The research program undertaken by the Meaning of Working (MOW) International Research Team has documented effects of individual characteristics and macrosocioeconomic variables on work-related values and beliefs in different countries. The present study adds another dimension to this work by studying intact organizations-local governments in the United States and Japan-in place of the usual MOW samples of occupational groups. The measures used cover the three core facets of the "Meaning of Working"-work centrality, work goals, and entitlement/obligation norms. By studying intact organizations, the effects of other contextual variables-organization, region, and hierarchical level-in addition to country become evident.
CLAES, R.Stability and Change in Work Meanings in Belgium (Flanders) Between 1982 and 1990: Toward Understanding. Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, July 1992.
2.
DUBIN, R., CHAMPOUX, J., & PORTER, L.Central life interests and organizational commitment of blue-collar and clerical workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 411-421.
3.
ENGLAND, G. W.The patterning of work meanings which are coterminous with work outcome levels for individuals in Japan, Germany and the USA. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1990, 39, 29-45.
4.
ENGLAND, G. W.Recent Changes in the Meaning of Working in the USA. Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, July 1992.
5.
ENGLAND, G. W., & HARPAZ, I.Some methodological and analytic considerations in cross-national comparative research. Journal of International Business Studies, 1983, 14, 49-59.
6.
ENGLAND, G. W., & HARPAZ, I.How working is defined: National contexts and demographics and organizational role influences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1990, 11, 253-266.
7.
ENGLAND, G. W., & MISUMI, J.Work centrality in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1986, 17, 399-416.
8.
GLICK, W. H.Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10, 601-616.
9.
HARPAZ, I.Meaning of working profiles in various occupational groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1985, 26, 25-40.
10.
HARPAZ, I.The factorial structure of the meaning of working. Human Relations, 1986, 39, 595-614.
11.
HARPAZ, I.Non-financial employment commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1989, 62, 147-150.
12.
HARPAZ, I.The importance of work goals: An international perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 1990, 11, 75-93.
13.
HOFSTEDE, G.Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.
14.
LAURENT, A.The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 1983, 13, 75-96.
15.
LOCKE, E.The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 1297-1350.
16.
MOW (Meaning of Work) International Research Team. The meaning of working. London: Academic Press, 1987.
17.
PENG, T. K., PETERSON, M. F., & SHYI, Y. P.Quantitative methods in cross-cultural management research: Trends and equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1991, 12, 87-108.
18.
QUINTANILLA, S. A. R., & WILPERT, B.Are work meanings changing?European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1991, 1, 91-109.
19.
SCHEIN, E. H.Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
20.
WEISS, D., DAVIS, R., ENGLAND, G., & LOFQULST, L.Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation XVIII. Construct Validation Studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, Bulletin 41. Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
