WORK VALUES AMONG HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
Values are concepts or
beliefs that determine how we live in our life. At work, they are major
influences on how individuals approach to work. Values drive our decisions and
cause us to summon up energy to preserve what we believe in or what we want to
defend. As such, they can be principal determinants of behaviour and will
influence our views about people, situations or events. When team members share
the same values, the team will have the energy to deliver outstanding
performance. Where individual values clash, conflict will occur and teams are
unlikely to reach their full potential. Work related demands appear in literature
on the subject as work values. These can be readily characterized as
relatively time-resistant and comprehensive interpretation patterns regarding
work per se. Work values represent our
personal relation to what we want to achieve through our work and career
(Sˇ verko 1999). They are acquired early in the process of socialization
and are relatively stable in the personal system of values of each person.
There has been growing interest, in recent years, in the analysis of human
values in general ( Levy 1990; and
Shwartz and Bilsky 1990) and of work values specifically ( Elizur et al.
1991). Work values can be defined as generalized beliefs about the desirability
of certain attributes of work (e.g. pay, autonomy, working conditions), and
work-related outcomes (e.g. accomplishment, fulfillment, prestige). Like
general values, work values act as the criteria that an individual uses in
selecting appropriate work-related behaviours and goals. The match between
teachers’ work values and supplies offered
by the schools is important for teacher’s outcomes like job involvement,
work motivation, and turnover intentions. Values related to work have received
considerable scholarly attention for many decades (Hofstede 1980). Work values
are linked to motivation and job satisfaction, and others have demonstrated a
strong link between having a high achievement value and being aggressiveness in
and showing initiative in one’s work. Work values have also been related to
organizational commitment (Elizur and Koslowsky 2001), vocational choice (Super
1970), ethical decision making (Shafer et al. 2001) and cross-cultural
management (Mellahi 2001). Tarnai
(1995) indicated that various authors
have presented theoretical drafts of work value structures.
Work values are goals that one seeks to attain to satisfy a need; they may be satisfied by more than one kind of activity or occupation. Theory of work values includes three categories, instrumental, affective and cognitive (Elizur 1999, p. 77; Elizur and Kowslowsky 2000, p. 594). In order to analyse work values systematically, two basic facts of the domain were distinguished : modality of outcome, and system performance contingency (Elizur 1984). Modality of outcome includes various values. Instrumental (material) values have some material return or outcome, such as pay and benefits. These values are more salient than other values and are associated with Maslow’s physiological/safety/security needs. Various work outcomes are of material or instrumental nature.This class of outcome can be defined as material, or instrumental, in a sense that they are concrete and of practical use. Affective values deal with interpersonal relationships, which are less salient than the instrumental needs, and relate to Maslow’s interpersonal need categories of belongingness, love, and esteem. Most studies include items that ask about relations, and others. These items relate to social relations, and they are affective outcomes rather than material. Cognitive values include items that deal with contribution to society, achievement, personal growth, responsibility, independence, interest , and use some of the same descriptive words and concepts as Maslow’s levels. These items represent psychological rather than social or material outcomes. In today’s world, the efficiency of a country’s system represents the most important standard of assessment and comparison for societies.
The present study extends the existing empirical research about work values in the educational sectors by examining the influence of age and subject taught on work values of high school teachers. The aim of this study is to enable teachers to see themselves in perspectives and to identify and to explain features which seem to them to be significant for their country’s educational policies.
1.To assess and find out
the difference in work values of high school teachers in
2.To find out the influence
of age on work values of high school teachers in
3.To find out the influence
of subject taught on work values of high school teachers in
1. There is no significant
difference in the work values of high school teachers in
2. There is no significant
difference in the work values of high school teachers of different age groups
3. There is no significant
difference in the work values of high school teachers teaching different
subjects taught in
The questionnaire having 24
items on work values developed by Elizur (1984), thoroughly tested in various
cultural contexts (Borg, 1986; Elizur et.al 1991) was used for this study. The
scale was administered to all respondents in its original English version for
Analysis of Variance) was employed to find out the significance of difference
between countries, age groups and subjects taught for work values. In the present investigation, countries (
Between Countries: In cognitive component, Indian and Iranian teachers had statistically equal scores. In material component, high significant difference was obtained between Indian and Iranian teachers (F=31.844; P<.000), whereas Iranian teachers had significantly higher work value than Indian teachers did (means 9.80 and 7.98 respectively). In affective component, Iranian teachers had significantly higher scores than Indian teachers (means 9.14 and 8.28 respectively) and high significant difference was obtained between Indian and Iranian teachers (F=9.096; P<.003). In case of total work values of Indian and Iranian teachers statistical significant difference was obtained (F =4.526; P<.034), whereas Iranian teachers had significantly higher work value than Indian teachers did (means 43.64, and 40.81) respectively.
Between Age Groups: Age groups did not have any significant influence over any sub-component or the total scores as the obtained F values for all the sub-components and the total work value scores were found to be non-significant.
Between Subjects: As in the case of age groups, in subjects also, none of the sub-component and total work value scores and F values reached the significant level criterion. In other words, subject taught did not have any influence over work values.
Country and Age
rest of the sub-components and total work value, non-significant interactions
were found. From the mean values, it is clear that in
Country and Subject: None of the interaction effects was found to be statistically significant as all the obtained F values for interaction effects were found to be non-significant indicating that pattern of work values was same for teachers with different subjects taught irrespective of the country they belonged to. Indian and Iranian science teachers in work value and in all sub- components had the highest score.
Hypothesis 1 was not
accepted, as there were high significant differences between Indian and Iranian
teachers in their material and affective sub-components of work values,
and as there was a significant
difference for total work value. Hypothesis 2 was accepted, as there was no
difference between teachers with different age groups in their work values in
Indian and Iranian teachers
have equal work values in cognitive component. Iranian teachers have better
work values in material and affective component compared to Indian teachers.
There is a high significant difference between Indian and Iranian teachers in
their affective and material component. There is a significant difference
between Indian and Iranian teachers in their work values. Age groups and
subject taught do not have any influence over work value. In total work value
and affective and cognitive component, in the age group of the 50-59 for
Iranian teachers, there is mostly
increase in score than other age groups.
Indian and Iranian teachers have significant difference in work value
and in total mean,
Braithwaite, V.A. and Law, H.G. (1985) Structure of human values: testing the adequacy of the Rokeach value survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 250-63.
Elizur, D. (1984) Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 379-89.
Elizur, D., Borg,
Elizur, D. and Sagie, Abraham. (1999) Facets of personal values: a structural analysis of life and work values. Journal of Applied Psychology 48, 1, 73-87.
Elizor, D. and Koslowsky, M. (2000) Values and organizational commitment. International Journal of Manpower 22, 7, 593-599
Elizur, D. and Koslowsky, M. (2001) Values and organizational commitment. International Journal of Manpower 22, 7, 593–599.
Hofstede, G. (1980)
Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work related Values.
Levy, S. (1990) Values and deeds. Applied Psychology: An International Review 39, 379-400.
Mellahi, K. (2001) Differences and similarities in future managerial values: a five cultures comparative study. Cross Cultural Management 8, 1, 45–48.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The
Nature of Human Values. Free Press,
Shafer, W., Morris, R., Ketchand, A. (2001) Effects of personal values on auditors’ ethical decisions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 14, 3, 254–277.
Super, D. (1970) The
Work Values Inventory. Houghton-Mifflin,
Sˇ verko, B. (1999)
The work importance study: recent changes of values in
Tarnai, C. (1995) Work values in European comparison. Journal fur international bildungsforschung 1, 2, 139-163.