The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Values and
Relationship between values and workplace
workplace: an exploratory
analysis
499
Pritam Singh, Asha Bhandarker, Sumita Rai and Ajay K. Jain
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India

Abstract
Purpose – There exists limited research directly highlighting the relationship between value
preference and its association with people’s expectations from the workplace. Studying personal value
preference is important because a substantial body of research indicates that a specific pattern of value
orientations predicts world views, and, hence, it may predict behavior in the workplace. Based on the
above-mentioned assumptions, the present study aims to explore the impact of value preferences on
the meaning of workplace, across MBA- and non-MBA graduates and Indian and non-Indian
graduates. It is proposed that value preferences will have a significant impact on meaning of
workplace and values preferences are likely to differ across national culture.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on qualitative research, a pilot study and
survey research design. Data were gathered from a sample of 312 graduates, consisting of 231
management students and 81 non-management students. Of these 245 are Indians and 67 non-Indians
studying in India, the USA, and the UK.
Findings – Results of exploratory factor analysis helped the authors to derive ten significant factors
from the meaning of workplace scale and four factors from the values scale. Results of stepwise
multiple regression analysis have shown significant positive impact of value preference on the choice
of preferred workplace. More specifically, higher progressive orientation has been found to positively
influence the intrapreneurship factor of meaning of workplace factor. Values of personal growth,
self-fulfillment, and community development have explained a large amount of variances in work-life
balance and physical ambience.
Research limitations/implications – The literature on workplace design and the meaning of
workplace is limited and a comprehensive list of variables of psychological climate is not available.
Thus, extensive future research needs to be carried out in this direction. Knowing the employer’s
perspective about the evaluations of the workplace attributes may provide a different perspective of
the meaning of workplace. Finally, this study could be expanded by using qualitative interviews along
with quantitative techniques to get more in-depth data and probe further in the factors that the
graduates take into consideration while rating the extent of desirability of different environmental
attributes.
Originality/value – This paper is important in that knowledge about the values of potential
employees can be used to make sure that the organization recruits employees whose perceptions
match the psychological environment existing in the company. Furthermore, organizations can
use such information to design work environments in such a way that they meet the expectations
of newer generations of workers. The study reveals cross-cultural differences between perceptions
and values. These are particularly important in the case of multinational corporations, which
consider the impact of cultural and societal values while designing work environments and
processes in different countries, as well as while recruiting employees with different cultural
backgrounds. Facilities
Vol. 29 No. 11/12, 2011
Keywords Organization, Organizational culture, Organizational change, Values, Workplace, pp. 499-520
Performance, Graduates q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-2772
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/02632771111157169
F Introduction
29,11/12 Values are important to study in the context of workplace because they lay basic
foundations for understanding the attitudes and motivation of human beings and, more
precisely, they influence the way we perceive our workplace. The corporate world no
longer can survive with the famous dictum that “the only responsibility of business is to
make profits” as employees would like to see fairness, justice and ethical practices at
500 workplace. Major research related to values has been undertaken to explore the ways in
which individuals’ value priorities, relate to attitude, behavior and social experiences and
roles (Ros et al., 1999). Study of value highlights the influence on individual behavior in
groups, organizations and society (Brief, 1998; Kleindorfer et al., 1993; Munson and
Posner, 1980). Group-level values highlight that collectivistic values affect the
individuals’ contribution in a group and similarly organizational-level analyses
highlight that affective values of an organizations will significantly influence the
affective commitment of individual employee within that organization. At societal level,
a recent work sketches the significance of values explaining the productivity of nations.
However, very limited research has been done on the issue directly highlighting the
relationship between personal values and its association from people’ expectations from
the workplace. Studying personal values and their orientations are important because a
substantial body of research indicates that a specific pattern of their orientations predict
world views and hence, it may predict the behavior at the workplace on salient social
issues (Rokeach, 1973; Zhao et al., 1998).

Why value?
Values serve a very important purpose of providing some meaning, some direction,
some self-evolved authority for guidance, without which community life would be
chaos, and individual life would be rendered meaningless. Values are difficult to define,
comprehend, and propagate. So much so that Wittgenstein, the Austrian born British
philosopher, said “Values. A terrible business. You can best stammer when you talk
about them”. However, if something is important enough to warrant indulgence then
stammering may be infinitely better than not speaking at all.
Rokeach, a famous psychologist, argued that values are “an enduring belief that a
specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to
an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. A related concept
called value system is “an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable
modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance”
(Rokeach, 1973, p. 5).
Values and expectations from the workplace have changed over a period of time. At
the global level a few decades ago employees were glad to get a job and when they got
one, they tried to keep it. They valued security and believed that if they worked hard
they could provide for their families. Their children, the “Baby Boomers” (BBs), watched
this and saw that their parents gave too much and got too little in return. When these
BBs entered the work force, they came in better educated and with much higher
expectations for themselves. The BBs believed in the adage that “up is better” and
expected opportunities for promotion along with benefit packages for their efforts. In
addition, their children, “Generation X”, also watched. They saw parents who were so
focused on success, that they had little time for themselves or for their families. Getting
ahead was the priority in their parents’ lives. And just before this “Gen X” entered the
workforce, they saw their parents, family members and neighbors being laid off in the Values and
name of mergers, downsizing or “flattening” of the company pyramid. Consequently, workplace
today’s new workers “Generation Y” no longer believe that concepts like loyalty and
commitment have any payoff. They value living life now. They are more concerned with
the quality than the quantity of life and more interested in what is happening now than
in retirement plans. Most expect a job to provide them with the freedom to pursue their
professional and personal goals while at the same time being stimulating and 501
challenging too. This is true for most societies, countries, and cultures that have made
substantial progress along the ladder of development, including India. Gaining objective
insights into what people value can go a long way towards bridging existing gaps, help
one make better decisions on hires, assignments and promotions and give the
information necessary to creating a synergistic work environment. As stated above an
individual’s values play an important role in framing expectations and deciding the
preferences. This phenomenon has changed over a period of time. Hence, with a shift in
focus of personal values and changes in workplace scenario it is high time to study the
relationship between values and young generation expectations from workplace.

Why meaning of workplace?

Work takes the most significant and important place in human life because people
devote their significant amount of time to work and they stay at the workplace. If value
cannot be perceived in the workplace, our ability to lead a fulfilling life as well as
capability to perform at maximum potential is seriously impaired. Nothing can be more
alienating than working without a sense of personal meaning.
Organizational scientists have not researched meaning of workplace in a holistic
manner. There is inadequate literature regarding the expectations which people have
from their preferred organization and the workplace (Singh et al., 2008). The workplace
has been studied by psychologists and sociologists in the context of work, task, role,
technology, design, etc.
Different aspects of the job/work – effects of job enhancement techniques and
redesigning the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976); what people want from their
jobs (Herzberg et al., 1959); money as the critical factor of motivation; the importance of
challenging jobs, goals, participative decision-making, feedback, cohesive work teams,
and other non-monetary factors (Caudron, 1993; Mitchell and Mickel, 1999; Locke,
1980) – have been studied by researchers.
Study of workplace has taken important role, as people are not just interested in
working for making money, but they are also equally concerned with the overall
experience of work, the job, the place, the people so on and so forth (Singh et al., 2008).
The present generation has become increasingly demanding in terms of their
expectations from the workplace, unlike preceding generations. Today there appears to
be a psychology of entitlement as a matter of right. In today’s generation, expectations
from the workplace are not confined to material compensation alone, but also include
quality of work experience, organizational culture and ambience. With the global
workforce becoming more mobile than ever before, the competition and search for talent
has become global in scope (Earle, 2003). This phenomenon further heightens the
criticality of creation of a workplace conducive to attracting talent from across the globe.
While measuring the employees’ expectation toward the workplace and
environmental satisfaction, Lee (2006) found that satisfaction with the workplace
F was positively correlated with job satisfaction. Carlopio’s (1996) work showed that
29,11/12 employees’ satisfaction with their work environment is directly related to their job
satisfaction and it was indirectly related to organizational commitment and turnover
intention. The research by Gensler (2005) brings out the positive correlation between
an improved workplace and productivity. Work by several researchers has brought out
that employee satisfaction with workplace is significantly correlated with high morale,
502 better retention and less turnover. (Varady and Carrozza, 2000; Dole and Schroeder,
2001; Van Ree, 2002; Leather et al., 2003; Lee and Brand, 2005).

Value and workplace

Literature review
According to Rokeach (1973), values may be of two kinds, terminal and instrumental.
Super (1970, p. 190) defined values as the “objectives that one seeks to attain to satisfy
a need”. This approach towards understanding values indicates the existence of some
relationship between needs and values. A related concept is that of value expectancies,
which means the chance to realize an important value with the help or anticipated help
of work. It is thus the product of the importance attached to a value and the probability
of the value being realized through work experience. Super and Nevill (1986)
considered it as a component of work salience.
Values, in the context of work, have gathered significant importance as they provide
the importance that an individual gives to a certain outcome obtained at the work
context (Elizur, 1984; Elizur et al., 1991; Sagie et al., 1996). Workplace has been studied
in the reference of work value. A work value can be defined as the importance
individual gives to a certain outcome obtained at work context (Elizur, 1984).
In the work context four broad categories of value are as follows:
(1) Intrinsic (pertaining to self-actualization values).
(2) Extrinsic (pertaining to security or material values).
(3) Social (pertaining to relational and belongingness values (e.g. Alderfer, 1972;
Borg, 1990; Crites, 1961; Mottaz, 1985; Pryor, 1987; Rosenberg, 1957)).
(4) Self-enhancement; distinctive work value, prestige and power (Ros et al., 1999).

One of the most widely used differences between work values are extrinsic, or a
consequence of work (e.g. job security, salary) or intrinsic, occurring through the
process of work (e.g. intellectual simulation, challenge) (Elizur, 1984). Subsequent
research has added altruistic values (e.g. making a contribution to society) (Borg, 1990),
status-related values (e.g. influence, recognition advancement) (Ros et al., 1999),
freedom-related values (e.g. work-life balance, working hours) and social values
(e.g. good relationships with supervisors or peers).
The last four decades have been a witness to extraordinary advancements in
technology, the resulting globalization and advent of new industries brought about a
sharp increase in affluence and socioeconomic changes particularly in developing
countries (Changes in the meaning of work, increasing numbers of dual-career and
single parent families’, expectations for work/life balance and the increased use of
electronic media and continuous learning of new skills (Harding and Hikspoors, 1995;
Ruiz Quintanilla and Wilpert, 1991)).
 Cennamo and Gardner, 2008 investigated the difference in expectations and Values and
priorities of work values of various generations at workplace with certain parameters
like job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment and intensions to leave.
workplace
Their study highlighted the expectation of Generation Y on status and freedom, while
Generation X was concerned with status and organizational values.
Recently, Twenge and Campbell (2008) reported the present generation to be high
on self-esteem (sometimes bordering on narcissism), with external locus of control, high 503
on anxiety (resulting in depression, burnout and rust out). As a result this generation is
reported to have very high expectation from the workplace, they have low tolerance for
criticism a high need for praise, an increase in creativity demands, low organizational
commitment, ethic scandals, casual dress, and shifting workplace norms for women.

Values and workplace: cultural context

Studies across generations highlight the importance of personal values on workplace in
the context of Australia significant differences were found in terms of increasing levels
of cynicism, negativity and less optimism in the younger generations (Cennamo and
Gardner, 2008).
In European context, D’Amato and Herzfeldt (2008) concluded that there were
significant differences in learning orientation and leadership development intentions
among generations, which had important implications for organizational commitment
and intentions to stay with the organization.
In the Indian context values and workplace have been studied in a different context,
several authors have explored to see the link between values and culture (Chakraborty,
1995). Use was made of the 18 values identified by Super and associates in their Work
Importance Study (WIS), plus three more values typical to Indian culture. The three
Indian values were: peace of mind, comforts of life, and dependency.
Chakraborty (1995, pp. 3-6) studied major organizations in India. Several facts
emerged from his work:
.
values are perceived of importance in work settings;
.
different organizations emphasize differential values, this emphasis becomes
their respective hall-mark; and
. values may have a quality of a driving force.

Education is also an important factor shaping the dispositional states expectations and
preferences from the workplace. An extensive work on management graduates has
delineated that management graduates are highly ambitious, careerist and demanding.
The above-mentioned literature highlights that there is dearth of research in the
area of personal values influence on and expectations from workplace. Values have
been studied in terms of structure and value correlates (measuring the association
between culture and values, nation and values). Similarly workplace has been studied
in reference to physical environment, job design and job parameters, etc. This present
work is an attempt to find out the association between personal values and their impact
on workplace across culture. It also highlights the importance of personal values as an
antecedent rather than consequence variable; at the same time it takes the holistic
approach to see various parameter of workplace including psychological and physical
environment and values in terms of correlates and cultures both.
The following are salient reference points that emerge from this study:
F .
Values serve important role in framing the basic attitude and perception of
29,11/12 people, they also decide the expectation. Attitude, perception and expectations
play a key role in the way one sees the workplace.
.
A gap between one’s values and its workplace will bring negative behavior that
may result into dissatisfaction, anxiety, stress, lack of trust and poor
performance.
504 .
People’s expectations from the workplace are governed by culture and social
norms, education, personality, demographic characteristics etc. Thus it is
expected that there would be differences in expectations and preferences across
cultures.
Worldwide MBA programs attract the best and the brightest known to come to the
workplace with very high expectations and preference from the workplace, which they
relentlessly seek to gratify. Thus there will with all likelihood be differences in
personal values and expectations from workplace between MBA and non-MBA.
On the basis of above-mentioned reference points three research questions were
proposed:
RQ1. What is the impact of personal values on the perceptions of meaning of
workplace attributes?
RQ2. How MBA and non-MBA students differ in terms of their personal values?
RQ3. How Indian and non-Indian differ in terms of their personal values?

Method
Participants and procedure
The data for the present study were collected from a sample of 312 respondents across
management and non-management program and Indian and non-Indian populations
(USA and UK) during the year 2008-2009. The MBA and non-MBA students are taken
from several reputed business schools from India, the USA and the UK. Initially we
approached around 500 students, but we could get confirmed responses from 312
graduates. Therefore, a total of 312 graduates, consisting of 231 MBA students and 81
non-MBA students, participated in the final survey stage. It was created and
distributed using Qualtrics, an online survey software, via a link sent out by e-mail
(http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE?SID ¼ SV_bl6365z6KPnQddWandSVID ¼ Prod). The
sample consisted of 245 Indians and 67 non-Indians. including Americans and
English. The majority of MBA participants were from two schools in India, including
MDI and Narsee Monjee, whereas Kellogg School of Management, Chicago, and
London School of Economics were chosen from the USA and the UK. The sample
consisted of participants with varied educational and cultural backgrounds. These
institutions are internationally recognized and have stringent selection standards.
Thus, we can assume that the majority students had an above-average academic
background and work qualifications that exposed them to varied learning experiences.
The second group consisted of non-MBA students with a graduate degree in
business-related courses. The majority was from London School of Economics and City
University in London, University of Nottingham and Mumbai University. The entry
criteria in these schools are known to be stringent as well, thus, allowing us to assume
that the two groups were reasonably matched samples in terms of academic Values and
backgrounds in their respective fields. Overall, 91 percent of the participants in the workplace
sample had prior work experience and average age was of 28 years, thus indicating a
certain level of exposure to the real life work scenario. Hence, allowing us to assume
absence of completely unrealistic ratings of workplace attributes.

Qualitative research and pilot study 505

A questionnaire on meaning of the workplace was developed through multiple focused
group interviews with executive and non-executive students of MDI Gurgaon. The
focused group interview data were analyzed by adopting content analysis technique.
Content analysis helped to develop a list of 73 attributes of the workplace. In focused
group interview people were asked “What is the meaning of workplace for you? Kindly
write five characteristics of a workplace where you would like to work”.
A pilot study was conducted with 55 students of executive management program at
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon (India). The original questionnaire
consisted of 73 work-related attributes to be evaluated, followed by the 25-items from
the Rokeach Value Survey. Based on mean analysis of the results and verbal feedback,
least rated, redundant and repetitive items were deleted to reduce the length of the first
section by 15 items. The new 58-items questionnaire followed the Likert scale.
Respondents were asked to rate their answer on five-point scale. Although the 58-item
questionnaire was still quite long deletion of more points may have defeated the
purpose of study.

Survey design
Descriptive research is aimed at systematically identifying and recording a certain
phenomenon, process, collection or system, the main goal is analysis of an individual, group
or population (restricted by time and to a particular area) (Drenth et al., 1998).
The primary reason for conducting a quantitative research study was to get data from
as many participants as possible in structured manner to examine the impact of
personal values on the perception of meaning of workplace. Also, measuring values
would not be possible without using a psychometrically proven instrument like the one
used in this research study. The researchers assumed that the survey thus conducted
(online), would provide participants with adequate time and a sense of anonymity to
reflect on their thoughts while making their evaluations.
The questionnaire used for the study was titled “The Meaning of Workplace.” It
began with a brief introduction about the research study which specified that the
researchers interest lay in their perceptions of what they thought the ideal workplace
mean. The survey was designed to make it as easy, convenient, less time-consuming
and interesting as possible. It was administered using the internet to make data
collection cheaper, faster and more environmentally friendly than paper surveys,
which require lot of printing.
The survey consisted of three parts: the first section gathered some simple
demographic data like age, gender, nationality and so on, followed by the second
section, which consisted of a list of work-related environmental attributes to be
evaluated by the participant. The list of environmental attributes was prepared
partially using the model proposed by James et al. (1979). They identified five primary
F domains of work environment perceptions, namely, job, role, leadership, and
29,11/12 environmental characteristics and organizational and subsystem attributes. They
described several attributes that fall into each domain (Parker et al., 2003). The
domains specified by this model were used only as a framework for preparing a list of
environmental attributes to be evaluated. The final list was prepared after informal
discussions with about 55 executive students and professors in OB area at
506 Management Development Institute (Gurgaon), India, referencing the thoughts that
meaning of workplace generally brought to one’s mind. This section entails attributes
of the job itself as well as the environment and the physical location of the workplace.
In the final section, the researchers used the widely recognized Rokeach Value Survey
(RVS), the instrument designed by Rokeach to measure personal and societal values
consisting of 25 items.
In both the sections a multiple-choice format was used for collecting data. A
five-point scale ranging from “Least important” to “Most important” was used to study
participants’ assessments of individual attributes and values. On an average the
survey took about eight to ten minutes to complete.

Results
Conceptual scheme of the study consists of two parts, work-related attributes to
capture the perceptions of a workplace and personal values of participant and their
background details. In order to conduct any analysis it was important to reduce the
data to a manageable size. Data collected via the online service were downloaded
directly into SPSS and preliminary analysis began with reducing the data set into
factors. Detailed results of factor analyses based on principal component analysis and
varimax rotations are summarized in Table I:
Factor Analysis is a technique for identifying groups and clusters of variables. Principal
Component Analysis is concerned only with establishing which linear component exists
within the data and how a particular variable might contribute to that component (Fields,
2005, p. 631).
The following sections provide a brief description of factors extracted by factor
analysis according to the criterion of factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.35 and
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient greater than or equal to 0.60.

Dimensions of meaning of workplace

.
Ethical governance. The structure of this factor highlights organizational
characteristics in terms ethics, norms, fairness and justice.
.
Intrapreneurship. This factor is related with the organization’s capability of
creating an environment which promotes autonomy, flexibility, taking
initiatives, openness for feedback, and innovation.
.
Recognition. This dimension is composed of attributes that may help the
organization to motivate its employees by recognizing their performance,
opportunity for decision making and build a long-term relationship.
.
Work-life balance. The factor structure of this factor comprises workplace attributes
which provides emotional, financial, and social security to the employees.
 Factors of meaning of workplace questionnaire
Factors Item Loading Mean Eigenvalue % variances

Factor 1: intrapreneurship 4.01 6.21 10.70

1. Opportunity to take initiatives 0.725
2. Encourages experimentation 0.712
3. Gives autonomy and freedom 0.669
4. Is open to suggestions for improvement 0.624
5. Encourages leadership development 0.578
6. Has a well-defined shared vision 0.573
7. Encourages innovation & idea generation 0.573
8. Recognizes contribution 0.546
9. Encourages people to voice their concerns 0.538
10. Takes initiatives for planned change 0.536
11. Encourages learning 0.459
12. Encourages team-work 0.458
13. Provides constructive feedback 0.431
Factor 2: work-life balance 3.97 3.71 6.40
1. Reduces fear of losing job 0.805
2. Provides job security 0.759
3. Cares about physical & mental wellbeing of
employees 0.577
4. Values work-life balance 0.494
5. Takes care of financial needs 0.471
6. Has role clarity 0.416
Factor 3: physical ambience 3.26 3.42 5.90
1. Has wide open spaces 0.700
2. Has a green environment (trees, etc.) 0.662
3. Has a crèche 0.596
4. Is well lit up 0.543
5. Contributes to the economy of the country 0.461
6. Brings people closer 0.450
(continued)

questionnaire
workplace

meaning of workplace
analysis results of
Summary of factor
Values and

507

Table I.
 F

508

Table I.
29,11/12

Factors of meaning of workplace questionnaire

Factors Item Loading Mean Eigenvalue % variances

Factor 4: ethical governance 4.02 2.60 4.49

1. Ethical in dealings 0.790
2. Follows rules & regulations 0.523
3. Believes in fairness & justice 0.455
Factor 5: recognition 3.99 2.48 4.28
1. Recognizes performance 0.647
2. Provides opportunity for decision making 0.603
3. Provides a platform for forming lifelong
relationships 0.535
Factor 6: process-centric 3.54 2.45 4.23
1. Requires working in a planned manner 0.635
2. Brings discipline among its employees 0.618
Factor 7: influence 3.48 2.34 4.04
1. Provides opportunities to exercise power 0.809
2. Provides opportunities to influence others 0.646
Factor 8: personal space 3.95 2.28 3.93
1. Encourages trust & transparency 0.793
2. Empowers people 0.742
3. Gives freedom for many coffee breaks 0.581
Factor 9: corporate image 3.74 2.14 3.69
1. Has a strong brand value 0.740
2. Has high prestige 0.699
Factor 10: techno-savvy 3.65 2.06 3.55
1. Has latest technology 0.692
2. Has modern equipment to facilitate work 0.627
3. Is conveniently located from my residence 0.510
 .
Personal space. The factor structure demonstrates the importance of social Values and
capital and networking at workplace. workplace
.
Corporate image. This factor indicates the importance of reputation and prestige
of the organization where one would like to work.
.
Techno-savvy. The structure of this factor indicates the importance of the
workplace being up-to date and designed to make work-life simpler yet smarter.
509
.
Process-centric. This factor emphasizes that organizations must ensure a system,
structure and policies to guide and control deviations in working patterns among
employees. The factor comprises attributes like planned work and discipline.
.
Influence. The structure of this factor describes an organization’s capacity of
imbibing leadership skills in every employee by giving them a platform to
influence others.
. Physical ambience. It can be assumed that the attributes of the physical work
environment that are necessary to make it a comfortable place to work are the
least important for graduate students in this sample. The studies on climate
demonstrate its impact of well being of employees.

Finally it can be assumed that these characteristics of a workplace can play crucial role
in designing the organizations. Overall, these ten factors have some similarity to those
found by James et al. (1979) who identified five primary domains of work environment
perceptions.

Rokeach Value Survey

Rokeach measured ratings of personal and societal values through a 25-items scale
which yielded four usable factors, namely, Self-fulfillment, Personal growth,
Community development, and Progressive orientation. The factor structure of the
first factor indicates values that are emotionally satisfying for employees. The factor
structure of the second factor consists of values which are related to individual growth
and development through opportunities of learning which had the highest mean rating
of 4.15. The third factor structure consists of factors which indicate concern for the
development of the society and nation, which were rated as the least important with an
average score of 3.69. Finally, the structure of the fourth factor indicates the factors’
importance for a favorable social identity of the individual. Thus, 22 out of 25 items
were retained. A mean analysis of the factors revealed that personal growth was
considered as most important and community-related factors as the least. The results
of factor analysis are given in Table II.
A summary for ready reference is presented in Table II, which shows the major
constructs used in the study, their factor-analytically derived dimensions, the number
of items constituting the factors, andCronbach’s alpha coefficients indicating the
internal consistency for the respective factors.
Thus, 43 out of 58 items of the questionnaire on meaning of workplace were found
to be factor-analytically meaningful. Analysis of means of the factors revealed that
ethical governance followed by intrapreneurship were rated as the most important,
while influence and physical ambience are valued as least important by this group of
respondents. The descriptive statistics about these factors is provided in Table III.
Similarly, 22 out of 25 items of the questionnaire on personal values were found to be
 F

510

Table II.
29,11/12

analysis results of
Summary of factor

Rokeach value survey

Factors of Rokeach value survey Loading Mean Eigenvalue % variances

Factor 1: self-fulfillment 4.04 4.90 19.59

1. Family 0.755
2. Mature love 0.746
3. True friendship 0.730
4. Happiness 0.696
5. Freedom 0.639
6. Inner harmony 0.633
7. Pleasure 0.580
8. A world at peace 0.502
9. Salvation/Nirvana 0.451
10. Wisdom 0.447
11. Self-respect 0.402
Factor 2: personal growth 4.15 2.72 10.90
1. Opportunity to realize your potential 0.806
2. Opportunity for self-development 0.757
3. Sense of accomplishment 0.677
4. Opportunity to be creative 0.508
5. An exciting life 0.480
Factor 3: community-development 3.69 2.50 10.00
1. Contribution to society 0.820
2. Contribution to nation 0.741
3. National security 0.540
Factor 4: progressive orientation 3.86 2.47 9.91
1. Social recognition 0.792
2. Status 0.785
3. Work itself 0.555
significant for the purpose of further analysis. The aim was to see the impact of Values and
personal values on the expectations from the workplace. workplace
Multiple regression analysis
Factor analysis of the two major constructs, Meaning of workplace and Personal
values, which form the conceptual scheme of this study yielded ten and four factors
respectively. To determine the relationship between the four independent variables 511
and the ten dependent variables, we made use of Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA).
This is a statistical technique used to analyze the extent to which changes in the
dependant variables influence the independent variable (Aiken and West, 1991). We
used the stepwise option in SPSS-X for this purpose. Results show a significant impact
of personal values on the perceptions of meaning of workplace. The general statistics
pertaining to the variables appear in Table IV, and the MRA appear in Table V.
A correlation matrix and descriptive statistics are included in Table VI. Inspection of
the table indicates that the four dimensions of personal values are significantly
correlated with the ten dimensions of the meaning of workplace, thus we fail to reject H1.
From Table V, it is clear that each dimension of personal and societal values
predicted one or more of the factors of meaning of workplace. A total of 35.3 percent of
the variance in intrapreneurship, 40.9 percent of the variance in recognition and 15.6
percent of the variance in influence, is explained by the second and fourth factors,
namely personal growth and progressive orientation of the personal values
questionnaire. Self-fulfilment has also affected recognition significantly. The overall
step-wise regression was significant in each case F ð4;301Þ ¼ 42:68, p , 0:000
(intrapreneurship), F ð4;270Þ ¼ 48:052, p , 0:000 (recognition) and F ð4;301Þ ¼ 13:883,
p , 0.000 (influence).
Further, 28.1 percent of the variance in the criterion of work life balance is explained by
two factors of the value questionnaire, namely, self-fulfillment and progressive

Factors no. Mean valuea No. of items Cronbach’s alpha

Factors of meaning of workplace questionnaire

1. Ethical governance 4.02 3 0.61
2. Intrapreneurship 4.01 13 0.89
3. Recognition 3.99 3 0.67
4. Work-life balance 3.97 6 0.79
5. Personal space 3.95 3 0.76
6. Corporate image 3.74 2 0.67
7. Techno-savvy 3.65 3 0.70
8. Process-centric 3.54 2 0.67
9. Influence 3.48 2 0.67
10. Physical ambience 3.26 6 0.80
Personal values questionnaire
1. Personal growth 4.15 5 0.76
2. Self-fulfilment 4.04 11 0.87
3. Progressive orientation 3.86 3 0.71 Table III.
4. Community-development 3.69 3 0.78 Summary of factors as
per mean scores and
Note: aMean value is given on five-point rating scale reliability of scales
 F

512

variables
Table IV.
29,11/12

deviations and
Means, standard

correlations among the

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Intrapreneurship 4.0151 0.52005

2. Work-life balance 3.9742 0.62000 0.509 * *
3. Physical ambience 3.2646 0.77377 0.564 * * 0.552 * *
4. Ethical governance 4.0235 0.64514 0.490 * * 0.428 * * 0.444 * *
5. Recognition 3.9807 0.61597 0.568 * * 0.541 * * 0.493 * * 0.399 * *
6. Process-centric 3.5401 0.83675 0.458 * * 0.431 * * 0.519 * * 0.388 * * 0.371 * *
7. Influence 3.4807 0.78675 0.338 * * 0.196 * * 0.317 * * 0.264 * * 0.394 * * 0.296 * *
8. Personal space 3.9545 0.81789 0.411 * * 0.349 * * 0.205 * * 0.306 * * 0.397 * * 0.093 0.097
9. Corporate image 3.7372 0.82845 0.368 * * 0.383 * * 0.409 * * 0.311 * * 0.355 * * 0.454 * * 0.313 * * 0.188 * *
10. Techno-savvy 3.6463 0.79331 0.362 * * 0.428 * * 0.535 * * 0.381 * * 0.350 * * 0.345 * * 0.191 * * 0.247 * * 0.419 * *
11. Self-fulfilment 4.0406 0.59546 0.398 * * 0.451 * * 0.448 * * 0.311 * * 0.418 * * 0.274 * * 0.174 * * 0.379 * * 0.179 * * 0.246 * *
12. Personal growth 4.1534 0.52275 0.542 * * 0.301 * * 0.388 * * 0.267 * * 0.493 * * 0.219 * * 0.278 * * 0.430 * * 0.230 * * 0.262 * * 0.500 * *
13. Community
development 3.6883 0.83549 0.380 * * 0.360 * * 0.516 * * 0.335 * * 0.352 * * 0.330 * * 0.168 * * 0.292 * * 0.133 * 0.216 * * 0.592 * * 0.394 * *
14. Progressive orientation 3.8643 0.71695 0.413 * * 0.445 * * 0.518 * * 0.296 * * 0.577 * * 0.487 * * 0.366 * * 0.183 * * 0.454 * * 0.370 * * 0.391 * * 0.421 * * 0.424 * *

Notes: n ¼ 312; *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * *correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Independent variables Dependant variables Beta t p (exact) Adjusted R-square Overall F

1. Personal growth Intrapreneurship 0.417 7.323 0.000 0.353 F(4,302) ¼ 42.68, p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.174 3.257 0.001
1. Self-fulfilment Work-life balance 0.282 4.450 0.000 0.281 F(4,302) ¼ 30.850, p , 0.000
1. Progressive orientation 0.259 4.579 0.000
1. Community-development Physical ambience 0.268 4.640 0.000 0.394 F(4,302) ¼ 39.202,p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.317 6.091 0.000
1. Community-development Ethical governance 0.173 2.540 0.012 0.147 F(4,302) ¼ 14.155, p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.144 2.393 0.020
1. Self-fulfilment Recognition 0.135 2.139 0.033 0.409 F(4,270) ¼ 48.052, p , 0.000
2. Personal growth 0.258 4.595 0.000
3. Progressive orientation 0.419 7.657 0.000
1. Community-development Process-centric 0.141 2.196 0.029 0.248 F(4,305) ¼ 26.231, p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.427 7.407 0.000
1. Personal growth Influence 0.174 2.724 0.007 0.156 F(4,301) ¼ 13.883, p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.311 5.047 0.000
1. Self-fulfilment Personal space 0.195 2.892 0.004 0.212 F(4,302) ¼ 21.548, p , 0.000
2. Progressive orientation 0.316 5.148 0.000
1. Progressive orientation Corporate image 0.459 7.745 0.000 0.205 F(4,302) ¼ 20.770, p , 0.000
1. Progressive orientation Techno-savvy 0.296 4.810 0.000 0.144 F(4,301) ¼ 13.843, p , 0.000
Note: Only those variables which predicts meaning of workplace significantly have been mentioned in this table

dimensions of personal
workplace

factors of the meaning of

workplace
values predicting the
analysis with the
multiple regression
Summary of step-wise
Table V.
Values and

513
F orientation. In this case the overall step-wise regression was significant F ð4;302Þ ¼ 30:850,
29,11/12 p , 0:000. A total of 39.4 percent variance in physical ambience, 14.7 percent in ethical
governance and 24.8 percent variance in process centric is explained by the third and the
fourth factors of the value questionnaire, namely, Community development and
Progressive orientation. The overall stepwise regression is significant in each case,
F ð4;302Þ ¼ 39:202, p , 0:000 (Physical ambience), F ð4;302 Þ ¼ 14:155, p , 0:000 (Ethical
514 governance) and Fð4;305Þ ¼ 26:231, p , 0:000 (Process centric).
Of the variance in personal space, 21.2 percent is explained by the top two factors of
the values survey, namely, Self-fulfilment and Personal growth. The overall step-wise
regression in this case is statistically significant, F ð4;302Þ ¼ 21:548, p , 0:000. Finally,
progressive orientation factor of the value survey explained 20.5 percent variance in
corporate image and 14.4 percent variance in techno savvy. In each case the overall
step-wise regression was significant F ð4;302Þ ¼ 20:770, p , 0:000 (corporate image) and
F ð4;301Þ ¼ 13:843, p , 0:000 (techno savvy).
An important observation from the results of regression analysis is that the value
variables of Personal growth and Progressive orientation had a stronger impact on the
perception of meaning of workplace variables than the other factors. Recognition was
found to be a strong positive predictor of nine out of the ten criterion factors of the
meaning of workplace. On the other hand, values related to personal growth and
development were found to be the positive predictors of four factors of the meaning of
workplace questionnaire.

Results of t-test
Further, a test of independence was conducted to study the differences between the
ratings of personal values based on the educational background of participants
(Table IV). The results indicate that the ratings of MBA students on personal values
are not significantly different from those of non-MBA graduates except their ratings of
factor 1 of the values survey. MBA students rated self-fulfillment to be less important
than those from in other group. As indicated in Table VII, this difference is statistically
significant at the 0.01 level.
Next, t-test was conducted to study the cross-cultural differences in participants’
ratings of personal values. Results revealed that the average overall ratings of most
factors of the value survey by Indians are higher than non-Indians. However, as
denoted in Table VII, the difference in mean ratings is significant in the case of
community development and progressive orientation at 0.01 level of significance.
The results of t-test showed the significant difference of mean in the community
development and progressive orientation dimensions of personal values of Indians and

Mean Mean non- Sig. Mean

Factor name Indians Indians t df (two-tailed) difference

Self-fulfilment 4.0515 4.0045 0.566 304 0.572 4.694E-02

Table VI. Personal growth 4.1728 4.0848 1.210 305 0.227 8.797E-02
Comparison of mean Community-development 3.7842 3.3485 3.835 305 0.000 0.4357
ratings of personal value Progressive orientation 4.0042 3.3434 7.159 304 0.000 0.6607
factors depending on
nationality Notes: 1 ¼ Indian students (n ¼ 240); 2 ¼ Non-Indian students (n ¼ 66)
non-Indians. The sample of Indian population has rated community development and Values and
progressive orientation dimensions of personal values significantly higher than those workplace
rated by non-Indians.

Discussion
The present study is an attempt to examine the influence of personal values and
expectations from workplace in holistic manner. Differential strength of association of 515
influence of personal values on the perceptions of meaning of workplace has been
explored. The overall results indicate that each of the factors of personal values derived
from the Rokeach Value Survey had a strong link with one or more factors of meaning
of workplace. More specifically, values related to Personal growth and social factors
are particularly influential in the way people perceive the characteristics of their
workplace. In an attempt to seek an explanation for the findings of the study, it is
helpful to go back to the literature on personal values. The results suggest that
progressive orientation, namely social recognition, status and work itself, were
correlated significantly with nine out of ten factors of the meaning of workplace. As
discussed above, personality, society and culture are the antecedents of values. Thus, it
is understandable that individual who evaluated progressive orientation as the most
important had higher ratings of most of the workplace factors like performance
orientation, a need for constant learning and development, structured pattern of
working, being ethical professionals, desire to be a part of a respectable and coveted
work organization, and so on. Personal growth was also seen to be correlated
significantly with several of the criterion factors. One possible explanation for this
could be due to the characteristics of the sample. The participants in this study were
highly qualified graduates from leading business and graduate schools. Referring back
to the literature on values, Rokeach’s (1973) study revealed that educated and affluent
individuals take the basic needs of security and safety for granted and place more
emphasis on higher order values like competence and self-actualization. Thus, it is no
surprise that these graduates placed greater emphasis on factors related to personal
growth and development. By “Personal growth” as a value dimension, the author refers
to an orientation towards continuous self-development, enhancement of personal skills,
embracing change as a mean to achieve accomplishment and creative satisfaction.
Further, the study attempted to examine the presence of any cross-cultural
differences in the perceptions and evaluations of personal values of individuals. The
comparative analysis between the two groups, Indians and non-Indians, revealed
interesting differences. The results revealed cross-cultural differences in ratings of
personal values as Indians rated Community-development and Progressive orientation

Mean Mean non- Sig. Mean

Factor name MBA MBA t df (two-tailed) difference

Self-fulfilment 3.9757 4.2250 2 3.271 305 0.001 20.2493

Personal growth 4.1450 4.1775 20.478 306 0.633 23.2544E-02 Table VII.
Community-development 3.6550 3.7833 21.183 306 0.238 20.1284 Comparisons of mean
Progressive orientation 3.8811 3.8167 0.690 305 0.491 6.439E-02 ratings of personal values
depending on educational
Notes: 1 ¼ MBA students (n ¼ 227), 2 ¼ Non-MBA students (n ¼ 80) background
F as more important than the non-Indians in the sample. These results make sense as
29,11/12 India is in the middle of Hofstede’s Individualism-Collectivism spectrum. Thus, people
are not too selfish, yet they value a comfortable life and social recognition. Individuals
are self-sufficient and career-minded, yet at the same time they value social
relationships and communal harmony and thus place less emphasis on power plays
(advancement opportunities). Further, India is a moderately masculine country where
516 people are aggressive and competitive while being socially active and helpful at the
same time.
Finally, researchers were interested in the impact of graduates’ educational
background (MBA vs non-MBA) on the personal values. The impact of MBA and
non-MBA education on personal values showed that MBA graduates rated
self-fulfillment as less important than non-MBA graduates. Research suggests that
MBA students are trained to be better performers, have higher self-esteem and
self-efficacy beliefs than self-fulfillment. One possible reason for this could be the fact
that values are more stable and harder to change than perceptions. Perceptions could
have been more strongly influenced by cognitive learning experiences and exposure to
various situations and events during the course of the program. However, one striking
finding is that MBA students’ ratings of factors related to emotional satisfaction were
significantly lower than ratings given by the other group. This dimension includes
items like family, mature love, friendship, happiness, freedom, world peace, and so on.
This finding is similar to Rokeach’s finding that business executives are more
interested in being capable, responsible, providing family security and leading a
comfortable life. They are less interested in world peace, love and being helpful
(Rokeach, 1973). Since most top MBA schools have stringent selection criteria, it is safe
to assume that they have had considerable business experience to draw parallels with
results from this study with Rokeach’s finding. Moreover, 75 percent of the MBA
students in this study were males whereas in the non-MBA group 51 percent were
females. Thus, an alternative explanation for the low ratings of factors related to
self-fulfillment could be due to the presence of more males in the MBA group. Men are
socialized to be more aggressive, competitive and focused on material needs, while
women to be more socially oriented.

Conclusion
The study suggests a relationship between personal values of individuals and their
perceptions of the workplace. All the four factors of the value survey were correlating
positively with ten dimensions of the workplace questionnaire. There were significant
differences between personal values of MBA graduates and those of non-MBA
graduates. MBA graduates consider family, love, friendship, happiness, freedom,
world peace and other factors related to self-fulfillment as less important than
non-MBA graduates. Interesting cross-cultural differences were found between Indians
and non-Indians as they differed in their evaluations of personal values. Indian and
non-Indian considered progressive orientation and community-development factors as
more important than personal growth and self-fulfillment.
The findings of the research are as hypothesized and lead to the following
implications of the study. First, since personal values of individuals influence their
perceptions and evaluations of environmental attributes, organizations must include
“measurement of values” as part of their screening process. As discussed earlier,
money is not the only motivating factor for today’s workers. Turnover rates are Values and
increasing as more people are pursuing postgraduate-level education and workplace
underemployment in jobs is increasing. Thus, knowledge about the values of
potential employees can be used to make sure that the organization recruits employees
whose perceptions match the psychological environment existing in the company.
Furthermore, organizations can use such information to design work environments in
such a way that they meet the expectations of newer generations of workers. 517
The second implication of the study is related to the increasing demand of MBA
graduates. For several companies worldwide, the demand for MBA is so high that it
has almost become like a prerequisite in most industries apart from management
consultancies alone. The results of this study suggest that MBA graduates have lesser
orientation towards factors related to love, happiness, friendship, etc. at the workplace.
Thus, the implication of these results is that companies must not overlook such
differences just for the sake of hiring candidates with the degree, particularly if they
cannot provide the desired environment. The characteristics prevailing in the
workplace must be matched with the candidates’ expectations rather than following
the trend of hiring candidates with MBA degree. Similarly, the study reveals
cross-cultural differences between perceptions and values. These are particularly
important in the case of multinational corporations, which consider the impact of
cultural and societal values while designing work environments and processes in
different countries, as well as while recruiting employees with different cultural
backgrounds.

Limitations
There are some limitations of the research. First, due to access limitations the sample
consisted of majority of Indians. Thus, the cross-cultural findings could be different
with a more diverse sample. Second, overall the sample consisted of more males than
females, particularly in the case of MBA students. This leads to speculations about the
results being biased towards more masculine perceptions and value orientations.
Further, the literature on workplace design and the meaning of workplace is limited
and a comprehensive list of variables of psychological climate is not available. Thus,
extensive future research needs to be carried out in this direction. Moreover, this study
is focused only on the perceptions of prospective employees. In addition to this,
knowing the employer’s perspective about the evaluations of the workplace attributes
may provide a different perspective of the meaning of workplace. Finally, this study
could be expanded by using qualitative interviews along with quantitative techniques
to get more in-depth data and probe further in the factors that the graduates take into
consideration while rating the extent of desirability of different environmental
attributes.

References
Aiken, L. and West, S. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational
Settings, Free Press, New York, NY.
Borg, I. (1990), “Multiple facetisations of work values”, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 401-12.
F Brief, A.P. (1998), Attitudes in and around Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
29,11/12 Carlopio, J.R. (1996), “Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction
questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 330-44.
Caudron, S. (1993), “Motivation? Money’s only no. 2”, Industry Week, November 15, p. 33.
Cennamo, L. and Gardner, D. (2008), “Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
person-organisation values fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
518 pp. 891-906.
Chakraborty, S.K. (1995), Management by Values: Towards Cultural Congruence, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Crites, J.O. (1961), “Factor analytical definitions of vocational motivation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 330-7.
D’Amato, A. and Herzfeldt, R. (2008), “Learning orientation, organizational commitment and
talent retention across generations: a study of European managers”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 929-53.
Dole, C. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), “The impact of various factors on the personality, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 234-45.
Drenth, P., Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C. (1998), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 1, Psychology Press, Hove.
Earle, H.A. (2003), “Building a workplace of choice: using the work environment to attract and
retain top talent”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 244-57.
Elizur, D. (1984), “Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 379-89.
Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt, R. and Beck, I.M. (1991), “The structure of work values: a cross-cultural
comparison”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Fields, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications, London.
Gensler (2005), “These four walls – the real British office”, internal report, Gensler, London.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-70.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through design of work: test of a theory”,
Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 230-79.
Harding, S.D. and Hikspoors, F.J. (1995), “New work values: in theory in practice”, International
Social Science Journal, No. 145, p. 441.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley, New
York, NY.
James, L., Gent, M., Hater, J. and Coray, K. (1979), “Correlates of psychological influence:
an illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 563-88.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Junreuther, H.C. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), Decision Sciences: An Integrated
Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Leather, P., Beale, D. and Sullivan, L. (2003), “Noise, psychological stress and their interaction in
the workplace”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-22.
Lee, S.Y. (2006), “Expectations of employees toward the workplace and environmental
satisfaction”, Facilities, Vol. 24 Nos 9-10, pp. 343-53.
Lee, S.Y. and Brand, J.M. (2005), “Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of work Values and
environment and work outcomes”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 323-33.
workplace
Locke, E.A. (1980), “The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee
performance”, in Duncan, K.D., Gruenberg, M.M. and Wallis, D. (Eds), Changes in Working
Life, Wiley, London, pp. 363-83.
Mitchell, R. and Mickel, A.E. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual-difference 519
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.
Mottaz, C.J. (1985), “The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of
work satisfaction”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 365-85.
Munson, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1980), “Concurrent validation of two value inventories in
predicting job classification and success for organisational personnel”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 536-42.
Parker, C., Baltes, B., Young, S., Huff, J., Altmann, R., Lacost, H. and Roberts, J. (2003), “Relationships
between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.
Pryor, R.G.L. (1987), “Differences among differences – in search of general work preference
dimensions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 426-33.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S.H. and Surkiss, S. (1999), “Basic individual values, work values, and the
meaning of work”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 49-71.
Rosenberg, M. (1957), Occupations and Values, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Ruiz Quintanilla, S.A. and Wilpert, B. (1991), “Are work meanings changing?”, European Work
and Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 1 Nos 2/3, pp. 91-109.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D. and Koslowsky, M. (1996), “Work values: a theoretical overview and a model
of their effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, special issue: Work Values
Worldwide, pp. 503-14.
Singh, P., Bhandarkar, A., Jain, A.K. and Rai, S. (2008), “The meaning of workplace”,
paper presented at XVIII Annual Conference of National Academy of Psychology, IIT
Guwahati, 14-17 December.
Super, D.E. (1970), Work Values Inventory, Riverside, Chicago, IL.
Super, D.E. and Nevill, D.D. (1986), The Salience Inventory: Theory, Application, and Research,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits and
their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 862-77.
Van Ree, H.J. (2002), “The added value of office accommodation to organizational performance”,
Work Study, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 357-63.
Varady, D.P. and Carrozza, M.A. (2000), “Toward a better way to measure customer satisfaction
levels in public housing: a report from Cincinnati”, Housing Studies, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 797-825.
Zhao, J., He, N. and Lovrich, N.P. (1998), “Individual value preferences among American police
officers: the Rokeach theory of human values revisited”, Policing: An International Journal
of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 22-37.
F Further reading
29,11/12 Bernstein, P. (1997), American Work Values: Their Origin and Development, State University of
New York Press, Albany, NY.
Gill, F. (1999), “The meaning of work: lessons from sociology, psychology and political theory”,
Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725-43.
James, L. and James, L. (1989), “Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the
520 measurement of meaning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 739-51.
Quintanilla, R.S.A. (1991), “Introduction: The meaning of work”, European Work and
Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 1 Nos 2/3, pp. 81-9.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts”, Employee Rights and
Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-39.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and their employees’ obligation:
a study of psychological contracts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 389-400.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-65.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), “Towards a universal structure of human values”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 550-62.
Schwartz, S.H. and Sagiv, L. (1995), “Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of
values”, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 92-116.
Shaefer, C. and Darling, J. (1996), Spirit Matters: Using Contemplative Disciplines in Work and
Organizational Life: A Study Funded by the Fetzer Institute and the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, High Tor Alliance for Organization and Community Renewal, New York, NY.
Singh, P., Jain, A.K. and Bhandarkar, A. (2006), “Meaning of work in corporate India: preliminary
findings”, in Singh, P., Bhatnagar, J. and Bhandarkar, A. (Eds), Future of Work: Mastering
Change, Excel Books, New Dehli.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 179-201.

Corresponding author
Sumita Rai can be contacted at: sumitar@mdi.ac.in

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints