money ethic scale part 2. four money profiles money repeller (the most --) apathetic money handler...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation-Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper
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
Interpretation--Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation--Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation-Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation-Discriminant
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper
85 170 165 127
15.54% 31.08% 30.16% 23.22%
Interpretation--Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation--Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Validation-Money Profiles
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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
Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
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.
Validation-Discriminant
1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Money Repellers.
2: Money Repellers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers.
3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers,
Money Repellers.
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)
Logistic RegressionStatusPAEOCommitment*Withdrawal Cognitions (ns)MSQ-ExtMSQ-Int* (A)MES* (B)MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) Concordant = 80.8%
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.