The Centrality of Work: A Comparative Analysis of Work Commitment and Work Orientation in Present-Day Societies

Abstract

This paper aims to comprehensively examine the effects of societal and individual characteristics on work-related attitudes, specifically work commitment and work orientations, using a single dataset and comparable models. It also seeks to relate these attitudes to classic theories and understand how societal factors shape work-related attitudes. The analysis is based on data collected by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in its work orientations survey. Data is analyzed using factor analyses, correspondence analyses, and multilevel regressions. The paper provides an overview of work-related attitudes at the country level and a detailed analysis of societal and individual variables that shape these attitudes. The results indicate that individual attitudes reflect large societal trends and developments, which are discussed with reference to current studies and classic theories. This paper contributes to understanding work-related attitudes by offering a comprehensive analysis of the effects of societal and individual characteristics, using a single dataset and comparable models. It also relates these attitudes to classic theories and discusses how societal factors shape work-related attitudes. The findings also have policy implications, particularly in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified and motivated workers in different countries.

Keywords

sociology of work sociology social sciences ISSP survey research work orientations work commitment

Introduction

Work is frequently considered a central activity of human life. Yet, its structure has changed throughout history, from pre-industrial to industrial, to post-industrial, to more digitalized and rationalized societies (Bell, 1976; Braverman, 1998; Castells, 2004; Edwards, 1979; Frey & Osborne, 2017; Kalleberg, 2007). Consequently, its meaning to workers is multifaceted and discussed differently in classic theories. Economic functionalists suggest industrialization and modernization made work freer and more valued (Davis & Moore, 1945). Karl Marx argued only communism could create autonomous work relations. Social theorists in his tradition argued workers remain alienated in capitalism (Blauner, 1967) and need liberation from instrumental work (Gorz, 1985). Max Weber saw Protestantism as key to developing a new work ethic. Émile Durkheim and George H. Mead argued that work humanization requires moral principles, equality, and political reforms (Durkheim, 1964; Wolf, 1970).

The ideas of these classic theories still inform contemporary research, in which scholars consider the effects of societal factors such as political regimes, inequalities, religion, and cultures on various work-related attitudes (see e.g., Baranik et al., 2022; Esser & Lindh, 2018; Fialová & Beláňová, 2020; Grünhut et al., 2022; Hult, 2002; Kozák, 2020; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003; Riva et al., 2022; Volk & Hadler, 2018) or focus on differences at the individual level between occupations and socio-demographic groups (see e.g., Cunningham et al., 2022; Hsiao, 2022; Mareš, 2001; Parboteeah et al., 2009; Tsen et al., 2022; Weiss & Hörisch, 2022). Whereas these studies provide specific insights into detailed work-related attitudes, the current paper aims to offer more comprehensive testing of which societal characteristics shape which work-related attitudes. Unlike these studies, it analyzes the effects of societal and individual characteristics on a set of different work-related attitudes using a single dataset and comparable models. The issue of work attitudes and work commitment has also considerable social and political significance. The issue of being able to recruit highly qualified and motivated workers and to retain them in the firm is relevant not only in developed, but also developing countries.

In line with this aim, the following section introduces the work-related attitudes that are central to this paper—work commitment and work orientations—and relates them to classic theories. The subsequent section offers an overview of the major social factors that are considered in comparative studies, that is, social inequality, political institutions, religion, and socio-economic development. It also offers an overview of the underlying theories, current studies that consider these aspects, and our research expectations. We decided to use the term expectation instead of hypothesis, as our considerations are multifaceted, relate to a set of dependent variables, and do not focus on testing a single indicator. After that, we provide an overview of our research framework and depict the main variables. The analysis itself is based on data collected by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in its work orientations survey (ISSP Research Group, 2017; Jutz et al., 2018). The sampling, survey questions, and research strategy are introduced in the methods and data section. The results section starts with an overview of work-related attitudes at the country level and then presents the results of various multilevel regressions. The results indicate that individual attitudes reflect large societal trends and developments, which are discussed with reference to current studies and the classic theories in the concluding sections.

Background

Work Commitment and Other Work Orientations

The current paper analyzes two central concepts of work-related attitudes, that is, work commitment and work orientation. Commitment in general can be defined as the “willingness to persist in a course of action” (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). This concept is directly related to the classical theories of Weber and Mead, who also emphasized concrete human action. The concept of commitment has been used widely in research. The first theoretical and empirical contributions occurred in the 1960s (H. S. Becker, 1960; Haller & Rosenmayr, 1971; Safilios-Rotbschild, 1971; Sobol, 1963; for an overview see R. H. Hall, 1986, pp. 100–103). H. S. Becker’s (1960) theory states that if individuals made a side-bet, that is, invested in something unrelated in addition to a certain “consistent” line of activity, they will develop a commitment to this activity. While some of the empirical studies testing Becker’s theory found only a few of the postulated effects (Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990; Ritzer & Trice, 1969), others found endorsements (Lee et al., 2000; Loscocco, 1989; Meyer & Allen, 1984; for a summary see Meyer, 1997). Thus, for many sociologists, the concept of commitment is quite relevant. The same is true for psychologists (Morrow, 1993). Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) conclude out of many psychological studies “that there is an underlying psychological construct of commitment across the various concepts and indicators.”

Research on work orientations also has a long tradition in sociology. Many concepts of work values have been developed and used in empirical research (see e.g., Elizur et al., 1991; Furåker & Håkansson, 2020; Gesthuizen et al., 2019; Kaasa, 2011; Kalleberg, 1977; Tosun et al., 2022; Twenge et al., 2010; Vecerník, 2003). A seminal distinction was made by Herzberg (1966). He distinguished between hygiene factors (work conditions, job security, salary, relations to coworkers and supervisors) and motivation factors (work itself, recognition, responsibility, and the possibility of growth). The former would lead to the prevention of work dissatisfaction, the latter, however, to higher performance and effort. Following this classification, most empirical studies distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic work orientations, as will be discussed in more detail below.

Context Characteristics Influencing Commitment and Work Orientations

Socio-Economic Inequality

A factor that has been considered in recent research on work orientation is socio-economic inequality (Esser & Lindh, 2018; Jiang & Probst, 2017; Jiang et al., 2021; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003). Research showed that the centrality of work is lower in unequal societies. Esser and Lindh (2018) found in their international comparison that overall societal economic inequality was the most important macro variable explaining different work-related attitudes. Among the classical theories of work sketched out at the beginning, Marx was most conscious of the close relationship between inequality, work situations, and attitudes. However, he saw only communism as the way out of the estrangement of workers from exploitative working conditions. A more realistic assumption was proposed by Mead (1972) and Hughes (1981). For them, self-realization is possible in any kind of work, provided that it permits a minimal degree of freedom and autonomy. Similarly, Sen (1999) has argued that human capabilities can unfold better in egalitarian societies. One reason why inequality could affect work attitudes is that in very unequal societies, the rich have little incentives to work since they can live well out of their rent and other incomes, while the poor are constrained to look for any work in order to survive (Veblen, 1953; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). As a consequence of their harsh living conditions, family and neighborhood relations may become more important. Furthermore, mobility opportunities are also lower in such societies, reducing the chances of social ascent. Given the large differences between social classes, social descent will be feared more (Botton, 2004) Out of these considerations, we expect (E1) that in more unequal societies, work is less central, occupational commitment lower, and autonomy-related values weaker. Family-oriented commitment should be higher and instrumental and social work orientations more important.

The Political System (I): The Welfare State

Another central factor shaping work-related attitudes is the welfare state and its interventions (see e.g., Fullerton et al., 2020; Furåker, 2020). Work-related welfare state legislation contributes to the improvement of working conditions and strengthens workers’ rights by regulating the working time, assuring holidays, introducing obligatory retirement ages, and old age pensions. All these measures significantly affect workers by alleviating their worries about a decent way of life (Sjoberg, 2010; Ullrich, 2005; Vobruba, 1989). However, there are significant differences in the level of social spending in different countries and in the character of welfare states. Following the work of Esping-Andersen (1990), studies usually distinguish between three general types: The liberal Anglo-Saxon model with a relatively weak welfare state; the social democratic Scandinavian and the Christian-conservative models (Germany, France, and other Western European states) with a strong welfare state. Southern and Eastern Europe are usually considered to be a mixture of these models, but with lower welfare spending. Most countries in the global South, but also Asian countries spend much less on welfare compared to Europe (P. Hall & Soskice, 2001; Schroeder, 2014). These differences are not disappearing over time, but, if anything, become larger (Castles & Obinger, 2008). Another effect of strong welfare states may be that they reduce the incentive for voluntary engagement of individual and civic social groups (Brandl et al., 2009). Out of these considerations, we expect (E2) that in societies with a strong welfare state in terms of social expenditures, all kinds of work commitments are higher. Employees should also endorse autonomy-related work values, instead of instrumental and socially oriented work values.

The Political System (II): The Legacy of Communism

Several contemporary analyses suggest that workers in Eastern Europe are characterized by a rather low work commitment and work satisfaction (Esser & Lindh, 2018; Fialová & Beláňová, 2020; Mareš, 2001; Vecerník, 2003; Volk & Hadler, 2018). The low values are surprising at first sight, given the countries’ communist or socialist past and the goal of these systems to establish work as a central value. In fact, the establishment of communist systems in various countries can be considered a great “Marxist experiment in destratification” (Lenski, 1978). Their intent was not only to reduce inequality, but also to eradicate exploitative labor relations and work conditions, and to humanize work in general. Yet, explanations lie in some of the characteristics of the communist economic system. The political center established production plans which had to be executed by the enterprises (Beyme, 1975, p. 84ff.), which led to workers and employees feeling like “small cogs in the machine.” Central planning made it also necessary that the choice of study areas, occupations, and firms were directed from above, thus creating “work soldiers of the state” (Henrich, 1989, p. 156). Job security was high, but salaries were modest with little internal differentiation. As a consequence, productivity was rather low.

Labor force participation of women was also significantly higher than in the West, but women were extremely burdened by their overlapping roles as workers, housewives, and mothers. These structural conditions were reflected in the expectations concerning work and income. In Russia, for instance, the majority preferred a secure job with moderate income, instead of a high-paying, less secure job (Landes, 2002; Lewada, 1992, p. 48). The harsh experiences made during and since the transition in 1989/90 may have had an additional negative effect on work commitment. In the early phases the transition was strongly supported, but over time questions were raised about the fairness of the new patterns of careers, distribution, and inequality (Mason & Kluegel, 2000; Vecerník, 2003). In sum, we expect (E3) that workers in former state socialist societies are characterized by lower levels of work commitment and their work values are more focused upon instrumental and (maybe) socially oriented work values.

Culture and Religion: The Protestant Ethic and Catholicism

Other studies also consider the effects of religion on work-related attitudes (see e.g., Fialová & Beláňová, 2020; Parboteeah et al., 2009; Yeganeh, 2015). The most famous ancestor of this type of research is Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber, 1905). Weber showed that capitalism and wealth first rose in the German provinces where Protestantism was dominant. This observation still seems true today: the mainly Protestant Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries are among the wealthiest countries, while the Catholic South American (in part also Southern European) and the Orthodox Eastern European countries are clearly lagging behind (as does most of the rest of the world, except Japan and, more recently, China).

However, when comparing countries around the world, we should not expect a direct and strong impact of Protestantism: First, Weber’s thesis has experienced severe criticism by many authors (see e.g., S. O. Becker & Wößmann, 2007; Marshall, 1982; Steinert, 2010). Second, secularization has reduced the influence of religions. Weber also argued that when mature capitalism dominates the world, a religiously founded work ethic becomes superfluous because those who do not work hard will succumb or be left behind. Third, international migration has made most countries rather heterogeneous in religious terms.

Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to consider Weber’s thesis, as long as we keep two caveats in mind. First, Weber did not posit a monocausal effect from religion to economic development but spoke of “elective affinities” (McKinnon, 2010). Second, we need to acknowledge the significant difference between the two main groups of Protestantism. The Lutheran version became most influential in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany; the Calvinist/Reformed Protestantism in the Netherlands, England, the USA, and Australia (Kahl, 2005; Manow, 2004). In Lutheranism, work and occupation themselves became a positive image and a duty, but the main individual obligation of Christians was still faith. In Reformed Protestantism, a strengthening of the individual took place. It was seen as directly related to God; the teaching of predestination argued that hard work even became indispensable for salvation, an absolute duty. In the English-speaking world, this individualistic work was also supported by philosophical and economic theorists of liberalism (John Locke, Adam Smith). In continental Europe and Scandinavia, socialist thinking also became quite influential through social democratic parties, and the role of the state was much more accepted.

Weber’s thesis about Protestantism has to be supplemented in an important regard, that is, Catholic work ethic. Weber was raised in a Protestant bourgeois milieu in Germany and (at least in the first phase of his working life) he adopted the pejorative stance of Protestants toward Catholicism (Schmitt, 2012). As a consequence, he neglected Catholicism in his research. Yet, Catholic social teaching was the first to stress the importance of work for every person. The Encyclicals Rerum Novarum of 1891 and the recent Labora Exercens of 1987 established three relevant general principles regarding work: The existence of a common or public good that has prevalence over individual interests; solidarity or brotherhood, which implies that everybody must be engaged in the welfare of all members of a society; and subsidiarity, which implies that the lowest societal levels must have priority; this means in particular that the family is very important. In regard to work, the following ideas are relevant: Work is a specific human activity that is the duty of everyone; work has a social character, through work men become members of society; and work also has a spiritual element, it is not only a means toward specific ends but represents the relationship of man to God.

A remark is also necessary on why we do not include other denominations as independent variables in the empirical analysis (see Parboteeah et al., 2009 for a detailed analysis of other individual denominations). First, in some cases, there is only one country where a certain religion is dominant. India is such a case: it is the only country where Hinduism exists. Second, in some countries, there is no specific dominant religion. In Japan, about one-third of the respondents adhere to Buddhism, but 62% indicate no religious affiliation. In China, the latter proportion is even 88% (see ISSP Research Group, 2017). The dominant worldview in those countries can be grasped by the concept of a civil religion which is a diffuse conglomerate of ideas from religious and secular sources (Bellah, 1967). A third reason is that no other world religion has such an elaborate ethical system and teachings as is the case in Protestantism and Catholicism. Thus, we expect (E4) that work commitment and values vary by individual religious affiliation and by the dominant religious denomination in a society. Protestants and workers in Protestant countries (particularly in those where Reformed Protestantism was influential) exhibit a more instrumental work orientation and show a high level of occupational commitment; Catholics and employees in Catholic countries lean toward a social work orientation and show a strong family-oriented work commitment. For them, work is also central.

The Effects of the Socio-Economic Level of Development

Finally, the level of socio-economic development is also used in comparative analyses of work-related attitudes (see e.g., Baranik et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2021; Wilson & Hadler, 2017; Yeganeh, 2015). It also plays a central role in Ronald Inglehart’s theory of post-materialism, which proposes that people in poor societies endorse materialist values and those in wealthy societies postmaterialist values (Inglehart, 1997). It is highly probable that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita or the Human Development Index (HDI) are correlated with work commitment and values if no other macro variables are controlled for. These variables cover different aspects of “modernization” (increase in education, occupational differentiation, income, etc.) that are relevant to work and occupations. Yet, given this multidimensionality, it may be difficult to draw sociological inferences from it to specific social attitudes and work values (Haller, 2002).

As for less developed countries, however, it is evident that most people in such societies have difficulties in finding regular employment, wages and salaries are low, working conditions are often very harsh, and the infrastructure is poorly developed. Therefore, people have to struggle hard to obtain their subsistence. It follows that many people will work for extrinsic reasons and display work orientations that emphasize security and salary. We do not expect—as some researchers using Inglehart’s theory of post-materialism (Yeganeh, 2017) have done—that economic development and increasing wealth per se will lead to intrinsic work orientations. We rather assume that the effect will wane once the factors mentioned in the previous paragraphs are controlled for.

A Model for the Explanation of Work Commitment and Work Values

Figure 1 provides an overview of the variables and relationships that are considered in this paper. We distinguish between three dimensions of work commitment (occupational, organizational, and family-oriented commitment) and three dimensions of work values (instrumental, autonomy, and social orientation). First, it can be assumed that work values and commitment are influenced by the situation of the individual. This includes their personal characteristics, such as gender and age, family situation, occupational position, and income. These variables will be included in the empirical analyses, but only as control variables. As for the macro-social characteristics, we will investigate the effects of socio-economic inequality, welfare state expenditures, the former experience of a communist system, dominant religion, and socio-economic development. To indicate the further relevance of the concept of work commitment, Figure 1 also includes two outcomes of work commitment and work values: work satisfaction and behavior (e.g., changes in workplace or occupation). Their consideration, however, would exceed the scope of the present paper.

Figure 1.

A comprehensive model of the determinants and consequences of work commitment and work orientations.

Data and Methods

Our empirical analysis is based on public opinion data collected by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in the 2015 “Work Orientations IV” survey in a total of 37 countries (see ISSP Research Group, 2017; Jutz et al., 2018). Most of them are European countries, but there are also countries from the Anglo-Saxon world, Latin America, and Asia included (see Table A1). The surveys are random samples and representative of the adult population in each country and include 60 work-related questions plus a comprehensive set of background variables. Detailed reports on the sampling procedures in each country, the questionnaires, and other fieldwork details can be found on the archive’s webpage: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.12848. We limited our analysis to respondents who work for pay, which results in a sample size of 28,349 respondents. The ISSP work orientation module was fielded four times so far. We decided to use only the most recent wave, as other studies have found only minimal changes over time, but substantial variations between countries (see Esser & Lindh, 2018).

Our first set of dependent variables relates to work commitment, denoting a general positive attitude of a person toward work in general (“centrality”), the inclination to continue the present type of work as well as the membership in the current organization (“occupational commitment”), and the balance between work and family (“family-oriented work commitment”). Our second set of dependent variables is based on a relatively comprehensive list of nine work values or work orientations that were included in the ISSP questionnaire. The items capture instrumental dimensions (income, job security, opportunities for advancement), social aspects (helping other people, usefulness to society), and the desire for an interesting and autonomous job. We refer to this area as “work values” and differentiate between “instrumental,” “autonomy,” and “social” work orientation. The details on all dependent variables are shown in the Appendix.

Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation of Findings

First, we present descriptive findings on the relative importance of the different aspects of work commitment and work values. The order of the items is organized according to the findings of various factor analyses that considered possible underlying dimensions. The factor analyses are presented in detail after this first section. Subsequently, we use multilevel regressions, to investigate the individual and macro-level determinants of the different aspects of work commitment and work values, given that the number of countries in our analysis warrants such an approach, considering that Bryan and Jenkins (2016) recommend a minimum of 25 countries. We include gender, age, whether the person is married or in a civil partnership, and the presence of children in the household. The occupational position is captured by distinguishing four groups (professional occupations; managers, clerical and technical jobs; craft and service jobs; less skilled jobs, and plant and machine operators); the first three groups are compared to the last one. In addition, we include the religious denomination, distinguishing Protestants, Catholics, and other denominations. At the macro level, we include income inequality, social expenditures, a dummy for former communist societies, and the percentage of Protestants and Catholics in a country. Sources of these data and basic information on their categories are provided in the Appendix. As a final step, we employ a correspondence analysis to get a more vivid picture of the differences between the countries compared. This correspondence analysis is then used to investigate differences between Protestant countries as posited in E4.

Limitations

Our analysis is based on the most comprehensive international survey on work-related attitudes, the ISSP survey. Other surveys, such as the World Values Survey (WVS), include more countries but fewer questions on a specific topic or are limited to a specific region such as the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS). Yet, while the ISSP includes countries from all continents, it is still limited to mainly more developed countries. Our findings, therefore, may not be applicable to the least developed countries. Furthermore, we are aware that our analysis cannot capture the causal effects of historical developments and specific societal characteristics. The analysis, however, is able to show that work attitudes vary significantly across countries and between individuals and can be associated with the theoretical views discussed at the front end of this paper. Hence, as emphasized in the introduction, we did not use the term hypothesis but expectations when we introduced our proposition and discuss the findings after the analyses.

Results

The Prevalence of Work-Related Attitudes

Tables 1 and 2 show the distribution of answers to aspects of work centrality, commitment, and work orientations for the pooled dataset. Work centrality (see Table 1) includes two items: The first statement “A job is just a way of earning money, not more” indicates a rather instrumental attitude toward work. Here, 38% of the respondents, limited to individuals who are employed, agree and 48% disagree. The second item is phrased positively: “I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money.” Here, 64% agree, suggesting that the majority shows a remarkably strong work commitment.

Table 1.

Indicators of Work Commitment Among Employed Individuals in 37 Countries (in %).

Work centrality
Q.1 How much do you agree or disagree with the following, thinking of work in general	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total^a % (N)
a. A job is just a way of earning money, no more	12%	25%	15%	31%	15%	98% (27,686)
b. I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money	19%	44%	14%	14%	7%	97% (27,359)
Occupational commitment
Q.24 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total^a % (N)
a. I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help the firm or organization I work for succeed	17%	40%	21%	12%	5%	95% (26,911)
b. I am proud to be working for my firm or organization	21%	43%	23%	7%	2%	95% (26,965)
c. I would turn down another job that offered quite a bit more pay in order to stay with this organization	10%	18%	23%	26%	15%	92% (25,966)
Q.25 How much do you agree or disagree with the following, thinking of work in general	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total ^a % (N)
a. Given the chance I would change my present type of work for something different	11%	26%	20%	25%	13%	95% (26,950)
b. I am proud of the type of work I do	24%	44%	20%	6%	2%	97% (27,388)
Family-oriented commitment
		Yes, I have done so and would probably do so again	Yes, I have done so but would probably not do so again	No, I have not done so but probably would do so	No, I have not done so and probably would not do so	Total ^a % (N)
Q.3. Have you ever given up or would you give up good job opportunities for the benefit of your family life?		25%	8%	37%	23%	93% (26,340)
Q.4. Have you ever remained or would you remain in a job that was not satisfying for you for the benefit of the family?		24%	13%	28%	27%	93% (26,188)

Note. The order of the variables and subheadings is based on the factor analyses discussed in the main text and presented in Table 3. Data: ISSP 2015 “Work Orientations.”

Missing to 100%: “can’t choose,” “no answer”, “refused.”

Table 2.

Work Orientations of Employed Individuals in 37 Countries (in %).

Q.2 How do you personally think how important each of the following is in a job	Very important	Important	Neither … nor	Not/not at all important^a	Total %^b (N)
Instrumental orientation
a. job security	60%	35%	4%	2%	99% (28,124)
b. high income	31%	50%	14%	4%	99% (28,108)
Autonomy orientation
e. a job that allows someone to work independently	31%	44%	17%	7%	99% (28,004)
h. a job that allows someone to decide their times or days of work	23%	39%	23%	13%	99% (27,889)
Social orientation
f. a job that allows someone to help others	29%	46%	19%	6%	99% (27,961)
g. a job that is useful to society	30%	46%	17%	6%	99% (27,952)
Excluded variables (ambiguous; commonalities too low)^c
c. good opportunities for advancement	29%	43%	18%	9%	99% (27,989)
d. an interesting job	49%	42%	6%	2%	99% (28,066)
i. a job that involves personal contact with other people	29%	45%	17%	8%	99% (28,012)

Note. Data: ISSP 2015 “Work Orientation.”

Frequencies in the category “not important at all” were rather low (between 0 and 2%).

Missing to 100%: “can’t choose,” “no answer,” “refused.”

The order of the variables and subheadings is based on the factor analyses discussed in the main text and presented in Table 3.

The results show that there is a high level of organizational commitment to the current firm/company: 60% are willing to work harder for their firm in case of need, and 67% are proud of working for it. No less than 39% would stay with their present firm even if they were offered another job with a considerably higher salary. Similar findings emerge in the third question (job commitment): Less than half (around 40%) would be ready to change their present job and 70% say that they are proud of it. These results suggest that between half and two-thirds of the employed individuals have a rather high level of work commitment.

As for the family-oriented work commitment, about one-fourth of the employed respondents have made sacrifices at work for the sake of their family (either by giving up job opportunities or remaining in an unbeloved job), and another one-fourth have never done so. Together, about half of the respondents have made or would make job decisions in favor of family life. Thus, the adaptation of work life to family needs is generally considered important by many respondents.

Table 2 presents the results on work orientations. As indicated before, a list of nine items was presented to the interviewees. A clear rank order is visible in the relative importance of these aspects: First comes job security (considered by 60% as very important), followed by an interesting job (about 50%). With some distance (mentioned by about 30% as very important), most other items follow. Summing up the answer categories “very important” and “important,” job security and an interesting job are mentioned by around 90%, and most other items by three-fourths of the respondents.

From these results, we can draw a provisional conclusion about the general level of work commitment and the predominant work values. Work commitment is in fact rather strong for the majority of respondents. There is no single predominant work orientation; all aspects covered by the ISSP questionnaire are important for large parts of the respondents.

The Underlying Dimensions of Work-Related Attitudes

Single items cannot be regarded as representing all theoretical dimensions. In order to find out if there are general underlying dimensions, we carried out a series of factor analyses considering all items shown in Tables 1 and 2 in various combinations. Table 3 shows the derived solution of six different dimensions: (1) “work centrality,” which indicates the willingness to work even if not necessary for financial reasons; (2) “family-oriented commitment,” which includes the items on the readiness to make job sacrifices for the family; and (3) a factor, which we labeled “occupational commitment.” Separate factor analyses in single countries showed that these dimensions are more or less present everywhere. The selection of items on work orientations in the ISSP was based on the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic work values. Our factor analyses, however, were not able to identify these two dimensions and showed that the item “interesting job” is not loading on any factor. Furthermore, in several countries an additional meaningful differentiation occurred with one factor including the two items “helping other people” and “a job useful to society” and thus describing a “socially oriented work orientation.” The other factor includes the two items “working independently” and “deciding about times of work” and thus was labeled “autonomy-oriented orientation.” In sum, the following additional three factors turned out in nearly all countries: (4) instrumental orientation (job security, high income), (5) autonomy orientation (working independently, deciding about times of work), and (6) social orientation (helping other people, a job useful to society).

Table 3.

Dimensions of Work Commitment and Work Orientations (Factor Analysis for 37 Countries).

	Factor	Items	Range
1	Work centrality	Q1a, Q1b	1–5
2	Family-oriented commitment	Q3, Q4	1–4
3	Occupational commitment	Q24a, Q24b, Q24c, Q25a, Q25b	1–5
4	Instrumental orientation	Q2a, Q2b	1–5
5	Autonomy orientation	Q2e, Q2h	1–5
6	Social orientation	Q2f, Q2g	1–5

Note. See Appendix for details on the question wording and the country-level mean scores for all dimensions. Factor analysis statistics (principal component analysis with varimax rotation): KMO = 0.723; Bartlett = 0.000; cumulative explained variance = 58.50% (stats vary by country); factors 5 and 6 form one factor in the overall sample, but occur separately in some countries.

Individual Characteristics Shaping Work-Related Attitudes

The dimensions derived from the factor analyses described above were used as dependent variables in multilevel regressions (see Appendix for a detailed description of the variables and their categories). The results of the micro-level variables and the effects of different sets of macro-level variables are presented separately in Tables 4 and 5. Both tables present standardized coefficients (Beta), which were calculated based on the standard deviations of the dependent and independent variables. Explained variances, which are also shown, were calculated based on the changes in the remaining variances.

Table 4.

Multilevel Analysis of Dimensions of Work Commitment and Work Orientations for Individual Characteristics (Standardized Beta Coefficients).

	Work commitment (1 low, 5 high)			Work orientations (1 low, 5 high)
Independent variables	Work Centrality	Family-oriented Commitment	Occupational Commitment	Instrumental Orientation	Autonomy Orientation	Social Orientation
Gender
(0 male, 1 female)	0.07***	0.03***	–0.03***	0.03***	0.04***	0.09***
Age (in years)	0.01	0.05***	0.09***	–0.05***	0.04***	0.03***
Years of schooling	0.12***	0.05***	0.02*	–0.05***	0.05***	0.06***
Partnership
(0 no, 1 yes)	0	0.04***	0.05***	0.01	0	0
Children in the household	0	0.09***	0	0.02**	0.03***	0.02**
Occupational Position^a
Professionals	0.12***	–0.02	0.16***	–0.05***	0.03***	0.06***
Craft, service, sales	0.05***	0.01	0.11***	–0.02*	0.01	0.04***
Managers, clerical and technical occ.	0.10***	0.01	0.15***	–0.02*	0.05***	0.03**
Income	0.03***	–0.02**	0.10***	0.03***	0.01	–0.02**
Income missing^b	0	–0.01	0.04***	–0.02	0.01	–0.01
Religion^a
Catholic	–0.01	–0.02*	0.04***	0.03***	0	0.02*
Protestant	0.03***	0	0.03***	0.01	–0.01	0.02*
R ² level 2 (macro)^c	.144	.081	.123	.089	.09	.134
R ² level 1 (micro)^d	.056	.017	.058	.01	.01	.018
N	25,330	24,610	24,994	25,400	25,361	25,314
ICC	0.09	0.06	0.07	0.08	0.08	0.12

Reference categories: occupational position “workers and operators”; religion—no religion.

Includes people with missing income values to avoid reduction of sample size.

Conditional R ².

Marginal R ².

p < .05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Table 5.

Multilevel Analysis of Dimensions of Work Commitment and Work Orientations for Macro-Level Variables (Standardized Beta Coefficients).

	Work commitment (1 low, 5 high)			Work orientations (1 low, 5 high)
Independent variables	Work Centrality	Family-oriented Commitment	Occupational Commitment	Instrumental Orientation	Autonomy Orientation	Social Orientation
Model 1
Income inequality (GINI)	–0.08	–0.04	0	0.14***	0.12*	0.18**
Social expenditure	0.11	0.05	–0.05	–0.09	–0.02	–0.07
Former communist country	–0.10*	–0.07	–0.18***	0.06	–0.02	–0.1
Religion^a
Percent Catholic	–0.01	–0.01	0.01	0.08*	0.12**	0.09*
Percent Protestant	–0.02	–0.1	0.04	0.03	0.08	0
R ² level 2 (macro)	.172	.091	.124	.104	.093	.127
R ² level 1 (micro)	.122	.03	.087	.071	.031	.065
N	25,330	24,610	24,994	25,400	25,361	25,314
ICC	0.06	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.07
Model 2
GDP p. capita	0.20***	0.10*	0.05	–0.21***	–0.11*	–0.16**
R ² level 2 (macro)	.168	.084	.126	.1	.089	.129
R ² level 1 (micro)	.119	.028	.061	.062	.019	.036
N	25.33	24.61	24.994	25.4	25.361	25.314
ICC	0.05	0.06	0.07	0.04	0.07	0.1
Model 3
Income inequality (GINI)	–0.03	0.04	0	0.10*	0.05	0.17**
Social expenditures	0.06	–0.03	–0.05	–0.05	0.05	–0.07
Former communist country	–0.08	–0.04	–0.18***	0.05	–0.04	–0.1
Religion^a
Percent Catholic	–0.01	0	0.01	0.08*	0.11*	0.09
Percent Protestant	–0.02	–0.10*	0.04	0.03	0.09	0
GDP p. capita	0.11	0.18*	0	–0.09	–0.14	–0.01
R ² level 2 (macro)	.174	.09	.126	.105	.095	.129
R ² level 1 (micro)	.126	.037	.087	.074	.037	.065
N	25,330	24,610	24,994	25,400	25,361	25,314
ICC	0.05	0.06	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.07

Reference category: “no religion.”

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Concerning the effects of gender, women exhibit much more frequently a social orientation, and a family-oriented work commitment. In addition, work is of greater centrality to women; also, their instrumental and autonomy work orientation is stronger. Only occupational commitment is weaker among women. These findings corroborate previous findings on the effects of gender on various work-related attitudes (Boyle et al., 2004; Chusmir, 1982; Esser & Lindh, 2018; Loscocco, 1989; Sloan, 2017; Weiss & Hörisch, 2022).

Regarding the effects of age, Table 4 shows many significant effects. Most commitment dimensions and work values are stronger among older employees: They indicate a stronger occupational and family-oriented commitment; their work values are less instrumental and lean more toward autonomy and social values. Increasing working age, continuing occupational experience, and an improvement in financial security might focus their work-related attitudes more on intrinsic aspects. These findings are also in line with previous findings (see Esser & Lindh, 2018; Kozák, 2020). As for partnership, the analysis shows positive effects on family-oriented commitment and occupational commitment. Children in the household have a positive effect on family-oriented commitment as well as on instrumental autonomy and social orientation (but see Tsen et al., 2022 on the work-family conflict and, generally, Hsiao, 2022 on the relationship between work values for parents).

We also included the educational level, occupational position, and income. Concerning education, positive effects are present regarding work centrality, different commitments, as well as autonomy, and social aspects. Instrumental orientation, on the other hand, is negatively affected, reflecting previous findings (Esser & Lindh, 2018; Kozák, 2020; Weiss & Hörisch, 2022). Similar results turn out regarding occupational position. It significantly affects work commitment (except for family-oriented commitment) and work values. Employees in higher-status, qualified occupations (particularly those in managerial, professional, and technical jobs) exhibit significantly higher work centrality and occupational commitment and more frequent autonomy and social orientations toward work than those in low-status jobs, which is also in line with previous results (Weiss & Hörisch, 2022). Finally, income has one strong and several weaker effects. The higher the income, the more centrality, occupational commitment, instrumental, and social orientation. In sum, we can see that these three aspects have quite different effects: higher education strengthens the centrality of work, family and social orientation, income is related more to the instrumental aspects of work, and occupational position itself relates mainly to occupational commitment.

The last set of independent variables is related to religious denomination. We included two variables, Catholic or Protestant denomination. Following Weber’s famous thesis, we expected (E4) that Protestants should exhibit a higher work commitment and autonomy-related work values. Table 4 shows that individual religious affiliation has only a few effects on work commitment and work values, which is in line with the findings of Fialová and Beláňová (2020). This small number of effects could be also the result of our controlling for other individual-level variables, which differs from the other analyses of Fialová and Beláňová (2020) and Parboteeah et al. (2009). Second, the common classification of different variants of Protestantism such as Lutheran or State Church Protestantism, and Reformed/Calvinist Protestantism (Kahl, 2005; Manow, 2004) might hide internal differences. Third, religion-related values may have penetrated into the general value systems of different societies and, as Fialová and Beláňová (2020) have shown, the effects of individual affiliations can differ across societies. Hence, we will address the effects of religion again in the macro-level extension of our multilevel regressions.

Macro-Social Factors Shaping Work-Related Attitudes

Table 5 presents different macro-level extensions of the regressions displayed in the previous table. Each column includes three different models. Model 1 includes all micro-level variables of Table 4 plus the macro-level variables Gini index, social expenditures, communist past, as well as the percentage of Catholics and Protestants. Model 2 includes all micro-level variables and GDP. Model 3 includes all of the aforementioned micro- and macro-level variables. The logic of these models follows the idea that we first test the effects of the macro-level variables associated with our specific expectations in Model 1. Then, we test the effects of the level of socio-economic development (GDP/ per capita) in Model 2. As we suggested that this is a summary indicator that includes also the effects of other dimensions, Model 3 tests whether the effects of our macro-level variables from Model 1 remain unchanged when controlled for GDP.

The first expectation (E1) referred to the effects of socio-economic inequality and posited, among others, that work is less central in unequal societies. Model 1 shows that this dimension has significant effects on the instrumental, the autonomy, and the social orientation toward work. Once GDP is included as well, the effects of inequality on autonomy are not significant anymore (Model 3). These results show that workers in unequal societies have a stronger social orientation to work but also a stronger instrumental orientation, support E1, and corroborate results of Parboteeah and Cullen (2003), Esser and Lindh (2018).

Our second expectation (E2) focused on the role of the welfare state. We expected that employees in countries with a strong welfare state show a higher work commitment and less instrumental work values. Controlling for other variables, however, shows that welfare expenditures do not have a significant effect when considering the overall expenditures at first glance. Findings such as Furåker (2020) on the Nordic countries or Fullerton et al. (2020) on the role of insecurity thus cannot be confirmed at this point. We, however, revisit this question in more detail in a correspondence analysis (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Correspondence analysis of work commitment and work orientations in 37 countries.

E3 stated that employees in former communist societies should display generally lower work commitment and more instrumental work values. Controlling for other macro-level variables, Model 3 indicates a significant negative effect on occupational commitment. Excluding GDP (Model 1) shows a significant negative effect on the centrality of work. These findings show that the realization of Marxist ideas in “real” state socialism did not lead to the development of intrinsic work attitudes and altruistic-social patterns of behavior. The results thus support E3 and are also in line with previous studies (Fialová & Beláňová, 2020; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003; Volk & Hadler, 2018).

As for the effects of the dominant religious denomination in a country, as expressed in our fourth expectation (E4), the overall effect of Protestantism indicates that employees in these countries show lower family-oriented commitment, even when controlling for other macro-level variables (Model 3). Considering the effects of the dominance of Catholicism in a country indicates even more and stronger effects, particularly in work orientations. All three dimensions—instrumental, autonomy, and social orientations—are stronger among employees in Catholic countries, even though the effect on social orientation is significant only when GDP is excluded. The findings concerning the effects of Protestantism and Catholicism can be summarized in three points: First, these religions appear to have significant effects, over and above other dimensions such as level of development, inequality, and the welfare state. Second, the effect of Catholicism is even more evident than that of Protestantism, suggesting that Weber omitted a very important variable in his analyses of the effects of religion on the capitalist ethos. Third, the specific effects, by and large, correspond to our expectation which stated that employees in countries where these two Christian denominations are dominant will exhibit more intrinsic and socially oriented kinds of work orientations. Furthermore, these results show that the dominant religion should also be considered at the societal level, as it offers additional insights to studies such as Fialová and Beláňová (2020), which focus on the individual level.

Alongside our four expectations, we also addressed the possible effects of GDP. The models indicate that its explanatory power decreases from Model 2 to 3 for four of the six dependent variables. In one dimension—family-oriented commitment—its explanatory power, however, increases substantively. Considering how much additional variance is explained when GDP per capita is included in addition to the other macro-social characteristics shows that practically no remarkable increase takes place. On the other hand, the use of GDP alone can explain a substantive amount of variance (see Model 2), consistent with studies such as Baranik et al. (2022), which found strong effects of development. Putting these aspects together underscores our initial idea that GDP is a good proxy for various societal developments.

In sum, these multilevel regressions support many of our initial expectations. Yet, they only consider linear relationships between the different variables and cannot grasp non-linear patterns. We thus also analyzed the six dimensions related to work commitment and orientations in all 37 countries using correspondence analysis. Figure 2 presents the results of this analysis based on the country-level mean values of the six dimensions and indicates clearly recognizable groups:

- The Scandinavian countries (with Norway as the most paradigmatic case) are located in the upper left area, which is characterized by high levels of occupational commitment.

- The English-speaking countries and a strong family orientation can be found in the lower left area. Australia is the most typical case. France and Japan fall into this segment as well.

- Post-communist societies and a strong instrumental orientation are typical for the lower right area, with Russia being the most typical case.

- A mix of countries can be found in the upper right area. It is characterized by occupational commitment as well as autonomy and social orientation. Yet, these items are close to the center.

This concluding correspondence analysis shows three clusters of countries that are related to three out of four theoretical macro-social characteristics: Degree of welfare state expansion and equality (Scandinavia); a “civil religion,” stressing individual and private-family duties (the United States and other Anglo-Saxon countries); and the experience of state-socialism. The correspondence analysis also supports our initial division in Lutheran and Reformed Protestant countries as expressed in E4. Our expectation regarding the differences between these two Protestant denominations is thus supported. Overall, these findings corroborate various studies on the differences between political regimes, religions, and cultures (see e.g., Baranik et al., 2022; Esser & Lindh, 2018; Fialová & Beláňová, 2020; Hult, 2002; Kozák, 2020; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003; Volk & Hadler, 2018) and underscore our general research idea.

Discussion and Conclusions

The present paper started from the assumption that work is a central activity for humans, but that its meaning has changed over time. Accordingly, social theorists emphasized different aspects of its role and emergence. Marx proposed that work can unfold its creative potential only in a fully egalitarian communist society without private property. Weber argued that a new work ethic, developed by Protestants, was decisive for the rise of capitalism. Economic-functionalist theories postulate that work would continuously become freer and more highly valued as a consequence of industrialization and modernization. Using this as a backdrop, we focus on individuals’ attitudes toward work and proposed that they differ across countries and are shaped by societal forces, institutional structures, and historical shifts such as the transition to postindustrial societies, the dominant religion in a country, the experience of a communist system, and the introduction of the welfare state.

The review of recent studies showed that these aspects have been considered in various papers, but also that there is a research lacuna to be filled by the present paper. Several studies have a strong focus on the individual level such as Parboteeah et al. (2009), Fialová and Beláňová (2020), Weiss and Hörisch (2022), and Tsen et al. (2022), whereas others consider mostly the macro-level (see e.g., Volk & Hadler, 2018). Other studies consider both (see Esser & Lindh, 2018; Kozák, 2020; Parboteeah & Cullen, 2003), but focus on a few specific work-related attitudes. The current paper departs from these prior analyses by distinguishing carefully between six dimensions related to work commitment and orientations as well as their subdimensions and considering individual and macro-level variables in a single model.

Our analysis, based on public opinion data collected by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in 37 countries in 2015, confirmed our expectation that work is central in all modern societies. It showed that most intrinsic work attitudes are stronger in more equal societies. This confirms the far-reaching importance of social equality and inequality, one of the central dimensions of sociology. Our expectation of liberation of work in more developed societies from its compulsory character as primarily a means for securing subsistence is supported. In line with previous results, our analyses confirmed that employees in former communist societies exhibit weaker work commitments. A short review of the characteristics of the communist system helped to explain this fact. While this system provided for full employment and the prevention of poverty, it granted people little freedom in their decisions about choice of the workplace and little autonomy in their daily work. Thus, the claims of unions and other representatives of workers to shape jobs toward more autonomy and interesting work are fully justified.

The current analysis found only mixed support for Weber’s thesis that the Protestant ethic was central to the development of new work attitudes in capitalist societies. While people in Protestant countries differ regarding family orientation, it is Catholics who are most distinct in their work attitudes, exhibiting more distinct work orientations. Of course, we must consider that the work attitudes of Protestants may have changed since early Capitalism. Finally, we also found that the level of socio-economic development has some impact, even when controlling for the structural and institutional macrosocial characteristics. A higher level of wealth may relieve people from the pressure to work mainly for instrumental and financial reasons.

In addition to these macro-level effects, we have also found some interesting differences at the individual level. One that is obvious and well-known from many other studies is the fact that intrinsic work values are more pronounced among individuals in more qualified jobs and occupations. Another finding, however, concerning the gender differences in work values, has been investigated less often and turned out to be quite remarkable. Women exhibit a rather high level of work commitment and in most aspects, their work orientations are more frequently of an autonomy-related character than those of men.

In sum, our results show that work is central for men in all 37 countries included. Surprisingly, this seems to be even more the case for women. However, the results show that Marx’ prediction of the full liberation of human work potential in Communism (at least as it was realized in state socialist societies of Eastern Europe) has been utterly disproved. Also, Weber’s thesis about the relevance of the Protestant work ethic receives little support; rather, Catholicism seems to be more relevant for work attitudes today. Overall, our findings endorse the interpretation of work as it has been developed by the pragmatist philosophers and sociologists Mead and Hughes. We conclude with them that work in modern societies is not the most important, but only one of several meaningful activities of men and women. Furthermore, the realization of the potential of work for the development of human capabilities (A. Sen) is facilitated in egalitarian societies and by a well-developed welfare state.

Footnotes

Appendix

Detailed overview of the questions capturing our dependent variables:

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support by the University of Graz for this open access publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Max Haller

Markus Hadler

References

Baranik

L. E.

Wright

Smith

R. W.

(2022). Desired and obtained work values across 37 countries: A psychology of working theory perspective. International Journal of Manpower, 43(6), 1338–1351. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-12-2020-0555

Becker

H. S.

(1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/222820

Becker

S. O.

Wößmann

(2007). Was Weber wrong? A human capital theory of Protestant economics history. PEPG/07-04.

Bellah

(1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027022

Bell

(1976). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. Basic Books.

Beyme

K. von

. (1975). Ökonomie und Politik im Sozialismus: Ein Vergleich der Entwicklung in den sozialistischen Ländern (Economics and politics under socialism. A comparison of developments in socialist countries). Piper.

Blauner

(1967). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. University of Chicago Press.

Botton

A. de

. (2004). Status anxiety. Hamish Hamilton.

Boyle

M. V.

Fisher

Fulop

L. E.

(2004). Gender and emotions at work: A reconceptualization of organizational commitment [Conference session]. 18th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, Griffith University, QLD, Australia. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/2266.

10.

Brandl

Gross

Haller

(2009). Participation in voluntary activities in Austria and Australia: How valid are the results of international social surveys? In Haller

Jowell

Smith

T. W.

(Eds.), Eds The international social survey programme 1984-2009: charting the globe (pp. 409–450). Routledge.

11.

Braverman

(1998). Labor and monopoly capital. The degradation of work in the twentieth century. NYU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfrkf

12.

Bryan

M. L.

Jenkins

S. P.

(2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv059

13.

Castells

(2004). The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Edward Elgar Pub.

14.

Castles

F. G.

Obinger

(2008). Worlds, families, regimes: Country clusters in European and OECD area public policy. West European Politics, 31(1-2), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701835140

15.

Chusmir

L. H.

(1982). Job commitment and the organizational woman. The Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 595. https://doi.org/10.2307/257226

16.

Cohen

Lowenberg

(1990). A re-examination of the side-bet theory as applied to organizational commitment: A meta-analysis. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 43(10), 1015–1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004301005

17.

Cooper-Hakim

Viswesvaran

(2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.241

18.

Cunningham

Westover

Harvey

(2022). Drivers of job satisfaction among healthcare professionals: A quantitative review. International Journal of Healthcare Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2022.2126671

19.

Davis

Moore

W. E.

(1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10(2), 242. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085643

20.

Durkheim

(1964[1893]). The division of labor in society. The Free Press.

21.

Edwards

(1979). Contested terrain. Basic Books.

22.

Elizur

Borg

Hunt

Beck

I. M.

(1991). The structure of work values: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120103

23.

Esping-Andersen

(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press.

24.

Esser

Lindh

(2018). Job preferences in comparative perspective 1989–2015: A multidimensional evaluation of individual and contextual influences. International Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 142–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2018.1446118

25.

Fialová

Beláňová

(2020). Hidden religious aspects of job satisfaction and work attitudes: The differences between Eastern and Western Europe. Acta Oeconomica, 70(4), 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.2020.00038

26.

Frey

C. B.

Osborne

M. A.

(2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254–280.

27.

Fullerton

A. S.

Dixon

J. C.

McCollum

D. B.

(2020). The institutionalization of part-time work: Cross-national differences in the relationship between part-time work and perceived insecurity. Social Science Research, 87, 102402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102402

28.

Furåker

(2020). Work attitudes, employment and work mobilization: A comparison of Anglo-Saxon and Nordic countries, 2005 and 2015. In Furåker

Håkansson

(Eds.) Routledge studies in management, organizations and society. Work orientations: Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings (pp. 102–123). Routledge.

29.

Furåker

Håkansson

Eds (2020). Routledge studies in management, organizations and society. Work orientations: Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings. Routledge.

30.

Gesthuizen

Kovarek

Rapp

(2019). Extrinsic and intrinsic work values: Findings on equivalence in different cultural contexts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 682(1), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219829016

31.

Gorz

(1985). Paths to paradise: On the liberation from work. Pluto.

32.

Grünhut

Bodor

Erát

(2022). Value patterns of entrepreneurs in Europe: Does the legacy of the transitionstill matter? International Journal of Sociology, 52(5), 352–369.

33.

Haller

(2002). Theory and method in the comparative study of values: Critique and alternative to Inglehart. European Sociological Review, 18(2), 139–158.

34.

Haller

Rosenmayr

(1971). The pluridimensionality of work commitment. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 24(6), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677102400606

35.

Hall

Soskice

Eds (2001). Varieties of capitalism. Oxford University Press.

36.

Hall

R. H.

(1986). Dimensions of work. Sage.

37.

Henrich

(1989). Der vormundschaftliche Staat. Vom Versagen des real existierenden Sozialismus (The guardianship state. On the failure of real existing socialism). Rowohlt.

38.

Herzberg

(1966). Work and the nature of men. World Publishing.

39.

Hsiao

(2022). A cross-cultural study of organizational work–family initiatives, work demands and conflict, and job-related outcomes among working parents across 24 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 56(2–3), 268–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971221075208

40.

Hughes

E. C.

(1981). Men and their work. Greenwood Press.

41.

Hult

(2002). Production regimes and work orientations: A comparison of six western countries. European Sociological Review, 18(3), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/18.3.315

42.

Inglehart

(1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.

43.

ISSP Research Group. (2017). International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA6770 Datenfile Version 2.1.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12848

44.

Jiang

Probst

T. M.

(2017). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer: Country- and state-level income inequality moderates the job insecurity-burnout relationship. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000179

45.

Jiang

Wang

H. J.

(2021). A resources-demands approach to sources of job insecurity: A multilevel meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(2), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000267

46.

Jutz

Scholz

Braun

Hadler

(2018). The ISSP 2015 work orientations IV module. International Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2018.1446115

47.

Kaasa

(2011). Work values in European countries. Empirical evidence and explanations. Review of International Comparative Management, 12(5), 852–862.

48.

Kahl

(2005). The religious roots of modern poverty policy: Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Protestant traditions compared. European Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 91–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003975605000044

49.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.2307/2117735

50.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(2007). The mismatched worker. Contemporary societies. W. W. Norton.

51.

Kozák

(2020). What matters in a job? A multi-level study of job preference orientations and the intrinsic quality of work in 25 societies. Societies, 10(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030062

52.

Landes

(2002). Culture makes almost all the difference. In Harrison

L. E.

Huntington

S. P.

(Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress (pp. 2–13). Basic Books.

53.

Lee

Carswell

J. J.

Allen

N. J.

(2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.799

54.

Lenski

(1978). Marxist experiments in destratification: An appraisal. Social Forces, 57(2), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577674

55.

Lewada

(1992). Die Sowjetmenschen. Soziogramm eines Zerfalls (The Soviet people. Sociogram of a decay). Argon.

56.

Loscocco

K. A.

(1989). The instrumentally oriented factory worker: Myth or reality? Work and Occupations, 16(1), 3–25.

57.

Manow

(2004). ‘The good, the bad, and the ugly’: Esping-Andersen's regime typology and the religious roots of the western welfare state. MPIfG working paper, 3. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

58.

Mareš

(2001). The Czechs: Jobs and work. Czech Sociological Review, 37(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2001.37.11.11

59.

Marshall

(1982). In search of the spirit of capitalism. An essay on Max Weber’s protestant ethic thesis. Columbia University Press.

60.

Mason

D. S.

Kluegel

J. R.

(2000). Marketing democracy. Changing opinion about inequality and politics in East Central Europe. Rowman & Littlefield.

61.

McKinnon

A. M.

(2010). Elective affinities of the protestant ethic: Weber and the chemistry of capitalism. Sociological Theory, 28(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01367.x

62.

Mead

G. H.

(1972). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.

63.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace. Theory, research, and application. SAGE Publications, Inc.

64.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

65.

Morrow

P. C.

(1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. JAI Press.

66.

Parboteeah

K. P.

Cullen

J. B.

(2003). “Social institutions and work centrality: Explorations beyond national culture.” Organization Science, 14(2), 137–148.

67.

Parboteeah

K. P.

Paik

Cullen

J. B.

(2009). Religious groups and work values: A focus on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808096674

68.

Ritzer

Trice

H. M.

(1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker's side-bet theory. Social Forces; A Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation, 47(4), 475–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/2574537

69.

Riva

Lucchini

Vandekerckhove

(2022). Space-Time Variations in Job Types: A Tale of “Three Europes”, International Journal of Sociology, 52(6), 420–447.

70.

Safilios-Rotbschild

(1971). Towards the conceptualization and measurement of work commitment. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 24(6), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677102400604

71.

Schmitt

(2012). Max Webers Verständnis des Katholizismus: Eine werkbiographische Analyse nebst einem Exkurs über Max Webers Romaufenthalte (Max Weber's Understanding of Catholicism. A Biographical Analysis). Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rom. http://www.dhi-roma.it/schmitt_max_weber.html

72.

Schroeder

(2014). Varianten des Kapitalismus. Die Unterschiede liberaler und koordinierter Marktwirtschaften (Variants of capitalism. The differences of liberal and coordinated market economies). Springer.

73.

Sen

(1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

74.

Sjoberg

(2010). Social insurance as a collective resource: Unemployment benefits, job insecurity and subjective well-being in a comparative perspective. Social Forces; A Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation, 88(3), 1281–1304. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0293

75.

Sloan

M. M.

(2017). Gender differences in commitment to state employment: The role of coworker relationships. Public Personnel Management, 46(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017702612

76.

Sobol

M. G.

(1963). Commitment to work. In Nye

N. I.

Hoffman

(Eds.), The employed mother in America (pp. 40–63). Rand McNally.

77.

Steinert

(2010). Max Webers unwiderlegbare Fehlkonstruktionen: Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. (Max Weber's Irrefutable Misconstructions. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Campus.

78.

Tosun

Parth

A-M.

Langer

(2022). Work values and their effects on individuals’ willingness to take action. In Sauermann

Tepe

Debus

(Eds.), Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie 12. (Yearbook for Action and Decision Theory 12 (pp. 29–48). Springer.

79.

Tsen

M. K.

Tan

C. M.

Goh

S. K.

(2022). Does flexible work arrangements decrease or increase turnover intention? A comparison between the social exchange theory and border theory. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42(11-12), 962–983. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-08-2021-0196

80.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

S. M.

Hoffman

B. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352246

81.

Ullrich

C. G.

(2005). Soziologie des Wohlfahrtsstaates: Eine Einführung. (Sociology of the Welfare State. An introduction). Campus Studium. Campus. http://media.obvsg.at/AC04563209-3401

82.

Veblen

(1953). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. The New American Library.

83.

Vecerník

(2003). Skating on thin ice: A comparison of work values and job satisfaction in CEE and EU countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 44(5), 444–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071520304400502

84.

Vobruba

(1989). Der wirtschaftliche Wert der Sozialpolitik. (The economic value of social policy). Duncker & Humblot.

85.

Volk

Hadler

(2018). Work orientations and perceived working conditions across countries: Results from the 2015 ISSP Survey. International Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2018.1446116

86.

Weber

(1905). Die protestantische Ethik und der ‚Geist‘ des Kapitalismus. (The protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism and other writings) (pp. XX–XXI). Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik.

87.

Weiss

Hörisch

(2022). Security or autonomy? A comparative analysis of work values and labor market policies in different European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 31(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12497

88.

Wilkinson

Pickett

(2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin.

89.

Wilson

Hadler

(2017). Downward flexibility: Who is willing to take an inferior job? European Journal of Industrial Relations, 23(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680116659816

90.

Wolf

C. P.

(1970). The durkheim thesis: Occupational groups and moral integration. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 9(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385151

91.

Yeganeh

(2015). Religiosity, socio-economic development and work values: A cross-national study. The Journal of Management Development, 34(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-06-2014-0066

92.

Yeganeh

(2017). Cultural modernization and work-related values and attitudes. International Journal of Development Issues, 16(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijdi-10-2016-0058