(US) Navy personnel, systems analysts, manufacturing staff and fire-fighters.
These authors did not, however, report the wording of the individual item
statements.
An earlier study by Wollack et al. (1971) sought to evaluate “the meaning that an
individual attaches to his role at work” using an exploratory factor analysis
procedure. Two core domains of work meanings, intrinsic and extrinsic, were
proposed. The intrinsic domain relates to ‘work as its own reward’ and is
measured by three ‘sub-scales’: Pride in Work – the satisfaction and enjoyment
from doing one’s job well; Job Involvement- the degrees of active interest in co-
workers, company functions and making contributions to job-related decisions;
and Activity Preference – an individual’s preference to remain active and busy
while working. The extrinsic domain is composed of two sub-scales: Attitude
toward Earnings - the value an individual places on work earning; and Social
Status of Job – an individual’s evaluation of the influence their job has on their
friends, relatives, and co-workers. Two sub-scales were included that did not
readily fit into the intrinsic/extrinsic categorisation: Upward Striving – the desire
for promotion and a better standard of living; and Responsibility to Work - the
recognition of an ‘obligation to work’. These domains and sub-scales are
described in Figure 5 - 7.
The authors’ model was tested using exploratory factor analysis with data
collected from a sample of manufacturing employees and a survey instrument
consisting of 91 items. Forty-five of these item were retained based on the
psychometric properties of the derived factors which relate to the sub-scales
described above (excepting the ‘responsibility to Work’ sub-scale which was
removed owing to poor psychometric values). Only a sample of the actual item
statements were included in the article.
A search of the hospitality studies literature did not identify any studies
measuring ‘work meaning’ or ‘meaning of work’. A choice had to be made,
therefore, between the measures employed by James and James (1989) and by
Wollack et al. (1971). Immediately it was apparent that neither set of measures
was ideal because: (i) the full set of measures in each was too lengthy for this
research; (ii) each contained a number of specific measures in each were not
particularly relevant; and (iii) neither of the studies had reported the full range of
individual item statements (for this research to draw upon).