The relation of work involvement to occupational needs, need satisfaction, locus of control, and affect

Riipinen, Markku. The Journal of Social Psychology; Philadelphia Vol. 136, Iss. 3,  (Jun 1996): 291.

Work involvement has traditionally been viewed as a function of stable personality factors. Researchers have suggested that work involvement is a function of intrinsic needs, such as those for achievement, for autonomy, and for control (Lawler & Hall, 1970). Intrinsic needs, which relate to interest in work for its own sake, can be contrasted with extrinsic needs, which relate to interest in work for external reasons (Deci & Ryan, 1991, p. 52). The hypothesized relationship between work involvement and intrinsic needs is believed to be a product of the Protestant work ethic (Dubin, 1956; Lawler & Hall, 1970) and thus a product of a person's history. Because work involvement is based on past socialization, it is not dependent upon present need satisfaction in a job (Misra, Kanungo, Rosenstiel, & Stuhler, 1985); need satisfaction (satisfaction with job factors that correspond to strong needs) is thought to result in more concrete types of involvement, such as involvement in one's present job (Kanungo, 1982; Misra & Kalro, 1981).

Researchers have suggested that work involvement is related not only to intrinsic needs but also to the correlates of intrinsic needs, that is, internal locus of control and positivity of affect. Internal locus of control refers to the belief that each person is responsible for what happens to him or her (Phares, 1973), and positivity of affect (a high level of positive affect and a low level of negative affect) is considered to be a central indicator of mental well-being (Warr, 1987, p. 247). The relationship between work involvement and internal locus of control is hypothesized on the basis of the relationship between work involvement and intrinsic needs (Spector, 1982), but the hypothesized relationship between work involvement and positivity of affect is thought to be more complicated. Diener (1984) suggested that positivity of affect and the personality dispositions that are associated with it (e.g., intrinsic needs) may cause work involvement or, alternatively, that work involvement may increase positivity of affect.

Some research findings have supported the relationship of work involvement to strength of intrinsic need (Gorn & Kanungo, 1980, Kanungo, 1982, Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), locus of control (Rabinowitz & Hall; Spector, 1982), positivity of affect (Diener, 1984), and Type A personality, which is characterized by strong intrinsic needs (Elloy & Terpening, 1992). Contradictory findings have also been reported, however. Reddy and Rahman (1984) found that work involvement was not related to internal locus of control, and Brook (1991) reported that work involvement was not related to self-concept, which is associated with internal locus of control (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 30). Barling and Janssens (1984) reported that work involvement was not associated with mental well-being, and Macky (1984) found that involvement did not have a moderating effect on well-being. Although these findings do not necessarily indicate that work involvement is unrelated to intrinsic needs, the findings of Gorn and Kanungo (1980)-that the work involvement of participants with strong extrinsic needs was just as high as that of participants with strong intrinsic needs-suggest that intrinsic needs may not be the only predictors of work involvement.

Research findings regarding the relationship between work involvement and need satisfaction are also contradictory. Whereas some results indicate that these constructs are independent (Misra et al.,1985), others indicate that they are related (Gorn & Kanungo, 1980; Kanungo & Misra, 1988). Gorn and Kanungo found that work involvement was related to need satisfaction in extrinsically motivated participants but not in intrinsically motivated participants, suggesting that work involvement in extrinsically motivated participants may result from need satisfaction in the present job, whereas work involvement in intrinsically motivated participants may be a direct function of their needs. Thus, reasons for work involvement may differ, depending on the quality of a person's salient needs.

These contradictory results suggest that work involvement may be (a) caused by factors other than a person's background and (b) more than a function of intrinsic needs and the personality dispositions that are associated with them; work involvement may also result from need satisfaction in the present job, depending on the quality of salient needs. Thus, the determinants for work involvement may be more complicated than researchers have suggested and may even differ individually. Moreover, the possibility that work involvement may be based on present need satisfaction indicates that work involvement may not be as clearly differentiated from job involvement as has been proposed. However, because the possible predictors of work involvement and the potential interaction between them have been addressed in only a few studies, researchers have been unable to reach any firm conclusions.

My goal in the present study was to examine the relationships between work involvement and intrinsic and extrinsic needs and work involvement and locus of control and affect, and the possible moderating effect of satisfaction of salient needs on these relationships. I hypothesized that a relationship between work involvement and strong intrinsic needs would not be moderated by need satisfaction, but that a relationship between work involvement and strong extrinsic needs would be moderated by need satisfaction. I also hypothesized that a relationship between work involvement and intrinsic needs would involve a relationship to internal locus of control and to positivity of affect, because intrinsic needs are associated with these constructs, but that a relationship between work involvement and extrinsic needs would be independent of these constructs.