Differences in work values within generation Y. : a study on how differences in personality explain differences in work values of future, generation Y, university graduates

(1)

Differences in work values within generation Y.

A study on how differences in personality explain differences in work values of

future, generation Y, university graduates.

Jorien van der Burg ID 10384693

Bachelor’s Thesis

Bsc. Business Administration Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dr. N. Abu Ghazaleh 27-07-2015

(2)

Page | 2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Jorien van der Burg, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents in this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Date: 27-06-2015

(3)

Page | 3

Abstract

Previous research suggests that there are differences between generation Y and other generations and how work related values are being valued. However, not much is known about how differences within generation Y can predict differences in work related values. This study therefore examined whether personality could predict differences in work related values of future university students belonging to generation Y, after being controlled for age and work experience, and whether this relationship was moderated by gender. Participants were 93 Dutch university students belonging to generation Y, who expected to graduate within 3 years. Two Hierarchical Multiple Regressions (HMRs) were performed for each personality trait, suggesting a negative relationship between extroversion and openness and intrinsic work values. However, gender was not found to moderate this relationship. Additionally, no personality traits were found to significantly predict how future university students belonging to generation Y valued extrinsic work values.

(4)

Page | 4

3. Conceptual framework………..13 3.1. Conscientiousness...……….13 3.2. Neuroticism………..13 3.3. Extroversion..………...14 3.4. Agreeableness…...….………..14 3.5. Openness……….………...15 3.6. Gender as moderator….……….………..15 4. Methodology ………...17 4.1. Design………...17 4.2. Sample………..18 4.3. Data collection………..18 5. Results………..19

5.1. Factor analysis personality………...19

5.2. Factor analysis work values……….22

5.3. Scale reliability…..………...24

5.4. First line tests for Hierarchical Multiple Regression………25

5.5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis………...26

5.5.1. Regression analysis: conscientiousness and intrinsic work……….26

5.5.2. Regression analysis: conscientiousness and extrinsic work values………..28

5.5.3. Regression analysis: neuroticism and intrinsic work values………30

5.5.4. Regression analysis: neuroticism and extrinsic work values………...31

5.5.5. Regression analysis: extroversion and intrinsic work values………..33

5.5.6. Regression analysis: extroversion and extrinsic work values………..34

(5)

Page | 5

5.5.8. Regression analysis: agreeableness and extrinsic work values………37

5.5.9. Regression analysis: openness and intrinsic work values………38

5.5.10. Regression analysis: openness and extrinsic work values……….40

5.6. Moderation analysis………41

5.6.1. Moderation analysis: extroversion and intrinsic work values………..41

5.6.2. Moderation analysis: openness and intrinsic work values………...44

6. Discussion………48

6.1. Overview findings……….48

6.2. Limitations and suggestions for future research………49

6.3. Recommendations……….50

7. Conclusion………...52

Reference list………...53

(6)

Page | 6

1. Introduction

Recently graduated university students are entering the labor market daily, most of them belonging to generation Y (Lester, Forman & Loyd, 2006; Weiler, 2005; Noble, Haytko & Phillips, 2009). Individuals are considered generation Y when they are born between 1977-1996 (Schmitt, 2008) and are characterized as having more knowledge of technology and being more engaged in online behaviors (Lester, Forman & Loyd, 2006). Media and popularized social science caused work values and beliefs of these young adults today to differ from those of previous generations (Krahn & Galambos, 2014, p.92). Although the behavior of this unique and influential generation is often discussed, it is not yet fully understood (Noble et al., 2009). According to Tietjen and Myers (1998) it is important to recognize and respect the values of individuals to be able to keep them satisfied at work once they found a job, because individuals of generation Y do exhibit individual variation (VanMeter, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2013). However, little research has been done on differences within generation Y, since most research until now focuses on characteristic differences between generation Y and other generations (Cennamo & Garner, 2008; Noble et al., 2009). According to Morton (2002, in Noble et al.) and Paul (2001), Generation Y is the most culturally diverse generation in history, which makes it even more important to focus on the characteristic differences within generation Y.

This leads to the objective of this study, which is to provide human resource management (HRM) with more insight in possible differences concerning work related values between generation Y university students that will be entering the labor market soon. For HRM this knowledge would be of value, because they could use this information when they are trying to fill a job vacancy and are looking for a certain type of recent university graduate. They could then emphasize on certain work related values in the job opening to attract that certain type of recent university graduate. Additionally, HRM could use the insights of this study to assess whether their company facilitates these work related values that that certain type of recent university graduate finds important. In case their company does not facilitate these work related values properly, they can improve these to keep their employees satisfied. Keeping your employees satisfied is important, since research has shown that when, for example, intrinsic work related values are not fulfilled, job satisfaction decreases in Western countries (Hegney, Plank & Parker, 2006; Taris & Feij, 2001), which in turn leads to higher employee turnover (Mobley, 1977). This leads to the following research

(7)

Page | 7

question: “To what extent do differences in personality between future university graduates of generation Y predict differences in how work values are being valued?”.

First, available literature on this topic will be reviewed in the theoretical framework, subsequently the hypotheses will be formed in the conceptual framework. Chapter 4, the methodology, will describe how this study was done, which will be followed by the results of the obtained data. In the sixth chapter, the discussion, an overview of the findings will be given together with recommendations, limitations and suggestions for future research. Last, a brief overview of the study will be given and the research question will be answered in the conclusion.

(8)

Page | 8

2. Theoretical framework

This theoretical framework will discuss the core concepts of the research question: generation Y and work related values. Furthermore, an overview is given of the relevant knowledge about this topic so far.

2.1. Generation Y

The students that will become university graduates soon mostly belong to generation Y (Lester et al., 2006; Weiler, 2005; Noble et al, 2009). Generation Y is born between 1977-1996 (Schmitt, 2008), although different researchers use different time frames (Solka, Vannesap & Lee, 2011), and are thought to differ from previous generations in regard to their attitudes, lifestyle, culture, language, orientation and ambitions (Farris, Chong & Danning, 2002), caused by media and popularized social science (Krahn & Galambos, 2014). They have grown up in front electronic screens (Weiler, 2005). Generation Y is also the best educated and most culturally diverse generation in history, which makes this generation more tolerant and open-minded towards different lifestyles, such as single parent households and homosexuality (Morton, 2002 in Noble et al.; Paul, 2001). They are characterized as technology savvy and heavily influenced by the internet (Lester, Forman & Loyd, 2006) and as individualistic, sophisticated, mature and structured (Syrett & Lammiman, 2003). In addition, generation Y is trustful, better traveled (Valentine & Powers, 2013), materialistic (Hanzaee & Aghasibeig, 2010), more concerned about work-life quality than income and more responsible, independent and skeptical (Wolfe, 2004 in Valentine & Power, 2013). To adapt to this new wave of workers, workplaces have to be redefined and are pressed to adapt, since generation Y has different work related values (VanMeter et al., 2013).

2.2. Work related values

Work related values are the perceived importance of various intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics (Krahn & Galambos, 2014). According to Taris and Feij (2001, p.3), intrinsic work values refer to the degree to which an individual finds immaterial aspects of a job important that allow for self-expression, such as: job variety, autonomy and personal growth. Workers are likely to see their organization as stressing the importance of intrinsic work values when it expresses social support that enlarges emotional intimacy, stimulates social

(9)

Page | 9

charity to strengthen the community contribution and provides training to their employees in the context of personal development (Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, Baillien, Vanbelle, Vanhercje, & De Witte, 2013).

On the contrary, extrinsic work values refer to the degree to which an individual values material work aspects, such as salary and promotion opportunities (Taris & Feij, 2001, p.3). Workers are likely to see their organization as stressing the importance of extrinsic work values when its climate is built around financial success and when it signals power differences in its hierarchy. Most organizations support extrinsic work values to remain viable, but they vary in degree to which extrinsic work values take a central place in the organizational climate (Van den Broeck et al., 2013).

In summary, intrinsic work values refer to immaterial aspects of a job and extrinsic work values to material aspects of a job.

2.3. Work related values of generation Y in general

Intrinsic and extrinsic work values of generations have been studied before, also of generation Y. This information shows what generation Y in general expects of its employer.

Concerning intrinsic work values generation Y wants a job in which they can help other people. They are raised by generation X parents, who encouraged their kids to find careers that will enable them to give back, instead of just provide them with steady employment (Lancaster, 2003). This view is supported by Twenge and Campbell (2008), who suggest that jobs are no longer just jobs, but lifestyle options: a job should provide an individual with a rich and fulfilling experience in and of itself, instead of being a way to make money and support a family only. Additionally, generation Y is less independent compared to generation X and has a highly collaborative work style (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Lancaster, 2003) and wants to learn lifelong (Lancaster, 2003). Furthermore, employers can expect to see more individuals of generation Y entering the labor market with a high need for praise, difficulty with receiving criticism and an increase in creativity demands. Authenticity is also important for this generation, if an employer promises something and does not hold that promise, they will leave their employer (Twenge and Campbell, 2008).

Concerning extrinsic work values generation Y demands higher salaries (Krahn & Galambos, 2014). They are also expected to change jobs more than older generations (Twenge and Campbell, 2008; Lancaster, 2003), which leads to generation Y placing less value on job security. Besides this, generation Y demands positions of influence, they want to make suggestions right away in their organization (Twenge and Campbell, 2008), they expect

(10)

Page | 10

to be promoted quickly (Twenge and Campbell, 2008), they have unrealistic high expectations and a strong sense of entitlement (Twenge, 2006).

All in all, concerning intrinsic work values generation Y sees jobs as a lifestyle option instead of a way to make money only, they have a collaborative work style and find it important to be able to influence. Concerning extrinsic work values generation Y finds income, quick promotion and job entitlement important and job security less important.

2.4. Causes of individual differences in work related values

Although work related values of generation Y in general have been researched, no research has been done about individual differences in work related values within generation Y to my knowledge. However, in the literature several explanations are mentioned that could explain why individual differences in work related values exist: personality, age, gender, work experience and country.

According to Ashley et al. (2001, in Wong, Gardiner, Lang & Coulon, 2008) individual differences in work related values exist because each individual has its own personality and personality influences work related values. Personality can be defined as an individual’s preferred of typical way of behaving, thinking and feeling (Savillete et al., 1984 in Wong et al., 2008).

Besides personality, age could also explain why individual differences in work related values exist. Krahn and Galambos (2014) did a longitudinal study examining change in work related values between the ages 18 and 25 and found that both intrinsic and extrinsic work values increased for both men and women between this age. This finding is partly supported by Van der Velde, Feij and Van Emmerik (1998) and Cotton, Bynum and Madhere (1997), who both examined change between the ages 18 and 22 and also found that intrinsic values of young adults become more important as they age. However, they found that extrinsic work values of young adults become less important as they age.

A third explanation for individual differences in work related values is gender, although research is inconsistent about this. The majority of researchers found that women value intrinsic work values more than men and that men value extrinsic work values more than women (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Rottinghaus & Zytowski, 2006; Singh, 1994). Other researchers had partly similar findings and also found that women value intrinsic work values higher than men, but in contrast found that extrinsic work values were to be the same for both men and women (Krahn & Galambos, 2014; Johnson & Mortimer, 2011). However, Frieze et

(11)

Page | 11

al. (2006) found that men and women already working in their careers value both intrinsic and extrinsic work related values quite the same.

Fourth, work experience could also explain individual differences work related values. This is supported by Portfeli and Vondracek (2007, in Porffeli & Mortimer, 2010), who found that what individuals value in work is coupled to their actual work experiences. Mortimer and Zimmer-Gembech (2007, in Porffeli & Mortimer, 2010) also agree with this, they suggest that when individuals gain more work experience they become more aware of what their values actually are as they try different jobs to learn more about the tasks and conditions of employment that are most suited to their interests and capabilities. Last, country could explain individual differences in work related values as well. Van Hoorn (2014) found that between-country variation accounts for a large part of the variation in work values, even more so than gender and age for instance, and that individuals from different countries thus differ in work values.

So all in all, previous research has shown that personality, age, gender, work experience and country are factors that could explain why individual differences in work related values exist.

2.5. Consequences of (not) meeting work related values

When these individual differences in work related values are found to be substantial, but underappreciated by managers, organizations can end up suffering lower performance (Van Hoorn, 2014).

According to Herzberg et al. (1959, in Tietjen & Meyers, 1998) meeting intrinsic work values has the potential to create great job satisfaction. When intrinsic work values are met, employees will get a positive job attitude because the employees’ need for self-actualization is met. However, when intrinsic work values are not being met, dissatisfaction does not occur (Herzberg et al., 1959, in Tietjen & Meyers, 1998). On the other hand, not meeting extrinsic work values does have the potential to cause great dissatisfaction, but meeting extrinsic work values do not necessarily cause high levels of satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959, in Tietjen & Meyers, 1998).

In turn, job satisfaction influences different workplace behaviors. Among the workplace behaviors that are being influenced are: attendance at work, employee turnover, decisions to retire, psychological withdrawal behaviors, prosocial and organizational citizenship behaviors, unionization, job performance and workplace incivility (Judge and Klinger, 2008). Additionally, Wong (2008) states that failure in addressing differences in

(12)

Page | 12

work values can lead to conflict in the workplace, misunderstanding, miscommunication, lower employee productivity, poor employee wellbeing and reduced organizational behavior. It is thus important to meet both intrinsic and extrinsic work related values sufficiently, since this can lead to job satisfaction or prevent job dissatisfaction, which in turn influences workplace behaviors.

(13)

Page | 13

3. Conceptual framework

As described in the theoretical framework, there are several possible explanations for individual differences in work related values. In this study specific attention will be paid to how differences in personality among future university graduates of generation Y can explain individual differences in work related values, moderated by gender. Not much research has been done on this topic namely. Since previous research suggests that other variables possibly influence individual differences in work values as well, it is important to take these variables into account. Therefore, age and work experience will be added as control variables.

3.1. Conscientiousness

The first personality trait that will be discussed is conscientiousness. Individuals who score high on conscientiousness are likely to be high achievers, as they have a strong work ethic, and are likely to be disciplined and achievement-oriented (Komarraju et al., 2011). Hence, these individuals are expected to have a higher need for prestigious work and high income than individuals low on conscientiousness. Additionally, they also have a higher sense of duty (Bozionelos, 2004) and are therefore expected to have a higher need for a leadership role with responsibility and independence than individuals scoring low on conscientiousness. This leads to the following hypotheses:

1a. There is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and intrinsic work values. 1b. There is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and extrinsic work values.

3.2. Neuroticism

Neuroticism is a dimension that ranges from normal, calm and relaxed individuals to individuals with a tendency for anxiety (Espíritu-Olmos & Sastre-Castillo, 2015). Individuals who score high on neuroticism worry excessively, are pessimistic, have low confidence and have the tendency to experience negative emotions (Bozionelos, 2004). Spector, Jex and Chen (1995) found that individuals who score high on neuroticism tend to be in jobs that are characterized by low autonomy, low variety, low significance, with the opposite for people who are low in neuroticism. Suggesting that individuals high on neuroticism value intrinsic work values less than individuals high on neuroticism. Additionally, Furnham (1999) found that individuals high in neuroticism find extrinsic work values important, such as job security

(14)

Page | 14

and easy entry to job. However, no literature has been found suggesting that individuals low in neuroticism value extrinsic work values less or more then individuals high in neuroticism. Thus no relationship is expected between neuroticism and extrinsic work values. This leads to the following hypotheses:

2a. There is a negative relationship between neuroticism and intrinsic work values. 2b. There is no relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values.

3.3. Extroversion

Extroversion is characterized by sociability, social dominance, tendencies towards action, assertiveness and sensation-seeking (Bozionelos, 2004). To be able to be dominant, it is expected that future university graduates who score high on extroversion will have a higher need for leadership, which is an aspect of intrinsic work values. This is also found by Furnham et al. (1999). It can thus be expected that extroversion predicts intrinsic work values. However, no literature is known, to my knowledge, about whether extroversion leads to valuing extrinsic work values. It is therefore expected that there is no relationship between extroversion and intrinsic work values. This leads to the following hypotheses:

3a. There is a positive relationship between extroversion and intrinsic work values. 3b. There is no relationship between extroversion and extrinsic work values.

3.4. Agreeableness

Agreeableness is the tendency to be cooperative, attentive, friendly, well-meaning and modest (Espíritu-Olmos & Sastre-Castillo, 2015). Individuals who score high on agreeableness are expected to be more fitted for working in teams, since they are cooperative. However, this does necessarily imply that individuals high on agreeableness want to work in teams rather than being independent and making decisions themselves. They could be too cooperative or friendly to state their opinion. Therefore, no relationship is expected between agreeableness and intrinsic work values. Additionally, Judge et al. (1999) found that individuals high on agreeableness prioritize relationships over work and career success though, and thus identified a negative relationship between agreeableness and extrinsic career success. However, no comparison is made with individuals who score low on agreeableness, so it is not expected that agreeableness will predict extrinsic work values either. This leads to the following hypotheses:

(15)

Page | 15 4a. There is no relationship between agreeableness and intrinsic work values.

4b. There is no relationship between agreeableness and extrinsic work values.

3.5. Openness

Openness includes having multiple interests, being receptive of new ideas, being flexible of thought, being inventive and having the tendency to develop idealistic goals and ideas (Bozionelos, 2004). According to Komarraju et al. (2011) individuals who score high on openness are eager to learn and have a strong intellectual curiosity. They also tend to have a great number and variety of career interests (Tokar, Fischer & Subich, 1998). Thus, it can be expected that individuals high on openness have a need for interesting work with variety and independence, but do not have a need for job security, since they are more likely to change jobs. On the other hand, individuals low on openness are expected to have a smaller need for interesting work with variety and independence at work and are more committed to one career and thus have a need for job security. This leads to the following hypotheses:

5a. There is a positive relationship between openness and intrinsic work values. 5b. There is a negative relationship between openness and extrinsic work values.

3.6. Gender as moderator

As mentioned in the theoretical framework, previous research suggests that gender could explain differences in how work related values are being valued. Additionally, Singh (1994) has found significant differences between the personality characteristics of men and women. However, to my knowledge no more research has been done to assess whether gender moderates the relationship between personality and work values. It would be interesting to know though, whether men who score high on a personality trait also score higher or lower on work values compared to men who score low on that personality trait. The same goes for women. Therefore, an exploratory research will be done assessing whether gender influences the relationship between personality and work values. This leads to the final hypothesis of this study:

(16)

Page | 16 Fig 1. Research model intrinsic work values

Personality traits Control variables Work values Extroversion Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness Intrinsic Age Work experience Moderator Gender Extrinsic Agreeableness

(17)

Page | 17

4. Methodology

This section describes the survey design that is used to test the hypotheses defined in the conceptual framework and how the questionnaire used was structured. Furthermore, the following paragraphs will discuss the sample and the method of data collection.

4.1. Design

The design that fits most with this empirical study is the survey strategy, which involves the structured collection of data from a sizeable population in a cost-effective manner. Data collection using a survey strategy may take the form of questionnaires, structured observations and structured interviews (Saunders & Lewis, 2012, p.115-116). In this study an online questionnaire is developed (appendix 1), which is usually a written document with a set of standardized questions. Because it is standardized it is possible to easily compare responses (Saunders & Lewis, 2012, p.116).

In the first part 8 general questions were asked to make sure the respondents fitted the requirements to participate in the survey. Additionally, questions about gender, age and work experience were asked since these factors are expected to influence both intrinsic and extrinsic work values. Personality traits were measured by the Big Five Personality Test as developed by Van der Beek (2012), consisting of the following five dimensions: conscientiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness and openness. This test is based on research of DeYoung et al. (2007), who concluded that all five factors of the NEO PI-R and the AB5C-IPIP of Goldberg contain two aspects, instead of six aspects. Based on these results Van der Beek (2012) formulated 156 items in Dutch and selected the 70 items that fitted best, with 14 items for each personality trait. All items were to be answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree).

The scales for intrinsic and extrinsic work values differed for different studies. Intrinsic work values were therefore measured according to the scales of Portfeli and Mortimer (2010), Van den Broeck et al. (2013) and Hirschi (2010) combined. Extrinsic work values were measured according to the scales of Van den Broeck et al. (2013), Krahn and (Galambos (2014) and Hirschi (2010) combined. Both scales consisted of 7 items that were to be answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important).

(18)

Page | 18

individuals fill out the online questionnaire. Following the pre-test the item containing the word ‘nauwgezet’ was changed into ‘nauwkeurig’, since one participant did not knew what the ‘nauwgezet’ meant.

4.2. Sample

Participants were 93 university students from the Netherlands who are expected to graduate within three years, including 43 males (46%) and 50 females (54%). This means that there is a small overrepresentation of females. All participants answered 8 general questions, completed the Big Five personality test and indicated how they value intrinsic and extrinsic work values. Finally, students represented both undergraduate class and graduate class and the age ranged between 20 and 31.

Participants had to expect to graduate university within three years to improve the chance that they will be entering the labor market soon, since research has shown that intrinsic work values, for example, increase during early adulthood (Krahn & Galambos, 2014). This means that the results of this research will be applicable for employers that are looking for recent university graduates from the Netherlands. Furthermore the students had to be registered as a Dutch student at a traditional research university, which is scholarly and scientific (THUAS, n.d.).

4.3. Data collection

The data was then collected by providing the link of the online questionnaire on my Facebook, so that people in my network could see this. The link was also posted in several Facebook groups and on the Blackboard for other thesis students. Additionally, snowball sampling was used in which participants were asked to spread the online survey in their network. Since men were not as eager to participate as women, men that I knew were university students from the Netherlands were contacted by sending them a private message on Facebook. To increase people’s willingness to fill out the online questionnaire, a VVV-coupon worth of €20 was awarded to one of the participants randomly.

Furthermore, this study was cross-sectional, meaning that data was collected from participants at one period in time. The disadvantage of this is that change and development over time cannot be studied with this type of study (Saunders & Lewis, 2012, p.124).

(19)

Page | 19

5. Results

At first, a frequency test was done to check whether all respondents belonged to the target group, which was the case. The frequency test also showed that there was no missing data. After this, the counter-indicative items were recoded.

5.1. Factor analysis personality

A factor analysis was done to assess whether the data fits the hypothesized measurement model for personality traits, which consists of five factors that are measured by 14 items each. As can be seen in the scree plot (see figure 2), there is a drop after five factors and another drop after eight factors, suggesting that personality consist of maximum five or eight factors, as expected. The five factors explain 42.35% of the variance. Additionally, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) of sampling adequacy was above the minimum of 0.50 with 0.53, supporting the use of factor analysis for the data (Kaiser, 1974). The closer KMO is to one, the lower the sum of squared partial correlation coefficients is, indicating that the variables share a considerable amount of common variance (Ferrando, 1994). Communality for each item was at least 0.50, confirming that each item shared some common variance with other items. Next, the factor loadings after varimax rotation were computed (see table 1), factor loadings less than 0.30 are not shown and in case an item has a factor loadings above 0.30 with multiple factors, the highest number is marked in bold.

A total of 13 items were eliminated, because they did not contribute to the factor structure they were expected to contribute to and failed to meet a minimum criteria of having a factor loading of at least 0.30. In the table the labels of the eliminated items are cursive. For neuroticism the items ‘ik erger mij snel’ and ‘in een nieuwe omgeving ben ik zenuwachtig’ were eliminated, for extroversion the items ‘ik zeg waar het op staat’, ‘ik neem geen blad voor de mond’ and ‘ik kan met woorden duidelijk maken wat ik wil’ were eliminated, for agreeableness the items ‘ik ben vrijgevig’, ‘ik verplaats mij in de positie van anderen’, ‘ik ben zorgzaam’, ‘ik sta klaar voor anderen’, ‘het groepsbelang vind ik belangrijker dan het individuele belang’ and ‘ik heb behoefte aan erkenning voor mijn prestaties’ were elimintaed, and for openness the items ‘nieuwe vaardigheden maak ik snel eigen’ and ‘ik ben kritisch’ were eliminated. The factor labels proposed by DeYoung et al. (2007) still suited the extracted factors and were thus retained.

(20)

Page | 20 Figure 2: Scree plot for personality traits

Table 1: Factor loadings personality after varimax rotation

Factors Items 1 Con. 2 Neu. 3 Ext. 4 Agr. 5 Ope. Conscientiousness 1. Ik ben vergeetachtig 2. Ik ben laks 3. Ik ben nonchalant

4. Het nemen van een beslissing stel ik uit 5. Ik ben gedisciplineerd

6. Ik ben onverschillig

7. Als ik ergens aan begin maak ik het af 8. Ik werk volgens een schema

9. Ik ben vaak dingen kwijt 10. Ik ben perfectionistisch 11. Ik ben georganiseerd 12. Ik ga nauwkeurig te werk

13. Ik laat mijn spullen rondslingeren

14. Ik lever mijn werk pas in als ik helemaal tevreden ben 0.52 0.81 0.64 0.56 0.74 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.62 0.48 0.69 0.67 0.74 0.68 -0.36 Neuroticism

1. Ik houd het hoofd koel in moeilijke situaties.

2. Ik erger mij snel

3. Ik presteer het beste onder druk 4. Ik ben gevoelig

5. Ik ben snel van mijn stuk gebracht

0.31 0.43 0.32 0.69 0.71 0.48 -0.36

(21)

Page | 21

6. Ik ben stressbestendig 7. Ik ben emotioneel 8. Ik ben een piekeraar 9. Ik ben onzeker

10. Ik ervaar gevoelens van schaamte 11. Ik trek mij veel aan, van de mening van anderen

12. In een nieuwe omgeving ben ik zenuwachtig

13. Ik maak mij snel zorgen

14. Ik maak mij zorgen om wat anderen van mij denken 0.44 0.63 0.71 0.70 0.56 0.69 0.77 0.69 -0.51 -0.31 -0.36 Extroversion

1. Ik maak snel nieuwe vrienden 2. Ik hou van gezelschap

3. Ik ben graag alleen

4. Ik laat weinig van mijzelf zien 5. Ik ben uitbundig

6. Ik klets veel 7. Ik ben spontaan

8. Ik kan met woorden duidelijk maken wat ik wil

9. In een groep neem ik het voortouw 10. Ik spreek onbekenden makkelijk aan 11. Ik ben verlegen

12. Ik zeg waar het op staat

13. Ik neem geen blad voor de mond

14. Ik geef mijn mening, ook al wijkt die af van de mening van anderen

0.37 0.31 -0.33 0.63 0.70 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.61 0.70 0.34 0.65 0.66 0.33 0.44 0.32 0.42 0.43 0.59 0.58 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.38 Agreeableness 1. Ik ben bescheiden 2. Ik ben vrijgevig 3. Ik ben bazig

4. Ik verplaats mij in de positie van anderen 5. Ik ben zorgzaam

6. Ik sta klaar voor anderen

7. Ik verwacht iets terug als ik iets voor een ander doe

8. Ik ben meegaand 9. Ik ben toegeeflijk

10. Ik ben vergevingsgezind 11. Ik ben volgzaam

12. Als ik iets heb bereikt, schreeuw ik het van de daken

13. Het groepsbelang vind ik belangrijker dan het individuele belang

14. Ik heb behoefte aan erkenning voor mijn prestaties 0.33 0.38 -0.50 0.30 0.39 0.44 0.46 -0.52 -0.70 0.31 -0.58 -0.53 -0.52 -0.52 -0.46 Openness

1. Nieuwe vaardigheden maak ik snel eigen

2. Ik kom met creatieve oplossingen

-0.33

(22)

Page | 22 3. Ik ben kritisch

4. Ik wil weten hoe dingen in elkaar zitten 5. Ik ben analytisch

6. Ik ben vindingrijk

7. Het duurt lang voordat ik een nieuwe vaardigheid onder de knie heb

8. Ik ben snel op iets uitgekeken 9. Ik houd van verandering

10. Ik probeer graag nieuwe dingen uit 11. Ik heb een hekel aan routine

12. Ik heb liever dat alles bij het oude blijft 13. Ik zoek steeds nieuwe uitdagingen 14. Ik houd van afwisseling

0.32 -0.43 -0.45 -0.44 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.41 0.39 0.31 0.39 0.77 0.68 0.43 0.66 0.63 0.66

5.2. Factor analysis work values

A factor analysis was done to assess whether the data fits the hypothesized measurement model for work values as well, which consists of two factors that are measured by 7 items each. As can be seen in the scree plot (see figure 3), there is a drop after four factors, suggesting that work values consists of a maximum of four factors. Taking two factors explains 38.46% of the variance. Additionally, the KMO of sampling adequacy was 0.64, which is above the minimum of 0.50 as well. Furthermore, the communality for each item was above 0.50. Next, the factor loadings after varimax rotation were computed (see table 2). As a result 3 items were eliminated, because they did not contribute to the factor structure they were expected to contribute to and failed to meet the minimum criteria of having a factor loading of at least 0.30. The items ‘baanzekerheid’, ‘snel en gemakkelijk een baan kunnen vinden’ and ‘vrije tijd naast mijn baan’ were eliminated, all belonging to extrinsic work values.

(23)

Page | 23 Figure 3: Scree plot work values

Table 2: Factor loadings work values after varimax rotation

Factors

Items 1

Extrinsic

2 Intrinsic Extrinsic work values

1. Een hoog inkomen

2. Baanzekerheid

3. Snel en gemakkelijk een baan kunnen vinden 4. Vrije tijd naast mijn baan

5. Een baan met veel aanzien

6. Een positie waarin ik anderen kan beïnvloeden 7. Een goede kans op promotie

0.61 0.79 0.67 0.74 -0.33 0.31

Intrinsic work values

1. Afwisselend werk

2. Een bijdrage leveren in het verbeteren van de samenleving 3. Zelf de meeste beslissingen mogen nemen

4. Leiderschap en verantwoordelijkheid 5. Interessant werk

6. Een baan waarin ik mijn talenten en vaardigheden kan toepassen

7. De mogelijkheid om veel te leren

0.50 0.66 0.40 0.64 0.35 0.38 0.70 0.70 0.65

(24)

Page | 24 5.3. Scale reliability

The five personality traits and two work values measured by the questionnaire were respectively: conscientiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, openness, intrinsic work values and extrinsic work values. The five personality traits were measured by 70 items in total, of which 13 were eliminated as a result of the factor analysis, and work values were measured by 14 items each, of which 3 were eliminated as a result of the factor analysis. To check whether the scales for the personality traits and work values were reliable, the scale reliabilities were computed next.

Cronbach’s alpha for conscientiousness, neuroticism and extroversion all indicated a good level of internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.89 for conscientiousness, 0.88 for neuroticism and 0.84 for extroversion. Cronbach’s alpha for openness indicated an acceptable level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha for these scales could not have been improved any further by eliminating an item. For agreeableness Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.62, suggesting that the internal consistency of the scale is questionable (George & Mallery, 2003). However, eliminating the item ‘ik verwacht iets terug als ik iets voor een ander doe’ would substantially improve Cronbach’s alpha to 0.71 and therefore this item is eliminated. The internal consistency of the scale is now rated as acceptable.

For intrinsic work values Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.69 and for extrinsic work values Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.72. Suggesting a questionable and acceptable scale, respectively (George & Mallery, 2003). Eliminating an item could not have improved the Cronbach’s alpha any further.

Additionally, for all scales the corrected item-total correlations were above the threshold of 0.20 (Sampaio, Goetz & Schrag, 2012, p.20).

Table 3: Scale reliability

Number of items Cronbach’s alpha Conscientiousness 14 0.89 Neuroticism 12 0.88 Extroversion 11 0.84 Agreeableness 5 0.71 Openness 12 0.79

Intrinsic work values 7 0.69

(25)

Page | 25 5.4. First line tests for Hierarchical Multiple Regression

A Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis (HMR) was chosen, since this analysis has the option to control for variables and has the option to do a moderation analysis. After computing the scale means for personality traits and work values, some first line tests were conducted to check whether HMR could indeed be used.

The sample size was checked first, since the cases-to-IVs ratio had to be substantial or the solution would have been meaningless (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). A simple rule of thumb is that the number of cases should be 50 + 8m (where m is the number of independent variables) for testing the multiple correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006, p.123). Applying this rule of thumb, 50 + 7(3) = 71 cases per regression were needed. This study had 93 cases so this requirement was met. When the dependent variables would not have been normally distributed, a higher cases-to-IV ratio than 71 cases would have been needed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006, p.138). As can be seen in table 5, intrinsic work values is moderately negatively skewed and extrinsic work values is normally distributed. Therefore, intrinsic work values was transformed. Additionally, age is substantially positively skewed and is therefore transformed as well. Table 4: Descriptives M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Age 5.12 (1.68) 1.90 7.40 Work experience 5.35 (2.47) 0.16 0.00 Conscientiousness 3.49 (0.69) -0.57 -0.03 Neuroticism 2.93 (0.67) -0.02 -0.39 Extroversion 3.52 (0.58) -0.05 -0.53 Agreeableness 3.17 (0.50) -0.01 -0.49 Openness 3.63 (0.48) -0.15 0.65

Intrinsic work values 5.74 (0.65) -0.86 0.79

Extrinsic work values 4.67 (1.04) -0.49 -0.08

Next, multicollinearity was checked. As seen in table 5, the inter-correlations among variables range from 0.00 to 0.37. These results indicate low to moderate correlations among the criterion and dependent variables. So the bivariate correlations in table 5 showed that there is no extreme correlation that could violate the HMR analysis in terms of multicollinearity. When multicollinearity would have been present, none of the regression coefficients may have been significant because of the large size of standard errors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006, p.125).

(26)

Page | 26 Table 5: Bivariate correlations (N = 93)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Age 2. Work experience 0.32** 3. Conscientiousness -0.14 0.13 4. Neuroticism -0.18 -0.30** 0.01 5. Extroversion 0.02 0.06 0.00 -0.25* 6. Agreeableness -0.07 -0.07 -0.06 0.16 -0.28** 7. Openness 0.28** 0.13 -0.06 -0.36** 0.37** -0.19 8. Intrinsic 0.13 -0.05 0.14 -0.18 0.34** -0.21* 0.37** 9. Extrinsic 0.00 -0.06 0.03 -0.06 0.16 -0.18 0.15 0.34** *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

5.5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis

After the first line tests were done, a two or three stage HMR was performed two times for each personality trait: one with intrinsic work values as the dependent variable and the other with extrinsic work values as the dependent variable. All HMR analyses done were controlled for by age and work experience by adding these control variables in the first block, since the independent variables that are presumed to be control variables are given higher priority of entry (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006, p.138). In the second block one of the personality traits was then added as the independent variable. In case a significant relationship was found, a third block was added to see whether gender moderated the relationship.

5.5.1. Regression analysis: conscientiousness and intrinsic work values

The relationship between conscientiousness and intrinsic work values was examined first. As can be seen in table 6, Model 1 has an R value of 0.17, implying that a positive relationship exists between the two control variables taken together and intrinsic work values. The R² change of 0.03 was not found to be significant at F (2, 90), p > 0.05 though, suggesting that age and work experience together could not predict intrinsic work values.

Model 2 includes the independent variable conscientiousness and has an R value of 0.25, implying that a positive relationship also exists between conscientiousness, age and work experience taken together and intrinsic work values. The R² change of 0.04 was not found to be significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05 either, suggesting that conscientiousness does not predict intrinsic work values.

(27)

Page | 27

The ANOVA results in table 7 gave the significance of each model. It shows redundant information as far as Model 1 goes, therefore there will only be looked at Model 2 in each regression. As can be seen, Model 2 is not significant (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 8 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 1.85, t = 10.71, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.20, t = -1.83, p = 0.07: not significant; work experience β = 0.15, t = 1.40, p = 0.17: not significant; conscientiousness, β = -0.19, t = -1.81, p = 0.07: not significant.

Hypothesis 2a stated that a positive relationship between conscientiousness and intrinsic work values was expected. However, the results did not support this hypothesis.

Table 6: Model summary of HMR for conscientiousness – intrinsic work values

Model R R² Adjusted R² ΔR² ΔF Df1 df2 Sig. ΔF 1 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.03 1.31 2 90 0.28 2 0.25 0.06 0.03 0.04 3.39 1 89 0.07 Notes:

a. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, conscientiousness c. Dependent variable: intrinsic work values

Table 7: ANOVA results conscientiousness – intrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

df Mean square F Sig

1 Regression Residual Total 0.11 3.93 4.04 2 90 92 0.06 0.04 1.31 0.28 2 Regression Residual Total 0.25 3.79 4.04 3 89 92 0.09 0.04 1.99 0.12

(28)

Page | 28 Table 8: Coefficients results conscientiousness – intrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 1.62 -0.27 0.01 -0.16 0.12 13.57 -1.49 1.06 0.00 0.14 0.29 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Conscientiousness 1.85 -0.33 0.01 -0.06 -0.20 0.15 -0.19 10.71 -1.83 1.40 -1.81 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.07

5.5.2. Regression analysis: conscientiousness and extrinsic work values

Next, the relationship between conscientiousness and extrinsic work values was examined. Model 1 has an R value of 0.07, as can be seen in table 9, which means that there is positive relationship between the control variables and extrinsic work values. However, the R², and thus R² change, of 0.00 is not significant at F (2,90), p > 0.05, suggesting that age and work experience together do not predict extrinsic work values.

It can also be seen that Model 2 has an R value of 0.08, suggesting that there is a positive relationship between neuroticism, age and work experience taken together and extrinsic work values. The R² change found was 0.01 which was not significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting that there is no significant relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 10 show that Model 2 is not significant (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 11 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 4.46, t = 5.06, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = 0.03, t = 0.27, p = 0.79: not significant; work experience β = -0.08, t = -0.69, p = 0.49: not significant; conscientiousness, β = 0.04, t = 0.38, p = 0.70: not significant.

Hypothesis 2b stated that a positive relationship between conscientiousness and extrinsic work values was expected. The results did not support this hypothesis.

(29)

Page | 29 Table 9: Model summary of HMR for conscientiousness – extrinsic work values

Model R R² Adjusted R² ΔR² ΔF Df1 df2 Sig. ΔF 1 0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.20 2 90 0.82 2 0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.15 1 89 0.70 Notes:

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, conscientiousness c. Dependent variable: extrinsic work values

Table 10: ANOVA results conscientiousness – extrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

1 Regression Residual Total 0.44 99.06 99.50 2 90 92 0.22 1,10 0.20 0.82 2 Regression Residual Total 0.60 98.89 99.50 3 89 92 0.20 1,11 0.18 0.91

Table 11: Coefficients results conscientiousness – extrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 4.70 0.18 -0.03 0.02 -0.07 7.85 0.21 -0.63 0.00 0.84 0.53 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Conscientiousness 4.46 0.25 -0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.08 0.04 5.06 0.27 -0.69 0.38 0.00 0.79 0.49 0.70

(30)

Page | 30 5.5.3. Regression analysis: neuroticism and intrinsic work values

Now the relationship between neuroticism and intrinsic work values is examined. Since all five personality traits are controlled for age and work experience in Model 1, this model will show the same results for each regression depending on the dependent variable. Therefore, only Model 2 will be discussed from now on.

In table 12 it can be seen that Model 2 has an R value of 0.25, which implies a positive relationship exists between neuroticism, age and work experience together and intrinsic work values. The R² change of 0.03 was found not to be significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting no significant relationship exists between neuroticism and intrinsic work values. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 13 show that the R² of Model (0.06) was not significant (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 14 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 1.40 t = 8.22, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.15, t = -1.33, p = 0.19: not significant; work experience β = 0.17, t = 1.49, p = 0.14: not significant; neuroticism, β = -0.19, t = -1.74. p = 0.09: not significant.

Hypothesis 3a stated that a negative relationship between neuroticism and intrinsic work values was expected. The results did not support this hypothesis.

Table 12: Model summary of HMR for neuroticism – intrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, neuroticism c. Dependent variable: intrinsic work values

(31)

Page | 31 Table 13: ANOVA results neuroticism – intrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

Table 14: Coefficients results neuroticism – intrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 1.62 -0.27 0.01 -0.16 0.12 13.57 -1.49 1.06 0.00 0.14 0.29 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Neuroticism 1.40 -0.24 0.01 0.06 -0.15 0.17 -0.19 8.22 -1.33 1.49 -1.74 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.09

5.5.4. Regression analysis: neuroticism and extrinsic work values

Next, the relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values was examined. As can be seen in table 15, Model 2 has an R value of 0.11, which suggests that there is also a positive relationship between neuroticism, age and work experience taken together and extrinsic work values. The R² change found was 0.01 and was not significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting that there is no relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values either. Additionally, the ANOVA results show that the R² of the second model (0.01) is not significant at (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 17 it can be seen that β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 5.20, t = 5.98, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = 0.01, t = 0.13, p = 0.90: not significant; work experience β = -0.09, t = -0.82, p = 0.42: not significant; neuroticism, β = 0.09, t = 0.80, p = 0.43: not significant.

(32)

Page | 32

Hypothesis 3b stated that no relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values was expected. The results supported this hypothesis.

Table 15: Model summary of HMR for neuroticism – extrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, neuroticism c. Dependent variable: extrinsic work values

Table 16: ANOVA results neuroticism – extrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

1 Regression Residual Total 0.44 99.06 99.50 2 90 92 0.22 1,10 0.20 0.82 2 Regression Residual Total 1.14 98.36 99.50 3 89 92 0.38 1.11 0.34 0.79

Table 17: Coefficients results neuroticism – extrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 4.70 0.18 -0.03 0.02 -0.07 7.85 0.21 -0.63 0.00 0.84 0.53 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Neuroticism 5.20 0.11 -0.04 -0.14 0.01 -0.09 0.09 5.98 0.13 -0.82 0.80 0.00 0.90 0.42 0.43

(33)

Page | 33 5.5.5. Regression analysis: extroversion and intrinsic work values

The relationship between extroversion and intrinsic work values was examined next. As can be seen in table 18, Model 2 has an R of 0.38, implying a positive relationship exists between extroversion, age and work experience taken together and intrinsic work values. The R² change was 0.12 and was significant at F (1,89) = 12.34, p < 0.05, meaning that 12.34% of the variability in intrinsic work values is being accounted for by extroversion. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 19 show that the R² of Model 2 (0.15) is significant (p < 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 20 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 2.05, t = 12.34, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.16, t = -1.56, p = 0.12: not significant; work experience β = 0.14, t = 1.30, p = 0.20: not significant; extroversion, β = 0.35, t = -3.51. p = 0.00: highly significant. This implies that individuals scoring low on extroversion value intrinsic work values more.

Hypothesis 4a stated that a positive relationship between extroversion and intrinsic work values was expected. In contrast, the results suggested a negative relationship between extroversion and intrinsic work values instead, meaning that hypothesis 4a was not supported.

Table 18: Model summary of HMR for extroversion – intrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, extroversion c. Dependent variable: intrinsic work values

(34)

Page | 34 Table 19: ANOVA results extroversion – intrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

Table 20: Coefficients results extroversion – intrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 1.62 -0.27 0.01 -0.16 0.12 13.57 -1.49 1.06 0.00 0.14 0.29 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Extroversion 2.05 -0.26 0.01 -0.13 -0.16 0.14 -0.35 12.34 -1.56 1.30 -3.51 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.00

5.5.6. Regression analysis: extroversion and extrinsic work values

Next, the relationship between extroversion and extrinsic work was examined. Model 2 has an R of 0.17, as can be seen in table 21, suggesting that there is a positive relationship between extroversion, age and work experience taken together and extrinsic work values. The R² change found was 0.03 and was not significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting no relationship exists between extroversion and extrinsic work values. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 22 show the that the R² of Model 2 (0.03) is not significant (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 23 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 3.71, t = 4.22, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = 0.02, t = 0.20, p = 0.85: not significant; work experience β = -0.08, t = -0.72, p = 0.48: not significant; extroversion, β = 0.16, t = 1.55. p = 0.13: not significant.

(35)

Page | 35

Hypothesis 4b stated that no relationship was expected between extroversion and extrinsic work values. The results supported this hypothesis.

Table 21: Model summary of HMR for extroversion – extrinsic work values

Model R R² Adjusted R² ΔR² ΔF Df1 df2 Sig. ΔF 1 0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.20 2 90 0.82 2 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.03 2.39 1 89 0.13 Notes:

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, extroversion c. Dependent variable: extrinsic work values

Table 22: ANOVA results extroversion – extrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

Table 23: Coefficients results extroversion – extrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 4.70 0.18 -0.03 0.02 -0.07 7.85 0.21 -0.63 0.00 0.84 0.53 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Extroversion 3.71 0.17 -0.03 0.29 0.02 -0.08 0.16 4.22 0.20 -0.72 1.55 0.00 0.85 0.48 0.13

(36)

Page | 36 5.5.7. Regression analysis: agreeableness and intrinsic work values

The relationship between agreeableness and intrinsic work values is examined next. Model 2 has an R value of 0.26, as can be seen in table 24, so there is a positive relationship between agreeableness, age and work experience taken together and intrinsic work values. The R² change of 0.04 was not found to be significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting that there is no relationship between agreeableness and intrinsic work values. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 25 show that the R² value of Model 2 (0.07) was not significant (p > 0.05). From the Coefficients Table in table 26 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 1.34, t = 7.12, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.15, t = -1.42, p = 0.16: not significant; work experience β = 0.13, t = 1.19, p = 0.24: not significant; agreeableness, β = 0.20, t = -1.92, p = 0.06: not significant.

Hypothesis 5a stated that no relationship was expected between agreeableness and intrinsic work values. The results supported this hypothesis.

Table 24: Model summary of HMR for agreeableness – intrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, agreeableness c. Dependent variable: intrinsic work values

Table 25: ANOVA results agreeableness – intrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

(37)

Page | 37 Table 26: Coefficients results agreeableness – intrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 1.62 -0.27 0.01 -0.16 0.12 13.57 -1.49 1.06 0.00 0.14 0.29 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Agreeableness 1.34 -0.25 0.01 0.08 -0.15 0.13 -0.20 7.12 -1.42 1.19 -1.92 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.06

5.5.8. Regression analysis: agreeableness and extrinsic work values

Next, the relationship between agreeableness and extrinsic work values was examined. As can be seen in table 27, Model 2 shows an R value of 0.19, suggesting that a positive relationship between neuroticism, age and work experience taken together and extrinsic work values. However, the R² change found was 0.03 which was not significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting that there is no relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values. Moreover, the ANOVA results in table 28 show that the R² of Model 2 (0.04) was not significant at (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 29 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 5.99, t = 6.33, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = 0.01, t = 0.13, p = 0.90: not significant; work experience β = 0.08, t = 0.74, p = 0.46: not significant; agreeableness, β = 0.18, t = -1.74, p = 0.09: not significant.

Hypothesis 5b stated that no relationship was expected between agreeableness and extrinsic work values. The results supported this hypothesis.

Table 27: Model summary of HMR for agreeableness – extrinsic work values

Model R R² Adjusted R² ΔR² ΔF Df1 df2 Sig. ΔF 1 0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.20 2 90 0.82 2 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.03 3.02 1 89 0.09 Notes:

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, agreeableness c. Dependent variable: extrinsic work values

(38)

Page | 38 Table 28: ANOVA results agreeableness – extrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

Table 29: Coefficients results agreeableness – extrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 4.70 0.18 -0.03 0.02 -0.07 7.85 0.21 -0.63 0.00 0.84 0.53 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Agreeableness 5.99 0.11 -0.03 -0.38 0.01 -0.08 -0.18 6.33 0.13 -0.74 -1.74 0.00 0.90 0.46 0.09

5.5.9. Regression analysis: openness and intrinsic work values

Next, the relationship between openness and intrinsic work values was examined. Model 2 has an R value of 0.39, as can be seen in table 30, so there is a positive relationship between openness, age and work experience taken together and intrinsic work values. The R² change of 0.12 was found to be highly significant at F (1,89) = 12.65, p < 0.001, suggesting that 12.65% of the variability in intrinsic work values is being accounted for by openness. Additionally, the ANOVA results in table 31 shows that the R² value of Model 2 (0.15) is significant at (p < 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 32 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 2.07, t = 12.21, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.07, t = -0.62, p = 0.54: not significant; work experience β = 0.13, t = 1.28, p = 0.20: not significant; openness, β = -0.36, t = -3.56, p

(39)

Page | 39

= 0.00: highly significant. Implying that individuals who score low on openness value intrinsic work values more.

Hypothesis 6a stated that a positive relationship was expected between openness and intrinsic work values. Indeed a relationship was found between openness and intrinsic work values, however a negative relationship was found instead of a positive relationship. The results therefore did not support hypothesis 6a.

Table 30: Model summary of HMR for openness – intrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, openness c. Dependent variable: intrinsic work values

Table 31: ANOVA results openness – intrinsic work values

Model Sum of

squares

(40)

Page | 40 Table 32: Coefficients results openness – intrinsic work values

Model B Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) Age Work experience 1.62 -0.27 0.01 -0.16 0.12 13.57 -1.49 1.06 0.00 0.14 0.29 2 (Constant) Age Work experience Openness 2.07 -0.11 0.01 -0.16 -0.07 0.13 -0.36 12.21 -0.62 1.28 -3.56 0.00 0.54 0.20 0.00

5.5.10. Regression analysis: openness and extrinsic work values

Last, the relationship between openness and extrinsic work values was examined. As can be seen in table 33, Model 2 shows an R value of 0.17, suggesting a positive relationship between openness and extrinsic work values. Additionally, the R² change found was 0.02, which was not significant at F (1,89), p > 0.05, suggesting that there is no relationship between neuroticism and extrinsic work values. Moreover, the ANOVA results in table 34 show that the R² of Model 2 (0.03) is not significant at (p > 0.05).

From the Coefficients Table in table 35 it can be seen that the β coefficients for the constant, the control variables and the independent variable were as follows; Constant β = 3.71, t = 4.12, p = 0.00: highly significant; age, β = -0.02, t = -0.18, p = 0.86: not significant; work experience β = -0.08, t = -0.70, p = 0.49: not significant; openness, β = 0.016, t = 1.48, p = 0.14: not significant.

Hypothesis 6b stated that a negative relationship was expected between openness and extrinsic work values. The results did not support this hypothesis.

Table 33: Model summary of HMR for openness – extrinsic work values

b. Predictors: (Constant), work experience, age, openness c. Dependent variable: extrinsic work values

Differences in work values within generation Y. : a study on how differences in personality explain differences in work values of future, generation Y, university graduates