Abstract
The current study used work values components (WVC) to examine the relationship between work values, vocational interests, personality, and personal values. Most intercorrelations between work values and other constructs were in the small effect range. Overall correlations between scale scores provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for values scales. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses suggested personal values were the most significant predictor of WVC. Interests and personality also contributed a small amount of additional variance in predicting work values. Overall, results suggested that other variables (e.g., personal values, vocational interests, and personality) accounted for 22% (Autonomy) to 48% (Status) in WVC. Results supported growing evidence of construct validity for work values, given study findings. Implications for the study of values and career counseling interventions are discussed.
Work values, defined as goals or end states one hopes to attain in their work environment (Super, 1980), have been a central aspect of career development theories such as Super's Life-Space, Life-Span Theory (Super, Savikas, & Super, 1996), the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, 1996), and Duane Brown's Values-Based, Holistic Model (D. E. Brown, 2002). Work values are a key piece in predicting job satisfaction (Rounds, 1990), intentions to stay in a job, and job tenure (Hesketh, McLachlan, & Gardner, 1992). As work values were incorporated into several career theories, theorists developed their own measure of work values (e.g., Super’s Work Values Inventory [SWVI], the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire [MIQ]) that operationalized their own definition of the construct. While many of the existent measures of work values are very similar (Rounds & Armstrong, 2005), little effort has been directed at building evidence of validity for the construct of work values since the 1980s (Macnab & Fitzsimmons, 1987; Pryor, 1981; Rounds, Henley, Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981; Super & Nevill, 1986).
Recent research by Leuty and Hansen (2011), however, provided evidence of construct validity for work values. Performing principal components analysis on data from multiple measures of work values including the MIQ (Rounds et al., 1981), Super’s Work Values Inventory–Revised (SWVI-R; Zytowski, 2006), and Manhardt’s Work Values Inventory (MWVI; Manhardt, 1972), Leuty and Hansen found that six domains of work values (work values components [WVC]) were being captured across instruments. These domains included the importance of the work environment, competence, autonomy, status, organizational culture, and relationships. They posit that the WVC can be used to investigate further evidence of validity for the construct of work values. Thus, the goal of the present study was to build on the results of Leuty and Hansen by examining the relation between work values and other constructs central to vocational psychology (e.g., personal values, interests, and personality) to provide additional evidence of validity for the construct of work values.
Comparisons Between Work Values and Personal Values
Despite the assumption that work values are considered a subset of personal values (see, e.g., Elizur, Borg, Hunt, & Beck, 1991), research focusing on the relations between work values and personal values has been sparse. Early work by Kinnane and Gaubinger (1963) found that the highest correlations between personal and work value scores ranged from r = .54 between Theoretical personal values and Heuristic–Creative work values to r = .25 between Economic personal values and Security–Economic work values in a sample of college students. These results provide some support for the overlap between the constructs of work values and personal values.
Ros, Schwartz, and Surkiss (1999) also compared personal values with work values in a sample of adults in Israel. Their results concluded that extrinsic work values were related to conservation (e.g., maintaining traditional practices) personal values (r = .24); intrinsic work values were related to the value of openness to change (r = .23); social work values had the most significant relationship with self-transcendence (e.g., appreciation of universalism and benevolence) values (r = .25), and prestige work values with self-enhancement personal values (r = .29). Based on the magnitude of these correlations, Ros et al. found that personal values accounted for a modest amount of the overall variance (approximately 6% to 8%) in work values scores, leaving much more variance in work values unexplained.
The literature on the relations between work and personal values suggest that the two are related, but the use of multiple measures of work values has created few replications of findings and less overall evidence of construct validity for work values. Overall, results from prior studies suggest that the effect sizes for comparisons between personal and work values are generally in the medium range (Cohen, 1992). Furthermore, no research has included examining how work values relate to personal values measured by the Rokeach Values Survey (Rokeach, 1973), the most widely used personal values assessment.
Relations Between Work Values and Vocational Interests
Research that has examined the relations between work values and interests has found support for the relationship between Artistic interests and values emphasizing creativity and esthetics, Investigative interests and intellectual stimulation, and Enterprising interests and the value of economic returns in samples of adolescent and college-age males (Breme & Cockriel, 1975; Super, 1962). Research by Rottinghaus and Zytowski (2006), using a nationally representative sample of adolescents (N = 2000), also supports small relationships between values and interests. Examining the relationship between scores on Super’s SWVI-R (Zytowski, 2006) and the Kuder Career Search (Zytowski, 2004), they found that work values scores explained a statistically significant portion of variance in all six interest areas for females ranging from 2.9% (Business Operations interests) to 6.1% (Social/Personal Services interests). Work values significantly predicted four of the six interest areas for males, ranging from 4.6% (Business Operations interests) to 5.6% (Arts/Communication interests). While these results were statistically significant, the magnitude of these relationships are mostly within the small effect size range, supporting the hypothesis that work values are a related, but separate construct from vocational interests.
Research by Smith and Campbell (2009) provided further clarification of the nature of the relationship between work values and vocational interests. Using data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (2004) O*NET 5.1 data set, comparisons between Holland’s RIASEC occupational interest categories (e.g., Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) and values data from an adaptation of the Minnesota Job Description Questionnaire (Borgen, Weiss, Tinsley, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1968), which measures six value categories, found a large effect size for differences in work value profiles for each interest category. Further canonical correlations found that five of the values (achievement, working conditions, recognition, relationships, and independence) were strongly related to four interest areas (investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising). On the other hand, the value of support, which consists of the importance of fair company policies, adequate training, and good supervision, was weakly related to these four interest areas.
Recent research by Sodano (2011) found the value of achievement was related to social science interests, and recognition related to managing interests, consistent with earlier findings. In this study, correlations between work values measured using the Work Importance Locator (McCloy et al., 1999) and basic interests assessed using the Personal Globe Inventory (PGI; Tracey, 2002) did not exceed |.25| in a sample of undergraduate students. Furthermore, other research has not found many correlations between work values and interests that exceed |.30| (Knapp & Knapp, 1979; Pryor, 1981) suggesting that while the correlations between work values and interests highlight that the two constructs are related, the overlap in constructs is likely minimal, given most effect sizes are in the small to medium range (Cohen, 1992).
Comparisons Between Work Values and Personality
Despite little research addressing the relationship between work-related values and personality, theorists generally have assumed that personality variables predict work values because of the influence that personality has on how individuals view the world (Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). A series of research studies on working adults from multiple countries by Furnham and his colleagues examined the association between personality and work values. Although early work studying a sample of job applicants in New Zealand (Furnham, Forde, & Ferrari, 1999) suggested that work values and personality are closely related, subsequent work by Furnham and associates (Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis, Pappas, & Garrod, 2005) suggest a more modest relationship. Using data from British workers, they found personality explained 22% of the variance in Influence and Advancement value factor scores. They also found that personality accounted for 8% of the variance of scores in a Financial and Working Condition value factor, and 10% of the variance in an Autonomy and Use of Skills value factor. Included in this investigation by Furnham, Petrides, Tsaousis, Pappas, and Garrod (2005) was a replication of this study with a sample of Greek workers finding a similar pattern of relationships between work values and personality scores. However, in this sample, personality explained less variance in work values with results ranging from 6% (Autonomy and Use of Skills) to 12% (both Work Relationships and Influence and Advancement factors).
Furnham’s series of studies on work values and personality suggest, at minimum, that work values assessed with the Work Values Questionnaire appear to be a separate construct from personality. However, Furnham’s research used only one measure of work values; therefore, the results provide evidence of construct validity for Work Values Questionnaire and not for the construct of work values. Additionally, Furnham used samples from Britain, Greece, and New Zealand, and the results may not generalize to samples from other countries.
Research by Berings, De Fruyt, and Bouwen (2004) provide additional evidence for a relationship between the construct of work values and personality. With a Dutch sample of undergraduate students, Berings and colleagues examined the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and 12 work values scales developed by Berings (2002). They found that the five personality factors accounted for 16% (community) to 27% (structure) of the variance in work values, with the exception of autonomy and stability values where only 6% and 8%, respectively, of the variance was explained by personality factors. Unlike Furnham’s work group, Berings and colleagues (2004) did find that personality accounted for a substantial amount of variance in most work values studied, suggesting that the magnitude of the relations between personality and values might be a function of the work values under examination. However, Berings’ results do not tease apart whether their results were due to using a different instrument to assess work values or measuring work values not assessed in Furnham’s series of studies. Thus, the research on the relationship between work values and personality suggests that consistency in measurement may influence results, with relationships ranging anywhere from small to large effect sizes. Research using a wider array of work values, as well as using measures of work values that have more established evidence of reliability and validity, would likely contribute to an enhanced understanding of the relationship between work values and personality.
Current Study
The current study has the advantage of using the WVCs, identified by Leuty and Hansen (2011) using principal components analysis of 43 values scales from three instruments (MIQ, MWVI, and SWVI-R), to extend understanding of the nomological net of the construct of work values (i.e., relations to personal values, interests, and personality). The WVCs, developed from communalities across a variety of different measures of work values, provide a more universal assessment of work values than does the use of a single scale from a particular measure. Thus, the values components can provide a stronger test for evidence of construct validity for work values by reducing potential measurement bias from reliance on one measure of values.
Given that prior research in this area provides mixed results as to the nature of the relationships between work values and interests, personality, and personal values and that no other research has examined all three constructs together, the present study took an exploratory approach to investigating the relationships among between these constructs. However, it was anticipated that the magnitude of the relationships between work values and personal values would be the largest based on their conceptual overlap.
Method
Participants
Participants included 374 undergraduate students of a large Midwestern university. Data were collected along with data reported by Leuty and Hansen (2011). The sample was 64.5% female and 35.5% male, with an average age of 20.2 years (SD = 3.57). Participants identified their ethnicity, as 76.2% European, 15.8% Asian, 2.4% Black, 1.1% Hispanic/Latino, 0.5% Pacific Islander, 2.8% multiethnic, and 1.3% of participants did not report ethnic background. Nearly all participants reported that they had been employed at some time (94.4%), and the majority reported that they currently were employed (58.6%). Participants were compensated for their participation by their choice of either class credit (72.2% of participants) or money ($20; 27.8% of participants). Individuals who were paid for their participation versus awarded class credit did not differ significantly by age (t = −1.61, p > .05), race (χ2 = 4.19, p > .05) or gender (χ2 = 0.14, p > .05). However, they were more likely to have declared a college major (χ2 = 3.99, p = .05) and be in their later years of college (χ2 = 14.51, p = .01). This may be in part due to few upper-class courses, where more students in their senior year are likely to be recruited, offering class credit for research participation.
Measures
Work values
Work values in the study were composite scores (i.e., WVC) derived from principal components analysis on scale scores from MWVI (Manhardt, 1972), MIQ (Rounds et al., 1981), and the SWVI-R (Super, 1970; Zytowski, 2006). The components describe the importance of the (a) work environment (e.g., physical work space), (b) competence (e.g., challenging work, feelings of achievement), (c) status (e.g., having a prestigious job, high income, advancement opportunities), (d) autonomy (e.g., opportunities for autonomy and independence, responsibility for work tasks, variety in tasks), and (e) organizational culture (e.g., having work in line with one’s morals, fair company policies, support from management, proper training, clear procedures). The work environment component was comprised of seven scales with and internal consistency (standardized Cronbach’s α) of .84. The Competence component, formed from seven scales drawn from MWVI, MIQ, and SWVI-R, had an α of .87. Based on further reflection of the content of the scales (e.g., intrinsic rewards, challenge, achievement, independence, ability utilization) on the Competence component, it was decided that a more appropriate label for this component was Achievement. A component reflective of the importance of status and prestige (Status) was comprised of eight scales from the three work values measures with an internal consistency of .83. The next component, Autonomy, consisted of five scales (α = .79), while seven scales formed the Organizational Culture component (α = .75). The final component, Relationships, had low internal consistency (α = .47), which is likely due to being comprised of only two scales (coworkers and social service) from the MIQ.
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)
The IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006) was used to assess personality. The 320-item IPIP is a measure of the Big Five personality characteristics (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism), and the 30 underlying facets are similar to those measured by the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Goldberg (1999) found that correlations between the IPIP Big Five facets and the NEO-PI-R facets ranged from .72 to .80 for Neuroticism, .67 to .81 for Extroversion, .70 to .80 for Openness to Experience, .61 to .79 for Agreeableness, and .60 to .77 for Conscientiousness, suggesting adequate evidence of construct validity for IPIP scores. Internal consistencies (α coefficients) for the big five scales used with the current sample were consistent with past samples and ranged from .85 for Agreeableness to .92 for the Extroversion scale.
Rokeach Values Survey
One of the most popular measures of personal values is the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS; Rokeach, 1973). The RVS is organized into two dimensions—terminal and instrumental values. Terminal values refer to a desirable end state, such as having a comfortable life, while instrumental values are desirable modes of behavior, such as being honest (Rokeach, 1973). On the RVS, 18 terminals values and 18 instrumental values are measured. Rokeach (1973) reports that the test–retest reliabilities for terminal values range from .78 at 3 weeks to .69 at 14 to 16 months. Test–retest reliabilities for the Instrumental values range from .71 to .61 across the same time periods. Research on the RVS with a variety of different populations is extensive and provides evidence of construct and predictive validity (see e.g., Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Rokeach, 1973). The RVS is available in multiple response formats including ranking and rating versions. The rating version requests that an individual assign a numerical value to each value allowing multiple values to be considered equally important. The rating version has been found to have stronger evidence available for the construct validity and predictive validity of the RVS scores versus the ranking version, making it more appropriate for use in the current study (Maio, Roese, Seligman, & Katz, 1996; Thompson, Levitov, & Miederhoff, 1982).
Strong Interest Inventory
General Occupational Themes (GOT) of the Strong Interest Inventory (SII; Donnay, Morris, Schaubhut, & Thompson, 2005; Hansen & Campbell, 1985), which assess Holland’s (1997) six occupational types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), were used to measure vocational interests. Median test-retest correlations for the GOTs range from .84 (for Enterprising) to .92 (for Realistic) for a sample of employed adults over a span of three to 6 months (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). Furthermore, a convergent validity study comparing the GOT of the SII to the Vocational Preference Inventory (Hansen, 1983) found a median correlation between same-named scales of .76.
Procedure
Individuals were recruited through flyers on campus and through course websites. Participants completed most measures via computer to reduce data entry errors, while additional measures were completed on paper (i.e., SII) due to copyright restrictions. All measures were completed under supervision in a research laboratory.
Results
Scores for the six WVC were correlated with scale scores on the SII, IPIP, and RVS. These correlations are reported in Table 1. Correlations between WVC scores and the SII were all in the small effect size range (r < |.30|). All but one correlation between WVC scores and IPIP scores were below |.30|, indicative of small effect sizes. The exception was the relation between the WVC of Relationships and the personality scale of Agreeableness on the IPIP (r = .34). Finally, correlations between WVC scores and RVS scores fell within the small to moderate effect size range. The moderate effect size correlations were from approximately .30 to .40. The most notable relation was between the WVC of Status and the RVS item of Social Recognition (r = .51). In total, the pattern of correlations between work values scores and other measures offered support for convergent and discriminate validity, given that correlations between scores for related content were larger than correlations between scales of unrelated content. For instance, there was a larger positive correlation between Achievement component scores and RVS Sense of Accomplishment scores (r = .39) than between Achievement and RVS Pleasure scores (r = .07).
Correlations Between Work Value Component Scores and SII, IPIP, and RVS Scores
Note. N = 374. SII = Strong Interest Inventory; IPIP = International personality item pool; RVS = Rokeach Value Survey.
For r ≥ .11, p < .05, r ≥ .14, p < .01, and r ≥ .17, p < .001.
To examine the relations between WVC scores and scores on the SII, IPIP, and RVS, hierarchical multiple regression was used. Based on suggestions in the literature (e.g., Elizur et al., 1991) and review of the existing literature suggesting the magnitude of relationships were higher among work values and personal values than between work values and vocational interests, personal values were entered into the model first. Furthermore, inspection of the correlations reported in Table 1 show that for the current sample, relations between work values and personal values, overall, are larger than correlations between work values and vocational interests. Based on these data, vocational interests were entered second in the model, given that both work values and interest fall within the same domain of constructs related to work. Finally, personality was entered last into the model. Thus, for each WVC, personal values from RVS scores were entered on the first step, SII GOT scores were entered on the second step, and IPIP scores entered on the final step. As shown in Table 2, results found that all six models were significant in predicting values scores, with all models producing large effect sizes (all r2 ≥ .22) based on guidelines by Cohen (1992). Overall, the Status component was best predicted by RVS, SII, and IPIP scores that accounted for 48.39% of the variance in Status scores. Although significant, RVS, SII, and IPIP scores contributed the least to predicting Autonomy scores (22.31%).
Hierarchical Regression Results for the Prediction of WVC by RVS, SII, and IPIP Scores
Note. SII = Strong Interest Inventory; IPIP = International Personality Item Pool; RVS = Rokeach Value Survey.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
In all cases, RVS scores were significant predictors of the six WVC scores, ranging from 18.95% (Autonomy WVC) to 40.17% (Status WVC), and yielded large effect sizes. SII scores contributed to significant variance in WVC scores in four cases (Achievement, Status, Organizational Culture, and Relationships) and were interpreted as small effect sizes given changes in r2. SII scores predicted, at minimum, 1.86% of the variance in the Environment WVC and, at most, 6.44% variance in the Status WVC. IPIP scores made significant contributions to the prediction of work values scores in three cases (Achievement, Status, and Relationships), but accounted for between 0.83% (Autonomy) and 2.50% (Relationships) of the variance in WVC scores. Small effect sizes were observed in all three cases.
Discussion
Personal Values
Despite little research examining the relationship between work values and personal values, most conclude that work values are likely one aspect of personal values (Elizur & Sagie, 1999; Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss 1999). In comparison to vocational interests and personality, these results suggest that the construct of work values is more akin to the construct of personal values than to the other constructs assessed. It is important to note, however, that scores on 36 personal values were used for these analyses, whereas vocational interests and personality were assessed with six and five scales, respectively. Thus, the larger amount of variance explained by personal values may be due to more opportunities (i.e., a larger number of scales) to capture shared variance between constructs. In sum, most of the variance in work values was not explained by personal values, which supports the conclusion that work values are a separate construct from personal values.
Associations between work values and personal values found in this study have little context for comparison due to the modest amount of research in this area (see Elizur & Sagie, 1999; Kinnane & Gaubinger, 1963; Ros et al., 1999). However, a few scattered studies have found similar relationships between the importance of status at work and personal values related to self-enhancement, such as the RVS scales of Social Recognition and a Comfortable Life in the current study; the connection between the importance of relationships and being benevolent (e.g., the RVS scales of Helpful, Loving, Loyal, and Forgiving), and between Achievement values and personal values related to independence and achievement, such as being independent and desiring a sense of accomplishment (Ros et al., 1999).
While further research is needed to provide consensus on the relationships between work values and personal values, findings of the current research support the notion that work values are more related to personal values than other constructs examined, as was anticipated. However, most of the variance in work values was not explained by personal values, which supports the conclusion that work values are a separate construct from personal values. Moreover, this points to the need for personal values to be assessed separately from work values as mentioned by Elizur and Sagie (1999).
Vocational Interests
Relationships between the WVC and vocational interests suggest minimal overlap between the two constructs. The most substantial relationship between the importance of Status and Enterprising interests has been documented in other studies (Breme & Cockriel, 1975; Rottinghaus & Zytowski, 2006; Super, 1962). It is likely that this relationship is a result of Enterprising interests encompassing a preference for management and entrepreneurial activities, which often entails some level of status and monetary rewards for good performance. Enterprising interests also were found to be a significant predictor of Autonomy and Achievement values, which makes sense given that typical enterprising occupations reward individuals who can work independently and competently. There is consensus across the literature that Social interests are related to the importance of relationships at work as was found in the present study (Hirschi, 2008; Smith & Campbell, 2009). Given that Social interests generally focus on working with others, it is not surprising that individuals with interests in this area would also place importance on having congenial relationships at work.
Other findings from the current study are also consistent with past research as was the negative relationship between the importance of the Work Environment and Realistic and Investigative interests (Smith & Campbell, 2009). The less than ideal working conditions in which Realistic jobs are often located, such as during difficult weather, within confined spaces, or in dangerous work areas, may explain these results. Despite support from prior research, the effect size for the relation between the Work Environment WVC and Realistic interests was small, and regression analysis showed that interests, even Realistic interests, did not contribute significantly to the importance of the working environment when personal values and personality were included, suggesting that other variables may mediate this relationship.
Finally, in the current study, Social interests were related to the importance of Organizational Culture, although the overall prediction of Organizational Culture scores by vocational interests in the multiple regression analysis was small, which is consistent with previous findings (Smith & Campbell, 2009).While further research may offer additional explanation of what predicts the importance of organizational culture, it may be that this value develops more independently of one’s interests than the other work values examined, and much like other values, may be a result of one’s overall personal values.
Personality
The nature of the relationships between work values and personality in this study have been supported by past research findings. Results showed that the importance of Relationships was related to Agreeableness which has been established by others (Berings, De Fruyt, & Bouwen, 2004; Furnham et al., 2005), which illustrates the likelihood that agreeable individuals are likely to place importance on harmonious relationships at work. Furthermore, support has also been found for results finding a negative relation between values focused on income and power or influence (e.g., the Status component) and Agreeableness in both U.S. (Duffy, Borges, & Hartung, 2009) and Dutch samples (Berings et al., 2004). Often times, individuals in power are forced to make choices that may not be desirable to other individuals involved, which has the potential to be an uncomfortable task for persons who prefer being agreeable with others, shedding some light on this finding.
Consistent with the current results, the importance of a comfortable working environment for individuals higher on the trait of Extraversion has been found by others (Berings et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2005). Given that this WVC included items about a comfortable workplace, coworkers and supervisors that are approachable, and opportunities to balance work and life demands, it is logical that individuals who likely are friendly, assertive, and outgoing (e.g., extraverted) would rate this value component as more important as well as placing more importance on opportunities to build relationships at work as demonstrated in the significant correlation between the Relationships WVC and Extraversion. The relationship between the value of Status and Extroversion, suggested by the significant correlation, also has been found in other research in samples from Switzerland (Hirschi, 2008), Netherlands (Berings et al., 2004), and Britain and Greece (Furnham et al., 2005), suggesting that this finding is robust across cultures. However, in the regression results, Extraversion was not a significant predictor of the Relationships WVC which is contrary to previous findings (Berings et al., 2004; Furnham et al., 2005), but may be due to different measures of work values and personality being used in all three investigations.
Conclusions
Together, results support evidence of construct validity for the WVC with work values related to, but distinct from interests, personality, and personal values. Work values appear to be mostly related to personal values, but given that a good portion of variance in work values was not accounted for by personal values suggests that the two may be related but not subordinate as suggested by some (Elizur et al., 1991). In addition, research on generational changes by Hansen and Leuty (2012) suggests that the changing nature of work over the past few decades may have changed what work values are important to today’s workers versus workers in the past. Some workers, for instance, describe the drawbacks of being too available via technology leading to greater work–life interference (Turkle, 2008) making accessibility and use of technology a likely area of importance for work. Similarly, personal values also may have changed as society has progressed, suggesting that some personal values may now be applicable to work. Further research, especially longitudinal designs, can help understand how development of work values occurs in conjunction with the development of personal values, as well as personality, and vocational interests.
Results also highlight that some work values seem to be accounted for by personal values, interests, and personality. For example, almost half of the variance in the values of Status and Achievement was accounted for by other constructs, suggesting that these values may be more important to understanding the overall type of person described by these characteristics. Similarly, the relationship between Social interests, the importance of relationships at work and the valuing of loving connections, along with an agreeable personality, suggests that these characteristics embody a particular type of individual who is more likely to find social occupations satisfying than others who may not be defined by this unique cluster of interests, personality, and value traits. As it appears that other work values are more independent from other constructs (e.g., Work Environment, Organizational Culture, and Autonomy), exploration of these remaining values can be useful for individuals with other areas of interest to help further narrow occupational choices to options that might prove satisfying beyond initial interest in work activities.
Articulating the relationships between work values and other constructs also has implications for practice. Providing information on work values may enhance career counseling, as this information can provide a deeper understanding of different occupational choices beyond information on vocational interests and personality. As Super (1970) and Dawis and Lofquist (1984) suggest, inclusion of work values in career decision making can help counselors meet their goal of assisting clients with selecting occupations that are likely to be satisfying, as work value correspondence predicts job satisfaction (Rounds, 1990). Current results support the notion that work values are distinct from other constructs, thus career professionals are encouraged to include work values in their interventions.
As career assessment interpretation and feedback also have been identified as critical components of career interventions (S. D. Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000), current results offer some ideas for differing approaches to career counseling based on different types of individuals. For example, given that Conventional interests were not highly related to work values, these individuals may benefit from additional assessment and exploration of values to assist in identifying satisfying work environments. The assessment of work values may be necessary to help narrow choices of work environments for Conventional types, and personality assessment may further reduce these options to a group of viable occupations to explore, thus suggesting that a wider range of assessment is warranted to assist with career exploration. Similarly, those with Investigative interests may require the use of more assessments to help specify work environments to explore. Due to more variability in personality and values in individuals with these areas of interest, counselors likely need to take a more integrative approach in using assessments to assist clients with discovering viable career options. Social types, on the other hand, may need less emphasis on integrating assessment results, given the established relation between Social interests, work values emphasizing relationships, and a tendency to have an agreeable and extroverted personality. They may find more occupations that naturally satisfy their work values (e.g., Relationships) and personality (e.g., Agreeable and Extraverted), and need less assessment to identify occupations to explore.
Limitations
Demographic characteristics of the sample used for the current research may limit generalizability. The inclusion of slightly more females than males may have affected results. Furthermore, the sample was comprised of young adults in higher education, where work values have been shown to be affected by life experiences and educational attainment (Johnson & Elder, 2002; Pinfield, 1984). Given that this group of individuals is entering the workforce currently, knowing more about their values could be helpful to potential employers. However, some caution should be used when extending the current findings to other age or educational groups. Moreover, the current study utilized the same sample that was used to derive the WVC, which may mean that current results are specific only to the sample studied. Further replication is needed to solidify findings and assess generalizability to other populations.
Future Directions
Future research is needed to build upon the current findings. First, as mentioned, longitudinal designs can further our understanding of the development of work values in contrast to other constructs. Just as Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) has provided a framework for understanding how vocational interests are developed and sustained, investigations that can provide a framework for understanding the development of work values and their relations to other constructs and career outcomes would likely help anchor research on work values, leading to richer understanding of values.
Second, research addressing the utility of work values in career counseling also can be helpful. As Rounds (1990) found, the correspondence between individuals’ work values and those reinforced in their job was a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than was interest congruence. Additional study of counseling processes related to the use of work values assessment and interpretation can identify how best to incorporate discussions of work values in career counseling and guidance programs with the goal of assisting with career decision making and later job satisfaction.
Finally, more attention to the importance of personal values in career development and career counseling is needed. Results showed that the amount of overlap in personal and work values was modest, and therefore work value assessment cannot be substituted for assessment of personal values. Examination of personal values in relation to work outcomes is an area ripe for future research. Current attention to balancing work and family demands may be enhanced by exploring personal values, given that evidence suggests that the inability to fulfill personal values may be connected to work family conflict (Perrewé, Hochwarter, & Kiewitz, 1999).
In sum, incorporation of a variety of constructs to further understanding of work adjustment and choice is an area for future research. Attention to the assessment of all four constructs (i.e., work values, personal values, interests, and personality) in the prediction of job satisfaction is needed. Again, as found in the current results, given the modest overlap of the constructs examined, inclusion of all four constructs into career counseling is warranted. Research addressing the incremental validity of combining all assessments in career interventions can assist in clarifying the importance of assessing each construct with clients.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by the E.K. Strong Jr. Memorial Fellowship awarded to the first author.