Job Involvement: Concepts and Measurements

Author(s): S. D. Saleh and James Hosek

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 213-224
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255773
Accessed: 14-07-2016 09:47 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/255773?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Job Involvement: Concepts

and Measurements'
S. D. SALEH

University of Waterloo
JAMES HOSEK

Greenleigh Associates, Inc.

Measures of job involvement used in the literature were

administered to samples of students and insurance salesmen. Three factors emerged in both samples. The results
were explained in terms of Gergen's structural theory of
the self and were found to represent the identity, the
connative, and the evaluative dimensions.
The term job involvement has been used frequently in both experimental

and field studies. The bulk of the experimental work has been concerned
with its effects on perception, retention, motor responses, problem solving,
level of aspiration, and the like. The concern of field studies has been with
the relationship of job involvement to quality and quantity of performance,

absenteeism, grievances, and so on. In this wide range of use, different

interpretations and measurements have been introduced. The differences
signify the lack of clarity and the complexity of the concept and point to

the lack of agreement on just what it should include. The main objective of
the present study is to review the different interpretations of job involvement
and analyze its measurements in an attempt to clarify it.

Dubin (1956, 1968) conceptualized job involvement as the degree to

which the total job situation is a "central life interest," i.e., the degree to
which it is perceived to be a major source for the satisfaction of important

needs. This definition is almost identical to that of Lawler and Hall (1970)
who defined it as the degree to which a person perceives his total work

situation to be an important part of his life and to be central to him and his
identity because of the opportunity it affords him to satisfy his important

needs. Along the same lines, Lodahl and Kejner (1965) defined job

involvement as the degree of importance of ones work in ones total self-

image, and Guion (1958) proposed that it is characterized by the em-

ployee's perception of the job as being of extreme importance.

S. D. Saleh is Professor and Chairman, Department of Management Sciences, University

of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

James Hosek is Senior Associate, Greenleigh Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
1 The Support of the Canada Department of Labour for the project on which this paper
is based is very much appreciated.
213

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management Journal

214

June

A number of different tools have been used to measure the central life

interest type of involvement. Dubin (1956), for instance, devised a 40-item

questionnaire for sampling a person's total life experiences in which the
respondent must choose between a job oriented, a nonjob oriented, or an
indifferent response. This type of involvement was also measured by asking
an employee how much total time he devotes to his work and his perception
of the importance of his job in his life (Davis, 1966). Finally, a number

of items in Lodahl and Kejner's (1965) job involvement scale seem to

measure the central life interest type of involvement (e.g., the most im-

portant things that happen to me involve my work; I live, eat, and breathe

my job).
A second interpretation of job involvement was proposed by Allport

(1943) who conceptualized it as the degree to which an employee is

participating in his job and meeting such needs as prestige, self-respect,

autonomy, and self-regard. A similar interpretation was given by Gurin,
Veroff, and Feld (1960) in which they indicated that personal involvement
in the job depends on the extent to which an individual seeks some selfexpression and actualization in his work.
The same type of job involvement was suggested by Wickert (1951) and
Bass (1965). Bass, for instance, suggests that the opportunity to make job
decisions, the feeling that one is making an important contribution to
company success, the chance to set one's own work pace, and self determination lead to the strengthening of job involvement.

Wickert suggested that the participation type of involvement could be

measured by asking the employee the degree to which he feels that he is

actively participating in his job. Vroom (1959, 1962) indicated that it

also could be measured by asking the employee how much he participates

"psychologically" in his job, (e.g., in general, how much say or influence
do you have on what goes on in your job?).

In a third interpretation, French and Kahn (1962) conceived job

involvement as the degree to which the employee perceived that his job

performance is central to his self-concept, i.e., the degree to which it affects

his self-esteem. Siegel (1969) used a similar definition stating that jobinvolvement is the importance of work to a person's self-esteem or sense

of worth.

Iverson and Reuder (1956) also reported numerous studies which used
job involvement in terms of the relationship of performance to valued
characteristics. Hackman (1968) suggested that this type of involvement
operates in zero defect and management by objectives programs by getting
the employee to commit himself to goals he sets for himself. Such commitment makes the goal or goals important to the employee's self-esteem and
therefore he becomes involved in achieving such goals.
Different approaches are used to measure the self-esteem type of involve-

ment. In one approach, based on the Zeigarnik effect, the employee is

asked how often he thinks about an unfinished problem after working hours
This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1976

Volume 19, Number 2

215

(Vroom, 1962; Slater, 1959). The assumption behind this measurement

is that an unfinished problem is central to the self-concept if it persists in

thought. Another approach cited in Vroom (1964) and Iverson and Reuder
(1956) is to ask the individual whether a task requires the use of an ability

or personality characteristics that he values. Lodahl and Kejner's job

involvement scale also contains some items which measure this type of
involvement (e.g., I feel depressed whenever I fail at something connected
with my job; sometimes I lay awake at night thinking ahead to the next
day's work).
A fourth conceptualization of job involvement is mentioned by Vroom
(1962, 1964); it refers to the degree to which the employee perceives that
his job performance is consistent with characteristics that are central to

his self-concept. It should be noted that while Vroom considered the

consistency of performance with the existing self-conception, French and

Kahn emphasized the consistency with the valued self-conception.
Self-consistency type of involvement was used in numerous studies,
particularly those dealing with consistency theory (e.g., Aronson and
Carlsmith, 1962; Kaufmann, 1962). It was generally measured by asking
whether the level of performance was consistent with the self-concept. More

specifically, the person might be asked whether the abilities required by

his job performance are consistent with the amount of ability that he
possesses (Vroom, 1964).
In summary, the literature shows four different conceptualizations of the

construct of job involvement. A person is involved (1) when work to him

is a central life interest; (2) when he actively participates in his job; (3)
when he perceives performance as central to his self-esteem; (4) when he
perceives performance as consistent with his self-concept.
This study was conducted to find out if the above four conceptualizations
are factorially different and if there is a basis for explaining the differences.
METHOD

Two different samples were used. The first included 140 male and 105
female undergraduate university students. They were asked to consider
"being a student" as their reference job. The second sample was drawn
from the sales department of a large insurance company. Eighty-nine male

sales managers and 532 male sales representatives were invited to participate. The managers returned 67 or 75 percent usable questionnaires, while
only 46 percent or 313 questionnaires were returned by the representatives.
Since a low percentage of questionnaires was returned by the representatives, it was decided to check if the sample was biased. No differences were
found between respondents and nonrespondents with regard to age, average
time with the company, or average time with their present job. Respondents,

however, were found to have a higher educational level than nonrespondents. The mean age for the representatives was 39.1 (SD - 12.0),
and for the managers it was 40.9 (SD - 10.2).
This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

216

Academy of Management Journal

June

The mean time with the company was 9.8 (SD - 10.2) and 14.1 (SD 9.0) years for the representatives and the managers, respectively. The sales

representatives had been on their present job for an average of 9.2 years

(SD- 9.8), while the managers had held their managerial job for an
average of 7.0 years (SD- 7.0).
The job involvement scale included all measures used in previous investi-

gations (Davis, 1966; Dubin, 1955; French and Kahn, 1962; Iverson and
Reuder, 1956; Lodahl and Kejner, 1965; Vroom, 1962, 1964; Wickert,
1951). The collected number of items amounted to 65. The majority of
these items were used in their original form. However, the format of a few
of them was altered in the present study so that all the 65 items could be
answered on a five-point scale.

On the basis of past usage by other investigators and, in some cases, on

the basis of the experimenters' judgment, all items were considered to
measure one of the four interpretations of job involvement (see Table 1).
For both the student and employee samples, a factor analysis was performed using a varimax criterion rotation of a principal component analysis.

This method seemed appropriate to test if the four types of involvement

were four factorially distinct types.
RESULTS

For both samples of the study, two, three, four, and five-factor solutions

were computed. The clearest and most interpretable results were those of
the three-factor solution. An analysis of the eigenvalues supported the view

that the three-factor solution was preferable. The eigenvalues were 18.31
and 11.42 for Factor I, 3.38 and 4.72 for Factor II, and 3.14 and 2.98 for
Factor III. (The first number is the student sample and the second is the
employee sample). The three-factor solution accounted for 37 percent of
the variance in the case of the student sample, while in the case of the
employee sample it accounted for 29 percent of the variance. The low
percentage of variance accounted for may suggest that the scale is measuring a number of specific factors or that further refinement is needed. For
instance, elimination of items not loading highly on any of the factors or

those loading highly on more than one factor might lead to "cleaner"
factors, and therefore a greater percentage of the variance would be
accounted for.

The reliability of the new scale was established by including only those

items which loaded more than .40 on one factor and less than .35 on the

other two factors (30 items total). Using the employee sample, the internal
consistency of the total scales was .86. This coefficient was .70, .85, and .83

for Factors I, II, and III, respectively. Moreover, the total new scale was
administered twice to 24 university students with four weeks in between.
The test retest reliability for the total scale was .82. For the individual
factors it was .70, .79, and .77, respectively.
Table 1 shows that the structure of the factors is very similar in the two
This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1976

217

Volume 19, Number 2

samples, suggesting the scale's generality. The first factor accounted for
15 percent of the variance in the student sample and 12 percent in the
employee sample. This factor corresponds very closely to the conceptualization of job involvement as active participation in the job. The item with the
highest loading in the case of the employee sample was "How much chance
do you get to use the skills you have learned for your job?" In the student

sample, the item with the highest loading was "How much chance do you
get to try out your own ideas?" All of the 16 items intended to measure
this conceptualization, with one exception in the student sample and two
exceptions in the employee sample, had loadings of more than .40 on this
factor. None of these 16 items had high loadings (.40 or more) on the other
factors.

TABLE 1

Factor Analysis of the 65 Item Ego Involvement Scale

Factor Loadings

Students Sample
I

II

111

Employees Sample
I

II

111

I. Active Participation Items

1. How much chance do you get to
use the skills you have learned
.55 .15 .23 .66 .03 .00
for your job? (Vroom, 1962)
2. How much chance do you get to
do things your own way? (Vroom,
.73 .03 .03 .66 .03 -.04
1962)
3. How much chance do you get to try
.79 .17 .15 .66 .06 .03
out your own ideas? (Vroom, 1962)
4. How much chance do you get to do
the kinds of things you are best at?
(Vroom, 1962)

5. How much chance do you get to do

interesting work? (Vroom, 1962)
6. How much chance do you get to

.68

.31

.29

.66

.13

.10

.65

.34

.26

.63

.06

.20

.65

.25

.30

.61

.13

.11

feel at the end of the day that

you've accomplished something?

(Vroom, 1962)
7. How much chance do you get to
learn new things? (Vroom, 1962)
8. In general, I have much say and
9.

10.

11.

12.

influence over what goes on in my

job. (Vroom, 1959)
How much chance do you get to
finish things? (Vroom, 1962)
My immediate superior asks my
opinion when a problem comes up
which involves my work. (Vroom,
1959)
How much chance do you get to
work without feeling pushed?
(Vroom, 1962)
If I have a suggestion for
improving the job or setup in some

.57 .29 .25 .55 -.00 .10

.73

.16

.08

.54

.10

.13

.25 -.12 .21 .52 .06 .05

.66

.10

.18

.51 .05 -.04

.50

.02

.13

.50 .11 -.06

way, it is easy for me to get my

ideas across to my immediate

superior. (Vroom, 1959)

.63 -.02 .13 .48 -.04 .14

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management Journal

218

June

TABLE 1-Continued
Factor Loadings

Students Sample Employees Sample

I

13. I have a chance to make important

decisions on my job. (Wickert,
1951)

11

II

II

I1

.65 .33 .21

.47 .10 .28

.56 .07 .11

.41 .04 .03

.61 .15 -.05

.38 .07 .02

.55 .14 .22

.19 .13 .42

14. I feel I can influence the decisions

of my immediate superior
regarding the things about which
I am concerned. (Vroom, 1959)
15. How free do you feel to set your
own work pace? (Vroom, 1962)
16. I am making an important
contribution to the success of

the company. (Wickert, 1951)

I1. Central Life Interest Items

1. The most important things that

happen to me involve my work.
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
2. The most important things I do
are involved with my job.
(Dubin, 1955)
3. The major satisfaction in my life
comes from my job. (Lodahl and
Kejner, 1965)
4. The activities which give me the
greatest pleasure and personal
satisfaction involve my job.
(Dubin, 1955)
5. I live, eat, and breathe my job.
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
6. The most important things I do
concern my job. (Dubin, 1955)
7. I enjoy my work more than
anything else that I do. (Davis,
1966)

.23 .59 .20

.13 .72 -.02

.21 .69 .18

.05 .72 .17

.20 .63 .25

.20 .70 .01

.30 .56 .23

.08 .68 .11

.01 .40 .21

-.09 .64 .10

.33 .66 .13

.09 .64 .14

.24 .68 .12

.12 .61 .27

-.14 -.28 -.38

.05 -.60 -.16

-.28 -.51 -.23

-.08 -.52 -.16

.02 .46 .26

-.02 .44 .20

.49 .43 .36

.12 .44 .38

.19 .51 .29

.08 .37 .39

.06 .58 .07

.03 .32 .11

8. I have other activities more

important than my work. (Lodahl

and Kejner, 1965)
9. To me, work is only a small part
of who I am. (Lodahl and Kejner,
1965)
10. I enjoy keeping my work space in
good shape more than keeping my
things around the house in good
shape. (Dubin, 1955)
11. Some individuals are completely
involved in their work-absorbed

by it night and day. For others, it

is simply one of several interests.
How involved do you feel in your
work? (Davis, 1966)

12. If I were to accomplish or achieve

something, I prefer that it would
happen on my job rather than in
any other organization to which I

belong. (Dubin, 1955)

13. It hurts me more if I am disliked

by the people at work than by other

people I know. (Dubin, 1955)

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1976

219

Volume 19, Number 2

TABLE 1-Continued
Factor Loadings

Students Sample

Employees Sample

.17 .54 .32

.13 .32 .42

-.29 -.34 --.33

-.23 -.30 -.37

II

I11

II

111

14. I am happier when I receive praise

on my job than when I receive
praise in any other organization to
which I belong. (Dubin, 1955)
15. Most things in life are more
important than work. (Lodahl
and Kejner, 1965)
16. I would rather take my vacation
with some friends from work than

with my family or by myself.

(Dubin, 1955)
17. My job plays an important part in
my ideas about getting ahead.
(Davis, 1966)
18. The people I know at work are a

.05 .38 -.19 -.01 .30 -.48

.41 .40 .35

.39 .30 .48

.15 .54 -.06

.03 .27 -.01

.14 .27 .34

.04 .27 .23

-.23 .02 -.18

-.17 -.27 -.37

.18 .45 .30

.07 .27 .49

.53 .44 .20

.11 .26 .49

-.02 .23 .01

.10 .21 -.10

-.03 .45 -.26

.14 .18 -.12

very important part of my life,

and I depend on them for my

friendships, leisure time activity,

and general conversation both on

and off the job. (Dubin, 1955)
19. When I am doing some work, I am
usually more accurate working on
my job than working at home.
(Dubin, 1955)
20. 1 used to care more about my
work, but now other things are
more important to me. (Lodahl
and Kejner, 1965)
21. I would hate missing a day's work
more than missing _-ieeting of an
organization to which I belong or
missing almost anything I usually
do. (Dubin, 1955)
22. I spend a great deal of time on
matters related to my job both
during and after working hours.
(Davis, 1966)
23. Noise bothers me more when

working on the job than when

working at home. (Dubin, 1955)
24. I would be more likely to borrow
money from the people I know at
work than from anyone else I
know. (Dubin, 1955)
25. I would rather get a job promotion
than to be a more important
member of my club, church, or
lodge. (Dubin, 1955)

.11 .32 .35 -.05 .13 .60

III. Importance of Performance with Valued Self Items

I. How well I perform on my job
is extremely important to me.

(French and Kahn, 1962) .22 .16 .68 .2

2 .16 .68

Reuder, 1956) .09 .12 .72 .1

3 -.02 .60

2. 1 feel badly if I don't perform

well on my job. (Iverson and

3. I am very much personally

involved in my work. (Lodahl

and Kejner, 1965) .41 .27 .47 .1

1 .22 .52

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

220

Academy of Management Journal

June

TABLE 1-Continued
Factor Loadings
Students Sample
I

4. I avoid taking on extra duties

and responsibilities in my work.
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
5. I feel good when I perform my job
well. (French and Kahn, 1962)

111I

Employees Sample
I

11

111

-.12 .05 -.39

-.09 -.01 -.50

.22 .01 .46

.31 -.15 .50

-.21 -.09 -.32

-.17 -.04 -.48

.65 .20 .37

.44 .03 .50

.64 .36 .22

.40 .09 .47

-.21 -.29 -.36

-.10 -.13 -.32

.37 .04 .44

.03 .16 .30

.44 .39 .37

.53 .17 .28

.14 .06 .42

.02 .11 .23

.28 .31 .48

-.04 .18 .19

.02 .14 .53

-.04 .20 .17

-.02 -.02 .64

-.07 .10 .16

.22 .30 .36

-.05 .30 .16

.00 .01 .61

.14 .24 .12

.10 .05 .18

.36 .27 .08

.25 .19 .38

.09 .16 .00

6. I used to be more ambitious about

my work than I am now. (Lodahl

and Kejner, 1965)
7. I am able to utilize abilities I

value in the performance of my

job. (Vroom, 1964)

8. My job performance requires me

to use valuable skills and abilities.

(Iverson and Reuder, 1956)

9. Quite often I feel like staying

home from work instead of coming
in. (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
10. I'll stay overtime to finish a job
even if I'm not paid for it. (Lodahl
and Kejner, 1965)
11. The performance of my job is a
good test of skill and ability.
(Iverson and Reuder, 1956)
12. I usually show up for work a little
early, to get things ready.

(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)

13. If a problem comes up in your work
and it isn't all settled by the time
you go home, how likely is it that
you will find yourself thinking
about it after work? (Slater, 1959)

14. Sometimes I'd like to kick myself

for the mistakes I make in my

work. (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)

15. I feel depressed when I fail at

something connected with my job.

(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)

16. Sometimes I lie awake thinking

ahead to the next day's work.

(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)

17. I'm really a perfectionist about my
work. (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
18. You can measure a person pretty
well by how good a job he does.
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)
19. I would probably keep working
even if I didn't need the money.
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965)

IV. Consistency with Self-Concept Items

1. My job performance indicates

fairly accurately the amount of

ability that I possess for my job.
(Vroom, 1964)
2. I possess the amount of ability
that is required to perform my
job effectively. (Vroom, 1964)

.16 .12 .52

.37 .21 .25

-.01 -.30 .16

.09 -.03 .36

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

221

Volume 19, Number 2

1976

TABLE 1-Continued
Factor Loadings

Students Sample Employees Sample

I

II

II

3. There is a good "fit" between the

ability requirements of my job
and the amount of ability that I
possess. (Vroom, 1964) .44 .46 .17 .42 -.05 .12
4. The performance of my job is a
good test of the ability that I
possess. (Vroom, 1964) .43 .42 .38 .49 .14 .36
5. I am able to utilize the abilities

that I possess in the performance

of my job. (Vroom, 1964) .54 .18 .28 .59 -.05 .33

Factor II is clearly the central life interest conceptualization of job

involvement. For the students, this factor accounted for 12 percent of the
variance and 19 of the 25 items which intended to measure this conceptualization had high loadings on this factor. In the case of the employee sample,

Factor II accounted for 9 percent of the variance. Of the 25 items, 11 had

high loadings on Factor II and six on Factor III, while the remaining items
(eight) did not load highly on any of the three factors. The item "The
most important things I do are involved with my job" had the highest loading

in the case of both samples.

Factor III corresponds to the interpretation of job involvement as perceiving performance as central to self-esteem. This factor accounted for 10
percent and 8 percent of the variance in the student and employee samples,
respectively. Of the 19 items which intended to measure this interpretation,

10 items had high loadings (.40 or more) as far as the students were

concerned and eight items had high loadings with respect to the employees.
The items with the highest loadings on this factor were "How well I perform
on my job is extremely important to me" and "I feel badly if I don't perform

well on my job."
The conceptualization of job-involvement as perceiving performance as
consistent with the self-concept did not appear as a separate factor. In the

case of the student sample, four of the five items which intended to measure
it had high loadings on one or more of the above three factors. In the case
of the employees, three of the five items loaded highly on Factor I.
DISCUSSION

It is of significance to note that Lawler and Hall (1970), using 16 job

attitude items administered to a sample of research scientists, found three
factors very similar in structure to the factors of this study. Their first factor,
labelled "satisfaction," corresponds closely to the present study's factor of

"active participation"; their "job involvement" factor is similar to the

"central life interest factor." The third factor, which they labelled "intrinsic

motivation," is similar to the "centrality of performance to self-esteem."

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

222

Academy of Management Journal

June

Lawler and Hall, in their attempt to distinguish between job involvement,

job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation, implicitly assumed job involvement to be a simple concept that would be represented by one factor. They

disregarded the significant relationships found among the three factors

on the basis of their size. In their discussion, they mentioned that these
significant relationships might indicate that the phenomena being studied
are not strong or they could be due to measurement problems. Lawler and

Hall leaned more towards the second possibility, indicating that the

measurement explanation was more credible in the light of the samples

they studied. However, in the present study which used a different sample

(insurance salesmen), the same significant relationships appeared among

the three factors. The correlation between the central life interest and

self-esteem is .30 (p < .001). Central life interest correlates .15 (p < .01)
with active participation, and that latter subscale correlates .30 (p < .001)
with importance of performance to self-esteem.

This indicates that while the three factors are factorially different, an
important common element exists between them. It is postulated that the
common element is the self or the self-concept and the three factors express
its different dimensions. Therefore, the three-factor structure of job involvement in the present study may be perceived as engaging three components

of the self.

To clarify this explanation, we refer to the structural definition of the

self presented by Gergen (1971). Gergen defines the self as the system of
concepts available to the person in attempting to define himself and classifies
these concepts into three dimensions which correspond closely to the three
factors of the present study. The first dimension includes concepts which

describe the self as an entity and answer such questions as who am I; it

may be labelled-using Coleman's terminology (1969)-"the identity

self." This dimension of the self corresponds to Factor II, which represents
the central life interest conceptualization of job involvement. The individual
reviews different interests in life and expresses his degree of identification
with one of them, namely his work, e.g., the most important things I do are
involved with my job; I enjoy my work more than anything else that I do.
Gergen's second dimension describes the self as an active entity, the doer,
or the "connative self." Factor I of the present study, i.e., active participation, is an expression of this dimension in the work context. The items which
load highly on this factor involve doing or trying, e.g., try out your ideas,
do things your own way, do the things you are best at, do interesting work,

etc.

It should be noted that this is similar to the factor that was labelled "job

satisfaction" by Lawler and Hall (1970). Conceptually, satisfaction may

be considered, in special cases, a consequence of participating and doing,
but it is not the action of participation itself. Participation may result in
satisfaction or frustration. Moreover, job satisfaction has a more general
meaning which includes factors other than participation by the individual.

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1976

Volume 19, Number 2

223

It is the feeling towards achieving or not achieving any goal in the work

situation.

The third dimension of Gergen's structural definition of the self concerns

the self as a judge, and therefore it may be labelled "the evaluative self." In
a work setting, the focus of self-judgment is the individual's performance,
and this is reflected in Factor III, i.e., performance as central to self-esteem.

The two items with the highest loadings on this factor were how well I

perform on my job is extremely important to me and I feel badly if I don't

perform well on my job.
Gergen, in defining the three dimensions of the self, was aware of their

dynamic interaction. This interaction should explain the significant correlations between the three factors of job involvement.

In conclusion, job involvement may be defined as the degree to which

the self, with its three components, identity, connative, and evaluative, is
reflected in the individual's job. It is the degree to which the person identifies

with his job, actively participates in it, and considers his performance
important to his self-worth. It is, therefore, a complex concept based on

cognition, action, and feeling.

REFERENCES

1. Allport, G. W. "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Psychological Review, Vol.

50 (1943), 451-476.

2. Aronson, E., and J. M. Carlsmith. "Performance Expectancy as a Determinant of

Actual Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 (1962),
178-182.

3. Bass, B. M. Organizational Psychology (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965).

4. Coleman, J. C. Psychology and Effective Behavior (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman,
1969).

5. Davis, J. W. "Work Involvement of Executives," Personntel Administration, Vol. 29

(1966), 6-12.

6. Dubin, R. "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, Vol. 3 (1956), 131-142.
7. Dubin, R. Human Relations in Administration (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1968).

8. French, J. R. P., and R. Kahn. "A Programmatic Approach to Studying the Industrial
Environment and Mental Health," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 18 (1962), 1-47.
9. Gergen, K. J. The Concept of Self (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971).
10. Guion, R. "Industrial Morale-the Problem of Terminology," Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 11 (1958), 59-61.

11. Gurin, G., J. Veroff, and S. Feld. Americans View Their Mental Health (New York:
Basic Books, 1960).
12. Hackman, J. R. "Effects of Task Characteristics on Group Products," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4 (1968), 162-187.
13. Iverson, M. A., and M. E. Reuder. "Ego Involvement as an Experimental Variable,"
Psychological Reports, Vol. 2 (1-956), 147-181.

14. Kaufmann, H. Task Performance, Expected Performance, and Responses to Failure

as Functions of Imbalance in the Self-concept (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania, 1962).

15. Lawler, E. E., and D. T. Hall. "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement,
Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 (1970),
305-312.

16. Lodahl, T. M., and M. Kejner. "The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 (1965), 24-33.

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

224 Academy of Management Journal June

17. Siegel, L. Industrial Psychology (Homewood: Irwin, 1969).
18. Slater, C. W. Some Factors Associated with Internalization of Motivation Towards
Occupational Role Performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1959).
19. Vroom, V. "Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation," Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 (1959), 322-327.
20. Vroom, V. "Ego Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 15 (1962), 159-177.
21. Vroom, V. Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964).
22. Wickert, F. R. "Turnover and Employees' Feelings of Ego Involvement in the Day-today Operations of a Company," Personnel Psyciology, Vol. 4 (1951), 185-197.

This content downloaded from 202.70.82.234 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:47:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms