Work centrality and work alienation: distinct aspects of a general commitment to work

Abstract

The authors tested the proposition that identification with the work role and engagement in the work role constitute different aspects of a general commitment to work. Whereas work centrality (a strictly normative attitude) represents the extent to which a person identifies with the work role, work alienation (an affect‐inclusive attitude) represents the extent to which a person is engaged in the work role. Predicated on these conceptual distinctions, the authors tested whether work centrality and work alienation exhibited theoretically‐meaningful, differential correlations with six variables reflecting various work‐related commitments. Using data from 349 employed individuals, the results of Hotelling–Williams t tests revealed that, compared to work alienation, work centrality had stronger correlations with Protestant work ethic and leisure ethic. In contrast, compared to work centrality, work alienation was more strongly correlated with work locus of control, work self‐discipline, and affective organizational commitment. Work centrality and work alienation did not differ in their correlations with job involvement–role. Taken together, the results suggest that people who are highly committed to work not only identify with the work role, they are also engaged in the work role. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts, and job attitudes: The influence of age

“…Work centrality is a work-based self-concept that determines how people identify with their work roles (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000;Walsh & Gordon, 2008), and how they act, think and feel at work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Although a significant amount of research has been devoted to how people identify with others in social situations (e.g., social identity theory; Ashforth & Mael, 1989), still little is known about individual identification processes, and in particular how one's work centrality influences work motivation and behavior.…”

“…Work centrality is defined as "individual beliefs regarding the degree of importance that work plays in their lives" (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000;Walsh & Gordon, 2008, p.46). Work centrality determines how one acts both at the workplace and outside of it (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008).…”

“…Thus, individuals with high work centrality attach more importance to the role of work in life than individuals who score low on work centrality. It is generally acknowledged that work centrality is a relatively stable attitude towards work that is not extremely sensitive to conditions of a particular work setting (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000). Similar to concepts such as personality, work centrality is assumed to be stable over shorter periods of time (state-wise), and to develop over longer time frames (trait-wise; see e.g.…”

“…Work centrality can be regarded as the positive antipode of work alienation (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000). Work centrality leads to identification with the work role, and consequently investment of time and energy in building a relationship with the employer, through which employees become engaged in the world of work (Hirschfeld & Feild, 2000).…”

Work Values in Western and Eastern Europe

“…The authors provide an overview of research that has focused on the study of work values. Work centrality describes the degree of the importance that work plays in a person"s life and work ethics are often conceptually constructed on the belief that work is desirable and rewarding in its own right (for a discussion see Hirschfeld and Feild 2000). The history of work values or the history of comment on work values is a quite long one 4 .…”