Work Orientation: Work Centrality and Job Involvement

Work centrality and job involvement have often been used interchangeably in the literature related to individuals’ attachment to work. The work centrality (WC) construct has been conceptualised in several ways, but the present research defines WC as the beliefs that individuals have about the degree of significance that work has in their lives (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). Individuals for whom work is a central life interest have a strong identification with work, and, they believe in the value of work; the work role is an important and central part of their lives (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Hirschfeld & Field, 2000; Kanungo, 1982; MOW International Research Team, 1987; Starcevich, 1973).

WC originated with Dubin’s (1956) study of ‘central life interests’ (CLI); this concept was informed by Weber’s (1905/1930) Protestant Work Ethic theory (cited in Paullay et al., 1994). The Dubin study (1956) proposed that people have social experiences in a number of life domains (e.g., work, family, community), but these various settings do not have equal salience for the individual. A person may prefer any one or more of several social domains for carrying out activities. This first study of CLI used the CLI

describing a behaviour and asking where the respondent would be most likely to enact the behaviour. All 32 items provide the respondent with the opportunity to identify whether they would enact a specified behaviour in a work setting, a non-work setting or a non- specific location. For example, one item asks I would much rather be a leader: 1. in any organization, just so it’s a good one; 2. in my club or church or 3. in my work. Results of this study found that almost three out of every four industrial workers in the sample considered that work and the workplace were not central life interests. Orzack (1959) replicated the Dubin (1956) study with a sample of professional nurses. Based on the assumption that for the professional, work is a point of self-identification and is both valued and important, the study hypothesised that work was more likely to be a central life interest for professionals than for industrial workers. This hypothesis was based on the premise that the training undertaken by professionals includes technical skills, but also includes the learning of behaviours that will be appropriate in their future professional roles and work settings. Orzack (1959) found that in contrast to the industrial workers, four of every five nurses identified that work and the workplace were central life interests.

More recent empirical research using the WC construct has identified that work centrality is associated with a person’s value system and self-identity (Hirschfeld & Field, 2000). The extent to which an individual derives personal meaning, and invests in non- work life roles is related to their level of the centrality of work in their life (Stephens & Feldman, 1997). Work centrality may also be associated with the allocation of time, and possibly effort among various life domains (MOW International Research Team, 1987; Wallace, 1999).

Job involvement refers to a person’s cognitive state of psychological identification with the job. Kanugo (1982) defined job involvement as the psychological importance of work or the centrality of work to the individual, and the importance of work performance

to self-image. The job-involved person is significantly personally affected by the entire job situation, such as the work itself, co-workers, and the company. Conversely, for the non-job involved individual, work is not as important as non-work life. The core of this individual’s self-image is not greatly affected by the kind of work s/he does or how well they perform at work (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965).

In a meta-analysis of organisational research into job involvement, Brown (1996) found that people who are prone to be highly job-involved are high in self-esteem, internally motivated, and have a protestant work ethic. Effort or working “hard” is a behavioural outcome of job involvement. The job-involved person is generally satisfied with the job, particularly the content of their work because this is intrinsically satisfying; the intrinsic need satisfaction is more important than the extrinsic need satisfaction. These individuals are, therefore, less likely than others to leave the organisation. The job-

involved person requires an interesting, challenging job and this further cultivates job involvement. Overall, the job-involved person experiences few ill-effects from identifying strongly with his or her job. They do not, usually, have high levels of stress, anxiety, somatic health complaints, or work-family conflict especially when both spouses are job involved. No strong spill-over effects of job involvement was evident (Brown, 1996), but the job-involved person is not likely to demonstrate high levels of involvement in non- work domains as their major focus is their job role (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). The consequences of high job involvement are generally positive (Probst, 2000). However, a study by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1995), using household interviews with a randomly selected community sample of 795 employed adults, found that a job stressor that is perceived to impede successful role performance may be related to elevated alcohol use in people for whom the job is highly salient for self-evaluation of an important role-identity.

2.5.1 Measuring Work Centrality and Job Involvement

WC can be measured directly, and is assessed by asking how central and important the role of working is in one’s life in absolute terms (Harpaz, Claes, Depolo, &

Quintanilla, 1992; MOW International Research Team, 1987). WC can also be measured indirectly by comparing the relative importance of work and other life roles (van der Velde, Feij & van Emmerik, 1998).

The Work Centrality Measure developed by Paullay et al. (1994) taps into the centrality of work in people’s lives with items such as “ I would probably keep working

even if I did not need the money” and a reverse scored item “To me, work is only a small

part of who I am”. The Lodahl and Kenjner (1965) Job Involvement (JI) measure

contains items such as “The most important things that happen to me involve my work” and a reverse scored item “Most things in life are more important than work”. In spite of concerns about deficiencies of this scale, it has frequently been used (or at least a subset of the items) and continues to be used in research (Reeve & Smith 2001).

In the current study, the term ‘work centrality’ is used because all participants identified a degree of importance that working has in their lives (MOW, 1987). It is relevant to consider participants’ work orientation, because, the centrality of work in the lives of GPs has the potential to influence how they allocate time, and perhaps effort among their various life domains. Thus, work orientation and preference for integrating or segmenting work and non-work/family domains may also influence GPs coping

strategies, and choices about taking time out from work for respite and recovery from the demands of their work. The next section considers adaptive approaches to deal with the demands of medicine and general practice.