The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the Protestant ... - Springer Link

The Love of Money, Satisfaction, and the Protestant Work Ethic: Money Profiles Among University Professors in the U.S.A. and Spain

ABSTRACT. This study tests the hypothesis that university professors (lecturers) (in the U.S. and Spain) with different money profiles (based on Factors Success, Budget, Motivator, Equity, and Evil of the Love of Money Scale) will differ in work-related attitudes and satisfaction. Results suggested that Achieving Money Worshipers (with high scores on Factors Success, Motivator, Equity, and Budget) had high income, Work Ethic, and high satisfaction with pay level, pay administration, and internal equity comparison but low satisfaction with external equity comparison. Careless Money Admirers (high Success but low Budget) had low intrinsic job satisfaction and low satisfaction with pay level and life. Apathetic Money Managers (low Evil and low Motivator) had the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Money Repellent Individuals (high Evil and low

Roberto Luna-Arocas (Ph.D., University of Valencia) is a Professor of Human Resources in the Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, at University of Valencia, in Valencia, Spain. His research interest concerns the meaning of money and strategic issues of human resources management in organizations. His research has appeared in Applied Psychology: An International Review, International Focus, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Personnel Review, International HR Journal, and many other journals. He has published five books, more than 35 journal articles, and 17 book chapters and presented more than 50 papers around the world. He has reviewed papers and coordinated special issues for many journals. He is the Annual Research Award winner of the Marketing and Research Journal in Spain and is the principal investigator (PI) of a major three-year research and development project concerning Strategic Human Resource Management granted by the Spanish Ministry of Education.

Roberto Luna-Arocas Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Success) had low income, work experience, Work Ethic, and low satisfaction with pay administration. Money does not provide the same motivation for people in all four money profiles. Results are discussed in light of the effectiveness of using money to reward people with different money profiles, intrinsic motivation, and unethical behavior. KEY WORDS: life satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, money ethic, money profiles, pay satisfaction, the love of money, the protestant work ethic, U.S.A. and Spain

Thomas Li-Ping Tang (Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University) is a Professor of Management in the Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, at Middle Tennessee State University, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, U.S.A. His research interests focus upon the Love of Money, business ethics, pay satisfaction, and cross-cultural issues. His research has appeared in Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Human Relations, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, and other journals. He has published more than 85 journal articles and presented more than 150 papers around the world. He has served on the editorial board of four journals and reviewed papers for 21 journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Human Relations). He has received two Outstanding Research Awards (1991, 1999) and the Distinguished International Service Award (1999) at MTSU and the Best Reviewer Award from the International Management Division of the Academy of Management in Seattle, WA (2003).

Journal of Business Ethics 50: 329–354, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

330

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Introduction Money is the instrument of commerce and a measure of value (Smith, 1776/1937). On January 1, 2002, 12 European Union (EU) countries (305 million people) have adapted one single currency, the Euro. In June, 2003, EU leaders intended to smooth the way for the expansion of the EU from 15 to 25 countries in 2004. The expanded EU will be an economic superpower with 415 million people and an economy of more than 9 trillion dollars which is close to that the U.S. (Poggioli, 2003). As of December of 2003, Euro has increased its value by more than 40% for the past two years. Further, the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), China’s accession to WTO, and other economic developments have integrated the world economy into a single, huge free market economy. These changes will enhance the flow of money, human resources, technology, and products and services across borders. Managers use money to attract, retain, and motivate employees and achieve organizational goals (Milkovich and Newman, 2002). Pay dissatisfaction, however, has many undesirable consequences, e.g., turnover (Hom and Griffeth, 1995), low commitment, counterproductive behaviors, theft, and unethical behavior (CohenCharash and Spector, 2001; Greenberg, 1993; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2002). Thus, researchers and practitioners are increasingly interested in managing human resources effectively and efficiently, pay, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction, in particular. In the motivation and satisfaction literature, Herzberg (1987) asked the question: “One more time: How do you motivate employees?” Herzberg has made a significant distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Extent research in the literature, however, has failed to include “individual differences” in answering Herzberg’s question and studying such organizational practices as compensation. The lack of attention to individual differences in reactions to pay is particularly troubling (Barber and Bretz, 2000). One construct that should not be overlooked is “the meaning of money”

(Barber and Bretz, 2000, p. 45). Very little research has incorporated the meaning of money (the love of money, in particular) in studying pay satisfaction. Attitudes will predict behavior when there is a high correspondence between the attitude object and the behavioral option (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). For example, mental health employees with high love of money tend to have high voluntary turnover regardless of their intrinsic job satisfaction (Tang et al., 2000). Most of the research has studied U.S. workers (Heneman and Judge, 2000). We know little about people’s money attitude in other countries. This is a critical omission in the management literature.

The present study Although money is used universally, “the meaning of money is in the eye of the beholder” (McClelland, 1967, p. 10). We assert that people’s money attitude may serve as their “frame of reference” in which they examine their everyday lives (Tang, 1992, p. 201; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981) including their satisfaction with pay, job, and life. The overriding questions of this paper are listed below: Can we classify employees consistently into several money profiles based on their money attitudes? Is it possible that people in one money profile may have a pattern of satisfaction (with pay, job, and life) that is different from other people in different money profiles? More specifically, the major theoretical and empirical contributions of this study are listed below. First, we will incorporate the love of money in studying satisfaction. On the basis of the Love of Money Scale (LOMS, Tang et al., 2003), we apply a market segmentation approach and classify people into several money profiles using cluster analysis. Second, since attitudes will predict behavior, thus, we test the hypotheses that people with different money profiles will have different patterns of work-related attitudes (i.e., the Protestant Work Ethic) and satisfaction (intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, and life satisfaction). This allows us to study different aspects of one’s satisfaction from one’s love of

The Love of Money money perspective. Finally, researchers around the world are increasingly interested in testing measurement instruments and management theories, developed mostly in the U.S., across cultures. In this study, we will test the love of money construct, developed in the U.S., in two samples of university professors (lecturers). We select one university in North America (NA) (i.e., the U.S.) and one in the European Union (EU) (i.e., Spain) because both North America and EU are important parts of the global economy. Professors (lecturers) are notoriously risk-averse people. Especially after successful tenure decisions, they rarely change jobs. Professors are also involved in a lot of exchange of knowledge and information but not money. We will examine university professors as a unique group of professional people in our society. Results may provide important implications and understanding, for researchers and practitioners, regarding compensation strategies (Rynes and Gerhart, 2000) and unethical behavior (Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Michalos, 1995; Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Our major research question is: From the love of money perspective, what kind of people (and percentage of people in the sample) will have the highest pay satisfaction? What kind of people will have the highest intrinsic job satisfaction? What kind of people will have the highest life satisfaction? Let us examine the constructs that lead to the Love of Money first.

The Money Ethic Scale (MES) There are many studies of money attitudes and measures (e.g., Furnham and Argyle, 1998). In a recent Academy of Management Review paper, Mitchell and Mickel (1999) have considered the Money Ethic Scale as one of the most “welldeveloped” and systematically used measures of money attitude (p. 571). Tang and his associates have developed several versions of the Money Ethic Scale (MES), according to the ABC model of an attitude (e.g., Tang, 1992, 1995; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang and Kim, 1999; Tang, LunaArocas and Whiteside, 2003; Tang et al., 2003). Definition of factors, test-retest reliability,

331

Cronbach’s alpha, the nomological network of correlations, and validity of the Money Ethic Scale can be found in the literature (e.g., Furnham and Argyle, 1998; Lim and Teo, 1997; Mitchell and Mickel, 1999) and in many languages, e.g., Chinese (Du and Yue, 2002), French (Urbain, 2000), Italian (Tang, 1996), Spanish (Luna-Arocas and Tang, 1998; Quintanilla, 1997), Romanian (Tang and Weatherford, in press), and Russian (Fenko, 2000). The Love of Money Scale (LOMS) has been developed based on the Money Ethic Scale (MES).

The Love of Money Scale (LOMS) According to Locke (1969), the first question a scientific investigator must ask is not “How can I measure it?” but rather, “What is it?” (p. 334). So, what is the love of money? We argue that “the love of money” does not represent one’s “needs”, instead it reflects one’s “wants” and “values”. “Need” refers to “the objective requirements of an organism’s well-being”, whereas “value” is that which a person “actually seeks to gain and/or keep or considers beneficial” (Locke, 1969, p. 318). Locke (1969) distinguishes between (1) the value of money to a person and (2) the specific amount of pay an employee seeks at a given time on a given job (p. 327) and acknowledges that both may change over time. Thus, the love of money is the measure of one’s values, wants and desires. Tang and his associates have examined many meanings (factors) of money using the multidimensional Money Ethic Scale (MES). In order to make it practical and easy to use, Tang and his associates investigate the Love of Money Scale (LOMS) based on existing factors of the MES. Thus, the Love of Money Scale (LOMS) is a subset of the Money Ethic Scale (MES). They examine LOMS for the following reasons. First, “the love of money” can be traced to a “Western” and Judea-Christian expression: “The love of money is the root of evil” (Bible: 1 Timothy, 6: 10). Those who want to be “rich” are falling into temptation (Bible: 1 Timothy, 6: 9). The love of money (an unobservable construct) has been used in everyday expression and

332

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

in popular literature. Very little empirical research has examined this construct. Second, recent changes have picked up the pace of economic developments and the flow of money in the competitive world market economy. There is a significant increase regarding the importance of money in the U.S. and around the world (e.g., Harpaz, 1990; Jurgensen, 1978; Lawler, 1971; Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966; Rynes and Gerhart, 2000; Wernimont and Fitzpatrick, 1972). Third, the love of money construct is a “neglected” area in management, business ethics, and management spirituality and religion. Management Spirituality and Religion is a recognized Division within the Academy of Management in the U.S. According to Transparency International’s new Corruption Perceptions Index, there is a high level of corruption in many rich and poorer countries (http://www.transparency.org./cpi/2003/cpi2003 .pe_statement_en.html). The love of money is related to the fields of business ethics, spirituality and religion, and management. Fourth, the love of money assesses the “meaning” (Barber and Bretz, 2000, p. 45) and the “importance” of money (Mitchell and Mickel, 1999, p. 569) and reflects the individual difference (Mitchell and Mickel, 1999) of one’s own personal attitudes toward money. Fifth, media has covered an ever-expanding list of scandals and corruptions, recently. According to Allan Sloan, News Week’s Wall Street Editor, Americans have always loved money. De Tocqueville traced love of wealth to the root of all that Americans do. “Greed – defined as an inordinate desire for wealth – is not good, and it doesn’t drive markets” (Sloan, 2002, emphasis added, p. 37). The real root cause of the corporate scandals and crisis in confidence in corporations is “the overemphasis American corporations have been forced to give in recent years to maximizing shareholder value without regard for the effect of their actions on other stakeholders” (Kochan, 2002, p. 139, emphasis added). It is all related to money and the love of money. Sixth, Tang and his associates (2003) have tested the 9-item-3-factor Love of Money Scale (LOMS) based on employees in 26 geopolitical

entities across five continents (N = 5,341) with different languages, cultures, and religions (e.g., Buddhism, Christian, Confucianism, Daoism, Hindu, Muslim, etc.). They define the Love of Money using three existing Factors of the Money Ethic Scale (MES) (Rich, Motivator, and Important) and achieve both configural (factor structures) and metric (factor-loadings) invariance across 22 geopolitical entities. Full metric invariance is rarely found in cross-cultural management research (e.g., Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). The Love of Money Scale (LOMS) reflects the combined notion that I want to be rich (affective), that money is a motivator (behavioral), and that money is important (cognitive). Since the Love of Money Scale (LOMS) has been very well established across 22 cultures, researchers may feel confident in using the LOMS and testing theoretical and conceptual relationships and models across cultures. Finally, Tang and Chiu (2003) employed the 17-item-4-factor Love of Money Scale (Rich, Motivator, Important, and Success) and found that the love of money is significantly and positively related to unethical behaviors in organizations (i.e., Evil), whereas income (money) is not related to unethical behavior. (Factor Success reveals the notion that money is a sign of one’s success.) Empirical data support the notion that “the love of money is the root of evil” (Bible: 1 Timothy, 6: 10), but money is not (Tang and Chiu, 2003). Further, people with high love of money will have low pay satisfaction that leads to low organizational commitment that, in turn, leads to unethical behaviors (Tang et al., 2002). This path reveals the thinking processes of or the rationale for people’s unethical behaviors in organizations. We will examine a part of this path in this study. In summary, the love of money is the root cause of evil (scandals, corruptions, and unethical behaviors) in our society (Kochan, 2002; Sloan, 2002). The love of money construct is strongly related to the concept of “greed,” has many negative conations, and has been considered as a “taboo” by people in many societies. It measures one’s “values,” “wants” (Locke, 1969), and “an inordinate desire” (Sloan, 2002) for

The Love of Money money. The love of money, in and by itself, is “not” necessarily good or evil. The love of money is of supreme importance conceptually and empirically and deserves researchers’ further attention because it helps us understand, predict, and control evil or unethical behaviors. The present study. We employ Factors Budget, Evil, Equity, Success, and Motivator (Tang et al., 2003) in this study and define these factors as follows: (1) Factor Budget emphasizes whether one uses one’s money carefully or not. (2) Factor Evil measures the notion that the love of money is the root of all evil. Money may lead to unethical behavior. (3) Factor Equity is directly related to internal equity and individual equity. Internal equity deals with the pay differentials at different organizational (vertical) hierarchy (Tang et al., 2000). Those who have more difficult and important duties and responsibilities should be paid more than those who do not. Individual equity refers to the notion that given the same job duties and responsibilities, individuals with higher quality and quantity of performance (higher merit) should be paid more than those without (Milkovich and Newman, 2002). (4) Factor Success reflects that “in America, money is how we keep score” and “income is used to judge success” (Rubenstein, 1981, p. 34). Some people have an “obsession with money as a sign of success” (Furnham and Argyle, 1998, p. 148). (5) Factor Motivator stresses the notion: People are motivated to work hard for their money (Gupta and Shaw, 1998; Lawler, 1971). These five factors can be grouped into the affective (Factor Evil), the behavioral (Budget and Motivator), and the cognitive components (Equity and Success).

Money profiles In a pilot study, Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, and Luna-Arocas (2000) have identified four money profiles (Achieving Money Worshiper, Careless Money Admirer, Apathetic Money Manager, and Money Repellent Individual) and examined work-related attitudes in a sample of citizens (N = 90) in the Republic of Macedonia.

333

Achieving Money Worshipers have the strongest positive attitudes toward money (with the highest scores on Factors Success, Motivator, not Evil, and Budget) and the highest active involvement in work activities. Careless Money Admirers are similar to Achieving Money Worshipers with one exception – they do not Budget money carefully. They have the highest external locus of control, the highest involvement, and lowest success avoidance. They have low self-determination and may be controlled by money and the external reward systems. Apathetic Money Managers think that money is not Success and is not a Motivator. They have the highest internal locus of control (self-determination) and do not do it for the love of money (the lowest involvement). They manage the money. Their attitudes toward money are moderate and balanced. To Money Repellent Individuals, money is Evil. They have the lowest competitiveness and highest success avoidance. They have the most negative attitudes toward money. On the basis of this pilot study, we assert that there will be four money profiles for American professors, Spanish professors, and the whole sample. In the following paragraphs, we will review the literature regarding the love of money as related to satisfaction and work ethic.

Money and intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction For some, money is a hygiene factor (e.g., Cameron and Pierce, 1994; Herzberg, 1987; Kohn, 1993; Pfeffer, 1998). “The distinction between movement and motivation is still true, and motivation-hygiene theory is still a framework with which to evaluate actions” (Herzberg, 1987, p. 120). Others consider money as a motivator (e.g., Lawler, 1971; Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966). Money is related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci et al., 1999; Diener, 2000). The debate has run the gamut from anathema (Kohn, 1993) to additive (Porter and Lawler, 1968) to interactive (Ryan and Deci, 2000) to enhancing (Fang and Gerhart, 2002). For example, financial incentives do improve performance quantity and do not erode intrinsic motivation. Pay for performance is associated with more, not less, intrinsic interest

334

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

(Fang and Gerhart, 2002). The jury is still out regarding the impact of financial incentives on performance quality (Gupta and Shaw, 1998). Intrinsic motivation is related to self-determination or freedom from control. When intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are both very high, people may redefine the purpose and the nature of performing the task (Tang and Baumeister, 1984) and mistakenly infer that they do that for extrinsic reasons but not for their intrinsic reward, the overjustification effect (Staw, 1976). Thus, extrinsic reward undermines intrinsic motivation. Those who value money may become the pawns (slaves) rather than the origins (masters) of money (cf. deCharms, 1976). The insufficient justification effect suggests that when intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are both very low, individuals may cognitively reevaluate the intrinsic characteristics of an activity in order to justify their own behavior and find that the task is not really so bad after all. They do not do it for the money (i.e., low extrinsic motivation); rather, they do it for the fun of it (i.e., high intrinsic motivation). On the basis of the four money profiles (Tang et al., 2000), Apathetic Money Managers do not do it for the money and have a high level of internal locus of control (or self-determination). Following the insufficient justification effect, we predict that Apathetic Money Managers will have higher intrinsic job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1) and higher life satisfaction (Hypothesis 2) and see activities as “play” rather than “work” (Tang and Baumeister, 1984), relatively speaking, than those in other money profiles. Hypothesis 1: Apathetic Money Manager will have high intrinsic job satisfaction.

Life satisfaction The two most widely known models of pay satisfaction are the equity model (Adams, 1965) and the discrepancy model (Lawler, 1971; Heneman and Judge, 2000). “The idea that net satisfaction is a function of the perceived dis-

crepancy or gap between what one has and wants is at least as old as the stoic philosophy of Zeno of Citium around 300 B.C.” (Michalos, 1985, p. 348). The discrepancy model suggests that satisfaction is a function of a comparison between what one would like to receive (i.e., expectations) and what one receives (i.e., reality) (Lawler, 1971; Rice et al., 1990). This discrepancy notion is applicable to both life satisfaction and pay satisfaction (see discussion on pay satisfaction below). A large discrepancy between the expectation and the reality will lead to a high level of dissatisfaction. We argue that the Love of Money (Factors Equity and Success, in particular) reflects one’s own “cognitive standards”, “frame of reference”, or the expectation that will be used to assess one’s life (pay) satisfaction (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). When people have low expectations of money, they experience a small discrepancy between the expectation and the reality that may lead to a high level of life satisfaction (McNichol, 1998). Following Hypothesis 1 and our discussion above, among the four money profiles, Apathetic Money Manager (low Motivator) will have high life satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: Apathetic Money Manager will have high life satisfaction.

Pay satisfaction “Job satisfaction is an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to a job that results from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)” (Cranny et al., 1992, p. 1). Pay satisfaction is only a small part of job satisfaction (cf. Judge, Bono, and Locke, 2000). A great deal of research has been conducted for pay satisfaction (e.g., Heneman, 1985; Heneman and Judge, 2000; Heneman and Schwab, 1985; Heneman, 1992). The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967) measures intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) (Heneman and Schwab, 1985) examines pay level, raises, benefits, and pay administration. Research shows

The Love of Money that high-income individuals, in general, tend to have a high level of pay satisfaction (Pfeffer and Langton, 1993), have positive money attitude, and consider money as a sign of their success (Tang, 1992). Thus, we assert that among the four money profiles, Achieving Money Worshiper who tends to have the most positive attitudes toward money and high income will have high pay satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: Achieving Money Worshiper will have high pay satisfaction.

Equity comparisons Following our literature review and Hypothesis 3, we expect that a large discrepancy between the expectation and the reality will lead to a high level of pay dissatisfaction (Rice et al., 1990). Further, equity theory suggests that people consider their output/input ratio and compare their ratio with that of a referent (Adams, 1965). Researchers (e.g., Blau, 1994; Bordia and Blau, 1998; Summers and DeNisi, 1990) have studied the taxonomy of pay referent categories. Goodman (1974) has defined “Other” as someone inside or outside the focal organization. “Because of the importance of social referents for anchoring judgments about pay and other characteristics of work (e.g., O’Reilly and Caldwell, 1979), both the level of an individual’s rewards and the distribution of rewards across other organizational members is important” (Pfeffer and Langton, 1993, p. 384). People assess the adequacy of their rewards through a process of social comparison (Festinger, 1954). “The value of a given reward is not absolute, but is relative to other rewards with which it is compared” (Brickman, 1975, p. 191, emphasis added). What is fair or just is open to interpretation. Pay comparisons typically require participants to provide ratings of self and comparison others’ pay and inputs. “The less the discrepancy in pay and inputs between self and comparison others, the greater the pay satisfaction” (Heneman and Judge, 2000, p. 67). Bok (1993), former president of Harvard University and Dean of the Harvard Law School,

335

asserts: the lucrative rewards of Wall Street, the elite law firms, and the medical specialties act as a magnet to deprive poorly paid but vitally important teaching and public service professions of desperately needed talent. Achieving Money Worshipers are more likely to obtain professional degrees in high-skill fields such as business, law, and medicine and receive the greatest economic payoff in the labor market. Achieving Money Worshipers (high-income professors) may teach in the College of Business (in a university without other professional schools). These professors may have a well-defined external market and may easily leave academia and obtain higher paying jobs in business and industry. They have higher income than those in other colleges in the university (e.g., College of Liberal Arts, College of Education and Human Science) but lower pay than the market in business and industry. Career choice (academic discipline) is related to both the official and self-reported income and money attitude (Tang et al., 2001). People with high income tend to have high internal equity perceptions. Professors tend to stay at the university after they obtain academic tenure. Compared to the labor market, those with long job tenure tend to experience pay compression and have low external pay equity perceptions. On the basis of Hypothesis 3 and rationale mentioned above, we expect that among the four money profiles, Achieving Money Worshiper (with high income) will have higher internal equity and lower external equity perceptions than others. We test Hypothesis 4 below. Hypothesis 4: Achieving Money Worshiper will have high internal pay equity comparison satisfaction in the organization.

The protestant work ethic One of the most widely studied variables related to work is the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE). High work ethic individuals tend to work very hard (Tang and Baumeister, 1984), believe that time is money, think that money represents Achievement, that money is Good (Tang and Gilbert, 1995), and that they Budget money carefully (Tang, 1992). Protestant Work Ethic

336

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

beliefs are associated with security, collecting, miserliness and saving, but also to autonomy and power (Furnham, 1990). “At the heart of Protestant work ethic is an obsession with money as a sign of success (and grace) and hence a powerful psychological indicator of Protestant work ethic beliefs” (Furnham and Argyle, 1998, p. 148, emphasis added). Since Achieving Money Worshipers have the highest active involvement in work activities (Tang et al., 2000), we predict that among the four money profiles, Achieving Money Worshipers will have the strongest Work Ethic. Hypothesis 5: Achieving Money Worshiper will have high Protestant Work Ethic.

Methods Participants Data were collected from university faculty in the U.S.A. and Spain. A questionnaire was mailed to all full-time faculty members of one regional state university in the southeastern United States. This university has about 18,500 students and 715 full-time professors. The response rate in the U.S.A. was 28.95 percent (207 respondents). We also have official records for all professors from the Office of Human Resource Services. The same questionnaire was translated into Spanish using a multi-stage translation-back-translation procedure. The survey was distributed to randomly selected faculty of a major public university in Valencia, Spain that has about 20,000 students and 1,000 professors. Data were collected from 104 professors. The return rate was 32.5 percent that was very similar to that of the American sample (28.95%). Although the return rate was low, it was acceptable and reasonable. Our data were not atypical.

Measures We collected demographic variables from the participants (e.g., sex, age, education, marital status, annual income, length of service in

organization (in years), total work experience (in years), and the total number of job changes since the highest degree) (Table I). We included the 15-item-5-factor Love of Money Scale (Tang et al., 2003), the 4-item Pro-Protestant Work Ethic (Blood, 1969), the 20-item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967), and the 18-item Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) (Heneman and Schwab, 1985) using a 5-point Likert-type scale with disagree strongly (1), neutral (3), and agree strongly (5) as anchors. For the whole sample, the Cronbach’s alpha for these variables was listed below: MSQ: intrinsic job satisfaction (0.84), extrinsic job satisfaction (0.80); PSQ: pay level (0.96), benefits (0.92), raises (0.75), and pay administration (0.84). We also measured university faculty’s pay satisfaction when they (1) compared with colleagues in their own department, (2) compared with colleagues in the organization, (3) compared with others at other comparable organizations, and (4) compared with others in the labor market. The Cronbach’s alpha for these four items of equity comparison was 0.86. Finally, general life satisfaction (r = 0.85) was measured by the following two items: (1) Satisfaction with my personal/family life and (2) satisfaction with my life as a whole these days. We used a 5-point scale with very dissatisfied (1), neutral (3), and very satisfied (5) as anchors. The differences in these 24 variables between the American and Spanish sample are presented in Table II. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) suggested that there was an overall difference between the two samples (F(924, 231)) = 14.81, p < 0.001, Wilks’ lambda = 0.394, partial Eta squared = 0.606). In general, the American sample was older, had more men, higher education, higher income, longer work experience at the university, and overall experience than the Spanish sample. The American professors also scored higher on Budget, Equity, Protestant Work Ethic, Benefits, and intrinsic job satisfaction and lower on Evil and market equity comparison than their Spanish counterparts. Results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 15-item LOMS, items, factor loadings, and Cronbach’s alphas (or correlations between two items) are presented in Table III.

The Love of Money

337

TABLE I0 Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of major variables0 Variable 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

000M

00SD

Age 42.68 Sex 0.54 Education 20.06 Income 40,254.60 Length 10.06 Work Exp. 17.72 Jobs 1.09 Budget 3.80 Evil 2.81 Equity 3.46 Success 2.81 Motivator 3.55 PWE 3.42 Pay 3.08 Benefit 3.29 Raise 2.74 Adm. 2.63 MSQ-Int 3.96 MSQ-Ext 3.05 Department 3.19 Organization 2.75 Other Org. 2.62 Market 2.59 Life 4.17

002

003

004

005

006

007

11.23 00.29* 00.41* 00.63* 00.69* 00.90* 00.17* 0.50 00.19* 00.35* 00.25* 00.28* 00.08 2.83 00.44* 00.24* 00.30* –0.01 23,233.80 00.44* 00.61* 00.20* 9.42 00.71* –0.10 11.19 00.21* 1.39 0.78 0.71 0.84 1.05 0.83 0.66 1.04 0.88 0.81 0.75 0.52 0.80 1.11 1.11 1.05 1.05 0.81

008

009

010

011

00.18* 00.01 00.12 00.23* 00.19* 00.20* –0.01

–0.09 00.07 –0.13 –0.13* –0.01 –0.08 00.01 –0.07

00.18* 00.18* 00.25* 00.34* 00.05 00.17* 00.14* 00.13* –0.16*

00.17* 00.17* 00.11 00.22* 00.05 00.21 00.17 00.00 00.02 00.15*

Variable

012

013

014

015

016

017

018

019

020

021

022

023

024

01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

–0.06 00.05 –0.03 –0.02 –0.10 –0.07 00.13* 00.06 00.10 00.14* 00.34*

00.17* 00.15* 00.14 00.18* 00.12 00.19* 00.07 00.02 00.08 00.31* 00.24* 00.09

00.12* –0.02 00.08 00.24* 00.12* 00.15* 00.04 00.16* –0.09 00.09 00.05 –0.00 –0.09

00.15* –0.05 00.13 00.20* 00.04 00.13* –0.01 00.19* –0.17* 00.24* 00.06 00.11 00.06 00.57*

–0.02 –0.11 00.08 –0.02 –0.07 –0.03 –0.05 00.08 00.03 00.02 00.02 00.04 –0.06 00.64* 00.54*

00.03 –0.07 –0.03 00.11 00.03 00.05 00.02 00.13* –0.06 00.15* 00.14* 00.16* 00.08 00.59* 00.55* 00.63*

00.17* 00.07 00.13 00.23* 00.17* 00.15* 00.01 00.24* –0.06 00.22* –0.02 –0.02 00.24* 00.23* 00.25* 00.23* 00.23*

00.07 00.01 00.04 00.17* 00.05 00.04 00.04 00.12* –0.06 00.18* 00.07 00.10 00.10 00.48* 00.40* 00.60* 00.54* 00.55*

00.07 –0.06 00.02 00.18* –0.01 00.04 00.11 00.06 –0.08 00.07 00.04 00.03 –0.11 00.59* 00.37* 00.45* 00.44* 00.21* 00.46*

00.04 00.03 00.02 00.19* 00.01 00.06 00.11 00.09 –0.01 00.04 00.12* 00.13* –0.01 00.57* 00.30* 00.43* 00.54* 00.26* 00.47* 00.63*

00.03 –0.00 –0.07 00.15* 00.01 00.05 00.02 00.10 00.03 00.04 00.12 00.01 –0.01 00.59* 00.42* 00.52* 00.54* 00.16* 00.43* 00.49* 00.56*

00.01 –0.02 –0.15* 00.14* 00.01 00.06 00.02 00.02 –0.01 00.02 00.10 00.08 –0.02 00.59* 00.41* 00.49* 00.56* 00.20* 00.45* 00.57* 00.57* 00.81*

00.05 00.12 –0.02 00.05 00.05 00.07 00.01 00.21 –0.05 00.05 –0.09 –0.03 00.13 00.17 00.13 00.14 00.12 00.29 00.22 00.09 00.14 00.14 00.11

Age Sex Education Income Length Work Exp. Jobs Budget Evil Equity Success Motivator PWE Pay Benefit Raise Adm. MSQ–Int MSQ–Ext Department Organization Other Org. Market Life

Note: N = 311. * p < 0.05. Sex: Female = 0, Male = 1.

338

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang TABLE II Differences in major variables between the U.S. and Spain

Item

01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

The U.S.

Age Sex Education Income Length of Service Total Experience Jobs LOMS-Budget LOMS-Evil LOMS-Equity LOMS-Success LOMS-Motivator Protestant Work Ethic PSQ-Pay PSQ-Benefits PSQ-Raises PSQ-Pay Administration MSQ-Intrinsic MSQ-Extrinsic Department Organization Others Market Life

Spain

0 Between-subjects

0000M

000SD

0000M

000SD

00F

00p

47.08 0.60 21.06 48,695.97 11.40 21.10 1.25 3.91 2.75 3.66 2.96 3.56 3.57 3.00 3.43 2.72 2.63 4.04 3.07 3.14 2.71 2.57 2.45 4.25

9.35 0.49 1.70 20,564.74 9.73 10.10 1.48 0.72 0.68 0.79 1.06 0.86 0.63 1.08 0.91 0.86 0.76 0.51 0.82 1.19 1.16 1.13 1.05 0.77

33.44 0.43 18.39 24,174.06 7.00 10.22 0.91 3.62 2.96 2.98 2.58 3.61 3.20 3.18 2.94 2.70 2.60 3.82 2.91 3.23 2.86 2.69 2.76 4.05

9.94 0.50 3.47 13,773.89 7.47 8.46 1.35 0.76 0.72 0.81 1.03 0.72 0.64 0.91 0.67 0.60 0.70 0.51 0.70 0.93 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89

121.99 006.93 069.65 096.32 012.76 071.33 002.90 008.18 004.81 041.96 007.13 000.24 018.98 001.73 019.13 000.06 000.06 010.31 002.48 000.33 001.02 000.73 004.97 003.31

0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.090 0.005 0.029 0.000 0.008 0.623 0.000 0.190 0.000 0.811 0.810 0.001 0.117 0.569 0.313 0.394 0.027 0.070

Note: MANOVA results: F(24, 231) = 14.81, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.394, Partial Eta squared = 0.606.

The cluster analysis

Results

The goal of the cluster analysis is to arrive at clusters of homogeneous people who differ in meaningful ways and display small within-cluster variation, but large between-cluster variation (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984). In this study, we use hierarchical cluster analyses with Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distance to identify the number of clusters in the three-stage procedure: (1) partitioning, (2) interpretation, and (3) validation and profiling.

Partitioning Researchers compute solutions for several different numbers of clusters and select the number of clusters based on a priori criteria, practical judgment, common sense, and theoretical foundations. If a cluster solution is repeatedly discovered across different samples from the same general population, researchers may conclude that this solution has some generality. The agglomerative hierarchical clustering procedure can be used to cluster a small to moderate

The Love of Money

339

TABLE III Items of the 15-item Love of Money Scale Item

Factor loading

Factor 1: Budget 01. I budget my money very well. 02. I use my money very carefully. 03. I pay my bills immediately to avoid interest or penalties. 04. I do financial planning for the future. Variance = 17.5%, Eigenvalue = 2.63, alpha = 0.69

0.88 0.87 0.71 0.56

Factor 2: Evil 05. Money undermines one’s ethical norms and standards of conduct. 06. People perform unethical acts to maximize their monetary gains. 07. Money is evil. 08. The love of money is the root of evil. Variance = 15.0%, Eigenvalue = 2.26, alpha = 0.72

0.74 0.69 0.60 0.58

Factor 3: Equity 09. People on the same job should be paid equally (equality). 10. People on the same job should be paid based on merit (equity). 11. Lower-level job with little responsibility should be paid less. Variance = 13.05, Eigenvalue = 1.95, alpha = 0.41

0.80 0.71 0.58

Factor 4: Success 12. Money is a symbol of success. 13. Money represents one’s achievement. Variance = 9.1%, Eigenvalue = 1.36, r = 0.81

0.89 0.89

Factor 5: Motivator 14. Money is a motivator. 15. I am motivated to work hard for money. Variance = 7.0%, Eigenvalue = 1.05, r = 0.66

0.84 0.81

Note: Item 9 is reverse scored.

number of cases. We followed the suggestions in the literature and used a random sample of 65 cases from the American and Spanish samples and performed a hierarchical cluster analysis. The plots of number of clusters versus fusion coefficient using Ward’s method for these two samples revealed a significant “jump” between the fourand three-cluster solutions for the American sample and also for the Spanish sample (see Figure 1). We adopt the four-cluster solution. (We also identify four clusters using the whole American and Spanish samples.) On the basis of the four-cluster solution, we applied the QUICK CLUSTER program to the American sample and the Spanish sample separately. A four-cluster solution has been found

Figure 1. Cluster formation with fusion coefficients.

340

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

consistently in the American sample, the Spanish sample, and the whole sample that fits the theory and previous findings (Tang et al., 2000). Quick cluster. Table IV shows results of the QUICK CLUSTER program using the whole sample and the means and standard deviations of the four clusters. There were 117 (37.62%) participants in Cluster 1, 62 participants (19.93%) in Cluster 2, 50 (16.08%) in Cluster 3, and 82 (26.37%) in Cluster 4. We label them (1) Achieving Money Worshiper, (2) Careless Money Admirer, (3) Apathetic Money Manager, and (4) Money Repellent Individual.

Interpretation Results of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) suggested that Factor Success was the most powerful money attitude in profiling the professors (F(3, 307) = 171.94, p = 0.000). The other factors were Factors Budget (F(3, 307) = 81.51, p = 0.000), Motivator (F(3, 307) = 77.34, p = 0.000), Equity (F(3, 307) = 15.45, p = 0.000),

and Evil (F(3, 307) = 12.49, p = 0.000). The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes because the clusters have been chosen to maximize the differences among cases in different clusters. These results define the four clusters. We will discuss these four clusters from the most positive to the least positive money profiles. The last column of Table IV presents the posteriori contrasts of means using the most conservative method, the Scheffe’s test. Achieving money worshiper. The largest group in this study was Achieving Money Worshiper (n = 117, 37.62%). Professors in this cluster had the highest score among the four clusters on Factors Budget (4.29), Equity (3.77), Motivator (3.95), and Success (3.52). (The difference in Factor Success between Achieving Money Worshiper (3.52) and Careless Money Admirer (3.53) was not significant. Therefore, both Achieving Money Worshiper and Careless Money Admirer had the highest scores on Factor Success.) Achieving Money Worshiper did not think that money is Evil.

TABLE IV Means and standard deviations of the Love of Money Scale for Four Clusters Variables

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster paired comparison*

Whole sample N = 311

Achieving money worshiper n = 117

Careless money admirer n = 62

Apathetic money manager n = 50

Money repellent individual n = 82

Percentage (%)

37.62 %

19.93 %

16.08 %

26.37 %

U.S.A. (%)

45.45%

20.57%

9.57%

24.41%

Spain (%)

26.47%

15.69%

27.45%

30.39%

Success

3.52 (0.62)

3.53 (0.66)

1.96 (0.77)

1.77 (0.61)

(1, 2) > (3, 4)

Budget

4.29 (0.42)

2.85 (0.62)

3.75 (0.73)

3.84 (0.67)

1 > (4, 3, 2); 4 > 2

Motivator

3.95 (0.58)

3.72 (0.66)

2.35 (0.80)

3.60 (0.56)

1 > 4; 2, 4 > 3

Equity

3.77 (0.75)

3.34 (0.83)

3.62 (0.82)

3.04 (0.76)

1 > (2, 4); 3 > 4

Evil

2.77 (0.63)

2.99 (0.69)

2.34 (0.68)

3.01 (0.69)

(4, 2, 1) > 3

Note: * p < 0.05; Schefffe’s test. The highest and lowest means are in boldface. The lowest means are underlined.

The Love of Money Careless money admirer. Professors in the Careless Money Admirer Cluster had the lowest score on Factor Budget (2.85) and the highest score on Factor Success (3.53). They had positive attitudes toward money but did not handle their money carefully. Apathetic money manager. This was the smallest cluster of the four (16.08%). They had the lowest score on Factors Motivator (2.35) and Evil (2.34). They scored higher on Factor Equity than Cluster 4. These professors were not strongly motivated to work hard for their money. They did not believe that money is Evil. They are impartial. Money repellent individual. Money Repellent Individual (26.37%) was the second largest group in this study. Professors in this Cluster had the highest score on Factor Evil (3.01) and the lowest score on Factor Equity (3.04) and Success (1.77). They had the strongest negative attitude toward money.

Validation and profiling ANOVA. We used analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to (1) examine variables “not” used in cluster analysis for external validation, (2) identify the differences among the four clusters using the Scheffe’s test, and (3) test our hypotheses and provide answers to our research questions (see Table V). Achieving Money Worshipers (Cluster 1) had the highest selfreported income (US$50,903.23) than the other three groups (Cluster 2 – US$34,640.46; Cluster 3 – US$37,990.20; Cluster 4 – US$31,600.87) (F(3, 285) = 7.35, p = 0.000). There was a significant difference in self-reported income between the American sample and the Spanish sample. Income data were transformed to the z scores for each sample. Results of ANOVA using z scores showed a similar pattern of results. Achieving Money Worshipers were older (46.49 years old) than Careless Money Admirer (40.49) and Money Repellent Individual (39.38) (F(3, 287) = 8.18, p = 0.000). Achieving Money Worshipers had longer total work experience

341

(21.55 years) than had Careless Money Admirer (15.48) and Money Repellent Individual (13.85) (F(3, 302) = 9.83, p = 0.000). Achieving Money Worshipers had the highest level of the Protestant Work Ethic endorsement, whereas Money Repellent Individuals had the lowest. Results supported Hypothesis 5. Achieving Money Worshipers had the highest level of satisfaction for pay level, pay administration, and equity comparison within the organization, supporting our predictions (Hypotheses 3 and 4). Differences among the four clusters were significant for intrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 300) = 3.91, p = 0.009, but not for extrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 287) = 2.57, p = 0.055). Further, separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) holding age, sex, education, length of service at the university, total work experience, and the number of job changes as controls showed that there were significant differences among the four money clusters in intrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 230) = 2.92, p = 0.035). Apathetic Money Managers had the highest intrinsic job satisfaction, supporting Hypothesis 1. The differences failed to reach significance again for extrinsic job satisfaction (F(3, 230) = 2.40, p = 0.069). The effect of the four money profiles on life satisfaction was significant (F(3, 305) = 7.65, p = 0.000). Apathetic Money Managers had the highest life satisfaction, whereas Careless Money Admirers had the lowest, supporting our Hypothesis 2. Finally, when the total number of job changes since the highest degree was examined, we found that professors in Cluster 1 (Achieving Money Worshipers) tended to have more job changes (1.33) than those in Cluster 3 (Apathetic Money Managers) (0.67); however, the difference only approached significance (p = 0.074). American professors have changed their jobs (1.24) significantly more often than their Spanish counterparts (0.82), (F(1, 243) = 4.13, p < 0.05). In Cluster 1, there were more American professors than Spanish professors. College affiliation was not available for Spanish professors. For American professors in Cluster 1, only 21.8 percent of them were in the College of Business. There were no significant differences in job

342

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang TABLE V Means and (standard deviations) of external variables for cluster validation

Variables

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Achieving money worshiper

Careless money admirer

Apathetic money manager

Money repellent individual

n = 117 37.62 %

n = 62 19.93 %

n = 50 16.08 %

n = 82 26.37 %

50,903.23 (29,746.33) 0.3394 (1.2966)

34,640.46 (16,315.46) –0.2018 (0.7016)

37,990.20 (17,119.64) –0.1475 (0.7290)

31,600.87 (17,153.45) –0.2145 (0.7211)

1 > (3, 2, 4)

21.55 (10.88) 46.49 (10.90) 1.33 (1.56)

15.48 (10.20) 40.49 (10.76) 1.15 (1.50)

17.83 (10.94) 42.12 (10.50) 0.67 (1.00)

13.85 (10.89) 39.38 (11.88) 0.93 (1.39)

1 > (2, 4) 1 > (2, 4) 1 > 3 (p = 0.074)

Work ethic

3.56 (0.61)

3.48 (0.67)

3.27 (0.67)

3.25 (0.69)

1>4

Intrinsic Extrinsic

4.22 (0.68) 3.36 (1.11)

4.00 (0.75) 3.23 (1.11)

4.35 (0.59) 3.15 (1.23)

4.19 (0.57) 3.06 (1.24)

3>2

Satisfaction-pay Benefit Raise Administration

3.29 3.45 2.82 2.81

(1.00) (0.90) (0.77) (0.70)

2.83 3.13 2.68 2.58

(0.98) (0.90) (0.76) (0.73)

2.90 3.22 2.56 2.47

(1.13) (0.87) (0.87) (0.71)

3.07 3.23 2.79 2.49

(1.04) (0.76) (0.76) (0.75)

1>2

Equity-department Organization Other organization Market

3.29 3.05 2.81 2.71

(1.09) (1.07) (1.07) (1.09)

3.14 2.61 2.56 2.67

(0.99) (1.07) (1.12) (1.01)

3.10 2.43 2.33 2.35

(1.19) (1.08) (1.01) (1.03)

3.15 2.64 2.57 2.49

(1.16) (1.14) (0.96) (1.03)

Life satisfaction

4.27 (0.75)

N = 311 Percentage (%) Income

US$ z score

Work experience Age Number of jobs

3.81 (0.86)

4.38 (0.72)

4.17 (0.86)

Cluster paired comparison*

1>4 1>3

(3, 1) > 2

Note: * p < 0.05; Schefffe’s test.

changes across these colleges in the U.S. sample (F(5, 197) = 0.70, p = 0.63). Most people in the Spanish culture work in the same organization and live in the same city for most of their life and frown upon job changes. Discriminant analysis. The discriminate analysis allows us to examine quantitative predictors and qualitative (dichotomous) criterion (clusters), identify predictors that are related to the criterion, and predict values on the criterion with given values on the predictors. We included (1) age, work experience, income, and number of job changes, (2) the Protestant Work Ethic, (3) intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction,

satisfaction with pay, benefits, raises, and administration, pay equity comparison with others in the department, organization, other organizations, and market, and (4) overall life satisfaction to predict the membership of the four clusters in a discriminant analysis (chi-square (df = 48) = 100.37, p = 0.000, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.645). Profiling. Table VI shows that Function 1 separated Achieving Money Worshiper from Careless Money Admirer, Apathetic Money Manager, and Money Repellent Individual. Achieving Money Worshipers had lower satisfaction when compared with others in the labor market (–0.629), higher satisfaction with pay adminis-

The Love of Money

343

TABLE VI Discriminant analysis Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients

Variable

Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions

Function

Variable

1

2

3

Age Experience Income Job changes Work ethic Intrinsic Extrinsic Pay Benefits Raise Administration Department Organization Other Market Life

–0.060 00.251 00.463 00.256 00.338 –0.452 00.080 00.073 00.134 –0.016 00.507 –0.287 00.324 00.422 –0.629 –0.004

00.237 00.192 00.031 –0.229 –0.375 00.567 –0.186 00.130 00.139 –0.321 00.361 00.018 –0.076 00.117 –0.580 00.500

–0.094 00.541 –0.235 –0.139 00.232 00.163 00.362 –0.401 00.109 –0.555 00.398 00.572 –0.377 –0.347 00.284 –0.381

Eigenvalue Canonical correlation

00.292 00.475

00.113 00.319

00.078 00.269

Functions at group centroids Cluster 1 00.659 Cluster 2 –0.200 Cluster 3 –0.650 Cluster 4 –0.421

00.104 –0.581 00.523 –0.003

00.001 00.283 00.345 –0.397

Income Administration Experience Organization Age Work ethic Pay Job changes Other Benefits Market Department Life Intrinsic Raise Extrinsic

Function 1

2

3

0.505* 0.494* 0.463* 0.423* 0.419* 0.384* 0.343* 0.337* 0.333* 0.264* 0.226* 0.134* 0.043 –0.095 0.193 0.139

0.207 0.099 0.388 0.030 0.401 –0.104 0.159 –0.158 –0.050 0.158 –0.143 0.053 0.576* 0.530* –0.030 0.019

–0.001 0.054 0.374 –0.221 0.332 0.310 –0.317 –0.014 –0.275 0.034 –0.062 0.090 –0.307 0.069 –0.339* 0.201*

Note: Coefficients greater than 0.40 are in boldface. Variables ordered by absolute size of correlations within function. * Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.

tration (0.507), higher income (0.463), lower intrinsic job satisfaction (–0.452), higher satisfaction when compared with those in other organizations (0.422), higher Work Ethic (0.338), and other variables than had those in other 3 Clusters. Function 2 separated Careless Money Admirer from Achieving Money Worshiper and Apathetic Money Manager. Careless Money Admirers had higher satisfaction when compared with others in the market (–0.580), lower intrinsic job satisfaction (0.567), lower life satisfaction (0.500), and other variables than Achieving Money Worshipers and Apathetic

Money Managers. Finally, Function 3 separated Money Repellent Individual from Careless Money Admirer and Apathetic Money Manager. Money Repellent Individuals had low satisfaction when compared with others in the department (0.572), high satisfaction with pay raises (–0.555), low work experience (0.541), high satisfaction with pay (–0.401), and other variables than Careless Money Admirers and Apathetic Money Managers. Results support hypotheses. The true discriminatory power of the function will be found when we test it in a completely separate sample that is very costly and time con-

344

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

suming. In our cross-validated classification process, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases except that case. Results showed that 48.2 percent of original grouped cases correctly classified and 37.0 percent of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified. Finally, when all the aforementioned variables as well as the five Factors of the Love of Money were included in the discriminant analysis, the percentage of “grouped” cases correctly classified increased from 48.2 percent to 95.4 percent. Thumbnail sketches of the four clusters are presented in Table VII.

Apathetic Money Manager, and Money Repellent Individual. These four money profiles are almost identical to the four profiles examined in a sample of citizens in the Republic of Macedonia. These results are quite robust across cultures, suggesting the validity of the Love of Money Scale and four money profiles. It should be noted that these cluster names are used to describe four money profiles for this group of professors. Therefore, Achieving Money Worshipers, for example, can be used to describe a group of professors, relative to only other professors in this study. We will discuss these four money profiles below.

Discussion Achieving Money Worshipers Using the Love of Money Scale, we identify four money profiles for the American and Spanish professors and also the whole sample: Achieving Money Worshiper, Careless Money Admirer,

Achieving Money Worshipers consider money a sign of their Success and Budget their money very carefully. They also have higher income,

TABLE VII Thumbnail sketches for the four clusters (money profiles) Profile: The Love of Money – defining factor Achieving money worshiper Factor success – the highest Factor budget – the highest Factor motivator – the highest

Careless money admirer Factor success – the highest Factor budget – the lowest Apathetic money manager Factor evil – the lowest Factor motivator – the lowest Money repellent individual Factor evil – the highest Factor success – the lowest Factor equity – the lowest

Validation variable

Income – the highest Work experience – the highest age – the oldest PWE – the highest Pay (PSQ) – the highest Pay administration – the highest Organization (pay comparison – the highest) Intrinsic (MSQ) – the lowest Pay (PSQ) – the lowest Life Satisfaction – the lowest Intrinsic (MSQ) – the highest Life satisfaction – the highest Organization (pay comparison) – the lowest Income – the lowest Work experience – the lowest Age – the youngest PWE – the lowest Pay administration – the lowest

The Love of Money longer work experience, are older, have higher Protestant Work Ethic, higher satisfaction with pay, pay administration, equity comparison with others in the organization, and overall life satisfaction than others. Professors who have longer tenure and are older tend to make more money and have higher job satisfaction than their counterparts. According to the attraction-selectionattrition (ASA) model, only those who are qualified and content with the profession will stay, whereas others will leave voluntarily and involuntarily. As Achieving Money Worshipers approach their mid- and late-40s, they have reached their earning peaks and have more realistic expectations than their younger counterparts. In short, Achieving Money Worshipers worship money. They are also rich and happy with their pay. To them, money is a Motivator. We speculate that Achieving Money Worshipers will work best under a reward system that reinforces “individual” or team performance on the job (e.g., merit pay, gain-sharing plans), since they have the highest work ethic, experience, and income as well as pay satisfaction and pay administration satisfaction. Further, they also have the highest concern for internal equity and individual equity. Research suggests: “males, white-collar employees, high performers, achievement-oriented employees, and those who already work under a merit plan” prefer merit pay (Heneman, 1992, p. 98). Thereby, merit pay may work well with Achieving Money Worshipers. “Historically, the pay systems of most large organizations have been based on jobs and job evaluation technology. It ignores the differencemaking value that is added by people with high levels of knowledge and performance. Increasingly, human capital is the key capital for an organization” (Lawler, 2002, p. 311). Organizations should pay the “person”, rather than the job, and develop person-based pay that will reward individuals for their skills, knowledge, and competencies related to the external market value. Achieving Money Worshipers have the second highest level of intrinsic job satisfaction, suggesting that their high pay does not undermine their intrinsic job satisfaction. For the whole sample, intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job

345

satisfaction are significantly and positively correlated (0.55) (Table I). Future research needs to explore the possibility that pay for performance is associated with more, not less, intrinsic interest in the workplace (Fang and Gerhart, 2002), for Achieving Money Worshipers. Finally, “human capital must earn a fair return or like any other capital it will search for a higher rate of return and it will frequently find it” (Lawler, 2002, p. 311). High Love of Money employees’ voluntary turnover was high regardless of their intrinsic job satisfaction (Tang et al., 2000). The number of job changes is the strongest predictor of management professors’ pay in the U.S. (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992). If Achieving Money Worshipers are not properly rewarded, they are more likely to quit their jobs and work for the competitors. Our insignificant finding on the job changes is due to the combined American and Spanish samples in that Spanish professors tend to have less job changes than their American counterparts. Managers must find the best compensation package to reward and retain Achieving Money Worshipers’ human capital.

Careless Money Admirers Careless Money Admirers have the strongest feeling that money represents their Success and that they do not Budget their money carefully. They tend to be younger, have fewer years of total work experience, low income, low pay satisfaction, and low life satisfaction. These results seem to support previous findings in that Factor Budget is positively correlated with job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Tang, 1992, 1995) and the discrepancy model (Lawler, 1971). A large discrepancy between the reality (relatively low income, 34,640.46) and the expectation (highly positive attitudes toward money) may lead to the lowest pay satisfaction (2.83). Their high concern for extrinsic reward leads to the lowest intrinsic job satisfaction. They admire money, do not have money, and are not happy. They exert effort and try very hard to achieve their goals. People in this cluster are highly motivated by money. Money is a positive reinforcement.

346

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

They have the highest external locus of control (Tang et al., 2000) and may be highly vulnerable to external pressures and opportunities in the environment to earn money. One possible implication is that they may fall into the temptation of unethical behaviors in organizations. We will examine this issue below. Ethics are moral principles or beliefs about what is right or wrong. These beliefs guide employees in their dealings with other individuals and stakeholders and provide a basis for deciding whether behavior is right and proper (Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Michalos, 1995; Robinson and Bennett, 1995). In the wake of downsizing, reengineering, and empowerment, employees have the pressure to perform (push) and the opportunity to make money and consume products and services (pull). These pushing and pulling forces may lead people to engage in unethical behavior in organizations. Research shows that a large percentage of financial loss, according to loss-prevention executives, is attributed to employee theft (38.4%), shoplifting (35.6%), administrative error (19.4%), and vendor theft (6.4%). Firms reported an average loss of $142.49 per shoplifting, $737.31 per employee theft, and $2,410 per armed robbery (Mathews, 1997). In the restaurant industry, internal theft accounts for 7 percent to 10 percent of all sales losses and 75 percent of inventory shrinkage (Drinkard, 1996). In a paper entitled: “stealing in the name of justice”, underpaid undergraduate subjects took (i.e., they stole) more than they were permitted to take for their participation in a laboratory study, whereas equitably/fairly paid participants did not (Greenberg, 1993). Theft, shoplifting, inventory shrinkage, corruption, and other unethical behavior are caused by employees’ perceived unfair resources allocation, pay dissatisfaction, and the desire to have more money and maximize their financial gains in organizations. “From a procedural justice perspective, perceived injustice will lead to negative perceptions of the organization and, hence, to counterproductive behaviors that will hurt the organization” (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001, p. 287). Employees who are committed to the organization are more like to perform

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and less likely to perform unethical behavior. As mentioned, researchers (Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2002) have focused on the love of money using Factors Motivator, Success, Importance, and Rich. (Factors Motivator and Success, in that study, are similar to the factors examined in the present study.) The love of money is directly and indirectly related to unethical behavior, whereas income is not. The indirect path shows that the love of money is related to high pay dissatisfaction that, in turn, leads to low organizational commitment that, in turn, leads to high unethical behavior. In plain English, the love of money is the root of evil, whereas money is not. The indirect path implies that most employees do not engage in unethical behavior directly without any rationale (or reason), but they do it because of the perception of high pay dissatisfaction and low commitment (mediators). The present study did not examine commitment and unethical behavior. Based on the results of the present study and that of Tang and Chiu (2003) and Tang et al. (2002), we offer the following speculations: The notion that “the love of money is the root of all evil” may be most strongly and directly related to Careless Money Admirers who have the lowest intrinsic job satisfaction, the lowest satisfaction with their pay, and the lowest life satisfaction among the four money profiles in this study. These factors may lead to different forms of unethical behavior in organizations. Future researchers may want to test this hypothesis directly. Managers need to monitor Careless Money Admirers’ unethical behavior closely in an organization. Professors in this study are less likely to get involved in unethical behavior (theft, shoplifting, corruption, kickback, etc.) because there is no or little money and cash exchange involved in their academic work environment (only transfer and exchange of truth, knowledge, and information). Professors do have less opportunity and pressure than do employees in other organizations in business and industry. We encourage researchers to use a newly revised measure of unethical behaviors in future research (Appendix 1). These items were developed based on our review of the literature

The Love of Money (e.g., Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Michalos, 1995; Tang and Chiu, 2003) and recent events reported in the news in the U.S.

Apathetic Money Managers Apathetic Money Managers believe that money does not represent their Success and that money is not Evil. Their money attitudes fall somewhat in the middle of the whole spectrum. They have low income and few job changes, but high intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Instead of being controlled by money or the extrinsic reward system (cf. Lawler, 1971), they may experience “internal locus of control” (Tang et al., 2000), as the origins (masters) of money (cf. deCharms, 1976), and have the feeling that the job is not bad at all, i.e., supporting the insufficient justification effect (Staw, 1976). With low income, they turn their attention internally and find fulfillment in life and on the job. Their low desire for money, “waste not, want not”, allows them to have less money but higher happiness than others. A small but growing number of Americans is living on less and liking it by scaling back, paring down, and doing without. The “simplicity movement” has “its roots in 18th century ‘Yankee frugality’ and in Henry David Thoreau’s urge to ‘simplify’, simplify” (McNichol, 1998, p. 4). This message has appeared in recent books (e.g., Simple Abundance and Your Money or Your Life) and PBS special (Affluenza, Escape from Affluenza). In a simple, less stressful, and enviously uncluttered life, people can live on far less by curbing impulse spending and do the things that matter to them. Our Apathetic Money Managers seem to have adopted these values. The notion that “the love of money is the root of all evil” may “not” be applicable to Apathetic Money Managers who have the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Apathetic Money Managers seem to be the independent thinkers and are less likely affected by the reward and control systems in organizations. Money is neither a positive nor a negative reinforcement in their life style. They are the masters of money and they manage their money successfully.

347

Money Repellent Individuals Money Repellent Individuals have the most negative attitudes toward money. They tend to be young, less experienced, and have low income and low satisfaction with pay administration. They believe that money is Evil and that money does not reflect their Success (due to low income). Individual equity and internal equity are not important to them. Thus, they are not concerned about the opportunity to make more money and do not want to work for money. Money Repellent Individuals have negative attitudes toward money, feel bitter about money, have less money, and are not happy. They can be labeled as the “sour grapes” or “sour losers” in the society. Money is surely not a motivator for them (cf. Lawler, 1971) but only a hygiene factor. Tang (1992) pointed out that young and low-income people tend to believe that money is Evil. Thus, the present findings seem to support previous results. Money Repellent Individuals have the lowest Work Ethic endorsement and the lowest concern for Factor Equity. They may prefer the “egalitarian” or “equality” approach. Union members, for example, may prefer to use seniority rather than job performance in making pay-related decisions. Under this system, high performers do not have the opportunity to make more money. It is also possible that Money Repellent Individuals may want to work on government jobs or in a unionized work environment where they put in only the required time and effort, perform the minimum job requirements, and do not have strong motivation to perform. Professors in this study do work at “public” universities. It should be noted also that all these professors work on similar jobs in the same universities, yet their attitudes are different. For the past several decades, human resource researchers and managers have increasingly turned to agency theory as a way of describing pay practices in general (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992). Firms have principals and agents: Principals own the firm, whereas employees are agents of the owner. Agency theory assumes that an agent is averse to effort and would prefer to be paid without exerting any more effort than

348

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

absolutely necessary. The agent is assumed to be risk averse. “From an agent’s perspective it would be best to be paid for the hours actually worked, because this would require the least effort, and would also ‘smooth over’ any random fluctuations in output that are beyond the employee’s control” (Benson and Hornsby, 2002, p. 318). If the outcome is measurable, the principal can pay the workers for the actual units produced. For university professors, one of the significant measurable outcomes is research productivity. Professors’ research productivity reflects their time and effort beyond classroom teaching. Research reveals that length of service does have significant impacts on regional state university professors’ research orientation and their attitudes toward rewards influence teaching, whereas rank and tenure do not. Faculty with “20 or more” years of service have the lowest research orientation, those with ranks lower than full professor, in particular (Tang and Chamberlain, 2003). Professors in that study may have lost their hope to be promoted to the rank of full professors and have higher pay due to, probably, the lack of updated research skills, research productivity, and other reasons. Post-tenure evaluation and development will be needed to reinforce them to engage in research activities and improving teaching performance that may lead to higher pay. Money probably will not motivate them, unless if summer teaching (i.e., additional income for professors) and other perks are threatened and/or taken away from them. Administrators focus on the establishment of standard and on measurement and control of behavior (i.e., the agency theory). Some university professors do resist this type of reward system. Using Herzberg’s terminology (1987, p. 120), Money Repellent Individuals may have movement but no motivation. Managers may use money as the push (negative reinforcement or extinction) (the stick, not the carrot) to motivate these individuals. Money may serve as a negative reinforcement. Organizations with a heavy emphasis on pay-forperformance may not have a lot of Money Repellent Individuals because many of them will voluntarily and/or involuntarily quit their jobs due to the poor person-environment fit and the

attraction-selection-attrition process. The surest way of getting someone to do something is “KITA” (kick in the pants) (Herzberg, 1987, p. 109).

General discussion In order to motivate people with different money profiles, administrators, managers, and researchers may want to consider different strategies and decisions: Money may serve as a positive reinforcement for Achieving Money Worshipers and Careless Money Admirers, neither a positive nor a negative reinforcement for Apathetic Money Managers, and a negative reinforcement for Money Repellent Individuals. Careless Money Admirers may potentially engage in unethical behavior, whereas Apathetic Money Managers may not change their behavior at all and maintain their own selected life style. On the one hand, attitudes and values are very difficult to change and tend to be quite consistent even when individuals change both the employer and their occupation (Staw et al., 1986). Following these arguments, it may be quite difficult to improve people’s pay satisfaction and life satisfaction in an organization. For some people, it is hard to motivate them with money. On the other hand, as people grow older, their income level changes. The importance and satisfaction of needs in life and their money attitudes may also change (Furnham and Argyle, 1998). It may take some time for people to progress from deficiency needs (physiological needs) to growth needs (psychological needs) (Harpaz, 1990). It is plausible that Careless Money Admirers may become Achieving Money Worshipers later in their careers. Future longitudinal data may test this hypothesis. In this study, the nature of the job for university professors is almost identical. Typically, there is less room to move across universities than there is across organizations in business. There are also probably wider differences in salary, bonus, incentives, compensation systems, etc. within business organizations than universities. Many professors could make more money in business than in academia. Thus, the samples

The Love of Money examined in the present study are potentially restricted to those individuals who may not value income as highly as others in the population (e.g., investment bankers). Bok (1993) calls attention to an even larger and more important issue: Do we compensate highly educated people in the United States in ways that serve the best interests of the nation? What effect do differences in earnings have on the career choices of the talented? Achieving Money Worshipers’ financial success may also reflect the Matthew Effect in compensation (Gabris and Mitchell, 1988): “For to him who has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him who does not have, even that which he has shall be taken away” (Matthew 13: 12).

Limitations Our two convenience samples do not represent the specific universities, university professors in general, and the two nations and are not perfectly matched. Due to the unique characteristics of these professors and the institutions, we do not claim that our results will be generalizable to other occupations in our society. Our data were collected at one time from one source (selfreported); therefore, results may reflect the common method biases (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2003).

Summary One more time: How do you motivate employees (Herzberg, 1987)? Our research provides the following theoretical and empirical contributions regarding the love of money and satisfaction. It depends on employee’s money profile. Achieving Money Worshipers (38% of professors in our samples), who have the highest Protestant Work Ethic, obtain the highest income

349

and express the highest satisfaction with pay level and pay administration. Careless Money Admirers (20%) have the lowest satisfaction with pay level and lowest intrinsic job satisfaction (the slaves of money). Apathetic Money Managers (16%) have the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction (the masters of money). Money Repellent Individuals (26%) have the lowest Protestant Work Ethic endorsement and the lowest satisfaction with pay administration. Money does “not” provide the same power as a motivator for people in different money profiles. It may serve as a motivator for Achieving Money Worshipers (38%) and Careless Money Admirers (20%), a hygiene factor for Apathetic Money Managers (16%), and a weak (negative) reinforcement (KITA) for Money Repellent Individuals (26%). People with different money profiles do provide different patterns of support for different motivation theories. Future researchers need to replicate these findings in other public and private universities, other nonprofit institutions, occupations, regions, and cultures to test the generalizability of the present findings and investigate other variables such as turnover, unethical behaviors, and corruption in organizations. The love of money deserves more attention in the literature.

Acknowledgements This research project was completed when Roberto Luna-Arocas was visiting at the Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, U.S.A. Both authors contribute equally and the names are arranged alphabetically. We would like to thank Alex C. Michalos, Father Wiatt A. Funk, and Yuh-Jia Chen for their support and Emily Thormaehlen, Nathan Harding and James van Buren for their assistance.

350

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Appendix 1 Instructions: There are many hypothetical vignettes (scenarios) for activities at work. Some vignettes may not be applicable to your situation. If you were in that situation, what is the probability that you will take action as suggested in the vignette? Please use the 5-point scale. 1 Very Low Probability

2 Low

3 Average

4 High

5 Very High Probability

Working on the job, I 01. Use office supplies (paper, pen), Xerox machine, and stamps for personal purposes. 02. Make personal long-distance (mobile phone) calls at work. 03. Waste company time surfing on the Internet, playing computer games, and socializing. 04. Abuse the company expense accounts and falsify accounting records. 05. Fly first class and spend a lot of company money on a business trip. 06. Borrow $20 from a cash register overnight without asking. 07. Take merchandise and/or cash home. 08. Give merchandise away to personal friends (no charge to the customers). 09. Overcharge customers to increase sales and to earn higher bonus. 10. Trick people to buy new or additional services. 11. Advise customers for unnecessary repairs and services. 12. Give customers “discounts” first and then charge them more money later (bait & switch). 13. Make more money by deliberately not letting clients know about their benefits. 14. Use low quality inputs in producing products and services and keep profits high. 15. Reduce quantity of materials in selling the same brand name product (14 oz. in a 16 oz. can). 16. Use creative accounting to hide the company’s true financial status and increase personal gain. 17. Manipulate stock prices to earn big personal bonus. 18. Give misleading information to investors for short-term personal profits. 19. Give large contracts/projects to personal friends and relatives. 20. Bribe government officials in a foreign country to win big contracts and personal bonus. 21. Receive gifts, money, and loans (bribery) from others due to one’s position and power. 22. Lay off 500 employees to save the company money and increase one’s personal bonus. 23. Use employees’ pension for personal (self-interest) purposes. 24. Decline reasonable claims to avoid company’s expenses. 25. Delay payment to make the most use of the organization’s money. 26. Pressure suppliers to reduce prices. 27. Reveal company secrets (proprietary information) for several million dollars. 28. Offer low prices to customers and force small businesses in the downtown area to close. 29. Offer “no” severance payments to laid off employees (not required by law in the U.S.). 30. Take no action for shoplifting by customers. 31. Take no action for employees who steal cash/merchandise. 32. Take no action for the fraudulent charges by one’s company.

References Adams, J. S.: 1965, ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (Academic Press, New York), pp. 267–299. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein: 1977, ‘Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research’, Psychological Bulletin 84, 888–912.

Aldenderfer, M. S. and R. K. Blashfield: 1984, Cluster Analysis (Sage Publications, Newbury Park). Barber, A. E. and R. D. Bretz: 2000, ‘Compensation, Attraction, and Retention’, in S. L. Rynes and B. Gerhart (eds.), Compensation in Organizations: Current Research and Practice ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 32–60. Benson, P. G. and J. S. Hornsby: 2002, ‘The View from the Top: The Controversies over Executive Pay’, in G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley and D. B.

The Love of Money Fedor (eds.), Human Resources Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes, 4th edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ), pp. 316–323. Blau, G: 1994, ‘Testing the Effect of Level and Importance of Pay Referents on Pay Level Satisfaction’, Human Relations 47(10), 1251–1268. Blood, M. R.: 1969, ‘Work Values and Job Satisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology 53, 456–459. Bok, D.: 1993, The Cost of Talent: How Executives and Professionals Are Paid and How It Affects America (The Free Press, New York). Bordia, P. and G. Blau: 1998, ‘Pay Referent Comparison and Pay Level Satisfaction in Private versus Public Sector Organizations in India’, The International Journal of Human Resources Management 9(1), 155–167. Brickman, P.: 1975, ‘Adaptation Level Determinants of Satisfaction with Equal and Unequal Outcome Distributions in Skill and Chance Situations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, 191–198. Cameron, J. and W. D. Pierce: 1994, ‘Reinforcement, Reward and Intrinsic Motivation: A MetaAnalysis’, Review of Educational Research 64, 363–423. Cheung, G. W. and R. B. Rensvold: 2002, ‘Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance’, Structural Equation Modeling 9(2), 233–255. Cohen-Charash, Y. and P. E. Spector: 2001, ‘The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(2), 278–321. Corruption Perception Index. (http://www. transparency.org./cpi/2003/cpi2003.pe_statement_ en.html). Cranny, C. J., P. C. Smith and E. F. Stone (eds.): 1992, Job Satisfaction (Lexington, New York). deCharms, R.: 1976, Enhancing motivation: Changes in the Classroom (Irvington, New York). Deci, E. L., R. Koestner and R. M. Ryan: 1999, ‘A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation’, Psychological Bulletin 125, 627–668. Diener, E.: 2000, ‘Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for National Index’, American Psychologist 55(1), 34–43. Drinkard, L.: 1996, ‘Silent Theft’, Restaurants & Institutions 106(6), 116–117. Du, L. Z. and G. A. Yue: 2002, ‘A Summary of

351

Foreign Research on the Psychology of Money’, Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences) 39(2), 61–65 (Chinese). Fang, M. and B. Gerhart: 2002, Does Pay for Performance Diminish Intrinsic Interest? A Workplace Test Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory and the Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model, Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Fenko, A. B.: 2000, ‘The Problem of Money in Foreign Psychological Studies’, Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 21(1), 50–62 (Russian). Festinger, L.: 1954, ‘A Theory of Social Comparison Processes’, Human Relations 7, 117–140. Furnham, A.: 1990, The Protestant Work Ethic (Routledge, London). Furnham, A. and M. Argyle: 1998, The Psychology of Money (Routledge, London). Gabris, G. T. and K. Mitchell: 1988, ‘The Impact of Merit Raise Scores on Employee Attitudes: The Matthew Effect of Performance Appraisal’, Public Personnel Management 17, 369–382. Gomez-Mejia, L. R. and D. B. Balkin: 1992, ‘Determinants of Faculty Pay: An Agency Theory Perspective’, Academy of Management Journal 35, 921–955. Goodman, P. S.: 1974, ‘An Examination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 12, 170–195. Greenberg, J.: 1993, ‘Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54(1), 81–103. Gupta, N. and J. D. Shaw: 1998, ‘Let the Evidence Speak: Financial Incentives Are Effective!!’, Compensation and Benefits Review 26 (March/April), 28–32. Harpaz, I.: 1990, ‘The Importance of Work Goals: An International Perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies 21(1), 79–93. Heneman, H.: 1985, ‘Pay satisfaction’, in K. Rowland and G. Ferris (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 3. ( JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 115–139. Heneman, H. and T. A. Judge: 2000, ‘Compensation Attitudes’, in S. L. Rynes and B. Gerhart (eds.), Compensation in Organizations: Current Research and Practice ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 61–103. Heneman, H. and D. Schwab: 1985, ‘Pay Satisfaction: Its Multidimensional Nature and Measurement’, International Journal of Psychology 20, 129–141. Heneman, R. L.: 1992, Merit Pay (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

352

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Herzberg, F. 1987, ‘One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?’, Harvard Business Review 65(5), 109–120 (Originally published JanuaryFebruary 1968). Hom, P. W. and R. W. Griffeth: 1995, Employee Turnover (South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH). Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing 6, 5–16. Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono and E. A. Locke: 2000, ‘Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics’, Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 237–249. Jurgensen, C. F.: 1978, ‘Job Preferences (What Makes a Job Good or Bad?)’, Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 267–176. Kochan, T. A.: 2002, ‘Addressing the Crisis in Confidence in Corporations: Root Causes, Victims, and Strategies for Reform’, Academy of Management Executive 16(3), 139–141. Kohn, A.: 1993, ‘Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work’, Harvard Business Review (September/October), 54–63. Lawler, E. E.: 1971, Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View (McGraw-Hill, New York). Lawler, E. E.: 2002, ‘Pay Strategy: New Thinking for the New Millennium’, in G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley and D. B. Fedor (eds.), Human Resources Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes, 4th edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ), pp. 310–316. Lim, V. K. G. and T. S. H. Teo: 1997, ‘Sex, Money and Financial Hardship: An Empirical Study of Attitudes Towards Money Among Undergraduates in Singapore’, Journal of Economic Psychology 18, 369–386. Locke, E. A.: 1969, ‘What Is Job Satisfaction?’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4, 309–336. Luna-Arocas, R. and T. L. P. Tang: 1998, ‘The Economic Psychology of Money: Analysis of the Money Ethic Scale and the Money Attitudes Scale (E.A.D.-6)’, Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones (Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology) 14 (3), 295–313 (Spanish). Mathews, R.: 1997, ‘Loss Prevention: It’s Later Than You Think’, Progressive Grocer 76(2), 70–72. McClelland, D. C.: 1967, ‘Money as a Motivator: Some Research Insights’, The McKinsey Quarterly, 10–21. McNichol, T.: 1998, ‘The Simplicity Movement:

Living on Less and Liking It’, USA Weekend ( July 17–19), 4–5. Michalos, A. C.: 1985, ‘Multiple Discrepancies Theory (MDT)’, Social Indicators Research 16, 347–413. Michalos, A. C.: 1995, A Pragmatic Approach to Business Ethics (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Milkovich, G. T. and J. M. Newman: 2002, Compensation, 7th edition (Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston). Mitchell, T. R. and A. Mickel: 1999, ‘The Meaning of Money: An Individual Difference Perspective’, The Academy of Management Review 24(3), 568–578. Opsahl, R. L. and M. D. Dunnette: 1966, ‘The Role of Financial Compensation in Industrial Motivation’, Psychological Bulletin 66, 94–118. O’Reilly, C. A. and D. Caldwell: 1979, ‘Informational Influence as a Determinant of Perceived Task Characteristics and Job Satisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology 64, 157–165. Pfeffer, J.: 1998, ‘Six Dangerous Myths about Pay’, Harvard Business Review (May/June), 108–119. Pfeffer, J. and N. Langton: 1993, ‘The Effect of Wage Dispersion on Satisfaction, Productivity, and Working Collaboratively: Evidence from College and University Faculty’, Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 382–407. Podsakoff, P. M. and S. B. MacKenzie: 2003, ‘Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879–903. Poggioli, S.: 2003, June 20, ‘EU Leaders Consider Draft Constitution’, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, NPR News. Porter, L. W. and E. E. Lawler: 1968, Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL). Quintanilla, I.: 1997, Psicologia economica (Economic Psychology) (McGraw-Hill, Madrid, Spain) (Spanish). Rice, R. W., S. M. Phillips and D. B. McFarlin: 1990, ‘Multiple Discrepancies and Pay Satisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4), 386–393. Robinson, S. L. and R. J. Bennett: 1995, ‘A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study’, Academy of Management Journal 38(2), 555–572. Rubenstein, C.: 1981, ‘Money and Self-Esteem, Relationships, Secrecy, Envy, Satisfaction’, Psychology Today 15(5), 94–118. Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci: 2000, ‘SelfDetermination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being’, American Psychologist 55(1), 68–78.

The Love of Money Rynes, S. L. and B. Gerhart (eds.): 2000, Compensation in Organizations: Current Research and Practice ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Sloan, A.: 2002, June 24, ‘The Jury’s In: Greed Isn’t Good’, News Week, 37. Smith, A.: 1937, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Modern Library, New York) (Original work published 1776). Staw, B. M.: 1976, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ). Staw, B. M., N. E. Bell, and J. A. Clausen: 1986, ‘The Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: A Lifetime Longitudinal Test’, Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3), 56–77. Summers, T. and A. DeNisi: 1990, ‘In Search of Adams’ Other: Reexamination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay’, Human Relations 43, 497–511. Tang, T. L. P.: 1992, ‘The Meaning of Money Revisited’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 197–202. Tang, T. L. P.: 1995, ‘The Development of a Short Money Ethic Scale: Attitudes toward Money and Pay Satisfaction Revisited’, Personality and Individual Differences 19, 809–817. Tang, T. L. P.: 1996, ‘Atteggiamenti nei Confronti del Denaro e Soddisfazione del Proprio Livello Retributivo: Sviluppo di una Versione Ridotta Della Money Ethic Scale’, Psicologia e Lavoro 26(103), 7–16 (Italian), Tang, T. L. P. and R. F. Baumeister: 1984, ‘Effects of Personal Values, Perceived Surveillance, and Task Labels on Task Preference: The Ideology of Turning Play into Work’, Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 99–105. Tang, T. L. P. and M. Chamberlain: 2003, ‘Effects of Rank, Tenure, Length of Service, and Institution on Faculty Attitudes toward Research and Teaching: The Case of Regional State Universities’, Journal of Education for Business 79(2), 103–110. Tang, T. L. P. and R. K. Chiu: 2003, ‘Income, Money Ethic, Pay Satisfaction, Commitment, and Unethical Behavior: Is the Love of Money the Root of Evil for Hong Kong Employees?’, Journal Business Ethics 46, 13–30. Tang, T. L. P. and P. R. Gilbert: 1995, ‘Attitudes toward Money as Related to Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Work-Related Attitudes’, Personality and Individual Differences 19, 327–332. Tang, T. L. P. and J. K. Kim: 1999, ‘The Meaning of Money among Mental Health Workers: The

353

Endorsement of Money Ethic as Related to Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Job Satisfaction, and Commitment’, Public Personnel Management 28(1), 15–26. Tang, T. L. P., and E. J. Weatherford: in press, ‘Ethical Decision Making’, Psihologia Resurselor Umane (The Psychology of Human Resources) 2(2) (Romanian). Tang, T. L. P., J. K. Kim and D. S. H. Tang: 2000, ‘Does Attitude toward Money Moderate the Relationship between Intrinsic Job Satisfaction and Voluntary Turnover?’, Human Relations 53(2), 213–245. Tang, T. L. P., V. W. M. Luk and R. K. Chiu: 2000, ‘Pay Differentials in the People’s Republic of China: An Examination of Internal Equity and External Competitiveness’, Compensation and Benefits Review 32(3), 43–49. Tang, T. L. P., R. Luna-Arocas and H. D. Whiteside: 2003, ‘Money Ethic Endorsement, Self-Reported Income, and Life Satisfaction: University Faculty in the U.S.A. and Spain’, Personnel Review 32(6), 756–773. Tang, T. L, P., T. Sutarso, D. S. H. Tang and R. Luna-Arocas: 2001, Career Choice, Experience, and Demographic Variables as Related to Income, Money Ethic, Pay Equity Comparison, and Pay Satisfaction, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Washington, DC. August, 2001. Tang, T. L. P., K. R. Tillery, B. Lazarevski and R. Luna-Arocas: 2000, Money Profiles and Work-Related Attitudes: The Endorsement of the Money Ethic of Citizens in the Republic of Macedonia, Paper presented at the 25th Annual Colloquium of the International Association for Research on Economic Psychology, Baden, Vienna, Austria, July, 2000. Tang, T. L. P., A. Akadne, A. S. Alzubaidi, M. G. Borg, B. S. Cheng, R. K. Chiu, C. K. Jen, A. M. Kazem, V. K. G. Lim, E. Malovics, J. E. Osagie, R. Pholsward, E. Sardzoska, A. F. Stembridge, T. Sutarso, T. L. N. Tang, T. S. H. Teo and P. Vlerick: 2002, Income, Money Ethic, Pay Satisfaction, Commitment, and Unethical Behavior: A Study of 12 Countries. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, August, 2002. Tang, T. L. P., T. Sutarso, A. Akande, M. W. Allen, A. S. Alzubaidi, M. A. Ansari, F. Arias-Galicai, M. G. Borg, B. Charles-Pauvers, B. S. Cheng, R. K. Chiu, I. Codoban, L. Canova, L. Z. Du, R. C. Higgs, C. K. Jen, K. Kim, R. Luna-Arocas, A. M. Kazem, V. K. G. Lim, E. Malovics, A. M.

354

Roberto Luna-Arocas and Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Manganelli, A. Moreira, O. A. U. Nnedum, J. E. Osagie, A. M. Osman-Gani, F. C. Pereira, R. Pholsward, H. D. Pitariu, M. Polic, E. Sardzoska, A. F. Stembridge, T. L. N. Tang, T. S. H. Teo, M. Tombolani, M. Trontelj, C. Urbain and P. Vlerick: 2003, The Love of Money: Measurement Invariance across 26 Cultures. Paper presented at the 63rd Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. August, 2003. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1981, ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’, Science 211, 453–458. Urbain, C.: 2000, ‘L’Attitude a L’egard de L’argent: une Premiere Tentative de Validation de Deux Echelles de Mesure Americaines Dans un Contexte Culturel Français’, Recherche et Applications en Marketing 5(3), 3–28 (French) Vandenberg, R. J. and C. E. Lance: 2000, ‘A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research’, Organizational Research Methods 3(1), 4–69. Weiss, D., R. Dawis, G. England, and L. Lofquist: 1967, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis).

Wernimont, P. F., and S. Fitzpatrick: 1972, ‘The Meaning of Money’, Journal of Applied Psychology 56, 218–226.

Roberto Luna-Arocas Departamento de Direccion de Empresas, Edificio Departamental Oriental, 1-c5, Campus de los Naranjos, Avda de los Naranjos s/n, University of Valencia, Valencia 46022, Spain and Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Box 516, Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]