The goal of the present study is twofold. First, we take a person-centered approach to individual differences in work ethic. Here, we focus on the identification and stability of profiles of work ethic dimensions across individuals from two relatively diverse samples. Second, we examine the extent to which work ethic profile membership influences which characteristics of an ideal coworker are viewed as most important. To assess our hypotheses, we used a diverse US-based sample of 2440 as well as a sample of 692 employees in sales-related positions in the financial sector in Mexico. Results from a series of latent profile analyses (LPAs) clearly support the idea that from the combination of scores on the seven dimensions of work ethic, clear and reliable profiles emerge and were generalizable across samples. The three profiles were identified as “Live to Work,” “Work to Live,” and “Work as a Necessary Evil.” Significant differences were found in 5 of 11 desired attributes of an ideal coworker between the employees in the three emerging profiles. Also, in line with our hypotheses, results show that employees belonging to the profile with the highest scores on the core dimensions of the work ethic construct reported that the top desired characteristic in an ideal peer is the hard worker attribute.
AjzenI.FishbeinM.LohmanS.AlbarracínD. (2018). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes, volume 1: Basic principles (pp. 197–255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178103
2.
Alduncin-AbitiaE. (1989). Los valores de los mexicanos: México entre la tradición y la modernidad [The values of Mexicans: Between the tradition and modernity]. Fomento Cultural Banamex.
3.
ArciniegaL. M.WoehrD. J.Del RincónG. (2019). Examining regional variability in work ethic within Mexico: Individual difference or shared value. International Journal of Psychology, 54(4), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12480
4.
BarskyA.KaplanS. E. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286–295. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.286
5.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.9.1.3
ByrneD. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
8.
CarlD.GuptaV.JavidanM. (2004). Power distance. In HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmannP. W.GuptaV. (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513–563). Sage.
9.
ChiaburuD. S.HarrisonD. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
10.
ChristopherA. N.FurnhamA.BateyM.MartinG. N.KoenigC. S.DotyK. (2010). Protestant ethical endorsement, personality, and general intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 46–50. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.003
11.
FergusonS. L.HullD. M. (2018). Personality profiles: Using latent profile analysis to model personality typologies. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.029
12.
FiedlerF. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128–148. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031454
13.
FieldsD.L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Sage.
14.
FlynnG. (1994). Attitude more valued than ability. Personal Journal, 73, 16.
15.
FurnhamA. (1990). The protestant work ethic. In: The psychology of work-related beliefs and behaviours. Routledge.
16.
GrabowskiD.Chudzicka‐CzupałaA.Chrupała‐PniakM.MelloA. L.Paruzel‐CzachuraM. (2019). Work ethic and organizational commitment as conditions of unethical pro-organizational behavior: Do engaged workers break the ethical rules?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12241
17.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nations study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
18.
GonzalezC. J. A. (2006). A causal comparative study of work ethic as a function of generational cohorts. Unpublished dissertation, University of Phoenix.
HofmansJ.WilleB.SchreursB. (2020). Person- centered methods in vocational research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398
22.
HofstedeG. H.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
23.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J.KingJr (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management ReviewJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2567(2), 121133–140142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00556.x
24.
HoggM. A.SmithJ. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: a social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 89–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701592070
KleinH. J.MolloyJ. C.BrinsfieldC. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 130–151. https://doi.org/10.5465/arma.2010.0018
27.
LievensF.DecaestekerC.CoetsierP.GeirnaertJ. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person- organization fit perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00047
28.
MannixE.NealeM. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1529-1006.2005.00022.x
29.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU.MorinA. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modelling, 16(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010
30.
McLachlanG.PeelD. (2000). Finite mixture models. John Wiley.
31.
MeriacJ. P. (2012). Work ethic and academic performance: Predicting citizenship and counterproductive behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.015
32.
MeriacJ. P.PolingT. L.WoehrD. J. (2009). Are there gender differences in work ethic? An examination of the measurement equivalence of the multidimensional work ethic profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.001
MeriacJ. P.WoehrD. J.BanisterC. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9164-7
35.
MeriacJ. P.WoehrD. J.GormanA.ThomasA. L. E. (2013). Development and validation of a short form for the multidimensional work ethic profile. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.007
36.
MerzE. L.RoeschS. C. (2011). A latent profile analysis of the five factor model of personality: Modeling trait interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 915–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.022
37.
MeyerJ. P.AllenN. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Sage.
38.
MeyerJ. P.AllenN. J.MeyerJ. P.StanleyL. J.VandenbergR. J. (2013). A person-centered approach to the study of commitment. In Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application (23, pp. 190–202). Sage. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.07.007
39.
MillerM. J.WoehrD. J.HudspethN. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(3), 451–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1838
MorinA. J. SMeyerJ. P.CreusierJ.BiétryF. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148
42.
MorinA. J. S.MorizotJ.BoudriasJ. S.MadoreI. (2011). A multifaceted person-centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 58–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109356476
43.
MorinA. J. S.WangJ. C. (2016). A gentle introduction to mixture modeling using physical fitness performance data. In NtoumanisN.MyersN. D. (Eds.), An introduction to intermediate and advanced statistical analyses for sport and exercise scientists (pp. 183–210). Wiley.
44.
MoulinS. (2022). Psychosocial risks and subjective well-being in the Canadian workplace: Overlapping risk exposure, work ethic and resilience. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 21(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.53379/cjcd.2022.327
45.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2021). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén.
46.
MuthénB. O.MuthénL. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism-clinical and Experimental, 24(6), 882–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
49.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.
50.
ParkhurstJ. T.FleisherM. S.SkinnerC. H.WoehrD. J.Hawthorn-EmbreeM. L. (2011). Assignment choice, effort, and assignment completion: Does work ethic predict those who choose higher-effort assignments?Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.003
51.
PogsonC.CoberA.DoverspikeD.RogersJ. (2003). Differences in self-reported work ethic across three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00044-1
52.
SaksA. M.MudrackP. E.AshforthB. E. (1996). The relationship between the work ethic, job attitudes, intentions to quit, and turnover for temporary service employees. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 13(3), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1996.tb00733.x
SlabbertA.UkpereW. I. (2011). A comparative analysis of the Chinese and South African work ethic. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(8), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291111143929
55.
SmrtD. L.KarauS. J. (2011). Protestant work ethic moderates social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024484
56.
SpectorP. E.RogelbergS. G.RyanA. M.SchmittN.ZedeckS. (2014). Moving the pendulum back to the middle: Reflections on and introduction to the inductive research special issue of Journal of Business and Psychology [Editorial]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 499–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9372-7
57.
SpurkD.HirschiA.WangM.ValeroD.KauffeldS. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
58.
StanleyL.KellermannsF. W.ZellwegerT. M. (2017). Latent profile analysis: Understanding family firm profiles. Family Business Review, 30(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894486516677426
59.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
TurnerJ. C.HaslamS. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In TurnerM. (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25–65). Erlbaum.
62.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F109442810031002
63.
VandenbergR. J.StanleyL. J. (2009). Statistical and methodological challenges for commitment researchers: Issues of invariance, change across time, and profile differences. In KleinHJTEBMeyerJP (Eds.), SIOP organizational frontiers series. Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 383–416). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
64.
WeberM.ParsonsT. (1958). Scribners. In The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. [Original work published 1904–1905].
65.
WeickK. E. (1989). Theory construction as discipline imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/258556
66.
WoehrD. J.ArciniegaL. M.LimD. H. (2007). Examining work ethic across populations: A comparison of the multidimensional work ethic profile across three diverse cultures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(1), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292036
ZyphurM. J. (2009). When mindsets collide: Switching analytical mindsets to advance organization science. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok677
