Money Ethic Scale Part 2

Money Ethic Scale Part 2

Four Money Profiles

Money Repeller (The Most --)

Apathetic Money Handler

Careless Money Admirer

Achieving Money Worshiper (The Most +)

Four Money Profiles

Negative Indifferent Positive

_____________________________________

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper

82 50 62 117

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

Partitioning--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money

Handler Admirer Worshiper ___________________________________

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62% W

24.41% 9.57% 20.57% 45.45% US 30.39% 27.45% 15.69% 26.47% S USA, Spain

Interpretation--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Success 1.77 1.96 3.53 (3.52) Budget 3.84 3.75 (2.85) (4.29) Motivator 3.60 (2.35) 3.72 (3.95) Equity 3.04 3.62 3.34 (3.77) Evil (3.01) 2.34 2.99 2.77

Validation--Money Profiles


Age 39.38 42.12 40.49 46.49 Income 31,600 37,990 34,640 50,903 Experience 13.85 17.83 15.48 21.55 No. Jobs .93 .67* 1.15 1.33* *p = .074

Validation-Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money

Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

PWE 3.25 3.27 3.48 3.56 Intrinsic 4.19 4.35 4.00 4.22 Extrinsic 3.06 3.15 3.23 3.36 Pay 3.07 2.90 2.83 3.29 Benefits 3.23 3.22 3.13 3.45 Raise 2.79 2.56 2.68 2.82 Adm. 2.49 2.47 2.58 2.81



Equity Comparison Dept. 3.15 3.10 3.14 3.29 Org. 2.64 2.43 2.61 3.05 Other Org. 2.57 2.33 2.56 2.81 Market 2.49 2.35 2.67 2.71 Life 4.17 4.38 3.81 4.27

Validation-Discriminant

1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Other Three Clusters.

2: Careless Money Admirers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers, Achieving Money Worshipers.

3: Money Repellers vs. Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers.

Achieving Money Worshiper

High: Income, Work Ethic, Pay Administration, Equity in Organization, and in Other Organizations,

Low: Intrinsic Job Satisfaction, Labor Market

Profiling--Money Repeller

The Highest--Factor Evil

The Lowest--Income, Work Experience, Age,

The Lowest--PWE, Pay Administration

Sour Grapes, Sour Losers

Apathetic Money HandlerThe Lowest--Factors Motivator and Evil

The Highest--Intrinsic, Life Satisfaction, Insufficient Justification Effect

The Lowest--OrganizationSimplicity Movement (McNichol, 1998;

Simple abundance, Your money or your life)Simplify. Waste not, want not.

Careless Money Admirer

The Lowest--Factor Budget

The Highest--Factor Success

The Lowest--Intrinsic, Pay, Life Satisfaction

Admirer Money, No Money, Not Happy. Money is a Motivator.

Pressure/Opportunity, Unethical Behavior?

Achieving Money Worshiper

The Highest-- Factors Success , Budget, Motivator, and Equity

The Highest--Income, Age, Experience, Work Ethic, Pay, Organization Equity

More Money in Industry, Happy Financially

Implications-1

Four Money Profiles

Individual Differences

Demographic Variables

B = f (P x E)

Attitudes May Change Due to Age, Income, and the Socialization Process

Implications-2

Money is NOT a Motivator for everyone.

Different approaches to Attract, Retain, and Motivate people

P-E Fit

Money Profiles--Macedonia

Republic of Macedonia is situated in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsulacovers an area of 25,713 square kilometerswith a population of more than 2 million people. Skopje is the capital with a population of

650,000. Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, & Luna-Arocas

(2004)

Macedonian Sample

1. Full-time sophomores at College of Management, Kiril and Methodi University (n = 30, return rate = 96.6%)

Live with their parents, not working2. Small business owners and employees in

large organizations (n = 60, return rate = 100%).

48 Males, 41 Females

Measures

15-Item Money Ethic Scale

24-Item Locus of Control (Levenson, 1973)

The work and family orientation questionnaire (Helmreich & Spence, 1978): Work Persistence, Active Involvement, Competitiveness, Success Avoidance

Partitioning: MacedoniaOrder of Money Factors

ANOVAs

Evil F = 55.28***

Success F = 48.41***

Budget F = 28.81***

Motivator F = 24.77***

Equity F = 1.13

The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes.

Four Money Profiles


26 14 19 30

29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71%

USA + Spain:

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

Partitioning--Money Profiles


29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71% W

53.57% 32.14% 3.57% 10.71% S

18.33% 6.67% 30.00% 45.00% E

S = Students, E = Employees



Evil (14.77) 10.36 7.74 7.67

Success 7.19 (3.93 ) 9.16 (9.17)

Budget 13.00 12.43 (9.89) (17.10)

Motivator 8.15 (6.79) 9.68 (9.80)

Equity 11.84 11.43 11.11 11.13



Age 26.31 24.71 29.53 33.07

Experience 14.64 13.50 9.28 12.30

Education 14.41 14.64 13.58 14.67

Status* 1.42 1.31 1.95 1.90

*Students =1, Employees =2



LOC-E 82.62 77.36 95.00 94.10 Persist 12.23 11.64 11.95 12.77 Involve 13.88 12.14 16.63 16.57 Compete 6.58 6.57 7.58 8.17 Avoid 6.35 5.00 3.89 4.33 Life 4.17 4.38 3.81 4.27


1: Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers vs.

Apathetic Money Handlers, Money Repellers.

2: Apathetic Money Handlers vs. Money Repellers.

3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers.

Discriminant

Achieving Money Worshipers + Careless Money Admirers consider money as their Success and a Motivator and do not consider it as Evil than Apathetic Money Handlers + Money Repellers.

Achieving Money Worshipers Budget their money more carefully than Careless Money Admirers.

Classification Results

95.1% of Original grouped cases correctly classified.

82.7 of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.

In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.

Money Profiles--Students, the USA

Two Regional State Universities, Military Base N = 564, return rate = 72.9%184 Males, 360 Females441 Caucasian, 52 African-American, 6 Hispanic,

14 Asian, 3 American IndianJob tenure = 26.14 monthsIncome = US$9,260 (64.4%)Tang, Tang, & Luna-Arocas (2005)

Measures30-Item Money Ethic Scale (Tang, 1992)10-Item Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE)

(Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989)20-Item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

(Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).13-Item, Modified Need Satisfaction

Questionnaire (NSQ) (Porter, 1961, 1961). (Tang & West, 1997; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998)

Importance and Satisfaction of Maslow’s Needs

Partitioning: Order of Money Factors

ANOVAsGood F = 377.97***Respect F = 168.10***Achievement F = 162.08***Power F = 161.14***Budget F = 37.45***Evil F = 6.02***The F tests should be used only for descriptive

purposes.

Partitioning--Four Money Profiles


85 170 165 127

15.54% 31.08% 30.16% 23.22%



Good 25.93 37.75 35.05 (41.57) Respect 9.34 (8.26) 11.84 (14.80) Achievement 8.89 (8.22) 10.75 (14.74) Power 10.61 12.46 14.48 (17.51) Budget 8.86 11.37 (8.81) 11.09 Evil (16.08) 14.46 14.42 16.06



Age 23.33 23.91 23.19 23.24

Experience 28.29 19.11 31.75 29.92

Education 14.43 14.77 14.44 14.98

Income 6,432.38 9,192.48 9,433.13 11,071.17



OBSE 33.71 40.43 38.39 40.81

PWE 13.08 15.00 14.48 16.11

MSQ-Int 39.39 44.05 43.01 46.23

MSQ-Ext 18.00 19.27 19.09 21.53

Validation-Importance of Needs


Physiological 3.31 3.60 3.64 3.88

Safety 3.45 3.79 3.83 4.01

Social 3.69 4.01 3.93 3.96

Self-Esteem 3.39 3.88 3.77 4.07

Actual 3.51 4.12 3.88 4.12

Validation-Satisfaction of Needs


Physiological 3.76 (4.19)* 4.01 4.14 Safety 3.38 (4.07)* 3.87 4.02 Social 3.24 3.70 3.74 (3.86)* Self-Esteem 3.09 3.30 3.42 3.43 Actual 3.12 3.33 3.42 (3.57)* Money attitudes are related to the satisfaction of lower-

or higher-order needs.


1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Money Repellers.

2: Money Repellers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers.

3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers,

Money Repellers.

Classification Results

91.57of Original grouped cases correctly classified.

ConclusionWe can consistently classify people into 4 clusters

(Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers, and Money Repellers)

based on the Money Ethic Scale (30-item MES, or 15-item MES),

across several cultures (Macedonia, Spain, and USA).

Future research should test this Model in different occupations and cultures.

Tang, Kim, & Tang (2000)

Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53 (2), 213-245.

Money Ethic and Voluntary Turnover

Voluntary turnover: Higher wages/career opportunity (Campion, 1991).

Leavers receive 20% increase in pay.

Unemployment rate and financial requirements moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover (Gerhart, 1990)

Push and Pull

Dissatisfaction may push the employee to look for alternative employment, whereas the perception of attractive alternative job opportunities may pull them to consider alternative employment (March & Simon, 1958)

The more specific the intention measure and the closer the person is to actually quitting, the more trivial the prediction (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979, p. 508).

Moderator

Dependent variable y (withdraw cognitions, turnover) is a function of

x (intrinsic job satisfaction) and

z (Money Ethic). Moderator

The Interaction Effect is significant. (James & Brett, 1984)

Money Ethic, Satisfaction, and Turnover

Time 1: 40 Agencies (275 Employees, Mental Health & Mental Retardation) Data: 155 Employees (32 Agencies) Return Rate: 56.36%

Time 2: 112 Employees (18 months later) Data: 84 Employees, Return Rate: 75%

62 Stayers, 20 Leavers, 2 Fired (excluded)

Withdrawal Cognitions (y) Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Status (Manager, Adm., Direct Care)

Perceived Alternative Employment Opportunity (PAEO)

Commitment*

MSQ-Ext*

MSQ-Int (A) (x)

Money Ethic (MES) (B) (z)

MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) (x . z)

High MES

Low MES

Low High

Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

WithdrawalCognitions

Logistic RegressionStatusPAEOCommitment*Withdrawal Cognitions (ns)MSQ-ExtMSQ-Int* (A)MES* (B)MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) Concordant = 80.8%

High MES Low MES

Low High

Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

Turnover

Mediator x -----> m -----> y

Antecedent Mediator Consequence Satisfaction Money Ethic Turnover

1. x ----> m2. x ----> y3. m ----> yAll are true, then, x on y must be less in 3 than

in 2. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Money Ethic as a Mediator

1. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction ----> Money Ethic, t = 2.919, p = .005

2. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction --x--> Turnover3. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction + Money Ethic --x--

> TurnoverMoney Ethic is not a mediator between intrinsic

job satisfaction and turnover. Money Ethic is not a mediator between

withdrawal cognitions and turnover.

Documents

Money Ethic Scale Part 2