An exploration of culture and gender: Intrinsic and extrinsic job expectations in the U.S. and Brazil

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

As interest in foreign business enterprises rises between the U.S. and Brazil, companies have encountered added challenges in the areas of staffing and gender inequity and inequality against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies must address these challenges head on to continue to thrive.

OBJECTIVE:

The goal of this study is to identify and diagnose the differences in job expectations of employees in the early stages of their career and personal development in terms of their gender and nationality.

METHODS:

This study asked male and female workers from the U.S. and Brazil to rate the importance of various intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were compared for 1,431 total participants.

RESULTS:

This study found both cultural (U.S. and Brazil) and gender (male and female) differences in rank order ratings across an array of job expectations. Findings also revealed significant cultural and gender differences in mean importance scores for job expectations rated by these groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study’s findings are relevant to guide managerial practices as companies seek to attract, develop, and retain future generations of technical and managerial staff following the uncertainty brought about by COVID-19 and the Great Resignation.

Keywords

Job expectations work values gender international culture intrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation

Cody Logan Chullen, PhD is an Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Management at East Carolina University. Additionally, he is a Chancellor’s Leadership Fellow, BB&T Faculty Leadership Fellow, and Teaching w/ Technology Fellow of the university. He teaches classes in human resource management and collaboration, conflict, and negotiation, among others. His primary research interests include leadership processes (e.g. LMX), occupational stress, strain, and well-being (e.g. burnout), and gender issues in management (e.g. women as managers). He serves on the editorial boards of Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and International Journal of Stress Management.

Dennis Barber III, PhD is the Chesnutt-Bond Distinguished Scholar of Entrepreneurship in the Miller School of Entrepreneurship at East Carolina University. He currently serves as the Coeditor-in-Chief for the Journal of Small Business Strategy and is the President-Elect for the national Small Business Institute^®. He is a program lead for the USASBE Rural Research Fellows program and the Rural Entrepreneurship Education Certificate. He is Past-Chair for the USASBE Rural Entrepreneurship Special Interest Group. His research interests include rural entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship pedagogy, economic development, and small business strategy.

Flavia Cavazotte, PhD is an Associate Professor of Management and Leadership at the IAG Business School - Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio). She obtained her doctorate in Business Administration from Virginia Commonwealth University in 2002. She currently serves as Head of PUC-Rio’s Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. She does research on leadership, individual differences, citizenship behaviors, and creativity and innovation. She has authored articles in publications including the Journal of Management, Organizational Research Methods, Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Cleaner Production.

Tope Adeyemi-Bello, PhD is a Professor of Management at East Carolina University. His area of specialty is International Business with particular focus on the effects of cross-cultural values and attitudes on employees and their jobs. In addition to his teaching and scholarly activities, he is responsible for the development and implementation of the College of Business’ study abroad programs. He is currently using the East Carolina University’s internationally acclaimed Global Understanding curriculum format for a course to enhance the practical international experience for College of Business students.

1 Introduction

The United States (U.S.) and Brazil comprise the two largest economies in the Western Hemisphere. Historically, these two countries have maintained constructive, interdependent political and economic relations. As such, cooperation in business ventures between these nations date back more than 100 years. Still today, each remains an attractive source for foreign direct investment (FDI) from the other. Indeed, in 2021 alone the U.S. witnessed its largest number of Brazilian initial public offerings (IPO’s) to date. And in the preceding 5-year period, Brazilian companies raised nearly $9B USD through IPO across 13 different companies [1]. This trend is nothing new. For instance, in 2015, 50 Brazilian companies launched start-up operations in Pompano Beach, FL [2]. Interest in such enterprises is mutual. Many major U.S. companies have operated successfully in Brazil for several generations including those from the gas and oil industries (e.g., Exxon Mobile and Chevron) and the automotive industries (e.g., General Motors and Ford), just to name a few [3]. Moreover, according to the U.S. Department of State’s 2021 Investment Climate Statement on Brazil, the U.S. maintains the second largest single-country stock of FDI by final ownership, accounting for 18 percent of all FDI in the country ($117B USD) [4].

As bilateral interest in foreign business enterprises rises between the U.S. and Brazil, companies have encountered added challenges in the areas of recruitment and selection. For instance, for the 50 Brazilian companies that launched start-up operations in Florida referenced above, only a handful sent staff from Brazil to live in the U.S. to build sales. These expatriates were then tasked with hiring U.S. workers to staff remaining openings [2]. Similarly, when the U.S. Olympic Committee opened a Team USA store in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, they were obligated under local rules to staff the firm with a Brazilian president. Additionally, they were required to maintain a strict ratio of local to foreign employees [3]. U.S. and Brazilian companies face difficult decisions when it comes to staffing their business operations located outside their own country’s borders. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given to whether hiring locally (i.e., host country nationals), deploying expatriates, or some combination thereof is best. These considerations are especially important for employers emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, where businesses have been presented with unprecedented challenges and their path to full recovery remains unclear. One effective way these organizations can greatly aide their staffing decisions is to consider the job expectations of potential new hires or prospective expatriate candidates.

Bartol [5, p. 368] defined job expectations as the “values that individuals place on various potential job rewards, including both intrinsic and extrinsic types of remunerations.” A solid understanding of candidates’ job expectations allows U.S. and Brazilian managers to determine how well an individual’s work-related goals, interests, and preferences align with the characteristics/nature of the positions needing staffed [6]. Therefore, employers who are knowledgeable about candidate job expectations can make informed hiring decisions that place the right person in the right job. Moreover, an understanding of candidate job expectations allows U.S. and Brazilian companies to integrate this knowledge into their recruitment efforts. U.S and Brazilian companies can highlight key aspects of positions that candidates desire while also modeling realistic expectations about the true nature of the work to be performed. This latter strategy is akin to a realistic job preview which has the added benefit of reducing turnover.

At this same time in which FDI between the U.S. and Brazil grows, both countries have committed to reducing gender inequality within their workforces. Brazil’s government has indicated its intention to reduce gender inequality in its workforce by 25% by the year 2025. Brazil has also indicated its intentions to achieve equal pay by 2030 [7]. Similarly, the U.S. has made several commitments to strengthen women’s economic security for the future. For example, the U.S. has indicated its intention to strengthen the workforce pipeline for women, including investments in both apprenticeship programs and workforce development programs such as “Women in Apprenticeship and Non-Traditional Occupations.” The U.S. has also indicated its interest in minimizing inequities and inequalities faced by female health workers globally [8]. In the same way that knowledge of job expectations across cultures may inform companies in their staffing decisions, such knowledge across gender may also assist in furthering the gender-focused aims highlighted by the U.S. and Brazil governments.

This study contributes to theory by addressing job expectations in early career and personal developmental stages, considering two demographic factors: new entrant gender and nationality. Competing findings exist when empirically investigating the differences between cultures and genders with respect to job expectations. The study adds to this discussion by employing Manhardt’s [9] measure of job expectations to assess preferences of workers from the U.S. and Brazil. This investigation contributes to practice in two ways. Firstly, by highlighting the role of job expectations across cultures (U.S. vs. Brazilian workers), this paper can inform companies on important recruiting and hiring decisions following the uncertainty brought about by COVID-19 and the Great Resignation. The Great Resignation refers to the voluntary mass exodus of employees from their jobs [e.g., 10]. If this trend continues, then it will become more difficult to attract and retain talent. This phenomenon is evident in many countries across the globe and has not been isolated to specific industries.

With a better understanding of job expectations across cultures, companies operating outside their own borders will be better educated as to the suitability of hiring host-country nationals, deploying expatriates, or utilizing a combination of both in a post-pandemic environment. Secondly, by highlighting the role of job expectations across gender (male vs. female workers), this paper can inform companies about preferences of male and female candidates that may not only assist them in their recruiting and hiring strategies, but also help them in addressing gender inequity and inequality issues noted by the U.S. and Brazil government.

2 Theoretical background

Multiple theoretical perspectives provide reasoning for individuals’ differences in job expectations. First, national culture influences job expectations. Hofstede [11] argued that a person’s societal and cultural norms shape their work-related values, goals, and behaviors through “collective programming of the mind.” This view is well-researched and supported in cross-cultural literatures [e.g. 12, 13]. Separately, gender influences job expectations. The theoretical literature providing supporting rationale for gender differences in job expectations is extensive. For example, Holland’s [14] theory of vocational choice implies that individuals will choose occupations congruent with their personalities. Although his original theory did not provide guidance for testing differences between genders in job expectations, others later expanded upon his work by dividing his six categories into three masculine and three feminine categories [15]. Gender differences in job expectations can also be understood via gender socialization, social identity theory, and even gender schema theory [16].

With the weak theoretical foundations for explaining gender differences in work orientation and job expectations, a more socially comprehensive model that includes education, age, class, and religion can better explain work values and job expectations differences. De Vaus and McAllister [17] incorporate a social characteristics model to investigate the theoretical and empirical nature of the differences in work values, job satisfaction, and work orientation. This work is based on earlier theoretical and empirical work [18]. Loscocco breaks down previous industrial work orientations into the structuralists’ [19], rooted in Marxist theory, and the individualists’ [20] approaches. Drawing from both approaches, the proposition is that work value and reward structures are a function of personal characteristics (age, gender, family roles, etc.) and job features (complexity, autonomy, promotion, etc.) [18].

3 Literature review

3.1 Gender influence

Early literature provides mixed results for job expectations [21, 22] and others do not [9]. These competing findings can sometimes be explained through research design. Other factors, such as age, industry, and work context can partially address the conflicting results. When using student samples, the variance can be explained by simply looking at different majors [5], suggesting that professional training may be a significant control variable when studying gender differences in job orientation. When controlling for occupational differences, results suggest no pattern of difference between genders exists [23]. de Vaus & McAllister [17] added to the discussion by testing three different models (job, family, and social characteristics) to address gender differences and the data suggest the existence of gender differences in work values is doubtful. Using ordinal regression analysis, Neil & Snizek [24] conducted a study that controlled for organizational variables. The results suggest that studying an array of occupations could remedy and explain the conflicting findings in the literature. The underlying structure of the work-values domain may also explain the inconsistent results [25].

Throughout the 1970’s, it was suggested that as more women were joining the workforce and participating in the labor market across various industries, differences in job expectations and orientations could be disappearing. A convergence of job outcome preferences over a nine-year span between men and women existed on the measures with a significant difference [26]. Using the Manhardt [9] scale, Brenner & Tomkiewicz [27] found men and women still differed on nearly one-third of the job characteristics. Men, at that time, may have still seen themselves as breadwinners and felt more of a responsibility to be leaders, and women may not have yet considered a career as the most crucial factor in their lives.

Women rate a comfortable work environment and congenial associates [28] as more important and career objectives and income as less important [26] consistently in the early studies. Work that offers a feeling of accomplishment ranked high for men and women [28 , 9]. Job security ranked in the top-third of job expectations for men and women [27, 28]. Men typically rank pay higher, but women rank benefits higher [25]. These early studies helped inform later research in work-life balance though few men and women, in the Beutell & Brenner [28] study, reported that career was a primary source of life satisfaction. This may have been an American phenomenon, where results in China suggest there is no difference between men and women rankings for job expectation items [29]. Though just a few years later, Chullen, Adeyemi-Bello, & Xi [30] found that men and women Chinese students differed on 23 of the 25 items of the Manhardt [9] scale. Further investigation shows agreement in the mutual ranking of men and women for the very important and important items with the highest rated being intrinsic [31].

3.2 Brazil and The United States: Comparing economy, culture, and gender issues

Similarities and differences exist in the socioeconomic profile of Brazil and the United States. Although the U.S. is the world’s largest economy, the country is marked by great populational diversity related to high immigration rates [32]. Similarly, Brazil has been described as a “melting pot,” given its equally extensive dimensions and diverse ethnic groups that settled in the country, which includes Europeans (mainly Portuguese, but also a substantial number of Italian, German, and Spanish immigrants), Africans, and Native Brazilians, as well as Japanese (the largest colony outside Japan).

Based on Hofstede’s [33] framework on national culture, average values in the two countries differ in regards to acceptance of differences in power and status (higher power distance in Brazil), individual/collective orientation (individualism higher in the U.S.), valuation of behaviors such as assertiveness and performance norms (masculinity lower in Brazil), tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty (uncertainty avoidance lower in the U.S.), and time horizons on long-term results in decision-making (long-term orientation higher in Brazil). A more recent comparative study focusing on the personal values of professionals in formal leadership positions observed equally strong levels of absolute work centrality in Brazil and the U.S. and similar rank orderings for nonwork-related domains of life; valued work outcomes, both intrinsic and extrinsic, were significantly lower for Brazilians in the same study [34].

Regarding gender, women’s presence in the job market has been an established phenomenon in the U.S. for quite a while [35], whereas the presence of women in the workplace in Brazil has steadily increased only in the last few decades [36]. Despite sharp economic inequality, women in Brazil have entered higher education in large numbers, outnumbering men. Like in the U.S., more women in Brazil are also postponing marriage and motherhood, and even choosing not to have children, all trends that seem connected to their stronger participation in the labor market and greater focus on work and career, particularly among women with the highest level of education (doctors and professionals) [37]. Women have also entered formerly exclusive male strongholds in occupations and in corporations in Brazil, although their presence in top and middle management has not grown at a similar pace, particularly in male-dominated industries and professional fields [38].

3.3 Job expectations in the U.S.

Early literature provided mixed results for gender differences in job expectations in the U.S., with some researchers finding disparities [21, 39] and others not [9]. Moore and Ollenburger [40] found that men placed more value on achievement, competition, advancement, and prestige, while women valued social interactions, relations, routine, and aesthetics. To provide a better understanding of research results in the literature, Konrad et al. [16] performed a meta-analysis on 242 samples collected between 1970 and 1998. Their findings indicated sex differences on 33 of 40 job attribute preferences with many of the most significant differences aligning with gender role stereotypes (e.g., interpersonal relationships were more important to women).

More contemporary studies have also highlighted important differences in job expectations between men and women. For example, Duffy and Sedlacek [41] examined the job expectations of more than 30,000 students spanning a 10-year period. They discovered that men emphasized the importance of extrinsic work values (e.g., high salary) more than women, while women emphasized the importance of social work values (e.g., interest in working with and helping others) more than men. Similarly, in their research investigating job expectations and the gender pay gap, Lips and Lawson [42] found that men valued power (e.g., opportunity for promotion, advancement, etc.) more than women while women valued family (e.g., accommodations for family life, maternity leave) more than men. Moreover, they found that men attached significantly higher importance to power-related work values than to those that were family-related. However, they found the opposite to be true for women.

3.4 Job expectations in Brazil

In Brazil, studies on job expectations have focused on the concept of values at work and seek to understand “principles or beliefs about desirable goals or rewards, hierarchically organized, that people seek through work, and that guide their assessments of work results and the work context” [43, p.146]. According to Tamayo [44], men in the country tend to prioritize individual values (hedonism and stimulation), and women prioritize values associated with collective interests (benevolence, tradition, conformity) and mixed values (security and philanthropy). Also, women give more importance than men to values related to the well-being of the family and reference groups, security, tradition, conformity, and philanthropy.

Some studies have analyzed gender differences in job expectations with industry workers, who tend to have lower education levels. Da Silveira [45] observed that men in this group prioritize social relationships and conditions for survival, while women give greater importance to personal satisfaction and pleasure in what they do. Similarly, Estivalete and colleagues [46] also observed that women give greater importance to job satisfaction and to professional and personal fulfillment among factory workers, while men in the group value job satisfaction, professional and personal fulfillment, competitiveness, prestige, individual superiority, and competition with peers.

Research on gender differences and job expectations has also focused on university students in Brazil. In samples of seniors from various professional courses, researchers noted differences concerning stability and achievement values between men and women [47, 48]. Women in higher education tend to seek pleasure and professional fulfillment, independence of thought and action, intellectual autonomy, and creativity at work. These studies also observed that women prioritize safety, order in life, and fulfillment of material needs more than men.

Among managers in the banking sector, scholars have observed that men seek rationality, desire for control, and individuality, whereas women prioritize collaboration and collectiveness [49]. However, in a survey of Brazilian graduate students from different professional areas and industries, scholars observed that men and women give equal priority to stability, i.e., the search for security and order in life through work. In addition, no significant differences in work values between men and women were found [50].

Based on the previous research and theoretical discussions, the current paper aims to address the following research questions:

How important do U.S. and Brazilian workers rate various aspects of their work environment (i.e. job expectations)?

Does the importance assigned to various aspects of the work environment (i.e. job expectations) differ between U.S. and Brazilian workers?

How important do male workers and female workers rate various aspects of their work environment (i.e. job expectations)?

Does the importance assigned to various aspects of the work environment (i.e. job expectations) differ between male and female workers?

How important do male and female workers within the U.S. and Brazil rate various aspects of their work environment (i.e. job expectations)?

Does the importance assigned to various aspects of the work environment (i.e. job expectations) in these countries differ between male and female workers?

4 Empirical approach

4.1 Procedure

The data examined in this study were collected through opinion survey. Prospective participants received an email invitation to take part in the study. The invitation briefly described the study (noting that its purpose was to better understand participants’ job-related attitudes to help improve the quality of their future work life), encouraged them to participate, assured them their responses would be kept completely confidential, that the data would go directly to the researchers, and that no one would have access to individual responses. Both demographic and attitudinal data were collected. Regarding demographics, participants were asked “What is your grade level?”; “What is your major?”; “What is your age?”; “What is your ethnicity?”; and “Are you currently employed? If so, at what level would you consider your position?” Participants were then asked to respond to a job expectations questionnaire. Surveys were completed electronically through Qualtrics.

4.2 Sample

Although everyone in this study were students enrolled in universities, due to its sample’s high employment rate, its significant non-traditional student representation (i.e. students with work histories), and its objectives, the term “workers” is used to describe study participants. Accordingly, responses for this study consisted of 1056 U.S. workers (511 males, 545 females) and 375 Brazilian workers (170 males, 205 females). These participants were drawn from two sources: (1) a large, public university located in the Southeastern United States and (2) a large, private university located in Southeast Brazil. The sample was a convenience sample.

For U.S. workers, approximately 51.7% were enrolled at the undergraduate level while 48.3% were enrolled in graduate school. For Brazilian workers, approximately 87% were enrolled at the undergraduate level while 13% were enrolled in graduate school. Business represented the most common program of study for workers at both institutions (i.e. 85.6% of all U.S. workers and 35.2% of all Brazilian workers).

The average age reported for U.S. workers was 28.13 years (28.90 years for males, 27.42 years for females) and 25.49 years for Brazilian workers (25.58 years for males, 25.33 years for females). U.S. workers reported being 76.1% Caucasian, 12.3% African/African American, 4.3 % Hispanic or Latino, and 7.4% other. Brazilian workers reported being 76.3% branco (white), 13.4% pardo (brown-skinned), 6.7% preto (black), and 3.7% other.

In support of referring to participants as workers, it is important to note that more than 98% of U.S. participants indicated they were currently employed (43.5% in entry level positions, 38.9% in supervisor or manager positions, 2.7% in executive positions, and 15% in other positions) while 64% of Brazilian participants indicated they were presently working. Additionally, U.S. participants were drawn from academic programs where there is significant non-traditional undergraduate enrollment (i.e. students which have work histories).While a small number of participants were not currently employed, because they represent the emerging workforce (i.e. those that will begin full-time employment very soon), students in general serve as a useful sample characteristic of both the culture and managers within organizations in their countries [51].

4.3 Measure

Workers were asked to rate the importance of 25 job characteristics on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = Very Important to 1 = Very Unimportant) using Manhardt’s [9] job expectations questionnaire (see Table 1 for a complete list of this questionnaire’s items). Workers were asked to indicate how important it was for them to have a job which “provides job security. . .,” “provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .,” etc. The measure captures intrinsic (13 items) and extrinsic (12 items) factors from the workers’ perspective. An individual is intrinsically motivated when they derive pleasure from within when participating in an activity. Extrinsic motivation occurs when a person participates in an activity because of an external threat or reward. Examples of intrinsic motivation items included how important it was to have a job which ‘provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .,’ ‘is intellectually stimulating. . .,’ and/or ‘encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . .,’ etc. For extrinsic motivation, workers were asked to indicate how important it was for them to have a job which ‘provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . .,’ ‘provides comfortable working conditions. . .,’ ‘provides ample leisure time off the job. . .,’ etc.

Table 1
Mean ratings on job expectations questionnaire by culture

Job Expectations Scale Item U.S. (n = 1056) Brazil (n = 375) Significant difference between group means

Indicate the importance of each item from very important (5) to very unimportant (1). Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD

1. requires originality. . . 18 3.71 0.87 12 4.01 0.81 *

2. makes use of your specific educational background. . . 17 3.76 0.94 19 3.83 0.87 n.s

3. encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . . 3 4.47 0.71 2 4.66 0.64 *

4. is respected by other people. . . 7 4.23 0.88 6 4.42 0.84 *

5. provides job security. . . 1 4.56 0.65 10 4.19 0.87 *

6. provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . . 4 4.42 0.72 8 4.39 0.64 n.s.

7. makes a social contribution by work you do. . . 13 3.90 0.89 11 4.10 0.93 *

8. gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . . 19 3.64 0.91 20 3.78 0.80 *

9. requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . . 11 3.93 0.81 13 3.98 0.82 n.s.

10. involves working with congenial associates. . . 23 3.60 0.89 7 4.41 0.78 *

11. provides ample leisure time off the job. . . 15 3.83 0.90 17 3.91 0.92 n.s.

12. provides change and variety in duties and activities. . . 16 3.81 0.89 14 3.97 0.85 *

13. provides comfortable working conditions. . . 6 4.28 0.80 4 4.55 0.64 *

14. permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . . 5 4.30 0.79 9 4.35 0.81 n.s.

15. permits working independently. . . 14 3.89 0.89 18 3.84 0.94 n.s.

16. rewards good performance with recognition. . . 7 4.23 0.82 3 4.57 0.66 *

17. requires supervising others. . . 25 3.10 0.99 25 3.20 0.86 n.s.

18. is intellectually stimulating. . . 9 4.21 0.82 5 4.44 0.69 ***

19. satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . . 20 3.64 1.01 22 3.74 1.05 n.s.

20. has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . . 21 3.63 0.97 21 3.76 0.97 *

21. permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . . 10 4.02 0.88 16 3.94 0.94 n.s.

22. permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . . 21 3.63 0.97 24 3.54 1.09 n.s.

23. requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . . 24 3.25 1.03 23 3.56 1.03 *

24. permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . . 12 3.91 0.86 15 3.95 0.78 n.s.

25. provides a feeling of accomplishment. . . 2 4.55 0.64 1 4.73 0.55 *

– Intrinsic Motivation – 4.04 0.48 – 4.17 0.39 *

– Extrinsic Motivation – 3.84 0.48 – 3.96 0.43 *

	Job Expectations Scale Item	U.S. (n = 1056)	Brazil (n = 375)	Significant difference between group means
1.	requires originality. . .	18	3.71	0.87	12	4.01	0.81	***
2.	makes use of your specific educational background. . .	17	3.76	0.94	19	3.83	0.87	n.s
3.	encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . .	3	4.47	0.71	2	4.66	0.64	***
4.	is respected by other people. . .	7	4.23	0.88	6	4.42	0.84	***
5.	provides job security. . .	1	4.56	0.65	10	4.19	0.87	***
6.	provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . .	4	4.42	0.72	8	4.39	0.64	n.s.
7.	makes a social contribution by work you do. . .	13	3.90	0.89	11	4.10	0.93	***
8.	gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . .	19	3.64	0.91	20	3.78	0.80	***
9.	requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . .	11	3.93	0.81	13	3.98	0.82	n.s.
10.	involves working with congenial associates. . .	23	3.60	0.89	7	4.41	0.78	***
11.	provides ample leisure time off the job. . .	15	3.83	0.90	17	3.91	0.92	n.s.
12.	provides change and variety in duties and activities. . .	16	3.81	0.89	14	3.97	0.85	***
13.	provides comfortable working conditions. . .	6	4.28	0.80	4	4.55	0.64	***
14.	permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . .	5	4.30	0.79	9	4.35	0.81	n.s.
15.	permits working independently. . .	14	3.89	0.89	18	3.84	0.94	n.s.
16.	rewards good performance with recognition. . .	7	4.23	0.82	3	4.57	0.66	***
17.	requires supervising others. . .	25	3.10	0.99	25	3.20	0.86	n.s.
18.	is intellectually stimulating. . .	9	4.21	0.82	5	4.44	0.69	***
19.	satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . .	20	3.64	1.01	22	3.74	1.05	n.s.
20.	has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . .	21	3.63	0.97	21	3.76	0.97	*
21.	permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . .	10	4.02	0.88	16	3.94	0.94	n.s.
22.	permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . .	21	3.63	0.97	24	3.54	1.09	n.s.
23.	requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . .	24	3.25	1.03	23	3.56	1.03	***
24.	permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . .	12	3.91	0.86	15	3.95	0.78	n.s.
25.	provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .	2	4.55	0.64	1	4.73	0.55	***
–	Intrinsic Motivation	–	4.04	0.48	–	4.17	0.39	***
–	Extrinsic Motivation	–	3.84	0.48	–	3.96	0.43	***

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

To ensure conceptual correspondence of questionnaire items across cultures, a regimented process of forward-translation and back-translation was followed using multiple bilingual translators. This measure demonstrated satisfactory reliability overall (α= 0.87), as well as for U.S. (α= 0.88) and Brazilian (α= 0.83) workers independently.

4.4 Analytical approach

The researchers for this study examined the data in a manner consistent with previous research in the job expectations literature (e.g., 25, 41). First, to answer the research question “How important do U.S. and Brazilian workers rate various aspects of their work environment (i.e., job expectations)?” the mean scores for each of the 25 job characteristics were rank ordered for each country separately. For example, the job characteristic that received the highest mean score from U.S. workers was ranked #1 (the most important). Similarly, the job characteristic that received the lowest mean score from U.S. workers was ranked #25 (the least important). This process was then repeated for Brazilian workers. To answer the research question “Does the importance assigned to various aspects of the work environment (i.e., job expectations) differ between U.S. and Brazilian workers?” an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, comparing the mean scores between U.S. and Brazilian workers overall on each of the 25 job characteristics individually. This step determines whether a statistically significant difference exists between U.S. and Brazilian workers on the importance of, for example, having a job which “provides job security.” Remaining research questions concerning males and females workers overall and male and female workers within the U.S. and Brazil were addressed in the same manner.

A Spearman rank correlation was also performed on each group (country and gender) to determine whether a similar rank order of importance was assigned to each job characteristic across workers (e.g., Was the job characteristic ranked #1 for U.S. workers also ranked #1 for Brazilian workers?; Was the job characteristic ranked #1 for U.S. male workers also ranked #1 for Brazilian female workers, etc.?). Higher scores indicate greater similarity.

5 Results

5.1 General comparison of U.S. and Brazilian workers

Table 1 illustrates the ranks, means, and standard deviations for U.S. (n = 1056) and Brazilian (n = 375) workers across all twenty-five job expectation questionnaire items.

Mean scores were calculated for each of the 25 questionnaire items and rank ordered separately for workers from each country. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the rank orders of U.S. and Brazilian workers was 0.79 (p < 0.01), indicating that the order of importance which U.S. and Brazilian workers placed on job characteristics was similar. Significant differences between male and female workers on the job expectations questionnaire were tested using ANOVA. Significant differences (p < 0.05 or better) were found on 14 of the 25 items. Brazilian workers reported higher average scores on 13 of these 14 items. Mean U.S. worker standard deviations were 0.86 and mean Brazilian worker standard deviations were 0.83, suggesting that Brazilian workers were slightly more homogenous than U.S. workers with respect to job expectations. However, a paired t-test (p > 0.05) for these standard deviations failed to confirm Brazilian workers as a group are slightly more homogeneous than are the U.S. workers.

5.2 General comparison of males and females

Table 2 illustrates the ranks, means, and standard deviations for male (n = 681) and female (n = 750) workers across all twenty-five job expectation questionnaire items.

Table 2
Mean ratings on job expectations questionnaire by gender

Job Expectations Scale Item Males (n = 681) Females (n = 750) Significant difference between group means

Indicate the importance of each item from very important (5) to very unimportant (1).

Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD

1. requires originality. . . 15 3.78 0.86 21 3.79 0.87 n.s.

2. makes use of your specific educational background. . . 20 3.69 0.95 18 3.86 0.89 *

3. encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . . 2 4.43 0.73 3 4.60 0.66 *

4. is respected by other people. . . 9 4.12 0.92 5 4.43 0.80 *

5. provides job security. . . 4 4.30 0.80 2 4.61 0.62 *

6. provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . . 3 4.38 0.70 5 4.43 0.71 n.s.

7. makes a social contribution by work you do. . . 17 3.76 0.92 11 4.13 0.85 *

8. gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . . 18 3.72 0.86 23 3.64 0.91 n.s.

9. requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . . 10 3.92 0.83 13 3.97 0.79 n.s.

10. involves working with congenial associates. . . 19 3.70 0.94 15 3.91 0.91 *

11. provides ample leisure time off the job. . . 13 3.80 0.91 17 3.89 0.89 n.s.

12. provides change and variety in duties and activities. . . 14 3.79 0.87 15 3.91 0.89

13. provides comfortable working conditions. . . 8 4.16 0.84 4 4.52 0.65 *

14. permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . . 6 4.21 0.83 7 4.41 0.75 *

15. permits working independently. . . 16 3.77 0.92 13 3.97 0.88 *

16. rewards good performance with recognition. . . 5 4.28 0.80 8 4.35 0.79 n.s.

17. requires supervising others. . . 25 3.15 0.97 25 3.11 0.95 n.s.

18. is intellectually stimulating. . . 7 4.20 0.81 9 4.33 0.76

19. satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . . 22 3.49 1.06 19 3.82 0.96 *

20. has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . . 21 3.51 1.00 20 3.80 0.92 *

21. permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . . 12 3.83 0.94 10 4.15 0.83 *

22. permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . . 23 3.45 1.01 22 3.75 0.98

23. requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . . 24 3.26 1.00 24 3.40 1.06 *

24. permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . . 11 3.84 0.86 12 3.99 0.81 *

25. provides a feeling of accomplishment. . . 1 4.49 0.66 1 4.69 0.57 *

– Intrinsic Motivation – 3.99 0.48 – 4.15 0.44 *

– Extrinsic Motivation – 3.77 0.47 – 3.96 0.45 *

	Job Expectations Scale Item	Males (n = 681)	Females (n = 750)	Significant difference between group means
1.	requires originality. . .	15	3.78	0.86	21	3.79	0.87	n.s.
2.	makes use of your specific educational background. . .	20	3.69	0.95	18	3.86	0.89	***
3.	encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . .	2	4.43	0.73	3	4.60	0.66	***
4.	is respected by other people. . .	9	4.12	0.92	5	4.43	0.80	***
5.	provides job security. . .	4	4.30	0.80	2	4.61	0.62	***
6.	provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . .	3	4.38	0.70	5	4.43	0.71	n.s.
7.	makes a social contribution by work you do. . .	17	3.76	0.92	11	4.13	0.85	***
8.	gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . .	18	3.72	0.86	23	3.64	0.91	n.s.
9.	requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . .	10	3.92	0.83	13	3.97	0.79	n.s.
10.	involves working with congenial associates. . .	19	3.70	0.94	15	3.91	0.91	***
11.	provides ample leisure time off the job. . .	13	3.80	0.91	17	3.89	0.89	n.s.
12.	provides change and variety in duties and activities. . .	14	3.79	0.87	15	3.91	0.89	**
13.	provides comfortable working conditions. . .	8	4.16	0.84	4	4.52	0.65	***
14.	permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . .	6	4.21	0.83	7	4.41	0.75	***
15.	permits working independently. . .	16	3.77	0.92	13	3.97	0.88	***
16.	rewards good performance with recognition. . .	5	4.28	0.80	8	4.35	0.79	n.s.
17.	requires supervising others. . .	25	3.15	0.97	25	3.11	0.95	n.s.
18.	is intellectually stimulating. . .	7	4.20	0.81	9	4.33	0.76	**
19.	satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . .	22	3.49	1.06	19	3.82	0.96	***
20.	has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . .	21	3.51	1.00	20	3.80	0.92	***
21.	permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . .	12	3.83	0.94	10	4.15	0.83	***
22.	permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . .	23	3.45	1.01	22	3.75	0.98	**
23.	requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . .	24	3.26	1.00	24	3.40	1.06	***
24.	permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . .	11	3.84	0.86	12	3.99	0.81	***
25.	provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .	1	4.49	0.66	1	4.69	0.57	***
–	Intrinsic Motivation	–	3.99	0.48	–	4.15	0.44	***
–	Extrinsic Motivation	–	3.77	0.47	–	3.96	0.45	***

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

Mean scores were calculated for each of the 25 questionnaire items and rank ordered separately for workers from each country. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the rank orders of male and female workers was 0.92 (p < 0.001), indicating that the order of importance which U.S. and Brazilian workers placed on job characteristics was very similar. Significant differences between male and female workers on the job expectations questionnaire were tested using ANOVA. Significant differences (p < 0.05 or better) were found on 18 of the 25 items. Female workers reported higher average scores on all 18 of these items. Mean male worker standard deviations were 0.88 and mean female worker standard deviations were 0.83, suggesting that female workers were slightly more homogenous than male workers with respect to job expectations. A paired t-test (p < 0.001) for these standard deviations confirmed that female workers as a group are more homogeneous than are male workers.

5.3 Comparison of males and females within the U.S. and Brazil

In addition to comparing U.S. and Brazilian workers overall and male and female and workers overall, further analysis compared male and female workers within each country. Table 3 illustrates the ranks, means, and standard deviations for U.S. male (n = 511), U.S. female (n = 545), Brazilian male (n = 170), and Brazilian female workers (n = 205) across all twenty-five job expectation questionnaire items.

Table 3
Mean ratings on job expectations questionnaire by culture & gender

Job Expectations Scale Item U.S. Males U.S. Females Brazilian Males Brazilian Females Omnibus Test

Indicate the importance of each item from very important (5) to very unimportant (1).

(n = 511) (n = 545) (n = 170) (n = 205) for Group Mean

Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Comparisons

1. requires originality. . . 17 3.68 0.85 21 3.72 0.89 10 4.07 0.83 17 3.95 0.80 *

2. makes use of your specific educational background. . . 17 3.68 0.96 17 3.84 0.91 19 3.72 0.93 18 3.92 0.82

3. encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . . 3 4.39 0.72 3 4.55 0.70 2 4.58 0.75 2 4.72 0.52 *

4. is respected by other people. . . 8 4.06 0.91 7 4.39 0.81 7 4.29 0.92 5 4.53 0.74 *

5. provides job security. . . 2 4.41 0.70 1 4.69 0.57 12 3.96 0.98 10 4.39 0.70 *

6. provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . . 3 4.39 0.71 5 4.44 0.74 6 4.36 0.67 9 4.42 0.61 n.s

7. makes a social contribution by work you do. . . 16 3.73 0.90 11 4.06 0.85 16 3.85 0.99 11 4.31 0.83 *

8. gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . . 19 3.65 0.87 23 3.63 0.95 13 3.92 0.79 24 3.66 0.79

9. requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . . 10 3.90 0.81 14 3.96 0.81 11 3.97 0.89 14 4.00 0.75 n.s.

10. involves working with congenial associates. . . 20 3.51 0.89 22 3.68 0.88 8 4.27 0.86 6 4.52 0.69 *

11. provides ample leisure time off the job. . . 13 3.80 0.90 16 3.85 0.90 17 3.81 0.98 14 4.00 0.86 n.s.

12. provides change and variety in duties and activities. . . 15 3.75 0.88 15 3.87 0.90 14 3.90 0.84 13 4.03 0.86 *

13. provides comfortable working conditions. . . 8 4.06 0.85 4 4.48 0.69 4 4.46 0.74 3 4.62 0.54 *

14. permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . . 5 4.19 0.81 6 4.40 0.76 9 4.25 0.90 8 4.44 0.72 *

15. permits working independently. . . 14 3.77 0.89 12 4.01 0.87 18 3.79 0.99 20 3.89 0.89 *

16. rewards good performance with recognition. . . 5 4.19 0.82 9 4.27 0.83 3 4.56 0.67 4 4.58 0.65 *

17. requires supervising others. . . 25 3.12 0.99 25 3.08 1.00 25 3.23 0.93 25 3.18 0.80 n.s.

18. is intellectually stimulating. . . 7 4.13 0.84 8 4.28 0.79 5 4.41 0.70 7 4.47 0.68 *

19. satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . . 22 3.47 1.03 19 3.79 0.96 22 3.54 1.13 18 3.92 0.94 *

20. has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . . 23 3.44 0.98 18 3.80 0.92 20 3.71 1.02 21 3.80 0.92 *

21. permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . . 11 3.87 0.91 10 4.16 0.84 21 3.70 1.04 12 4.13 0.82 *

22. permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . . 21 3.50 0.96 20 3.76 0.96 24 3.32 1.13 22 3.72 1.03 *

23. requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . . 24 3.20 0.99 24 3.29 1.06 23 3.41 1.04 23 3.68 1.01 *

24. permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . . 12 3.83 0.87 13 3.99 0.84 15 3.89 0.83 14 4.00 0.74

25. provides a feeling of accomplishment. . . 1 4.44 0.67 2 4.65 0.59 1 4.64 0.60 1 4.80 0.49 *

– Intrinsic Motivation – 3.95 0.48 – 4.12 0.46 – 4.11 0.43 – 4.23 0.35 *

– Extrinsic Motivation – 3.73 0.46 – 3.92 0.47 – 3.85 0.46 – 4.06 0.38 ***

	Job Expectations Scale Item	U.S. Males	U.S. Females	Brazilian Males	Brazilian Females	Omnibus Test
1.	requires originality. . .	17	3.68	0.85	21	3.72	0.89	10	4.07	0.83	17	3.95	0.80	***
2.	makes use of your specific educational background. . .	17	3.68	0.96	17	3.84	0.91	19	3.72	0.93	18	3.92	0.82	**
3.	encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . .	3	4.39	0.72	3	4.55	0.70	2	4.58	0.75	2	4.72	0.52	***
4.	is respected by other people. . .	8	4.06	0.91	7	4.39	0.81	7	4.29	0.92	5	4.53	0.74	***
5.	provides job security. . .	2	4.41	0.70	1	4.69	0.57	12	3.96	0.98	10	4.39	0.70	***
6.	provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . .	3	4.39	0.71	5	4.44	0.74	6	4.36	0.67	9	4.42	0.61	n.s
7.	makes a social contribution by work you do. . .	16	3.73	0.90	11	4.06	0.85	16	3.85	0.99	11	4.31	0.83	***
8.	gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . .	19	3.65	0.87	23	3.63	0.95	13	3.92	0.79	24	3.66	0.79	**
9.	requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . .	10	3.90	0.81	14	3.96	0.81	11	3.97	0.89	14	4.00	0.75	n.s.
10.	involves working with congenial associates. . .	20	3.51	0.89	22	3.68	0.88	8	4.27	0.86	6	4.52	0.69	***
11.	provides ample leisure time off the job. . .	13	3.80	0.90	16	3.85	0.90	17	3.81	0.98	14	4.00	0.86	n.s.
12.	provides change and variety in duties and activities. . .	15	3.75	0.88	15	3.87	0.90	14	3.90	0.84	13	4.03	0.86	***
13.	provides comfortable working conditions. . .	8	4.06	0.85	4	4.48	0.69	4	4.46	0.74	3	4.62	0.54	***
14.	permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . .	5	4.19	0.81	6	4.40	0.76	9	4.25	0.90	8	4.44	0.72	***
15.	permits working independently. . .	14	3.77	0.89	12	4.01	0.87	18	3.79	0.99	20	3.89	0.89	***
16.	rewards good performance with recognition. . .	5	4.19	0.82	9	4.27	0.83	3	4.56	0.67	4	4.58	0.65	***
17.	requires supervising others. . .	25	3.12	0.99	25	3.08	1.00	25	3.23	0.93	25	3.18	0.80	n.s.
18.	is intellectually stimulating. . .	7	4.13	0.84	8	4.28	0.79	5	4.41	0.70	7	4.47	0.68	***
19.	satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . .	22	3.47	1.03	19	3.79	0.96	22	3.54	1.13	18	3.92	0.94	***
20.	has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . .	23	3.44	0.98	18	3.80	0.92	20	3.71	1.02	21	3.80	0.92	***
21.	permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . .	11	3.87	0.91	10	4.16	0.84	21	3.70	1.04	12	4.13	0.82	***
22.	permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . .	21	3.50	0.96	20	3.76	0.96	24	3.32	1.13	22	3.72	1.03	***
23.	requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . .	24	3.20	0.99	24	3.29	1.06	23	3.41	1.04	23	3.68	1.01	***
24.	permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . .	12	3.83	0.87	13	3.99	0.84	15	3.89	0.83	14	4.00	0.74	**
25.	provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .	1	4.44	0.67	2	4.65	0.59	1	4.64	0.60	1	4.80	0.49	***
–	Intrinsic Motivation	–	3.95	0.48	–	4.12	0.46	–	4.11	0.43	–	4.23	0.35	***
–	Extrinsic Motivation	–	3.73	0.46	–	3.92	0.47	–	3.85	0.46	–	4.06	0.38	***

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

Table 4

Post Hoc tests for significant differences between groups

		U.S Males	U.S. Males	U.S. Males	U.S. Females	U.S. Females	Brazilian Males
		vs.	vs.	vs.	vs.	vs.	vs.
Item	Job Expectations Scale	U.S Females	Brazilian Males	Brazilian Females	Brazilian Males	Brazilian Females	Brazilian Females
1.	requires originality. . .	n.s	***	***	***	**	n.s
2.	makes use of your specific educational background. . .	*	n.s	*	n.s	n.s	n.s
3.	encourages continued development of knowledge and skills. . .	***	*	***	n.s	*	n.s
4.	is respected by other people. . .	***	*	***	n.s	n.s	*
5.	provides job security. . .	***	***	n.s	***	***	***
6.	provides the opportunity to earn a high income. . .	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s
7.	makes a social contribution by work you do. . .	***	n.s	***	*	**	***
8.	gives you the responsibility for taking risks. . .	n.s.	**	n.s	**	n.s	*
9.	requires working on problems of central importance to the organization. . .	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s
10.	involves working with congenial associates. . .	**	***	***	***	***	**
11.	provides ample leisure time off the job. . . . . .	n.s.	n.s	*	n.s	n.s	n.s
12.	provides change and variety in duties and activities. . .	n.s.	n.s	***	n.s	n.s	n.s
13.	provides comfortable working conditions. . .	***	***	***	n.s	n.s.	n.s
14.	permits advancement to high administrative responsibility. . .	***	n.s	***	n.s	n.s	n.s
15.	permits working independently. . .	***	n.s	n.s	*	n.s	n.s
16.	rewards good performance with recognition. . .	n.s.	***	***	***	***	n.s
17.	requires supervising others. . .	n.s.	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s	n.s
18.	is intellectually stimulating. . .	*	***	***	n.s	**	n.s
19.	satisfies your cultural and aesthetic interests. . .	***	n.s	***	*	n.s	**
20.	has clear cut rules and procedures to follow. . .	***	**	***	n.s	n.s	n.s
21.	permits you to work for superiors you admire and respect. . .	***	n.s	**	***	n.s	***
22.	permits a regular routine in time and place of work. . .	***	n.s	*	***	n.s	***
23.	requires meeting and speaking with many other people. . .	n.s.	n.s	***	n.s	***	n.s.
24.	permits you to develop your own methods of doing work. . .	**	n.s	n.s.	n.s	n.s	n.s
25.	provides a feeling of accomplishment. . .	***	***	***	n.s	**	n.s.
–	Intrinsic Motivation	***	***	***	n.s.	***	**
–	Extrinsic Motivation	***	*	n.s.	n.s.	***	***

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

An omnibus test for significant differences between these groups on items in the job expectations questionnaire was performed using ANOVA. Follow-up post-hoc tests were then performed to determine which groups differed from one another. The omnibus test revealed there were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between groups on 21 of the 25 items. Post-hoc tests revealed there were statistically significant differences (p.<0.05) on 16 items between U.S. male workers and U.S. female workers (with U.S. female workers reporting higher average scores on all 16 items), on 11 items between U.S. male and Brazilian male workers (with Brazilian male workers reporting higher average scores on 10 of these items), on 18 items between U.S. male and Brazilian female workers (with Brazilian female workers reporting higher average scores on all 18 of these items), on 10 items between U.S. female and Brazilian male workers (with U.S. female workers reporting higher average scores on 6 of these items), 9 items between U.S. female and Brazilian female workers (with Brazilian female workers reporting higher average scores on 8 of these items), and on 8 items between Brazilian male and Brazilian female workers (with Brazilian female workers reporting higher average scores on 8 of these items).

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the rank orders: of U.S. male and U.S. female workers was 0.94; of U.S. male and Brazilian male workers was 0.79; of U.S. male and Brazilian female workers was 0.82; of U.S. female and Brazilian male workers was 0.68; of U.S. female and Brazilian female workers was 0.81; and of Brazilian male and Brazilian female workers was 0.86. The mean standard deviation for U.S. male workers was 0.87, for U.S. female workers was 0.84, for Brazilian male workers was 0.89, and for Brazilian female workers was 0.77. Paired t-tests were performed for each group with these standard deviations. Differences were statistically significant between U.S. male and U.S. female workers (p < 0.05), U.S. male and Brazilian female workers (p < 0.001), U.S. female and Brazilian male workers (p < 0.001) and Brazilian male and Brazilian female workers (p < 0.001). These results suggest that U.S. female workers are slightly more homogenous than U.S. male workers, Brazilian female workers are more homogenous than U.S. male workers, U.S. female workers are slightly more homogenous than Brazilian male workers, and that Brazilian female workers are more homogenous than Brazilian male workers with respect to job expectations.

5.4 Intrinsic and extrinsic perspective

Manhardt’s [9] 25-item survey instrument can also be dichotomized into intrinsic and extrinsic factors based on the locus of incentive from the participants’ perspective. 13 items (#1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, and 25) comprise the intrinsic factor, whereas 12 items (#5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23) comprise the extrinsic factor. Mean scores for the 13 intrinsic and 12 extrinsic job characteristics were calculated and compared between U.S. and Brazilian workers overall, between male and female workers overall, and between male and female workers within the U.S. and Brazil using ANOVA.

First, significant differences between U.S. and Brazilian workers overall were found on both the intrinsic factor (mean = 4.04 for U.S. workers vs. mean = 4.17 for Brazilian workers) and the extrinsic factor (mean = 3.84 for U.S. vs. 3.96 for Brazilians). Next, significant differences between male and female workers overall were found on both the intrinsic factor (mean = 3.99 for male workers vs. mean = 4.15 for female workers) and the extrinsic factor (mean = 3.77 for male workers vs. 3.96 for female workers). Lastly, an omnibus test in ANOVA indicated there were differences between U.S male, U.S. female, Brazilian male, and Brazilian female workers on both the intrinsic and extrinsic factor. Post-hoc tests revealed statistically significant differences for all pairwise comparisons with two exceptions: there was no difference found between U.S. male and Brazilian female workers on the extrinsic factor and there were no differences found between U.S. female and Brazilian male workers on either factor.

6 Discussion

The goal of this study was to identify and diagnose the differences in job expectations of employees in the early stages of their career and personal development in terms of their gender and nationality. This goal was achieved. In this study, we found some similarities and some differences in job expectations between U.S. and Brazilian male and female workers. We observed small absolute differences in the means of the job expectations items, which suggests that the magnitude of the rating is reasonably balanced between the samples. However, some differences stood out as we focused on their rankings instead, particularly on items with similar (i.e., minimal absolute differences) or divergent rankings.

Consistent with Monnot’s [52] findings, managers in multinational corporations need to be aware of the impact of culture on the success of their organizations. The closest value similarity on the job expectations questionnaire between U.S. and Brazilian workers refers to the desire to have ‘a job that provides a feeling of accomplishment’. In fact, this questionnaire item was rated first by U.S. male workers and Brazilian male and female workers, and second overall by U.S. female workers. In addition, all groups valued intrinsic higher than extrinsic factors. This finding supports the idea that in both countries individuals are driven by intrinsic work values and the desire for meaningful work, which also seems to be a trend around the world [53] and is associated with key employee outcomes, such as work engagement, job satisfaction, and measures of well-being [35]. This finding also corroborates previous comparative studies focusing on managers in both countries [34].

It is worth noting that ‘continued development of knowledge and skills’ also stands out as another similarity, as it was rated second for Brazilian female and male workers and third by U.S. female and male workers. Since connections between intrinsic work values, such as learning, and job satisfaction have been also observed in both countries [34], attention to personnel development seems key to operations in the U.S. and Brazil.

Interestingly, ‘a job that requires supervising others’ was unanimously ranked lowest by all subgroups of U.S. male and female workers and Brazilian male and female workers. Since the average age is 25 years old for workers in Brazil and 28 for those in the U.S., we do have several millennials in our samples. Our observations resonate with research that describes Millennials as more focused on building relationships and working with others in a team environment [54] and less inclined to enter roles that require sacrifice for their companies [55].

A job that makes a social contribution by the work you do had the same rankings for Brazilian and U.S. male workers and the same rankings for U.S. and Brazilian female workers. The mean score for the Brazilian male workers was higher than U.S. male workers, even with the same ranking. Similarly, the mean score for Brazilian female workers was higher than the mean score for U.S. female workers. In addition, a job that ‘involves working with congenial associates’ had the highest divergent ranking for U.S. versus the Brazilian worker sample. Besides a trend for collectivism, other attributes of Brazilian culture reinforce this finding, such as simpatía (affective and prosocial relationship orientation) [56] which is also a trademark of Latin America [57]. This is a particularly important finding since it is the most discriminating factor between Brazil and the U.S workers.

The second most divergent variable was employment that provides job security. This item was ranked second by U.S. male workers and first by U.S. female worker. Conversely, Brazilian male workers ranked it twelfth and Brazilian female workers tenth. In essence, job security appears to be more critical to U.S. workers than their Brazilian counterparts. This is somewhat surprising, given the importance of job security observed in Brazilian studies [e.g., 58] a country where the availability of professional jobs and unemployment rates are much less favorable to employees.

Finally, it is worth noting that Brazilian female workers had the highest scores on intrinsic and extrinsic work motivations and, together with their male counterparts, also ranked ‘respect by other people’ and ‘rewards for good performance with recognition’ in their top-7 work expectations. This finding resonates with outcomes from Brazilian studies, which suggest that women in the country, particularly high skilled professionals, show stronger job expectations than males [r47 r48 r59).

7 Conclusions

7.1 Theoretical contributions

Grounded in a social characteristics model approach e.g, 17, 18], this study investigates differences on job expectations for workers in early career and personal developmental stages, considering their gender and nationality. The findings contribute to the literature by indicating that mean ratings of the job expectation items are reasonably balanced between male and female workers, as well as between U.S. and Brazilian workers that participated in the study. Our findings also contribute to knowledge on job expectations by highlighting that new generations of U.S. and Brazilian workers seek above all to be inspired and stimulated by significant job accomplishments as well as by opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills, despite their gender. In addition, all groups in our sample ranked ‘supervising others’ as less relevant to them.

Moreover, this study contributes to the literature by highlighting some ranking distinctions. We observed ranking differences based on gender regarding doing a job that contributes to society, which was ranked higher by female workers in the sample, despite their nationality. We also observed ranking differences on job expectations based on nationality regarding working with congenial peers, which was ranked higher by Brazilian workers. Together, these findings suggest that while a trend towards similarity on the overall importance of intrinsic factors associated with personal achievement and development seems to exist, some gender and cultural differences on the relative importance of specific job features were observed.

7.2 Practical contributions

The current study highlights that global managers should be attuned to cultural and gender differences when designing incentive systems. Since this sample encompasses workers in early career stages, who will remain in the job market for several years, our findings are relevant to guide policies and managerial practices as companies attract, develop, and retain future generations of technical and managerial staff. Consistent with the goal to identify and diagnose the differences in job expectations of employees in early stages of their careers in terms of their gender and nationality, our findings can support companies operating outside their own borders, better educating them on the suitability of hiring host-country nationals, deploying expatriates, or utilizing a combination of both in a post-pandemic environment.

Given the observations from our analyses, general policies focusing on the design of job opportunities that can foster a sense of achievement and development in early career stages seem advisable, due to the appeal they have to all young workers in our sample, both in the U.S. and in Brazil. These initiatives are especially important in the current climate of uncertainty brought about by COVID-19, as well as the Great Resignation. In addition, while specific preferences of male and female candidates can assist employers in their recruiting and hiring strategies, our results suggest that no a priori difference should be expected regarding the prevalence of extrinsic over intrinsic work factors for females and males in early career stages. Nevertheless, companies can benefit from inclusive policies that aim to increase opportunities for accomplishments focusing on women seeking leadership positions and managerial careers. and help them addressing gender inequity and inequality issues noted by the U.S. and Brazil government.

7.3 Limitations

The results of this study must be interpretated bearing in mind its limitations. First, this study drew its data exclusively from opinion survey. Although this method has value, research in this domain may be furthered by considering alternative data collection techniques including interviews. Given an interviewer’s ability to probe and prompt participants for additional detail in their responses, this method may yield richer, more in-depth data. Second, this study examined job expectations statically rather than dynamically. That is, participant responses were collected at a single point time rather than at multiple intervals across time. It is possible that new employees may begin their jobs with certain job expectations, but that these beliefs may be shaped over time by experience and various personal/organizational factors. Likewise, employees transitioning roles with the same company may either gradually or even suddenly shift their job expectations in light of their newfound circumstances. Longitudinal research exploring how job expectations form and change over time would allow for deeper insights.

7.4 Future directions

Future studies should seek to develop a deeper understanding of what specific experiences in a job gives rise to “feelings of accomplishment.” For instance, while the purpose of one’s job, the significance of the tasks done, or of mastering them, may be the core of such feelings, some may associate accomplishments to achieving challenging goals, recognition, and status in a company. Researchers should clarify this as well as explore similarities/differences in such meanings across gender and cultures. Studies should also explore gender and cultural differences in later career stages and for workers in specific occupational areas, so as to provide insight regarding changes on the relative importance of specific job expectations as workers gain experience and maturity. Finally, new studies should also investigate cultural differences in values and attitudes toward women in managerial positions and leadership across cultures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgements.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Cody Logan Chullen, Dennis Barber III, Flavia Cavazotte and Tope Adeyemi-Bello.

METHODOLOGY: Cody Logan Chullen, Dennis Barber III and Flavia Cavazotte.

DATA COLLECTION: Cody Logan Chullen, Dennis Barber III, Flavia Cavazotte and Tope Adeyemi-Bello.

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Cody Logan Chullen.

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Cody Logan Chullen, Dennis Barber III, Flavia Cavazotte and Tope Adeyemi-Bello.

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: Cody Logan Chullen, Dennis Barber III and Flavia Cavazotte.

SUPERVISION: Cody Logan Chullen and Dennis Barber III.

References

Ferreira

, Fischer

, Porto

, Pilati

, Milfont

. Unraveling the mystery of Brazilian Jeitinho: A cultural exploration of social norms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38(3):331–44. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211427148.

Hemlock

. 50 companies from Brazil start U.S. operations from Pompano Beach. South Florida Sun Sentinel [Internet]. 2015 Sep 4 [cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/jobs/fl-brazilian-startups-20150904-story.html

Choenni

. US companies doing business in Brazil: What you should know. TMF Group [Internet]. 2018 April23 [cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.tmf-groucom/en/news-insights/articles/2018/april/us-companies-doing-business-in-brazil/

U.S. Department of State. 2021. 2021 Investment Climate Statements: Brazil [Internet]. Available from: https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-investment-climate-statements/brazil/ [accessed 2022 Jan 5]

Bartol

. Relationship of sex and professional training area to job orientation. J of APsychol. 1976;61(3):368–70. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.368.

Cable

, DeRue

. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J of APsychol. 2002;87(5):875–84. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875.

Canineu

, Carvalho

. Working for Less in Brazil: Brazil Moves at Snail Pace to Bridge the Gender Wage Gap. Human Rights Watch [Internet]. 2018 March 8 [cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news//03/08/working-less-brazil#

The White House. 2021. Fact Sheet: United States to Announce Commitments to the Generation Equality Forum [Internet]. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases//06/30/fact-sheet-united-states-to-announce-commitments-to-the-generation-equality-forum/ [accessed 2021 October 12]

Manhardt

. Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business. P Psychol. 1972;25(2):361–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972.tb01111.x.

10.

Sull

, Sull

, Zweig

. Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Manage Rev. 2022;63(2):1–9. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

11.

Hofstede

. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. CA: Sage Publications, 2001.

12.

Gahan

, Abeysekera

. What shapes an individual’s work values? An integrated model of the relationship between work values, national culture and self-construal. The Int J of Hum Res Manage. 2009;20(1):126–47. DOI: 10.1080/09585190802528524.

13.

Latifi

. A dynamic model interpreting work-related values of multi-faceted cultures: The case of Iran. The Int J of Hum Res Manage. 2006;17(12):2055–73. DOI: 10.1080/09585190601000188.

14.

Holland

. A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counsel Psychol. 1959;6(1):35–45. DOI: 10.1037/h0040767.

15.

Costa

, McCrae

, Holland

. Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. J of App Psychol. 1984;69(3):390.

16.

Konrad

, Ritchie

Jr , Lieb

, Corrigall

. Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(4):593–641. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.

17.

de Vaus

, McAllister

. Gender and work orientation: Values and satisfaction in western Europe. Work and Occ. 1991;18(1):72–93. DOI: 10.1177/0730888491018001004.

18.

Loscocoo

. The instrumentally oriented factory worker. Work and Occ. 1989;16(1):3–25. DOI: 10.1177/0730888489016001001.

19.

Blauner

. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. CA: University of Chicago Press: 1964.

20.

Dubin

. Industrial workers’ worlds: A study of the central life interests of industrial workers. Soc Prob. 1956;3(3):131–42. DOI: 10.2307/799133.

21.

Burke

. Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the opposite sex. The J of Gen Psychol. 1966;109:37–46. DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1966.10533677.

22.

Centers

, Bugental

. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population. J of App Psychol. 1966;50(3):193–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0023420.

23.

Brief

, Rose

, Aldag

. Sex differences in preferences for job attributes revisited. J of App Psychol. 1977;62(5):645–46. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.645.

24.

Neil

, Snizek

. Work values, job characteristics and gender. Socio Per. 1987;30(3):245–65. DOI: 10.2307/1389112.

25.

Elizer

. Gender and work values: A comparative analysis. J of Pers and Soc Psychol. 1994;134(2):201–12. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1994.9711383.

26.

Bartol

, Manhardt

. Sex differences in job outcome preferences: Trends among newly hired college graduates. J of App Psychol. 1979;64(5):477–82. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.477.

27.

Brenner

, Tomkiewicz

. Job orientation of males and females: Are sex differences declining?P Psychol. 1979;32(4):741–50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1979.tb02344.x.

28.

Beutell

, Brenner

. Sex differences in work values. J of Voc Beh. 1986;28(1):29–41. DOI: 10.1016/0001-8791(86)90037-0.

29.

Tomkiewicz

, Frankel

, Sagan

, Wang

. Comparing job expectations of Chinese male and female students. Chinese Manage Stud. 2011;5(1):111–20. DOI: 10.1108/17506141111118499.

30.

Chullen

, Adeyemi-Bello

, Xi

. Job expectations of Chinese college students: Re-examining gender differences. Equal Div and Inclus. 2015;34(8):742–63. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-07-2015-0051.

31.

Karriker

, Chullen

, Adeyemi-Bello

, Xi

X-Y

. Gender and Generation: Job expectations of Chinese professionals and students amid complexity and change. J of App Bus And Econ. 2021;23(2):196–209. https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/docview/2531356206?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

32.

Tindall

, Shi

. America: A narrative history. WW Norton & Company, 2016.

33.

Hofstede

. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

34.

Kuchinke

, Cornachione

Jr . The meaning of work and performance-focused work attitudes among midlevel managers in the United States and Brazil. Perf Improve Quart. 2010;23(3):57–76.

35.

Allan

, Batz-Barbarich

, Sterling

, Tay

. Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. J of Man Studies. 2019;56(3):500–28. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12406.

36.

Pinheiro

, Lima Junior

, Fontoura

, Silva

. Mulheres e trabalho: Breve análise do período 2004-2014. (2016). Nota Técnica no 24. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).

37.

Lemos

, Cavazotte

. É Possível Ter Tudo? Carreira, Maternidade e Extensão da Jornada na Contemporaneidade. In Carvalho Neto A, Versiani F (eds). Mulheres Profissionais: Quem é o Sexo Frágil?Belo Horizonte: PUC-MINAS;. 2018:295.

38.

Cavazotte

, Oliveira

. Na Corda Bamba: Paradoxos da Liderança Feminina no Mundo Corporativo. In Carvalho Neto A, Versiani F, (eds.). Mulheres Profissionais: Quem é o Sexo Frágil?Belo Horizonte: PUC-MINAS;. 2018:1–18.

39.

Centers

, Bugental

. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population. J of App Psychol. 1966;50(3):193–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0023420.

40.

Moore

, Ollenburger

. What sex is your parachute? Interest inventory/counseling models and the perpetuation of the sex/wage segregation of the labor market. Work and Occ. 1986;13(4):511–31. DOI: 10.1177/0730888486013004004.

41.

Duffy

, Sedlacek

. What is most important to students’ long-term career choices: Analyzing 10-year trends and group differences. J of Career Dev. 2007;34(2):149–63. DOI: 10.1177/0894845307307472.

42.

Lips

, Lawson

. Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”?Sex Roles. 2009;61(9):667–76. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-009-9670-0.

43.

Porto

, Tamayo

. Escala de valores relativos ao trabalho: EVT. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 2003;19(2):145–52. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-37722003000200006.

44.

Tamayo

. Hierarquia de valores transculturais e brasileiros. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 2007;23:7–15. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-37722007000500003.

45.

da Silveira

. A diversidade de gênero e as diferenças esemelhanças na hierarquia de valores do trabalho de homens emulheres no chão de fábrica. REGE Revista de Gestão. 2006;13(especial):77–91. http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/27512/a-diversidade-de-genero-e-as-diferencas-e-semelhancas-na-hierarquia-de-valores-do-trabalho-de-homens-e-mulheres-no-chao-de-fabrica/i/pt-br

46.

Estivalete

, Löbler

, de Andrade

, Visentini

. As implicações de gênero na hierarquia dos valores relativos ao trabalho. Revista Alcance. 2011;18(3):271–86.

47.

Silva

, Mendonça

, Zanini

. Diferenças de gênero e valores relativos ao trabalho. Paideia. 2010;20(45):39–45. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-863X2010000100006.

48.

de Campos

, dos Reis Lehnhart

, Fossá

, Balsan

. Valores relativos ao trabalho em uma instituição pública de ensino superior. Revista Pretexto. 2017;2:11–27. DOI: 10.21714/pretexto.v18i1.2456.

49.

Andrade

, Hoch

, Fossá

. As interações entre valores relativos ao trabalho e gênero segundo a visão dos gerentes de uma organização bancária. Estudos do CEPE. 2012;36:170–94. DOI: 10.17058/cepe.v0i0.2953.

50.

Lourencetti

, Neto

, Ganga

. Identificação de valores relativos ao trabalho de alunos de pós-graduação. Perspectivas em Gestão & Conhecimento. 2017;7(1):112–30. DOI: 10.21714/2236-417X2017v7n1.

51.

Cordano

, Scherer

, Owen

. Attitudes toward women as managers: Sex versus culture. Women in Manage Rev. 2002;17(2):51–60. DOI: 10.1108/09649420210421754.

52.

Monnot

. The effect of incentives on intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: A multilevel study across nations and cultural clusters. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev. 2018;60(4):675–89. DOI: 10.1002/tie.21949.

53.

Van den Broeck

, Howard

, Van Vaerenbergh

, Leroy

, Gagné

. Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis onself-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization ofwork motivation. Org Psychol Rev. 2021;11(3):240–73. DOI: 10.1177/20413866211006173.

54.

Trapero

, Castaño

, Parra

, García

. Differences on self-perception of organizational pride and loyalty in Millennial & Generation X, considering gender and seniority variables. Bus and Econ Horizons. 2017;13:270–86. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.264699.

55.

Delgado

, Hill

, Regalado

, Waldman

. Millennials leading the workforce. J of Bus Studies Quarterly. 2020;10(2):35–42https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/docview/2478619108.

56.

Akira Miura

, Pilati

, Lemos Milfont

, Cristina Ferreira

, Fischer

. Between simpatia and malandragem: Brazilian jeitinho as an individual difference variable. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214929. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214929.

57.

Triandis

, Marin

, Lisansky

, Betancourt

. Simpatía as a cultural script of Hispanics. J of Pers and Soc Psychol. 1984;47(6):1363–75. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1363.

58.

Brandão

, Ferraz

, Lima

. Mulheres e valores do trabalho: Estudo em uma multinacional. RevistaOrganizações em Contexto.. 2015;11(22):487–514. DOI: 10.15603/1982-8756/roc.v11n22p487-514.

59.

Potrich

, Vieira

, Estivalete

, de Andrade

. Valoresrelativos ao trabalho: Testando a invariância e asdiferenças de média entre os gêneros. Revista deAdministração FACES. 2015;14(4):43–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.21714/1984-6975FACES2015V14N4ART2647