To work or not to work: Variables affecting non‐financial employment commitment over time

• Author: Itzhak HARPAZ,Moshe SHARABI
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Date: 01 June 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12141

International Labour Review, Vol. 158 (2019), No. 2

Copyright © The authors 2019

Journal compilation © International Labour Organization 2019

* Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Yezreel Valley Academic College, and

Center for the Study of Organizations and Human Resource Management, University of Haifa,

email: moshes@yvc.ac.il. ** President, Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, and Center for the

Study of Organizations and Human Resource Management, University of Haifa, email: iharpaz@

econ.haifa.ac.il. This research was supported by the US–Israel Binational Science Foundation

and the Israeli Association for Research Foundations. The contributions of these institutions

are gratefully acknowledged.

Responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles rests solely with their authors,

and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO.

To work or not to work:

Variables affecting non-nancial

employment commitment over time

Moshe SHARABI* and Itzhak HARPAZ**

Abstract. The most common indicator of non-nancial employment commitment

(NFEC) is the “lottery question” – whether a person would continue working if

they won a lottery. This cross-sectional research seeks to identify the demographic

variables and the “meaning of work” dimensions that could predict individual

NFEC, presenting the main international ndings over time, with particular refer-

ence to data collected in Israel in 1981, 1994 and 20 06. The authors’ ndings point

to a marked decrease in NFEC in the new millennium and a change in its predic-

tors over time. The ndings and their implications for work and employment are

examined in the light of social and economic changes in Israel.

I

n the (post-)industrialized world, work plays a fundamental role in the lives

of individuals, who make major commitments to it in terms of actual time

spent at work and seeking or preparing for work through education, training

and upgrading qualications. Most people consider work and work outcomes

to be a central aspect of their lives, as well as an important means of meet-

ing a number of needs. The most prominent view of the importance of work

is that it serves an economic or instrumental purpose; people work in order

to secure their basic sustenance and satisfy their material needs. The second

view is that commitment to work is part of human nature and human needs,

while the third view centres on socio-psychological or intrinsic factors and em-

phasizes the contribution of work to an individual’s personal identity, social

relationships, self-esteem, status and sense of accomplishment (MOW Inter-

national Research Team, 1987; Rosso, Dekas and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Sharabi,

International Labour Review394

2015). The fact that work is central to most adults’ lives has drawn attention

to the relationship between individuals and their work. People’s attitudes, per-

ceptions and assumptions about their work and, more generally, the meanings

that work has for the individual, have been widely researched (MOW Inter-

national Research Team, 1987; England, 1991; Sharabi and Harpaz, 2010;

Rosso, Dekas and Wrzesniewski, 2010).

According to the 1999 European Values Study (EVS) survey, fewer than

20 per cent of respondents in all European countries, excluding the United King-

dom, indicated that work was “not important” or “not at all important” in their

lives (Davoine and Méda, 2009). Data from the 2008 EVS survey, however, in-

dicate an increase in such attitudes in several countries and that 25 per cent of

respondents in the United Kingdom felt that work was not very or not at all

important in their lives (Méda and Vendramin, 2017). The trend towards a de-

cline in the centrality and ethic of work has been reported over the past three

decades in Western countries, supported by the reduction of working hours and

the development of a leisure culture (Haworth, 1997; Peterson and Ruiz-Quinta-

nilla, 2003; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Twenge et al., 2010; Méda and Vendramin,

2017). EVS data from 1981, 199 0 and 1999 indicate that the percentage of people

wishing to reduce the importance of work in their lives increased in most

European countries. This trend was more obvious between 1990 and 1999 and

was particularly notable in France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium,

Ireland and Austria, while opposite trends were found in Spain and Portugal

(Davoine and Méda, 2010). Méda and Vendramin (2017) point to a phenom-

enon that they dub the “French paradox”, namely that the French were the most

likely of all the EU-15 populations to say that work was an important or a very

important part of life, but also the most likely to wish that it had a less important

place in life. Furthermore, some 50 per cent of British, Belgian and Swedish res-

pondents said that it would be good to give work less importance in their lives.

This decrease in the centrality of work and commitment to work is due, in

part, to the “cohort effect” caused by the arrival on the labour market of a new

generation of young people with norms and values that differed from those of

previous generations. Twenge et al. (2010) compared the values of high-school

seniors in the United States over time using cross-sectional studies conducted

in 1976 (Baby Boomers), 1991 (Generation X) and 2006 (Generation Y/Me),

nding that between 1976 and 2006 , each successive generation gave greater

importance to leisure and less importance to work. Mercure and Vultur (2010)

also noted the decreasing centrality of work among young people in Quebec.

Chao (2005) indicates that Baby Boomers in the United States live to work,

while Generation X work to live, and the young, individualistic workers of

Generation Y/Me are more interested in having work meet their family and

leisure needs. Furthermore, young Europeans (Méda and Vendramin, 2017)

and young people in Quebec (Mercure and Vultur, 2010) are looking for more

balance between work and other life spheres.

The distinction between instrumental/extrinsic, social/affective and ex-

pressive/intrinsic aspects of work is discussed extensively in the literature (Ka-