Diversity in the
Meaning of Work:
The Puzzling Power of Callings
Jen Tosti
Amy Wrzesniewski
May Meaning Meeting
May 2008
Roadmap
• Some context and background
– Study of work orientation in work teams
– Aim is to examine how diversity in members’
work orientation relates to group process
• We’ve encountered a data issue that we’re
currently puzzling through
– How to best frame and test our question?
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
2
The Meaning of Work
• Often characterized as an issue for the individual
(Dekas, Rosso, & Wrzesniewski, in prep)
• But meaning, and its impact, is also social
(Cardador, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, Dutton &
Debebe, 2003)
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
3
Research Question
• How does diversity in work orientation
relate to functioning and attachment in
interdependent groups?
OR
?????
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
4
Value Diversity in Groups
• Distinction between deep-level diversity (e.g., values
attitudes, education, function) and surface-level diversity
(e.g., age, sex, race)
• Member similarity in deep-level characteristics is
generally beneficial for group functioning and
attachment:
– Increases satisfaction, commitment, group
cohesiveness, information sharing and task
performance (Jehn et al., 1999; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Harrison,
Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002; Polzer, Milton & Swann, 2002; Bunderson &
Sutcliffe, 2002)
– Decreases task and relational conflict (Jehn, Chadwick &
Thatcher, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999)
• Deep-level diversity is more harmful than surface-level
diversity (Pelled, 1999)
• Effects of deep-level diversity increase over time
(Harrison et al., 1998, 2002)
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
5
What We Add
• Is member value similarity a positive thing for
groups?
– For certain values and non-routine tasks, member
similarity might not be a good thing (Jehn et al., 1999;
Mohammed & Angell, 2004)
• Might the content of the similar values affect
group functioning and attachment?
– Important to explore work-relevant values on which
group members may be similar or different and for
which we would expect positive or negative
relationship to functioning
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
6
Work Orientation
• Calling
– Focus on fulfillment from work itself
– May mean that members work together to focus on the work;
team’s agenda and personal agenda aligned
 Calling diversity is likely to be negatively related to group
functioning and attachment
• Career
– Focus on personal career advancement
– May mean that members are pulling in their own direction, not
necessarily for the group
 Career diversity is likely to be positively related to group
functioning and attachment
• Role of Time
 As a deep-level value, the effects of work orientation should
increase over time (cross-sectional; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998)
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
7
Method
• Survey study of work teams
• N = 227 teams, range in size from 3 to 18, mean size of
4.6 members
• Drawn from a wide variety of industries and organizations
• Mean group member age = 33.6 years
• Mean group tenure = 37.8 months
• Mean minimum group tenure (time spent in team with
current group members) = 14.0 months
• Met criteria for interdependent groups
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
(Hackman, 1998)
8
Measures
Independent Variables
• Work Orientation (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997)
Dependent Variables
• Group Functioning
– Group Process (Taylor & Bowers, 1972)
• Group Attachment
–
–
–
–
Team Identification (Bhattacharya, 2001)
Team Commitment (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979)
Faith and Confidence in Management (Cook & Wall, 1980)
Satisfaction with Work Elements (Andrews & Withey, 1976)
• People (co-workers, supervisor, team members)
• Work itself (skills, variety)
• Pay and benefits (company, chance for promotion, job security)
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
9
Data Analysis
• Aggregated measures to group level
– Constructs are defined at group level
– Meet criteria for within-group agreement:
• Significant F values in one-way ANOVA (Kenny & Judd, 1986)
• r(wg) values greater than .75 (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1982)
– IVs: Within-group standard deviations as diversity
measures (Bedeian & Mossholder, 2000)
– DVs: Within-group means
– Controls: Surface-level diversity – age (SD) and
sex (Blau’s heterogeneity index) (Blau, 1977)
• All analyses are at the group level using
stepwise linear regression
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
10
Initial Results
• Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational
tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity
(SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):
Dependent Variables
Independent
Variables
Group
Process
Team
Identification
Team
Commitment
Sat w/
People
Sat w/
Work
Faith &
Trust in
Mgmt
Sat w/
Pay
.50***
.72***
.35***
.39***
Mean Calling
Orientation
.44***
.52***
Mean Career
Orientation
-.06
.16*
-.13†
-.01
.05
-.22**
-.18*
Calling Diversity (SD)
-.03
.03
-.03
.01
.02
.08
.08
Career Diversity (SD)
.09
-.06
-.02
.13*
.12**
.09
-.10
† p < .10
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
May 16, 2008
Group
Functioning
.59***
Team Attachment
May Meaning Meeting
Work
Organizational
Satisfaction Attachment
11
Initial Results
• Controlling for: group size, mean age, mean occupational
tenure (years), mean team tenure (months), age diversity
(SD) and sex diversity (Blau’s index):
Dependent Variables
Independent
Variables
Group
Process
Team
Identification
Team
Commitment
Sat w/
People
Sat w/
Work
Faith &
Trust in
Mgmt
Sat w/
Pay
.50***
.72***
.35***
.39***
Mean Calling
Orientation
.44***
.52***
Mean Career
Orientation
-.06
.16*
-.13†
-.01
.05
-.22**
-.18*
Calling Diversity (SD)
-.03
.03
-.03
.01
.02
.08
.08
Career Diversity (SD)
.09
-.06
-.02
.13*
.12**
.09
-.10
† p < .10
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
May 16, 2008
Group
Functioning
.59***
Team Attachment
May Meaning Meeting
Work
Organizational
Satisfaction Attachment
12
Summary of Initial Results
• Career diversity does positively affect group
attachment (satisfaction with work and group
members), even controlling for surface-level
diversity (age and sex)
• However, the mean levels of calling swamp
diversity effects
– It’s the average, not the variance, that matters
• Time in team (median and minimum) x diversity
has no effect on outcomes
– Deep-level diversity does not intensify effects over
time; surface-level diversity does not weaken effects
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
13
Questions for You
• Is this just a main effects story?
• What to do next?
– Run analyses at the individual level?
• HLM (individuals nested within groups)
– Try different models?
– Try different diversity measures?
• Blau’s index (categorize people as Job, Career or
Calling)
• Consider intrapersonal vs. team profile of work
orientation (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002)
• What does this make you wonder about?
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
14
Our Intended Contributions
• To add evidence to groups literature that
value diversity may be good or bad for
group functioning and attachment
– What matters is the content of the value in
question
• To test effects of work orientation at the
group level
– Further contributes to an understanding of
relational aspects of work orientation and
meaning of work
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
15
THANK YOU!!!
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
16
Group Process
• 8 Items (Taylor & Bowers, 1972), 1-5 scale
• Thinking about your work team, to what extent:
– does your work group plan together and coordinate its
efforts?
– does your work group make good decisions and solve
problems well?
– do people in your work group know what their jobs are
and know how to do them well?
– does your work group really want to meet its objectives
successfully?
– do you have confidence and trust in the people in your
work group?
– is there conflict in your work group?
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
17
Team Identification
• 6 Items (adapted from Bhattacharya, 2001), 1-5
scale
– When someone criticizes my team, it feels like a personal
insult.
– I am very interested in what others think about my team.
– When I talk about my team, I usually say 'we' rather than
'they'.
– My team’s successes are my successes.
– When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal
compliment.
– If a story in the media criticized my team, I would feel
embarrassed.
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
18
Team Commitment
• 16 items (Porter & Smith, 1970), 1-5 scale
– I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that
normally expected in order to help this team be
successful.
– I feel very little loyalty to this team.
– I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order
to keep working with 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
long as the type of work were similar.
– It would take very little change in my present
circumstances to cause me to leave this team.
– I really care about the fate of this team.
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
19
Work Satisfaction
• 11 items (Andrews & Withey, 1976), 1-7 scale, factor
analyzed to form 3 subscales:
• Thinking about your job, how do you feel about:
– Work satisfaction with people
• The people you work with, that is, your co-workers?
• Your immediate supervisor?
• You team members?
– Work satisfaction with the work itself
• The work that you do on the job, that is, the work itself?
• The chance to use your skills?
• The variety of different things you do at work?
– Work satisfaction with pay and benefits
•
•
•
•
•
The company, business, or organization?
The pay?
Your chances for being promoted?
Your job security?
The benefits provided to you?
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
20
Faith & Trust
in Management
• 6 Items (Cook & Wall, 1980), 1-5 scale
– Management at my firm is sincere in its attempt to
meet the team’s point of view.
– I feel quite confident that the management will
always try to treat my team fairly.
– Our management would be quite prepared to gain
advantage by deceiving the workers.
– Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract
better managers.
– Management can be trusted to make sensible
decisions for the firm’s future.
– Management at work seems to do a good job.
May 16, 2008
May Meaning Meeting
21