This article examines the work values and ethics literatures with the goal of integrating these diverse and independent research streams. The vocational behaviour literature and the management and organizational behaviour literature on work values, the Protestant Work Ethic construct, and business ethics theory are first reviewed and discussed, demonstrating how insights from these diverse research areas can inform each other. I propose a comprehensive definition of work values and a structural framework that reflects the central elements of the construct and reduces confusion over its conceptual boundaries. The framework consists of a two‐by‐two dimensional structure, with one continuum ranging from personal to social consensus‐type values, and the other axis corresponding to moral versus preference values. The contents of each resulting quadrant and the relationships between quadrants are examined. Implications of this proposed structure for organizational socialization are discussed to illustrate its potential application.

Residence hall advisor teams and hall directors were surveyed to investigate the relationship of work values and actual and perceived similarity on these values with leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX). Demographic attributes were also investigated. Results showed that perceived similarity on the Protestant work ethic and preference for the work environment were positively related to LMX and that actual values and demographic attributes were not. TMX was positively related to actual similarity on several values but not to perceived similarity.As both workplace diversity (Johnston & Packer, 1987) and use of teams and groups in the workplace have increased (Sundstrom, De-Meuse, & Futrell, 1990), scholars have paid increasing attention to the role that composition plays in group effectiveness. Often, however, composition effects have been unclear, as shown in a variety of settings including groupthink (e.g.,

With the trend toward self-management comes increasing accountability of individuals to their coworkers and organizations. There is an implicit assump-Manz and Sims (1993) have suggested that every major corporation is seriously considering implementing self-managed work groups. Beckham (1998) predicted that by the year 2000, 40 percent of U.S. employees would be working on self-directed teams. Although these projections may have been overly optimistic, they indicate the level of attention given to self-management in the 1990s. HRD specialists frequently act as the change agents involved in the implementation of new approaches to management (Harris and DeSimone, 1994), and self-managed teams are no exception (Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). Accountability is a key characteristic of work on self-managed teams (Harrell and Alpert, 1979;Manz, Mossholder, and Luthans, 1987;Waitley, 1995). Workers on self-managed teams make decisions and are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. That change in the level of accountability in organizations typically requires extensive training when the teams are implemented (Yeatts and Hyten, 1998).

No abstract

No abstract