Unifying work values: establishing a circular framework based on basic human values

This paper addresses challenges in personal work value research, particularly the lack of theoretical and explanatory foundations. With a focus on lists of constructs and potential biases and blind spots in past work value conceptualizations, the diversity of instruments used to assess values in organizational settings has led to ambiguity and incomplete progress in the field. By integrating propositions from basic value research, this paper develops a comprehensive work value theory. The theory is based on the compatibility and conflict of underlying basic motivational goals in work contexts, as postulated by the theory of basic human values. We review past instruments from work value research to consider a broad range of constructs with the purpose of refining broader work value constructs and enhance their theoretical capabilities in organizational settings. To achieve that, we resolve definitional inconsistencies, enable a context-sensitive theorizing of values in a motivational circumplex and broaden the scope of work value constructs to cover personal and social-focused dimensions. The latter is discussed considering the fantasmatic logic of neoliberal ideology. The developed theoretical framework can guide future research on the role of work values for organizational behavior and organizational performance, as well as on the role of fit between personal and organizational values. The paper concludes by highlighting the need to empirically validate the proposed work value model across different cultures and organizational contexts.

Introduction

In psychological research, individuals’ work values have been assessed using ranking scales, preference ratings, decision making in ill-defined problems for identifying behavioral guiding principles and natural language processing, as well as qualitative approaches like interviews, observations and archival data (Hattrup et al., 2007; Ponizovskiy et al., 2020; Ratchford et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2017). Potentially due to its low-threshold application, validation, and statistical properties, the most prevalent assessments are rating scales (Schwartz, 1994), where respondents rate various work aspects and outcomes according to their subjective importance (Lyons et al., 2010).

The Integrated Work Value Scale (IWVS; Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) unites work value items based on past instruments into a single questionnaire. Thus, it can be seen as the most comprehensive instrument to assess work values to date. While their approach offers valuable insights into the landscape of work value constructs, the questionnaire and work value conceptualization lacks an elaborated, unified theoretical framework. Hence, theoretical conceptualizations of the internal structure of work values should be considered, opposed to the past focus on lists of constructs (Arieli et al., 2020b; Borg et al., 2019; Lyons et al., 2010). Additionally, the aggregation of questionnaires could replicate blind spots from past research which potentially restricts theoretical comprehensiveness. Moors et al. (2017) identified a potential gender bias in work value conceptualization due to the underdevelopment of items addressing social aspects of work.

In other studies, the integration of disparate constructs results in unclear measurements and inferences of independent and potentially redundant or biased work value lists. Blending values with career anchors, career and work orientations, motivation and needs impedes theoretical inferences exclusively attributable to employees’ work values (Abessolo et al., 2021; Furnham et al., 2021; Stiglbauer et al., 2022). Additionally, long lists of work values contradict theoretical requirements of parsimony (Aguinis and Cronin, 2022). For instance, differentiating constructs like pay, perks, benefits, and bonuses within a single scale may indicate redundancy and a lack of distinctiveness in motivational foundations (Furnham et al., 2021).

Why does a clear theoretical conceptualization and assessment of work values matter? Values are an integral part of organizations’ and employees’ identities (Arieli et al., 2020b). For instance, the knowledge of employee or team values can be a powerful tool for leaders to react to or to create change in complex, fast changing environments (Van Dick et al., 2018). Therefore, values are significantly associated with outcomes such as creativity, proactive behavior, reactions to change, and wellbeing (Anglim et al., 2022; Arieli et al., 2020a, 2020b; Bojanowska et al., 2022). Furthermore, several theories in work and organizational psychology are based on the concept of values. Theories on, for example, leadership (transformational leadership, identity leadership; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Haslam et al., 2022), person-organization fit (PO-Fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2023), organizational culture (Schneider et al., 1995), work motivation (social identity theory, personality theory of motivation; Ellemers et al., 2004; Locke and Latham, 2004), wellbeing (self-affirmation theory; Rader et al., 2024), team performance (Parks-Leduc et al., 2024) and ethical decision making (contingency model of ethical decision making; Fritzsche and Oz, 2007) use personal values as a fundament to explain organizational behavior. Hence, values are important for our theories in organizational settings, but their theorizing is untapped and potentially biased when it comes to work values. This paper aims to rethink and build upon existing constructs and conceptualizations of work values to develop a unifying theoretical foundation.

We propose to transfer the cross-culturally validated tenets of basic human value research to the work context to obtain a unifying work value circumplex that illustrates the compatibility and conflict of underlying goals and motivation in work contexts. Hence, this paper contributes to the literature in four ways: (1) by formulating clear-cut definitions of work values to resolve construct proliferation; (2) by developing a theoretical framework to tackle the use of lists and guide future research with contextual sensitivity (Flake et al., 2017) and to benefit diagnostic purposes in work settings (e.g., Moldzio et al., 2021; Sackett et al., 2022); (3) by illuminating blind spots and biases in previous work value instruments through paralleling past work value research to neoliberal ideology; and (4) by corroborating the circumplex structure of work values through additional theorizing to align work values with basic value literature.

In the following, we will begin with defining employees’ work values and their distinction to related constructs, explaining why these differentiations in the context of work and organizational psychology matter. Then, our basic propositions underlying the theoretical advancements will be discussed. Finally, we present the theoretical framework with supporting theoretical arguments from related disciplines, as well as implications for research in organizational and work settings.

Defining the construct

The conceptualization of personal work values in past research underlies heterogeneity and suffers from construct proliferation (Dose, 1997; Kis et al., 2025; Shaffer et al., 2016). Different studies describe the interchangeability of values, motives and needs due to similar measurement approaches (Pincus, 2024; Stiglbauer et” al., 2022; Knardahl and Christensen, 2024). Others view them as distinct (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022) but related constructs (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) where values are cognitive representations of motives (Kooij et al., 2011; Rokeach, 1973). Some studies define them as affective constructs associated with positive feelings (Gessnitzer et al., 2015) contrasting a strict cognitive focus (Borg et al., 2019). Additionally, differentiations in the behavioral activation and inhibition system (approach and avoidance motivation) led to the study of ideal and counter-ideal values (Schuh et al., 2018; Van Quaquebeke et al., 2014).

Blending work values with other constructs like work orientations (Stiglbauer et al., 2022) or career anchors (Abessolo et al., 2021) confounds theoretical and empirical advancement in the study of values in organizations (Borg et al., 2019). Given the scattered empirical and theoretical perspectives on values, our aim in the following is to develop a clear representation of the underlying construct.

The conceptualization of work values and its theoretical relevance

Work represents one domain of individuals’ lives where work values are a contextualization of and derived from basic values (George and Jones, 1997; Ros et al., 1999). Basic values as context-free constructs pertaining multiple life domains were extensively differentiated from related constructs like motives, needs, traits, and attitudes (Arieli et al., 2020b; Borg et al., 2019; Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). Hence, to address construct proliferation and the heterogeneity of past research on work values, our conceptualization is based on the central assumptions of the basic values definition (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). We build our arguments on the roots of value literature (Kluckhohn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992), comprehensively researched and contemporary frameworks (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022) and their extensions to work contexts (Arieli et al., 2020b; Maio et al., 2020).

Table 1 gives an overview of the definitional components of work values with exemplifying relations to their nomological network in work contexts to underline why these components matter (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022, p. 520). Additional differentiations from vocational interests and work orientations are important (Arieli et al., 2020b). Vocational interests as defined by the RIASEC model (Holland, 1997) are focused on specific tasks and activities at work and do not represent overarching guiding principles (Arieli et al., 2020b; Liu et al., 2024; Sodano, 2011). Concerning work orientations, work values are associated with the way in which people think about work (Rosso et al., 2010). The different forms of job, career, and calling orientations are associated with different levels of emphasis on interests of others or self-interests in personal value structures (Arieli et al., 2020b).

Table 1

Table 1. Definitional components and exemplifying relations of work values to nomological network.

A unified definition of work values

Considering the definitional components outlined in Table 1, we base our theoretical framing of work values on the following conceptualization (Arieli et al., 2020b; Borg et al., 2019; De Clercq et al., 2008; Lyons et al., 2010; Maio et al., 2020). Work values describe the specific expression of basic values at work (Elizur and Sagie, 1999; George and Jones, 1997; Ros et al., 1999). They are cognitive representations of basic motivations as desirable work contexts and goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s working life. Hierarchically ordered, they describe expectations and preferences at work according to their relative importance (Arieli et al., 2020b; Lyons et al., 2010; Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). Consequently, behavioral choices and outcomes at work are evaluated as more or less desirable (Dose, 1997; Kluckhohn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994). As a results, these generalized beliefs and broad goals influence decision making and action of individuals and other social units through their varying desirability and importance of work aspects and outcomes (Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). Utilizing this definition, researchers can build a foundation for future work value studies to address issues of construct proliferation. In the following, we present our theoretical advancements grounded in this definition.

Work values—integrating theoretical perspectives

The use of lists and potential biases in work value conceptualizations as presented above can be tackled by referring to a growing body of research that provides empirical evidence for integrating work values in the theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992). The theory established a widely used and empirically supported theoretical framework in over 80 countries (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022) with elaborated processes on how fundamental personal values can affect behavior (Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). Basic values are considered in dynamic relations of compatibility and conflict based on a fundamental motivational continuum (Borg et al., 2019; Elizur and Sagie, 1999; Schwartz, 1992). The theory and its circular structure provides consistent and cross-culturally generalizable evidence on associations with religiosity, altruistic and anti-social behavior (aggression, unethical and delinquent behavior), and political activism, ideology and voting choice (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). The content of these basic values transcends different life domains as trans-situational goals. Nevertheless, their absolute level of importance can vary across contexts (Daniel et al., 2012b) depending on which roles individuals are assigned to or assume (e.g., family member, student, employee; Daniel et al., 2012a). Thus, individuals differentiate in their value priorities across life domains.

Focusing on the relevant domain for our theorizing, individuals’ working life in organizations, this circular structure and the theoretical assumptions of employees guiding principles were replicated as well (Arieli et al., 2020b). Hence, as organizations are a further step of individuals socialization (e.g. Den Boer et al., 2024), it is important to consider employees work values in relation to the expressed values of an organizations’ culture (Arieli et al., 2020b; Kristof, 1996). Integrating these two perspectives, researchers aligned factors of organizational culture with propositions of the TBHV (e.g., Organizational Culture Profile, OCP; Borg et al., 2011; De Clercq et al., 2008), supporting its applicability in working contexts. Additionally, studies assessing a broad range of work value items display considerable alignment with the circularity-assumptions of conflict and compatibility (Albrecht et al., 2020; Borg et al., 2019; Schneider et al., 2024).

The theory of basic human values in work contexts

As conscious motivational goals, basic values respond to three universal requirements of human existence that all individuals and societies must address (Schwartz, 1992). From an evolutionary perspective, these constitute needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. Two pairs of higher-order basic value dimensions represent the motivational continuum with value constructs arranged according to their compatibility and conflict of underlying goals. Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change vs. Conservation are often transferred to work context as Social, Prestige, Intrinsic and Extrinsic dimensions (e.g., Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a; Ros et al., 1999). Social-related work values reflect the importance of positive social relationships and the possibility to contribute to society. Prestige-related work values represent goals regarding power, authority, influence, and success at work. Importance of autonomy, interest, enjoyment, and creativity are expressions of Intrinsic-related work values. In contrast, Extrinsic-related work values relate to the importance of job security and maintaining order in an employee’s life.¹ The values are arranged in a circular format based on the compatibility or conflict between their underlying basic motivational goals. Consequently, values that represent conflicting goals are positioned further apart, whereas those with compatible goals are adjacent. This arrangement suggests that compatible values tend to foster similar perceptions, preferences, and behaviors, as their underlying goals are more likely to be pursued through similar actions. In contrast, conflicting values hinder the simultaneous pursuit of their respective goals, as advancing one goal can obstruct another (Maio et al., 2009; Schwartz, 1992, 2021).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the proposed work value circumplex and motivational continuum.

According to the theory of basic human values conflict and compatibility are derived from values which express a personal (mainly Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change) or social (mainly Self-Transcendence and Conservation) focus. Furthermore, differentiations regarding Growth - Anxiety free (Self-Transcendence and Openness to Change) and Self-Protection—Anxiety avoidance (Conservation and Self-Enhancement) values can be made (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). Those aspects of conflict and compatibility manifest in 10 broad basic value constructs (Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Tradition, Conformity, Universalism, Benevolence).

Research has successfully incorporated work value items and constructs into the basic values of Schwartz (1992). Considering two examples, De Clercq et al. (2008) classified over 1,500 work value items into the value conceptualizations of the TBHV. Additionally, Borg et al. (2011) linked the Organizational Culture Profile (O’Reilly et al., 1991) to Schwartz’ value constructs. Therefore, these universal value constructs tend to be appropriate to integrate findings from organizational research (Arieli et al., 2020b). Research has validated instruments assessing 11 broader work value constructs replicating the value circumplex of Schwartz (1992) in various cultural contexts for work settings (Albrecht et al., 2020; Consiglio et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2024). They all depicted considerable alignment with the theoretical propositions of the theory of basic human values. However, Schwartz et al. (2012) argued that there is substantial heterogeneity in the broader 10 value constructs (Beierlein et al., 2012). This led to the development of a refined theory of basic human values with revised definitions (Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). How these developments can be transferred to the realm of work, is discussed next.

Theoretical refinements in work contexts

Specific value constructs tend to be more appropriate for organizational research (Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998; Salgado, 2017; Stephan, 2020) and they increase predictive validity and practical relevance for theorizing (Schwartz et al., 2012). De Clercq et al. (2008) found additional work value items, which could not be theoretically assigned to one of the 10 basic value constructs. This supports the need for further evaluation of theoretical soundness of the broader basic value constructs in work contexts (Arieli et al., 2020b; Maio et al., 2020). The refinement for work contexts enhances not only theoretical comprehensiveness. We ultimately aim at integrating past approaches of contextualizing the theory of basic human values in work contexts (Albrecht et al., 2020; Consiglio et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2024) with other comprehensive approaches in work value research (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a). In the following, we will first discuss the content of our work value theory and how these differentiations potentially relate to behavior in organizations; second, we will address the underlying structure of work values; and third, we will provide supporting theoretical arguments.

The content of the circular work value (CWVT)

Figure 1 includes the deduction of our work value constructs integrating past research findings. Our approach aimed at integrating four overlapping research streams: (1) We used the refinement of the basic value circumplex as a theoretical starting point (Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022) to build on contemporary personal value literature from a cross-cultural perspective (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022), (2) we utilized past discussions of the TBHV in work settings and how contextual specificities at work are important to consider (Arieli et al., 2020b; De Clercq et al., 2008; Lyons et al., 2010; Maio et al., 2020), (3) we integrated contextualized assessments of the 10 basic human values at work (Albrecht et al., 2020; Consiglio et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2024), and (4) we build on the work of Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) on reviewing a broad range of previous work value models. The development process resulted in the construct differentiations as elaborated next and defined in Table 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Flow chart for the advancement and contextualization of the theory of basic human values in relation to the IWVS.

Table 2

Table 2. Definitions of proposed work values.

Self-transcendence

Benevolence

The construct of Helping and Supporting by Albrecht et al. (2020) represents the contextualization of Benevolence. As the definition in Table 2 shows, two possible facets can be “devoting oneself to the needs of people with whom one is in frequent work contact” and “creating harmonious and supportive work relationships.” Schwartz et al. (2012) differentiated Benevolence into Dependability (“being a reliable and trustworthy member of the ingroup”) and Caring (“devotion to the welfare of ingroup members”). De Clercq et al. (2008) suggested an additional value to cover work value items named Relatedness (“motivation to form good relationships with others in the workplace”), which can further be found in the work value definition by Consiglio et al. (2017) (see Table 2). Benevolence-Caring matches conceptually to the Altruism (“help others at work/promote their wellbeing”) work value as defined by Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a). These findings support a differentiation of our work value Benevolence into Relatedness and Caring (see Table 2).

Equity

Compared to the ingroup focus of Benevolence, Universalism aims for a broader social environment with tolerance and justice “for all people” (Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). Universalism-Tolerance (“acceptance and understanding of those who are different from oneself”) and Concern (“Commitment to equality, justice, and protection for all people”) are diversifications made in the refined theory of basic human values (Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). The definition proposed by Consiglio et al. (2017) emphasizes the importance of fairness and respect toward members of the work organization, along with the implementation of “socially responsible policies” that extend beyond the boundaries of the organization (see Table 2). In contrast, the items developed by Albrecht et al. (2020) expressed the goal of Social Justice as contributing to broader society through one’s work (“to make the world a better place”) leaving out the internal organizational perspective. The questionnaire of Schneider et al. (2024) assesses work value items which express both perspectives.

Furthermore, Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) corroborate this organizational perspective with their work value for fair and equal treatment by supervisors. Based on this, we differentiated the work value of Equity into the sub dimensions of Advocacy and Acceptance. The work values state the importance of goals addressing fairness and justice of people at work (Advocacy) and the respect and acceptance of individual differences of people whom one encounters at work (Acceptance).

Sustainability

Schneider et al. (2024) argued for differentiations in Social Justice addressing the target group (organizational vs. societal). These are comparable to the different foci of Albrecht et al. (2020) for Social Justice in the society and Consiglio et al. (2017) for Universalism in the organization (as illustrated above). In line with theoretical contributions made by Lyons et al. (2010) work values may represent goals and expectations targeting the individual, the job/organization, or the society. As concluded earlier, Equity and Benevolence pertain to the organizational/job level. To acknowledge the societal focus of Lyons et al. (2010) and the conceptualization of Albrecht et al. (2020), we formulate another broader Sustainability work value which exceeds organizational borders in its motivational goals. This work value is differentiated in Sustainability-Social and Sustainability-Environmental to address the increasing importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Albrecht et al., 2020; Consiglio et al., 2017; Kristof-Brown et al., 2023). Accordingly, “contributing to society” represented by Social-related work values in the past becomes apparent (Ros et al., 1999). De Clercq et al. (2008) specified this with the proposition of a Social Commitment value (“welfare of all people”).

The definition of Sustainability-Social in Table 2 is based on the CSR dimension of people-society. While Equity represents the narrower group of people-organization (Paruzel et al., 2021) Sustainability-Social includes the conception of Social Justice given by Albrecht et al. (2020) for contributing to the broader society. Additionally, the societal focus of socially responsible policies based on the Universalism work value definition by Consiglio et al. (2017) is included.

Sustainability-Environmental was separated from Social Justice in work contexts by the study of Albrecht et al. (2020). Schwartz et al. (2012) highlight the factor of Universalism-Nature which addresses the “preservation of the natural environment.” Therefore, Albrecht et al. (2020) and Schneider et al. (2024) support this work value to be a distinct eleventh broader construct besides Social Justice. Here in this study, we address a broader Sustainability work value for societal and environmental engagement as goals and guiding principles representing contributions to the greater good (Lyons et al., 2010). This is posited analogous to the Universalism value of Schwartz et al. (2012).

Behavioral implications: work values of self-transcendence

Self-Transcendence work values represent guiding principles related to the wellbeing of others, and thus address needs for coordinated interaction, survival and welfare of groups (Schwartz, 1992). Here, the need for positive interaction and flourishing in teams and organizations is covered. Placing high importance on subordinately work values is associated with altruistic behavior to protect and enhance the welfare of others (Arieli et al., 2020a, 2020b). For example, helping colleagues as altruistic organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is associated with Benevolence (Cohen and Liu, 2011). Especially the Benevolence-Caring subdimension is aligned with this definition of altruistic behaviors. Attributing high importance to Self-Transcendence work values additionally increases the likelihood of successful cooperation with others (Lönnqvist et al., 2013). Prioritizing harmonious working relationships (Benevolence-Relatedness) may be more related to a cooperative conflict resolution of individuals (Arieli et al., 2020a, 2020b).

Furthermore, the importance of Equity may relate to inclusive workplace behaviors (Shore et al., 2018). For example, with a shared importance of Equity-Acceptance in teams, new members could be included as an insider of the work group and encouraged to retain their uniqueness through the acceptance and support of individual differences (Shore et al., 2011). When explaining the effects of CSR approaches in organizations, a differentiation according to the effects of people-employee (related to Equity-Advocacy) or people-society (related to Sustainability-Social) can be important to consider for PO-fit approaches (Glavas, 2016). Sustainability-Environmental represents a relevant work value for future research on green employee behavior, as it may shape pro-environmental attitudes (Katz et al., 2022).

Openness to change

Hedonism

Hedonism is referred to as “Pleasure in doing work, compatibility between work and one’s recreational and leisure interests” in work contexts (Consiglio et al., 2017). This definition advances the basic value of Hedonism (“Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself”; Schwartz et al., 2012) by the aspect of work life balance. Based on the distinction in the definition given by Consiglio et al. (2017) (pleasure in doing work and compatibility between work and leisure interests), Schneider et al. (2024) recommend the differentiation of both sub constructs. Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) as well, include a Work-Life-Balance work value in their final scale. The narrower definitions of Hedonism-Compatibility and Hedonism-Pleasure are given in Table 2.

Stimulation

Schwartz et al. (2012) considered two sub-constructs of Stimulation, particularly excitement/novelty and challenge. However, these differentiations were not included in the final refinement, as data did not provide evidence for a separation. In work contexts this differentiation may be more considerable. Schneider et al. (2024) support differentiations in their Variety work value between novelty and challenge at work. Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) formulate a Variety (“given to a job where the work tasks are diversified”) and Intellectual Stimulation (“a work in which it is possible to solve new problems, where it is necessary to be alert mentally, and which requires an intellectual effort.”) work value. The latter expresses the notion of challenges, problem solving and adapting to challenging work situations and tasks. Based on the definition of Intellectual Stimulation (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) and Self-Direction-Thought (see below and Table 2) the circular continuum seems quite vague due to the intellectual and mental focus of both constructs. Nevertheless, we want to address the given specificities of intellectual efforts (as given in Self-Direction-Thought) and the importance of solving new problems and challenges with the need for adapting to changing work tasks and situations (where challenges must not always be intellectual in nature). Therefore, we propose a differentiation of Stimulation-Variety (with importance of diversified and novel work experiences) and Stimulation-Challenge (with importance of adapting to changing work situations and challenges).

Self-direction

According to Schwartz et al. (2012, p. 666) the two sub-constructs of Self-Direction “refer to absolute/intrapersonal competence, not external assessments of performance.” It is differentiated by the sub-constructs of Thought (“The freedom to cultivate one’s own ideas and abilities”) and Action (“The freedom to determine one’s own actions”; Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). Similarly, Schneider et al. (2024) proposed distinctions of autonomously performing one’s tasks and developing things and ideas. This differentiation is also present in the definition given by Consiglio et al. (2017). Therefore, in line with Schwartz et al. (2012) we propose two sub-constructs named Self-Direction-Thought and Self-Direction-Action (see Table 2). Thought includes the development and usage of one’s understanding and intellectual competence and hence the development of one’s ideas and abilities (Schwartz et al., 2012). In line with this, the work values of Development, Intellectual Stimulation and Creativity postulated by Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) can be included here. Finally, the Autonomy work value of Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) is in line with the Self-Direction-Action definition given in Table 2.

Behavioral implications: work values of openness to change

The above discussed work values address individuals’ needs as biological organisms for mastery, control, variation to seek an optimal level of activation and the pleasure with satisfying these individual needs (Schwartz, 1992). As discussed by Arieli et al. (2020b), work values related to Openness to Change are linked to behavioral outcomes such as autonomy and adaptability to change in organizations. Empirical studies demonstrate positive associations between these work values—particularly Stimulation–Challenge and Self-Direction–Thought—and both self-reported and expert-rated creative and innovative performance, which are key to driving organizational change (Arieli et al., 2020b; Schwartz et al., 2012).

Moreover, Openness to Change work values are positively associated with proactive behaviors, such as initiating change through organizational citizenship behavior (Do Nascimento et al., 2018). However, this relationship may be moderated by factors such as organizational identification (Lipponen et al., 2008) and contextual ambiguity (Grant and Rothbard, 2013). Employees who score high on Openness to Change work values also tend to respond more positively to organizational change, although this depends on whether the change is voluntary or imposed (Gonzalez et al., 2023; Sverdlik and Oreg, 2009). Here, prioritizing novelty and variety can be predictive of how employees react to new tasks and responsibilities (as specified by Stimulation-Variety). Furthermore, valuing Hedonism-Compatibility can be indicative for expectations of flexibility in work arrangements. Here, a work values perspective might contribute additional personal characteristics in research on work-family balance (e.g., Vaziri et al., 2022).

Self-enhancement

Achievement

Schwartz et al. (2012) define the Achievement value as “Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.” In contrast to the Self-Direction work value, not intrapersonal competence but external assessment according to social standards is dominant in this construct. Correspondingly, Consiglio et al. (2017) define the contextualized work value as “personal success at work defined by recognition […] in the organization.” In line with this conjecture, De Clercq et al. (2008) postulate an additional value in work contexts addressing the striving for admiration and recognition. Advancement and Recognition are two work values from the work of Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) which could be included here. The focus lies on the recognition of one’s work in the organization and consequently on advancing one’s position.

De Clercq et al. (2008) postulate an additional value in the dimension of Self-Enhancement work values. The work value of Goal orientation is defined as the importance of fulfilling “a purpose, show persistence and take initiatives.” As discussed by Schwartz et al. (2012), we as well included the inerpersonal demonstration of competence in this work value definition. Therefore, we differentiate the work value of Achievement into the sub-constructs of Advancement and Goal orientation (see Table 2).

Materialism²

Materialism was additionally identified by De Clercq et al. (2008) to be included in work contexts. As it is defined as “attaching importance to material goods, wealth and luxury,” parallels to the work of Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) can be drawn. They identified a work value of Income addressing financial wealth and a high salary. Schwartz and Cieciuch (2022) assessed a Power-Resources factor defined as control of material and social resources with items like “It is important to her to be wealthy” and “It is important to her to own expensive things that show her wealth.” As these items can be considered as indicators for the work value of Materialism (De Clercq et al., 2008) we included this construct as a separate work value between Achievement-Advancement and Power-Resources (considered next).

Power

As defined by Schwartz et al. (2012), Power-Resources denotes the importance of exerting control over both material and social resources, ultimately contextualizing power at work through resource control. In this vein, emphasis is placed on authorizing and managing resources within the organization. Conversely, Materialism underscores the individual’s pursuit of heightened wealth and luxury through their work. Consequently, we distinguish a Power-Resources work value, which as well was emphasized by the work of Schneider et al. (2024).

Additionally, as differentiated by Schwartz et al. (2012), a work value of Power-Dominance can be considered (see Table 2). Here, the control over people represents an additional aspect of Power to the above focus on Resources. This second sub-factor is corroborated by the constructs assessed by Schneider et al. (2024) for the work value of Authority. Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a) as well, derive an Authority work value which focusses on the control over the planning, organizing, and carrying out the work of others. Hence, we conclude a Power-Dominance work value defined as control over people at work.

Considering empirical and theoretical advancements in basic value research, the value of Face (“security and power through maintaining one’s public image and avoiding humiliation”) is important to consider (Schwartz et al., 2012). Moreover, the definition of Consiglio et al. (2017) for the contextualized value of Power included definitional components of social status and prestige. Hence, we conclude an additional work value of Status for the importance of securing one’s social status and prestige at work (see Table 2).

Behavioral implications: work values of self-enhancement

The pursuit of success, control over resources, and the structure of power and status are essential for the functioning of social institutions such as organizations and teams, as well as for individuals to secure the resources and demonstrate competences necessary for continued employability (Schwartz, 1992). In contrast to Self-Transcendence, Self-Enhancement work values emphasize self-promoting goals over concern for others’ wellbeing (Arieli et al., 2020b). Employees who prioritize work values such as Status, Power, Materialism, and Achievement are often more motivated to advance their careers to secure status and prestige. Guiding principles centred on goal orientation, personal success, influence, and the pursuit of wealth and recognition are therefore just as vital for organizational success as the more cooperative, prosocial values associated with Self-Transcendence (Arieli et al., 2020b). This may be particularly relevant in organizations or cultures where norms and reward systems are based on merit, competition, and performance, as employees high in Self-Enhancement (especially the subdimension of Achievement-Advancement) tend to perceive such systems as fair (Fischer and Smith, 2004). From a motivational perspective of Growth–Anxiety-Free values, differentiating Achievement-Goal Orientation may help better predict employees’ preferences for demonstrating and experiencing achievement, effort, and competence (Butera et al., 2024), while being less dependent on social recognition of one’s work results.

The differentiation between Power-Dominance and Power-Resources is important when researchers aim to explain unethical or competitive behaviors in organizations (Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). Individuals who prioritize Power-Resources may be more likely to base their decisions on personal benefit rather than on compliance with ethical guidelines, as they prioritize their own advantages over ethical considerations (Arciniega et al., 2019). Additionally, knowledge hiding may occur in individuals who value power through resource control, as they tend to pursue personal gains rather than share expertise, foster collaboration, or contribute to organizational goals (Shen et al., 2025).

Prioritizing control over people at work (Power-Dominance) is associated with agentic qualities ascribed to leaders in organizations, such as interpersonal control and social dominance over the opinions and actions of others (Ma et al., 2022). Consequently, this work value may influence behavior and communication within work groups.

Conservation

Security

Safety, stability, and health avoiding risks in the work and organizational setting (Consiglio et al., 2017) is the contextualized definition of the Security basic value. In the revised theory of basic human values, Schwartz et al. (2012) differentiate between Security-Personal (safety in one’s immediate environment) and Security-Societal (safety and stability in the wider society). Albrecht et al. (2020) operationalized their Safety work value according to aspects of safety climate (e.g., “To contribute to the safety of colleagues”; “To ensure that danger is minimized”). This view may be too narrow as in work contexts aspects like job security are important to consider (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a). As the definition of Consiglio et al. (2017) and the work of Schneider et al. (2024) illustrate, safety and stability should as well be considered in direct relation to one’s job and employment.

Consequently, we consider the work values of Security-Job (importance of security and stability in one’s job and professional future) and Security-Organizational (importance of security and stability in the organizational environment). The first corresponds to Schwartz’ value of Security-Personal and the latter to Security-Societal with a broader target group. Security-Organizational stands in line with the work value definition of Albrecht et al. (2020) and the Work Environment value (“working environment is sheltered from bad weather and comfortable”) as defined by Busque-Carrier et al. (2022a). We decided to exclude items which specifically address health promotion/avoiding risks of health impairment, as the position of health in the circumplex tends to show considerable differences, based on the definition of health (Aavik and Dobewall, 2017).

Conformity

Originally labeled Conformity (Schwartz, 1992), Rule Respecting by Albrecht et al. (2020) is defined as the importance of compliance and adaption to management expectations and norms (Consiglio et al., 2017). As differentiated by Schwartz et al. (2012) this compliance can refer to interpersonal norms and expectations or formal rules, laws and obligations. Hence, we introduce this differentiation as well for work contexts with Conformity-Interpersonal and Conformity-Formal.

Tradition

Schwartz et al. (2012) did not differentiate the basic value of Tradition, defined as “maintaining and preserving cultural, family or religious traditions.” The focus of the corresponding work value given by Consiglio et al. (2017) lies on respect, acceptance, and diffusion of organizational traditions, culture, and customs. The questionnaire developed by Albrecht et al. (2020) however, focusses on supporting family and societal traditions through one’s work (e.g., “To be able to support the traditions of my society at work”; “To do work which is in keeping with my religious beliefs”). Schneider et al. (2024) included both perspectives in their final model which as well provides evidence for differentiating between two sub-constructs of Tradition (Organizational and Societal; Lyons et al., 2010).

Behavioral implications: work values of conservation

These work values reflect the need for coordinated interaction and group welfare to sustain the organization and maintain social harmony (except for Security-Personal addressing individual interests in continued employment; Schwartz, 1992). Individuals who value Tradition and Conformity may thrive in stable environments that demand alignment with managerial direction (Arieli et al., 2020a, 2020b). Valuing stability and compliance in workplaces—as emphasized by Conservation work values—is associated with adherence to organizational rules and alignment with management decisions (Arieli et al., 2020b). For instance, during imposed organizational change, employees who prioritize Conservation show higher organizational identification (especially Tradition-Organizational and Conformity; Sverdlik and Oreg, 2015). When, for example, communicating ethical guidelines or implementing organizational change, it can be helpful to tailor the approach depending on whether employees prioritize Conformity–Interpersonal (normative expectations and shared values) or Formal (detailed, structured policies and role clarity) guiding principles. Both approaches can foster stability and compliance, but they do so through different channels. Additionally, aspects of Security, particularly Security-Organizational, are relevant when considering safety climate and employees’ motivation to promote safety in the organizational environment to reduce accidents and injuries (Griffin and Curcuruto, 2016).

The structure of the circular work value theory

Our approach of contextualizing basic values in work contexts ultimately results in an adapted value structure of conflict and compatibility (see Figure 2). This is grounded in the diverse accumulations of previous work value scales which leads to variations in the content and underlying goals and motivational foundations of work values compared to basic values. Additionally, the diverse target levels of the proposed constructs in work settings (individual, job/organizational, societal; Lyons et al., 2010) influence the hypothesized adjustments.

As Figure 2 illustrates, we changed the position of work values in the Openness to Change domain, compared to the theory of basic human values. As the definitions of Self-Direction-Thought and Stimulation-Challenge indicate both facets of intellectual stimulation as using one’s cognitive abilities (Self-Direction-Thought) and solve problems/overcome challenges/adapting to new situations (Stimulation-Challenge). So, both constructs tend to be theoretically closely related in the motivational circumplex. This results in Hedonism being transferred to the border of Self-Transcendence work values where Hedonism-Compatibility adjoins Benevolence-Relatedness and Hedonism-Pleasure adjoins Stimulation-Variety.

Furthermore, Self-Direction-Action is now more closely related to Achievement-Goal orientation. As Self-Direction work values represent intrapersonal competence, independent of social standards, a close relation to working toward goals and demonstrating initiative and competence is assumed. Here, we postulate Achievement-Goal orientation to be located on a Growth—Anxiety-free motivational basis, as this work value is less dependent on external evaluations of performance and action compared to Achievement-Advancement (see Schwartz et al., 2012 for comparable differentiations).

We located Materialism between Achievement-Advancement and Power-Resources. The definition of Materialism pertains the importance of luxury and wealth through one’s work. This may be highly related to aspects of career progression and recognition according to social standards due to a higher salary in advanced careers. However, importance ascribed to control over material resources in the organization as well can be seen as theoretically related on the motivational continuum, as both focus on material aspects associated with work contexts and goals.

Power-Dominance is located between Power-Resources and Status. As the control over resources and people are both differentiations exhibited in previous literature, this ordering is as well plausible regarding Status being more closely related to Safety-Job. As Schwartz et al. (2012, p. 666) argued: “Exploiting one’s prestige enables people to control others and to command resources. Protecting one’s prestige entails defending oneself against the threats to one’s security inherent in attacks on one’s public image.” Both, Status and Security-Job, address securing one’s professional standing while the first focusses on one’s status, prestige and public image, and the latter addresses aspects of job security.

We switched the position of Tradition and Conformity. As Conformity-Formal addresses rules and obligations to enable a structured daily business in organizations, Security-Organizational is theoretically closely related due to the importance of stability and safety in the organization and the individual’s work environment. Additionally, Tradition-Organizational is more closely related to Conformity-Interpersonal as both constructs focus on adhering and complying to non-observable social norms and expectations in organizational surroundings.

Tradition-Societal is located on the border to Sustainability-Environmental as both constructs exceed organizational boarders. The differentiations address the welfare and continuation of the broader society.

Sustainability-Social is closely related to Equity-Advocacy. Both focus on the engagement for fairness and justice. However, they differentiate in the target group. The first addresses the societal level while the latter concerns people in one’s work organization.

Equity-Acceptance is placed near Benevolence-Caring. The first addresses the acceptance of individual differences at work with a broader target group to people whom one encounters at work. The latter focusses on promoting the wellbeing of ingroup members and considering their idiosyncratic needs. Here, Benevolence-Relatedness adjoins with the goal of harmonic and trustworthy relationships at work.

Facilitating the theoretical propositions

In the following, we provide theoretical arguments to support the proposed content and circular structure of work values. We discuss how our work value model addresses the bias in construct conceptualization due to the underdeveloped social dimension of work values (Moors et al., 2017) by drawing parallels to the propositions and controversial influences of neoliberal ideology on workplaces (Bal and Dóci, 2018). Then, we introduce additional theoretical arguments supporting the content and structure of our work value circumplex.

Work values and neoliberal ideology

Past research on the theory of basic human values evaluated the associations of basic values to political ideology (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). Transferred to workplaces, ideology can be defined as the explicit and deliberate endeavor to create an image of the workplace as it should be and also the lesser known invisible understandings of the social order itself (Bal and Dóci, 2018; Glynos, 2008; Zizek, 1989). An influential but controversial ideology in workplaces and work and organizational psychology in general constitutes neoliberalism (Abrams et al., 2023; Bal and Dóci, 2018; Curran and Hill, 2019; Harvey, 2005; Seubert et al., 2023). As a political-economic ideology, human wellbeing is to be maximized by economic freedom in societies (Fine and Saad-Filho, 2017; Harvey, 2005). How neoliberal ideology can be conceptualized and how it may influences workplace behavior is done comprehensively elsewhere (see Bal and Dóci, 2018). We aim at referring our work value model to the basic motivational foundations of neoliberalism given by Bal and Dóci (2018). We examine how our model helps to expand the perspectives on what individuals expect from work, and therefore potentially constitutes a less biased, cross-culturally generalizable conceptualization of work values.

Thus, we focus on the fantasmatic logic of neoliberalism to differentiate potential interconnections in the work value circumplex on a more abstract, conceptual level (Bal and Dóci, 2018; Glynos, 2008). In contrast, other logics of neoliberal ideology also relate to what individuals value at work and which guiding principles influence behavior and decision-making in organizations. The political logic defines core rules and norms (e.g., individualism and competition) and shapes how political discourse is constructed under neoliberalism (Glynos, 2008). The social logic represents the influences on employees’ working lives in a more tangible way, addressing practices such as control and monitoring as manifestations of ideological motivations and the enactment of norms (Morgan, 2015). Our focus, however, lies on the fantasmatic logic, as it explains why certain practices persist, why they are appealing to individuals, and how they motivate continuation of neoliberalism and its influence as desirable beliefs on workplaces (Glynos, 2008, 2011). At this level, definitional parallels emerge with our understanding of work values as broad and fundamental, desirable goals that guide decision-making and behavior in organizations.

The first fantasy of neoliberalism is the freedom of individuals. As Bal and Dóci (2018, p. 5) illustrated, “the center of the freedom fantasy is the agentic and free individual who can take care of her/himself [and] who is in no need of the state’s, the organization’s or any authority’s protection.” Neoliberalism provides the fantasy to liberate employees from bureaucratic organizations and the paternalistic influence of collectives. Hence, employees have the opportunity to pursuit their own interests and strive for self-fulfillment on a competitive market (Bal and Dóci, 2018). Individuals are responsible for their own employment and employability (Bal and Jansen, 2016). Here, relations to personal focused work values, especially Openness to Change constructs as Self-Direction or Stimulation become apparent. These are opposed to organizational or cultural influences on individuals in Conservation work values of Tradition and Conformity. Additionally, the competitiveness and the individualization of employability, personal development and success (as indicators for the Self-Enhancement dimension) conflicts with Self-Transcendence work values.

Meritocracy and social Darwinism form the second fantasy of neoliberal ideology (Bal and Dóci, 2018). Meritocracy, the concept that rewards in society and the workplace should be based on merit and talent, is often depicted as the belief that success stems from individual qualities like willpower and hard work rather than inherited advantages (Ayers and Saad-Filho, 2015; Bourdieu, 1986; Castilla and Benard, 2010). However, this idealized notion disregards the unequal distribution of resources and privileges among the elites due to structural power differences like social class and ethnicity (Burke, 2013; Littler, 2013). In relation to social Darwinism, neoliberalism stresses the natural selection of the strong and capable surviving in a competitive market. Competition is seen as fair as everyone has the same chances to make use of their freedom and strive for success. As a result, the society distinguishes between those who “succeed” and those who “loose.” Thus, social injustice and exploitation is justifiable, as success is based on merit, talent, and the strength and capability in a competitive market (Bal and Dóci, 2018). Transferring these assumptions to our work value model, the conflicting guiding principles of Self-Enhancement and Self-Transcendence become clear. While the first emphasizes power, authority, influence, and success at work through one’ own competitive advancements, the latter focusses on the meaningfulness of positive social relationships and the possibility to contribute to an equal and sustainable society through work.

The last motivational foundation of neoliberalism is the belief in growth and progress. Influenced by growth economies on a societal level, growing in status or personally is seen as desirable and inherently good on an individual level (Bal and Dóci, 2018). Hence, personal focused work values, especially the dimension of Self-Enhancement, are key guiding principles to be aligned with this conviction. Increasing one’s own market value based on external assessments is the ultimate goal. Again, the conflict to Self-Transcendence work values can be emphasized by following illustration: “if it is the individual’s striving for personal growth and progress that makes society as a whole well-functioning, then it is entirely legitimate and desirable that individuals care primarily about their own interests, strive to outcompete others and regard others instrumental in this process.“(Bal and Dóci, 2018, p. 7). Accordingly, the focus on the individuals’ own interests is conflicted with broad group goals as illustrated by work values of Conservation opposed to Openness to Change.

In conclusion, our proposed work value circumplex can be related to the fantasmatic motivational foundations of neoliberalism. Work values in the personal-focused dimensions of Openness to Change and especially Self-Enhancement are theoretically associated with neoliberal propositions. The underlying conflict of the work value circumplex is illustrated by the representation of oppositions and critiques in neoliberal fantasies within social-focused work value dimension such as Conservation and Self-Transcendence with a focus on collective needs and the welfare of others. Compared to past research on work values, a relative underrepresentation of work values in the social-focused dimension is apparent (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a; Moors et al., 2017). Additionally, the constructs reviewed for the IWVS are predominantly located on a personal-focused dimension. Thus, the range of construct content in past studies may be too restricted, as indicated by a disproportionate alignment with neoliberal assumptions and a bias in work value conceptualizations (Moors et al., 2017). We next present additional arguments orbiting these central propositions.

Expanding the framework: theoretical support for the CWVT

For providing additional examples to foster the content and structure of our work value model, we summarized further theoretical arguments in Table 3. Here, theories which depict the relevance of specific work values to explain organizational behavior (e.g., CSR, Meaning of Work, PERMA+4) and support the circumplex nature of conflicting and complementing work values (e.g., ethical leadership, goal-oriented motivation) are presented. We do not aim at discussing causal relationships between values and behavior, as the association is much more complex than bivariate relations (Maio et al., 2020; Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). Additionally, this list is not exhaustive. Our goal is to provide exemplifying support for the content validity of our theory and the circumplex nature of work value associations.

Table 3

Table 3. Additional theoretical arguments in relation to the proposed CWVT.

As discussed above, referring employees’ work values to their work environment is a fundamental perspective in conducting research on PO fit (Barrick and Parks-Leduc, 2019). As our developed theory is situated on the person-level, we want to further explore its referability to the organization-level. De Clercq et al. (2008) argued for the TBHV to be useful perspective in determining fit, as associations of conflict and compatibility are directly displayed in a comprehensive theoretical circularity. One example supporting this perspective is the relation of basic human values to the OCP (O’Reilly et al., 1991) by Borg et al. (2011). We want to build on these findings and relate the CWVT to additional empirically supported theory-based instruments for assessing organizational culture (Puppatz et al., 2017). Hence, we refer to the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS; Denison et al., 2014), the revised OCP (Sarros et al., 2005). The relations are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4

Table 4. Organizational culture dimensions and relations to the CWVT.

To support the transferability of our hypothesized structure of conflict and compatibility to work contexts we elaborate on two examples from related fields of work and organizational psychology mentioned in Tables 3, 4—meaning of work and organizational culture. First, a model of meaning of work (MW) developed by Rosso et al. (2010) through an integrative review hypothesizes four major pathways to meaningful work (self-connection, individuation, contribution, unification). These pathways are positioned between the opposing motivations of agency (drive to differentiate, master and create) and communion (drive to contact, attach and unite) and the target of one’ actions (self or others). Spanning these four distinctions, different actions and behaviors can guide individuals to meaningful work. Here are parallels to the continuum hypothesized by the CWVT. The opposing motivational foundations in social and personal work values (see Figure 2) align with the hypothesized differentiations of pathways to meaningful work. For example, individuation (in the agency-self quadrant) emphasizes control, autonomy and competence of individuals, while on the other end, unification (in the communion-others quadrant) aims at bringing individuals into harmony with other beings or principles (Rosso et al., 2010). These differentiations align with our hypothesized conflict between Openness to Change / Self-Enhancement work values (especially Achievement, Stimulation and Self-Direction) and Conservation / Self-Transcendence (especially Tradition, Conformity, Equity, Sustainability and Benevolence).

Second, from an organizational culture perspective, the Competing Values Framework (CVF, Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983) represents competing strategic core values addressing different aspects relevant for an organizations’ performance. The CVF was used to establish links to organizational effectiveness (Hartnell et al., 2011) and organizing various domain-specific organizational climates (Beus et al., 2020). Four culture types are distinguished in the CVF: clan (focus on attachment, collaboration, affiliation), adhocracy (focus on growth, stimulation, variety and autonomy), market (focus on competition, competence and achievement) and hierarchy (focus on routinization, formalization and consistency). The four distinct cultural types are referable to the higher-order work values as proposed by the CWVT: Self-Transcendence work values relate to the clan-type, Openness to Change to adhocracy, Self-Enhancement to market-culture and Conservation to hierarchy. Here, the conflicting structure of opposed beliefs and guiding principles becomes apparent on an organizational level. Structuring domain-specific organizational climates in this framework, Beus et al. (2020) highlight aspects of conflict and compatibility among these shared perceptions of organizational practices. In line with the CWVT, climates of support, justice/fairness, teamwork, trust, cooperation and caring were identified to relate to the clan culture-type (Self-Transcendence). Adhocracy incorporates climates of innovation, empowerment, autonomy, creativity and risk-taking which are in line with the work values of Openness to Change. Self-Enhancement work values are aligned with climates of achievement, performance, recognition, goal orientation and work pressure, as manifestations of the market culture-type. The hierarchy culture-type differentiates climates of structure, role clarity, safety, control and ethical climate, which relates to Conservation work values (where an ethical climate might be already on the transition to Sustainability as an adjacent work value).

Overall, these two examples align the assumptions of conflict and compatibility of the CWVT with previous research in the field of work and organizational psychology. In the following, we will conclude our theorizing with a discussion of our arguments.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to develop conceptual clarity of what work values are and what not, how they can be integrated into a theoretical framework and how this framework might help us to illuminate blind spots and biases in past approaches. Building on the IWVS (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) we illuminated biases in past research with a focus on lists of constructs lacking an unifying theoretical framework. In the following, we will discuss and summarize the four dominant contributions we believe our paper provides.

We presented a work value definition which fits the definition of basic personal values (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2022). Here, we were guided by the premise that work values are a contextualization of individuals’ basic values. Discussing why these definitional aspects matter in the realm of organizations provides a meaningful foundation for future work value studies tackling the issue of construct proliferation. A shared conceptualization of work values referrable to the definition of basic values enables research to consider the advancements in basic value literature and establish contextual sensitivity of new findings for theorizing in work and organizational psychology.

Building on this, our theory integrates past scale developments reviewed by the IWVS into a single comprehensive framework, namely the extensively researched and cross-culturally validated theory of basic human values. By providing a unifying theoretical framework for work value research we hope to foster theoretical considerations in future studies. The elaboration of the theory of basic human values and its contextual advancements in organizational settings enable researchers to ask more amplified questions due to the large background on behavioral implications of basic value research (Arieli et al., 2020b; Sagiv and Roccas, 2021). The contextual sensitivity of the theory potentially enhances the precision and relevance of research questions in work settings. For example, researchers could use the work value model to study the effects of value congruence in identity leadership theory and team settings. Specific questions might be asked to address which work values in the circumplex might be more important when examining congruence effects in organizational behavior. Another potential research array may be the role of self-affirmation theory and its effect on wellbeing given different motivational foundations in the work value circumplex.

Our discussion of potential behavioral implications for the different work values can enhance the practical relevance of the CWVT given their desirable outcomes for organizations (e.g., green employee behavior, compliance and safety behavior, pursuit of success, creativity and flexibility). Past studies support the possibilities for volunteer value change utilizing the value conceptualizations of the TBHV (Russo et al., 2022). This highlights the usefulness of work value considerations in for example organizational socialization or personnel development. Moreover, identifying employees work values and relate them to associated behaviors can help individuals to act on their work values and foster their wellbeing (Bojanowska et al., 2022; Russo-Netzer and Atad, 2024). This may be especially relevant for career counseling or coaching. Here, the presented behaviors and favored organizational circumstances can provide initial directions for employees’ to align their work values with their work behavior and preferences. Moreover, leadership and team development might benefit from highlighting the prevalent work values in teams and especially the shared values across team members and their leaders. This paves the way for interventions based on the identity leadership perspective (Haslam et al., 2022) to develop a shared sense of social identity in teams (Haslam et al., 2023).

Our review of neoliberal ideology in relation to our work value theory displayed the conflict of social vs. personal focused work values. Past scales predominantly focused on work values attributable to the personal dimension (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) with an underdevelopment of social work values (Moors et al., 2017). The former are conceptually more aligned with the propositions given by the fantasmatic logic of neoliberalism. As a result, perspectives on work values might be too narrow and lack cross-cultural generalizability, as national culture or economic ideology can influence personal value systems (Ralston et al., 2008, 2011; Schwartz, 1999). The universal approach of the theory of basic human values addresses this gap (Schwartz, 1992). Thus, we believe that our model provides a more comprehensive and cross-culturally sensitive picture of relevant work values exceeding neoliberal restrictions. Based on the universality of Schwartz’ theory, this enlarges the perspectives and possibilities for theorizing as for example cross-cultural and out-of-the box hypothesis might be considered as well as more macro-level influences and guiding principles like Conformity or Tradition (Anseel et al., 2018).

We are aware of the controversial discussions around the topic of ideology and its influences on our work (Anseel et al., 2018; Rudolph and Zacher, 2018). Nonetheless, we aimed to reinforce the circumplex model of work values and uncover blind spots in current literature. Past research identified this motivational continuum based on empirical data (Albrecht et al., 2020; Borg et al., 2019; Lyons et al., 2010; Schneider et al., 2024). As our theoretical associations illustrate, conceptualizing work values in a circumplex with conflicting and complementing basic motivational goals and guiding principles can provide useful extensions not just for the internal structures of work values themselves, but also in relation to other theories. For example, the theoretical foundation of a work value circumplex expands perspectives on relations to CSR, meaning of work, religion and spirituality in work contexts, differentiations of learning and performance goal orientation as well as the supplementary fit between person and environment (conflict or compatibility of individuals’ work values to organizational values along the motivational continuum; Kristof, 1996).

Given the different levels of abstraction, one might choose the level most useful for their research question and variable of interest. Table 3 illustrates that even the most abstract dimensions could provide useful insights in explaining relations (Growth - Anxiety-free and Self-Protection—Anxiety-avoidance). Hence, we refer to the discussion around narrower and broader variables given in the bandwidth-fidelity-dilemma (Ones and Viswesvaran, 1996; Salgado, 2017) and encourage the use of more abstract work values when interested in more abstract outcomes.

Limitations and future research

In the following, we will discuss pathways for future research and address limitations of our here presented theorizing.

Empirically evaluating differentiations

Future studies should aim to provide further support for the proposed differentiation of work values, including assessments of the incremental validity of the specified sub-constructs. In light of the theoretical principle of parsimony, it is essential to evaluate the empirical distinctiveness of these dimensions to ensure that practical recommendations remain meaningful and actionable (Aguinis and Cronin, 2022).

In this context, an important theoretical limitation must be acknowledged: the CWVT introduces additional assumptions and complexity, making it a less parsimonious and a less generalizable framework compared to the TBHV. Therefore, further empirical research is needed to determine whether the CWVT offers added explanatory value for work-related phenomena beyond what the TBHV already accounts for (see hypothesized behavioral implications above).

Generalizability of the CWVT to various cultures with methodological triangulations

Given the relative lack of previous work value constructs in the social-focused dimension, their validity and cross-cultural replicability needs to be considered. We aimed at providing more comprehensive constructs compared to former work value scales. This was inspired by Schwartz’ work on cross-cultural and universal basic value structures which was replicated in many different societies on large data sets (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). However, we encourage a critical examination of our unifying work value model. Developing appropriate instruments to empirically corroborate the model is required by data collections and studies in various cultures. Thus, a comprehensive theory driven scale development approach using state-of-the-art validation practices (Cortina et al., 2020) should be the center of future work value research.

Thus, scale validation approaches should build on past (work) value scales (Albrecht et al., 2020; Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a; Consiglio et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2024; Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022) to align work value assessment with the circularity assumption of the CWVT. Example items could address contextualized wordings of the PVQ-RR (Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022), where respondents compare a described person to themselves and indicate, how similar the described person is to them (e.g., “It is important to this person to have the freedom to choose what they do at work.” for Self-Direction-Action; “It is important to this person to develop their own ideas at work, regardless of what others think.” for Self-Direction-Thought). Initial content validation should take place by incorporating expert feedback from researchers on how well the items represent the derived work value definitions in Table 2. Building on this item pool, cognitive interviews with employees can be useful to investigate the understandability of item contents and gain a first impression of how employees rate the discussed guiding principles. With sufficiently large sample sizes, an initial test of the factorial structure can be conducted. Translating the items and testing them in other languages should make the CWVT, its generalizability and applicability in other countries more accessible (especially replicating the circular structure and the measurement model through measurement invariance testing).

Building on this, initial behavioral implications can be researched, as an assessment of the CWVT now allows researchers to analyze work values’ associations to behavioral outcomes. For example, self-rated, other-rated behaviors or decision-making in ill-defined problems (Mumford et al., 2002) can help researchers to understand the practical utility of here discussed work values.

A key limitation of our approach lies in the reliance on predominantly quantitatively derived and researched frameworks (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a; Schneider et al., 2024; Schwartz and Cieciuch, 2022). While these models are grounded in cross-culturally validated theories, they may still constrain the range of perspectives captured by the developed CWVT. To address this, future research could incorporate additional data sources—such as exploratory analyses of written or spoken language using large language models and natural language processing (e.g., Ponizovskiy et al., 2020; Tonidandel et al., 2022)—to gain deeper insights into the guiding principles of employees.

Workplace specificities of behavioral implications

Another important alley for future research are the implications of work values for behaviors in organizations (Maio et al., 2020). Sagiv and Roccas (2021) identified processes and variables which may influence the value-behavior association. For example, the factor of “control” represented by external Conformity values, social norms or cultural tightness/looseness should be specified for organizations. Here, the job design might as well be a contextual moderator. Job autonomy, leadership, career advancement possibilities or social support by colleagues can potentially moderate the extent to which work values are translatable into organizational behavior (Barrick and Parks-Leduc, 2019). Additional theorizing is required to develop hypotheses on contextualizing the variables identified to influence the value-behavior nexus (Arieli et al., 2020a; Sagiv and Roccas, 2021).

The behavioral implications of each higher-order work value—and the associated differentiations—warrant extensive empirical investigation, taking into account the process variables outlined above that may moderate these relationships. Some of these implications are grounded in empirical studies of work values; others are theoretical hypotheses based on content and conceptual similarities in value–behavior linkages. Consequently, future research should undertake a rigorous, data-driven evaluation of the CWVT and its nomological network.

Aligning the CWVT with fit-research

We believe that the proposed model could advance the literature on PO-Fit. Due to mixed results in fit studies (Van Vianen, 2018), methodological developments in assessing mis−/fit (Yao and Ma, 2023) and proliferation of organizational value theories (De Clercq et al., 2008) the circular work value theory could provide meaningful advancements in studying value congruence. This stems from the basic proposition of our theory, as conflict and compatibility are inherent to the hypothesized structure based on an elaborated and extensively researched framework of individuals’ basic values. Thus, using this comprehensive theory to assess in−/congruence and consider the influence of different fit attributes (e.g., work values with different motivational foundations) could strengthen the theoretical basis of future PO-fit research (Kristof-Brown et al., 2023).

As shown in Table 4, the CWVT demonstrates meaningful parallels with established organizational culture models, providing a useful starting point for exploring hypothesized patterns of conflict and compatibility. In particular, the dimension emphasis on rewards in the revised OCP (Sarros et al., 2005) may be of interest, as it can be conceptually linked to the work values of Self-Transcendence and Self-Enhancement. Analyzing individual work value profiles may offer deeper insights into patterns of fit and misfit, especially in the context of such inconsistent definitions from a personal work value standpoint (Arieli et al., 2020b).

Some limitations, however, must be acknowledged. For example, not all dimensions of the DOCS could be clearly mapped onto our hypothesized circular continuum—Customer Focus being a case in point. This discrepancy may stem from differing levels of abstraction, as not all employees—or even entire organizations such as public sector agencies—have direct customer contact (e.g., HR departments). In such cases, emphasizing customer needs may be too context-specific and misaligned with the broader definition of work values employed in this study. Furthermore, even though our discussion of the CVF related to conflict and compatibility aligned with the assumptions of the CWVT, some limitations must be acknowledged. Past meta-analytical findings provide limited support of the nomological associations and the hypothesized internal structure of the CVF (Hartnell et al., 2011). Thus, Hartnell et al. (2011) suggest to not view the CVF as distinct and mutually exclusive types of cultures, but as cultural profiles and patterns among associated values. Supporting this view, the CWVT can provide a perspective on organizational culture where the theoretical bandwidth is captured by various configurations of beliefs and work values, and not as distinctive types. This should be considered in future fit research when aligning employees work values to organizational culture profiles.

This observation also points to a broader issue: the need for continuous evaluation of the relevance and comprehensiveness of work values. As Kristof-Brown et al. (2023) emphasize, value profiles may require regular updating due to societal developments. Recent extensions of the TBHV support this view—for instance, Sustainability (Albrecht et al., 2020) and Hedonism-Compatibility (Consiglio et al., 2017) have been introduced as contextualized expressions of Universalism and Hedonism. These developments highlight the importance of remaining attuned to societal change and its influence on the evolving salience of work values. Nevertheless, evolving guiding principles at work should continue to align with the definition of work values as beliefs and broad goals that help individuals cope with the fundamental needs of human existence—including biological needs, the requirements of coordinated social interaction, and the survival and welfare of groups. When updating personal work value theories, it is important to avoid reverting to overly specific or potentially biased value lists, thereby minimizing the risk of construct proliferation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper proposes a theoretical framework for work value research by leveraging the widely acknowledged and unifying assumptions of the theory of basic human values. We addressed three major gaps in the literature: establishing a theoretical foundation for a more sound basis in work value research, offering diverse perspectives on guiding principles at work to enhance the richness of hypotheses formulation and cross-cultural generalizability, and providing clarity on the essential work values to assess amidst prevalent construct proliferation and ambiguity. Our theoretical approach draws on insights from psychology and related disciplines. We believe this foundation will significantly benefit future studies in work values and inspire critical evaluation of our proposed theory.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

JS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MK: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. TL: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1. ^For clearer conceptualization of higher-order work value dimensions and to underline our approach of contextualizing the theory of basic human values, we continue to refer to Self-Transcendence, Self-Enhancement, Openness to Change and Conservation when discussing work value dimensions. Additionally, we referred our work value labels to the theory of basic human values and the contextualization of Consiglio et al. (2017) to avoid contributing to jingle-jangle fallacy (Flake and Fried, 2020).

2. ^Schwartz et al. (2012) integrated an additional value of Humility between the dimensions of Conservation and Self-Transcendence. Past contextualizations of the TBHV and the integrative work for the IWVS (Busque-Carrier et al., 2022a) provide no evidence of such a value in work contexts (research on humility in organizations typically conceptualizes humbleness as a personality trait or specific leadership behavior, rather than as a desirable belief that serves as a guiding principle in employees’ lives; e.g., Chandler et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2019). Hence, we consider the higher-order work value of Self-Enhancement and especially Achievement-Advancement and Materialism to be the opposite of a potential Humility work value, as the connectivity to existing work value literature is more apparent. This is supported by considering the definition of the Humility basic value as “recognizing one’s insignificance in the larger scheme of things” and the conflicting goal of luxury, material goods and recognition according to social standards as well as influence on other individuals in the Self-Enhancement dimension. Additionally, empirical studies indicate high negative associations between Humility and Materialism (Pilch and Górnik-Durose, 2016) supporting the conflict between these opposing guiding principles.

References

Aavik, T., and Dobewall, H. (2017). Where is the location of “health” in the human values system? Evidence from Estonia. Soc. Indic. Res. 131, 1145–1162. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1287-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abessolo, M., Hirschi, A., and Rossier, J. (2021). Development and validation of a multidimensional career values questionnaire: a measure integrating work values, career orientations, and career anchors. J. Career Dev. 48, 243–259. doi: 10.1177/0894845319846567

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abrams, R., Bal, P. M., D’Cruz, P., Hornung, S., Islam, G., McDonald, M., et al. (2023). The story of this special issue on critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology. Appl. Psychol. 72, 3–12. doi: 10.1111/apps.12445

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguinis, H., and Cronin, M. A. (2022). It’s the theory, stupid. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 12:204138662210806. doi: 10.1177/20413866221080629

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Albrecht, S., Marty, A., and Brandon-Jones, N. J. (2020). Measuring values at work: extending existing frameworks to the context of work. J. Career Assess. 28, 531–550. doi: 10.1177/1069072720901604

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., and Wilkins-Yel, K. G. (2021). Precarious work in the 21st century: a psychological perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 126:103491. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103491

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anglim, J., Molloy, K., Dunlop, P. D., Albrecht, S. L., Lievens, F., and Marty, A. (2022). Values assessment for personnel selection: comparing job applicants to non-applicants. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 31, 524–536. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.2008911

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anseel, F., Van Lysebetten, S., Van Es, R., and Rosseel, J. (2018). Our neoliberal fantasies? A preliminary test of research trends in leading journals in work and organizational psychology. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 27, 549–551. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1496082

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arciniega, L. M., Stanley, L. J., Puga-Méndez, D., Obregón-Schael, D., and Politi-Salame, I. (2019). The relationship between individual work values and unethical decision-making and behavior at work. J. Bus. Ethics 158, 1133–1148. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3764-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., and Roccas, S. (2020a). Challenges and gaps in studying value–behavior associations in work settings. Appl. Psychol. 69, 296–301. doi: 10.1111/apps.12214

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., and Roccas, S. (2020b). Values at work: the impact of personal values in Organisations. Appl. Psychol. 69, 230–275. doi: 10.1111/apps.12181

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayers, A. J., and Saad-Filho, A. (2015). Democracy against neoliberalism: paradoxes, limitations, transcendence. Crit. Sociol. 41, 597–618. doi: 10.1177/0896920513507789

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bagozzi, R. P., and Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 1, 45–87. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100104

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bal, P. M., and Dóci, E. (2018). Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 27, 536–548. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bal, P. M., and Jansen, P. G. W. (2016). “Workplace flexibility across the lifespan” in Research in personnel and human resources management. eds. M. R. Buckley, J. R. B. Halbesleben, and A. R. Wheeler (Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 43–99.

Google Scholar

Barrick, M. R., and Parks-Leduc, L. (2019). Selection for fit. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 6, 171–193. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bass, B. M., and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 10, 181–217. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beierlein, C., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Schwartz, S. H., and Rammstedt, B. (2012). Testing the discriminant validity of Schwartz’ Portrait Value Questionnaire items – A replication and extension of Knoppen and Saris (2009). Survey Research Methods 6, 25–36. doi: 10.18148/srm/2012.v6i1.5092

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beus, J. M., Solomon, S. J., Taylor, E. C., and Esken, C. A. (2020). Making sense of climate: a meta-analytic extension of the competing values framework. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 136–168. doi: 10.1177/2041386620914707

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bojanowska, A., Kaczmarek, Ł. D., Urbanska, B., and Puchalska, M. (2022). Acting on values: a novel intervention enhancing hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 23, 3889–3908. doi: 10.1007/s10902-022-00585-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., Jehn, K. A., Bilsky, W., and Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Embedding the organizational culture profile into Schwartz’s theory of universals in values. J. Pers. Psychol. 10, 1–12. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borg, I., Hertel, G., Krumm, S., and Bilsky, W. (2019). Work values and facet theory: from Intercorrelations to individuals. Int. Stu. Manage. Org. 49, 283–302. doi: 10.1080/00208825.2019.1623980

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural theory: An anthology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 81–93.

Google Scholar

Burke, P. J. (2013). The right to higher education: neoliberalism, gender and professional mis/recognitions. Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 23, 107–126. doi: 10.1080/09620214.2013.790660

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Busque-Carrier, M., Le Corff, Y., and Ratelle, C. F. (2022a). Development and validation of the integrative work values scale. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 72:100766. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2022.100766

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Busque-Carrier, M., Ratelle, C. F., and Le Corff, Y. (2022b). Linking work values profiles to basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Psychol. Rep. 125, 3183–3208. doi: 10.1177/00332941211040439

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Butera, F., Dompnier, B., and Darnon, C. (2024). Achievement goals: a social influence cycle. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 75, 527–554. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-013123-102139

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Castilla, E. J., and Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 55, 543–676. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chandler, J. A., Johnson, N. E., Jordan, S. L., B, D. K., and Short, J. C. (2023). A meta-analysis of humble leadership: reviewing individual, team, and organizational outcomes of leader humility. Leadersh. Q. 34:101660. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101660

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, A., and Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and individual values, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among Israeli teachers. Int. J. Psychol. 46, 271–287. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2010.539613

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Consiglio, C., Cenciotti, R., Borgogni, L., Alessandri, G., and Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The WVal: a new measure of work values. J. Career Assess. 25, 405–422. doi: 10.1177/1069072716639691

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cortina, J. M., Sheng, Z., Keener, S. K., Keeler, K. R., Grubb, L. K., Schmitt, N., et al. (2020). From alpha to omega and beyond! A look at the past, present, and (possible) future of psychometric soundness in the journal of applied psychology. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 1351–1381. doi: 10.1037/apl0000815

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Curran, T., and Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: a meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychol. Bull. 145, 410–429. doi: 10.1037/bul0000138

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Daniel, E., Schiefer, D., and Knafo, A. (2012a). One and not the same: the consistency of values across contexts among majority and minority members in Israel and Germany. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 43, 1167–1184. doi: 10.1177/0022022111430257

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Daniel, E., Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Benish-Weisman, M., Boehnke, K., and Knafo, A. (2012b). Value differentiation in adolescence: the role of age and cultural complexity. Child Dev. 83, 322–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01694.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J. R. J., and Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person—organization fit. J. Psychol. 142, 277–302. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.142.3.277-302

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Den Boer, L., De Moor, E. L., and Reitz, A. K. (2024). Shaping who we are: linking narratives to identity processes during the university-to-work transition. Eur. J. Personal. 19:08902070241309490. doi: 10.1177/08902070241309490

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Denison, D., Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2014). Diagnosing organizational cultures: a conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 23, 145–161. doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2012.713173

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dik, B. J., Daniels, D., and Alayan, A. J. (2024). Religion, spirituality, and the workplace: a review and critique. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 11, 279–305. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-041458

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Do Nascimento, T. T., Porto, J. B., and Kwantes, C. T. (2018). Transformational leadership and follower proactivity in a volunteer workforce. Nonprofit Manage. Leadership 28, 565–576. doi: 10.1002/nml.21308

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Donaldson, S. I., Van Zyl, L. E., and Donaldson, S. I. (2022). PERMA+4: a framework for work-related wellbeing, performance and positive organizational psychology 2.0. Front. Psychol. 12:817244. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: an integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 70, 219–240. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00645.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Elizur, D., and Sagie, A. (1999). Facets of personal values: a structural analysis of life and work values. Appl. Psychol. 48, 73–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00049.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ellemers, N., DeGilder, D., and Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29:459. doi: 10.2307/20159054

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Elliot, A. J., and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 501–519. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

England, G. W. (1967). Personal value Systems of American Managers. Acad. Manag. J. 10, 53–68. doi: 10.2307/255244

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fine, B., and Saad-Filho, A. (2017). Thirteen things you need to know about neoliberalism. Crit. Sociol. 43, 685–706. doi: 10.1177/0896920516655387

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischer, R., and Smith, P. B. (2004). Values and organizational justice: performance-and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35, 669–688. doi: 10.1177/0022022104270110

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flake, J. K., and Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3, 456–465. doi: 10.1177/2515245920952393

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., and Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: current practice and recommendations. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 8, 370–378. doi: 10.1177/1948550617693063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fritzsche, D., and Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. J. Bus. Ethics 75, 335–343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9256-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Furnham, A., MacRae, I., and Tetchner, J. (2021). Measuring work motivation: the facets of the work values questionnaire and work success. Scand. J. Psychol. 62, 401–408. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12723

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

George, J. M., and Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: values, attitudes, and moods. Hum. Relat. 50, 393–416. doi: 10.1023/A:1016954827770

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gessnitzer, S., Schulte, E.-M., and Kauffeld, S. (2015). VaMoS: measuring the “within-person fit” of affective values, cognitive motives, and skills. J. Career Assess. 23, 559–581. doi: 10.1177/1069072714553080

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative review. Front. Psychol. 7:144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glynos, J. (2008). Ideological fantasy at work. J. Political Ideol. 13, 275–296. doi: 10.1080/13569310802376961

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glynos, J. (2011). On the ideological and political significance of fantasy in the organization of work. Psychoanal. Cult. Soc. 16, 373–393. doi: 10.1057/pcs.2010.34

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gonzalez, K., Portocarrero, F. F., and Ekema, M. L. (2023). Disposition activation during organizational change: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 76, 829–883. doi: 10.1111/peps.12513

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grant, A. M., and Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the day? Security values, prosocial values, and proactivity under ambiguity. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 810–819. doi: 10.1037/a0032873

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Griffin, M. A., and Curcuruto, M. (2016). Safety climate in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 3, 191–212. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062414

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., and Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 677–694. doi: 10.1037/a0021987

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harvey, D. (2005). Neoliberalism: A brief history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Haslam, S. A., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., Rast, D. E., and Steffens, N. K. (2022). Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: a dual-identity framework. Leadersh. Q. 33:101620. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101620

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haslam, S. A., Reutas, J., Bentley, S. V., McMillan, B., Lindfield, M., Luong, M., et al. (2023). Developing engaged and ‘teamful’ leaders: a randomized controlled trial of the 5R identity leadership program. PLoS One 18:e0286263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286263

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hattrup, K., Mueller, K., and Aguirre, P. (2007). Operationalizing value importance in cross-cultural research: comparing direct and indirect measures. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80, 499–513. doi: 10.1348/096317906X130843

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. 3rd Edn. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Google Scholar

Inglehart, R., and Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:19. doi: 10.2307/2657288

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 489–514. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033344

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Katz, I. M., Rauvola, R. S., Rudolph, C. W., and Zacher, H. (2022). Employee green behavior: a meta-analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 29, 1146–1157. doi: 10.1002/csr.2260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Vaesen, K., Houkes, W., and Lakens, D. (2025). Academic research values: conceptualization and initial steps of scale development. PLoS One 20:e0318086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318086

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). “Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification” in Toward a general theory of action. eds. T. Parsons and E. Shils (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 388–433.

Google Scholar

Knardahl, S., and Christensen, J. O. (2024). Individual work-motive values: determinants and consequences for the appraisal of specific health-related work characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1332687

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kooij, D. T. A. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G. W., Kanfer, R., and Dikkers, J. S. E. (2011). Age and work-related motives: results of a meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 197–225. doi: 10.1002/job.665

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers. Psychol. 49, 1–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kristof-Brown, A., Schneider, B., and Su, R. (2023). Person-organization fit theory and research: conundrums, conclusions, and calls to action. Pers. Psychol. 76, 375–412. doi: 10.1111/peps.12581

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krueger, K. L., Diabes, M. A., and Weingart, L. R. (2022). The psychological experience of intragroup conflict. Res. Organ. Behav. 42:100165. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2022.100165

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, Y., Berry, C. M., and Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2019). The importance of being humble: a meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty-humility and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 1535–1546. doi: 10.1037/apl0000421

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., and Haapamäki, J. (2008). The interaction between values and organizational identification in predicting suggestion-making at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 81, 241–248. doi: 10.1348/096317907X216658

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: the Marketising of “equality” under neoliberalism. New Formations 80, 52–72. doi: 10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Z., Hoff, K. A., Chu, C., Oswald, F. L., and Rounds, J. (2024). Toward whole-person fit assessment: integrating interests, values, skills, knowledge, and personality using the occupational information network (O*NET). J. Appl. Psychol. 110, 623–647. doi: 10.1037/apl0001232

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Acad. Manag. J. 29, 388–403. doi: 10.2307/20159050

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lönnqvist, J., Verkasalo, M., Wichardt, P. C., and Walkowitz, G. (2013). Personal values and prosocial behaviour in strategic interactions: distinguishing value-expressive from value-ambivalent behaviours. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 554–569. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1976

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lyons, S. T., Higgins, C. A., and Duxbury, L. (2010). Work values: development of a new three-dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 969–1002. doi: 10.1002/job.658

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lysova, E. I., Allan, B. A., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., and Steger, M. F. (2019). Fostering meaningful work in organizations: a multi-level review and integration. J. Vocat. Behav. 110, 374–389. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, A., Rosette, A. S., and Koval, C. Z. (2022). Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 2115–2148. doi: 10.1037/apl0000550

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maio, G. R., Hanel, P. H. P., Martin, R., Lee, A., and Thomas, G. (2020). Setting the foundations for theoretical Progress toward understanding the role of values in Organisational behaviour: commentary on “values at work: the impact of personal values in Organisations” by Arieli, Sagiv, and Roccas. Appl. Psychol. 69, 284–290. doi: 10.1111/apps.12192

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., and Rees, K. J. (2009). Changing, priming, and acting on values: effects via motivational relations in a circular model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 699–715. doi: 10.1037/a0016420

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moldzio, T., Peiffer, H., Wedemeyer, P. S., and Gentil, A. (2021). Differentiated measurement of conscientiousness and emotional stability in an occupational context – greater effort or greater benefit? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 30, 192–205. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1866066

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moors, G., Vriens, I., and Gelissen, J. (2017). Similarities between ranking and rating measures of values preferences: evidence from a latent class segmentation approach. Methodology 13, 113–122. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000135

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morgan, G. (2015). “Elites, varieties of capitalism and the crisis of neo-liberalism” in Research in the sociology of organizations. eds. G. Morgan, P. Hirsch, and S. Quack (Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 55–80.

Google Scholar

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Helton, W. B., Van Doorn, J. R., and Osburn, H. K. (2002). Alternative approaches for measuring values: direct and indirect assessments in performance prediction. J. Vocat. Behav. 61, 348–373. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1860

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., and Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad. Manag. J. 34, 487–516. doi: 10.2307/256404

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ones, D. S., and Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. J. Organ. Behav. 17, 609–626. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parks-Leduc, L., Dustin, S. L., Wang, G., and Parks, T. W. (2024). Team values and team performance: a two-study investigation. Appl. Psychol. 73:12553. doi: 10.1111/apps.12553

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Paruzel, A., Klug, H. J. P., and Maier, G. W. (2021). The relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 12:607108. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607108

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pilch, I., and Górnik-Durose, M. E. (2016). Do we need “dark” traits to explain materialism? The incremental validity of the dark triad over the HEXACO domains in predicting materialistic orientation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 102, 102–106. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pincus, J. D. (2024). Values as motives: implications for theory, methods, and practice. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 58, 1704–1750. doi: 10.1007/s12124-024-09817-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ponizovskiy, V., Ardag, M., Grigoryan, L., Boyd, R., Dobewall, H., and Holtz, P. (2020). Development and validation of the personal values dictionary: a theory–driven tool for investigating references to basic human values in text. Eur. J. Personal. 34, 885–902. doi: 10.1002/per.2294

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Puppatz, M., Burmeister, A., and Deller, J. (2017). The assessment of organizational culture in cross-cultural settings: investigating the psychometric quality and cultural equivalence of three quantitative instruments. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 25, 43–60. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12159

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. 5th Edn. rinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manag. Sci. 29, 363–377. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rader, L., Gauggel, S., Drueke, B., Weise, L., Forster, S. D., and Mainz, V. (2024). Internal and external self-affirmation resources: validation and assessment of psychometric properties of the spontaneous self-affirmation measure using structural equation modeling. Front. Psychol. 15:1217416. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1217416

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Reynaud, E., Srinivasan, N., Furrer, O., Brock, D., et al. (2011). A twenty-first century assessment of values across the global workforce. J. Bus. Ethics 104, 1–31. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0835-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., and Kai-Cheng, Y. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 39, 8–26. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400330

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ratchford, J. L., Ming, M. S., Lee, Y., Jackson, J., Wood, M., and Schnitker, S. A. (2023). A rank order approach to basic human values: using q-sorts to investigate the value circumplex. Personal. Individ. Differ. 206:112111. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2023.112111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. London: Free Press.

Google Scholar

Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., and Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Appl. Psychol. 48, 49–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav. 30, 91–127. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rudolph, C. W., and Zacher, H. (2018). What are the mechanisms? The black box of neoliberalism. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 27, 556–557. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1482873

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo, C., Danioni, F., Zagrean, I., and Barni, D. (2022). Changing personal values through value-manipulation tasks: a systematic literature review based on Schwartz’s theory of basic human values. Eur. J. Inv. Health Psychol. Educ. 12, 692–715. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe12070052

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo-Netzer, P., and Atad, O. I. (2024). Activating values intervention: an integrative pathway to well-being. Front. Psychol. 15:1375237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1375237

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., and Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 2040–2068. doi: 10.1037/apl0000994

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sagiv, L., and Roccas, S. (2021). How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 25, 295–316. doi: 10.1177/10888683211015975

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sagiv, L., and Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal Values Across Cultures. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73, 517–546. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salgado, J. F. (2017). “Bandwidth-Fidelity dilemma” in Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. eds. V. Zeigler-Hill and T. K. Shackelford (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–4.

Google Scholar

Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Densten, I. L., and Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational culture profile revisited and revised: an Australian perspective. Aust. J. Manag. 30, 159–182. doi: 10.1177/031289620503000109

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. 5th Edn. Amsterdam: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Schneider, B., Goldstiein, H. W., and Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: an update. Pers. Psychol. 48, 747–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schneider, J., Striebing, C., Hochfeld, K., and Lorenz, T. (2024). Establishing circularity: development and validation of the circular work value scale (CWVS). Front. Psychol. 15:1296282. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296282

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuh, S. C., Van Quaquebeke, N., Keck, N., Göritz, A. S., De Cremer, D., and Xin, K. R. (2018). Does it take more than ideals? How counter-ideal value congruence shapes employees’ Trust in the Organization. J. Bus. Ethics 149, 987–1003. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3097-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 50, 19–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl. Psychol. 48, 23–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. (2021). A repository of Schwartz value scales with instructions and an introduction. Online Read Psychol Cult 2:1173. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1173

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H., and Cieciuch, J. (2022). Measuring the refined theory of individual values in 49 cultural groups: psychometrics of the revised portrait value questionnaire. Assessment 29, 1005–1019. doi: 10.1177/1073191121998760

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 663–688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seubert, C., Hopfgartner, L., and Glaser, J. (2021). Living wages, decent work, and need satisfaction: an integrated perspective. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 30, 808–823. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.1966094

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seubert, L., McWha-Hermann, I., and Seubert, C. (2023). Critical reflection and critical reflexivity as core processes for critical WOP: precarious employment as an example. Appl. Psychol. 72, 106–125. doi: 10.1111/apps.12424

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., and Li, A. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: a guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 80–110. doi: 10.1177/1094428115598239

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shea-Van Fossen, R. J., and Vredenburgh, D. J. (2014). Exploring differences in work’s meaning: an investigation of individual attributes associated with work orientations. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 15:17940. doi: 10.21818/001c.17940

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheldon, K. M., and Krieger, L. S. (2014). Walking the talk: value importance, value enactment, and well-being. Motiv. Emot. 38, 609–619. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9424-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, Y., Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., and Cooke, F. L. (2025). A meta-analysis of knowledge hiding behavior in organizations: antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions. J. Bus. Res. 186:114963. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114963

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherman, D. K., and Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 183–242. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., and Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: a review and model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 28, 176–189. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., and Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research. J. Manag. 37, 1262–1289. doi: 10.1177/0149206310385943

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sodano, S. M. (2011). Integrating work and basic values into the spherical model of interests. J. Vocat. Behav. 78, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29, 379–387. doi: 10.5465/amr.2004.13670978

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stephan, U. (2020). The value of values for understanding organizational life: editor’s introduction to the Lead article. Appl. Psychol. 69, 223–229. doi: 10.1111/apps.12213

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stiglbauer, B., Penz, M., and Batinic, B. (2022). Work values across generations: development of the new work values scale (NWVS) and examination of generational differences. Front. Psychol. 13:1028072. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028072

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sverdlik, N., and Oreg, S. (2009). Personal values and conflicting motivational forces in the context of imposed change. J. Pers. 77, 1437–1466. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00588.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sverdlik, N., and Oreg, S. (2015). Identification during imposed change: the roles of personal values, type of change, and anxiety. J. Pers. 83, 307–319. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12105

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict” in The social psychology of intergroup relations. eds. W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (London: Brooks/Cole), 33–47.

Google Scholar

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., and Allen, D. G. (2014). Fun and friends: the impact of workplace fun and constituent attachment on turnover in a hospitality context. Hum. Relat. 67, 923–946. doi: 10.1177/0018726713508143

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tonidandel, S., Summerville, K. M., Gentry, W. A., and Young, S. F. (2022). Using structural topic modeling to gain insight into challenges faced by leaders. Leadersh. Q. 33:101576. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101576

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Dick, R., Lemoine, J. E., Steffens, N. K., Kerschreiter, R., Akfirat, S. A., Avanzi, L., et al. (2018). Identity leadership going global: validation of the identity leadership inventory across 20 countries. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 91, 697–728. doi: 10.1111/joop.12223

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Quaquebeke, N., Graf, M. M., Kerschreiter, R., Schuh, S. C., and Van Dick, R. (2014). Ideal values and counter-ideal values as two distinct forces: exploring a gap in organizational value research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16, 211–225. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: a review of its basic tenets. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5, 75–101. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., Casper, W. J., Lapierre, L. M., Greenhaus, J. H., Amirkamali, F., et al. (2022). A meta-analytic investigation of the personal and work-related antecedents of work–family balance. J. Organ. Behav. 43, 662–692. doi: 10.1002/job.2594

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., and Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. J. Happiness Stud. 9, 41–79. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weisman, H., Wu, C.-H., Yoshikawa, K., and Lee, H.-J. (2023). Antecedents of organizational identification: a review and agenda for future research. J. Manag. 49, 2030–2061. doi: 10.1177/01492063221140049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, A. L., Zammuto, R. F., and Liesch, P. W. (2017). Maintaining the values of a profession: institutional work and moral emotions in the emergency department. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 200–237. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0870

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yao, Y. A., and Ma, Z. (2023). Toward a holistic perspective of congruence research with the polynomial regression model. J. Appl. Psychol. 108, 446–465. doi: 10.1037/apl0001028

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zizek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.

Google Scholar