Diversity in the Meaning of Work: The Puzzling Power of Callings Jen Tosti Amy Wrzesniewski May Meaning Meeting May 2008

Diversity in the Diversity in the Meaning of Work: Meaning of Work:

The Puzzling Power of CallingsThe Puzzling Power of Callings

Jen TostiJen Tosti

Amy WrzesniewskiAmy Wrzesniewski

May Meaning MeetingMay Meaning Meeting

May 2008May 2008

May 16, 2008 May Meaning Meeting 2

RoadmapRoadmap

• Some context and backgroundSome context and background– Study of work orientation in work teams Study of work orientation in work teams – Aim is to examine how diversity in members’ Aim is to examine how diversity in members’

work orientation relates to group processwork orientation relates to group process

• We’ve encountered a data issue that we’re We’ve encountered a data issue that we’re currently puzzling throughcurrently puzzling through– How to best frame and test our question?How to best frame and test our question?


The Meaning of WorkThe Meaning of Work

• Often characterized as an issue for the individual Often characterized as an issue for the individual (Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, in prep)(Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, in prep)

• But meaning, and its impact, is also social But meaning, and its impact, is also social (Cardador, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, Dutton & (Cardador, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, Dutton & Debebe, 2003)Debebe, 2003)


Research QuestionResearch Question

• How does diversity in work orientation How does diversity in work orientation relate to functioning and attachment in relate to functioning and attachment in interdependent groups?interdependent groups?

OR

?????


Value Diversity in GroupsValue Diversity in Groups• Distinction between deep-level diversity Distinction between deep-level diversity (e.g., values (e.g., values

attitudes, education, function)attitudes, education, function) and surface-level diversity and surface-level diversity (e.g., age, sex, race)(e.g., age, sex, race)

• Member similarity in deep-level characteristics is Member similarity in deep-level characteristics is generally generally beneficialbeneficial for group functioning and for group functioning and attachment:attachment:– Increases satisfaction, commitment, group Increases satisfaction, commitment, group

cohesiveness, information sharing and task cohesiveness, information sharing and task performance performance (Jehn et al., 1999; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Harrison, (Jehn et al., 1999; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002; Polzer, Milton & Swann, 2002; Bunderson & Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002; Polzer, Milton & Swann, 2002; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002)Sutcliffe, 2002)

– Decreases task and relational conflict Decreases task and relational conflict (Jehn, Chadwick & (Jehn, Chadwick & Thatcher, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999)Thatcher, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999)

• Deep-level diversity is more harmful than surface-level Deep-level diversity is more harmful than surface-level diversitydiversity (Pelled, 1999)(Pelled, 1999)

• Effects of deep-level diversity Effects of deep-level diversity increaseincrease over time over time (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002)(Harrison et al., 1998, 2002)


What We AddWhat We Add

• Is member value similarity a positive thing for Is member value similarity a positive thing for groups?groups?– For certain values and non-routine tasks, member For certain values and non-routine tasks, member

similarity might similarity might notnot be a good thing be a good thing (Jehn et al., 1999; (Jehn et al., 1999; Mohammed & Angell, 2004)Mohammed & Angell, 2004)

• Might the Might the contentcontent of the similar values affect of the similar values affect group functioning and attachment?group functioning and attachment?– Important to explore work-relevant values on which Important to explore work-relevant values on which

group members may be similar or different and for group members may be similar or different and for which we would expect positive which we would expect positive oror negative negative relationship to functioningrelationship to functioning


Work OrientationWork Orientation• CallingCalling

– Focus on fulfillment from work itself Focus on fulfillment from work itself – May mean that members work together to focus on the work; May mean that members work together to focus on the work;

team’s agenda and personal agenda alignedteam’s agenda and personal agenda aligned Calling diversity is likely to be Calling diversity is likely to be negativelynegatively related to group related to group

functioning and attachmentfunctioning and attachment• Career Career

– Focus on Focus on personalpersonal career advancement career advancement– May mean that members are pulling in their own direction, not May mean that members are pulling in their own direction, not

necessarily for the groupnecessarily for the group Career diversity is likely to be Career diversity is likely to be positivelypositively related to group related to group

functioning and attachmentfunctioning and attachment• Role of TimeRole of Time

As a deep-level value, the effects of work orientation should As a deep-level value, the effects of work orientation should increaseincrease over time over time (cross-sectional; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998)(cross-sectional; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998)


MethodMethod• Survey study of work teams Survey study of work teams • N = 227 teams, range in size from 3 to 18, mean size of N = 227 teams, range in size from 3 to 18, mean size of

4.6 members4.6 members• Drawn from a wide variety of industries and organizations Drawn from a wide variety of industries and organizations • Mean group member age = 33.6 yearsMean group member age = 33.6 years• Mean group tenure = 37.8 monthsMean group tenure = 37.8 months• Mean minimum group tenure (time spent in team with Mean minimum group tenure (time spent in team with

current group members) = 14.0 monthscurrent group members) = 14.0 months

• Met criteria for interdependent groupsMet criteria for interdependent groups (Hackman, 1998)(Hackman, 1998)


MeasuresMeasuresIndependent VariablesIndependent Variables• Work Orientation Work Orientation (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997)(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997)

Dependent VariablesDependent Variables• Group FunctioningGroup Functioning

– Group Process Group Process (Taylor & Bowers, 1972)(Taylor & Bowers, 1972)

• Group AttachmentGroup Attachment– Team Identification Team Identification (Bhattacharya, 2001)(Bhattacharya, 2001)

– Team Commitment Team Commitment (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979)(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979)

– Faith and Confidence in Management Faith and Confidence in Management (Cook & Wall, 1980)(Cook & Wall, 1980)

– Satisfaction with Work Elements Satisfaction with Work Elements ((Andrews & Withey, 1976)Andrews & Withey, 1976)• PeoplePeople (co-workers, supervisor, team members) (co-workers, supervisor, team members)• Work itselfWork itself (skills, variety) (skills, variety)• Pay and benefitsPay and benefits (company, chance for promotion, job security) (company, chance for promotion, job security)


Data AnalysisData Analysis• Aggregated measures to group levelAggregated measures to group level

– Constructs are defined at group levelConstructs are defined at group level– Meet criteria for within-group agreement:Meet criteria for within-group agreement:

• Significant F values in one-way ANOVASignificant F values in one-way ANOVA (Kenny & Judd, 1986)(Kenny & Judd, 1986)

• r(wg) values greater than .75 r(wg) values greater than .75 ((James, Demaree & Wolf, 1982James, Demaree & Wolf, 1982))

– IVs: Within-group standard deviations as diversity IVs: Within-group standard deviations as diversity measures measures (Bedeian & Mossholder, 2000)(Bedeian & Mossholder, 2000)

– DVs: Within-group meansDVs: Within-group means– Controls: Surface-level diversity – age (SD) and sex Controls: Surface-level diversity – age (SD) and sex

(Blau’s heterogeneity index) (Blau’s heterogeneity index) (Blau, 1977)(Blau, 1977)

• All analyses are at the group level using All analyses are at the group level using stepwise linear regressionstepwise linear regression


Initial ResultsInitial Results• Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational

tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity (SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):(SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):

Dependent VariablesDependent Variables

Independent Independent VariablesVariables

Group Group ProcessProcess

Team Team IdentificationIdentification

Team Team CommitmentCommitment

Sat w/ Sat w/ PeoplePeople

Sat w/ Sat w/ WorkWork

Faith & Faith & Trust in Trust in MgmtMgmt

Sat w/ Sat w/ PayPay

Mean Calling Mean Calling OrientationOrientation .44***.44*** .52***.52*** .59***.59*** .50***.50*** .72***.72*** ..35***35*** .39***.39***

Mean Career Mean Career OrientationOrientation -.06-.06 .16*.16* -.13-.13†† -.01-.01 .05.05 -.22**-.22** -.18*-.18*

Calling Diversity (SD)Calling Diversity (SD) -.03-.03 .03.03 -.03-.03 .01.01 .02.02 .08.08 .08.08

Career Diversity (SD)Career Diversity (SD) .09.09 -.06-.06 -.02-.02 .13*.13* .12**.12** .09.09 -.10-.10

† p < .10

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

Group Functioning

Team Attachment Work Satisfaction

Organizational Attachment


Initial ResultsInitial Results• Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational

tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity (SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):(SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):

Dependent VariablesDependent Variables

Independent Independent VariablesVariables

Group Group ProcessProcess

Team Team IdentificationIdentification

Team Team CommitmentCommitment

Sat w/ Sat w/ PeoplePeople

Sat w/ Sat w/ WorkWork

Faith & Faith & Trust in Trust in MgmtMgmt

Sat w/ Sat w/ PayPay

Mean Calling Mean Calling OrientationOrientation .44***.44*** .52***.52*** .59***.59*** .50***.50*** .72***.72*** .35***.35*** .39***.39***

Mean Career Mean Career OrientationOrientation -.06-.06 .16*.16* -.13-.13†† -.01-.01 .05.05 -.22**-.22** -.18*-.18*

Calling Diversity (SD)Calling Diversity (SD) -.03-.03 .03.03 -.03-.03 .01.01 .02.02 .08.08 .08.08

Career Diversity (SD)Career Diversity (SD) .09.09 -.06-.06 -.02-.02 .13*.13* .12**.12** .09.09 -.10-.10

† p < .10

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

Group Functioning

Team Attachment Work Satisfaction

Organizational Attachment


Summary of Initial ResultsSummary of Initial Results• Career diversity does positively affect group Career diversity does positively affect group

attachment (satisfaction with work and group attachment (satisfaction with work and group members), even controlling for surface-level members), even controlling for surface-level diversity (age and sex)diversity (age and sex)

• However, the mean levels of calling swamp However, the mean levels of calling swamp diversity effectsdiversity effects– It’s the It’s the averageaverage, not the variance, that matters, not the variance, that matters

• Time in team (median and minimum) x diversity Time in team (median and minimum) x diversity has has nono effect on outcomes effect on outcomes– Deep-level diversity does not intensify effects over Deep-level diversity does not intensify effects over

time; surface-level diversity does not weaken effectstime; surface-level diversity does not weaken effects


Questions for YouQuestions for You• Is this just a main effects story?Is this just a main effects story?• What to do next?What to do next?

– Run analyses at the individual level?Run analyses at the individual level?• HLM (individuals nested within groups)HLM (individuals nested within groups)

– Try different models?Try different models?– Try different diversity measures?Try different diversity measures?

• Blau’s index (categorize people as Job, Career or Blau’s index (categorize people as Job, Career or Calling)Calling)

• Consider intrapersonal vs. team profile of work Consider intrapersonal vs. team profile of work orientation orientation (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002)(Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002)

• What does this make you wonder about?What does this make you wonder about?


Our Intended ContributionsOur Intended Contributions• To add evidence to groups literature To add evidence to groups literature

that value diversity may be good that value diversity may be good oror bad bad for group functioning and attachmentfor group functioning and attachment– What matters is the What matters is the contentcontent of the value in of the value in

questionquestion

• To test effects of work orientation at the To test effects of work orientation at the group level group level – Further contributes to an understanding of Further contributes to an understanding of

relational aspects of work orientation and relational aspects of work orientation and meaning of workmeaning of work


THANK YOU!!!THANK YOU!!!


Group ProcessGroup Process• 8 Items (Taylor & Bowers, 1972), 1-5 scale8 Items (Taylor & Bowers, 1972), 1-5 scale• Thinking about your work team, to what extent:Thinking about your work team, to what extent:

– does your work group plan together and coordinate its does your work group plan together and coordinate its efforts?efforts?

– does your work group make good decisions and solve does your work group make good decisions and solve problems well?problems well?

– do people in your work group know what their jobs are do people in your work group know what their jobs are and know how to do them well?and know how to do them well?

– does your work group really want to meet its objectives does your work group really want to meet its objectives successfully?successfully?

– do you have confidence and trust in the people in your do you have confidence and trust in the people in your work group?work group?

– is there conflict in your work group?is there conflict in your work group?


Team IdentificationTeam Identification• 6 Items 6 Items (adapted from Bhattacharya, 2001), 1-5 (adapted from Bhattacharya, 2001), 1-5

scalescale– When someone criticizes my team, it feels like a personal When someone criticizes my team, it feels like a personal

insult. insult. – I am very interested in what others think about my team. I am very interested in what others think about my team. – When I talk about my team, I usually say 'we' rather than When I talk about my team, I usually say 'we' rather than

'they'.'they'.– My team’s successes are my successes. My team’s successes are my successes. – When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal

compliment.compliment.– If a story in the media criticized my team, I would feel If a story in the media criticized my team, I would feel

embarrassed.embarrassed.


Team CommitmentTeam Commitment• 16 items (Porter & Smith, 1970), 1-5 scale16 items (Porter & Smith, 1970), 1-5 scale

– I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this team be normally expected in order to help this team be successful. successful.

– I feel very little loyalty to this team.I feel very little loyalty to this team. – I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order

to keep working with this team.to keep working with this team. – I am proud to tell others that I am part of this team.I am proud to tell others that I am part of this team.– I could just as well be working with a different team as I could just as well be working with a different team as

long as the type of work were similar. long as the type of work were similar. – It would take very little change in my present It would take very little change in my present

circumstances to cause me to leave this team.circumstances to cause me to leave this team.– I really care about the fate of this team.I really care about the fate of this team.


Work SatisfactionWork Satisfaction• 11 items (Andrews & Withey, 1976), 1-7 scale, factor analyzed to 11 items (Andrews & Withey, 1976), 1-7 scale, factor analyzed to

form 3 subscales:form 3 subscales:• Thinking about your job, how do you feel about:Thinking about your job, how do you feel about:

– Work satisfaction with peopleWork satisfaction with people• The peopleThe people you work with, that is, your co-workers? you work with, that is, your co-workers?• Your immediate Your immediate supervisorsupervisor??• You You team membersteam members??

– Work satisfaction with the work itselfWork satisfaction with the work itself• The workThe work that you do on the job, that is, the work itself? that you do on the job, that is, the work itself?• The chance to The chance to use your skillsuse your skills??• The The varietyvariety of different things you do at work? of different things you do at work?

– Work satisfaction with pay and benefitsWork satisfaction with pay and benefits• The companyThe company, business, or organization?, business, or organization?• The The paypay??• Your Your chances for being promotedchances for being promoted??• Your Your job securityjob security??• The The benefitsbenefits provided to you? provided to you?


Faith & Trust Faith & Trust in Managementin Management

• 6 Items (Cook & Wall, 1980), 1-5 scale6 Items (Cook & Wall, 1980), 1-5 scale– Management at my firm is sincere in its attempt to Management at my firm is sincere in its attempt to

meet the team’s point of view.meet the team’s point of view.– I feel quite confident that the management will I feel quite confident that the management will

always try to treat my team fairly.always try to treat my team fairly.– Our management would be quite prepared to gain Our management would be quite prepared to gain

advantage by deceiving the workers.advantage by deceiving the workers.– Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract

better managers.better managers.– Management can be trusted to make sensible Management can be trusted to make sensible

decisions for the firm’s future.decisions for the firm’s future.– Management at work seems to do a good job. Management at work seems to do a good job.

Documents

Diversity in the Meaning of Work: The Puzzling Power of Callings Jen Tosti Amy Wrzesniewski May Meaning Meeting May 2008