0 5 General - 0 . 36 * - 0.09 0.15 * *0 .74 * 1 . 0 0 6 Informal - 0 . 2 2 * - 0 . 1 4 * * 0 . 1 5 * * 0 . 6 4 * 0.31* 1 . 0 0 7 Formal - 0 . 3 4 *-0 . 1 1 0 . 2 7 v 0.68* 0 . 4 5 * 0 . 2 7 * 1 . 0 0 8 Technical -0.38*-0.15** 0.24* 0.81* 0 . 4 5 * 0 . 3 1 * 0.39* Central Life Interest - Codes #1 & #2 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Factor One 1 . 0 0 2 Factor T wo 0.05 1 . 0 0 3 Factor Three - 0 . 2 0 * 0 . 2 3 * 1 . 0 0 4 Total - 0 . 3 9 * 0.18**-0.12 1 . 0 0 5 General - 0 . 3 8 * 0 . 0 3 - 0 . 0 7 0 . 7 5 * 1 . 0 0 6 Informal - 0 . 1 1 0.15 * -0 .06 O .65* 0 . 2 7 * 1 . 0 0 7 Formal - 0 . 2 0 * 0 . 2 6 * - 0 . 0 3 0 . 50 * 0 . 2 9 * 0 . 2 0 * 1 . 0 0 8 Technical -O.36* 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 1 3**0 . 7 7 * 0 . 4 5 * 0 . 2 3 * 0 . 2 0 * * • p < . 01 23 ie job responsibility - 3 levels age - 5 levels seniority - 5 levels For the central l i f e interest section the demographic class mean and standard deviation were calculated for the number of job-oriented answers in each of the five categories (over-all, general, informal, formal and technical relations). The mean and standard deviation summaries are presented for job-involvement in Appendix C and for central l i f e interest in Appendix E. The difference between each of the corresponding means was tested by the- n t " test procedure. The mean differences were significant only occasionally at either the .01 or .05 levels of confidence as indicated in Table V. What i s more important there was no discernable pattern of significant differences between the demographic classes. 2 h TABLE V " t " Tests for Differences in Means, Significance Levels .01 .05 NS Total Job-Involvement Job Responsibility- 5 4 15 24 Age 7 4 25 36 Seniority 4 1 55 60 Central Life Interest Job Responsibility 3 2 10 15 Age 5 6 39 50 Seniority 2 1 47 50 These results f a i l to support the hypotheses because of the lack of evidence substantiating differences between the groups. 25 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS The discussion of the results can be conveniently-divided into two sections. Job Involvement The factor structure that was found to exist for the six item measure of involvement seems to shed some additional light on the concept of job-involvement. It w i l l be recalled that three distinct factors were found which accounted for 75.9$ of the variance in the factor space. The f i r s t of these, consists clearly of the items concerned with satisfaction with, importance of and pre-occupation with the job, and seems to measure job-involvement. The last three items in the section present a slightly different picture. Item four, questioning personal involvement in work, appears to be sp l i t between the established involvement factor and a second factor. Item five, reflecting the individual's view of himself as a perfectionist at work, loads very highly on this second factor. In speculating as to the identity of the second factor, inspection of the wording of statements four and five highlighted one possibility. Phrases such as "I'm really a perfectionist" and "very much involved personally", 26 intimated that perhaps rather than relating to involvement, these items tend more towards measuring self-esteem. The study by Lawler and Hall (1969) gave part-icular recognition to the distinction between involvement (or psychological identification with work) and intrinsic motivation based on self-esteem. Item four, questioning personal involvement in work was referred to specifically, and i t was their observation that i t related more to involvement than to intrinsic motivation. Does an individual view his job as an opportunity to satisfy important needs (rationale for involvement) or does he feel that his need satisfaction i s dependent on his job performance (rationale for intrinsic motivation)? In spite of their suggestion, i t would appear that in gathering the present data, items four and five, the personal involvement and perfectionist questions, have not differentiated between involvement and intrinsic motivation. The phrases could certainly have appealed to the individual as requiring him to indicate his feelings about doing his job well. That is to say his motive in answering might have been: I am involved personally and I am a perfect-ionist because I need to be to satisfy my needs. 27 Alternatively however, i t must be recognized that this factor may have been more a reflection of the neurotic behavior of individuals in a fli g h t to avoid criticism, especially when considering the need to see oneself as a perfectionist. (Symonds 194-6). Item six (Most things i n l i f e are more important than work.) see*ms to tap s t i l l another dimension of meaning. The key word in this item i s "important". It i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine the c r i t e r i a on which an individual would base his evaluation of this statement but most certainly other major interests in l i f e , or even a negative reaction to work in terms of i t s being relatively important, could have effect. The study by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) reported the efforts made i n reducing a series of question items to the involvement instrument used in the present study. The present item six, regarding the importance of work, was used on three occasions by Lodahl and Kejner (1965). For each case they reported a light- to moderate loading (as high as .35) on a factor which they interpreted as dealing with the boredom and general unimportance of work. I n a l l likelihood, the factor has reappeared in the present study as factor three. One result of primary importance was the relation-ships that were found between the involvement and central 23 l i f e interest measures. The correlation study described earlier reflected that the involvement factor, comprised of the three involvement items, was negatively related with each of the five measures of central l i f e interest. This was true not only for the dual measure of central l i f e interest u t i l i z i n g both job-oriented and passive answers as in Dubin^s earlier work, but also for the scoring system comprised only of job-oriented answers that was developed in the present study. Although f a i r l y low, the correlation coefficients were significant at .01 or .05 levels of confidence i n a l l but one instance. The correlation matrix also indicated the following additional relationships: 1. The five measures of central l i f e interest were quite highly intereorrelated (ranging from .27 to .31, median r = .45 for the job-oriented replies only and from .20 to .77, median r « .45 when considering both the job-oriented and passive replies.) 2. The relationship of item five, the view of one-self as a perfectionist at work, to the remaining items in the matrix i s questionable because of the low and s t a t i s t i c a l l y insignificant correlation coefficients. 29 3 . Factor three of the involvement measure, consisting of the boring and general unimport-ance of work item, bears a slight but significant negative correlation to Factor one, job-involvement (r = - . 2 0 , p_ < . 0 1 ) , but a significant positive relationship to a l l but one of the five central l i f e interest measures. At f i r s t glance these results seem to f l y i n the face of the original prediction that the two instruments in fact measure the same thing, job-involvement. Upon further reflection however, this seems to be only partially true. The statements purporting to measure job-involvement suggest that the individual rated as highly involved, must be submerged to an unusual degree in the pure work aspects of his job. Statements such as "major satisfaction in l i f e " , "most important things in my l i f e " or "I l i v e , eat, and breathe my job" seem to verify this as being the case. The central l i f e interest questions however suggest another interpretation. These statements, almost without exception, draw on social relationships as their measures of central l i f e interest. They seem to tap the social environment and social attitudes in the workplace. 30 In returning to consideration of the original hypothesis, i t appears that i n referring to job-involvement, the investigator's failure was one of distinction. The results suggest that the respondents are differentiating between job-work-involvement and job-social-involvement. In fact, these two attitudes or facets of the same attitude, were found to be inversely related. That i s to say, i f an individual is involved to a greater degree in the pure work aspects of his job, i n a l l likelihood he would tend to de-emphasize the social relationships i n and around his job. This would also be true for the converse situation. Further evidence in support of the existance of this relationship was offered in the correlational analysis by item number six of the involvement scale (the importance of work). I f t as the study by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) suggests, this item does in fact refer to the boredom and relative unimportance of work, then the relationship can be placed on a stronger basis. Item number six, the boredom and general unimportance of work and the involvement factor were found to be negatively correlated. It would seem to follow from the above discussion, that a person who is high in jobrwork-involvement w i l l tend to be low in job-social-involvement. Logically i t can be inferred that the same person who is high on job-work-involvement 31 would not be bored and classify work as being relatively unimportant. Rather, this would be the state of the job-socially-involved person. Lawler and Hall (1969) gave passing recognition to this fact. When qualifying their definition of involve-ment they said that there may be several reasons why a person may view holding a job as necessary for his need satisfaction. He may, for instance, be thinking of his "work-involvement", but on the other hand may prize the social relationships on the job to which the holding of the job entitle him and make possible for him. Clearly then, the results reported here suggest that this distinction not only exists, but that the two states are inversely related. Central Life Interest This section of the study indicated that the degree to which the workplace represents a central l i f e interest was much higher in the present study than in the earlier Dubin study (1955) when the data were scored by using the tandem decision rule. The results show that when comparing the numbers of job-oriented individuals in the present sample to Dubin T s study, 60.8% in the present study as compared with 2k% in Dubin»s were job-oriented over-all. 32 In sub-category-comparisons 46.2$ versus 15$ were job-oriented in general relations, 31.0% versus 9% i n informal relations, 96.2$ versus 61$ in formal relations and 67.0$ versus 63$ in technical relations. Although DubinTs prediction of a tendency for higher job-orientation in the formal and technical relations prevailed in this study, the degree of job-orientation was much higher, and there were no noticeable characteristics of the sample to suggest that i t was unique or unusual in this respect. One questionable element in the instrument design did come to light. In viewing the breakdown of job-oriented individuals according to the rule under vfhich they were so classified, i t was obvious that a disproportionate number of people were classified as job-oriented on the basis of passive responses allowed by decision rule two. Unfortunately, this type of breakdown of responses was not supplied in the Dubin study (1955) so comparison of the results obtained in the present study with those of Dubin was not possible. It w i l l be recalled that Dubin's second.decision rule allows that for any individual, i f the sum of his job-oriented and passive answers i s at least 70$ of the J total, that i s 23 items of a possible 40 for the over-all accounting, then he i s classified as job-oriented. This appears to be clearly in conflict with the theoretical intent of the questionnaire. It seems only logical that any conclusions concerning the degree of job-orientation of an 33 individual should be confined to his job-oriented replies. The passive replies should have no bearing. To i l l u s t r a t e , analysis of the results of rule two indicated that of the 2# questions comprising the 70% requirement, the sample displayed an average of 20.1 passive answers. In the case of one individual thus classified as job-oriented, a l l 2$ of his answers were passive replies. An attempt was made to analyze differences in job-orientation reported by the several demographic sub-categories within the sample by u t i l i z i n g only the job-oriented answers. The differences in mean job-orientation were only occasionally s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant however, and did not justify further analysis. As a test of construct validity, Yule ?s Q was used to test variable association within each of the central l i f e interest sub-sections. Normallyj to legitimize favorable conclusions, the Q. values i n any sub-section of the instrument would converge on positive or negative unity for a l l comparison. Any individual question showing consistently low values, when compared with the others i n the section, would be discarded as being inconsonant with the measuring tendency of the remaining questions. The results of this test, as indicated by the 34 cumulative tables in Appendix F, can best be described as inconsequential. The Q values wander unaccountably, and tend to be low. It would seem that the internal association of variables within the sedtions, was at best, questionable. 35 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The present study has found job-involvement to exist in two forms; that directed towards the pure work aspect of the job and that which values the social relations occurring at the workplace. Ideally job-involvement can be characterized as a continuum with pure work and social orientation as two inversely related extremes. Associated with the job-social-involvement attitude is aview of work as being boring and generally unimportant. The involvement instrument was found to be most effective when considering only the f i r s t three items comprising factor one in the present analysis. Item six was related to the boring and generally unimportant aspects of work rather than involvement. Any suggestionas to the measuring tendencies of Items four and five would be only speculation, but there was l i t t l e evidence to support the conclusion that they tapped job-involvement. The Dubin instrument was valuable in that i t did focus specifically on the social relationships in the work-place. Any conclusions, based on the tandem decision rule, allocating numbers of individuals who regard work as a central l i f e interest, would be relative to the arbitrary limits inherent in the rules themselves. Recommendations 36 for future applications of this instrument would include the following: 1. Disregard the passive replies when establishing a job-oriented classification. 2. Carefully evaluate the appropriateness of the 50% level of job-oriented answers required to qualify an individual as job-oriented. The evidence of the present study suggests that this requirement should be validated on some more reasonable basis than has been offered thus far. One of DubinTs (1955) recommendations was that attempts to motivate workers should be abandoned since their level of involvement with the workplace was so low as to effectively frustrate any motivational efforts. Kornhauser (1965) however, in his comprehensive study of mental health in the automotive industry, argued that his evidence supported the conclusion that potential does exist for motivating the industrial worker. In view of the findings of the present study, although bounded by the automotive industry, this investigator must agree with Kornhauser. Further investigation may well discover the key for directing job-involvement towards work rather than towards the social relationships in the workplace. 37 Unfortunately, attempts to validate the hypotheses concerning the effects of job responsibility, age and job seniority were unsuccessful. Conclusions in this area must await a similar study based on a larger sample and more explicit measuring devices. The reader is cautioned against over generalization of the results of the present study. The data reported here were obtained from a sample of the employees in only two plants and until further replications justify a wider application of the conclusions of the present study, their applicability i s confined at most to the automotive industry. Future efforts directed to replication or enlargement of the present study may find some value in the following recommendations: 1. The study provided evidence for the existance of a negative relationship between work and social job-involvement at the foreman-worker level in industry. Additional studies may evaluate this relationship at higher organizational levels, and within organizations of other types (hospitals, military, sales etc.) 2. The thin line of definition between job-involvement and intrinsic motivation played an important part i n the present study. The question then follows, what is the relationship between intrinsic 38 motivation and job-social-involvement? The Lawler and Hall study ( 1 9 6 9 ) incorporated an intrinsic motivation instrument which could be used in a fashion similar to the use of their involvement instrument in the present study to provide useful results. Additional research in both areas would undoubtably provide information of great potential in furthering present under-standing of job attitudes and their part in motivation theory. 39 .. - BIBLIOGRAPHY. - -Allport, G.Wi, The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 1 9 4 7 , 52, 117-122. American Psychological Association, Inc., Publication manual of "the'"1 American Psychological Association. (Rev.) Washington, D.C.: 1967. Campbell, W.G. Form & style in thesis writing. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1954. Dubin, R. Human relations in administration. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J,: Prentice Hall, 196l. Dubin, R. Industrial workers* worlds: A study of the "central l i f e interests" of industrial workers. Social Problems, 1955, 3 , 131-142. Dubin, R. The world of work. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1958. French, J.R.P. Jr. and Kahn, R. A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18, 1-47. Goodman, L. and Kruskail, W. Measures for cross classifications. Journal of American S t a t i s t i c a l Association. 1954, 49 PP 733-764. Gurin, G., Veroff, J. and Feld, S. Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books Inc., i 9 6 0 . Faculty of Graduate Studies, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. The University of British Columbia. Kaiser, H.C. The variance criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 2 3 , 187-200. Keithley, E.M., A manual of style. Cincinnati: Souths Western Publishing Co., 1954 Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research, New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 4 . Kornhauser, A.W. Mental health of the industrial worker, New York: John Wiley & Son, 1965. Lawler, E.E. and Hall, P.T. The relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction and intr i n s i c motivation, In Press, 19&9. 40 Lodahl, "T.M. and Kejner, M. The' definition and measurement . of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1965, Vol. 49, No. 1, 24-33. McGregor, D.M. Conditions of effective industrial leadership. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1944, 8, 55-63. Symonds, P.M. The dynamics of human adjustment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1946. Turabian, K.L. A manual for writers of term papers, thesis and dissertations, Chicago: Phoenix Books (paperback) 1955. Vroom, V, Ego-involvement, job satisfaction, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 159-177. Wickert, F.R. Turnover and employee's feelings of ego-involvement i n theday-to-day operations of a company. Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4, 185-197. A P P E N D I X A 42 i WORK ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE This i s a study, of the ways i n which we look at work in our society, being conducted at the university of British Columbia. ~ lou have been selected at random as an employee of one company, of several, to be studied across the country. Tour answers w i l l be kept entirely confidential by the University research staff. It i s not necessary for you to sign the questionnaire, since we do not wish to identify you personally. A l l of the answers w i l l be grouped with those of the other people participating i n the project. It i s important to the success of the study to have your participation in order to insure that we have enough replies from which to draw reliable s c i e n t i f i c conclusions. It w i l l take you less than 3 0 minutes to answer these questions. Please do i t now and return i t i n the stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience. Thank you very much for your time, and the help you have given us. Directions: For each of the following statements you are asked to give your opinion on the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the statements. This can be done by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number of the 43 seven point scale below each question. For example: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 1. The major satisfaction in my l i f e comes from my job. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I l i v e , eat, and breathe my job. ' Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I am very much involved personally in my work. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I'm really a perfectionist about my work. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Most things in l i f e are more important than work. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Directions: For each of the following statements, there are three possible answers. We would like you to read each statement and the three answers very carefully. 44 After you have read the statement and the three answers under i t , pick out the answer which comes closest to your own feelings about the matter. Place a check in front of this answer. Sometimes, none of the answers w i l l exactly f i t your own ideas but you can pick out one which i s closest to the way you feel and check i t . Please be sure to check one answer and one answer only to every statement. Bo not skip any statement? 7. If I received a promotion that meant moving to another cit y 2 my friendships wouldn't make any difference i n my moving 1 I would most dislike leaving my friends on the job 3 I would most dislike leaving my other friends #. I sometimes hope that 3 I ' l l get to be a more important member i n my club, church or lodge 1 I ' l l get a promotion at work 2 such things won't ever bother me 9 i I most enjoy keeping 3 my things around the house in good shape 1 my hand tools and work-space on the job i n good shape 2 my mind off such things 10. I would rather spend my evenings with 2 different people depending mainly on what we do 3 my family 1 people from work 11. I believe that 3 the things I do away from the job are more important than anything else 2 most things are about equally important 1 my job i s more important than anything else 45 12. I most like 3 talking with my friends about things that are happening 2 talking about whatever my friends want to talk about 1 talking shop with my friends 13. In my spare time 1 I often think up better ways of doing my job 2 I just prefer to relax 3 I often think about keeping my car in good shape 14. The most pleasant things I do are concerned with 3 things away from work 2 different things at different times 1 things about work 15. I f a job I know about was giving"everybody trouble and I heard that another company had solved this problem 1 I would t e l l my bosses about i t 2 I don*t worry about things and would forget the whole matter 3 I'm too busy to worry about the company problems 16. I would rather take my vacation with 3 my family t 1 some friends from work 2 by myself 17. I li k e to read 2 things about lots of different subjects 1 things about my job 3 things about what I most li k e to do 18. In order to get ahead in the world 2 I think you have to have a lot of luck 3 I think you have to be well liked and known about town 1 I think you have to be well liked where you work 19. When I am not around them, the people I miss most are 2 just people in general 3 my friends around town 1 my friends at work 46 2 0 . I would enjoy taking classes to learn more about 3 my hobby or other interests 1 my job 2 only something very special and important 2 1 . I prefer to join a club or a lodge 3 where there are people from my neighborhood who are members 1 where there are people from work who are members 2 where the members come from a l l over 22. Moving ahead on my job 1 i s so important that I'm willing to spend a l l the time "necessary to make contacts and pick up information about my work 3 i s not so important that I would give up time to make contacts and get information about my work 2 i s not particularly important to me 2 3 . I am happier i f I am praised for doing a good job of 1 something at work 3 something in an organization I belong to 2 anything, but i t doesn't matter very much what 24. In my free time at work, I would rather 1 talk shop with the fellows 2 talk about whatever comes up 3 talk about things not concerned with the plant 2 5 . When I am worried, i t i s usually about 1 how well I'm doing on my job 2 just l i t t l e things 3 things that happen to me outside the plant 2 6 . It i s more important to me that 1 I be tops at my job and that my friends know this 3 I be good at other things (away from my job) and that my friends know this 2 things go smoothly whether or not my friends think I'm good at them 4 7 2 7 . I would most hate 1 missing a day's work " 3 missing a meeting of an organization I belong to 2 missing almost anything I usually do 2#. When I am doing some work, I usually try not to waste material 1 on my job 2 seldom; I don't worry about wasting material 3 on a project at home 29. It i s easier for me to take a bawling out 3 from an officer of an organization I belong to i n town 2 from a policeman 1 from my foreman 3 0 . I get a bigger kick out of 1 playing cards with the fellows at work at lunch time 2 playing cards only with people I can win from 3 playing cards at night with friends 3 1 . Noise bothers me most 3 when working at home 1 when working at the plant 2 hardly ever 3 2 . I hope my children can 1 be sure to work at the same kind of job as mine 3 be sure to work at a different kind of job from mine 2 work at any job, I don't care what 3 3 . When I am doing some work 3 I am usually most accurate working at home 2 I seldom think about being accurate 1 I am usually most accurate working at the plant 3 4 . I prefer to have as friends 3 people who do not work at the same place as I do 2 different people according to what they're like 1 people who work at my company 48 3 5 . I don't mind getting dirty 3 while working at home 2 at anytime i f I can wash up afterwards 1 while working at the plant -3 6 . I would much rather be a leader in 1 my company's recreational program 3 my lodge 2 any organization just so i t ' s a good one 3 7 . I prefer talking to 2 different people depending on what we talk about 3 my neighbors 1 the people at work 3 8 . If I have to work with someone else who is a slow worker to get a job done 1 I am most annoyed on a job at the plant 3 I am most annoyed on a project where we are fixing up the church or our organization club-house 2 I am annoyed regardless of where we are working 3 9 . It hurts me more i f I am disliked 1 by the people at work 3 by the people around town 2 by anyone I know 40. I think that i f I were suddenly to get a much better job 1 probably my l i f e would change and be better i n lots of ways 3 probably my l i f e would not change much except that I'd l i v e a l i t t l e better 2. I wouldn't know what would happen to my l i f e 41. The people I would be most l i k e l y to borrow money from are 3 the people I know around town 2 anyone who would lend i t to me 1 the people I know here in the plant 4 9 4 2 . If I get poor materials to work on 1 I am most annoyed when i t slows me up at my job 2 I just accept'it as a matter of bad luck 3 I am most annoyed when i t makes me lose time on a project I am doing at home 4 3 . I would prefer going to 1 a company dance 2 any dance depending on the orchestra 3 a dance at my lodge or other favorite organization 4 4 . The people I can count on most when I need help are 2 almost any of my friends 3 the friends I have around town 1 the friends I have at work 4 5 . I am most interested in 1 things about my job 3 things I usually do around the house 2 anything I happen to be doing at the moment 4 6 . I do my best work 1 when I am at the plant 3 when I work around the house 2 when I'm not bothered by people In order to have some general idea about the people who are cooperating in this study, please check the answers that apply to you. My age i s : under 20 years between 2 0 and 29 years between 3 0 and 39 years between 4 0 and 49 years 50 years or over 50 Right now I am: •• -- , - -working f u l l time at my regular job working f u l l time at a temporary job working part'time at my regular job working part time at a temporary job not working I have been working at the same plant for: (at your regular job) less than 1 year between 1 and 5 years between 6 and"10'years between 11 and 15 years more than 15 years My job i s best described as: Regular hourly employee Skilled tradesman Foreman NOTE: The answer codes included with this copy of the questionnaire were not printed on the copies of the questionnaire sent to the study sample. They are reproduced here for the information of the reader. The code i s as follows: 1 - the job oriented reply 2 - the passive reply 3 - the non-job oriented reply P P E W D I X B FACTOR ANALYSIS ... INVOLVEMENT BY JOB Factor Variable 1 2 3 Unskilled (n=104) 1 0.869 0.134 -0.036 2 0.862 -0.040 -0.039 3 0.837 0.013 -0.071 4 0.728 0.444 -0.054 5 0.063 0.969 0.044 6 -0.075 0.034 0.996 Skilled (n=88) 1 0.804 0.224 -0.089 2 0.872 0.001 -0.092 3 0.737 -0.206 -0.118 4 -0.072 0.769 -0.145 5 0.078 0.849 0.047 6 -0.184 -0.084 0.970 Foremen (n=66) 1 0.735 0.018 0.470 2 0.832 -0 .216 0.263 3 0.750 0.358 -0.261 4 0.231 0.408 0.642 5 -0.028 0.932 0.064 6 -0.051 0.069 -0.812 53 FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY ..SENIORITY Factor Variable 1 2 3 less than 1 - yr. (n=5) 1 0.051 0.821 -0.557 2 0.313 0 .332 -0.859 3 -0.037 0.981 -0.116 4 -0.963 0.072 0 .229 5 -0.912 -0.385 -0.006 6 0.788 -0.301 -0.357* 5 yrs. (n»50) 1 0.865 0.104 -0.183 2 0.846 -0.001 -0.134 3 0.791 0.006 -0.069 4 0.611 0.557 0.287 5 -0.047 0.893 -0.276 6 -0.200 -0.180 0.909 10 yrs. (n*83) 1 0.726 0.377 -0.246 2 0.903 -0.035 -0.113 3 0.712 0.228 -0.038 4 0 . 267 0.744 -0.435 5 0.118 0.861 0.272 6 -0.151 0.049 0.927 FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY,SENIORITY Variable 1 Factor 2 3 11 - 15 yrs(n»9) 1 0.887 -0.295 -0.169 2 0.497 0.092 -0.823 3 0.801 0.487 -0.197 4 0.212 -0.934 -0.195 5 0.948 -0.237 -0.004 6 0.095 0.275 0.932 than 15 yrs . (n=lll) 1 0.819 0.118 -0.122 2 0.886 -0.011 -0.034 3 0.795 -0.051 0.043 4 0.333 0.690 -0.012 5 -0.244 0.837 0.046 6 -0.048 0.031 0.995 55 FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY„AGE Factor Variable 1 2 3 less than 20 yrs. (n»l) (no factor analysis) 20-29 yrs. (n=42) 1 2 3 4 5 6 30-39 yrs. (n*85) 1 0.834 0.253 -0.180 2 0.911 0.022 -0.079 3 0.707 0.393 -0.230 4 0.316 0.692 -0.157 5 0.063 0.891 0.064 6 -0.201 -0.035 0.971 0.875 0.810 0.711 0.631 0.060 -0.089 0.050 0.117 0.021 0.507 0.963 -0.071 -0 .032 0.000 -0.395 -0.110 -0.048 0.964 FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY,AGE Variable 40-49 yrs. (n»84) 1 2 3 4 5 6 than 50 yrs. (n=46) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Factor 2 3 0.852 0.179 -0.132 0.911 0.003 -0.113 0.779 -0.046 0.210 0.385 0.716 -0.334 -0.141 0.877 0.254 0.018 0.054 0.940 0.632 0.027 -0.024 0.802 -0.258 0.037 0.782 0.276 -0.109 0.020 0.038 0.966 -0.647 0.017 -0.317 -0.028 0.965 0.041 A P P E N D I X G INVOLVEMENT-LIKERT SCORE - JOB STANDARD VARIABLE MEAN DEVIATION Unskilled (n-IOA) 1 4.510 1.911 2 4.856 1.781 3 5.539 1.895 4 4.337 1.820 5 3.279 1.715 6 3.894 2.000 Skilled (n=88) 1 4.761 1.390 2 5.227 1.460 3 6.136 1.366 4 3.841 1.694 5 2.852 1.497 6 4.136 1.763 Foremen (n=66) 1 3.970 1.403 2 4.182 1.508 3 5.652 1.494 4 3.136 1.335 5 3.773 1.681 6 4.439 1.551 INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT'SCORE - SENIORITY ... STANDARD ,. VARIABLE .. MEAN DEVIATION less than 1-yr. (n=5) 1 4.800 1.304 2 4.400 1.140 3 6.000 1.732 4 3.200 1.483 5 2.400 0.894 6 4.400 1.949 1-5 yrs. (n=50) 1 4.960 1.726 2 5.100 1.705 3 6.060 1.300 4 4.440 1.593 5 3.520 1.776 6 4.000 1.917 6-10 yrs. (n-83) 1 4.675 1.523 2 5.096 1.559 3 5.868 1.576 4 3.940 1.830 5 3.133 1.702 6 4.060 1.797 6 6 INVOLVEMENT - LIKSRT SCORE - SENIORITY STANDARD VARIABLE MEAN DEVIATION 11 - 15 yrs. (n-9) 1 4 . 5 5 6 1.590 2 5 . 333 1 . 8 03 3 5 . 7 7 8 1 . 2 0 2 4 4 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 8 1 5 2 . 6 6 7 1 . 3 23 6 4 . 0 0 0 1 . 7 3 2 more than 15 yrs. (n«lll) 1 4.045 1 . 6 4 3 2 4.441 1 . 6 5 0 3 5 . 5 5 9 1 . 8 4 7 4 3 . 5 5 9 1 . 672 5 v 3 . 3 2 4 1 . 6 3 0 6 4 . 2 0 7 1 . 8 2 0 61 INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT SCORE - AGE STANDARD. VARIABLE MEAN DEVIATION less than 2 0 yrs. (n=l) (no analysis) 20 - 29 yrs. (n=42) 1 5.167 1 . 607 2 5.191 1.518 3 5.952 1.431 4 4.667 1.557 5 3.667 1.844 6 3.881 1.837 30 - 39 yrs. Cn s85 ) 1 4.859 1.489 2 5.059 1.606 3 6.082 1.441 4 3.918 1.747 5 3.259 1.63.4 6 3.859 1.760 62 INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT SCORE - AGE STANDARD. VARIABLE MEAN DEVIATION 40 - 49 yrs. (n=84) 1 4.143 1.709 2 4.679 1.673 3 5.452 1.766 4 3.607 1.817' 5 3 .012 1.548 6 4.369 1.881' more than 50 yrs. (n»46) 1 3.674 1.399 2 4.283 1.695 3 5.587 1.869 4 3.473 1.457 5 3.370 1.743 6 4.304 1 .762 A P P E N D I X D 64 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BT JOB Rule 1 Rule 2 Total Unskilled (n=104) Over-all 1 58 59 56.8 General Relations 4 36 40 38.5 Informal Relations 0 30 30 28.9 Formal Relations 36 61 97 93.2 Technical Relations 36 29 65 62.6 Skilled (n*88) Over-all 2 53 55 62.5 General Relations 2 40 42 47.7 Informal Relations 1 29 30 34.1 Formal Relations 22 64 86 97.8 Technical Relations 3© 33 63 71.6 Foremen (n-66) Over-all 3 40 43 65.2 General Relations 3 34 37 56.1 Informal Relations 1 19 20 30.3 Formal Relations 28 37 65 98.5 Technical Relations 25 20 45 68.3 \ 65 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BY SENIORITY Rule 1 Rule 2 Total less than 1 yr. (n=5) Over-all 0 3 3 6 0 . 0 General Relations 0 2 2 4 0 . 0 Informal Relations 0 3 V 3 6 0 . 0 Formal Relations 1 4 5 1 0 0 . 0 Technical Relations 2 1 3 6 0 . 0 1-5 yrs. (n=50) Over-all 0 23 23 4 6 . 0 General Relations 0 16 16 3 2 . 0 Informal Relations 0 15 15 3 0 . 0 Formal Relations 16 29 45 9 0 . 0 Technical Relations 9 14 23 4 6 . 0 6 - 1 0 yrs. (n»83) Over-all 3 4 7 50 6 0 . 2 General Relations 6 31 37 4 4 . 4 Informal Relations 0 23 23 2 7 . 7 Formal Relations 33 48 31 9 7 . 6 Technical Relations 26 29 55 6 6 . 3 66 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BY SENIORITY Rule 1 Rule 2. Total % 11-15 yrs. (n=9) Over-all 0 5 5 55.6 General Relations 0 4 4 44.4 Informal Relations 0 2 2 22.2 Formal Relations 2 7 9 100.0 Technical Relations 4 0 4 44.4 more than 15 yrs. (n; =111) Over-all 3 73 76 68.5 General Relations 3 57 60 54.1 Informal Relations 2 35 37 33.4 Formal Relations 34 74 108 97.3 Technical Relations 50 38 88 79.3 67 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST -' BY AGE Rule 1 Rule 2 Total less than 20 yrs. (n=l) Over-all 0 0 0 0 General Relations 0 1 1 100.0 Informal Relations 0 0 0 0 Formal Relations 1 - 1 100.0 Technical Relations 0 0 0 0 20-29 yrs. (n=42) Over-all 0 20 20 47.7 General Relations 0 12 12 28.6 Informal Relations 0 14 14 33.3 Formal Relations 14 26 40 95.4 Technical Relations 9 9 18 42.8 30-39 yrs. (n=85) Over-all 2 44 46 54.1 General Relations 3 35 38 44.7 Informal Relations 1 17 18 21.2 Formal Relations 27 55 82 96.4 Technical Relations 23 27 50 58.9 68 CENTRAL.LIFE INTEREST 1 . BY AGE ::. & lie 1 Rule 2 Total 40 - 4 9 yrs. (n=84) Over-all 4 55 59 7.0.2 General Relations 6 41 4 7 55.9 Informal Relations 1 26 27 3 2 . 2 Formal Relations 31 50 81 9 6 . 4 Technical Relations 33 28 61 7 2 . 6 more than 50 yrs. (n=46) Over-all 0 32 32 6 9 . 6 General Relations 0 21 21 4 5 . 7 Informal Relations 0 21 21 4 5 . 7 Formal Relations 13 31 4 4 95.8 Technical Relations 26 18 44 95.8 A P P E N D I X E CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-JOB STANDARD . . .. - MEAN DEVIATION Unskilled (n=104) Over-all 8.894 4.343 General Relations 1.36$ 1.316 Informal Relations 1.192 1.316 Formal Relations 2.904 1 1.355 Technical Relations 3.433 2.037 Skilled (n=88) Over-all 9.580 4.269 General Relations 1.466 1.270 Informal Relations 1.386 1.584 Formal Relations 2.830 1.140 Technical Relations 3.898 1.977 Foremen (n=66) Over-all 10.955 4.666 General Relations 2.152 1.449 Informal Relations 1.394 1.585 Formal Relations 3.258 1.119 Technical Relations 4.152 2.091 71 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-SENIORITY STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION less than 1 yr. (n=5) Over-all 9.800 5.741 General Relations 1.800 1.3-27 Informal Relations 1 . 600 1.855 Formal Relations 2.400 1.020 Technical Relations 4.000 2.683 1-5 yrs. (n«50) Over-all 8.280 3.873 General Relations 1.400 1.183 Informal Relations 1.160 1.419 Formal Relations 2.860 1.200 Technical Relations 2.860 1.755 6-10 yrs. (n»83) Over-all 9.651 4.527 General Relations 1.518 1.508 Informal Relations 1.253 1.343 Formal Relations 3.205 1.190 Technical Relations 3.675 2.077 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED R EPLIE5.SENI0RITY STANDARD, r . MEAN DEVIATION 11-15 yrs. (n=9) Over-all 9.444 4.475 General Relations 1.333 1.155 Informal Relations 1.667 1.633 Formal Relations 2.778 0.916 Technical Relations 3.667 2.309 more than 15 yrs. (n«»lll) Over-all General Relations Informal Relations Formal Relations Technical Relations 10.288 4*491 1.766 1.349 1.378 1.571 2.883 1 .293 4.261 1.948 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-AGE STANDARD. MEAN DEVIATION less than 20 yrs. (n=l) Over-all 13.000 0.0 General Relations 2.000 0.0 Informal Relations 4.000 0.0 Formal-Relations 4.000 0.0 Technical Relations 3.000 0.0 20-29 yrs. (n-42) Over-all 8.190 4.244 General Relations 1.333 1.189 Informal Relations 1.214 1.489 Formal Relations 2.929 1 .203 Technical Relations 2.714 1.991 30-39 yrs. (n=85) Over-all 9.047 4.237 General Relations 1.506 1.386 Informal Relations 1.071 1.412 Formal Relations 2.953 1.197 Technical Relations 3.518 2.004 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-AGE STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION 40 - 49 yrs. (n=84) Over-all 10.60? 4.838 General Relations 1.952 1.535 Informal Relations 1.500 1.547 Formal Relations 3.060 1.257 Technical Relations 4.095 2.027 more than 50 yrs. (n»46J Over-all 10.304 3.895 General Relations 1.370 1.050 Informal Relations 1.435 1.393 Formal Relations 2.848 1.302 Technical Relations 4.652 1.722 A P P E N D I X F VARIABLE ASSOCIATION.*!DIE' S Q.GENERAL RELATIONS Question #14 #17 #18 #25 # 3 2 #40 #45 #46 #11 . 3 5 .41 -.03 .14 -.11 .54 .56 .51 #14 .82 -.08 .33 . 6 2 .21 .69 .77 #17 -.48 -1.0 .45 -1.0 .73 .35 #18 .35 .24 -.01 .36 .36 #25 .31 .28 .60 .41 #32 -.09 .37 .35 #40 .03 -.24 #45 .68 #46 NOTE: Bivariate table i s a b c d Yule's Q = ad - be (range -1 to 1) ad + be 7 7 VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-INFORMAL RELATIONS Question # 1 0 # 1 2 # 1 6 #19 # 2 1 # 2 4 # 2 6 # 7 1.0 .15 .81 . 6 4 .18 . 4 5 . 0 9 # 1 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 #1 2 - 1 . 0 . 4 5 . 5 7 .15 . 1 0 #1 6 - 1 . 0 - 1 . 0 - 1 . 0 - 1 . 0 #19 . 6 0 . 6 4 - . 0 3 # 2 1 . 6 8 . 1 4 # 2 4 . 6 8 # 2 6 78 VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-INFORMAL RELATIONS;CONT'D Question #30 #34 #37 #39 #41 #44 .22 .53 .43 . 11 .36 . 2 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .03 -1.0 .41 .37 .45 -1.0 .52 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -.13 .84 .63 . 3 7 .55 .48 -.22 .41 .62 .53 .36 .32 .13 .64 .59 .56 .28 .57 . 1 6 .49 .15 .43 -.33 .40 #30 -.20 .24 .29 .15 .03 #34 .73 .49 .54 .89 #37 .56 .23 .68 #39 .04 .68 #41 .67 #44 79 VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-FORMAL RELATIONS Question #15 #23 #27 #29 #36 #43 #8 .46 .46 .19 -.29 -.06 .04 #15 .47 .02 -.28 -.22 1.0 #23 .45 -.16 .63 .52 #27 -.06 .30 .15 #29 -.15 -.28 #36 .27 #43 80 VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-TECHNICAL RELATIONS Question #13 #20. #22 #28 #31 #33 #35 #38 #42 #19 .55 .29 .35 .65 .03 .69 .12 . 3 9 .36 #13 .46 .59 .61 -.11 .34 .31 .20 .59 #20 .58 .40 -.05 .32 .15 .25 .30 #22 .37 -.16 . 0 6 .41 . 0 9 .47 #28 -.23 .82 .44 .32 . 6 4 #31 -.29 -.20 -.07 -.03 #33 .22 .13 .56 #35 .27 .16 #38 .20 #42 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101941/manifest

Comment

Related Items