呢篇範文以literature review的方法為每個TERM做定義
‘The hidden conflict between the knowledge
workers view of himself as a professional and the social reality in which he is
the upgraded well paid successor to the skilled worker of yesterday, underlies
the disenchantment of so many highly educated young people with the jobs
available to them’ -
(Drucker,
1969, p 259)
Knowledge workers (KWs) are thought to
be the engines of growth of the new economy (Yigitcanlar, Baum & Horton,
2007) and the key strategic and competitive resources of today’s organizations
(O’Neill & Adya, 2007). Considerable attention has been directed to the
analysis of knowledge work and knowledge intensive firms in recent years
(Alvesson, 1995, 2001; Burton-Jones, 1999; Donnelly, 2006; Swan &
Scarborough, 2001). Because of the emphasis on human capital in
knowledge-intensive firms (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997), where tacit knowledge
residing within workers is the chief asset of the organization, it has become
imperative to retain KWs and ensure their continued commitment to the
organization. Davenport et al. (2002) observe that companies cannot risk alienating
the KW. However, there has been little attention directed at alienation of KWs in
contemporary management research, even though Drucker hinted at their potential
alienation very early on, as the opening quote suggests.
Alienation
has traditionally been studied with respect to the blue collar worker. Research
on alienation among the non manual worker is limited, although some research
attention has been devoted to alienation among professionals in the late 70s
and 80s (Allen & Lafollette, 1977; Korman, Wittig-Berman, & Lang, 1981;
Lang, 1985; Organ & Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, Williams & Todor, 1986).
Even though the new economy comprises predominantly of KWs (Davenport et al.,
2002; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007), there are no empirical studies on alienation
among KWs.
Despite
serious consequences such as turnover, lower productivity, workplace
aggression, stress and burnout (Abraham, 2000; Dean, 1961;Jackson, Schwab &
Schuler, 1986; Jermier, 1988; Seeman, 1967), alienation as a concept has not
received much attention in organizational studies (Kohn, 1976). In one of the
more recent textbooks on organization behavior, Bratton, Callinan, Forshaw, and
Sawchuk, (2007) mention that much of research appears indifferent and ignorant
of the concept of alienation. This research proposal undertakes to clarify the
meaning of alienation and examine the extent of its occurrence and the factors
that contribute to alienation among knowledge workers.
Review of
Literature on Work Alienation
Even though alienation came into
prominence in the early writings of Marx (1844/1932), the concept of alienation
finds reference across a broad range of subjects such as theology, philosophy,
sociology, psychology and psychiatry (see Johnson, 1973 for a review of the
usage of the term across various disciplines). Fromm (1955) discussed
alienation as the mode of experience in which a person experiences him/herself
as an alien or in other words becomes estranged from the self. Horowitz (1966)
suggests that alienation implies an intense separation first from objects of
the world, second from people, and third from ideas about the world held by
other people. The core meaning of the concept of alienation has also been
identified with a dissociative state or a sense of separation in relation to
some other element in his or her environment (Kanungo, 1979; Schacht, 1970).
Marx conceptualized alienation as the
separation of the worker from ownership. In his Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts of 1844, Marx distinguishes three forms of alienation –
alienation from the product of work, alienation in the process of production,
and alienation from society. Weber’s treatment of the concept of alienation
(Gerth & Mills, 1946) has been similar to that of Marx who viewed
alienation as emerging from perceived lack of freedom and control at work.
Durkheim (1947, trans.) saw alienation as a consequence of the condition of anomie,
which refers to the breakdown of norms in society leading to experienced
normlessness.
Seeman’s (1959) seminal work postulate
five alternate meanings of alienation as powerlessness,
meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self estrangement (an improvement
on the earlier unidemensional definitions of alienation). A more
detailed discussion of these dimensions undertaken
in Appendix A. Seeman’s (1959) classification of alienation has been the basis
of several empirical studies (Blauner, 1964; Dean, 1961; Seeman, 1967; Shepard,
1977). However, some authors have questioned the adequacy of the dimensions to
explain alienation fully (Kanungo, 1979; Mottaz, 1981; Overend, 1975), arguing
that dimensions such as powerlessness and meaninglessness can be viewed as
antecedents or even consequences of alienation.
Alienation
as a concept has lent itself to various definitions and attendant considerable
confusion over its meanings, usage and measurement. The complexity of the
concept of alienation and the variety of meanings attached to the term makes it
difficult to abstract from them one basic meaning of alienation. Table 1 summarizes
key definitions of alienation as appearing in the literature.
Table 1: Definitions of alienation
As
can be seen from Table 1, one of the earliest definitions of alienation refers
to it as an estrangement from self. Similarly, most definitions allude to the
sense of separation (Fromm 1955; Horowitz, 1966; Kanungo, 1979) or dissociative
state (Schacht, 1970) or disengagement from work (Hirschfeld & Feild,
2000). Further, this separation has been discussed in relation to work
(Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000; Kanungo, 1979), people (Horowitz, 1966; Miller,
1975), some other element in the environment or objects of the world (Horowitz,
1966; Schacht, 1970), and from the self itself (Fromm, 1955). Since the most
basic understanding of alienation involves a separation or estrangement and
given the varying targets of this separation, work alienation is defined here
as estrangement or disconnect from work, the context or the self.
Antecedents
of Work Alienation
Research
until the late 80s has focused on conditions that lead to alienation. Broadly
the factors can be divided as structural or individual.
The
structural determinants of alienation have received much attention since the
time of Marx. In his classic study of industrial workers (blue collar) in different
industrial situations, Blauner (1964) studying work alienation across four
American industries, printing, textile, automobile and the chemical process
industry, was able to isolate the socio-technical
characteristics that contribute to alienation, namely technology and the
division of labor. He found alienation in its most extreme form in the
assembly line production of automobile industry owing to standardized, routine,
repetitive and highly fragmented work. Automation in the process chemical
industry was seen as contributing less to alienation where skill was replaced
by responsibility. Alienation was found to be lowest among craft workers,
highest among assembly line and to some extent decreasing in the continuous
process plant.
A
few researchers have examined the structural properties of centralization and
formalization and its effect on alienation. Allen and Lafollette (1977) found
alienation to be directly related to both centralization and formalization.
Aiken and Hage (1966) studied the relationship between alienation and two
structural properties of organizations (formalization and centralization) in a
comparative study of 16 welfare organizations. Alienation was found to be more
prominent in highly formalized and highly centralized organizations. However,
for professionals the literature yields mixed results. Greene (1978) found
formalization to increase alienation for professionals, while some (Organ &
Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, Williams & Todor, 1986) have found formalization to
reduce alienation through its effect on reduced role ambiguity. Sarros et al. (2002) examined the extent to
which leader behavior (transactional or transformational style) and aspects of
the organizational structure (centralization, formalization) relate to work
alienation, in a study of a bureaucratic fire department. Results showed that
transformational leadership was associated with lower work alienation and
structure was negatively associated with transformational leadership, thus
having an indirect impact on work alienation.
Characteristics
of the job or the work context have also been examined in relation to
alienation by some authors. In his study of blue collar workers, Blauner (1964)
found that repetitive routine tasks that grant less autonomy and decision making
to the worker, lead to greater alienation. Chisholm and Cummings (1979) on the
other hand found no relationships between job characteristics (variety,
control, social interaction and purpose), and alienation from work in his study
of a manufacturing firm. However, Simpson (1999) studying the work context in
the electronic era found elements of the work context such as contractual work
and manning of computerized systems granting limited contact with other
coworkers, contributing to alienation. Kohn (1976) identified two possible
sources of alienation as the loss of control over the product of one’s labor
and the loss of control over the work process. Similarly, Mottaz (1981) found
lack of control over tasks and lack of meaningful work as predictors of alienation.
Compared
to the structural variables, research on individual level determinants of work
alienation is relatively sparse. The effect of locus of control on alienation
has been studied by a few researchers. It has been suggested that individuals
who have an external locus of control tend to be more alienated from the work
setting (Banai, Reisel & Probst, 2004; Korman et al., 1981). A model of
alienation among professionals and managers was tested by Korman et al. (1981)
where expectancy disconfirmation and loss of affiliative satisfactions were
found to be factors affecting alienation. Lang (1985) found that people from
high socio economic status background are more likely to experience alienation
when encountering lack of fulfillment. Rosner and Putterman (1991) also suggest
that education increases the individual’s ability to derive satisfaction from
work and raises his/her level of dissatisfaction if forced to do routine and
unchallenging work.
Operationalization of Alienation
One of the earliest operationalizations of
alienation was a seven item index developed by Seeman (1967) derived from the
Blauner (1964) survey. Blauner (1964) used the Roper Fortune Survey
questionnaire that asked a range of questions that relate to the experience of
the work for the respondent. The five item scale of alienation developed by
Miller (1967) assesses sense of pride and accomplishment in work, however,
their absence need not necessarily imply alienation. Seeman (1967) addressed
the issue of self estrangement at work by asking whether workers experience
variety, creativity, responsibility and autonomy on the job. This
operationalization of alienation has a high degree of overlap with work
satisfaction (Robinson, Athanasiou, & Head, 1969; Seybolt & Gruenfeld, 1976).
Aiken and Hage (1966) measured alienation in their study on the basis of six
questions that essentially appear to address work satisfaction. It is
interesting that almost all the questions start with ‘How satisfied are you ..’
(p. 501), and then go on to assess various aspects of work. Seybolt and
Gruenfeld (1976) call for a refinement of the operationalization of alienation
owing to measurement overlap with the concept of satisfaction. Kohn (1976) used
a Guttmann scale to measure alienation with subscales for each of the
dimensions of powerlessness, self estrangement, normlessness and cultural
estrangement. However, the specific questions appear to assess a broader sense
of alienation that includes alienation from society or life in general, rather
than specifically alienation from work. Similarly, the measures of Korman et
al. (1981) and Lang (1985) address both personal and social alienation. Mottaz
(1981) measured alienation using seven items each for the dimensions of
powerlessness, meaninglessness and self estrangement. He however concluded that
powerlessness and meaninglessness are infact determinants of self estrangement.
Kanungo (1982) although purports to measure work alienation, confounds
alienation with involvement. More recently Hirschfeld and Field (2000) employ a
ten item measure of alienation that also contains items measuring
meaninglessness.
Thus, it appears that there is much
variability in the literature on how alienation is measured, both in terms of
the used scales, as well as to its usage in a narrow or broad sense. Further,
in most cases, the scales have not been adequately tested for their
psychometric properties. Since the focus of the study is primarily on
alienation from work, and there does not appear to be a reliable scale of work
alienation from our survey of the literature, we would also be developing and
testing a new measure of work alienation as part of the research.
Research
Context
This section will
discuss the context of the research in terms of the study of alienation among KWs.
Since there is considerable ambiguity in the literature about definitions of
knowledge work, a review of the meaning of the term knowledge work/worker is
first offered.
Defining
Knowledge Work
Drucker
(1973) used the term KW to refer to the next level from manual workers. A
similar view is offered by Kelly (1990: 109) who refers to KWs as ‘gold collar’
workers who are hired for their creativity and problem solving skills. Stewart
(2001) refers to them as workers ‘who are paid to think’. Alvesson (2001)
refers to knowledge work where most of the work is of an intellectual nature
and where well educated, qualified employees form the major part of the
workforce. For some (Collins, 1997; Davenport, Jarvenpaa, & Beers, 1996;
Davenport et al., 2002;) knowledge work is used in a much broader sense to
denote work that involves knowledge in any form, so that the creation of
knowledge, the application of existing knowledge, packaging or dissemination of
knowledge, and the acquisition of existing knowledge through research and
learning, are all thought to be forms of knowledge work. Others like Davenport
et al. (2002) claim that knowledge work can be laid on a continuum of
complexity and difficulty with the upper end of the continuum, in which workers
are predominantly engaged in the creation and use of knowledge, referred to as
high end KWs. The different meanings of knowledge work have been reviewed by
Kelloway & Barling (2000) as (a) a profession (characterized by a certain
level of education and professional qualifications) (b) a characteristic of individuals
(as those who create intangible value), and (c) as an individual activity (work
that involves a high level of cognitive ability).
According
to a classification of labor, Reed (1996) attempts to distinguish between
professionals and KWs, separating three classes of expert groups as (a) Independent/liberal
professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, architects) – based on abstract,
codified, or rational knowledge base and characterized by a monopolization
market strategy with a collegiate organizational form (b) Organizational
professionals (e.g. managers, administrators, technicians) – based on a
knowledge base that is technical, tacit, local or political, characterized by
the power strategy of credentialism with a bureaucratic organizational form,
and (c) Knowledge workers (e.g. financial/business consultants, R&D
engineers, computer/IT analysts) – based on esoteric, non-substitutable, or
analytic knowledge base, characterized by a marketization power strategy and a
network organizational form. According to this classification, a distinction is
made between KWs and professionals. Thus, KWs are thought to be those who
depend on intangible knowledge base and who are less concerned with formal
credentialism.
It
is evident that many KWs no longer belong to the traditional disciplinary
professionals. The term KW is therefore used to convey a broader sense than a
professional and does not emphasize the strict features ascribed to a typical
profession.
Characteristics
of Knowledge Work/Worker
KWs are
thought to operate in a constantly changing environment of uncertainty and
complexity (Syed, 1998). Expected to be changing jobs frequently they are also
known to possess a high disposable income (Alvesson, 2001; Yigitcanlar et al.,
2007). Turnover for KWs is thought to be high (Despres & Hiltrop, 1995).
Difficulty in ensuring their continued commitment and loyalty to the
organization has been noted as a challenge by some authors (Alvesson, 2000; Flood
et al., 2001). Further, KWs are known to be autonomous people who exercise
occupational mobility and resist command and control culture (Horwitz, Heng
& Quazi, 2003). Most authors agree that human capital is the dominant
factor in knowledge-intensive firms. Even though there is a fair amount of
ambiguity about how to define knowledge work, there is a degree of consensus
(Alvesson, 1995; Burton-Jones, 1999; Davenport et al., 2002) that knowledge
intensive firms are characterized by non standardized production, are more
highly reliant on individuals and their tacit knowledge, and comprise of
members with high education levels and high level of codified and tacit
knowledge.
Research
Gap, Propositions and Proposed Model
Based
on a review of the literature on work alienation and KWs, two main research
gaps appear as (a) the neglect of research on alienation after a point of time
(1980’s) in the management literature, and (b) the absence of any research on
alienation of the KW. Therefore research on alienation in the context of
knowledge work is an identified gap in the literature. KWs because of their
tacit knowledge are likely to be attractive to other competing firms. Thus, the
knowledge intensive firm faces a constant challenge of keeping their employees
engaged, committed and involved in their work. In case a KW does disengage or
become alienated, the knowledge intensive firm looses on two counts. An
alienated worker would be no good for the organization and when they leave they
cause a knowledge void in the organization. Thus, an understanding of factors
that might lead to disengagement is important and remains a research gap in the
literature.
Research
Objectives
(a) To
examine the extent of experienced alienation among KWs
(b) To
analyze the antecedents and moderators of work alienation among KWs
Propositions
and Proposed Model
Alienation
has largely been discussed with respect to the manual worker as most of the
research indicates (Blauner, 1964; Dean, 1961; Shepard, 1977). Although there
is a dearth of research on alienation of the KW, the proposition that KWs
experience alienation may not be all that surprising. Drucker (1969) hinted at
it early on and even Blauner (1964) points that education would determine the
aspirations sought from work in terms of seeking meaning and satisfaction.
Although there is some research on alienation among professionals (Allen &
Lafollette, 1977; Chisholm & Cummings, 1979; Korman et al., 1981; Lang,
1985; Organ & Greene, 1981), this has not extended beyond the 1980s and in
most cases only considers a narrow range of professions such as scientists and
engineers. Given the importance of KWs’ contribution to the performance of
organizations (O’Neill & Adya, 2007), we cannot ignore the possibility of
alienation experienced by this group. The central premise of the proposed
research is that KWs experience work alienation. Their frequent job switching
(Davenport et al., 2002; Horwitz et al., 2003; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007) and
experienced burnout (Jackson, Schwab & Schuler, 1986) are only indicators
of the underlying phenomenon of work alienation.
Hypothesis
1: KWs experience work alienation
In
trying to understand what causes alienation, various aspects of work
environment, such as centralization, formalization, lack of control, education,
age, locus of control, etc., have been explored in the literature. However,
this research is fragmented and a comprehensive model capable of explaining
work alienation is still missing.
Both
centralization and formalization have been linked to greater work alienation
(Aiken & Hage, 1966; Allen & Lafollette, 1977) among manual workers. However,
the results for formalization are mixed for professionals (Allen &
Lafollette, 1977; Greene, 1978; Organ & Greene, 1981; Podsakoff, et al.,
1986), as pointed out earlier. Research on KWs suggest that they thrive in an
environment of less structure (Davenport et al., 2002). Given the ambiguity in
the literature on the role of formalization on alienation for professionals, it
may be proposed that for KWs, formalization may appear as exertion of control and
that could lead to work alienation. Hence it is proposed:
Hypothesis
2: Increase in structure (both formalization
and centralization) will lead to alienation among KWs
According to the self determination
theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the need for autonomy is one of the basic needs
that is essential for facilitating optimal functioning and personal well being.
Blauner (1964) was able to show that repetitive routine tasks that grant less
autonomy lead to alienation. Quintanilla and Wilpert (1991) in examining
changing work meanings, report increasing autonomy for the worker with rise in
education levels. It has been noted that KWs are known to resist command and
control style of working and seek autonomy in their work (Davenport et al.,
2002; Horwitz et al., 2003).
Other
characteristics of the work, such as challenge and stimulation have also been
pointed out to be of value to professionals (Fineman, 1983). Research on the
manual worker (Blauner, 1964) has shown that repetitive tasks that grant less
variety are associated with greater alienation. This is likely to hold true for
KWs as well. Drucker (1999) also argues that creativity has to be part of the
work of KWs. The failure to view ones job as a significant contribution to the
work process, referred to as meaninglessness, has been considered as a
determinant of work alienation by Mottaz (1981). Parker (1983) argues that work
meanings differ according to the class of work, with low skilled workers
primarily seeking monetary compensation from work, and professionals seeking
work that grants them a means of self expression. High education of the KW has
also been associated with increased expectations from work (Rosner & Putterman,
1991) which could be indicative of a desire for greater meaning from work. It
is therefore proposed that lack of autonomy, absence of variety, challenge and
creativity, and work that is not inherently meaningful and that which does not
allow for self expression, are work characteristics that are likely to predict
alienation of the KW.
Hypothesis
3a: Work that allows
limited autonomy will lead to work alienation among KWs
Hypothesis 3b:
The absence of variety,
challenge or creativity in work will lead to work alienation among KWs
Hypothesis 3c:
When the work itself is not
perceived as meaningful it will lead to work alienation among KWs
Hypothesis 3d: When work does not allow for self expression it
will lead to work alienation among KWs
Superior
subordinate relationship is thought to be essential to the role of task
accomplishment (Lee & Jablin, 1995). Attributional conflict between leader
and subordinate has been shown to relate to subordinate turnover intentions
(Wilhelm, Herd & Steiner, 1993). Therefore it is hypothesized that poor
superior subordinate relations could also be a factor in the experience of
alienation. In addition to relations with the supervisor, an individual also
has relations with others in the organization such as peers, subordinates, clients,
etc. The perceived lack of having satisfied needs for interpersonal
satisfaction has been referred to as loss of affiliative satisfaction (Korman
et al., 1981) which has been related to alienation among professional managers
(Korman et al., 1981). Thus, it is hypothesized that poor work relations including
those with superiors would be a factor in the experience of work alienation
among KWs.
Hypothesis 4a:
Poor superior subordinate
relationships will lead to work alienation among KWs
Hypothesis 4b:
Poor work relationships in
general will lead to work alienation among KWs
Perceptions
of procedural and distributive justice have been related with many employee
attitudes such as satisfaction and intention to turnover (Gilliland & Chan,
2001). The two factor construct of organizational justice as procedural and
distributive justice has received consistent support in the literature
(Gilliland & Chan, 2001; Greenberg, 1990; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).
There is evidence that perceptions of poor organizational justice can lead to
organizational retaliatory behavior or aggression (Skarlicki & Folger,
1997; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt & Barrick, 2004); such behaviors can
also be considered as outcomes of work alienation (Fried et al., 1982; Jermier,
1988). It is therefore proposed that perceptions of organizational injustice
would predict work alienation.
Hypothesis 5a:
Perceptions of low
distributive justice will lead to work alienation among KWs
Hypothesis 5b:
Perceptions of low procedural
justice will lead to work alienation among KWs
The
MOW (Meaning of Working) research, a cross national research carried out across
8 industrialized countries through 1978-1984 to investigate the meaning of work
across cultures, conceptualized work centrality as ‘the degree of general
importance that working has in the life of an individual at any given point of
time’ (MOW International Research Team, 1987: 81). It has been discussed in the
literature as central life interest (Dubin, 1956; Dubin, Champoux & Porter,
1975) or in terms of the protestant work ethic (Buchholz, 1978). Broadly
speaking, work centrality refers to the importance of working in ones life. The
relation between work centrality and work alienation has been touched upon by
Watson (2003: 177) when he points that people can only be alienated from work
when there is an emphasis on the work ethic. In the absence of any empirical
research on the relation between work centrality and alienation, work
centrality is posed here as a moderator of the relationship between the
antecedent conditions and work alienation. A moderator variable is one that
affects the direction and/or strength between the predictor variable and
dependant variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986) so that the impact of the
predictor on the dependant or criterion variable varies according to the level
or value of the moderator (Holmbeck, 1997). Thus, it is expected that when work
centrality is high the relation between the predictor variables and work
alienation will be stronger than when work centrality is low, even when the
rest of the work context remains the same.
Unmet
expectations from work or expectancy disconfirmation will also be considered as
a moderator of the relationship between the antecedent variables and work
alienation. Unmet needs or aspirations sought from work have been related to
alienation as suggested by some (Blauner, 1964; Finifter, 1972; Kanungo, 1979).
Expectancy disconfirmation was found to be positively related to alienation by
Korman et al. (1981). However, Lang (1985) found that disconfirmed expectations
did not contribute significantly to the prediction of alienation. It is
proposed here, that disconfirmed or unmet expectations will act as a moderator
in the relationship between the predictor variables and work alienation, so
that other things remaining constant, an individual who experiences
disconfirmation of expectancies is more likely to experience work alienation
than one whose expectations from work are met.
Hypothesis 6a:
The tendency to experience
work alienation will be higher for those with higher work centrality and lower
for those with lower work centrality even when the context of work remains
constant.
Hypothesis 6b:
The tendency to experience
work alienation will be higher for those who experience disconfirmation of
expectations and lower for those whose expectations are met even when the
context of work remains constant.
The
combined model of work alienation for KWs in relation to the predictor and
moderator variables is shown in Figure 7. The demographic variables of age,
gender and education will be used as control variables. However, the variables
of gender and age will also be explored for their moderating effect,
considering that men and women are likely to differ in their experience of
alienation as would KWs across different age groups.
Figure 7: Model of work alienation in terms
of predictor and moderator variables
Research
Design
Methodology
The
proposed methodology will be quantitative analysis, using questionnaire data
based on survey design. Since the primary research question is whether KWs
experience alienation and if so the factors contributing towards it, analysis
of survey questionnaires is expected to point towards the factors as well as
examine the role of the moderator variables. Self report data will be used for
the research.
Sampling
Proposed
Sample
Respondents
will be drawn from a cross section of different knowledge industries in the IT
sector based on purposive sampling. Our sample of KWs is intended to be
representative of a group as distinguished from the manual worker characterized
by tacit knowledge and high education and income levels as per Drucker’s (1973)
definition.
Proposed
Sample Size
In
offering a review of scale development practices in organizational studies,
Hinkin (1995: 973) notes that item-to-response ratios generally range from 1:4
to 1:10 in the literature. It is therefore proposed to adopt a 1:6
item-to-response ratio. With around 70 items in the questionnaire, the sample
size would then be around 420. Considering a modest response rate it is
proposed to target around 600-700 respondents in all.
Measures
There
is considerable variability in how alienation has been measured in previous
research (Aiken & Hage, 1966; Blauner, 1964; Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000;
Kohn, 1976; Lang, 1985; Mottaz, 1981; Seeman, 1967). Added to this is the
limited number of measures specifically addressing work alienation. Considering
the ambiguity in measurement of alienation and the absence of a validated
scale, a new measure of alienation is being developed for this study. The other
measures that are being developed for this study, because of inadequate
conceptualization or measurement in literature, include those for
meaningfulness, quality of relationships, self expression in work and a
discrepancy measure for expectations from various aspects of work and
fulfillment in them. The new measures developed for this study will first be
pilot tested for establishing their psychometric properties. Details of the
various measures that will be used in this study are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Measures for the different variables
to be used in the study
References
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases
and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3),
269-292.
Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational
alienation: A comparative analysis. American
Sociological Review, 31(4), 497-507.
Allen, B. H., & Lafollette, W. R. (1977).
Perceived organizational structure and alienation among management trainees. Academy of Management
Alvesson, M. (1995). Management of
Knowledge-Intensive Companies. New York :
Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the
problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive companies. Journal of Management
Studies, 37(8), 1101-1123.
Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity,
image and identity. Human Relations, 54(7), 863-886.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J.,
& Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management
Banai, M., Reisel, W. D., & Probst, T. M.
(2004). A managerial and personal control model: predictions of work alienation
and organizational commitment in Hungary
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The
moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and Freedom.
Chicago : University of Chicago
Bratton, J., Callinan, M., Forshaw, C., &
Sawchuk, P. (2007). Work and Organizational Behavior: Understanding the
Workplace. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buchholz R. A. (1978). An empirical study of
contemporary beliefs about work in American society. Journal of Applied
Psychology 63, 219-227.
Burton-Jones, A. (1999). Knowledge capitalism:
Business, Work, and Learning in the New Economy, Oxford :
Oxford
Chisholm, R. F., & Cummings, T. G. (1979). Job
characteristics, alienation, and work-related behavior: A study of professional
employees. Journal of Management, 5(1), 57-70.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt,
L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and
perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 599-609.
Collins, D. (1997). Knowledge work or working
knowledge? Ambiguity and confusion in the analysis of the “knowledge age”. Employee
Relations, 19(1), 38-50.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of
organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and
measurement. American Sociological Review, 5, 753-758.
Despres, C., & Hiltrop, J.M. (1995). Human
resource management in the knowledge age: current practice and perspectives on
the future. Employee Relations, 17(1), 9-23.
Dewar, R. D., Whetten, D. A., & Boje, D.
(1980). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage
scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 25(1), 120-128.
Donnelly, R. (2006). How “free” is the free
worker? An investigation into the working arrangements available to knowledge
workers. Personnel Review, 35(1), 78-97.
Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of
discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. New York
Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks
responsibilities and practices. New
York
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker
productivity: The biggest challenge. California
Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial workers' worlds: A study
of the central life interests of industrial workers. Social Problems, 3,
131-142.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J. E., & Porter, L. W.
(1975). Central life interests and organizational commitment of blue-collar and
clerical workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 411-421.
Durkheim, E. (1947). Translated by Simpson, G. Division
of Labour in Society. Glencoe: Free Press.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual
Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by finding its Hidden Brainpower.
New York
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of
work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis.
Thousand Oaks
Fineman,
S. (1983). Work meanings, non-work, and the taken-for-granted. Journal of
Management Studies, 20(2), 143-157.
Finifter, A. W. (Ed.). (1972). Alienation and
the Social System. London
Flood, P. C., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N., &
Pearson, J. (2001). Causes and consequences of psychological contract among knowledge
workers in the high technology and financial services industries. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1152-1165.
Fried, J., Weitman, M., & Davis, M. K. (1972).
Man-machine interaction and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5),
428-429.
Fromm, E. (1955). The Sane Society. New
York
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C.W. (1946). From
Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York : Oxford
University
Gilliland, S. W., & Chan, D. (2001). Justice
in organizations: Theory, methods, and applications. Handbook of Industrial,
Work, and Organizational Psychology, 2, 143-165.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice:
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.
Greene, C. N. (1978). Identification modes of
professionals: Relationship with formalization, role strain, and alienation. Academy of Management
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham ,
G. R. (1975). Development of a job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of
centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 12(1), 72-92.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale
development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,
21(5), 967-988.
Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work
centrality and work alienation: distinct aspects of a general commitment to
work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 789-800.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological,
conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators:
Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 599-610.
Horowitz, I.L. (1966). On alienation and the
social order. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 27(2), 230-237.
Horwitz, F., Heng, C.T., & Quazi, A. (2003).
Finders keepers? Attracting, motivating, and retaining knowledge workers. Human
Resource Management Journal, 13(4), 23-44.
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R.
S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.
Jermier, J. (1988) Sabotage at work: The rational
view. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6, 85-89.
Johnson, F. (Ed.) (1973). Alienation: Concept,
Term, and Meanings. New York
Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation
and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York
Kelloway, E.K., & Barling, J. (2000).
Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of
Management Review, 2(3), 287-304.
Kelly, R. (1990). Managing the new workforce. Machine
Design, 62 (9), 109-13.
Kohn. M. L. (1976). Occupational structure and
alienation. American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 111-130.
Korman, A. K., Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D.
(1981). Career success and personal failure: Alienation in professionals and
managers. Academy
of Management
Lang, D. (1985). Preconditions for three types of
alienation in young managers and professionals. Journal of Occupational
Behavior, 6, 171-182.
Lee,
J., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Maintenance communication in
superior-subordinate work relationships. Human Communication Research, 22(2),
220-257.
Marx, K. (1932). [Economic and philosophical
manuscripts.] In, Marz-Engels Gesamtuasgabe (Vol. 3). Berlin , Germany
Mikdashi, T. (1999). Constitutive meaning and
aspects of work environment affecting creativity in Lebanon
Miller, G. A. (1967). Professionals in
bureaucracy: Alienation among industrial scientists and engineers. American
Sociological Review, 32(5), 755-768.
Miller, J. (1975). Isolation in organizations:
Alienation from authority, control and expressive relations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 20, 260-271.
Mottaz, C. J. (1981). Some determinants of work
alienation. The Sociological Quarterly, 22, 515-529.
MOW International Research Team. (1987). The
Meaning of Working. London
O’Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge
sharing and the psychological contract: Managing knowledge workers across
different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(4),
411-432.
Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. (1981). The
effects of formalization on professional involvement: A compensatory process
approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 237-252.
Overend, T. (1975). Alienation: A conceptual
analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 35(3), 301-322.
Parker,
S. (1983). Leisure and Work. Boston
Podsakoff, P. M., Williams, L. J., & Todor, W.
D. (1986). Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among
professionals and nonprofessionals. Academy
of Management
Quintanilla,
S. A. R., & Wilpert, B. (1991). Are Work Meanings Changing? European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1(2/3), 91-110.
Reed, M. I. (1996). Expert power and control in
late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical synthesis. Organization
Studies, 17(4), 573-597.
Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B.
(1969). Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics.
Ann Arbour, Michigan : Institute of Social
Rosner, M., & Putterman, L. (1991). Factors
behind the supply and demand for less alienating work, and some international
illustrations. Journal of Economic Studies, 18(1), 18-41.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sarros, J. C., Tanewski, G. A., Winter, R. P.,
Santora, J. C., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Work alienation and organizational
leadership. British Journal of Management, 13, 285-304.
Schacht, R. (1970). Alienation. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American
Sociological Review, 24(6), 783-791.
Seeman, M. (1967). On the personal consequences of
alienation in work. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 273-285.
Seeman, M. (1975). Alienation Studies. Annual
Review of Sociology, 1, 91-123.
Seybolt, J. W., & Gruenfeld, L. (1976). The
discriminant validity of work alienation and work satisfaction measures. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 49, 193-202.
Shepard, J. M. (1977). Technology, alienation and
satisfaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 1-21.
Simpson, I. H. (1999) Historical patterns of
workplace organization: From mechanical to electronic control and beyond. Current
Sociology, 47(2), 47-75.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997).
Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I.
(2005). Test-retest reliability of the relative work centrality measure. Psychological
Reports, 97(2), 559-562.
Stewart, T. A. (2001). Wealth of knowledge:
Intellectual capital and the twenty-first century organization. New York
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2001). Knowledge
management: Concepts and controversies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7),
913-921.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993).
Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An
examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
Syed, J. R. (1998). An adaptive framework for
knowledge work. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 59-69.
Watson, T. J. (2003). Sociology, work and
industry (4th Edition ed.). London
Wilhelm,
C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D.
D.
Yigitcanlar, T., Baum, S., & Horton, S.
(2007). Attracting and retaining knowledge workers in knowledge cities.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 6-17.
Appendix A
The Different Dimensions of Alienation
Powerlessness: This refers
to the classical view of alienation as also discussed by Marx. It represents
the condition of the worker in capitalist society where the worker lacks
control over his work. Seeman (1959: 786) defined it as ‘the expectancy or
probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the
occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforcements, he seeks’. This definition
slightly departs from the Marxian view in that it is not merely an objective
fact caused by the organization of work, but shifts the focus to the perception
or experience of it. The powerlessness version of alienation is also the most
studied (Seeman, 1975). Shepard (1977) described powerlessness as ‘the
perceived lack of freedom and control on the job’ (p 13-14). According to
Blauner (1964), the four modes of industrial powerlessness are due to (a)
separation of ownership of the means of production and the finished product (b)
inability to influence general managerial policies (c) lack of control over the
conditions of employment and (d) lack of control over the immediate work
process.
Meaninglessness: Seeman
(1959: 786) describes it as ‘when the individual is unclear as to what he ought
to believe - when the individuals’ minimal standards for clarity in decision
making are not met’. This has been interpreted as existing when worker
contributes only minutely to the total product (Shepard, 1977) or is not able
to see the relation of his or her work to the larger system of work (Blauner,
1964; Kanungo, 1979). Blauner (1964) found this condition to exist
when individual roles lack organic connection to the whole, further
intensified by bureaucratic structures. He associated meaninglessness in work
with the product, process and organization of work emerging from both the
standardization of production and the division of labor.
Normlessness: This is
derived from Durkheim’s (1947, trans.) concept of anomie, used to denote
the social situation in which social norms regulating individual conduct have broken
down or are no longer effective (Dean, 1961). Anomie has been discussed
as a subjective sense, having characteristics of uneasiness or anxiety, feeling
of separation from the group standards and feeling of pointlessness or that no
certain goals exist. It has been defined by Seeman (1959: 788) as ‘high
expectancy that socially unapproved behaviors are required to achieve given
goals’.
Isolation: This
variant of alienation is thought to be linked to people ‘who assign low reward
value to goals or beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given
society’ (Seeman, 1959: 789). It refers
to the individuals’ rejection of commonly held values in society or group. Dean
(1961: 755) refers to social isolation as ‘a feeling of separation from the
group or of isolation from group standards’. Blauner (1964) combines both
normlessness and isolation to refer to it as ‘social alienation’ resulting
from an absence of integration in the work society.
Self Estrangement:
This form of alienation is thought to refer to the state where the person
experiences himself as alien or becomes estranged from the self. As described
by Seeman (1959: 790), ‘to be self alienated, means to be something less than
one might ideally be’. In other words this form of alienation is related to the
condition when one is engaged in work that is not rewarding in itself. Shepard (1977) discusses this as the
condition when workers view work as a means to some other end instead of a
means of personal self fulfillment. Blauner (1964: 26) proposes that jobs that
do not provide opportunities for expressing ‘unique abilities, potentialities
or personality of the worker’ encourage self estrangement. According to Blauner
a worker is self estranged from his/her inner self at work if the worker is unable
to express self through it and views work only in instrumental
沒有留言:
張貼留言